History of the "Born Again Christian" movement.

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yes you are mistaken. The Evangelical Church I belong to has regional, national and international ties which were established by church planting. When I traveled from Texas to Hawaii my pastor sent a note to the pastor of our sister church in Honolulu to welcome me and family.

Church planting is a core mission for the network of churches I belong to. One does not plant churches if they don’t see such as central to the Christian faith and Body of Christ.

I understand that there are connections between certain Evangelical Churches and other Evangelical Churches, yet at the same time there numerous more Evangelical Churches more or less independent of the other and this doesn't seem to be a problem according to Evangelicalism.

Still this isn't what I was primarily asking about in the paragraph. The question still remains unanswered. Is it necessary to be part of a Church? I think you as an Evangelical have to say no, faith in Christ is all that is necessary.

 

[redleghunter]

Why do you say the cannon was decided by the apostles? My brief research seems to indicate that, when the 'Canon' was decided, may have even came as late as the 5th century, depending upon differing sources. But the Protestant Canon, which we know differs from the Catholic Canon, even received resistance from Martin Luther, because he had a big problem with the theology problems of the book of James being added to the Protestant bible.

The early church recognized the authority of the writings of the apostles as Holy Spirit inspired. They were recognized as authoritative not given authority by the early church. This is an important distinction.

 

[redleghunter]

I understand that there are connections between certain Evangelical Churches and other Evangelical Churches, yet at the same time there numerous more Evangelical Churches more or less independent of the other and this doesn't seem to be a problem according to Evangelicalism.

Still this isn't what I was primarily asking about in the paragraph. The question still remains unanswered. Is it necessary to be part of a Church? I think you as an Evangelical have to say no, faith in Christ is all that is necessary.

Yes I answered that question I believe pages ago.

Hebrews 10:25

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yes I answered that question I believe pages ago.

Hebrews 10:25

Which post? Unless I've missed it, I don't think you have answered it satisfactorily. Saying something is important is not the same as saying it is necessary.

 

[redleghunter]

Not a Catholic.

Yet the post addresses your use of bishop contrasted to the NT record.

 

[redleghunter]

Which post? Unless I've missed it, I don't think you have answered it satisfactorily. Saying something is important is not the same as saying it is necessary.

What is not clear about Hebrews 10:25 and what I’ve written about being a church partner (as opposed to a church pew stuffed member) communing with other believers, joining in ministry work locally, nationally and internationally bringing the Gospel of Christ, providing physical needs and church planting? That is pretty visible to me.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yet the post addresses your use of bishop contrasted to the NT record.

Catholics are not the only ones to use Bishops. Be fair here, I could have been a high Church Anglican and it would have been even more inaccurate to address me as a Catholic.

Pretty much all Churches that existed before the reformation use an Episcopal system of Church governance. This still seems to me a problem that the Evangelical has to address of which this discussion about the meaning of ecclesiology is only a tangent related to Ignatius of Antioch.

I believe I've demonstrated your claim of Ignatius using the terms Bishop and Presbyter interchangeably is mistaken or at the very least overblown, that there were distinctions in these positions during his time. So Ignatius cannot be claimed as an Evangelical especially for what he says concerning the nature of the Church and our submission to it.

So wind back around to the original topic, given the lack of a Born again movement, that is the same or comparable to the modern Evangelical one, what do you say about the Church's history? Did everyone not understand the bible until relatively recently?

 

[redleghunter]

Is it necessary to be part of a Church? I think you as an Evangelical have to say no, faith in Christ is all that is necessary.

Again Hebrews 10:25 and the witness of Acts and the apostolic epistles shows those born again and baptized believers assembled. They shared their burdens.
They shared the Lord’s Supper, they spread the Gospel and planted churches.

If one is not part of a Church there is probably some physical, mental or emotional disability preventing them. Or some other personal reason. But that is not the norm. Believers assemble and we do so because we love the brethren.

How many hours a week do you spend with your brethren?

 

[redleghunter]

Pretty much all Churches that existed before the reformation use an Episcopal system of Church governance. This still seems to me a problem that the Evangelical has to address of which this discussion about the meaning of ecclesiology is only a tangent related to Ignatius of Antioch.

