Were the NT churches independent or One?

[yankee_drifter]

James,

The point I was making in my previous post to you is that the Jews were giving the Oracles of God, but neither the Jews nor God claimed they (the Jews) were infallible. On the contrary, the RCC claims infallibility when the pope speaks ex cathedra. Very big difference here.

The problem with tradition is that its a body of undefined teaching; the contents and limits of this teaching are not available for inspection or study. This is in contrast to the Holy Scriptures, which anyone can read and examine for himself. If I claim that a particular teaching is biblical, you can verify or refute my claim by checking out the Bible.

But when the RCC magisterium claims that such doctrines as the papal supremacy, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are found in Tradition, no one can prove or disprove that claim. Can you? Here’s one reference:

“The Council of Trent clearly perceives that this truth and rule are contained in the written books and unwritten traditions which have come down to us, having been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the apostles by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and have been transmitted as it were from hand to hand.”

Notice, first of all that traditions are “unwritten”. You cannot go to a library and read them for yourself. (By the way, the writings of the church Fathers are NOT Tradition; they are called “witnesses” to Tradition, and very ‘fallible’ witnesses, for the Fathers often make mistakes and contradict one another and the teaching of the modern church). So where can you go to discover the contents of tradition?

Since we know the truth is the Gospel message recorded infallibly in the Holy Scriptures, then one can check out whether the Roman magisterium is faithfully teaching God’s message. We don’t need the guidance of tradition to help us figure out the truth.

Contrary to the Catholic assertion that the church is infallible, the Bible teaches that the church is subject to many moral and theological errors. Just read Paul’s letters. Christian pastors have no illusions about infallibility. They submit to the teaching of the Bible. Nor do these pastors expect the congregants to blindly believe everything they preach.

Yes, Christ gave the keys to Peter and the apostles and also to the Christians in church today.

How is the Koran and the BOM self authenticating?? They contradict the Holy Scriptures. Anything that comes after what God has revealed in His word, the Scripture, must be judged by the Scriptures, not the other way around. What contradicts Scripture must be rejected.

Again you have not answered my questions, neither have you provided any concrete evidence to substantiate your statements. Instead, you turn around and ask me more questions.

 

[Rightlydivide]

It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12). Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*

This was the main part I took exception with. There was nothing in the context to suggest this. I do not think what you wrote and what Mr. Bonocore wrote are saying the same thing. This is what you said:

Uh, no…James is not the leader of the sect of Pharisees, James was an Apostle and the leader of the Church in Jerusalem which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots.

Now back to the content for perhaps the final time and people will decide for themselves. This is what Peter said

Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as [he did] unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

James:

Men [and] brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day

James solves it and gives the specific information. What he tells them to write is NOTHING that Peter said. They do not write down what Peter says but what James said.

But ultimately people will read and decide.

 

[wisdomseeker]

ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/zfathnoncaths.HTM

reading the Church Fathers not just for Catholics.

 

[Odell]

James you say no one is granted ifailibility but must submit to the authority of the bible. May is ask you then when christians heard the apostles speak where there words just as authoritative as what they wrote?

James,

The point I was making in my previous post to you is that the Jews were giving the Oracles of God, but neither the Jews nor God claimed they (the Jews) were infallible. On the contrary, the RCC claims infallibility when the pope speaks ex cathedra. Very big difference here.

The problem with tradition is that its a body of undefined teaching; the contents and limits of this teaching are not available for inspection or study. This is in contrast to the Holy Scriptures, which anyone can read and examine for himself. If I claim that a particular teaching is biblical, you can verify or refute my claim by checking out the Bible.

But when the RCC magisterium claims that such doctrines as the papal supremacy, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are found in Tradition, no one can prove or disprove that claim. Can you? Here’s one reference:

“The Council of Trent clearly perceives that this truth and rule are contained in the written books and unwritten traditions which have come down to us, having been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the apostles by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and have been transmitted as it were from hand to hand.”

Notice, first of all that traditions are “unwritten”. You cannot go to a library and read them for yourself. (By the way, the writings of the church Fathers are NOT Tradition; they are called “witnesses” to Tradition, and very ‘fallible’ witnesses, for the Fathers often make mistakes and contradict one another and the teaching of the modern church). So where can you go to discover the contents of tradition?

