"Fatal"??? Are you going to kill the poor guy over this? Pistols at dawn, perhaps?
. . .The insane things I read in Christian forums. . .
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Marks of the early church
- Thread starter Rebel1
- Start date
"Fatal"??? Are you going to kill the poor guy over this? Pistols at dawn, perhaps?
. . .The insane things I read in Christian forums. . .
"Fatal", as in fatal to his bogus beliefs. Sheesh!Couldn't you get that?
Have you ever considered that you might just be a touch too dramatic?
Not in this case, no.
Are Quakers and the Salvation Army not true churches then? I say they are, if they hold to orthodox beliefs.
Many don't see Quakers being within orthodox Christianity, and fewer feel that way regarding the SA, but opinion means nothing. Do they preach the same gospel as Paul? That's the question, which, BTW, is mark #1 on my list.
What about the same gospel as the Gospels and the other books not written by Paul?
Actually, some modern very liberal Quakers are not within orthodox Christianity, but the SA is.
Here are some marks of the early church (first century church):
1. Each local church was free and independent.
2. Offices were deacon and pastor (elder/presbyter/overseer/bishop/pastor as synonymous, as NT confirms).
3. Baptism was for believers only and by immersion, or pouring if immersion could not be had (see The Didache).
4. The Lord's Supper was a meal.
5. Atonement view was Ransom/Christus Victor
1. Each local church was free and independent.
2. Offices were deacon and pastor (elder/presbyter/overseer/bishop/pastor as synonymous, as NT confirms).
3. Baptism was for believers only and by immersion, or pouring if immersion could not be had (see The Didache).
4. The Lord's Supper was a meal.
5. Atonement view was Ransom/Christus Victor
!/2 wrong and 1/2 ridiculous.
During the Apostolic age the "primacy" was not Rome but Jerusalem (everyone looked to Jerusalem). But the Church also began as a very Jewish institution and the seat of Jewish power was in Jerusalem.
When we speak of the "primacy of Rome" we are dealing with the church after a major shift and the issue was connected to "secular" government (i.e., the Roman Empire). Jerusalem became less important, not because of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD but because the makeup of the Church changed. It became, in effect, less dependent (culturally, ideologically, etc) on Jerusalem in terms of its identity.
You need to look more at the 4th century. Note especially the inauguration of Constantinople as the new capital of the Roman Empire.
During the last years of the first century and beginning years of the second, the Ephesians church (lead by John and then his student Polycarp) was the general authority after the diaspora of 70AD.
Along with Polycarp was Justin Martyr.
These are three well known ECF that never looked to some papist authority.
One recognizable aspect of the EC was that all believers were considered priests.
Another was that authority to run the church was vested in the hands of the assembly.
The assembly chose who would be their “bishop” not some papist in Rome.
Along with Polycarp was Justin Martyr.
These are three well known ECF that never looked to some papist authority.
One recognizable aspect of the EC was that all believers were considered priests.
Another was that authority to run the church was vested in the hands of the assembly.
The assembly chose who would be their “bishop” not some papist in Rome.
Keep your shirt on, pops. We want to prove you right more then you do. We just tired of the countless disappointments prior to you coming up here.
That's great news I hope to get smashed. We've been trying to break the Catholic church for 2000 years.
A ECF give us an example of one.
We are waiting for you to name which ECFs are legit or not.
The article was stupid. I hope everyone does read it. No names, no dates.
We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). -- Justin Martyr.
Can we hear an AMEN for what Justin teaches?
I didn't know you baptist teach the real presence of the Eucharist, I might have to convert.....
Must be one them eastern orthodox baptists.
When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So they placed him on an ass, and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath (The Martyrdom of Polycarp 8 [A.D. 110]).
Now we got Polycarp and Justin, who's the third guy again?
The teaching of the Apostles, and the teaching of the OT also!
Then you should know without a doubt that: A. The Bishop of Rome has primacy. B. They all believed in the in the 7 sacraments. (Just like our Eastern Orthodox brothers continued to believe in after the great schism between East and West.).
Amen!
And we cannot forget about the Mass, which is the Scriptures in action. Our main focus of worship is Jesus and His sacrifice on the altar, not the pulpit in a church somewhere that has no altar.