The historicity of the Church

[Bernard_Lyons]

In Acts 15 14, James speaks and says Symeon has told you how God first concerned Himself wit taking from among the gentiles a people to bear his name The words of the prophets agree with this, where it says in Scripture hereafter I will return and rebuild the fallen hut of David: from its ruins I will rebuild it and set it up again so that all the rest of mankind and all the nations that bear my name may seek out the Lord.

Now it seems to me that it does not say what or which Scripture James is or way referring to. When Peter spoke to everyone at the council and especially to those Pharisees who demanded that Gentiles be circumcised It was God who revealed that he Peter convert Gentiles by way of the Gospel before others did so.

When James spoke it was not about Gentiles having to nor having to be circumcised but about dietary laws in that they were not to eat the meat from anything contaminated by idols from illicit sexual union and from he meat from strangled animals and from eating blood. There was no Sola Scriptura going on, since there was no New Testament in any written form only the oral teaching they had received from Jesus and reaffirmed by the Holy Spirit. So it seems to m that those who somehow think that SS was the norm at that time during the council of Jerusalem and afterwards are highly mistaken. it also seems to me that at the council of Jerusalem, it was peter who decided that Gentiles would not be circumcised and James only really added that gentile not eat from anything contaminated by idols etc. from which he quoted from Scripture what we do no know which Scripture he was referring to and it sounds to me that h was speaking orally and not reading from any particular Scripture text.

Amos 9:11"In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen,and close the breaches thereof;and I will raise up the ruins,and I will build it as in days of old:"
(Verse 12)
“That they may posses the remnant of Edom ,and all the heathen,which are called by my name,saith the Lord that doeth this.”

Acts 15:6" And the apostles and elders came together for to consider this matter"

Notice that this matter was in equality, jointly tackled .It was not even decided by the apostles alone , never mind one in particular; but :" the apostles and elders".

If anyone here takes on the role of spokesman, it must surely be James: verse13 “Men brethren ,hearken unto me”

Verse 19
“Wherefore my sentence is ,that we trouble not them ,which from among the Gentiles are turned to God”

"Trouble them not " : about what?

About that which Peter says in verse 10: “Now therefore why tempt ye God,to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples,which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear”(KJV)

 

[pablope]

Amos 9:11"In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen,and close the breaches thereof;and I will raise up the ruins,and I will build it as in days of old:"

(Verse 12)
“That they may posses the remnant of Edom ,and all the heathen,which are called by my name,saith the Lord that doeth this.”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Notice that this matter was in equality, jointly tackled .It was not even decided by the apostles alone , never mind one in particular; but :" the apostles and elders".

Which were named and ordained by the Apostles or those whom the Apostles appointed.

Not a dude grabbing a scroll and making himself an authority.

 

[Nicea325]

The question is mute in terms that Writ is authoritative with or without canonization.
Thank-you .That is what I was saying. it was not bishops who determined them as you stated earlier.
. Correct and the church is not above scripture.
Correct. Yet He gave us that bible to guide and assist her on that mission.

Mute? Tell me where **each book of the Bible **gives explicit declaration of its inspiration? Chapter and verses

Wrong! It was the bishops of the Catholic/Orthodox churches who determined what constituted scripture or not. Evidently you have not taken the time to read the history of the bible and its canonization process. No amount of denials will change history just to suit our biases.
Yes…to guide us,but not to be our final authority as so many believe.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Hi Bernard Lyons: Acts 15:1-35, This episode falls designedly in the middle of Acts, for it is the turning point of Luke’s story, when the Apostolic and presbyteral college of Jerusalem officially recognizes the evangelization of the Gentiles, which has been initiated by Peter, Barnabus and Paul. So the Christian Church officially breaks out of it Jewish matrix. In the first half of Acts it is mostly about Peter and what Peter says and does. Peter was the first to convert Gentiles not Paul although from Paul in his Letter to the Galatians Chpt.2:7 Paul says that he went to the Gentiles while Peter was for the Jews, is not accurate on Paul’s part but was trying to show that he was just as important as Peter, and that he Paul was sent by God to them(Gentiles).

Hi Spina1953,
First of all I would object to the term: (whether or not it was intended as such)"Apostolic and presbyterial college) There is no justification I believe ,for a college system.

Whether Presbyterian or Roman Catholic ,whereby there is produced by a type of a college system : a trained and educated separate body ,which they then ordain as clergy (or priests) as the qualification ; I don’t believe you can establish anywhere in the NT.
If anything ,over the time the NT covers ,we see more a personal apprenticeship ,in the sense of those like “Marcus my son” with Peter and in true ministerial training and exampleaul with Timothy.

