Church

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

But you can't avoid the natural flow of life. Even if you started from scratch, you will unavoidably go down the same roads that the early first century church took. And if you believe that the Church is the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit, we can be assured that this is not a bad thing, at the end of the day.

Scripture tells us that the bodies of the saints was what the temple or dwelling place of the HS was, not the institution that we call church. (2 Cor 6:14-18, 1 Cor 6:17-20).

The "church", if one wishes to call it that, (I prefer, called out ones to avoid confusing the institution with the people) became apostate at a very early stage when men started trying to usurp authority for themselves over the people of God. By the time of Polycarp and Irenaeus in the 2nd century, the concept of a universal (aka catholic) church with its own hierarchy was nearly completely developed. This concept was in direct violation to what the early saints believed Jesus taught and was different from waht they practiced. Many believers stood in oppostion to the catholic concepts that the "church fathers" promoted, but as we all know, did not win based on what has developed throught history.

 

[whitney]

Scripture tells us that the bodies of the saints was what the temple or dwelling place of the HS was, not the institution that we call church. (2 Cor 6:14-18, 1 Cor 6:17-20).

The "church", if one wishes to call it that, (I prefer, called out ones to avoid confusing the institution with the people) became apostate at a very early stage when men started trying to usurp authority for themselves over the people of God. By the time of Polycarp and Irenaeus in the 2nd century, the concept of a universal (aka catholic) church with its own hierarchy was nearly completely developed. This concept was in direct violation to what the early saints believed Jesus taught and was different from waht they practiced. Many believers stood in oppostion to the catholic concepts that the "church fathers" promoted, but as we all know, did not win based on what has developed throught history.

ToT,
Is this the Nicolaitans' way that God warned us about?

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

ToT,
Is this the Nicolaitans' way that God warned us about?

Truth be told, I'm not sure what the Nicolations were guilty of. I have heard it said that they were trying to rule over the saints and i have heard it said that they were leading the saints into what would come to be known as Gnostism.

 

[whitney]

Truth be told, I'm not sure what the Nicolations were guilty of. I have heard it said that they were trying to rule over the saints and i have heard it said that they were leading the saints into what would come to be known as Gnostism.

Ok, thank you.

 

[francisdesales]

Scripture sets the precedent my friend. Elders were simply older individuals who were among Jesus' called out. Terms like 'bishop', 'pastor', and the such were derived from Greek terms which conveyed the idea of some being shephards or overseers. Later, as the organized corporate church began to really take shape in the early 2nd century, these terms were made into offices and possitions of authority within the christian brotherhood in direct violation of what Jesus instructed in places like Matthew 20 and Matthew 23.

My friend, these "terms" are in the first century-written Bible. Do you remember that Christianity was initially Jewish living in under Roman rule - and it would seem natural that they would emulate some sort of authoritative structure, which was all around them. You are being historically anachronistic. There simply is no precedent for Christians existing outside of a community of authoritatively led believers, such as Paul or Timothy or elders.

Elders, according to the scriptures were not "rulers" the way many popular translations make them out to be, but were simply older saints and from among the elders, saints would volunteer to be overseers of their fellow brethren in their locally by being outstanding examples and by looking out for their fellow christians. These elders (who were not all overseers) were sort of like big brother and big sister figures to their christian brethren. They held no authority within or over the brotherhood.

Again, you are being anachronistic, as if an elder had the same "vote" as any other American (oops..., that's what you are thinking, right?). Clearly, "elders" were people to be respected and listened to. Must I cite Scriptures to that effect? Elders more than just older Christians. They held leadership positions, laid hands upon other Christians to send them forth to preach.

Consider these translations of 1 Tim 5:17 and following:
1. from the Non Ecclesiastical NT
- Regard the older people who are outstanding examples as worthy of a double honorarium, especially those who are working in speaking and teaching. For the writing says, "You will not muzzle an ox that is treading grain," and, "The worker is worthy of his wage."

Leaders are wonderful examples. The two do not cancel each other out. Now, if you look long enough, I am sure you'll find a translation that fits your agenda. But clearly, the bulk of ancient testimony tells us that ancient Christianity was not a democracy. Men were put in charge - and were held responsible for teaching and preaching. Paul makes it clear that he has authority over communities. He leaves people in his place, Timothy and Titus, to aid the Church. These Pastoral letters are written to THEM so as to help them be good leaders. We even have the office of the bishop described, the "job requirements" are laid out.

