Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth?

[Jon_S_1]

I studied the EOC myself as well as the RCC, so I’m not blowing anything out of proportion. The areas of disagreement I mentioned are HUGE issues. Go to Constantinople and tell the Patriarch that the Filioque issue is not a big deal, and see what kind of response you get.

Oh, I see. So what you’re saying is that some disagreement is okay? If so, that’s very interesting.

Show me one Apostolic Church that proclaims Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. Then we can talk.

Those heresies are what has caused Protestantism to become a joke.

I was talking to a Jewish coworker the other day. He said his biggest thing with Catholicism was that it catered to everyone. They constantly watered down their teachings so that it’s one size fits all.

I was like really?? It seems the opposite is true. After talking more I realized he meant Christianity in general. And he is absolutely right.

When the apostolic tradition is removed from the bible, you can have whatever you want.

It’s interesting too that no Jew ever has or ever will go by sola Scriptura

 

[Koineman]

Originally Posted by Koineman
So, some disagreement is okay? When does some disagreement go beyond permissible levels and turn into the horrible problem of which you accuse Protestantism? Sorry, but the whole pot-and-kettle thing is going on here big time.

When there is no way to resolve anything, nor even a basis on which resolution can begin to be accepted. When schism is the only solution to be had.

Okay, so now the issue with Protestantism has changed. Now you’re saying not so much that disagreements are the problem with Protestantism, since you acknowledge that the same problem exists with the EOC and the RCC. Now you’re saying that the real issue is that Protestantism has no way to resolve their issues, while there is some option for East and West to resolve theirs. But what is that option? Getting together to talk? The issues have existed for hundreds of years and have not yet been resolved, and let’s face it, the only way that the issues will be resolved is if one side fully submits to the other. There is no way that the RCC is going to relinquish papal supremacy–NO WAY. For Rome, the only valid solution is for all those who disagree with her to fully submit to her authority and join the RCC. So all the talk in the world isn’t going to accomplish much.

Sounds a lot like the problem with Protestantism. Pot. Kettle. Again.

Unless I’ve missed something? Is there some other way to resolve the issues between the EOC and RCC?

Also, you really haven’t answered my question yet: If your church is in communion with Rome, the East disagrees with you vehemently about the issues I listed. How do you personally know your church’s interpretations of these issues are correct and the East’s interpretations are wrong?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church have signed various agreements in regard to Eucharist, Christology, Sacraments, Liturgy, etc. The Synods have met to discuss joint practices, praxis, etc. Can this ever occur among protestants without creating a new division among those who oppose this? Is there any overall structure, or conviction that can ever sow accord as opposed to discord?

Without creating division to oppose it? You mean, like…oh, sedevacantists, the SSPX, the OCC or the PNCC, the Orientals, other independent Orthodox groupings, etc?

To simplify the views of the Orthodox (which Orthodox?) and say “to them, you are heterodox”, is a very very general statement which cannot be accepted.

There’s no simplification. You are not Orthodox, therefore, you are heterodox. Otherwise, you’d be Orthodox. They tend to find minimalization of the differences rather offensive.

To some Eastern Orthodox, yes Catholics and Assyrians and Oriental Orthodox are heterodox; to the vast majority, at least Catholics and Orientals are not. Catholics accept Orientals and Easterners as valid, true Apostolic Churches, lacking nothing essential in unity but unity itself (the Papal ministry), Assyrians and Catholics accept each other’s Eucharist, Sacraments, and ministries, the same for most Orientals and Catholics.

So do Baptists and Presbyterians. I don’t see the above as anything unique. The fact is, to both the Oriental and Catholic Churches…their church is the one Christ founded and all others are not. You still haven’t given a source independent of the communion itself that validates it as the one true church…at least, not in the way you demand from non-Catholics.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Okay, so now the issue with Protestantism has changed. Now you’re saying not so much that disagreements are the problem with Protestantism, since you acknowledge that the same problem exists with the EOC and the RCC. Now you’re saying that the real issue is that Protestantism has no way to resolve their issues, while there is some option for East and West to resolve theirs. But what is that option? Getting together to talk? The issues have existed for hundreds of years and have not yet been resolved, and let’s face it, the only way that the issues will be resolved is if one side fully submits to the other. There is no way that the RCC is going to relinquish papal supremacy–NO WAY. For Rome, the only valid solution is for all those who disagree with her to fully submit to her authority and join the RCC. So all the talk in the world isn’t going to accomplish much.

