LDS If a universal apostasy really happened?

[Daniel Marsh]

read to here

 

[Peter1000]

Acts 15 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
The Meeting at Jerusalem
15 Then some men came to Antioch from Judea and began teaching the non-Jewish believers: “You cannot be saved if you are not circumcised as Moses taught us.” 2 Paul and Barnabas were against this teaching and argued with these men about it. So the group decided to send Paul, Barnabas, and some others to Jerusalem to talk more about this with the apostles and elders.

3 The church helped them get ready to leave on their trip. The men went through the countries of Phoenicia and Samaria, where they told all about how the non-Jewish people had turned to the true God. This made all the believers very happy. 4 When the men arrived in Jerusalem, the apostles, the elders, and the whole church welcomed them. Paul, Barnabas, and the others told about all that God had done with them. 5 Some of the believers in Jerusalem had belonged to the Pharisees. They stood up and said, “The non-Jewish believers must be circumcised. We must tell them to obey the Law of Moses!”

6 Then the apostles and the elders gathered to study this problem. 7 After a long debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “My brothers, I am sure you remember what happened in the early days. God chose me from among you to tell the Good News to those who are not Jewish. It was from me that they heard the Good News and believed. 8 God knows everyone, even their thoughts, and he accepted these non-Jewish people. He showed this to us by giving them the Holy Spirit the same as he did to us. 9 To God, those people are not different from us. When they believed, God made their hearts pure. 10 So now, why are you putting a heavy burden[a] around the necks of the non-Jewish followers of Jesus? Are you trying to make God angry? We and our fathers were not able to carry that burden. 11 No, we believe that we and these people will be saved the same way—by the grace of the Lord Jesus.”

12 Then the whole group became quiet. They listened while Paul and Barnabas told about all the miraculous signs and wonders that God had done through them among the non-Jewish people. 13 When they finished speaking, James said, “My brothers, listen to me. 14 Simon Peter has told us how God showed his love for the non-Jewish people. For the first time, God accepted them and made them his people. 15 The words of the prophets agree with this too:

16 ‘I will return after this.
I will build David’s house again.
It has fallen down.
I will build again the parts of his house that have been pulled down.
I will make his house new.
17 Then the rest of the world will look for the Lord God—
all those of other nations who are my people too.
The Lord said this.
And he is the one who does all these things.’

18 ‘All this has been known from the beginning of time.’

19 “So I think we should not make things hard for those who have turned to God from among the non-Jewish people. 20 Instead, we should send a letter telling them only the things they should not do:

Don’t eat food that has been given to idols. This makes the food unclean.

Don’t be involved in sexual sin.

Don’t eat meat from animals that have been strangled or any meat that still has the blood in it.

21 They should not do any of these things, because there are still men in every city who teach the Law of Moses. The words of Moses have been read in the synagogue every Sabbath day for many years.”

The Letter to the Non-Jewish Believers
22 The apostles, the elders, and the whole church wanted to send some men with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. The group decided to choose some of their own men. They chose Judas (also called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were respected by the believers. 23 The group sent the letter with these men. The letter said:

From the apostles and elders, your brothers,

To all the non-Jewish brothers in the city of Antioch and in the countries of Syria and Cilicia.

Dear Brothers:

24 We have heard that some men have come to you from our group. What they said troubled and upset you. But we did not tell them to do this. 25 We have all agreed to choose some men and send them to you. They will be with our dear friends, Barnabas and Paul. 26 Barnabas and Paul have given their lives to serve our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 So we have sent Judas and Silas with them. They will tell you the same things. 28 We agree with the Holy Spirit that you should have no more burdens, except for these necessary things:

29 Don’t eat food that has been given to idols.

Don’t eat meat from animals that have been strangled or any meat that still has the blood in it.

Don’t be involved in sexual sin.

If you stay away from these, you will do well.

We say goodbye now.

30 So Paul, Barnabas, Judas, and Silas left Jerusalem and went to Antioch. There they gathered the group of believers together and gave them the letter. 31 When the believers read it, they were happy. The letter comforted them. 32 Judas and Silas, who were also prophets, said many things to encourage the believers and make them stronger in their faith. 33 After Judas and Silas stayed there for a while, they left. They received a blessing of peace from the believers. Then they went back to those who had sent them. 34 [c]

35 But Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch. They and many others taught the believers and told other people the Good News about the Lord.

