Were the NT churches independent or One?

[yankee_drifter]

Randy,

The problem I see in your answers is that like a lot of roman catholics, you rarely qualify your statements. You give brief responses but fail to back them up with any evidence. You wrote:

The authority of the Catholic Church was received by the Apostles from Jesus Christ.

Where is the evidence that the apostles gave the Roman church the same authority that they (the apostles) had?.

You say the pope and the bishops in union with him have the authority to speak for the roman church. Again, where is the proof?

Another problem with dialogue with roman catholics is that when they cannot find Scriptural evidence for many of their teachings/doctrines, they appeal to early church writers. This doesn’t work and I’ll tell you why. Early church “fathers” often contradicted themselves and each other. For every three fathers you quote as agreeing on something, I can find three others that disagree. We cannot be cherry picking those who seem to agree with us at the expense of ignoring all the others that say something opposite. These men were not “fathers” of the church in any scriptural sense and did not have any divine authority.

The only genuine “church fathers” are the apostles and prophets and their writings that were given by divine inspiration and recorded in the Holy Scripture. They gave us the “faith ONCE delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The faith they delivered is able to make us “perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim 3:16-17). The teaching of the “church fathers” does not contain one jot or tittle of divine revelation. Their writings are not inspired and thus cannot be considered canonical.

When I asked about traditions of the RCC, I was not referring to the traditions that Paul talked about in 2 Thess. 2 which he gathered up and enclosed in his epistles. (2 Thess. 3:14) Paul had instructions to pass along and he incorporated them with Scriptures. There we have the evidence.

What I’m referring to is the many unwritten traditions of the RCC that are not in the Holy Scriptures. Where can I check those traditions for authorization? How can I validate that they came from the Apostles?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

The problem I see in your answers is that like a lot of roman catholics, you rarely qualify your statements. You give brief responses but fail to back them up with any evidence.

As I have said previously, if you would like to choose just ONE topic, I will be happy to go into as much depth as you want and provide all the evidence I can.

Even in this very post, you are all over the map.

Pick a topic. Start a thread. Expect a flood.

I’m starting to think you don’t really want to engage on one topic…you seem much more comfortable throwing out half a dozen unsubstantiated opinions at a time.

The only genuine “church fathers” are the apostles and prophets and their writings that were given by divine inspiration and recorded in the Holy Scripture. They gave us the “faith ONCE delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The faith they delivered is able to make us “perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim 3:16-17). The teaching of the “church fathers” does not contain one jot or tittle of divine revelation. Their writings are not inspired and thus cannot be considered canonical.

How about this? Let’s debate the following:

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

That addresses the central question of authority, doesn’t it?

Since you believe that it does, you have the affirmative. Start a thread. I’ll be there to listen to your evidence and provide a counter-argument of my own.

Just think…this is your big chance to teach all of us Catholics why we should abandon Rome for pure Bible Christianity…you must be salivating at such an opportunity!

Let me know when you’re ready to begin.

 

[jmcrae]

Randy,

The problem I see in your answers is that like a lot of roman catholics, you rarely qualify your statements. You give brief responses but fail to back them up with any evidence. You wrote:

Where is the evidence that the apostles gave the Roman church the same authority that they (the apostles) had?.

We find it in history. St. Clement was Bishop of Rome, and from the tone of those writings of his that we still have, he had authority over the Bishop of Corinth, even to the point where the Corinthians were more likely to listen to him than to their own Bishop.

It is a constant theme throughout the writings of the Early Church, that the Bishop of Rome is the man whose word is final, on all issues pertaining to the Church.

You have admitted that the Apostles have authority. Jesus knew that the Church was going to outlive the Apostles, so He gave them a way to pass their authority on to succeeding generations, by means of the Sacrament of Ordination (referred to in the New Testament as “the laying on of hands” as we see in St. Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus).

You say the pope and the bishops in union with him have the authority to speak for the roman church. Again, where is the proof?

We trace the line of Succession back, and we find an unbroken line that extends to Christ Himself, through every Pope of the Catholic Church, and no place else.

Another problem with dialogue with roman catholics is that when they cannot find Scriptural evidence for many of their teachings/doctrines, they appeal to early church writers. This doesn’t work and I’ll tell you why. Early church “fathers” often contradicted themselves and each other. For every three fathers you quote as agreeing on something, I can find three others that disagree. We cannot be cherry picking those who seem to agree with us at the expense of ignoring all the others that say something opposite. These men were not “fathers” of the church in any scriptural sense and did not have any divine authority.

