Featured The Catholic Church

The point is moot, as it still doesn't apply to the position of a bishop/pastor. Furthermore there is no evidence that those in Acts 6 were even deacons. They were men appointed to help the apostles. Their work was primarily "serving tables," that is, quite mundane.

Learn: Positions don't grow; responsibilities grow!

That is you reading into the Scriptures something that is not there. The Bible teaches no such thing. Presbuteros and Episkopos are always used for different functions of the same office of the same person--always! Why are you trying to force your 20th century hierarchy into the simple Biblical paradigm of the first century.

The apostles weren't the pastors. James was the pastor. He was the half-brother of Jesus.

And that part is biblically correct. In the Bible it is also known as a plurality of elders. Paul called the elders from Ephesus to Miletus. There was more than one. They are also called bishops or overseers in verse 28--The same group of people from Acts 20:17 in Acts 20:28.

You can't prove that from the Bible. This is just your philosophy. They were the same person with different roles or responsibilities. Why don't you accept what the Bible teaches?

Perhaps he was wrong. It is a good reason not to rely on the ECF, which were wrong in many things. They aren't inspired. It is evident in the book of Acts that the elders and the bishops are the same people.

The above quote does not refer to the RCC. It only SEEMS to be in agreement with your philosophy, and even then he didn't use the KJV, and didn't write in English. IOW, what you have is a translation of his work, and every translation loses meaning.

And then deacons help, as seen in Acts 6. Not very hard is it?

This is ludicrous.
First the OT has nothing to do with the OT, when considering church polity.
Originally, they were a theocracy under God, and then a monarchy. The church is neither.
Secondly, what Paul describes in the NT is true for every local church, every local church being independent one of another.
Every Biblical local church has a pastor who has Christ as the head. The Bible is the foundation is the Bible. The Bible is in two parts: the prophets and the apostles--the authors of the Bible. Also Jesus Christ is called the chief cornerstone. Thus the church is built upon both the Word of God and Christ being the chief cornerstone. From that the church leaders of that local church play a part, each one having a different function. The whole thing is put together for you in 1Cor.12. Read the chapter and find out how the members of a local church function together. It was speaking of a local church where all the members could honor a member, could weep with a member, etc. This is impossible with either a universal church or even a denomination. It is only possible with a closely knit local church.

Peter happened to know which of Paul's letters were Scripture and which were not. They had that discernment from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit promised them "that He would lead them into all truth," that he would guide them, and bring all things into remembrance." Those promises related to the writing of Scripture. They taught the early church which was Scripture and which was not. It was not a council that taught the early church which was Scripture; it was the apostles that taught the early christians/churches what was Scripture. The RCC has this backwards.

They could have. But it was the home church of Paul and they would have learned of it anyway. The way of salvation was clear. It was made clear by Paul wherever he went. It was Paul was bothered by the Judaizers. Read the book of Galatians. He makes this doctrine straight in that epistle without the decision made at council.

 

There is no reference to the decision in Acts 15 only reference to Paul's own personal work.
Acts 15:41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

No you are not, you are reading into the Bible what you want to see, not what the Bible is actually teaching.

No, it can't. It can only be traced back to the 4th century. There is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, except possibly for his death. He wrote his epistles from Babylon. Paul rebuked this man as one who caused divisions. A timeline from the Bible itself can be established that he wasn't in Rome, but traveled extensively, and there was no greeting in an epistle written by Paul at a rather late date to Peter to the believers in Rome, although other prominent leaders were greeted. This is evidence that he was not in Rome as well.

Yes, their faith was the Scriptures that they had which were circulated among them, even as Peter mentions Paul's writings. Jude tells them to "Contend for the faith," that body of doctrine that they had by the time that Jude wrote his letter (ca. 69 A.D.). They were independent, not denominational. Their faith was the same faith as taught by the apostles. In no way were the Catholic or RCC.

He had authority in this church because he lived there for 18 months, had started the church and pastored it for that period of time. After leaving he appointed Appollos in his stead. It was only natural that in a time of crisis that they would look to him for guidance. He gave them an authoritative answer.
The key verse is found in 1Cor.7:1 "Now concerning the thing you wrote to me..."