Paul and Barnabas Separate
36 A few days later, Paul said to Barnabas, “We should go back to all the towns where we told people the message of the Lord. We should visit the believers to see how they are doing.”

37 Barnabas wanted to bring John Mark with them too. 38 But on their first trip John Mark did not continue with them in the work. He had left them at Pamphylia. So Paul did not think it was a good idea to take him this time. 39 Paul and Barnabas had a big argument about this. It was so bad that they separated and went different ways. Barnabas sailed to Cyprus and took Mark with him.

40 Paul chose Silas to go with him. The believers in Antioch put Paul into the Lord’s care and sent him out. 41 Paul and Silas went through the countries of Syria and Cilicia, helping the churches grow stronger.

There were disputing people, Christians there and they answered the problem as a group. Thus all of them were binding and Loosing.

Again, how do you unlock a lock without a key? I am not sure you addressed that question.

There is no doubt that Peter called this conference to discuss a very important problem in the early church. He also allowed anyone who wished to speak to do so. He was not a tyrant kind of person, he allowed participation from the apostles and from the elders etc.

So Peter and the apostles showed their humility and leadership and allowed all to talk and discuss and come to an agreement about what should be done. With Peter and the apostles and elders and others, the solution was reached and a letter was brought forth and sent by Paul to the different cities to inform the new church members how to act.

But I would not say that all were binding and loosing. The apostles had that responsibility to receive revelation from Christ as to the final solution. Yes, this decision was reached by consensus in this case and now comes the 'keys'. Peter receives from revelation that this is a good solution and turns the key in the lock and everyone moves forward.

I guarantee that if Peter did not receive revelation from Jesus that this was the true solution, the key would not have unlocked the door to go forward. There would have been more discussion and other solutions, until Jesus approved and Peter used his keys to unlock the door to bind and loose and send the messengers forward.

Peter had the keys and the ultimate responsibility to do what Jesus wanted done. Until he approves, nothing was going to happen, no matter what the rest of the apostles said or the elders or Paul or anybody.

If this first council's solution was accomplished by consensus and the majority made the decision, then future councils would be a battle ground where the participants would eventually learn that if they wanted their solution to be decided on, they would have to work hard and pack the council with as many of their brethren as possible. Jesus would not have a say through his the Holy Spirit and the apostles, and the true solution would not be reached and the church would be frustrated by majority rule. Not good. If you look at future councils this is exactly what happened, and it was not the way of Jesus Christ, and led to apostasy.

IOW you cannot unlock a lock and move forward with the true solution without the proper
'keys of the KOH'. In the early church, Peter was the man that Jesus chose to hold and operate those keys.

 

[Yekcidmij]

There is no doubt that Peter called this conference

It looks like James is the decision maker in that passage, not Peter. Paul and Peter make a case to James for James to make the decision.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

There is no doubt that Peter called this conference to discuss a very important problem in the early church. He also allowed anyone who wished to speak to do so. He was not a tyrant kind of person, he allowed participation from the apostles and from the elders etc.

So Peter and the apostles showed their humility and leadership and allowed all to talk and discuss and come to an agreement about what should be done. With Peter and the apostles and elders and others, the solution was reached and a letter was brought forth and sent by Paul to the different cities to inform the new church members how to act.

But I would not say that all were binding and loosing. The apostles had that responsibility to receive revelation from Christ as to the final solution. Yes, this decision was reached by consensus in this case and now comes the 'keys'. Peter receives from revelation that this is a good solution and turns the key in the lock and everyone moves forward.

I guarantee that if Peter did not receive revelation from Jesus that this was the true solution, the key would not have unlocked the door to go forward. There would have been more discussion and other solutions, until Jesus approved and Peter used his keys to unlock the door to bind and loose and send the messengers forward.

Peter had the keys and the ultimate responsibility to do what Jesus wanted done. Until he approves, nothing was going to happen, no matter what the rest of the apostles said or the elders or Paul or anybody.

