Things changed, Eric, by the mere fact that there were no more apostles on the scene when they died. However, before they died, the Apostles gave certain other men, for example Timothy and Titus, the authority to ordain elders just as they had done. Timothy and Titus were thus regarded in history as the first "bishops" of Ephesus and Crete respectively. The fact is we see the "monoepiscopacy"--at least in organization, if not in name--pretty much everywhere after the apostles left. And you know what? We don't have any documented protests from any church fathers against such a development. In other words, we don't have anyone saying: "Hey! you guys are deviating from the pure "biblical" congregational or presbyterian polity!"
Really? How do you know this? (Since by definition this "tradition" to which you are referring--and denying!--was "unwritten") :cool:
The termininology changed, in that the term "bishop" became restricted to the chief pastor, but there was from the beginning immediately after the Apostles one leading bishop/presbyter in each location
GASP! (not the dreaded "first stage" to the Catholic "system" and Roman papacy) :eek:
Actually, historically this isn't even correct since Ignatius was addressing already existing bishops by name (including Polycarp of Smyrna) in his letters to the different churches. In otherwords, he didn't come up with the idea of "one bishop, one city"--it was already in place by the time he wrote his letters in the very early second century.
Yet, the 'monoepiscopal' organization was pretty much in place universally, shortly after John finished his writings, and even before that with Clement in Rome (and his predecessors Anicletus and Linus going back to the apostles), and a good 250 years before the NT canon was finalized. And the perogatives to authoritatively ordain elders had already given given to other men--Timothy and Titus--while Paul was still alive. And let's not forget about JAMES, the Lord's brother, who historically was regarded as being, and who indeed acted as, the first bishop of Jerusalem (in the 'monoepiscopal' sense) while all the apostles were of course still living.
Except Ignatius and those bishops whom he named of the churches to which he wrote were...already...in...place. So although he certainly emphasied loyalty to the ordained bishop as a matter of maintaining unity and the truth--particularly in face of the challenges of the Judaizers and Gnostics, both of whom Ignatius warned against in his letters--this emphasis is certainly no evidence of some incidious departure from some allegedly different, apostolically sanctioned, ecclessiastical polity.
And the evidence shows that's exactly what they did. :thumbs:
The problem is, it seems like you and many other revisionists want to reject anything as historical evidence simply because it's not "inspired Scripture" (forgetting that the Bible itself was written and collected in history). I suppose that gives you the creative freedom to come up with your own alternative histories--move over Dan Brown!
The Doctrine by which the Church stands or falls, Volume 2...
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by D28guy, Oct 26, 2007.
Page 13 of 14
-
-
You are greatly mistaken about Augustine.
Calvin is also another Heretic, killing the people like Servetus.
If he had stood in the place of John 8:1-11, he would have killed the adulterous woman.
You must wake up from the delusion and the leaven of RCC and her step-daughter Calvinism. You can confirm the Infant Baptism and the Baptismal Regeneration, No Salvation outside Holy Catholic church by both guys, which are ridiculous heresies.
It is the high time for the modern believers to perform the Funeral Service for the dead men, Augustine and Calvin. You may not see them in the Heaven but in the Hell. -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
And one branch of the Church using the same logic does the same thing with Peter as ruler over the entire Church.
This is why your Vincentian logic doesn't work. Even if we no loner argue over interpretation of scripture; we STILL face different interpretations of the traditions and even historical data you appeal to. That is why we are not convinced. Some "rewriting" was done a LONG time before us1
Come on, you can not even have a fellowship meeting, or baptize someone without one of these exalted "bishops" present?
(BTW, in Clement's usage, episkopos and presbyteros were still interchangeable)
That's true. and that includes those without Christ who think they can reach God by keeping the Law. They are just as much "in the flesh".
So if we are trying to justify ourselves by it without Christ; all it does is EXPOSE the sins we all STILL DO commit. This is why those who reject Christ are said to be "in the flesh". The way to mortify the deeds of the flesh is to trust Christ.
What Paul tells Christians is "you ARE NOT in the flesh" --so ACT like it. If we LOVE Him, we keep His commandments; not to pay rent for a future spot in Heaven. -
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Ask and ye shall receive:
Montanism:
John MacArthur, who seems to be cited on these boards more often than not with approval, cites the Montanists as proto-charismatics in Charismatic Chaos.
As for the Waldensians, we have already discussed at length here on another thread about the Confessio of Peter Waldo, and his confession is one of a reforming Catholic much like St Francis but a few decades earlier rather than some kind of proto-Baptist.
And the Cathars/Albigensians, their heresies are well-documented. A modern work containing much primary source material from the early 14th century is the painstakingly-researched Montaillou by Emmanuel LeRoy Ladurie. -
"What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.
But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation."
