The Doctrine by which the Church stands or falls, Volume 2...

From post 200

1. 1 Timothy 4:14
   Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.
2. 1 Timothy 5:22
   Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.
3. Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Certainly it can be claimed that they were laying hands on people and annointing them for ministry. It can not be claimed from this however -that they were "creating apostolic succession".

There is no indication at all that the only Spritual gift given by laying on of hands is the "gift of an Apostle" in fact even the Apostles themselves were not given that gift in that way.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I've laid hands on people many times for different reasons. I've had hands laid on me many times for different reasons.

Has nothing to do with the non-existant "apostolic succession" invention.

Mike

 

Still waiting for this 'evidence'.

 

I'll quote what I can from memory Matt. I don't have the time right now to do all the research.
1. Tertullian himself joined the Montanists. These churches were independent churches. The Monanist movement was a movement of protest against the so-called "Church," or Christianity, as it existed in general in his day. Montanus was calling for purity in the churches. He saw corruption everywhere, much like Luther did when he went to Rome. The trouble with the history of the Montanists is the slander one comes across when reading, for their history was primarily written by their enemies who did not have much good about them to say. Thus their accusations would be greatly exaggerated. They were not a heretical sect. Tertullian knew the truth when he saw it. He accepted the truth on baptism at that time, and many other doctrines.

2. Innocent III (oh how innocent!!!) carried out a crusade against the Albigenses, a peace-loving group of Bible-believers at that time who believed in soul liberty and the autonomy of the local church. For such reasons for they were slaughtered, massacred. They were considered a threat, simply because they believed the Bible and not Catholicism.

3. The Waldenses origin is and has been debated for some time. Some say that originally they were followers of Peter Waldo. But many others simply believe that they were believers of great antiquity, reaching right back to the time of the apostles--their name meaning the "people of the valley." In fact one of the Catholic historians takes this view, Cardinal Hosius. The Waldenses existed for a very long time right up until the Reformation. Their beliefs again parallel those of the Baptists. There were no such things as synods. They beleived in independent autonomous churches.

And thus it has been throughout history. Bible-believing "churches" have existed in every age all throughout history--no synods, no hierarchy--following the simple congregational structure that Paul instructed Timothy and gave an example thereof to the Corinthian Church.

 

Do a detailed research about the deaths of: Peter, Paul, James, and Thomas. Then get back to me. I have a good idea what you will say, for I also have some idea of how they died, and what "historical" 'tradition' says about their deaths. But tradition is tradition. It is unreliable and contradictory. The more you research the subject the more contraditions you find. It cannot be depended on.

However we do have the "Book of Acts" (and the rest of the Bible for that matter) which is the inspired Word of God, and has no contradiction. That Word I can depend upon for it is truth. I don't have to doubt it. I know exactly how Stephen died, for example, because the record is right there for me in Acts 7.

 

Er...not quite. The Montanists were proto-charismatics whose doctrine of further revelation direct from the Holy Spirit through their two 'prophetesses' would not be accepted by most on these boards , yourself I believe included.

Er...definitely nowhere near the mark: the Albigenses were gnostic dualists, not Christians.

Again, quite far off the mark: the Waldenses were reforming Catholics (see threads passim here concerning their origins and Peter Waldo's confession); the most similar Christian group to them would be the Franciscans a few decades later.

So far, I'm afraid I'm not impressed - what you have given me are examples of the heterodox and the downright heretical. (Plus, to judge you by your own criterion, none of this is in the Bible, still less the Book of Acts, and therefore is apparently inadmissible to the debate:p) Please produce evidence of actual Christians from contemporaneous primary source documents who organised their congregations like you claim

 

Of course you are not impressed. You have the exact response that I predicted you would have.
#1. I was asked for "evidence" (historical, I assumed) that Bible-believing churches (throughout the centuries) existed without synods. Now if you want Biblical evidence just go to Strong's concordance and look the word "synod" up. There is no such word in the entire Bible. There is not even the concept of a synod in the Bible. Thus I have given you both.

#2. Like the response that I predicted you have misaligned the groups that I gave you and have given unsubstantiated slander against these groups. Again the so-called history that you give is RCC-revised history, history tarnished through the eyes of the enemies of these groups, none of which are guilty of the things whereof you accuse them of. So tell me: Why should I take your word over more reliable textbooks?

 

Which 'reliable textbooks' would those be? Bear in mind for something to be historically reliable, it should be evidenced by primary source documents drawn up at the time. Please therefore adduce these documents. The elephant in the drawing room is that there are plenty of such documents to back up 'my word' (as you call it); all I'm asking is that you return the favour, the alternative is that all we have is 'your word'.

PS You might want to try looking up the meaning of the Greek term sanhedrin at some point; I believe that that word is in the Bible.

 

Bob is pointing out something very important here. It is not good to make doctrine out of the Acts of the Apostles. EVERYBODY, including Bob, needs to remember this.:thumbs:

Just because they did something does not mean we need to.

 

And this is why we find them ALL appealing to the Jerusalem council of Jewish Christian leaders -- Apostles in Acts 15.

True.

But as we see in Acts 17:11 the Apostles are STILL held accountable to the individual's reading of the Word.