If this first council's solution was accomplished by consensus and the majority made the decision, then future councils would be a battle ground where the participants would eventually learn that if they wanted their solution to be decided on, they would have to work hard and pack the council with as many of their brethren as possible. Jesus would not have a say through his the Holy Spirit and the apostles, and the true solution would not be reached and the church would be frustrated by majority rule. Not good. If you look at future councils this is exactly what happened, and it was not the way of Jesus Christ, and led to apostasy.

IOW you cannot unlock a lock and move forward with the true solution without the proper
'keys of the KOH'. In the early church, Peter was the man that Jesus chose to hold and operate those keys.

Acts 15
v2 ... the church arranged for Paul and Barnabas and some others of them to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem concerning this controversy.

v6 apostles and the elders assembled to consider this matter.

There is no evidence that Peter called the meeting. All we have is The Church arranged it and the Apostles and Elders Assembled to discuss it. Nothing in the text says Peter acted like a Pope.

James as the Bishop of that city would be in charge. Also, "Then pleased it the Apostles and elders, together with the whole Church," Also, decisions were made by the whole church body, not just one man. CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 33 on the Acts of the Apostles (Chrysostom)

 

[Daniel Marsh]

It looks like James is the decision maker in that passage, not Peter. Paul and Peter make a case to James for James to make the decision.

Amen, James was the Bishop of that City and was in Charge. Major decisions of the early church was made by Ecumenical Councils, not one person.

 

[Peter1000]

It looks like James is the decision maker in that passage, not Peter. Paul and Peter make a case to James for James to make the decision.

Yes, in this case, James was mouth for the presidency. Peter rose up and made his speech and then Paul and Barnabus, and finally James told the audience what the decision was and they left happy.

Read these scriptures to see that Peter, James and John were some kind of a presidency or had a little more importance than the rest of the 12:
Galatians 2:9
Matthew 17:1
Mark 5:37
Mark 14:32-34

Peter, however, held the keys and was like the president of the 12 and the president of the presidency (3). But this does not mean that he is the only one that says or does anything. But it is by his approval that all things were done.

For instance, if James had got up and said something that was contrary to what Peter thought, things would have changed.

 

[Peter1000]

Acts 15
v2 ... the church arranged for Paul and Barnabas and some others of them to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem concerning this controversy.

v6 apostles and the elders assembled to consider this matter.

There is no evidence that Peter called the meeting. All we have is The Church arranged it and the Apostles and Elders Assembled to discuss it. Nothing in the text says Peter acted like a Pope.

James as the Bishop of that city would be in charge. Also, "Then pleased it the Apostles and elders, together with the whole Church," Also, decisions were made by the whole church body, not just one man. CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 33 on the Acts of the Apostles (Chrysostom)

Who do you think the church was? It was the apostles and elders and other members. Peter was the head of the whole church. You are right that James at the time was the bishop of Rome, so he being part of the big 3 had a lot to say of the matter, and in this case gave the final solution to the group, but the one holding the keys would have the final word, as to what that solution was.

Just because it is not written that Peter called the meeting, there is some common sense that says the head of the church would be involved in the calling of the first conference.

Peter did not ever act like a pope anyway. But he is the one that got the conference started and the discussion took place and finally James gave the solution. Peter, James, and John were the presidency of the 12 apostles.

Read these scriptures to see that Peter, James and John were some kind of a presidency or had a little more importance than the rest of the 12:
Galatians 2:9
Matthew 17:1
Mark 5:37
Mark 14:32-34

 

[Peter1000]

Hi Friend, based on if two or three pray in my name in Matthew 18:18 it is my opinion that the keys of salvation or Gospel will be passed on to anyone doing Church Discipline since that is the context of Matthew 18. Great Question.

Did the idea of the pentarchy come from the bible or an apostle? No and No. It came from an emperor. Then a council was held and just like all councils, the east said yes, the west said no.

So good luck governing the church by the Pentarchy, it is not the way of Christ.

 

[Peter1000]

Amen, James was the Bishop of that City and was in Charge. Major decisions of the early church was made by Ecumenical Councils, not one person.