I still find nothing you said to convince me of ANY verse that speaks of Christians existing without a community with leaders.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Scripture tells us that the bodies of the saints was what the temple or dwelling place of the HS was, not the institution that we call church. (2 Cor 6:14-18, 1 Cor 6:17-20).

The "church", if one wishes to call it that, (I prefer, called out ones to avoid confusing the institution with the people) became apostate at a very early stage when men started trying to usurp authority for themselves over the people of God.

Then you might as well call Peter and Paul a usurper of power. It is perfectly clear that he believed he had been given authority - and often threatened Christians with it. This strongly implies that the Christians KNEW they were under authority.

This concept was in direct violation to what the early saints believed Jesus taught and was different from waht they practiced.

Twice, Jesus gave particular men the power to bind and loosen. Jesus gave the keys to Peter. Jesus told HIM to "feed my sheep". Peter himself writes to fellow elders on this task that they share - to feed Christ's sheep. Clearly, they understood what Jesus taught - and it is all in the Bible.

Many believers stood in oppostion to the catholic concepts that the "church fathers" promoted, but as we all know, did not win based on what has developed throught history.

yea, they were called "Gnostics" and "Judaizers". Paul and John and Jude did not spare condemnation upon such false teachers. Satan is called the father of lies and he continues to prod men to teach even those of the Church such things...

Regards

 

[whitney]

God does give us these ministries in the Church to build up the Body, these are leaders, right?

Ephesians 4:11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Yet, these leaders do not lord it over like SOME church leaders do, but I'm not naming churches. :o)

 

[francisdesales]

God does give us these ministries in the Church to build up the Body, these are leaders, right?

Ephesians 4:11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Yet, these leaders do not lord it over like SOME church leaders do, but I'm not naming churches. :o)

You are absolutely correct. But when some Church leaders (without naming them!) FAIL TO MEET THE STANDARDS (since they ARE men, aren't they?), does that mean that the entire Church is null and void and we must resort to a false idea of the Church, nowhere found in the Bible?

If one carefully reads the Bible, they will find that even the first century Christians had issues with not acheiving perfection in this world. You ever read the letter to the Corinthians? The Galatians? James writing to the Hebrews? Or the "Letter to the Hebrews"? How about 2,3 John? Do we find perfect Christians there? Perfect leaders? Hardly.

And yet, so-called "sola scripturists" invent a false idea that the Church must be perfect, NOW, so that when these people such as yourself see the "unnamed" sometimes fail to live up to the standard, they must pile on and accuse.

I see nowhere in the Bible that you supposedly adhere to that the Church has been promised perfection in this world.

Jesus even spoke of a parables about this intermixture of good and bad within the Church. I understand your frustration with sinners, even with elders and bishops. I also am. But are you or anyone in a position to cast stones at anyone because you perceive them to be imperfect? Should we not pray for them and ask God to help them?

Pray for the Church, Whitney. We all desire that God's Kingdom come, and it won't until the Church is presented pure as a Bride to the Christ.

Regards

 

[whitney]

You are absolutely correct. But when some Church leaders (without naming them!) FAIL TO MEET THE STANDARDS (since they ARE men, aren't they?), does that mean that the entire Church is null and void and we must resort to a false idea of the Church, nowhere found in the Bible?

I agree, we all make mistakes and it is not failing the standard that is concerning, because we all fail the standard at some point, however, if we look to the standard, which we find in the Bible, there are several happenings going on in the church that can not be named, that is not found in the the Bible's standard, so they have created a new standard for themselves.

If one carefully reads the Bible, they will find that even the first century Christians had issues with not acheiving perfection in this world. You ever read the letter to the Corinthians? The Galatians? James writing to the Hebrews? Or the "Letter to the Hebrews"? How about 2,3 John? Do we find perfect Christians there? Perfect leaders? Hardly.

And yet, so-called "sola scripturists" invent a false idea that the Church must be perfect, NOW, so that when these people such as yourself see the "unnamed" sometimes fail to live up to the standard, they must pile on and accuse.

I see nowhere in the Bible that you supposedly adhere to that the Church has been promised perfection in this world.

Jesus even spoke of a parables about this intermixture of good and bad within the Church. I understand your frustration with sinners, even with elders and bishops. I also am. But are you or anyone in a position to cast stones at anyone because you perceive them to be imperfect? Should we not pray for them and ask God to help them?

