Were the NT churches independent or One?

[JRKH]

I’ve been having a discussion with Yankee Drifter on aonther thread about the Authority of the Church and whether teh NT churches (Antioch, Corinth etc.) were completely autonomous or we just different locations of the One Church.

Below is Yankee’s latest post. I will copy my response in a post following.
I would appreciate other’s (name removed by moderator)ut on this matter.
Yankee is read up on the subject so I hope that those responding will take this into account when responding.

Anyone wishing to read the various exchanges up to this point will find them on HERE
From Yankee Drifter

---

James,

Tell me, how could the RCC have existed in its present form with its elaborate hierarchical structure in 96 AD when Christianity was illegal and underground for nearly 300 years. There were no church buildings, bur rather people gathered in small groups, often in homes. When Clement wrote of the “catholic” church, (note the small “c”) he was referring to the meaning of “universal” which is what catholic means. He was talking about the Universal Church that Christ built. The very Church which consists of the body of true believers whom Christ Himself is coming back for. When the RCC formed and organized under Constantine’s rule, who made it possible for buildings to be erected, the Roman Church adopted the use of the word “catholic.”

James, you wrote: On another point, since you believe that the Catholic Church “Formed” around 300 under Constantine, and the Catholic Church, indeed any church, was not preserved from error, how is it that you accept the Bible??

Since the Holy Spirit is the author of the Holy Scriptures they were canonized the moment they were written and no council was needed to tell us that. The apostle Paul said he had preached the entire gospel, that of Christ and Him crucified. If Paul failed to tell us of any other things needed for salvation, etc. then he was not being truthful in his claim. God never says in His holy Word that anything else is needed. Man says that. 1Timothy 3:15 tells us that the Scriptures are profitable for reproof and correction of doctrine. That tells me that the Holy Bible itself is more than sufficient.

Rev. 2 tells us about the local churches. The Lord admonishes some for forsaking their first love. For falling and their need to repent. Some were holding to the teaching of balaam. These passages reveal that when a church continues in Christ’s Word, it keeps its identity as His church, but when it fails to abide in His Word, it is no longer regarded as His church. It reveals that Christ did not establish His church as one that could never fall into error, because some of those churches went into error.

The RCC only subsequently ratified the decisions** which had already been reached by the Christian communities**, or more exactly, by the individual believers. The organized Church as such did not create the Canon; it recognized the Canon which had already been created. An Orthodox leader admits: “The councils did not legislate the canon so much as set forth what had become self-evident truth and practice within the churches of God.” (Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?, Fr. James Bernstein, Orthodox churchman, 1994, p 13)

No church council set the canon, and it was not by “church authority” that the canon was set. Rather there was a common understood canon of 22 books that had never been questioned and widely distributed since 100 AD, along with 5 other books that were in full circulation since 100 AD, but questioned.

Instead of repeating over and over what your church has taught, which by its repetitions does not make something true, research the history of Christianity.

---

 

[JRKH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee_drifter
James,

Tell me, how could the RCC have existed in its present form with its elaborate hierarchical structure in 96 AD when Christianity was illegal and underground for nearly 300 years. There were no church buildings, bur rather people gathered in small groups, often in homes.

Where did I ever say in this conversation that the Church in 96 AD looked like the church of today? I said that the Church was One and shared the same doctrines.
I have already demonstrated from Scripture where a local Church appealed to a higher authority for a determination on a doctrinal matter (Acts 15). Acts 15 flies in the face of your assertion that the local churches were autonomous.

If you could demonstrate from Protestantism, the kind of interaction, the kind of Church councils we see in Acts and later, where Protestants meet together and hammer out decisions that require all to submit their personal wills for the sake of Truth and Unity then you might have a case for saying Antioch was independent of Corinth.

Quote:
When Clement wrote of the “catholic” church, (note the small “c”) he was referring to the meaning of “universal” which is what catholic means. He was talking about the Universal Church that Christ built. The very Church which consists of the body of true believers whom Christ Himself is coming back for. When the RCC formed and organized under Constantine’s rule, who made it possible for buildings to be erected, the Roman Church adopted the use of the word “catholic.”

