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

[Matt Black]

Read the context from which the verse is taken from. It is speaking of church (local church) discipline. I have had the opportunity be part of that decision making body that on more than one occasion had to make a serious decision. That decision was bound on earth. And it was bound in heaven. It was a decision of the local church that was made in prayer before the decision was ever finalized. That is a promise given to every Biblical local church.

And how on earth do you read that into the text? How many 'local churches' did Jesus say that he'd build?

 

[DHK]

And how on earth do you read that into the text? How many 'local churches' did Jesus say that he'd build?

That is like saying:
How many people did the Holy Spirit say he would indwell? I thought there was only one Holy Spirit! or:

How many people did Christ say that he would "come in" if we only receive him (John 1:12)?
I thought there was only one Christ!

You have a deficient understanding of the word ekklesia (church) which is consistently translated congregation by Darby's translation. The word means "assembly" or "congregation." The KJV, their hands being tied by political correctness, were forced to use the more generic and ecclesiastically acceptable word "church" though not as accurate in its translation.
An ekklesia is simply an assembly.
I will build my assembly upon this rock--the testimony which Peter gave of the deity of Christ.
Christ is the Rock.

1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

He is the foundation upon which every church (assembly or congregation) is built. The Bible never speaks of a denomination or hierarchial organization. It speaks of local churches throughout.

 

[Matt Black]

We have already dealt with the multiple meaning of ekklesia. The fact is that Jesus only uses it in the singular - he doesn't say 'churches'. I ask again: how many Bodies does Christ have (Col 1:18)?

 

[DHK]

We have already dealt with the multiple meaning of ekklesia. The fact is that Jesus only uses it in the singular - he doesn't say 'churches'. I ask again: how many Bodies does Christ have (Col 1:18)?

Study 1Cor.12 where Paul addresses the body of Christ which is at Corinth. Every church is a body of believers. Every church is a body, as described in 1Cor.12. Every local church is a body of Christ, with Christ as its head. Without that foundational teaching the church cannot function properly. Christ is the head (and yes the foundation too) of each and every Biblical church. It cannot be any other way.

We say that "Man has sinned." But we don't question "which man?" Nor do we need to question "which church,"" How many churches?" and etc. Yes, Jesus used the word in the singular--a singular noun representing the whole collectively, as often nouns are used in this way. Man sinned. One man representing all of mankind. I will build my church--one church representative of all churches. That is what he is teaching, and the same teaching is continued on in Matthew 18 where he teaches about church discipline. There the example is far more clear. "If he does not hear you...take it to the church." What church? Of a necessity it is the local church where church discipline is meted out. And then the disciplined person is dealt with and if necessary is treated like an outcast--a sinner and publican--those whom the Jews would not even fellowship with. This can only be done by local churches. But Jesus uses the word "church" in the singular just as he does in Matthew 16. One church to represent them all.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

DHK,

In post 55 back on page 6, I had said this about the unversal aspect of the Church:

Yet, the "assembly" often referred to the whole nation in the OT. In the NT Peter refers to the "elect" "pilgrims" collectively in "Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Peter 1:1,2)--ie not only one local congregation--as a "chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation", God's "own special people". (1 Peter 2:9). This holy nation is the Church in it's universal sense.

In addition to that I can add that when Paul speaks of the "Jerusalem above...which is the mother of us all" in Galatians 4:26, he is speaking of the Church in more than just the 'local congregational' sense as he is comparing the "Jerusalem above", which is of the New Covenant, to the "Jerusalem which now is" that corresponds to the Old Covenant people ("Mount Sinai in Arabia") which is the nation of Israel (Gal 4:22-31). The "Jerusalem above" is the mother not just of the Galatian Christians, but all congregations of the Church founded on the apostle and prophets.

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

"Then I'm afraid you utterly fail to understand the difference between the Old and New Covenants in that regard. This same Jesus, whom you quote, also said to the Apostles "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven"; these mere 'men' therefore were given power and authority to set Apostolic Tradition and they are not to be confused with the Jews whose "traditions of men" Jesus rightly criticised."

