Are the Reformation churches drifting into ecumenical extinction.

Like I stated, he offers (or promises) eternal life through his death and resurrection. Same difference.

You are a member of a particular denomination, one with it's own doctrines. We believe our doctrine follows that of the Apostles.

Yeah, I know. I have been in Baptist churches. Yes, you eschew the altar for the pulpit. The earliest Christian churches all had altars, now there must have been a good reason for that, right?

I agree, but you still go to some building to worship with your fellow believers, don't you?

But you have aligned yourself with a particular denomination that has it's own scriptural ideas do you not? You take your initial Christian belief's from them and the Baptist faith tradition did indeed begin with Mr. John Smythe.

The Catholic (Universal) Church came from the beginning, it was the church that evolved from the days of the Apostles. All the writings of the early Fathers of the Church (the Bishops) and what they believe doctrinally are in sympatico with the Latin Rite and even the Eastern Orthodox faith tradition of today.

You betcha!

Well the Scriptures seem to say otherwise. Over and over again it is the sacrifice, his sacrifice that is brought to the fore. It is that moment on Calvary that, his passion, that Jesus says for us to immortalize, his permanent memorial, to repeat over and over again in worship. In your own words you reject that and I thank you for reclarifying your belief for us.

On that we can agree!

We got this up one up on you. We see him and commune with him at every Mass we attend, he is right there in the most holy of sacraments, the Holy Eucharist. With your professed love of him you should be running to receive him in the Holy Eucharist, but alas you do not do so. Sad for you, a joy for us.

 

If his disciples understood as a metaphor why did so many of them depart? Also, I find it very interesting for you to decide what it is impossible for God. Just how big is your god?

 

Not just C'tliks, right? Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican and other Christians understand that the Church for the first 1600 years, until Zwingli came on the scene believed in the Eucharist. Waldenses and others you try to hitch your wagon to believed in sacraments and the Eucharist.

 

Hitch my wagon to?!? No I’m a born again. Bathed in the water of commitment to God and renewal. My father is God, my savior is Jesus the Christ. There is no heirchy other than the Trinity.

 

The problem with the Church of Rome is that it doesn't understand what an episkopos is.
An episkopos is an overseer of a church. There were several episkopoi in the church at Philippi. (Philippians 1:1).
An episkopos is the same as a presbuteros.(elder). This is very easily observed in Acts 20:17ff. In Acts of the Apostles 20:17, we read, 'From Miletus he [Paul] sent to Ephesus and called for the elders [Gk. presbuteroi] of the church.' He then goes on to tell them, 'Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [Gk. episkopous] to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood' (Acts of the Apostles 20:28). So the office of bishop or overseer is the same as that of presbyter. Moreover, since their job is to shepherd the flock, they may reasonably be called 'pastors.'

There are only two continuing positions of authority described in the New Testament churches: elders/overseers and deacons. Others, like Apostles and prophets, were for the foundation of the Church (Ephesians 2:20) and have now passed away.

Of course, Paul goes on (vs. 29-30) to speak of 'savage wolves' and 'men speaking perverse things,' and these have exalted themselves to lord it over the churches of whole areas, in addition to rewarding themselves with positions that are quite unknown in the Bible - monseigneur, archbishop, cardinal, pope and whatnot.

 

It is important to note that neither the Gospels, Pauline epistles, nor the catholic epistles address the issue of a post-Apostolic Church. Thus any appeal strictly to the Scriptures to see how the post-Apostolic Church functioned is simply not possible. We can, however, turn to the Scriptures to see how the structure of the Apostolic Church functioned, as well as how the Apostles planned for its eventual continuation apart from them.

