Were the NT churches independent or One?

[James_Least]

Just a couple of thoughts on the word: ecclesia, which is translated church, and our time has come to mean a grandiose gothic cathedral. The word means: assembly or the ones called out for a purpose. The scripture speaks of lawful and unlawful assemblies–i.e. who called this meeting? There is no reference to a building other than homes in which believers met–afraid to meet in public. True religious freedom has not been realized, even through today. Preachers of the Gospel have been whipped and imprisoned in the U.S.A

Try preaching the real gospel on the streets of Salt Lake City–Baltimore Maryland would not be a good place as well. Yet these are both “christian” cities. Religious intolerance is still alive and well on planet earth–almost as bad a racism.

Where will you be in 100 years?

James Least

 

[JRKH]

Just a couple of thoughts on the word: ecclesia, which is translated church, and our time has come to mean a grandiose gothic cathedral. The word means: assembly or the ones called out for a purpose. The scripture speaks of lawful and unlawful assemblies–i.e. who called this meeting? There is no reference to a building other than homes in which believers met–afraid to meet in public.

The question posed in the OP has nothing to do with buildings or where meetings are held. What it does have to do with is Doctrinal unity and authority.
Yes, ecclesia (church) means an assembly or group and most groups, especially large and widely spread out groups, have some sort of structure and bylaws/rules/missionstatement etc. (authority) to guide and protect the group.

True religious freedom has not been realized, even through today. Preachers of the Gospel have been whipped and imprisoned in the U.S.A

Try preaching the real gospel on the streets of Salt Lake City–Baltimore Maryland would not be a good place as well. Yet these are both “christian” cities. Religious intolerance is still alive and well on planet earth–almost as bad a racism.

Where will you be in 100 years?

James Least

Persecution does indeed still continue in the world. However that is the subject of another thread. Please start one if you wish to discuss this.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

To Yankee and others who feel that Scripture does not support Peter being “Pope”.

It strikes me as odd that, one of the big issues and complaints non-catholics have about the Pope is how they perceive him “Lording it Over” us and that is not what Christ wanted (He who sould be first must be a servent to all).
Yet, in trying to prove that Peter is NOT the first Pope, they look for the very “Lording” that they dislike.

Example: Council of Jerusalem.
A Catholic points out that Peter stood and stopped the debate with his declaration and this, along with some dietary matters is what is sent to Antioch by Letter and Orally by witness
A Protestant says Peter couldn’t be the leader because he did not Chair the council. James did and it was James that pronounced what should go into the letter.

So - Instead of seeing that Peter, the leader of the apostles, in humility refused to assume the chairmanship in James’ Diocese, these Protestants see Peter as NOT the leader of the apostles BECAUSE he acted humbly.

I find this to be a most interesting paradox that some protestants seek as proof the very thing they abhor about the papacy.

Peace
James

 

[crazzeto]

Crazetto,

The RCC uses one passage to try and prove Peter was chosen “vicar of Christ”: Matt 16:18. Here the Lord said: Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church. The Savior did NOT say: Upon YOU Peter. He said only: upon this rock.There have been no unanimous consensus among RC that the rock means Peter. Neither were the early church writers unanimous in their interpretation. (this is easily verifiable) Many are divided and say the rock is either Christ or Peter’s confession of faith when he said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” There is no other support throughout the NT of Peter having a role similar to that of a pope. No collaboration of this from any of the other apostles. A doctrine cannot be made upon one sole passage which is not substantiated further. Christ made no mention of wanting apostolic succession continued down through the ages. This is why we must not go beyond what is written.

Paul writes: “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor.3:11). Christ is the cornerstone of the foundation which includes the prophets and the apostles, who gave divinely inspired testimony of Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:20). Clearly this foundation was laid and completed in the first century. Once a builder lays a foundation, he does not continue to add to it. Yet the RCC continues to add to its foundation (The Mormons do the same thing) with claims of apostolic succession, infallible papal pronouncements and evolving tradition. The council of Trent, which is a complete summary of RC doctrines mentions nothing about papal infallibility.

Paul speaks of no subordination, but rather he rebukes Peter publicly. In fact, Acts 4:13 tells us that Peter was unlearned, a commoner who possessed no official position or special abilities.