Nonsense. You actually believe that Jesus would clearly instruct us to not heed unscriptural "traditions of men", and then turn right around and expect us to heed unscriptural "traditions of men"? (the apostles and their supposed *succesors", of course) Anything the apostles taught in the 1st century would have been good to heed, as the new covenant scriptures were still being inscripturated.

But when the scriptures were available the apostles were to be tested against them, as Paul was in Berea.

When Jesus spoke of..."Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven"...He gave us a truth that has more than one application, but it has nothing to do with what you and others are attempting to propagate.

DHK gave one application. The autonomous local assembly. In adition to that, it referres to God honoring and annointing the proclamation of the gospel. As Gods royal priesthood here on earth, every born again person can share the goodness of God, and His saving gospel, with the "whosoevers" that come our way.

When someone puts their faith in Christ and are born again, we can confidently assure them that they are now Gods eternally secure child, because God has "bound" them in heaven just as we have faithfully and truthfully "bound" them with the saving gospel here on earth.

Glory to God!

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Study 1Cor.12 where Paul addresses the body of Christ which is at Corinth. Every church is a body of believers. Every church is a body, as described in 1Cor.12. Every local church is a body of Christ, with Christ as its head. Without that foundational teaching the church cannot function properly. Christ is the head (and yes the foundation too) of each and every Biblical church. It cannot be any other way.

We say that "Man has sinned." But we don't question "which man?" Nor do we need to question "which church,"" How many churches?" and etc. Yes, Jesus used the word in the singular--a singular noun representing the whole collectively, as often nouns are used in this way. Man sinned. One man representing all of mankind. I will build my church--one church representative of all churches. That is what he is teaching, and the same teaching is continued on in Matthew 18 where he teaches about church discipline. There the example is far more clear. "If he does not hear you...take it to the church." What church? Of a necessity it is the local church where church discipline is meted out. And then the disciplined person is dealt with and if necessary is treated like an outcast--a sinner and publican--those whom the Jews would not even fellowship with. This can only be done by local churches. But Jesus uses the word "church" in the singular just as he does in Matthew 16. One church to represent them all.

Except that does not reflect Church practice from the earliest times - it has always been the whole Church, through the Apostles and their successors, who have promulgated excommunications - the matter is too grave to be left to a local congregation alone. Thus Paul in I Cor 5, though he is not a member of the Corinthian congregation, nevertheless has authority as an Apostle to excommunicate the immoral member.

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,



Nonsense. You actually believe that Jesus would clearly instruct us to not heed unscriptural "traditions of men", and then turn right around and expect us to heed unscriptural "traditions of men"? (the apostles and their supposed *succesors", of course)

No I don't believe that...because He didn't, because Apostolic Tradition is not the 'traditions of men' ,as you suppose, but the product of the spiritual authority given to the Apostles; one has to be very wary of conflating man-made Jewish traditions and customs with the authority given by Jesus to the Apostles in Matt 18:18 and the promise given by Him to them in John 14:26 and John 16:13. It's a blatant case of apples and oranges

Anything the apostles taught in the 1st century would have been good to heed, as the new covenant scriptures were still being inscripturated.

And what about to the end of the 4th century, when the NT was finally canonised?

But when the scriptures were available the apostles were to be tested against them, as Paul was in Berea.

When Jesus spoke of..."Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven"...He gave us a truth that has more than one application, but it has nothing to do with what you and others are attempting to propagate.

DHK gave one application. The autonomous local assembly. In adition to that, it referres to God honoring and annointing the proclamation of the gospel. As Gods royal priesthood here on earth, every born again person can share the goodness of God, and His saving gospel, with the "whosoevers" that come our way.

When someone puts their faith in Christ and are born again, we can confidently assure them that they are now Gods eternally secure child, because God has "bound" them in heaven just as we have faithfully and truthfully "bound" them with the saving gospel here on earth.

Glory to God!

Mike

A nice try at eisegesis but wholly out of keeping with the text and context of the passage concerned - and Church practice.

 

[DHK]

Except that does not reflect Church practice from the earliest times - it has always been the whole Church, through the Apostles and their successors, who have promulgated excommunications - the matter is too grave to be left to a local congregation alone. Thus Paul in I Cor 5, though he is not a member of the Corinthian congregation, nevertheless has authority as an Apostle to excommunicate the immoral member.