Sounds a lot like the problem with Protestantism. Pot. Kettle. Again.

Unless I’ve missed something? Is there some other way to resolve the issues between the EOC and RCC?

Also, you really haven’t answered my question yet: If your church is in communion with Rome, the East disagrees with you vehemently about the issues I listed. How do you personally know your church’s interpretations of these issues are correct and the East’s interpretations are wrong?

Lutheranism itself has no way to reconcile the various synods. That is why they split in the first place.

Yes East and West can unify. Did you know the eastern Catholics don’t have to say the Filioque? Rome is fine with this. They have married priests, different liturgies, etc…Rome is fine with that.

The key is unity, being unified under the Bishop of Rome. The orthodox do not dispute this, only in dispute is what the bounds of the Bishop of Rome are. Is he first among equals or the head of the bishops. I say, there is no difference between the two positions and it will be resolved.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Without creating division to oppose it? You mean, like…oh, sedevacantists, the SSPX, the OCC or the PNCC, the Orientals, other independent Orthodox groupings, etc?

There’s no simplification. You are not Orthodox, therefore, you are heterodox. Otherwise, you’d be Orthodox. They tend to find minimalization of the differences rather offensive.

So do Baptists and Presbyterians. I don’t see the above as anything unique. The fact is, to both the Oriental and Catholic Churches…their church is the one Christ founded and all others are not. You still haven’t given a source independent of the communion itself that validates it as the one true church…at least, not in the way you demand from non-Catholics.

I am happy with you becoming Orthodox or Catholic. It seems we have narrowed it down to the last two possibilities!

 

[Koineman]

Yeah, I’m done with this thread. It’s clear to me that those who dismiss Protestantism because of divisions are just the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. It’s a double standard, and it’s not intellectually honest.

No offense, but you folks who follow this line of reasoning are deluding yourselves, with possibly disastrous consequences.

The apostle Paul clearly said that apostolic pedigree was not the final criterion for determining church authenticity. The gospel is. If an apostle teaches another gospel, he is not to be accepted. See Gal. 1:8-9 and read it very carefully. He did not exempt even one of the original apostles from anathema if they brought another gospel; are any teachers who come after them in church history any less exempt? It would be quite irrational, if not arrogant, to think so.

Rome and Constantinople have been in disunity–and remain in disunity–over quite a few very important doctrinal issues. I’ve listed them in this thread. If Protestant churches are to be rejected because of their disunity, then, following the same logic, the RCC and the EOC must be rejected for the same reasons. Fortunately, we have another criterion: the Gospel.

You who are embracing a particular church tradition solely on the basis of historical pedigree are on very dangerous ground spiritually because you are ignoring what the Bible describes as an even more important criterion: the gospel itself.

God bless you,

Jeremy

 

[Per_Crucem]

Yes East and West can unify. Did you know the eastern Catholics don’t have to say the Filioque? Rome is fine with this. They have married priests, different liturgies, etc…Rome is fine with that.

That isn’t the issue. In order to be in union with Rome, the validity of the filioque as a doctrine must be affirmed, even if the Eastern Catholics don’t say it, they still hold it as valid. To the Orthodox, it is heresy.

That is why, to the EO (especially among the more hardline of the Russian churches), Rome does not have valid apostolic succession, sacraments, et al.

Please see the resources at Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy on Ancient Faith Radio.

The key is unity, being unified under the Bishop of Rome. The orthodox do not dispute this, only in dispute is what the bounds of the Bishop of Rome are.

They most certainly dispute being “under” the bishop of Rome, unless they are in his diocese. Which, as a matter of Roman dogma, i.e. Vatican I, is the whole planet.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Yeah, I’m done with this thread. It’s clear to me that those who dismiss Protestantism because of divisions are just the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. It’s a double standard, and it’s not intellectually honest.

No offense, but you folks who follow this line of reasoning are deluding yourselves, with possibly disastrous consequences.

The apostle Paul clearly said that apostolic pedigree was not the final criterion for determining church authenticity. The gospel is. If an apostle teaches another gospel, he is not to be accepted. See Gal. 1:8-9 and read it very carefully. He did not exempt even one of the original apostles from anathema if they brought another gospel; are any teachers who come after them in church history any less exempt? It would be quite irrational, if not arrogant, to think so.

