Something to Consider

[Barraco]

I know this may seem Eschatological for some, but my intent is for learning from history. Okay, here goes:

I was reading from 'The History of the Christian Church' by Lars P. Qualben and I was reading up on the history of the Apostolic Era, in which the Apostles never acted in any position of hiarchy toward the congregation but acted directly by guidance of the Holy Spirit. However, toward the end of the 1st century, with all the Apostles dead save for John, heresy was floushing within the body of believers as an attack on the true doctrine that the Church was organized to the extent that all authority and teaching came from the bishop of each Church and only him. It was considered that if a Church had no bishop, there was no salvation. This hints to the early Catholic Church doctrine that there was no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. While this seemed an earnest attempt to preserve the true doctrine of the Gospel and Rule of Faith, time proved that not even the pope was infallible. What then can be said for the Church? We have not seen such a great influence by the Christian body since this rule had taken effect and a hiarchy stood in place to ordinate the matters of Church. Which is much contrary to the early days in which the Holy Spirit ordinated Church matters by whom he chose to give gifts of service to. If this is the case, then shouldn't we be looking more to the Holy Spirit for guidance and power instead of the bishop or any man who considers himself an authority over Church matters.

Also a brief history of the bishop in the first century would show that bishop did not dominate in Church authority but was rather delegated by the Holy Spirit and elected by other leaders to 'help and lead' the Church, not by matters of authority, but by matters of support. The authority of the Apostles wasn't delegated until the Holy Spirit came to them on the day of the Pentecost. It was during that day that even those in the congregation had gifts of prophecies and evangelism that they would speak out loud during Church. Thus it wasn't neccessarily the leaders that called the shots, but that the Holy Spirit helped the Church in their times of need by whom He chose, not by legislative authority. This goes hand in hand with Jesus's teaching that to be first you must be last. So in order to exaulted, you must first be humble. This also shows that there is one Master and the rest are servants, thus the leaders should be servants to the congregation just as he is to the Lord, that all be guided in a pure unbiased manner. What do you think? God bless

 

[Trento]

I was reading from 'The History of the Christian Church' by Lars P. Qualben and I was reading up on the history of the Apostolic Era, in which the Apostles never acted in any position of hiarchy toward the congregation but acted directly by guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Also a brief history of the bishop in the first century would
show that bishop did not dominate in Church authority but was rather delegated by the Holy Spirit and elected by other leaders to 'help and lead' the Church, not by matters of authority, but by matters of support.

Apostles, like Barnabas or Timothy, will stay with us in every age and that they top the list for bringing "the unity of the faith" (Ephesians 4:11-13), suppressing "winds of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14), and thus preventing "division in the body" (1st Corinthians 12:24-25). Yet additionally, though not having the same power and glory of the twelve (Matthew 19:28, Revelation 21:14), this growing family of apostles still has tremendous authority:

Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians...we did not seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority” (1st Thessalonians 2:6) “[Timothy] command certain persons not to teach different doctrines” (1st Timothy 1:3)
“command and teach these things” (1st Timothy 4:11)
“command [the faithful] before the Lord to avoid disputing over words” (2nd Timothy 2:14)
“brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we [apostles] may appoint to this duty [of the diaconate]” (Acts 6:3)
“the apostles Barnabas and Paul ...appointed elders for the saints in every church” (Acts 14:14.23)
“I [Paul] left you in Crete, that you [Titus] might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you” (Titus 1:5)
“And his heart [Titus] goes out all the more to you, as he remembers the obedience of you all, and the fear and trembling with which you received him” (2nd Corinthians 7:14-15)
“[Titus] declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” (Titus 2:15).

From the last five verses above, where Titus has the "obedience of all" with "all authority" and appoints ministers like an apostle, we infer the apostleship of Titus. Indeed the fourth century "Church History" of Eusebius records the apostolic role of Titus in the chapter "First Successors of the Apostles" wherein Titus is responsible for the Christians of Crete (book III, chapter IV).


Though we might infer that all saints are collectively entrusted with the Gospel (Romans 3:2; 9:4-5), biblically only apostles are specifically said to be entrusted with the Gospel:
“Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians…we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel...as apostles of Christ.” (1st Thessalonians 1:1; 2:4.6)
“[Timothy] Guard the truth that has been entrusted to you” (2Tim 1:14).
“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you” (1Tim 6:20).
“They saw that I [Paul] had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised” (Galatians 2:7).
“In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us [apostles] the message of reconciliation” (2nd Corinthians 5:19).
“…the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I [Paul] have been entrusted.” (1st Tim 1:11).
This Gospel entrustment is so strong, biblically only apostles refer to the gospel possessively:
“according to my [Paul’s] gospel ” (Romans 2:16, Romans 16:25).
“as preached in my [Paul’s] gospel ” (2nd Tim 2:8).
“Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians …our gospel came to you …To this he called you through our gospel ” (1st Thessalonians 1:1.5, 2nd Thessalonians 2:14).


And in their possession and entrustment of the Gospel, the apostles have barred the saints from what is called "private interpretation":

“we [apostles] have the prophetic word made more sure . You [saints] will do well to pay attention to this... First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God [e.g. Moses, King David, Jeremiah, etc] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2nd Peter 1:19-21).


Mindful of the prohibition against "private interpretation," from Paul the Bereans "received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Act 17:11). Here the Bereans did not succumb to "private interpretation," provided they did not use Scripture to revise or reject the one faith of Christ taught by past patriarchs and present apostles (Ephesians 4:5; 3:4-6, Hebrews 11:13-16.39). Indeed, when the saints' interpretation contradicted the church's apostles (1st Corinthians 14:36), Paul became incredulous: "What?! Was it from you that the word of God went forth? Or came it unto you alone?" The point is - we saints need to trust the judgment of our apostles.


