Were the NT churches independent or One?

[Rightlydivide]

I sense, in you, a genuine Enquirer who has suffered the misfortune of encountering Catholics who grow tired of untangling multitudes of anti-Catholic charges.

Some of the posters in this thread examplify the repetitive multiple charges that have plagued us for several decades.

Enquire in ernest and God Bless.

Thank you and blessings to you as well.

 

[JRKH]

Ignatius=the first person who may have argued for a church polity that looks like Orthodoxy. Not a problem for THEM but not so good for you.
There was error in the church of Corinth and the churches in Revelation as well…so why would it be surprising that an individual would get polity wrong 70 years after Jesus ascended to the Father?
Not surprising at all.

RD, I must confess that this post is most disappointing to me. Up until now you have, for the most part posted reasonable arguments. This one is simply rediculous.

The Question of independence among the early Churches is the one that is on the table, Randy and to a much lesser degree, I have given you biblical and ECF evidence of the Early Churches being United and submitting to a “Cross Church” authority.
This is STRONG evidence. Your response is - frankly pretty pathetic.

You claim that Even Paul reports that there was error creeping into “The Church” during apostoliic times. (Interesting that in regards to “error” you choose to use the singular “Church” here, holding as you do to independent “churches”.)

So what are the errors that Paul claims?
Can you list them here?
Are these errors related to Authority?

You intimate above that Ignatius was in error in his writings to the various churches about being obedient to authority as to Christ. You fairly shout that Ignatius, - Second Bishop of Antioch, a Great Leader and Apologist of the Church, a Contemproary and Disciple of St John, and who is widely believed to have been ordained by St Peter himself, - That this person is in error about polity.

So just when did these errors finally overtake the Church? At what point does the Church’s decisions and teachings become unreliable?
Was it at 100 AD with the Death of St John?
Was it at 107 AD which is when Ignatius is martyred?
Was it the day after the canon of the Bible was ratified in 400 AD
(It had to be before this, because Martin Luther decided the canon was wrong and took out books)
When??? When did Christ fail in his promise?? When did the Keys and the poser to bind and loose go away??

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Some of this seems to be directed at things I have said and other things are not things I have said and some are obviously not. It is a response to what many people do believe. The dead give away is the word invisible…a notion not found in scripture and of course would mean I do not support it.
Independent churches do not own any of the Reformation groups you mentioned; that is your doing; often by groups once associated with you. I wonder if anyone else notices that the divisions of Christianity do not exist because of us. We would love for everyone to follow the Bible and join a church that follows the Bible. I am not responsible that others have choosen incorrect interpretations like those of the Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, or Mormons.

So you feel that your church group is not “protestant” in nature is that correct??

If so then why do you hold to a protestant bible (I assume you have been using the KJV) instead of the Bible containing ALL the books as canonized by The Church in 400 AD?

You may feel that you are not connected to the Protestants, but in historical fact you are. You are burdened with their same distrust of the Ancient Church and with their Man Made Tradition of Sola Scriptura, and rejection of Authority.

Peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

We would love for everyone to follow the Bible and join a church that follows the Bible. I am not responsible that others have choosen incorrect interpretations like those of the Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, or Mormons.

Don’t Methodists, Baptists and Lutherans follow the Bible Alone?

Just out of curiosity, does your church have any denominational affiliation?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Don’t Methodists, Baptists and Lutherans follow the Bible Alone?

Just out of curiosity, does your church have any denominational affiliation?

Lutherans recognize the role of tradition. Many Lutherans could comment. Methodists have the quadrilateral. Baptists do and in general do fairly well except for some limited views when it comes to soteriology.

No denominational affiliations; not in the Bible. We agree on that!

 

[Rightlydivide]

So you feel that your church group is not “protestant” in nature is that correct??

If so then why do you hold to a protestant bible (I assume you have been using the KJV) instead of the Bible containing ALL the books as canonized by The Church in 400 AD?

You may feel that you are not connected to the Protestants, but in historical fact you are. You are burdened with their same distrust of the Ancient Church and with their Man Made Tradition of Sola Scriptura, and rejection of Authority.

