N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
I enjoy your posts Randy.
- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
A nice reply. Thank you. If I may I’d like to address/qurstion a couple of points.
As to the term Judaizers. I hope no one is offended by the term. I understand it simply to mean they were Jewish Christians, who believed that the Gentile converts should follow the Mosaic Law, nothing more, and certainly nothing sinister.
I mean here Antioch had an Apostle, a founding member, who was a Pharisee, well versed in The Scriptures, - an Apostle selected by Christ in a most extraordinary manner to spread the Gospel, an apostle who could debate the Jews to silence in their synagogues and yet he could not get a resolution, nor would he simply unilaterally decree a solution. I sense that the Church in Antioch saw reasonable arguments on both sides and that no clear cut solution was available. So, The Church in Antioch “kicked the matter up the chain”, to the Church in Jerusalem where more of the Apostles were and a counsensus could be reached. They naturally wanted to send the best so St Paul went with others.
Do you see what I mean??
If “brothers” from the “Lutheren Church” (being the oldest of the protestant churches) came to your newer, fundamental congregation and began teaching that you must accept the Lutheren confessions and catechism in toto in order to be saved (The Law), how do you think your church would handle this in order to maintain unity?
Without gieeting into the particulars of the Lutheren confessions and catechism, let us assume that there are items that your church firmly believes are in error. What “Church council” would you appeal to in order to resolve the matter?
Peace
James
It is good to clarify things and I think you have done well here. Too often I think we wind up using the same words but different meanings, and wind up talking past each other. In fact I think there is some of that going on in this thread.
As to the term Judaizers. I hope no one is offended by the term. I understand it simply to mean they were Jewish Christians, who believed that the Gentile converts should follow the Mosaic Law, nothing more, and certainly nothing sinister.
Well said, but of course since you point out that Antioch is Paul’s home church and he founded the community there, it seems even MORE unlikely that Paul couldn’t resolve the issue locally. I meas if the Church really WAS local and independant as you assert.
I mean here Antioch had an Apostle, a founding member, who was a Pharisee, well versed in The Scriptures, - an Apostle selected by Christ in a most extraordinary manner to spread the Gospel, an apostle who could debate the Jews to silence in their synagogues and yet he could not get a resolution, nor would he simply unilaterally decree a solution. I sense that the Church in Antioch saw reasonable arguments on both sides and that no clear cut solution was available. So, The Church in Antioch “kicked the matter up the chain”, to the Church in Jerusalem where more of the Apostles were and a counsensus could be reached. They naturally wanted to send the best so St Paul went with others.
Yes, you are right. They went to seek clarification. And this is how it often happens even today. Issues arise that haven’t been dealt with before (like stem cell research) and ideas/teachings are floated locally. If and when there are conflicts over the protper teaching, the matter is “Kicked” upstairs to, “seek apostolic teaching and insight.” Then once the teaching is clarified by the Church (in council and/or through the magisterium) it promulgated through the universal Church. Those whose views are found to be in error, like the Judaizers are expected by the church to submit to the desision of the Church ala Mt 18:17
Do you see what I mean??
Just so - Now let me place a “Modern equivelant” before you for comment.
If “brothers” from the “Lutheren Church” (being the oldest of the protestant churches) came to your newer, fundamental congregation and began teaching that you must accept the Lutheren confessions and catechism in toto in order to be saved (The Law), how do you think your church would handle this in order to maintain unity?
Without gieeting into the particulars of the Lutheren confessions and catechism, let us assume that there are items that your church firmly believes are in error. What “Church council” would you appeal to in order to resolve the matter?
Yes I would readily agree that the manner in which Bishops and clergy were selected was different in those days. Of course this would have been an easier system for an underground church under attack by the political powers.
Interesting. Could you tell me where this issue is addressed in Corinthians? I’d like to read up on it.
Peace
James
J
jlhargus
Guest
Mark for remarks
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
1st Corinthians 8. Although chapter 7 is important as well. Paul does not mention the Apostolic decree (understanding that is the term most associated with it although we have already established the interpretations differ between us). Any commentary on what are the perceived differences between Act 15 and Galatians cover it in-depth. I am not sure what commentaries Catholics use and I probably do not own it anyway to point you in the right direction.
