Many 'different' Churches of the first century?

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

Yes, these two Scriptures do seem to suggest that we SHOULD have doctrinal unity. I don’t think that’s the major thrust of Scripture, but yes - you found these two verses, and we do need to address that issue, too.

It suggest TWO things:

1. WHAT do we need to agree upon? WHAT is the corpus of teachings that is NECESSARY to uphold? The church has always struggled with that (I have my view; you’d disagree). Some suggest that The Apostle’s and Nicene Creed were, at least partly, intended to do just that. I’m not sure about that. But, my days in Catholicism revealed that CATHOLICS are just as “divided” and have just as large a range of views as one would find in any Protestant church. The Catholic Church has NEVER demanded absolute agreement on EVERYTHING - it has constantly defined what is and is not doctrine. It constantly moves the posts (to the frustartion of Lutherans, LOL) but it DOES set the goal posts. We simply are not in agreement as to WHAT we need to agree upon. My Catholic Catechism as 800 pages in it, my Lutheran one has 8 pages in it, lol.
2. The reality is that The Catholic Church is in official and formal and current agreement with only ONE: itself. It has a unity of ONE: self with self. That has no bearing on whether it is correct or not, I’m not suggesting otherwise, but friend, AT LEAST as much can be said for all other denominations, too. AT THE VERY LEAST, every one is in full, formal, offical, and current agreement with itself in all matters that itself currently declares as right for it to be in agreement. So what? Is THAT your definition of being in agreement? Sure - every denomination, every institution, every teacher agrees with SELF (officially, formally and currently) in all matters that SELF things it good to agree upon. The Catholic Church is no worse than any other in this regard, but it’s far from any better. Is THAT the unity of mind that you think Paul is seeking? Self alone agreeing with self alone - and only formally, officially and currently, and only in what self alone thinks there should be agreement about? If so, we disagree.

IF you embrace that Christians should agree WITH EACH OTHER, and not just that each denomination should agree with itself alone - and that only formally, officially, currently and in the matters that self alone degrees and essential to agree upon, then we need to determine HOW we are going to do that? Especially with ONE (The Catholic Church) comes to the “table” insisting, “I alone cannot be wrong, I’m infallible, I’m unaccountable, all must just accept whatever I alone say with docility?” In THAT mileau, how do we proceed to do the thing you believe is so important?

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

How can you say the Church today would be the one to prevent this when in 4 A.D. you the Catholic Church did unite all the “different” churches?

Lost me…

To prevent what? Where did I say ANYTHING about The Catholic Church in 4 AD?

The Early Churches were all One denomination in that they all believed the same thing.

1. All Christians having exactly the same view on exactly the same corpus of doctrines is entirely moot to the issue of there being one denomination.
2. Could you list for me the EXACT views that every Christian in 31 AD held to - as doctrine? When you do, could you please hold that up to the exact wording of the 2,875 paragraphs in my Catholic Catechism?

Again, you seem to be confusing one denomination being in official, formal, current agreement with ONE - itself (and that only in what it alone currently views as good to agree about) with Christians agreeing with each other. In those two Scriptures, Paul said NOTHING about each denomination officially, currently, formally agreeing with ITSELF alone, exclusive - self having a unity of just one: self. The reality is: The Catholic Church agrees with only one: itself. It has a unity of ONE: self with self. And THAT is only official, formal, current and only in those matters that itself alone currently views as good to have unity on. The WORSE that can be said about any other is that it is as bad as The Catholic Church in this regard (but most are a lot better).

.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

While we can see a bit of cooperation in the NT between these local gatherings, there’s nothing to suggest a denomination.

You are correct; “there’s nothing to suggest a denomination” because Christian denominations, as we know them today, are a product (and invention) that came about with the Protestant Reformation. Because of false doctrines such as *Sola Scriptura *(by scripture alone), which is not in the Bible by the way (cf. Jn 21:25), Christian denominations today have believes and practices, which differ greatly from one to the other. That was not the case in the Church of the first century. They follow the teachings of the Apostles, as passed down from Jesus Christ, and when there were differences on interpretations, they deferred to those in Church authority – i.e. the Apostles (cf. Acts 15:2). Paul himself spoke with great authority through personal visits and through his epistles (letters) to the churches in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, Thessalonica, and Crete. Were all these independent “denominations” or churches? Absolutely not!

I don’t think we can speak of anything denominational until the 4th century - so in THAT sense, there was no “church” in the first century.