Here's what Eusebius has to say about this particular succession in Rome (from Paul Maier's translation):
"After the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, the first to be appointed bishop of Rome was Linus" (Eccl Hist 3:2)
"When Vespasian had reigned for ten years, his son Titus succeeded him as emperor. In the second year of Titus's reign, Linus, the bishop of Rome, yielded his office to Anencletus after holding it for twelve years." (Eccl His 3:13)
"In the twelth year of the same reign [that of Domitian], Clement succeeded Anencletus after twelve years as bishop of Rome." (Eccl Hist 3:15)
"In the third year of Trajan's reign, Clement turned over the ministry of bishops of Rome to Evarestus and departed this life, having supervised the teaching of the divine Word for nine years." (Eccl Hist 3:34)
So although Eusebius does use the term "bishop" in it's latter restricted sense, he does describe the succession of specific individual men as chief pastor (ie the presiding bishop/presbyter) in Rome going back to the Apostles.
I had then in response mentioned that the historical evidence pointed to the fact that the episcopal church polity is what the Apostles set up in the churches. You responded with...
-
Again, this seems to be to at least some extent projecting a retrospective view back to the early centuries. Someone must have, even back then, for there to be different versions of the same "succession". -
I had said...
I had then said...
The earliest reference to the importance of agreeing with Rome (in Irenaeus) was not because it's bishop was the alleged sole successor of Peter, but because the Roman Church was founded by Peter and Paul, and because of the orthodoxy strenghtened there by the many Christians going to and from the city ("the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved by those who are of all countries") In addition, when one collates all the ECF comments on Matthew 16 with Peter and the rock, it's only the minority of these which identify the rock only with Peter--the vast majority identify the Rock with Christ, Peter's confession, or mulitple meanings such as Peter, his confession, and Christ (I tend to agree with this latter interpretation). I'm sure I can spend pages documenting this, but since neither you nor I are papalists, I'd just be preaching to the choir.
Does Paul's instructions to Titus and Timothy regarding the qualifications of elders and bishops really suggest to you that everyone was qualified, let alone called to such leadership positions?
. -
(continuing..)
I then said...
"When the blessed apostles had founded and built the church, they conferred the episcopal office on Linus, who is mentioned by Paul in his letter to Timothy" (Eccl Hist 5:6)
(Nevermind that bothersome fact that the Apostles didn't record every single thing they did nor every person they commissioned in establishing the Churches)
-
Notice that in Acts 15 there is no one person leading the entire church -- they needed the Jewish Christians to hold the Jerusalem "council" to determine the answer to the dispute. Otherwise they simply could have written to James for his pontifical opinion.
Also notice that down through the ages the "successors" were chosen by assassination and mob violence when not chosen by nepotism or bribery.
Then there was the "bad news" where you had 20 competing claims at the same time - each trying to slay the others.
in Christ,
Bob -
Let's ask Paul - Read Rom 8:5-16 -- tell me what you find there.
in Christ,
Bob -
Bob, you cut everything else out and missed the point. At what point does a person cross back into "the flesh"?
(And Christ never said the power to bind and loose was to extend beyond those men He was speaking to. They may have appointed others after them, but we do not see them transferring all the same power. Only they were in direct contact with Christ. Again; even you admitted the other day that the successors were not "apostles" anymore).
They were supposed to be GROWing, and yes, become qualified to spread the Gospel or at least guide others. (Like the apostles, and as there would always be people teaching others, it would not be "devoid" of overseers). Those who were ready, were appointed. Those who were not, were not. The apostles were not arbitrarily appointing a religious class system by "choosing one and not another". There was no permanent "clergy-laity" system set up. This is what has led to the watering down of the Church to just a "cultural" icon as people just came and watched the leaders perform, while they fell into complacency. The appointment of offices was to get the Church started and guard the fledgling Gospel message from error. Not to become a mini Roman Empire ruling over the masses! If that's what Christ wanted all along; He could have just overthrown pagan Rome then and set up the complete "Holy Roman Empire" system, pentarchy included.
And there are plenty of small Christian groups in hostile areas where Christianity was not able to organize like that. No paid, professional leaders, often! Do you deny they are part of the Church?
The problem is, the original claim has been the "undivided" Church, supposedly most embodied in the East, today, was IDENTICAL to the Church of the apostles, and anything you couldn't find written in the NT was an "oral tradition". Now, you keep admitting that things changed and were added, using this other criteria of "organic continuity", or "binding".
OK, if all you're arguing for is bishops, presbyters and deacons; that in itself is not what I am arguing against. I'm against what they became after the apostolic age. So you admit all the "patriarchs" and stuff were "nonessential developments". Good. But it has been justified using the logic you are relaying here. (oral tradition/successional authority). That's the only reason there is any debate here on my part.
But you are now in a later "group" that broke off, (and look at the reasons for it!)
