What is the church as Jesus intended?

[Melville]

Melville, You and UT seem to be carrying the discussion quite well. I am benefiting very much from the dialouge. If I may, I will respond to a couple of your comments.

Your interpretation.

Agreed.

There’s a lot of inferring and assuming going on here. We only know that Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna at the time of the Apostle John.

I haven’t read enough to comment adequately about his epistle to the Philippians. However, I’m not sure why we must assume that Ignatius needs any approval from Polycarp. You said it best that Polycarp thought highly of Ignatius. Can we infer anything more or less? Just a side note: Ignatius was older than Polycarp.

Thank you, Scalco!

I am benefitting from these dialogues, too. There have been junctures where I thought I remembered something in scripture or other references here, or had a take on it, and as I double or triple checked it (and had prayed about it, asking the Lord that day), I had to go deeper, look carefully, and be honest. I think of this as the iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another, and it is godly and heathy. It’s a process of dicovery and testing one’s views . . . .

The main reason why I said that the appointment of Matthias was a unique case is because, as I looked at the wording and the reference to the Psalm, this was a prophetic word about the wicked man. It was not about the righteous who died. This was the context. Peter specifically referenced this, that David referred to Judas. There is no general reference to general apostolic succession in this segment.

Yes indeed about inferring and assuming. I think we need to recognize when we are doing this. A wise man of God once said, “What reason can build up, reason can tear down.” This is what happens and then we build it back up again and on and on. I would SO love it if the people of God could say, well, we know this for sure and we don’t know that for sure . . .

There are scripture places where there is multiple witness and we can be sure of them. There are others where there is only one place saying a thing. The multiple witness ones are easy. The single ones not as much, and they stretch us, because then we have to look to the larger context of the Word of God.

But yes, we have sufficient witness that Polycarp was at least a bishop of Smyrna, whether he thought of himself as that in the singular view that Ignatius advocated or not, we have his very beautiful letter, and the testimony to his death. Martyrdom means witness, and what we have of this man’s testimony is pure, entirely biblicla, and deep, from everything I have read so far. But this may be too much focus on this precious man for the title of the thread.

If Ignatius ws older than Polycarp, this would be another reason for Polycarp to defer to him in the grace of Christ and not enter into contention, while saying what he had to say.

 

[guanophore]

I do make a distinction between scripture, which is the only document we have of the apostolic church period, and anything that came after that, as far as substantive reliability is concerned.

You are wrong that scripture is the only document we have from that period. The council had to sort through many documents from that period to determine which ones belonged in the canon.

We are talking about the church as Jesus intended and I have been trying to define what the New Testament record has to say rather than interpret that by what happened afterwards.

The NT is an important source, but this is the Kingdom as a mustard seed. To see how the tree grew, we need the following documents.

 

[Melville]

You are wrong that scripture is the only document we have from that period. The council had to sort through many documents from that period to determine which ones belonged in the canon.

The NT is an important source, but this is the Kingdom as a mustard seed. To see how the tree grew, we need the following documents.

I’m sorry to have missed your first point if I should have earlier, but which council and which documents?

Can you please tell me what’t the point of the canon and what it is good for and not?

 

[utunumsint]

No, I am not saying that Matthias was not an apostle. I am saying that this is a unique case of prophetic fulfillment that is not a precedent for general apostolic succession.

When we say apostolic succession, we mean the appointment of bishops who were to take over the ministry of the apostles. But we do not consider them as apostles, since only disciples of the Lord who were eye-witnesses to his life on earth can fit that category. And yes, Paul fits into this category because of his vision on the road to Antioch. However, the bishops did have authority over their flock.

Whether they ruled in a council or alone is debatable. I think you can find evidence for both in the early church, just as you can find evidence for both in the Catholic church. When there is a need for joint action, the catholic church gathers together all the bishops within a specific synod in a council to discuss these issues. In Canada we have such a council and they meet on a regular basis. They also have ad limina visites to the Pope once every couple of years (It could be more frequent. I’m not sure).