No Church? I don’t know what Bible or history you are reading to conclude “there was no ‘church’ in the first century.” I guess Jesus’ words and promise (Matt. 16:18) where just empty words with no real meaning. What about Paul’s words referring to the Church as “the household of God” and “the pillar and foundation of truth”? (cf. 1 Tim 3:15)

 

[chessmane4e5]

Lost me…

To prevent what? Where did I say ANYTHING about The Catholic Church in 4 AD?

You cut my post, maybe that is why you are lost. Let me see if I can clarify.

Your claim is that there was no “Church” until 4 A.D. when Christianity was legalized. Right?

You claim that all the different Churches were in fact different (maybe like today’s protestant churches), where as Catholic’s contend that all the different Churches were actually one, united by Christ, and following the Church in Rome.

Are my wordings of what I think you claim correct?

1. All Christians having exactly the same view on exactly the same corpus of doctrines is entirely moot to the issue of there being one denomination.

This is not moot if you are claiming their were different Churches until 4 A.D.

1. Could you list for me the EXACT views that every Christian in 31 AD held to - as doctrine? When you do, could you please hold that up to the exact wording of the 2,875 paragraphs in my Catholic Catechism?

Of course not, as things were did not start to be put into writing until 50 A.D. Nor do I claim that everything in the Catechism was exactly what Peter and Paul preached. This does not discredit what the Church believes, else the same argument could be made about Abraham and Moses, as they had no knowledge of the teachings of Christ. Christianity is not completely static, but is living and knowledge continues to build as revealed by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church has a direct claim to the Holy Spirit as given by Jesus Christ.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Small correction to some of the points of this disussion. Christ died around 33AD. He built His Church in the 3 years of His ministry with the Apostles.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Another question to our Luthern brother. There was a reform needed during the early Churches. Paul handled those reforms by letters of correction, within the Church. Why would 1500 years later an outside reformation be required? It seems to be a man’s attempt to improve on that which Christ built.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I see one has voted for the many denominations, but has not provided us with an explanation and sources of how that could be.

Please post your views with explanations when voting please.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I am not underestimating the distances. I have often used that argument on those who believe that the letters and epistles were so widely in circulation.

The point of this discussion is that the Churches were of the same mind and judgment. The Apostles went out with the same message and started Churches in all the nations.

I might be misunderstanding you and making a mountain out of a molehill that is not within the scope of this thread.

I do find the church in Kerela fascinating for a number of reasons though.

I remember of once reading that in the 100s the church had expanded to China and Japan. I don’t know whether that is true or not though.

 

[aquabatix]

You are right. There was no denomination issues in the early church because there only was 1 church. The issue that would come about is a debate over Jesus’ divine nature, which would be resolved and re-examined in a new light for a while, and purity within the priesthood as it relates to authority to administer the sacraments. When it comes to the later especially, the “institutional” aspect of the Church is what matters as the authority has to come from someone in the apostolic line. Being one Church institutionally is just as important as believing the same things. Otherwise you only have a bunch of “Bible study groups” that perhaps read it the same way.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I might be misunderstanding you and making a mountain out of a molehill that is not within the scope of this thread.

I do find the church in Kerela fascinating for a number of reasons though.

I remember of once reading that in the 100s the church had expanded to China and Japan. I don’t know whether that is true or not though.

The Church built by Christ, was built on one theology/doctrines/teachings. The Church of the Apostles was unified in those teachings.

I believe the Church still is unified in theology/doctrines/teachings, and has grown worldwide since it’s beginning, overcoming all obstacles.

Christ did not built a Church for one area. He sent the Apostles out with specific instructions.

**Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. **

What all did He teach them?

**Joh 20:30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.

Joh 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.**

John 21 makes me think, in addition to the Bible, even an 800 page Catechism cannot hold all that Jesus did.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Another question to our Luthern brother. There was a reform needed during the early Churches. Paul handled those reforms by letters of correction, within the Church. Why would 1500 years later an outside reformation be required?

… it’s hard to work within the denomination when it has excommunicated you.

But Luther had a bigger problem than that, and one that (surprisingly) he didn’t realize at first. An institution that insists that it (exclusively) is INFALLIBLE, incapable of error, unaccountable and must just be accepted with docility - is one that CANNOT be reformed. And that IS, it seems, why he was excommunication: he regarded it as accountable. That was not tolerable.

Now, yes - I DO realize - that The Catholic Church itself has not only permitted but on rare occasions even instituted what it calls “reforms.” But these are typically minor twicking of praxis, not reformation in any broad sense.