Here you have a seed of truth. Clement used the word catholic. Catholic means universal. Just as it means universal today. The Catholic Church is the “universal” Church. It is the Church which consists of the Body of true beleivers and within that body of believers is a structure that allows us to maintain unity, and preserve Christ’s teachings and Truth. The Catholic Church consists of the Latin Rite as well as a number of Eastern Rites. All under the Guardianship of the Vicar of Christ and awaiting the REturn of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Trying to seperate the Structure from the members is an impossibility. No large group of members exists without some kind of structure.
As to the reference to Constantine and the buildings etc. Of course it is logical that, once the Church was legal, she could come out of hiding and develop above ground.

Quote:
James, you wrote: On another point, since you believe that the Catholic Church “Formed” around 300 under Constantine, and the Catholic Church, indeed any church, was not preserved from error, how is it that you accept the Bible??

Since the Holy Spirit is the author of the Holy Scriptures they were canonized the moment they were written and no council was needed to tell us that. The apostle Paul said he had preached the entire gospel, that of Christ and Him crucified. If Paul failed to tell us of any other things needed for salvation, etc. then he was not being truthful in his claim. God never says in His holy Word that anything else is needed. Man says that. 1Timothy 3:15 tells us that the Scriptures are profitable for reproof and correction of doctrine. That tells me that the Holy Bible itself is more than sufficient.

1. 2Tim 3:16 tells us that All Scripture is useful… (Note it says useful, not sufficient)
2. 1Tim 3:15 tells us that That it is …The “Church” which is the House of God, the Pillar And Ground of Truth.
   So St Paul himself tells us that Scripture is useful but that it is the Church which upholds the Truth. Again, look at Acts to see how the church members, including St Paul himself looked to the Church council in Jerusalem to resolve a “Scriptural” debate.

The Holy Spirit of God inspired the writing of Scripture, but it was written by men.(2Tim 3:16)

Quote:
The RCC only subsequently ratified the decisions which had already been reached by the Christian communities, or more exactly, by the individual believers. The organized Church as such did not create the Canon; it recognized the Canon which had already been created. An Orthodox leader admits: “The councils did not legislate the canon so much as set forth what had become self-evident truth and practice within the churches of God.” (Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?, Fr. James Bernstein, Orthodox churchman, 1994, p 13)

No church council set the canon, and it was not by “church authority” that the canon was set. Rather there was a common understood canon of 22 books that had never been questioned and widely distributed since 100 AD, along with 5 other books that were in full circulation since 100 AD, but questioned.

So, by your line of reasoning above, the canon of the Bible, as adopted by the RCC in 400 AD, has to be correct, since all the Church did was to gather together the books that the Holy Spirit had shown to the faithful as being “Holy Scripture”.
In such a vital matter as the canon of Scrpture it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit of God is going to allow an error in such a collection by including wrong books or excluding right books. So why is it then, that the Bible as used by Protestants has a different canon thant the one accepted and used by the Universal Christian Church for 1000 years before that? Why does your bible have books missing?
If Gods Word as contained in the Holy Bible is to be accepted as complete then one or the other of these is wrong. Which is it? This cannot be readily determined from the bible istelf for no book in the Bible lists the books in the Bible. This must be deremined by an authority outside of the Bible. Namely the Church.

Quote:
Rev. 2 tells us about the local churches. The Lord admonishes some for forsaking their first love. For falling and their need to repent. Some were holding to the teaching of balaam. These passages reveal that when a church continues in Christ’s Word, it keeps its identity as His church, but when it fails to abide in His Word, it is no longer regarded as His church. It reveals that Christ did not establish His church as one that could never fall into error, because some of those churches went into error.

I will read up on these when I have a chance.

Quote:
Instead of repeating over and over what your church has taught, which by its repetitions does not make something true, research the history of Christianity.

Why do you assume I am just parroting that which the Church has taught.
I left the church for 30 years before coming back. My research led me home to the Catholic Church.
Why won’t you, for your part, take a good honest look at the facts as recorded in the NT that Christ wants us to submit to His Church and that His Church has authority on Earth to Act in His will.

Peace
James

---

 

[Philthy]

Yankee Drifter:

Tell me, how could the RCC have existed in its present form with its elaborate hierarchical structure in 96 AD when Christianity was illegal and underground for nearly 300 years.