To show the meaning of Matt16:18 we need only to allow the apostles themselves to speak. Acts 4:11, 1 Cor 3:10,11 Eph 2:20-22, 1 Pe 2:4-8 all tell us that Christ alone is the rock. The apostles never spoke or wrote of anyone but Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone on which the church would be built. Even OT believers looked to the Lord as the rock (Deut 32:4,31 2 Sam 22:3, 47, Ps 78:35) To build a church upon a man is blasphemy. Other have tried it and they are a cult who teach another gospel.

Peter was not qualified to lead the entire church. (Matt 16:23, 26:75 Gal 2:11-14)

Peter admits some of Paul’s writings are hard to understand and acknowledges Paul’s writings as scripture.

He held the same rank as many others 1 Pe 5:1-5.He said he too was a fellow elder.

He was an evangelist to the Jews around the areas of Jerusalem, not pope of Rome. (Gal 2:7,8)
Instead of issuing orders, he took orders (Acts 8:14)

He forbade anyone to kneel before him (Acts 10:26).

He was married (Matt 8:14,15)

Christ chose no man to take His place on earth, but the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-16)

I had a solid reply for this, I’ll bring it up tomorrow. But once again there is a lot in Sacrade Scripture you’re missing

 

[SPH1]

Peter was not qualified to lead the entire church. (Matt 16:23, 26:75 Gal 2:11-14)

Says you, but not according to Christ.

See John 21:15-19. Christ not only makes Peter shepherd over the Church but Christ specifically preordained that Peter would faithfully serve until Peter’s death/martyrdom. Peter’s faithful service until his death was a done deal, pre-ordained by Christ himself. There was no way Peter could ever lose his authority.

Now, Christ is God and obviously could forsee the “rebuke” incident with Paul and Peter. But here in John, Christ was specifically looking at Peter’s future career as shepherd of the Church, saw the future rebuke incident with Paul, yet with the full divine confidence made Peter shepherd. Christ himself made no importance of the rebuke incident with Paul, and Peter never lost his Christ-given authority even for one second. (Nor did Paul propose to take it away.)

To deny Peter’s qualification is actually an attack upon Christ himself, denying the divine judgment in selecting Peter.

Peter admits some of Paul’s writings are hard to understand

But Peter didn’t say that it was hard for HIM to understand. Peter was speaking of people like yourself.

and acknowledges Paul’s writings as scripture.

Okay, Peter canonizes Paul’s writings. (Yet there is no list of those writings…)

He held the same rank as many others 1 Pe 5:1-5.He said he too was a fellow elder.

Yes, and the Pope is an archbishop, bishop, priest…like many others.

He was married (Matt 8:14,15)

But we have Peter’s own testimony that he (and the others) gave up everything to follow Christ. (Too late to look for texts…where Christ speaks of giving up wife, children, etc and Peter says they gave up everything.)

Instead of issuing orders, he took orders (Acts 8:14)

But Peter (and John) were apostles and involved in the decision to send themselves. But why not mention Peter’s “papal” acts:

1. Acts 2:14-39 - Peter speaking, the crowd asking what they were to do. Peter - without consulting the other apostles or holding a council - did not say to be better Jews and follow the Law more. Rather, repent and be baptised.
2. Acts 10:44-48 - Baptism of Cornelius. Peter did not hold a council, he just gave the order for baptism. Peter later explained the baptism, but was not seeking ratification, rather, explaining it for pastoral reasons. Acts 11
3. Acts 15 - Jerusalem Council. Much discussion and apparently things were not going in the right direction. So Peter lays down the faith of the Church: salvation by grace in Christ. Acts 15:11. Note that Peter was not merely throwing out an opinion, to be kicked around and accepted or rejected as the Council saw fit. Rather, it was the constant faith of the Church, going back through points 2 & 1 above. The Council was going against God, putting God to the test. Acts 15:10

 

[crazzeto]

@yankee_drifter

OK, so you suggested that papal authority is based on a single verse in the bible. I’m kind of supprised that you beleive that having been Catholic, but perhaps you never studied up on it before being approched by a protistant. Now already I’ve seen other posters post some stuff, which should already be giving you the idea that Papal authority (Primacy of Peter) is based upon the breadth of the NT, but I have a few more passages for you. I’ll start by briefly mentioning a few interesting occurances in the bible:

Every listing the Apostles, Peter is listed first and Judas Iscariot is listed last. This is not coincidence
In the Acts, it is Peter that brings up the necessity of having to replace Judas
Peter is always the first to Act in the Acts

Besides this, we have Luke 22:31-35
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=22&l=32&f=s#x

31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. 33 Who said to him: Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. 34 And he said: I say to thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, till thou thrice deniest that thou knowest me. And he said to them: 35 When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, did you want anything?

