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. :rolleyes: 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.
The Catholic Church
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by milby, May 25, 2012.
Page 9 of 16
-
Acts 15:41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.
Not at all. I'm rellying on personal witness of People who lived 2,000 years ago. As I have shown.Click to expand...
Actually, the RCC can trace itself right back to the apostles. Though there have been certain changes the deposit of faith never has.Click to expand...
They were united by faith. and only independent in the sense that it took a long time to get to each church and they didn't have phones, cars, or quick transportation. The fact that letters addressed to a specific church was considered to have universal relevance to all the churches and they copied and sent copies of apostolic letters only shows how united they were.Click to expand...
certainly Paul did and asked to exommunicate someone. Clearly by Clements letter he was speaking authoritatively.Click to expand...
The key verse is found in 1Cor.7:1 "Now concerning the thing you wrote to me..."
No Peter gave more than just a testimony He set the standard and declared something dogmatically ie "it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are". Ie... Peter for the first time makes a clear dogmatic statement that gentiles are saved the same way the Jewish believers are. Peter set the Bar. Paul and Barnabas gave a testimonyClick to expand...
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.
James made his decision based on the dogmatic stance of Peter and the testimoney to the work of the Holy Spirit by Paul and Barnabas as he states in his letter with the approval of the whole assembly.Click to expand... -
Thinkingstuff Active MemberDHK said: ↑However it was the decision of James wasn't it? He was the pastor of the church.Click to expand...We have heard that some went out from us without our authorizationClick to expand...we are writingClick to expand...
-
Thinkingstuff said: ↑Not his alone but as a council. Ie the first church council.Click to expand...
Look how James refers to the authority it is "we" in acts 15 andClick to expand...
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.
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.Click to expand... -
Thinkingstuff Active MemberDHK said: ↑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.Click to expand...
He is speaking about apostolic authorityClick to expand... -
milby said: ↑I have began a study on Catholics to find out if what they believe could possibly, possibly be true.
Here is my first question. Can the Catholics really trace their history back to Peter and were they the first Church? If so and the reformation didn't happen until the 1500's with Martin Luther, were all the people up until the reformation doomed?Click to expand...
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.... -
Thinkingstuff said: ↑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.Click to expand...
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. -
Yeshua1 said: ↑RCC is basically OT isreal, trying to stamp on it NT terminology, as they have their versions of the High priest, priests, sacramrental ways to God etc!Click to expand...
-
WestminsterMan said: ↑Well, that's understandable because Catholics were the first early Christians.
WMClick to expand... -
Round and round the garden
Like a teddy bear
One step, two step
And you all fall down -
The Biblicist said: ↑The Catholic Church Catechism #836-843 deals with this question of the Catholic Church and its relationship to those outside of its membership. The CCC claims that only those who have been baptized and partaken of the sacraments of the Catholic Church are "FULLY INCORPORATED into the society of the Church."
Protestants and their baptism are listed among those who are not "FULLY INCORPORATED" of which includes
1. #839 - "non-Christians"
2. #840 - Muslims
3. #842 - Other non-Christian religions
The CCC claims that the Catholic church is "JOINED" in many ways with all these groups outside the Church including Protestants.
However, she even restricts this second rate union with Protestants based upon whether they are "properly baptized" (#838).
According to the Counsel of Trent, Roman Catholics deny not merely the baptism of all Protestants who believe in Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone but deny their salvation in total because Rome anathamize all who embrace this primary Reformation doctrine.
The Council of Trent, Canon 12 on Justification, reads:
“2.CANON 12: "If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed" .”
Hence, Rome rejects the baptism of Baptists because justification by grace ALONE through faith ALONE in Christ ALONE is a cardinal teaching of Baptists. What about Presbyterians and Lutherans and many other groups that hold to this same truth?
Can Catholics accept the baptism of those they anathematize???Click to expand...
WM -
WestminsterMan said: ↑As long as a baptism is performed using the Trinitarian formula, the RCC excepts that baptism as valid. End of discussion!
WMClick to expand... -
DHK said: ↑Why have they never rescinded the Council of Trent?Click to expand...
Just sayin...
WM -
Thinkingstuff Active MemberYeshua1 said: ↑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....Click to expand...
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. -
WestminsterMan said: ↑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...
WMClick to expand...
3. If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which in its origin is one, and by propagation, not by imitation, transfused into all, which is in each one as something that is his own, is taken away either by the forces of human nature or by a remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ,9 who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification and redemption;10 or 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; for there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.11 Whence that declaration: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sins of the world;12 and that other: As many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ.Click to expand...
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. -
Thinkingstuff Active MemberDHK said: ↑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.Click to expand... -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterThinkingstuff said: ↑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.Click to expand...
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???????? -
Thinkingstuff Active MemberThe Biblicist said: ↑"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????????Click to expand...
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 thatJudaism and its fulfillment, Christianity, are heavy with matter, as it were. First we find creation itself, where solid matter was spoken into existence by the Word of God. Then redemption, beginign not with the wave of a spiritual wand, or with mere edicts pronounced from the sky, but with a whole panoply of sacred paraphernalia, from lamb's blood to thuribles - the Old Covenant is heavily physical. But then comes the New Covenant: we now excape into the purely spiritual and leave the physical behind, right? No. First a pregnancy and then a birth. Obstetrics and gynecology, right at the center of redemption. Fastin in the wilderness, water to wine, a crown of thorns, splinters and nails and blood - our eternal salvation achieved by grostequely physical means. But then spirituality, surely? No. A corpse resurrected; and then our human flesh taken up into the midmost mysteries of the eternal Godhead. - Thomas Howard "Lead Kindly Light"Click to expand...This is understandable, since if you have a theology and a spirituality that stress the "inner" locale of piety, and understand salvation in terms of divine edicts, ... then naturally such unapologetically physical elements ... will fit only uneasily ino the scheme - Thomas Howard "Lead Kindly Light"Click to expand... -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterThinkingstuff said: ↑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 thenClick to expand...
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. -
The Biblicist said: ↑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.Click to expand...The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation. CCC 1256.Click to expand...
Page 9 of 16