How or why?

[elvisman]

Elvis please read more closely Acts 15:19 “It is my (James) judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. This is James the brother of our Lord who is speaking. The simple rules of the English language dictate it is James fully making the final decision by the Holy Spirit and no one else.

Paul’s apostleship was not by or through the 12 or any other human entity. It was by God alone. He did not consult any human entity for doctrinal issues in fact he was starting churches apart from the apostles and the council. He was led by God and only answered to God.

We’re simply going in circles here. For some reason, you cannot grasp the reality that Paul and Barnabas went to seek the Authority of the Church to iron out the problem of the Judaizers.
They didn’t make the declaration on their own.

**Peter made the declaration and James concurred. What’s confusing you is the language used. James told the crowd that it was his judgement - as anybody would say when they agreed with somebody else. If you told your employee, “I don’t think we should give money to this particular charity because they’re not environmentally sound”, and one of them stood up and said, “True - I don’t think we should do that” - did THEY make the decision? NO. As the boss - YOU did and they agreed by giving their judgement of the situation.

As for James being Jesus’ brother - that’s a topic for another thread and there’s ample evidence that he was not.

He also was on the cutting edge doctrinally recognizing salvation is by grace alone and not by the works of the law. His zeal for the truth led him to the council to plead the case for the gentiles and grace. Again elvis Paul’s LOCAL church sent him. Not the CHURCH. The church can’t send him to the church, that doesn’t make sense.

The Church has ALWAYS declared that salvation is by grace alone. This is nothing new nor is it a Protestant epiphany. It was taught in the 1st century and is still believed today, 2000 years later.

The works of the Law that Paul usually refers to are works of the Mosaic Law.

 

[jericho777]

We’re simply going in circles here. For some reason, you cannot grasp the reality that Paul and Barnabas went to seek the Authority of the Church to iron out the problem of the Judaizers.
They didn’t make the declaration on their own.

**Peter **made the declaration and James concurred. What’s confusing you is the language used. James told the crowd that it was his judgement - as anybody would say when they agreed with somebody else. If you told your employee, “I don’t think we should give money to this particular charity because they’re not environmentally sound”, and one of them stood up and said, “True - I don’t think we should do that” - did *THEY *make the decision? NO. As the boss - YOU did and they agreed by giving their judgement of the situation.

As for James being Jesus’ brother - that’s a topic for another thread and there’s ample evidence that he was not.

The Church has ALWAYS declared that salvation is by grace alone. This is nothing new nor is it a Protestant epiphany. It was taught in the 1st century and is still believed today, 2000 years later.

The works of the Law that Paul usually refers to are works of the Mosaic Law.

According to scripture Paul’s authority came directly from God and no one else not even the 12. See Gal 1:1. I do not find the language confusing at all, in fact it follows all the rules language has always followed.

James not only makes the decision but in addition adds new doctrine to it verse 20. Tell me if James was not in authority how could James make an additional doctrinal proclamation? What peon could do that?

Paul’s doctrine of grace alone preceded the churches because the council was still following the Law of Moses and had no knowledge of grace alone. Can the church replace Gods law with manmade law?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Exactly! Non-Catholics always claim to be united in Christ,yet so divided,

In what way are non-Catholics “divided in Christ”?

First of all, I never said divided in Christ, I said it is non-Catholics who make the claim they are **UNITED **in Christ,yet there exist thousands upon thousands of different denominations. What does UNITED mean to you?

Look at all three words, please.

1. Divided.
2. In.
3. Christ.

What about them? You mentioned it, not I.

All together. Divided in Christ. In what way are non-Catholics “divided in Christ”?

We say we’re “united in Christ.” You appear to disagree. Do you? Are you saying we’re “divided in Christ”?

Which begs the question: If you are UNITED in Christ,then why the need or objective to found thousands of different denominations. You sure use the term UNITED loosely.

Quote:
So care to show me where Christ or Paul gave anyone the authority to found their own churches and teach conflicting doctrines/dogma, which leads to thousands of denominations?

What does Christ say on the matter? Does He give something of a guarantee that all Christians will be united (that is to say, inevitably, come Schism or Reformation or what have you)- or does He say you must be united under the headship of one worldwide leader in order to say you’re united in any sense?

You still FAILED to answer my question. Where does Christ give any man or woman the authority to go and start their own church and Christ still taught they still belong to His ONE Body? Chapter and verse…please. Scripture is very clear that Jesus Christ founded His Church and no other,so why go start others which conflict with one another?

In other words, does Christ say all Christians will be united, or does He say we might be united, depending on what we do?

And does Christ say we are united even one believes in infant baptism and others reject it? Women can be priests/pastors and while others say it is unbiblical? Does Christ say some can believe the Eucharist is only symbolic and for others it is truly His Body and Blood? How is that UNITED?

Quote:
Exactly! Look at the last words: Is Christ divided? Isn’t that exactly the Protestant model?

Christ is not divided, nor is the Body of Christ. Christians in the world today are the Body of Christ on earth, and there is a sense (the one that Jesus meant) in which they are all united. That is the reality of the situation, which is in agreement with the things Jesus said of Himself and His Church. We agree with it as well. It seems that you do not.

Are you prepared to acknowledge that this is the reality of the situation, or would you prefer to do something different?

