Given the choice, from which source would you prefere to learn the faith - the Scriptures, or a living apostle?

[chaunceygardner]

No private interpretation here! Jesus infallibly interpreted the Scriptures to the people; his hearers were not interpreting anything.

But did they all understand Him the same way? It may not have been a case of deliberate interpretation as a difference in understanding. We read many examples of Jesus having to explain his teachings and correct those who did not understand. Why do we not think that later disciples also had differences in understanding. Actually, we know they did; the recorded history of the church shows that.

My point was not who knew Jesus was infallible, but simply that, of all the people “preaching and teaching from the scriptures in Israel and Judea,” Jesus and his apostles alone were the only infallible and legitimate preachers and teachers.

That is an area of disagreement between us, since we know that others were preaching and acting in the name of Jesus who were not from “their company”. Were they authorized or ordained to preach and teach? And we know from the early years of the church that some of those who were certainly considered
“legitimate” teachers and leaders of the church had different views. And their views and teachings were not an issue until a council or others in a position of power declared them
in error. And that process was not a slam dunk by any means.

Jesus wasn’t condemning the Jewish leaders for their “strict adherence to doctrine,” but rather, for their having deviated from sound doctrine and the true spirit of the Law, for adding many burdensome “traditions of men.”

THAT is the central point of my thesis, that churches in general add doctrines and rules that are not essential and unnecessary to developing faith and achieving salvation, while obscuring the core teachings that ARE necessary.

Just exactly what do you mean by a “hierarchy of authority with Jesus”??

My comment was directed to your question about noting a difference between the teaching of Jesus vs. that of others. I said you were creating a “hierarchy of authority” with Jesus at the top from hindsight. Few considered the teachings of Jesus to be authoritative or binding until after the Resurrection.

This is not an example of each and every individual deciding doctrine over the authority and teaching of the Church.

This relates to my key point; that no one, individual or church, should have to “decide doctrine”. God has done that for us, and Jesus focused on the key commandments and clearly explained and showed what that meant to us. Everything added beyond that comes from man, not from God.

I’m not accusing the apostles themselves of heresy!! I’m simply saying the Scriptures speak of heresies, even in apostolic times, do they not? So heresies have indeed always abounded.

I know you weren’t really doing that, but how you wrote your response made it sound that way. My point was and is that the Apostles, other disciples and church fathers could proclaim the Gospel very well even if they didn’t agree with one another on certain issues and doctrines. It was only when some decided that these secondary issues were important, as important as God’s commandments, that the problems started. The churches (Catholic, Protestant and whatever) have wasted a huge amount of time (and innocent lives) trying to control doctrine, while failing to properly live and teach the Gospel.

It’s just incredible that anyone would think Oral Tradition works the same way as this nonsense game

I wasn’t saying the game was exactly like what happened in the early church, but it is an example that people today can relate to. History is rife with examples of this process in action, and there is a body of research that supports it. We have no reason to think it didn’t happen in the early church; rather, we have abundant evidence that it DID.

I didn’t interpret anything; the Greek word Paul uses here is Pistis, which encompasses, among other things, the notion of “the religious beliefs of Christians.” Surely you would agree that such religious beliefs include doctrine?

I have seen the word “pistis” but was not aware of all the possible meanings. My amateur opinion would be that in this case “religious beliefs” or “religious faith” would be the proper usage here; it is unlikely that Paul was talking about “church doctrine” since it didn’t yet exist.

Ah yes, anything but Rome! But hear again the apostle thank God for, and praise the Roman Church:

“First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.” Romans 1:8

Scripture tells us that Rome is the world-wide (“universal” or “catholic”) faith of Christ’s Church! So the Bible itself connects the ideas of Roman and catholic!..Where does Scripture say anything like this about Jerusalem or Antioch? And why do you reject what the apostle thanks God for and praises?