1Cor.5 is the perfect example. Paul gave advice. In fact he rebuked them for not disciplining such an one earlier than when he wrote them. For this sin was not even done among the Gentiles, and they were boasting about it. He was rebuking them. The fact that he says "and my spirit is with you," does not mean that Paul had a vote in the decision. It was the church at Corinth that disciplined the immoral man out of the church on the advice of Paul. The key verse in 1Cor is in chapter 7, and verse one--"concerning the things that you wrote me.." The had written a letter to Paul concerning problems in the church and Paul was writing back. This obviously was one of the more serious of the problems that he addresses. But he was not there personally, just like he was not there to address personally those that denied the resurrection (chapter 15). It was the church that carried out the discipline--not any Apostle, and not Paul.

This was the order, the method, carried out in every NT, Bible-believing church throughout the ages.

 

[DHK]

DHK,

In post 55 back on page 6, I had said this about the unversal aspect of the Church:

Yet, the "assembly" often referred to the whole nation in the OT. In the NT Peter refers to the "elect" "pilgrims" collectively in "Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Peter 1:1,2)--ie not only one local congregation--as a "chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation", God's "own special people". (1 Peter 2:9). This holy nation is the Church in it's universal sense.

1 Peter 1:1-2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
--You are very adept at pulling Scripture out of its context and trying to convey a meaning that it doesn't have. He is speaking to the elect. He is speaking to believers that are scattered throughout all these places because of the great persecution of Nero. They were undergoing intense persecution. The theme of the epistle is for those enduring persecution and suffering, as they were. No doubt this letter was a circular letter--circulated among various churches, edifying many believers. It is written to "the elect," not to any specific church. You can't read into Scripture that which is not there. In the verse you quoted "a holy nation" is not a church, no matter how you stretch. You twist the Scripture unto your own destruction.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

In addition to that I can add that when Paul speaks of the "Jerusalem above...which is the mother of us all" in Galatians 4:26, he is speaking of the Church in more than just the 'local congregational' sense as he is comparing the "Jerusalem above", which is of the New Covenant, to the "Jerusalem which now is" that corresponds to the Old Covenant people ("Mount Sinai in Arabia") which is the nation of Israel (Gal 4:22-31). The "Jerusalem above" is the mother not just of the Galatian Christians, but all congregations of the Church founded on the apostle and prophets.

How to pull Scripture out of context? Ask Doubting Thomas! He does a great job.

Galatians 4:24-26 Which things are an ALLEGORY: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

The Jerusalem, which is above, is the New Jerusalem, heaven. And yes, all believers will be gathered together in one assembly in that Jerusalem. It is folly to yank this verse out of its context and try to apply it to any kind of so-called church hierarchy--absolute folly.
Read it again--these things are an allegory.

 

[DHK]

By the way, when I had mentioned in a response to D28guy about how I had previously posted evidence regarding Apostolic succession to which you had not yet responded , you said this...

Well here it is again:

The Apostle Paul comissioned Timothy and Titus and instructed them to ordain elders in Ephesus and Crete respectively.

You have a wrong interpretation. Why don't you quote exact Scripture to prove your point? Paul told this to Timothy:

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
--That says nothing about ordaining elders. It speaks of a teaching ministry, which BTW, every Christian ought to have as part of the Great Commission.

Titus 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou mightest go on to set right what remained unordered, and establish elders in each city, as *I* had ordered thee: (Darby)
--Paul did not have as much time to spend in Crete as he would have liked to. Thus he left Titus there to finish the work that he started. He had started a number of independent churches. He left Titus to "set right," to organize or order those churches because they were somewhat unorganized in the way that Paul had left them. Paul was hurried. He had preached the gospel. Many were saved. It was the duty of Titus to organize them more fully into local churches--to bring more order to the churches that were there. It was his duty to "appoint" or choose, through the direction of the Holy Spirit, at least one elder or pastor in each church that was started. This was also done in Acts 14:

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.

Notice the verses from Titus 1:6 and following. They give the qualifications of a pastor.

Clement in his letter to the Corinthians explains that the apostles knew there would be "strife" for the office of bishop, so they set in motion the episcopal succession.

Then Clement is going against the Word of God is wrong, which only proves that Truth (the Word) + Tradition (error) = error. And it will end up that way every time.