Wrong! That is the false premise resulting from the Reformation that as long one believes and follows Christ we are one Body of Christ. Sorry,the scriptures do not teach or encourages the founding of different denominations are still the One Body of Christ. I reject your interpretations.

 

[elvisman]

According to scripture Paul’s authority came directly from God and no one else not even the 12. See Gal 1:1. I do not find the language confusing at all, in fact it follows all the rules language has always followed.

James not only makes the decision but in addition adds new doctrine to it verse 20. Tell me if James was not in authority how could James make an additional doctrinal proclamation? What peon could do that?

Paul’s doctrine of grace alone preceded the churches because the council was still following the Law of Moses and had no knowledge of grace alone. Can the church replace Gods law with manmade law?

It always cracks me up when people who are trying to disprove the Catholic position - pit Biblical verse against Biblical verse - all the while claiming to be Sola Scripturists. When Paul speaks against following the word men vs. God - he uses hyperbole to make his point. Jesus did this all the time in the Gospels.

ALL Scripture must harmonize - not defeat itself. Paul obediently went to the Church in Acts 15 to get the judgement of the Church on this matter. The text speaks for itself.

Finally - as I have repeated ad nauseam - Peter proclaimed the decision, James reiterated it and threw in his 2 cents. As an Apostle and Bishop - James had every right to speak up. This council was being held in his bishopric.**

**I don’t know why you would refer to ANY of the Apostles as “peons” simply because they weren’t Peter. That is a shameful thing to say. The Church certainly does not agree with you, nor do wwe believe that all of the Bishops today are peons if they aren’t the Pope. **

The entire point of a Church Council is to iron things out as a group with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That’s why verse 28 says plainly:
"It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities . . ."

**Your problem is that you don’**t understand how the Church operates. It operates the same as it always has for 2000 years.

 

[cooterhein]

First of all, I never said divided in Christ, I said it is non-Catholics who make the claim they are **UNITED **in Christ,yet there exist thousands upon thousands of different denominations.

You referenced the Protestant claim that we are “united in Christ.” Then you went about refuting that claim.

What does UNITED mean to you?

Being joined into a single entity. That entity is the Body of Christ. All Christians share in this mystical union, and are therefore joined into a single entity: the Body of Christ. According to Christ, anyway.

I believe you’re trying to figure out how Christians from different denominations can say they’re all joined into this single entity in spite of belonging to different denominations, yes? I haven’t really formed a cohesive response yet (largely because I’m still trying to figure out what you’re doing and why you’re doing it), but to this point, I have attempted to guide you in a direction where the “how” is step 2 and step 1 is understanding that however it is done, we know that all Christians are joined into this single entity because Christ said it is so. If we can discount the possibility that you’re denying this, it makes it easier to proceed with confidence toward some kind of answer to number 2- and if you don’t reach one that is satisfactory, you can still be confident in the result of number 1. If it comes to that, you can just call it a mystery.

What about them? You mentioned it, not I.

You may not have put those words together in a sentence, but you did take issue with the Protestant claim that we are united in Christ and immediately went about refuting that claim.

Would I get more of a response if I asked if you wish to refute the Protestant claim that we’re “united in Christ,” and if so, why? It’s really no different from asking why you wish to say we’re divided in Christ, but if the alternate phrasing helps you, it makes no difference to me.

Which begs the question: If you are UNITED in Christ,then why the need or objective to found thousands of different denominations. You sure use the term UNITED loosely.

Suppose we accomplish the first step of assenting to the aformentioned number 1. If Christians are united in Christ even when they’re not in submission to Rome, why the need or objective for one world leader who rules over all of Christianity?

And my answer to your question is this: When you found thousands of different denominations, every leader can make his/her primary focus the people that are near to them. That doesn’t mean you completely ignore everyone else, but it does mean the people who actually live in a particular place also get to be the ones who are most involved with their business. Other people from other places will be involved to some degree, but not to that extent.

You still FAILED to answer my question. Where does Christ give any man or woman the authority to go and start their own church and Christ still taught they still belong to His ONE Body?

Founding a new denomination is not the same thing as “starting a new church.” Founding a new denomination is usually as simple as going to a different place and bringing the Gospel with you. That’s how most new denominations are formed, and it accounts for most of the 30,000+ denominations within Protestantism. That reason compares with any other reason at a ratio in excess of 250-1.

Chapter and verse…please. Scripture is very clear that Jesus Christ founded His Church and no other,so why go start others which conflict with one another?

Your demand is based on a false equivalence between “new denomination” and “new church” (as if every new denomination is some sort of “restoration” movement), so you’re asking me to prove an absurdity. I don’t really have to do that.

And does Christ say we are united even one believes in infant baptism and others reject it?

There’s no reference to infant baptism in the first 200 years of Christianity, so I don’t know why Christ would have talked about it.

Women can be priests/pastors and while others say it is unbiblical? Does Christ say some can believe the Eucharist is only symbolic and for others it is truly His Body and Blood? How is that UNITED?

Who is it that unites Christians, in the sense of being united in the Body of Christ? Is it people, or is it God? That would be a good starting point- identify the instrument, and then figure out what it does and how.