How? Simple: legality and above-groundedness are not prerequisites for hierarchical structure. More relevant, however, is the point that James makes - it didnt exist in exactly the form it exists in now. So what? You create a straw man argument: “Catholics claim that exactly the church hierarchy which exists now has existed for all time” and then attempt to refute it by saying it couldnt have existed since Christianity was illegal and underground, while failing to articulate why, exactly, hierarchy necessitates legality or transparency.

There were no church buildings, bur rather people gathered in small groups, often in homes. When Clement wrote of the “catholic” church… he was referring to the meaning of “universal” which is what catholic means.

This is mostly speculation regarding something largely incidental (ie irrelevant) to the faith. The important point is that Clement was doctrinally Catholic. Its nice to obsess about the meaningless details of things he didnt bother to explicitly state and attempt to “interpret” what he meant when he used the term catholic, but ultimately no one knows.

Since the Holy Spirit is the author of the Holy Scriptures they were canonized the moment they were written and no council was needed to tell us…

Canonized the moment they were written??? What does that even mean? This is simply a falsehood. It most certainly is not Scriptural and it is a misuse of the term “canonized”. Its not even worthy of additional comment.

The apostle Paul said he had preached the entire gospel, that of Christ and Him crucified. If Paul failed to tell us of any other things needed for salvation, etc. then he was not being truthful in his claim. God never says in His holy Word that anything else is needed. Man says that. 1Timothy 3:15 tells us that the Scriptures are profitable for reproof and correction of doctrine. That tells me that the Holy Bible itself is more than sufficient.

It is clear from this exchange that you do not understand the very basics of the history of Sacred Scripture. You cannot begin justifying your position on Sacred Scripture by quoting it without validating HOW YOU KNOW what you claim to be SS is, in fact SS. When you honestly at how SS came to be compiled into the Bible it is pretty obvious that it happened through the Catholic Church by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. during the 4th CenturySacred Scripture - like all of salvation history - is the union of God and humanity in accomplishing God’s work of salvation. God did not carve Sacred Scripture into stone and give it to us - that is how the 10 Commandments came to us. It was written by men through the inspiration of the holy Spirit and recognized as such by men through the inspiration of the holy Spirit. This did not happen quickly and cleanly. It involved all the usual human messiness.

Rev. 2 tells us about the local churches. The Lord admonishes some for forsaking their first love. For falling and their need to repent. Some were holding to the teaching of balaam. These passages reveal that when a church continues in Christ’s Word, it keeps its identity as His church, but when it fails to abide in His Word, it is no longer regarded as His church. It reveals that Christ did not establish His church as one that could never fall into error, because some of those churches went into error.

You fail to distinguish between “local churches” and “the Church” which is the bride and the body of Christ and which by virtue of its union with Christ cannot fall into error, but is united to the truth. In addition, you fail to recognize that there needs to be someone or something that functions to tell local churches that they are “failing to abide by His Word” Who does this? How, exactly, is it done? How, exactly, do you know?

The RCC only subsequently ratified the decisions** which had already been reached by the Christian communities**, or more exactly, by the individual believers. The organized Church as such did not create the Canon; it recognized the Canon which had already been created. An Orthodox leader admits: “The councils did not legislate the canon so much as set forth what had become self-evident truth and practice within the churches of God.” (Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?, Fr. James Bernstein, Orthodox churchman, 1994, p 13)

“Individual believers” had reached a consensus regarding the canon?? What a joke! Even Luther said that if it were not for the Catholic Church we would know NOTHING of Scripture. Individuals do not “reach a consensus” on anything - if they did there would never have been a council meeting in the first place! We need look no further than the Protestant communities proliferation of doctrine that results from “individual believers” obvious lack of consensus. There were all kinds of writings out there being used and quoted as Scripture by “individual believers” and the Church stepped in at the councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo and defined what is and what is not Sacred Scripture.

No church council set the canon, and it was not by “church authority” that the canon was set. Rather there was a common understood canon of 22 books that had never been questioned and widely distributed since 100 AD, along with 5 other books that were in full circulation since 100 AD, but questioned.

You misunderstand the facts of history because you project into them your preconceived ideas of how the church functioned. How can you possibly explain all these different communities having a unity of what constituted SS??? Could it possibly be that “individual believers” had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT and that way back when there were relatively few literate believers and most of them were part of the established hierarchy? Does that not - without solid evidence to the contrary - seem like the most reasonable explanation? Think about it objectively…

 

[Philthy]

yankee drifter:

Instead of repeating over and over what your church has taught, which by its repetitions does not make something true, research the history of Christianity.

