Did New Test. churches in Book of Acts function autonomously from central authority?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JER7177
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JER7177

Guest
Hello scholars!
Blessing of the Heavenly Virgin be with you all!

I am in dialogue with my uncle who is a member of the Church of Christ in North Dakota. His community teaches that the New Testament churches in the Book of Acts operated autonomously from any outside higher authority. This is clearly an attempt to discredit the Catholic Church’s hierarchical structure (i.e. - individual diocese submit to metropolitan/archbishops and ultimately to Rome). I am very certain this was not the case. I have read that all churches them submitted to Apostles conciliar statement from Council of Jerusalem Acts 15. I am having trouble though forming this evidence into a logical rebuttal to his claims. Can anyone help me in this with citations and the like! God Bless you all!

Ad Jesum per MAriam!
 
This sounds accurate. There was no central authority back then. Each Church is considered in completeness the Kingdom of God. They were not a part or portion of the Kingdom of God, but rather in of themselves the entirety of the Kingdom of God. Similar to the Eucharist, that the smallest particle is not a particle of Jesus, but is the entirety of Jesus.

This is not discrediting the hierchical structure of the Church. That came later on.
 
I too understand your point, but in the dialogue with my uncle, he is making the point that the Apostles established these local churches to govern themselves as they see fit and any higher authority (i.e. - college of Apostles in Jerusalem) did not weild any greater authority over their local community. The could enforce or rejest decisions made outside of the local church and have not violated any law of God or ruptured any communion with the greater whole since there is no communion ouitside the local community.
 
From the get-go we see Paul chastising & exercising authority over the congregations he started. Likewise in Revelation John authoritatively reads churches the riot act as required. Furthermore, not even Paul had the authority to sort out the obligations of Gentiles vs Jews, submitting that decision to the assembled authorities in the first Council of Jerusalem.
 
JER7177 said:
I too understand your point, but in the dialogue with my uncle, he is making the point that the Apostles established these local churches to govern themselves as they see fit and any higher authority (i.e. - college of Apostles in Jerusalem) did not weild any greater authority over their local community. The could enforce or rejest decisions made outside of the local church and have not violated any law of God or ruptured any communion with the greater whole since there is no communion ouitside the local community.
Click to expand...
That is actually quite accurate with the ecclesiology of the early Church.
kkollwitz said:
From the get-go we see Paul chastising & exercising authority over the congregations he started. Likewise in Revelation John authoritatively reads churches the riot act as required. Furthermore, not even Paul had the authority to sort out the obligations of Gentiles vs Jews, submitting that decision to the assembled authorities in the first Council of Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
The Apostles were universal teachers of the Church. They teach what is right from wrong, but they were not micromanaging the local Churches. The Epistles are likely responses to letters sent to them by the local bishop or a messenger that brings them the news.
 
JER7177 said:
I am in dialogue with my uncle who is a member of the Church of Christ in North Dakota. His community teaches that the New Testament churches in the Book of Acts operated autonomously from any outside higher authority. This is clearly an attempt to discredit the Catholic Church’s hierarchical structure (i.e. - individual diocese submit to metropolitan/archbishops and ultimately to Rome). I am very certain this was not the case. I have read that all churches them submitted to Apostles conciliar statement from Council of Jerusalem Acts 15. I am having trouble though forming this evidence into a logical rebuttal to his claims. Can anyone help me in this with citations and the like! God Bless you all!
Click to expand...
Church of Christ uses the Bible alone. Given this, it’s logical to come to the conclusion he sees on the Acts of the Apostles.

This model is what worked in 60 A.D. but not the model that the Holy Spirit guided the Church towards for the next 19 centuries. He is rejecting Sacred Tradition itself.

“The Church which Jesus Christ founded is His Body, and He is the Head.” (Eph 1:22-23.)

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. **And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." **–Matthew chap. 28: 18-20

The bolded is suggestive of Sacred Tradition. Traditional truth was confided to the Church as a deposit which it would guard and faithfully transmit as it had received it without adding to it or taking anything away. This is what the CC has done for 2000 years.