Peace
James

Reginal synods do not canonize the Bible for the entire church. If they did, why do Oriental Orthodox and Catholic bibles differ? We are getting off topic.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Jesus, and His apostles, foretold that false teachers would arise, and from some of the NT epistles the apostles had to fight against false teachers early on.

In Acts 20:30 the apostle Paul said that false teachers will not only come among them but will come FROM them. This shows that no “church” is infallible, nor did Christ ever promise infallibility. Christ promised to always be with the church, not that he would keep the church from error.

Thus, truth can only be determined by depending upon God and His word. What the NT shows us is that repeated comparisons between what false teachers teach and what the first church taught, is absolutely necessary.. This dependence upon the Word of God, rather than following certain individuals or traditions is seen in Gal 1:8-9, where Paul states, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed…” Thus, the basis for determining truth from error is not based upon even WHO it is that is teaching it, “we or an angel from heaven,” but whether it is the same Gospel that they had already received, and this Gospel is recorded in Scripture.

Another example of depending upon the Word of God is found in 2 Peter, where he is fighting against false teachers. In doing so, Peter begins by mentioning that we have a “more sure word” to depend upon than even hearing the voice of God from heaven as they did at Jesus’ transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-21). This “more sure word” is the written Word of God. Peter later says to be mindful of “the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets and the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior” (2 Peter 3:2). Both the words of the holy prophets and the commandments Jesus gave to the apostles are recorded in Scripture. There is nothing here about unwritten traditions and an infallible church.

How do we determine whether a church is teaching correct doctrine or not? The only infallible standard that the Apostles said we have is the Bible.

Augustine taught “Sola Scriptura” as evidenced by his writings:

"This mediator (Jesus Christ), first through the Prophets, then by his own lips, afterwards through the Apostles, revealed whatever he considered necessary. He also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of** supreme authority** and to which we give credence concerning all those truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn." (Augustine)

“For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not ‘be wise more than it behooveth to be wise;’… Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher, and to treat of them as the Lord shall give me.” (Augustine)

The RCC says that she never interprets Scripture as the basis for her doctrines unless there exist the ‘unanimous consent of the Fathers’. Does such a dissenting ‘Father’ exist? Yes. Augustine said Scripture is the supreme (highest) authority.

.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No denominational affiliations; not in the Bible. We agree on that!

So, your church is kinda off on its own…no oversight, no accountability. Just you, your pastor, the Bible, and Jesus.

Is that how you see it?

 

[Rightlydivide]

RD, I must confess that this post is most disappointing to me. Up until now you have, for the most part posted reasonable arguments. This one is simply rediculous.
The Question of independence among the early Churches is the one that is on the table, Randy and to a much lesser degree, I have given you biblical and ECF evidence of the Early Churches being United and submitting to a “Cross Church” authority.
This is STRONG evidence. Your response is - frankly pretty pathetic.
You claim that Even Paul reports that there was error creeping into “The Church” during apostoliic times. (Interesting that in regards to “error” you choose to use the singular “Church” here, holding as you do to independent “churches”.)
So what are the errors that Paul claims?
Can you list them here?
Are these errors related to Authority?

You intimate above that Ignatius was in error in his writings to the various churches about being obedient to authority as to Christ. You fairly shout that Ignatius, - Second Bishop of Antioch, a Great Leader and Apologist of the Church, a Contemproary and Disciple of St John, and who is widely believed to have been ordained by St Peter himself, - That this person is in error about polity.

So just when did these errors finally overtake the Church? At what point does the Church’s decisions and teachings become unreliable?
Was it at 100 AD with the Death of St John?
Was it at 107 AD which is when Ignatius is martyred?
Was it the day after the canon of the Bible was ratified in 400 AD
(It had to be before this, because Martin Luther decided the canon was wrong and took out books)
When??? When did Christ fail in his promise?? When did the Keys and the poser to bind and loose go away??