Ignatius instructed to churches to whom he wrote that they should honor their ordained leaders, including the bishops.

And so we should. Even in 1611, as one can see in the KJV, the word "bishop" is used synomynously with that of a pastor or overseer. They describe different aspects of one and the same office. Thus when you read the word "bishop" in older literature you no doubt are reading too much into it.

Irenaeus lists the succession of bishops in Rome from the Apostles up to his day (with Clement being third on that list), and this list is consistent with similar lists also written in the ante-Nicene period.

But of course. It is consistent with the revised RCC view of church history. But not every church history book views history that way. There is more than one way to look at history. And most of us are not willing to close our eyes to the truth of history and look at it with the rose-colored eyes of the RCC who still maintain the ridiculous fable that Peter was the first Pope (a historical impossibility). We are not willing to put out of our minds that the ones that are revising history are the very ones that destroyed Bibles, kept the vernacular Word of God from the people, and killed, murdered, and maimed millions who sought to believe the Bible as they thought the truth of God's Word was presented. But that was heresy in that day. And all non-Catholics were put to death. Read the real history behind popes like Innocent III.

Eusebius in his CHURCH HISTORY in several places lists succeeding bishops in many different locations. Again, these bishops would meet in local and regional synods--long before Constantine--and discuss matters of discipline and doctrine. These are all well established facts in history, and examples can be multiplied.

Does that make it right.
One can give plenty of evidence to the contrary, that is not that your information is wrong, but that true Bible-believing churches existed without so-called synods. These are extra-Biblical at the very least, and no doubt unBiblical in reality.

 

[Matt Black]

1Cor.5 is the perfect example. Paul gave advice. In fact he rebuked them for not disciplining such an one earlier than when he wrote them. For this sin was not even done among the Gentiles, and they were boasting about it. He was rebuking them. The fact that he says "and my spirit is with you," does not mean that Paul had a vote in the decision. It was the church at Corinth that disciplined the immoral man out of the church on the advice of Paul. The key verse in 1Cor is in chapter 7, and verse one--"concerning the things that you wrote me.." The had written a letter to Paul concerning problems in the church and Paul was writing back. This obviously was one of the more serious of the problems that he addresses. But he was not there personally, just like he was not there to address personally those that denied the resurrection (chapter 15). It was the church that carried out the discipline--not any Apostle, and not Paul.

This was the order, the method, carried out in every NT, Bible-believing church throughout the ages.

Not so. Paul as an Apostle instructs them to excommunicate. He didn't have a vote in the Corinthian congregation because Christ did not found a democracy.

 

[DHK]

Not so. Paul as an Apostle instructs them to excommunicate. He didn't have a vote in the Corinthian congregation because Christ did not found a democracy.

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Here the "instruction" is not to touch a woman, also dealing with matters of morality. The fact is that the entire book of First Corinthians is a book of instruction. As I said previously this verse is key. He writes: "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:"
Then he mentions one of them that was mentioned in their letter to him.
Not only their letter had described the situation to Paul, asking what to do about specific situations, but Titus was the bearer of the letter also giving Paul a full report of the conditions at Corinth.

Yes he gave them instruction. What would you expect him to do? Remain silent!! No! Of course not! They were writing for his advice, his insruction, his cousel on the matter. That was the whole purpose of the letter.

And the letter became inscripturated for our learning, our admonition, our example to follow after.

 

[Matt Black]

[/b]You have a wrong interpretation. Why don't you quote exact Scripture to prove your point? Paul told this to Timothy:

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
--That says nothing about ordaining elders. It speaks of a teaching ministry, which BTW, every Christian ought to have as part of the Great Commission.

Titus 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou mightest go on to set right what remained unordered, and establish elders in each city, as *I* had ordered thee: (Darby)
--Paul did not have as much time to spend in Crete as he would have liked to. Thus he left Titus there to finish the work that he started. He had started a number of independent churches. He left Titus to "set right," to organize or order those churches because they were somewhat unorganized in the way that Paul had left them. Paul was hurried. He had preached the gospel. Many were saved. It was the duty of Titus to organize them more fully into local churches--to bring more order to the churches that were there. It was his duty to "appoint" or choose, through the direction of the Holy Spirit, at least one elder or pastor in each church that was started.