I suggest you start with how the bible is unable to create unity on essential truths and that demonstrates how Bible alone is incapable of being the sole rule of faith.

Kindly,

James
 
ConstantineTG, you must be an eastern Catholic or Orthodox am I right?
 
Just noticed it says that you are in your personal info. It seems that the eastern churches, being influenced more often than not by national identity prefer the “autocephalus” nature and persepctive of church organization. I think your points can be seen as valid if nuanced and on a more cerebral level, but I need more polemical points to show that my uncle’s position is not correct. If his point is correct than the Church universal’s is not. He and his community believe that if each church is of itself the church in totus, no other authority outside of it, not bishop, council, or oreder of priests is needed. That is wrong and not compatable with the true Faith.
 
Again, I just love the various “bible believing churches” saying they use the Bilbe alone as authority, where do they think the Canon of scripture comes from? Their way is to interpret scripture based on who knows what. That is why some of them end up drinking poisoned Kool-Aid. The Church(undivided ancient) gave us the Bible and the Framework(Councils and Fathers, and Bishops) as a basis for interpretation.
 
JER7177 said:
He and his community believe that if each church is of itself the church in totus, no other authority outside of it, not bishop, council, or oreder of priests is needed.
Click to expand...
Guard the **good deposit **that was entrusted to you–guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us. 2 Tim (1:14)

For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 2 Tim (1:6)

Evidence is shown for “Commissioning & Deposit”. Nowhere does the Bible state it is the sole rule of faith. Only “Profitable”.

Thank you,
James
 
JER7177 said:
Just noticed it says that you are in your personal info. It seems that the eastern churches, being influenced more often than not by national identity prefer the “autocephalus” nature and persepctive of church organization. I think your points can be seen as valid if nuanced and on a more cerebral level, but I need more polemical points to show that my uncle’s position is not correct. If his point is correct than the Church universal’s is not. He and his community believe that if each church is of itself the church in totus, no other authority outside of it, not bishop, council, or oreder of priests is needed. That is wrong and not compatable with the true Faith.
Click to expand...
Well, your uncle is not totally wrong. But when he says that the Church doesn’t need a bishop, then he is wrong. Churches always had a bishop from the beginning. The bishops were not assembed in a hierarchy as they are today, but there are bishops. Antioch had a bishop from the beginning. Jerusalem was handed over to St. James when the Apostles left to spread the Word to the world. Where the bishop is, where the faithful people is, there is the Church. You can’t separate the bishop from the faithful from the Church.

Priest also has an interesting history. In the early days, the bishops were the priests. Back then a diocese is one parish church. Unlike today where the bishop has a cathedral and a number of parishes run by priests, back then towns weren’t as huge as they are today. So there is one church per town and the bishop has all the functions. Presbyters were a council of elders which assist the bishop in governing the town. But initially, presbyters are not priests. Only much later when a bishop’s territory grew and more people belong to it necessitated in sharing the priestly ministry with the presbyters so that simultaneous Liturgies can be performed in different churches across the diocese. But definitely there was a priest from the very beginning, but that ministry belonged to the bishop only.

Also one biggy he seems to miss is that despite the autonomous nature of Churches back then, they all profess the same faith. It is not like they never talk to each other. Bishops need to be consecrated and therefore the neighboring bishops are invited to make the consecration when needed. Also regularly bishops check on each other to ensure they are in line with the true faith. If not, the erring bishop is excommunicated, or severed from communion with the other bishops. This is a visible sign that the bishop is no longer orthodox and have fallen into heterodoxy or heresy. No other bishop can meddle with another bishop but communion is vital to belong to the one, true faith. People also can usurp a bishop, so if the bishop is removed from communion, the people (his flock) can usurp him and elect another bishop.
 
JaKael02 said:
Guard the **good deposit **that was entrusted to you–guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us. 2 Tim (1:14)

For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 2 Tim (1:6)

Evidence is shown for “Commissioning & Deposit”. Nowhere does the Bible state it is the sole rule of faith. Only “Profitable”.

Thank you,
James
Click to expand...
You can also point about “listen to your elders”. Elders of course are the presbyters and the bishop. Literally, presbyter means elder. It does not mean priest.
 
