Denominations

[Kepha]

Actually it is a local denomination. The CHURCH is all those to whom have the Spirit of Christ.. That means each and every individual that has been born again. Not just because you are "Catholic"

The body of believers who were Baptised into the Church remained there through the teachings of the Apostles to those specific Churches. The only way they could 'hear' the Apostles teachings is in a Church whether it be a building, a cave, in a field or where ever at time they were hiding out. This Church was unified by their doctrines. How silly it is to propose a thing like the early members of the Church being in disunity with the Gospel and teachings of the Apostles but still connected to them because they were Baptised. How can one be Baptised into the Church yet not even believe what She teaches. The Church was a living, dynamic organism but not one that dissented from the truths passed on to them.

Whether denominations are a problem depends upon your vision of the Church. I don't see any evidence of a single international hierarchy in Acts.

You'd be surprised how many times Bishops, Priests and even Deacons are mentioned in the NT and they aren't there just for window dressing.

I see churches in different locations that were loosely in communication and communion with each other, but that at times differed on things significantly. People like Paul and Barnabas visited them, mediated, brought the Gospel to places that didn't have it, and renewed it in places that they thought had strayed. I understand that you can ignore the untidiness and treat this as if Peter was the Pope and there was something like the Catholic Church, but I think that's significantly misreading the evidence.

Preaching conflicting truths has nothing to do with untidiness.

Look at the Orthodox Catholic Churches to see their different styles of worship compared to the West. Yet when it comes to Doctrine, we both believe the same.

So the question is: how was our unity in Christ supposed to be reflected organizationally?

I would like to see all of the churches accept each other as fellow parts of the Body.

Yes, what a beautiful body of believers where some condone abortion and others don't. Where some believe divorce is acceptable and others not so much. Then there are just those who say it's never ok but that's rare.

I view the 16th Cent as God's judgement on the Western Church, rather like the tower of Babel. The Church had come to confuse itself with the Body of Christ, and not surprisingly, this arrogance had led to significant abuses. Fracturing the Church, much like fracturing the languages, was intended by God as a protective measure to make a reoccurrence less likely.

You're obviously confused because from where I'm looking, the Church still exists and is going nowhere with the Pope remaining as the visible head. So when exactly did this fall like the tower of Babel take place. Because I'm just not seeing it. If anything is falling it's the denomination curse, splintering now into nothingness but Bible believing individual thinkers.

If the Church is being cleansed, its when the luke warm Catholics leave and we gain ex protestants in return. Those who have studied the Catholic faith with more vigor. Look around at the Catholic forums. I don't know how many ex Protestants I've counted but there are plenty, and they know their faith well on both ends because it took alot of study to get to where they were. Plenty of ex Catholics on the other hand only parrot off the same things we hear day in and day out totally misunderstanding even the simplest of our Doctrines which goes to show they were only looking for a quick way out, and never being settled in to begin with.

I'm sure every Christian except Roman Catholics would disagree.

Incidentally, unless things have changed, Pope Damasus called the group, the denomination, the Roman Church. Best not to confuse things even more than they are.

In the most rigorous sense, there is only One true Universal Church. It can't be a denomination of itself.

 

[Standing Up]

The body of believers who were Baptised into the Church remained there through the teachings of the Apostles to those specific Churches. The only way they could 'hear' the Apostles teachings is in a Church whether it be a building, a cave, in a field or where ever at time they were hiding out. This Church was unified by their doctrines. How silly it is to propose a thing like the early members of the Church being in disunity with the Gospel and teachings of the Apostles but still connected to them because they were Baptised. How can one be Baptised into the Church yet not even believe what She teaches. The Church was a living, dynamic organism but not one that dissented from the truths passed on to them.

They dissented at Nicea against those who adhered to the apostolic teaching of the death of Jesus Christ on the 14th of Nisan.

You'd be surprised how many times Bishops, Priests and even Deacons are mentioned in the NT and they aren't there just for window dressing.

It looks as though the bishop/priest terms in the NT meant the same thing, essentially elder.

Look at the Orthodox Catholic Churches to see their different styles of worship compared to the West. Yet when it comes to Doctrine, we both believe the same.