Now granted, many saints are told "the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you" (1st John 2:27). Nevertheless many other saints are told differently: "though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again" (Hebrews 5:12). Either way it was apostles who made these judgments regarding the saints. And indeed, though we are all a "royal priesthood" (1st Peter 2:9) called to "test everything, holding fast what is good" (1st Thessalonians 5:21), we must still remember "not to go beyond what is written" (1st Cor 4:6). So lets embrace another fundamental written here:

What then is Apollos? What is Paul?...I planted, Apollos watered...He who plants and he who waters are equal...This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you [saints] or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God. I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one [Paul] against another [Apollos]...God has put us apostles on display to angels and to men (1st Corinthians 3:5-6.8; 4:1-6.9)



Though the saints of Corinth may judge many others (1st Corinthians 5:12-6:3), in the words above Paul tactfully excludes himself and apostle Apollos from being judged by the saints. In contrast, apostles judge all - including the saints of Corinth: "And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ" (1st Corinthians 3:1). Thus Paul shows himself and Apollos, rather than the saints of Corinth, as the "spiritual" ones that he described in the prior chapter:

1st Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit .
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one .
16 For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

​

So if there happens to be any saint who wishes to be "spiritual" like Paul or Apollos, Paul has this advice:

1st Corinthians 14:
37 If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.
38 If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

​

In other words, the saint who does not acknowledge the apostle's teaching is not a "spiritual" person. Indeed our apostles may likewise dare to speak to us so sternly, since they learned from Jesus "he who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16). And thus we too should imitate the New Testament saints who "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching" (Acts 2:42) knowing that it is our apostles, as exampled in Paul's words to Timothy, who are commissioned to be "rightly handling the word of truth" (2nd Timothy 2:15).

Many of us would fail that test of obedience when Scripture commands: "obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account" (Hebrews 13:17).

Brent

​

 

[Barraco]

Apostles, like Barnabas or Timothy, will stay with us in every age and that they top the list for bringing "the unity of the faith" (Ephesians 4:11-13), suppressing "winds of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14), and thus preventing "division in the body" (1st Corinthians 12:24-25). Yet additionally, though not having the same power and glory of the twelve (Matthew 19:28, Revelation 21:14), this growing family of apostles still has tremendous authority:

Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians...we did not seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority” (1st Thessalonians 2:6) “[Timothy] command certain persons not to teach different doctrines” (1st Timothy 1:3)
“command and teach these things” (1st Timothy 4:11)
“command [the faithful] before the Lord to avoid disputing over words” (2nd Timothy 2:14)
“brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we [apostles] may appoint to this duty [of the diaconate]” (Acts 6:3)
“the apostles Barnabas and Paul ...appointed elders for the saints in every church” (Acts 14:14.23)
“I [Paul] left you in Crete, that you [Titus] might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you” (Titus 1:5)
“And his heart [Titus] goes out all the more to you, as he remembers the obedience of you all, and the fear and trembling with which you received him” (2nd Corinthians 7:14-15)
“[Titus] declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” (Titus 2:15).

From the last five verses above, where Titus has the "obedience of all" with "all authority" and appoints ministers like an apostle, we infer the apostleship of Titus. Indeed the fourth century "Church History" of Eusebius records the apostolic role of Titus in the chapter "First Successors of the Apostles" wherein Titus is responsible for the Christians of Crete (book III, chapter IV).


Though we might infer that all saints are collectively entrusted with the Gospel (Romans 3:2; 9:4-5), biblically only apostles are specifically said to be entrusted with the Gospel:
“Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians…we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel...as apostles of Christ.” (1st Thessalonians 1:1; 2:4.6)
“[Timothy] Guard the truth that has been entrusted to you” (2Tim 1:14).
“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you” (1Tim 6:20).
“They saw that I [Paul] had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised” (Galatians 2:7).
“In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us [apostles] the message of reconciliation” (2nd Corinthians 5:19).
“…the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I [Paul] have been entrusted.” (1st Tim 1:11).
This Gospel entrustment is so strong, biblically only apostles refer to the gospel possessively:
“according to my [Paul’s] gospel ” (Romans 2:16, Romans 16:25).
“as preached in my [Paul’s] gospel ” (2nd Tim 2:8).
“Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians …our gospel came to you …To this he called you through our gospel ” (1st Thessalonians 1:1.5, 2nd Thessalonians 2:14).


And in their possession and entrustment of the Gospel, the apostles have barred the saints from what is called "private interpretation":

“we [apostles] have the prophetic word made more sure . You [saints] will do well to pay attention to this... First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God [e.g. Moses, King David, Jeremiah, etc] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2nd Peter 1:19-21).


Mindful of the prohibition against "private interpretation," from Paul the Bereans "received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Act 17:11). Here the Bereans did not succumb to "private interpretation," provided they did not use Scripture to revise or reject the one faith of Christ taught by past patriarchs and present apostles (Ephesians 4:5; 3:4-6, Hebrews 11:13-16.39). Indeed, when the saints' interpretation contradicted the church's apostles (1st Corinthians 14:36), Paul became incredulous: "What?! Was it from you that the word of God went forth? Or came it unto you alone?" The point is - we saints need to trust the judgment of our apostles.


Now granted, many saints are told "the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you" (1st John 2:27). Nevertheless many other saints are told differently: "though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again" (Hebrews 5:12). Either way it was apostles who made these judgments regarding the saints. And indeed, though we are all a "royal priesthood" (1st Peter 2:9) called to "test everything, holding fast what is good" (1st Thessalonians 5:21), we must still remember "not to go beyond what is written" (1st Cor 4:6). So lets embrace another fundamental written here:

What then is Apollos? What is Paul?...I planted, Apollos watered...He who plants and he who waters are equal...This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you [saints] or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God. I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one [Paul] against another [Apollos]...God has put us apostles on display to angels and to men (1st Corinthians 3:5-6.8; 4:1-6.9)



Though the saints of Corinth may judge many others (1st Corinthians 5:12-6:3), in the words above Paul tactfully excludes himself and apostle Apollos from being judged by the saints. In contrast, apostles judge all - including the saints of Corinth: "And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ" (1st Corinthians 3:1). Thus Paul shows himself and Apollos, rather than the saints of Corinth, as the "spiritual" ones that he described in the prior chapter:

1st Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit .
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one .
16 For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

​

So if there happens to be any saint who wishes to be "spiritual" like Paul or Apollos, Paul has this advice:

1st Corinthians 14:
37 If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.
38 If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

​

In other words, the saint who does not acknowledge the apostle's teaching is not a "spiritual" person. Indeed our apostles may likewise dare to speak to us so sternly, since they learned from Jesus "he who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16). And thus we too should imitate the New Testament saints who "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching" (Acts 2:42) knowing that it is our apostles, as exampled in Paul's words to Timothy, who are commissioned to be "rightly handling the word of truth" (2nd Timothy 2:15).