JER7177 said:
Hello scholars!
Blessing of the Heavenly Virgin be with you all!

I am in dialogue with my uncle who is a member of the Church of Christ in North Dakota. His community teaches that the New Testament churches in the Book of Acts operated autonomously from any outside higher authority. This is clearly an attempt to discredit the Catholic Church’s hierarchical structure (i.e. - individual diocese submit to metropolitan/archbishops and ultimately to Rome). I am very certain this was not the case. I have read that all churches them submitted to Apostles conciliar statement from Council of Jerusalem Acts 15. I am having trouble though forming this evidence into a logical rebuttal to his claims. Can anyone help me in this with citations and the like! God Bless you all!

Ad Jesum per MAriam!
Click to expand...
Your reference to Acts 15 is an excellent one and there is an equally excellent corollary to this in Mt 18:15-18.
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
An initial note on this, before you bring it up to your uncle is to ask him if teaching a false Gospel or Doctrine is a sin…When he responds “yes it is”, you can show him the Instructions of Jesus himself that we are to take such difficult matters (sin) to the Church and then we are to listen to the Church…on pain of excommunication…

Mt 18:15-18 is the instruction…Acts 15 is a beautiful example of the instruction in action. Read how a few fellows came up from Jerusalem and started the controversy. more people were brought in and still nor resolution…Not even the great apostle Paul was able to bring resolution…This was serious stuff

Now - let’s hold there for just a moment and ask…What is the solution under the model that your uncle proposes? One local church exercises no control over the other and so the Gentile converts politely tell the Jewish converts to take a hike…“you have no authority here in Antioch”. Of course the Judaizers, seeking to minister to any Jewish converts in Antioch, might be inclined then to set up a separate Church in Antioch requiring circumcision - and claiming that the Gentiles were wrong not to require it - while the Gentiles (supported by Paul) denied that circumcision was necessary…
But since each Church is “locally independent” there is no way to resolve the controversy and establish truth…
That is the logical flow based on the model your uncle espouses - and we see this commonly across the many protestant churches…

OK - Back to the biblical narrative.

Once it was seen that not even Paul could resolve the matter to everyone’s satisfaction the Church in Antioch sent Paul and some others to the Church in Jerusalem to hash it out…Why?? Because this question was important, not just to the Church in Antioch but to the universal Church…It needed a clear answer and that answer was given by council and holds even to this day in ALL of the Church.
I believe that our Dear Lord, through the Holy Spirit, gave us a great gift by causing these things to be included in the Holy Scriptures…so that we can know that Christ wishes his Church to be one, to be visible and to be authoritative…

Obviously there are many things that local churches can and should handle themselves. The Catholic Church encourages this. Bishops exercise much autonomy in their diocese. But they exercise that autonomy and authority in communion with their brother bishops and the Holy See - in the universal Church.

Your uncle holds to Sola Scriptura. And that is fine…for the Scriptures themselves point to Church authority and to unity - not just locally but universally…

The Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth (1 Tim 3:15)
The Church has authority to bind and loose - whatever (Mt 16:17-19) (Mt 18:15-18)
The Church settles arguments between distant church communities in a wonderful example of the instructions given in Mt 18…(Acts 15)
The Church is the vehicle by which God reveals His Wisdom to the world. (Eph 3:8-12)
Christ and the Apostles exhort the faithful to unity…to be of one mind
Code: 
John 17:20-21
20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Rom 15:5-6
5 May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor 1:10
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

2 Cor 13:11
Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.

Php 1:27
Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,

1 Pet 3:8
Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.
All of these calls to unity, along with the instructions in the Gospel of Matthew and the example in Acts as well as Paul’s presenting his teachings to Peter and others to assure they are correct, the Church being the Pillar etc…All point clearly to doctrinal unity within a visible and authoritative Church.

Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura) adherents can offer nothing in support of the (evangelical?) protestant view of “church” and “authority” that comes anywhere close to this preponderance of evidence for the RC/EO “Model” of Church structure.