As far as how independent local congregations handle doctrinal disputes; I can only speak for us. There are undoubtedly those who hold different interpretations about certain things. As far as I know, those primarily relate to celebration of certain holidays and a few other practices. If there are other major differences in doctrinal beliefs; I am not aware of them. We do not kick the matter up so to speak outside of the congregation.
As far as how independent local congregations handle doctrinal disputes; I can only speak for us. There are undoubtedly those who hold different interpretations about certain things. As far as I know, those primarily relate to celebration of certain holidays and a few other practices. If there are other major differences in doctrinal beliefs; I am not aware of them. We do not kick the matter up so to speak outside of the congregation.
J
JRKH
Guest
Thanks for the reference. I will read through this when I have the chance. Pretty busy day today.
On the other matter, I am not talking about you disturbing another Church (kicking things up) but rather another coming in and "disturbing you.
In keeping with the scenerio of a Lutheren coming to your church, say they came and taught that you must confess and elieve that the Lords supper IS the Body and Blood of Christ. Not just a memorial meal.
For in the Lutheren small Catechism it says:
VI. The Sacrament of the Altar
As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.
What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.
Where is this written?
The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus:
Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.
After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.
(continues here)
Again, assuming that you do not hold to the view that it is, in fact, the Real Presence, how would your church handle the brothers from the other independent Church?
you both believe SS and both read the scripture, just in a different way.
Do you think that you two, independant, brother Churches in Christ, could submit yourselves to either one or the other Church council? How about a council combining the two Churches? How about an entirely different ecclesial council?
Or would you two brother churches more likely just say - You go your way and we’ll go our way. Bye Bye.
What I am hoping to demonstrate is not the particulars of the Real Presence, but rather the connotation of “Independant Churches”. I think that you’ll agree that the independent churches of today excersize more than just a local autonomy within a larger structure of common faith and doctrine, whereas the Early Churches, by the passage in Acts, demonstrate that their local autonomy of selecting bishops and clergy was contained within a larger “umbrella” of common faith to which they would both appeal and also submit in matters effecting unity.
In short I think it can be demonstrated that local churches did excersize greater autonomy in the first and second centuries, but if that autonomy was as complete as we see today among the different Christian churches, then there was certainly no reason fo Clement to write from Rome to Corinth telling them that once they had elected a Bishop, they could not toss him out.
Peace
James
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
I am not sure what scenario someone from another church would come in. If they came during a worship service and disrupted the procedings, I suppose they would be asked to not do so. I think it would be the decision of what elders were present in how to proceed. I can imagine someone would call the cops, with cell phones and all.
If they asked for a meeting with the church? I suppose people could agree to meet and talk? I am not sure for what purpose. I am trying to work with you because i understand its a hypothetical question.
At anytime, a believer could contact another believer or group of believers to make their case for correct doctrine or practice. If they wished to do so, they would not be speaking on behalf of the church unless the church decided to speak as a church to another church…which has never happened yet. Nothing prevents it from happening; it just never has.
The example of Clement is one I believe it is open to interpretation; although I am sure you realize that Corinth had a plurality leadership and not just one bishop. I understand that Rome sees this as the Bishop of Rome exercising papal leadership. I see it as Paul’s student if you will following the practice of his teacher. If Clement was writing to a church with a leadership issue and did not mention his own leadership, one would have to presume that a church with a leadership issue understands papal primacy despite it never being mentioned. The facts are scarce; all we know is that Corinth asked for help which I think is a key point. Clement does not write on his own will but because he was asked. Nothing wrong with that. I understand that people from different churches wrote letters giving advice. I suppose an argument could be made to do the same thing in the present.
O
Odell
Guest
May I ask who’s authority do you summit to?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Submit?
God and his words as found in the Bible. Depending on the issue the church and the elders as well.
I have not been in a situation where anything the other elders or church stated that I felt was a submission. Decisions have been made that I would “not have done it that” way…but that occurs at work, church, and other places. It would depend if the group was going against scripture or not. Our church is not organized in the sense that I could foresee that happening (ie lots of top down decisions) but anything is possible.
S
steve_b
Guest
A bishop IS the leader. You don’t have multiple bishops in one Church location. Bishops are in charge of their own diocese.
rd:
That’s because it is
rd:
You haven’t read Clements letter have you.
rd:
That’s exacly what happened
Clement
- wrote to Corinth because their bishops were in sedition. He was asked to settle the matter. If any bishop could have done this then Corinth could have gone to any bishop much closer to Corinth. Truth is, no other bishop sat on the chair of Peter.
