Were the NT churches independent or One?

[Rightlydivide]

A couple of things, general but perhaps it will help explain my view on many matters.

1. It seems Catholics see Christ’s admonitions to be one, he also advises us to be perfect as well…as something that happened instead of like so many things he taught that people fail to do. The bar is high. Its supposed to be that. Anyway, I see Catholics who see the unity part but seem to miss the rest of the NT, for the most part, is Paul correcting errors. John pointing out errors in the early churches in Revelation which had doctrinal error. James pointing out errors. The writer of Hebrews taking exception with how things are done. Jude as well. But somehow I am to believe after these men get done writing a early church is error free? In what sense? Clements infallible statements? We do not have any. ANY Pope’s infallible statements? No. Councils? We do not have any for perhaps as long as 100 to 200 years later and those are local councils. Individual congregations being infallible or all united? No not in Revelation and besides individual congregations are not infallible. Presbyters, not they are not infallible either. We see that we have errors in churches; thats scripture. This unity does not exist. It did not happen that way. Okay, maybe you do not see it that way but perhaps its possible you see why I do.

I asked a long time ago where this unity existed in a practical sense. It is not in the pages of NT. Its the Apostles trying…TRYING…to correct errors. When were they all corrected and how do you know that?

As far as the councils, I can only imagine his reaction to coming across a group of men arguing about how many natures…I do not think the Jesus I have read about would have gone for that…

 

[garysibio]

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.

John 10:16 is talking about two different flocks.

And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

The “other sheep.” This was a reference to the Gentiles who would also become followers of Jesus.

 

[garysibio]

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

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Randy_Carson]

John 10:16 is talking about two different flocks.

And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

The “other sheep.” This was a reference to the Gentiles who would also become followers of Jesus.

Gary-

I understand the original context…it’s basic stuff, really.

What I’m obviously saying is that the Orthodox schism and the heresy of Protestantism have created separated flocks with shepherds other than the Holy Father whom Jesus left in charge of His sheep.

 

[yankee_drifter]

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

Hello Randy Carson,

Where are the “10” errors in the following paragraph which I wrote? Please give me the evidence for all 10. Give me Scriptural references. Not quotes from early church writers. Their writings were never considered inspired. and for every church “father” you can find that agrees with you, there will be others who don’t.

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.

It seems that most of the folks on here defending Catholicism never qualify their claims. They use no Scriptural references. My statements are not anti catholic or anti anything. They are God’s Word which many roman catholics seem to have little regard for. Instead of checking the Scriptures, you use personal attacks.

 

[RickHolland]

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.

Helvidius was more correct than Jerome ever was; he was one of the first obsessed with Mary and perhaps the cause and result of what we see today. Listen to the more ridiculous agrument than what were hear today. Jerome should have known better, but let his obsession bling him from the truth of God’s word.

Against Helvidius.

This tract appeared about a.d. 383. The question which gave occasion to it was whether the Mother of our Lord remained a Virgin after His birth. Helvidius maintained that the mention in the Gospels of the “sisters” and “brethren” of our Lord was proof that the Blessed Virgin had subsequent issue, and he supported his opinion by the writings of Tertullian and Victorinus. The outcome of his views was that virginity was ranked below matrimony. Jerome vigorously takes the other side, and tries to prove that the “sisters” and “brethren” spoken of, were either children of Joseph by a former marriage, or first cousins, children of the sister of the Virgin. A detailed account of the controversy will be found in Farrar’s “Early Days of Christianity,” pp. 124 sq. When Jerome wrote this treatise both he and Helvidius were at Rome, and Damasus was Pope. The only contemporary notice preserved of Helvidius is that by Jerome in the following pages.

Jerome maintains against Helvidius three propositions:—

1st. That Joseph was only putatively, not really, the husband of Mary.
2d. That the “brethren” of the Lord were his cousins, not his own brethren.
3d. That virginity is better than the married state.