Since we know the truth is the Gospel message recorded infallibly in the Holy Scriptures, then one can check out whether the Roman magisterium is faithfully teaching God’s message. We don’t need the guidance of tradition to help us figure out the truth.

Contrary to the Catholic assertion that the church is infallible, the Bible teaches that the church is subject to many moral and theological errors. Just read Paul’s letters. Christian pastors have no illusions about infallibility. They submit to the teaching of the Bible. Nor do these pastors expect the congregants to blindly believe everything they preach.

Yes, Christ gave the keys to Peter and the apostles and also to the Christians in church today.

How is the Koran and the BOM self authenticating?? They contradict the Holy Scriptures. Anything that comes after what God has revealed in His word, the Scripture, must be judged by the Scriptures, not the other way around. What contradicts Scripture must be rejected.

Again you have not answered my questions, neither have you provided any concrete evidence to substantiate your statements. Instead, you turn around and ask me more questions.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Since we know the truth is the Gospel message recorded infallibly in the Holy Scriptures, then one can check out whether the Roman magisterium is faithfully teaching God’s message. We don’t need the guidance of tradition to help us figure out the truth.

Oh?

Baptism of infants: is this biblical or not?

Contrary to the Catholic assertion that the church is infallible, the Bible teaches that the church is subject to many moral and theological errors.

Prove it.

The Bible does not teach that the entire Church is subject to formal theological errors in a single verse. Individuals or local congregations may drift into error perhaps, but not the Church as a whole.

Just read Paul’s letters. Christian pastors have no illusions about infallibility. They submit to the teaching of the Bible. Nor do these pastors expect the congregants to blindly believe everything they preach.

Catholics do not blindly accept everything we hear from the albo, either. However, we have a single unified source of definitive teach against which we may compare anything that we have heard. You don’t.

Yes, Christ gave the keys to Peter and the apostles and also to the Christians in church today.

Prove it.

Show me the verse in which Jesus specifically tells the other Apostles that He will give them the keys that He previously promised to Peter alone. You cannot.

Show me the verse in which Jesus specifically tells all Christians that He will give them the keys that He previously promised to Peter alone. You cannot.

How is the Koran and the BOM self authenticating?? They contradict the Holy Scriptures. Anything that comes after what God has revealed in His word, the Scripture, must be judged by the Scriptures, not the other way around. What contradicts Scripture must be rejected.

I can’t argue with most of that, but your first line suggests taht you are confused about what self-authenticating means. The term simply means that these books declare themselves to be the Word of God. They proclaim their own authenticity.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This was the main part I took exception with. There was nothing in the context to suggest this. I do not think what you wrote and what Mr. Bonocore wrote are saying the same thing.

Sigh.

Rightly, Mr. Bonocore and I are saying the same thing, but I apologize if I have been less clear than I should have been. I’ll try it this way:

James was an Apostles and the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. As such, he was the leader of those Jewish believers who believed that Gentile converts should be circumcised as well as those believers in Jerusalem who did not believe this.

An analogy may help: President Obama is the leader of the United States which includes Democrats, Republicans, Independents and so on. He is the leader of all Americans. Of course, Obama may not agree with all of them and vice-versa; nonetheless, he is the legitimate leader. Now, the Republicans may have a leader of their own party internally, and Obama does not hold that position or function in that capacity; however, the existence of the Republican party leader does not diminish the overall leadership of the President of the United States.

Now, I can contact Mr. Bonocore for clarification if you like, but my point would be this: If Mr. Bonocore holds that James was the leader of the Judaizers in the sense that he shared their views on circumcision, fine. This strengthens my case that James spoke for that group when he rose at the Council of Jerusalem. If Mr. Bonocore holds that James did not agree with some of his flock in Jerusalem, that is fine, also. When he rose, he did so as a pastor of that flock seeking to heal the division within his own congregation and within the Body of Christ at large.

Peter’s authority as head of the universal Church is not abrogated either way. James had accepted Peter’s decision regarding the circumcision of the Gentiles, and He told those of the circumcision group this in no uncertain terms.