- Clement in his letter didn’t mention his rank
- Clement uses “we” when he writes to Corinth because he speaks for the Church
- He let them know in his letter that he expected them to stop their sedition immediately.
Corinth asked Clement for a solutuon, not advice. Clement told them to stop their sedition, and to get word back to him promptly that the sedition was over. He was NOT giving advice, it was a command
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
:tiphat:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Yeah, you know…submit. As in:
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.
Protestantism is not really well-suited for this, is it? If Luther and Calvin rebelled against the divinely-instituted leaders of their day, why should you submit to any “mere man” today?
Hence, new Protestant denominations are born almost every day, aren’t they?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
I was seeking a spelling clarification from the post prior…or did you not catch that?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
I have read the letter; I wonder why you would say that? It had been rather a civil tone…
First, I think we need to establish WHEN the letter was written. There are a range of dates most of which ignore the most obvious clue
Prior to the destruction of the Temple but after the death of Peter and Paul. Clement was not a Pope during this timeframe from your own accounts I believe. The above phrase is in the present tense.
For those still interested congregational polity once again
It is God that Clement states Corinth should be afraid of. I included the context because how the one passage is overused.
As far as the early church containing several bishops in one setting
From the Catholic encyclopedia
P
Philthy
Guest
Hi Rightly!
Just in case you “are not aware” of it, you never answered how local congregations handle doctrinal disputes. Instead, you basically said that despite some differences “undoubtedly” existing, apparently your congregation has no forum to discuss those differences. Given the crystal clear history of doctrinal dispute within Protestantism - the branch of Christianity that all “bible believing” congregations emanate from - might I politely suggest that perhaps you are burying your head in the sand?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I was pointing out that all of the early autonomous, independent, free-will, Bible-believing “churches” were in union with and in submission to Rome.
Did you not catch that?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Laurence Welborn writes about the dating of 1 Clement (op. cit., p. 1060):
Thus one must rely upon more general statements in the epistle and in tradition. The account of the deaths of Peter and Paul in chap. 5 is not that of an eye-witness. The presbyters installed by the apostles have died (44:2), and a second ecclesiastical generation has passed (44:3). The church at Rome is called “ancient” (47:6); and the emissaries from Rome are said to have lived “blamelessly” as Christians “from youth to old age” (63:3). Thus the epistle cannot have been written before the last decades of the 1st century. There are references to the letter by the middle of the next century in the works of Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3.16; 4.22; 4.23). Thus one may place the composition of 1 Clement between A.D. 80 and 140.
Loisy maintains that the author of 1 Clement was a distinguished Roman elder who flourished 130-140 and that this Clement was named in the Shepherd of Hermas (Vision, 8:3), which is also to be dated to the mid second century. Notably, a writing is mentioned in 1 Clement 23:3 in which the challenge is quoted, “These things we did hear in the days of our fathers also, and behold we have grown old, and none of these things hath befallen us.” Because this source document for 1 Clement must have been written when the hope of the imminent parousia was waning, and because 1 Clement itself must have dealt with the same issue, the document can scarcely be dated to the time of the first Christian generation. Other indications of lateness include the tradition in chapter 5 that Paul traveled to the extremities of the west (i.e., Spain) and the emphasis on the appointment of “bishops and deacons” (42:1-5). Most notably, there is stated to be “a rule of succession” for bishops and deacons who have “fallen asleep” (44:2). This suggests a second century date for 1 Clement.
Alvar Ellegård has argued for a date as early as the sixties of the first century for a few reasons in his Jesus: the Temple cult is mentioned in the present tense (pp. 38-39), Peter and Paul are mentioned as of “our generation” (pp. 39-40), and the letter seemed to have been written during a persecution, perhaps that of Nero (p. 40). On the other hand, as is pointed out with Hebrews, a mention of the Temple cult in the present does not prove that the author was writing before 70 CE. The reference to “our generation” is simply a contrast between the Christian era and the previously mentioned era of ancient Judaism. Finally, the supposed reference to persecution may be a literary device, as pointed out by Welborn. Besides, there were also persecutions under Domitian, Trajan, and other emperors.
