Were the NT churches independent or One?

[JRKH]

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.

It’s interesting that you wish to keep taking the council apart and telling me what it wasn’t instead of looking at the fact of it and what it WAS. What it WAS was a council convened to settle a doctrinal matter that effected the entire church.
I am not concerned about who participated in the council, or how the council was conducted. Nor do I see any point in addressing your accusation that the catholic church has “cut out” the laity and lower clergy from decision making. Such accusations only demonstrate your lack of true understanding of the Catholic Church.

I have asked Rightly Divide to consider how “Brother Churches” today would handle a similar situation where members from one protestant church came to another and began “causing dissention and controversy” among the bretheren. In Acts 15 these brother churches went into council to settle the matter and maintain unity. What would your fundementalist church do in a similar situation?
What has been the record of the Protestant Churches in the last 500 years?
When was the last council among the Independent Churches held to settle doctrinal matters so as to maintain unity?

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)

Fine and dandy. Still, only One Church though.

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.

Rightly Divide has mentioned this as well. I have promised him to look into this. Perhaps tomorrow.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

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.

YAY - Well said. That is exactly the mission of The Church. But how dos the church preserve and protect and proclaim the Truth when one group says you have to be circumsized and another says you don’t? Or one Group says Jesus didn’t really suffer on the Cross and another group says he did? Or - Bringing it up to today, One Group says the Eucharist is the True and Real presence of Christ and another group says it is not?

The answer to this is by organization. Organization with authority to examine and determine which of the conflicting and competing doctrines are correct. Organization made up of the very persons charged with the welfare of the flock (bishops).
Thus it is that The Body of Christ, The Church, made up of believers, has structure and organization to perform the very tasks which you point out in you rpost.

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).

I wondered how long it would take for this one come up.

1. The verse does not say Bible - It does not even say Scripture. It says This Book. The Bible is compised of many books.
2. You once again display your ignorance of The Church by your comment about churches “adding to the Bible”, well how about churches who “take away”.
3. The bible, as assembled and approved in 400 AD, contained 72 books. This canon was reaffirmed 7 times by seven councils ALL before the reformation. This was the same Bible handed to Martin Luther as a priest. It was after he who determined, without council, to change the canon by removing books from the OT. In fact Martin Luther had no use for the book of Revelation and wanted to remove it as well a James, Jude, hebrews and several other NT books.
   Your use of Revelation in this case is clearly unsupportable and if it proves anything it proves that the protestant bible is deficient.

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.

And St Paul wrote the same teachings to every one of the Local communities. Doesn’t sound all that independent to me. At least not in the sense that Protestants see independance today.

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. …

(Snipped for space)

Throwing out a plethora of teachings that you dispute does not demonstrate anything other than the need for an Authoritative Church{/u] to sort through them all and determine which is correct and which is not.
I have seen these doctrines debated back and forth here on these boards time and time again. I am sure you could do a search on each and discover many good threads expressing all of the points for and against each one. But such debate does not settle the issue for the entire church. Even if one of the debators is convinced by the other to convert it settles nothing for the rest of Christ’s body.

I am tired - Good night

Peace
James

 

[Rightlydivide]

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?

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

 

[Rightlydivide]

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?

I know that is your contention based upon an inaccurate interpretation of the existing information (ie Clement, Igatius, and so forth). There is no submission to Rome in the NT. There is no submission in Clement. There is no submission in Ignatius.

 

[Rightlydivide]

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!

No problem at all. I would not have mentioned it again but the response to me seemed to make it neccessary. Of course people submitted to people and I gave my response as well. We have a chain of command as well as I pointed out.

 

[Odell]

No problem at all. I would not have mentioned it again but the response to me seemed to make it necessary. Of course people submitted to people and I gave my response as well. We have a chain of command as well as I pointed out.

well you can definitely see the early Church was authoritive. The problem is what Church still is? Also let’s assume a problem did come up in a bible study. Would you have the authority your pastor your congregation? Someone has to be the one to say no this is how it is. If not there really would be no way to know what the truth really is. You can just hope that hopefully your interpretation is correct. So. With your chain of command is it safe to bet someone has the final authority in your Church maybe the pasture?

 

[JRKH]

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

My proposal earlier was not intended to back you into a corner and I understand that you have no “forum to discuss any differences”. In fact I think that this is well stated and directly to the point I was trying to make.

