Simple Early Days

[joe370]

To be fair, we can’t really say that the church of Matthew 16 is the collective whole of all the man-made churches (including the CC, if you are right) - in the world today, for the simple fact that none of these churches were founded by God, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, in the 1st century. So, where does that leave us, regarding the church of Matthew 16?

I mean, do you picture that He was thinking, "I will use Peter, and I will make this institution.

Jesus did say in Matthew 16, to Simon alone: you are Cephas and on this cephas I will build my church.

And, it will have great power, even among nations?"

Jesus did say to His established church: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

I would like to hear what is in your mind. When you put yourself there, what do you think the Lord was thinking?

When you say power, I am assuming that you are referring to political power, in the past? I am sure Jesus knew that He was dealing with very intractable, fallible and of course sinful people, who would, on occasion, steer His church in the wrong direction, thanks to the sin of man and the never ending onslaught of the devil, who hates Jesus’ Mystical Body, the Church, and on many occasions, this was the case, but we know that the devil will never prevail.

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16

I often wonder how modern day PC’s (living in a very placid world, politically speaking or otherwise, at least in America) - would have handled the situation in a very tumultuousness climate, where law was not what it is today, and where monarchies were constantly attempting to topple other monarchies and countries and people of all walks of life, which was the very reason why the CC enlisted the aid of the Frankish monarchy, in the first place. Hindsight is always 20 20. I guess, until someone gives me the name of the man who founded the CC, and when, and that man’s name is not Jesus Christ, I will continue to remain a Christian belonging to the CC.

God bless Minny…

 

[joe370]

Chaunceygardner, you said:

No and No. That was created and instituted by men, not by God. No temporal power, no suffocating hierarchy or massive bureaucracy. No thousands of pages of rules, doctrines, laws and rituals.

So, which church do you consider the true church of Matthew 16, where there is no temporal power…?

And the complex, non-essential things, where are they in the Gospels? …let’s see, not there…not there…not there either…

Exactly! Please identify them, (in the bible of course) - so that I may know what is considered extraneous and suffocating, and rule them out. For example, where does the bible say: No temporal power, no hierarchy, no bureaucracy (the body of officials and administrators of a church)? After all, if all can be found in the bible, this too should be in there.

So apparently, Jesus focused on what was essential, amazing as that may seem to some.

I know.

Yes it was quite simple, and quite clear.

Tell that to the hundreds and hundreds of separated Protestant churches.

We, meaning flawed humanity, have taken the pure message of Jesus and the promise of the Kingdom and inflated it into something that is not even close to resembling the early church.

Both the CC, the EOC and all of the PC’s?

We have made the church into the very thing that Jesus warned us about!

So, can Jesus’ church even be found today, in your opinion? If so then where, in your opinion?

See Matthew 23, Luke 11 and Mark 12 about that. Mark 12 has a wonderful juxtaposition of what is essential vs. what will happen to those “holier than thou” who try to make the journey to the Kingdom of God for others too complex.

Are you saying that you believe that the CC is “holier than thou” and is trying to make the journey to the Kingdom of God for others too complex? Protestant churches are not doing this - right?

I have this feeling that God is not very happy with us right now. He gave us His Son to instruct and lead us,

Who in turn gave us His church. Which church, and let’s assume you are right about the CC.

…who in turn gave us a simple, direct teaching for attaining salvation, and we have literally forgotten most of it, throwing out the essentials and embracing a caricature of what our faith should be.

Who is “we?” Who is to teach this simple direct teaching that leads to salvation, and again, let’s assume you are right about the CC?

Again what are the non-essentials, listed in the bible? If they are not in the bible, (which is to be the Christians final authority) - then it’s just you opinion - correct? If you cannot identify them, in the bible, then who, in the Protestant churches, has the authority to identify them, as non-essentials? BTW, each PC has a different opinion on the matter, in many cases, and many of them will disagree with you.

 

[XinMinny]

Joe,
I don’t want to get too far off topic. But, a few things seem to be coming into focus for me.

So, as a question for you: Are you suggesting in your posts that Sola Scriptura is the reason there are so many Protestant churches today? I don’t see it that way. I think the reason is that men and women really do not want to be guided by the HS, so they use the Scriptures to make ways that appeal to themselves. I don’t want to be offensive, but I also feel that is the reason the CC has become so large, so powerful, so rich, so elaborate in its customs today - that the CC leaders have lacked the humility through the centuries to really let the HS guide. So, the problem is not really Sola Scriptura itself, rather the problem is that there have not been people who really wanted the guidance of the HS, and therefore the nature of humans has led to the fractured Christian world we see today. In poem form, “Many men of many minds make many ways of many kinds.” That’s my analysis of what I see in the world today. Now, I know you will say, “Well then, where is the church of Matt 16?”

