The historicity of the Church

[FathersKnowBest]

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.

Veeerry convoluted answer.
Titus was, at that point, already ordained, most likely as a bishop. So, we have an ordained bishop being assigned a ministry. How does that prove your statement?

Care to try again?

For instance Clement of Rome says distinguished men with the approval of the whole congregation appointed him.

Let me ask again for a citation. Perhaps one that is … on target?

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.

Oh, come now. Of course everyone has free will … to sin or to not sin.
Does the earth have to open up & swallow someone to understand that?

Of course with God’s help one had better choose wisely.

Yes. And this means to choose to follow one who God has placed over us.

1Th 5:12 But we beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you,

Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

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.

You might not make the comparison; St. Jude would and did. It’s in inspirred scripture.

Indeed Korah is a warning to us all.

Ask yourself: a warning of what?

Nu 16:3 and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, “You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?”

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).

You’re mis-reading (and twisting) the scriptures.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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

I’m sorry; I mistyped.
I meant that Luther was ordained AS a priest, not by a priest.
Luther was NOT ordained as a bishop. Only bishops have the right to confer ordination.

 

[benhur]

I’m sorry; I mistyped.
I meant that Luther was ordained AS a priest, not by a priest.
Luther was NOT ordained as a bishop. Only bishops have the right to confer ordination.

Ok thanks for the correction-wasn’t sure totally what you meant.Thanks. Hey, you made me dig for the info now I know for sure.

 

[benhur]

Veeerry convoluted answer.
Titus was, at that point, already ordained, most likely as a bishop. So, we have an ordained bishop being assigned a ministry. How does that prove your statement?

Perhaps you misread me or the cited verse. We know Timothy and Titus were "ordained’ and were told to further ordain others. The scripture cites "other(s) also being chosen to join the apostles, by show of hands, without the apostles (some think it was Luke). That is all I was saying. So you have both apostles ordaining, sending and the “church” also sending by show of hands. No big deal.

Let me ask again for a citation. Perhaps one that is … on target?

I gave you my reference in one of the posts.

Oh, come now. Of course everyone has free will … to sin or to not sin.
Does the earth have to open up & swallow someone to understand that?

Do you believe freedom of conscience ? Was that allowed just prior to reformation ? Did the church allow God to deal with reformers or did she take matter into her own hands ? That is the context of Korah and reformation attempts.

Yes. And this means to choose to follow one who God has placed over us.

Amen !

1Th 5:12 But we beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you,

Amen! And what if the one who labors over you closely, your pastor, your bishop comes to be at odds with a distant overseer, say archbishop or cardinal or pope ? More decisions.

You might not make the comparison; St. Jude would and did. It’s in inspirred scripture.

Amen. Yet scripture also says there is a time for everything under heaven, where you must question and "prove all things’’, 1Thes 5:21. Even in the military there can come a point where to obey your commanding officer would be wrong.

Nu 16:3 and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, “You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?”

Amen! One of many warnings and admonitions. Jesus was warned of this as were the apostles shortly after Pentecost. Do you deny that scripture also warns that you have a conscience before God and He comes first in case the “assembly”, the powers to be, are wrong ? The entirety of the source of Christianity is founded on this principle.Christianity was and is not an "authorized version’’ of Judaism though salvation is of the Jews.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Perhaps you misread me or the cited verse. We know Timothy and Titus were "ordained’ and were told to further ordain others. The scripture cites "other(s) also being chosen to join the apostles, by show of hands, without the apostles (some think it was Luke). That is all I was saying. So you have both apostles ordaining, sending and the “church” also sending by show of hands. No big deal.

2Co 8:18 With him we are sending the brother who is famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel;
19 and not only that, but he has been appointed by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work which we are carrying on, for the glory of the Lord and to show our good will.

This “brother who is famous” is quite likely an ordained bishop. As you said, some think it was Luke, who was no doubt ordained a bishop. So, “the churches” chose to send St. Luke to Corinth. That doesn’t in any way show that ordination can happen apart from an ordained bishop.

Do you believe freedom of conscience ? Was that allowed just prior to reformation ? Did the church allow God to deal with reformers or did she take matter into her own hands ? That is the context of Korah and reformation attempts.

The Church has scriptural authority to ex-communicate members who are obstinate in their sins.

Amen. Yet scripture also says there is a time for everything under heaven, where you must question and "prove all things’’, 1Thes 5:21. Even in the military there can come a point where to obey your commanding officer would be wrong.