Notice the usage of “you” and “thee”, this isn’t accidental or a mistake. The difference is that “you” is a plural you in the Greek source text, where as thee is a singular you. So Satan hath desired to have y’all, that he may shift y’all as wheat. But I have prayed for you (Peter), that your (Peter) faith fail not.

So Satan wants them all, but Jesus is praying that Peter’s faith not fail, why not just everyone’s if Peter has no primacy?

More over, lets look at that “one passage” you cite in Matthew 16:
drbo.org/chapter/47016.htm

14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

Lets put back in liguistic context shall we? Bare in mind, Christ spoke Aramaic

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [Cepha]; and upon this rock [cepha] I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus literally renames “Peter” Rock, “I say to you that you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church”. Now I know you might be thinking “well Peter isn’t all that unusual name”, well it’s not today… But Rock still is a pretty unusual name, and “Rock” is exactly what Jesus called “Peter”. And in case there is any question, Rock was not any more typical a name back then than it is now, it was highly a-typical in fact. Jesus basically made the name up, just for Peter. Now lets look at why he renamed him this, with the preceeding verse

And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

From this we see that Peter’s confession is no mere statement of faith, Christ him self is saying there is no way he could have known unless it was divinely reveiled to him. Those who interpet this as a “mere statement of faith” are making the mistake of interpeting this passage in hind sight. We know now that Jesus is the Christ, nobody then knew it and I doubt if anyone truely suspected it. Again lets look one more verse back:

But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

People know that Jesus is great, but nobody calls him the Christ. They compare him to Elias, or one of the Prophits, nobody thinks he’s the Christ. Nobody but specifically Peter, who out of all the 12 Apostles is the only one who received devine revelation. After renaming Peter to “Rock”, Jesus goes on to tell him that “hell will not prevail against this church. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose shall be loosed in heaven”.

Peter has the keys to the Kingdom, that is a lot of power. Every time “Keys to the kingdom” are referenced in sacrade Scripture it is symbolic of great power, great primacy. Unless of course you don’t want to beleive in Peter’s primacy? In that case, this is the only instance in the Bible where that isn’t true? I don’t think so.

So Peter’s primacy is built soley on Matthew 16? Nope, not by a long shot, we Catholics don’t do that. Matthew 16 is very powerful though, you can not simply explain it as a mere statement of faith, that simply is not adiquate to explain everything going on there. When you go back, and add in the rest of the NT, examples such as that out of Luke 22 and many, many other locations it is undeiable. Peter had primacy.

 

[yankee_drifter]

jmcrae

If Christ didn’t want Apostolic authority to extend beyond their lifetime then why did He bother to establish it in the first place?

When did Christ establish apostolic succession/authority? Give me the words He said. The apostles and prophets alone were commissioned by the Lord, not to originate truth–“For ever, O Lord, thy word is firmly fixed in the heavens” (Ps 119:89 Catholic Edition RSV)–but to reveal the truth. Their task was once and for all completed for they gave us the written NT of Christ. The responsibility of the church today is simply to follow, defend and proclaim these truth which they revealed. The Catechism for Adults, page 54 says, “The Catholic Church alone has the authority to rule and to teach.” However, the authority is not in the body, but in the Head (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). The ruling is not in the kingdom, but in the King (Heb. 7:1-2; Rev. 1:5-6). The authority is not in the church, but in Christ (Matt. 28:18; 1 Pet. 3:22). The church is not the Savior, but simply the body of the saved (Acts 2:47; Eph. 5:22-24). Who gave the RCC the authority to change what the Lord ordained?" We are taught in God’s holy Word that we must follow the laws of the Lord without change or variation (Gal. 1:6-9; Rev. 22:18-19). We have no apostles today because it was a one time mission given by Christ to establish His church (a body of believers). The foundation has been laid so why do you keep adding to it?

Just as when the President says “My fellow Americans” it means that he holds no special authority over them … oh, wait; he’s the most powerful man in the free world.

Surely you can do better than that. No connection whatsoever. Please do not put words in Peter’s mouth. Let him speak for himself. He said he was a fellow elder. If he was pope, why then did he not say that? If Christ was establishing a papal system, then why didn’t Peter say so? When the apostles expressed a desire to be the head of the group, Jesus dealt harshly with them (Mk 9:33-35). Did Jesus say I have ordained Peter to be the first pope???