Hah! We both have - its time for one of us to be more critical with the analysis of the information. Ultimately, we as “individual believers” disagree on what SS says and we explore what the recorded evidence reveals of what the earliest Christians believed it is most decidedly Catholic. You can nitpick about some of the exact details, but it is clear that they were united by a hierarchy and believed the doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. It was not until very late in the history of the Church, during a time of needed reform, that a wave of new doctrine came into the Church. I submit that you are riding that wave, but of course I am simply an “individual believer” and there are scores of other “individual believers” that would disagree with me - everyone with the slightest bit of common sense knows that “indivual believers” don’t come to unanimous agreement. When faced with ambiguity, agreement requires leadership.

Blessings!

 

[Rightlydivide]

The church of 90 AD was not one. If you contend it was one, define what one means.

The only primary document we have from 90 AD are the churches in Revelation. They were churches. John said so. John states:

Rev 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

Rev 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

Rev 2:24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.

As far as Acts 15

Start at Acts 2. The church in Jerusalem was a local church. People were added to it on a daily basis. This was not a universal church here, but a visible entity. It had pastors, elders. In the beginning the apostles were the leaders, but it was not God’s that they remain at Jerusalem. It took persecution for believers to go and spread the gospel. The Great Commission was not for them to remain in Jerusalem.
However, they were there for a reason. James was the pastor. As far as authority was concerned it was James, not the apostles, that had authority in that particular church. The apostles came to give advice and that is all. After considering both sides the ultimate decision was in the hand of James. He was the pastor. Here is how it reads:

Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Acts 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

Note that the decision of James pleased the apostles and elders.
This church was autonomous apart from the apostle and apart from other churches. The apostles were involved that other churches might realize that the decision that was made on such an important subject would have ramifications elsewhere. This was apostolic teaching, not because it was James decision, but because James made the decision with the (name removed by moderator)ut and advice on the apostles. They were there in agreement of James decision.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Philthy

You fail to distinguish between “local churches” and “the Church” which is the bride and the body of Christ and which by virtue of its union with Christ cannot fall into error, but is united to the truth.

Specifically define your concept of “the Church” in 90 AD. You have nothing but local congregations unless you have proof otherwise.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The church of 90 AD was not one. If you contend it was one, define what one means.

Then Jesus’ prayers were completely ineffective.

John 17:20-22
20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one

Acts 4:32
All the believers were one in heart and mind.

Do you think that some believers accepted infant baptism while others did not?

Ephesians 4:4-6
4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Not thousands of denominations teaching conflicting and contradictory doctrines…one faith.

John 10:16
I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

Not thousands of pastors leading thousands of flocks. One shepherd, one flock. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, and He has left one here on earth to tend and feed His sheep.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Specifically define your concept of “the Church” in 90 AD. You have nothing but local congregations unless you have proof otherwise.

Sure. There was one Church, which had already begun to call itself the Catholic Church according to a letter written in 107 AD by Ignatius of Antioch, and lots of local congregations of that Church which we would call “dioceses” or “parishes” today.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As far as Acts 15

Start at Acts 2. The church in Jerusalem was a local church. People were added to it on a daily basis. This was not a universal church here, but a visible entity. It had pastors, elders. In the beginning the apostles were the leaders, but it was not God’s that they remain at Jerusalem. It took persecution for believers to go and spread the gospel. The Great Commission was not for them to remain in Jerusalem.

However, they were there for a reason. James was the pastor. As far as authority was concerned it was James, not the apostles, that had authority in that particular church. The apostles came to give advice and that is all. After considering both sides the ultimate decision was in the hand of James. He was the pastor. Here is how it reads:

Note that the decision of James pleased the apostles and elders. This church was autonomous apart from the apostle and apart from other churches. The apostles were involved that other churches might realize that the decision that was made on such an important subject would have ramifications elsewhere. This was apostolic teaching, not because it was James decision, but because James made the decision with the (name removed by moderator)ut and advice on the apostles. They were there in agreement of James decision.

