Which Branch of Christianity is Closest to Original Early Church?

CelticRebel

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 21, 2015
623
64
69
✟60,615.00
Faith
Christian
In Php 1:1 the saints were given equal billing with the overseers and deacons. In Col 1:2 the salutation went to “the holy and faithful brothers in Christ.All of this implies that the elders were themselves also sheep. The elders were a subset of the church as a whole. There was no clergy/laity distinction.

The New Testament knows only of “saints, bishops and deacons” (Php 1:1). “Bishops,” “pastors” and “elders” all refer to the same body of men (Ac 20:17, 28). The oversight of the church is conceived of as a body of elders (1Ti5:17; Jam 5:14). However, the traditional practice of “calling a pastor” separates this “office” from eldership at virtually every point. Under the New Testament pattern, laos (people) and kleron (clergy, inheritance) refer to all of God’s people; hence, elders and deacons are part of the “laity/clergy,” not separate from or above it. “Most denominational churches have departed from this pattern by distinguishing between the pastor and the elders. Common practice makes the pastor a full-time employee of the church, while the elders are laymen who function much like a board of directors”

In the traditional Protestant pattern, the pastor has a “call” that the other elders do not possess, the pastor is trained differently than the elders, the pastor is ordained in a different way than elders, the pastor comes from outside the body whereas the elders come from within the body, the pastor can be led to another church whereas the elders are resident, the pastor can have “Rev” next to his name but not so elders, the pastor is paid to carry out various duties (but not the elders), texts that apply to a body of elders are applied to “the minister”only, the pastor can occupy the pulpit while the elders rarely (if ever) can, and the pastor determines the direction of the worship service. Interestingly, the traditional Protestant way of doing things actually parallels a non-gospel religious model (with priests and witch doctors) more than it does the simple NT pattern.



Since communion has to do with being in communion with Christ (Christ-centered) and not the Church itself, (man-centered), then I would think yes. And, what other "denominations" were there in the 1st century? There was the church in Antioch, church in Jerusalem, church in Thyatira, etc, etc.

I actually agree with you, on all of this.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
On this, I agree. (See my other answers in red inside your post.)
What are we agreeing on? It seems like the red comments represent disagreements.

You are apparently saying the NT itself doesn't forbid open communion but neither does it seem to me to approve of it. Anyway, we know from history that the exclusion of religious deviants and postulants goes back to very early days, although setting a date probably isn't possible.

And about deacons...yes, the same word is used in the original language, but we know that a word like this (or like worker or student or adult) doesn't automatically tell us that everyone is referred to, regardless of gender. We do know that there is no mention of a woman cleric in the NT and that history records none. We also know what a deaconess is; that's the word commonly used for the laywomen appointed, then or now, to that role.
 
Upvote 0

CelticRebel

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 21, 2015
623
64
69
✟60,615.00
Faith
Christian
What are we agreeing on? It seems like the red comments represent disagreements.

You are apparently saying the NT itself doesn't forbid open communion but neither does it seem to me to approve of it. Anyway, we know from history that the exclusion of religious deviants and postulants goes back to very early days, although setting a date probably isn't possible.

And about deacons...yes, the same word is used in the original language, but we know that a word like this (or like worker or student or adult) doesn't automatically tell us that everyone is referred to, regardless of gender. We do know that there is no mention of a woman cleric in the NT and that history records none. We also know what a deaconess is; that's the word commonly used for the laywomen appointed, then or now, to that role.


What I agreed on was your last two paragraphs.

Are you saying that the word "deacon" when applied to women in the NT is not the same as when applied to men in the NT, or to the office of deacon?
 
Upvote 0

outsidethecamp

Heb 13:10-15
Apr 19, 2014
989
506
✟3,811.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The early church jealously guarded the communion service from non-members and "Christians" belonging to weird sects. A church officer, in addition to the deacon, the readers, etc. was actually the guard. As a matter of fact, there still is a place in the Eastern Orthodox divine liturgy in which the wording survives in which the guests are called to depart because the preparing of the bread and wine is about to start.

Where did you get "a church officer...was actually the guard?"

The brethren and sisters in these churches knew one another and had close relationships so organically they would be aware of someone's walk with the Lord. But, a person's heart was not always easily discernible.

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jude 1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

2Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2Pet 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

2Pe 2:18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
2Pe 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
What I agreed on was your last two paragraphs.

Are you saying that the word "deacon" when applied to women in the NT is not the same as when applied to men in the NT, or to the office of deacon?
That's right. People will say that women must have been clergy (deacons, that is) in the early church because the NT speaks of deacons and because the word translates as "servant." But this has been extensively researched, and there were not "women (who were) deacons." The qualifications are given right there in the NT and are unmistakably male. BUT we do know that women--laywomen--were made what is called, in churches that have them such as the Continuing Anglican churches, deaconesses. They were not considered clergy but were "set apart" for service in the manner I described earlier.
 