About Polycarp and Nicolaitan, here’s that word “probably” again.

“Probably” is often usually all we can go on with historical analysis since history is not an exact science.

That is reasonable because John also specifically writes to the seven churches. Is there any place in Polycarp’s writing that he refers to the Revelation?

No, he does not.

We can also infer that this was not all strictly and only to the seven churches, because in each case the Lord “he who has an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Agreed. That is the Catholic interpretation as well.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Can we assume that Polycarp knew what “Nicolaitan” referred to and that if it meant a clergy/laity distinction he would have rebuked Ignatius, edited the latter’s letter, or made mention of this particular point when forwarding the letter? I don’t see how there can be a certain conclusion either way. There were other letters from Polycarp that we don’t have. From the little I can find of Polycarp, he seems to have abounded with graciousness.

I believe Polycarp would have called him the “…first born of Satan” as he does for the Docetic gnostics he mentions in the letter to the Phillipians:

“For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;” 1 John 4:3 and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. Wherefore, forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from Jude 3 the beginning; “watching unto prayer,” 1 Peter 4:7 and persevering in fasting; beseeching in our supplications the all-seeing God “not to lead us into temptation,” Matthew 6:13; Matthew 26:41 as the Lord has said: “The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

These Gnostics denied that Jesus was a human being, and they also denied the crucifixion, claiming that Jesus was pure spirit. They denied the incarnation. They are the real bugbear that the church had to struggle with from the start, as evidenced by 1 John, the letter of Polycarp, and the whole opus of Ignatius’ “Against the Heretics”. If we see the word Nicolaitan in the way you suggest, I would have to see it as a referrence to these Docetic gnostics.

I note that when he wrote to Phillipi, he did not write on his own but, as he put it, together with the elders. He did not tell the Philippians to focus on the bishop. In the face of false teachings he refers them to the word they had received. He wrote to them because they asked him to, not on his own initiative (another reason not to expect him to critique the content of Ignatius’s letters; they requested them). He obviously thought highly of Ignatius, but had not recent news of him. In every way this man wrote according to what I also find in the Bible.

I don’t see any evidence of a critique of Ignatius’ letters. What he says at the end is "They are subjoined to this Epistle, and by them you may be greatly profited; for they treat of **faith **and patience, and all things that tend to edification in our Lord. " That last part is a pretty big blanket statement.

The Nicolaitan issue I am speaking about is not as simple as anti-nomianism or gnosticism. They would be people who adhere to Christian morality and the faith of Jesus Christ but they add this clergy distinction.

Again, even if we accept your interpretation of the word Nicolaitan, I don’t see how you can assume that it refers to a clergy overthrowing laity. It could mean a Gnostic overthrowing the laity. It could mean an anti-nomian overthrowing the laity. In fact, since Gnosticism was already present in the early church, I find it supprising that there is not more mention of it in Revelations.

We already know that the laity of the time had bishops and elders, and that these were in a position of honour, respect, and authority.

About whether all the original readers of the letters in Revelation understood everything they referrrd to, this really goes to an overall question of whether the Lord was speaking spiritually or naturally. This is a problem for interpretatoin of the book generally. What is literal and what is figurative? I come down on the side of the spiritual. These things are spiritually discerned. (We can go into that if you’d like.) He says in Thyatira there was a woman, Jezebel. Do we reduce it to an individual by that name or is this a symbolic figuration that goes back to King Ahab’s wife and what she brought into Israel? I have to go with the latter, with the implication that in this period of the earliest of early church fathers something that bad was going on, in a spiritual sense.

I believe Revelations is full of spiritual and literal referrences. This is not an either/or question, but can be both/and.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Hi again,

I can’t find a credible Nicholas. No Nicolaitan documents have been adduced. I don’t know what docetism is or on what basis we’d connect that with this issue, and couldn’t find it in the letter. How did he phrase it?