Hardly. James conceded after Peter had decided the matter. Let’s look closely at this…

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).
Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
​

“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12). Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*
​

In 2009, I contacted Mr. Bonocore via email regarding some questions on this matter. He responded:
James is NOT speaking on behalf of the council, but ONLY on behalf of his own, ultra-Jewish party. For, WHO was “making it difficult for the Gentiles”??? Not Peter. He converted and Baptized the first Gentiles without demanding that they be circumcised. Not Paul or Barnabas or the other members of the council. Rather, it was only JAMES’ ULTRA-JEWISH PARTY! THEY were the ones “making it difficult” for the Gentiles and creating the controversy (see Acts 15:1-2 and Acts 15:5). So, the one and only reason why James speaks after Peter is*** to concede*** to Peter’s authoritative teaching and back down.

In addition the reference from Titus cited by Mr. Bonocore, this passage from Paul’s Letter to the Galatians is relevant:
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
“Certain men came from James…who belonged to the circumcision group.” This passage indicates not only that James’ group was the one causing problems for the Gentile converts but also points out the primacy of Peter in that Paul boasts of having stood up to Peter on this doctrinal matter. If Peter were not viewed by all as the leader of the Church, then Paul would have gained nothing be mentioning his opposition to Peter’s hypocritical behavior.

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ?
bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm

 

[Rightlydivide]

Mr. Bonocore’s interpretation plays right into the hands of those who will see James (whose eventual followers will become the Ebionites) and Paul (reflecting dominant Gentile Christianity) as being part of different faiths. Instead of playing along with them and pitting the two against each other, it is best to understand the passages more in a complimentary sense.
First lets establish facts, was James the head of the entire church at Jerusalem or just a fragment of ultra Jewish followers? Have Eusebius handy depending upon your answer Mr. Carson.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Sure. There was one Church, which had already begun to call itself the Catholic Church according to a letter written in 107 AD by Ignatius of Antioch, and lots of local congregations of that Church which we would call “dioceses” or “parishes” today.

Define in a practical sense what this one church looked like. If that is too specific, narrow it down. What was the polity of the church in 90 AD? That is just an example. You can elaborate any way you wish. But please elaborate.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I wonder if anyone else sees the absurdity of saying that James “backed down” to Peter when Paul clearly states Peter was “afraid” of them (those associated with James)?

 

[JRKH]

The church of 90 AD was not one. If you contend it was one, define what one means.

The only primary document we have from 90 AD are the churches in Revelation. They were churches. John said so. John states:

As far as Acts 15

Start at Acts 2. The church in Jerusalem was a local church. People were added to it on a daily basis. This was not a universal church here, but a visible entity. It had pastors, elders. In the beginning the apostles were the leaders, but it was not God’s that they remain at Jerusalem. It took persecution for believers to go and spread the gospel. The Great Commission was not for them to remain in Jerusalem.
However, they were there for a reason. James was the pastor. As far as authority was concerned it was James, not the apostles, that had authority in that particular church. The apostles came to give advice and that is all. After considering both sides the ultimate decision was in the hand of James. He was the pastor. Here is how it reads:

Note that the decision of James pleased the apostles and elders.
This church was autonomous apart from the apostle and apart from other churches. The apostles were involved that other churches might realize that the decision that was made on such an important subject would have ramifications elsewhere. This was apostolic teaching, not because it was James decision, but because James made the decision with the (name removed by moderator)ut and advice on the apostles. They were there in agreement of James decision.

You can dissassembel Acts 15 and try to explain it away, but the fact remains that two, supposedly independent Churches (in your view) could NOT come to an agreement on point of Doctrine that was viewed by at least one of them as necessary for salvation. In other words a point of essential Doctrine.

Did they set up seperate Churches in Antioch, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles? Did the Antiochian Church listen to St Paul and tell the Judaizers to get lost, that they had no jurisdiction in Antioch? Did St Paul, one of the Greatest writers and orators and debators of the Faith, allow the difference to stand on the premise that such differences were acceptable??

I think it is clear that the Council of Jerusalem was called to address this issue BECAUSE it threatened rupture in the Church, the Body of Christ. In this case between the Jewish and Gentile converts.