The author writes because certain factions in Corinth have not given proper respect to the bishops and deacons and have set up new leaders in their place. On the occasion of the epistle, Welborn states (op. cit., p. 1059):
Whatever the causes of the conflict in Corinth, money seems to have been involved. Contrasting the former humility of the Corinthians with the ambition which has now given rise to strife, the author states that the Corinthians had once been ‘satisfied with the provision (ephodios) of Christ’ (2:1). Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to Soter, observed that it had been the custom of the Roman church from the beginning ‘to send contributions (ephodia) to many churchs in every city’ (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.23.10). From the Roman point of view of Clement, the younger generation of leaders at Corinth are dissatisfied with the provision for their church. What role did this play in the revolt against the presbyters? Were the established presbyters accused of embezzlement? Did the new leaders seek another contribution, to replace the funds their predecessors stole? Polycarp reports that the presbyter Valens was deposed from office for “avarice” (Ad Phil. 11). The unrest of the 1st and 2d centuries almost always had economic causes; and the agreements which brought strife to an end usually included concrete provisions which served the interests of all parties.
earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html
S
steve_b
Guest
Of course. No reason for Clement or anyone to be uncivil.
rd:
The date is most probably ~80 a.d. due to internal evidence. By this time he is the 3rd successor to Peter.
rd:
What Clement said was, It is God through US.
BTW, Clement uses “we and us” in his letter not because he is guilty in any way of what the Corinthians are doing, but because he is speaking for the Church.
rd:
I’m glad you provided the context.
1Clem 58:2
Receive our counsel, and ye shall have no occasion of regret. For as
God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit,
who are the faith and the hope of the elect, so surely shall he, who
with lowliness of mind and instant in gentleness hath without
regretfulness performed the ordinances and commandments that are
given by God, be enrolled and have a name among the number of them
that are saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is the glory unto
Him for ever and ever. Amen.
Catch that? What they are doing could jeoprodize their enrollment in those who are saved
1Clem 59:1
But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken
by Him through us, let them understand that they will entangle
themselves in no slight transgression and danger
I would also add
Ch 57
You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you should occupy a humble but honorable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope of His people.
[snip]
Ch 63
Right is it, therefore, to approach examples so good and so many, and submit the neck and fulfil the part of obedience, in order that, undisturbed by vain sedition, we may attain unto the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame. Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit, root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. We have sent men faithful and discreet, whose conversation from youth to old age has been blameless amongst us,—the same shall be witnesses between you and us. This we have done, that you may know that our whole concern has been and is that you may be speedily at peace.
Ch 65
Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you
J
JRKH
Guest
Yankee drifer’s latest responses are as follows:
James,
Let’s look at the book of Acts and the so-called Council of Jerusalem. It in no way resembled the General Councils of the RCC, either in its history, its constitution, or its object. It was not a convention of ordained delegates, but a meeting of the entire church of Jerusalem to receive a deputation from the church of Antioch. Even Paul and Barnabas seem to have had no vote in the decision, nor was their allegiance due in any way to James. It consisted not of the apostles alone, but of apostles, elders, and brethren. We know that Peter, Paul, John, Barnabas, and Titus were present, perhaps all the other apostles. James presided as the local bishop, and proposed the compromise which was adopted. The transactions were public, before the congregation, and the brethren took part in the deliberations. Although the discussion was sharp, the spirit of love prevailed over the pride of opinion. The apostles passed and framed the decree not without, but with the elders and with the whole church and sent the circular letter not in their own name only, but also in the name of “the brother elders” or “elder brethren” to “the brethren” of the congregations disturbed by the question of circumcision.
All of this clearly proves the right of Christians to take part in some way in the government of the church, as they do in the acts of worship. The spirit and practice of the apostles favored a certain kind of popular self-government, and the harmonious, fraternal co-operation of the different elements of the church. No distinction of clergy and laity is even remotely hinted at. All believers are called to the prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices in Christ. (1 Peter 2:9)
It was the Greek and Roman churches which gradually departed from the apostolic polity and excluded not only the laity, but also the lower clergy from all participation in the legislative councils. Paul himself refused to be tied down to particular patterns of behavior and practice. In 1 Cor 9:20-23. he does not engage in a dispute with those Corinthians who apparently feel quite free to eat anything offered to idols, never appealing or even mentioning the Jerusalem council.
