Were the NT churches independent or One?

[yankee_drifter]

The church described in the NT did not have a Roman pope; it did not teach purgatory; it did not venerate Mary; it did not teach salvation by faith and works. All of these practices crept in gradually.The tendencies toward work righteousness and to hierarchicalism were already trying to worm their way into the church in the days of the apostles. Paul, for example, opposed this in Galatians. Within a century or two, these tendencies were already strong, but they were not yet headed by one man, the bishop of Rome. If you read Peter’s first letter, you will see that he did not teach a Roman hierarchy, but that all Christians are royal priests. The same keys given to Peter in Matthew 16 are given to the whole church of believers in Matthew 18. Papal infallibility was not officially proclaimed until the 19th century. Mary’s immaculate conception and bodily assumption were not officially and definitively proclaimed until the 19th and 20th century.

The real test of which church is the original apostolic church is to compare the teachings of that church with the Bible.The RCC admits that many of their teachings are not in the Bible but are based on traditions and rulings of the pope. The Mass was unknown in the early church and did not become an official doctrine until pronounced by the Lateran Council of 1215.

Those who say Mary was sinless are speaking without any Scriptural basis at all and, in fact, are speaking contrary to what the Bible says. The Bible speaks often about the universality of human sinfulness (John 3:5, Rom. 3:9-11, 3:23, Eph 2:1) and only Jesus Christ is said to be different in this regard (Heb. 4:15, 7:26). Mary herself speaks as a sinner rejoicing in the saving work of Jesus her Savior (Luke 1:46-47).

Purgatory has no basis in Scripture either. Belief in the dogma of purgatory devalues Christ’s atoning work, and condemns the biblical doctrine of justification.

Where does Jesus lay hands on Peter and designate him as a priest or pope? I don’t see any mention of it in Matthew 16 or in John 20 or John 21. Where is there evidence in the Bible that Jesus ordained Peter and the other apostles by laying on of hands? There is no evidence anywhere in Scripture that Jesus established a succession of bishops with greater authority than ordinary pastors. If you read the NT from beginning to end, you will find no support for the notion that forgiveness of sins can be offered only through the institution of the papal church. Forgiveness is available wherever the gospel of free forgiveness is preached, forgiveness entirely by Christ’s merits not by any merits of our own, not by any merits of Mary or the saints.

Matthew 18 it is very clear that the authority to use the keys is given to all believers, even where only two or three of them are gathered together. Peter himself clearly says that all pastors are shepherds under Christ who feed Christ’s flock The head shepherd is Christ, not Peter (1 Peter 5:1-5). Actually Acts 1 proves the opposite of what Rome claims; it proves there cannot be successors to the apostles today because Judas’ replacement had to be an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry.

The pope takes to himself a right that belongs only to God, the right to make laws for the church. If he says it is a sin to eat meat on Friday, it is. If he says it is okay, then it is not a sin anymore. He forbids priests to marry, contrary to the will of God. He refuses innocent victims of divorce the right to remarry, a right Scripture grants them. In these and many other instances he acts as a usurper of a right that belongs only to Christ. He puts himself in Christ’s place.

The pope curses the most basic doctrine of the Bible, justification by faith alone (Eph 2:8) In the decrees of the Council of Trent, the pope curses anyone who holds this doctrine of salvation “by faith alone” and teaches salvation by faith and works. What could be more anti-Christian than that to curse the very heart of the gospel and to damn those who believe it?

We must reject the claimed authority of teachers who teach “traditions” which contradict the Bible. The Bible says Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. The Pope says Mary is also co-mediator. One of these “traditions” must be wrong. When we reject the so-called traditions of Rome, we are doing the same thing that Jesus did in Matthew 15. Rome’s use of tradition is the same as that of the Pharisees which Jesus rejected.

If you understood the Gospel, you would know that what motivates a Christian to do good is not the hope of having sins forgiven or the fear of punishment but the grace of God which has forgiven all our sins. The RCC teaching makes forgiveness a result of faith and works.
When the pope takes the authority to make laws which belongs only to God, he is usurping God’s place. When he says it is necessary to submit to him for salvation, he is taking God’s place. We are not saved by “being religious” or by membership in a specific church. We are saved through our faith that Christ has made complete payment for our sins and there is nothing left for us to pay. We do good works not to become forgiven, but to express our joy that we are forgiven.

We don’t need to study the “church fathers.” We need to make certain that we are spiritually “born again” and have the indwelling Spirit as our Teacher (1 John 2:27), then we need to study the Bible diligently and walk closely with Christ and become so thoroughly grounded in the truth that we will not be led astray by the wiles of the devil and by all of the fierce winds of error that are blowing in our day.These men were not “fathers” of the church in any scriptural sense and did not have any divine authority. They were merely church leaders from various places who have left a record of their faith in writing…

James, you had written that if a fallen brother refuses to listen, take it to the church. Then I’m sure you will agree that a pastor, priest or teacher who is guilty of committing an offense such as child abuse or adultery should be removed from the ministry. They would not be able to receive another call. Offenders would be removed from their call to the congregation by the congregation. They would be removed from eligibility for another call by their church. Has your church been obedient in this?

.

 

[Philthy]

We do not have a forum to discuss any differences. That is just a fact. We do have church meetings but they are not doctrinal but business meetings. I cannot make one up if it does not exist. No doubt that differences could come up in Bible study meetings in which case no one is going to be forced to believe anything. It does not work like that. I really cannot add more because I can only comment on what IS in this case.

I understand completely. You recognize (ie “undoubtedly there are differences”) but you:
A) have not yet figured out how to resolve them
B) prefer not to resolve them
C) dont believe they need to resolved

in order to protect and uphold whichever gospel truths you believe your church holds. That does not seem like a recipe for doctrinal unity, but that is merely my opinion. It is unquestionably at odds with the record of how such events were handled in Scripture however.

Blessings!

 

[steve_b]

Rightlydivide:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.
*

Is your underline meant as a limit? 20 years earlier, DURING apostolic times, John is till alive and living much closer to Corinth than Clement in Rome, we’ve already mentioned Clement who settles sedition in Greece. Greece is NOT in the “region” of Rome. Yet Clement presided over that matter in the Church at Corinth.

That’s why Ignatius could say regarding authority of the Church of Rome

:
“You have never envied any one; you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions you enjoin [on others]”. [ch 3]

Clement used envy many times in his assessment of the conduct and cause of the sedition at Corinth. Is Ignatius possibly referencing that matter here in this letter as a prelude to NOT use your power THIS time.?

enjoin: definition
. en·joined, en·join·ing, en·joins
**1. **To direct or impose with authority and emphasis.
**2. **To prohibit or forbid. Synonyms forbid

And Ignatius asks Rome to also watch over his see after he is martyred.

:
"Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love

will also regard it". [ch 9]

With regards to The Church’s love for Ignatius personally, and their love in general, Ignatius says

“I am afraid of your love, lest it should do me an injury. For it is easy for you to accomplish what you please; but it is difficult for me to attain to God, if you spare me.” [ch 1]

“but if you show your love to my flesh, I shall again have to run my race. Pray, then, do not seek to confer any greater favour upon me than that I be sacrificed to God while the altar is still prepared;” [ch 2]

The context of Rome’s authority based on ignatiuis language is seen as working in love.

As an aside, Ignatius didn’t ask any of the other 5 Churches he wrote to, to Also watch over his see once he was gone.

 

[garysibio]

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

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

I think this particular passage is a reference to the fact that the Gentiles will be included in the Church, not just Jews. I think using it to prove the unity of the Church is problematic at best. (I’m not saying your point is wrong, only that this verse isn’t good evidence.)

 

[garysibio]

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

Where is your evidence that James became the leader of the Ebionites?

 

[Odell]

In our church the authority is scripture. Because of that, we have a system of elders with final congregational polity on the election of them.

so your Church does not resemble at all NT Church no one in your chruch really has the final authority.

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Where is your evidence that James became the leader of the Ebionites?

That is not what I believe. I am referring to those who do believe this.

 

[Rightlydivide]

so your Church does not resemble at all NT Church no one in your chruch really has the final authority.

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Of course we have authority. The final authority is scripture. Perhaps I am not being clear enough. I am part of that authority in terms of polity. As such, we ultimately have congregational polity for us because they vote on us. .

 

[Rightlydivide]

Is your underline meant as a limit? 20 years earlier, DURING apostolic times, John is till alive and living much closer to Corinth than Clement in Rome, we’ve already mentioned Clement who settles sedition in Greece. Greece is NOT in the “region” of Rome. Yet Clement presided over that matter in the Church at Corinth.

That’s why Ignatius could say regarding authority of the Church of Rome

And Ignatius asks Rome to also watch over his see after he is martyred.

As an aside, Ignatius didn’t ask any of the other 5 Churches he wrote to, to Also watch over his see once he was gone.

He is not asking Rome to do that at all. That is not what it is saying. In other letters he issues the line of command, and Rome is not in it.
As far as Clement being sought for advice, it works both ways. When Peter was alive, others advice was sought as well. Asking help from Clement, a co-worker of Paul, who almost speciailized in Corinth it seems…is a natural extension.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I understand completely. You recognize (ie “undoubtedly there are differences”) but you:
A) have not yet figured out how to resolve them
B) prefer not to resolve them
C) dont believe they need to resolved

in order to protect and uphold whichever gospel truths you believe your church holds. That does not seem like a recipe for doctrinal unity, but that is merely my opinion. It is unquestionably at odds with the record of how such events were handled in Scripture however.

Blessings!

We do not have a record of a church with minor, and I mean very minor disagreements. It is a matter of preference. Perhaps people do not understand congregational polity with elder rule. Elders do not sit down and write out creeds; the NT church did not do that. That occured hundreds of years later when the church became consumed about what to believe versus what to do. Make no mistake, doctrine matters but Christ, Paul, and others do not sit down and write creeds…that would be…a waste of time. I believe, and it is a belief, he might say something like… Why are you spending time sitting around and arguing about who I am instead of doing what I tell you to do? But perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps that IS what he wanted. Curious that the Jerusalem meeting at its core is about actions; not advanced speculative creeds about things they have no Apostolic teaching about.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You like to take it personal. I don’t think I will play along.

I understand. By making sure that it is not “personal”, you don’t have to deal with the implications for your own church affiliation. This is all just theory, abstractions, really. Not.

No, it has to be personal.

Tell me, Ralph, if you died tonight, do you know with absolute certainty that you would go to heaven as a member of the Body of Christ, the Church that Jesus Christ built upon Peter the rock?

 

[Rightlydivide]

I understand. By making sure that it is not “personal”, you don’t have to deal with the implications for your own church affiliation. This is all just theory, abstractions, really. Not.

No, it has to be personal.

Tell me, Ralph, if you died tonight, do you know with absolute certainty that you would go to heaven as a member of the Body of Christ, the Church that Jesus Christ built upon Peter the rock?

I was referring to the odd…comments about Cracker Barrel I think it was. And the Ralph comment I do not get either. It just seems strange. I like discussing history and the Bible.
On another note, I encourage any readers to read ALL of Ignatius and Clement. I do. I think it will not show a papacy and will show congregational polity in Clements case and perhaps a Bishop leading one area but not one bishop in Rome leading everybody

 

[Randy_Carson]

The church described in the NT did not have a Roman pope; it did not teach purgatory; it did not venerate Mary; it did not teach salvation by faith and works. … If you read Peter’s first letter, you will see that he did not teach a Roman hierarchy, but that all Christians are royal priests…the same keys given to Peter in Matthew 16 are given to the whole church of believers in Matthew 18. Papal infallibility was not officially proclaimed until the 19th century…Mary’s immaculate conception and bodily assumption were not officially and definitively proclaimed until the 19th and 20th century.

10 errors in one paragraph…quite possibly a new forum record.

I won’t bother tabulating the rest…though I am prepared to answer them.

I must say, “Drifter” is certainly a good appellation because your posts tend to wander all over the map.

Do you think that by sheer volume you present a convincing argument? Your posts are a mile wide and an inch deep. We’ve heard all this before, Yankee, and we are fully prepared to answer each and every objection with a strong biblical, historical and logical response.

However, you will have to take a few deep breaths and post your concerns and disagreements one at a time. At least if you expect to have any meaningful dialogue.

Of course, if all you want to do is dump all your anti-Catholic soundbites on us all at once, then by all means, type away. But if you expect to get anyone to actually interact with any of your brilliant ideas, then you’ll have to present them in a more coherent manner. Of course, you run the risk of hearing some even more brilliant answers in return. That’s the risk you take when actually interacting with people who know a bit about their faith.

What’ll it be? Another drive-by posting or actual dialogue?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think this particular passage is a reference to the fact that the Gentiles will be included in the Church, not just Jews. I think using it to prove the unity of the Church is problematic at best. (I’m not saying your point is wrong, only that this verse isn’t good evidence.)

The concept of a single flock under one shepherd has no relevance to the schisms and divisions within the body of Christ?