We have to distinguish between those who were Bishops and those who were theologians. We also have to look at time periods - St. Augustine during his Manichean period disagrees with almost all of the teachings of the Catholic Church; after his conversion, he agrees with most of it.

The only genuine “church fathers” are the apostles and prophets and their writings that were given by divine inspiration and recorded in the Holy Scripture. They gave us the “faith ONCE delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The faith they delivered is able to make us “perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim 3:16-17). The teaching of the “church fathers” does not contain one jot or tittle of divine revelation. Their writings are not inspired and thus cannot be considered canonical.

Which isn’t relevant because they aren’t intended to be conveying new revelation (in fact, it is from them that we learn that all new revelation ended at the death of John) and no one (except maybe some extreme liberals) is considering adding their writings to the canon of Scripture. The canon of Scripture was closed by Pope Innocent I in about 405 AD.

What I’m referring to is the many unwritten traditions of the RCC that are not in the Holy Scriptures. Where can I check those traditions for authorization? How can I validate that they came from the Apostles?

You can start with the Catacombs of Rome, where the Early Church first said Mass. They are covered in icons, Marian prayers, the parts of the Mass, and other stuff that points to a very Catholic view of the world, on their part.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Randy Carson,

As a former roman catholic, I am not ignorant of its teachings. Nor am I here to “convert” anyone. Each of us must be convinced in our own minds what Truth is. What the Gospel of Jesus Christ is. I merely wish to encourage others to read the Bible prayerfully and see for yourselves if what your church teaches agrees with what God has revealed to us in His word, the Holy Scriptures. There’s no need for a ganging up mentality.

Randy, I asked you 2 days ago what is your authority. You wrote:

The authority of the Catholic Church was received by the Apostles from Jesus Christ

However, you did not elaborate or cite any authorized source. I asked you for evidence that the apostles gave the Roman church the same authority that they had.

I asked you to show me who gave the pope and the bishops in union with him the authority to speak for the roman church. You never answered. Instead jmcrae wrote:

We trace the line of Succession back, and we find an unbroken line that extends to Christ Himself, through every Pope of the Catholic Church, and no place else.

Again, no evidence. Just stating without citing.

The roman church believes in traditions and I asked about that because it does have to do with authority if a church relies on it and claims it is on par with the Scriptures.

Instead of answering and citing scriptural evidence, you complain that I am all over the board. You change the topic to sola scriptura instead. A topic I know roman catholics love as its the hot topic among RC apologists. Now you want to have a debate on an open forum.

Randy, I asked about authority and that’s my topic. I would like an answer to my questions with verifiable references. If you want to discuss sola scriptura, we can do that as the next topic. But I will not debate 10 people at once.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, I asked about authority and that’s my topic. I would like an answer to my questions with verifiable references. If you want to discuss sola scriptura, we can do that as the next topic. But I will not debate 10 people at once.

Okay. We’ll discuss authority.

Do you want to argue that the Bible Alone (sola scriptura) is the only authority for the believer?

Or do you want to argue that the Catholic Church does not have authority?

Which way do you prefer to go, and what should the premise of our debate be?

Please propose a statement that one of us can affirm and defend.

 

[steve_b]

Randy Carson,

As a former roman catholic, I am not ignorant of its teachings.

Then you are familiar thouroughly with the following passages from scripture.

Rm 16:
17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.

What are the consequences for those who divide from the Church?

Gal 5:
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

The roots of protestantism is leaving the Church of Rome. From there they further committed serial division among themselves. In your case you say you aren’t ignorant. You know what you’re doing. And you left the Church. How do you justify that with scripture?
yd:

Each of us must be convinced in our own minds what Truth is. What the Gospel of Jesus Christ is.

God is NOT the one leading you away from the Eucharist and the sacraments.
yd:

I merely wish to encourage others to read the Bible prayerfully and see for yourselves if what your church teaches agrees with what God has revealed to us in His word, the Holy Scriptures. There’s no need for a ganging up mentality.