It is true that this decision was a defining point for those true believing Jews gathered at Jerusalem; and the chains or Jewish matrix was then broken.

But as you no doubt know its effects remained temporary and the war against this Jewish matrix centred in Jerusalem continued.
This is seen when Paul reaches Thessalonica and Berea ;and even in Galatia where notice it is Paul again, who ,in respect to the same Jewish stronghold :is seen tackling the “bewitching” of the believers there .

In respect to the infallible Word of God declaring in Galations 2 : one ( apostle) to the circumcision and one other to the Gentiles, ( I say ,not exclusively) in the focus of their respective ministries ,since it is recorded in scripture: for me it is not a subject debatable.

“When they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me ,as the Gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter”(verse7) KJV

Further more,by mutual agreement : " And when James,Cephas,and John ,who seemed to be pillars ,perceived the grace that was given unto me,they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship ;that we should go to the heathen, and they to the circumcision" (verse9)

Incidentally you can see here that this decision was settled,I believe in accordance to that which was in equality ,settled by an handshake .

 

[benhur]

Do you have a citation for this?

2nd Corinthians 8:19 “but who was also chosen of the churches” to travel as missionaries with Paul. Though not “priests” the idea was there of the “church” doing the "setting apart’ for ministry. Yes, Timothy and Titus were told to appoint overseers of the churches. We can not exclude future appointments being done only “top down” but at the very least from the “whole” church, not just by the elders/bishop. For instance Clement of Rome says distinguished men with the approval of the whole congregation appointed him. Ignatius tells several churches to appoint themselves elders/bishops. There is no citation for restricting ordination to be done by a monarchal episcopal bishop only.

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

Even Moses understood that indeed everyone has free will and must and can decide for themselves and as a later prophet said, “choose ye this day whom ye will serve”. At Korah the choice was presented. Of course with God’s help one had better choose wisely. I would not compare the simplicity of following Moses after such a glorious deliverance to following some of the Churches practices just previous to the reformation. Indeed Korah is a warning to us all. We also have warnings to follow God’s inner revelation when the powers to be ( religious or secular-all from God) are wrong ( examples are Daniel, Meschak, prophets, Jesus, apostles).

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by benhur
Thank you . I’ll stick to my story . Jerome called non-hebrew books as “apocrypha”, that the CC included in Vulgate canon (minus3). “This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these 54is to be set apart among the apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias, and The Shepherd are not in the canon.then by this to have twenty-four books of the Old Law” bombaxo.com/prologues.html

And Jerome was NOT the final authority. Jerome was a practicing Catholic at the time, not a Protestant. See…that is the difference between Jerome and the early Protestant reformers, Jerome adhered to the church and not his own ambitions and opinions.

 

[Nicea325]

2nd Corinthians 8:19 “but who was also chosen of the churches” to travel as missionaries with Paul. Though not “priests” the idea was there of the “church” doing the "setting apart’ for ministry. Yes, Timothy and Titus were told to appoint overseers of the churches. We can not exclude future appointments being done only “top down” but at the very least from the “whole” church, not just by the elders/bishop. For instance Clement of Rome says distinguished men with the approval of the whole congregation appointed him. Ignatius tells several churches to appoint themselves elders/bishops. There is no citation for restricting ordination to be done by a monarchal episcopal bishop only.

Even Moses understood that indeed everyone has free will and must and can decide for themselves and as a later prophet said, “choose ye this day whom ye will serve”. At Korah the choice was presented. Of course with God’s help one had better choose wisely. I would not compare the simplicity of following Moses after such a glorious deliverance to following some of the Churches practices just previous to the reformation. Indeed Korah is a warning to us all. We also have warnings to follow God’s inner revelation when the powers to be ( religious or secular-all from God) are wrong ( examples are Daniel, Meschak, prophets, Jesus, apostles).

And what does “whole” church exactly mean? Do you have historical evidence it was done by votes? Certain individuals deciding?

 

[benhur]

And Jerome was NOT the final authority. Jerome was a practicing Catholic at the time, not a Protestant. See…that is the difference between Jerome and the early Protestant reformers, Jerome adhered to the church and not his own ambitions and opinions.

Yes, yes, yes. I would not compare this to reformation problems. Jerome, like Luther, left it up to the reader to decide for himself the relevancy and historicity of each book. Jerome was allowed his opinions on the matter with his prologues to the books, including the one I cited, calling them “apocrypha”, to be placed in the Vulgate, if I recall correctly. Perhaps a compromise (unlike reformation times).

