Single or multiple churches?

[jmcrae]

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.

What is Jesus’ “flock”? Do you think that Jesus had a literal flock of sheep somewhere, that he wanted fisherman Simon to be looking after, as His most important shepherd?

(And if so, then why did Peter go off and start preaching to the Church, calling Councils, establishing Church discipline, and organizing the Apostles and the Bishops, etc., instead?)

 

[mozart-250]

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.

Well I think you overstate things a tad when you say it *can not *work. If two independent, autonomous churches are somehow in perfect unity with one another, it should work in theory;

However, the truth is that it is *not guaranteed *to work, and I have seen in real life cases where it *did not *work.

The fact is that if Jesus did design the church as independent, authonomous churches, Protestants model this design very poorly. The only consolation that I have is that the totally centralized model worked poorly in the 1300-1700 time frame when you had Christians in power either burning or drowning Christians not in power.

I also wonder where denominations fit in with the independent, autonomous church model. It would seem to me that Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God are also unscriptural here.

 

[mozart-250]

What is Jesus’ “flock”? Do you think that Jesus had a literal flock of sheep somewhere, that he wanted fisherman Simon to be looking after, as His most important shepherd?

(And if so, then why did Peter go off and start preaching to the Church, calling Councils, establishing Church discipline, and organizing the Apostles and the Bishops, etc., instead?)

The thing is that I do not know from the passage at hand whether the scope of the word flock is local or global.

I know that you believe it is global based on your interpretation of other scriptures. But you only cited John 21.

I am not interested that much “Peter is the first pope” stuff now anyway. I want to take this one step at a time. If you can establish first that Jesus designed a centralized church, then you can next establish how this centralized church is organized and who its first leaders were. If we can eliminate the centralized design entirely, then we eliminate Peter as the first pope.

I am undecided on this point now, but have a number of silly questions to Protestants who insist that Jesus did not design a centralized church.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Ask the Coptic Christians about that.

if you believe on the myth of coptic christians being from early christians from egypt and not roman christians, then minus as well believe on the mormons myth of Jesus coming to american and the prophet J Smith of restoring the true church. right? or why not jehovah’s witness myth for that matter.
you people will believe anything but the Truth, as long as something anything to prove CC wrong. how sad. keep digging, eventually you will find that you did not have to do all this because the Truth was here all along right at you door knocking.

perhaps it is a good idea for you to start using the method, the process of elimination this might help you in finding the truth.

**“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… **

 

[jmcrae]

The thing is that I do not know from the passage at hand whether the scope of the word flock is local or global.

It is Jesus’ flock - singular. This signifies that there is only one. At the time, it consisted of fewer than 1,000 people, all of whom were from the region of Palestine - today, there are more than one billion, and they live in every country all over the world.

If you can establish first that Jesus designed a centralized church, then you can next establish how this centralized church is organized and who its first leaders were. If we can eliminate the centralized design entirely, then we eliminate Peter as the first pope.

Well, how we establish that Jesus gave us one Church is that He set Peter up in charge of it. He didn’t separate that action into two parts - His action of setting up the Church was to rename Simon as Peter (a rock) and then appoint him as “chief shepherd” of the “flock.”

 

[mozart-250]

It is Jesus’ flock - singular. This signifies that there is only one. At the time, it consisted of fewer than 1,000 people, all of whom were from the region of Palestine - today, there are more than one billion, and they live in every country all over the world. .

I know that is your interpretation of the passage and it is credible.

At the same time, there are other logical interpretations of the passage that can not be ruled out unless you accept as a precondition specific interpretations of other passages of Scripture.

Well, how we establish that Jesus gave us one Church is that He set Peter up in charge of it. He didn’t separate that action into two parts - His action of setting up the Church was to rename Simon as Peter (a rock) and then appoint him as “chief shepherd” of the “flock.”

Yet at the same time it is logically possible to believe that Jesus established a centralized church but did not make Peter the first pope. I think the Orthodox hold this belief from what I have read, but I could be mistaken.

For that matter it is logically possible to believe that Peter (in a sense) was the “first pope”, but not believe that the Roman Catholic denomination is exclusively and entirely the church of Jesus Christ with its current pope being impossible to be mistaken in matters of faith and morals.

In case you haven’t gotten this yet, I approach issues like this very incrementally.

 

[jmcrae]

I know that is your interpretation of the passage and it is credible.

At the same time, there are other logical interpretations of the passage that can not be ruled out unless you accept as a precondition specific interpretations of other passages of Scripture.

