Diversity

[Rebel]

The word is more accurately translated "dispute," as it is in the KJV, and in most other translations:
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them...
--It was't organized debate. It was the Judaizers trying to force their heresy on the others.

Of course. That is what sola scriptura is. The scripture is our final authority, not tradition and the writings of others. Most heresy evolved from the ECF.

Now that is all part of sola scriptura. Let's take an example.
Go to Acts 20. Here Paul did not have time to go to Ephesus, so he meets half way with the elders (pastors) of Ephesus, of which Timothy was the senior pastor.
Act 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
--Here they are called elders.

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
--Here he addresses them as overseers. The Greek word here is: episkopos.
It is the same word used in 1Tim.3:1,2 that is translated "bishop."
Thus overseer and bishop mean the same, and are the same person that is also called "elder."
The command here is "to feed the flock of God." That is the shepherd's duty of the direct duty of the pastor. He is addressing the pastors of the church.
Pastor, elder, bishop, overseer, are all words to describe the same person, but different parts of his ministry. There is no hierarchy described here. He is speaking to the elders or pastors of one church, the church at Ephesus.

Mature local churches often start other churches and help them find pastors. We have done that in our area here. We have also carried out the same principle on the mission field. No denomination is needed.

These men were elders by nature of their office as a pastor.
BTW, the word "office" is entirely an English addition not found in the Greek in 1Tim.3, where the qualifications for the "offices" of a pastor and deacon are listed. It isn't there. The ministries of the pastor and deacon are there, and both are ministers or servants of the local church to whom they are appointed for service. The word "office" was inserted by the translators.

Elder and bishop are the same person as we have seen.
The word deacon "diakonos" is a transliteration, as you can see.
The actual translation of the word is "servant."
The feminine form of the Greek word is used in Romans 16:1, where it is accurately translated:
Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
It is the same word: diakonos, more accurately translated "servant." It is not an office, per se.

You have put forth tradition, not sound doctrine at all.

Although many assume that these are the first "deacons" in Acts 6, the word deacon is not there. These were men that helped the apostles in a specific matter, so that they could give themselves to the Word and prayer. People assume they were deacons. It doesn't say they were.
There is no "One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church." This is a fact not in existence, and therefore a logical fallacy.
Over 100 churches established on 3 missionary journeys is enough evidence to establish the autonomy of local churches. Christ wrote seven different letters to seven different churches, all independent of each other. There was nothing to connect them to each other. If there was Christ could have written one letter to them all, but he didn't.
You fail to make a case for any kind of a denominational church; for any kind of one catholic church at all. There were simply local churches and that is all.

You are wrong, wrong in your ecclesiology, wrong in your assumptions, wrong in your definitions, wrong in your conclusions. The Catholic Church never existed until the fourth century. All of the churches mentioned in the NT were independent of each other.

You have it essentially correct. Why do I say that and have confidence in saying it? Because I lost the faith of my childhood and briefly became an agnostic. I wanted to know what was true, so I went on a very extensive search, looking at every major religion and some minor ones, and researching the early Christian churches, the fathers, and other early writings. I had no denominational bias, as I wanted to know objective truth and historical facts. The organization of the earliest churches is as you have written.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

and that is why many local churches have left the Episcopal Church - and many of those knew they would have lost their buildings as well. That is truly standing up for you beliefs.

This is a good point, and I say this as one who recognizes the evidence of the Historic Episcopate from very early times in the history of the Church. If I have time I'll flesh out my reasoning and the evidence for this later, but I did want to heartily agree that having a heirarchy based merely upon tactile successinon certainly doesn't guarantee the preservation of orthodoxy.

(For full disclosure I am a member of an ACNA parish)

 

[Rebel]

This is a good point, and I say this as one who recognizes the evidence of the Historic Episcopate from very early times in the history of the Church. If I have time I'll flesh out my reasoning and the evidence for this later, but I did want to heartily agree that having a heirarchy based merely upon tactile successinon certainly doesn't guarantee the preservation of orthodoxy.