You ignore the Scripture I gave you. You don't like the exposition of Scripture.
Even here is combating the heresy that they came together to discuss.
1. It is through grace (not works) of our Lord Jesus that we are saved.
2. Paul and Barnabas follow up with the same testimony.
3. They are all in agreement.

However it was the decision of James wasn't it? He was the pastor of the church.

 

Not his alone but as a council. Ie the first church council. Look how James refers to the authority it is "we" in acts 15

and

He uses the Authority of the Apostles and his combine making this dogmatic statement. Which is the council which is why Church councils are important in defining dogmatic statements.

 

Get this straight. It wasn't a "Church Council!" It was a gathering of the apostles, some others, and the church was welcome to attend. It was not a church council. In fact the church itself had relatively little to do with it. The apostles came together. Some of the others. And James presided for he was the pastor.

He is speaking about apostolic authority. Remember in Acts 8,

Acts 8:14-16 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

This is a book of transition. Apostolic authority was needed to verify the integrity of the gospel message. The gospel message in its purity had now the stamp of approval with all the apostles present including James, the half-brother of Jesus, a man well respected among all. The Judaizers could no longer influence the churches. With this decision other churches needed to point only to the apostles and their decisive decision at what the gospel was. It did not include circumcision and the law. That was the real issue. It was legalism in its purest form.

It was not a church council, but a gathering of the apostles and some others included which took place at the church at Jerusalem. After all it was better they meet there than in desert of Sinai.

 

Actually it was. A church council is the gathering of church leaders to make a dogmatic decision. And I have it straight. Bible translators and scholars on the whole disagree with you which is why your bible even if it's a KJB will call that occurance in the bible a council. It was a church council and made a dogmatic decision regarding gentiles salvation and duties.

Now you agree with apostolic authority over churches. So, which is it. Either they were authoritative or they were not.

 

Bottom line as regarding the RCC...

ONLY reason they can claim what they do as regards to doctrines and practices, theology, is due to them seeing additional "extra" revelation sources from God apart from the Bible... Same wayas sayMormons do...

Eliminate those sources, standing ONLY upon the Bible as the revelation of God...

RCC is basically OT isreal, trying to stamp on it NT terminology, as they have their versions o fthe High priest, priests, sacramrental ways to God etc!

teaching a false version of the true Gospel....

 

Let me give you a modern day example of IFB churches so that you can relate to all the IFB churches of Paul's time.

Recently we ordained a pastor. There are about five IFB churches in our area. We do not have an association, convention, denomination, etc. We are all independent of each other. However all the pastors know each other on a personal level, and have some fellowship with each other usually on a one to one basis. We are independent churches that have no reason to unite together for any one function.

On this occasion, a pastor is ordained by a group of other pastors of like faith and order. The congregation of this pastor asked the pastor who had the largest facility to host this event. Why? Because though it was primarily a decision that would be made by just a small group of people others were invited to watch, primarily those of the church of the pastor to be ordained, and those of the church in which the person was being ordained, as well as other close friends.

The candidate had to read a doctrinal statement which he had prepared. Some questions were asked, but only by the committee of local pastors present. Others were present just to observe. The committee retreated to another room to discuss if he should be ordained. Does he fit the qualifications of a pastor? After much discussion the pastor of the hosting church explains to the congregation present the decision made and gives some additional comments. The candidate comes and kneels. The pastors lay hands on him; the pastors pray, and a document is signed by all of us to signify that he is ordained.

This is not a church council. It is an ordination "council".
It was a gathering of pastors in a church. They had to meet somewhere. It was better than in a field with minus 20 temperatures. Common sense prevails here. What church really didn't matter. It is also common sense that whatever church was used the pastor of that church would preside.

So it was in the NT. It was not a church council. The apostles came together. It was an apostolic decision. It was the decision that had authority. The apostles did not have authority over the churches. The decision was authoritative in doctrine. There was no authority over the churches. The Bible is our authoritative guide in like manner. We don't have different individuals involved in the running of our churches. There is only one person that has authority, and that is the pastor. This was a matter of doctrine, doctrine that countered falsity--legalism being spread by Judaizers.

 

Thanks for the above remarks. I have thought for a long time that the RCC was just the OT priesthood warmed over!

 

So you are saying that "Universalists" were the first Christians. Is that the same as the Unitarian Universalists?