Peace
James

Yes Igantius, as we have his letters and leaving aside the centuries of debates about interpolations, supports a strong single bishop system. This is not Catholicism because there is no bishop beyond the regional bishop that has any say. That is the beginnings of Orthodox polity but hardly Catholic polity. Goodness, you act like I am saying something that hundreds of others have stated in any classroom or seminary about the early church.
Did anyone bother to read the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on bishop?

Deal with the doctrinal errors of the churches in Revelation, which NO ONE, has even attempted to do, and then lets talk about errors in the early church. Christ did not fail on his promise; the failure is not incorporating the rest of the NT into your view. Did Paul or did Paul not write churches about their errors? Are the errors doctrinal or behavioral only? Is your view of doctrine and behavior one that suggests the two are able to BE seperated? Why?

You (in the general sense) have recognized that the Didache and Clement support the election of bishops and congregational polity but no longer use this.
Where is this unity? Individual congregations had errors. We have no infallible statements to examine.

Why is no one dealing with the fact that the earliest support for a continuous line of bishops comes from Peter and Paul. There is not an individual key given here. Its plain as day. The early church considered their primary leaders to be two men; Paul and Peter. No Pope. Clement never mentions it. Ignatius never mentions it. Irenaeus believes in the authority of the Roman church as coming from two men. Two men. Only later on do we see Paul dropped in favor of just Peter.

 

[Rightlydivide]

So, your church is kinda off on its own…no oversight, no accountability. Just you, your pastor, the Bible, and Jesus.

Is that how you see it?

Our local church, the system of the NT, contains the church which has congregational polity and plural leadership(elder rule) if that helps. We do not have just Jesus. Where does the Bible teach that? What about the Father? What about the Holy Ghost? What do we trust to give us apostolic teaching? The Bible. Yes we do.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus, and His apostles, foretold that false teachers would arise, and from some of the NT epistles the apostles had to fight against false teachers early on.

In Acts 20:30 the apostle Paul said that false teachers will not only come among them but will come FROM them. This shows that no “church” is infallible, nor did Christ ever promise infallibility. Christ promised to always be with the church, not that he would keep the church from falling into error.

Actually, what this shows is your complete misunderstanding of infallibility.

Individuals may teach fallibly; the Church may not. Individuals within the Church may teach error, but the Church never has.

How do we determine whether a church is teaching correct doctrine or not? The only infallible standard that Scripture says that we have is the Bible.

Where does the Bible state this?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Augustine taught “Sola Scriptura” as evidenced by the following writings.

“This mediator (Jesus Christ), first through the Prophets, then by his own lips, afterwards through the Apostles, revealed whatever he considered necessary. He also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of** supreme authority** and to which we give credence concerning all those truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn.” (City of God, copyright 1958 by Fathers of the Church)

“For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not ‘be wise more than it behooveth to be wise;’… Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher, and to treat of them as the Lord shall give me.” (Augustine)

Gee, is that all Augustine said? Or is this simply another example of anti-Catholic proof-texting?

Let’s take a look at more of the writings of the thoroughly Caholic Augustine:

Augustine

“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (*On Baptism, Against the Donatists *5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).

**“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (*Letter to Januarius *[A.D. 400]). **

 

[JRKH]

Jesus, and His apostles, foretold that false teachers would arise, and from some of the NT epistles the apostles had to fight against false teachers early on.

In Acts 20:30 the apostle Paul said that false teachers will not only come among them but will come FROM them. This shows that no “church” is infallible, nor did Christ ever promise infallibility. Christ promised to always be with the church, not that he would keep the church from falling into error.

1. If the false teachers will come even from within the Church tehn how are the church members to know which is true and which is false, especially when both sides in an argument use scripture as a basis. The Judaiazers certainly had the stronger “Bible” based position in their discussions with the Gentiles in Antioch.
2. You don’t seem to hold a very high view of Christ’s Promise to send the Comforter (Holy Spirit) to guide the Apostles and His Church into “ALL TRUTH” and to reveal things to them that they did could not bear to hear at the time.

Thus, truth can only be determined by depending upon God and His word. Having a pedigree of apostolic succession or being able to trace a church’s roots back to the “first church” is nowhere in Scripture given as a test for being the true church.