It is true that major decisions were discussed and the solutions for the problem. There is only one conference that I can think of in the bible and that was overseen by the apostles, particularly Peter and James and Paul. The leader of the apostles, Peter had to give his approval to any decision, since he held the keys of the KOH, given to him by Christ. He agreed with the solution that the conference came up with and James made it known and it moved forward.

The 3 apostles as shown in earlier posts were acting as one and they governed all aspects of the church as it started to grow.

As you see in history, the councils usually ended in controversy and lots of times the next council rejected the results of the former council, and so governing the church by council without the results being filtered through the apostles, with a final decision coming from the head of the apostles has caused us problems since the 2nd council. For instance the council of Chalcedon caused a major schism in the church. It did not solve anything except the major church in Alexandria Egypt split off because of a dispute about the nature of Jesus.

So no, councils are great to get information, but someone needs to be recognized as the head and take the information and see if that is right with Jesus and then make the correct decision, not for show and for unity and power, but what is actually best for the people of the church.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes, in this case, James was mouth for the presidency. Peter rose up and made his speech and then Paul and Barnabus, and finally James told the audience what the decision was and they left happy.

Read these scriptures to see that Peter, James and John were some kind of a presidency or had a little more importance than the rest of the 12:
Galatians 2:9
Matthew 17:1
Mark 5:37
Mark 14:32-34

Peter, however, held the keys and was like the president of the 12 and the president of the presidency (3). But this does not mean that he is the only one that says or does anything. But it is by his approval that all things were done.

For instance, if James had got up and said something that was contrary to what Peter thought, things would have changed.

The fact that Peter cowered when the group from Jerusalem--sent by James--and Paul had to rebuke Peter would seem to suggest that Peter wasn't the dude in charge.

It seems like, at least in the beginning, that the base of operations (as it were) was in Jerusalem, and thus fell to James' episcopal leadership. Not that James was head of the Church, but clearly the See of Jerusalem held a position of prominence.

Now, with the Jewish-Roman Wars, especially the second which resulted in the full explusion of the Jews from Jerusalem, and in fact, the turning of Jerusalem into a Roman colony (Aelia Capitolina), and the execution of the last of the desposyni (Judah Kyriakos) under Hadrian generally meant the central importance of the Jerusalem Church faded; fortunately the Sees of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria remained vitally important. And later on the See of Byzantium (after becoming Constantinople) would be joined to these; likewise honor would continue to afforded to the See of Jerusalem, hence what Church historians refer to as the Pentarchy.

However, during the apostolic period itself, as important as Peter was we simply don't see Peter having some sort of centralized authority.

We do not see a "presidency". We do not see a "prophet" at the head of the Church. And even while we do see the See of Jerusalem having a place of prominence, that doesn't even mean that James had some kind of supra-authority.

While Paul generally submits himself to Jerusalem, Paul has no problem being critical of those who came from Jerusalem, even though they came under the authority of James.

What we simply don't have in the early Church is a "leader", but rather a brotherhood of apostles and bishops; as the earliest bishops were the apostles, and those ordained by the apostles as bishops continued the apostolic ministry and work in the Church. It is this brotherhood of bishops, across the expanding Christian world as the Gospel is being preached both within the borders of the Roman Empire and as it extends outside of it, that acts, in concert, to collectively serve and pastor the growing Church everywhere. That is, pastoring the ever-growing Church catholic.

Ultimate authority and decision-making never fell to individuals, but always and consistently fell to the Church acting as a whole, acting in its catholicity, through council.

When the Gentile controversy erupted we don't have Peter, or James, or any individual making their own declaration. Instead we see a council. It wasn't James, or Peter, or Paul, but the Council of Jerusalem, which established, authoritatively for the Church, the full acceptance of the Gentiles.

And councils are how the Church continued to exercise its catholic authority, not through divine fiat, but through a coming together, agreement, and consensus of the Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Yes, in this case, James was mouth for the presidency. Peter rose up and made his speech and then Paul and Barnabus, and finally James told the audience what the decision was and they left happy.