So I guess we can add a prequel to the first two questions: The new number one is…

1. Who is it that unites Christians into the Body of Christ? Followed by…
2. Are all Christians united into the Body of Christ?
3. (Only after the first two are answered, please, and only if number 2 is affirmative). How did the now-identified person/people from number 1 pull off what happened in number 2?

I’m going to ignore the last part of your response. You did not answer the question. It kind of looked like you were calling it invalid, which is fine as long as you handle it properly. But it was not handled well and was also rather childish. So as you wish, I will back off that question and attempt to guide us in the direction of number 1 and number 2 on the list that I made.

 

[benidict]

This thread is about whether or not there is one Church united under Peter and his successors as Catholics claim, or one Church united under Christ as Protestants and Paul claim. I only mentioned the verse about Peter being allowed to marry because elvisman erroneously thought it bolstered his argument. Your beliefs about the inferiority of women as companions to dogs and guitars are disturbing and anti-Christian, but not germane to this discussion.

read my post again my friend. and try not to have a knee jerk reaction. i stated that these were more satisfying than the marital life. (at least to me. hope the clarification helps.) paul himself said all marriage is good, no marriage is better did he not? nothing was said about the superiority or inferiority of women. i actually hold women in very high esteem. i love women. i love women so much, that i am more interested in what is in their minds, than anything i could ever get from them physically. you brought up the argument about peter being married, making an aside remark on our celibate priesthood. i answered you. you bringing this up was not germane to the discussion in the first place then. if you deem it neccessary to throw these little aside swipes in on other teachings. i will answer you also. im not going to let them pass without comment. just giving you a heads up. :coffeeread: hey aside swipes…side swipes…i made a funny!

 

[Roy5]

My two cents, for what they’re worth.

I have discovered, over the years, that there are three kinds of Christians.

The first are tangential Christians. These are the C & E variety - Christmas and Easter. They may be fine people, but their religion is not that important to them. They sometimes are called cultural Christians, people who hold on to their faith by a thread, say grace at Thanksgiving, perhaps, but generally don’t pay much attention to matters of faith.

Then, there are the dogmatists. These include most Catholic ‘traditionalists’, well represented here on CAF, who strongly maintain that Christ established one church, the Catholic Church, that the Pope and Magisterium are always right when it comes to doctrines and morality, and who view Protestants with some bitterness as ‘heretics’ and the Orthodox as schismatic. They are sincere, of course, but they believe unity will come only when all other Christians surrender their beliefs and embrace only those taught by Mother Church. These also include certain Protestant evangelicals, most of them hard-nose fundamentalists, who are equally dogmatic, who often are harshly critical of Catholicism as well as those Protestants (the majority) who are less dogmatic. Unless you are ‘saved’ in the fashion they accept as valid you are on your way to eternal hell.

Thirdly, I have found most Catholics, including numerous priests, and the large majority of Protestants as far more **open-minded**. They adhere to their particular church but they bear no bitterness toward other churches. They 'agree to disagree' and find no particular problem in the fact that the Jones family next door is Baptist and the Simpsons across the street are Episcopalian, while they attend mass regularly at St. Mary Roman Catholic Church. They often have relatives, perhaps in-laws, who are active in a different denomination, but they are careful not to let that injure their personal relationship. They see other Christians as fellow believers with somewhat different doctrines and liturgies. They look back upon the religious conflicts of the past as archaic, shameful and even stupid. The Christian church is big enough to accept a variety of opinions while having an overall sense of unity. They recognize that most of us have been raised as Catholic or Protestant (or maybe Orthodox) and this is the way it is. They're quite sure that Christ is not interested in our denominational label but in our hearts and our expressions of Christian love. When did we feed the hungry? When did we visit the sick? )See Matt. 25:31-46) Christ will have no interest in whether we believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth or whether Mary lived a perfectly sinless life.

** I strongly identify with this third group** and recommend it to others. May God bless Catholics, Protestants, and his other children of every creed, color and country. May Christians set aside their prejudices based on a tribalism inherited from past centuries and work together to make religion a bridge rather than a barrier.

 

[jericho777]

It always cracks me up when people who are trying to disprove the Catholic position - pit Biblical verse against Biblical verse - all the while claiming to be Sola Scripturists. When Paul speaks against following the word men vs. God - he uses hyperbole to make his point. Jesus did this all the time in the Gospels.

ALL Scripture must harmonize - not defeat itself. Paul obediently went to the Church in Acts 15 to get the judgement of the Church on this matter. The text speaks for itself.

**Finally - as I have repeated ad nauseam - Peter proclaimed the decision, James reiterated it and threw in his 2 cents. As an Apostle and Bishop - James had every right to speak up. This council was being held in his bishopric.

**I don’****t know why you would refer to ANY of the Apostles as “peons” simply because they weren’t Peter. That is a shameful thing to say. The Church certainly does not agree with you, nor do wwe believe that all of the Bishops today are peons if they aren’t the Pope. **

The entire point of a Church Council is to iron things out as a group with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That’s why verse 28 says plainly:
"It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities . . ."

Your problem is that you don’**t understand how the Church operates. It operates the same as it always **has for 2000 years.

Elvis I don’t know how much biblical knowledge you posses but you are choosing to ignore the rules of grammar in coming to your position. When I read scripture I don’t start with a presupposition and then try to prove it. That is intellectually dishonest. I say let the truth or scripture come forth and let the chips fall where they may! If what you or I believe can’t stand scrutiny then we have no business believing it. You should welcome spirited discussion it is the cauldron that will either prove or disprove your position.