Protestants fail on this litmus immediately. Division is condemned in scripture. Read the passages above
yd:

Randy, I asked you 2 days ago what is your authority. You wrote:

However, you did not elaborate or cite any authorized source. I asked you for evidence that the apostles gave the Roman church the same authority that they had.

I asked you to show me who gave the pope and the bishops in union with him the authority to speak for the roman church. You never answered

The Jews hadn’t seen Moses for 1500 years yet Jesus said the scribes and Pharisees sat on Moses seat so do whatever they say BECAUSE they sit on Moses seat.

• Where is there a seat of Moses even mentioned in the OT?
• Where does it say Moses had successors to that seat in the OT and that they had the authority of Moses?
• Where does it say in the OT that the scribes and Pharisees were the successors to Moses seat AND that the people of faith had to do EVERYTHING they said BECAUSE they sat on Moses seat?
• the NT hasn’t been written yet. NOR do Jesus listeners put any credence yet in what He says. Therefore, the only “scripture” that was there for these people was the OT, which BTW, for the OT Jew, wasn’t confirmed and assembled yet even for THEM until the end of the 1st century. Obviously they weren’t expected to ONLY follow and obey what was written alone.

Yet this authority of Moses seat and the scribes and pharisees who sat on it has been true, accurate, and authoritative

• for 1500 years,
• Jesus validates it is true. Yet it is NOT written down ANYWHERE in the OT.
• There is no argument from His listeners, which means THEY agreed with Jesus. There was none saying to Jesus, hey!!! where is that in scripture??? Where is that written down? What’s your source? What’s your authority for saying that? This was oral tradition fully authoriutative and valid and Jesus said they are to do whatever the scribes and pharisees say to do because they have the authority of Moses. But it is NOT written down anywhere

How do you explain that?

Now YOU are going to challenge Jesus and His Church, saying that EVERYTHING must be written in scripture, in order for it to be true and authoritative, before you will believe or obey?

Where’s YOUR authority for THAT?

Jesus named Peter the new chief Steward of His kingdom on earth, and the apostles who he is to lead. The old order, the scribes and pharisees are deposed.

• [reference Isaiah 22:22 with reference to the keys and changing of the guard, given to Peter alone, Mt 16:17…
  [* Peter is to confirm the others Peter is to rule the Church http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744432&postcount=59
  http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744436&postcount=60

Unlike the scribes and pharisees, Catholics DO have tons of written materials both (T)radition (scripture) and ongoing written Church (T)radition,
yd:

You change the topic to sola scriptura instead. A topic I know roman catholics love as its the hot topic among RC apologists. Now you want to have a debate on an open forum.

C’mon yd, your responses I highlighted above in red, as well as your other posts previously, argue sola scriptura as the only “authorized source” you will accept as authority.

So back to the topic,

 

[yankee_drifter]

Randy Carson,

What I am asking is that you answer the questions I posed to you 3 days ago.(scroll up) I am talking about what is the authority of the RCC. We can discuss sola scriptura after we’ve dealt with that. But what I want to know from you is who is authorized to speak for Rome, and where and how they received that authority. I want sources cited, not mere claims and statements that are being parroted by everyone without basis in fact. I am not going to debate several people at once. I notice that others are answering my questions to you for you.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Steve b.

Whoa, you’re all over the board. First sola scriptura, then Moses’s seat, then division in the churches, etc. Right now I’m asking Randy about the RCC and it supposed authority.

Briefly, The division in the church Paul is talking about is immoral behavior, sins. Are you accusing the Protestant churches of this? Protestants are largely united in essentials and in non-essentials there is some liberty. As for Galatians 5, its interesting you should mention that passage in light of the history of the RCC and its priests and popes.

As for Moses’s seat it is mentioned in Exodus 17 and 18. It is not a literal seat, but figurative. Moses actually sat on a stone. However, the fact that he is sitting is irrelevant. What he was doing was passing laws. When Jesus mentions that the scribes and pharisees are sitting on Moses’s seat, we see that the whole problem with the Scribes and the Pharisees was that they were not men who feared God, men of truth, or those who hated dishonest gain as Jethro suggested. They correctly taught the law, but were hypocrites. This is why Jesus says, “do what they say, not what they do.” Matt 23:2-3 is a direct parallel to Exodus 18:13-27. Moses was the actual law giver, those who “succeeded” him had no power to make new Laws. Peter never made any new laws like Moses did. Peter, as well as all the Apostles, including Paul, taught only what Jesus had taught them.