James,
Let’s look at the book of Acts and the so-called Council of Jerusalem. It in no way resembled the General Councils of the RCC, either in its history, its constitution, or its object. It was not a convention of ordained delegates, but a meeting of the entire church of Jerusalem to receive a deputation from the church of Antioch. Even Paul and Barnabas seem to have had no vote in the decision, nor was their allegiance due in any way to James. It consisted not of the apostles alone, but of apostles, elders, and brethren. We know that Peter, Paul, John, Barnabas, and Titus were present, perhaps all the other apostles. James presided as the local bishop, and proposed the compromise which was adopted. The transactions were public, before the congregation, and the brethren took part in the deliberations. Although the discussion was sharp, the spirit of love prevailed over the pride of opinion. The apostles passed and framed the decree not without, but with the elders and with the whole church and sent the circular letter not in their own name only, but also in the name of “the brother elders” or “elder brethren” to “the brethren” of the congregations disturbed by the question of circumcision.
All of this clearly proves the right of Christians to take part in some way in the government of the church, as they do in the acts of worship. The spirit and practice of the apostles favored a certain kind of popular self-government, and the harmonious, fraternal co-operation of the different elements of the church. No distinction of clergy and laity is even remotely hinted at. All believers are called to the prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices in Christ. (1 Peter 2:9)
It was the Greek and Roman churches which gradually departed from the apostolic polity and excluded not only the laity, but also the lower clergy from all participation in the legislative councils. Paul himself refused to be tied down to particular patterns of behavior and practice. In 1 Cor 9:20-23. he does not engage in a dispute with those Corinthians who apparently feel quite free to eat anything offered to idols, never appealing or even mentioning the Jerusalem council.
J
JRKH
Guest
More From Yankee Drifter:
James,
In 1 Timothy 3:15 when Paul speaks of the church as the pillar and foundation of the truth, he does not mean the church is the source from which truth will come. Pillars and foundations are not sources. Rather, Paul is echoing the point made often in Scripture that Christ has entrusted the truth to the church and wants the church both to preserve that truth and to proclaim it. In his Great Commission (Mt 28:20; Eph 3:10) Jesus tells believers, the church, to go to every nation with the gospel and teach people to obey and preserve everything Jesus told us. John warns that anyone who adds anything to the Word of God, given us in the Bible by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, will lose his place in heaven (Re 22:18-19). All the churches down through history that have claimed the right to add to the Bible, not only have disregarded this warning, but they have added things that are contrary to what the Bible says, thus earning God’s double condemnation (2 Pe 2:1-2).
The local church is described in Galatians 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.
It is not even possible for the RCC to be the original Christian church. The apostles came to Rome rather late in the NT. There was a congregation in Rome, served by Paul and maybe later by Peter, but the RCC is vastly different concerning many core doctrines and dogmas. The errors of the RCC are similar to the errors made during the apostolic era by the opponents of the apostles, for example, in the Judaizers who opposed Paul in regard to the doctrine of justification by faith alone and in Diotrophes who opposed the apostle John by setting himself up as a “little pope”.
Let’s examine some of the doctrines of the RCC. Prayers to Mary and the saints is not scriptural. The Scriptures are very clear about why praying to anyone but the Triune God is wrong:
Prayer is worship (Mt 15:8-9), and we are to worship only God (1st Commandment);
Scripture urges us to pray to God (Phi. 4:6), but never tells us to pray to any human being, nor is there any example in Scripture of any believer praying to anyone but God.
We have only one mediator between God and us, namely, Jesus. (1 Ti 2:5).
Those who have died cannot communicate with us nor we with them (Is 63:16)
Scripture nowhere says that Mary was sinless, nor was she taken to heaven bodily. Mary has absolutely nothing to do with our salvation. She is not co-redeemer. Salvation is only found in Jesus.
Purgatory is not scriptural. Christ taught there are only 2 gates, 2 roads, 2 groups of people and 2 eternal destinies. The Bible says nothing about any sins being able to be forgiven in eternity. Once a person is in hell he stays there. Heb. 1:3 tells us that Jesus by Himself has effected man’s purgation from sin. So there is no purification after death.
The sacrifice of the Mass is not scriptural. The Bible tells us there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood. No more sacrifice is needed since Christ shed His blood on the Cross.
Only God can forgive sins, a priest cannot absolve us and Christ is the only Mediator between man and God. Look at Simon the sorcerer and his experience with Peter. Instead of hearing Simon’s confession and giving absolution, Peter sent Simon to the only One who can forgive sin: God.
The RCC teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation.
