Were the NT churches independent or One?

[Randy_Carson]

BTW the epistles weren’t really written as doctrinal letters, they were more about correction and encouragement.

You know, MFM, you are exactly right about this, and this is why Catholics say that the Bible is materially sufficient but not formally sufficient. All the stuff of salvation is in there, but not in a way that is easily understood.

Think of it this way: you can have a pile of bricks and other materials…or you can have a house.

The Bible is the pile of bricks…some assembly is required. The Tradition (written and oral) and the Magisterium are the house that Jesus built.

That house is still under construction, but you can come in out of the cold whenever you like.

Here’s a photo of one wing:

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/4628091.jpg

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I think this is a foolish, inflammatory and immature comment that reveals more about its author than its intended recipient.

I think this is a foolish, inflammatory and immature comment that reveals more about its author than its intended recipient.

 

[jmcrae]

That’s a really nice picture, but am I the only one who is now having to scroll sideways to read the thread?

 

[clmowry]

I think this is a foolish, inflammatory and immature comment that reveals more about its author than its intended recipient.

Oooh…oooh. I want to play too…

“I think this is a foolish, inflammatory and immature comment that reveals more about its author than its intended recipient.”

Your turn…

 

[JRKH]

That’s a really nice picture, but am I the only one who is now having to scroll sideways to read the thread?

NO!!!
It makes me crazy when this happens.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s a really nice picture, but am I the only one who is now having to scroll sideways to read the thread?

Sorry, guys.

The image was a lot smaller on my screen, but after I posted it, I thought, “Well, this really illustrates the point I’m trying to make about the awesomeness of God’s house, the Catholic Church.”

 

[yankee_drifter]

myfavoritemartin wrote:

Odd answer… There is only one Gospel message
Do you know the Gospel, Randy?

I’ve been trying without success to get Randy Carson to answer this question. He blatantly refuses. Odd isn’t it…

 

[crazzeto]

myfavoritemartin wrote:

I’ve been trying without success to get Randy Carson to answer this question. He blatantly refuses. Odd isn’t it…

I would suggest he has answered it, with his deep knowlege of Gospel.

 

[jmcrae]

myfavoritemartin wrote:

I’ve been trying without success to get Randy Carson to answer this question. He blatantly refuses. Odd isn’t it…

He didn’t want to have to explain to you that there is no mention of “the Four Spiritual Laws” in the Bible - he is trying to contain the discussion and keep it on topic.

 

[yankee_drifter]

jmcrae

I would suggest he has answered it, with his deep knowlege of Gospel.
He didn’t want to have to explain to you that there is no mention of “the Four Spiritual Laws” in the Bible - he is trying to contain the discussion and keep it on topic

jmcrae, are you and randy the same person? How about letting him respond. I’m not talking about 4 spiritual laws. Like myfavoritemartin said: There’s ONLY ONE GOSPEL.

 

[clmowry]

myfavoritemartin wrote:
Odd answer… There is only one Gospel message
Do you know the Gospel, Randy?

I give, what does this have to do with: “Where the NT churches independent or One??”

Chuck

 

[JacobG]

A monarchy headed by one individual called the pope was not what Christ bequeathed to His Apostles. In the Book of Acts, nine epistles of Paul and 1st Peter, it is evident that there were many churches, each independent of the others,** all comprising the one Church whose unifying element was common faith in Jesus, His atoning sacrifice, and His bodily resurrection.** That the existence of numerous independent churches met with Christ’s approval is supported by our Lord’s letters to seven of them in the book of Revelation. He did not address one letter to one church ruled by one bishop occupying a position of supremacy over all the churches. He addressed seven letters to seven “Messengers” who were the leaders of seven separate independent churches; and He revealed His very presence among them. “These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks,” (Rev 2:1) In his Galatians epistle, Paul acknowledges a multiplicity of churches in that area alone by addressing his letter “unto the churches of Galatia.” (Gal 1:2)

 

[JacobG]

Further evidence that the apostolic church was made up of many individual, independent, churches, is found in letters by Clement and Ignatius. Especially in Ignatius’ letters, it is apparent the independent churches were headed by bishops, presbyters and deacons. Polycarp, bishop of the Smyrna church, awaiting arrest and martyrdom, prayed for the safety of** the churches**, not the Church singular. Regarding the installation of new bishops, Ignatius in his letter to the Philadelphia church, constrained the church members to elect a new bishop. In so doing he contradicts Rome’s “apostolic succession” claim in which the faithful are led to believe bishops appointed by the Apostles appointed bishops to succeed themselves, who appointed bishops to succeed themselves, who then appointed bishops to succeed themselves, etc., all the way down to the present time. Likewise, in Clement’s letter to the church at Corinth, he related how the Apostles wanted bishops they had appointed replaced, as death removed them. They were to be replaced by other approved men with the** consent of the whole church**.