 

Round and round the garden
Like a teddy bear
One step, two step
And you all fall down

 

As long as a baptism is performed using the Trinitarian formula, the RCC excepts that baptism as valid. End of discussion!

WM

 

Why have they never rescinded the Council of Trent?

 

I don't know, but I suspect your understanding of the Council of Trent (as pointed out by Thinkingstuff) is simply wrong. Thus, there is no need for the RCC to rescind it. "There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all." Eph. 4:4-6.
Just sayin...

WM

 

Not the same way the Mormons do. The canon of the NT wasn't established until the 4th Century and the first recorded list of the current NT that we hold as canon was by Athenasius. There is a lot of history showing the perspective of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church Doesn't rely on "extra-biblical" documents but on the Apostolic Deposit of Faith which can be traced straight back to the Apostolic writings. What the other documents provide like Clement, Ignatius, Justin, Tertullian, and the rest is a witness to what was believed. The Nicean Creed is prominant among the Church because it was a council like the one in acts 15 regarding orthodoxy against Arius (whom DhK probably thinks was a baptist) where the many church leaders came to a decision of orthodox belief.
Mormonism is claimed to have come (much like Islam) from Golden Tablets provided by the Angel Moron...er... excuse me Maroni. Prior to the 1800's there is no evidence to anything like Mormonism where Catholic faith has 2,000 years of history to support its position.

 

The Council of Trent, among many other things, states this:

http://www.forerunner.com/chalcedon/X0020_15._Council_of_Trent.html

The RCC supposedly claims to accept any Protestant baptism today. Walter claims they have accepted his, which I presume was Baptist. But no Baptist would ever agree to the above. In fact the above curses the Baptist position on baptism.

So I ask again: "Why wasn't this rescinded?" if the RCC has supposedly changed their position. The real fact of the matter is that they haven't changed at all.

 

So you are claiming that because trent says the merits of Jesus Christ can apply to infants in order that they be saved you believe the RCC is wrong? Then the logical conclusion is Jesus cannot save infants and that all infants who die go to the grave without the saving grace of Jesus Christ! I'm sorry DHK. As having been a protestant and a baptist at a time in my life, I never believed that.

 

"if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church, let him be anathema"

Baptists as individuals, as a denomination composed of individuals, their articles of faith as Baptists, all openly and vocally deny the merits of Jesus christ are applied to adults or infants by baptism! According to the council of trent they as an denomination are "anathama"

Hence, Rome accepts baptism from those they claim to be anathma??? Let us then go down the line and see if Rome is consistent in regard to everything else they anathematize and see if they receive into their church everything else they anathemtize????????

 

Think about it this way. If you deny the merits of Jesus are applied to infant or adults then his suffering "by his stripes we are healed", and his death on the cross "Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" and again "the message of the cross" Then no one can be saved.

Now baptism is efficasious in that it does as it says. Paul compares it to circumcision. Peter says to be saved we must repent and be baptized. Jesus himself was baptized to fulfill all righteousness as there was no need for him to be baptized but it fulfilled God's requirements as he is our example and we participate with him in his divine life. Its one of the many mysteries that the gospel presents. When we take scriptures as a whole we find that

and with regard to the mysteries (ie sacraments) such as baptism, that you don't believe, because then

 

"if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church, let him be anathema"



The typical SPIN! This statement is clear that ANY PERSON who denies that such merits are applied "BY BAPTISM" are accursed.

Instead of honestly acknowledging that clear statement, you then place your spin on it in your first paragraph and try to philosophize it SEPARATE from baptism and then in your second paragraph you attempt to intepret and defend Rome's unbiblical view of baptism.

Typically you are attempting to change the subject from what the statement actually states unto a debate over baptism.

Now, I can go to the CCC and its statements on circumcision and then to Romans 4:11 and completely dismantle the whole Catholic false notion of sacraments - that is easy to do! However, I am not going to change lanes to a new topic here.

This statement by the council of Trent clearly and explicitly places Baptists and all evangelicals who stand with Baptists in regard to baptism to be anathamatized by Rome and yet Rome will accept the very ordinances of those they anathematize.

 

Yes they will. Here's the answer to what you believe to be a paradoxical position: