Single or multiple churches?

[jmcrae]

Forget the Peter is the first pope stuff for now…I have a more basic question here.

When Jesus designed the church, how did he design it…either with 1 central authority or a vast number of autonomous churches.

I have heard both, am curious as what the justifications are for either position.

Read John 21:15-19, and tell me what you think is going on, there. It seems to me that Jesus intended there to be a central authority.

 

[jmcrae]

I think I answered this but again I believe Jesus designed the church to be unified but didn’t specify a central authority. That’s why he told the Apostles that they would not Lord it over one another exercising authority like the Pagans do. Mark 10. It’s also why we see in Acts the first council at Jerusalem made the decision regarding circumcision.

How could there be a Council, without an authority who has the ability to call a Council? (And if the Council is without authority, then why should anyone consider himself to be bound by its rulings?)

 

[mozart-250]

I think I answered this but again I believe Jesus designed the church to be unified but didn’t specify a central authority. That’s why he told the Apostles that they would not Lord it over one another exercising authority like the Pagans do. Mark 10. It’s also why we see in Acts the first council at Jerusalem made the decision regarding circumcision.

I don’t myself see Mark 10 as a prooftext against central authority.

Acts 15 could imho be an argument for a central authority in that a council of church leaders (apostles) set some standards that impacted the entire church.

Anyway, the early church addressed heresied that popped up like Arianism. How would this have happened without some degree of centralization.

Anyway, I agree that Jesus did design the church to be unified. We see how well this has worked out in the 21st century. IMHO observing current status is an argument for the pro-centralization position.

 

[mozart-250]

Read John 21:15-19, and tell me what you think is going on, there. It seems to me that Jesus intended there to be a central authority.

I just opened my Bible to this passage and I don’t see how Jesus in these verses is addressing the issue one way or another.

But then again, maybe I am just not creative enough when I read Scripture.

 

[NDfan]

How could there be a Council, without an authority who has the ability to call a Council? (And if the Council is without authority, then why should anyone consider himself to be bound by its rulings?)

In the first century the only people who knew of Jesus’ teachings were the Apostles. That in and of itself gave them the authority to call a council and make a ruling. No one else knew what Jesus taught until it was taught to them verbally or if they had the fortune of obtaining a copy of one of the Gospels.

In the early churches the fathers always appealed to scripture as the final authority on matters of faith. But if this central authority existed as you say then why did Ignatius appeal to scripture to refute Marcion? Why didn’t Ignatius defer to a central authority?

 

[NDfan]

I don’t myself see Mark 10 as a prooftext against central authority.

In reading Mark 10 it appears that Jesus has a dis-taste for anyone exercising authority over another. That’s why I cited that verse.

Acts 15 could imho be an argument for a central authority in that a council of church leaders (apostles) set some standards that impacted the entire church.

Agree 100%. I think that’s how it should be today.

Anyway, the early church addressed heresied that popped up like Arianism. How would this have happened without some degree of centralization.

It wasn’t a matter of centralized authority though. There was what became known as the Kathilocos/Universal church that stood united in its beliefs. The councils came to an agreement on the doctrine of the trinity and nature of Jesus. People who refuted those beliefs like the gnostics, the montanists etc. were naturally separated from the church. But that does not mean the Catholic church had the ultimate say so. The church wrapped some doctrine around what it believed and how it interpreted scripture. But again that doesn’t translate to the Catholic church being the authority on Christianity. It just shows that there were people who tended to believe what was taught by the Catholic church.

Anyway, I agree that Jesus did design the church to be unified. We see how well this has worked out in the 21st century. IMHO observing current status is an argument for the pro-centralization position.

I wouldn’t say centralization though. I think unity is absolutely key. But unity will be hard to come by as long as the Roman Catholic church professes itself to be the central authority on all Christian teachings.

PEACE

 

[elvisman]

No one ever said it was meant as a one time gathering.

As far as Peter being put in charge that is your opinion. It certainly was never viewed that way by the early church fathers. And the OP was not asking about Peter. The question was about unity among the ekklesia.

Sorry, my brotha - but you’re wrong:

Tertullian
**[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
**Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter[/COLOR]], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Likewise with:
Ignatius
Clement
Augustine
Ambros of Milan
Cyprian of Carthage
Tertullian
Iranaeus

Next post - the "Fathers on the Church".**

 

[mozart-250]

In reading Mark 10 it appears that Jesus has a dis-taste for anyone exercising authority over another. That’s why I cited that verse.

I don’t see it as an absolute against exercising authority. Otherwise pastors of churches would have no authority.