I’m not a historian (my training is in math and physics), but from my limited studies, that whole chapter was messy, dirty, tragic and sad. And I think a lot of mistakes were made on all sides. But I also think it was unavoidable. There was simply a clash that The Catholic Church itself brought about (and 1054 was, in many ways, the same clash). Self declared self to be infallible/unaccountable, exempt from norming and thus reform - and even the open discussion of such for self imposes the demand that all be accepted with docility. This leaves one - inevitable - consequence. It happened in 1054 and again in 1521 and likely will again. Like one of my Catholic teachers put it, “The history of The Catholic Church is like the history of the San Andreas Earthquake fault. The Church cannot “give” or it undermines it’s whole claim of being infallible. Finally, we have a 10.0 - and MUCH damage is done on all sides. Ultimately, the Catholic Church may move - a bit, although it denies it - but it breaks everything in the process.” I think of that whenever I enter these chats about the Reformation. Yes, the Catholic Church has shattered much, including itself, and nearly every time it can be traced back to a Catholic Pope excommunicating one who is challenging infalliblity of self.

But back to the issue here. As a Lutheran, I believe that the church was/is/ever will be one and holy and catholic, the communion of saints, the mystical union of believers. That’s why we confess that in the Creed, because we believe it IS true. Literally. Neither Hell or any Pope has been able to destroy that. And I beleive that all Christians are PEOPLE, and thus the communion of Christians is PEOPLE, the gathering of Christians is PEOPLE - the church is PEOPLE. Now, PEOPLE can come together in a given place and time in something that in theology we call “congregations” (although Scripture uses the word “church” or more typically “churches” in a secondary sense to speak of these). These can (and often do) in time take on instititional components, but the institutions are not the communion of saints, the PEOPLE in them are a tiny subset of such. And yes, after the 4th century, many congregations choose to form associations of them in what is technically called “denominations” but these are unknown in Scripture and there’s no evidence that such suggested in the earliest church. IMHO, Catholics and Mormons impose a very late, very western institutionalistic paradigm on Scriptures that’s just not there, each in an effort to somehow suggest that it is that. Again, I think “church” refers to Christians - not a geopolitical/legal, institutional, organizational denomination. It’s Jesus and WE - not Jesus and IT (pardon the grammar). Christians are PEOPLE, not a denomination.

So, from my perspective, there was ONE church in the first century - just as there is in the 21st. But there thousands of Christians then (billions today), hundreds of congregations then (millions today), no denomination then (thousands today). Christians MAY form institutional organizations - Scripture does not forbid this, in fact we see this modeled in the NT itself, but I don’t confuse the institutions Christians formed with the church Jesus founded. You and I are both equally, fully a part of the one, holy and catholic church, the Body of Christ, the communion of saints. We are not formally registered in the same congregation and our congregations are not legally affiliated with the same denomination.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

.

I think you are imposing an institutionalism upon Christianity that simply is not present in the First Century.

.

Why did the Christians at Antioch seek an answer from Church leaders rather than just making their own decision?

Acts 15
So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.

What did the leaders of the Church say caused the problem?

Acts 15
24We have heard that some went out from us **without our authorization **and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

 

[Publisher]

I see one has voted for the many denominations, but has not provided us with an explanation and sources of how that could be.

Please post your views with explanations when voting please.

I have not had much confidence in the “sanitized” religious history most “believers” embrace. The early church was fragmented and spread through out the Roman Empire by the mid 2nd century with competing groups each claiming to be “authentic” Christianity. Those first decades after Pentacost are really quite “fuzzy”…Acts is not the most reliable source of “how the church grew”…but reflects the views of the writer of Acts and the gospel of Luke…his “group”.

Each of the gospels…all the synoptics stemming from “Mark” with “revisions” and additions to his story reflect a different “version” of the life of Jesus of Nazareth…each writer speaking through the voice of their particular “Christian” community and what they had come to believe about Jesus.

“John’s” gospel, written by the end into the beginning of the 2nd century has a developed Christology the other Synopics simply do not share…the “Johanine communtiy” reflected a group of Christians who took those first steps into actually claiming Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate.

Paul’s letters were written first…but as they progressed begin to deepen in their Christology as well. “Mark” obviously was familiar with 1 Corinthians as he incorporated Paul’s “version” of the eucharist into his gospel. John either was not familiar with the “liturgy” or didn’t consider it important enough to incorporate in his gospel…the liturgy which was adopted by the proto-catholic/orthodox groups IS reflected in the synoptics…since each of them use “Mark” as their “springboard” for their version of the “Last Supper”…how do we know this?..the Didache also provides it’s own “liturgy” and symbolism for the eucharist…and does not ascribe it the same meanings as did Paul and “Mark”.