The English word “laity” has associations, as you are using it, that I can’t find in the Greek New Testament. There it just means people, a people, or the general populace. It is the regular term for people. This is precisely the point.

As Scalco has so aptly pointed out, I think there is very little evidence either way for how to interpret this passage. And as you say, we should look for multiple sources within the Bible for confirmation of Bilical doctrines before we are sure of its interpretation. I see no other place where there might be a condemnation of clergy/laity split. (Although I do find evidence of a shepherd/sheep split…but the question is, where there multiple shepherds to rule one flock of sheep I think we have evidence for both. The point I’m trying to make is that the shepherds/elders were in charge.)

God bless,
Ut

 

[Melville]

When we say apostolic succession, we mean the appointment of bishops who were to take over the ministry of the apostles. But we do not consider them as apostles, since only disciples of the Lord who were eye-witnesses to his life on earth can fit that category. And yes, Paul fits into this category because of his vision on the road to Antioch. However, the bishops did have authority over their flock.

Whether they ruled in a council or alone is debatable. I think you can find evidence for both in the early church, just as you can find evidence for both in the Catholic church. When there is a need for joint action, the catholic church gathers together all the bishops within a specific synod in a council to discuss these issues. In Canada we have such a council and they meet on a regular basis. They also have ad limina visites to the Pope once every couple of years (It could be more frequent. I’m not sure).

“Probably” is often usually all we can go on with historical analysis since history is not an exact science.

God bless,
Ut

Hello Ut,

I think I’ve got a pretty good grasp of the Catholic belief about bishops.

Here is a statement from the 2nd post in this thread: “In this particular passage I think “church” means the entire Christian Community as represented by authorities within the local Christian Community.” This was in reference to Matthew 18:17.

We read that the Lord used “the ekklesia”, not the elders or the bishop. We have a line of reasoning whereby the leadership/authorities substitute for and stand for the assembly. I am trying to trace this down. I’m trying to imagine the scenario. The man who has the grievance finally has to go to the assembly.

I want to remember this is a word that means an assembly. Our English word has various connotatons that do not appear in the Greek, like a church building, or a very large hierarchical organization, or a denomination. When the Lord spoke these words those things did not exist. None of the hearers could have imagined them.

But in real life, where does the individual go? If the intent was for him to go to the leadership, how is that going to an assembly? It would be either going to the elders (who are overseeers) or to the bishop, if one believes that the intent was to have a bishop over the elders. What I’m trying to get at is that if there are men representing the assembly who are actually the ones to deal with, calling it the assembly is redundant, if the man isn’t actually going to an assembled body.

Substituting the leadership for the assembly, whereby the assembly is a redundant group of people in a de facto sense is exactly the type of thing I am looking at with the clergy/laity issue.

But when Paul had to deal with the man with his father’s wife, he said “when you are assembled . . .” He did not single out the leadership.

But “probably” also includes “possibly not.” Some things are certain, others are not. Because I have published a little bit of scholarship based on a historical document I know a little about this field. It comes up vry often in the field of art history regarding the attribution of who did paintings. Writers can create very plausible arguments, and then somebody else comes up with opposing plausible arguments. People have their beleifs and agendas, and support and defend them. It is my view that conjecture remains conjecture.

 

[NotWorthy]

We often seem to have problems interpreting what Ekklesia means. But the early Church, who spoke Greek, seemed to “universally” (bad pun, eh?) interpret it to mean Church, and they didn’t have any of that speculative interpreting to do.

I think this bears some thought.

 

[Melville]

I believe Polycarp would have called him the “…first born of Satan” as he does for the Docetic gnostics he mentions in the letter to the Phillipians:

These Gnostics denied that Jesus was a human being, and they also denied the crucifixion, claiming that Jesus was pure spirit. They denied the incarnation. They are the real bugbear that the church had to struggle with from the start, as evidenced by 1 John, the letter of Polycarp, and the whole opus of Ignatius’ “Against the Heretics”. If we see the word Nicolaitan in the way you suggest, I would have to see it as a referrence to these Docetic gnostics.

