T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Yep…PCA, that’s what I thought. Thanks for the wiki link. I should drive over to Steubenville and tell him how much he gets mentioned on this forum LoL
- Status
R
Reformed
Guest
Do you believe someone is born again and united to Christ upon partaking in the sacrament of water baptism?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Yes.
P
placido
Guest
But the Reformers believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, yet you (who just post “what the Reformers believed”) don’t. Why is that so?
N
Nans
Guest
No he is not a Mormon. Carm.org is a Protestant Christian organizaion.
S
Sagefrakrobatik
Guest
NO but maybe I will eventually. There is a cornucopia of books I want to read on science/techonlogy politics social science and religion. However I’m also trying to get a degree with three majors and right now I’m taking up Arabic.Perhaps when my schedule is a little more open I’ll check it out.
R
Reformed
Guest
Hi TriuneUnity,
How do you reconcile Romans 1:16-17 and the verse below since Paul makes a distinction between the gospel and baptism below?
1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Romans 1:16-17
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
R
Reformed
Guest
The Reformers like all Christians, inlcuding the Apostle Paul (1 Cor 13) knew in part. That is the reason for sola scriptura.
R
Reformed
Guest
By his links and his blog, I believe Justin is partially and loosely Reformed. I like what he posted in regards to what he proclaims and believes.
Justin appears to be sharing the truth in love with Mormons. I just checked, carm.org is Reformed! Check out the creeds and confessions. The Reformed Faith actually shares some of the same creeds as Roman Catholics. 
carm.org/creeds.htm
M
mercygate
Guest
I am not saying that Matthias was not an Apostle – I am saying that he achieves Apostolic authority via being “numbered among the Eleven.” The purpose of that election was to replace Judas. Others in the NT named “Apostles” – other than the 12 are few. In the etiquette of the Apostolic Churches (let’s not leave out the Orthodox here), the specific name, “Apostle” is applied only to those mentioned in the New Testament. Yet, in order to carry out the Great Commission, apostolic authority is needed. Throughout the New Testament we see that the Gospel is preached face-to-face and handed on personally. Even Paul, despite his exceptional personal revelation from Christ Himself was hustled off to Jerusalem to meet the Apostles there; Barnabas had to vouch for him. Later, he goes up to get the seal of approval from “the pillars” – eyewitnesses to the Resurrection. He pointedly brags that they affirmed that his Gospel was identical to theirs. This was a team sport and it was played face-to-face.
For the Apostolic Churches, not just Rome, Apostolic Succession is how the message and the sacramental charism are passed on (as in Jn 20:23). In order to fulfill the Commission to “make disciples / teach / baptize,” continuity of tradition must be maintained “until the end of the age.” Thus: Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Communion.
Not until the invention of the printing press did anybody get other ideas about how the Holy Spirit constitutes the Church, changing it from a visible union of the baptized faithful under their orthodox Bishops to an invisible collection of “true” believers.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
1 Corinthians 1:17 is not a denial by Paul of the purpose of Baptism. It is Paul stating that he left the baptizing of converts to others lest they be tempted to elevate Paul to superstar status and base their faith on him rather than Christ. Read the verse in context.
Strictly speaking the gospel is the message that Christ has lived, died, and rose again to reconcile sinners to an angry God. Baptism is an image of regeneration as the one being baptized has their sinful nature drowned by the waters and rises up to new life in Christ. The Holy Spirit applies the life, death, and resurrection of Christ to the one being baptized, through faith. It is the very thing it signifies.
P
placido
Guest
… and here comes our Reformed who knows 100 % while even St. Paul knew in part only !
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Okay, agreed. And, of course, God chose Matthias through the casting of lots after he and another were nominated by the congregation as candidates. The apostles had nothing to do with his election per se.
Can you define how apostolic authority is needed and what exactly, in this context, apostolic authority is?
I would agree with this statement with the caveat that Paul’s visit to Jerusalem was not for their approval but for Paul to show that he was chosen by Christ to preach the same gospel to the Gentiles that they were preaching to the Jews. His approval had already come by Christ having chosen him. And as you said, to show they were on the same team, lest envy or division occur.
The Great Commission is given to the church at large, however, and not only to the apostles. The authority of the Great Commission rests on Christ having given it not on the apostolic ministry.