I see the verse as how authority should be exercied.

It wasn’t a matter of centralized authority though. There was what became known as the Kathilocos/Universal church that stood united in its beliefs. The councils came to an agreement on the doctrine of the trinity and nature of Jesus. People who refuted those beliefs like the gnostics, the montanists etc. were naturally separated from the church. But that does not mean the Catholic church had the ultimate say so. The church wrapped some doctrine around what it believed and how it interpreted scripture. But again that doesn’t translate to the Catholic church being the authority on Christianity. It just shows that there were people who tended to believe what was taught by the Catholic church.

But aren’t the councils themselves evidence of central authority. How would a council function with a number of localized autonomous churches that disagreed with each other.

I wouldn’t say centralization though. I think unity is absolutely key. But unity will be hard to come by as long as the Roman Catholic church professes itself to be the central authority on all Christian teachings.
PEACE

I’m not asking about the Roman Catholic church. Even if one believes that Christ designed a centralized church…there are many more logical steps that must be hurdled before you reach “The Roman Catholic denomination of today is in entirety the one and only church of Jesus Christ.”

For example…the Orthodox believe in a Centralized church (I think). The way that I understand it though is their centralization revolves more around church councils rather than one pope with headquarters in Rome.

 

[srferdave]

There was what became known as the Kathilocos/Universal church that stood united in its beliefs.

You said it right here. “United in beliefs”. So why do so many non-Catholic Christians hold so many different beliefs? One Baptist will believe one thing while another will believe the absolute opposite. Not to mention a Baptist beliefs vs. an Evangelical and so on. All of there beliefs come from one fallible “Pastor”. If they come across something that they don’t know they go to their pastor or “authority” for the answer. But the answer they get from one pastor might be different than the answer they get from another pastor. How is one to know what to believe. This is why Jesus intended for their to be only 1 church.

 

[elvisman]

In reading Mark 10 it appears that Jesus has a dis-taste for anyone exercising authority over another. That’s why I cited that verse.

Agree 100%. I think that’s how it should be today.

It wasn’t a matter of centralized authority though. There was what became known as the Kathilocos/Universal church that stood united in its beliefs. The councils came to an agreement on the doctrine of the trinity and nature of Jesus. People who refuted those beliefs like the gnostics, the montanists etc. were naturally separated from the church. But that does not mean the Catholic church had the ultimate say so. The church wrapped some doctrine around what it believed and how it interpreted scripture. But again that doesn’t translate to the Catholic church being the authority on Christianity. It just shows that there were people who tended to believe what was taught by the Catholic church.

I wouldn’t say centralization though. I think unity is absolutely key. But unity will be hard to come by as long as the Roman Catholic church professes itself to be the central authority on all Christian teachings.

PEACE

Sorry again, friend. Jesus PREACHED authority of the Church. He didn’t have a “dis-taste” for it:

Matt. 18:15-18
**"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. ****If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ ****If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. **
Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Irenaeus:
**"****The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." **(Against Heresies 1:10 A.D. 189]).

Ignatius of Antioch:
**Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. **(Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 A.D. 110]).

Cyprian:
**Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another (Letters 66 [A.D. 253]).

 

[mozart-250]

Matt. 18:15-18 "If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.

**If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ **
Now I am not sold on much Catholic apologetics, but I do think they raise a good question with regards to this verse. How would this work in the case of 2 independent autonomous churches. I could construct some scenarios here…but I got a baseball game to attend now.

 

[bpbasilphx]

The original Greek uses the word ejkklhsiva which gets transliterated to ekklesia which then gets transliterated to church. Ekklesia simply means an assembly.

**Obviously, you don’t know the difference between “tranlate” and “transliterate”.

Words do change meanings and gather new ones–even Greek.

Ask any Anglohellenophone what “ekklesia” means, and you will hear “church.”**

 

[wisdomseeker]

On another board there is this question of Ecclesia vs. Hateriea. Or assembly verses social club when it came to churches. The consensus was that the Chruch was not unified other than that they preached the gospels but each was independent of each other rather than being unified. What position do you hold? What scriptures back up your opinion or historical facts?

you mean ones would teach faith alone, Bible alone, some symbolic baptism, others prosperity gospel and so forth?

if the Church was churches back then. than what happen to the other churches fifteen hundreds before protestantism begin? because for 1500 we only knew one Church the CC. is this not true? One Church spreaded throughout the world.

Chesterton
***" The Catholic faith even when watered down can still boil the world to rags."