(For full disclosure I am a member of an ACNA parish)

The "Historic Episcopate" was indeed established and widespread by the end of the second century. That is true.

I must say that I admire the ACNA. They have tried to establish relationships with several denominations, including those not having bishops in apostolic succession. And they are very strong on orthodoxy.

 

[Walter]

The "Historic Episcopate" was indeed established and widespread by the end of the second century. That is true.

I must say that I admire the ACNA. They have tried to establish relationships with several denominations, including those not having bishops in apostolic succession. And they are very strong on orthodoxy.

Same here! The churches within The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin here in the Central Valley of California have risked losing their properties by withdrawing from TEC and for the sake of the gospel. I have many local Anglican friends who tell me it was simply time to stand up for Jesus. Many people believe their leaving TEC was over ordination of non-celibate homosexuals but it isn't hard to track the heresies of The Episcopal Church. Homosexual ordination was just the last straw. I remember DHK asking why they didn't stay and fight. Here is why. There are almost no orthodox dioceses left within TEC and almost no orthodox bishops. That means there is almost no possibility of any more orthodox (bible believing) bishops gaining consents to be consecrated (ordained). I agree with Doubting Thomas, the historic episcopate is not a guarantee that a denomination will keep it's theological moorings. There was a time when Arianism was followed by a majority of bishops. It took Athanasius to bring back orthodoxy.

 

[Salty]

...I must say that I admire the ACNA. They have tried to establish relationships with several denominations, including those not having bishops in apostolic succession. And they are very strong on orthodoxy.

When I was in the Virginia Defense Force, our Chaplain was Reformed Episcopal - and I remember when he preached in Chapel -- he was preaching the Word of God!

 

[Yeshua1]

We have Bro. James who sees Baptists as the New Testament church, and Walter who sees the RCC as that. And they would apparently exclude all others as not being the NT church. Neither person would believe in diversity and would be troubled by it.

Some don't want diversity and think it is a bad thing. Some want certainty and are willing to sacrifice individual thinking and liberty of conscience in order to have what they feel is certainty. As for me, I don't wan't to be told what is right by a group of people, whether a denomination, "church fathers", church councils, popes, etc. I want to be able to read the Bible and be lead of the Holy Spirit to interpret it as I am lead. If that principle produces countless denominations, so be it. I strongly believe that is preferable to one large structure dictating what is acceptable to be believed. Do I want to be a part of something which is as close to what Jesus and the apostles taught as is possible? You bet. But I don't think that can be found in an organization which denies liberty of conscience. So, I opt for diversity over uniformity, whether that uniformity is demanded by some hierarchy, as in the case of the RCC, or obtained by a sort of "peer pressure" as in some Baptist groups.

There is indeed real diversity in the Body of Christ, but there are also MANY so called churches today, such as RCC/SDA/WOF etc that are claiming to be Christian churches, yet they are not!

 

[Doubting Thomas]

When I was in the Virginia Defense Force, our Chaplain was Reformed Episcopal - and I remember when he preached in Chapel -- he was preaching the Word of God!

The REC, one of the core founding groups of ACNA, is generally pretty solid. :thumbs:

I guess my biggest concern with ACNA is the unresolved issue of WO. (Some dioceses do, and some don't).

 

[Walter]

The word is more accurately translated "dispute," as it is in the KJV, and in most other translations:
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them...
--It was't organized debate. It was the Judaizers trying to force their heresy on the others.

Of course. That is what sola scriptura is. The scripture is our final authority, not tradition and the writings of others. Most heresy evolved from the ECF.

Now that is all part of sola scriptura. Let's take an example.
Go to Acts 20. Here Paul did not have time to go to Ephesus, so he meets half way with the elders (pastors) of Ephesus, of which Timothy was the senior pastor.
Act 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
--Here they are called elders.