James solves it and gives the specific information. What he tells them to write is NOTHING that Peter said. They do not write down what Peter says but what James said.

Interesting twist.

The letter told the Gentiles what was expected of them. Since Peter had declared that the Church did not expect Gentiles to be circumcised, this was not included. Why? Well, rather than produce an infinitely long list of what the Gentiles did not have to do in order to be saved (you do not have to be circumcised, you do not have to stand on your head on Wednesdays, you do not have to nail a dead fish over your fireplace, etc.), the directive from the Church specified those few things which were required.

 

[Odell]

My last post was adressed to yankee. Not james sorry

 

[JRKH]

James,
The point I was making in my previous post to you is that the Jews were giving the Oracles of God, but neither the Jews nor God claimed they (the Jews) were infallible. On the contrary, the RCC claims infallibility when the pope speaks ex cathedra. Very big difference here.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Jews are not infallible, and Catholics are not infallible. The Jewish Faith Tradition WAS infallible as it was revealed to them by God over the centuries. Catholic faith Traditions are infallible as they are the revealed Truth from God to us through His Church. Do you see the difference?

Jesus declared that the Jews were to Follow the teachings of the Pharisees because the sat on the seat of Moses. (Mt 25:2-3). We both Know how Jesus felt about the quality of the teaching, and yet He told His disciples to obey them.

The problem with tradition is that its a body of undefined teaching; the contents and limits of this teaching are not available for inspection or study. This is in contrast to the Holy Scriptures, which anyone can read and examine for himself. If I claim that a particular teaching is biblical, you can verify or refute my claim by checking out the Bible.

You are partly right here. Tradition is not necessarily written down. But then some of it is. The Bible canon itself is part of Sacred Tradition.

But when the RCC magisterium claims that such doctrines as the papal supremacy, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are found in Tradition, no one can prove or disprove that claim. Can you?

The acceptance of such things are called “Faith” and they are based on many different aspects of Scripture and tradition, Logic and Reason. However I am not well versed enough to tackle each of these, I/We have already given you scriptural proofs for papal supremecy which you have rejected.

Here’s one reference:
“The Council of Trent clearly perceives that this truth and rule are contained in the written books and unwritten traditions which have come down to us, having been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the apostles by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and have been transmitted as it were from hand to hand.”

Notice, first of all that traditions are “unwritten”. You cannot go to a library and read them for yourself. (By the way, the writings of the church Fathers are NOT Tradition; they are called “witnesses” to Tradition, and very ‘fallible’ witnesses, for the Fathers often make mistakes and contradict one another and the teaching of the modern church). So where can you go to discover the contents of tradition?

I do not find it necesary to discover this personally. Perhaps others can point you to some sources. I find it quite sufficient to obey Christ’s command to obey His Church, to Live a good life in His grace and to Love God and my Neighbor as myself.
As to the errors of the church fathers, it is of great benefit to me that I have the good offices of Holy Mother Church to discern which is True and which is error.

Since we know the truth is the Gospel message recorded infallibly in the Holy Scriptures, then one can check out whether the Roman magisterium is faithfully teaching God’s message. We don’t need the guidance of tradition to help us figure out the truth.

How do we know this?
I’m not saying the Bible is not infallible but I want to know how we KNOW it is infallible?

Contrary to the Catholic assertion that the church is infallible, the Bible teaches that the church is subject to many moral and theological errors. Just read Paul’s letters. Christian pastors have no illusions about infallibility. They submit to the teaching of the Bible. Nor do these pastors expect the congregants to blindly believe everything they preach.

By your definition of Church (body of true believers with no structure or visible authority) you are exactly correct. Such a church is prone to all sorts of errors.
However, our usage of the term Church seperates the errors of the individuals from the inerrancy of the Church’s official teaching. Therefore we can easily say that the Church’s teachings are infallible even while recognizing that individual church members are highly fallible.
Yes Christian pastors should indeed have no illusions about infallibility considering how much arguing there is among even Protestants about what Scripture actually says.

Yes, Christ gave the keys to Peter and the apostles and also to the Christians in church today.

Chapter and verse please.

How is the Koran and the BOM self authenticating?? They contradict the Holy Scriptures. Anything that comes after what God has revealed in His word, the Scripture, must be judged by the Scriptures, not the other way around. What contradicts Scripture must be rejected.