 

[Nicea325]

Yes, yes, yes. I would not compare this to reformation problems. Jerome, like Luther, left it up to the reader to decide for himself the relevancy and historicity of each book. Jerome was allowed his opinions on the matter with his prologues to the books, including the one I cited, calling them “apocrypha”, to be placed in the Vulgate, if I recall correctly. Perhaps a compromise (unlike reformation times).

And Jerome, unlike Luther, adhered to the tradition of the church and not push his own agendas as Luther did.

 

[benhur]

And what does “whole” church exactly mean? Do you have historical evidence it was done by votes? Certain individuals deciding?

Not sure what Clement meant by “whole church” but I will take it for what it means as in “everyone”. Actually in Corinthians the word *chosen *can be interpreted as by “raising the hand”. The Pulpit, Gil,Jamieson commentaries say it is a vote, by show of hands, as used in 1Cor.
6:3,4 " whom ever ye shall approve will I send" .

 

[Nicea325]

Not sure what Clement meant by “whole church” but I will take it for what it means as in “everyone”. Actually in Corinthians the word *chosen *can be interpreted as by “raising the hand”. The Pulpit, Gil,Jamieson commentaries say it is a vote, by show of hands, as used in 1Cor.
6:3,4 " whom ever ye shall approve will I send" .

And has it ever occurred to you, Clement phrase “whole church” may possibly refer to “all” the ordained ministers in the universal church? Needless to say, your position is not conclusive.

 

[benhur]

And has it ever occurred to you, Clement phrase “whole church” may possibly refer to “all” the ordained ministers in the universal church? Needless to say, your position is not conclusive.

Are you saying Clement couldn’t think of the the word “conclave” so just said “whole”’ ? It would be interesting to read the actual document where he mentions his ordination or further “appointment”. I am only using Unger’s Dictionary under “ordination” on the matter.

 

[Nicea325]

Are you saying Clement couldn’t think of the the word “conclave” so just said “whole”’ ? It would be interesting to read the actual document where he mentions his ordination or further “appointment”. I am only using Unger’s Dictionary under “ordination” on the matter.

That is the point. We will never know exactly because all we own are a few of his letters. By what is clear is that “laying of hands” is mentioned in the NT;hence where ordination originates from. Indeed, it may have been more fluid since it was all fresh. Not saying your position is totally impossible,but plausible. By to assume ordination was bogus or an invention is simply false.

 

[joe371]

ristisn

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 ?

Thanks Benhur…They are Christian; some Lutheran, and others “non-denominational”…

 

[benhur]

And not just ordained by a priest (like Luther)

 

[benhur]

ristisn

Thanks Benhur…They are Christian; some Lutheran, and others “non-denominational”…

Glad they are (though I understand your longing for more “unity”). Was thinking of you as I saw this tear jerker movie, “Griffin and Phoenix” today.

 

[benhur]

That is the point. We will never know exactly because all we own are a few of his letters. By what is clear is that “laying of hands” is mentioned in the NT;hence where ordination originates from. Indeed, it may have been more fluid since it was all fresh. Not saying your position is totally impossible,but plausible. By to assume ordination was bogus or an invention is simply false.

Thanks for meeting me halfway. I agree ordination, laying on of hands is not bogus and certainly part of the picture.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Was not Luther ordained by Bishop Jerome of Brandenburg ? And Zwingli by Bishop of Constance ?

That just makes it worse. They should have known better and not pursue their own ideals and allow themselves to be manipulated by Countries and people against the Church.

The most ironical thing of all is that they became that which they stood against…

History has a very dark sense of humor.

I see that as a direct connection by your terms of proper historicity. They did not pop out of thin air and had connection to 1500 years of succession. You just disagree what they did with it.

Not just that we disagree, but that they abandoned the Church. Yes, there is fault on both sides but they walked away.

Luther was ignored for too long, that just added fuel to the fire.

Zwingli and Calvin… I’ll reserve my comments…

 

[benhur]

History has a very dark sense of humor.

There is another twist. I believe it was German (Lombard) King Liutprand who helped establish (gifted) the Papal states and temporal power in 728 to Pope Gregory II.

Not just that we disagree, but that they abandoned the Church.Yes, there is fault on both sides but they walked away.

Yes, they were excommunicated .

Zwingli and Calvin… I’ll reserve my comments…

Don’t forget Huss was bishop ordained and Wycliffe was appointed as head theologian at Canterbury Hall by Archbishop Islip.