 

[crazzeto]

jmcrae

jmcrae, are you and randy the same person? How about letting him respond. I’m not talking about 4 spiritual laws. Like myfavoritemartin said: There’s ONLY ONE GOSPEL.

Thanks to certain persons who fathered the protistant reformation, that isn’t true. Now there is the true gospel, and the edited to be more friendly to certain theological view points gospel.

 

[Randy_Carson]

myfavoritemartin wrote:

I’ve been trying without success to get Randy Carson to answer this question. He blatantly refuses. Odd isn’t it…

As you know, we exchanged two dozen or more PM’s, and in the course of that exchange, I provided you with scripture in direct response to this question about the gospel message. As I predicted, you were not satisfied even with that.

Lest anyone wonder, you initiated our private exchange and you broke it off after realizing that you were not making any headway against the tide of scripture that I presented in response to the many inaccuracies and misrepresentations of Catholic theology that were contained in your PM’s.

You may have the last word.

 

[jmcrae]

A monarchy headed by one individual called the pope was not what Christ bequeathed to His Apostles.

Actually, yes it was. John 21:15-19.

In the Book of Acts, nine epistles of Paul and 1st Peter, it is evident that there were many churches

,

Yes.

each independent of the others,

No. If they had each been independent of the Jerusalem Church (which was forcibly marched to Rome when the Apostles were arrested and sentenced to death in 67 AD, which is when it became the Roman Church that we know and love today) then St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, St. Jude, and the rest would have had absolutely no authority to write letters to them, nor to advise them on any matter of policy or procedure.

** all comprising the one Church whose unifying element was common faith in Jesus, His atoning sacrifice, and His bodily resurrection.** That the existence of numerous independent churches met with Christ’s approval is supported by our Lord’s letters to seven of them in the book of Revelation. He did not address one letter to one church ruled by one bishop occupying a position of supremacy over all the churches. He addressed seven letters to seven “Messengers” who were the leaders of seven separate independent churches; and He revealed His very presence among them. “These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks,” (Rev 2:1) In his Galatians epistle, Paul acknowledges a multiplicity of churches in that area alone by addressing his letter “unto the churches of Galatia.” (Gal 1:2)

Notice, however, that He gave all of these messages to the Apostle John - but if the Apostle John had no authority over these seven “messengers” (probably Bishops), then what would be the point of Jesus giving the messages to St. John to pass to these seven Bishops? Jesus would instead have had to appear to each of them separately, without involving St. John at all. Yet, Jesus Himself seems to think that the best way to get the message to them is to use St. John as His vehicle for communication - which means that St. John had the ability to compel them to pay attention to him, and that they would be aware ahead of time that any message from St. John is likely to be faithful to the message of Jesus Christ - and that their jobs depend on paying attention to him.

 

[jmcrae]

Further evidence that the apostolic church was made up of many individual, independent, churches, is found in letters by Clement and Ignatius. Especially in Ignatius’ letters, it is apparent the independent churches were headed by bishops, presbyters and deacons.

The Church is subdivided into Dioceses, which are headed by Bishops. Dioceses are subdivided into parishes, which are headed by priests. Deacons take charge of various departments such as the Christian Education Apostolate, or the Pastoral Care apostolate, etc., as well as being available to their parish priest to perform various liturgical functions, and sometimes to help out in the Rectory.

Polycarp, bishop of the Smyrna church, awaiting arrest and martyrdom, prayed for the safety of** the churches**, not the Church singular. Regarding the installation of new bishops, Ignatius in his letter to the Philadelphia church, constrained the church members to elect a new bishop.

If neither man had any authority to do so, why would they have done this?