Many of us would fail that test of obedience when Scripture commands: "obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account" (Hebrews 13:17).

Brent

​

well said brent: From these, let me see if I understand you right. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are pretty much saying that the Apostles were elected by Jesus to be authorities of Church matters(which I agree with) and that there is a succession of Apostles(which you have shown through Scripture) and that any that refuse to adhere to their teachings are not recognized as blessed by the Holy Spirit. Correct?
Also you say that they had the authority to judge but were not judged for they had the mind of Christ. If this was to be, why then did Paul confront Peter on his reluctance to commune with Gentiles? Paul used his judgement. It would be better said that the Holy Spirit convicted Paul of judgement, that he would confront Peter on his biased opinion on communing with believers. So thus the words of Jesus ring clear, "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will sind him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgement." Thus it was by the Holy Spirit that the Apostles had such authority, correct? If indeed the succession of Apostles was neccessary for the success of the spread of the Gospel, then the Rule of Faith would not have been purged with heresies during the years Martin Luther was a priest. It was apparent that man alone or his bishopry couldn't retain the truth, but only the Holy Spirit in emphasis. As Paul said to the Thessalonians in his second letter to them, "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way." In other words, those that scared the Thessalonians by speaking in the name of the Apostles and preaching that Jesus had already come were actually preaching false doctrine and it would be restrained until 'he' that restrained it would be taken out of the way. How was the Holy Spirit taken out of the way? It was done by the replacement of authority on 'all' matters of the Church. For example, with the hiarchy of bishopry within the Church, the fowl doctrine that there was no salvation outside of the bishop's Church came about. This doctrine also placed the bishop as a 'mediator' between man and God, instead of the Holy Spirit being the means of talking to God. Also the doctrine of tribute to the relics and indulgence came about because the pope was considered infallible and those that questioned his words were considered heretics and most likely killed. While centralizing authority did protect the teachings of the Apostles, it only made it that much easier for false doctrine to thrive. If everyone listens to the leaders appointed by the Apostles, the teachings can be preserved. But, if the teachings of the Apostles rest in the hands of one man, it could be jeopardizing to the salvation of many if that man be selfish, wicked, or haughty in his own mind. If that man does not have a mind for Christ and the guidance and submission to the Holy Spirit, many can fall into depravity.

 

[Barraco]

Let me finish the rest of Paul's explanation to the Thessalonians concerning this. "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first (apostasy), and that man of sin be revealed, teh son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God (the Church empowered by the Holy Spirit), shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord sahll consume with the spirit of this mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all decievableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sactification fo the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, Comfort your hearts, and stablish you to every good word and work."

So, Paul isn't speaking of an outside influence. He is talking about inside deception and heresy that clowds the minds of those with the congregation to their destruction. Thus, they earn their delusion by not seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the love of the truth revealed by Him. Like those who were swayed by the Pharisees to persecute the Church, men leaned on the doctrine of the false instead of the true teachings of God, which promote love that is unblemished by fear. If we as body of Christ, the Spiritual Children of God, refuse to adhere to the guidance of the same Spirit we are reconciled and born into, then how are we as a body ever to work in accordance to God's will? If no man is infallible, who then can we trust for the truth? It would be said then that the writings of the Apostles are the only trustworthy words we have today and those writings were not preserved by prohibiting access to only the use of Bishops and theology scholars. The writings of the Apostles were preserved by making it accessible to all who are willing to hear it, that they may not believe a lie, but love the truth. What do you think? God bless and thanks for the reply.

 

[Trento]

BarracoFrom these, let me see if I understand you right. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are pretty much saying that the Apostles were elected by Jesus to be authorities of Church matters(which I agree with) and that there is a succession of Apostles(which you have shown through Scripture) and that any that refuse to adhere to their teachings are not recognized as blessed by the Holy Spirit. Correct?

Here is what 2 of the most eminent Protestant Early Church Scholars say about this subject.

Philip Schaff, a major Protestant church historian from last century writes in his History of the Christian Church --

"The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is further developed in particulars. The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; AND the ORAL TRADITION or LIVING FAITH of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects -- TOGETHER FORM THE ONE INFALLIBLE SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. BOTH are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (volume 3, page 606)


J.N.D. Kelly, a major Protestant church historian from this century writes in his Early Christian Doctrines -- (after many examples)

"It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness." (page 47-4

Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] 'guard the deposit', i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church's UNERRING tradition." (page 51)

We see here by refusing to adhere to the Church Traditions (teachings) which are Apostolic you become a heretic.

Barraco

Also you say that they had the authority to judge but were not judged for they had the mind of Christ. If this was to be, why then did Paul confront Peter on his reluctance to commune with Gentiles? Paul used his judgement. It would be better said that the Holy Spirit convicted Paul of judgement, that he would confront Peter on his biased opinion on communing with believers. So thus the words of Jesus ring clear, "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will sind him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgement." [/quote]<B>

All Paul is doing is reminding Peter of what Peter himself taught.




Here are Peter’s words in Acts 15, and compare what Paul said in Gal. 2:15-16

Acts 15:9-11 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."​

Gal. 2:15-16 15 We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, 16 yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified.
Peter himself had officially taught that there was no distinction between Gentiles and Jews based on circumcision. Living by the law is not a yoke that one can live by, as it brings condemnation, or works of the Law as termed by Paul. Living by grace through faith as Peter himself taught is the way to go. Paul uses his own language to say the same thing that Peter did. Thus, what Peter taught in Acts 15 still applies. Paul is reminding Peter what he teaches. What he teaches is correct, it is just that his activity is not going along with his teaching. If Peter was actually teaching error, he would not be a hypocrite at all.

Barrack Thus it was by the Holy Spirit that the Apostles had such authority, correct?

​

​

The Apostles had their authorit from Jesus.Matt. 10:1,40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, "he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me." Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.

Luke 10:16 - Jesus tells His apostles, "he who hears you, hears Me." When we hear the bishops' teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself.
Luke 22:29 - the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles.
John 14:10 - Jesus says the Word He speaks is not His own authority, but from the Father. The gift is from the Father to Jesus to the apostles.