The faith found in the early Christians in Rome had to be strong to withstand the persecutions they faced. But Christianity was more than just Rome, and although the Romans were lauded for their faith, most of the great thinkers and leaders of the early church were found elsewhere; the fact that early councils were held away from Rome testifies to that. It was only much later that the church authority was centralized in Rome.

The Catholic church, and any church that claims to be Christian, should be a church of love, not of doctrine. The churches have come to place great store in their doctrines, when the Gospel of Jesus wants us to find our greatest treasure in heaven, which we do by living according to the two greatest commandments. Everything else that is important follows from that.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

But assuming * a choice between the completed canon of the NT or a living* apostle, which would you choose?

You know what they say when one assumes.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Did you care to specify a particular Apostle or any old apostle will do?

 

[raumzeitmc2]

A living apostle wouldnt be contradicting the Word.

Hi Marie,

What you say is quite true; a living apostle wouldn’t contradict the Sacred Word (I certainly never meant to imply otherwise!). However I think we all could agree that a living apostle would be able to do what none of us can, viz, correctly interpret the Word and settle all disputes with final authority! Imagine! Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox could then all finally embrace one another in love, peace and unity! And after so much enmity and bloodshed, wouldn’t that be marvelous?

Perhaps someday. Perhaps long after we and our generation are gone.

In the meantime, let us be mindful of the words of St. Edmund Campion (1540-1581). Campion you may recall was was executed by English Protestants. The following is from his famous so-called “Brag” in which he pleads for those who have left the Catholic faith to return. He concludes with these words:

Many innocent hands are lifted up to heaven for you daily by those English students, whose posterity shall never die, which beyond seas, gathering virtue and sufficient knowledge for the purpose, are determined never to give you over, but either to win you heaven, or to die upon your pikes.

And touching our Society, be it known to you that we have made a league—all the Jesuits in the world, whose succession and multitude must overreach all the practice of England—cheerfully to carry the cross you shall lay upon us, and never to despair your recovery, while we have a man left to enjoy your Tyburn, or to be racked with your torments, or consumed with your prisons. The expense is reckoned, the enterprise is begun; it is of God; it cannot be withstood. So the faith was planted: So it must be restored.

If these my offers be refused, and my endeavours can take no place, and I, having run thousands of miles to do you good, shall be rewarded with rigour. I have no more to say but to recommend your case and mine to Almighty God, the Searcher of Hearts, who send us his grace, and see us at accord before the day of payment, to the end we may at last be friends in heaven, when all injuries shall be forgotten. – Campion’s Brag

Hi again chaunceygardner,

Instead of replying to your last post, I think for the moment I’ll just ask your opinion of these words from a very lengthy letter of St. Augustine. Here, Augustine is arguing and pleading for unity against the violent Donatists who had separated themselves from the Catholic Church, “spread abroad throughout the world,” claiming that only their little African sect was the “pure church.” (Nothing ever changes, does it?)

But those with whom we are arguing, or about whom we are arguing, are not to be despaired of, for they are yet in the body; but they cannot seek the Holy Spirit, except in the body of Christ, of which they possess the outward sign outside the Church, but they do not possess the actual reality itself within the Church of which that is the outward sign, and therefore they eat and drink damnation to themselves. 1 Corinthians 11:29

For there is but one bread which is the sacrament of unity, seeing that, as the apostle says, “We, being many, are one bread, and one body.” 1 Corinthians 10:17

Furthermore, the Catholic Church alone is the body of Christ, of which He is the Head and Saviour of His body. Ephesians 5:23

Outside this body the Holy Spirit gives life to no one seeing that, as the apostle says himself, “The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us;” Romans 5:5 but he is not a partaker of the divine love who is the enemy of unity. Therefore they have not the Holy Ghost who are outside the Church; for it is written of them, “They separate themselves being sensual, having not the Spirit.” Jude 19 But neither does he receive it who is insincerely in the Church, since this is also the intent of what is written: “For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee deceit.” Wisdom 1:5

If any one, therefore, wishes to receive the Holy Spirit, let him beware of continuing in alienation from the Church, let him beware of entering it in the spirit of dissimulation; or if he has already entered it in such wise, let him beware of persisting in such dissimulation, in order that he may truly and indeed become united with the tree of life. Letter 185:50

God bless, friends.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Did you care to specify a particular Apostle or any old apostle will do?