Sure.
But that analogy fails in a very important particular:
The Church, but not the military, is protected BY JESUS from being in error about faith & morals as concerns the universal church.

Amen! One of many warnings and admonitions. Jesus was warned of this as were the apostles shortly after Pentecost. Do you deny that scripture also warns that you have a conscience before God and He comes first in case the “assembly”, the powers to be, are wrong ? The entirety of the source of Christianity is founded on this principle.

Where is this founding principle in scripture?

What I read is that Jesus so identifies with the Body of Chist, which is the Church, that when Saul persecutes the Church, Jesus accuses Saul of persecuting Him.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

From Britannica:

Liutprand, also spelled Liudprand, Italian Liutprando (died 744), Lombard king of Italy whose long and prosperous reign was a period of expansion and consolidation for the Lombards.

From his position as a Lombard chief, Liutprand gained the throne in 712, when revolution ended a succession of weak kings. He used to his advantage the Iconoclastic Controversy (727), a rebellion in Byzantine Italy caused by Emperor Leo III’s condemnation of image worship. Pope Gregory II sought the support of the Lombard dukes of Spoleto and Benevento, while Liutprand contracted an alliance with the exarch (Byzantine governor) of Ravenna (730). Liutprand’s forces, aided by the Byzantines, invaded the Duchy of Spoleto and attacked Rome. The Pope left the city for a personal confrontation with Liutprand, a pious Catholic, who was then forced by his conscience to yield.

In 739 Liutprand seized four cities of the Duchy of Rome. Pope Gregory III, successor to Gregory II, appealed to Charles Martel, the Frankish ruler of Gaul, but Charles, who had been Liutprand’s ally against the Saracens in Provence, refused aid. When Liutprand threatened Rome once again in 742, a new pope, Zacharias, met with Liutprand in person at Terni, north of Rome, and again Liutprand’s expansionism was thwarted by an appeal to his religious faith.

Liutprand emended King Rothari’s Edict of 643, which served as the code of Lombard law; his revision added 153 articles and abolished the guidrigild, a fine of money, like the Germanic wergild, levied to compensate for personal injury or murder.

Yes, they were excommunicated.

Yup.

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

I believe Hus was a Czech Priest. Wycliffe was a theologian.

Arius and Nestorius were Bishops. Both excommunicated as well.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes. And this means to choose to follow one who God has placed over us.

1Th 5:12 But we beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you,

Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

There is no way those verses are in Scriptures.

You’re mis-reading (and twisting) the scriptures.

:sad_yes:

A guys named Peter said something about that:

2 Peter 3:15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Again, there is one constant in Christianity since the begining: The Church.

Acts 11:25 So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul; 26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Actually, it was. It was revealed to Peter, prior, in Acts 10 and 11:
Acts 10

 

[benhur]

This “brother who is famous” is quite likely an ordained bishop. As you said, some think it was Luke, who was no doubt ordained a bishop. So, “the churches” chose to send St. Luke to Corinth. That doesn’t in any way show that ordination can happen apart from an ordained bishop.

Again we are not sure it was Luke. Don’t think I cited the scripture to show ordination but rather the method of choosing to send a “missionary”/apostles assistant.

The Church has scriptural authority to ex-communicate members who are obstinate in their sins.

Yes, but you avoided the tougher reality of the judgement at Korah and on some the reformers. It was much more than "excommunication’’ and Moses laid a hand on no one.

But that analogy fails in a very important particular:
The Church, but not the military, is protected BY JESUS from being in error about faith & morals as concerns the universal church.

Understand. That is exactly what a some think the reformation was, Jesus guiding the universal church, as surely as you think the counter-reformation was.

Where is this founding principle in scripture?

OK, again what did St. Peter and St. John do when ordered by their religious leaders to not preach the gospel anymore ? Did Jesus stop His ministry because it upset the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees and Saducees, even the representative of Roman Empire? Did Daniel or Shadrach and his friends stop praying though ordered not to? Did not Nathan confront the great David, as did many prophets did against kings and high priests to their peril even death, even as Paul confronted Peter ?

What I read is that Jesus so identifies with the Body of Christ, which is the Church, that when Saul persecutes the Church, Jesus accuses Saul of persecuting Him.

Yes but we must discern for even the JW’s for instance think they are being persecuted when we try to correct them. For the first three hundred years the church went against the grain and was heavily persecuted for what they believed to be true. Strangely after that differing views amongst the church persecuted each other from time to time (Arianism. easter celebration ,icons, papal powers, reformation, counter reformation). Please, I do not mean to disparage the CC for we are all in the same boat and the Orthodox or Protestants fell short here also. It is unfortunately a part of “our” history. Any time we sin against or persecute one another we hurt and persecute Jesus.