Pray for the Church, Whitney. We all desire that God's Kingdom come, and it won't until the Church is presented pure as a Bride to the Christ.

Regards

Again, I am not talking about men's failings, we all fail at some point. The early church had many problems, but the leaders of the unnamed church, have created for themselves a new way of doing "church" that are not found in the Bible. My point has nothing to do with perfection. The stones I am throwing is based upon rituals created outside of the Bible.

Francis, it's difficult to talk about this when we can not discuss specifics. I am not sure how clear I am being and even if you understand my point because I don't want the thread to be locked because of what I say.

 

[francisdesales]

I agree, we all make mistakes and it is not failing the standard that is concerning, because we all fail the standard at some point, however, if we look to the standard, which we find in the Bible, there are several happenings going on in the church that can not be named, that is not found in the the Bible's standard, so they have created a new standard for themselves.

I think you need to be specific, since I see the Church through a different point of view. I read the documents that the Church puts out for us to make sense of this world in relation to our lives in Christ. Encylicals on Love and Hope meant for all men to take in and reflect upon.

What standard are you talking about?

Again, I am not talking about men's failings, we all fail at some point. The early church had many problems, but the leaders of the unnamed church, have created for themselves a new way of doing "church" that are not found in the Bible. My point has nothing to do with perfection. The stones I am throwing is based upon rituals created outside of the Bible.

You will have to give me a BIBLICAL precedent that "inventing rituals" is against what the Bible teaches. You are presenting me a "tradition of men", not a biblical warrant against RITUALS.

Francis, it's difficult to talk about this when we can not discuss specifics. I am not sure how clear I am being and even if you understand my point because I don't want the thread to be locked because of what I say.

Well, how about you focus on where the Bible speaks about rituals in general and where rituals are condemned (unless they are specifically mandated in Scriptures). I have been doing this for some time, and have yet had one of my separated friends be able to provide me with one Scripture verse that speaks about this. Your "scruple" is a tradition of men.

Regards

 

[whitney]

I think you need to be specific, since I see the Church through a different point of view. I read the documents that the Church puts out for us to make sense of this world in relation to our lives in Christ. Encylicals on Love and Hope meant for all men to take in and reflect upon.

What standard are you talking about?



You will have to give me a BIBLICAL precedent that "inventing rituals" is against what the Bible teaches. You are presenting me a "tradition of men", not a biblical warrant against RITUALS.




Well, how about you focus on where the Bible speaks about rituals in general and where rituals are condemned (unless they are specifically mandated in Scriptures). I have been doing this for some time, and have yet had one of my separated friends be able to provide me with one Scripture verse that speaks about this. Your "scruple" is a tradition of men.

Regards

We can not discuss it in this thread, I will start a new thread called - The Church is not Catholic.

 

[Scotth1960]

Paul laid out a church structure.

Elijah, True. Bishops, presbyters (elders/priest), and deacons, and then the rest of the church, the laity, the common people. That is the NT church message. 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus especially. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

 

[Scotth1960]

We can not discuss it in this thread, I will start a new thread called - The Church is not Catholic.

Dear whitney, Would it not then be fair game to say The Church is not Protestant. Or the Church is not Orthodox. Or the Church is not Baptist. Or the Church is not Lutheran. Or the Church is not Presbyterian. Or the Church is not Methodist. The list could go on and on and on. Why so many different, contradictory views of ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church)? This is THE BASIC PROBLEM NONE OF US HAVE REACHED FINAL AGREEMENT ON (YET). In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington PS or the Church is not Catholic (PAPIST), because PAPISM IS NOT CATHOLIC (is not UNIVERSAL).

 

[Scotth1960]

You are absolutely correct. But when some Church leaders (without naming them!) FAIL TO MEET THE STANDARDS (since they ARE men, aren't they?), does that mean that the entire Church is null and void and we must resort to a false idea of the Church, nowhere found in the Bible?

If one carefully reads the Bible, they will find that even the first century Christians had issues with not acheiving perfection in this world. You ever read the letter to the Corinthians? The Galatians? James writing to the Hebrews? Or the "Letter to the Hebrews"? How about 2,3 John? Do we find perfect Christians there? Perfect leaders? Hardly.

And yet, so-called "sola scripturists" invent a false idea that the Church must be perfect, NOW, so that when these people such as yourself see the "unnamed" sometimes fail to live up to the standard, they must pile on and accuse.

