The historicity of the Church

[mikeburris]

The Way of Faith, by Mike Burris 3/29/2014

Paul says in Rom 1:5 his ministry team “received grace . . . to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of Christ’s name among all the nations” and he ends in Rom 16:26 with “my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ has now been made know to all nations . . . to bring about the obedience of faith.” There is no definite article attached to “faith” so Paul is going far beyond “the faith” we are to “examine ourselves to see if we are in, to test ourselves to see if Jesus Christ is in us” that Paul speaks of in 2 Cor 13:5, “the faith we are to stand firm in” according to 1 Cor 16:13. In context, Paul speaks of a much broader aspect of faith. In Rom 1:16-17 Paul lays out his purpose: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the dynamite-like power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith . . . For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by the means of faith.’” Salvation (soteria) doesn’t refer only to that sliver of time you “accepted the Lord and were saved.” It refers to the entire process of predestination, calling/election, justification (made right with God), sanctification/holiness/godliness (living rightly before God), and finally our glorification when our bodies are changed into an incorruptible body like Christ’s. Righteousness (dikaiosune) also doesn’t refer only to that sliver of time when we are justified, made right with God through the blood of Christ when his righteousness is transferred to us as our sin was transferred to him – this process called propitiation. It also refers to living rightly before God (sanctification, holiness, godliness), which is also the work of the Holy Spirit “working in us both to will/desire and to do God’s good pleasure (Phil 2:13). God is in control of the entire process of healing us and restoring us back to wholeness, back to God’s original design! The phrase “faith to faith” is an idiom meaning “from the beginning to the end of your faith.” In other words, gospel “righteousness” is a step-by-step process of faith. This the “obedience” that God is interested in now! This means we no longer have to keep track of 613 commandments of the Old Testament, but simply have faith that Jesus has fully done this once and for all and finished the job, so that there is no “obedience of works” left for us to do. How do we work for “food” that endures unto eternal life? What are the works of God that we must do? Jesus answered in John 6:29: “This is the work of God: that you have faith in him whom God has sent.” But “obedience of faith” is also how we are going to live rightly before God by the power of the Holy Spirit. So faith is the key to not only starting your walk in Christ, but also how to continue walking in Christ’s holiness. This will not happen through any “obedience of works” but only through “obedience of faith.” That’s what Paul meant in Gal 3:3 “Are you so foolish? Did you receive the Spirit by works of the Law or by hearing with faith? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” The whole book of Romans explains the walk of faith!
Faith comes from the Greek words pistis (noun) or pisteuo (verb), but the word “believe” is quite misleading, because “faith” means far more than mental understanding and agreement. It means to so recognize, understand, and agree with what you’ve been promised that you take action to trust, rely in, and depend on that promise, especially when all your senses and emotions are telling you otherwise. This is the true test of whether you trust that person! Faith is like a normal light switch – it’s either on or off! When it’s on, faith connects you to the power of God. When it is off there is no flow of power – period! The word “doubt” in the bible is the “off” position, equal to having “no faith” and thus no power. James 1:6 says “but let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts . . . that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord.” Also, you can’t get more or less faith regarding a particular promise of God. It’s like filling a glass with water – you can get more knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, but only when it is full can you say the glass is “full” and only then can you say for that particular promise, you then have faith, the switch is “on,” and you receive the power of God for that promise! What about Christ’s “O you of little faith” comments regarding his disciples? The single Greek word oligopistos simply means “puny faith” and the KJV correctly translates this often as “unbelief” (no faith). Jesus isn’t telling the disciples that in those particular occasions they had a “little faith but not enough to fill the glass up,” but that their faith was as “good as none!” It only takes the faith the size of a mustard seed to move a mountain, so size or amount is irrelevant. You either have it or you don’t – the switch is either on or not. No work of the flesh (“might or power”) can “grow faith” for faith (like grace and salvation) is a gift of God, not of your own doing, so that nobody can boast (Ephesians 2:8). Our cry should be like that father to the Lord for the healing of his child, “help my unbelief!”
We all have faith – it’s just that most of the time it is misplaced! We all receive from where we place our trust and dependence on. If upon our “might and power” we get “in the flesh” results of this earth. If instead, we put our faith in “by my Spirit, says the Lord” in Zech 4:6, then we get supernatural “in the Spirit” results.

 

[mikeburris]

part 2

We either “set our minds on the things of the flesh and on the things of earth” and reap the whirlwind of death or “we set our minds on the things of the Spirit and on things above” and reap genuine, real-thing, super-abundant life (Col 3:2, Rom 8:5, Jn 10:10). When Jesus said in Mt 4:4 “Man shall not genuinely live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” the Greek for “word” is rhema, meaning directly verbal utterance of God – not logos Scripture! In several “God dreams” I’ve had in which I was able to do supernatural things, it was always the result of hearing the Lord tell me to do something and me simply obeying this rhema word. This is the “obedience of faith!” I didn’t go home to look up a 100 Scriptures (logos) to build my faith. All the big changes in my life have occurred when I heard the Lord directly tell me something, whether audibly, in a dream, in a vision, or through prophecy. The early Church absolutely relied on rhema for 300 years before the New Testament was ever called “Scripture” by Western Catholics, and didn’t even agree upon its contents until 367 AD, and the Eastern Catholics didn’t agree until 1442 AD! Martin Luther wanted 4 NT books thrown out!

 

[spina1953]

Luke in Acts 15:1-5 the first five verses set the Lucan stage for the council; they describe the tension of the Antiochene Church, a tension that is repeated in Jerusalem when the emissaries of Antioch arrive there. Some men; is a vague reference reveals the suture like character of the opening verses; converted Pharisees of 15:5 from Judea. The vague reference points to the Jerusalem Church 15:24- unless you are circumcised. Luke’s introduction singles out the main issue at the council. The dietary regulations are not a concern here, according to Mosaic practice: The practice of circumcision was actually related in Jewish tradition, not to Moses, but to Abraham: Luke gives this motivation for the sending of Barnabus and Paul to Jerusalem, but in Gal.2:2 Paul speaks of a revelation as the reason for the visit to Jerusalem. The order of these names betrays a Lucan formulation as in 13:45,46,50; 15:22 contrast 14:14;15:12,25, to see the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem. The officials of the Jerusalem Church are thus clearly specified; they are distinguished from the Whole Church. The sedes apostolica was to be consulted. According to Gal.2:9 Peter and John were among these Apostles; James the brother of the Lord. Luke does not consider James an Apostle in the Greek sense of the word.

 The convocation and Peter's address (15:6-12) the debate, which began in Antioch, and was carried in  effect to Jerusalem occasions a separate council of the Apostolic and presbyteral college in the latter Church, since James's discourse undoubtedly had to do with an incident  historically independent of the council that decided the issue of circumcision.

what this is saying is in effect that the Council was not about the whole Church at large but of those Church’s that those from Jerusalem fraction who were attempting to undermine Paul’s and for that matter Peter’s teachings concerning salvation, in which these so called converted Pharisees they thought that only by circumcision was there salvation and cause confusion among the Greek speaking Christian converts. Peter did not have anything and neither did Paul for that matter need to refer to Scripture since what they were teaching came from Jesus Himself and not from Scripture whether the Hebrew or the LXX. So SS could not have worked nor was it anything that Jesus taught the Apostles. When the Apostles used Scripture it was in light of what Jesus taught about the Good News and how Jesus fulfilled what the OT conveyed.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

We don’t say Sola Petrus. What we say is Prima Petrus

I think you are missing the whole point of Paul’s ministry, which it is preach the Gospel under with the authority of the Church, for which the head is Christ.

When Paul is blinded on the road to Damascus, what did Jesus tell him?

Christ didn’t say, go alone and make yourself an authority. No, he sent Paul where? To the Church.

Jose ,where did I say that Paul was an authority unto himself or for that matter make him “Prima” Paul?
It is you ,is it not ,who without any unscriptural authority ,elevate Peter to a place which is above every other apostle ? Not me.
Although Paul as you know,counted himself least of all the apostles he nevertheless knew where he had received his ministry and by whom ( the head of the "church) he had received it from.

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him,Go thy way : for he is a chosen vessel unto me,to bear my name before the Gentiles,and kings,and the children of Israel "

Nevertheless ,on account of that supreme authority whereby he received his ministry: Paul asserts ,in equality ,his own apostleship with that of every other( apostle).

2Corinthians11:5 “For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles”

Is it not you who make Peter every bit "whit " above Paul and above the other ten?

Who can deny that it in accordance to the prophecy in Acts 9:15, that it is was by the ministry of Paul ,whose “apostleship” : " the same was mighty …toward the Gentiles"?( Gal 2:8) and was indeed, mightily fulfilled ;even as was no doubt ,Peter in " the apostleship of the circumcision"

 

[benhur]

Of course Rome was more influential in 1500 as oppose to 100 AD.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It is you ,is it not ,who without any unscriptural authority ,elevate Peter to a place which is above every other apostle ? Not me.

Is it not you who make Peter every bit "whit " above Paul and above the other ten?

:nope:

It is not me, Bernard. I’m not the one who has to do interpretational gymnastics to get away from what Jesus Christ - God the Son - King of Kings - Lord of Lords - says. Whose name is like no other name. The one who said to Peter:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Luke 22:31-34:
“Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” And he said to him, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death!” Jesus said, “I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you have denied three times that you know me".