Randy already clarified this. The Koran says taht ti is the word of God. The BOM says that it is the Word of God. The Bible says that it is the word of God.
Self authentification is insufficiant to prove the Truth of the claim.

Again you have not answered my questions, neither have you provided any concrete evidence to substantiate your statements. Instead, you turn around and ask me more questions.

We started out (I think) with a discussion about Church authority and then whether the Early Churches were One Church or many. I have provided my answers to those questions. You have rejected those answers. I have given it my best shot. You have given it your best shot.

I proposed that we obey the Command of Christ in Mt 18:15-18 to “Tell it To The Church” and asked how we should proceed.
You responded to that by not responding to that.

We can discuss and debate all of these different issues here, but all these debates affirm is the necessity of a Visible, Authoritaive Church to settle such issues.

That is my bottom line. It is why I am Catholic. Everything I researched pointed me back to this one fact. Without an Authoritative Church, chaos rules.

Honestly - I tire. Between taking care of my wife, our house and other responsibilities I just don’t have the time or energy to research and respond adequately to your broadsides. I accept that you are a sincere christian. I am sorry that you are so misinformed about the Catholic Church. I hope that others here can help you with those questions that I cannot answer for you. I pray that God will Keep you and that we can meet in heaven someday.

Peace
James

 

[Rightlydivide]

Sigh.

Peter’s authority as head of the universal Church is not abrogated either way. James had accepted Peter’s decision regarding the circumcision of the Gentiles, and He told those of the circumcision group this in no uncertain terms.

Interesting twist.

The letter told the Gentiles what was expected of them. Since Peter had declared that the Church did not expect Gentiles to be circumcised, this was not included. Why? Well, rather than produce an infinitely long list of what the Gentiles did not have to do in order to be saved (you do not have to be circumcised, you do not have to stand on your head on Wednesdays, you do not have to nail a dead fish over your fireplace, etc.), the directive from the Church specified those few things which were required.

I do not think that Peter is the head of the universal church. But I do not believe I stated that it abrogates it either way. I am not directly discussing that but instead sticking to the text itself. What I am arguing is that James ran that meeting. He was the final decision maker and not Peter.

Back to the decision itself, no one states those items accept James and those are what the churches received. There is nothing about what Peter specifically said according to the text that the churches then heard about. People can infer and speculate but that is all it would be.

 

[clmowry]

You and I know they are as far from Christ as the east is to te west and it is a great shame.

How exactly do you know this?

Chuck

 

[Randy_Carson]

I do not think that Peter is the head of the universal church.

I understand that you deny this. That’s why I’m taking the time to show you what is going on in Acts 15. This text is one of the classic passages that non-Catholics point to when attempting to deny the papacy, but the argument stems from the very misunderstanding that you are advocating.

But I do not believe I stated that it abrogates it either way. I am not directly discussing that but instead sticking to the text itself. What I am arguing is that James ran that meeting. He was the final decision maker and not Peter.

James may have run the meeting since he was the “host Apostle” and Peter was just visiting at this point (having moved on to Antioch and Rome). Imagine a bunch of heads of state meeting at the Olympics…the host nation “runs the meeting”. Or again, the Governor of a state may host a meeting that the President attends. The President is a guest of the Governor who runs the meeting, and the President is not a lesser figure simply because he is not in charge of the hors d’hoevres.

Back to the decision itself, no one states those items accept James and those are what the churches received. There is nothing about what Peter specifically said according to the text that the churches then heard about. People can infer and speculate but that is all it would be.

I have already explained why the letter did not need to spell out what the Gentiles already accepted (ie, that circumcision was unnecessary); the letter detailed the instructions that the Gentiles would be required to follow.

 

[steve_b]

To Bonocore’s reference from Titus, I would add this passage from Paul’s Letter to the Galatians:
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

Hey Randy,

Jerome had an interesting commentary on this episode.

According to Jerome, Peter didn’t want to lose any converts he was given. So he took it easy on them and acted like the Jews he was trying to win over so like the Good Shepherd, he wouldn’t lose any that were given him. Paul later adopts this same example for himself so as not to lose any himself.