Read these scriptures to see that Peter, James and John were some kind of a presidency or had a little more importance than the rest of the 12:
Galatians 2:9
Matthew 17:1
Mark 5:37
Mark 14:32-34

Peter, however, held the keys and was like the president of the 12 and the president of the presidency (3). But this does not mean that he is the only one that says or does anything. But it is by his approval that all things were done.

For instance, if James had got up and said something that was contrary to what Peter thought, things would have changed.

James was the bishop there and made the final decision.

besides, it is clear that all the Apostles are the Rocks, not just Peter. Back then, a foundation was built on bedrock(Jesus) and rocks(the Apostles and OT Prophets).
Also, President is NOT used in the Bible

Ephesians 2:20 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
20 You believers are like a building that God owns. That building was built on the foundation that the apostles and prophets prepared. Christ Jesus himself is the most important stone[a] in that building.

"21. A special discourse would be needed accurately to survey and explain all this; and also to describe how great the zeal of the laborers is regarded by him who is celebrated as divine, who looks upon the living temple which we all constitute, and surveys the house, composed of living and moving stones, which is well and surely built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, the chief cornerstone being Jesus Christ himself, who has been rejected not only by the builders of that ancient building which no longer stands, but also by the builders — evil architects of evil works — of the structure, which is composed of the mass of men and still endures. But the Father has approved him both then and now, and has made him the head of the corner of this our common church."CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book X (Eusebius)

"
But what does this mean, her foundations on the holy hills? What are the holy hills upon which this city is built? Another citizen tells us this more explicitly, the Apostle Paul: of this was the Prophet a citizen, of this the Apostle citizen: and they spoke to exhort the other citizens. But how are these, I mean the Prophets and Apostles, citizens? Perhaps in this sense; that they are themselves the hills, upon which are the foundations of this city, whose gates the Lord loves. Let then another citizen state this clearly, that I may not seem to guess. Speaking to the Gentiles, and telling them how they were returning, and being, as it were, framed together into the holy structure, built, he says, upon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets: and because neither the Apostles nor Prophets, upon whom the foundations of that city rest, could stand by their own power, he adds, Jesus Christ Himself being the head comer stone. Ephesians 2:20 That the Gentiles, therefore, might not think they had no relation to Sion: for Sion was a certain city of this world, which bore a typical resemblance as a shadow to that Sion of which he presently speaks, that Heavenly Jerusalem, of which the Apostle says, which is the mother of us all; Galatians 4:26 they might not be said to bear no relation to Sion, on the ground that they did not belong to the Jewish people, he addresses them thus: Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, and are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. Ephesians 2:19-20 You see the structure of so great a city: yet whereon does all that edifice repose, where does it rest, that it may never fall? Jesus Christ Himself, he says, being the head corner stone.

3. ...But that you may know that Christ is at once the earliest and the highest foundation, the Apostle says, Other foundation can no man lay than is laid, which is Christ Jesus. 1 Corinthians 3:11 How, then, are the Prophets and Apostles foundations, and yet Christ so, than whom nothing can be higher? How, think you, save that as He is openly styled, Saint of saints, so figuratively Foundation of foundations? Thus if you are thinking of mysteries, Christ is the Saint of saints: if of a subject flock, the Shepherd of shepherds: if of a structure, the Pillar of pillars. In material edifices, the same stone cannot be above and below: if at the bottom, it cannot be at the top: and vice versa: for almost all bodies are liable to limitations in space: nor can they be everywhere or for ever; but as the Godhead is in every place, from every place symbols may be taken for It; and not being any of these things in external properties, It can be everything in figure. Is Christ a door, in the same sense as the doors we see made by carpenters? Surely not; and yet He said, I am the door. Or a shepherd, in the same capacity as those who guard sheep? Though He said, I am the Shepherd. Both these names occur in the same passage: in the Gospel, He said, that the shepherd enters by the door: the words are, I am the good Shepherd; and in the same passage, I am the door: and who is the shepherd who enters by the door? I am the good Shepherd: and what is the door by which Thou, Good Shepherd, enterest? How then are You all things? In the sense in which everything is through Me. To explain: when Paul enters by the door, does not Christ? Wherefore? Not because Paul is Christ: but since Christ is in Paul: and Paul acts through Christ. The Apostle says, Do ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me? 2 Corinthians 13:3 When His saints and faithful disciples enter by the door, does not Christ enter by the door? How are we to prove this? Since Saul, not yet called Paul, was persecuting those very saints, when He called to him from Heaven, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me? Acts 9:4 Himself then is the foundation, and corner stone: rising from the bottom: if indeed from the bottom: for the base of this foundation is the highest exaltation of the building: and as the support of bodily fabrics rests upon the ground, that of spiritual structures reposes on high. Were we building up ourselves upon the earth, we should lay our foundation on the lowest level: but since our edifice is a heavenly one, to Heaven our Foundation has gone before us: so that our Saviour, the corner stone, the Apostles, and mighty Prophets, the hills that bear the fabric of the city, constitute a sort of living structure." CHURCH FATHERS: Exposition on Psalm 87 (Augustine)