 

[yankee_drifter]

jmcrae,

As a god, no. The Pope also does not think himself to be a god. Also, I am not aware of anyone kneeling to the Pope in modern times, generally speaking.

Oh, c’mon! People kiss the pope’s ring all the time. Kissing the pope’s feet was made a tradition in 708 AD. Read your catechism and these other RC sources:

“The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous”.

“The Pope is of so great dignity, and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God. and the vicar of God.” Ferraris Ecclesiastical dictionary

“The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth… the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.” New York Catechism…“The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh.”
Catholic National July 1895

“We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty”
Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894…The quotes go on and on and on…

Relevance? The custom of having unmarried clergy didn’t arise until later.

Relevance?? In the apostolic church, bishops (also known as elders, presbyters and pastors) were generally married. (1 Tim. 3:2-5) “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence; for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?” The NT allows church leaders to marry.

The Roman Catholic magisterium has the audacity to ignore the Word of God and establish canon laws contrary to the Bible. The Bible has very strong words against the Catholic magisterium and anyone else who forbids marriage: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth” (1 Tim 4:1-5).

jmcrae

He’s not “taking Christ’s place.” He is transmitting the teachings of Christ, by means of the Church.

Is the pope transmitting the teachings of Christ? Or making new laws? Who gave the RCC the authority to change what the Lord ordained?" We are taught in God’s holy Word that we must follow the laws of the Lord without change or variation (Gal. 1:6-9; Rev. 22:18-19). When we follow the traditions and doctrines of men, our religion becomes vain (Matt. 15:9; Col. 2:8; Titus 1:13-14). The phrase “pillar and ground of truth” does not mean that the church is the originator of truth, or that it can make or change the laws of God. It simply means that it is the upholder, defender and proclaimer of the truth. The apostles often praised churches for proclaiming the truth, “for from you the word of the Lord has been spread abroad” (1 Thess. 1:8). They commended them for defending the truth, “partakers with me…in the defense and confirmation of the gospel” (Phil. 1:7). However, there is not a single verse in all of the holy Scriptures which indicates that the church has the authority to originate truth or to decree laws for God. …

 

[yankee_drifter]

Randy Carson,

No, you weren’t…yet. And what I actually said was, “I don’t consent to submitting my understanding of the gospel to you in order for you to determine whether or not it meets your approval.”

Neither do I consent to personal attacks and let’s “gang up on the stupid evangelist” mentality.

It’s just classic evangelical-speak…“If you died tonight, do you know with certainty that you would go to heaven?”, etc., etc.

Where do you believe you will go upon death, Randy?

As a Catholic, no matter what I say, it will probably be insufficient (even if the disagreement is simply over vocabulary) and will provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate that YOU have memorized the Four Spiritual Laws (or whatever), and that I need to get saved (in your estimation).

You are putting words in my mouth, Randy.

As a evangelist, no matter what I say its WRONG, WRONG, WRONG to you!

Been there. Done that.

Now, either we get back to your game of Twenty Questions, or we’re done.

This isn’t a game, Randy, salvation is too important to take lightly.

 

[crazzeto]

@yankee_drifter

OK, so you suggested that papal authority is based on a single verse in the bible. I’m kind of supprised that you beleive that having been Catholic, but perhaps you never studied up on it before being approched by a protistant. Now already I’ve seen other posters post some stuff, which should already be giving you the idea that Papal authority (Primacy of Peter) is based upon the breadth of the NT, but I have a few more passages for you. I’ll start by briefly mentioning a few interesting occurances in the bible:

Every listing the Apostles, Peter is listed first and Judas Iscariot is listed last. This is not coincidence
In the Acts, it is Peter that brings up the necessity of having to replace Judas
Peter is always the first to Act in the Acts

Besides this, we have Luke 22:31-35
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=22&l=32&f=s#x

Notice the usage of “you” and “thee”, this isn’t accidental or a mistake. The difference is that “you” is a plural you in the Greek source text, where as thee is a singular you. So Satan hath desired to have y’all, that he may shift y’all as wheat. But I have prayed for you (Peter), that your (Peter) faith fail not.

So Satan wants them all, but Jesus is praying that Peter’s faith not fail, why not just everyone’s if Peter has no primacy?