In so doing he contradicts Rome’s “apostolic succession” claim in which the faithful are led to believe bishops appointed by the Apostles appointed bishops to succeed themselves, who appointed bishops to succeed themselves, who then appointed bishops to succeed themselves, etc., all the way down to the present time.

How they were appointed varies depending on the period of time. That they were appointed is a matter of indisputable historical record. Today, new Popes are appointed by means of election by the College of Cardinals.

Likewise, in Clement’s letter to the church at Corinth, he related how the Apostles wanted bishops they had appointed replaced, as death removed them. They were to be replaced by other approved men with the** consent of the whole church**.

Which totally blows away the idea that they were an independent body having nothing whatsoever to do with other independent bodies in the Church apart from a common belief in Jesus Christ, but without authority.

it’s clear that they believed in the authority of the Church as a whole, and indeed, depended on that authority to guide them rightly in the selection of their leadership.

 

[JacobG]

Since the days of the Apostles, eastern churches have maintained absolute independence from Rome, and do not embrace Catholicism’s “Patchwork Gospel.” (adding on traditions thru the centuries)

Ignatius and Polycarp were two of many eastern bishops, first-century successors to the Apostles. Both men were protégés of John the Evangelist. Through them and others, apostolic organization and authority would have passed to all succeeding Eastern Church bishops right down to the present time, thereby, obviating Rome’s claim of exclusivity through “apostolic succession.”

The Orthodox Church today is comprised of independent fellowships each with its own governing bishop, an exact extension of apostolic church organization. The apostolic church had no priests. Their Old Testament function –offering the sacrifices- was eliminated forever by Calvary. And early efforts aimed at re-establishing a Levitical-type priesthood were condemned by Jesus in Rev. 2:6, 15. The Roman Catholic priesthood, is a much later development. The Bible says we are to confess sin directly to God for God alone has the power to forgive sins. The Jews understood this which is why they sought to stone Jesus when he forgave someone their sins.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Since the days of the Apostles, eastern churches have maintained absolute independence from Rome, and do not embrace Catholicism’s “Patchwork Gospel.” (adding on traditions thru the centuries)

If you feel this is the case, be sure to start a thread on each tradition that is illegitimate in your opinion, and we’ll be happy to review the facts with you.

Ignatius and Polycarp were two of many eastern bishops, first-century successors to the Apostles. Both men were protégés of John the Evangelist. Through them and others, apostolic organization and authority would have passed to all succeeding Eastern Church bishops right down to the present time, thereby, obviating Rome’s claim of exclusivity through “apostolic succession.”

This seems to suggest ignorance on your part concerning Rome’s actual position on apostolic succession: the Orthodox and a small group of Lutherans in Scandinavia have maintained valid succession. The Catholic Church does not claim exclusivity in this regard.

The Orthodox Church today is comprised of independent fellowships each with its own governing bishop, an exact extension of apostolic church organization.

The Orthodox are not under the jurisdiction of the successor of Peter and thus, this is NOT an exact extension of the apostolic era Church.

The apostolic church had no priests. Their Old Testament function –offering the sacrifices- was eliminated forever by Calvary. And early efforts aimed at re-establishing a Levitical-type priesthood were condemned by Jesus in Rev. 2:6, 15. The Roman Catholic priesthood, is a much later development.

Rubbish.

Jesus established the NT priesthood and these priests offer the sacrifice of the mass which Jesus commanded at the Last Supper.

The Bible says we are to confess sin directly to God for God alone has the power to forgive sins. The Jews understood this which is why they sought to stone Jesus when he forgave someone their sins.

Verse please.

In direct contradiction to what you have just alleged, the Bible states:

Matthew 9:1-7
1 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!” 4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6But 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.” 7And the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

The Bible teaches that God had given the authority to forgive sins “to men”. Note that this is not “to a man” but “to men” – plural. So, it is not only Jesus who has authority to forgive sins – “men” have this authority, also. This sounds like a “hard teaching”…is there confirmation of this in the Bible?

John 20:21-23
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

How did God send Jesus into the world? With the authority to forgive sins as we saw in Matthew 9:6. How does Jesus send the Apostles? In the same way that the Father had sent Him…with the authority to forgive sins as we have just seen in John 20:23. How could the Apostles obey the commandment of Jesus to forgive sins unless they heard these sins confessed? Thus, scripture records that people did confess their sins aloud.