The Gospels, epistles and personal correspondences which would later be compiled into what we call the New Testament carried weight amongst the early Church because they were tied to the person of an Apostle, which in turn led back to Christ Himself. We see the importance of the personage of the Apostles and a physical pedigree descending from them by the fact that they physically ordained men, “laying on hands,” in order to seal their word and mission to successors as authoritatively connected to them, and through them, back to Christ Himself. The faith does not and never has existed in a vacuum, isolated as it were and cut off from its roots. The very fact that the Scriptures record the ordaining of men to continue their work is indicative of a hierarchical and institutional model, an episcopal polity, otherwise less any man would be free to independently do the mission entrusted to the Apostles by Christ. We know from history that this was not the case, except for a sect which would arise in the post-Apostolic era that bears a remarkable similarity to the Protestant position on this topic: That of the Gnostics.

The Protestant anti-institutional model is similar to the Gnostics, who also rejected the concept of physical and individual lineages as being necessary. The Gnostics beat the Protestants to the punch so to speak and were the first to advocate the concept of pneumatological / “invisible churches.” In order to combat this growing heretical sect, the post-Apostolic Church used their trump card: Appealing to their physical connection from Christ to themselves in order to demonstrate their faith as being the true representative of orthodox Christianity and thus as having valid orders. In other words, the faith can never be isolated and maintained apart from true Apostolic succession. Anything not part of this vine was the simplest litmus test for what was not authentic Christianity. The early Church could demonstrate this empirically, by simply pointing to the sees where the Apostles themselves had been active and who in turn chose men to succeed them in their work by the “laying on hands.” These sees became the reference points for orthodoxy and oversight (later dioceses) for the true faith and for valid orders to perpetuate the teaching and sanctifying via the sacraments which Christ instructed to continue.

This is why the presence of the bishop is essential to define the Church itself. For there is no Church if there is no valid bishop presiding over her.

Acts 20:28 —> “Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.”

The Church’s first ecumenical Council, that of Nicea, which defined and defended the core dogma upon which the Christian faith is based, the Trinity, also instituted safeguards for Apostolic succession in the Church. In Canon 4 of this great Council, the Fathers prescribe consecration procedures to ensure valid succession. This is still practiced today in the Church.

 

Thankfully, Jesus and Apostles held to Ordinances, not Sacramental grace!

 

The RCC is NOT the church that we see described in Acts to us, as that was catholic as in Universal church, but RCC came much later on in history, when Apostasy hit full blown, causing need for Reformation!

 

This is almost incredibly bad. You are suggesting that the apostles were so useless that they couldn't even set out how to run the churches after they were gone! Balderdash!
First of all the churches. As they were founded, the apostles appointed elders (presbuteroi) in every church (Acts of the Apostles 14:23; Titus 1:5). So if 'bishop' is different to 'elder,' and if without a 'bishop' there is no church, then Luke was lying when he said that Paul and Barnabus appointed elders to every church. Moreover, Peter describes himself as a 'fellow elder' (1 Peter 5:1) and bids the elders shepherd the flock. Why doesn't he cal himself a bishop? Because episkopos and presbuteros are the same office.

Secondly, the 'apostolic succession.' 2 Timothy 2:2. 'And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to instruct others.' That's four generations, and the only criterion for them is that they be faithful.

Thirdly, the principal activity of the church leader. 'Preach the word!' (2 Timothy 4:2). To be sure there is study, leadership, church discipline and fortitude in 'perilous times,' but it is clear that preaching is the No.1 activity of a church leader. There is nothing in the Pastoral Epistles about the Mass, nothing about erecting statues to dead saints or to Mary., nothing about a hierarchy within the churches.

No. Paul does not tell Titus to wait for him or for another apostle to come and appoint elders. He tells him to crack on an do it. The laying on of hands was not some spooky channelling of power; if it was, we know perfectly well that it didn't work (3 John 9 and a host of apostates down the ages), No, it was a prayer that God would anoint the ministry of the chap being prayed for, but that did not obviate the need to choose faithful people (1 Timothy 5:22; 2 Timothy 2:2). In what especially did thses men need to be faithful? In that they knew and followed the Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16). that alone made them 'thoroughly equipped for every good work.'