1. The first of these occupies ch. 3–8. It turns upon the record in Matt. i. 18–25, and especially on the words, “Before they came together” (c. 4), “knew her not till, &c.” (5–8).
2. The second (c. 9–17) turns upon the words “first-born son” (9, 10), which, Jerome argues, are applicable not only to the eldest of several, but also to an only son: and the mention of brothers and sisters, whom Jerome asserts to have been children of Mary the wife of Cleophas or Clopas (11–16); he appeals to many Church writers in support of this view (17). LOL LOL LOl
3. In support of his preference of virginity to marriage, ***Jerome argues that not only Mary but Joseph also remained in the virgin state ***(19); that, though marriage may sometimes be a holy estate, it presents great hindrances to prayer (20), and the teaching of Scripture is that the states of virginity and continency are more accordant with God’s will than that of marriage (21, 22).

Jerome contradicts himself and is a hypicrite of the 1st degree concerning this matter. His arguments, which make many of the same assumptions Catholics do, just do not square with the Biblical record. Jerome was most certainly Catholic; at least in this sad defense.

Tsay such blasphemy; he would be in direct contradiction with scripture. Just as the Bible was not written by Catholics, another imaginative claim, nor was their a Catholic Church as we see in Rome today during any stage of the apostolic era. The only talk on universal church was early on when the churches were more or less small in comparison to today; so in this since there was a universal church. Anyone can revise history and claim what they want, but that does not effect the truth anymore than making a claim that Jesus did not have both brothers and sisters; you can say what you want, but still doesn’t change what God and Mary have said.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.v.html

 

[RickHolland]

A couple of things, general but perhaps it will help explain my view on many matters.

1. It seems Catholics see Christ’s admonitions to be one, he also advises us to be perfect as well…as something that happened instead of like so many things he taught that people fail to do. The bar is high. Its supposed to be that. Anyway, I see Catholics who see the unity part but seem to miss the rest of the NT, for the most part, is Paul correcting errors. John pointing out errors in the early churches in Revelation which had doctrinal error. James pointing out errors. The writer of Hebrews taking exception with how things are done. Jude as well. But somehow I am to believe after these men get done writing a early church is error free? In what sense? Clements infallible statements? We do not have any. ANY Pope’s infallible statements? No. Councils? We do not have any for perhaps as long as 100 to 200 years later and those are local councils. Individual congregations being infallible or all united? No not in Revelation and besides individual congregations are not infallible. Presbyters, not they are not infallible either. We see that we have errors in churches; thats scripture. This unity does not exist. It did not happen that way. Okay, maybe you do not see it that way but perhaps its possible you see why I do.

I asked a long time ago where this unity existed in a practical sense. It is not in the pages of NT. Its the Apostles trying…TRYING…to correct errors. When were they all corrected and how do you know that?

As far as the councils, I can only imagine his reaction to coming across a group of men arguing about how many natures…I do not think the Jesus I have read about would have gone for that…

You and I know they are as far from Christ as the east is to te west and it is a great shame. If they could see the wonder of the end of Romans 3 and Romans 4; the Light would shine as bright as the noon day sun.

All the nonsense of a central authority over the church, after the writers have stated over and over that their is but one head, the God-man Christ Jesus and what can a man do that Christ cannot or has not?

I believe I need to back away; this gets very demoralizing sometimes because your heart just bleeds for them. Keep on putting the Word out their and I will see you around.

Blessings,
rick

 

[Rightlydivide]

You and I know they are as far from Christ as the east is to te west and it is a great shame. If they could see the wonder of the end of Romans 3 and Romans 4; the Light would shine as bright as the noon day sun.

I believe I need to back away; this gets very demoralizing sometimes because your heart just bleeds for them. Keep on putting the Word out their and I will see you around.

Blessings,
rick

I do not know where anyone’s heart truly is except by their actions and to a lesser degree their words. That was the crux of what the Lord’s brother James taught.
Nor do I engage in polemics so while I like any person get a personal lift when affirmed; I cannot nor do I say that all Catholics are far from Christ. I take exception to their interpretation of history and their interpretation of the Bible. But to say they are far from Christ…you got the wrong guy to do that.
Blessings as well.