More over, lets look at that “one passage” you cite in Matthew 16:
drbo.org/chapter/47016.htm

Lets put back in liguistic context shall we? Bare in mind, Christ spoke Aramaic

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter (Cepha); and upon this rock (cepha) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus literally renames “Peter” Rock, “I say to you that you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church”. Now I know you might be thinking “well Peter isn’t all that unusual name”, well it’s not today… But Rock still is a pretty unusual name, and “Rock” is exactly what Jesus called “Peter”. And in case there is any question, Rock was not any more typical a name back then than it is now, it was highly a-typical in fact. Jesus basically made the name up, just for Peter. Now lets look at why he renamed him this, with the preceeding verse

From this we see that Peter’s confession is no mere statement of faith, Christ him self is saying there is no way he could have known unless it was divinely reveiled to him. Those who interpet this as a “mere statement of faith” are making the mistake of interpeting this passage in hind sight. We know now that Jesus is the Christ, nobody then knew it and I doubt if anyone truely suspected it. Again lets look one more verse back:

People know that Jesus is great, but nobody calls him the Christ. They compare him to Elias, or one of the Prophits, nobody thinks he’s the Christ. Nobody but specifically Peter, who out of all the 12 Apostles is the only one who received devine revelation. After renaming Peter to “Rock”, Jesus goes on to tell him that “hell will not prevail against this church. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose shall be loosed in heaven”.

Peter has the keys to the Kingdom, that is a lot of power. Every time “Keys to the kingdom” are referenced in sacrade Scripture it is symbolic of great power, great primacy. Unless of course you don’t want to beleive in Peter’s primacy? In that case, this is the only instance in the Bible where that isn’t true? I don’t think so.

So Peter’s primacy is built soley on Matthew 16? Nope, not by a long shot, we Catholics don’t do that. Matthew 16 is very powerful though, you can not simply explain it as a mere statement of faith, that simply is not adiquate to explain everything going on there. When you go back, and add in the rest of the NT, examples such as that out of Luke 22 and many, many other locations it is undeiable. Peter had primacy.

 

[patricius79]

The Roman Catholic magisterium has the audacity to ignore the Word of God and establish canon laws contrary to the Bible. The Bible has very strong words against the Catholic magisterium and anyone else who forbids marriage: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth” (1 Tim 4:1-5).

This is way off topic. The Catholic Church doesn’t forbid marriage. I think you have a problem with Christianity, not with a certain Christian group. The Catholic Church is the only historic Church, and the only historic source of the Scriptures and the N.T. Canon. Sola Scriptura is a non-Biblical tradition which contradicts Scripture (cf. 2 Thes 2:15) and logically implies that there is a higher authority than the Word of God (cf. 1 Thes 1:8, 2:13). Those who hold this false principle are often blinded as to Biblical interpretations such as the corporate unity of the Church.

Now, getting back to the topic at hand: the N.T. Churches were not “independent”. Anyone who says they were does not really believe that the Body is one. 1 Cor 12 is clear that we are one Body. It is true that the Church developed in it’s structures over time, just as any body does. This is stated in Scripture. Cf. Mt 4:31-32, or Luke 2:51-52.
This is why we see the Papacy in Scriptures (such as Gal 1:18) and in Ignatius, Clement, and Irenaeus (etc) in the 100s, but it gets more articulated over time, and according to the circumstances.

 

[Randy_Carson]

When did Christ establish apostolic succession/authority? Give me the words He said.

Okay, I will. This is pure logic, Yankee, based upon scripture, of course.

Jesus established an authoritative church and that authority was Apostolic in nature. Further, we know that the church is infallible because of the promises Jesus made about sending the Holy Spirit to remain with the church forever. We can review all of this separately, if you like. This post is about Apostolic Succession.

To answer the question of whether an apostolic church still exists, we need to look at a passage from Matthew, and as we do, we will begin to see just how closely the concepts of authority, infallibility and apostolic succession are tied together.

“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’ “ (Matthew 28:18-19)

First, notice in the passage known as the “Great Commission”, that the Apostles were commanded to make disciples of “all nations”. How would it have been possible for these Eleven men to travel to every country on earth at a time when travel was slow and difficult? Given that the last of the Apostles died no more than 60 years or so after the Ascension of Jesus, would there have been time for them to physically visit every nation on earth to fulfill His command? No! Clearly, the instruction of Jesus only makes sense if it was given to the Apostles and those who would take the place of the Apostles after their deaths. Those who took the place of the Apostles would have to have the same Apostolic Authority given to the Apostles handed down to them. Thus, the “Great Commission” would be fulfilled over time through the missionary efforts of a greatly expanded Church.