This is just silly considering that the only books in NT Scripture were written DURING the time of the first Bishops. What you will find is an OT lineage of Priesthood, and attachment to the temple in Jerusalem. Those that fell away from this connection, disappeared (the 10 tribes). The Jews were VERY cognizant of lineage. Just look in Matthew Chapter 1 to see the lineage of Jesus to demonstrate His validity.

We do agree though that Truth can only be determined by depending uponm God and His Word, who is Jesus Christ.

What is given is repeated comparisons between what false teachers teach and what the first church taught, as recorded in Scripture. This dependence upon the Word of God, rather than following certain individuals or traditions is seen in Gal 1:8-9, in which Paul states, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed…” Thus, the basis for determining truth from error is not based upon even WHO it is that is teaching it, “we or an angel from heaven,” but whether it is the same Gospel that they had already received, and this Gospel is recorded in Scripture.

Another example of dependence upon the Word of God is found in 2 Peter, where he is fighting against false teachers. In doing so, Peter begins by mentioning that we have a “more sure word” to depend upon than even hearing the voice of God from heaven as they did at Jesus’ transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-21). This “more sure word” is the written Word of God. Peter later says to be mindful of “the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets and the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior” (2 Peter 3:2). Both the words of the holy prophets and the commandments Jesus gave to the apostles are recorded in Scripture. There is nothing here about unwritten traditions and an infallible church.

How do we determine whether a church is teaching correct doctrine or not? The only infallible standard that Scripture says that we have is the Bible.

Augustine taught “Sola Scriptura” as evidenced by the following writings.

"This mediator (Jesus Christ), first through the Prophets, then by his own lips, afterwards through the Apostles, revealed whatever he considered necessary. He also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of** supreme authority** and to which we give credence concerning all those truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn." (City of God, copyright 1958 by Fathers of the Church)

“For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not ‘be wise more than it behooveth to be wise;’… Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher, and to treat of them as the Lord shall give me.” (Augustine)

The RCC says that she never interprets Scripture as the basis for her doctrines unless there exist the ‘unanimous consent of the Fathers’. Does such a dissenting ‘Father’ exist? Yes. Augustine said Scripture is the supreme (highest) authority.
.

And yet you hold in your hand and declare as complete and Supremely Authoritative a collection of Scripture that St Augustinw would have denounced as incomplete for it is missing books. Augustine was Himself one of the Bishops associated with the councils of Carthage wherein the Canon of the Bible was fromulated to include the Deuterocanonicals.
So - While you hold up Augustine as a Champion of the Supremecy of the Holy Scripture, you reject the very Canon of Holy Scripture that he accepted.

Sorry but using Augustine in this way doesn’t wash.

peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why is no one dealing with the fact that the earliest support for a continuous line of bishops comes from Peter and Paul. There is not an individual key given here. Its plain as day. The early church considered their primary leaders to be two men; Paul and Peter. No Pope. Clement never mentions it. Ignatius never mentions it. Irenaeus believes in the authority of the Roman church as coming from two men. Two men. Only later on do we see Paul dropped in favor of just Peter.

The early Church did not look to Peter and Paul as equals in terms of headship of the Church, and you are simply trying to read this back into history in order to justify your separation from the Church led by the successor of Peter.

In the Apostolic era, the Apostles enjoyed universal jurisdiction, but none of them doubted that Peter alone was the head of the Church. Jesus gave the keys to Peter alone. Jesus told Peter to feed and tend His flock.

Sure, Paul was a leader of the Church and he exercised a lot of personal authority. But even Paul submitted his gospel for approval to Peter, and went with Barnabas to Jerusalem for a ruling in a matter that he apparently was unable to resolve on the basis of his own authority.

Each of the churches in scripture (we would call them dioceses today), was led by a Bishop and possibly more than one. This should not surprise us since the Church was in transition from leadership of the Apostles to the leadership of the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops.

The term “pope” developed later as a way of referring to the Bishop of Rome as head of the universal Church, but the office to which the word “pope” is attached existed from the moment Jesus established it and placed Peter in the position.