I see nowhere in the Bible that you supposedly adhere to that the Church has been promised perfection in this world.


Dear francisdesales, There is no perfect church anywhere in this word.

But the Romanists invent a false idea that the pope of Rome must be infallible. It is much the same idea as the sola-scripturists that the church must be perfect.
No pope is infallible. St. Peter was not infallible. But St. Peter was a lot closer to Christ than some of the popes of Rome were. And some of the popes of Rome may have been closer to Christ than we are. It all depends on the Spirit.
Some popes have been godly; and some not. Some have taught nearly infallibly, and some popes fell into heresy as Honorius. All of us too are a mixture of godly and ungodly. All have sinned. But all are called back to godliness. Then there is hope even for the worst sinners. There is hope also for me. There is hope for you. There is hope for all of us. That hope has name: Jesus Christ, our LORD GOD and Saviour. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

 

[whitney]

Dear whitney, Would it not then be fair game to say The Church is not Protestant. Or the Church is not Orthodox. Or the Church is not Baptist. Or the Church is not Lutheran. Or the Church is not Presbyterian. Or the Church is not Methodist. The list could go on and on and on. Why so many different, contradictory views of ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church)? This is THE BASIC PROBLEM NONE OF US HAVE REACHED FINAL AGREEMENT ON (YET). In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington PS or the Church is not Catholic (PAPIST), because PAPISM IS NOT CATHOLIC (is not UNIVERSAL).

The Church is the Body of Christ, minus any denomination, Jesus did not set up a denomination, He set up His Church (which is not Catholic, because Catholic is also a denomination). He did not set up a religious organization, where they had huge expensive cathederals. People met in homes or anywhere they could.

We do not agree on scripture, and now I am talking about the entire Body of Christ here, because that is the way Satan wants it and anyone of us has been deceived by him. He wants us to be focused on things that may not really matter to our salvation, he wants us to not prepared and he surely does not want us to know the truth. So it has been done and now there are many different denominations believing different doctrines, not excluding the Catholic church, of course.

 

[francisdesales]

But the Romanists invent a false idea that the pope of Rome must be infallible.

Just like Jesus is God. They invented that one, too, at Nicea...

No pope is infallible. St. Peter was not infallible.

When defining doctrine he sure was...

I don't think you even know what the Catholic Church teaches when the Church defines that the Pope is infallible. If you have a problem with infallibility and the Bible, I would like you to point out where the Bible says that Ecumenical Councils are infallible.

But St. Peter was a lot closer to Christ than some of the popes of Rome were.

Really, Scott? No kiddin...

What's your point? That a Pope must be perfect to be the visible head of the Church?

 

[whitney]

Just like Jesus is God. They invented that one, too, at Nicea...



When defining doctrine he sure was...

I don't think you even know what the Catholic Church teaches when the Church defines that the Pope is infallible. If you have a problem with infallibility and the Bible, I would like you to point out where the Bible says that Ecumenical Councils are infallible.



Really, Scott? No kiddin...

What's your point? That a Pope must be perfect to be the visible head of the Church?

Would there, could there, should there be .......disagreement within the Catholic Church itself, oh my....by golly I think there is.

 

[francisdesales]

Would there, could there, should there be .......disagreement within the Catholic Church itself, oh my....by golly I think there is.

So you think Paul was also lying when He said that the Church has "one faith, one baptism..." etc., and then wrote to the Corinthians about dissenters???

The teachings of the Church that have been solemnly declared are not in disagreement. Try not to confuse dissenters of the faith with the faith itself.

Regards

 

[whitney]

So you think Paul was also lying when He said that the Church has "one faith, one baptism..." etc., and then wrote to the Corinthians about dissenters???

The teachings of the Church that have been solemnly declared are not in disagreement. Try not to confuse dissenters of the faith with the faith itself.

Regards

No, Francis I was not arguing with you, just pointing things out.

There is only one truth, and not one denomination has ALL truth, not excluding the Catholic Church, of course.

 

[francisdesales]

No, Francis I was not arguing with you, just pointing things out.

There is only one truth, and not one denomination has ALL truth, not excluding the Catholic Church, of course.

That is true, we don't have all the truth, no human does. God hasn't told us everything. I am merely stating that we have access to certain knowledge that He HAS revealed, as it was His Will that we do know some things about salvation and freedom.

Regards