In protestantism, from the earliest times when Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and and others broke from the Church there has been little unity among the so-called reformers. These “independent churches” founded by these folks NEVER developed the kind of interaction, common doctrines, and desire for humble unity that the Early Church exhibited.
That is why I phrased the proposal as I did. To demonstrate that If one Protestant/Reformed Church (Lutheren) tried to tell another Protestant/Reformed Church (fundementalist) that they must accept this or that teaching in order to be saved, there is no “forum” for resolving the issue. A forum that was clearly demonstrated in Acts 15, and was described by Christ in Mt 18:15-18. A forum that was retained and developed by the Church from the beginning for the purpose of protecting and teaching the Truth of the Gospel universally.

Again, I will readily grant that the church structure in NT times was much more flat, and that far less doctrine was defined. The Churches just by the nature of the times and conditions exersized greater latitude than they do today. This is not because they were less “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic”, and more because they were just getting started, Jesus had left no “Business Plan”, no one knew when Jesus would be back, and I doubt that any of the Apostles had any “Corporate business” experience.

Church councils, and synods and so forth held together the Church and defeated heresy many times in the forst 1500 years. Even the one regrettable split between East and West didn’t produce greatly divergent views on Doctrinal matters.
Yet in the last 500 years, those churches that have rejected this authority, in fact have demonized this authority, have simply formed and reformed, and split and splintered until there are quitel litteraly hundreds of different and conflicing doctrines and beliefs.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Church, has continued to use the councilior system to address changing times and issues, and to develop doctrinal teaching and applied these teachings throughout the Universal Church.

I’m sorry that I seem to be rambling a bit here, but I must admit to the fact that I have seen many many doctrinal issues debated back and forth on these forums, each side clearly stating their position from Scripture (just like the Judaizers), and each side just as adament that they are right and the other is wrong.

**I simply cannot help but see in these debates the real proof of the need for an authoritative Church to settle such debates for the Church as a whole. **

NOW - if the Western, Post reformation, NCC Churches ever developed such a “Church” structure with authority to settle matters of Doctrinal dispute among the “Independent Churches”, and so maintian unity, THEN I’d say they were on a sound NT footing. Unfortunately, I’m afraid their fear of authority and their pride would not allow for such a structure. Thus they are utterly unable to obey Christ’s command to “Tell it to The Church” (Mt 18:15-18) or to answer Christs call that we be One as He and the Father are One.

Peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

I know that is your contention based upon an inaccurate interpretation of the existing information (ie Clement, Igatius, and so forth). There is no submission to Rome in the NT.

Well…duh.

There is no submission in Clement. There is no submission in Ignatius.

Heh. Right. The Fathers knew nothing of the Primacy of Peter, of Peter’s Roman Residency, of Peter’s Successors.

However, to say there is no “submission in Clement” is completely false. The Corinthians were expected to submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, Clement, and they did.

Further, no independent, Bible-believing congregation from East Pinochle came running over to tell the Corinthians that Rome had no jurisdiction. There was no outry at all. NO ONE questioned Clement’s authority over Corinth. No one questioned WHY Corinth appealed to Clement even though the Apostle John was still alive at the time!!!

Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians was even read in many of the the churches AS SCRIPTURE for many years before it was finally excluded from the Canon by the Church councils.

Gee, there’s a thought…some of these independent churches were completely wrong on this, weren’t they, RightlyDivide? They had books which they believed to be the inspired Word of God that were not canonized.

Wow. What does that say about the teaching authority of independent congregations?

That it is inferior to the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church as a whole?

Say yes. And nothing has changed.

Your model of Church government is a novelty based upon a misinterpretation of scripture, and it is a relatively modern one at that.

Sigh.

Wouldn’t it be great if all the “Bible Christians” who earnestly desire to get back to the basics of Christianity understood that THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS, the ones they desire to imitate, WERE CATHOLICS?

Say yes.

 

[Rightlydivide]

well you can definitely see the early Church was authoritive. The problem is what Church still is? Also let’s assume a problem did come up in a bible study. Would you have the authority your pastor your congregation? Someone has to be the one to say no this is how it is. If not there really would be no way to know what the truth really is. You can just hope that hopefully your interpretation is correct. So. With your chain of command is it safe to bet someone has the final authority in your Church maybe the pasture?