Did the other ECF’s use the word “pope”? Of course not, and we should not expect this anachronism. However, they understood the role of the head of the Church.

Here are some of their thoughts:

Clement

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (*Letter to the Corinthians *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

Hegesippus

---

“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History *4:22 [A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus

---

"1It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about.

"2But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.

"3The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.

“4Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (*Against Heresies *3:3:1-4 [A.D. 189])…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Our local church, the system of the NT, contains the church which has congregational polity and plural leadership(elder rule) if that helps. We do not have just Jesus. Where does the Bible teach that? What about the Father? What about the Holy Ghost? What do we trust to give us apostolic teaching? The Bible. Yes we do.

I understand that you accept the Trinity.

So, you guys want to be a church just like the churches you see in the NT, is that it?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Ok so the Clement passage you quoted supports congregational polity.
You quote Hegesippus

James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles

Where is the papacy?

You say they did not look at them as co-equal inspite of what you actually quoted

founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.
"3The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate

Clement can add to this as well when he discusses Peter and Paul and makes no mention of Peterine primacy.

 

[PJM]

Randy Carson:

For Rightlydivide, Yankee_Drifter and RickHolland:

Do you know who Ignatius of Antioch was?

Just to remind those who are skeptical of the Early Church Fathers:

Ignatius was a disciple of Polycarp. Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. You can’t get much closer to the Apostles themselves than that.

Here is what the spiritual grandson of John had to say:

“Be subject to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the Apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians, A.D.110, [13,1])

“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishops presiding in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the Apostles.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians, A.D. 110, [6,1])

“Those, indeed, who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic; he will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, A.D. 110, [3,2])

“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 110, [8,1])

“Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living in the manner not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in His death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore, - and such is your practice, that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Traillians, A.D. 110, [2,1])

“And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. Every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled.” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2, [155 A.D.])

**“Although he [Paul] writes to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for their correction, nevertheless it is shown that there is one Church spread abroad though the whole world.” (Muratorian Fragment, [155 A.D.]) **

That is the voice of Apostolic Authority speaking. “There is ONE Church spread throughout the whole world” - not a bunch of independent autonomous churches as many like to claim.

Well done [again] Randy. THANKS!

The term “the Church” [SINGULAR] appears 37 times in the NT. Just coincidence I guess:shrug:

Here’s a Thought by Jesus Himself:

Luke 11: Luke.11 Verses 15 to 20

[15] But some of them said, “He casts out demons by Be-el’zebul, the prince of demons”;
[16] while others, to test him, sought from him a sign from heaven.
[17] **But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls. **
[18] And if Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Be-el’zebul.
[19] And if I cast out demons by Be-el’zebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.
[20] But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” [SINGULAR!]

Love and prayers friends,

 

[Philthy]

But ultimately people will read and decide.

And if they do, will they be deciding by grace? By faith? Or through the use of plain old fallible human intellect? I submit it is the latter.
This is problematic IMHO because it is impossible for all of the faithful to be united in the “one faith” (that Peter, James, Paul and the other Apostles were united to) based upon the individual application of their intellect in reading the NT. Again I will point out that one of the greatest blessings of the Reformation is the crystal clarity with which the inability of the individual to know the “one faith” through Scripture alone.

Blessings!

 

[yankee_drifter]

James,

You show the same misunderstanding that many, if not all, catholics make. The body of Christ is comprised of two aspects:

The universal church consists of all those who have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body,whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink” (1 Cor 12:13). This verse says that anyone who believes is part of the body of Christ and has received the Spirit of Christ as evidence. The universal church of God is all those who have received salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

The local church is described in Gal 1:1-2.Paul, an apostle … and all the brothers with me, to the churches in Galatia.” Here we see that in the province of Galatia there were many churches—what we call local churches. A Baptist church, Lutheran church, Catholic church, etc., is not the church, as in the universal church—but rather is a local church, a local body of believers. The universal church is comprised of those who belong to Christ and who have trusted Him for salvation. These members of the universal church should seek fellowship and edification in a local church.