Take your pick!

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox could then all finally embrace one another in love, peace and unity! And after so much enmity and bloodshed, wouldn’t that be marvelous?

It would be fantastic! But this is never going to come about.

Instead of replying to your last post, I think for the moment I’ll just ask your opinion of these words from a very lengthy letter of St. Augustine. Here, Augustine is arguing and pleading for unity against the violent Donatists who had separated themselves from the Catholic Church, “spread abroad throughout the world,” claiming that only their little African sect was the “pure church.” (Nothing ever changes, does it?)

Everything is relative from one’s perspective. Back then Augustine thought he was on the inside and the Donatists were on the outside. The Donatists thought they were on the inside and Augustine was on the outside. Then in 1054, the Orthodox thought they were on the inside and that the Roman Church was on the outside and vice versa. Today one of you thinks that they are on the inside and the other is sort of partly on the inside but partly on the outside. Then in 1517 another new dynamic of inside and outside was set up.

As long as we hold onto who is in and who is out rather than finding what we have in common and moving from there, there is always going to be an inside and outside, a who’s right and who’s wrong, who’s up and who’s down. And if our faith needs to be bolstered by assuring ourselves that we are on the inside, then I don’t think we have heard the Gospel.

In post #24, you quote Matthew 28, “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” This is being put out there in post #24 as a command for us to obey the Apostles and their successors when clearly this is a Christ telling the Apostles this is their responsibility and their successors responsibilities to make sure that the faithful are obeying Christ’s commands. And what are Christ’s commands? I don’t think Apostolic Succession or Papal Infallibility were high on the list.

 

[Izdaari]

I’ll take both, please. Certainly one of the first things a Living Apostle would teach me is to study the Scriptures. :yyeess:

If I have a choice of Apostles I’ll take Paul; there’s SO much I want to ask him.

 

[Waiting]

In post #24, you quote Matthew 28, “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” This is being put out there in post #24 as a command for us to obey the Apostles and their successors when clearly this is a Christ telling the Apostles this is their responsibility and their successors responsibilities to make sure that the faithful are obeying Christ’s commands. And what are Christ’s commands? I don’t think Apostolic Succession or Papal Infallibility were high on the list.

Why would you think Apostolic Succession and Papal Infallibility were not priorities with Christ when He made the effort to establish a leader for the Church, and guaranteed that it would be without error? How foolish He would have been to leave a fledgling church to struggle through the problems that inevitably would occur when He departed, without assurance that all would be well, and the truth protected from error.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Hi again chaunceygardner,

Instead of replying to your last post, I think for the moment I’ll just ask your opinion of these words from a very lengthy letter of St. Augustine. Here, Augustine is arguing and pleading for unity against the violent who had separated themselves from the Catholic Church, “spread abroad throughout the world,” claiming that only their little African sect was the “pure church.” (Nothing ever changes, does it?)

I am somewhat familiar with the Donatists but not of all the details. I have read Augustine but not this particular document. So I took some time to read your link and the lengthy article in the Catholic Encyclopedia for background. I understand you are not asking for comments on the controversy but there were several aspects of it that I found interesting.

First I have a few issues with your statements. We must recognize that Augustine was involved in the latter part of the Donatist schism, when things had really gotten out of hand. It seems that Augustine and others (especially earlier) were not arguing for unity against the Donatists but for bringing them back “into the fold”. Second, the Donatists were not particularly violent until an outside group called the Circumcellions “joined the ranks of the Donatists” (CE). The Circumcellions were basically the “kamikazes” of the time, seeking martyrdom by attacking people at random with the hope that the victim would fight back, kill them and send them to heaven! (Why didn’t they just attack each other?)