The Bible contains God’s eternal truths about salvation for mankind. It is the Holy Spirit that is the teaching authority of the church not the Pope or any anointed man. The Spirit was sent into the world to convince men of sin, righteousness and judgment. He is an infallible Person like Christ.
The church did not give us the Bible the apostles did, and they began the church that Jesus founded. The Bible can exist where there is no church building or assembly but the church cannot exist where there is no Bible.
The Holy Spirit is the source of Scripture and all spiritually reborn believers in Jesus Christ are given the indwelling Spirit to interpret what He wrote. What better guide and teacher can we have than the same One who inspired the apostles to write Scriptures. 2 Peter 1:21 tells us the Bible did not come to be by the will of men, but holy men spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
James,
In 1 Timothy 3:15 when Paul speaks of the church as the pillar and foundation of the truth, he does not mean the church is the source from which truth will come. Pillars and foundations are not sources. Rather, Paul is echoing the point made often in Scripture that Christ has entrusted the truth to the church and wants the church both to preserve that truth and to proclaim it. In his Great Commission (Mt 28:20; Eph 3:10) Jesus tells believers, the church, to go to every nation with the gospel and teach people to obey and preserve everything Jesus told us. John warns that anyone who adds anything to the Word of God, given us in the Bible by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, will lose his place in heaven (Re 22:18-19). All the churches down through history that have claimed the right to add to the Bible, not only have disregarded this warning, but they have added things that are contrary to what the Bible says, thus earning God’s double condemnation (2 Pe 2:1-2).
The local church is described in Galatians 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.
It is not even possible for the RCC to be the original Christian church. The apostles came to Rome rather late in the NT. There was a congregation in Rome, served by Paul and maybe later by Peter, but the RCC is vastly different concerning many core doctrines and dogmas. The errors of the RCC are similar to the errors made during the apostolic era by the opponents of the apostles, for example, in the Judaizers who opposed Paul in regard to the doctrine of justification by faith alone and in Diotrophes who opposed the apostle John by setting himself up as a “little pope”.
Let’s examine some of the doctrines of the RCC. Prayers to Mary and the saints is not scriptural. The Scriptures are very clear about why praying to anyone but the Triune God is wrong:
Prayer is worship (Mt 15:8-9), and we are to worship only God (1st Commandment);
Scripture urges us to pray to God (Phi. 4:6), but never tells us to pray to any human being, nor is there any example in Scripture of any believer praying to anyone but God.
We have only one mediator between God and us, namely, Jesus. (1 Ti 2:5).
Those who have died cannot communicate with us nor we with them (Is 63:16)
Scripture nowhere says that Mary was sinless, nor was she taken to heaven bodily. Mary has absolutely nothing to do with our salvation. She is not co-redeemer. Salvation is only found in Jesus.
Purgatory is not scriptural. Christ taught there are only 2 gates, 2 roads, 2 groups of people and 2 eternal destinies. The Bible says nothing about any sins being able to be forgiven in eternity. Once a person is in hell he stays there. Heb. 1:3 tells us that Jesus by Himself has effected man’s purgation from sin. So there is no purification after death.
The sacrifice of the Mass is not scriptural. The Bible tells us there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood. No more sacrifice is needed since Christ shed His blood on the Cross.
Only God can forgive sins, a priest cannot absolve us and Christ is the only Mediator between man and God. Look at Simon the sorcerer and his experience with Peter. Instead of hearing Simon’s confession and giving absolution, Peter sent Simon to the only One who can forgive sin: God.
The RCC teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation.
The Bible contains God’s eternal truths about salvation for mankind. It is the Holy Spirit that is the teaching authority of the church not the Pope or any anointed man. The Spirit was sent into the world to convince men of sin, righteousness and judgment. He is an infallible Person like Christ.
The church did not give us the Bible the apostles did, and they began the church that Jesus founded. The Bible can exist where there is no church building or assembly but the church cannot exist where there is no Bible.
The Holy Spirit is the source of Scripture and all spiritually reborn believers in Jesus Christ are given the indwelling Spirit to interpret what He wrote. What better guide and teacher can we have than the same One who inspired the apostles to write Scriptures. 2 Peter 1:21 tells us the Bible did not come to be by the will of men, but holy men spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
O
Odell
Guest
sorry for the spelling. Randy gave you a verse I was going to follow up on. Who’s do you submit to? We see in Heb the church had those in authority that people submit to. You wanted to know how the early Church looked it was authoritative!
- Status