The “church” is not a building or a denomination. According to the Bible, the church is the body of Christ—all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation (John 3:16; 1 Cor 12:13). Local churches are gatherings of members of the universal church. The local church is where the members of the universal church can fully apply the “body” principles of 1 Corinthians chapter 12: encouraging, teaching, and building one another up in the knowledge and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The first time ekklesia (church) is used in the spiritual sense is in Matt16:18, where Jesus promised to build His church (ekklesia). Applied spiritually, it means the called out of, that is, the saved who are called out of the word (Jn. 17). “Church” (ekklesia) is used to denote all the saved without any particular geographic designation (Matt. 16: 18), and of the saved in a particular geographic area (I Cor. 1: 2). “Church” used universally (all the saved) is always used in the singular. “Churches,” plural, refers to a number of local churches, the saved in geographic areas. Paul wrote, “The churches of Christ salute you” (Rom. 16: 16). “Church” is applied to the assembly of God’s people (I Cor. 14: 19). It denotes the saved who have banded together and have the full development as far as organizing is concerned (Acts 14: 23). The local church, when fully organized has elders (bishops) and deacons (Phil. 1: 1; I Tim. 3: 1-13). “Church” is also used of the banded together saved in the absence of the full organization. (Acts 14: 23).

The word “church” in the Greek NT, never refers to the building in which the church meets. “Church” is also never used to denote denominations. Ro.16:5.says “…greet the church that is in their house.” Paul refers to the church in their house—not a church building, but a body of believers.The church is the body of Christ, of which He is the head. Eph 1:22-23 says, “And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.” The body of Christ is made up of all believers in Jesus Christ from the day of Pentecost until Christ’s return.

The reason you cannot make the distinction, James, and is foreign to most catholics, is because you have been taught by the RCC that there is only One True Church. Notice how this is the very thing cults believe like the Mormons, JWs, and the “christian” cults like the Church of Christ, 7th Day Adventists, Christian Scientist, etc. They all claim they are the only True “Church” and that there’s no salvation outside of their church. Does the Bible teach that? Absolutely Not! Salvation is not found in a church or through church membership, obedience to church works, rules and rituals. Nor is it found through Mary whom the RCC has elevated to the status of co-redeemer. Salvation is found in Christ alone. No church has a monopoly on salvation, nor is any infallible because it consists of fallible men.

The RCC and those groups such as the ones listed above are in error when they claim that the universal church does not include true believers in Jesus Christ that are found everywhere in all corners of the globe. Jesus said He is there among even 2 or 3 that are gathered in His name. That makes a “church”. It does not have to be a fancy, elaborate building with hundreds of people and all the trappings. Wherever there is preaching, hymns and prayers, you have a “church”.

 

[PJM]

=Rightlydivide;5798669]Some of this seems to be directed at things I have said and other things are not things I have said and some are obviously not. It is a response to what many people do believe. The dead give away is the word invisible…a notion not found in scripture and of course would mean I do not support it.

Independent churches do not own any of the Reformation groups you mentioned; that is your doing; often by groups once associated with you. I wonder if anyone else notices that the divisions of Christianity do not exist because of us. We would love for everyone to follow the Bible and join a church that follows the Bible. I am not responsible that others have choosen incorrect interpretations like those of the Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, or Mormons.

My dear friend in Christ.

I’m confused [Me being a Catholic, you of course already knew that]

You hold to if it’s not in the bible you CAN’t beleive it, right?

So does that mean if it is in the bible you MUST believe it?

So friend, perhaps you’d share with us where in the bible this limited and seemingly quite specif direction may be found?

Also, could you explian for us you’re enlightened understanding of Mt. 16:19, Mt. 19:16, 1 Jn.1: 8-9, 1 Jn. 5: 15-17, and 1 Cor. 11:26-29. I have more questions, but I’m not a fast learner, so friend, please enlighten me.

Oh and by the way, the term “the Church” [singular] appears some 37 times in the NT. What is being referenced here?

Thanking you in advance for you’re assistance and insights.

Love and prayers,

Pat