If the priesthood of all believers rejects heirarchy, why have a leadership structure?

[Nicea325]

Good grief, the problem is bigger than that.

I’d wager that 90% of all Christians who ever lived from 30AD to 1900AD lacked literacy sufficient to actually read the bible. They had to have someone read it to them.

…Like the Catholic Church has been doing for nigh-on 2000 years.

Exactly! Most people probably could not even spell their own name, let alone read the Bible?

 

[Wannano]

Sure no problem.

Error 1: The notion the Bible has we know it today existed in the first 400 years of the church.

How did any Christian prior to any Bible being compiled as one volume attain salvation? Can’t read your way into Heaven.

I understand there are things that the CC practices that are rooted in sacred tradition. I had not realized that some of these are necessary for salvation and that is why I was asking what they might be. I made a sincere request however it seems no one understands what I am asking for. It seems like a simple request to me. Judging from the tone of the responses some think I am challenging but I am not. If it is too difficult then don’t bother.

 

[ltwin]

In the passage about dealing with unrepentant sinners, Jesus is discussing this with His Apostles. So when He says “the Church,” he means the leaders of the community.

Do only apostles belong to the church? Are you not a member of Christ’s body? Does the church not have a general, corporate existence? When Jesus says, “Tell it to the church” why wouldn’t he mean exactly what he said—tell it to the local assembly of Christians (of course only after laboring privately to bring the offending brother to repentance and then with a smaller group of Christians as witnesses)?

Nowhere in that passage does Jesus give the other Apostles the keys.

He gives Peter the keys in Matthew 16. A key conveys authority to open a door and give entrance. We can see this in Jesus’ use of the phrase “key of knowledge” in Luke 11:52, where he accuses the teachers of the law from taking away this key from the people, “you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.” We also see this meaning in Jesus’ use of the phrase “keys of Death and Hades” in Revelation 1:18. Jesus is saying he has the power to allow entrance and exit from these places or states of existence.

So, we can say that at the least Peter was given authority to open the door of the kingdom of heaven and allow people to enter. How would he do this? By preaching the gospel of Christ. We see this first at Pentecost, when Peter speaks for the other 11 in explaining to onlookers what is going on. When they ask the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do,” Peter opens the door to the kingdom of heaven saying, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Yet, Peter was not alone in opening the door to the kingdom of heaven. The other apostles also preached and were given authority along with Peter to preserve the gospel in written form. In fact, all Christians today can share the gospel with others, thereby opening up the kingdom of heaven to those who will enter.

So yes, Peter and the other apostles and all Christians today possess the keys to the kingdom, and that should give us pause and make us reflect on how we are using such a gift or if we are allowing opportunities to witness to others to pass us by and thereby leave this door closed for others.

Now, the church is not just given a key. It is given keys, which suggest different kinds of authority besides preaching the gospel. It is clear from the inclusion of the words “bind” and “loose” in Matthew 16:19 (which is identical to the language used in Matthew 18) that this also includes authority to impose church discipline and to release from such discipline. Therefore, we can say that the keys to the kingdom of heaven refer to admitting people to the kingdom through preaching the gospel (which any Christian can do) and authority to exercise church discipline for those who do enter (which is an authority given to the church as a body whenever it meets and carries out such discipline).

In Luke 22 Jesus specifically tells Peter he’s gonna strengthen his brothers. If that’s not authority, then what is?

I can strengthen my brothers and sisters without ordering them to do what I want; I can strengthen my friends without being in a hierarchical relationship with them through encouragement and my example.

The Greek word used in John 21 means govern. So Jesus is saying to Peter, “Govern my sheep.” Jesus is putting Peter in charge of his brothers.

Yes, Peter is being called to shepherd the sheep, but this does not mean he has sole responsibility to do this nor that he has the chief responsibility for this. The text does not point to any superior position for Peter In relation to the other apostles. Others are called to shepherd the flock of God in the New Testament, and therefore, merely saying “tend my sheep” is not enough to imply supreme leadership as others were also called to “govern” the flock of God .