Not at all. The obvious one is the Pope

In the most rigorous sense, there is only One true Universal Church. It can't be a denomination of itself.

Quite so, which is why we should use the term used long ago by Pope Damasus, the Roman Church, to refer to your denomination. Besides, you wouldn't want to assert that stuff changed, the least of which is its name

Peace-out

 

[Kepha]

They dissented at Nicea against those who adhered to the apostolic teaching of the death of Jesus Christ on the 14th of Nisan.

The Church remained. The arian dissenters dissented.

It looks as though the bishop/priest terms in the NT meant the same thing, essentially elder.

Priests were Elders. The Bishops weren't nor were the deacons though sometimes the names may not always have been technically used in the strict sense in all cases.

Anyways, the Early Church Fathers immediately attests to this fact unless one wants to think they took a giant leap into heresy before 100ad.

One of them for example if Ignatius of Antioch:


"Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).

"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" (ibid., 6:1).

"Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit" (ibid., 13:1–2).

"Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire" (Letter to the Trallians 2:1–3 [A.D. 110]).

"In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him" (ibid., 3:1–2).

"He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clear conscience" (ibid., 7:2).

"I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the voice of God: ‘Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.’ Some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division certain persons had caused; but he for whom I am in chains is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any man. It was the Spirit who kept preaching these words, ‘Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was imitator of the Father’" (Letter to the Philadelphians 7:1–2 [A.D. 110]).

Not at all. The obvious one is the Pope

I was talking about the Eastern Catholic Churches.

From East to West

Sorry, my fault. I think of them as Orthodoxy in their worship but I should have not mentioned it in their title here.

Quite so, which is why we should use the term used long ago by Pope Damasus, the Roman Church, to refer to your denomination. Besides, you wouldn't want to assert that stuff changed, the least of which is its name

Peace-out

Nah, I'd rather stick to the name my buddy Ignatius gave us.

"Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” ( Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, approx. A.D. 105 ).

 

[ebia]

You'd be surprised how many times Bishops, Priests and even Deacons are mentioned in the NT and they aren't there just for window dressing.

Well, words for overseer (bishop), elder (presbyter) and servant (deacon) appear, but they certainly show no evidence of having settled down into the 3-fold hierachy of today. The N.T. authors seem pretty loose about to what extent they are using those words as their natural meaning verses to what extent they are titles at all. And they almost never occur together, giving the distinct impression that presbyter is the same as overseer at least some of the time. And nowhere does it call any of them priest. Now, one can read priest as a derivative of presbyter, but if one does that then one needs to remember that that derivation carries no connotations about priestly-cultic function, only wisdom and leadership.

By the end of the 1st century something like the current structure has begun to emerge, but no serious ecclesiologist would still suggest you can find the current structure in Acts and the Epistles.

Yes, what a beautiful body of believers where some condone abortion and others don't. Where some believe divorce is acceptable and others not so much. Then there are just those who say it's never ok but that's rare.

Well, most of the churches' praxis is not all that different on those - there are of course outliers and we don't all handle divorce in the same way but the net results aren't very different. But those are important but peripheral issues and one can find the church from the very beginning arguing about issues as important as those as ones even more central. And, of course, whatever official documents say you can find as much actual diversity of belief on those issues and others inside the RCC as outside.

the Church [...] is going nowhere

Unfortunately that sometimes is the perception.

 

[ebia]

Priests were Elders. The Bishops weren't nor were the deacons though sometimes the names may not always have been technically used in the strict sense in all cases.

How exactly are you connecting the word 'priest' with presbyter/elder and in what sense are you using it.

Anyways, the Early Church Fathers immediately attests to this fact unless one wants to think they took a giant leap into heresy before 100ad.

Every ecclesiologist acknowledges that the roles have developed considerably by the time of Ignatius (and were still developing - he clearly sees the the function of presiding at the eucharist to be entirely the function of the bishop that can be delegated if necessary to presbyters).

When Paul and Luke were writing the terms still seem to be very fluid, there are no priestly connotations attached to either, elder/presbyter and overseer/bishop seem to be more or less interchangable, there is no evidence of anything resembling an ordination of anybody, ...