Yet at the same time it is logically possible to believe that Jesus established a centralized church but did not make Peter the first pope. I think the Orthodox hold this belief from what I have read, but I could be mistaken.

They say that he was pre-eminent in honour, and was meant to be a figurehead for unity, but not a person of authority - they hold that authority can only be exercised by means of a Council - which of course the Pope would call, which is why in more than 1,000 years, the Orthodox have never had a Council.

In case you haven’t gotten this yet, I approach issues like this very incrementally.

I think you are trying to tip-toe across a chasm. Better to leap, I think.

 

[ralphinal]

We do see in Scripture what seems to be independant churches. However, we also see Apostles exorcising control over these churches in the form of letters or by persoanl visits. This leads me to think that the day-to-day oporation of a church was done locally while matters of faith and worship had oversite from above. This leadership would not have died with the Apostles, as Peter and the others had started the Apostolic Succession in Acts by replacing Judas.

This leads me to a question of what model fits this system best. We can rule out the true independant churches, as there is no oversight. The affiliated churches, such as Southern Baptist, have some level, but it is recommended at best. Denominations such as Methodist have more control, but are they to the same level as the early Church? It seems that the closest matches would be in the Catholic, Orthodox, and perhaps Anglican churches. In Acts, we see Peter passing judgement on those who attempted to cheat the Church. This also shows me a place of prominance. That is another discussion.

 

[elvisman]

Well I think you overstate things a tad when you say it *can not *work. If two independent, autonomous churches are somehow in perfect unity with one another, it should work in theory;

However, the truth is that it is *not guaranteed *to work, and I have seen in real life cases where it *did not *work.

The fact is that if Jesus did design the church as independent, authonomous churches, Protestants model this design very poorly. The only consolation that I have is that the totally centralized model worked poorly in the 1300-1700 time frame when you had Christians in power either burning or drowning Christians not in power.

I also wonder where denominations fit in with the independent, autonomous church model. It would seem to me that Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God are also unscriptural here.

My point is that the Church was not meant to be ONE united entity. Jesus’ prayer of unity in John 17 says this explicitly. To interpret this otherwise is to make up your own rules.

As for Christians committing atrocities towards one another, these were the fruits of independent interpretation and thought - not the work of the Church. This is the danger of the falsehood that you deem “united”, yet “independent and autonomous churches”.

 

[Hisalone]

if you believe on the myth of coptic christians being from early christians from egypt and not roman christians, then minus as well believe on the mormons myth of Jesus coming to american and the prophet J Smith of restoring the true church. right? or why not jehovah’s witness myth for that matter.
you people will believe anything but the Truth, as long as something anything to prove CC wrong. how sad. keep digging, eventually you will find that you did not have to do all this because the Truth was here all along right at you door knocking.

perhaps it is a good idea for you to start using the method, the process of elimination this might help you in finding the truth.

**“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… **

What do the Copts say about their history and their heritage? The fact is that Rome has been nothing more than a bully to all other Christains, they suffer as Paul says not to percieve the body which is Christs assembly.

 

[Hisalone]

My point is that the Church was not meant to be ONE united entity. Jesus’ prayer of unity in John 17 says this explicitly. To interpret this otherwise is to make up your own rules.

As for Christians committing atrocities towards one another, these were the fruits of independent interpretation and thought - not the work of the Church. This is the danger of the falsehood that you deem “united”, yet “independent and autonomous churches”.

I assume that you meant the assembly was meant to be united not was not meant to be united. The fruit of one Lordin over another is disunity.

 

[wisdomseeker]

What do the Copts say about their history and their heritage? The fact is that Rome has been nothing more than a bully to all other Christains, they suffer as Paul says not to percieve the body which is Christs assembly.

:knight2: :knight2: :knight2:

 

[elvisman]

I assume that you meant the assembly was meant to be united not was not meant to be united. The fruit of one Lordin over another is disunity.

Yes - THAT is what I meant!
**Thank you for catching my typo. **
**That’s what happens when you type fast, I guess . . . **

 

[mozart-250]

We do see in Scripture what seems to be independant churches. However, we also see Apostles exorcising control over these churches in the form of letters or by persoanl visits. This leads me to think that the day-to-day oporation of a church was done locally while matters of faith and worship had oversite from above. This leadership would not have died with the Apostles, as Peter and the others had started the Apostolic Succession in Acts by replacing Judas.