Rome and Constantinople have been in disunity–and remain in disunity–over quite a few very important doctrinal issues. I’ve listed them in this thread. If Protestant churches are to be rejected because of their disunity, then, following the same logic, the RCC and the EOC must be rejected for the same reasons. Fortunately, we have another criterion: the Gospel.

You who are embracing a particular church tradition solely on the basis of historical pedigree are on very dangerous ground spiritually because you are ignoring what the Bible describes as an even more important criterion: the gospel itself.

God bless you,

Jeremy

Umm pot calling the kettle black?

How do you determine what a false gospel is?? By the Church (Matt 18 Acts 15, etc etc).

Surely it is not by scripture alone as there are thirty thousand plus options to choose from as to what the gospel is.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The apostle Paul clearly said that apostolic pedigree was not the final criterion for determining church authenticity. The gospel is. If an apostle teaches another gospel, he is not to be accepted. See Gal. 1:8-9 and read it very carefully. He did not exempt even one of the original apostles from anathema if they brought another gospel; are any teachers who come after them in church history any less exempt? It would be quite irrational, if not arrogant, to think so.

So Paul said he and the rest of the Apostles taught the same Truth; should anyone come along and contradict that Truth, despite his pedigree, he is to be dismissed. Understood. Did Paul say to go ahead and accept the authority of one who has no pedigree at all, even when he met Jesus directly? Let’s see, what did Paul do after Jesus met him – he went, met with, spoke to, and presumably got the approval of the Apostles, see Acts 9. It wasn’t until after Paul met with Peter, James that Paul’s preaching was even accepted, although he did “preach straightaway”.

Catholics don’t claim “pedigree” is “the final authority”, however it is one of the criterion which you as a protestant, seem to reject as any criterion at all.

 

[rfournier103]

There was no single church at this time or immediately following.

Jesus clearly said, “thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build My Church.” I only have a Bachelor’s degree; but my feeble reading comprehension skills seem to tell me that Jesus was speaking in the SINGULAR.

There was the church at Corinth, Antioch, etc all locally controlled.

There is the Catholic Church in Boston, Los Angeles, etc all locally controlled. Controlled by whom, you ask? By their validly appointed bishops and archbishops. Just as in ye olde Bible days.

Thus the various letters to the churches addressing problems particular to that church.

As happens today as well. The problems in Damascus aren’t the same as the problems in New York, or those in Sydney.

You must also recognize that even Peter and Paul often did not agree on all matters.

Absolutely. My wife and I can’t always agree on what to get on our pizza, either. To expect the bishops of the early Church to be a bunch of kow towing yes-men would be to ignore the human condition itself. Do you presume that every priest and bishop always agrees with the pope 100% of the time?

So the system never failed at this time.

I agree. The system never failed.

It was not until later that the idea of single visible church developed.

Umm… when EXACTLY did THAT happen?

All of these New Testament churches were part of the universal church and not a visible church structure. So in the scripture you quoted it is referring to a church as a body of believers and not a single unified visible church.

A few notes from Scripture for you…

Matt. 16:18; 18:18 - Jesus uses the word “ecclesia” only twice in the New Testament Scriptures, which demonstrates that Jesus intended a visible, unified, hierarchical, and authoritative Church.

Acts 20:17,28 - Paul refers to both the elders or priests (“presbyteroi”) and the bishops (“episkopoi”) of the Church. Both are ordained leaders within the hierarchical structure of the Church.

Eph. 4:11 - the Church is hierarchical and includes apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers, all charged to build up the Church. The Church is not an invisible entity with an invisible foundation.

Phil. 1:1 - Paul addresses the bishops and deacons of the Church. They can all trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles.

1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 - Christ’s Church has bishops (“episkopoi”) who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles.

1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14 - Christ’s Church also has elders or priests (“presbyteroi”) who serve the bishops.

1 Tim. 3:8 - Christ’s Church also has deacons (“diakonoi”). Thus, Jesus Christ’s Church has a hierarchy of authority - bishops, priests and deacons, who can all trace their lineage back to Peter and the apostles.

Exodus 28:1 and 19:6 – shows the three offices of the Old Testament priesthood (1). high priest – Aaron (Ex. 28:1); (2). Ministerial priests – Aaron’s sons (Ex. 19:6; 28:1); and (3). Universal priests – Israel (Ex. 19:6). The New Testament priesthood also has three offices: (1) High Priest – Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1); (2) Ministerial priests – the ordained bishops and priests (Rom. 15:16; 1 Tim. 3:1,8; 5:17; Titus 1:7); and (3) Universal priests - all the baptized (1 Pet. 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6).