The author of 1 Peter 5:1 exhorts the elders of the churches he addresses to “shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.” In Ephesians 4:11, Paul teaches that Christ gave the church shepherds in addition to other types of leaders.

:Where are these others in the dialogue? I just see Christ speaking to Simon Peter…

He’s speaking to Peter, but Christ’s doing it for the benefit of clearing up Peter’s own status since “the thrice-repeated denial was special and peculiar to him”. As Church Father Cyril of Alexandria writes in Book 12 of his Commentary on John:

And what is the meaning of the words, Feed my Lambs, and the like? We reply, that the inspired Peter had indeed already been elected, together with the other disciples, to be an Apostle of God, but, when the events connected with the plot of the Jews against Him came to pass, his fall came betwixt; for the inspired Peter was seized with uncontrollable fear, and he thrice denied the Lord . . . Therefore, by his thrice-repeated confession the thrice-repeated denial of the blessed Peter was done away with, and by the saying of our Lord, “Feed my lambs,” we must understand a renewal as it were of the apostleship, already given unto him, washing away the disgrace of his fall that came betwixt, and obliterating his faint-heartedness, that arose from human infirmity.

 

[ltwin]

Where do you get that from? From Scripture or your own thoughts?

Paul writes to Timothy, “from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3: 15-17). Scripture is able to make us wise for salvation and complete and equipped for every good work.

 

[ltwin]

Christ put his personal guarantee on the perpetuity of the Church. If one’s flavor of Christianity doesn’t have a founding date of approximately 30AD with demonstrable existence throughout the centuries from then to present, then their “church” cannot be Christ’s Church.

This leaves only three communions to choose between.

So, you are evaluating the claims of the Catholic Church based on conditions you’ve set—do they meet the conditions required by Christ’s “personal perpetuity of the Church” as you interpret this. You then use further criteria, again that you set to guide your own reasoning, for narrowing it down from 3 traditions to one, presumably the Catholic Church.

My question to you is this, how do you know that you correctly understand what Christ meant by the church’s perpetuity?

The assertion of personal revelation conflicts with the establishing of the offices of the Church. It has also been the seedbed of heresy for all time.

How can you be a Christian and not be the recipient to some degree of personal revelation? We are not called to know propositional truth. We are called to know the Truth, who is Jesus Christ. True revelation never conflicts with the offices of the church because the same Lord who reveals himself to the individual is the chief shepherd and the same Spirit that empowers pastors to equip the saints and build up the body of Christ is the one and same at work within every Christian.

So what about the 350 years the Church existed prior to the Catholic Church giving us our canon? What about Christians that lived and died prior to some NT books even being written?

They had Old Testament Scripture and letters of Paul and other apostles were circulating. The author of 2 Peter references Paul’s epistles and calls them “scripture”, so even at an early date the churches had access to the Old Testament and various letters from Paul—and they recognized these for what they were.

If a copy of Paul’s Epistle to Laodicea was found, would you admit it to canon?

If we could verify that Paul was the author and if such a letter were inspired, one would think God would actually want his people to know about it. The fact that such a letter barely survived and remained lost for 2000 years would suggest that it was not necessary “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” If it was not regarded by early Christians as scripture (as it evidently was not since they didn’t do a great job of preserving it), then it also likely would not contribute anything unique to what we need to know to be complete and would not be scripture.

Why was one book admitted and another not?

As Wayne Grudem writes in Systematic Theology in the chapter on the Canon of Scripture:

Had not Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice” (John 10:27)? It should not be thought impossible or unlikely, therefore, that the early church would be able to use a combination of factors, including apostolic endorsement, consistency with the rest of Scripture, and the perception of writing as “God-breathed” on the part of an overwhelming majority of believers, to decide that a writing was in fact God’s words (through a human author) and therefore worthy of inclusion in the canon. Nor should it be thought unlikely that the church would be able to use this process over a period of time—as writings were circulated to various parts of the early church. . . (pages 63-64)

He goes on to mention that in AD 376, the 39th Paschal Letter of Athanasius listed the same New Testament books, which became accepted in the east, and in AD 397 the western Council of Carthage agreed with the eastern churches on the same list.