Good point. Now you can have a discussion on what stuff the apostles had oversight over and what stuff the apostles left to the discretion of the local churches.

It is another interesting discussion on what is an apostle and what an apostle does. It does seem plain from Scripture that the office of the apostle carries quite a bit of authority and spans more than a local church.

Now the standard Protestant response is that the office of apostle died with the 12. Now I have a personal thing against saying something that I see in Scripture died out and is not applicable for today unless it seems plain in Scripture that is the case (and the Scriptural support for saying that the office of the apostle died out seems quite weak). Interesting I know of a couple of local Penteccostal churches that do not believe that the office of the apostle died out.

It seems more credible to me that the office of the apostle disappeared (if it did so) because the church drifted from God and his design, not because of the plan of God.

Disclaimer…there are still quite a few logical steps that need to be traversed before one can say that the pope of the Roman Catholic church is the present day apostle and successor to St. Peter. But anyway.

This leads me to a question of what model fits this system best. We can rule out the true independant churches, as there is no oversight.

Well I have wondered how this works myself. From my experience the denomination model works much better than the independent, unaffiliated model because of accountability and oversight.

The affiliated churches, such as Southern Baptist, have some level, but it is recommended at best.

Well I wonder about this. Can you be a Southern Baptist pastor and not believe in the trinity? Can one be a Southern Baptist pastor and actively homosexual?

I do know that you would not find the above in Assemblies of God…and I suspect that to be the same with Southern Baptist. But I might be wrong.

Denominations such as Methodist have more control, but are they to the same level as the early Church? It seems that the closest matches would be in the Catholic, Orthodox, and perhaps Anglican churches.

I am not sure of this. It seems to me that all denominations should have some level of doctrinal and behavior standards for its clergy.

At any rate, the issue seems to be scope. All denominations have some level of oversight. However the scope is limited only to the specific denomination.

It’s hard for me to see how denominations were a part of Jesus’s design for the church. Yet they seem to work much better than totally independent from my observation.

In Acts, we see Peter passing judgement on those who attempted to cheat the Church. This also shows me a place of prominance. That is another discussion.

 

[mozart-250]

As for Christians committing atrocities towards one another, these were the fruits of independent interpretation and thought - not the work of the Church. This is the danger of the falsehood that you deem “united”, yet “independent and autonomous churches”.

Umm…I don’t want to turn this into the 3,456,912 inquisition discussion, but your pope has apologized for the church’s actions in these matters.

According to moral theology, there are different ways one might be morally complicit in an evil act other than directly perpetrating it. These include giving tacit approval, failure to stop when it is withing ones power to do so, failure even to speak out against a moral evil…

So unless you want to argue that the Catholic church and its clergy (yes and Protestants too…it is hypocritcal for Protestants to use this issue as a wedge issue of supposed moral superiority) was totally uninvolved in the evil practices of this time period and did everything within its power to stop these evil practices; yes your pope (as much as you may not like it) was correct to apologize for past sins of the church.

But I don’t want to disrail this into the 4,236,459 inquisition thread. This just shows me the other side of Protestants not modelling unity very well…that the other option has its negatives also.

 

[ralphinal]

Good point. Now you can have a discussion on what stuff the apostles had oversight over and what stuff the apostles left to the discretion of the local churches.

If you want. I think that we agree on this point in its simple form.

It is another interesting discussion on what is an apostle and what an apostle does. It does seem plain from Scripture that the office of the apostle carries quite a bit of authority and spans more than a local church.

Agreed

Now the standard Protestant response is that the office of apostle died with the 12. Now I have a personal thing against saying something that I see in Scripture died out and is not applicable for today unless it seems plain in Scripture that is the case (and the Scriptural support for saying that the office of the apostle died out seems quite weak). Interesting I know of a couple of local Penteccostal churches that do not believe that the office of the apostle died out.

As do I. In EO and Catholic thought, the bishops are the successors of the Apostles.

It seems more credible to me that the office of the apostle disappeared (if it did so) because the church drifted from God and his design, not because of the plan of God.

I will not disagree here. There is sound logic in that statement

Disclaimer…there are still quite a few logical steps that need to be traversed before one can say that the pope of the Roman Catholic church is the present day apostle and successor to St. Peter. But anyway.

Not the point to this thread. I think that we are supposed to be discussing one vs. multiple churches, not who is what.

Well I have wondered how this works myself. From my experience the denomination model works much better than the independent, unaffiliated model because of accountability and oversight.