That’s another point. I think our idea of ‘church’ would be foreign to the mind of Jesus in that passage. He was not looking for an institution at all. His church is founded on the clear understanding that He was Messiah, Son of God. Yes, Peter was a very important piece of that. His church is in the hearts of individuals - people who really want the help of the HS in their lives, and are humble enough to be asking for it continually.

You have asked about the non-essentials many times. The Bible doesn’t tell us which are non-essentials. The non-essentials are the things that are taught in church that are not in the gospels. Those are the non-essentials. As a way of explaining my thought, I can only read about 2 ceremonies that Jesus taught: Baptism and Communion. Yet, the RCC claims 7 sacraments, and the OC claims 8. It is true that Jesus taught about marriage, about people carrying out his work, about the dying process, about confession. But, I don’t read where he taught those as defined rites or ceremonies. So, to me, those things are non-essentials. It is true that He respected His mother greatly. But, we don’t read of Him praying a rosary, or even having one (they were invented later). I know that Catholics don’t worship Mary, they venerate her, but where I was raised, it was a very important part of the Catholic life. It is a non-essential. And it was, in practice, very important. So, the non-essential become of higher importance that the essential teachings of the Lord Himself. I believe this is what chaunceygardner is talking about. I hope that helps you to understand my perspective.

PS - you alluded in a prior post to your Catholic faith not always being this way. I would be interested to know more about that. Feel free to PM me if you want. My experience has been exactly the opposite. I was raised in a Catholic home, but have not felt Catholic for 25 years now.

All the best to all,
Minny

 

[chaunceygardner]

Good day, Joe and to all following this thread. Some good questions, and I will give answers from my point of view. Not from any one church.

So, which church do you consider the true church of Matthew 16, where there is no temporal power…?

None of the recognized “churches” or religions of today, at least that I have any knowledge of. The rest of my answer will be given in response to a later and similar question.

In response to my statement that the Gospels gave us the essentials and what I call the “non-essentials” are not in them, Joe370 said:

Exactly! Please identify them, (in the bible of course) - so that I may know what is considered extraneous and suffocating, and rule them out. For example, where does the bible say: No temporal power, no hierarchy, no bureaucracy (the body of officials and administrators of a church)? After all, if all can be found in the bible, this too should be in there.

The problem is people want a list of everything, where Jesus instead gave us some very basic, easy to understand but somewhat hard to abide by rules. The extraneous is everything we have added beyond those core teachings and behavior expectations that do not relate directly to those fundamental statements. Some of them we attempt to extract from the Bible (whether OT or NT) but they are not the core of the Gospel. Most of the “extras” we have added on our own.

To my statement that Jesus made it quite simple and quite clear, Joe370 said:

Tell that to the hundreds and hundreds of separated Protestant churches.

I would agree, but would add the Catholic Church to the list. None are without fault in this.

To my comments that we have taken these basic truths in the Gospel of Jesus and inflated them into something not even close to resembling the early church (and what Jesus commanded of us), Joe370 responded:

Both the CC, the EOC and all of the PC’s?

Yup, I am a believer in equal opportunity, and the churches have uniformly come up short in that respect.

So, can Jesus’ church even be found today, in your opinion? If so then where, in your opinion?

Ah, that IS the question. And the answer is easy, and although we say “we see”, yet we are blind. Open your Bible to the Gospels, particularly to the Sermon on the Mount (and the Plain), and other places where Jesus tells us about the Kingdom of God and how we will get there, and listen to Him:

*“You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment.
The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”

“Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets”

“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.”

“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.”

“**Whoever has my commandments and observes them **is the one who loves me.”

“And when Jesus saw that (he) answered with understanding, he said to him, 'You are not far from the kingdom of God.’” *

Are you saying that you believe that the CC is “holier than thou” and is trying to make the journey to the Kingdom of God for others too complex? Protestant churches are not doing this - right?

Yes to your first question, and you should have already figured out my answer to the second. Not one is immune.

Who in turn gave us His church. Which church, and let’s assume you are right about the CC.

The Church is US. The church for which Jesus made Peter the “rock” is not a building or a bureaucracy, for we know (and the disciples clearly learned) that nothing made by man is immune to destruction or decay (the Temple in Jerusalem, the Roman Empire). The church that Jesus “formed” and that nothing would prevail against is the Spirit within us, untouchable by anything but our own obstinacy and ignorance.

“*On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you.”

“For behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”*

Who is “we?” Who is to teach this simple direct teaching that leads to salvation, and again, let’s assume you are right about the CC?

