Who Has Authority?

[BrianH]

Montalban
Is is the generally believed by Orthodoxy that the earliest bishops were monarchial and had authority outside of their own congregation? Or does Orthodoxy accept that the earliest Christians had a plurality of leadership(the roles being fluid) for the first 70 or so years of Christianity(prior to a beginning clearer distinction in the letters of Ignatius)?

 

[Montalban]

Deacons
1 Timothy 3:10
And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
1 Timothy 3:13
For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Priests
1 Timothy 4:14
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
Presbytery
4244 presbuterion pres-boo-ter’-ee-on neuter of a presumed derivative of 4245; the order of elders, i.e. (specially), Israelite Sanhedrin or Christian “presbytery”:–(estate of) elder(-s), presbytery.
Strongs Lexicon
eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=presbytery

Bishops
1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Titus 1:7
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
1 Peter 2:25
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

“In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.”

Ignatius -

“The Epistle to the Trallians”, Chapter III

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-18.htm#P1604_276864

Montalban
Is is the generally believed by Orthodoxy that the earliest bishops were monarchial and had authority outside of their own congregation? Or does Orthodoxy accept that the earliest Christians had a plurality of leadership(the roles being fluid) for the first 70 or so years of Christianity(prior to a beginning clearer distinction in the letters of Ignatius)?

Certainly we have evidence for deacons, priests and bishops. However the evidence for these structures being more fixed than you might feel comes from the fact that we Orthodox believe that the Church is the Body of Christ here on earth. To mess about with the structures is to change the perception of who Jesus is - which is why we’re so against the development of a Papacy. They had full knowledge of this at Pentecost.

“For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge…,”

Irenaeus - “Against Heresies” Book III.I.I

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859

See also John 13:7 Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but you will after this.”

 

[DRIVING_BEAR]

I originally posted this in a thread about Sola Scriptura, but it got no response so I thought I’d start a new thread with it.
From reading the debates between Protestants and Catholics on this forum, it seems Protestants believe the following (implicitly, if not explicitly; and as a former Protestant I accepted it unconciously):

1. 
   *]The Holy Spirit was able to prevent error when the sacred writers wrote Holy Scripture.
   *]The Holy Spirit was able to prevent error when the Church leaders compiled Holy Scripture.
   *]But the Holy Spirit was unable to prevent error when teaching the true meaning of Holy Scripture.
   Protestants believe that Catholicism became corrupted and thus necessitated the Reformation. I want ask something: If the Catholic Church erred in its teaching, to where is the Christian to go to to find the Scriptures expounded without error?
   I am being serious, deadly serious. There is nothing in this world more important than the salvation of our souls. I am not interested in a “close-enough Christianity.” That is not what our Savior intended.
   The Apostles taught for years before a word of Scripture was written, and did not have the New Testament as we know it today, but were able to teach the faith without error. Who teaches with their authority today? If there is a Church outside the Catholic Church (not counting the Orthodox) that teaches with the same authority today, then I will abandon the Catholic Church for that church.

1. 
   Ok
   
   how did Christ teach the Apostles ?
   Answer with the scriptures .(see the last chapter of luke)
   How did the Apostles teach the first members of the church?
   Answer : the scripture. see acts 8:26-29
   
   Is tradition valid means of teaching ?
   Answer : according to Jesus Christ no see Matthew 15:3-9
   
   question do you think the scripture is insufficient in the instruction of/for faith ?
   
   Do you think the “church fathers” are better instructors that Matthew , Mark , luke ,John , paul , peter
   I do not

 

[Montalban]

Ok

how did Christ teach the Apostles ?
Answer with the scriptures .(see the last chapter of luke)
How did the Apostles teach the first members of the church?
Answer : the scripture. see acts 8:26-29

Is tradition valid means of teaching ?
Answer : according to Jesus Christ no see Matthew 15:3-9

question do you think the scripture is insufficient in the instruction of/for faith ?

Do you think the “church fathers” are better instructors that Matthew , Mark , luke ,John , Paul , peter
I do not

Did He teach by Scripture alone? No. The “Scriptures” He taught with were different from the ones in the New Testament, because the New Testament didn’t exist.

Did the Apostles teach by Scripture alone? No. They also taught from the Old Testament because the New Testament did not exist.

It is clear that even the New Testament, when it was compiled was not all encompassing. See the last verse of the last chapter of the Gospel of John.

John 21:25

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”

In other words, the Bible doesn’t cover everything.

Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching.

He also quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn

Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: “Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”

He says that is authority to teach comes from the lord (1 Thessalonians 4:2)

Paul himself handed on faith…

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Corinthians 15:3,11).

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle”

(II Thessalonians 2:15)

The Ethiopian gives a clue to being ‘taught’ the Word…

Acts 8

30

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.

31

“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

In other words, he called upon a minister (deacon) to guide him in his readings of the word.

Also, the Ethiopian finds faith, but needs to be baptised (a sacrament).

Acts 10

Cornelius the Roman soldier, finds faith in God, but needs Peter to come to his house before he receives the Holy Spirit. Faith alone was not enough.

In fact, the very name “Acts of the Apostles” not “Faith of the Apostles” tells you something. If faith were alone, then the Bible would have finished at the time Christ rose into heaven; instead it goes on to show what the Apostles did; they taught, they organised, they conferred the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon people.

It is clear that the Ethiopian’s desire to learn was not enough. He had to be taught.

And as I don’t believe in a bible-alone argument, I present as evidence that St. Ignatius, taught by St. Peter himself, and writing before the Bible was compiled wrote…

Epistle to the Ephesians

CHAPTER 5

5:1 For if I in a short time had such converse with your bishop, which was not after the manner of men but in the Spirit, how much more do I congratulate you who are closely joined with him as the Church is with Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is with the Father, that all things may be harmonious in unity.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-lightfoot.html

This reflects the Epistle;

Titus 1:7 Since a bishop is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless–not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.

 

[DRIVING_BEAR]

Did He teach by Scripture alone? No. The “Scriptures” He taught with were different from the ones in the New Testament, because the New Testament didn’t exist.

Did the Apostles teach by Scripture alone? No. They also taught from the Old Testament because the New Testament did not exist.

It is clear that even the New Testament, when it was compiled was not all encompassing. See the last verse of the last chapter of the Gospel of John.

John 21:25

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”

In other words, the Bible doesn’t cover everything.

Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching.

He also quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn

Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: “Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”

He says that is authority to teach comes from the lord (1 Thessalonians 4:2)

Paul himself handed on faith…

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Corinthians 15:3,11).

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle”

(II Thessalonians 2:15)

The Ethiopian gives a clue to being ‘taught’ the Word…

Acts 8

30

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.

31

“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

In other words, he called upon a minister (deacon) to guide him in his readings of the word.

Also, the Ethiopian finds faith, but needs to be baptised (a sacrament).

Acts 10

Cornelius the Roman soldier, finds faith in God, but needs Peter to come to his house before he receives the Holy Spirit. Faith alone was not enough.

In fact, the very name “Acts of the Apostles” not “Faith of the Apostles” tells you something. If faith were alone, then the Bible would have finished at the time Christ rose into heaven; instead it goes on to show what the Apostles did; they taught, they organised, they conferred the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon people.

It is clear that the Ethiopian’s desire to learn was not enough. He had to be taught.

And as I don’t believe in a bible-alone argument, I present as evidence that St. Ignatius, taught by St. Peter himself, and writing before the Bible was compiled wrote…

Epistle to the Ephesians

CHAPTER 5

5:1 For if I in a short time had such converse with your bishop, which was not after the manner of men but in the Spirit, how much more do I congratulate you who are closely joined with him as the Church is with Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is with the Father, that all things may be harmonious in unity.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-lightfoot.html

This reflects the Epistle;

Titus 1:7 Since a bishop is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless–not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.

I going to blow you mind but here goes :
******THE OLD TESTAMENT IS SCRIPTURE.

JUST AS TRUE AND VALID AS THE NEW TESTAMENT.

ok what are the so called non bibical sources u think the church needs , how do you know they are vaid and true
you have only the word of the CC
face it many bad people have had leadership positions in the church.
do u trust everything that has passed throught their hands.

 

[RNRobert]

I going to blow you mind but here goes :
THE OLD TESTAMENT IS SCRIPTURE.

JUST AS TRUE AND VALID AS THE NEW TESTAMENT.

ok what are the so called non bibical sources u think the church needs , how do you know they are vaid and true
you have only the word of the CC
face it many bad people have had leadership positions in the church.
do u trust everything that has passed throught their hands.

Yes, the early Christians had the Old Testament. But remember: THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH HAD NO NEW TESTAMENT.
In Acts 15, Church leaders met to discuss whether Gentile Christians need to be circumcised or not. They could not appeal to Scripture for their decision, because the Old Testament didn’t apply and the New Testament didn’t exist.
St Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to “stand fast in the **traditions **which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” How do you know all that Paul taught was ever written down. The New Testament was not written as a catechism or encyclopedia of the faith; the early Christians were taught by word of mouth (most people were illiterate, and books were too expensive for the average person anyway), and letters were written to correct abuses or clarify doctrine. Even after the last Apostle died, there was no attempt to put their writings into the Bible til the middle of the second century, and there was no agreement until the end of the fourth century. BTW, that is one “non-Biblical source” that is necessary: Please tell me where in the New Testament it says which books belong in the New Testament?
Yes, some Catholic leaders have been bad. But while God may not control thie behavior, he uses the Holy Spirit to protect them from teaching falsehood. Besides, if you can’t trust them, then you can’t trust your Bible either, because the Catholic Church was the only one who had the Bible for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

 

[DRIVING_BEAR]

why did the holy spirit throught Paul write the book of Galatians. Because the church was less that 50 years old and already error had crept in Gal 1:7 …but there are some who trouble you and want to prevert the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Error even reach the first pope the apostel Peter .
Gal 2:11 now when Peter had come to antioch I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed:

Gal 2:14 but when i saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all If you being a jew live in the manner of gentiles and not as the jews why do you compel gentiles to live as jews.

study the NT and you will find that much of it was written to correct false doctrines that had crept into the church so soon.

 

[DRIVING_BEAR]

Yes, the early Christians had the Old Testament. But remember: THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH HAD NO NEW TESTAMENT.
In Acts 15, Church leaders met to discuss whether Gentile Christians need to be circumcised or not. They could not appeal to Scripture for their decision, because the Old Testament didn’t apply and the New Testament didn’t exist.
St Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to “stand fast in the **traditions **which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” How do you know all that Paul taught was ever written down. The New Testament was not written as a catechism or encyclopedia of the faith; the early Christians were taught by word of mouth (most people were illiterate, and books were too expensive for the average person anyway), and letters were written to correct abuses or clarify doctrine. Even after the last Apostle died, there was no attempt to put their writings into the Bible til the middle of the second century, and there was no agreement until the end of the fourth century. BTW, that is one “non-Biblical source” that is necessary: Please tell me where in the New Testament it says which books belong in the New Testament?
Yes, some Catholic leaders have been bad. But while God may not control thie behavior, he uses the Holy Spirit to protect them from teaching falsehood. Besides, if you can’t trust them, then you can’t trust your Bible either, because the Catholic Church was the only one who had the Bible for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

the writing of the apostels were in existance before the 2nd century. in fact parts of a copy of Matthew dated 66AD was found in egypt in the early 20th century.

the books of the NT verify each other because the writers refer to passages from other NT books on a regular basis.

One question ? what issue of doctrin does the bible old or new testament not cover that you need to refer to other sources to
gleen the answer.

 

[UBERROGO]

If there is a Church outside the Catholic Church (not counting the Orthodox) that teaches with the same authority today, then I will abandon the Catholic Church for that church.

Why the hurry to leave the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[RNRobert]

Why the hurry to leave the Roman Catholic Church?

I’m not. It’s just that with the exception of the Orthodox Churches, the rest of Christianity is a bunch of man-made denoms that have existed on the face of the earth for less than 500 years, and can hardly claim to be the “true church.”

 

[RNRobert]

the writing of the apostels were in existance before the 2nd century. in fact parts of a copy of Matthew dated 66AD was found in egypt in the early 20th century.

the books of the NT verify each other because the writers refer to passages from other NT books on a regular basis.

One question ? what issue of doctrin does the bible old or new testament not cover that you need to refer to other sources to
gleen the answer.

.

Yes the writings were in existence before the 2nd century. My point is there was no attempt to formulate a canon until the 2nd century.

To answer your last question, the 27 books of the NT requires tradition. The writers may have referred to each other, but NOWHERE in the NT does it saw WHICH writings belong and which don’t.

Also, Paul quotes Jesus as saying it is “more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). Please give tell me which Gospel he was quoting from.

 

[RNRobert]

My challenge still stands:

**If the Catholic Church “got it wrong” (and since the Orthodox believe virtually the same things, they got it wrong too), which (out of the hundreds) of conflicting denominations got it right???

**Jesus John 16;13 tells us that when the Holy Spirit comes, “he will guide you into all truth.” Not 50% of the truth, not 75%, not even 99% of the truth but ALL, 100% of the truth. Any church that claims to be Christ’s Church must teach 100% of the truth. Which of the post-reformation churches can honestly claim this?

 

[santaro75]

so nobody is answering the question here

 

[RNRobert]

so nobody is answering the question here

Nope…

 

[DRIVING_BEAR]

My challenge still stands:

**If the Catholic Church “got it wrong” (and since the Orthodox believe virtually the same things, they got it wrong too), which (out of the hundreds) of conflicting denominations got it right???

**Jesus John 16;13 tells us that when the Holy Spirit comes, “he will guide you into all truth.” Not 50% of the truth, not 75%, not even 99% of the truth but ALL, 100% of the truth. Any church that claims to be Christ’s Church must teach 100% of the truth. Which of the post-reformation churches can honestly claim this?

what is truth?

the 17 th chapter of john tells
John 17:17 Sanctify them with your truth. your word is Truth.
John 5:39 (quoteing jesus) you search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life and these are they which testify of me.

see also
matt 21:42
22:29
26:54-56
mark 12:24
luke 24:27
24:32
24:45

acts 17:2
17:11
18:28

roman’s 1:2
15:4
16:26
1st Co 15:3-4
2nd TI 3:15

after all these references it’s clear that jesus and the apostels
used the scripture to teach in the 1st century church

 

[Petergee]

I going to blow you mind but here goes :
******THE OLD TESTAMENT IS SCRIPTURE.

JUST AS TRUE AND VALID AS THE NEW TESTAMENT.

This is a statement of a basic Catholic belief. I’m amazed that you think stating this would “blow the mind” of a Catholic. In fact unlike most protestants, Catholics believe ALL the parts of ALL the books of the Old Testament are true and valid.

ok what are the so called non bibical sources u think the church needs , how do you know they are vaid and true
you have only the word of the CC
face it many bad people have had leadership positions in the church.
do u trust everything that has passed throught their hands.

Where did your Bible come from? You would not have it at all if it had not passed through the hands of these very same evil Catholics. For one thing, books and papers last at most a few centuries before they decay to nothing. The bible you hold in your hand is the last in a line of hundreds consecutive copies of the original texts. For 1500 years, all of the copying was done by Catholics and authorised by Catholic leaders. The oldest copy of the Bible which Luther had access to would have been a copy written and authorised by Catholics in the 14th century. Do you trust your Bible?

 

[RNRobert]

Driving Bear,

You are avoiding my question. There are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Protestant churches that all claim to teach from Scripture, but they cannot agree on what Scripture teaches. In John 17, Jesus prayed that his followers all be one, and Paul in Ephesians says there should be “ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM.”

If the Catholic Church is false, then WHICH ONE out of the thousands of other churches teaches ALL TRUTH?

Also, the New Testament as we have it today DID NOT EXIST at Pentecost! The Apostles taught for YEARS before a line of the New Testament was written. YES, they had the Old Testament, but that simply foretold Jesus, Jesus teachings, life, death and resurrection was spread by WORD OF MOUTH.

Also, keep in mind, that until the invention of the printing press in the 1480s, books were written by hand and thus were very expensive. Also, there were no public schoold back then, so many people could not read. The concept of being able to go to the local bookstore and pick up a Bible was UNKNOWN to the ancients. Therefore, the only way for them to learn about Jesus was from the leaders of the Church. This is why the Church needed the Holy Spirit to protect it from teaching error.

In an earlier post, you asked what non-biblical things we needed tradition for. First off, there is nothing in Catholic Tradition that contradicts Scripture (you probably disagree, but that’s a subject another thread). But Tradition is needed to ensure proper interpretation of Scripture. For example, the word “Trinity” and “Incarnation” are not found in Scripture. When many Protestant churches accept these doctrines, they are accepting the decisions made by Councils in the early history of the Church. As time went on, some people denied that Jesus was fully God, or that he was fully man. The Councils met to correct these errors and clarify what Scripture taught.

Scripture is not enough. It is God’s infallible Word, but it needs an infallible Church to protect the Bible from those who who twist it to suit their own ends.

 

[jmcrae]

That would only be true if they believed in the same kind of leadership as Catholics do.

That’s a double standard, don’t you think?

“We left the Church because the leader did a bad thing - but it’s okay if our leaders do bad things. We don’t leave just because our leaders are bad, because we’re here to worship Jesus.”

Which makes me want to ask, “What were you here for, when you were in the Catholic Church?” And what changed when you became Protestant?

To be Catholic, you must be in communion with the Pope in Rome.

To be Protestant, you have to be in communion with like-minded Protestants.

To be a Protestant you might only need have a personal relationship with God, so no matter how corrupt your own teachers are, they’d reason that it doesn’t matter because there’s no ‘mediator’ between them and God.

The Pope doesn’t prevent anyone from having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Not even the worst Pope ever stopped anybody from praying or from attending Mass.

 

[jmcrae]

There is nothing in this world more important than the salvation of our souls. I am not interested in a “close-enough Christianity.” That is not what our Savior intended.

Even if “close-enough” Christianity were good enough, there would still be no good reason for Martin Luther and his many imitators to leave the Catholic Church and start up their own man-made Churches, since the Catholic Church has everything anybody could ever need for a life of faith and devotion to Christ. (Almost as though the Person who founded it knew what He was doing, eh?)

 

[RNRobert]

Even if “close-enough” Christianity were good enough, there would still be no good reason for Martin Luther and his many imitators to leave the Catholic Church and start up their own man-made Churches, since the Catholic Church has everything anybody could ever need for a life of faith and devotion to Christ. (Almost as though the Person who founded it knew what He was doing, eh?)