Agreed

Well I wonder about this. Can you be a Southern Baptist pastor and not believe in the trinity? Can one be a Southern Baptist pastor and actively homosexual?

I do know that you would not find the above in Assemblies of God…and I suspect that to be the same with Southern Baptist. But I might be wrong.

I left myself open to this question. No, a SBC pastor would at least have to profess the Trinity (no one can be sure what anyone beleives). NO, they could not be homosexual, either. But, the amount of actual doctrine is limited that they must accept in common. Education is another issue. I know personally of a functionally illiterate man who was pastor of a SBC church. Long story on that one. Another time.

A baptist can beleive many things that another can deny. There is no reason that a baptist cannot accept the perpetual virginity or Mary. He may catch hell about it, but he can beleive it.

I am not sure of this. It seems to me that all denominations should have some level of doctrinal and behavior standards for its clergy.

At any rate, the issue seems to be scope. All denominations have some level of oversight. However the scope is limited only to the specific denomination.

Agreed and agreed

It’s hard for me to see how denominations were a part of Jesus’s design for the church. Yet they seem to work much better than totally independent from my observation.

I agree. Plus, there is something to be said for being able to go into a certain kind of church and know that they should posses the same beleifs as the one 1000 miles away. It does not always work, but it is comforting to me.

 

[peary]

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?

**This is just my personal opinion, but in the case of the early Christians, those communities founded by the Apostles and/or their assigned ministers all shared certain beliefs and worshipped in a similar manner. That is why you had the Apostles Creed and Didache - both of these give you a good historical view of what went on in the early days and what beliefs identified the true Christian disciple. Beliefs that were strange or foreign to the apostolic faith were shunned and rejected. When the bishops gathered at the Council of Nicea, it was the first time that most of the Christian communities were represented together, and decisions for the good of the whole were made. In spite of this, separation still occurred. It’s quite difficult to get two people to agree on the same thing; I can only imagine how perky the councils were in those days!

 

[mozart-250]

Not the point to this thread. I think that we are supposed to be discussing one vs. multiple churches, not who is what.

Ya nabbed me.

 

[elvisman]

Umm…I don’t want to turn this into the 3,456,912 inquisition discussion, but your pope has apologized for the church’s actions in these matters.

According to moral theology, there are different ways one might be morally complicit in an evil act other than directly perpetrating it. These include giving tacit approval, failure to stop when it is withing ones power to do so, failure even to speak out against a moral evil…

So unless you want to argue that the Catholic church and its clergy (yes and Protestants too…it is hypocritcal for Protestants to use this issue as a wedge issue of supposed moral superiority) was totally uninvolved in the evil practices of this time period and did everything within its power to stop these evil practices; yes your pope (as much as you may not like it) was correct to apologize for past sins of the church.

But I don’t want to disrail this into the 4,236,459 inquisition thread. This just shows me the other side of Protestants not modelling unity very well…that the other option has its negatives also.

**Ummm, I was merely showing you that the Church wasn’t responsible for these actions. They didn’t have power over King Ferdinand and other monarchs during the Spanish Inquisitions. **
**As for not derailing the thread, I agree - but I was merely responding to your somewhat flawed understanding the of the Church’s involvement in these matters. **
**Yes, John Paul the Great apologized, but for the actions of Catholic individuals. **

 

[mozart-250]

Ummm, I was merely showing you that the Church wasn’t responsible for these actions. They didn’t have power over King Ferdinand and other monarchs during the Spanish Inquisitions.
**As for not derailing the thread, I agree - but I was merely responding to your somewhat flawed understanding the of the Church’s involvement in these matters. **
Yes, John Paul the Great apologized, but for the actions of Catholic individuals.

Unless:
(1) No authority in the Roman Catholic church was directly involved in the religious persecutions of the time period (of which the spanish inquisition was only 1)

AND one of the following

(2) No authority in the Roman Catholic church was aware of the religious persecutions of the time period

(3) The authorities in the Roman Catholic church that were aware of the religious persecutions of the time period did everything that they could to stop the religious persecutions of the time period.

Then the Roman Catholic church has some moral culpability in the religious persecutions of the time period. The only issue left is degree. I have no interest in debating degree.

The same applies to Protestants when they were in power and the perpetrators.

This is straight from Catholic moral theology that I have seen posted here.

Now I would be interested if any of you could cite one historian that has no bias that that makes these claims.

The only claims I have heard is that it is “not as bad” as some Protestants make it out to be. Perhaps that is the case. Still that is not the same as “no moral culpability”.