 

[JRKH]

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

As Promised I have reviewed the Account in acts and also 1 Corinthians. Certainly as you say there is much room for speculation.
Just as a quick point, I think that we need to recognize that, during the Council of Jerusalem, indeed in any council or meeting, there is a great deal of give and take and “insight/nuance” that might not make it onto paper, or be readily understood by the reader. That is why Judas and Silas were sent from Jerusalem to Antioch with the letter to deliver it orally.

So -

Having reviewed the two sections (Acts 15 and 1 Cor 8) I offer the following possibilities.

The Letter written by the Council of Jerusalem was delivered by Judas and Silas, members of the Jerusalem community, to be delivered “By word of Mouth”. The Community at Antioch received them and the message with joy. Judas and Silas, both prophets, then strengthened the community with, “Long Discourse”.
We may surmise from this that during the oral discourses between Judas, Silas, Paul and others in the community, greater detail of the deliberations and decisions of the Council in Jerusalem were made known. Some of these may be what we are seeing Paul expound in First Corinthians.

In 1 Cor 7:1 Paul says, “Now to the matters you wrote about….”, so it appears that there was a letter sent to Paul with questions/concerns from the Church in Corinth. We do not have a copy of this letter, so we cannot know exactly what those questions were.
It is also not known from first Corinthians whether they have a copy of the Council letter or not. Since there is a possibility that they did, Paul may have even brought one with him originally, we just don’t know, it may be that Paul felt no need to mention it in his letter, but merely expound on his understanding of the teaching based on his being there at the time.

Again, these are mere speculations of mine based on the fact that Paul was in fact AT the council of Jerusalem and would have known just what was said and understood by the counilior decision and letter. He was also at Antoich when Judas and Silas delivered the letter and encouraged the brothers in long discourse.

In any event I don’t really see anything in 1 Cor that undercuts the teaching in Acts. It seems a little more like trying to explain the WHY of not eating the sacraficed meat, or even being at table in the wrong place (just hanging out with old friends), lest you cause others to sin by your poor example.

Peace
James

 

[yankee_drifter]

What is God’s pattern for the leadership of the church? We need to go back to the very beginning, to the churches in the apostolic era rather than the second century and later.
Its a shaky foundation if we lean on the writings of fallible men such as Clement and Ignatius. Although they were respected, they are still liable to make mistakes; their writings are neither inspired nor infallible. That’s another reason why we must rest on the Holy Scriptures, for these alone are given by inspiration of God, and therefore are certainly true.

Paul’s missionary work resulted in the formation of new churches in different cities. But he had to move on. What kind of leadership did he leave behind him? “They had appointed elders in every church.” He left a number of elders to take care every local church.

Paul writes to Titus: “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you” (Titus 1:5). Same thing: “elders in every city” - not one bishop and several priests.

This is the consistent NT pattern: every church was ruled by a group of elders. “elders” and “bishops” are the same people, and the two terms are being used interchangeably.

In the 2nd century the early church did not follow the “plurality of elders” pattern. Ignatius of Antioch was already proposing a different model: one bishop above several presbyters, and deacons.

But this was not the general pattern in the 2nd century. There were other churches who still maintained the apostolic “plurality of elders” model. The Didache, (2nd century document) says: “Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved.

Ignatius and Clement disagree; Ignatius has one bishop over the presbyters (the new pattern); Clement speaks of a number of presbyters leading the church, which he also calls bishops (the original pattern). Church Fathers are not unanimous in their opinions. Who, then, should be the arbiter? How can we decide what is God’s will? From the authority of God-inspired Scripture which is above the opinions of fallible men.

Ignatius deviated from the original pattern, which gradually led to the “monarchical episcopate”: the church (and clergy) ruled by a single bishop. It also paved the way to evolution of the Patriarch; a bishop leading several churches in a large province (Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople), and ultimately, to the Papacy; a single bishop claiming authority over all other bishops and churches in the entire world!

 

[JRKH]

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.

I can understand your choosing to do this since the Apostles walked with and were taught personally by Jesus.
Well lets move your scenerio down the timeline just a tiny bit. Say your church was having a serious problem and all of the Apostles were dead, or in exile and out of reach, but there were men who were personally Trained BY the Apostles. Would you not wish to speak to such persons since they were closer to and taught by the Apostles themselves?
That is what Apostolic succession is and why it is important.