By the mid second century the “proto-catholic/orthodox” had began to consolidate itself into a loose organization…with it’s own liturgy and developing doctrinal stands propagated by “the early church fathers”…but the struggle for who was the “voice” of authentic Christianity would not be resolved until the fourth century under Constantine. The “proto-orthodox/catholic” movement called all who opposed their doctrinal stands as “heretic”.

Marcion’s group in the second century “competed” with the “proto-orthodox/catholics” for dominion as Marcion’s followers were dominant in Asia Minor.

The “Markan” Christians and Valentinian Christians all competed for primacy…but these cometing groups didn’t embrace the same doctrinal base as did the “proto-catholic/orthodox”…one of the “tools” used to their advantage was “apostolic succession” and the development of the heirarchy of “deacon, priest, bishop” and a separation between “clergy” and “laity”.

One of the complaints the “proto-orthodox/catholics” used against the “heretics” was that each Lord’s Day a different representative would be chosen from the assembly to preside…“even women”.

These competing groups were eventually “silenced” and most of their writings destroyed.

A completely different history of the development of the Christian church is found in the writings of Bart Erhman, Eilene Pagels, Joan O’Grady, John Domminic Crossan, Marcus Borg among others. To me the historical evidence is on their side…not the cleaned up, sanitized, sacred-story of the established church.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I do find the church in Kerela fascinating for a number of reasons though.

If you think that the church in Kerela is an interesting case, try looking into the history of the church in Ethiopia which was separated for hundreds of years due to the separation caused by the expansion of the Islamic empire:

historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab92

…An island of Christianity: from the 7th century AD

Ethiopia, as a Christian country, is isolated from the 7th century by the emergence of Islam. Egypt is in Muslim hands from AD 642; and gradually, in subsequent centuries, Muslim sultanates become established on the African coast east and south of Ethiopia…

…Yet somehow, in the fastnesses of its highland plateau, Christian Ethiopia manages to weather the onslaught of Islam - becoming the only region of northern Africa to survive as a Christian state. (The Christian kingdom of Nubia, lying to the north between Egypt and Ethiopia, succumbs to Islam during the 13th century.)…

…Links with Rome: AD 1441-1622

In 1441 some Ethiopian monks travel from Jerusalem to attend the council in Florence which is discussing possible union between the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches.

The arrival of the Ethiopian monks causes something of a sensation. It begins two centuries of contact in which Rome hopes to bring the Ethiopians into the Catholic fold (the doctrinal problem is that they incline to the monophysite heresy associated with the Coptic church of Egypt). In 1554 Jesuits arrive in Ethiopia - to be joined in 1603 by Pedro Páez, a Spanish missionary of such energy and zeal that he has been called the second apostle of Ethiopia (Frumentius being the first)…

 

[chessmane4e5]

.
I’m not a historian (my training is in math and physics), but from my limited studies, that whole chapter was messy, dirty, tragic and sad. And I think a lot of mistakes were made on all sides. But I also think it was unavoidable. There was simply a clash that The Catholic Church itself brought about (and 1054 was, in many ways, the same clash). Self declared self to be infallible/unaccountable, exempt from norming and thus reform - and even the open discussion of such for self imposes the demand that all be accepted with docility. This leaves one - inevitable - consequence. It happened in 1054 and again in 1521 and likely will again. Like one of my Catholic teachers put it, “The history of The Catholic Church is like the history of the San Andreas Earthquake fault. The Church cannot “give” or it undermines it’s whole claim of being infallible. Finally, we have a 10.0 - and MUCH damage is done on all sides. Ultimately, the Catholic Church may move - a bit, although it denies it - but it breaks everything in the process.” I think of that whenever I enter these chats about the Reformation. Yes, the Catholic Church has shattered much, including itself, and nearly every time it can be traced back to a Catholic Pope excommunicating one who is challenging infalliblity of self.
.

In your opinion, or your knowledge (I realize you are not a historian, neither am I, but it sure is fun to pretend to be) where was Luther Right and the Church Wrong?