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
--Here he addresses them as overseers. The Greek word here is: episkopos.
It is the same word used in 1Tim.3:1,2 that is translated "bishop."
Thus overseer and bishop mean the same, and are the same person that is also called "elder."
The command here is "to feed the flock of God." That is the shepherd's duty of the direct duty of the pastor. He is addressing the pastors of the church.
Pastor, elder, bishop, overseer, are all words to describe the same person, but different parts of his ministry. There is no hierarchy described here. He is speaking to the elders or pastors of one church, the church at Ephesus.

Mature local churches often start other churches and help them find pastors. We have done that in our area here. We have also carried out the same principle on the mission field. No denomination is needed.

These men were elders by nature of their office as a pastor.
BTW, the word "office" is entirely an English addition not found in the Greek in 1Tim.3, where the qualifications for the "offices" of a pastor and deacon are listed. It isn't there. The ministries of the pastor and deacon are there, and both are ministers or servants of the local church to whom they are appointed for service. The word "office" was inserted by the translators.

Elder and bishop are the same person as we have seen.
The word deacon "diakonos" is a transliteration, as you can see.
The actual translation of the word is "servant."
The feminine form of the Greek word is used in Romans 16:1, where it is accurately translated:
Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
It is the same word: diakonos, more accurately translated "servant." It is not an office, per se.

You have put forth tradition, not sound doctrine at all.

Although many assume that these are the first "deacons" in Acts 6, the word deacon is not there. These were men that helped the apostles in a specific matter, so that they could give themselves to the Word and prayer. People assume they were deacons. It doesn't say they were.
There is no "One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church." This is a fact not in existence, and therefore a logical fallacy.
Over 100 churches established on 3 missionary journeys is enough evidence to establish the autonomy of local churches. Christ wrote seven different letters to seven different churches, all independent of each other. There was nothing to connect them to each other. If there was Christ could have written one letter to them all, but he didn't.
You fail to make a case for any kind of a denominational church; for any kind of one catholic church at all. There were simply local churches and that is all.

You are wrong, wrong in your ecclesiology, wrong in your assumptions, wrong in your definitions, wrong in your conclusions. The Catholic Church never existed until the fourth century. All of the churches mentioned in the NT were independent of each other.

DHK, while you make a great case for the word usage of the NT, you do not explain why St. Timothy, who was placed in charge of a church by St. Paul, then writes to St. Paul for guidance in matters and St. Paul responds to him. If there was no hierarchy as you clam, then St. Timothy would have been on his own and felt no need to write St. Paul in the first place.

Likewise, there would have been no meeting of the Apostles in Jerusalem over the Judiazers issue and no letter sent to all the churches if there in fact were not a hierarchy in the early church.

 

[Yeshua1]

DHK, while you make a great case for the word usage of the NT, you do not explain why St. Timothy, who was placed in charge of a church by St. Paul, then writes to St. Paul for guidance in matters and St. Paul responds to him. If there was no hierarchy as you clam, then St. Timothy would have been on his own and felt no need to write St. Paul in the first place.

Likewise, there would have been no meeting of the Apostles in Jerusalem over the Judiazers issue and no letter sent to all the churches if there in fact were not a hierarchy in the early church.

There were the Apostles, and also the local pastors, and the elders/deacons, but there was NO papacy, nor any one other than the 12 Apost;es ever recognized as being the 'final authority"

 

[Rebel]

The REC, one of the core founding groups of ACNA, is generally pretty solid. :thumbs:

I guess my biggest concern with ACNA is the unresolved issue of WO. (Some dioceses do, and some don't).

What's wrong with that, with allowing freedom of conscience on the matter? I don't put women's ordination in the same boat as homosexual ordination.

 

[Rebel]

DHK, while you make a great case for the word usage of the NT, you do not explain why St. Timothy, who was placed in charge of a church by St. Paul, then writes to St. Paul for guidance in matters and St. Paul responds to him. If there was no hierarchy as you clam, then St. Timothy would have been on his own and felt no need to write St. Paul in the first place.