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.

If you will not by my profile, I am a revert. I HAVE looked hard at said. That is why I am a Catholic.

Peace
James

 

[Rightlydivide]

We have already seen clearly that Clement and the Didache support congregational polity for electing the leadership. That IS apostolic teaching. But its no longer done that way. No one argues that it did not occur that way but it does not anymore. Practical reasons. Is that defensible?

 

[JRKH]

We have already seen clearly that Clement and the Didache support congregational polity for electing the leadership. That IS apostolic teaching. But its no longer done that way. No one argues that it did not occur that way but it does not anymore. Practical reasons. Is that defensible?

Why shouldn’t it be defensible?
After all the NT also says the the early church in Jerusalem lived in community, sharing all things in common and that they sold everything they had and distributed the proceeds according to need. (Acts 2: 42-44)
That TOO is apostolic teaching. But it is no longer done that way. Is that defensible as well?

You will note that the Didache and St Paul also set down criteria for these local churches to select their leadership. Where does the authority come from for Paul to tell this or that church how to select their bishop? What should occur then if say St Paul comes back next year and finds that a church has elected a Bishop that does not meet the criteria? After all Paul has no authority over the local church does He??

I hate to see this thread get too far afield in dealing with what are essentially matters of governance and practice. It is entirely likely that any group is going to change the way such things are set up or function over the course of a couple hundred, let alone a couple thousand years.

The issue to me really revolves around the idea of doctrinal unity and not practical matters of governance.
If St Paul sends a letter to Corinth and the Duly Elected Bishop of Corinth says, “I agree with this but not that” would he be within his authority to do so? How about if The letter is recieved and read by the Bishop, but then disputed by members of the Church community? Who has authority to say which is right and which is not??

Again, I say that each and every time we go around on these boards about this or that matter of faith, we prove once again the need for an universal, authoritative Church.

Peace
James

 

[Rightlydivide]

Why shouldn’t it be defensible?
After all the NT also says the the early church in Jerusalem lived in community, sharing all things in common and that they sold everything they had and distributed the proceeds according to need. (Acts 2: 42-44)
That TOO is apostolic teaching. But it is no longer done that way. Is that defensible as well?

You will note that the Didache and St Paul also set down criteria for these local churches to select their leadership. Where does the authority come from for Paul to tell this or that church how to select their bishop? What should occur then if say St Paul comes back next year and finds that a church has elected a Bishop that does not meet the criteria? After all Paul has no authority over the local church does He??

I hate to see this thread get too far afield in dealing with what are essentially matters of governance and practice. It is entirely likely that any group is going to change the way such things are set up or function over the course of a couple hundred, let alone a couple thousand years.

The issue to me really revolves around the idea of doctrinal unity and not practical matters of governance.
If St Paul sends a letter to Corinth and the Duly Elected Bishop of Corinth says, “I agree with this but not that” would he be within his authority to do so? How about if The letter is recieved and read by the Bishop, but then disputed by members of the Church community? Who has authority to say which is right and which is not??

Again, I say that each and every time we go around on these boards about this or that matter of faith, we prove once again the need for an universal, authoritative Church.

Peace
James

I have undoubtedly failed to explain my view based upon your post. That is my fault.
If I have expressed that the apostles were limited by location alone; that is my fault. James, an apostle made the final decision in Jerusalem but he received the approval of the church at Jerusalem. This church was the home church of many of the apostles as well. Churches that were founded by Paul were under his jurisdiction as well. Although churches founded by someone unknown, like Rome, also had people who listened to Paul. This was an issue because some people said they followed Peter. Some Apollos and some Paul as you recall. Nothing in the actions of the apostles precluded a system of local autonomy. I think any group of bishops ( look up bishop in the catholic encyclopedia before you get stuck on a single bishop system this early) would have listened to an apostle or in the case of Clement; a student of the apostles.
I thought this thread was primarily polity with a doctrinal discussion secondarily. In which case examine my last post about the churches having different doctrines; which they did in the examples we have from the NT.