If what you’re saying is true, Christ had no need to appoint apostles. He would have just written a text and promoted it.

He did write a text, through the apostles and prophets and other biblical writers.

textual literacy being common across wider humanity wasn’t a “thing” until almost within living memory…

You’d have needed to go to academy before you could become a Christian.

Well, obviously someone in the church could read and write. Otherwise, we would have no Scripture to be arguing over. Even those who cannot read can listen, and given the rarity of books those in the ancient world were much better trained at memorizing and recalling information they heard. The scriptures were read in the churches, but that doesn’t mean silent reading time. They were read aloud by those who could read.

They also do not tell us that God stop talking to his Church…

I also believe that the Lord still speaks to the church and to individual Christians today. He has never ceased speaking and guiding through the continual ministry of the Holy Spirit. However, I do believe God is no longer inspiring Scriptural revelation.

Please, no arguments from silence, Itwin. They can be used to argue literally anything.

Yes, arguments from silence can be used to argue for anything, which is why Protestants generally believe we cannot declare universally binding doctrines on matters where Scripture is silent because we would be elevating theological speculation to the level of essential articles of faith.

 

[ltwin]

And yet the Bible also does not tell us of denominations being convenient tools? If so, chapter and verse please?

I never said it did.

See, that is where we differ. We as Catholics follow and obey a church founded by Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit.

How do you know that?

 

[De_Maria]

I never said it did.

If the Bible doesn’t teach it, why do you accept it?

How do you know that?

Simple, it’s called the three legged stool. We compare Sacred Tradition and Scripture in accordance with the Magisterium. This is the classic tool which Jesus Christ gave the Church and we can trace to Matt 18:17. We can also trace it through history. As this is the tool used for determining what is a heresy and what is orthodox teaching.

Example: Athanasius vs. Arius.

Both were Bishops in the Catholic Church. Both contended that they possessed the Holy Spirit and the evidence of Scripture. But the Church compared their interpretations of Scripture to the Sacred Traditions passed down by the Magisterium and found that Arius was teaching heresy.

That’s how we know.

 

[JMM1957]

Well, obviously someone in the church could read and write. Otherwise, we would have no Scripture to be arguing over. Even those who cannot read can listen, and given the rarity of books those in the ancient world were much better trained at memorizing and recalling information they heard. The scriptures were read in the churches, but that doesn’t mean silent reading time. They were read aloud by those who could read.

True, but there was no other Christian church until the 1500’s except the CC. :yup: So after the Protestant Reformation we saw an increase in individual interpretations of Scripture, so the people who could not read from that time onward until the 19th century or so had to depend on other people who could read, for interpretation of Scripture. Thus, we have the problem of many denominations outside the CC.

 

[Vonsalza]

Welcome Back!

So, you are evaluating the claims of the Catholic Church based on conditions you’ve set

No no no. Christ set them. Not me. The Church is perpetual and indestructible or Christ is a liar.

You then use further criteria, again that you set to guide your own reasoning, for narrowing it down from 3 traditions to one, presumably the Catholic Church.

Again, I didn’t set this standard. The Church met at Nicaea to do some “binding and loosing” and what was to become the Oriental Orthodox ran astray (in a manner that was thoroughly overblown). That leaves Catholics and the Orthodox (who were the same at the time). As Orthodox sacraments are valid, if you go that route I shall withhold most critique. They are truly our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Please don’t assume that their division somehow justifies yours. If your neighbor jumped off a bridge?

My question to you is this, how do you know that you correctly understand what Christ meant by the church’s perpetuity?