"4. The Lord loves the gates of Sion more than all the dwellings of Jacob Psalm 86:2. I have made the foregoing remarks, that you may not imagine the gates are one thing, the foundations another. Why are the Apostles and Prophets foundations? Because their authority is the support of our weakness. Why are they gates? Because through them we enter the kingdom of God: for they proclaim it to us: and while we enter by their means, we enter also through Christ, Himself being the Gate. And twelve gates of Jerusalem are spoken of, Revelation 21:12 and the one gate is Christ, and the twelve gates are Christ for Christ dwells in the twelve gates, hence was twelve the number of the Apostles. There is a deep mystery in this number of twelve: You shall sit, says our Saviour, on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matthew 19:28 If there are twelve thrones there, there will be no room for the judgment-seat of Paul, the thirteenth Apostle, though he says that he shall judge not men only, but even Angels; which, but the fallen Angels?" CHURCH FATHERS: Exposition on Psalm 87 (Augustine)

 

[Daniel Marsh]

other quotes that show all the Apostles are the Rocks
CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 6 on Ephesians (Chrysostom)
NEW ADVENT: Search
CHURCH FATHERS: Contra Faustum, Book XII (Augustine)
CHURCH FATHERS: Exposition on Psalm 87 (Augustine)
CHURCH FATHERS: Contra Faustum, Book XV (Augustine)

 

[Daniel Marsh]

It is true that major decisions were discussed and the solutions for the problem. There is only one conference that I can think of in the bible and that was overseen by the apostles, particularly Peter and James and Paul. The leader of the apostles, Peter had to give his approval to any decision, since he held the keys of the KOH, given to him by Christ. He agreed with the solution that the conference came up with and James made it known and it moved forward.

The 3 apostles as shown in earlier posts were acting as one and they governed all aspects of the church as it started to grow.

As you see in history, the councils usually ended in controversy and lots of times the next council rejected the results of the former council, and so governing the church by council without the results being filtered through the apostles, with a final decision coming from the head of the apostles has caused us problems since the 2nd council. For instance the council of Chalcedon caused a major schism in the church. It did not solve anything except the major church in Alexandria Egypt split off because of a dispute about the nature of Jesus.

So no, councils are great to get information, but someone needs to be recognized as the head and take the information and see if that is right with Jesus and then make the correct decision, not for show and for unity and power, but what is actually best for the people of the church.

The only ones who rejected councils were heretics, not the church itself.

Acts 6 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
6 And in those days when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them and said, “It is not fitting that we should leave the Word of God to serve tables.

3 Therefore, brethren, look ye out among you for seven men of honest report, 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 pleased the whole 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 Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch,

6 whom they set before the apostles. And when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

7 And the Word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly, and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

The text above just proves all the Apostles did the Binding and Loosing, not a dictatorship.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

The First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) This Council, the first Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, was held in order to bring out the true teaching of the Church as opposed by the heresy of Arius. It formally presented the teaching of the Church declaring the divinity of God the Son to be one substance and one nature with that of God the Father. There were twenty canons drawn up, in which the time of celebrating Easter was clarified and a denunciation of the Meletian heresy made, also various matters of discipline or law were dealt with and several decisions advanced. From this Council we have the Nicene Creed.