Like in the vaudeville routine, “Who’s on First”, the answer is yes, “Who” is “We”. Recall the Great Commission? Did Jesus intend that for just the 12 Apostles, or a few chosen Disciples? That Commission was for you and me, for all of us. We are to be the disciples who hear the message, internalize that message, and then give it to others, to the entire world.

The Kingdom of God is within us, as individuals and as a people. The power of discipleship was never given to an organization, it was given to us. The church is not an organization, a building, a list of rules, or a set of rituals and rubrics. The True Church is within anyone who lives the Gospel. A faith that is simple, direct, and meant for everyone to understand and follow. No interpretation needed, just to follow those basic commandments in all we do. And no membership dues required, Jesus has already paid them for us.

 

[chaunceygardner]

The Bible doesn’t tell us which are non-essentials. The non-essentials are the things that are taught in church that are not in the gospels. Those are the non-essentials. As a way of explaining my thought, I can only read about 2 ceremonies that Jesus taught: Baptism and Communion. Yet, the RCC claims 7 sacraments, and the OC claims 8. It is true that Jesus taught about marriage, about people carrying out his work, about the dying process, about confession. But, I don’t read where he taught those as defined rites or ceremonies. So, to me, those things are non-essentials. It is true that He respected His mother greatly. But, we don’t read of Him praying a rosary, or even having one (they were invented later). I know that Catholics don’t worship Mary, they venerate her, but where I was raised, it was a very important part of the Catholic life. It is a non-essential. And it was, in practice, very important. So, the non-essential becomes of higher importance than the essential teachings of the Lord Himself. I believe this is what chaunceygardner is talking about.

I did not thoroughly read through your post until after my last one addressed to Joe370. You are correct, what I bolded is exactly what I am talking about.

Thanks

 

[joe370]

chaunceygardner’s…
Good day, Joe and to all following this thread. Some good questions, and I will give answers from my point of view. Not from any one church.

This is a major problem when it comes to the church founded by GOD! The only point of view, that matters, is…??? One church is being guided by GOD, into all truth! Help me find that church? I beg you…help me find the church of Matthew 16???

GO!!!

 

[cat3gs]

Hierarchy is merely a natural result, when an organization becomes so large that manageability becomes problematic. We see it in every large organization, in the world; it’s a very effective and efficient means of maintaining unity, and we all know what the bible says about maintaining unity and oneness! Hierarchy, which is harmless, was inevitable for the CC, for she was/is/has in fact spread to the ends of the earth. In a small church, such as my sisters church, and no doubt your church, hierarchy is really not necessary. One Pastor; one flock; one town; end of story. What should have happened when thousands of CC’s start popping up all over the place? Should there have been just one Pastor in charge, answering to no one, for each of these churches, all over the world? We sadly see what this has done for the myriad PC’s. If there had been just one reformed church, in the 16th century, following the same model implemented by the CC, as that one reformed church was growing and spreading (excluding sola scriptura via individual interpretation of course) - we would probably see the same unity found in the CC, in that reformed church. For the CC, that would have been a church to be reckoned with. Instead, we see a horribly fractured reformed PC

Questions for Minny

In your “no name” church, who is in charge? Who leads you? Is it just your little “church” in your denomination or are there other “churches”? Who would then keep those several “churches” teaching the same thing. Or does it matter if they teach different things as long as the basics were the same?
The reason I am asking these questions is because from some of your comments and questions your “no name” church sound very familiar to me and if it is the one Im thinking of, there is a hierarchy in your church. Though it may be unofficial. And, again, if it is the one Im thinking of…there is nothing simple about it. There are plenty of rules both spoken and unspoken involved in this church.
If I am wrong about my assumption…my apologies.
God Bless

 

[chaunceygardner]

This is a major problem when it comes to the church founded by GOD! The only point of view, that matters, is…??? One church is being guided by GOD, into all truth! Help me find that church? I beg you…help me find the church of Matthew 16???

GO!!!

Please, Joe, take a few quiet, deep breaths and calm down. Really no need to go so worked up.

Simply, the ONE church you are looking for is within you, or among you, depending on the transalation. I like both. You want an organization, but that is not what Jesus gave us. Peter was not the titular head of some earthly religious group; rather, he and all the disciples were entrusted with the “keys to the kingdom”, which is to be found in the Gospel, and is to be used by each of us to open the door to God.

In Luke 10, when Jesus sends His disciples out to spread His Gospel, does He tell them to organize churches? No, He says they should tell those they meet:

“The kingdom of God is at hand for you.”

Not later, not in some large edifice in some faraway city, not in the hands of one person, but right there, and right then. For us, that means it is here, among and within us, right now.

It is interesting to note that immediately after the verses you are so focused on, Jesus rebukes Peter:

“You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do."

