Featured Should catholics saved By Grace Of God Forsake the RCC, and depart now?

The answer is simple. Local churches from a baptist perspective is a relative perspective. According to baptist if there were more churches in Jerusalem during the apostles time or at Corinth 1st Corinthians would have been addressed to the Corinthians down the street from the temple of Apollo, or to the Corinthians who meet at Agatha's house. In the modern world we have vehicles to get us around and a plethera of local baptist churches so walking distance is no longer an issue. A 10- 20 mile drive is nothing so in effect without realizing it a baptist (much like the consumer society we live in) can make a choice which church he wants to go to. Which boils down to preferrence. For example is a particular baptist likes the type of firery preaching that doesn't hold back on hellfire for sinners and glory for saints then they will choose that type of church. Or if a person likes a mild manner type of preaching they will go to that church. Or if a person likes singing the timeless hymns then they will go to that church. Or if they like the upbeat contemporary church then they will go to that church. Or if they are affluent and like the more luxuryious churches that resembles a country club with other affluent people they will go there. If they like sermons sung and have some charisma to their services they will go there. Or if they agree with all the points that a particular local church holds to and agree with the pastor at that church they will say "God is calling us to that church". So like with buying a car there are choices and people can choose their church for as many reasons as does a person buying a car.
What I find interesting is that when you consider the New Testiment and the entire population of Rome which at the time of the apostles was around 1 million, christians would have had more than 1 group of "local assemblies" or churches. When we read Romans discover this hypothesis to be correct.

That there were several local assemblies but when Paul writes he writes to

Paul is writing to all the Christians in Rome. Considering the number of People in Rome and all the many local churches you can determine (just like the many different baptist churches in any city at any given time in today's world) that they would have different problems that need different issues addressed however he treats them as one group and doesn't individually treat each group by handling each localities issues but treats all the Roman Christians as a whole as if they were Universally together. Ephesus with a population of 250,000 people would have had multiple "local churches" as well but when God communicates to them through John's Revelation we find these local churches addressed as

we don't find it addressing Prisca and Aquila's community or local church. Therefore all the churches weren't just a local church but universally connected unlike the baptist model for churches today.

 

Not necessarily true! In fact, totally wrong! Paul characteristically wrote CIRCULAR letters that were addressed to a certain church or Christians in a certain geographical location where several churches were located not because he is recognizing any UNIVERSAL church but the very necessity of mail delivery would be circular or church to church (Col. 4:17). For example, the letter to the Corinthian congregation also was intended to be read at the church at Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1) from where Phoebe held membership as it was like a suburb to Corinth and in walking distance.

 

Right....

Really? I didn't direct it to them. Hmmm.....

WM

 

I am talking about the denominational origin of the term. It does not originate among Baptists.

 

Intersting statement. I said there were many Local Churches in Rome to which can be shown in the book of Romans 16:17-23 and I said Paul addresses them universally Romans 1:7 and you say

Sorry, I'm right. And then you say.

That Paul writes a letter and sends it to one church knowing it will be circulated to the other churches because they aren't universally connected. Which seems to me to be backwards logic. But further he doesn't address those specific churches with those specific issues that those churches are dealing with knowing that the letter will be circulated to them but ignores those churches issues infavor of one churches issues eventhough he doesn't believe they are universally connected? Yeah Right. Using your logic then Paul must have been mentally ill. Maybe that's what you believe his thorn in the side was?

Now you show the connection of the Church in Corinth with the Church in Rome and still refuse to see that they were connected even though you show their connection by Paul realizing this letter directed to one church at Rome with its issues would be sent to an entirely different church in another city with other problems but again not addressing those specific issues? The only way the evidence makes sense is that Paul believed all the churches to be universally connected. And still you refuse to answer the first part of my post which says local churches are chosen by individual preference apart from which there is no unity which Jesus prayed for. Which means to hold to your persective Jesus' prayer for unity was not effectual which means Jesus would not be righteous for the bible says that the prayers of a righteous man are effectual. And if that is the case why do you even believe in Jesus?

 

Catholics are not denominational.

WM

 

Nice try! I didn't say they were not connected by a common faith and order. I simply denied they were "one UNIVERSAL church." There is no organizational connection whatsoever. The connection is a common faith and order that characterized all New Testament churches.

 

They are one universal church as the scripture verses I used support that supposition. Just like the Church in Jerusalem can determine doctrine and demand assent to the church in Antioch as it did in Acts 15. In your model. Jerusalem could only make a decision for itself.

 

No, they are not. That is a contradiction of terms. You did not provide any evidence that demands that position.

They did no such thing! They simply handled a matter that originated out of their own congregation:

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:[/QUOTE]

What went out from them was opposed by Paul and the church at Antioch and that opposition was the very reason the church at Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to see if the church at Jerusalem really beleived this. If they had believed it, the church at Antioch would have opposed that doctrine and that congregation at Jerusalem.

The early churches looked to the Apostles for correct doctrine and practice and what had happened was that members out of the Jerusalem congregation MISRPREPRESENTED the apostles and congregation at Jersualem.

They straightened out the misrepresentation that came out of their own congregation which effected the congregation at Antioch. They then sent representatives of their own congregation with Paul and Barnabas to confirm how they dealt with this matter:


25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

That is correct! However, the decisions made by the mother church where the twelve were members had great influence over all congregations that had been derived from it.

But the independency was in tact because when Peter came to Antioch he was rebuked by Paul.

 

Yet scripture never says that it is the SOLE authority. If it were, it should say that about itself - it does not.

Again... that is your opinion - nothing else.