“But,” some people might argue, “the promise of the Holy Spirit was given while Jesus was still on earth. What assurance do we have that the Church would have this same authority after Jesus had ascended into heaven?”

In John, we find the answer to this question:

"All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:25-26)

“But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7)

“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” (John 16:13)

Yes, Jesus was speaking while still with the Apostles; however, he also promises that the Holy Spirit would be sent to them after He ascends to the Father. “But wait,” some will say, “this only applies to the original Apostles while they were still alive. After the death of the last Apostle, the Spirit would no longer be with the church. That is why we have the Bible.” Let’s examine further what Jesus said:

"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.” (John 14:16-17)

Does it make sense for Jesus to say “forever” if He anticipated that the Holy Spirit would depart from the church with the death of the last Apostle? No! The Spirit would remain with the Apostles and, through those who succeeded them, with the church forever.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

He also said,

“And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-19)

How could He fulfill this promise if the disciples themselves did not live until the end of the age? Again, how could Jesus remain with the church until the end of the age if the Apostolic Authority of the church ended with the death of the last Apostle? Clearly, Jesus must have intended that the apostles would be succeeded by other men who are still with us and will live until the end of the age. Jesus can be with the Apostles through their successors who also have the same Apostolic Authority by means of Apostolic Succession.

It is through the office of Apostle, and not through the individual Apostles themselves, that Jesus established and maintains His authority in the Church. Let us consider the Word of God:

“Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Corinthians 12:28)

From this, we can see that God established the position of Apostle in the Church along with that of prophet and teacher among others. We know that Jesus did not command his disciples to “go, therefore, write books, and let everyone decide for themselves what is true”. No! The mission of the Apostles, the mission of the Church, was to teach, to make disciples of all nations, to baptize, etc. Making disciples of all nations would take time. Therefore, God established the office of Apostle in the church, but He never says anything about this being for the first couple of centuries only. He never says “until you can get the New Testament written and canonized.” The Church is still with us, so there must still be Apostles in the Church of Jesus Christ, and these current apostles must still have the same authority that was entrusted to the original Twelve and passed down as was noted earlier. This is called, “Apostolic Succession.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

SINCE YOU ASKED: More thoughts on Apostolic Authority

The Church’s authority is unique in that it is derived from the authority of the Apostles themselves. Where did the Apostles get their Authority? Apostolic Authority flows from the Authority of Jesus and the Father as we see in this passage:

“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’ " (Matthew 28:18-19)

“Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ ” (John 20:21)

“All authority” comes from God the Father who has given it to Jesus. In turn, Jesus gave it to His disciples. He gave them “all authority” to “make disciples of all nations”. We also see another example of the authority given to the Apostles in the Gospel of John:

“Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.’ " (John 20:21-23)

Note first that Jesus “breathed” on the disciples – an odd thing to do. The descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost was still several weeks away. Was He anointing them with the Holy Spirit at this very moment? Perhaps there is another explanation for this anointing. Some people claim that only scripture is “God-breathed” or theopneustos (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17) and that there is no other authority equal to scripture. Here, we have just seen that Jesus has established a “God-breathed” Church.

Second, we see that Jesus said, “as the Father has sent me (How? With all authority in heaven and on earth.), so I am sending you (How? With all of that exact same authority)”. Note further that Jesus has given the Apostles the authority to forgive men’s sins. Yet, as the Jews asked on another occasion:

“Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7)

But Jesus knew their thoughts and asked:

“Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” And the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.” (Matthew 9:4-8)

Notice that the Jews did not praise God who had “given such authority to a man” – a single man named Jesus. Instead, they praised God because the authority to forgive sins has now been passed into the hands of mankind. Moreover, with this kind of authority firmly conveyed to them, the Apostles spoke with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself. This was confirmed when Jesus said,

“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)

From this, we can see plainly that the Apostles in the early church spoke with the authority of Christ and God the Father and that the early church could rely on the authority of the apostles because when they spoke, the church heard Jesus speaking. Listening to the Apostles was the same as listening to Jesus; rejection of the Apostles was rejection of both Jesus and the Father. Jesus cannot possibly identify Himself more closely with the Apostles than He did in this verse

Echoing the words of Jesus seen above, the Apostle John wrote:

“We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.” (1 John 4:6)