I think that is a crucial mistake that most of us make. We need to stop thinking in human and earth-bound ways, and lift our minds, our hearts, and our souls to God. Jesus tells us how.

At the end of the Gospels, does Jesus tell His disciples to go out and build church buildings, set up a hierarchy, and promulgate an encyclopedia of doctrine? No, this is what He tells them in Matthew 28 (my emphasis and italicized words):

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations (all peoples?), baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

cat3gs:

Questions for Minny

In your “no name” church, who is in charge? Who leads you? Is it just your little “church” in your denomination or are there other “churches”? Who would then keep those several “churches” teaching the same thing. Or does it matter if they teach different things as long as the basics were the same?

Although addressed to Minny, please allow me to respond as well, since it directly relates to the above.

Who is in Charge? God.

Who leads us? Jesus, Who is contained within us and we within Him.

Are there other churches? There is one church, but it is of infinite and spiritual form, not of earthly form. Jesus said: “My Kingdom (church?) does not belong to this world.” Our earthly churches are similar to Peter’s attempt to build tents for Moses and Elijah during the Transfiguration. They are but man’s feeble attempts to make an earthly copy of the transcendent and spiritual church that Jesus gave us.

*Who would keep those several churches teaching the same thing? Or does it matter if they teach different things as long as the basics were the same? *

If you remove all the extra stuff that people have added over the centuries, the basics would be the same, and there would be nothing different to teach, no doctrine to argue about (although I suspect flawed humans would still look for something to fight about). What is not understandable about the first two commandments? What is not understandable about how Jesus says we should apply them?

We spend countless hours arguing over things that are just not essential to the faith that Jesus gave us. I have to think God is very discouraged with us right now.

 

[Radical]

Chauncey, I would simply like to express my appreciation for your posts on this thread…well said!

If you remove all the extra stuff that people have added over the centuries, the basics would be the same, and there would be nothing different to teach, no doctrine to argue about …

Unfortunately, I find myself arguing more and more in an attempt to convince people that there have been additions…or that they should at least consider the possibility…How do we get away from that?

…(although I suspect flawed humans would still look for something to fight about). What is not understandable about the first two commandments? What is not understandable about how Jesus says we should apply them?

We spend countless hours arguing over things that are just not essential to the faith that Jesus gave us. I have to think God is very discouraged with us right now.

True, …but at least we know that he still loves us as much as when he sent his Son to save us.

 

[joe370]

Hey chaunceygardner, I thought I would give it one more shot, but than I shall digress. I don’t want to steer the thread away from its purpose.

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post

This is a major problem when it comes to the church founded by GOD! The only point of view, that matters, is…??? One church is being guided by GOD, into all truth! Help me find that church? I beg you…help me find the church of Matthew 16???

GO!!! !!! !!!
Please, Joe, take a few quiet, deep breaths and calm down. Really no need to go so worked up.

Don’t get me wrong; I was very calm when I wrote this. It’s just that I have been asking non-Catholics this question ever since I joined the church of Matthew 16, and everyone simply ignores the question, just as you have, so I just wanted to make sure that you didn’t overlook it. If you knew me, you would know that I never get worked up over religion. I just want a simple answer to a simple question.

Simply, the ONE church you are looking for is within you, or among you, depending on the transalation.

Well, at least that is somewhat original, but again, it does not answer my question.

I like both. You want an organization, but that is not what Jesus gave us.

Jesus left us with a disorganized church? Really…Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Every Protestant church is organized, but isolated from each other. That doesn’t sound like the unity and oneness the bible speaks of, I am afraid to say.

Peter was not the titular head of some earthly religious group; rather, he and all the disciples were entrusted with the “keys to the kingdom”, which is to be found in the Gospel, and is to be used by each of us to open the door to God.

OK…So help me find the church built on the Apostles, (entrusted with the “keys to the kingdom”) - in the world today, forever guided into all truth, as per John 16:13 and John 14? Jesus’ church is an earthly group. Today we see thousands of earthly groups, not founded by Jesus, but rather man, including the CC, if you are right, which means that Jesus’ established church no longer exists, making the bible untrustworthy.

In Luke 10, when Jesus sends His disciples out to spread His Gospel, does He tell them to organize churches? No, He says they should tell those they meet:

Quote:
“The kingdom of God is at hand for you.”
Not later, not in some large edifice in some faraway city, not in the hands of one person, but right there, and right then. For us, that means it is here, among and within us, right now.