Upvote 0

CelticRebel

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 21, 2015
623
64
69
✟60,615.00
Faith
Christian
That's right. People will say that women must have been clergy (deacons, that is) in the early church because the NT speaks of deacons and because the word translates as "servant." But this has been extensively researched, and there were not "women (who were) deacons." The qualifications are given right there in the NT and are unmistakably male. BUT we do know that women--laywomen--were made what is called, in churches that have them such as the Continuing Anglican churches, deaconesses. They were not considered clergy but were "set apart" for service in the manner I described earlier.

I don't think I would agree with that distinction as being in the NT.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I don't think I would agree with that distinction as being in the NT.
"Being in the NT?" Well, no, it's not spelled out in so many words, but we know that it was the practice of the early church; there's no question about that. So either we accept it as so from what we know of church history and understand that the word doesn't have specific gender boundaries, or else we support a practice (women's ordination) which you ALSO cannot find in the NT!
 
Upvote 0

CelticRebel

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 21, 2015
623
64
69
✟60,615.00
Faith
Christian
"Being in the NT?" Well, no, it's not spelled out in so many words, but we know that it was the practice of the early church; there's no question about that. So either we accept it as so from what we know of church history and understand that the word doesn't have specific gender boundaries, or else we support a practice (women's ordination) which you ALSO cannot find in the NT!

The early church? How early? If a distinction is not made in the NT, then I'll go by the NT.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The early church? How early? If a distinction is not made in the NT, then I'll go by the NT.
Except that what you've explained so far ISN'T to go by the NT. The NT gives no examples, nor any directive, that would make any case FOR women clergy...yet you are telling me to "go by the NT" and, presumably, invent them.

And then, if the historic record also indicates an all-male clergy a generation or two later, what are we to assume about the earliest, very first churches--that they had women clergy but then they all vanished?

Neither of those approaches rings true IMO.
 
Upvote 0

CelticRebel

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 21, 2015
623
64
69
✟60,615.00
Faith
Christian
Except that what you've explained so far ISN'T to go by the NT. The NT gives no examples, nor any directive, that would make any case FOR women clergy...yet you are telling me to "go by the NT" and, presumably, invent them.

And then, if the historic record also indicates an all-male clergy a generation or two later, what are we to assume about the earliest, very first churches--that they had women clergy but then they all vanished?

Neither of those approaches rings true IMO.

I'm saying that I don't see that the NT makes any distinction between an ordained deacon and a "deaconess", as you are contending.

Also, there were things accepted in the church a century after the NT that were not there in NT times. So, I don't see that as a valid argument.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I'm saying that I don't see that the NT makes any distinction between an ordained deacon and a "deaconess", as you are contending.
How would you know?

Also, there were things accepted in the church a century after the NT that were not there in NT times. So, I don't see that as a valid argument.
If you're referring to innovations, you'd be right. But there is nothing whatsoever that makes this issue a matter of bringing in a new policy.

It's interesting to note that, when the issue of women's ordination was debated in several of the better-known denominations a few years ago, the arguments of the "Con" side were Scripture (it specifies male clergy; you call that 'not in the NT') and Tradition. On the "pro" side, the arguments were 1) the Holy Spirit is telling us he's changed his mind about this, and 2) "God loves everybody, so why wouldn't he....?"
 
Upvote 0

CelticRebel

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 21, 2015
623
64
69
✟60,615.00
Faith
Christian
How would you know?

Because I can read and interpret scripture, and I can do research.


If you're referring to innovations, you'd be right. But there is nothing whatsoever that makes this issue a matter of bringing in a new policy.

It's interesting to note that, when the issue of women's ordination was debated in several of the better-known denominations a few years ago, the arguments of the "Con" side were Scripture (it specifies male clergy; you call that 'not in the NT') and Tradition. On the "pro" side, the arguments were 1) the Holy Spirit is telling us he's changed his mind about this, and 2) "God loves everybody, so why wouldn't he....?"

The "pro" side has also used scripture, such as "in Jesus there is neither male nor female", the case of women deacons, and the probability of a female apostle, Junia.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The "pro" side has also used scripture, such as "in Jesus there is neither male nor female", the case of women deacons, and the probability of a female apostle, Junia.
Oh, and that is...scriptural? (the female apostle)? IF any apostle was female, it would be Mary Magdalene. Even she was not ordained, nor was Mary, the mother of God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CelticRebel

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 21, 2015
623
64
69
✟60,615.00
Faith
Christian
Oh, and that is...scriptural? (the female apostle)? IF any apostle was female, it would be Mary Magdalene. Even she was not ordained, nor was Mary, the mother of God.

Of course there is scholarly disagreement. But Junia is mentioned, many believe Junia was a woman, and she is called an apostle.

The ancient Celtic church ordained women. I have posted the evidence.
 
Upvote 0