Who is the authority of your church?

[mercygate]

An independent Baptist Church is a democracy. Any discisions made by the pastor regarding church matters must be approve by the deacons and then the congregation. Any conflicts between church member are first brought to the attention of the pastor and the deacons who will try to resolve the conflict before take it to the congregation

This is something a lot of Catholics do not understand. In many congregationally-oriented churches, the Pastor serves completely at the whim of the board and can be fired in a heartbeat.

For me, the idea of any church as a democracy gives me the willies. Jesus talked a lot about “kingdom” but not a syllable about a democracy. Although the Baptist movement began in England, the minlute it was transplanted to this continent it became completely embedded in the political model of the nation.

My own church did the same thing. I was an Episcopalian. The whole polity of the US Episcopal Church is entirely based on the Federal model.

 

[jmcrae]

Jesus speaks to us through His written Word. The Bible is very clear on that point, you just have to listen.

Beleive the Bible because the Bible says so? That’s kind of dangerous - any book can claim to be the Word of God. The Book of Mormon and the Qu’ran make the same claims - should I also read them as the Word of God?

Shouldn’t I rather listen to the Holy Tradition (eg: Dei Verbum), to discern that it is in fact the Bible that I should be reading, and not these others?

 

[jmcrae]

The New Testament was written before 100

But not collected together or promulgated as such, prior to 405 AD. There were hundreds of books written about Jesus in the first century, yet only 27 of them made it into the Bible.

 

[rpp]

The New Testament was written before 100

True. But there were many other works and forgeries floating around. Have you heard of the Gnostic Gospels? Or the Acts of Peter? There were also many Jewish works, such as the Book of Enoch that did not make it into the canon.

Additionally, many of the works had been copied and recopied and there no definitive collections. some places only had one or two writings, some had none, some had only incomplete texts, some had questionable works or forgeries. Many had a mix of all these problems.

The process of developing a standard canon did not formerly begin until the 4th century. The canon of Scripture was not defined
until about 412 (419?) I believe.

 

[rpp]

An independent Baptist Church is a democracy. Any discisions made by the pastor regarding church matters must be approve by the deacons and then the congregation. Any conflicts between church member are first brought to the attention of the pastor and the deacons who will try to resolve the conflict before take it to the congregation

Since this is critical to the governance of the Church, where is this defined in the Bible? We can see where Christ gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom and the power to loose and bind. Where were the parishioners given power over the pastors?

Is the majority always correct on matters of faith or morals. If a lot of parishioners happen to favor abortion, would they fire (or refuse to hire) a pastor who would preach that abortion is wrong?

When the Apostles chose Matias to replace Judas, did all the apostles, disciples and followers of Jesus vote? Or did they cast lots?

**

 

[Rightlydivide]

Beleive the Bible because the Bible says so? That’s kind of dangerous - any book can claim to be the Word of God. The Book of Mormon and the Qu’ran make the same claims - should I also read them as the Word of God?

Shouldn’t I rather listen to the Holy Tradition (eg: Dei Verbum), to discern that it is in fact the Bible that I should be reading, and not these others?

Yes indeed, once again Catholics only like if we believe the Bible for the same reasons they do.
Way to go…

 

[Rightlydivide]

True. But there were many other works and forgeries floating around. Have you heard of the Gnostic Gospels? Or the Acts of Peter? There were also many Jewish works, such as the Book of Enoch that did not make it into the canon.

Additionally, many of the works had been copied and recopied and there no definitive collections. some places only had one or two writings, some had none, some had only incomplete texts, some had questionable works or forgeries. Many had a mix of all these problems.

The process of developing a standard canon did not formerly begin until the 4th century. The canon of Scripture was not defined
until about 412 (419?) I believe.

How much were the books you mentioned in actual use?
Do you know?
Just curious…
Let me ask this another way, how many of the books you quoted are found quoted by an early Christian writer in say…the Ante-Nicene Father in a positive light?

 

[jmcrae]

Yes indeed, once again Catholics only like if we believe the Bible for the same reasons they do.
Way to go…

Don’t you have to be assuming already that the Bible is the Word of God, before you can believe anything that is in it as a precept of the faith, including any claims it may contain to being the Word of God?

Doesn’t that information come down to you from the Holy Tradition, most likely through your parents and/or a friend or Sunday School teacher?

 

[rpp]

How much were the books you mentioned in actual use?
Do you know?
Just curious…
Let me ask this another way, how many of the books you quoted are found quoted by an early Christian writer in say…the Ante-Nicene Father in a positive light?

The assembly of the Bible is another topic. I believe there have been several threads on that recently. Let us return to the topic of who if the authority in a the various Protestant churches.

 

[MrS]

Yes indeed, once again Catholics only like if we believe the Bible for the same reasons they do.
Way to go…

So you belong to a small church that follows the Bible…

Is that THE Bible, the once given to the world by the Holy Spirit through the early Catholics… or a version of your own?