---

 

[elvisman]

Now I am not sold on much Catholic apologetics, but I do think they raise a good question with regards to this verse. How would this work in the case of 2 independent autonomous churches. I could construct some scenarios here…but I got a baseball game to attend now.

I think you hit the nail right on the head.
**This can’t work with 2 independent, autonomous churches - because it wasn’t meant to be so. **

**J****esus meant for there to be ONE Church, ONE authority, ONE baptism, ONE faith. **This is what he meant in Matt. 18:15-18 and his prayer of unity in John 17:

***"Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so *that they may be one just as we are. **
***"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that *they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. **
***And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that *they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the worlworld may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me."

---

**He didn’t want his Church to be thousands of independent factions. He wanted us to be ONE. **

Peace.

 

[wisdomseeker]

On another board there is this question of Ecclesia vs. Hateriea. Or assembly verses social club when it came to churches. The consensus was that the Chruch was not unified other than that they preached the gospels but each was independent of each other rather than being unified. What position do you hold? What scriptures back up your opinion or historical facts?

and i would ask this: were the apostles indepedent from each other or they were together preaching the same wherever they went? were they not ONE? meaning all agreed in the same teachings? did any of the apostles had authority to teach anything different from each other?

Chesterton
***“The Catholic faith even when watered down can still boil the world to rags.”

---

 

[jmcrae]

I just opened my Bible to this passage and I don’t see how Jesus in these verses is addressing the issue one way or another.

But then again, maybe I am just not creative enough when I read Scripture.

What is going on in that passage? (Break it down verse by verse, and then put it into your own words.)

 

[sambos671]

you mean ones would teach faith alone, Bible alone, some symbolic baptism, others prosperity gospel and so forth?

if the Church was churches back then. than what happen to the other churches fifteen hundreds before protestantism begin? because for 1500 we only knew one Church the CC. is this not true? One Church spreaded throughout the world.

Chesterton
***" The Catholic faith even when watered down can still boil the world to rags."

---

Good point. I’m in favor of a christian wide Ecclesia or assembly. I’ve been arguing with protestants on a protestant board about this point. My point to them was that Pliny made a correct statment about christians if they were anything like protestant churches today. He called Christians Heteriea which would be closer to a social club like the VFW. Something that Trajan wanted to cut down on in nothern Turkey. (fear of secrete political movements and unrest) I’ve been bombasted which I expected. It has turned into a very sour point for many claiming independent chruches. But I don’t see scripture substantiating it. I even had to argue for the benefits of Constantine over some weird belief that he married the “church” with paganism. They don’t seem to grasp actual history. They almost force the concept of many churches not in union with each other. It’s like hitting my head against a brick wall.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Good point. I’m in favor of a christian wide Ecclesia or assembly. I’ve been arguing with protestants on a protestant board about this point. My point to them was that Pliny made a correct statment about christians if they were anything like protestant churches today. He called Christians Heteriea which would be closer to a social club like the VFW. Something that Trajan wanted to cut down on in nothern Turkey. (fear of secrete political movements and unrest) I’ve been bombasted which I expected. It has turned into a very sour point for many claiming independent chruches. But I don’t see scripture substantiating it. I even had to argue for the benefits of Constantine over some weird belief that he married the “church” with paganism. They don’t seem to grasp actual history. They almost force the concept of many churches not in union with each other. It’s like hitting my head against a brick wall.

Oh ye!

one thing we know for sure the Truth always prevail. we know that for what is going right now.

of course you are not finding this in SS. is not there.
they cannot understand why history is so important because they cannot see. they are blind to the Truth until they repent and ask forgiveness for comming against the Body of Christ.
untill they grasp this concept of repentess and forgiveness they will go on blind.

i only argue to a certain point and i do not give them a lot of info either.

expect more theological confusing as they continue to come up with more and more ideas of what a church should be just to prove the CC wrong. the more they try the more they will fall into confusion.

Chesterton
***" The Catholic faith even when watered down can still boil the world to rags. " ***

 

[Hisalone]

you mean ones would teach faith alone, Bible alone, some symbolic baptism, others prosperity gospel and so forth?

if the Church was churches back then. than what happen to the other churches fifteen hundreds before protestantism begin? because for 1500 we only knew one Church the CC. is this not true? One Church spreaded throughout the world.

Chesterton
***" The Catholic faith even when watered down can still boil the world to rags."

---

Ask the Coptic Christians about that.

 

[mozart-250]

What is going on in that passage? (Break it down verse by verse, and then put it into your own words.)

Well, none of the verses in John 21:15-23 mention “church”, so it requires a certain amount of creativity to get church there, which I guess I just don’t have.