 

[jmcrae]

Peter never made any new laws like Moses did.

Yes, he did, and got called on the carpet by St. Paul for not following them, once he had made them. It was St. Peter who decreed that the Gentiles could be baptized and become members of the Church, and that the ceremonial customs of the Jews were not necessary for the Gentiles (or the Jews, either) to follow, any more.

St. Paul recognized St. Peter’s authority to make this radical (and absolutely unBiblical) change in the practice of the Church, so much so that when St. Peter himself at one point began to behave as if he had not made these decrees, St. Paul brought it to his attention and required him to correct himself.

St. Paul, a Pharisee by training, knew a law of God when he saw one - and he recognized that God was the source of these new laws that had been promulgated by St. Peter.

Peter, as well as all the Apostles, including Paul, taught only what Jesus had taught them.

They certainly did this, but they also applied and developed the disciplines of the Church, by means of the power of the Keys, and had many customs (including the inclusion of the uncircumcised Gentiles among their number) that had not existed yet while Christ was still walking the earth.

 

[jmcrae]

We trace the line of Succession back, and we find an unbroken line that extends to Christ Himself, through every Pope of the Catholic Church, and no place else.

Here is the cite.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson,

What I am asking is that you answer the questions I posed to you 3 days ago.(scroll up) I am talking about what is the authority of the RCC. We can discuss sola scriptura after we’ve dealt with that. But what I want to know from you is who is authorized to speak for Rome, and where and how they received that authority. I want sources cited, not mere claims and statements that are being parroted by everyone without basis in fact. I am not going to debate several people at once. I notice that others are answering my questions to you for you.

So your burning questions are:

Who is authorized to speak for Rome? (By this, do you actually mean, “Who is authorized to speak for the Catholic Church”?)

Where and how did he/they receive his/their authority?

Is that it? Did I miss anything?

 

[steve_b]

Steve b.

Whoa, you’re all over the board.

I merely took what you wrote and answered your challenges
yd:

First sola scriptura, then Moses’s seat, then division in the churches, etc.

Go back and look at your challenge. It was about authority and how it got passed on after Peter and the apostles. You wanted the answer from scripture or you weren’t going to accept the answer. That my friend is sola scriptura. I showed you Moses seat and the succession to it, i.e successors to Moses authority, was NOT written down in scripture, or showing the scrbes and pharisees succeeded it, yet tis authority and succession had been in place orally for 1500 years and it was fully authoritative just like the written word, according to Jesus.
yd:

Right now I’m asking Randy about the RCC and it supposed authority.

Inspite of the avalanche of evidence presented, you still say “supposed” authority?
yd:

Briefly, The division in the church Paul is talking about is immoral behavior, sins. Are you accusing the Protestant churches of this? Protestants are largely united in essentials and in non-essentials there is some liberty. As for Galatians 5, its interesting you should mention that passage in light of the history of the RCC and its priests and popes.

Division is a sin unto itself. Just like the other sins Paul mentions. He says division [Rm 16:17…] is an evil he wants the Church to be aware of individuals who are guilty of this. And like any of those sins mentioned, if one continues in anyone of THEM, (division for example) and doesn’t end it, they won’t inherit heaven. i.e. those sins are mortal sins and one doesn’t want to die with any one of them on their soul.
yd:

As for Moses’s seat it is mentioned in Exodus 17 and 18. It is not a literal seat, but figurative.

Really? So then you don’t mind the phrase chair of Peter? it’s not only authoritative but Peter has successors too.

we appear to be gaining traction here.
yd:

Moses actually sat on a stone.

C’mon yd,
yd:

However, the fact that he is sitting is irrelevant. What he was doing was passing laws. When Jesus mentions that the scribes and pharisees are sitting on Moses’s seat, we see that the whole problem with the Scribes and the Pharisees was that they were not men who feared God, men of truth, or those who hated dishonest gain as Jethro suggested. They correctly taught the law, but were hypocrites.

regardless of their actions,

• they had to be obeyed according to Jesus, because they sat on Moses seat…
• They had the authority.

yd:

This is why Jesus says, “do what they say, not what they do.” Matt 23:2-3 is a direct parallel to Exodus 18:13-27.