Scripture clearly shows Paul’s call to ministry was apart from the 12 for at least 3 years. Remember he did not needed the approval authority of any man for his ministry; his ministry was directly from God only.

You seem to subordinate everybody below Peter that was my queue to illustrate James ‘true position as the leader of the council. Subordinates simply DO NOT make doctrinal proclamations, that authority belongs to the leader. . You seem to ignore the fact Peter was a missionary and therefore would rarely be present because he was constantly out evangelizing the Jews.

I am merely trying to put forth an intellectually honest biblical position that accurately represents the intent of the authors.

 

[elvisman]

Elvis I don’t know how much biblical knowledge you posses but you are choosing to ignore the rules of grammar in coming to your position. When I read scripture I don’t start with a presupposition and then try to prove it. That is intellectually dishonest. I say let the truth or scripture come forth and let the chips fall where they may! If what you or I believe can’t stand scrutiny then we have no business believing it. You should welcome spirited discussion it is the cauldron that will either prove or disprove your position.

Scripture clearly shows Paul’s call to ministry was apart from the 12 for at least 3 years. Remember he did not needed the approval authority of any man for his ministry; his ministry was directly from God only.

You seem to subordinate everybody below Peter that was my queue to illustrate James ‘true position as the leader of the council. Subordinates simply DO NOT make doctrinal proclamations, that authority belongs to the leader. . You seem to ignore the fact Peter was a missionary and therefore would rarely be present because he was constantly out evangelizing the Jews.

I am merely trying to put forth an intellectually honest biblical position that accurately represents the intent of the authors.

Apparently, you’re not because you are ignoring the very fact that Paul went to the Church for a decision on the matter of the Judaizers. He didn’t make the decision on his own because he KNEW it wasn’t his to make on his own.

**If you truly WERE open-minded about this issue - you wouldn’t reject the writings of the Early Church Fathers either regarding Authority. **
According to Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons - Clement was listed as the 4th pope after Peter, Linus and Anacletus. Irenaeus compiled this list in the 2nd century - a mere century after Christ.

The Letter of Clement was written while the Apostle John was still alive. In that letter - he scolded the Corinthians because they were trying to oust their local presbyters (priests). In short - they were behaving like Protestants.

Clement - with the authority handed down to him as Pope - essentially told them to knock it off and placed the presbyters back in authority over them. This is a man who was a contemporary of the Apostles and the Church from its very beginning and he KNEW how the Church operated better than you or any other nay-sayer does.
**
Being a contemporary of Paul - he also knew what the Scriptures about Paul meant because he KNEW him personally. Tradition and history tell us that he was appointed by Peter himself when Peter and Paul were in Rome during the Nero persecutions.

Finally - these are the words of Ignatius of Antioch - a student of the Apostle John regarding Church Authority. Tradition also tells us that Ignatius knew Jesus himself wand was the child Jesus held in his arms in Mark 9:36-37:
"Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

---

**"In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him" (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [A. D. 110]).

 

[jericho777]

Apparently, you’re not because you are ignoring the very fact that Paul went to the Church for a decision on the matter of the Judaizers. He didn’t make the decision on his own because he KNEW it wasn’t his to make on his own.

**If you truly WERE **open-minded about this issue - you wouldn’t reject the writings of the Early Church Fathers either regarding Authority.
According to Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons - Clement was listed as the 4th pope after Peter, Linus and Anacletus. Irenaeus compiled this list in the 2nd century - a mere century after Christ.

The Letter of Clement was written while the Apostle John was still alive. In that letter - he scolded the Corinthians because they were trying to oust their local presbyters (priests). In short - they were behaving like Protestants.

Clement - with the authority handed down to him as Pope** - essentially told them to knock it off and placed the presbyters back in authority over them. This is a man who was a contemporary of the Apostles and the Church from its very beginning and he KNEW how the Church operated better than you or any other nay-sayer does.

Being a contemporary of Paul - he also knew what the Scriptures about Paul meant because he KNEW him personally. Tradition and history tell us that he was appointed by Peter himself when Peter and Paul were in Rome during the Nero persecutions.

Finally - these are the words of Ignatius of Antioch - a student of the Apostle John regarding Church Authority. Tradition also tells us that Ignatius knew Jesus himself wand was the child Jesus held in his arms in Mark 9:36-37:
"Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

---

***"***In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him" (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [A. D. 110]).

Elvis why the vitriol can we please have a civil discussion please? Here is an easy question where did Paul get the authority to preach the gospel and who told him what to teach?

Gal 1:15-20 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peterb and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

So according to scripture Paul was set apart by God, taught by God and preached 3 years before even going up to Jerusalem. There was NO church or council authority to do what he did. NO apostolic blessing NO holy orders from the 12 just God alone. He only by Jerusalem to say hello. That what the bible teaches anyway. As far as tradition goes it is NOT scripture and must be taken with a grain of salt. For what it’s worth anyway.

 

[elvisman]

Elvis why the vitriol can we please have a civil discussion please? Here is an easy question where did Paul get the authority to preach the gospel and who told him what to teach?