Likewise, there would have been no meeting of the Apostles in Jerusalem over the Judiazers issue and no letter sent to all the churches if there in fact were not a hierarchy in the early church.

I know how I would answer that, but since you addressed the question to DHK, I'll let him answer first.

 

[Rebel]

Same here! The churches within The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin here in the Central Valley of California have risked losing their properties by withdrawing from TEC and for the sake of the gospel. I have many local Anglican friends who tell me it was simply time to stand up for Jesus. Many people believe their leaving TEC was over ordination of non-celibate homosexuals but it isn't hard to track the heresies of The Episcopal Church. Homosexual ordination was just the last straw. I remember DHK asking why they didn't stay and fight. Here is why. There are almost no orthodox dioceses left within TEC and almost no orthodox bishops. That means there is almost no possibility of any more orthodox (bible believing) bishops gaining consents to be consecrated (ordained). I agree with Doubting Thomas, the historic episcopate is not a guarantee that a denomination will keep it's theological moorings. There was a time when Arianism was followed by a majority of bishops. It took Athanasius to bring back orthodoxy.

Yes, that is exactly the situation in TEC.

 

[Rebel]

Walter, Doubting Thomas, and others,

Here is an article that might interest you. This is a failed effort by a dying, apostate organization to punish those who have shaken the dust from their feet:

http://www.diosc.com/sys/index.php?...mpaign=International+update+&utm_medium=email

 

[Walter]

Walter, Doubting Thomas, and others,

Here is an article that might interest you. This is a failed effort by a dying, apostate organization to punish those who have shaken the dust from their feet:

http://www.diosc.com/sys/index.php?...mpaign=International+update+&utm_medium=email

That is wonderful news! I was reading the Diocese of Quincy (which also withdrew from TEC and was being sued by TEC for the property) also won their lawsuit against TEC and that TEC is even being sanctioned for violating the courts order to allow the Anglican diocese to have access to their bank accounts as well as keeping their properties. Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin is appealing the decision by a liberal judge in Fresno in their attempts to keep their property. Hopefully, these other cases decisions may help the orthodox in future lawsuits. Diocese of Fort Worth decision is expected soon.

 

[Salty]

The REC, one of the core founding groups of ACNA, is generally pretty solid. :thumbs:

I guess my biggest concern with ACNA is the unresolved issue of WO. (Some dioceses do, and some don't).

Left my thinking cap at work
Are you talking about Warrant Officer ?

 

[Walter]

Left my thinking cap at work
Are you talking about Warrant Officer ?

WO=Women's Ordination

In the ACNA it is left to 'local option', I believe. While in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin women are ordained as Deacons, there are no women ordained as presbyters. Some ACNA dioceses have women presbyters and other do not. There has been no decision made so far as to whether this 'local option' will continue within the ACNA province or not. There are seems to be many in the 'continuum' that are waiting to see what the ACNA does before deciding to join. That is what Doubting Thomas was speaking of when he mentioned his only concern was how WO would play out. There are other 'continuing Anglican/Episcopal churches' that are practicIing this local option. The Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches is one of them. Others, like The Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) and The Anglican Church of America (ACA) do not allow WO at all. I believe the Reformed Episcopal Church (part of the ACNA merger) would oppose WO. It is the 'fly in the ointment' for the ACNA province. I hope they can find a solution because what the 'continuing church' does not need is another split.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

What's wrong with that, with allowing freedom of conscience on the matter? I don't put women's ordination in the same boat as homosexual ordination.

Yeah, here is where we ask: for which issues do we allow "freedom of conscience"? I know you had mentioned earlier that when Scripture clearly speaks, we don't have the freedom to disobey---and to that I agree. But those like me who oppose WO see this clearly forbidden by Scripture in that males only are allowed to be bishops/presbyters. Couple this with the unanimous teaching of the Church (up until four decades ago), and one can see that WO is at the very least a troublesome doctrinal novelty leading to division in the Church. At worse it seems historically to have led down the slippery slope to ordination of practicing h0m0sexuals and the condoning of same-sex "marriage".