Again,

• “Do whatever they say”
• Where does it say in the OT that Moses authority succeeded to the scribes and pharisees? It doesn’t, yet Jesus confirms it is true
• And Jesus confirms the people must obey whatever the scribes and pharisees said to do

This is NOT in the OT scriptures. If one was sola scriptura, they would not accept this authority and in doing so, violate an important authority.
yd:

Moses was the actual law giver, those who “succeeded” him had no power to make new Laws.

Where does scripture say those who succeed Moses have no power to make new laws?
yd:

Peter never made any new laws like Moses did. Peter, as well as all the Apostles, including Paul, taught only what Jesus had taught them.

So Moses was acting on his own?

I can see The Moses seat quote caught you by suprise.

Did Jesus say the scribes and pharisees had no power to make “new” laws? Nope!

• Did Jesus say the people had an option not to obey them? Nope!
• You don’t find that restriction you mention in the OT or find this command to obey whatever they say.

It’s oral tradition. NOT written.

And no one was to act independent of this authority. Just like the NT Church with the leadership of the chair of Peter.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson,

What I am asking is that you answer the questions I posed to you 3 days ago.(scroll up) I am talking about what is the authority of the RCC. We can discuss sola scriptura after we’ve dealt with that. But what I want to know from you is who is authorized to speak for Rome, and where and how they received that authority. I want sources cited, not mere claims and statements that are being parroted by everyone without basis in fact. I am not going to debate several people at once. I notice that others are answering my questions to you for you.

1. Who is authorized to speak for Rome?

From The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to **the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. **
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48
87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

Do you want to discuss this now or should we move on to questions 2 & 3?

 

[crowcounty]

okay this might seem a little long winded but here goes

most indigenous churches operated autonomously until the arrival of a fellow called st malachi the great romanizer he convinced most western churches to change from doing the old eastern style masses to the roman one most people agreed to change because they respected the see of peter as the symbolic leader of the churches later around 1052 we had the schism incodent afte this indigenous churchs were given a final chance to switch to roman style worship those who did not comply were killed in the british isles st andrews of scotland was converted into a concentration camp for the matyrdom of the remaining men women and children who refuse to stop orthodox worship.

i read most of this info in a book called celtic ritual

 

[yankee_drifter]

Randy Carson,

Can you or can you not answer my questions? You seem to be stalling for time. Are you hoping others will answer for you?

 

[yankee_drifter]

Steve b.

The "Moses seat’ argument is an old one and it is being used a lot lately by catholics to try and defend the primacy of Peter. In actuality, there was no Seat (or Chair) of Moses. It was used figuratively. Moses was a law giver. He didn’t make any laws. He wrote only what God said.The pharisees declared these same laws, When Jesus said the pharisees were sitting in Moses seat it was because they enforced these same laws, but Jesus said not to do what they do because of the lofty status they gave themselves. They had no fear of God, but a self righteous pride.They were very legalistic and sought to keep people slaves to the law. (which we are no longer under) Jesus rebuked the pharisees time and again because of their superior attitude.

What was the one thing they did that angered Jesus? Their elevation of traditions.They nullified God’s word with** their traditions.** Making God’s word of no effect. (Matt 15,6, Mark 7:13)
Yes, the people had to obey these laws in the OT, but Jesus came to fulfill the OT and under the NT we are no longer under the law but under grace. The point is, ** there are no new laws**. So there is no chair of Peter! Every time the pharisees complained that Jesus or the apostles weren’t following traditions, i.e. washing their hands, Jesus condemned them. His response was always: “Ye do err,** not knowing the scriptures**, nor the power of God.” (Matt 22:29, Mark 12:24) Many times Jesus said:" It is written" to show the final authority of God’s word.This shows how easily we can fall into error when we do not know what the word of God says.

Jesus always went to God’s word, the Holy Scriptures to settle all arguments. When he was tempted by satan, did he use tradition to resist the devil? NO! He used what? The Scriptures. 3 times He said: “It is written” and satan fled. Yes the pharisees were law givers, but Steve this is the Old Covenant. After Christ died, the New Covenant was ushered in. Neither Peter nor any of the apostles were law makers. Instead they taught only what Jesus taught. They were commissioned to preach Christ and Him crucified. Not to “sit” on some man made throne and act as Christ on earth.