Barraco]If indeed the succession of Apostles was neccessary for the success of the spread of the Gospel, then the Rule of Faith would not have been purged with heresies during the years Martin Luther was a priest. It was apparent that man alone or his bishopry couldn't retain the truth, but only the Holy Spirit in emphasis.

If that is the case then Jesus Christ lied when He said...

"I am with you ALL days, even until the end of the world."
Matthew 28:20

"...and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against it."
Matthew 16:18

"...and I will ask the Father and He will give you another Advocate to dwell with you forever, the Spirit of Truth..."
John 14:16-17

"I will not leave you orphans."
John 14:18

Jesus said there would be scandles in his Church.
Woe to the world because of scandals! For it must needs be that scandals come,
but WOE TO THE MAN THROUGH WHOM SCANDAL DOES COME!"
Matthew 18:7

And He said to His disciples, "It is IMPOSSIBLE THAT SCANDALS SHOULD NOT COME;
BUT WOE TO HIM THROUGH WHOM THEY COME."
Luke 17:1
The words of Jesus Christ Himself says individual men are the source, or the cause of the scandals Not His Church.

[quote Barraco] This doctrine also placed the bishop as a 'mediator' between man and God, instead of the Holy Spirit being the means of talking to God. Also the doctrine of tribute to the relics and indulgence came about because the pope was considered infallible and those that questioned his words were considered heretics and most likely killed. While centralizing authority did protect the teachings of the Apostles, it only made it that much easier for false doctrine to thrive. If everyone listens to the leaders appointed by the Apostles, the teachings can be preserved. But, if the teachings of the Apostles rest in the hands of one man, it could be jeopardizing to the salvation of many if that man be selfish, wicked, or haughty in his own mind. If that man does not have a mind for Christ and the guidance and submission to the Holy Spirit, many can fall into depravity.

Unity needs an infallible Authority otherwise you have no absolute guarantee that the Bible is reliable.Without infallibility there could be no finality regarding any one of the great truths which have been identified historically with the very essence of Christianity; and it is only with those who believe in historical Christianity that the question need be discussed.
If the early Church was not infallible in her definitions regarding these truths, what compelling reason can be alleged today against the right to revive the Sabellian, or the Arian, or the Macedonian, or the Apollinarian, or the Nestorian, or the Eutychian controversies, and to defend some interpretation of these mysteries which the Church has condemned as heretical.
Everyone brings to scripture their assumptions which allow for or dissallow for various interpreations. I conclude that their really is no such thing as someone going by scripture ALONE. All doctrines in every church are based on some man's interpretation of scripture but Our Lord designed His Church to speak with one voice. One of the undeniable aspects of unity and oneness in the Bible is the constant warning (especially in the writings of St. Paul) against (and prohibition of) divisions, schism, and sectarianism, either by command, or by counter-example (Matthew 12:25, 16:18, John 10:16, 17:20-23, Acts 4:32, Romans 13:13, 16:17, 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, 3:3-4, 10:17, 11:18-19, 12:12-27, 14:33, 2 Corinthians 12:20, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 4:3-6, Philippians 1:27, 2:2-3, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Titus 3: 9-10, James 3:16, 2 Peter 2:1).
Our Lord even makes unity a means by which the world might believe that the Father sent the Son (John 17:21,23), and prays that it will be as profound as the unity of the Trinity itself (John 17:21-22). St. Paul makes stirring up division a grounds for virtual exclusion from the Christian community (Romans 16:17), and says that divisions (in effect) divide Christ (1 Corinthians 1:13).
After the Lord’s Ascension into Heaven anyone and their brother could claim that they were speaking for Christ and for orthodoxy (e.g. Acts 15:1-2). Therefore, is it not reasonable to assume that Christ would appoint a vicarious shepherd a final authority, who could settle such disputes among Christians? .That is, someone who could stand in Christ’s physical place, and so continue to preserve unity and orthodoxy among the faithful. Well, that’s exactly what the Scriptures present to us.

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, in the midst of the Apostles, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.” Now, earlier in this same Gospel (John 10:11-16), Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says how there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Jesus can. After all, He is God. Yet, if that’s the case, why is He commissioning Peter to do it? Clearly, in John 21:15-19, Christ is speaking in an earthly, vicarious sense. Notice, for example, how the sheep do not cease to belong to Jesus. They are still “my sheep.” Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. He is, therefore, being commissioned to act as Christ’s “stand-in” after the Lord’s Ascension into Heaven. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.
Simon, Simon, behold satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

Here in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter is singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. Therefore, he is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all.

 

[Barraco]

Here is what 2 of the most eminent Protestant Early Church Scholars say about this subject.

Philip Schaff, a major Protestant church historian from last century writes in his History of the Christian Church --

"The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is further developed in particulars. The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; AND the ORAL TRADITION or LIVING FAITH of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects -- TOGETHER FORM THE ONE INFALLIBLE SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. BOTH are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (volume 3, page 606)


J.N.D. Kelly, a major Protestant church historian from this century writes in his Early Christian Doctrines -- (after many examples)

"It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness." (page 47-4

Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] 'guard the deposit', i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church's UNERRING tradition." (page 51)

We see here by refusing to adhere to the Church Traditions (teachings) which are Apostolic you become a heretic.




[/indent]
[/color][/size]

[/color][/size][/color][/size][/color][/font]

If that is the case then Jesus Christ lied when He said...

"I am with you ALL days, even until the end of the world."
Matthew 28:20

"...and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against it."
Matthew 16:18

"...and I will ask the Father and He will give you another Advocate to dwell with you forever, the Spirit of Truth..."
John 14:16-17

"I will not leave you orphans."
John 14:18

Jesus said there would be scandles in his Church.
Woe to the world because of scandals! For it must needs be that scandals come,
but WOE TO THE MAN THROUGH WHOM SCANDAL DOES COME!"
Matthew 18:7

And He said to His disciples, "It is IMPOSSIBLE THAT SCANDALS SHOULD NOT COME;
BUT WOE TO HIM THROUGH WHOM THEY COME."
Luke 17:1
The words of Jesus Christ Himself says individual men are the source, or the cause of the scandals Not His Church.