 

[Doubting Thomas]

DHK, while you make a great case for the word usage of the NT, you do not explain why St. Timothy, who was placed in charge of a church by St. Paul, then writes to St. Paul for guidance in matters and St. Paul responds to him. If there was no hierarchy as you clam, then St. Timothy would have been on his own and felt no need to write St. Paul in the first place.

Likewise, there would have been no meeting of the Apostles in Jerusalem over the Judiazers issue and no letter sent to all the churches if there in fact were not a hierarchy in the early church.

Good points--it seems like there was at least a simple hierarchy in the early Church of sorts.

 

[Rebel]

Yeah, here is where we ask: for which issues do we allow "freedom of conscience"? I know you had mentioned earlier that when Scripture clearly speaks, we don't have the freedom to disobey---and to that I agree. But those like me who oppose WO see this clearly forbidden by Scripture in that males only are allowed to be bishops/presbyters. Couple this with the unanimous teaching of the Church (up until four decades ago), and one can see that WO is at the very least a troublesome doctrinal novelty leading to division in the Church. At worse it seems historically to have led down the slippery slope to ordination of practicing h0m0sexuals and the condoning of same-sex "marriage".

Besides the example of Junia in the New Testament, consider these articles. There is indeed evidence for women's ordination outside of what became the RCC and the EOC.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Ordained_Women_in_the_Early_Church.html?id=7XRvIiltytUC

http://www.unc.edu/celtic/catalogue/femdruids/FalloftheDruidesses.html

http://www.unc.edu/celtic/catalogue/femdruids/Bridget.html

http://www.arcwp.org/art_always.html
A quote from this article:
"In "Meehan, Praying with Celtic Holy Women," I wrote that The Irish Life of Brigit describes the episcopal ordination of St. Brigit of Kildare by Bishop Mel of Ardagh in fifth century Ireland.

The evidence in the Celtic Church indicates that women and men were equals in preaching the Gospel, presiding at Mass and at the other sacraments. Historian Peter Ellis wrote that in the sixth century, three Roman bishops at Tours wrote a letter to two Breton priests Lovocat and Cathern, expressing their outrage that women were allowed to preside at Eucharist. "You celebrate the divine sacrifice of the Mass with the assistance of women to whom you give the name conhospitae (monasteries where men and women lived together and raised their children in the service of Chris) ...While you distribute the eucharist, they take the chalice and administer the blood of Christ to the people... Renounce these abuses...!"

In mixed-gender monasteries, men and women worked as equals. However, the overall authority within a double monastery often resided with an abbess. St. Brigit selected Conleth to help her administer Kildare, and they governed "their church by a mutual, happy alliance."

The tradition of a Christian seeking a spiritual guide, mentor or "soul friend" was a prevalent Celtic custom. Women as well as men served as spiritual friends. This custom eventually influenced the entire Church and led to the institutionalizing of private confession. There are stories of spiritual seekers coming to Saint Ita and Saint Samthann to reveal their sins and to receive forgiveness and guidance."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigit_of_Kildare

 

[Rebel]

Good points--it seems like there was at least a simple hierarchy in the early Church of sorts.

Since DHK hasn't answered yet, I'll give a brief answer. The ministry of the apostles was a unique situation in the church's beginning that was unrepeatable. When they all died or were martyred, no one replaced them. Even so, they did not force their beliefs or decisions on anyone or require anyone to accept or abide by them. That pastors and churches should desire and give heed to their advice and counsel was only natural, and wise.

This says to me that the true "apostolic succession" is in following the teachings of the apostles and has nothing to do with who laid hands on a person. This can be seen in all the apostate clergy who claim apostolic succession.