That's not to say that there is anything invalid about the way the church developed during the late 1st and early second centuries, but you can't pretend that its what we find in the New Testament - it is, at best, a development from that, as the church we find in Epistles and see in Acts is a church developing from the handful of people standing around on the Mount of Olives on Ascension Thursday.

 

[MamaZ]

The body of believers who were Baptised into the Church remained there through the teachings of the Apostles to those specific Churches. The only way they could 'hear' the Apostles teachings is in a Church whether it be a building, a cave, in a field or where ever at time they were hiding out. This Church was unified by their doctrines. How silly it is to propose a thing like the early members of the Church being in disunity with the Gospel and teachings of the Apostles but still connected to them because they were Baptised. How can one be Baptised into the Church yet not even believe what She teaches. The Church was a living, dynamic organism but not one that dissented from the truths passed on to them.

Well a simple answer would be that your idea of Church and the scriptures truth of Church differ.. For the Church is the bride of Christ. As said before. The CHURCH is the people not the denomination. And every man woman and Child who has the Spirit of Christ are the Church. The Bride. Gods Chosen.

You'd be surprised how many times Bishops, Priests and even Deacons are mentioned in the NT and they aren't there just for window dressing.

The only Priest that I look to is the High Priest. For all others and what they say need to be taken to the scriptures to see if what they say is ineed what scripture teaches.

Preaching conflicting truths has nothing to do with untidiness.

Look at the Orthodox Catholic Churches to see their different styles of worship compared to the West. Yet when it comes to Doctrine, we both believe the same.





Yes, what a beautiful body of believers where some condone abortion and others don't. Where some believe divorce is acceptable and others not so much. Then there are just those who say it's never ok but that's rare.


You're obviously confused because from where I'm looking, the Church still exists and is going nowhere with the Pope remaining as the visible head. So when exactly did this fall like the tower of Babel take place. Because I'm just not seeing it. If anything is falling it's the denomination curse, splintering now into nothingness but Bible believing individual thinkers.

If the Church is being cleansed, its when the luke warm Catholics leave and we gain ex protestants in return. Those who have studied the Catholic faith with more vigor. Look around at the Catholic forums. I don't know how many ex Protestants I've counted but there are plenty, and they know their faith well on both ends because it took alot of study to get to where they were. Plenty of ex Catholics on the other hand only parrot off the same things we hear day in and day out totally misunderstanding even the simplest of our Doctrines which goes to show they were only looking for a quick way out, and never being settled in to begin with.

In the most rigorous sense, there is only One true Universal Church. It can't be a denomination of itself.[/

quote]
Your right it can't be of itself. It has to born of the Spirit of Christ without a denomination attached. For Christ is the Head of His body and His body is born of His Spirit.

 

[sunlover1]

Leave them out of your Christ walk.
WHY?
Because they only lead to bondage.

Amen Simon! You're in agreement with Jesus

20“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

The same could be said of many things.

So leave them many things out of your walk.

Yes, yes, Catholicism rant and so forth.

Tell me, if everybody interpreting the Bible has the Holy Spirit, then why are there are 3 different interpretations per every 2 people? Or are there people who interpret the Bible that don't have the Holy Spirit?

That old tired question DarkLight?

 

[chestertonrules]

Amen Simon! You're in agreement with Jesus

20“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Jesus wants you to belong to his Church. You are not entitled to create your own message, you are to follow the message of his Church.


My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message

That's you and me! We are to follow those sent by Jesus, ie. the Catholic Church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Jesus wants you to belong to his Church. You are not entitled to create your own message, you are to follow the message of his Church.

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message

That's you and me! We are to follow those sent by Jesus, ie. the Catholic Church.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5443601/
Denomination? According to Webster's RCC is one

http://www.christianforums.com/t7230052-22/#post46816576
Apparently --Catholics are now a "Denomination"

"At least here in the friendly land of CF2.....dang I wish we had a rolls eyes smiley..."

 

[sunlover1]

Jesus wants you to belong to his Church.

Hi Chestertonrules.
Amen

That's you and me! We are to follow those sent by Jesus,...

 

[MamaZ]

Jesus wants you to belong to his Church. You are not entitled to create your own message, you are to follow the message of his Church.