Every Protestant church is well organized. The church of Matthew 16, in the New Testament, is very organized and united, unlike all of the PC’s in the world today, The NT tells us to obey our leaders and submit to their authority, as opposed to the bible as the Christians one and only authority, and each and every organized, (albeit isolated) - independent local Protestant church, does just that, which is a good thing for maintaining doctrinal truth and the unity/oneness of each of these isolated, local PC’s:

*Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. Hebrews 13
*

Let me see if I can attempt to see things from your perspective:

Christ is the head of each and every independent local church. There is no human head of each and every independent local church?

The Bible is the final authority (as opposed to church leaders) - for each and every isolated, independent local church?

Each isolated, independent local church is autonomous and self-governing. No outside interference from other local churches?

No organizational tie between each and every local church?

No organization larger than each and every isolated, independent local church? It stops at the local church level?

The Bible uses Elders, Presbyters, Overseers, Bishops, Shepherd,s Pastors interchangeably and they all refer to a single office in the church, so therefore hierarchy is a man-made tradition, unlike the man-made tradition, sola scriptura?

What the early CC of the first 400 years of Christianity taught and believed, does not matter; only the holy bible matters, via the interpretation of the individual or the interpretation of each Elder, Presbyter, Overseer, Bishop, Shepherd, Pastor, of each isolated, independent, autonomous and self-governing local church?

Each and every independent, autonomous and self-governing local church leadership is to appoint their own plurality of elders using 1 Timothy 3, and Titus 1 as guidelines for the qualifications, and the teachings of these elders, and each of these isolated independent, autonomous, self-governing local churches are being guided by the Holy spirit, into all truth?

Elders have authority, only over the members of their local church, as opposed to the members of the other isolated local churches outside their congregation, which is taught in the bible and has led to the unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17? Or, to hundreds and hundreds of shepherd/teachers (human heads of each respective local church) - teaching something different, and basing their teachings on their interpretation of the infallible word of God, (the Christians one and only authority) - with the exception of the pastor/shepherd, of each respective, isolated church?

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Continued…

It is interesting to note that immediately after the verses you are so focused on, Jesus rebukes Peter:

Quote:
“You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do."
I think that is a crucial mistake that most of us make. We need to stop thinking in human and earth-bound ways, and lift our minds, our hearts, and our souls to God. Jesus tells us how.

Matters naught to me. What matters is what happened to Peter and the Apostles (all sinful, fallible people) - after Pentecost. Did the HS fail to forever guide Jesus’ one church into all truth, due to the sin of the members of Jesus’ established church, necessitating the need for a reformed church, established by a mere man, as opposed to God? If so, then please give me the name of this reformed church, founded by Man, as opposed to God, in the world today, forever guided by the HS?

At the end of the Gospels, does Jesus tell His disciples to go out and build church buildings…

Why would He? The church, by definition, is the assembly of united brothers and sisters in Christ, who gather in a building, be it a house or whatever… The CC does not claim that Jesus’ church is a building.

set up a hierarchy…

Jesus is quite silent on how His church was to be structured. He left that up to His church leaders, guided by the HS, in perpetuity. Did Jesus tell His disciples to go out and write the bible, and distribute the bible to each and every Christian, and tell them to tell others, to obey the bible as their final authority and to submit to the bible as their final authority? Not according to your bible?

Jesus left us with a teaching church, (according to your bible) - guided by the HS, not a collection of books to be individually/privately interpreted, as the holy spirit guides each individual (or each isolated independent church) - into all truth. He left us with His church to keep watch over us as men who must give an account, and we are to obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to us, and this is the case in every isolated PC, not just the CC.

…and promulgate an encyclopedia of doctrine? No, this is what He tells them in Matthew 28 (my emphasis and italicized words):

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations (all peoples?), baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
Quote:

To which church in the world today, did Jesus say the preceding? We know it wasn’t any of the PC’s, and it wasn’t the CC or the EOC, if you are correct, so which church? Please answer this question!!! Notice that He told people to teach. He didn’t hand them the holy bible and say: distribute this to each and every Christian (or, each and every isolated, independent local church) - for this will now be the final authority for each Christian (or, each and every isolated, independent local church).

 

[joe370]

Chauncey, I would simply like to express my appreciation for your posts on this thread…well said! Unfortunately, I find myself arguing more and more in an attempt to convince people that there have been additions…or that they should at least consider the possibility…How do we get away from that?

True, …but at least we know that he still loves us as much as when he sent his Son to save us.

Radical, is sola scriptura a 16th century addition?

If the early church believed what you call additions, would you change your beliefs regarding these additions? Was the early church (first 400 years of Christianity) - guided by the Holy spirit, into all truth???

I find myself arguing more and more in an attempt to convince people that sola scriptura is an addition. If it’s not an addition (and it is not found anywhere in the holy bible) - then where and when was SS as the Christians final authority, taught/believed, for the first 1600 years of Christianity?