The First Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) Again the true faith was maintained against the Arians. Answer was also given against the Apollinarian and Macedonian heresies. In answering the latter which denied the Godhead of the Holy Spirit, the dogma of the Church was again stated and the words inserted into the Nicene Creed declaring the truth that the Holy Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son.

The Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) The third General Council of the Church defined the Catholic dogma that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God and presented the teaching of the truth of one divine person in Christ. The Council was convened against the heresy of Nestorius.

The Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) Held twenty years after the third General Council, this was to answer the Eutychian or Monophysite heresy and affirm the doctrine of two natures in Christ. This followed as a result of the growing controversy among the early theologians who were being led into error by a confused idea of the one divine person being both God and man or that there are two natures, human and divine, in the one person of the Word.

The Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553) This Council is sometimes referred to as the Council of the Three Chapters because its chief work was to condemn the writings and teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the erroneous portions in the writings of Theodoret, and the letters of Ibas. It reaffirmed the dogmas stated by the third and forth General Councils.

The Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680) This Council gave the definition of two wills in Christ as the true teaching against the Monothelite heresy which claimed only one will.

The Second Council of Nicaea (A.D. 757) Here was defined the veneration due to holy images, that we give honor only to those they represent and not to the image itself as such; it presented the answer to the image breakers or iconoclasts. It also gave twenty-two canons regarding the clergy.The Ecumenical Councils and their Chief Doctrines - Prayers - Catholic Online

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Peter, Please name those who rejected each of the first seven Councils.

Thanks,
Daniel

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Did the idea of the pentarchy come from the bible or an apostle? No and No. It came from an emperor. Then a council was held and just like all councils, the east said yes, the west said no.

So good luck governing the church by the Pentarchy, it is not the way of Christ.

Since God did not provide Apostles, what else was the Church supposed to do? Aren't you expecting too much of those whom God abandoned?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Patriarch (Gr. patriarches; Latin patriarcha) means the father or chief of a race (patria, a clan or family). The word occurs in the Septuagint for the chiefs of the tribes (e.g. 1 Chronicles 24:31; 27:22, patriarchai ton phylon; cf. 2 Chronicles 23:20 etc.); in the New Testament (Hebrews 7:4) it is applied to Abraham as a version of his title "father of many nations" (Genesis 17:4), to David (Acts 2:29), and to the twelve sons of Jacob (Acts 7:8-9). This last became the special meaning of the word when used of Scriptural characters. The heads of the tribes were the "Twelve Patriarchs", though the word is used also in a more general sense for the fathers of the Old Law in general, e.g. the invocation in the litany, "All ye holy Patriarchs and Prophets".CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Patriarch and Patriarchate

 

[Peter1000]

The fact that Peter cowered when the group from Jerusalem--sent by James--and Paul had to rebuke Peter would seem to suggest that Peter wasn't the dude in charge.

It seems like, at least in the beginning, that the base of operations (as it were) was in Jerusalem, and thus fell to James' episcopal leadership. Not that James was head of the Church, but clearly the See of Jerusalem held a position of prominence.

Now, with the Jewish-Roman Wars, especially the second which resulted in the full explusion of the Jews from Jerusalem, and in fact, the turning of Jerusalem into a Roman colony (Aelia Capitolina), and the execution of the last of the desposyni (Judah Kyriakos) under Hadrian generally meant the central importance of the Jerusalem Church faded; fortunately the Sees of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria remained vitally important. And later on the See of Byzantium (after becoming Constantinople) would be joined to these; likewise honor would continue to afforded to the See of Jerusalem, hence what Church historians refer to as the Pentarchy.

However, during the apostolic period itself, as important as Peter was we simply don't see Peter having some sort of centralized authority.

We do not see a "presidency". We do not see a "prophet" at the head of the Church. And even while we do see the See of Jerusalem having a place of prominence, that doesn't even mean that James had some kind of supra-authority.

While Paul generally submits himself to Jerusalem, Paul has no problem being critical of those who came from Jerusalem, even though they came under the authority of James.