My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message

That's you and me! We are to follow those sent by Jesus, ie. the Catholic Church.

Actually Jesus wants us to be His Church. We are to follow the teaching of the Apostles and they were not Catholic Church but the body of Christ.

 

[tadoflamb]

Leave them out of your Christ walk.
WHY?
Because they only lead to bondage.

Like so many things, Simon, though we come at this from different angles, I agree with you.

 

[Standing Up]

Priests were Elders. The Bishops weren't nor were the deacons though sometimes the names may not always have been technically used in the strict sense in all cases.

-snip-

Nah, I'd rather stick to the name my buddy Ignatius gave us.

"Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” ( Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, approx. A.D. 105 ).

Well, words for overseer (bishop), elder (presbyter) and servant (deacon) appear, but they certainly show no evidence of having settled down into the 3-fold hierachy of today. The N.T. authors seem pretty loose about to what extent they are using those words as their natural meaning verses to what extent they are titles at all. And they almost never occur together, giving the distinct impression that presbyter is the same as overseer at least some of the time. And nowhere does it call any of them priest. Now, one can read priest as a derivative of presbyter, but if one does that then one needs to remember that that derivation carries no connotations about priestly-cultic function, only wisdom and leadership.

By the end of the 1st century something like the current structure has begun to emerge, but no serious ecclesiologist would still suggest you can find the current structure in Acts and the Epistles.

Here's Vines and Scripture on the matter

Note: Presbuteros, "an elder," is another term for the same person as bishop or overseer. See Act 20:17 with verse 28. The term "elder" indicates the mature spiritual experience and understanding of those so described; the term "bishop," or "overseer," indicates the character of the work undertaken. According to the Divine will and appointment, as in the NT, there were to be "bishops" in every local church, Act 14:23; 20:17; Phl 1:1; Tts 1:5; Jam 5:14. Where the singular is used, the passage is describing what a "bishop" should be, 1Ti 3:2; Tts 1:7. Christ Himself is spoken of as "the . . . Bishop of our souls," 1Pe 2:25.

Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

v28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

From the elders (plural) group came the various offices (officers) (prophet, teacher, pastor, evangelist) with the gifts of the Spirit.

 

[Standing Up]

How exactly are you connecting the word 'priest' with presbyter/elder and in what sense are you using it.


Every ecclesiologist acknowledges that the roles have developed considerably by the time of Ignatius (and were still developing - he clearly sees the the function of presiding at the eucharist to be entirely the function of the bishop that can be delegated if necessary to presbyters).

When Paul and Luke were writing the terms still seem to be very fluid, there are no priestly connotations attached to either, elder/presbyter and overseer/bishop seem to be more or less interchangable, there is no evidence of anything resembling an ordination of anybody, ...

From another thread yesterday, I said the following. And you have "supported" --

" We got that the separate office between bishop and priest developed. The question is why?

The Eucharist. Probably you can quote an ECF about the body/blood/sacrifice and I can quote them too about body/blood/thanksgiving. And some folks try to mend the fence and say it's both.

As mentioned in a different thread about holidays, as pagans converted, they brought ideas, like Easter and Christmas. They've been more or less "christianized", but their source was pagan. Same with the idea of sacrifice. The bible of course says it was done once for all. But priests keeping doing it, and then all sorts of semantics are made to explain why the duly ordained priest at the altar saying the right words with the proper intent does it supposedly again.

My point is that the separation of elders into bishop and priest coincided over time with the change of eucharist as thanksgiving into sacrifice. A sacrifice requires a priest, just like the Levites. But a thanksgiving, we all do it. (Priesthood of believers versus Levitical-type priest retained.)

Furthermore it's clear in history. The simple definitions of eucharist--it means thanksgiving, not sacrifice and same with presbyter--it means elder, not priest, but they changed.

And then of course that evolved. The bibilical teaching of elder and deacon into the ECF idea of bishop, priest (sacrifice), deacon into Rome's bishop of bishops, aka Pope, bishop, priest, deacon.

Peace--out

That's not to say that there is anything invalid about the way the church developed during the late 1st and early second centuries, but you can't pretend that its what we find in the New Testament - it is, at best, a development from that, as the church we find in Epistles and see in Acts is a church developing from the handful of people standing around on the Mount of Olives on Ascension Thursday.