**What vitriol?
Have I used any exclamation points? Am I speaking in all CAPS?
**Or, are you simply attempting to steer the conversation against me with no reason? **What are you talking about, Jericho?

Gal 1:15-20 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peterb and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Are you saying that Paul lied about going to Jerusalem in Acts 15?

Here, Paul is talking about not having gone to Jerusalem BEFORE his mission to seek permission to do so. He didn’t. BUT, he did go to Jerusalem in Acts 15 to seek the AUTHORTY of the Church about a doctrinal decision. That is a plain fact. Read the text.

So according to scripture Paul was set apart by God, taught by God and preached 3 years before even going up to Jerusalem. There was NO church or council authority to do what he did. NO apostolic blessing NO holy orders from the 12 just God alone. He only by Jerusalem to say hello. That what the bible teaches anyway. As far as tradition goes it is NOT scripture and must be taken with a grain of salt. For what it’s worth anyway.

What???
Do you even understand what you’re saying? He only went to Jerusalem to say "Hello"?? did you even read the text? He went there to seek counsel about a doctrinal metter.

**Tradition does not go against Scripture - it is in harmonty WITH Scripture.

 

[jericho777]

***What ***vitriol?
Have I used any exclamation points? Am I speaking in all CAPS?
**Or, are you simply attempting to steer the conversation against me with no **reason? What are you talking about, Jericho?

Are you saying that Paul lied about going to Jerusalem in Acts 15?

Here, Paul is talking about not having gone to Jerusalem BEFORE his mission to seek permission to do so. He didn’t. BUT, he did go to Jerusalem in Acts 15 to seek the AUTHORTY of the Church about a doctrinal decision. That is a plain fact. Read the text.

What???
Do you even understand what you’re saying? He only went to Jerusalem to say "Hello"?? did you even read the text? He went there to seek counsel about a doctrinal metter.

**Tradition does not go *against ***Scripture - it is in harmonty WITH Scripture.

Elvis, in Paul’s epistle to the Galatians he is describing how his ministry began. For 3 years from his conversion he had no contact with or approval from the council in Jerusalem. He also states his ministry and doctrines were not by, from or through any man or council. Verse 16-17 I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles.

Paul’s doctrines did not come from men (Gal 1:11-12 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.) but God so when he went to Jerusalem he certainly would not have changed his doctrine. Certainly the Holy Spirit ordained him to go to share with them what God was doing.

There were two visits to Jerusalem. This was the first one in Gal 1:18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. Like the scriptures say it was a social visit. He went to get “acquainted”. That doesn’t sound like he was looking for any type of permission or doctrinal direction in his ministry.

 

[benidict]

My two cents, for what they’re worth.

I have discovered, over the years, that there are three kinds of Christians.

The first are tangential Christians. These are the C & E variety - Christmas and Easter. They may be fine people, but their religion is not that important to them. They sometimes are called cultural Christians, people who hold on to their faith by a thread, say grace at Thanksgiving, perhaps, but generally don’t pay much attention to matters of faith.

Then, there are the dogmatists. These include most Catholic ‘traditionalists’, well represented here on CAF, who strongly maintain that Christ established one church, the Catholic Church, that the Pope and Magisterium are always right when it comes to doctrines and morality, and who view Protestants with some bitterness as ‘heretics’ and the Orthodox as schismatic. They are sincere, of course, but they believe unity will come only when all other Christians surrender their beliefs and embrace only those taught by Mother Church. These also include certain Protestant evangelicals, most of them hard-nose fundamentalists, who are equally dogmatic, who often are harshly critical of Catholicism as well as those Protestants (the majority) who are less dogmatic. Unless you are ‘saved’ in the fashion they accept as valid you are on your way to eternal hell.

Thirdly, I have found most Catholics, including numerous priests, and the large majority of Protestants as far more **open-minded**. They adhere to their particular church but they bear no bitterness toward other churches. They 'agree to disagree' and find no particular problem in the fact that the Jones family next door is Baptist and the Simpsons across the street are Episcopalian, while they attend mass regularly at St. Mary Roman Catholic Church. They often have relatives, perhaps in-laws, who are active in a different denomination, but they are careful not to let that injure their personal relationship. They see other Christians as fellow believers with somewhat different doctrines and liturgies. They look back upon the religious conflicts of the past as archaic, shameful and even stupid. The Christian church is big enough to accept a variety of opinions while having an overall sense of unity. They recognize that most of us have been raised as Catholic or Protestant (or maybe Orthodox) and this is the way it is. They're quite sure that Christ is not interested in our denominational label but in our hearts and our expressions of Christian love. When did we feed the hungry? When did we visit the sick? )See Matt. 25:31-46) Christ will have no interest in whether we believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth or whether Mary lived a perfectly sinless life.

** I strongly identify with this third group** and recommend it to others. May God bless Catholics, Protestants, and his other children of every creed, color and country. May Christians set aside their prejudices based on a tribalism inherited from past centuries and work together to make religion a bridge rather than a barrier.

i love the idealism my friend. and i agree with much of what you say. especially in reguards to how we fed the hungry, visited the sick, and in general following the law of love set forth by Christ. just one question on the last paragrah though. would you be for a one world Church that encompasses all faiths? Peace

 

[elvisman]

Elvis, in Paul’s epistle to the Galatians he is describing how his ministry began. For 3 years from his conversion he had no contact with or approval from the council in Jerusalem. He also states his ministry and doctrines were not by, from or through any man or council. Verse 16-17 I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles.