Unity needs an infallible Authority otherwise you have no absolute guarantee that the Bible is reliable.Without infallibility there could be no finality regarding any one of the great truths which have been identified historically with the very essence of Christianity; and it is only with those who believe in historical Christianity that the question need be discussed.
If the early Church was not infallible in her definitions regarding these truths, what compelling reason can be alleged today against the right to revive the Sabellian, or the Arian, or the Macedonian, or the Apollinarian, or the Nestorian, or the Eutychian controversies, and to defend some interpretation of these mysteries which the Church has condemned as heretical.
Everyone brings to scripture their assumptions which allow for or dissallow for various interpreations. I conclude that their really is no such thing as someone going by scripture ALONE. All doctrines in every church are based on some man's interpretation of scripture but Our Lord designed His Church to speak with one voice. One of the undeniable aspects of unity and oneness in the Bible is the constant warning (especially in the writings of St. Paul) against (and prohibition of) divisions, schism, and sectarianism, either by command, or by counter-example (Matthew 12:25, 16:18, John 10:16, 17:20-23, Acts 4:32, Romans 13:13, 16:17, 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, 3:3-4, 10:17, 11:18-19, 12:12-27, 14:33, 2 Corinthians 12:20, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 4:3-6, Philippians 1:27, 2:2-3, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Titus 3: 9-10, James 3:16, 2 Peter 2:1).
Our Lord even makes unity a means by which the world might believe that the Father sent the Son (John 17:21,23), and prays that it will be as profound as the unity of the Trinity itself (John 17:21-22). St. Paul makes stirring up division a grounds for virtual exclusion from the Christian community (Romans 16:17), and says that divisions (in effect) divide Christ (1 Corinthians 1:13).
After the Lord&#8217;s Ascension into Heaven anyone and their brother could claim that they were speaking for Christ and for orthodoxy (e.g. Acts 15:1-2). Therefore, is it not reasonable to assume that Christ would appoint a vicarious shepherd a final authority, who could settle such disputes among Christians? .That is, someone who could stand in Christ&#8217;s physical place, and so continue to preserve unity and orthodoxy among the faithful. Well, that&#8217;s exactly what the Scriptures present to us.

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, in the midst of the Apostles, commands Simon Peter three times to &#8220;feed my lambs&#8221; and &#8220;tend my sheep.&#8221; Now, earlier in this same Gospel (John 10:11-16), Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says how there is to be but &#8220;one flock and one Shepherd.&#8221; Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can&#8217;t He &#8220;feed&#8221; and &#8220;tend&#8221; His own sheep?

Jesus can. After all, He is God. Yet, if that&#8217;s the case, why is He commissioning Peter to do it? Clearly, in John 21:15-19, Christ is speaking in an earthly, vicarious sense. Notice, for example, how the sheep do not cease to belong to Jesus. They are still &#8220;my sheep.&#8221; Yet, Peter is told to &#8220;feed&#8221; and &#8220;tend&#8221; them. He is, therefore, being commissioned to act as Christ&#8217;s &#8220;stand-in&#8221; after the Lord&#8217;s Ascension into Heaven. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will &#8220;feed&#8221; and &#8220;tend&#8221; the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.
Simon, Simon, behold satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.&#8221;

Here in Luke&#8217;s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter is singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. Therefore, he is not merely &#8220;one Apostle among others.&#8221; Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all.

You bring up interesting points. However, I think we are not on the same page concerning the Holy Spirit. That or I'm not understanding you. You say that Peter was commissioned by Christ, but yet Peter could do nothing without the Holy Spirit. You say that Paul was reminding Peter of his own teachings, that Peter did not err. If Peter did not err, does that mean that those that succeeded him did not or could not err? You did say that heresies would come according to Jesus Christ's own words. If that was the case, then why the central authority still on one man? Are we not worthy of the Holy Spirit? Yet it is written that man cannot testify that Jesus Christ is the Son of God except by the Holy Spirit. It is also written that the Spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus Christ. It is also written that in the days of the Apostles, many spoke in tongues. The congregation was not organized as it is today, and regardless of historical implications, it was evident that the Church was best when the Holy Spirit worked in any member of the Church as He chose instead of a succession from Peter. Where as an authority is neccessary of subjects of great judgement, the body is still controlled by its one true Head. No, Jesus did not need Peter to feed his sheep, he chose him to do so for His own reasons. Did Jesus need him? No. Who is man that God should be mindful of him? Peter did share an intimate friendship with Jesus, but so did James and John. Do they not count as leaders? It is historically observed the Peter was chosen by Christ to 'feed and tend' to the Church, but this does not mean to be an authority. It meanst to look after the Church while Christ was in heaven. Take the parable of the Master leaving his vineyard. When the harvest was right, the Master sent his servants to collect the harvest from the vineyard. Those who tended to the vineyard were not willing that the Master be obeyed, thus the Master was furious. Who was in control of the vineyard? Was it the servants or the Master? Peter was a servant of Jesus's. Thus he was not an authority, but more like a tutor. He took after his teacher in 'guiding' the sheep in the right direction and tending to their needs. Jesus is in control and does have authority in both heaven and earth. Thus it is by the Holy Spirit that Christ works, not by the succession of Peter or any bishop of that matter. If indeed the succession of Peter was infallible, the doctrine of faith would not have gotten so bad that someone like Martin Luther had to stir up the nations to once again accept Christ by faith, and not by works or money. You see, the infallible authority is Christ and he works by the power of the Holy Spirit, which often times comes in words out of the mouths of men. But He is not limited to just the Apostles or prophets, but chooses whom he desires. Thus, a succession is not a guarantee on infalliblity. It is and always will be a matter of faith. It is by faith that we recieve Jesus, it is by the Holy Spirit that we testify to Jesus as Christ and Savior and that we are born again, thus it is by means of the Holy Spirit that we are convicted of Christ's infallible words. What do you think? Will we see things the same, or always different? I hope we can come to some agreement. I wait with an open mind and heart. God bless

 

[Trento]

Here is what 2 of the most eminent Protestant Early Church Scholars say about this subject.

Philip Schaff, a major Protestant church historian from last century writes in his History of the Christian Church --

"The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is further developed in particulars. The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; AND the ORAL TRADITION or LIVING FAITH of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects -- TOGETHER FORM THE ONE INFALLIBLE SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. BOTH are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (volume 3, page 606)


J.N.D. Kelly, a major Protestant church historian from this century writes in his Early Christian Doctrines -- (after many examples)

"It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness." (page 47-4

Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] 'guard the deposit', i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church's UNERRING tradition." (page 51)

We see here by refusing to adhere to the Church Traditions (teachings) which are Apostolic you become a heretic.