Why exactly should that be supported in any sense? But we rejoice because Christ is preached?

 

[Christos Anesti]

I agree thats why I'm Orthodox. Why belong to a denomination when you can belong to the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

 

[ebia]

The Eucharist. Probably you can quote an ECF about the body/blood/sacrifice and I can quote them too about body/blood/thanksgiving. And some folks try to mend the fence and say it's both.

Of course its both - and a whole lot of other things as well.

 

[Kepha]

By the end of the 1st century something like the current structure has begun to emerge, but no serious ecclesiologist would still suggest you can find the current structure in Acts and the Epistles.

I would say the words themselves were not always fixed when calling another the same name, however the criteria of certain duties of which they were expected to handle does carry the meaning of the words today as well as in the early Church.

For example, we see that Timothy is doing what a Bishop of today would do by laying hands on one and ordaining another into the Church.

Tim 5:22 Lay hands quickly on no man, nor partake in others' sins. Keep thyself pure.

Titus 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:

Then we see in James where the job of today's Priest are called into a church to perform what we could call today 'extreme unction' or anointing of the sick.

Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

In the same context we see the Sacrament of Confession at work as well where just after it's talking about bringing the Priests in for the anointing of the sick, and the Lord forgiving our sins, it immediately mentions why they were forgiving when the next verse commands us to confess our sins from one to another and combined with prayer so that we may be saved.

Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

And lastly, the responsibility of a deacon in today's church would be to teach as well as taking charge over certain Church tasks as is shown in Acts 6.

1 And in those days, the number of the disciples increasing, there arose a murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews, for that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. 2 Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. 3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. 5 And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch.

Well, most of the churches' praxis is not all that different on those - there are of course outliers and we don't all handle divorce in the same way but the net results aren't very different. But those are important but peripheral issues and one can find the church from the very beginning arguing about issues as important as those as ones even more central. And, of course, whatever official documents say you can find as much actual diversity of belief on those issues and others inside the RCC as outside.

I'm not sure I follow. Which Churches are you talking about here? And arguing about things comes with the territory over time, especially when the Churches are so well split up and the communications are nothing like today. The point being, the arguments were discussed and eventually settled through councils and what not. My point with my original post is saying the protestants of today, 2000 years after the fact, still have not come to a final ruling on this but differ greatly regarding if it's acceptable or not. The non denominational Churches are the worse for this since they really don't have any sort of a leader other than themselves so it's only natural to see this occur. My non denom friend's Church have about an 80 percent divorce and remarry record and their Pastor who doesn't say it's wrong, still wouldn't remarry him the second time because he says it doesn't look good on the Church. Talk about confusion.

How exactly are you connecting the word 'priest' with presbyter/elder and in what sense are you using it.

I'm using the Latin word for it (presbuteroi).

Every ecclesiologist acknowledges that the roles have developed considerably by the time of Ignatius (and were still developing - he clearly sees the the function of presiding at the eucharist to be entirely the function of the bishop that can be delegated if necessary to presbyters).

Well, considering Ignatius's letters to certain Churches that Paul founded, and as explicit as they were in the structure, then how can one explain why so many churches that were founded over such a wide geographical area had the same Bishop/Priest system in such a short period of time? A structure that does not show any type of protest. The only conclusion I can make is that they indeed were set up from the beginning, even if not explicit in the NT Scriptures.

Well a simple answer would be that your idea of Church and the scriptures truth of Church differ.. For the Church is the bride of Christ. As said before. The CHURCH is the people not the denomination. And every man woman and Child who has the Spirit of Christ are the Church. The Bride. Gods Chosen.

That is only your sola Scripture, personal interpretations tunnel view talking MamaZ and a complete neglect of the evidence of how the early Church shown in History was set up.

The only Priest that I look to is the High Priest. For all others and what they say need to be taken to the scriptures to see if what they say is ineed what scripture teaches.

Yes, your scripture alone theory hasn't enough evidence anywhere to convey to the people something so important for their families futures. You've been duped and need to take a good hard look at your beliefs and why you believe something not explicitly stated anywhere in the NT.