 

[aquabatix]

To claim that the problem others had with the Church is that its claim to be “always infallible” and that everyone should basically “shut up and do what their told” is extremely incorrect and shows a true lack of knowledge about the working of the Church and the office of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope). The Church does not claim infallibility on all matters and the Pope has only spoken ex cathedra, from the chair of Peter which is the only time when he speaks infallibally, twice and both were matters regarding Our Blessed Mother and much later. Luther was not excommunicated right off the bat and not for wanting reform. That was later and after he separated himself.

As for the other competing views of Jesus, there were other groups that claimed such, but these were found one by one to be contradictory to the scriptural view of Christ or if they were in support of an alternate text, the text was found to have been written much later/not written by who it claimed/completely clashing with what verified scripture said or a combination of them. These were labelled as heresies after those who promoted these ideas would not listen to the council that examined the issue and recant what was proven false. The Manichians, Donatists, Arians, and many other groups existed, but when examined and put to the test taught other gospels that were not truth. There always has been room for discussion and reform within the Church and its doctrines since the beginning when Peter and Paul discussed whether or not to extend the Gospel to the Gentiles. This is why these things are doctrine and not dogma. Dogma is a truth that cannot change, like the divinity of Christ. Doctrine can change because it usually is an explanation of dogma and one way to view it.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

In your opinion, or your knowledge (I realize you are not a historian, neither am I, but it sure is fun to pretend to be) where was Luther Right and the Church Wrong?

I can’t post a definitive list, but I agree with him in all maters in his Small Catechism. You might want to read it, it’s only 8 pages long and a pretty fast read.

He, of couse, never insisted that he alone was infallible and unaccountable, or that all must accept what he says with docility. He welcomed accountability. His rather weird EARLY troubles with James is a classic case where he was just WAY off base, and was corrected. He said some terrible things about the Pope, about Jews and women on rare occasions. I reject those things. I’m not sure it’s possible for me to list EVERYTHING he ever said and evaluate each one, but those would be some examples.

Back to the issue of this thread.

.

 

[CMatt25]

the Pope has only spoken ex cathedra, from the chair of Peter which is the only time when he speaks infallibally, twice and both were matters regarding Our Blessed Mother.

:extrahappy: That means I didn’t commit mortal sin by missing Mass and receiving the Eucharist without confessing to a priest!

 

[aquabatix]

That would be a matter of doctrine that says it is a sin. Not the Pope speaking infalablly about a matter of faith and morals. Two different things. Like how we know that an abortion is a mortal sin, we didn’t need an infalable statement to know that.

 

[chessmane4e5]

I can’t post a definitive list, but I agree with him in all maters in his Small Catechism. You might want to read it, it’s only 8 pages long and a pretty fast read.

He, of couse, never insisted that he alone was infallible and unaccountable, or that all must accept what he says with docility. He welcomed accountability. His rather weird EARLY troubles with James is a classic case where he was just WAY off base, and was corrected. He said some terrible things about the Pope, about Jews and women on rare occasions. I reject those things. I’m not sure it’s possible for me to list EVERYTHING he ever said and evaluate each one, but those would be some examples.

Back to the issue of this thread.

So it seems your real problem with the Church is it’s claim to infallibility. Probably stemming from this, would be anything the Church holds to and will not change in light of it’s infallibility. Is that fair to say?

Searched online and found it. It is a great “synopsis” of Catholicism (except the part of religious marrying and having kids). Unless I missed something in there, I think it would be a good reference for any Catholic family.

1. But what should you do if you are not aware of this need and have no hunger and thirst for the Sacrament?
   To such a person no better advice can be given than this: first, he should touch his body to see if he still has flesh and blood. Then he should believe what the Scriptures say of it in Galatians 5 and Romans 7. Second, he should look around to see whether he is still in the world, and remember that there will be no lack of sin and trouble, as the Scriptures say in John 15-16 and in 1 John 2 and 5. Third, he will certainly have the devil also around him, who with his lying and murdering day and night will let him have no peace, within or without, as the Scriptures picture him in John 8 and 16; 1 Peter 5; Ephesians 6; and 2 Timothy 2.

Bolding mine.

How do Lutherans reconcile not believing Matt 16:13-19? Specifically that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church? Do you believe that the True Church was continued by Luther and it was RCC that lost its way?

 

[CMatt25]

That would be a matter of doctrine that says it is a sin. Not the Pope speaking infalablly about a matter of faith and morals. Two different things. Like how we know that an abortion is a mortal sin, we didn’t need an infalable statement to know that.

I understand you want to obey Catholic doctrine. But if the Pope has only spoken infallibly on Mary, how then do we know all other doctrine is infallible?