Paul’s doctrines did not come from men (Gal 1:11-12 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.) but God so when he went to Jerusalem he certainly would not have changed his doctrine. Certainly the Holy Spirit ordained him to go to share with them what God was doing.

There were two visits to Jerusalem. This was the first one in Gal 1:18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. Like the scriptures say it was a social visit. He went to get “acquainted”. That doesn’t sound like he was looking for any type of permission or doctrinal direction in his ministry.

And again - you continue to misrepresnt the Catholic Church with your abject misunderstanding of how the Church works.

We do not follow the doctrines of men - neither did Paul. When he says thay he his doctrines did not come from men - he wasn’t implying that the doctrines of the Church were man-made. He was part of the Church so why would he imply this??
The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit - as was Paul - when declaring revealed truths (John 16:12-15)

**You keep bringing up Paul’s visit and stay with Peter for 15 days. that is NOT what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. **

As for his visit to first visit to Jerusalem for the Council on the Judaizer matter, I’ll say this one LAST time:
**Paul and Barnabas went there to take the matter TO THE CHURCH - not merely to “share with them what God was doing”. There is NO getting around this fact and there is NO rationalizing the truth as you have been doind for the last several posts. By denying this fact you are rejecting the very word of God.

Earlier, you claimed that Scripture is what it is and “let the chips fall where they may”. Now, you’re claiming things about Paul that simply aren’t there in Scripture.
**You’re saying that Paul wouldn’t have changed his mind if the Church had declared otherwise. How do you know that? How do you know that he wouldn’**t have decided that this is how the Holy Spirit was going to reveal this truth to him - as Jesus guaranteed in John 16:12-15? The fact is that you don’t know everything that Jesus told Paul through the Holy Spirit because you weren’t there.

How is this “letting the chips fall where they may”? You are inventing things here and injecting your own spritual pride where Paul had none.

Paul recognized the Authority of the Church because he himself did NOT declare a decision on the matter of the Judaizers. Jesus didn’t reveal this to him UNTIL he heard the decision from the Council of Jerusalem.

Read the text for yourself:
Acts 15:1-2
**Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” **
**Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question. **

**Paul didn’**t declare anything here. The truth was not revealed to him here. He had to go hear from the leaders of the Church to find out what to do about the problem of the Judaizers. Paul acquiesced to the Authority of the Church, plain and simple.
What part of this text do you not understand?

 

[Roy5]

Benidict

No, I'm not interested in a 'one world church'. Instead, I would like to see more mutual respect among those of different faiths rather than the confrontational attitude which so often prevails. I don't think we all need to agree on matters that most likely are beyond the understanding of all mortals. Is it in the Bible somewhere? "Walk by faith rather than by knowledge"? I think so, or words to that effect. I doubt if any of us come close to eternal truth in this magnificant, mysterious and mammoth universe that may include billions of stars - or even billions of solar systems. 

  Christianity, to me, is essentially about love. Sadly, many still seem to emphasize 'proper doctrine' or even "church connection' over love. Read again I Cor. 13, or that little letter of First John 4:20-21.

 

[benidict]

Benidict

No, I'm not interested in a 'one world church'. Instead, I would like to see more mutual respect among those of different faiths rather than the confrontational attitude which so often prevails. I don't think we all need to agree on matters that most likely are beyond the understanding of all mortals. Is it in the Bible somewhere? "Walk by faith rather than by knowledge"? I think so, or words to that effect. I doubt if any of us come close to eternal truth in this magnificant, mysterious and mammoth universe that may include billions of stars - or even billions of solar systems. 

  Christianity, to me, is essentially about love. Sadly, many still seem to emphasize 'proper doctrine' or even "church connection' over love. Read again I Cor. 13, or that little letter of First John 4:20-21.

ok roy. very good. i wasnt trying to bait you or anything. just trying to understand where you were coming from. in essence i couldnt agree more with you. those who practice love for God and their neighbor are truly on the right path. we are however commanded not to stop meeting together as some are in the habit of doing. that means, we need to have a body of believers with us. even if its just one other person. salvation is not just our own personal responsibility, it is our responsibility to eachother. we are our brothers and sisters keepers. so doctrine must play some part. you sound like you would really benifit from a study of Jewish mysticism. have you ever had the chance to do this? if youd like. check out the book God is a verb, by rabbi david cooper. i think youd love it. Peace to you and yours.

 

[jericho777]

And again - you continue to misrepresnt the Catholic Church with your abject misunderstanding of how the Church works.

We do not follow the doctrines of men - neither did Paul. When he says thay he his doctrines did not come from men - he wasn’t implying that the doctrines of the Church were man-made. He was part of the Church so why would he imply this??
The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit - as was Paul - when declaring revealed truths (John 16:12-15)

You keep bringing up Paul’s visit and stay with Peter for 15 days. that is NOT what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

As for his visit to first visit to Jerusalem for the Council on the Judaizer matter, I’ll say this one LAST time:
Paul and Barnabas went there to take the matter TO THE CHURCH - not merely to *“share with them what God was doing”. *There is NO getting around this fact and there is NO rationalizing the truth as you have been doind for the last several posts. By denying this fact you are rejecting the very word of God.