If we follow the logic of the independent Churches idea that you espouse then The reaction of the Church in Antioch to the Judaizers should have been quite different. St Paul should have made the decision ther, instead of going to Jerusalem, and then just HOPED that the Judaizers accepted His decision, which considering what did happen is unlikely.

 

[JRKH]

Define in a practical sense what this one church looked like. If that is too specific, narrow it down. What was the polity of the church in 90 AD? That is just an example. You can elaborate any way you wish. But please elaborate.

I am not a Scholar, so I will allow another, more knowledgable than I to address teh specifics you ask for. This I do know. Each Local Church was headed up by a Bishop, and these bishops tried to keep in touch with one another either by letter or by word. This is why some of the Earliest extrabiblical letters we have are Clement’ letter to Corinth and Ignatius’ letters as he was heading to Rome for execution.
Such communication was difficult for both politcal and logistical reasons, but communicate they did.

I would like to ask you, while you wait for a better answer to your question to consider this and provide an answer, Also in detail:
Define in a real, Doctrinal Sense, the differences between these “Local Churches” in 90 AD. What were these differences??

Also, since “Independent Churches” would naturally have members moving around from city to city, it should seem logical that, by 90 or 110 AD there should be different “Churches” within each City, each displying their docrinal differences. In other words, there should be the Churches in Antioch instead of "The Church in Antioch.

Peace
James

 

[Philthy]

Philthy

Specifically define your concept of “the Church” in 90 AD. You have nothing but local congregations unless you have proof otherwise.

United in Christ through one faith, one hope, one baptism. They called themselves the Catholic Church by this time (see Ignatious). They were under the authority of the Apostles and those the Apostles elevated to authority. That is why we have NT letters being written silly! If they were “independent” congregations as you claim, Paul, James, Peter, et al would not be writing to them to build them up in THE faith.

 

[Philthy]

The only primary document we have from 90 AD are the churches in Revelation. They were churches. John said so. John states:

Please define what the terms “only” and “primary” mean in the above sentence. Then please your source.

As far as Acts 15
Start at Acts 2. The church in Jerusalem was a local church.

Of course - hence the name “church of Jerusalem”

This was not a universal church here, but a visible entity.

Your turn: please define what you mean by “not universal”. And when your done with that, please explain why “visibility” is mutually exclusive with universality.

As far as authority was concerned it was James, not the apostles, that had authority in that particular church. The apostles came to give advice and that is all. After considering both sides the ultimate decision was in the hand of James.

The fact of the matter is that Scripture never says who had ultimate authority. That is the fact. It is not illogical to conclude from what is presented that James had the ultimate authority. That conclusion, however, involves a significant degree of uncertainty. You are not remaining objective in your assessment. You are confusing what you deem reasonable to conclude from what is presented with what is undeniably true from what is presented. In short: Scripture isn’t explicitly clear once again.

Note that the decision of James pleased the apostles and elders.

I do note that, but it isnt PERFECTLY CLEAR what the significance of that statement is. IS IT??? Does it mean that if the Apostles were NOT pleased that James decision would have stood? YOU DONT KNOW - SCRIPTURE DOESNT SAY. Why does Scripture mention the Apostles being please at all if their being pleased was irrelevant to the decision at hand??? Why does Scripture record Peter gave his opinion - the same that James later offered? YOU DONT KNOW - SCRIPTURE DOESNT SAY. Those are the facts. If we rely on Scripture alone we are left to rationalize much of the info that we all recognize we need to know: Is my church subject to any outside authority? Must I be baptized as a christian? Is divorse a sin? etc etc etc.

This church was autonomous apart from the apostle and apart from other churches.

Sorry, you havent proven this. Scripture never talks of the “autonomy of the local church” not once, never. You simply cannot proclaim it as the “gospel truth”. Now dont get me wrong - it is objectively possible that your OPINIONS regarding the autonomy of the local church are true, but the FACT is that they remain OPINIONS and not what Scripture says. Big difference.
When you view Scripture from outside the Church it is easy to miss such possibilities.
This is one of the greatest fruits of the Reformation: doctrinal unity does not and cannot be maintained by individual believers in local churches. It is a stunningly clear, 500 year old fact. Much clearer, in fact, than your speculation of who had the final, binding authority in Acts 15.
Can you(or I) truly view the NT Scripture as the men who canonized it in the 4th century did? No we cannot. They were LIVING in the hierarchical Church handed to them by the Apostles - the hierarchical realities of the “church everywhere” were clear to them in a different way than you or I experience it.