The Donatists did not “separate themselves” from the Catholic church, but thought that others had done so, by “selling out” to Roman persecutors when given the choice to stand up for their faith or save their skin. These so-called traditors had “given up the Sacred Books, and…the sacred vessels and even their own brethren” (CE). The traditors compounded their sin by treating poorly those who refused to give in to their persecutors and were imprisoned. The Donatists (who were not called that until later, based on the name of a Bishop who led them) felt that they were ones who had stood up for the faith, and appealed to other Bishops and to Rome to see their Bishops and followers as the real church. Unfortunately, this was the time when Constantine had legitimized the church and he and his heirs made it a secular issue. The Roman Emperor sent two envoys with a boatload of money to Northern Africa to “persuade” the Bishops gathered there to vote his way. By the time of Augustine, about 100 years after the whole thing started, the remaining Donatists were certainly not on the orthodox side. And the people who had originally caused the problem were long gone and the original issues just a memory.

Third, the Donatists were not a “little African sect” but were likely the majority of Catholics in the area, and had followers in other countries as well, even in Rome (CE). Just trying to get the facts straight here.

It is easy to see that if things had been handled a little better by church hierarchy immediately after the persecution ended the schism would likely not have developed.

Finally, on this subject, I see a lot of similarities between the stance of the Donatists and that of the “fringe” traditionalist groups in the Catholic Church today, who refuse to accept any of the recent Popes as legitimate and think that the ordination of any Bishop or Priest since Vatican II is invalid. Perhaps the Donatists haven’t completely disappeared.

As to the excerpt from the letter of Augustine, I agree with the response of ***Mikeoffaith ***(post #46) that it is all relative. One group is on the inside and the other is on the outside. No matter the validity of their reasons for their actions, those on the outside become the eventual losers, as determined by other outsiders, including the Emperor.

I would disagree with the following statements of Augustine:

“they cannot seek the Holy Spirit, except in the body of Christ” (which he later defines as limited to the Catholic Church).

“Outside this body the Holy Spirit gives life to no one” and “They have not the Holy Ghost who are outside the Church” (The Holy Spirit is not limited by or subject to the wishes of any earthly organization or person, including any church on earth—that would be like saying the phases of the moon are subject to the commands of the Pope)

“he is not a partaker of the divine love who is the enemy of unity” (unity as defined by certain people in power, backed by secular authority)

I am in no way saying that the Donatists were free of any guilt in this, but the intransigence and self-importance of those in power (both ecclesial and secular) are just as much to blame. And Augustine was not perfect either (I just read recently, and I can’t quickly recall in which book, that Christians often see the writings of the early church fathers as being on a par with scripture).

We are a long way from the original question, which I answered by saying “both”, scriptures and the Apostle. I truly think that the Apostle would be amazed at how those scriptures have been interpreted by the churches of today, how doctrinal minutiae has trumped God’s core commandments, and how far we have deviated from the essential teachings of Jesus.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

chaunceygardner,

I seem to detect a rather strong aversion to any and all forms of ecclesiastical authority in your various responses. Now not to get too far afield, but perhaps you could explain this aversion (and before you respond, perhaps you’ll take a few moments to read this short article on the Mosaic Inquisition.

Peace.

 

[chaunceygardner]

chaunceygardner,

I seem to detect a rather strong aversion to any and all forms of ecclesiastical authority in your various responses. Now not to get too far afield, but perhaps you could explain this aversion (and before you respond, perhaps you’ll take a few moments to read this short article on the Mosaic Inquisition. Peace.

Thanks for the question. You “detect” correctly to a point. I have an aversion, but not to “all forms” of ecclesiastical authority. This IS your thread, and I don’t think your question is too far afield from the original one as I really believe those Apostles we are talking about would generally agree with my position (in fact, I get my views from them, from the early church, and primarily from Jesus). Note: I read the linked article but am not sure what the topic has to do with your question.