[/indent]
[/color][/size]

[/color][/size][/color][/size][/color][/font]
You bring up interesting points. However, I think we are not on the same page concerning the Holy Spirit. That or I'm not understanding you. You say that Peter was commissioned by Christ, but yet Peter could do nothing without the Holy Spirit. You say that Paul was reminding Peter of his own teachings, that Peter did not err. If Peter did not err, does that mean that those that succeeded him did not or could not err? You did say that heresies would come according to Jesus Christ's own words. If that was the case, then why the central authority still on one man? Are we not worthy of the Holy Spirit? Yet it is written that man cannot testify that Jesus Christ is the Son of God except by the Holy Spirit. It is also written that the Spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus Christ. It is also written that in the days of the Apostles, many spoke in tongues. The congregation was not organized as it is today, and regardless of historical implications, it was evident that the Church was best when the Holy Spirit worked in any member of the Church as He chose instead of a succession from Peter. Where as an authority is neccessary of subjects of great judgement, the body is still controlled by its one true Head. No, Jesus did not need Peter to feed his sheep, he chose him to do so for His own reasons. Did Jesus need him? No. Who is man that God should be mindful of him? Peter did share an intimate friendship with Jesus, but so did James and John. Do they not count as leaders? It is historically observed the Peter was chosen by Christ to 'feed and tend' to the Church, but this does not mean to be an authority. It meanst to look after the Church while Christ was in heaven. Take the parable of the Master leaving his vineyard. When the harvest was right, the Master sent his servants to collect the harvest from the vineyard. Those who tended to the vineyard were not willing that the Master be obeyed, thus the Master was furious. Who was in control of the vineyard? Was it the servants or the Master? Peter was a servant of Jesus's. Thus he was not an authority, but more like a tutor. He took after his teacher in 'guiding' the sheep in the right direction and tending to their needs. Jesus is in control and does have authority in both heaven and earth. Thus it is by the Holy Spirit that Christ works, not by the succession of Peter or any bishop of that matter. If indeed the succession of Peter was infallible, the doctrine of faith would not have gotten so bad that someone like Martin Luther had to stir up the nations to once again accept Christ by faith, and not by works or money. You see, the infallible authority is Christ and he works by the power of the Holy Spirit, which often times comes in words out of the mouths of men. But He is not limited to just the Apostles or prophets, but chooses whom he desires. Thus, a succession is not a guarantee on infalliblity. It is and always will be a matter of faith. It is by faith that we recieve Jesus, it is by the Holy Spirit that we testify to Jesus as Christ and Savior and that we are born again, thus it is by means of the Holy Spirit that we are convicted of Christ's infallible words. What do you think? Will we see things the same, or always different? I hope we can come to some agreement. I wait with an open mind and heart. God bless

Catholics believes that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and the pope is protected from error when teaching the flock in matters of faith and morals only. So what is the Biblical basis for this doctrine.
In conferring upon Peter authority as head of the Church (Matt 16:19), Jesus uses the rabbinical technical terms `to bind' . . . and `to loose' . . . In rabbinic usage the terms mean `to forbid' and `to permit' with reference to interpretation of the law, and secondarily `to condemn' or `place under the ban' and `to acquit.' Thus, Peter is given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life (by virtue of revelation and the subsequent leading of the Spirit; Jn 16:13) and to demand obedience from the Church, reflecting the authority of the royal
chamberlain or vizier in the Old Testament (cf. Is 22:22)." (5:158)On that day I shall summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. ...I will place the Key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, and when he shuts, no one shall open."

 

[Barraco]

Catholics believes that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and the pope is protected from error when teaching the flock in matters of faith and morals only. So what is the Biblical basis for this doctrine.
In conferring upon Peter authority as head of the Church (Matt 16:19), Jesus uses the rabbinical technical terms `to bind' . . . and `to loose' . . . In rabbinic usage the terms mean `to forbid' and `to permit' with reference to interpretation of the law, and secondarily `to condemn' or `place under the ban' and `to acquit.' Thus, Peter is given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life (by virtue of revelation and the subsequent leading of the Spirit; Jn 16:13) and to demand obedience from the Church, reflecting the authority of the royal
chamberlain or vizier in the Old Testament (cf. Is 22:22)." (5:158)On that day I shall summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. ...I will place the Key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, and when he shuts, no one shall open."

Well, the basis is that there have been infallible popes, doctrine has had to be reformed, and Jesus hasn't returned yet. The Church, even Catholic and Protestants, are not quite prepared for Christ's coming. There needs to be more than just popes and bishops to keep the Church in the right direction. The world can't do it, and the Church itself can't do it either. Discipline only seems to bring loved ones further apart. Orders that seem illogical or obsticles of growth in faith only push believers farther from faith.

As far as infallibility is concerned, I'm not sure that just because Peter was granted authority on Church matters that popes after him would be so blessed by the Holy Spirit. Thats like saying that King David had nothing but good sons because he loved God. We all know better that the succession of kings was not so infallible. Even so, who are we to determine who the Holy Spirit will bless only? So if the Spirit rests on the pope and he is infallible, why reformation? How could the pope, being infallible by means of the Holy Spirit, had let the doctrine and rule of faith stray so far from the original truth as to be used for personal gain? I think we are missing something. I'm not quite sure what, but I'm positive that the pope isn't the means to finding it.

This is not biased opinion, and I respect all Christians the same. I'm just trying to find out why Christ hasn't come back, why people don't speak in tongues, why people don't prophecy and see visions often, why people are getting healed, and why the Holy Spirit has been put behind the curtains of the stage of Church progression for so long. We teach the Creed, but how many actually live it? I guess what the real issue I'm addressing is, how could the Church have gotten such a bad reputation, even among itself, that others flee from faith rather than reluctantly hold on to it and endure. The love for the faith of most isn't great like it was during the Apostolic and post-Apostolic eras. A majority of people think of Church as a priority and feel guilty if they don't go. They find it hard to put God into their complicated lives, because they don't have the time. If the Gospel was being preached correctly, wouldn't the Holy Spirit be opening alot more hearts that there is today. Perhaps this is just speculation, but from what I have observed from Churchs and Christians together, many don't do it for God that often. What do you think? God bless

 

[Trento]

The reformation came about because of several scandalous bishops.