You can find people to be authoratative in doctrinal matters; there is no shortage of that. That people claim authority, does not mean they actually possess it outside of their church.

 

[Rightlydivide]

My proposal earlier was not intended to back you into a corner and I understand that you have no “forum to discuss any differences”. In fact I think that this is well stated and directly to the point I was trying to make.

In protestantism, from the earliest times when Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and and others broke from the Church there has been little unity among the so-called reformers. These “independent churches” founded by these folks NEVER developed the kind of interaction, common doctrines, and desire for humble unity that the Early Church exhibited.
That is why I phrased the proposal as I did. To demonstrate that If one Protestant/Reformed Church (Lutheren) tried to tell another Protestant/Reformed Church (fundementalist) that they must accept this or that teaching in order to be saved, there is no “forum” for resolving the issue. A forum that was clearly demonstrated in Acts 15, and was described by Christ in Mt 18:15-18. A forum that was retained and developed by the Church from the beginning for the purpose of protecting and teaching the Truth of the Gospel universally.

Again, I will readily grant that the church structure in NT times was much more flat, and that far less doctrine was defined. The Churches just by the nature of the times and conditions exersized greater latitude than they do today. This is not because they were less “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic”, and more because they were just getting started, Jesus had left no “Business Plan”, no one knew when Jesus would be back, and I doubt that any of the Apostles had any “Corporate business” experience.

Church councils, and synods and so forth held together the Church and defeated heresy many times in the forst 1500 years. Even the one regrettable split between East and West didn’t produce greatly divergent views on Doctrinal matters.
Yet in the last 500 years, those churches that have rejected this authority, in fact have demonized this authority, have simply formed and reformed, and split and splintered until there are quitel litteraly hundreds of different and conflicing doctrines and beliefs.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Church, has continued to use the councilior system to address changing times and issues, and to develop doctrinal teaching and applied these teachings throughout the Universal Church.

I’m sorry that I seem to be rambling a bit here, but I must admit to the fact that I have seen many many doctrinal issues debated back and forth on these forums, each side clearly stating their position from Scripture (just like the Judaizers), and each side just as adament that they are right and the other is wrong.

**I simply cannot help but see in these debates the real proof of the need for an authoritative Church to settle such debates for the Church as a whole. **

NOW - if the Western, Post reformation, NCC Churches ever developed such a “Church” structure with authority to settle matters of Doctrinal dispute among the “Independent Churches”, and so maintian unity, THEN I’d say they were on a sound NT footing. Unfortunately, I’m afraid their fear of authority and their pride would not allow for such a structure. Thus they are utterly unable to obey Christ’s command to “Tell it to The Church” (Mt 18:15-18) or to answer Christs call that we be One as He and the Father are One.

Peace
James

I disagree that they would be on solid NT footing though. They do tell it to the church. Look at the context of the quote you used,

Tell me what group looks more like this?

This is the background of the question. Look at the scenario it is applied.

If your brother **sins, **go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.

Mat 18:16 "But if he does not listen {to you,} take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
Mat 18:17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Mat 18:18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
Mat 18:19 "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.
Mat 18:20 “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

 

[JRKH]

(Snip)

Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians was even read in many of the the churches AS SCRIPTURE for many years before it was finally excluded from the Canon by the Church councils.

Gee, there’s a thought…some of these independent churches were completely wrong on this, weren’t they, RightlyDivide? They had books which they believed to be the inspired Word of God that were not canonized.

Wow. What does that say about the teaching authority of independent congregations?

(Snip)

This is a good point. There were church communities who used the Sheperd of Hermas, and the protoevangelical of James while rejecting Revelation.

Peace
James

 

[Rightlydivide]

Well…duh.

Heh. Right. The Fathers knew nothing of the Primacy of Peter, of Peter’s Roman Residency, of Peter’s Successors.

However, to say there is no “submission in Clement” is completely false. The Corinthians were expected to submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, Clement, and they did.

Further, no independent, Bible-believing congregation from East Pinochle came running over to tell the Corinthians that Rome had no jurisdiction. There was no outry at all. NO ONE questioned Clement’s authority over Corinth. No one questioned WHY Corinth appealed to Clement even though the Apostle John was still alive at the time!!!

Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians was even read in many of the the churches AS SCRIPTURE for many years before it was finally excluded from the Canon by the Church councils.

Gee, there’s a thought…some of these independent churches were completely wrong on this, weren’t they, RightlyDivide? They had books which they believed to be the inspired Word of God that were not canonized.

Wow. What does that say about the teaching authority of independent congregations?

That it is inferior to the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church as a whole?

Say yes. And nothing has changed.

Your model of Church government is a novelty based upon a misinterpretation of scripture, and it is a relatively modern one at that.

Sigh.

Wouldn’t it be great if all the “Bible Christians” who earnestly desire to get back to the basics of Christianity understood that THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS, the ones they desire to imitate, WERE CATHOLICS?

Say yes.

Clements letter is best read has authoratative preaching or teaching. It is not something familiar to Catholic priests in a homily or former mainline Protestants. That is just not their style for the most part. What Clement states is something that occurs in pulpits millions of times a Sunday in certain congregations.

Examples: Thus says the Lord. If you ignore my sermon about the reality of being saved you are in danger of hell. If you don’t listen to me about sexual immorality etc etc

 

[Randy_Carson]

Clements letter is best read has authoratative preaching or teaching.

Of course it is…if you a member of a “Small church that follows the Bible”.

That way, you can listen to the preaching and then go to Cracker Barrel for a good lunch and forget about it like you do most of your pastor’s sermons.

However, if you want to be a member of “the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church built by Jesus Christ Himself upon Peter the Rock which WROTE the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit”, well, then, Clement’s letter takes on a whole new meaning.

Your call.

 

[JRKH]

I disagree that they would be on solid NT footing though. They do tell it to the church. Look at the context of the quote you used,

Tell me what group looks more like this?

This is the background of the question. Look at the scenario it is applied.

If your brother **sins, **go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.

I have looked at the context of the quote.
Is it your contention that Preaching a “Different Gospel” is not a sin?? Or that when disagreements over doctrine or interpretation become divisive that such is not a Sin??

I assume that you, as a Fundementalist Bible Believing Christian, would contend that anyone who preaches a “Different Gospel” is sinning so obviously the passage applies to doctrinal issues.

Just as obviously we see in Acts 15 an example of the application of this passage as it pertains to doctrinal issues. The Brothers came up from Jerusalem and began to teach that which caused controversy between themselves and the Church at Antioch. Such teaching passed through steps one and two quickly and even St Paul could find no solution at the Local level. Thus it was that the Church at Antioch sent Paul and others to Jerusalem to get a clear determination from the Apostles meeting in Jerusalem.
Once the determination was made and the letter sent back, it was recieved with joy. No mention is made of any dissention by the Judaizers who stirred up the trouble, so it appears that they accepted the determination by the Church in Jerusalem even though it went against their position.

Your underlining of verses 19 and 20 in no way change the varacity of the Church’s authority. If these verses consituted a definition of Church for the purpose of authority, then Christ’s command to tell it to the Church would be fulfilled in verse 16 where two or three witnesses are brought into the discussion and there is no need for verse 17. But you’ll note that Christ DID include verse 17 and the admonision to Tell it To The Church.

The Church from that time forward has used councils and synods and letters to comminicate across the church common beliefs reached by common consent in council. These councils/synods might be local, or regional or universal but they all have the common goal of maintaining the Truth of the Gospel, and the revelation of Christ and to preach that Truth with a single unified voice.

So - in short, yes I know which group looks more like this. That is why I am a member of that group.

Peace
James

 

[steve_b]

I know that is your contention based upon an inaccurate interpretation of the existing information (ie Clement, Igatius, and so forth). There is no submission to Rome in the NT. There is no submission in Clement. There is no submission in Ignatius.