Your right it can't be of itself. It has to born of the Spirit of Christ without a denomination attached. For Christ is the Head of His body and His body is born of His Spirit.

You're right. The denominations are a no no. The one visible Church is a yes yes though.

 

[ebia]

I would say the words themselves were not always fixed when calling another the same name, however the criteria of certain duties of which they were expected to handle does carry the meaning of the words today as well as in the early Church.

For example, we see that Timothy is doing what a Bishop of today would do by laying hands on one and ordaining another into the Church.

Tim 5:22 Lay hands quickly on no man, nor partake in others' sins. Keep thyself pure.

It's a huge jump to assume that's ordination, when there isn't a hint of the concept of ordination in the New Testament and hands are laid on for a number of reasons then as now.

Titus 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:

The word is appoint, not ordain.

Then we see in James where the job of today's Priest are called into a church to perform what we could call today 'extreme unction' or anointing of the sick.

Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

Again, if we stick to 'elder' here we get a less biased sense.

You seem to be using the Douah-Rheims, which (in reaction to Tyndale etc) goes out of its way to put in later terms in place of the natural words and therefore tries to make clear in favour of the RCC what is ambiguous in the greek, putting in words like priest and ordained instead of elder and appoint. If we're going to have a serious discussion we need to work from a less biased translation.

In the same context we see the Sacrament of Confession at work as well where just after it's talking about bringing the Priests in for the anointing of the sick, and the Lord forgiving our sins, it immediately mentions why they were forgiving when the next verse commands us to confess our sins from one to another and combined with prayer so that we may be saved.

Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much

Confess to one another, not specifically to the elders.

And lastly, the responsibility of a deacon in today's church would be to teach as well as taking charge over certain Church tasks as is shown in Acts 6.

Interestingly 'teach' is precisely not a job given to the people in Acts 6, which few scholars take as the start of the diaconate any more.

I'm not sure I follow. Which Churches are you talking about here? And arguing about things comes with the territory over time, especially when the Churches are so well split up and the communications are nothing like today. The point being, the arguments were discussed and eventually settled through councils and what not.

At any given point in time there are ongoing arguments, some of which have been running for close to 2,000 years (eg non-violence verses just-war).

I'm using the Latin word for it (presbuteroi).

Then avoid bringing in the English word priest until its absolutely clear where things are going, because it lacks to clarity of presbyter, tending to bring in at least connotations of cultic priestly functions which don't go with elder/presbyter.

Well, considering Ignatius's letters to certain Churches that Paul founded, and as explicit as they were in the structure, then how can one explain why so many churches that were founded over such a wide geographical area had the same Bishop/Priest system in such a short period of time?

We've every reason to believe there was significant movement and communication between them. And we can see the church changing a good deal in the, what, just over 30 years between Jesus ascension and Paul's death and the end of Acts. If it can change that much in 3 decades how much more in the 5 decades from then to Ignatius' epistles in around 117?

A structure that does not show any type of protest.

I don't know that we have enough data that we would no about a protest if it happened - we have very few extra-canonical documents from that period. Not that I think there as a protest - its a perfectly natural derivation.

The only conclusion I can make is that they indeed were set up from the beginning, even if not explicit in the NT Scriptures.

I'm not bowled over by "only conclusions" that are convenient. Pretty much everybody in scholarship accepts that the church evolved - you can see it evolving in various particulars over time - so there's absolutely no reason why it can't have evolved in these particulars. Of course if one late date's Timothy and Titus that moves them along the scale somewhat and makes some things cleared and some a little more opaque. Of course one can try to say effectively, "well, it was happening from the beginning but nobody says so till Ignatius", but both Paul and Luke seem to have a much more fluid, ad-hoc, idea of local leadership than that, and (since the setup still seems to be evolving in Ignatius' time) that's not the natural reading of the data we have - its a reading back into the data of what some would like to be true.

 

[ticker]

Denominations

...make things rather interesting.

 

[Kepha]

The word is appoint, not ordain.

That's only because you're looking at it from a protestant POV. The words in Latin when put into English can have a variety of meanings in the NT and can have a bias translation by many different sides depending who's doing the translating. And from what I read, Tyndale wasn't exactly an elite scholar by any means and wasn't too fond of the Church to begin with. So you'll have to excuse me if I continue to not care much for his translating.