John 21:15-19
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. Very truly, I tell you, when you were younger, you used to fasten your own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go.” (He said this to indicate the kind of death by which he would glorify God.) After this he said to him, “Follow me".

Oh no, Bernard. Please leave that profanity of me being that one who says. I am but a lowly servant. Do not, please do not say it is me. If anything it is my Church who confirms the Words of Christ.

You deny them :sad_yes:, not me :nope:.

Who can deny that it in accordance to the prophecy in Acts 9:15, that it is was by the ministry of Paul ,whose “apostleship” : " the same was mighty …toward the Gentiles"?( Gal 2:8) and was indeed, mightily fulfilled ;even as was no doubt ,Peter in " the apostleship of the circumcision"

And yet, there is no record of Peter circumcising Mark as Paul circumcised Timothy.

You might want to read the rest of the New Testament, especially Peter, John, James, and Jude.

Not by Paul alone.

 

[benhur]

Jerome was one dude. The Church has spoken. Jerome obeyed. Others don’t want to. As simple as that.

Yep. However, no one was more scholarly on the subject at the time than Jerome.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yep. However, no one was more scholarly on the subject at the time than Jerome.

Yes, obedient dudes are rare

 

[benhur]

But there is no record of those preaching Christ saying anything against Christ and His Apostles.

Agreed. Quite a simple, universal message.

There is a big difference between sharing the Good News and being against the Church.

Understand and respect your view. My view is that if one preaches the gospel and you see it as also being against the church, your definition of church has ceased from being universal.

The laying of on hands is done by the Church. It’s all over the New Testament.

Precisely.

It’s not about being clique, it’s about being truthful in intent and purpose.

Agreed

 

[benhur]

Inspiration does not equate into official canonization. Again,there was no formal official Jewish canon in 1st century Palestine. The fact OT was quoted does not support or prove Jesus had an official canonized Bible. As I ask SS advocates:
How many books did the Jewish Bible contain in 20 AD? Which group of Jews authorized its canonization?

The question is mute in terms that Writ is authoritative with or without canonization.

The fact Paul’s letters were “holy” does not change the fact it was the church…who decided what constituted “holy” or not. The Bible no where declares which books/epistles are to be considered inspirational. You seem to want to reject the church all together from the process. There exists scores of writings and some were considered inspirational by specific communities. The church as whole determined,not individuals or a specific community.

Thank-you .That is what I was saying. it was not bishops who determined them as you stated earlier.

It is a both/and dichotomy. The church and scripture

. Correct and the church is not above scripture.

Yes. Our entire faith revolves around the Messiah and his fulfillment of the law. Jesus said to preach unto all nations. Never said: write a Bible and only follow the Bible.

Correct. Yet He gave us that bible to guide and assist her on that mission.

 

[benhur]

Yes, obedient dudes are rare

Even rarer is obedience to God when it is against one’s beloved the powers to be.

 

[joe371]

Understand. I would rather you take the same approach or attitude as you do with judging who goes to heaven and who does not, to who is ultimately saved or not.

You crossed that proverbial line in the sand man. I would never judge anyone; way over the top!!! :tsktsk: Biggest red herring ever…

 

[benhur]

You crossed that proverbial line in the sand man. I would never judge anyone; way over the top!!! :tsktsk: Biggest red herring ever…

Then why do you judge whom God ordains or not ?..Actually sorry if you felt I meant you judged . I merely meant for you to take that same attitude (of not judging). I did not separate you from fellow Catholics, whom i said do not judge such things. If you read the post again, you will see no inference that you judge, and I should have worded it better. In fact it is contradictory to my point to see any inference that you judge who goes to heaven or not. In essence i was saying don’t judge one’s ordination as valid as you do not judge one’s final salvation.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Understand and respect your view. My view is that if one preaches the gospel and you see it as also being against the church, your definition of church has ceased from being universal.

Herein lies the root of the problem.

The Gospel has been preached and protected by the Church. One cannot preach Christ and then be against Him. The Church and Christ are one.

And therein lies the problem. Most, almost all really, of Protestants I engage have a different view of what is the visible Church. The physical, present Church. And there is this relativistic view of the Church confirming to the individual’s belief… “You know, you go where you can feel Christ”… and “We are humans, it’s impossible to get along, the Church is just a building or a denominations - it doesn’t matter where you go as long as you believe in Jesus”…

This are actual arguments I have encountered, and please do not think I am ascribing them to all denomination and individuals. I am offering them as an example.

The problem is that the Church is the body of Christ and we just can’t have one arm going east, the other arm going west, one leg going south, and the other leg going north…

The fractionalism we are seeing today in Christianity - in the name of the Gospel nonetheless - is absolutely appalling.

There has been one constant presence since Pentecost: The Church.