Mine doesn’t require the failure and frustration of the Holy Spirit for 1500 years (1900 years in your case), Itwin.

How can you be a Christian and not be the recipient to some degree of personal revelation?

Go to the Church. The Church is the font of doctrinal revelation.

True revelation never conflicts with the offices of the church…

As above, amen.

They had Old Testament Scripture and letters of Paul and other apostles were circulating.

For the one-in-a-handful that could actually read them… They also had other non-canonical texts as well; considered by many to be scripture at that time.

Thank God there was an authoritative, apostolic-derived bishopric to do the verbal teaching as well as the compiling and weighing of scriptures, amen?

The fact that such a letter barely survived and remained lost for 2000 years would suggest that it was not necessary “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

As it didn’t canonically exist for 350 years, the very same can be said for the bible on-the-whole, Itwin.

If it was not regarded by early Christians as scripture (as it evidently was not since they didn’t do a great job of preserving it), then it also likely would not contribute anything unique to what we need to know to be complete and would not be scripture.

That’s a hope of yours and not a fact.
The Assumption of Moses didn’t survive, but Jude sure references it in his epistle. Verily, the canonicity of the whole Antilegomena (which includes Jude) was heavily debated in 2nd & 3rd centuries. “Q” didn’t survive, but there seems to be much textual proof in the gospels that it existed.

As Wayne Grudem writes in Systematic Theology in the chapter on the Canon of Scripture:

A book I own.

Wayne makes the same error here as most evangelicals; he assumes a text-based church in an age where the literacy required to read the text was very limited.

As history shows, these debates about canonicity were restricted almost exclusively to the apostolic-succeeded bishopric and their subordinate priests. Apropriate, as this was theirs to determine. As it always has been.

He goes on to mention that in AD 376, the 39th Paschal Letter of Athanasius listed the same New Testament books, which became accepted in the east, and in AD 397 the western Council of Carthage agreed with the eastern churches on the same list.

Bishops doing what bishops authoritatively do, amen! When Pope Damasus adopted the same list in 382, things really began moving along for that canon. Hippo affirmed it in 393, I think.

I have to point out, though, Athanasius also included several books as a kind of deuterocanon like the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas. Where are those on your bible, Itwin?

Well, obviously someone in the church could read and write.

Yup. The authoritative bishopric. They’re usually the names you cite when using 1st-5th century quotes about the early Church.

The scriptures were read in the churches, but that doesn’t mean silent reading time. They were read aloud by those who could read.

Amen, as the Catholic Church continues this practice from the earliest days of the Church. Who reads it then? The bishops and their priests, of course.

However, I do believe God is no longer inspiring Scriptural revelation.

Me neither. Canon’s closed.

Yes, arguments from silence can be used to argue for anything, which is why Protestants generally believe we cannot declare universally binding doctrines on matters where Scripture is silent…

As the Church unambiguously predates NT scripture, this argument fails.
For anyone who believes in the Trinity, this argument fails.

---

You gotta face it, Itwin. The Church predates canon. As such, it cannot be a derivative of it. And canon simply was not this ultra-clear thing. The debates about the Antilegomena and scores of other texts flatly destroy any claim to the contrary. The Church ultimately settled what is and is not scripture; as a historical fact.

The Church is based on the apostles and their successors, with scripture as the most important text they have. But just as with the Patriarchal Line of Adam and the Order of Melchizedek, there will always be a visible and authoritative group through which God speaks. It’s always existed. It will continue to do so until this world ends, per Christ’s decree.

 

[James248]

Paul writes to Timothy, “from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3: 15-17). Scripture is able to make us wise for salvation and complete and equipped for every good work.

Profitable does NOT equal sufficient.

 

[ltwin]

If the Bible doesn’t teach it, why do you accept it?

I don’t believe in solo scriptura. The visible church needs some sort of organization. Denominations provide that.