Steve, its really sad that you care more about “gaining traction” like this is some game, than searching the Scriptures for yourself. We are to test all things, even those who preach the Gospel. But RCs are not taught to be “Berean” Christians. (Acts 17:11) I’m amazed what little respect for the Bible many catholics have

 

[Randy_Carson]

Steve b.

The "Moses seat’ argument is an old one and it is being used a lot lately by catholics to try and defend the primacy of Peter. In actuality, there was no Seat (or Chair) of Moses. It was used figuratively. Moses was a law giver. He didn’t make any laws. He wrote only what God said.The pharisees declared these same laws, When Jesus said the pharisees were sitting in Moses seat it was because they enforced these same laws, but Jesus said not to do what they do because of the lofty status they gave themselves. They had no fear of God, but a self righteous pride.They were very legalistic and sought to keep people slaves to the law. (which we are no longer under) Jesus rebuked the pharisees time and again because of their superior attitude.

Weird. When Jesus used the phrase, “Moses’ seat”, everyone knew exactly what He was talking about. And archeologists have discovered just such a chair, and it is now on display in a museum in Israel. So, it may have been figurative in one sense, but it was very literal in another.

Of course, it is from the Latin word for “chair” - cathedra - that we get the word, “cathedral” because every Bishop has a literal chair located in their own cathedrals. The chair of Peter is the Church equivalent of and extension of the seat of Moses.

What was the one thing they did that angered Jesus? Their elevation of traditions.They nullified God’s word with** their traditions.** Making God’s word of no effect. (Matt 15,6, Mark 7:13)

Please be precise here…Jesus condemned HUMAN tradition which nullified the Word of God. Catholics maintain SACRED Tradition which IS the Word of God. Scripture is a subset of the Word of God.

The rest of your post was simply more off-target stuff based upon your misunderstanding of the points I have just addressed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Steve, its really sad that you care more about “gaining traction” like this is some game, than searching the Scriptures for yourself. We are to test all things, even those who preach the Gospel. But RCs are not taught to be “Berean” Christians. (Acts 17:11) I’m amazed what little respect for the Bible many catholics have

What sad is that you completely misread the scriptures concerning the poor Bereans whom you long to claim as proto-Evangelicals.

It didn’t “go down” as you think it did in Berea. Here’s the straight scoop:

Berean Rejection of Sola Scriptura
From Steve Ray’s article: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

If one group could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

+++

Those who followed the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Thessalonians, rejected Paul’s oral preaching and the long awaited Messiah. Those who accepted oral teaching AND scripture, the Bereans, accepted the Gospel and the Messiah.

Additionally, although both groups searched the scriptures, they came to contradictory conclusions about the Messiah. Clearly, scripture alone is insufficient to ensure proper interpretation.

 

[jmcrae]

okay this might seem a little long winded but here goes

most indigenous churches operated autonomously until the arrival of a fellow called st malachi the great romanizer he convinced most western churches to change from doing the old eastern style masses to the roman one most people agreed to change because they respected the see of peter as the symbolic leader of the churches later around 1052 we had the schism incodent afte this indigenous churchs were given a final chance to switch to roman style worship those who did not comply were killed in the british isles st andrews of scotland was converted into a concentration camp for the matyrdom of the remaining men women and children who refuse to stop orthodox worship.

i read most of this info in a book called celtic ritual

And you believe this book on “celtic ritual” because …

Is Roman Church history a specialty of the author, or is he merely speculating based on a romantic notion of what he thinks the Celts should have been doing in the early years of the Church?

I happen to be Celtic on my father’s side, and there are many things attributed to our culture that I have never encountered in my family, such as the notion that we are supposed to be a “matriarchal” culture. Hardly - male dominance is a prevalent feature in most of my clan, anyway.

 

[crazzeto]

Responding the subject line:

The churchs certainly had more atonomy which lead to some heresy’s. This wasn’t by design necessarly, but rather by the reality of the era. Communication was more difficult, and everything was so brand new.

But what we can see from the NT it’s self, is that the Church founders (the Surviving Apostles after the crusifixtion, including Mathias and Paul) intended there to be a single church, with a single doctrine. In fact the subject matter of many of the Epistles found in the NT, isn’t just to instruct but also correct practice in certain churchs.