Taking your points in order

• Re: Rome, Catholics use Rome often times as a short hand to mean the chair of Peter. It’s not the city but Peter.
• Re: Clement, In the NT, we are not just talking about what is written in scripture alone. Clement is already 3rd successor to Peter DURING apostolic times. John is still alive either on Patmos or in Ephesus. Either way John is closer in proximity to Corinth than Clement was in Rome. John hasn’t yet written the book of Revelation at the time Clement is asked to settle sedition in Corinth. And the Corinthians DID submit to Clement, as you can see from my response to you. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5784602&postcount=36
• Re: Ignatius, he writes 6 letters to the Church in 6 locations. Only to the Church of Rome does he say holds the presidency. Only to Rome does he ask for their watchful regard over his see when he has died.(letter to the Romans ch 8)

 

[Odell]

You can find people to be authoratative in doctrinal matters; there is no shortage of that. That people claim authority, does not mean they actually possess it outside of their church.

who has authority in your Church? And if christ founded a church that is one and that should not disagree on docternal matter why wouldn’t there be one authority for thw whole Church?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Of course it is…if you a member of a “Small church that follows the Bible”.

That way, you can listen to the preaching and then go to Cracker Barrel for a good lunch and forget about it like you do most of your pastor’s sermons.

However, if you want to be a member of “the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church built by Jesus Christ Himself upon Peter the Rock which WROTE the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit”, well, then, Clement’s letter takes on a whole new meaning.

Your call.

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

Now, in terms of content, yes, the group you are put of influences interpretation. I wish we could get an impartial look at it but I do not see that happening. I do think that the content is found in pulpits around the country. Its strong but not even THAT strongly worded.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I have looked at the context of the quote.
Is it your contention that Preaching a “Different Gospel” is not a sin?? Or that when disagreements over doctrine or interpretation become divisive that such is not a Sin??

I assume that you, as a Fundementalist Bible Believing Christian, would contend that anyone who preaches a “Different Gospel” is sinning so obviously the passage applies to doctrinal issues.

Just as obviously we see in Acts 15 an example of the application of this passage as it pertains to doctrinal issues. The Brothers came up from Jerusalem and began to teach that which caused controversy between themselves and the Church at Antioch. Such teaching passed through steps one and two quickly and even St Paul could find no solution at the Local level. Thus it was that the Church at Antioch sent Paul and others to Jerusalem to get a clear determination from the Apostles meeting in Jerusalem.
Once the determination was made and the letter sent back, it was recieved with joy. No mention is made of any dissention by the Judaizers who stirred up the trouble, so it appears that they accepted the determination by the Church in Jerusalem even though it went against their position.

Your underlining of verses 19 and 20 in no way change the varacity of the Church’s authority. If these verses consituted a definition of Church for the purpose of authority, then Christ’s command to tell it to the Church would be fulfilled in verse 16 where two or three witnesses are brought into the discussion and there is no need for verse 17. But you’ll note that Christ DID include verse 17 and the admonision to Tell it To The Church.

The Church from that time forward has used councils and synods and letters to comminicate across the church common beliefs reached by common consent in council. These councils/synods might be local, or regional or universal but they all have the common goal of maintaining the Truth of the Gospel, and the revelation of Christ and to preach that Truth with a single unified voice.

So - in short, yes I know which group looks more like this. That is why I am a member of that group.

Peace
James

I have looked enough into early history and I think you will be hard pressed to come up with historical proof of a council for an entire one hundred years after this local church meeting that fits the pattern you are used to. One hundred years is an awful long time. I am aware that we have proof of them a full 200 years later on a pretty regular basis.

 

[Rightlydivide]

who has authority in your Church? And if christ founded a church that is one and that should not disagree on docternal matter why wouldn’t there be one authority for thw whole Church?

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

The central authority is a system that could possibly lead to doctrinal abuses where leaders changed or added to apostolic teaching. For example, it could give the church the authority to invent things that never even occured…and make people think the church possesses authority it does not have. It could also lead to corruption. Hypothetically speaking…

 

[Rightlydivide]

Taking your points in order

• Re: Rome, Catholics use Rome often times as a short hand to mean the chair of Peter. It’s not the city but Peter.
• Re: Clement, In the NT, we are not just talking about what is written in scripture alone. Clement is already 3rd successor to Peter DURING apostolic times. John is still alive either on Patmos or in Ephesus. Either way John is closer in proximity to Corinth than Clement was in Rome. John hasn’t yet written the book of Revelation at the time Clement is asked to settle sedition in Corinth. And the Corinthians DID submit to Clement, as you can see from my response to you. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5784602&postcount=36
• Re: Ignatius, he writes 6 letters to the Church in 6 locations. Only to the Church of Rome does he say holds the presidency. Only to Rome does he ask for their watchful regard over his see when he has died.(letter to the Romans ch 8)

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