I don’t see any evidence of a critique of Ignatius’ letters. What he says at the end is "They are subjoined to this Epistle, and by them you may be greatly profited; for they treat of **faith **and patience, and all things that tend to edification in our Lord. " That last part is a pretty big blanket statement.

Again, even if we accept your interpretation of the word Nicolaitan, I don’t see how you can assume that it refers to a clergy overthrowing laity. It could mean a Gnostic overthrowing the laity. It could mean an anti-nomian overthrowing the laity. In fact, since Gnosticism was already present in the early church, I find it supprising that there is not more mention of it in Revelations.

We already know that the laity of the time had bishops and elders, and that these were in a position of honour, respect, and authority.

I believe Revelations is full of spiritual and literal referrences. This is not an either/or question, but can be both/and.

God bless,
Ut

The assumption above is that the Nicolaitans were Gnostics and that is not something that can be proven from the text. I’m having a hard time finding anyone with first hand knowledge of who the Nicolaitins were, if they were indeed a sect, or any documents from the alleged Nicholas.

wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/fathers/ante-nic/polycarp/polphil.htm
From reviewing the letter of Polycarp, all I see is his reiterating what John had written about denying that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh and that whoever denies the testimony of the Cross is of the devil. Were the docetists of Gnostics “in” the church. I recall that John said that they "went out from us, but they were not of us . . " referring to the antichrists who denied that Christ had come in the flesh.

Were the Gnositc in the churches or were they separate sects that met together and received teachings outside? I’m trying to get a picture of what that world was like. If we look at sects closer to our own times, someone will preach or write something and draw followers away after him or her and set up their own show. Take Mary Baker Eddy.

The Lord doesn’t say “you have those among you that deny Me”.
He says you have those who have the doctrine of the Nicolaitans.

What I am saying is that this was not a doctrinal denial of Christ at all. It would mean adding an intermediary layer between the assembly as well as the individual believer, and Him, which the Lord did not intend or appoint. Whereas the entire body of believers, we are told, is a royal priesthood, an kingdom of priests, there was set up a separate class, which we call clergy

I cannot prove whether Polycarp had an opinion on this because he doesn’t refer to it, except that he doesn’t seem to speak of a bishop in the singular. But here is where the rest would be conjecture.

 

[utunumsint]

The assumption above is that the Nicolaitans were Gnostics and that is not something that can be proven from the text. I’m having a hard time finding anyone with first hand knowledge of who the Nicolaitins were, if they were indeed a sect, or any documents from the alleged Nicholas.

wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/fathers/ante-nic/polycarp/polphil.htm
From reviewing the letter of Polycarp, all I see is his reiterating what John had written about denying that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh and that whoever denies the testimony of the Cross is of the devil. Were the docetists of Gnostics “in” the church. I recall that John said that they "went out from us, but they were not of us . . " referring to the antichrists who denied that Christ had come in the flesh.

Were the Gnositc in the churches or were they separate sects that met together and received teachings outside? I’m trying to get a picture of what that world was like. If we look at sects closer to our own times, someone will preach or write something and draw followers away after him or her and set up their own show. Take Mary Baker Eddy.

The Lord doesn’t say “you have those among you that deny Me”.
He says you have those who have the doctrine of the Nicolaitans.

What I am saying is that this was not a doctrinal denial of Christ at all. It would mean adding an intermediary layer between the assembly as well as the individual believer, and Him, which the Lord did not intend or appoint. Whereas the entire body of believers, we are told, is a royal priesthood, an kingdom of priests, there was set up a separate class, which we call clergy

I cannot prove whether Polycarp had an opinion on this because he doesn’t refer to it, except that he doesn’t seem to speak of a bishop in the singular. But here is where the rest would be conjecture.