 

[benhur]

Herein lies the root of the problem.

The Gospel has been preached and protected by the Church. One cannot preach Christ and then be against Him. The Church and Christ are one.

And therein lies the problem. Most, almost all really, of Protestants I engage have a different view of what is the visible Church. The physical, present Church. And there is this relativistic view of the Church confirming to the individual’s belief… “You know, you go where you can feel Christ”… and “We are humans, it’s impossible to get along, the Church is just a building or a denominations - it doesn’t matter where you go as long as you believe in Jesus”…

This are actual arguments I have encountered, and please do not think I am ascribing them to all denomination and individuals. I am offering them as an example.

The problem is that the Church is the body of Christ and we just can’t have one arm going east, the other arm going west, one leg going south, and the other leg going north…

The fractionalism we are seeing today in Christianity - in the name of the Gospel nonetheless - is absolutely appalling.

There has been one constant presence since Pentecost: The Church.

I am thinking of OT and it’s similarities to this dilemma of unity and structural, spiritual identity.
It seems in the end, no matter where they found themselves in the mix, an encounter with the Messiah was needed, a somewhat universal thread amongst all Jewish diversity. In the end the covenant succeeded. Our covenant shall also. There is a Body, the Bride that will be delivered for the wedding. Now the fractionalism existed then as it does now, unfortunately. Either we all change our peculiar belief’s or be unified as to what is universal to all and elevate that above our differences.

 

[joe371]

Then why do you judge whom God ordains or not ?..Actually sorry if you felt I meant you judged . I merely meant for you to take that same attitude (of not judging). I did not separate you from fellow Catholics, whom i said do not judge such things. If you read the post again, you will see no inference that you judge, and I should have worded it better. In fact it is contradictory to my point to see any inference that you judge who goes to heaven or not. In essence i was saying don’t judge one’s ordination as valid as you do not judge one’s final salvation.

Perhaps, my bad… I was in a rush. Read the CCC 817 - 821, and you will have a better understanding of what the church teaches regarding those who do not belong to the CC. Most of my family, (including my fiancée who passed away) are not Christians belonging to the CC. Me suggesting that the CC has a valid priesthood and the necessary apostolic pedigree required to validate ordination, has nothing to do with deciding who will go to heaven and who will not; only God knows those things, and CCC clearly reminds us that those outside the CC can of course be saved: “Christ’s Spirit **uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation.” **

Wounds to unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

 

[FathersKnowBest]

He could. It is totally possible that happened in some of the early churches. It can not be ruled out . We know the churches were told to appoint themselves elders and deacons and presbyters/bishops, especially when many were executed, and those that the apostles put in place "departed’… A congregation could, along with existing elders appoint themselves a presbyter/bishop.

Do you have a citation for this?

As per previous post, understand the CC beauty and linear logic. I humbly disagree, and as some Protestants feel more assured in judging our ( and others) salvation in Christ now, we also feel just as assured in judging not just the physical but spiritual validity/historicity of God’s anointing on it’s leaders.

St. Jude warned against this very thing in Jude 1:11!

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Then why do you judge whom God ordains or not ?

That’s the point, exactly.

GOD has to do the ordaining, not men, unless and until those men authorized to ordain.

How are they authorized? By having been ordained by someone who was ordained by someone … who was ordained by an Apostle.

And not just ordained by a priest (like Luther); they are and were considered helpers of the Bishops.

In essence i was saying don’t judge one’s ordination as valid as you do not judge one’s final salvation.

VERY different case.
Would you not judge, say, a Mormon’s ordination as valid or invalid?
How about an Imam’s ordination?

 

[spina1953]

Do you have a citation for this?

St. Jude warned against this very thing in Jude 1:11!

Hi Fathers Know Best: I agree, also I believe Jesus said (Matt. 7;1-3) “If you want to avoid judgment, stop passing judgment. Your verdict on others will be the verdict passed on to you. The measure with which you measure will be used to measure you.” Sounds to be to be very good advice and great teaching that Jesus gave us and we should follow it to the letter since who wants to be judged in the same manor we so often judge others?

 

[benhur]

Perhaps, my bad… I was in a rush. Read the CCC 817 - 821, and you will have a better understanding of what the church teaches regarding those who do not belong to the CC. Most of my family, (including my fiancée who passed away) are not Christians belonging to the CC. Me suggesting that the CC has a valid priesthood and the necessary apostolic pedigree required to validate ordination, has nothing to do with deciding who will go to heaven and who will not; only God knows those things, and CCC clearly reminds us that those outside the CC can of course be saved: “Christ’s Spirit **uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation.” **

Wounds to unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Joe, sorry to read about losing your fiance…I understood you to say your family is not Catholic, but wasn’t sure if you meant not Christian either ?