Simple, it’s called the three legged stool. We compare Sacred Tradition and Scripture in accordance with the Magisterium. This is the classic tool which Jesus Christ gave the Church and we can trace to Matt 18:17. We can also trace it through history. As this is the tool used for determining what is a heresy and what is orthodox teaching.

Example: Athanasius vs. Arius.

Both were Bishops in the Catholic Church. Both contended that they possessed the Holy Spirit and the evidence of Scripture. But the Church compared their interpretations of Scripture to the Sacred Traditions passed down by the Magisterium and found that Arius was teaching heresy.

That’s how we know.

There is still interpretation involved here, and you would have to believe that Catholic authorities were ultimately incapable of teaching error and incapable of distorting whatever the Sacred Tradition was.

Since your question above touched on this, the way I do theology is to first look to what Scripture says. To help me understand Scripture, I turn to tradition (in terms of what the early church believed, what other Christians throughout history have believed) and then reason to interpret the Bible, understand tradition, infer implications, and then turn to Christian experience (by which I mean we can understand abstract spiritual ideas and concepts by actually experiencing them; you can’t fully understand what “faith” is for example, until you receive it).

 

[ltwin]

Welcome Back!

Thanks. I’ve been working on some US History lesson plans in preparation for the start of school.

For the one-in-a-handful that could actually read them… They also had other non-canonical texts as well; considered by many to be scripture at that time.

Thank God there was an authoritative, apostolic-derived bishopric to do the verbal teaching as well as the compiling and weighing of scriptures, amen?

Yes, thank God for godly Christian leadership, whether they are bishops or not.

Bishops doing what bishops authoritatively do, amen! When Pope Damasus adopted the same list in 382, things really began moving along for that canon. Hippo affirmed it in 393, I think.

I have to point out, though, Athanasius also included several books as a kind of deuterocanon like the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas. Where are those on your bible, Itwin?

I’ve read both the Didache and the Shepherd (only partly though). They are interesting and are helpful for understanding some ideas circulating among early Christians. But, they are not Scripture, even if serious candidates for canonical status at one time. As Athanasius himself says, they are “merely read”.

As the Church unambiguously predates NT scripture, this argument fails.
For anyone who believes in the Trinity, this argument fails.

Scripture is not silent on the nature of the Godhead, nor is it silent on how Christ, the Father and the Spirit interact and relate with one another. No, it doesn’t use the term “Trinity” but that doctrine can be proved and defended by Scripture.

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes, thank God for godly Christian leadership, whether they are bishops or not.

Without the seat of authority, how does one reconcile conflicting “truths”?

Scripture is not silent on the nature of the Godhead, nor is it silent on how Christ, the Father and the Spirit interact and relate with one another. No, it doesn’t use the term “Trinity” but that doctrine can be proved and defended by Scripture.

What do I do with the Oneness Pentecostals that use scripture to claim you’re wrong here?

If everyone’s “in the chair”, then no one is actually “in the chair”, Itwin.

 

[ltwin]

What do I do with the Oneness Pentecostals that use scripture to claim you’re wrong here?

You pray for them. You show them what the Scriptures say, speaking the truth in love. If they will not be persuaded, then you have done all that you can do. Certainly, telling them “the chair of St. Peter wills it” won’t persuade them.

 

[Vonsalza]

You pray for them. You show them what the Scriptures say, speaking the truth in love. If they will not be persuaded, then you have done all that you can do. Certainly, telling them “the chair of St. Peter wills it” won’t persuade them.

I also doubt it would as their basis for resistance is identical to yours; “the Holy Spirit and the scriptures tell me otherwise”.

But herein lies the most damning flaw of denominationalism - there is no real authority to appeal to. Your good-natured statements on the topic that denominations provide the structure of the “church” provide much needed spin for the chaotic and conflicting reality that truly describes interdenominational relations.
Sure, there are a multitude of examples of a few “playing nice” at one conference or another, but on the whole they’re each promoting distinct and mutually exclusive “truths”; some dealing with the very process of salvation itself. I hope you see the inherent and untenable problem here.