Yep - a clear instance of Paul delegating his Apostolic authority to ordain presbyters to Titus as his successor. Thanks for demonstrating the point

Then Clement is going against the Word of God is wrong, which only proves that Truth (the Word) + Tradition (error) = error. And it will end up that way every time.

In what way is Clement, by recording what the Apostles did, going against the Word of God? Jesus, the Word of God (John 1:1), gave His Apostles authority to bind and loose (Matt 18) and Clement records that they in turn delegate that authority to their successors (as evidenced in the passage from Titus above). How on earth is that 'going against the Word of God' - surely 'fulfilling and being obedient to the Word of God' is the correct phrase.

One can give plenty of evidence to the contrary, that is not that your information is wrong, but that true Bible-believing churches existed without so-called synods.

Then please do so.

 

[DHK]

Yep - a clear instance of Paul delegating his Apostolic authority to ordain presbyters to Titus as his successor. Thanks for demonstrating the point

Who is Titus. The point would be better demonstrated if you would study the Scriptures.

Titus 1:4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

2 Corinthians 2:13 I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother: but taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.

2 Corinthians 8:23 Whether any do enquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellowhelper concerning you: or our brethren be enquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ.

Paul calls Titus: his son, his brother, his partner and fellowhelper.
There was no Apostolic authority here.
There was no "ordination" as such here.
There was no ordination of any presbyter here.
There was no Apostolic succession or succession of any kind here.
You cannot prove any of the above.

Titus served in the ministry as a partner and fellowhelper with Paul. Paul left him in Crete to carry on the ministry. Both Paul and Titus were "called by God" to go into the ministry full time, just as Paul and Barnabas were in Acts 13:1-4. Today's ordination is simply man's recognition of what God has already done in a man's heart. In reality man doesn't need that recognition, and many successful missionaries have done great works for God without it. True ordination comes from God. The word in the KJV simply means "chose."

In what way is Clement, by recording what the Apostles did, going against the Word of God?

If Clement had any new revelation then it wasn't of God. The canon of Scripture was closed when John wrote the Book of Revelation. The records of what the Apostles did is given in the Book of Acts. The Bible says that if we add to that word, God will add unto us all the curses that are written therein. It is sin to add to the Word of God. Or was he rewriting the Book of Acts?
Jesus, the Word of God (John 1:1), gave His Apostles authority to bind and loose (Matt 18) and Clement records that they in turn delegate that authority to their successors (as evidenced in the passage from Titus above). How on earth is that 'going against the Word of God' - surely 'fulfilling and being obedient to the Word of God' is the correct phrase.[/quote]
First, on a Biblical basis Clement didn't have any successors. None of the apostles did. If anyone of them claimed that they did then they were false teachers. There is no Apostolic Succession, and that cannot be demonstrated through the Bible. That in itself proves Tradition to be wrong. The authority to bind and loose is given to every local church. As part of a local church, I have that authority too. It is not simply apostolic. It is not successionism. It is timeless and applicable to every age in every Biblical local church.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

DHK,

I had posted this (twice, now):

Yet, the "assembly" often referred to the whole nation in the OT. In the NT Peter refers to the "elect" "pilgrims" collectively in "Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Peter 1:1,2)--ie not only one local congregation--as a "chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation", God's "own special people". (1 Peter 2:9). This holy nation is the Church in it's universal sense.

And you replied with this...

--You are very adept at pulling Scripture out of its context and trying to convey a meaning that it doesn't have. He is speaking to the elect. He is speaking to believers that are scattered throughout all these places because of the great persecution of Nero. They were undergoing intense persecution. The theme of the epistle is for those enduring persecution and suffering, as they were. No doubt this letter was a circular letter--circulated among various churches, edifying many believers. It is written to "the elect," not to any specific church. You can't read into Scripture that which is not there. In the verse you quoted "a holy nation" is not a church, no matter how you stretch. You twist the Scripture unto your own destruction.