Acts 19:18 (New International Version)
18Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds.

Finally, we find that the Apostle Paul himself forgave the sins of others acting in persona Christi or “in the person of Christ” – just as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the sacrament of reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 2:10
10To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (KJV)

And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. (Douay Rheims)

 

[steve_b]

Since the days of the Apostles, eastern churches have maintained absolute independence from Rome, and do not embrace Catholicism’s “Patchwork Gospel.” (adding on traditions thru the centuries)

Eastern Churches comprise those who ARE united to the chair of Peter. They are Catholic. Those NOT in union with the chair of Peter are NOT Catholic.

Division is condemned by scripture ya know. You do know this…right?

Romans 16:17 dividers don’t serve our Lord but themselves.

Galatians 5: 19 - 21 acts of a sinful nature are obvious…, dissensions, factions those who live like this they will not inherit heaven

Titus 3: 10Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,
11knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
jg:

Ignatius and Polycarp were two of many eastern bishops, first-century successors to the Apostles. Both men were protégés of John the Evangelist. Through them and others, apostolic organization and authority would have passed to all succeeding Eastern Church bishops right down to the present time, thereby, obviating Rome’s claim of exclusivity through “apostolic succession.”

You obfuscate the reality of the issue.

Rome

• doesn’t claim exclusivity to apostolic succession.
• Ignatius acknowledged that Rome and only Rome held the presidency. :yup:
• Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, both from Smyrna, says ALL must agree with Rome. You can read exactly what he said in [Against Heresies] online (Book 3 Ch 3) newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm Notice when he mentions apostolic succession, whose names he mentions specifically in succession. They are popes of Rome.

jg:

The Orthodox Church today is comprised of independent fellowships each with its own governing bishop, an exact extension of apostolic church organization.

No ONE Orthodox Church speaks for all. i.e. They are Not One. Catholics otoh East and West are one because we are united to the chair of Peter.
jg:

The apostolic church had no priests.

wrong.
jg:

Their Old Testament function –offering the sacrifices- was eliminated forever by Calvary.

keep reading
jg:

And early efforts aimed at re-establishing a Levitical-type priesthood were condemned by Jesus in Rev. 2:6, 15.

“Do this in memory of me” was first spoken to the apostles. It’s a command from Jesus for the apostles to do exactly what he did that night. That is repeat this action over and over again in perpetuity. What is to be done? Change bread and wine into Our Lord’s body and blood (the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins) so that His body and blood (His sacrifice) could be re-presented and consumed in perpetuity.

Jesus was offering the bread and wine just like Melchizedek did (cf. Gen. 14:17–20). Hebrews (Heb 5:6…) makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is a priest in the line of Melchizedek

Jesus, as priest at the Last Supper gives the apostles his body and blood that would be shed for the forgiveness of sin. His command to his apostles is to ALSO perform this priestly action. They can perform this function because Jesus made them priests to stand in his place and to give the people of God his body and blood.

the Old Testament has a three-fold priesthood.

• common or universal priesthood of all Israelites ( Ex. 19:6),
• a ministerial priesthood (Ex. 19:22, 24; Lev. 1:5),
• high priest ( Num. 35: 25).

the NT has a three-fold priesthood

• common or universal priesthood of all Christians (1 Pet. 2:5, 9),
• ministerial priesthood above them (Rom. 15:16),
• high priest at the top (Heb. 3:1).

Jesus, the eternal Word (Logos) became flesh to reconcile us to God. Reconcilliation to God is the function of a priest. Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:18–23 says that the same God “who through Christ reconciled us to himself” is also the one who** “gave us** the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18). Priests reconcile people to God.
jg:

The Roman Catholic priesthood, is a much later development.

Wrong. Jesus instituted it at the last supper
jg:

The Bible says we are to confess sin directly to God

The bible says mortal sins one shouldn’t pray about for forgiveness. Those are confessed to a priest.
jg:

for God alone has the power to forgive sins.

And God gave the power to some men to forgive their sins. You’ve been given the scripture multiple times.
jg:

The Jews understood this which is why they sought to stone Jesus when he forgave someone their sins.

Those Jews didn’t believe Jesus is God. You use the same passage as the JW’s to prove Jesus isn’t God.

Is that what you’re denying too?