Since the visible/invisible components of the church were discussed long before the Reformation I would contest that it began as a result of the Reformation. Several areas within the early church were not governed by bishops but by a plurality of elders and other arrangements as well. If your claim were true, the form of the episcopate that has developed to its modern incarnation would have existed from the beginning in every church and diocese in Christendom. You are misrepresenting, slightly, the visible/invisible church tension.
P
PerryJ
Guest
The commission was given at large this does not negate the Priest commission.
The hierarchy did exist from the very beginning as Clement shows his authority over other Churches and Bishops in his letters. A biblical person that lived with the Apostles shows the hierarchy and authority of the Church at the beginning.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
It doesn’t negate the need for a hierarchy within the church but it doesn’t rest on a particular succession of hierarchy, however.
And there is also evidence that Clement was one of a plurality of elders operating in Rome that met in council to help resolve the situation in Corinth and Clement was given to represent them. If you’ll notice in his epistle he never identifies himself and simply uses the plural pronoun “we.” He doesn’t base any of his authority in the letter on apostolic succession, or being a successor to St. Peter. That aside, it doesn’t show any form of a monarchial episcopate as claimed by Rome. Assuming for the sake of discussion he was a single bishop the fact remains that during his time in Rome, other churches did not have the same form of church government as Rome did.
P
PerryJ
Guest
Agreed that not all did; however, for example we have Antioch and others with Bishops at a very early date.
How would Clement governoring with others differ from the Magesterium now? The Pope is allowed to consult others.
Peter actively humbled himself in title. Clement would do no less.
M
mercygate
Guest
All of the apostles were in the room and are named individually just before Peter begins the process. The process occurs “not without the Apostles.”
Short answer: It is needed to confirm and assure that the Gospel being taught is THE Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Communion of the Apostles is the core through which the charism for the forgiveness of sins runs through history (Jn 20:20-23). It is the line through which the sacramental grace is committed in Holy Orders: hand-to-head, face-to-face, man-to-man, and communicated to all the faithful. We all share in the Great Commission. We are firm in our mission via communion with the faith of those descended from the Eleven (plus Matthias) in their office and in their person.
Great. Paul has a “vision” and says “Jesus came to me.”
“Swell,” say the “pillars.”
“No: really! he did!” says Barnabas. “Ananias had a vision, too! Jesus told Ananias, ‘Saul is my man!’”
“Really?” say the “pillars.” “OK, Saul. Show us watcha got!”
Paul speaks.
(Pillars huddle) “Hmm. Barnabas says the dude is for real. Ananaias confirms it. Everything Saul says squares with what we know and what we saw. Must be the real deal.”
Later Paul mentions that he went up to confer with them “lest I had run in vain.” “Lest” is the word that suggests uncertainty (not that Paul ever had a problem with THAT!). The NT Church was a person-to-person operation and Paul was not an eyewitness. Human psychology beiing what it is, I would guess that the stoning of Stephen would resonate in the minds of many Christians who encountered Paul in the same way the name, “Chappaquiddick,” resonates in the minds of anyyone who gets involved with Ted Kennedy.
It is the Eleven who are called to the Mountain of the Ascension. The Eleven. The Eleven to whom the Commission is spoken. Of course the authority rests on Christ. And of course we all share in it. But not outside the fellowship of the Eleven. It is not “either” the Apostles “or” the rest of us. It is all of us in Communion with the Apostles.
How early we talkin’ here? Ignatius talks about the bishop as the marker of the church, not loos presbyterys. The form of the episcopate was in place before the close of the New Testament period. I agree that the full distinction of the episcopate and priesthood did not definitively fall out until maybe the second century. Nevertheless, the Apostle or the “planter” of the congregation would be the overseer: Head elder around here.
Today, we hold that the priesthood resides fully only in the Bishop.
As for “visible/invisible” – we have no problem with that. We hold the Church Militant (visible) is one with the Church Expectant and the Church Triumphant (invisible).
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
No problem there. I do feel an episcopal form of church governance to be the most biblical and sound. Just not mandated.
Let me rephrase: The letter does not show Clement to have any authority over the other elders in Rome. He refers to the “us” equally, without any reference to his own authority within Rome. This also isn’t a case of bishops gathering from different regions in council to discuss the Corinthian matter, so it differs from the Magisterium significantly there. These were all elders in the city of Rome. Secondly, Rome wasn’t intervening in a way as to say “Okay, enough guys, we’re dropping the apostolic hammer on you and you better listen.” Clement makes it plain that the Corinthians came to them for assistance with the situation. Which is befitting since Clement himself was a disciple of Paul and Paul was instrumental in the founding of the Church in Corinth.