In Gal 1:6-11 Paul says "though WE or even an angel in heaven come to you preaching a different gospel OTHER than what has been given let them be accursed!".

I assume you agree with that point as well.

in Christ,

Bob

 

What part of what I said above sounds like "Do not do as they did it is not correct doctrinally"""????

Far from it!

My point is that the statement given there said nothing about "Apostolic succession".

in Christ,

Bob

 

Agreed. And no mention of "Apostolic succession" in the NT apart from Matthias!

 

Do we have to follow the Anti-Semitism by the ECF's?


Ignatius Bishop of Antioch (98-117A.D.) – Epistle to the Magnesians
For if we are still practicing Judaism, we admit that we have not received God’s favor…it is wrong to talk about Jesus Christ and live like Jews. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity.

"Epistle of Barnabas" Chapter 4vs 6-7 (between 130A.D. and 138 A.D.)
Take heed to yourselves and be not like some piling up you sins and saying that the covenant is theirs as well as ours. It is ours, but they lost it completely just after Moses received it.

Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho (Between 138A.D. and 161 A.D.)
We too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word, all you festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and the hardness of heart.
The custom of circumcising the flesh, handed down from Abraham, was given to you as a distinguishing mark, to set you off from other nations and from us Christians. The purpose of this was that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours; that only your land be desolated, and you cities ruined by fire, that the fruits of you land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes; that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of Jerusalem. Your circumcision of the flesh is the only mark by which you can certainly be distinguished from other men…as I stated before it was by reason of your sins and the sins of your fathers that, among other precepts, God imposed upon you the observence of the sabbath as a mark.

Origen of Alexandria (185-254 A.D.) – A ecclesiastical writer and teacher who contributed to the early formation of Christian doctrines.
We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race…hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election

http://www.yashanet.com/library/fathers.htm

Another Notorious Anti-Semitic ECF is Augustine who claimed the Coercion of the Faith unto the people by Force.


St. Augustine (c. 354-430 A.D.), Confessions, 12.14
How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!

I think the religion of Augustine was the Pagan Religion of Hatred and Murder decorated with the name of Christians. He was not awake from the wines drunken with the prostitutes when he wrote Confessions and City of God, and the Whorish RCC follows him, calling him as their father

 

Thank you for that helpful post showing how the antisemitism of some of the ECFs condemns Paul, and Christ and David and John the baptizer.

in Christ,

Bob

 

No Matt, all we have is your word. It is your word looking through the rose-colored tainted revised history of the RCC vs. my word. You haven't provided any documentation for your accusations either. At least I frankly told you before I even posted that I was posting from memory and didn't have the time at that moment to do all the research. You have bombastically come on this board telling us all that it just ain't so, calling them all heretics without any supporting evidence whatsoever. So I would say that the ball is in your court, not mine.

Perhaps you may want to study your Bible a bit more. There a quite a few times in the Bible where the Sanhedrin is referred as "council." That is what it was. The KJV translaters themselvs often substituted the word "council" for Sanhedrin. But they never used the word "synod." It just isn't there--not even the concept.

 

And that again shows that things were changing, and that the Apostles did not found this system as it later came to be. There was no unwritten tradition on "presiding bishops" that were above other elders. That simply develeoped later,a s you admit.
And Ignatius is widely acknowledged as the first major stage in the development of the Catholic system and ultimately, the monoepiscopacy (i.e. the Roman papacy!)
Here is Smyrnaeans chaper 8:
8:1 [But] shun divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Do ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed
the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; and to
the deacons pay respect, as to God's commandment. Let
no man do aught of things pertaining to the Church
apart from the bishop. Let that be held a valid
eucharist which is under the bishop or one to whom he
shall have committed it.
8:2 Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let
the people be; even as where Jesus may be, there is
the universal Church. It is not lawful apart from the
bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast; but
whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also
to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and
valid.

He clearly is exalting that one office beyond what the Apostles did-as the end all and be all of the Church. Just quoting a scripture on them appointing them does not prove they were to be what the later system made them. As you read Ignatius, you see that this was their way of trying to deal with persecution. I like the way the 7th Day Church of God leaders C.O.Dodd/A.N.Dugger in A History of the True Religion put it: "after the death of the Apostles Paul; Peter and John, history of the early Church is confined to the writings of the Church Fathers,so called, who penned their religious epistles perhaps in sincerity, but not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit". It worked, as Karen Armstrong points out, by the third century, it became a "microcosm of the empire" that impressed Constantine. So no; it did not begin with him, but it gradually grew to that state, and then fit right in as the bride of the empire. You can try to appeal to the "organic continuity", but if the Apostles wanted this system, they could have just directly set it up themselves.

Paul's concept of "flesh vs spirit" as well as salvation by grace and not Law is a THEME that does run through his epistles; especially Romans. In ch. 8, what he is talking about, regarding "flesh", is the Law.(i.e. INHERITANCE OR WORKS-JUSTIFICATION; not calling the Law itself bad)
Of course, it is not just for Jews, but Gentiles who reject Christ and live in the world are living in the flesh as well. Anyone not covered by the Blood is. So in that sense, it would basically agree with the common understanding of "flesh" as "living in sin". But the point is, that term is not to be thrown at a Christian the minute he sins, or we think he is committing too many sins.