Jesus said they would come .. And He said to His disciples, "It is IMPOSSIBLE THAT SCANDALS SHOULD NOT COME;
BUT WOE TO HIM THROUGH WHOM THEY COME."
Luke 17:1
Individual men again.

I just finished answering on another thread as to why there needs to be an authortive Church which is infallible in it's teaching on faith and doctrine.
Please read carfully.

Why did Jesus set up a single Church with authority? If you study the history of Christianity you will find many heresies of the first six centuries of Christianity. For example---
Adoptionism. Adoptionism held that Jesus was not really God but merely a man to whom special graces had been given and who achieved a kind of divine status at his baptism. This idea that Christ as a man was only the "adopted" son of God proved to be a persistent heresy. It was condemned by Pope St. Victor 1, who excommunicated Theodotus of Byzantium for Adoptionism. The same heresy was condemned in 785 and again in 794 by Pope Adrian 1. Revived by Peter Abelard in the twelfth century, Adoptionism was again condemned by Pope Alexander III in 1177.

Anomeanism. A radical variant of Arianism (see below), Anomeanism held that the Son was "unlike" (Greek: animoios) the Father.

Apollinarianism. This heretical doctrine of Apollinaris (310-390), bishop of Laodicea in Asia Minor, held that Christ had a human body but only a sensitive soul-and no rational human mind or human free will, these having been replaced in Christ by the divine Logos, or Word of God. This theory was condemned by Roman synods in 377 and 381 and by the ecumenical Council of Constantinople in the latter year.

Arianism. A major heresy that arose in the fourth century and denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. First effectively advanced by Arius (256-336), a priest of Alexandria, who denied that there were three distinct divine Persons in God. For Arius, there was only one Person, the Father. According to Arian theory, the Son was created ("There was a time when he was not"). Christ was thus a son of God, not by nature, but only by grace and adoption. This theory logically evacuates the doctrine of the Incarnation of God in Christ of all meaning: if God did not become man, then the world has not been redeemed and the faith itself eventually dissolves. Arianism was formally condemned in 325 by the first ecumenical Council of Nicaea, which formulated and promulgated the original version of the Nicene Creed; but Arianism and Semi-Arianism (see below) nevertheless continued to prevail in its original form in many areas for more than a century. Arianism was combatted by the great St. Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373) among others; but the heresy nevertheless persisted, especially among the barbarians, for several centuries.

Donatism. A fourth- and fifth-century African heresy holding that the validity of the sacraments depends upon the moral character of the minister of the sacraments and that sinners cannot be true members of the Church or even tolerated by the Church if their sins are publicly known. Donatism began as a schism when rigorists claimed that a bishop of Carthage, Caecilian (fl. ca. 313), was not a true bishop because he had been ordained by a bishop who had been an apostate under the Diocletian persecution. The Donatists ordained their own bishops, one of whom was Donatus, for whom the heresy is named. Donatism was condemned by Pope Miltiades (311-3 14) and by the (local) Council of Arles in 314, but it nevertheless persisted in North Africa until the Muslim conquest in the seventh century. The great St. Augustine (354-430) wrote extensively against Donatism.

Gnosticism. The heretical theory that salvation comes through some special kind of knowledge, usually knowledge claimed by a special elite group. Gnostic theories existed before Christianity, and the Gnostics adapted the Gospels to their own views and for their own purposes, even composing pseudogospels, embodying their particular ideas and doctrines. Gnosticism held matter to be evil and hostile to the human spirit; it also essentially denied the truths of Christian revelation. Secular historian Jacob Burckhardt described the Gnostics as "speculative enthusiasts" who embraced Christianity only as a platform for Platonic and Oriental ideas. Gnosticism as an organized sect or body of beliefs has long been extinct, but Gnostic ideas persist and surface in some form in nearly every major heretical version of the Christian faith.
Macedonianism. A heresy named after Macedonius, an Arian bishop of Constantinople (d. ca. 362,) whose followers denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit: the Spirit was declared by them not to proceed from the Father but to be a creation of the Son. Macedonianism was condemned in 381 by the ecumenical Council of Constantinople, which added to the Nicene Creed an affirmation of belief in the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son.

Marcionism. A second-century heresy of Marcion (ff. ca. 140) and his followers, who rejected the Old Testament and much of the New Testament, except for the Gospel of Luke and ten of the Letters of St. Paul. The Marcionists claimed to preach a purer gospel after the manner of St. Paul; for them Christianity was purely a gospel of love to the exclusion of any law. Only virgins, widows, and celibates were baptized by the Marcionists; married people could not advance beyond the catechumenate.

Modalism. A form of Trinitarian heresy of the second and third centuries, Modalism held that there is only one Person in God, who manifests himself in various ways, or modes. Sabellianism (see below) was a form of Modalism, as was Priscillianism (see below).

Monophysitism. A fifth-century heresy holding that in Christ there is only one nature (Greek: mono, single; physis, nature), a divine nature. Thus, Monophysitism denies the true human nature of Christ; this human nature is absorbed into Christ's divine nature, according to Monophysitism. This heresy arose primarily in reaction to Nestorianism (see below). Monophysitism, though condemned by Pope St. Leo the Great in his famous Tome Of 449 and by the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, persists to this day in parts of the East.

Monothelitism. A heresy that arose in the seventh century as a result of Byzantine imperial efforts to accommodate the Monophysites (see above). Monothelites accepted the orthodox doctrine of the two natures, divine and human, in the Person of Jesus Christ but held that these two natures had only "one will" (Greek: monos, single; thelein, will). This heresy was condemned by the Sixth General Council of Constantinople in 681.

Montanism. A second-century heretical movement that professed belief in a new "Church of the Spirit". The Montanists believed they enjoyed the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This claim meant that their fanatically rigorous views concerning morality superseded the authentic revelation of Christ that had been handed down in the Church. The heresy of Montanism, which claimed the great Tertullian (160-220) himself, was condemned by several Eastern synods and, finally, by Pope Zephyrinus around the year 202.