John 10:16 - Jesus says there must only be one flock and one shepherd. This cannot mean many denominations and many pastors, all teaching different doctrines. Those outside the fold must be brought into the Church.

To suggest that Jesus Christ expected His Faithful disciples to be a loosey-goosey gaggle of believers without ANY leadership is an insult to His Divine Vision and Plan for us. Did He not say to Peter “feed and tend My sheep and Lambs” in John 21? Of course, many subordinate shepherds are needed for a flock so large; but the buck has to stop somewhere, no?

 

[joe371]

I wish it were that simple. There are further qualifying statements about knowingly rejecting allegiance to cc are there not ?

:yup: That does not negate the following. Even if you reject the CC the following still applies:
“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

 

[benhur]

:yup: That does not negate the following. Even if you reject the CC the following still applies:
“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

I think both apply at the same time, and if the shoe fits…Actually what would be nice is if you post both. It was a hot topic after 2nd vatican council I thought cause one has to be careful to say if there is then salvation outside the Catholic Church. Remember, you said CC has no authority over say Lutherans yet she (CC) says Lutheran power for salvation comes form CC. I like what you are trying to say, and I agree, it’s just that the other part is a killjoy, like the CC won’t let it go, or us go, and must draw attention to herself, to protect her image. Give honor where honor is due and our foundation and past deserves honor but I would not force it. It’s like a lover departing and we cry out, " go ahead and leave but you’ll never have better than you had with me", or a disbanding of any endeavor and the one says, " go ahead and leave but I taught you everything you know, or you’d be nowhere without me". It is all partly true but do you see the sour grapes or ego over the hurt? Of course the CC words it much more tactfully and almost benign but some leaven still remains.

 

[benhur]

Jesus clearly said, “thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build My Church.” I only have a Bachelor’s degree; but my feeble reading comprehension skills seem to tell me that Jesus was speaking in the SINGULAR.

Absolutely agree to singular church, but built upon the Rock Jesus and the divine revelation leading to the believers confession as Peter did and we are in unity with Peter when we do the same, as stated by ECF’s (Augustine, Ambrose, Tertullian, Chrisostum,)

 

[Jon_S_1]

Absolutely agree to singular church, but built upon the Rock Jesus and the divine revelation leading to the believers confession as Peter did and we are in unity with Peter when we do the same, as stated by ECF’s (Augustine, Ambrose, Tertullian, Chrisostum,)

Was Arius part of the church, the Gnostics? If not who says so?

 

[benhur]

Umm pot calling the kettle black?

How do you determine what a false gospel is?? By the Church (Matt 18 Acts 15, etc etc).

Surely it is not by scripture alone as there are thirty thousand plus options to choose from as to what the gospel is.

Jon, sorry about any exasperation but it does seem to me Koineman has a point about “the gospel”. I have always felt that to a Catholic it is about being a “Catholic”. To a Protestant it is about Jesus . That is we are to draw a picture of Him to the world. We is the church . But some want to draw a picture of the church where you find Jesus. There is Jesus and there is His church for sure,it is just the emphasis. P’s are more concerned with, " have you met my Savior ?" than, " become a baptist, or a Lutheran". Any true Christian really puts that above their own denomination. So back to the gospel or as you say whose? Are there that many ? Even the study CC’s quote for the 30,000 denominations says there are only 7 real branches or fundamental groupings and even less if based only on their gospel and not peripheral issues. ( Yes still 6 or less to many). The apostles creed is quite simple isn’t it but it does not suffice anymore does it, for some. And Matthew , Mark, Luke and John ?

 

[joe371]

I think both apply at the same time, and if the shoe fits…Actually what would be nice is if you post both. It was a hot topic after 2nd vatican council I thought cause one has to be careful to say if there is then salvation outside the Catholic Church. Remember, you said CC has no authority over say Lutherans yet she (CC) says Lutheran power for salvation comes form CC. I like what you are trying to say, and I agree, it’s just that the other part is a killjoy, like the CC won’t let it go, or us go, and must draw attention to herself, to protect her image. Give honor where honor is due and our foundation and past deserves honor but I would not force it. It’s like a lover departing and we cry out, " go ahead and leave but you’ll never have better than you had with me", or a disbanding of any endeavor and the one says, " go ahead and leave but I taught you everything you know, or you’d be nowhere without me". It is all partly true but do you see the sour grapes or ego over the hurt? Of course the CC words it much more tactfully and almost benign but some leaven still remains.