This is incredible. I pointed out how in the OT (that's 'Old Testament', DHK) the "assembly" (or ekklessia, in the Greek LXX--the same word translated "church" in the NT) often referred to the whole nation of Israel. That was my starting point. I then pointed out how Peter in his first epistle refers to all the elect pilgrims in the areas (plural) to which he was writing as one holy nation. The implication is obvious--except for those who have their head in the sand--that the the New Testament believers, in their various local congregations, all constitute a holy nation, which corresponds to the the OT nation of Israel that was often referred to as an ekklesia in the OT (LXX). This is not "twisting" the Scriptures at all, as I will show with more biblical evidence below for the universal sense of the Church, the holy nation.

Suffice it to say the early churches (local) considered themselves to be part of the same Church (universal). That's why many of the earliest Christian leaders would address their letters to other congregations as in Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians (1:2) "The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth"--they assumed a common identity as the Church of God sojourning in different local congregations. And here is what I said yet again regarding more evidence of the interaction among the early congregations of the early CHURCH (this time with additional comments):

For example, Clement, who was Bishop of Rome (third from the Apostles) at the end of the first century, wrote an epistle to another local congregation--the Corinthians--in 95 AD instructing them to honor their duly appointed leaders. He assumes a common faith and a common apostolic foundation in making his appeals. This letter was held in high honor by the Church in Corinth well into the late second century.

Likewise, Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (second from the Apostles) wrote seven letters on the way to his martyrdom at the beginning of the second century. Six of those letters were addressed to other local congregations--three of which were also three of the same churches written to by the Apostle John in REVELATION: Ephesians, Smyrneans, and the Philadelphians. In these letters Ignatius warned these believers of the docetic and Judaizing heresies, and he instructed them to honor their ordained authorites and to look out for his flock at Antioch after his departure. Another of those local churches was the Romans (to which of course Paul had previously written).

The seventh letter of Ignatius was written to his brother bishop, Polycarp, who was the Bishop of Smyrna--and later Polycarp himself refers to these epistles of Ignatius in his own letter to the Philippians (another local congregation of the Church to which Apostle Paul had previously sent a letter).

So apparently these early Christian leaders didn't consider themselves to be shepherds of isolated, completely independent flocks. They felt free to write letters to other local churches to encourage them to hold fast to the Christian faith and order commonly handed down by the Apostles in all the local churches. This is further evidence of the consciousness that they shared of a common identity based on their common Apostolic Foundation.


Examples can be multiplied of the local "churches" and their bishops continuing to interact with each other after the last of the apostles died. They even assembled themselves in local and regional synods to discuss matters of common discipline and doctrine....well before Constantine came on the scene.

Again further evidence that they didn't consider local congregation as isolated completely independent entities, but rather interdependent in maintaining the common apostolic faith and order.

And let's not forget that the decisions of the council of the Jerusalem Church (Acts 15) were binding on the other local churches--well before the NT gospels or epistles were actually written.

In other words, other local churches were not free to disregard the decision of the local Jerusalem Church throught the meeting of the Apostles and elders in Council.

(continued...)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

(Continuing on...)

I had then mentioned Paul's passage in Galatians.

In addition to that I can add that when Paul speaks of the "Jerusalem above...which is the mother of us all" in Galatians 4:26, he is speaking of the Church in more than just the 'local congregational' sense as he is comparing the "Jerusalem above", which is of the New Covenant, to the "Jerusalem which now is" that corresponds to the Old Covenant people ("Mount Sinai in Arabia") which is the nation of Israel (Gal 4:22-31). The "Jerusalem above" is the mother not just of the Galatian Christians, but all congregations of the Church founded on the apostle and prophets.

To which you responded

How to pull Scripture out of context? Ask Doubting Thomas! He does a great job.

Way to go with the whole maturity thing that you've been preaching to the rest of us. :applause:

Galatians 4:24-26 Which things are an ALLEGORY: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

The Jerusalem, which is above, is the New Jerusalem, heaven. And yes, all believers will be gathered together in one assembly in that Jerusalem. It is folly to yank this verse out of its context and try to apply it to any kind of so-called church hierarchy--absolute folly.
Read it again--these things are an allegory.