Well I think conjecture is where we should leave it. Thank you for taking the time to share your point of view. It has lead me to reconsider the charismatic element within the early church (none of which contradicts my Catholic belief of course ).

God bless,
Ut

 

[Melville]

Well I think conjecture is where we should leave it. Thank you for taking the time to share your point of view. It has lead me to reconsider the charismatic element within the early church (none of which contradicts my Catholic belief of course ).

God bless,
Ut

Dear Brother,

This makes good sense. I would enjoy exploring the spiritual gifts in the New Testament church and what happened to them afterwards and then up into our own times. I remember running into some charimatic nuns on a bus in Rome in 1980, who had a joy and glow about them that bore resonance in my own heart.

God bless you too,

Melville

 

[Melville]

I believe Revelations is full of spiritual and literal referrences. This is not an either/or question, but can be both/and.

God bless,
Ut

I wonder if in a general sense, for the sake of how we approach this book and its content and references, what are some literal references and how are they clearly to be distinguished from spiritual ones? If it looks like a complex topic then it could become a separate thread.

 

[utunumsint]

I wonder if in a general sense, for the sake of how we approach this book and its content and references, what are some literal references and how are they clearly to be distinguished from spiritual ones? If it looks like a complex topic then it could become a separate thread.

Well in the case of Balaam, Jezebeel, and the Nicolaitans, the first two are clearly found in the Bible, so the spiritual meaning is self evident. But the Nicolaitans are found nowhere in the Bible. In this case, we are on shaky grounds for deriving a spiritual meaning, which means we are left with the literal meaning as the most probable.

What do you think? (or do I need to ask? )

God bless,
Ut

 

[Melville]

Well in the case of Balaam, Jezebeel, and the Nicolaitans, the first two are clearly found in the Bible, so the spiritual meaning is self evident. But the Nicolaitans are found nowhere in the Bible. In this case, we are on shaky grounds for deriving a spiritual meaning, which means we are left with the literal meaning as the most probable.

What do you think? (or do I need to ask? )

God bless,
Ut

I am thinking about the book as a whole. What things are literal in a physical sense and if they are there, do they fall into a category or categories? This is where a lot of eschatological interpreters seem to me to be inconsistent, or don’t have a rhyme or reason actually.

These are often fundamentalists who believe that for the Bible to be thoroughly true, everything has to be literal, which they mean played out in a tangible, physical sense. But in this book there are difficulties. For example there are those who say that when John described the locusts in chapter 9, what he really saw was helicopters, but didn’t know what a helicopter was, so he called them locusts. But then there are places where it cannot possibly be literal and has to be metaphorical and spiritual, like the beast in chapter 13. One thing for sure; it can’t be chaotic or just up for grabs.

If we could take an overall look at the book perhaps we could find how to make a distincton that would apply back to the things we were talking about, but also get a better understanding of this book which is the one that says, “Blessed is he who reads.”

I tend to come down on the side that it is all spiritual but I would like others’ thoughtful insights as to whether there’s a consistent way to make a distinction.

 

[utunumsint]

I am thinking about the book as a whole. What things are literal in a physical sense and if they are there, do they fall into a category or categories? This is where a lot of eschatological interpreters seem to me to be inconsistent, or don’t have a rhyme or reason actually.

I think the answer can often be both literal of spiritual, but I believe all spiritual meanings should be based on the literal meaning first, then from that, we can dig deeper into the spiritual meaning.

These are often fundamentalists who believe that for the Bible to be thoroughly true, everything has to be literal, which they mean played out in a tangible, physical sense. But in this book there are difficulties. For example there are those who say that when John described the locusts in chapter 9, what he really saw was helicopters, but didn’t know what a helicopter was, so he called them locusts. But then there are places where it cannot possibly be literal and has to be metaphorical and spiritual, like the beast in chapter 13. One thing for sure; it can’t be chaotic or just up for grabs.

Something does not have to be literal to be true, so I definitely agree with our point.

If we could take an overall look at the book perhaps we could find how to make a distincton that would apply back to the things we were talking about, but also get a better understanding of this book which is the one that says, “Blessed is he who reads.”

This is a difficult task, but I am willing (whe I have time). Perhaps we can try to relate this study with the topic of this thread (e.g. what was the early church like).

I tend to come down on the side that it is all spiritual but I would like others’ thoughtful insights as to whether there’s a consistent way to make a distinction.

Some Catholic commentators have suggested the idea that some of the images and scenes actually reflect early Christian liturgies. There are quite a few early liturgies described in detail that we could look at if you want.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Jerry-Jet]

So Melville and PC Master–what exact year do you think that most of the Catholic Church went bad or went astray from what Jesus intended?

I’m sure you both believe that some Invisible group of Protestants always existed that history has never shown to us.

What was First Protestant Church like in the years 100 and 200 and 300?

Did any of those people speak at the Councils and tell them that they were getting the Bible wrong and that the Deuterocanonicals shouldn’t be there?

Were any of them saying that the Canon of scripture shouldn’t be submitted to Pope Innocent for his approval?

Were any of them saying that the practice of Infant Baptism was wrong?

Were any of them saying that bishops shouldn’t have authority and that the church shouldn’t be set up that way?

Were any of them saying that the Eucharist was just a memorial meal and nothing more?

Where were all of these people in the first four centuries?

Why was it that they couldn’t get the rest of the church to go with what they believed?

Why did Jesus let the Catholic Church go astray in those first four centuries?

I Never hear answers to these questions–all I ever hear is well if they believed this then it was wrong but some people didn’t believe that.

Why can’t I at least see a paining of the people who believed different than the Catholic Church in the first four centuries?

And why is it that Catholic Early Church Fathers write until the cows come home about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and the necessity for bishops to be in charge but we’re supposed to believe either that all their writings were lies or that all their writings actually mean Total Protestant teaching.

What a crock!

The question “When did the Catholic Church go wrong” will guide you to the answer of “What is the church as Jesus intended?”

If you can’t prove Both the time it Did go wrong And the Real church that existed at that time and Didn’t go wrong

Then you must conclude that "yes–the Catholic Church Was the Church that Jesus intended!

Or retreat to the Non Defense of the Invisible Church–that way you don’t have to Prove anything–what else is new?

 

[Melville]

I think the answer can often be both literal of spiritual, but I believe all spiritual meanings should be based on the literal meaning first, then from that, we can dig deeper into the spiritual meaning.

Something does not have to be literal to be true, so I definitely agree with our point.

This is a difficult task, but I am willing (whe I have time). Perhaps we can try to relate this study with the topic of this thread (e.g. what was the early church like).

Some Catholic commentators have suggested the idea that some of the images and scenes actually reflect early Christian liturgies. There are quite a few early liturgies described in detail that we could look at if you want.

God bless,
Ut

Hi Ut,

Well, you know me, perhaps. I’d like to stick with internal evidence in the book first, if we can. There’s a particular reason for doing that here, whatever approach one beleives in for the rest of scripture. It is because this book is so unique. It is specifically the revelation of Jesus Christ. God gave it to Him to reveal to His bondservants, through His angel, to John. It is the only book in which the reader is blessed and the only one where it says anyone who adds to or takes away is subject to its prophetic plagues. It is self-affirming in this sense.

If we beleive it is scripture, then, with prayer of course, the first place to look for connections and associations would be the rest of scripture, and these abound.

But right now we are on spiritual vis a vis literal. I don’t know how to do literal, e.g., physical, very well with this book. And there is sommuch interpretational baggage we’ve heard fromvarious sources, which I believe this is a place to lay down so we can just read what it says.

Aside from the fact that there really were these seven churches in Asia, a couple of things come to mind. “The blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not” could be one. There definitely were Jews, synagogues, and those who thought Christians were an evil sect. Another is that there were those who were cast into prison to suffer. I’ve read this book a lot and I’m stuggling to find items that are literal in any sense. The letters to the churches surely address literal conditions. The Lord commends faith, good works, and faithfulness, and these are literal as well as spiritual, but for the rest, not only in the letters but all the visions, the seals, the trumpets, all of it, I would have to come down on the side of saying it is all spiritual. I’m open to help, though it would need to be comprehensive more than piecemeal in the end.

To bring it back around to the thread, these seven churches were selelcted from many possible churches. Smyrna is one that has no blame, with minimal praise (poor, but truly rich). Philadelphia is praised, but warned to hold fast, lest one lose one’s crown. The rest had real problems. Then we look at the remedies the Lord offered . . .

But I’m wondering about a coherent interpretational paradigm whereby we can get at what He means for us to get out of this very special book . . . and then back to our subject, because He is definitely addressing the church that is pleasing to Him.

 

[Melville]

So Melville and PC Master–what exact year do you think that most of the Catholic Church went bad or went astray from what Jesus intended?

I’m sure you both believe that some Invisible group of Protestants always existed that history has never shown to us.

What was First Protestant Church like in the years 100 and 200 and 300?

Did any of those people speak at the Councils and tell them that they were getting the Bible wrong and that the Deuterocanonicals shouldn’t be there?

Were any of them saying that the Canon of scripture shouldn’t be submitted to Pope Innocent for his approval?

Were any of them saying that the practice of Infant Baptism was wrong?

Were any of them saying that bishops shouldn’t have authority and that the church shouldn’t be set up that way?

Were any of them saying that the Eucharist was just a memorial meal and nothing more?

Where were all of these people in the first four centuries?

Why was it that they couldn’t get the rest of the church to go with what they believed?

Why did Jesus let the Catholic Church go astray in those first four centuries?

I Never hear answers to these questions–all I ever hear is well if they believed this then it was wrong but some people didn’t believe that.

Why can’t I at least see a paining of the people who believed different than the Catholic Church in the first four centuries?

And why is it that Catholic Early Church Fathers write until the cows come home about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and the necessity for bishops to be in charge but we’re supposed to believe either that all their writings were lies or that all their writings actually mean Total Protestant teaching.

What a crock!

The question “When did the Catholic Church go wrong” will guide you to the answer of “What is the church as Jesus intended?”

If you can’t prove Both the time it Did go wrong And the Real church that existed at that time and Didn’t go wrong

Then you must conclude that "yes–the Catholic Church Was the Church that Jesus intended!

Or retreat to the Non Defense of the Invisible Church–that way you don’t have to Prove anything–what else is new?

Hi Jerry Jet,

I can’t accept the premises of the first and second questions. A divide between Catholic and Protestant is artificial in the early period. The historical Roman Catholic Church was the product of an evolution, not a once for all-here it is sort of thing. There were diffence of opinion on some matters, differences of emphasis. There was a huge split between East and West. But this is going too far ahead to keep track of in my slower approach.

You have listed a number of doctrines that were oly articulated over time. It is not possible to address them all in a forum like this. It is true that the Roman catholic Church contains a lot of things, which I had preferred not to go into because they are so very far from being supported by scripture and that is where I want to remain based here for the most part, to define the scriptural church, as far as it is defined, and then move ahead into the historical church, chronologically going through the documents we have.

It is not to dodge your questions. They need separate threads to treat justly. But I would say that a beginning in terms of church structure was establishing a single bishop office.

Yours in Christ,

Melville

 

[SCALCO]

I wanted to look to see where the Apostles appoint James as the bishop of Jerusalem. Does anyone know what scriptures and writings help determine this?