 

[benhur]

2 Peter 3:16 There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures

vs 17- “beware lest ye also be led away with error and lose your steadfastness”

 

[benhur]

believe Hus was a Czech Priest. Wycliffe was a theologian.
Arius and Nestorius were Bishops. Both excommunicated as well.

Well that is one way to falsely break historicity claims of heretics. Lump them all in together, almost to the beginning. And to say Christology is the same as confessional, marion, even papal/council/scriptura authority doctrine. … Reformers had proper Christology.

 

[joe371]

Well that is one way to falsely break historicity claims of heretics. Lump them all in together, almost to the beginning. And to say Christology is the same as confessional, marion, even papal/council/scriptura authority doctrine. … Reformers had proper Christology.

Respectfully, how can I know that the reformers had proper Christology, in view of the fact that they did not agree with one another on important doctrinal matters e.g. the Eucharist? For example, John Calvin did not adhere to some of Martin Luther’s teachings, which was why he started his own reformed church. Ulrich Zwingli was another reformer who surfaced around the same time, and he did not agree with Luther or Calvin regarding Christology, and all three men deferred to scripture alone, which resolved nothing for these men. Instead, they parted ways and founded reformed churches. This always confused me as a former non-Catholic.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

vs 17- “beware lest ye also be led away with error and lose your steadfastness”

I like this game

*vv18 - *But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

*Ephesians 4:*14so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.
*Ephesians 3:10 that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. **11 This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, *

The first mistake we can make is to separate the head (Christ) from the body (Church).

That is the common denominator we can find in most heretics. They place themselves above the Church and refuse to be an instrument of love and turn into an instrument of dissent.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Well that is one way to falsely break historicity claims of heretics. Lump them all in together, almost to the beginning. And to say Christology is the same as confessional, marion, even papal/council/scriptura authority doctrine. … Reformers had proper Christology.

This doesn’t make sense to me…

You attached the title of Bishop to Hus as I believe you did to Luther. I was pointing out Hus was not and presented 2 that were Bishops and still, were heretics.

Your response is… uncharacteristic of what I have seen from you so far.

Care to try again?

 

[benhur]

Respectfully, how can I know that the reformers had proper Christology, in view of the fact that they did not agree with one another on important doctrinal matters e.g. the Eucharist? For example, John Calvin did not adhere to some of Martin Luther’s teachings, which was why he started his own reformed church. Ulrich Zwingli was another reformer who surfaced around the same time, and he did not agree with Luther or Calvin regarding Christology, and all three men deferred to scripture alone, which resolved nothing for these men. Instead, they parted ways and founded reformed churches. This always confused me as a former non-Catholic.

We can know if they had proper Christology by what they said, wrote about Christology. I thought they (the reformers you mentioned) did not differ from their CC roots on Christology. Now if you want to tie Eucharist doctrine to Christology ok but I thought they are separate issues, and reformers certainly differed a bit on what is “real presence” . They all participated in communion, in Eucharisting, in "Thanksgiving’’ as it is translated. While it is nice to be in total agreement on things I believe there are special blessings also when we derive security and niceness elsewhere or in spite of some doctrinal differences. A bit like in marriage where for better or for worse, in sickness or health, good times or bad, the bigger issue is that we are one. Actually I have experienced that here on CAF, where despite some of our differences, we sometimes truly bless one another, and it is quite moving and powerful…I got a little of that from you the way you began this post with “respectfully”. Thank you.

 

[benhur]

This doesn’t make sense to me…

You attached the title of Bishop to Hus as I believe you did to Luther. I was pointing out Hus was not and presented 2 that were Bishops and still, were heretics.

Your response is… uncharacteristic of what I have seen from you so far.

Care to try again?

Whew. Just had to double check to see if i misprinted, but no. I wrote that “Huss was bishop ordained” as opposed to priest ordained (which was your misprint I think, actually was it Father Knows Best alias Fred McMurray). So I am saying Huss was ordained a priest by a bishop. Luther was ordained priest/monk by a bishop. So I took your statement as whether priest or bishop, all 4 were heretics and commented that there differences in just what made them heretics.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Whew. Just had to double check to see if i misprinted, but no. I wrote that “Huss was bishop ordained” as opposed to priest ordained (which was your misprint I think, actually was it Father Knows Best alias Fred McMurray). So I am saying Huss was ordained a priest by a bishop. Luther was ordained priest/monk by a bishop. So I took your statement as whether priest or bishop, all 4 were heretics and commented that there differences in just what made them heretics.