Earlier, you claimed that Scripture is what it is and “let the chips fall where they may”. Now, you’re claiming things about Paul that simply aren’t there in Scripture.
**You’re saying that Paul wouldn’t **have changed his mind if the Church had declared otherwise. How do you know that? How do you know that he wouldn’t have decided that this is how the Holy Spirit was going to reveal this truth to him - as Jesus guaranteed in John 16:12-15? The fact is that you don’t know everything that Jesus told Paul through the Holy Spirit because you weren’t there.

How is this “letting the chips fall where they may”? You are inventing things here and injecting your own spritual pride where Paul had none.

Paul recognized the Authority of the Church because he himself did NOT declare a decision on the matter of the Judaizers. Jesus didn’t reveal this to him UNTIL he heard the decision from the Council of Jerusalem.

Read the text for yourself:
Acts 15:1-2
**Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” **
Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.

**Paul didn’**t declare anything here. The truth was not revealed to him here. He had to go hear from the leaders of the Church to find out what to do about the problem of the Judaizers. Paul acquiesced to the Authority of the Church, plain and simple.
What part of this text do you not understand?

Let me try to give a better explanation God directly gave Paul all his doctrines and ministry they were not from the apostles or council at Jerusalem. According to the cc structure Paul had no authority no valid orders because they were not from the 12. The council at Jerusalem had no knowledge of what Paul was teaching because they were trying to mix law with grace. Paul’s first contact with the council in Jerusalem was 3 years after he had been preaching. He was not seeking council approval for his ministry. That is the point I am trying to explain.

 

[Nicea325]

Being joined into a single entity. That entity is the Body of Christ. All Christians share in this mystical union, and are therefore joined into a single entity: the Body of Christ. According to Christ, anyway.

According to Christ? No! The errors of “rule by personal opinion”, the “Holy Spirit told me”, “Sola Scriptura”, and “rejection of authority”, all lead to chaos, confusion, and to divisions of the one Body of Christ.Where there is no GOD given authority, and a dispute between factions cannot be settled amicably, the factions of personal opinion split, creating yet more factions. This is precisely why Jesus Christ founded His **ONE **teaching Church and gave it the authority (Matthew 18:17-18) to settle disputes of which Scripture tells us were inevitable to arise (1Corinthians 11:19).

I believe you’re trying to figure out how Christians from different denominations can say they’re all joined into this single entity in spite of belonging to different denominations, yes? I haven’t really formed a cohesive response yet (largely because I’m still trying to figure out what you’re doing and why you’re doing it), but to this point, I have attempted to guide you in a direction where the “how” is step 2 and step 1 is understanding that however it is done, we know that all Christians are joined into this single entity because Christ said it is so. If we can discount the possibility that you’re denying this, it makes it easier to proceed with confidence toward some kind of answer to number 2- and if you don’t reach one that is satisfactory, you can still be confident in the result of number 1. If it comes to that, you can just call it a mystery.

You may not have put those words together in a sentence, but you did take issue with the Protestant claim that we are united in Christ and immediately went about refuting that claim.

Demons tremble because they believe in Christ,do demons belong to Christ ONE Body?

Suppose we accomplish the first step of assenting to the aformentioned number 1. If Christians are united in Christ even when they’re not in submission to Rome, why the need or objective for one world leader who rules over all of Christianity?

The Protestant error of refusal to accept the authority. Which person in which of the now 30,000 + Protestant sects has any authority at all? Who has the over all authority to separate truth in teaching from the pitfall of error? The rejection of authority is merely a Protestant defense mechanism. Since they obviously knew that they had no authority to begin with, they simply elected to reject all authority. However, their rejection of authority is highly anti-Christian and anti-Biblical.For those who claim to follow the Bible only, how is it that they cannot see this?

And my answer to your question is this: When you found thousands of different denominations, every leader can make his/her primary focus the people that are near to them. That doesn’t mean you completely ignore everyone else, but it does mean the people who actually live in a particular place also get to be the ones who are most involved with their business. Other people from other places will be involved to some degree, but not to that extent.

Still does not change the fact new denominations pop-up year after year and no end in sight.

Founding a new denomination is not the same thing as “starting a new church.” Founding a new denomination is usually as simple as going to a different place and bringing the Gospel with you. That’s how most new denominations are formed, and it accounts for most of the 30,000+ denominations within Protestantism. That reason compares with any other reason at a ratio in excess of 250-1.

Please! Sounds like a mere cop-out. Again,show me where Christ authorized anyone to found or start or built another church,whatever terms you choose to use?

There’s no reference to infant baptism in the first 200 years of Christianity, so I don’t know why Christ would have talked about it.

WRONG! Apparently you do not read early church and St.Paul clearly says he baptized households. Now,the common Protestant response is that Paul never says he baptized infants. True.But the question being begged is simple: When did the Jews exclude or not consider infants as part of the household?

And while we are at it, when did Christ talk about thousands of denominations?

Who is it that unites Christians, in the sense of being united in the Body of Christ? Is it people, or is it God? That would be a good starting point- identify the instrument, and then figure out what it does and how.

Oh I see! So God alone is the author of thousands of denominations? Is that your starting point-instrument? I thought St.Paul said God is not the author of confusion?