Question--do you know what an allegory is? Here's a definition:
"a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another"
So then we look at the passage and ask: what doe Paul call an "allegory" (or "symbolic" depending on the translation)?
The answer, "which things are symbolic", refers back to Abrahams two sons: one (Ishmael) born under the bondwoman (Hagar), and the other (Isaac) born of the freewoman (Sarah) through promise (v.22-23). So the things which are "symbolic" (or "allegorical") are Ishmael/Hagar and Isaac/Sarah. Of what are they symbolic? Paul states they are symbolic of the two covenants (v.24)--the first being an allegory (or symbol) for the Old Covenant people under the Mosaic Law "which corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children"(v.25); and the latter being an "allegory" (or symbol) for the "Jerusalem above...which is the mother of us all" (v.26)--ie the New Covenant people.

So you can't just wave your hand and dismiss the point Paul is making through an allegory by saying "read it again--these things are an allegory".
I'm well aware of that, and I'm following the same point Paul is making with this allegory to make a point about the Church in its universal sense. So the next question should be: what is the "Jerusalem above" to which Paul is referring? In his comparison with the earthly Jerusalem, which corresponds to the Old Covenant people, it is easy to see that this "Jerusalem above" would correspond to the New Covenant people--the Church in its universal sense.

But before you scoff at this and claim that I'm reading into the text (and what not), let's look at another passage regarding the "heavenly Jerusalem". In REVELATION the Apostle John mentions that the heavenly Jerusalem is built on twelve foundations each with one of the names of the twelve apostles on it (Rev 21:14). (John also identifies this "heavenly city" with the "Lamb's wife" (Rev 21:9-10)--the Bride of Christ.) It's hard to miss the parallel with Paul's statement in Ephesians that the "household of God" is built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets (Eph 2:19-20). So unless you want to suppose there are really multitudes of heavenly cities each called "Jerusalem" and each descending from heaven, then one must recognize that there is indeed a common universal sense of the CHURCH, the ekklessia, which compares with the national "assembly" (ekklessia) of the Old Covenant. Paul speaks of only one "Jerusalem above", which is the mother of us all, and John speaks of only one Jerusalem that descends from the heavens and is built on the apostolic foundations, which is the "Lamb's wife".

 

[Matt Black]

See my posts passim re ordination and succession in the Pastorals

If Clement had any new revelation then it wasn't of God.

I'm not claiming he did have any special revelation; all I'm saying is that he recorded what the Apostles did.

The canon of Scripture was closed when John wrote the Book of Revelation. The records of what the Apostles did is given in the Book of Acts. The Bible says that if we add to that word, God will add unto us all the curses that are written therein. It is sin to add to the Word of God. Or was he rewriting the Book of Acts?

No, he wasn't rewriting or adding to Acts, merely recording how the Apostles' successors were chosen. It is no more 'adding to Scripture' than is Broadbent's account of church history - it is history, pure and simple.

First, on a Biblical basis Clement didn't have any successors.

Not sure what relevance this has, but...

None of the apostles did.

History, as indicated above, shows otherwise.

If anyone of them claimed that they did then they were false teachers.

How so?

There is no Apostolic Succession, and that cannot be demonstrated through the Bible.

It doesn't need to be - history shows that there was and is.

That in itself proves Tradition to be wrong.

On the contrary, it show Tradition to be right; merely claiming "it's not in the Bible, therefore it must be wrong" is a circular argument - Tradition, by its very nature, is extra-Biblical. Again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here other than demonstrate a self-evident tautology.

The authority to bind and loose is given to every local church. As part of a local church, I have that authority too. It is not simply apostolic. It is not successionism. It is timeless and applicable to every age in every Biblical local church.

Only according to your own personal interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

If Clement had any new revelation then it wasn't of God. The canon of Scripture was closed when John wrote the Book of Revelation.

Clement was written in the AD 90s (95 or 96) about the same time John's writings were composed. And Clement wasn't passing on "new revelation", he was passing on what he received from the Apostles.

The records of what the Apostles did is given in the Book of Acts.

REALLY? So if it wasn't recorded in ACTS it didn't happen--that ACTS records everything that happened to the apostles? You mean that the mission of the other Apostles was not historical since it wasn't described in ACTS? Incredible--I can't find the accounts of Peter or Paul's martyrdoms anywhere in ACTS--I guess that didn't happen. Nor can I find the account of the martyrdom of James the Lord's brother--Josephus and Eusebius mention this, but I guess they were making that up. I don't see recorded in ACTS the mission of the other Apostles like Thomas, Matthew, Bartholamew, etc--I guess they didn't do anything at all!