John says that we can tell who is and is not of God by determining who does and does not listen to “us” – in other words, John, specifically. John wrote “us” to emphasize his unity with the other Apostles and those who were in agreement with them. Peter also spoke of these reliable witnesses who spoke by the power of the Holy Spirit when he wrote:

“It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.” (1 Peter 1:12)

These passages give us ample evidence that was a group of men, called “Apostles”, who could be listened to with confidence regarding the truth needed for salvation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The apostles and prophets alone were commissioned by the Lord, not to originate truth–“For ever, O Lord, thy word is firmly fixed in the heavens” (Ps 119:89 Catholic Edition RSV)–but to reveal the truth. Their task was once and for all completed for they gave us the written NT of Christ. The responsibility of the church today is simply to follow, defend and proclaim these truth which they revealed.

And this is exactly what the Catholic Church believes and does.

The Church does not CREATE new truth, Yankee, but over time, as we think about and pray about the gospel which was delivered once for all to the saints, we unpack the message more completely and new understanding comes to light.

Is this not obvious from other areas of life?

Did Galileo CHANGE the relationship of the earth and the sun to one another? Or did he simply come to understand what had always been true?

Did the Church CHANGE the inner life of God by defining the doctrine of the Trinity? Or did she simply come to a better understanding and more precise terms to explain this understanding?

Did the Church ADD to the gospel by declaring Mary to be the Mother of God? Or did she simply clarify the truth of the Incarnation by defining that Mary was the mother of Jesus who was fully God?

Here is the problem: you think that the Catholic Church INVENTS new truth.

That is not what the development of doctrine is all about.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Catechism for Adults, page 54 says, “The Catholic Church alone has the authority to rule and to teach.” However, the authority is not in the body, but in the Head (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). The ruling is not in the kingdom, but in the King (Heb. 7:1-2; Rev. 1:5-6). The authority is not in the church, but in Christ (Matt. 28:18; 1 Pet. 3:22).

Clearly, you need to read your scriptures more closely since Jesus gave the Apostles the same authority with which He Himself had been sent by the Father. I covered that above.

The church is not the Savior, but simply the body of the saved (Acts 2:47; Eph. 5:22-24).

Amen!

Who gave the RCC the authority to change what the Lord ordained?" We are taught in God’s holy Word that we must follow the laws of the Lord without change or variation (Gal. 1:6-9; Rev. 22:18-19).

Please provide concrete examples instead of making assertions.

We have no apostles today because it was a one time mission given by Christ to establish His church (a body of believers). The foundation has been laid so why do you keep adding to it?

This presumption is covered in my post above.

Surely you can do better than that. No connection whatsoever. Please do not put words in Peter’s mouth. Let him speak for himself. He said he was a fellow elder. If he was pope, why then did he not say that? If Christ was establishing a papal system, then why didn’t Peter say so? When the apostles expressed a desire to be the head of the group, Jesus dealt harshly with them (Mk 9:33-35). Did Jesus say I have ordained Peter to be the first pope???

I already covered the question of Peter as a “fellow elder” in a previous post. Did you read it? Your questions suggests that you did not.

Harshly? I think not. Let’s review:

Mark 9:33-37
33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.

35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.” 36He took a little child and had him stand among them. Taking him in his arms, he said to them, 37"Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me."

Note that Jesus did not tell the Apostles that no one would be the head of the Church. He said, “If anyone wants to be first…”. That is not the same as saying “No one will be first”, is it? Instead, He teaches them what the characteristics of the leader must be. According to Jesus, the one who wants to be first must be the servant of all. That is the understanding that we should have concerning the head of the Church. Later, in John 20, for example, we will see Jesus commissioning Peter as the shepherd of the flock. Isn’t Jesus the Good Shepherd? Isn’t there one shepherd and one flock? Of course, but Jesus is able to leave His earthly flock in the capable hands of Peter who is given the responsibility for caring for the flock in Christ’s absence. And that, my friend, is exactly what the Royal Steward of the household was supposed to do in the Davidic kingdom.

By the way, Paul echoes this in the following words:

1 Timothy 3:1
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,a] he desires a noble task.

a] Traditionally bishop; also in verse 2

So, the scriptures do not teach that there will be no overseers or bishops nor does the scripture suggest that no one would be the leader of the Apostolic band.

In fact, the passage proves the opposite of what you want it to prove.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Please do not put words in Peter’s mouth. Let him speak for himself. He said he was a fellow elder. If he was pope, why then did he not say that? If Christ was establishing a papal system, then why didn’t Peter say so?..Did Jesus say I have ordained Peter to be the first pope???