What we simply don't have in the early Church is a "leader", but rather a brotherhood of apostles and bishops; as the earliest bishops were the apostles, and those ordained by the apostles as bishops continued the apostolic ministry and work in the Church. It is this brotherhood of bishops, across the expanding Christian world as the Gospel is being preached both within the borders of the Roman Empire and as it extends outside of it, that acts, in concert, to collectively serve and pastor the growing Church everywhere. That is, pastoring the ever-growing Church catholic.

Ultimate authority and decision-making never fell to individuals, but always and consistently fell to the Church acting as a whole, acting in its catholicity, through council.

When the Gentile controversy erupted we don't have Peter, or James, or any individual making their own declaration. Instead we see a council. It wasn't James, or Peter, or Paul, but the Council of Jerusalem, which established, authoritatively for the Church, the full acceptance of the Gentiles.

And councils are how the Church continued to exercise its catholic authority, not through divine fiat, but through a coming together, agreement, and consensus of the Church.

-CryptoLutheran

You can say what you read from historians, but the fact is that according to the scriptures Jesus gave Peter and only Peter the keys to the kingdom of God. He was the leader and I have shown you many examples of his leadership, so let's again agree to disagree.

You are right again, about future councils that they were not done through divine fiat, but through a coming together, agreement, and consensus of the Church. And I will say that it is this consensus that broke the church into so many pieces that you cannot today recognize with piece is the true church from any of the other pieces.

When Jesus was alive do you think the councils he held with his apostles ended in a consensus or did the apostles look to Jesus to make the final decision. Jesus always had the last word. Do you think that was different when Jesus went to heaven. No.

The council was held, many gave their inputs and then a decision was made by the presidency, Peter being the leader of that presidency by virtue of holding the keys. But that decision was not made until they went to Jesus for a divine revelation to know he was OK with their decision. Jesus was the chief cornerston still, even from heaven.

 

[Peter1000]

Since God did not provide Apostles, what else was the Church supposed to do? Aren't you expecting too much of those whom God abandoned?

God did not abandon them, they abandoned God. Too many scriptures of churches not listening to the apostles, in fact turning away from the apostles. Too many prophecies that the apostasy 0 was starting, even in the times of the apostles. Too much history in the church records of feuds, and wars, and evil leaders, and rebellious people to reject the idea of apostasy.

Like I say, the nearest description I can give for the pentarchy is "a game of thrones", all fighting for supremacy and money and power both church authority and secular authority. The leaders wanted the political power as well as the church power, and it lead to great upheavals and much wickedness, and certainly was not a model of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You can say what you read from historians, but the fact is that according to the scriptures Jesus gave Peter and only Peter the keys to the kingdom of God. He was the leader and I have shown you many examples of his leadership, so let's again agree to disagree.

You are right again, about future councils that they were not done through divine fiat, but through a coming together, agreement, and consensus of the Church. And I will say that it is this consensus that broke the church into so many pieces that you cannot today recognize with piece is the true church from any of the other pieces.

When Jesus was alive do you think the councils he held with his apostles ended in a consensus or did the apostles look to Jesus to make the final decision. Jesus always had the last word. Do you think that was different when Jesus went to heaven. No.

The council was held, many gave their inputs and then a decision was made by the presidency, Peter being the leader of that presidency by virtue of holding the keys. But that decision was not made until they went to Jesus for a divine revelation to know he was OK with their decision. Jesus was the chief cornerston still, even from heaven.

1) I have demonstrated that Peter showed deference to the See of Jerusalem, and in fact acted cowardly when the delegation from Jerusalem showed up resulting in Paul's rebuke of Peter.

2) I have already argued that if you want to believe that the keys were given uniquely, and exclusively, to Peter then the possessors of those keys are the successors to Peter.

3) The work of consensus through council is present from the beginning of the Church, as seen in the Jerusalem Council recorded in the 15th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles; if you have a problem with the Church acting through consensus, then you should take your criticism to the divinely inspired Scriptures which record this facet of ecclesiology.

4) Jesus did not hold council with His Apostles. That's not how we see things happening during Jesus' earthly ministry.

5) There was no "presidency", there is simply nothing in the New Testament to suggest of such a thing.

-CryptoLutheran