WMM

 

That is your opinion and nothing else! The Bible does claim itself as final authority many times (Isa. 8:20; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; etc.)

No, that is fact! Romans 4:6-12 sufficiently and explicitly repudiates the whole Roman Catholic concept of sacramental salvation as "another gospel."

 

Sounds like you need to read acts 15 again. Here is the problem

Certain men from Judea (note not necissarily from Jerusalem but in the Judean region) were teaching to be saved they had to follow the old covenant specifically circumcision. Paul and Barnabas debated about this matter with the Judean men and couldn't resolve it so they went to a higher authority. Which authority? The old testament? Nope

They took it to the Apostles who were in Jerusalem at that time together. So what did the apostles do? They held a council

In fact is was the first Church Council as the section indicates for this Chapters. So far we know that the Judeans were spreeding this false gospel in Antioch. Paul and Barnabas debated about it. Went to the apostles to resolve the issue. The apostles held a council. The resolution for antioch and for the whole church was issued by James saying

And not only did they declare this in Jerusalem for Antioch but to insure the church at antioch got this information that was declared for them because of their problems with the Judeans they sent Judas and Silas back with a letter confirming its authority as we see here.

So in sum you are wrong. The council of Apostles in Jerusalem made a dogmatic statement for Antioch as they do for the whole body of believers.

 

Wrong! You cannot pick and choose! These certain men of Judea are later identified as members coming out of the Jerusalem Congregation in Acts 15:


Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:


So they were not only from "judea" but they "went out FROM US" in Jerusalem from that congregation.

 

I'm not picking and choosing I just happen to read Acts 15 in Context and explain it in context. first of all the chapter begins

and in the dogmatic letter they sent to antioch they said

now that can be taken two ways they came out from us because they were converted Christians or that they specifically came from Jerusalem either way it doesn't change the nature of the dogmatic statement Jerusalem made for antioch and everyone else. Jerusalem Told Antioch what they could and couldn't do.

And not just Antioch but

The letter was to be circulated not just to Antioch either. So this decision was for all christians. Not just Jerusalem.
What you said of me you yourself are doing. Note a professor once told me and I pass it on to you because you do this often when you take a passage out of context to support a issue you want to uphold that is pretext. And that is what you have done. I've gone through the whole chapter and indeed would quote the whole chapter to show my point. Just like you did in Romans 4 you do here you make a whole theology out of one or two words departed from the entire context.

 

You have already perverted the contextual background by picking and choosing the location when the whole context demands these men came out from "us" or the congregation and Jerusalem. So your perversion lays the foundation for an additional perversion.

There was a debate with those who "came out from us" and the implied problem was that those debating this who "came out from us" pretended they were teaching what those from whom they "came out from" believed and taught and that is why the Antiochian Church sent Paul and Barnabas to the church at Jerusalem to see if those from whom the "came out from" were being properly represented.

The Apostles and elders ALONG WITH THE WHOLE CONGREGATION assembled to address this DISPUTE between those members who "came out from us" and the authorized representatives of the church at Antioch.

The only "church" council was the church that assembled to determine the teaching of its OWN MEMBERS of whom the church at Jerusalem acknowledged came "OUT FROM US."

Not only so, this was not determined by a Pope or by a legislative body of any kind. Personal testimony was CONFIRMED by scriptures. The final verdict was in keeping with Scriptures and apostolic testimony confirmed by Scriptures: The Scripture was the final authority:

Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

James NOT PETER led the church (so much for supremacy of Peter) and as the Pastor of the local church at Jerusalem he confirmed his decision based upon Apostolic testimony and Old Testament Scriptures!

Furthermore, the only church involved was the church at Jerusalem as James says:

Acts 15:22 ¶ Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church,

Your "WHOLE" church is UNIVERSAL but there were many churches not present at this LOCAL CHURCH council at Jerusalem. However, the "WHOLE" church was present that conducted this council - the Jerusalem congregation!

Furthermore, what the church at Jerusalem gave was a letter confirming that those who came "OUT FROM US" at Jerusalem did not represent the doctrine of the church at Jerusalem and thus it would settle the dispute back in the church at Antioch which no doubt the advocates for sacramentalism had argued that their authority for what they believed was the church at Jerusalem and the apostles. This letter destroyed that argument and simply conveyed what the church confirmed to be the truth and what all churches should honor for the sake of the gospel witness among the dispersed Jews.

Hence, your interpretation is entirely false. Your foundation is wrong and therefore you conclusion is wrong.

 

No you did not! You perverted its context in order to establish a false premise to slant your entire argument.

There is no point in even mentioning they came "out from us" if those advocating this false doctrine had not claimed the church at Jerusalem as their source for what they advocated. Such a claim would be the very basis for the church at Antioch sending authorized representatives to the church at Jerusalem to VERIFY that claim.

My other post completely answers the rest of your arguments

 

.

My other post completely answers the rest of your arguments

Note when you point a finger at a person you usually have at least 3 fingers point back at you. I haven't perverted anything. You take two words from the whole of Acts chp 15 and attempt to make the chapter say something it isn't. I don't have to defend what I said about Acts 15 it can be easily seen in the plain text even translated into english what its saying and its clear.

I told you it could be taken either way and that is true. Note I also said it didn't really matter which way you take it because it doesn't change the fact that the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem made a dogmatic statement for Antioch and other churches and sent the letter to them supported by two witnesses to authenticate that letter. That is also easily read in the letter. You focused on FROM US and ignore everything else in the chapter as you did in Romans four focusing on BLESSEDNESS ignoring the context of the rest of that chapter. You have perverted your understanding of the bible by using pretext.