That’s something I have never heard proposed before, to be sure.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Of course we have authority. The final authority is scripture. Perhaps I am not being clear enough. I am part of that authority in terms of polity. As such, we ultimately have congregational polity for us because they vote on us. .

What man has the authority to tell you that your interpretation of scripture is in error?

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

He is not asking Rome to do that at all. That is not what it is saying. In other letters he issues the line of command, and Rome is not in it.
As far as Clement being sought for advice, it works both ways. When Peter was alive, others advice was sought as well. Asking help from Clement, a co-worker of Paul, who almost speciailized in Corinth it seems…is a natural extension.

This is a fascinating idea. Would you develop it for us?

I’m particularly interested in the verses which show one believer or one local congregation appealing to someone other than Peter for a definitive decision.

I’ve never looked at the NT from this perspective, so I am eager to see what you come up with.

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We do not have a record of a church with minor, and I mean very minor disagreements. It is a matter of preference. Perhaps people do not understand congregational polity with elder rule. Elders do not sit down and write out creeds; the NT church did not do that. That occured hundreds of years later when the church became consumed about what to believe versus what to do. Make no mistake, doctrine matters but Christ, Paul, and others do not sit down and write creeds…that would be…a waste of time.

Maybe, and I’m just spit-balling here, maybe the reason that Paul and the other apostles did not sit around formulating creeds is because the early Church accepted the Apostles’ teaching without developing heretical alternatives.

Don’t get me wrong…there were obviously a few folks teaching a false gospel (Paul references them), but it wasn’t until certain heresies arose with sufficient strength that the Church was forced to articulate a definitive response. Isn’t that what a Creed is? Weren’t the creeds and most major theological formulations a response to error?

Until the error existed, the formal declaration was unnecessary.

This is why it is folly for those to contend that the Catholic Church “invented” transubstantation hundreds of years after the apostolic era had ended. The Church universally believed that Jesus was present in the Eucharist; developing the technical understanding of that did not become necessary until someone denied it or twisted it in such a way that the truth was at risk.

In like manner, Protestants argue that Mary was not believed to be perpetually virgin, immaculately conceived or assumed into heaven until XXX years had passed. Rubbish. Read the account of Jerome’s response to Helvidius, for example. Jerome didn’t even want to refute Helvidius’ denial of Mary’s Virginity because he thought the novelty was so absurd that it wasn’t worth a response.

Hope that helps.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I was referring to the odd…comments about Cracker Barrel I think it was. And the Ralph comment I do not get either. It just seems strange. I like discussing history and the Bible.
On another note, I encourage any readers to read ALL of Ignatius and Clement. I do. I think it will not show a papacy and will show congregational polity in Clements case and perhaps a Bishop leading one area but not one bishop in Rome leading everybody

Regarding the “Ralph” comment, sorry wrong forum and wrong thread. It’s been a long day.

What I meant to ask is a question that you as a Protestant should be very familiar with…it’s just a variation of that old evangelizing zinger:

If you died tonight, Rightlydivide, do you know with certainty that you would go to heaven as a member of the Body of Christ established by Jesus Christ upon Peter the Rock and his successors, the Bishops of Rome?

Isn’t that the “in-your-face, make a decision for Christ” kind of question you guys love to ask the unchurched? Why then, should it surprise you when I ask you, an unChurched, separated brethren, the same type of question?

Ah, well. Something to think about as you’re lying awake in the wee hours…

 

[Randy_Carson]

On another note, I encourage any readers to read ALL of Ignatius and Clement. I do. I think it will not show a papacy and will show congregational polity in Clements case and perhaps a Bishop leading one area but not one bishop in Rome leading everybody

The Catholic Church does not have “one bishop in Rome leading everybody”…that would be a universal bishop, and the Church rejects this concept.

We have separate bishops over local dioceses, and a single head of the universal Church. The pope does not have jurisdiction of each diocese in the manner that the bishops do.

Perhaps that eases your mind a bit.

 

[RickHolland]

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace
James

---

If our chuch were having a serious problem and I wanred to know with complete cetainty that the solution was of God and I knew the apostles were close; I’d walk 200 miles to grab one of those guys or all of them if I were able. Now put it into context; they were around and were the ones who help found the various churches and they can and did seek the apostles to get it right.

If you did some “hard looking” at what the apsotles, Jesus and the other the writers have saig; you would many difficulties reconcilling the Bible with Church doctrines; particularly on salvation. There are numerous contraditions.

peace rick