I say this with confidence because I have repeatedly asked protestant apologists to counter this evidence with “equally clear and compelling” evidence for what I call the “Protestant model” of locally independent church communities based on SS.
They just simply cannot do it…

Peace
James
 
Besides tradition the Scripture clearly demonstrate a formal church structure in apostolic times.

In the Acts account you will notice the teachers causing the trouble were those teaching “without authority”. In other words self appointed teachers. That means there were in fact teachers that had authority. They would have had to obtain that authority from some group, that group was the organized church. There was an organization or it could not have decided to convene a council. The council decision was made and it was expected the churches would follow the results, that was the whole point of the council.

If you note Timothy and Titus were appointed to specific regions of to appoint priests, to discipline and to correct false doctrine, those who disputed about the meaning of words and didn’t hold to the traditional and accepted way of teaching were, per Pauls instruction, to be excluded.

Thus from the beginning there is a clear apostolic organized church and most of the problems came from those who refused to follow that hierarchy.

Further if you look in Jude you see the reference to those who follow in the errors of Koreh and his rebellion. Koreh’s rebellion was claiming there was no formal set aside priesthood. Jude could not have warned about the danger of those following in the error of claiming their was no set aside formal priesthood if there was no formal priesthood.

It is a common claim though among all protestant churches that there was no structure in the early church.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Well, your uncle is not totally wrong. But when he says that the Church doesn’t need a bishop, then he is wrong. Churches always had a bishop from the beginning. The bishops were not assembed in a hierarchy as they are today, but there are bishops. Antioch had a bishop from the beginning. Jerusalem was handed over to St. James when the Apostles left to spread the Word to the world. Where the bishop is, where the faithful people is, there is the Church. You can’t separate the bishop from the faithful from the Church.
Click to expand...
…(Snip)…

Also one biggy he seems to miss is that despite the autonomous nature of Churches back then, they all profess the same faith. It is not like they never talk to each other. Bishops need to be consecrated and therefore the neighboring bishops are invited to make the consecration when needed. Also regularly bishops check on each other to ensure they are in line with the true faith. If not, the erring bishop is excommunicated, or severed from communion with the other bishops. This is a visible sign that the bishop is no longer orthodox and have fallen into heterodoxy or heresy. No other bishop can meddle with another bishop but communion is vital to belong to the one, true faith. People also can usurp a bishop, so if the bishop is removed from communion, the people (his flock) can usurp him and elect another bishop.

Beautifully said…The thing that many protestants fail to recognize is that the “hierarchy” is something that developed from the very structure that you mention here. The most important aspect - and the one that the OP’s uncle is missing - is the communication between the bishops for the purpose of protecting the truth of the Gospel…

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
Beautifully said…The thing that many protestants fail to recognize is that the “hierarchy” is something that developed from the very structure that you mention here. The most important aspect - and the one that the OP’s uncle is missing - is the communication between the bishops for the purpose of protecting the truth of the Gospel…

Peace
James
Click to expand...
The problem for these Bible-only groups is they don’t even learn more about the Bible itself. They fight over English translations which doesn’t really represent the original Greek or Hebrew that well.

St. Luke in Acts uses the Greek word “Homothumadon” a lot to describe the Church. The word means “with one mind”, which he empasizes the unity of the Christian faith back then, regardless of the administration of the local Churches. Protestant communities today think their community is entirely separate from another community, not only in governance but in everything, even how teachings and scripture is interpreted. That is not Homothumadon, that is every-man-for-himself. And that is not First Century Christianity.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The problem for these Bible-only groups is they don’t even learn more about the Bible itself. They fight over English translations which doesn’t really represent the original Greek or Hebrew that well.

St. Luke in Acts uses the Greek word “Homothumadon” a lot to describe the Church. The word means “with one mind”, which he empasizes the unity of the Christian faith back then, regardless of the administration of the local Churches. Protestant communities today think their community is entirely separate from another community, not only in governance but in everything, even how teachings and scripture is interpreted. That is not Homothumadon, that is every-man-for-himself. And that is not First Century Christianity.
Click to expand...
Amen my friend.

And something too that I think they miss is how - even though East and West (the most ancient of Christian Churches) disagree on certain “governance” issues we are in full agreement on this point.

Peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top