Ok, that makes so much more sense.

So you are differentiating on the Christology from Hus and other reformers and that of Arius, Nestorius and company?

Got it.

Yes, I think Hus, Luther, Calvin and Zwingly submitted to what the Church holds as the Trinity and their essences/natures.

As for the Christology, I have to (obviously) side with Joe.

Even when we disagree in the application :knight2:

Thankfully, we do pray to the same God and we all recognize God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit -

 

[joe371]

We can know if they had proper Christology by what they said, wrote about Christology. I thought they (the reformers you mentioned) did not differ from their CC roots on Christology. Now if you want to tie Eucharist doctrine to Christology ok but I thought they are separate issues, and reformers certainly differed a bit on what is “real presence” . They all participated in communion, in Eucharisting, in "Thanksgiving’’ as it is translated. While it is nice to be in total agreement on things I believe there are special blessings also when we derive security and niceness elsewhere or in spite of some doctrinal differences. A bit like in marriage where for better or for worse, in sickness or health, good times or bad, the bigger issue is that we are one. Actually I have experienced that here on CAF, where despite some of our differences, we sometimes truly bless one another, and it is quite moving and powerful…I got a little of that from you the way you began this post with “respectfully”. Thank you.

Good point, and one of the reasons why I love the CCC 817 - 821. One thing though: It seems that you are suggesting (when you say "We can know if they had proper Christology by what they said, wrote about Christology) that it is each Christians interpretation of what the reformers taught, or what the CC taught etc., that will determine the validity or truth on the matter? Correct me if I am wrong…

Zwingli’s view of the Eucharist was that it was merely a symbolic meal, and many believe that today; Luther strongly disagreed. He actually said, regarding Zwingli’s Eucharistic theology aka Christolgy - “I’d rather drink blood with the pope than wine with Zwingli” and we all know what ML thought about the pope at the time, and he was right about the abuse of indulgences. This is such an important doctrine for many reasons, so how can we know if Zwingli was wrong about this sacrament that showers down life-giving grace, drawing us closer to Jesus? If it is so clear then why do so many believe his view, and most importantly, to what teaching authority can we defer once we have reach an impasse just as those two men did (both men deferred to the bible as their final authority)?

 

[joe371]

Ok, that makes so much more sense.

So you are differentiating on the Christology from Hus and other reformers and that of Arius, Nestorius and company?

Got it.

Yes, I think Hus, Luther, Calvin and Zwingly submitted to what the Church holds as the Trinity and their essences/natures.

As for the Christology, I have to (obviously) side with Joe.

Even when we disagree in the application :knight2:

Thankfully, we do pray to the same God and we all recognize God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit -

Very true, and I am so glad that the Holy Trinity (which was denied by many early on, but resolved by the CC speaking infallibly as they were guided by God) is not a source of division.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Yes, but you avoided the tougher reality of the judgement at Korah and on some the reformers. It was much more than "excommunication’’ and Moses laid a hand on no one.

Fine, but it does show God’s judgement on those who do precisely what protestantism has done, and with the very same rationalizations.

Just because God doesn’t use the same extreme measures to publicly punish people doesn’t mean that He doesn’t consider it a sin. In fact, that is a pattern throughout salvation history: teach the sinfulness of an act, and punish it forcefully as a means of emphasizing the fact.

We don’t see, for example, a plague against first-born males for kings defying God. That doesn’t mean that kings defying God is OK with Him now.

Understand. That is exactly what a some think the reformation was, Jesus guiding the universal church, as surely as you think the counter-reformation was.

Jesus guiding the church by sin?
Scism is sinful; this is clear in the scriptures.

Yes, God has in the past allowed punishment of His people through evil regimes, but He has always, consistently, thereafter punished those evil regimes.

OK, again what did St. Peter and St. John do when ordered by their religious leaders to not preach the gospel anymore ? Did Jesus stop His ministry because it upset the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees and Saducees, even the representative of Roman Empire?

Interesting analogy.
In the case you mention, it took a DIVINE VISIT to change the structure of authority.
BEFORE His death & resurrection, Christ commanded that we were to FOLLOW that established authority, even if they don’t practice what they preach.

Instead of a divine command, protestantism is playing God by arrogating that authority to themselves.