It’s not ego. We (and the CC leaders) simply have faith that God infallibly teaches, (using fallible leaders) and ineffably guides His church into all truth via the guidance of the HS, Who first infused Himself, as the third divine person of the Holy Trinity, into the first Catholic church leaders on Pentecost. Ego would enter the picture if the CC leaders did not give all the credit to God. Same logic applies to the bible, in terms of fallible catholc church leaders such as Paul and Luke etc., writing infallibly. God get’s all the credit. You believe that God infallibly guided these men to write, teach infallibly - right? You just don’t seem to believe that God continued to do the same with their successors, all the way down the line, to present time. Why?

Excerpt from this link - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=674

"He began to preach that the axiom of Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) — “Outside the Church, no salvation” — meant that formal membership in the Catholic Church was necessary for salvation. The Vatican’s Holy Office rejected his restrictive view by distinguishing between those who really belong to the Church (in re) and those who belong by desire (in voto). The desire would be explicit in those who were catechumens and implicit in those people of goodwill who would join the Church if they knew it to be the one, true Church of Christ.

Nothing has changed, just further developed, as was the case with the Holy Trinity. For example, you and my sister do not know that the CC is the one, true Church of Christ. If you knew it then surely you would belong to it. Right? The alternative: another church is the true church of Christ, or all ekklesial communities comprise the one true church, even the evangelical church being built in my city, as we speak.

Do you think Jesus would mind if I decided to start my own church and teach what I believe Jesus taught 2000 years ago, and passed on to His apostles?

 

[Paul_Edwards]

Absolutely agree to singular church, but built upon the Rock Jesus and the divine revelation leading to the believers confession as Peter did and we are in unity with Peter when we do the same, as stated by ECF’s (Augustine, Ambrose, Tertullian, Chrisostum,)

The same Augustine who also teaches that Peter is the Rock?

"When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, ‘Will ye also go away?” Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ “
Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(A.D. 417), in NPNF1,VII:76

Catholics have no problem with believing that Jesus is the Rock, as long as you don’t deny that Peter is the rock also.

Jesus is the rock in one sense, Peter in another sense, the apostles are the foundation in another sense.

 

[Paul_Edwards]

Absolutely agree to singular church, but built upon the Rock Jesus and the divine revelation leading to the believers confession as Peter did and we are in unity with Peter when we do the same, as stated by ECF’s (Augustine, Ambrose, Tertullian, Chrisostum,)

As I mentioned about both Jesus and Peter being the rock, as Augustine agrees, Tertullian also teaches that Peter is the rock:

"Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven…’” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

And Ambrose teaches:

"Wherefore where Peter is the Church is…” Ambrose, Commentary on the Psalms, 40:30 (AD 395).

 

[believerdoc]

Jesus clearly said, “thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build My Church.” I only have a Bachelor’s degree; but my feeble reading comprehension skills seem to tell me that Jesus was speaking in the SINGULAR.

There is the Catholic Church in Boston, Los Angeles, etc all locally controlled. Controlled by whom, you ask? By their validly appointed bishops and archbishops. Just as in ye olde Bible days.

It is not logical to compare churches today with churches in New Testament times in this respect.

As happens today as well. The problems in Damascus aren’t the same as the problems in New York, or those in Sydney.

Absolutely. My wife and I can’t always agree on what to get on our pizza, either. To expect the bishops of the early Church to be a bunch of kow towing yes-men would be to ignore the human condition itself. Do you presume that every priest and bishop always agrees with the pope 100% of the time?

Makes no sense. If there was one curch with sole authority this would not be an issue.

I agree. The system never failed.

Umm… when EXACTLY did THAT happen?

The system failed with the introduction of false dogma, human corruption, and politics.

A few notes from Scripture for you…

Matt. 16:18; 18:18 - Jesus uses the word “ecclesia” only twice in the New Testament Scriptures, which demonstrates that Jesus intended a visible, unified, hierarchical, and authoritative Church.

If that was the only way He would have used it more thatn once.

Acts 20:17,28 - Paul refers to both the elders or priests (“presbyteroi”) and the bishops (“episkopoi”) of the Church. Both are ordained leaders within the hierarchical structure of the Church.