The apostles were involved that other churches might realize that the decision that was made on such an important subject would have ramifications elsewhere. This was apostolic teaching, not because it was James decision, but because James made the decision with the (name removed by moderator)ut and advice on the apostles. They were there in agreement of James decision.

Again: you speculate and confuse your speculation as an irrefutable truth based upon its reasonableness IN LIGHT OF WHAT IS NOT EXPRESSLY STATED by Scripture.

Blessings!

 

[Rightlydivide]

A lot of questions but let’s clarify about Antioch to be sure anyone reading understands. Antioch is Paul’s home church Acts 14:26-27.
Next, I have to establish that when people use Judaizers the meaning can have a very negative connotation. I want to be careful not to tar Jewish Christians who held to Torah in too negative of a light. Everything was in flux. It is also helpful to remember that not too long ago we have the very first Gentile convert recorded in scripture as well as Peter’s vision.

As far as Paul not deciding things unilaterally; who sends Paul to Jerusalem to find out what the other apostles and the “Mother Church” had to say about this? The church at Antioch. (Acts 15:2). They sent them. Jerusalem did not summon them. The word called it used in reference to the Jerusalem council like Jerusalem demanded they attend. The text does not state that at all. That would be an anachronistic understanding. They decided to go and seek apostolic teaching and insight (under the leadership of James). The local churches are not pitted against each other but they are autonomous. This should never mean that they do not speak to one another or learn from one another; they do.
It appears you are also missing the concept of congregational polity as well; which is also implied in Acts 15:22. (At this time it would be worthwhile that the earliest existing document outside of the NT, the Didache also supports congregational polity as well -15 You must, then, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons who are a credit to the Lord,.

As far as this teaching, it calls into question why Paul did not mention this to Corinth when they had the same dispute years later. The fundamentalist view is that Paul recognized that the decision did not have weight outside of the local congregations effected. The critical view is that Acts is not actually reliable history and that Galatians supports the actual tension between the Gentiles led by Paul and the Jews led by Peter. I reject that distinction as unnecessary while recognizing that Paul’s account in Galatians is a separate meeting. The two cannot be conflated but are best understood as two accounts of the same visit; but not the same meeting. Regardless, if this apostolic decree was indeed applicable to all churches; it is odd that Paul does not mention it to Corinth. It is certainly possible he disagreed with portions of it as time progressed and did not feel compelled to relay it as well. That is in the realm of the speculative but certainly its absence in 1st Cor. must be addressed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Mr. Bonocore’s interpretation plays right into the hands of those who will see James (whose eventual followers will become the Ebionites) and Paul (reflecting dominant Gentile Christianity) as being part of different faiths. Instead of playing along with them and pitting the two against each other, it is best to understand the passages more in a complimentary sense.
First lets establish facts, was James the head of the entire church at Jerusalem or just a fragment of ultra Jewish followers? Have Eusebius handy depending upon your answer Mr. Carson.

Mr. Bonocore’s presentation does not pit James against Paul; rather, it integrates the primacy of Peter with the local leadership position of James in Jerusalem beautifully.

In answer to your question, James was the Bishop of Jerusalem.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Define in a practical sense what this one church looked like. If that is too specific, narrow it down. What was the polity of the church in 90 AD? That is just an example. You can elaborate any way you wish. But please elaborate.

Okay. Here’s a starting point:
Jesus founded a visible Church
Adapted from “The Necessity of Being Catholic”
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

The Church Jesus Christ founded is a visible communion. This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.
I would also add the following from Dominus Iesus:
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

Finally, as evidence of the relationship between the other local churches, I offer the following:

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter **A.D. 180-190]).

So, my question to you, sir: Does your Church agree with Rome?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I wonder if anyone else sees the absurdity of saying that James “backed down” to Peter when Paul clearly states Peter was “afraid” of them (those associated with James)?

Does anyone see the absurdity of ignoring the fact that Peter was merely acting as a private citizen in Galatians whereas he was teaching infallibly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Acts 15?

Isn’t it amazing how the Holy Spirit emboldened the early Christians to proclaim the gospel, to endure hardships and to accept martyrdom for the sake of His name?