I cannot support a system of goverance that is not biblical or can even be explained in any practical sense.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hello Randy Carson,

Where are the “10” errors in the following paragraph which I wrote? Please give me the evidence for all 10. Give me Scriptural references. Not quotes from early church writers. Their writings were never considered inspired. and for every church “father” you can find that agrees with you, there will be others who don’t.

First, on what basis do you insist that I provide scriptural references exclusively? Where does the Bible lay down that standard? Chapter and verse, please. Until you prove otherwise, I am free to argue from scripture, history, patristics, philosophy, reason…whatever helps us to get at the truth. You do want to get at the truth, don’t you, Yankee???

However, don’t assume that my question above means I can’t argue from the scriptures. Anyone who has hung in this forum for awhile knows that I can. But I am interested in understanding why you believe you can impose your own “Tradition of men” upon me when the Christian Church has a richer patrimony than that.

Now, for the 10 errors…and no, I’m not going to attempt to provide definitive answers to all 10 at this point - I’ll just hit the highlights. Each of your assertions will require effort on my part to explain and effort on your part to understand. You don’t get that much of my time without agreeing to give me some of your time in return.

1. The church described in the NT did not have a Roman pope;

Peter was the first pope and he was martyred in Rome. End of story.

it did not teach purgatory;

Scripture shows otherwise. Start a thread if you wish.

it did not venerate Mary;

Right. Mary was just another Jewish girl who got pregnant out of wedlock…an incubator really…nothing more.

it did not teach salvation by faith and works.

That would be odd since Jesus did. What the Church did not teach is “faith alone” - a Tradition of Men started by Martin Luther. If the Bible teaches “faith alone” then why did the Holy Spirit inspire no one to use that infamous phrase except James who wrote, “not by faith alone”?

… 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"

Peter didn’t have to teach something that was obvious to all who LIVED the life of the Church instead of merely reading about it 2000 years later. Jesus established the NT priesthood: Bishops, priests and deacons are the natural extension of that.

…the same keys given to Peter in Matthew 16 are given to the whole church of believers in Matthew 18.

Right. Can I borrow your set of keys to the kingdom, Dad? In Mt. 18, Jesus was speaking to the twelve whom He had huddled-up for a teaching moment, but you personally don’t have any keys. Even Martin Luther would condemn you on the spot for this error.

Papal infallibility was not officially proclaimed until the 19th century…

Doh! You got me there. That is not an error. The error is believing that papal infallibility did not exist or was not understood until that time. The same for your statement below. But I am proved wrong…you only erred seven times. Mea culpa.

Mary’s immaculate conception and bodily assumption were not officially and definitively proclaimed until the 19th and 20th century.

See above.

It seems that most of the folks on here defending Catholicism never qualify their claims. They use no Scriptural references. My statements are not anti catholic or anti anything. They are God’s Word which many roman catholics seem to have little regard for. Instead of checking the Scriptures, you use personal attacks.

Friend, as I said before, if you want to dance, let’s dance. I’ll show you what a Catholic can do with scripture.

What I’m not going to do is to be drawn into a long, running gun-battle over dozens of your pet theories and misunderstandings about Catholicism.

If you want to get serious about sharing the truth with this Catholic and all of those who follow these threads, then you need to slow down and present your material one topic at a time. Otherwise, you’re just wasting our time.

What do you want to do?

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. The first of these occupies ch. 3–8. It turns upon the record in Matt. i. 18–25, and especially on the words, “Before they came together” (c. 4), “knew her not till, &c.” (5–8).

Rick-

Before I jump to any conclusions, could you clarify PRECISELY what argument you wish to make concerning the Perpetual Virginity of Mary from the text of Matthew 1:18-25?

I do appreciate your time on this.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You and I know they are as far from Christ as the east is to te west and it is a great shame. If they could see the wonder of the end of Romans 3 and Romans 4; the Light would shine as bright as the noon day sun.

How poetic. I’m moved. Deeply. :coffeeread:

All the nonsense of a central authority over the church, after the writers have stated over and over that their is but one head, the God-man Christ Jesus and what can a man do that Christ cannot or has not?