1 Cor 9:
20* To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law–though not being myself under the law–that I might win those under the law. 21* To those outside the law I became as one outside the law–not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ–that I might win those outside the law. 22* To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

Jerome further points out

In Acts 16:1-3 Paul took a disciple named Timothy… and on account of the Jews of that region, Paul had Timothy a gentile, circumcised. Then
Acts 18:18, Acts 21: 18-26 Paul shaved his head, purified himself and made sacrifice according to the Mosaic law, which he had previously said is no longer to be followed

“O blessed ApostlePaul, who has rebuked Peter
for hypocrasybecause he withdrew himself from the
Gentiles for fear of the Jews who’ came from
James, why are you, not withstanding your own
doctrine, compelled to circumcise Timothy, the son of a
Gentile, for he was not a Jew, having not been circumcised? Will you answer, ‘Because of the Jews which are in these quarters.? If so, then forgive yourself the circumcision of a disciple coming from the Gentiles, and forgive Peter also, who has precedence above you, his doing some things of the same kind through fear of the believing Jews.”

Jerome continues,

“Why did you [Paul] shave your head, why did you walk barefoot according to the Jewish ceremonial law, why did you offer sacrifices, why were victims slain for you
according to the law? Will you answer, ‘To avoid giving offense to those of the Jews who had believed.’ To gain the Jews, you did pretend to be a Jew”. [snip]

I focused particularly on paragraphs 4-18 of his letter to Augustine. Here is Jerome’s full letter. newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm
R:

Clearly, James headed up the group who thought that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. However, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.

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

Chrysostom had an interesting take

1. And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

 

[PJM]

I’ve been having a discussion with Yankee Drifter on aonther thread about the Authority of the Church and whether teh NT churches (Antioch, Corinth etc.) were completely autonomous or we just different locations of the One Church.

Below is Yankee’s latest post. I will copy my response in a post following.
I would appreciate other’s (name removed by moderator)ut on this matter.
Yankee is read up on the subject so I hope that those responding will take this into account when responding.

Anyone wishing to read the various exchanges up to this point will find them on HERE
From Yankee Drifter

---

James,

There are underground Catholic Churches today in China and other places of persecution, that remain under the authority, guidance and commom practice and belief system of Rome.

The early Church was ONE, under Peter, and then Peters sucessors as they were killed [Martyred] off. Peter even sent Paul on Missions. There were comon practices, beliefs, teachings and contact between the churches in dispersement. The Bible in “booklet form” was used by all the Churches. many of the Early Fathers affirm this fact.

Love and prayers,

Tell me, how could the RCC have existed in its present form with its elaborate hierarchical structure in 96 AD when Christianity was illegal and underground for nearly 300 years. There were no church buildings, bur rather people gathered in small groups, often in homes. When Clement wrote of the “catholic” church, (note the small “c”) he was referring to the meaning of “universal” which is what catholic means. He was talking about the Universal Church that Christ built. The very Church which consists of the body of true believers whom Christ Himself is coming back for. When the RCC formed and organized under Constantine’s rule, who made it possible for buildings to be erected, the Roman Church adopted the use of the word “catholic.”

James, you wrote: On another point, since you believe that the Catholic Church “Formed” around 300 under Constantine, and the Catholic Church, indeed any church, was not preserved from error, how is it that you accept the Bible??

Since the Holy Spirit is the author of the Holy Scriptures they were canonized the moment they were written and no council was needed to tell us that. The apostle Paul said he had preached the entire gospel, that of Christ and Him crucified. If Paul failed to tell us of any other things needed for salvation, etc. then he was not being truthful in his claim. God never says in His holy Word that anything else is needed. Man says that. 1Timothy 3:15 tells us that the Scriptures are profitable for reproof and correction of doctrine. That tells me that the Holy Bible itself is more than sufficient.

Rev. 2 tells us about the local churches. The Lord admonishes some for forsaking their first love. For falling and their need to repent. Some were holding to the teaching of balaam. These passages reveal that when a church continues in Christ’s Word, it keeps its identity as His church, but when it fails to abide in His Word, it is no longer regarded as His church. It reveals that Christ did not establish His church as one that could never fall into error, because some of those churches went into error.