Nestorianism. A fifth-century heresy claiming that there are two distinct Persons in the Incarnate Christ, one human and one divine. The Church teaches that Christ was and is a divine person who took on a human nature. According to Nestorianism, it is unthinkable that God was born, crucified, and died; nor could Mary really have been the mother of God, but only the mother of a human being conjoined to God. Nestorianism, which took its name from Nestorius, a bishop of Constantinople (d. ca. 451), was condemned by the ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431. Overemphasizing the humanity of Christ, Nestorianism is the opposite heresy from Monophysitism (see above), which overemphasized Christ's divinity.

Novatianism. A schism that became a heresy. It originated with Novatian, a Roman priest who became an antipope, claiming the papacy in 251 in opposition to the true pope, St. Cornelius. The Novatianists adopted a moral rigorism similar to that of Donatism (see above). Those guilty of grave sin were excluded from the Church permanently, and absolution was refused to those guilty of the sins of murder and adultery.

Pelagianism. A heretical doctrine on divine grace taught by Pelagius (355-425), a monk from the British Isles who first propagated his views in Rome in the time of Pope Anastasius I. Pelagius argued that the Church's teaching that in order to do good, divine grace in the soul was necessary. This canceled human free will. Pelagianism included a cluster of other beliefs and essentially entailed a denial of the Church's doctrine of Original Sin. It was condemned by local councils in Africa in 416 and 417, and also by Pope St. Innocent I in the latter year. It was condemned again in 418 by his successor, Pope St. Zosimus. Semi-Pelagianism, a related heresy, was condemned by the local Council of Orange in 529 but has long persisted among those who question Original Sin and the supremacy of divine grace.

Priscillianism. A fourth-century heresy originating in Spain and combining forms of both Modalism and Gnosticism (see above). It denied Christ's divinity and real humanity, holding that human souls were united to bodies in punishment for their sins.

Sabellianism. A third-century heresy named after a theologian, Sabellius (fl. ca. 215). The Sabellians believed that there was only one Person in God, with three "modes", or aspects, of manifesting himself as Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. It was thus a form of Modalism (see above). Jesus Christ was merely a temporary manifestation in the flesh of the eternal God. This heresy was also known by the name of Patripassianism, since it held that it was the Father who suffered on the cross. It was condemned by Pope St. Callistus I, but as a form of Modalism it has persisted in history in connection with other heresies.

Semi-Arianism. A modified form of Arianism (see above) that flourished after the Council of Nicaea had condemned Arianism in 325. The Semi-Arians were often "moderates" who wanted to forge a "compromise" between those who held to the Church's strict teaching concerning the divinity of Christ and Christ's consubstantiality with the Father and those tempted by Arianism to deny many great truths. Sometimes referred to as Arianizers, the Serni-Arians also included those who wished to substitute homo-i-ousios ("of like substance") or homoios ("similar") for the orthodox Nicene homo-ousios ("one in being" or "consubstantial") with the Father. There were a number of differing positions that fell within the general category of Semi-Arianism; their common theme was an unwillingness to accept that the Nicene term homo-ousios was necessary to the Church's orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

Subordinationism. A general name for all the fourth century heresies that admitted only God the Father as God. See the entries above for Arianism, Anomeanism, Macedonianism, Modalism, and Semi-Arianism; all of these heresies are forms of Subordinationism.

Valentinianism. A form of the ancient heresy of Gnosticism (see above) based on the teaching of one Valentinus, who lived in Rome between 136 and 165. The Valentinians claimed that the visible world had been created by the God of the Old Testament but that only the invisible world was real. According to them, Christ came to deliver mankind from its bondage to matter and the physical world; most of mankind, however, wholly engrossed in matter, would nevertheless end in eternal perdition. The great St. Irenaeus (ca. 125-ca. 202) inveighed against Valentinianism in particular in his magisterial work Against the Heresies


The Apostolic Church has been plagued with heresy from the beginning. If the Church did not have the infallible authority in her definitions what compelling reason can be alleged today against the right to revive
the heresies listed above which the Church has condemned. Unity needs an infallible Authority otherwise you have no absolute guarantee that the Bible is reliable. Without infallibility there could be no finality regarding any one of the great truths which have been identified historically with the very essence of Christianity so You might as well throw out the Blessed Trinity, the nature of Christ, the canon of Scriptures, justification and grace, , and doctrines concerning Theotokos, just to name a few.
The process between doctrinal chaos to doctrinal clarity is called the development of doctrine and can only defended by a Church with authority.
I can only hope you understand what i am trying to convey here.

 

[Barraco]

absolutely and it rings clear. You are saying that the Church needed that authority within to address the issue of heresies. I was wondering though, that seems like a logic piece. I agree completely that the authority was wise and neccessary. But couldn't the Holy Spirit have handled it? To say that there was no hope without a bishopry authority is like saying that Christ does not have power here on earth and up in heaven. I do understand though. Can we agree that this succession is no longer neccessary over the Church, seeing how the Church is divided into denominations. The unity of the Church would have to take a recognition of congregative importance all together and not soley based on the clergy. We should be stressed is, 'what can we do as Christians for the Church,' more than what can the Church do for us.

Where as the authority has always been neccessary, it has replace alot of matters by which were called to recieve by faith, such as a direct communication with God, insisting that the clergy were equipped to handle it. The people can't get close to God through clergy, they need the Holy Spirit. The priest isn't going to make a man's sins just vanish any more than the man make the the earth vanish. It will take the power of the Holy Spirit and a direct relationship with God. How else are we to draw close to God. Now that we know the heresies and what measures we've taken to prevent them from diluting the Gospel. Shall we get back to the origional purposes of the Church finally?

Here is an interesting ad of a megachurch that has been doing quite well with evangelism, community support, and missionaries all out of the U.S.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060209/ts_csm/cmega

the Church seems cool, it has bishops that encourage a direct relationship with God, they have an 'in your face' and a 'rock the boat' message that both brings Christians together and brings the lost sheep back to the good Shepherd. I think the concepts on this site are more along the lines of the Apostolic era Church. Could this be a revival of the Apostolic Church in which people were inriched with the power of the Holy Spirit to both praise God and reach out to others to bring them to the truth of the Lord's mercy and salvation in Jesus Christ? I think they're on to something and I look forward to hearing more about them. What do you think? God bless