Featured Diversity

The Word of God always has the final say.
The true historical record will never contradict the Word of God.
Many times history is "reinterpreted" through the eyes of the beholder.

All the ECF are translated works.
From the EFF come both truth and error. Most of the error that churches hold today come from this era.
Concerning translation and interpretation, in the above quote, there is nothing definitive that "succeeded" has a meaning anything other than "follows after" whether used in a "Baptist sense" or otherwise. It doesn't imply a succession in the sense of apostolic succession. There was a deacon. A deacon is a servant. They needed another deacon, and so they chose another to replace the one that retired. We do the same without even calling "deacon" an office. It isn't. It is a ministry, a service. The word "office" is not in the Greek. This is not a matter of "deacon successionism," if such a thing even exists.

The good guys here are the Novatians. They are the evangelicals separating from the established "church" because of the corruption.
Here is a quote from John T. Christian, "A History of the Baptists"

The independency of churches and pastors is maintained, even as they followed Novatian's protest against the corruption in the "church".

This is what the Bible describes isn't it? A bishop/overseer is also an elder and pastor--all names for the same person. The pastor and the deacon were the only two "offices" per se mentioned in the Bible, and they weren't really considered "offices," for the word isn't found in 1 Timothy 3; it is ministry or service. And they are servants, not "officers."

There was a lot of independence in that day. Is this part of that quote or what your opinion is?
Either way, it is a true statement. The "heresies" came from the EFC who strayed from the truth of the Apostles. Each of the apostles warned those that they spoke to of false teachers to come. Paul said in no uncertain terms that they would come (Acts 20:29ff).

The truth never changes. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. When a person knows the truth, and the truth has radically changed his life, he has no desire to go back to a life of lies and falsehood.

My default will always be to the Word of God. From it comes my strength.
It is my authority. I know it to be true.
I have gone down the road of Catholicism. I see the contradictions between its doctrine and the Bible, its practice and the Bible, its history and the Bible, and none of it lines up. It was the Holy Spirit that led me out of the RCC 45 years ago and I have never looked back since. Yes, my beliefs and values have deep roots, but they are deeply-rooted now in God's Word.

 

The Bible knows NO Papacy period, as it only records to us the offices of a Pastor/Elder/Deacon, and vaious titles for some of those roles such as Overseers/Presbators etc...

James would have been seen as being the "Pope" by the jewish churches. not peter, as james headed up Jerusalem Church, and paul would have been seen as the 'pope" to the gentiles by even peter himself, but thankfully, THAT office never was meant to exist within the true church of christ!

 

I am also thankful for scripture, however, as you know, non-Catholic Christians tend to identify the Bible as the highest and usually exclusive earthly authority, rejecting both the Magisterium and extra-Biblical examples from history (Tradition). However, it has long been my opinion that non-Catholic Christians (of which I was a member for 20+ years) don't actually reject the interpretive authority of the Magisterium or Tradition. They merely replace these with *their own* opinions and experiences. It is very easily demonstrated on this board. The reason is that an interpretive agency is necessary, inescapable.
The net result is a general state of doctrinal Incommensurability: there is no reconciling various positions because, in reality, they are little more than individual and arbitrary (if sincere) opinions regarding complex and sometimes-obscure writings.

That being the case, the only question is who or what will serve that ultimate, authoritative, interpretative purpose -- me and my ego? I asked DHK this question in an earlier post but apparently he overlooked it. Feel free to jump in, Rebel. You had a very interesting thread going in which you made the following comment: " Yes, I would agree that Acts 16:31 is at the heart of the Gospel. What I wouldn't agree with is that Jesus died to pay a sin-debt. Many interpret the death of Jesus that way, but many do not. So, who is correct?" The question you asked illustrates my point.

 

This is the central point, and why the RCC/Baptist debate will never be solved.

You cannot deny there is Catholic doctrine that either adds to, or outright violates scripture. Tradition always trumps it.

Baptists will never accept anything over scripture.

 

The Church of Rome MUST deny the truth that Scripture alone is to be seen as the infallible and authoritative guide to all our doctrines and practices, for most of their theology is denied by the scriptures. so must support their beliefs somewhere else...

 

That's because the Catholic church has always been a business, first.

 

I agree that that in the New Testament age there well may have been only two orders identified. This topic has been discussed quite a bit on the board and to my knowledge nobody giving the Catholic view disputes that. This is because in the apostolic age the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. On one occasion Peter described himself as a "fellow elder," 1 Pet. 5:1, even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder. The term for bishop, episcopos-overseer- was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time. It's not hard to find the historical record (to which you, Rebel, have awknoledged) which shows that by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament. I don't think that contradicts scripture and I think the Church was transitioning to and being instructed to have a three-fold ministry much earlier than the second century. Ignatius, who sat at John' feet, traveled from his home city to Rome, where he was executed around A.D. 110, on the way he wrote letters to the churches he passed. Each of these churches possessed the same threefold ministry. Without this threefold ministry, Ignatius said, a group cannot be called a church.

Ignatius of Antioch:

"Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Magnesians 2 A.D. 110).

BTW, Rebel, thank you for your kind words and in the respectful way you post on this board. I have no doubt I will meet you in Heaven as well.

 

Totally off-topic but of interest to Rebel, Doubting Thomas and others following the struggles of bible-believing Anglicans with The Episcopal Church. The Diocese of Fort Worth just became the third diocese of the five which withdrew from TEC over it's unbiblical 'innovations' over the last years to have won in the lawsuits over who gets the property. Fort Worth is now associated with the Anglican Church of North America. The Episcopal Church has been handed it's hat in court recently. Very happy for my Anglican brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

Rebel, Christian liberty is obviously very important to you. It was also very important to the liberal ("moderate") wing of the SBC before and during the great purge of SBC institutions some 25 to 30 years ago. However, I can't find anything in scripture to support it. Can you help me out here?