So in any case, you don't even insist on the EOC anymore, and you admit the pentarchy was a later development, and you are thus not really in communion [institutionally] with them, then there is no reason for me to keep arguing this stuff. (I was still fired up from when you were an EOC catechumen, and all those other EOC's and RCC's were here spouting that rhetoric) -
Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member
Since this thread is in its 26th page, and since this is the second thread on this topic, this thread will be closed no later than 12:00 PM CST tomorrow.
-
These people believe that their God predestined the Unbelievers eternity past ago , not to believe in Jesus and thereby to go to the Hell.
Their god doesn't want All to be saved, but only the elect to be saved.
The Confession of Peter Waldo around 1179 doesn't reflect his faith correctly, because he was so much changed after 1180, after he was turned down by the Rome.
Cathari and Albigenes were the true believers as shown in the Report by the RCC Inquisitor Reinerius, as follows:
First They say that the Romish Church, is not the Church of Jesus Christ, but a church of malignants and that it apostatized under Sylvester, when the poison of temporalities was infused into the h. And they say, that they are the church of Christ, because they observe both in word, and deed, the doctrine of Christ, of the Gospel, and of the Apostles.
Their second error is that all vices and sins are in the church( Roman Church), and that they alone live righteously.
That scarcely anyone in the church, but themselves, preserves the evangelical doctrine.
That they are the true poor in spirit, and suffer persecution for righteousness and faith.
That they are the Church of Jesus Christ.
That the Church of Rome is the Harlot in the Apocalypse, on account of its superfluous decoration which the Eastern Church does not regard.
That they despise all the statutes of the Church, because they are heavy and numerous.
That the Pope is the head of all errors.
That the Prelates are Scribes; and the Monks, Pharisees.
That the Pope and all Bishops, are homicides on account of wars.
That we are not to obey Prelates; but only God.
That no one is greater than another in the church. Matt. 23. "All of you are brethren."
That no one ought to bow the knee before a priest. Rev. ii. where the Angel says tojohn "See thou do it not."
That tithes are not to be given, because first fruits were not given to the church.
That the clergy ought not to have possessions; Dent. xviii. "The Priests and all the tribe of Levi, shall not have part and inheritance with the people of Israel, because they eat the sacrifices, and they shall receive nothing else."
That the clergy, and monks, ought not to have Prebends.( land of church)
That the Bishops and Abbots ought not to have royal rights.
That the land, and the people, are not to be divided into parts.
That it is a bad thing to found and endow churches and monasteries.
That wills are not to be made in favor of Churches( but for the poor)-also, that no one ought to be a tenant of the church-also, they condemn all the clergy for idleness, saying that they ought to work with their hands as the Apostles did-also ( 2 Thess 3:8-12)
, they reprobate titles of dignity such as Pope, Bishops, etc.( they denied Clergy system, Papacy)
-also, that no one is to be forced into belief-also( This is the style of God's working since the Creation), that they make no account of all ecclesiastical offices ( No clergy system according to 1 Pet 2:5-9, Re 1:6)-also, that they care nothing for ecclesiastical privileges-also, they despise the immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons and things-also, they condemn Councils, Synods, and Assemblies( No human organization)-also, they say that all parochial rights are invention-also, they say that monastic rules are the traditions of the Pharisees. ( They condemned the human tradition)
Heretics cannot confess such Great Faith at all.
The above proves they are true Believers !
-
What character witnesses do we have for the humble Cathars of history -- coming from some source other than the criminals that tortured and murdered them?
But as Eliyahu points out -- sometimes the very institution corrupt enough to murder and torture them -- can be caught in an honest moment declaring some tiny part of their victim's character accurately. -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
So, is it the mark of 'true believers' to believe in two gods, insist on vegetarianism, divide members of their sect into two hierarchies, and fast to the death?
-
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
Eliyahu, I am a Calvinist and no RC. Also you have simply NO idea about Calvin and the RCC! You h-a-v-e NO, knowledge man. Go read his Institutes. If ever their ever has been a true Christian warrior against the RC-antichrist, it's Calvin!
But you, Eliyahu, who so wars against the doctrine of Election and for the doctrines of Pelagius and Arminius, you fight side by side and for and WITH Rome against Protestantism; WITH Rome whose arch-heresy always has been and this day more than ever is the very doctrines of Pelagius and Arminius! -
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
Eliyahu
"Cathari and Albigenes were the true believers as shown in the Report by the RCC Inquisitor Reinerius, "
GE
I'm not for the RCC as you should know - but tell me, what from that list of accusations against Rome and denials of belief, makes you think the "Cathari and Albigenes were the true believers"?
Have you got one positive Confession of Faith from them wherein they do anything else than denounce the RCC? If you could show me one, then we could talk further about the purity of their Faith.
Page 13 of 14