-
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
Thanks. I disagree entirely with the first two. Of course there were no denominations, but there was no over-arching institutional church.
As the Christian Church developed in the early years (the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries) that is exactly what happened. Everyone looked to the Bishop of Rome (see the Early Church Fathers) for guidance and instruction in religious matters.
You said you would respond and elaborate, so okay, let's see your list.
Any day now.......he is going to pull out all these historical sources, history, history,history......
"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."-- John Henry Cardinal Newman
I am particularly interested if Rebel can name any completely qualified Christians of the early church at all.
Its DOA for any protestant to name any early church father as legit. In the web of said father he will back up others and when you get to their everyday practice and beliefs, it ain't crackers and koolaid and it ain't faith alone.
"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."-- John Henry Cardinal Newman
I am particularly interested if Rebel can name any completely qualified Christians of the early church at all.
Its DOA for any protestant to name any early church father as legit. In the web of said father he will back up others and when you get to their everyday practice and beliefs, it ain't crackers and koolaid and it ain't faith alone.
Here's a few...
- A recognition that hardship and persecution are often part of a believer’s life (Acts 14:22)
- A willingness to compromise with an indwelling pharisaical contingent when evangelistic opportunities arise (Acts 15:19-20)
- A willingness to share God’s bounty to those less fortunate (Acts 4:32-37)
- A recognition that money/financial gain can lead believers astray (Acts 5:1ff; 8:9ff)
The early church is a specialty of mine. I have many years of study of early church history and theology. And it completely disproves the bogus claims and innovations of Roman Catholicism. Scripture does the same.
Before I elaborate much, I will wait for some further responses. But for now I will say that there was no "Bishop" of Rome in the first century, not in the sense that you mean. I did not start this thread to argue the foolish and illegitimate claims of the RCC; I dismissed them many years ago upon the evidence of scripture and early church teaching.
A point from scripture: The words "pastor", "elder", "presbyter", "overseer", and "bishop" are synonymous terms for one and the same office. Thus, a bishop in the NT is simply the pastor of a local church. That simple scriptural fact destroys a major bogus claim of the RCC.
Yeah right. Funny how some prominent converts to the Catholic (Universal) Christian faith have a very different take on the Latin Rite of Christianity than you do. Among them are former pastors of the various Christian sects that exist today who have come to realize the truth and universality of the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Only in your opinion. In the main that is what we have here - one scriptural interpretation, your particular interpretation of the many interpretations that exist within the Christian experience.
Sweet, You can start with naming a early christian not in the bible who had it right.
"I did not start this thread to argue the foolish and illegitimate claims of the RCC"
You started this thread to pat yourself on the back, but now you gotta deal with folks who know how to think for themselves not some crowd pleasing, peer pressured fake diet christian.
You say you got history......we still haven't seen it. Lets get some sources out, lets do this.
Can a atheist raise his arms and say I am a BISHOP and thats it done deal?
Lineage and pedigree or it is a joke.
NAMES NAMES NAMES, We are going to keep slamming you for names. NAME a early church Bishop,
You got no grounds for telling us if there is distinction or not because if we take a look at your history book THERE ARE NO BISHOPS or PASTORS. Your book is BLANK.
Names buddy, Slappem down.
Yes, the Apostles "laid hands" on men (ordination) who in turn laid hands upon others to continue spreading the gospel, to teach and to lead others in the newly emerging Christian faith. Christian Orthodoxy, is something which follows closely upon the OT, with an ordained clergy which we call priests and Bishops. This is not to be confused with the universal priesthood, a status to which all Christian believers are a part of.
Scripture stated you had to be circumcised, so based solely on scripture would mean keep it as is.
They didn't follow Sola Scriptura. Peter was given a vision and directed by God, also Gentile who were not circumcised showed the holy spirit at work.
If its not broke you don't fix it. They held a council, made a authoritative judgement. If it was all based on scripture alone, this doesn't get taken to council at all because the matter is already established that you must be circumcised.
Uh, no. I just wanted to give you and your Romanist comrades ample time to post your arrogant insults and baseless blather. You should not have challenged me.
Your fatal mistake was to challenge me. You Romanist cultists think no one is knowledgeable of the early church and the ECF except you. Be careful next time whom you challenge. I have studied the early church in-depth for 42 years. Go do the same, sonny boy, and then maybe you will have at least the rudimentary knowledge to begin to debate with me -- but I doubt it.
Last edited:
Since I have given our Romanist protagonists enough rope with which to hang themselves, I shall post links to a few articles from a website devoted to the study of the early church. This site is critical of the RCC and also Evangelical Protestants, but since the RCC claims falsely to be exclusively the one true church, there are several articles which deal with why this is not true. Much use is made of the early church fathers to disprove the bogus claims of the RCC. Since RCC apologists and defenders use the fathers and false interpretations of scriptures to try and bolster their false claims, these articles are especially important.
Thus, scripture and the ECF offer incontrovertible evidence to completely unravel all the unjustified claims of the innovator and marginally Christian denomination known as the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, our RCC folks cannot ever admit the truth because if they did they would have to abandon their false church because they would also be forced to admit that their church's foundation is built on a house of cards.
Read thoroughly and carefully, all -- very enlightening; here are the articles:
Is the Roman Catholic Church the One True Church?
Catholic Apologists: Apologetics and Honesty
Roman Catholicism
Why I Address Roman Catholicism
Thus, scripture and the ECF offer incontrovertible evidence to completely unravel all the unjustified claims of the innovator and marginally Christian denomination known as the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, our RCC folks cannot ever admit the truth because if they did they would have to abandon their false church because they would also be forced to admit that their church's foundation is built on a house of cards.
Read thoroughly and carefully, all -- very enlightening; here are the articles:
Is the Roman Catholic Church the One True Church?
Catholic Apologists: Apologetics and Honesty
Roman Catholicism
Why I Address Roman Catholicism