The RCC only subsequently ratified the decisions** which had already been reached by the Christian communities**, or more exactly, by the individual believers. The organized Church as such did not create the Canon; it recognized the Canon which had already been created. An Orthodox leader admits: “The councils did not legislate the canon so much as set forth what had become self-evident truth and practice within the churches of God.” (Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?, Fr. James Bernstein, Orthodox churchman, 1994, p 13)

No church council set the canon, and it was not by “church authority” that the canon was set. Rather there was a common understood canon of 22 books that had never been questioned and widely distributed since 100 AD, along with 5 other books that were in full circulation since 100 AD, but questioned.

Instead of repeating over and over what your church has taught, which by its repetitions does not make something true, research the history of Christianity.

My reply:

There are underground Catholic Churches today in China and other places of persecution, that remain under the authority, guidance and commom practice and belief system of Rome.

The early Church was ONE, under Peter, and then Peters sucessors as they were killed [Martyred] off. Peter even sent Paul on Missions. There were comon practices, beliefs, teachings and contact between the churches in dispersement. The Bible in “booklet form” was used by all the Churches. many of the Early Fathers affirm this fact.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[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.

 

[Rightlydivide]

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.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

"it is shown that there is one Church spread abroad through the whole world"

Not lots of small churches that follow the Bible…ONE Church.

But consider your situation:

Baptists deny that baptism regenerates. Lutherans believe it does.
Baptists do not baptize infants. Methodists believe that infants should be baptized.

These are just two examples of many contradictory doctrines that could be cited.

The problem is that while you non-Catholics want to console yourselves with the idea that your invisible “spiritual” Church composed of all true believers shares “substantial agreement”, the plain fact of the matter is that these groups are teaching conflicting and contradictory doctrines.

Yet, they all claim to be studying the Word of God as approved workmen, they all claim to go by the Bible Alone, and they all claim to be led by the Spirit into all truth.

Tell me, Rightlydivide, does the Holy Spirit have one truth for Baptists and another truth for Methodists? Or can you imagine Jesus ever saying to the Father, “Gee, Dad, those Episcopalians are baptizing babies again…should I stop them?” “No, Son, that’s what I want them to do.”

So, you have to admit that either doctrine really doesn’t matter in the Church as you understand it or else conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable in the one Body of Christ.

Either that or admit the fact that Jesus founded a single Church upon Peter the rock which still teaches the full gospel that all others only have bits and pieces of.

This is the tragedy of Protestantism: that so many good, well-intentioned people who truly love the Lord have only a subset of the fullness that God intended for them.

ONE Church.

ONE visible Church built upon Peter the rock.

ONE visible Church with Bishops and priests and deacons just as Jesus intended.

Just as Ignatius reported.

ONE Church that looks NOTHING like your church’s “polity”.

Pity.

 

[Rightlydivide]

"it is shown that there is one Church spread abroad through the whole world"
Not lots of small churches that follow the Bible…ONE Church.
But consider your situation:
Baptists deny that baptism regenerates. Lutherans believe it does.
Baptists do not baptize infants. Methodists believe that infants should be baptized.
These are just two examples of many contradictory doctrines that could be cited.
The problem is that while you non-Catholics want to console yourselves with the idea that your invisible “spiritual” Church composed of all true believers shares “substantial agreement”, the plain fact of the matter is that these groups are teaching conflicting and contradictory doctrines.
Yet, they all claim to be studying the Word of God as approved workmen, they all claim to go by the Bible Alone, and they all claim to be led by the Spirit into all truth.
Tell me, Rightlydivide, does the Holy Spirit have one truth for Baptists and another truth for Methodists? Or can you imagine Jesus ever saying to the Father, “Gee, Dad, those Episcopalians are baptizing babies again…should I stop them?” “No, Son, that’s what I want them to do.”
So, you have to admit that either doctrine really doesn’t matter in the Church as you understand it or else conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable in the one Body of Christ.
Either that or admit the fact that Jesus founded a single Church upon Peter the rock which still teaches the full gospel that all others only have bits and pieces of.
This is the tragedy of Protestantism: that so many good, well-intentioned people who truly love the Lord have only a subset of the fullness that God intended for them.
ONE Church.
ONE visible Church built upon Peter the rock.
ONE visible Church with Bishops and priests and deacons just as Jesus intended.
Just as Ignatius reported.
ONE Church that looks NOTHING like your church’s “polity”
Pity.

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.

 

[steve_b]

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.

taking your points in order

• The Church is Catholic and orthodox.
• Corinth received correction from Clement of Rome 3rd successor to St Peter, and ended their sedition. And the Church of Rome is in scripture, it’s the chair of St Peter, it’s still here, and worldwide. Not so with the Church in other locations mentioned in scripture.
• Ignatius disciple of St John the apostle, got it right. Heretics got it screwed up then, just like they do today.

Bp Irenaeus, student of Bp Polycarp who was a disciple of St John, makes Irenaeus1 man away from an apostle. He wrote against those types who insisted on being disobedient to the faith once delivered to the saints. These disobedient types who teach what is contrary to what the apostles taught and passed on, or who divide from the one Church, have a serious problem, by definition. [Rom 16:17…, Gal 5:19…] etc

Against Heresies Bk 3, Ch 3, v2…

The Apostolic Tradition

"2 But when they are refuted from the Writings they turn around and attack the Writings themselves, saying that they are not correct, or authoritative, and that the truth cannot be found from them by those who are not acquainted with the tradition. For this [they say] was not handed down in writing, but orally, which is why Paul said, “We speak wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” Each of them utters a wisdom which he has made up, or rather a fiction, so that according to them the truth was once to be found in Valentinus, then at another time in Marcion, at another time in Cerinthus, then later in Basilides, or was also in that opponent, who has no saving message to utter. Each one of them is wholly perverse, and is not ashamed to preach himself, corrupting the rule of faith.
2 But when we appeal again to that tradition which has come down from the apostles and is guarded by the successions of elders they oppose the tradition, saying that they are wiser not only than the elders, but even than the apostles, and have found the genuine truth. For the apostles [they say] mixed matters of the Law with the words of the Saviour, and not only the apostles, but even the Lord himself, spoke sometimes from the Demiurge, sometimes from the middle power, sometimes from the highest, while they know the hidden mystery without doubt or corruption, and in its purity. This is in nothing less than shameless blasphemy against their Maker. What it comes to is that they will not agree with either Scripture or tradition.  3It is such people, my dear friend, that we have to fight with, who like slippery snakes are always trying to escape us. Therefore we must resist them on all sides, hoping that by cutting off their escape we may be able to bring them to turn to the truth. For although it is not easy for a soul which has been seized by error to turn back, still it is not absolutely impossible to put error to flight by putting the truth beside it.
3 The tradition of the apostles, made clear in all the world, can be clearly seen in every church by those who wish to behold the truth. We can enumerate those who were established by the apostles as bishops in the churches, and their successors down to our time, none of whom taught or thought of anything like their mad ideas. Even if the apostles had known of hidden mysteries, which they taught to the perfect secretly and apart from others, they would have landed them down especially to those to whom they were entrusting the churches themselves. For they certainly wished those whom they were leaving as their successors, handing over to them their own teaching position, to be perfect and irreproachable, since their sound conduct would be a great benefit [to the Church], and failure on their part the greatest calamity.  2But since it would be very long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, I can by pointing out the tradition which that very great, oldest, and well-known Church, founded and established at Rome by those two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, received from the apostles, and its faith known among men, which comes down to us through the successions of bishops, put to shame all of those who in any way, either through wicked self-conceit, or through vainglory, or through blind and evil opinion, gather as they should not. For every church must be in harmony with this Church because of its outstanding pre-eminence, that is, the faithful from everywhere, since the apostolic tradition is preserved in it by those from everywhere.
3 When the blessed apostles had founded and built up the Church, they handed over the ministry of the episcopate to Linus. Paul mentions this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy. Anencletus succeeded him. After him Clement received the lot of the episcopate in the third place from the apostles: He had seen the apostles and associated with them, and still had their preaching sounding in his ears and their tradition before his eyes—and not he alone, for there were many still left in his time who had been taught by the apostles. In this Clement’s time no small discord arose among the brethren in Corinth, and the Church in Rome sent a very powerful letter to the Corinthians, leading them to peace…"

 

[Deconi]

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.

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.

 

[Rightlydivide]

taking your points in order

• The Church is Catholic and orthodox.
• Corinth received correction from Clement of Rome 3rd successor to St Peter, and ended their sedition. And the Church of Rome is in scripture, it’s the chair of St Peter, it’s still here, and worldwide. Not so with the Church in other locations mentioned in scripture.
• Ignatius disciple of St John the apostle, got it right. Heretics got it screwed up then, just like they do today.

Bp Irenaeus, student of Bp Polycarp who was a disciple of St John, makes Irenaeus1 man away from an apostle. He wrote against those types who insisted on being disobedient to the faith once delivered to the saints. These disobedient types who teach what is contrary to what the apostles taught and passed on, or who divide from the one Church, have a serious problem, by definition. [Rom 16:17…, Gal 5:19…] etc

Against Heresies Bk 3, Ch 3, v2…

The Apostolic Tradition

"2 But when they are refuted from the Writings they turn around and attack the Writings themselves, saying that they are not correct, or authoritative, and that the truth cannot be found from them by those who are not acquainted with the tradition. For this [they say] was not handed down in writing, but orally, which is why Paul said, “We speak wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” Each of them utters a wisdom which he has made up, or rather a fiction, so that according to them the truth was once to be found in Valentinus, then at another time in Marcion, at another time in Cerinthus, then later in Basilides, or was also in that opponent, who has no saving message to utter. Each one of them is wholly perverse, and is not ashamed to preach himself, corrupting the rule of faith.
2 But when we appeal again to that tradition which has come down from the apostles and is guarded by the successions of elders they oppose the tradition, saying that they are wiser not only than the elders, but even than the apostles, and have found the genuine truth. For the apostles [they say] mixed matters of the Law with the words of the Saviour, and not only the apostles, but even the Lord himself, spoke sometimes from the Demiurge, sometimes from the middle power, sometimes from the highest, while they know the hidden mystery without doubt or corruption, and in its purity. This is in nothing less than shameless blasphemy against their Maker. What it comes to is that they will not agree with either Scripture or tradition.  3It is such people, my dear friend, that we have to fight with, who like slippery snakes are always trying to escape us. Therefore we must resist them on all sides, hoping that by cutting off their escape we may be able to bring them to turn to the truth. For although it is not easy for a soul which has been seized by error to turn back, still it is not absolutely impossible to put error to flight by putting the truth beside it.
3 The tradition of the apostles, made clear in all the world, can be clearly seen in every church by those who wish to behold the truth. We can enumerate those who were established by the apostles as bishops in the churches, and their successors down to our time, none of whom taught or thought of anything like their mad ideas. Even if the apostles had known of hidden mysteries, which they taught to the perfect secretly and apart from others, they would have landed them down especially to those to whom they were entrusting the churches themselves. For they certainly wished those whom they were leaving as their successors, handing over to them their own teaching position, to be perfect and irreproachable, since their sound conduct would be a great benefit [to the Church], and failure on their part the greatest calamity.  2But since it would be very long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, I can by pointing out the tradition which that very great, oldest, and well-known Church, founded and established at Rome by those two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, received from the apostles, and its faith known among men, which comes down to us through the successions of bishops, put to shame all of those who in any way, either through wicked self-conceit, or through vainglory, or through blind and evil opinion, gather as they should not. For every church must be in harmony with this Church because of its outstanding pre-eminence, that is, the faithful from everywhere, since the apostolic tradition is preserved in it by those from everywhere.
3 When the blessed apostles had founded and built up the Church, they handed over the ministry of the episcopate to Linus. Paul mentions this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy. Anencletus succeeded him. After him Clement received the lot of the episcopate in the third place from the apostles: He had seen the apostles and associated with them, and still had their preaching sounding in his ears and their tradition before his eyes—and not he alone, for there were many still left in his time who had been taught by the apostles. In this Clement’s time no small discord arose among the brethren in Corinth, and the Church in Rome sent a very powerful letter to the Corinthians, leading them to peace…"

According to your link its the chair of Peter and Paul!