No indeed! As we have seen, leaders had to be faithful to the Scriptures.

There is no indication of any hierarchy; quite the opposite. As we have seen, Peter describes himself as nothing more than a 'fellow elder.' Leaders are certainly to be 'remembered,' 'followed' and 'obeyed' (Hebrews 13:7, 17), but it is their 'faith' and their 'conduct' that we are to call to mind, not their episcopal ordination (if they had one!)

The Gnostics, of course, followed closely the Church of Rome in that they claimed special secret knowledge like the 'Apostolic tradition' rather than the Scriptures.

Well it's good to know that the Gnostics got some things right! ;) But in fact, the breaking of the Second Commandment was not introduced to the churches until the gnostics were long gone.

And this, of course, is where the early Church went off the rails. Instead of making their case through Scripture, they endeavoured to do it by claiming that because this man was ordained by this other chap who was ordained by someone else, he must be right. But the fact is that men were ordained by people who were unfit to receive their office and equally unfit to pass it on.

Yet Paul and Barnabas only appointed elders! If a bishop is not faithful, he is not merely useless,but actually a bane on the church to which he has been appointed. Our Lord used the word 'steward' (Gk. oikonomos) to describe someone put in charge (Luke 12:42), and Paul followed up on that: 'Let a man so consider us as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required in stewards that one be found faithful' (1 Corinthians 4:1-2). Faithfulness to the word of God, not the laying on of hands by someone who may or may not have been faithful, is what counts.

Amen! These elders (presbyters) of the Ephesian church were not appointed by men but by the Holy Spirit or they were not appointed at all.

The definition of the Trinity defined by the council of Nicaea was found to be incomplete and had to be followed up by the council of Ephesus in 431. But all these councils are to be followed just as far as they can be shown to be true to Scripture and no further.

In your church, not in mine. :) I am certainly not an Anglican, but I do like the XXXVIIth Article of the Church of England. 'The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.' Amen!

 

Very well said, Dave.

 

The Catholics here keep stating that we Baptists are reading our theology back into scriptures, but truth is that none of Rome doctrines and practices were even conceived back in NT times yet!

 

That is what your mouth says, but you offer no proof. Just your interpretation of the book of Acts and ignoring early church history completely

 

This is laughable! You offer absolutely no proof, just wearing your Baptist blinders at looking to the book of Acts and reading your own preconceived theology into it. Study the early church something that you absolutely refuse to do because the early church looked very, very Catholic

 

The same folks who believe in Adam and Eve as the first two humans on the earth, that the earth was made in exactly 7 days as we know them, a burning talking bush, a staff that tuns into a serpent, the flooding of the whole earth with an Ark that saves all the animals and the Noah family, a Jewish Virgin who gets impregnated by the Holy Spirit, a star that leads men to a baby in a manger, and a man who was killed at the age of 33 and is resurrected, all that they believe and have faith in.

Yet the one thing out of all that is written in the Holy Writ, the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, the proverbial "Bread of Life", a teaching that has been taught since the beginning of Christianity, their faith suddenly leaves them and they cannot somehow believe that simple truth.

I don't know about you, but such a thing leaves me completely befuddled!

 

Would you know a symbol if it knocked you on the head?

You whose church has created mythical relics where pilgrims come for magic moments and you cannot recognize that Jesus never sliced a piece of meat off his body nor gave up a pint of his blood for drinking.

Instead, you insist that the disciples openly accepted a breaking of the law by Jesus in drinking blood. You do this despite the Council of Jerusalem explicitly declaring that the churches should refrain from drinking blood.

Acts 15:28-29 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

Your church has twisted the Lord's supper and turned it into chains by which they control and manipulate members into following their rules lest the members die and go to hell for disobeying their rules.

I find the legalism of your church very grievous in its cunning deceitfulness.

 

Absolutely! Fight them with the truth.

 

Well presented brother... Amen!

 

Rome Church with papacy and assuming itsd theology and primacy happened centuries after acts!