What a straw-man. Catholics hold that Jesus is the head of the ENTIRE Church. We also hold that He left Peter in charge of the Church on earth, but I have to tell you something…come closer…I want to whisper…we believe this because the Bible teaches it.

Now, don’t tell YankeeDrifter. He won’t believe it.

I believe I need to back away; this gets very demoralizing sometimes because your heart just bleeds for them. Keep on putting the Word out their and I will see you around.

Back away?

Where is that in scripture?

Can you imagine Paul preaching to crowds in a coliseum somewhere and then backing away when some objected?

Kinda makes you wonder how he ever got martyred in the first place…he certainly never ruffled any feathers.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have undoubtedly failed to explain my view based upon your post. That is my fault.
If I have expressed that the apostles were limited by location alone; that is my fault. James, an apostle made the final decision in Jerusalem but he received the approval of the church at Jerusalem.

This is incorrect, and here’s why:

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

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

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

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).
Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
​

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
​

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

To Bonocore’s reference from Titus, I would add this passage from Paul’s Letter to the Galatians:
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
Clearly, James headed up the group who thought that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. However, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.

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

 

[Randy_Carson]

I cannot support a system of goverance that is not biblical or can even be explained in any practical sense.

Then when do you become Catholic?

After all, Jesus established the NT priesthood as a fulfillment of the OT model:

OT: Aaron, the Levites, all Israel.
NT: Jesus, the ministerial priesthood (Bishops, Priests, Deacons), all believers.

So the question is:

Did Jesus Give Priests to the Church?
By Kenneth J. Howell
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0404sbs.asp

---

 

[steve_b]

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.

Taking your points in order

1. Re: not asking Rome to watch over his see after he is martyred, I quoted the texts that said he DID ask.
2. Re: other letters of Ignatius. He wrote 1 letter to Smyrna and 1 letter to Polycarp bishop of Smyrna. 2 prominent ECF’s both from Smyrna, whose writings we have
   · Polycarp, born ~55/56 disciple of St John, martyred ~156/157. Ignatius writes a letter to Polycarp personally, as well as to the Church at Smyrna…
   · Irenaeus, born ~120/130, in his youth was a student of Polycarp. Irenaeus therefore, is 1 man away from an apostle. He dies ~202. Famous work (Against Heresies) he becomes bishop of Lyons.
   Irenaeus writes
   2But since it would be very long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, I can by pointing out the tradition which that very great, oldest, and well-known Church, founded and established at Rome by those two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, received from the apostles, and its faith known among men, which comes down to us through the successions of bishops, put to shame all of those who in any way, either through wicked self-conceit, or through vainglory, or through blind and evil opinion, gather as they should not. For every church must be in harmony with this Church because of its outstanding pre-eminence, that is, the faithful from everywhere, since the apostolic tradition is preserved in it by those from everywhere. 3When the blessed apostles had founded and built up the Church, they handed over the ministry of the episcopate to Linus. Paul mentions this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy. Anencletus succeeded him. After him Clement received the lot of the episcopate in the third place from the apostles: He had seen the apostles and associated with them, and still had their preaching sounding in his ears and their tradition before his eyes—and not he alone, for there were many still left in his time who had been taught by the apostles. In this Clement’s time no small discord arose among the brethren in Corinth, and the Church in Rome sent a very powerful letter to the Corinthians, leading them to peace, renewing their faith, [Against Heresies book 3:ch 3: vs 2-3]
3. Re: line of command. Ignatius mentions in order of command, bishop presbyter and deacon. Those are the immediate and direct leaders in the Church in each location. However, there is a primacy already practiced from the apostles in Peter and his successors. We see it in Clement DURING apostolic times and we see it described in Ignatius letter to Rome, and we see it described by Irenaeus, when he says “all must agree with… Rome” quote above…
   forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5784602&postcount=36
   forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5788310&postcount=62
4. Ergo, Rome IS mentioned AND explained why it presides. We see it in Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus.

rd:

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.

The quotes (above links) show more than an advisory role. Ignatius says to Rome, your instructions direct or impose with authority on others. (post #62 above) That’s NOT just advisory.