Individual congreations of Jewish believers to local congregations, several per city, under a bishop of that church ,to one bishop per city around 150 CE, that continues to develop along ethnic boundaries, until Rome overasserts itself to cause the Great Schism and Roman Catholicism in its present form really starts to take shape.
You have forgotten one important element. The existance of the Catholic epistles in the first place. As well the existance of the Pauline letters.
For example, Paul did not found the church in Colossae, Ep’aphras did, a disciple of Paul. Yet Paul writes to them. I would say it is a good bet that he expects to be listened to. Under the local church theory, they don’t have to. Yet in Timothy some have decided to do just that and go their own way, starting their own churches. What does Paul have to say about that? What does Paul say about sticking with sound doctrine? Romans, Paul did not initially establish that church, he tells them he wishes to visit them. Yet again he expects to be listened to.
Next the catholic epistles (some protestants call them the general epistles now). They were to be sent to all the churches. James, John, Peter and Jude. To churches they had not established and to ones they had. Yet again, they expected to be adhered to. Under the local church theory they have no obligation to do so at all, they can toss the letters out if they want, because under the local church theory they can make doctrine.
Paul tells us (in Thessalonias and Timothy), and in Acts it is shown by Peter, the disposition of “Laying on of Hands”
Now under the local theory you have proposed they no longer have to listen to the apostles, the bishops themselves (appparenly they can now under this new guise ordain themselves) are unanswerable to anyone: meaning they don’t have to listen to the apostolic epistles. So the Church in Collossae established by Ep’aphras has no obligation to listen to the catholic epistles of James, John, Peter and Jude, not to mention the letter from Paul.
Somehow this local church, run by the local bishop, elected by himself (no laying on of hands), with authority to set doctrine doesn’t hold tenable by the very existance of those epistles outside of what the epistles themselves say.
The existance of the epistles themselves show the apostolic belief and intent of a church one and unified. They are building a church, it starts with a foundation, and the apostles are it. The apostles didn’t start with a finished product and build towards a foundation, just the opposite. In Timothy (Tim 1:6), we see and it is stated about the trasition of power (Tim 1:7) (not power in the traditional sense, but in the same power that Christ confers to the apostles). The Apostles confer power, “In persona Christi” (Paul 2 Cor 2:10) Timothy is also told to confer those same ecclesial powers on. Christ’s power is not intangible as the local church would have us believe, not a theologic thought, but a reality.
All of this is to fulfil Christs promises in John:
John 17:9: I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine; 10: all mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them. 11: And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me,
that they may be one, even as we are one.
Inherantly you say this prayer for the apostles was not answered. If it is not answered then Christ is A. a sinner, B. lost his faith, or C. is not who he says he is. In other words, as someone said to me recently, theologic suicide.
John 14:16: And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,
Sinse the apostles won’t be here forever on earth how can this be. Of course the apostles confer that power on: Again Tim, Corinthians, Acts, Tit, Mal, Eph. How do they appoint presbyters in every town? Laying on of hands.
Your arguement is untennable, the very existance of the episltes is testament to that. They were building, not starting with a completed building. You are attempting to tear away the building and start a new foundation. So either we trust the apostles and their mission, or we trust someone 2000 years later in a new church how it is. Under what authority do you deign to tell christianity how it is to be structured? For us, we state uncategorically, scripturally (which you claim not to deny) it is through the apostles and the imposition of hands, conferring the real and tangible power of Christ to bind and loose.
Again, your position is untennable.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
beat me to it, huh