I have an aversion to the increasing bureaucracy and centralization of authority in the Church, and the corresponding marginalization of local parishes, communities, dioceses, national churches, and of the faithful in general. As much as some people want to say all authority has always resided in the Pope, for most of the history of the Church this power was held by or shared with all the Bishops, and the national and local churches had much autonomy.

I think if we could bring one of the Apostles back to our time he would be amazed at what he would see. He would look at the Vatican and all the layers of bureaucracy and be astounded and dismayed at how the churches of believers that he and the others started 2000 years ago had become such an unwieldy monolithic institution. He would look at the volumes of rules, rubrics and doctrines and wonder how we could have created a church that was a carbon copy of the established church of his time that Jesus condemned, a church ruled by Pharisees and Scholars of the Law who had little regard for the people confused and cowed by their labyrinth of laws. He would be incredulous that the focus is now on “right belief” and following orders and rules, rather than on love for God and neighbor and on following the words and example of Jesus. He would wonder how the Church he helped form could have deviated so much from the Gospel of Jesus that he had devoted his life to and likely gave up his earthly life for.

I don’t think the way the Church is today is true to Scriptures, true to the first Apostles and the early Church, and certainly not true to the core teachings of Jesus. What existed then were assemblies or communities of the faithful; people who supported each other in their struggles, who were not controlled by any outside authority but ran their own churches and chose leaders from within; who were empowered by the example and teachings of Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit to spread the Word and withstand the worst persecutions. They were a beacon to humanity.

Today’s Church is totally unable to manage itself, much less able to provide spiritual leadership and moral authority for the rest of humanity. What remains of the true Church can be found in our local parishes and faith communities, spiritually far, far from Rome. This is where the Holy Spirit can still be found, working in and through people who every day strive to love God and their neighbor, and to live the Gospel of Jesus.

If one wants to seek the real Church, the true church of Christ, look around you and within you, not toward Rome.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

In post #24, you quote Matthew 28, “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” This is being put out there in post #24 as a command for us to obey the Apostles and their successors when clearly this is a Christ telling the Apostles this is their responsibility and their successors responsibilities to make sure that the faithful are obeying Christ’s commands. And what are Christ’s commands? I don’t think Apostolic Succession or Papal Infallibility were high on the list.

Why would you think Apostolic Succession and Papal Infallibility were not priorities with Christ when He made the effort to establish a leader for the Church, and guaranteed that it would be without error? How foolish He would have been to leave a fledgling church to struggle through the problems that inevitably would occur when He departed, without assurance that all would be well, and the truth protected from error.

I’m sorry, I must have fallen asleep during my NT class, where exactly did Christ spell these out?

 

[chaunceygardner]

chaunceygardner,
I seem to detect a rather strong aversion to any and all forms of ecclesiastical authority in your various responses. Now not to get too far afield, but perhaps you could explain this aversion (and before you respond, perhaps you’ll take a few moments to read this short article on the Mosaic Inquisition.
Peace.

Thanks for the question. You “detect” correctly to a point. I have an aversion, but not to “all forms” of ecclesiastical authority. This is your thread, and I don’t think your question is too far afield from the original one as I really believe those Apostles we are talking about would generally agree with my position (in fact, I get my views from them, from the early church, and primarily from Jesus). Note: I read the linked article but am not sure what the topic has to do with your question.

I have an aversion to the increasing bureaucracy and centralization of authority in the Church, and the corresponding marginalization of local parishes, communities, dioceses, national churches, and of the faithful in general. As much as some people want to say all authority has always resided in the Pope, for most of the history of the Church this power was held by or shared with all the Bishops, and the national and local churches had much autonomy.

I think if we could bring one of the Apostles back to our time he would be amazed at what he would see. He would look at the Vatican and all the layers of bureaucracy and be astounded and dismayed at how the churches of believers that he and the others started 2000 years ago had become such an unwieldy monolithic institution. He would look at the volumes of rules, rubrics and doctrines and wonder how we could have created a church that was so similar to the established church of his time that Jesus condemned, a church ruled by Pharisees and Scholars of the Law who had little regard for the people confused and cowed by their labyrinth of laws. He would be incredulous that the focus is now on “right belief” and following orders and rules, rather than on love for God and neighbor and on following the words and example of Jesus. He would wonder how the Church could have deviated so much from the Gospel of Jesus that he had devoted his life to and likely gave up his life for.

I don’t think the the Church of today is completely true to Scriptures, not a reflection of the first Apostles and the early Church, and not true to the core teachings of Jesus (Protestant faiths are not immune here, either). What existed then were assemblies or communities of the faithful; people who supported each other in their struggles, who were not controlled by any outside authority but ran their own churches and chose leaders from within; who were empowered by the example and teachings of Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit to spread the Word and withstand the worst persecutions. They were a beacon to humanity.

Today’s institutional Church is unable to manage itself, much less able to provide spiritual leadership and moral authority for the rest of humanity. What exists of the true Church, the people of God, can be found in our local parishes and faith communities, spiritually far, far from Rome. This is where the Holy Spirit can still be found, working in and through people who every day strive to love their neighbor and live the Gospel of Jesus. I see the “church” as I think Jesus saw it, not as an institution but as the people of God, united in faith and fellowship.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Remain charitable please.

 

[Waiting]

I’m sorry, I must have fallen asleep during my NT class, where exactly did Christ spell these out?

Matthew 18:13-20 Jesus builds His church on Peter – the rock – and declares that no evil will prevail against it.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Matthew 18:13-20 Jesus builds His church on Peter – the rock – and declares that no evil will prevail against it.

Two things, Christ fails to mention Peter’s successors. After all it doesn’t say that the church will be built on Peter and his successors or trustees. And Christ says that no evil will prevail against it, but it certainly leads to the possibility of infiltration. And if you want to take a literal reading of this, then the only place safe from evil is St. Peter’s Basilica and the rest of the Church or even Vatican City is in danger.

 

[JonNC]

Two things, Christ fails to mention Peter’s successors. After all it doesn’t say that the church will be built on Peter and his successors or trustees. And Christ says that no evil will prevail against it, but it certainly leads to the possibility of infiltration. And if you want to take a literal reading of this, then the only place safe from evil is St. Peter’s Basilica and the rest of the Church or even Vatican City is in danger.

Christ also makes no distinction between the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant, so for Satan to prevail against Christ’s Church would require him to prevail against the whole Church, including the Church Triumphant. Regardless of our sins, which is the cause of the schisms and divisions in His Church Militant (which are temporary), Satan has no power to prevail against His Church.

Jon

 

[Waiting]

Two things, Christ fails to mention Peter’s successors. After all it doesn’t say that the church will be built on Peter and his successors or trustees. And Christ says that no evil will prevail against it, but it certainly leads to the possibility of infiltration. And if you want to take a literal reading of this, then the only place safe from evil is St. Peter’s Basilica and the rest of the Church or even Vatican City is in danger.

Consider who you’re talking about here. Jesus, the Son of God. If Jesus chooses Peter to be the head of His Church, and promises that He will stand behind it to keep it from error, then the other things just naturally fall into place. If you choose to question that, then you’re questioning the intelligence of the all knowing God. Attacks have come from all directions against Christ’s Church, inside and outside. The devil keeps busy. But this is God’s Church and He has promised to stand behind it. It’s still here, and will be, until the end of time.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

I have an aversion to the increasing bureaucracy and centralization of authority in the Church, and the corresponding marginalization of local parishes, communities, dioceses, national churches, and of the faithful in general.

How are they marginalized???

for most of the history of the Church this power was held by or shared with all the Bishops, and the national and local churches had much autonomy.

Yes, the Pope and the bishops in union with him who have always had the authority – not the laity! This is still true, but now as to this autonomy, is relative, inasmuch as the bishops and the churches are in union with all the other bishops and churches of the whole world.