So I guess we can add a prequel to the first two questions: The new number one is…

1. Who is it that unites Christians into the Body of Christ? Followed by…
2. Are all Christians united into the Body of Christ?
3. (Only after the first two are answered, please, and only if number 2 is affirmative). How did the now-identified person/people from number 1 pull off what happened in number 2?

I’m going to ignore the last part of your response. You did not answer the question. It kind of looked like you were calling it invalid, which is fine as long as you handle it properly. But it was not handled well and was also rather childish. So as you wish, I will back off that question and attempt to guide us in the direction of number 1 and number 2 on the list that I made.

And nonetheless,it is a foregone conclusion and FACT Jesus Christ founded only ONE Church,not THOUSANDS.

 

[cooterhein]

According to Christ? No! The errors of “rule by personal opinion”, the “Holy Spirit told me”, “Sola Scriptura”, and “rejection of authority”, all lead to chaos, confusion, and to divisions of the one Body of Christ.

All right, I was just checking. So to make sure, you’re telling me there IS one Body of Christ, and that it IS NOT united or characterized by unity, but instead, it is divided and full of chaos and confusion. Is that correct?

Demons tremble because they believe in Christ,do demons belong to Christ ONE Body?

Demons aren’t Christians. Demons aren’t indwelt by the Holy Spirit. No, they don’t belong to Christ, and no, they aren’t part of Christ’s Body because neither God nor any other person has made them a part of His Body.

That is how you affirm or deny that something or someone is united to Christ’s Body. I also gave reasons. Would you please do the same for Protestants? Do you affirm or deny that Protestants belong to Christ’s Body, when those words are used to describe The Church?

The Protestant error of refusal to accept the authority. Which person in which of the now 30,000 + Protestant sects has any authority at all?

There’s some authority being exercised; it’s just not like papal authority. It’s quite different, but it’s there.

Since they obviously knew that they had no authority to begin with, they simply elected to reject all authority.

I believe the authority you’re talking about is the kind that can only come from God, yes? I don’t know that God has given that to any Protestant. Or any Christian, for that matter.

Still does not change the fact new denominations pop-up year after year and no end in sight.

Why they pop up is just as important as the fact that they do. Do not exclude either of these things.

Please! Sounds like a mere cop-out.

Fine. Do not exclude “or belittle” either of these things.

Again,show me where Christ authorized anyone to found or start or built another church,whatever terms you choose to use?

In the sense that a new denomination is just the Gospel being taken to a different place, new denominations have been formed ever since the first missionary jouney from Antioch. This isn’t the same as forming a new Church, though, and it’s certainly not an example of creating a new “Body of Christ.” There’s just one of those, and we would never claim that we’re making any new ones. You might say we’re trying to and badger me with questions that assume this is so, but we’re really not. And I’m not going to say anything different, so you might as well take it at face value and avoid beating it into the ground.

WRONG!

You might want to try doing that differently. How old are you?

Apparently you do not read early church

Hee hee! This is why we proofread. If you had, you might have thought about it and decided to avoid being condescending- or at least used proper grammar while doing so.

and Paul clearly says he baptized households. Now,the common Protestant response is

The common Protestant response is…something that you should leave to the Protestant that you’re corresponding with, don’t you think?

If you don’t, you should. Here’s what it looks like when a Protestant actually does it.

First, I’ll go ahead an focus on the jailer, his family, and what Paul and Silas did with them. It’s true that some families have infants, but in the case of the jailer’s family, this is not only unprovable but also unlikely. The jailer was in a position of authority and therefore an older man. He clearly had children, but it’s highly improbable that they were infants. Additionally, the text says they spoke the Word of the Lord “to all who were in his house.” That’s not the kind of thing you do with infants, of which there were probably none. After it happened, “he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.” Never mind that they care more about rejoicing over belief than the baptism itself- infants are extremely limited in their capactiy to rejoice, and now that’s two indicators of non-infant activity in a household that we already know probably doesn’t have any infants.

Second, the most natural reading of the text does not assume the presence of infants, or even that the jailer’s family was baptized on the basis of his belief in place of theirs. He believed to begin with, then the Word of the Lord was explained to everyone in his house, everyone got baptized, and everyone rejoiced. This seems to indicate a certain level of understanding and assent on the part of “all who were in his house.” Why else would Paul and Silas explain it to everyone?

And while we are at it, when did Christ talk about thousands of denominations?

He didn’t fully address the issue of the Gospel going to many different parts of the world except to say that it should go there. He didn’t tell His disciples what to call them once they got there because it doesn’t really matter. We wind up referring to this as different denominations in different places, but Jesus didn’t comment on it one way or the other. He just said go to all the nations and preach the Gospel.

Oh I see! So God alone is the author of thousands of denominations?

I asked you 3 questions. I expected answers, not anything like this.

And nonetheless,it is a foregone conclusion and FACT Jesus Christ founded only ONE Church,not THOUSANDS.

And you have told me that Church is divided and full of chaos and confusion. I’m glad that you’ve answered some of the questions I asked, though you did ignore some important ones.

 

[fbl9]

• infants are extremely limited in their capactiy to rejoice,

Scripture is very clear that even the unborn can leap for joy in God’s presence.
St.Luke 1:44