 

[chaunceygardner]

Chauncey, I would simply like to express my appreciation for your posts on this thread…well said! Unfortunately, I find myself arguing more and more in an attempt to convince people that there have been additions…or that they should at least consider the possibility…How do we get away from that?

True, …but at least we know that he still loves us as much as when he sent his Son to save us.

Thanks for your understanding. That question is a puzzle to me as well.

 

[Radical]

Radical, is sola scriptura a 16th century addition?

Sola scriptura is an answer/solution formulated in the 16th century to address a question asked in the 16th century. That question could take this form: Where can we find God’s revelation to man in a trustworthy form w/o error and w/o additions? Personally, I do not hold to an inerrancy…I hold to a strong reliability.

If the early church believed what you call additions, would you change your beliefs regarding these additions?

Only if it was reliably demonstrated that the early church believed these additions b/c they were taught precisely to do so by the apostles.

Was the early church (first 400 years of Christianity) - guided by the Holy spirit, into all truth???

Paul, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and whilst writing scripture confessed to only knowing in part. I don’t think any person or body can surpass Paul in that regard, so yes, Christians will be guided by the HS but that doesn’t mean that they won’t go beyond that guidance and start making bad additions.

I find myself arguing more and more in an attempt to convince people that sola scriptura is an addition. If it’s not an addition (and it is not found anywhere in the holy bible) - then where and when was SS as the Christians final authority, taught/believed, for the first 1600 years of Christianity?

I guess it took some time before people were prepared to stand up (or could stand up) against the hierarchy of the Church and declare that, “Your teaching can’t be fully trusted”. Threat of being burnt at the stake or imprisoned may have served as a bit of a discouragement…

 

[chaunceygardner]

Continued…

Jesus is quite silent on how His church was to be structured.

Perhaps that silence should tell us something very important.

Regarding my reference to the Great Commission in Matthew’s Gospel, ***Joe370 ***said:

To which church in the world today, did Jesus say the preceding? We know it wasn’t any of the PC’s, and it wasn’t the CC or the EOC, if you are correct, so which church? Please answer this question!!! Notice that He told people to teach. He didn’t hand them the holy bible and say: distribute this to each and every Christian (or, each and every isolated, independent local church) - for this will now be the final authority for each Christian (or, each and every isolated, independent local church).

Well, yes He DID hand them the Gospel. Not as written word, but through His direction, teaching and example His disciples received it and disseminated it, as should we.

If something doesn’t exist, it doesn’t really do any good to ask over and over again where it is. I cannot give you the answer you seek, Joe. You want there to be a “church” as you define it, you want Peter to have been the “boss” of that church, and you want it to be something that you can see and touch, that exists on this earth. The church that Jesus left us, The Kingdom of God existing within and among us, is intangible, and contains not one molecule of any physical substance. It is constructed entirely from hope, love and faith. And because of THAT it is incorruptible. Everything else, and I mean EVERYTHING else, turns to dust.

I will grant you that Jesus gave Peter the keys to His church. But they were not keys made of iron…They are spiritual keys to open the Gospel to all. He gave Peter no written laws or doctrine, He gave the us the law of love; for God and for one another.

He did not leave it to any human institution or persons to decide if what we did or said was right or wrong, acceptable or not acceptable. He gave us the Gospel and then left it to us, as individuals and as a people seeking the Kingdom. To be very blunt and honest, I have come to realize that anyone who depends ONLY on direction from any person or earthly church for their salvation, anyone who expects to be saved by following a bunch of rules and rituals, without using their own God given intellect to understand what Jesus was about and what He really wants of us, is a fool. I apologize to anyone that statement offends, but it must be said.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Radical, is sola scriptura a 16th century addition?
Sola scriptura is an answer/solution formulated in the 16th century to address a question asked in the 16th century. That question could take this form: Where can we find God’s revelation to man in a trustworthy form w/o error and w/o additions? Personally, I do not hold to an inerrancy…I hold to a strong reliability.

So, sola scriptura is a 16th century addition, yes or no? Was it the right answer, in your opinion?

So, the bible is not the inerrant word of God, just the reliable word of God? I have never heard any non-Catholic say that before you. That’s cool! I respect your decision.

So, basically you are saying, I think: a Christian today, cannot find God’s revelation to man, in a trustworthy form w/o error and w/o additions, in the Catholic church or the Protestant churches; is that what you are saying?

Q

uote:
If the early church believed what you call additions, would you change your beliefs regarding these additions?
Only if it was reliably demonstrated that the early church believed these additions b/c they were taught precisely to do so by the apostles.

How do you think that this could be achieved? Perhaps the Early church Fathers (who eventually bound and codified our bible) - could reliably demonstrate what the early church believed? What do you think? If you consider the holy bible, not to be the inerrant word of God, just the reliable word of God, then I am pretty sure what your answer will be.