Further, the bishops who are in communion with the Pope do in fact have full authority over their respective dioceses; bishops do not “share” this authority with their fellow bishops outside their particular jurisdiction.

As to the Church at Rome, history shows that the Holy See has always held the primacy. One of the earliest witnesses to this outside of Scripture was Ignatius or Antioch (c.35 -c. 108): On his way to martyrdom, he writes the following to the Church at Rome:

“You are a credit to God: you deserve your renown and are to be congratulated. You deserve praise and success and are privileged to be without blemish. Yes, you rank first in love, being true to Christ’s law and stamped with the Father’s name.” Introduction to the Letter to the Romans.

Another early witness to Rome’s primacy was St. Irenaeus (d. 202). Speaking of the Roman Church he says:

“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Against Heresies, III, 3:2.

I think if we could bring one of the Apostles back to our time he would be amazed at what he would see. He would look at the Vatican and all the layers of bureaucracy and be astounded and dismayed at how the churches of believers that he and the others started 2000 years ago had become such an unwieldy monolithic institution.

On the contrary, I think St. Paul would recoil in utter shock and disbelief, not at the Vatican, but at the scandalous divisions of Christians, and the shameful hatred and self-righteous contempt which they have heaped on the Church of Rome - the very Church which Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, praised (Romans 1:8), and which all the true “Bible Christians” held in honor - “all the Churches of Christ salute you” (Rom. 16:16).

And fyi, the Church is in fact a “monolithic institution”!

It is a single entity, a unity, a giant “stone,” a monolith - built up of many lithos (Greek for stones), with Christ being the chief cornerstone (Matt. 21:42). Note also that Scripture here refers to Christ as a “stone” (cornerstone), not as a “rock”.

Now clearly Christ founded only ONE Church! And this ONE Church was to grow and spread all over the world, yet ever remaining ONE Church i.e., a “monolithic institution”.

And indeed this Church has grown from a handful to over a billion members, spread all over the world! Such tremendous growth of an institution absolutely necessitates the need for structure and organization! Or what do you propose? That this Church, which has been growing and developing for 2000 years, should have her 20 centuries of life effaced by some misguided return to a ‘simpler’ “biblical Christianity”??

No! Whatever “Biblical Christianity” there was in first century, ended with the death of the last apostle, and a new phase of * growth* of the Church began! There simply is no possibility whatsoever of some wrongheaded returning again to a ‘simpler’ form of “Biblical Christianity”!

He would look at the volumes of rules, rubrics and doctrines and wonder how we could have created a church that was so similar to the established church of his time that Jesus condemned, a church ruled by Pharisees and Scholars of the Law who had little regard for the people confused and cowed by their labyrinth of laws.

Next you’ll be telling us that Luther was another Christ, come to condemn these later day pharisees and redeem mankind!! How far do you wish to press this blasphemous analogy??

But why do people insist on ever repeating the same old the lies and slanders of the Reformers?? (proof btw, that “faith alone” *doesn’t * lead naturally to good works!) And how is it you can hold that, despite the Church being built on the solid, indestructible, and unchangeable Rock of Christ, nevertheless God ultimately destined his Church to fall back into a corrupt Judaism???

Is *that *your idea of the “Good News” which Christ died to bring the world!!

If so, then my friend, I’m afraid you’re just following the Reformers in their blasphemous implication that Jesus simply lied when he promised to be with his Church forever and protect it from “gates of hell”!

How people will answer this blasphemy at the Judgment I just can’t imagine.

 

[simspt]

I would say, raum, that in some ways those early Christians had an advantage over us, hearing the words of Sts. Peter and Paul, John and the others.

**I also think that I would have preferred the time of the early councils.
**
Jon

You are one brave dude, the fourth century would have been eventful to say the least with councils overturning each other every few years and bishops being exiled with the change of political leadership on a regular basis.