In 1500 years, the dispensational methodology of “via bishopric” produced 3 major Christian communions. In the following 500 years, the dispensational methodology of “personal revelation” has produced thousands.

How is that anything other than perfect, objective proof that personal revelation is not a suitable method for producing the truth in a Church that Christ requires to be “one”?

 

[josephback]

I don’t believe in solo scriptura. The visible church needs some sort of organization. Denominations provide that.

Denominational structures help provide accountability through a broader structure (which is good), but how does one determine the precise organization needed? Is it not a problem that denominations often teach contradictory things from one another (infant baptism, abortion, etc) and yet all claim to belong to the same “church”? What authority is supreme in the case of disputes? How do I know what I must believe and do in order to go to heaven under the denominational idea?

 

[JMM1957]

Scripture is not silent on the nature of the Godhead, nor is it silent on how Christ, the Father and the Spirit interact and relate with one another. No, it doesn’t use the term “Trinity” but that doctrine can be proved and defended by Scripture.

I would like to see you convince a Jehovah’s Witness of that. Obviously, not everyone interprets Scripture the same, hence, a need for authoritative teaching.

 

[JMM1957]

You pray for them. You show them what the Scriptures say, speaking the truth in love.** If they will not be persuaded, then you have done all that you can do.** Certainly, telling them “the chair of St. Peter wills it” won’t persuade them.

Exactly!

 

[eddie_too]

Jesus created an hierarchy.

Jesus gave authority in heaven and on earth to st. peter.

st. peter gave his authority to his successor.

what grounds are there to dispute whether or not st. peter gave his authority to his successor?

it was not until the eleventh century that the eastern orthodox patriarchs decided to dispute the authority of st. peter’s successor. even then the dispute was more political than theological.

the protestant reformation did not occur until the 16th century. until then the idea that bishops were the successors to the apostles and it is from their being successors that they received authority was never even imagined.

so, anyone can deviate from the teachings of the apostles and the teachings of their successors, but they should understand that their choosing to do this is a new teaching that originates, not from God, but from men.

 

[lanman87]

Jesus created an hierarchy.

Jesus gave authority in heaven and on earth to st. peter.

st. peter gave his authority to his successor.

what grounds are there to dispute whether or not st. peter gave his authority to his successor?

it was not until the eleventh century that the eastern orthodox patriarchs decided to dispute the authority of st. peter’s successor. even then the dispute was more political than theological.

the protestant reformation did not occur until the 16th century. until then the idea that bishops were the successors to the apostles and it is from their being successors that they received authority was never even imagined.

so, anyone can deviate from the teachings of the apostles and the teachings of their successors, but they should understand that their choosing to do this is a new teaching that originates, not from God, but from men.

Actually, it did occur. The Bishop or Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople would excommunicate each other, make peace, excommunicate each other then make peace and so on until finally they couldn’t make peace. The Eastern churches never really bought into the Pope being the primary bishop in Christianity.

Plus the Roman Church had the backing of the state so not being a Roman Catholic was pretty much illegal. If you can forward with a teaching that the RCC disagreed with you were risking imprisonment, torture and even death.

The Waldensians existed 350 years before the reformation and managed to survive in the Mountains of Northern Italy despite being attacked by Papal forces several times. They later merged with Reformed churches. The Moravian Church traces its beginnings to John Hus (one of those killed for disagreeing with Rome) in 1415. Or course Wycliff in the 1300’s also got into deep trouble for denying the Pope as the supreme leader of the Church and was one of the first to distribute the Bible in the vernacular.

So while it is true that disagreeing that the Pope was the Supreme Pontiff was rare and it was sometimes politically motivated it did occur throughout Church history. I imagine that if it wasn’t illegal to believe otherwise it would have been expressed more often.