Quote:
Was the early church (first 400 years of Christianity) - guided by the Holy spirit, into all truth???
Paul, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and whilst writing scripture confessed to only knowing in part. I don’t think any person or body can surpass Paul in that regard, so yes, Christians will be guided by the HS but that doesn’t mean that they won’t go beyond that guidance and start making bad additions.

! Cor. 13 is one of my favorite passages in the NT. When Paul said, “For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears,” you believe that Paul (or any of the church leaders at the time) - belonging to Jesus’ church and guided by the holy spirit, into all truth, regarding only what was revealed (as opposed to what was not revealed, but will be revealed when perfection comes) - could have taught erroneously, doctrinally speaking?

Quote:
I find myself arguing more and more in an attempt to convince people that sola scriptura is an addition. If it’s not an addition (and it is not found anywhere in the holy bible) - then where and when was SS as the Christians final authority, taught/believed, for the first 1600 years of Christianity?
I guess it took some time before people were prepared to stand up (or could stand up) against the hierarchy of the Church and declare that, “Your teaching can’t be fully trusted”. Threat of being burnt at the stake or imprisoned may have served as a bit of a discouragement…

So, you are saying that sola scriptura via individual interpretation, was the original plan of Jesus Christ, but due to the oppressive CC, for the 1st 1000 years of Christianity (long before the protestant reformation) - Jesus’ plan of the bible alone as the Christians one and only authority via individual interpretation, was thwarted by sinful, fallible people?

As a former Lutheran I use to point out some of the atrocities of the CC, in a very volatile and tumultuous time period, at least until I became abreast of all the atrocities of the reformers, and the truth about the atrocities of both the CC and the PC’s. God never promised that there wouldn’t be bad people in His church; quite the opposite, and we know what Jesus will say to them when they meet Him, upon their demise. Jesus promised that He would send the holy spirit, the spirit of truth, to His church, to forever guide and safeguard the truth regarding all that He revealed to His church leadership.

Radical, if the bible is not the inerrant word of God, how can we know which parts are reliable, and which parts are not? You could say, for example, that the beatitudes are reliable, and someone else could come along and say that the beatitudes are not reliable. They could say that Jesus was persecuted, and we are saved by His atoning blood, and that we are not blessed when we are persecuted because of righteousness… we are not blessed when people insult us, persecute us and falsely say all kinds of evil against us because of Jesus. No need to suffer for Jesus paid our penalty, and ransomed us; once saved always saved; no need to suffer, and trust me there are plenty of churches that feel this way.

 

[Radical]

So, sola scriptura is a 16th century addition, yes or no?

It wouldn’t have been first proposed in the 16th century (it is just at that time that it received the protection of state), but then it wouldn’t have been the right answer in the 1st century…at some point it comes into existence…some have added it to their list of “essentials” and some have not…It is not on my list of essentials.

Was it the right answer, in your opinion?

yep

So, the bible is not the inerrant word of God, just the reliable word of God? I have never heard any non-Catholic say that before you. That’s cool! I respect your decision.

I don’t know how one would avoid that conclusion for practical purposes. Some might believe that the original works were inerrant, but since we don’t have those originals I don’t know how one would properly argue that either the manuscripts that we possess or the translations that we have made from those manuscripts are absolutely w/o any error…w/o signficant error, yes, but w/o any error, no.

So, basically you are saying, I think: a Christian today, cannot find God’s revelation to man, in a trustworthy form w/o error and w/o additions, in the Catholic church or the Protestant churches; is that what you are saying?

I might word it as follows: A Christian today, can find God’s revelation to man in a very reliable form in the scriptures. Unfortunately I do not know of a church that hasn’t added to that revelation by what it teaches and those additions are subject to error. As Chauncey has pointed out, the essential is to have a “circumcized heart” and not to have the complete and infallible understanding of doctrine.

How do you think that this could be achieved? Perhaps the Early Church Fathers (who eventually bound and codified our bible) - could reliably demonstrate what the early church believed?

the writings of the ECFs are our best resource for determining what the early church believed…and I think that those writings demonstrate that what was believed changed rather quickly and rather dramatically.

What do you think? If you consider the holy bible, not to be the inerrant word of God, just the reliable word of God, then I am pretty sure what your answer will be.

Well Clement thought that the phoenix was a grand example from nature of a resurrection and Irenaeus thought that both the scriptures and tradition testified to Jesus being 50+ years old when he was crucified. What do you think?