Considering the NT Church was Presbyterian in government it is not a problem for Evangelicals.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

What is not clear about Hebrews 10:25 and what I’ve written about being a church partner (as opposed to a church pew stuffed member) communing with other believers, joining in ministry work locally, nationally and internationally bringing the Gospel of Christ, providing physical needs and church planting? That is pretty visible to me.

None of that answers my question definitively as to whether it is essential and/or necessary. You could mean important, you could be it is nearly absolutely essential to belong to a Church but not that it is required of the Christian.

I only want clarification as to this point, do you consider it of absolute necessity to belong to a Church or do you consider the only thing that is of absolute necessity is to have faith in Christ?

Take in mind I consider both necessary.

 

[redleghunter]

I believe I've demonstrated your claim of Ignatius using the terms Bishop and Presbyter interchangeably is mistaken or at the very least overblown, that there were distinctions in these positions during his time. So Ignatius cannot be claimed as an Evangelical especially for what he says concerning the nature of the Church and our submission to it.

I believe the post by @PeaceByJesus which you ignored laid out nicely the history I mentioned.

 

[redleghunter]

None of that answers my question definitively as to whether it is essential and/or necessary. You could mean important, you could be it is nearly absolutely essential to belong to a Church but not that it is required of the Christian.

I only want clarification as to this point, do you consider it of absolute necessity to belong to a Church or do you consider the only thing that is of absolute necessity is to have faith in Christ?

Take in mind I consider both necessary.

Perhaps it is because you are not familiar with the epistles I refer to you are not seeing this? We are not to forsake fellowship. We can only grow in walking in the Spirit by fellowship and worship with other believers.

If one wants to walk obediently in the Lord they will assemble.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I believe the post by @PeaceByJesus which you ignored laid out nicely the history I mentioned.

I ignored it because it wasn't focused on the immediate topic of what Ignatius meant (whom we were discussing) but went into Biblical interpretation something which is not of concern to the historical question at hand. I believe I explained in my first post on this thread that if you only offer an interpretation of the bible you aren't establishing a historical reality since what that text means is in question. thus the appeals to texts speaking about being born again, as if that is proof of a Born again movement existing throughout all Christianity is not in my opinion an answer to the OP's initial post.

The reality of the New Testament Church was different than all other Churches today in one way or another. Particularly with regards to Apostolic oversight which does not exist anymore, thus I am not surprised that in history the mono-episcopate came to dominate the Church since the Bishops filled in that place of special authority that the Apostles left in their absence. Nor do I think the Apostles themselves left us a definitive ecclesiology/Church life to follow since they knew they would not be around forever.

The problem comes about for the Evangelical is that it cannot account for the Church for 19 or so centuries. What does the council of Nicaea actually mean for the Evangelical since no Evangelicals were part of it? What does the Donatist controversy mean? The great schism and papal schism mean? Almost nothing I think. This is not to be derogatory but rather to point out that as a movement Evangelicals know they are late and thus cannot really comment on the Church's history before them in their own terms since the Church didn't exist on their own terms.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Perhaps it is because you are not familiar with the epistles I refer to you are not seeing this? We are not to forsake fellowship. We can only grow in walking in the Spirit by fellowship and worship with other believers.

If one wants to walk obediently in the Lord they will assemble.

Are comments like this really necessary? I have been critical of you, I haven't insulted you or your knowledge.

Would you agree to the following statement? "It is of absolute necessity for the Christian to belong to a Church."

 

[Cis.jd]

Jesus settles the OT canon in Luke 24:44-50

The apostles established their writings as Holy Spirit inspired by giving evidence of OT scriptures to prove their claims but also in deed and in the Power of God.

That is why long before a canon the early church recognized the authoritative nature of the apostolic works.

Irenaeus even calling those works of the apostles the pillar and foundation of our faith.

But, there was still nothing official. You see, these books where agreed on by men with out anything in scripture telling them so. You can make all sorts of reasonings such as OT references but there are many other rejected books that not only have references to the other canon, but are also referenced by the canon. So since there was no actual note in scripture telling these men such as Irenaeus as to what is truly from God then he is pretty much just following Apostolic tradition. Again, these were all agreed on with out any scriptural note.

 

[Hillsage]

At 66.5 and and as a Christian since '77 I affirm your priority is correct, as needed, but if you are going to post faulty Catholic answers in a debate, even if not from "Catholic Answers," then I would recommended you get a little more education, though I do sympathize with the lack of energy to do as much as you could have earlier.