Yes and most Protestants also maintain these offices of the church.

Eph. 4:11 - the Church is hierarchical and includes apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers, all charged to build up the Church. The Church is not an invisible entity with an invisible foundation.

Phil. 1:1 - Paul addresses the bishops and deacons of the Church. They can all trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles.

1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 - Christ’s Church has bishops (“episkopoi”) who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles.

These statements are also not correct. If theis were true there would not have been times in church history where there were two or three popes claiming authority, How do you know which one was correct? Which ones were in the image of Peter?

1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14 - Christ’s Church also has elders or priests (“presbyteroi”) who serve the bishops.

1 Tim. 3:8 - Christ’s Church also has deacons (“diakonoi”). Thus, Jesus Christ’s Church has a hierarchy of authority - bishops, priests and deacons, who can all trace their lineage back to Peter and the apostles.

This is another point of contention. I hold the office of Deacon; ordained and set apart for service. These are not offices of authority but of service. Deacon actually means servant or waiter.

Exodus 28:1 and 19:6 – shows the three offices of the Old Testament priesthood (1). high priest – Aaron (Ex. 28:1); (2). Ministerial priests – Aaron’s sons (Ex. 19:6; 28:1); and (3). Universal priests – Israel (Ex. 19:6). The New Testament priesthood also has three offices: (1) High Priest – Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1); (2) Ministerial priests – the ordained bishops and priests (Rom. 15:16; 1 Tim. 3:1,8; 5:17; Titus 1:7); and (3) Universal priests - all the baptized (1 Pet. 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6).

Here again you do not realize that Protestant have the same offices. High Priest - Jesus Christ; Ministers or presbyter, and the priesthood of all believers so again a moot point.

John 10:16 - Jesus says there must only be one flock and one shepherd. This cannot mean many denominations and many pastors, all teaching different doctrines. Those outside the fold must be brought into the Church.

Again you believe in a visible church while we believe there is one flock; all those that confess the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; even Catholics.

To suggest that Jesus Christ expected His Faithful disciples to be a loosey-goosey gaggle of believers without ANY leadership is an insult to His Divine Vision and Plan for us. Did He not say to Peter “feed and tend My sheep and Lambs” in John 21? Of course, many subordinate shepherds are needed for a flock so large; but the buck has to stop somewhere, no?

It is obvious that you do not have a grasp of what the early church looked like. You look at the world for a Roman Catholic world view which is what you should do. For any of your interpretations of the quoted passage you look through the lens of catholicism but not everyone sees through that lens.The early church met underground, in homes, etc. They did so to worship, teach, preach, break bread. This was the early church.

The good thing is despite our differences I believe we are all a part of the Body of Christ on earth. While I do not and cannot agree with you I believe you are sincere and in your understanding seeking to serve Christ and His kingdom just as I am.

 

[mackbrislawn]

The apostle Paul clearly said that apostolic pedigree was not the final criterion for determining church authenticity. The gospel is. If an apostle teaches another gospel, he is not to be accepted. See Gal. 1:8-9 and read it very carefully. He did not exempt even one of the original apostles from anathema if they brought another gospel; are any teachers who come after them in church history any less exempt? It would be quite irrational, if not arrogant, to think so.

Jeremy

Wow, read the above statement again! If the above were true, think of the difficulties it would produce for Christianity.

It’s this way:

In it the poster wants us to make it seem Paul is pitting apostle against apostle. Now think about it–can that be? Because by definition the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit, their teaching was not coming from man but from the Lord, so if the apostles taught contrary to one another, God is teaching contrary to Himself! If so, we cannot trust the gospel itself and the foundations of Christianity crumble. No wonder Paul says let him be accursed.

Consider some more . What is the gospel? Where does it come from? The teaching of the apostles! *** We therefore cannot separate the gospel from the apostles***, even though that is exactly what the poster above wants us to do.

What was the gospel that was taught to the Galatians? Well, Paul says he taught it verbally. The only way then to know this gospel is by verbal tradition. Where is verbal tradition found? In the apostolic churches. So who knows what Paul’s original gospel was? The apostolic churches. What movement rejects tradition? We know who they are, and they reject tradition in order to teach a different gospel. And, some of these churches are even named after the men who founded them.

Of course Paul was not referring to original apostles, he was meaning men who came after, who taught something different. And we know of many men since then who have done, and are doing, just that.