Be that as it may, the letter goes a long way from making the claims you are asserting here vis a vie apostolic succession or papal primacy.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Which would make sense being they were choosing another apostle. There were no absentee ballots at that election. This says nothing about the election of presbyters outside the apostolic ministry.
“Mercygate’s Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (ESV)” LOL
Of course he would have run in vain if half the Church didn’t know what this crazy former rabbi was running around preaching. This doesn’t have anything to do, however, with Paul’s authority as an apostle. I am not sure the whole episode is important to the topic because it doesn’t even address apostolic succession. Paul is obviously an exception to any rule that may be true of later presbyters.
As far as we know, only the Apostles were present when Jesus gave the ministry of the keys (Matthew 16 and 18, John 20), but it is clear that this commission, which is essentially the same as the Great Commission, was not limited to the Twelve. Only the Twelve received the command, “Take, eat, this is my body,” but we do not conclude that it was only for them. In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul makes it clear that the command given to the Apostles (and apparently also to Paul by special revelation) applied to the Corinthians, and we conclude that it applies also to us.
Regardless of who was present, the account does clearly specify that the command does apply to others besides the Eleven, since it continues long after their lifetime. The question is “Is this command applicable to others because the Apostles transfer this authority to them or because the others are already included in Christ’s command along with the Apostles?” We have already seen that the parallel commands concerning the Ministry of the Keys and the Lord’s Supper include all Christians. Parallel texts indicate that this is also true of the Great Commission. When Pentecost comes, it appears that the outpouring of the Spirit which equips the church for this mission was not limited to the Apostles. Commentators argue about whether the “all” of Acts 2 applies only to the Twelve or the 120 disciples. The quotation from Joel (Acts 2:17-18) seems to favor the wider application of the command and the promise. At any rate, in the book of Acts, many of the examples of the fulfillment of the commission were performed by people other than the Twelve (Acts 8 :4, 8:26, 11:19-20).
It is clear that Matthew 28 gives no support to the claim that the commission to preach the gospel was given only to the Apostles and that ordinary Christians receive it only when it is given to them by the Apostles or their successors. In his High Priestly Prayer (John 17:20-21) Jesus prays for the Apostles and for those who will believe in him through the Apostles’ message. Everything we receive from the Apostles we receive through the faith which is worked in us by the message they have left for us, not by some special act of transmission through some select individuals.
Rome claims its teaching on the authority of bishops, their form of government, and their doctrines have been taught from the beginning. Specifically in reference to Petrine primacy and papal authority. It doesn’t allow room for development. It was either always present or it wasn’t.
Since Augustine was the first to use the term visible/invisible for the Church on earth, I would hope Catholics have no problem with it.
M
mercygate
Guest
Clearly, in the NT there is a blur in the ministry between elder and overseer. But here, the ballot is for a replacement for the missing twelfth man to carry on the apostolic mission.
Has a nice ring to it!
In a way, I agree. Paul’s “induction” into the Church as a Christian and his commission to start his first missionary journey are both effected by the Church. He receives laying on of hands from Ananaias to receive the Holy Spirit and from the church before setting out with Barnabas.
What is “it” that applies to all of us? The Apostolic Churches bundle these gifts under the heading of ordained ministry. We all “take and eat.” We do not all effect the consecration of the elements. Lutherans “ordain” their clergy: but I’m guessing that the whole idea of ordination may have a very different meaning for you from what it has in the ancient Apostolic Churches. Keep in mind: this isn’t just Rome here. The Orthodox are completely on board with this model of Church order.
For the Apostolic Churches there is no question.
You won’t sell that to a Catholic. No way, Jose, can I, “by the power of the keys” teach doctrine independently of the one to whom the keys were promised. Even the power of binding and loosing was given only to the Twelve. Mercygate’s model: “not apart from the Twelve.”
Again, not independently of the Eleven.
But not apart from the teaching of the Apostles. Not in isolation. Not independently.
But the High Priestly prayer is offered in the presence of only the Eleven. The Body of Christ is never without the Eleven (or Twelve, depending on which point in time you’re talking about). Y’know: Them dudes. Apart from Communion with the Apostolic Body, you are an isolate.
That is why the Great Schism is such a catastrophe.
Why no development? The development was a consolidation of what is present from the beginning.
Militant, Expectant, Triumphant. No problem.
- Status