You say you 'sympathize' with my lack of energy' but I certainly don't feel any mercy or sympathy in what sounds like false judgment to me. A point which does enter into my 'walk' versus 'talk' preference. So please, do tell me just exactly what 'faulty Catholic answers' have I have posted here in your opinion? So far, I know of none.

 

[Cis.jd]

Actually no. They had the NT writings of the apostles.

As well as other writings. They new to follow what specific writings regardless of it not reference in scripture. You see, what you just did was clarify the legitimacy of apostolic tradition and how even the likes of Irenaeus followed it. You say they had the NT writings but Irenaeus didn't follow this based on a scriptural reference, because there isn't one. There is nothing in scripture that says what is Inspired by the Holy Spirit and what books are from heretics.

The belief in the Matt-Rev as the true NT is the proof of apostolic tradition, it is said by the church fathers such as Irenaeus.

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house.

 

[redleghunter]

I believe I've demonstrated your claim of Ignatius using the terms Bishop and Presbyter interchangeably is mistaken or at the very least overblown, that there were distinctions in these positions during his time. So Ignatius cannot be claimed as an Evangelical especially for what he says concerning the nature of the Church and our submission to it.

If you read his entire post you would have seen quotes from Jerome, other RC scholars and even one EO scholar. Your answer seems to be you are not interested in that.

So wind back around to the original topic, given the lack of a Born again movement, that is the same or comparable to the modern Evangelical one, what do you say about the Church's history? Did everyone not understand the bible until relatively recently?

How many pages now? And the same “born again movement” nonsense. How many times does this straw man need to be knocked down?

If it is a movement Jesus started it in John 3. If born again of the Spirit believers are absent in your church then you should reconsider the words of Christ and His Apostles.

“The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)

No organization controls the Holy Spirit. The Body of Christ is an organism.

Church history? Have been a student of Church history since a lad. All of it the good the bad and the ugly.

 

[redleghunter]

Would you agree to the following statement? "It is of absolute necessity for the Christian to belong to a Church."

I think you have the wrong line of questioning. The above question is from an authoritarian nature as in the “or less.”

My counter question is why wouldn’t a Christian belong to a church?

You truly have it backwards.

 

[redleghunter]

But, there was still nothing official. You see, these books where agreed on by men with out anything in scripture telling them so.

What were they agreeing to? That a desert prophet crying out in the wilderness and an itinerant Rabbi claimed the Kingdom of God was at hand while standing in opposition to the sitting Jewish magisterium? That the itinerant Rabbi proclaimed His mission fulfilling and teaching, rebuking and encouraging from the Holy Scriptures to prove truth claims? Not to forget proving such with the Power of God.

As opposed to second century fabrications and specious works?

You can make all sorts of reasonings such as OT references but there are many other rejected books that not only have references to the other canon, but are also referenced by the canon

Mostly second century in origin which is not hard to figure out did not come from an apostle.

So since there was no actual note in scripture telling these men such as Irenaeus as to what is truly from God then he is pretty much just following Apostolic tradition. Again, these were all agreed on with out any scriptural note.

You mean someone later had to make what the Holy Spirit inspired authoritative? Or did they recognize the works as authoritative as being the words of Christ and His apostles? Remember the NT books the early fathers had were written and passed down written from the apostles.

For example:

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.1 (St. Irenaeus)​

As well as other writings. They new to follow what specific writings regardless of it not reference in scripture. You see, what you just did was clarify the legitimacy of apostolic tradition and how even the likes of Irenaeus followed it. You say they had the NT writings but Irenaeus didn't follow this based on a scriptural reference, because there isn't one. There is nothing in scripture that says what is Inspired by the Holy Spirit and what books are from heretics.

There's nothing in tradition which says it comes from the apostles. However, every epistle of Paul is introduced as Paul as the author. The heretics claimed apostolic authority of a secret nature. Irenaeus refuted this by presenting Holy Scriptures from the apostles. Then he showed how the apostolic tradition he and others followed was orthodox because it could be found in the written books of the NT.

The belief in the Matt-Rev as the true NT is the proof of apostolic tradition, it is said by the church fathers such as Irenaeus.

And you think this apostolic tradition somehow took precedence over what was received in writing?

Was there a difference?

What is this apostolic tradition? Irenaeus tells us. You want to know?

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house.

Please cite the quote and I will reveal to you what he refers to.