First, on a Biblical basis Clement didn't have any successors. None of the apostles did. If anyone of them claimed that they did then they were false teachers. There is no Apostolic Succession, and that cannot be demonstrated through the Bible. That in itself proves Tradition to be wrong. The authority to bind and loose is given to every local church. As part of a local church, I have that authority too. It is not simply apostolic. It is not successionism. It is timeless and applicable to every age in every Biblical local church.

So on one hand you claim the Apostles didn't have any successors, but on the other hand you claim that the local churches indeed succeed the Apostles in the authority to bind and loose (and authority given initially to the Apostles--Matt 18). Which is it--do the Apostles have successors to their authority to bind and loose, or don't they?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

[/b]You have a wrong interpretation. Why don't you quote exact Scripture to prove your point? Paul told this to Timothy:

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
--That says nothing about ordaining elders. It speaks of a teaching ministry, which BTW, every Christian ought to have as part of the Great Commission.

In Paul's First Epistle to Timothy, he lists the qualifications of overseers and deacons in ch.3. This wasn't meant as only academic knowledge--Timothy was to actually use these qualifications in ordaining "bishops"* and "deacons", which Church historians attested that he indeed did. (Oh, that's right--if it's not recorded in the Bible it's not historical as far as you're concerned...so never mind. :BangHead: )

*And, yes, the terms "overseer" (bishop) and "elder" (presbyter) were used somewhat interchangeably in Scriptures and some of the earliest sub-apostolic writings (the Apostle Peter even refers to himself as a "fellow elder"--1 Peter 5:1). However, the evidence is that immediately after the Apostles left the seen, the local Churches were ruled by a presiding elder/bishop, and fairly quickly (by early 2nd century in Asia Minor--SEE the Letters of Ignatius where he names the presiding bishops of some of these Churches, including Polycarp of Smyrna) the term "bishop" began to be exclusively applied to this presiding pastor and the term "presbyter", to his associate "pastors". This is evident in the fact that the succession in Rome as early as mid-second centruy is listed through individuals--with Linus, Anicletus, and Clement being the first three presiding bishops there after the apostles. Likewise, historically Titus is considered the first bishop (in this sense) of Crete; Timothy, of Ephesus. Also, Polycarp and Ignatius were the presiding bishops over their respective local flocks at Smyrna and Antioch respectively.

Titus 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou mightest go on to set right what remained unordered, and establish elders in each city, as *I* had ordered thee: (Darby)
--Paul did not have as much time to spend in Crete as he would have liked to. Thus he left Titus there to finish the work that he started. He had started a number of independent churches. He left Titus to "set right," to organize or order those churches because they were somewhat unorganized in the way that Paul had left them. Paul was hurried. He had preached the gospel. Many were saved. It was the duty of Titus to organize them more fully into local churches--to bring more order to the churches that were there. It was his duty to "appoint" or choose, through the direction of the Holy Spirit, at least one elder or pastor in each church that was started. This was also done in Acts 14:

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.

So in otherwords, Paul gave the same authority to Titus to ordain elders that the Apostles had exercised in Acts 14. As Matt said, thanks for proving our point.

But of course. It is consistent with the revised RCC view of church history. But not every church history book views history that way. There is more than one way to look at history. And most of us are not willing to close our eyes to the truth of history and look at it with the rose-colored eyes of the RCC who still maintain the ridiculous fable that Peter was the first Pope (a historical impossibility). We are not willing to put out of our minds that the ones that are revising history are the very ones that destroyed Bibles, kept the vernacular Word of God from the people, and killed, murdered, and maimed millions who sought to believe the Bible as they thought the truth of God's Word was presented. But that was heresy in that day. And all non-Catholics were put to death. Read the real history behind popes like Innocent III.

I guess you can't pass up an opportunity to beat up on the RCC bogeyman. Let me point out to you that when Irenaeus was listing the episcopal successors in Rome (and no he didn't call them "popes") he was writing a good century and a half before Constantine allegedly invented the RCC.