For example, your Tyndale Bible refers to Jesus 'Ordaining the 12' in Mark 3:14 yet the word 'Poieo' used there only means 'to do' or 'to make' in the other 534 times it's used in the NT except again in that one verse. Now if I was an agnostic seeker looking into the NT, I'd make the very claim against Tyndale, as you do against the Church when interpreting passages in a bias way. So the only thing this better yet proves is how unreliable the 'Bible only' can be and wishy washy when it comes to interpreting or translating the 'precise' message it's attempting to convey. It's quite the illogical set up for those of us who were supposed to be 'taught' the Gospel.

Again, if we stick to 'elder' here we get a less biased sense.

No matter. Elders could have meant Priests as well. I never said they couldn't.

You seem to be using the Douah-Rheims, which (in reaction to Tyndale etc) goes out of its way to put in later terms in place of the natural words and therefore tries to make clear in favour of the RCC what is ambiguous in the greek, putting in words like priest and ordained instead of elder and appoint. If we're going to have a serious discussion we need to work from a less biased translation.

See above.

Confess to one another, not specifically to the elders.

You blatantly ignore the context to suggest it meant all of us individuals only.

Interestingly 'teach' is precisely not a job given to the people in Acts 6, which few scholars take as the start of the diaconate any more.

They were looking for 'Men' who were full of the Holy Ghost and Wisdom. Merely serving tables, one doesn't necessarily need those qualifications but I can see a point as well where they'd want everyone representing them to carry a high moral standard. But to be full of the Holy Ghost and Wisdom still seems that it would exceed a simple yet morally humble man who could not soundly teach either. Now how much they may have taught I don't know or if they did much at that time at all. I think it's still ignorant to ignore the possibilities and it's something I could easily see have evolved in that area. However, singling out and appointing men to do such a task while they continue to 'Minister' does show a certain order in the early Church from that verse alone. And we can set that apart from the 'Elders/Priests set up in the Churches to boot.

At any given point in time there are ongoing arguments, some of which have been running for close to 2,000 years (eg non-violence verses just-war).

You're being disingenuous to state such a Doctrine wasn't important when Jesus taught it 2000 years ago, enough to have been settled by now or in your view, ever settled without any type of Authority. Though with you being Anglican, I kind of expect your pro-divorce stance here.

We've every reason to believe there was significant movement and communication between them. And we can see the church changing a good deal in the, what, just over 30 years between Jesus ascension and Paul's death and the end of Acts. If it can change that much in 3 decades how much more in the 5 decades from then to Ignatius' epistles in around 117?

Ignatius epistles were around 110 ad. This structure was already well set up when He wrote them to these Churches. So it's much less than 5 decades to at least see this in the Church making it very reasonable that even the seeds may have been planted in the NT. Ignatius being a disciple of John nowhere even shows a hint of questioning how problematic such a hierarchy would be. He's all for it if anything.

I don't know that we have enough data that we would no about a protest if it happened - we have very few extra-canonical documents from that period. Not that I think there as a protest - its a perfectly natural derivation.

Well I could likewise apply this to the NT. There really isn't enough explicit data to condemn Catholicism for it's Hierarchy by stating it's unbiblical. And by what it seems you're stating here, silence or implicit teachings is not is much of an argument when it comes down to it.

I'm not bowled over by "only conclusions" that are convenient. Pretty much everybody in scholarship accepts that the church evolved -

Of course the hierarchy of order we have today evolved to it's explicit form of repsonsiblites. But to insist without any sort of proof that there never was a structure that was on it's way is silly. Now you may not be saying this, but the origin of this thread had every intention.

I mean, even from the Birth of the Church, to commiting Priests to every Church in the NT to the men chosen to seve tables or perform other tasks, was an evolution of Hierarchy. Unless you wish to place these 'Priests/Elders' and deacons on the same teaching level as the Apostles of course which would be eye rolling if anything. They were all necessary for the NT Church to cointinue it's mission of preching the Gospel. Regarding the word Priest, again, I will continue to use it since it's a word derived from Presbyteros and how much identity you wish to give to the Priest of today's Church is up to you.