First, the word “pope” is simply a concept term like “bible”, “trinity” and “incarnation”. Jesus didn’t use any of those words, either. So, Jesus never said, “I hereby annoint Peter as the first Pope of the Catholic Church.”

“Pope” and “Catholic Church” are our terms used to describe things that we understand.

However, Jesus did establish Peter in the role that the successor of Peter holds today. This was done in two places very clearly: Matthew 16:18-19 and John 21:15-18.

Again, I covered all of this for you days ago. Did you read my posts?

Here is the connect between Jesus, the king, and Peter, the royal steward of the king, covered in a different way:

Jesus establishes Peter as His royal steward for He gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads,

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In ancient times, the king would choose a Royal Steward or prime minister who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. Jesus gives Peter the authority to speak in His name and extends his authority beyond the earthly realm when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

Finally, Peter is established as the shepherd of Jesus’ own flock in John 21. Let me know if you have any questions about this.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In the apostolic church, bishops (also known as elders, presbyters and pastors) were generally married. (1 Tim. 3:2-5) “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence; for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?” The NT allows church leaders to marry.

The Roman Catholic magisterium has the audacity to ignore the Word of God and establish canon laws contrary to the Bible. The Bible has very strong words against the Catholic magisterium and anyone else who forbids marriage: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth” (1 Tim 4:1-5).

The Catholic Church does not forbid anyone to marry, Yankee. Men who want to be priests in the Latin rite voluntarily accept this discipline.

Here are some thoughts I put together on this subject:

Celibacy and the Catholic Priest

Many people believe that the Catholic Church violates the Word of God because it forbids people to marry (cf. 1 Timothy 4:3) and that it is wrong for priests to remain celibate. To get a clearer picture of this issue, let’s examine what the Bible has to say about the subject of celibacy.

Matthew 19:11-12
11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Jesus offers the celibate life as a gift and tells us that “The one who can accept this should accept it.”

1 Corinthians 7:1
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

1 Corinthians 7:7
7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Paul reveals his own celibacy and offers an earnest wish that more people would follow his example.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Paul concedes that getting married is better than struggling with sexual temptation; for those that “cannot control themselves, they should marry.”

Is Paul completely opposed to marriage? Not at all. The book of Hebrews states:

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Why then does Paul recommend celibacy?

1 Corinthians 7:32-35
32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

From this passage, we can see Paul’s primary reason for advocating celibacy: he wants everyone to live in undivided devotion to the Lord, and in all of these verses, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus calls some men to the priesthood and offers them the gift of a celibate life to be lived in undivided devotion to God. Paul understands that not everyone is offered this gift and that not all to whom it is offered can or will accept it.

There are Catholic priests who are married; typically, these are men who were priests in the Anglican, Orthodox or other faith traditions and have converted to the Catholic faith after they were married in those churches. Under special circumstances, they may be ordained to serve as Catholic priests. Men who are already Catholic when they begin to discern their call to the priesthood must remain celibate.

The Catholic Church forbids no man to marry. However, she does desire that those who will represent Christ, who will stand in persona Christi (in the place of Christ) when administering the sacraments as priests, be like their Lord as fully as possible. This means that like Jesus, they are celibate men prepared to sacrifice their own lives in the service of God and others.

The calling and the gift is offered by God; those who choose to accept it do so freely.

Here is an article, “Celibacy is a Gift”, that explains this more fully:
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102fea5.asp

 

[crazzeto]

More on 1 Timothy 4:3 thanks to Douay Rheims

Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats"… He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons; though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance.

Ignorance of scripture is ignoarnce of Christ (St. Gerome)

today we could add “Ignorance of history is ignorance of scripture”. One needs context, to understand why a passage is being written. This way they can take the literal meaning of the passage, and compare that to modern practice to see if it truely does reconcile with scripture.

 

[JacobG]

I have been reading the posts on this topic and I have 2 things to say to Mr. Carson and yankee drifter. First, you cant have a debate between 2 people without a moderator and certainly not on a public forum. You’ve got everyone whining and crying that yankee isn’t responding to everybody. How can he when there’s been a complete loss of control and everyone is all over the place!

2nd, Mr Carson, I see no good reason for your refusal to answer yankee’s question about the gospel of Christ. It makes it look like you have something to hide and as yankee said, the truth does not fear examination.