1 Cor. 13 is one of my favorite passages in the NT. When Paul said, “For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears,” you believe that Paul (or any of the church leaders at the time) - belonging to Jesus’ church and guided by the holy spirit, into all truth, regarding only what was revealed (as opposed to what was not revealed, but will be revealed when perfection comes) - could have taught erroneously, doctrinally speaking?

I think people teach by what they do and not just by what they write and say. I note that Peter wasn’t protected from teaching error by conduct and so it is possible that he may have also erred in what he said (on occasion). I have faith that God acted to limit such errors, if and when they arose so that God’s revelation remained in a very reliable form…and as Chauncey has been saying, at its core, it is a very simple revelation.

So, you are saying that sola scriptura via individual interpretation, was the original plan of Jesus Christ,…

No, I am saying that we should all seek God’s revelation, however, it has been made available to us and that we shouldn’t act and formulate in isolation. Instead we should act and believe in concert with others. On that basis the ECFs have a voice and the modern Catholics have a voice that should still be heard by Protestants, but neither is the voice of God himself. No Christian or group of Christians should be viewed as possessing an infallible teaching power…

…but due to the oppressive CC, for the 1st 1000 years of Christianity (long before the protestant reformation) - Jesus’ plan of the bible alone as the Christians one and only authority via individual interpretation, was thwarted by sinful, fallible people?

For the most part, I think what went wrong is that well-intentioned pious believers ruminated on various things (particularly the scriptures) and b/c of their enthusiasm and imagination tended to see things which weren’t actually there and in the process layered embellishment upon embellishment.

As a former Lutheran I use to point out some of the atrocities of the CC, in a very volatile and tumultuous time period, at least until I became abreast of all the atrocities of the reformers, and the truth about the atrocities of both the CC and the PC’s.

those atrocities put my anabaptist ancestors in a much better light (though they weren’t spotless by any means…but few had their hands caked with the blood of fellow Christians).

God never promised that there wouldn’t be bad people in His church; quite the opposite, and we know what Jesus will say to them when they meet Him, upon their demise. Jesus promised that He would send the holy spirit, the spirit of truth, to His church, to forever guide and safeguard the truth regarding all that He revealed to His church leadership.

Given Paul’s description of members of the congregation speaking in tongues, prophecying, interpreting and weighing (as the way things should be) why do you feel it necessary to restrict the revelation to “church leadership” ?

 

[Radical]

continuing…

Radical, if the bible is not the inerrant word of God, how can we know which parts are reliable, and which parts are not? You could say, for example, that the beatitudes are reliable, and someone else could come along and say that the beatitudes are not reliable. They could say that Jesus was persecuted, and we are saved by His atoning blood, and that we are not blessed when we are persecuted because of righteousness… we are not blessed when people insult us, persecute us and falsely say all kinds of evil against us because of Jesus. No need to suffer for Jesus paid our penalty, and ransomed us; once saved always saved; no need to suffer, and trust me there are plenty of churches that feel this way.

I am at ease with a bit of uncertainty. I am happy to say that I often don’t know how things should work. I am, however, very confident that all hinges on the two greatest commandments. IMHO it would have been better if the Trinitarians and the Arians didn’t get into their great debate, avoided trying to add precision to the revelation and said, “I don’t know how this works, but I will accept what was stated by the apostles (and recorded in their gospels and epistles) with thanksgiving…now where is an orphan or widow that needs my help?”

Btw…I find viewing a thread much more pleasant when large sized type isn’t utilized (at all)

Cheers

 

[chaunceygardner]

continuing…

I am at ease with a bit of uncertainty. I am happy to say that I often don’t know how things should work. I am, however, very confident that all hinges on the two greatest commandments. IMHO it would have been better if the Trinitarians and the Arians didn’t get into their great debate, avoided trying to add precision to the revelation and said, “I don’t know how this works, but I will accept what was stated by the apostles (and recorded in their gospels and epistles) with thanksgiving…now where is an orphan or widow that needs my help?”

Btw…I find viewing a thread much more pleasant when large sized type isn’t utilized (at all)

Cheers

Amen to all of it.

 

[joe370]

continuing…

I am at ease with a bit of uncertainty. I am happy to say that I often don’t know how things should work. I am, however, very confident that all hinges on the two greatest commandments. IMHO it would have been better if the Trinitarians and the Arians didn’t get into their great debate, avoided trying to add precision to the revelation and said, “I don’t know how this works, but I will accept what was stated by the apostles (and recorded in their gospels and epistles) with thanksgiving…now where is an orphan or widow that needs my help?”

Why not do both? Do you believe in the Trinity? Do you know why the debate between the 2 was so important?

Btw…I find viewing a thread much more pleasant when large sized type isn’t utilized (at all)

I agree with you! I have only done that once or twice and it was only to get someone’s attention.

Peace brother…