Matt; from the last page of the first thread:

This still raises the question of why God would guide the church indefectably for only 1000 years, and then basically let it unravel after that. If the promise to guide the Church did not carry after 1000 years, then perhaps it did not go beyond the original apostles, who penned the NT. I would say that God guided the Church in selecting the NT books, but this obviously does not mean that everything else they did was indefectable. As we see, again, the doctrine and polity was changing into the later corrupt system that did eventually splinter.

 

In Romans 2 Paul says "it is not the hearers of the Law that are JUST but the DOERS of the LAW will be JUSTIFIED".

In Romans 3 Paul says "Do WE then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith??? God forbid!! We ESTABLISH the Law of God!"

in Romans 7 Paul states "the LAW is HOLY Just and GOOD" and that in his mind he CHOOSES to SERVE the LAW of God!

in Romans 8 Paul states that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the unconverted heart to submit in obedience to the Law of God.

Rom 8
5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the Law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are [b]in the flesh cannot please God[/b].

On the contrary Paul IS writing to Christians in Romans 2 and 3 and 7 and 8. His point is that IF they are putting to death the deads of the FLESH THEN and only THEN are they the children of God. Simply calling themselves Christians does not cut it.

12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh
13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live[/b].
14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

His argument IS that they are to "notice this" and to be careful in following it.

The Post-cross teaching of the apostles CONTINUES to support that importance of God’s Word – God’s Commandments – and obedience rather than rebellion.

I Jn 5:2-3
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Rev 12:17
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rev 14:12
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Rev 22:14
14[b] Blessed are they that do his commandments,[/b] that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

I Jn 2:3-4
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Matt 19:17 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

John 15:10-11 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

John 14:15 (quoting from the 10 commandments) “IF you love Me Keep My commandments”


I Jn 2:3-4
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

1 Corinthians 7:19
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

The point being - Paul is arguing for diligence in our focus on the Word of God as our rule and guide -- not the traditions of man.

Same point Christ makes in the GOSPELS

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS[/b], BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT [b]IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''[/b]
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.[/b]
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER[/b]'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''

 

Eliyahu

"I think the religion of Augustine was the Pagan Religion of Hatred and Murder decorated with the name of Christians. He was not awake from the wines drunken with the prostitutes when he wrote Confessions and City of God, and the Whorish RCC follows him, calling him as their father"

Augustine said, "Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!" Paul said for the same reason he would give the erring brother over to satan! And you know of course - I assume - Augustine left the rcc in older age?

 

It's new to me!

I have noticed the following summary from the book "What Love is this p55-58" by Dave Hunt, but some points may be confirmed from Confession and City of God by Augustine.

Augustine believed and claimed;

1) He believed in the Coercion of Faith unto the unbelievers by Force
He misinterpretted Luke 14:23- and believed that the Force can be used as long as it is available.
This may mean that Augustine was the "Father of Inquisition"

2) Predestination of the Unbelievers that they may not believe in Jesus and thereby they should go to the Hell, even though God could save them all, for it pleased God.
( In this case, God of Augustine is responsible for the unbelief of the people and therefore the God of Augustine should go to the Hell !)
Calvin quoted Augustine 400 times in his Institutes calling him " Holy Father"

3) Infant Baptism

4) Baptismal Regeneration

5) Mary was sinless, Augustine promoted Mary Worship

6) Grace can be obtained thru Sacraments ( some say he believed even the Salvation can be achieved by the sacraments)

7) Lord Supper as the spiritual presence of Body and Blood

8) Catholic Church alone is the body of Christ, Outside this body the Holy Spirit gives the life to No One.

9) Purgatory

10) Acceptance of Apocrypha ( while admitting that the Jews rejected this)

11) Jews must be killed by double edged swords.

12) Rejected the literal interpretation of Creation like 6 days and other details of Genesis

13) Rejected the literal reign of Christ Jesus for thousand years.

14) Satan was already bound and the abyss was in the heart of the unbelievers - Christ Rejecters.

15) placed the Tradition to the first place over the Bible, incorporating the Greek philosophy, Platonism.

He hated Donatists and praised Constantine for killing Donatists and confiscating their properties.

Emperor Constantine was not baptized until around the time of his death, because he believed that the sins after the baptism may not be forgiven and he wanted to enjoy committing sins for the longest time possible before the Baptism.

Was Augustine a truly born again Believer in Jesus Christ? give your thoughts!

Do we have to follow the Early Church Fathers over the Bible? or the Tradition over the Scriptures?

 

GE

It will take years of study to go into all these points, which I am sure some have already thoroughly done. I am not conversant with these things. And they really don't matter to me. All I know that if A. taught election, he taught Scripture.
I also do know Calvin a bit - and you are really distorting his meaning with the use of the contemporary way of referencing a respected authority. Nowhere ever would Calvin have referred to Augustine as were he God. You are taken withal with your arrogance against a great and God-fearing man, Eliyahu. Augustine was a giant; you and I are non con poops.