And what happens if your pastor, leader, reverend, Mr or whatever tells you something you don’t think is right?

.

 

[Righteousone]

The New Testament was written before 100

The New Testament was compiled at the council of Carthage around 397.

 

[Rightlydivide]

So you belong to a small church that follows the Bible…

 

[Rightlydivide]

The New Testament was compiled at the council of Carthage around 397.

You do realize that the list of what would make the NT was around prior to 397…right?

 

[Righteousone]

You do realize that the list of what would make the NT was around prior to 397…right?

The Gospels and Epistles of the NT were read aloud to the congregations of Christians that met on the first day of the week for Holy Mass (just as they are still among ourselves), one Gospel here, another there; One Epistle of St. Paul in one place, another in another, all scattered about in various parts of the world where there were bodies of Christians. And the next question that naturally occurs to us is, when were these seperate works gathered together so as to form a volume, and added to the OT to make up what we now call a bible? Well, they were not collected for the best part of 300 years.
So that here again I am afraid is a hard nut for Protestants to crack…that though we admit that the seperate works composing the NT were now in existence, yet they were for centuries not to be found altogether in one volume, were not obtainable by multitudes of Christians, and even were altogether unknown to many different parts of the world.
How then, could they possibly form a guide to Heaven and the chart of salvation for those who have never seen or read about them??? In 397, through the influence of St. Augustine, settled the collection of NT Scriptures as we Catholics have them now.

 

[Elric]

And please don’t say Jesus Christ, because Christ would not invent 30,000 denominations with contradictory beliefs.

No that would be man doing that, trying to do what they believe God wants. But they could still believe that Christ is the authority of their church.

The pope is the authority of my church, if something goes wrong, the pope is the one who fixes things. Who would do that in your church? Seriously, just wondering…

Well I would say that God is the Authority, its His church after all.

 

[Righteousone]

No that would be man doing that, trying to do what they believe God wants. But they could still believe that Christ is the authority of their church.

Well I would say that God is the Authority, its His church after all.

But because Jesus knew He was going to leave this earth, he left authority to rule his church against heretics and others. Makes sense to me.

 

[Elric]

But because Jesus knew He was going to leave this earth, he left authority to rule his church against heretics and others. Makes sense to me.

He did?

What kind of authority did he give them?

 

[Rightlydivide]

The Gospels and Epistles of the NT were read aloud to the congregations of Christians that met on the first day of the week for Holy Mass (just as they are still among ourselves), one Gospel here

,
No, let us get specific. Prove that statement, use an early Christian writer, from the first lets say 250 years or so to prove. or cite another source.

another there; One Epistle of St. Paul in one place, another in another

,
Once again, no, prove that statement by using a historical source. Not a “scholars” opinion. Real solid proof, this will be worth trying to do…believe it!

all scattered about in various parts of the world where there were bodies of Christians. And the next question that naturally occurs to us is, when were these seperate works gathered together so as to form a volume, and added to the OT to make up what we now call a bible? Well, they were not collected for the best part of 300 years.

Irenaues says there are just four gospels right? The Muratorian fragment only lacks what…four or five books…and remember its a “fragment”

So that here again I am afraid is a hard nut for Protestants to crack…that though we admit that the seperate works composing the NT were now in existence, yet they were for centuries not to be found altogether in one volume, were not obtainable by multitudes of Christians, and even were altogether unknown to many different parts of the world.

No absolutely inaccurate. Oh its the standard line at many a seminary which adheres to the gospel according to scholars but historically that is not defensible. What proof do you have that the vast majority of the NT was not available? Proof proof proof, it does not exist.

How then, could they possibly form a guide to Heaven and the chart of salvation for those who have never seen or read about them??? In 397, through the influence of St. Augustine, settled the collection of NT Scriptures as we Catholics have them now.

absurd, prove that the majority of Christians had never heard them read, absolutely absurd

 

[Rightlydivide]

Don’t you have to be assuming already that the Bible is the Word of God, before you can believe anything that is in it as a precept of the faith, including any claims it may contain to being the Word of God?

Doesn’t that information come down to you from the Holy Tradition, most likely through your parents and/or a friend or Sunday School teacher?

time and time again I have seen this line of reasoning on here, seriously jmcrae my point once again is WHY do you do this?
Do you SERIOUSLY think that arguing with people about what we DO agree on to only agree with you for the same reasons is a good thing?
Lets say for example a Catholic believes something that we both believe…I have NEVER , ever, NEVER tried to disuade you from things we both agree on. Why would I??
The only reason I can think is that for some people it is more important to consider themselves RIGHT than to rejoice there is SOMETHING we agree on.
Have I EVER tried to talk a Catholic out of believing the divinity of Christ because I hold to a different view about tradition?
No of course not. How is that a good thing…I…just dont…get…it…

 

[justinthemartyr]

prove that they did hear them read.