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

[DHK]

Yes, indeed. But that's really my point - without the HS given to and through the Church (see my last post for my rationale for that interpretation), there can be no proper expounding of Scripture.

You have a great misconception of "the church."
Demonstrate from Scripture that the Holy Spirit was ever given to the church, or more specifically to churches. The word "church" ekklesia always refers to a local assembly. It means assembly or congregation. There is no such thing as a church in a denominational form, or even as in a universal church. That goes against the very definition of the word ekklesia (church).

What happened at the Day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit was not given to the church (at Jerusalem). It was given to each and every beleiver who trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour. This was the starting point of the age of grace, or some like to refer to it as the Church Age. But it is the time when the Holy Spirit began to indwell every believer, not a church corporately.

True Bible-believing churches are made up of regenerated baptized members. And thus the presence of the Holy Spirit can be said to be there. But it is only there because the members themselves are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and for no other reason.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

You have a great misconception of "the church."
Demonstrate from Scripture that the Holy Spirit was ever given to the church, or more specifically to churches. The word "church" ekklesia always refers to a local assembly. It means assembly or congregation. There is no such thing as a church in a denominational form, or even as in a universal church. That goes against the very definition of the word ekklesia (church).

What happened at the Day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit was not given to the church (at Jerusalem). It was given to each and every beleiver who trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour. This was the starting point of the age of grace, or some like to refer to it as the Church Age. But it is the time when the Holy Spirit began to indwell every believer, not a church corporately.

True Bible-believing churches are made up of regenerated baptized members. And thus the presence of the Holy Spirit can be said to be there. But it is only there because the members themselves are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and for no other reason.

The Church began at Pentecost, so there was NO Church prior. The Apostles task that Christ left them at the Great Commission was to go forth into all the world and make disciples baptizing in the Trinitarian formula.

Furthermore ACTS 2 says nothing of the Holy Spirit given to each and every believer at that moment or even when one believed, but only those in the upper room.

Acts 2:38 says that the HS is given to one, once the individual has repented and has been baptized for the remission of sins.

And also Acts 8:14-17, we see those who had been baptized had yet to receive the Holy Spirit and it wasn’t until the Apostles laid hands upon them did they receive the Holy Spirit.

This could be due to the fact that Christ gave the Apostles the authority to remit sins or retain sins, and thus these people who had been baptized, had yet to have their sins remitted. Thus the Apostles had to remit their sins and lay hand on them.

We see this played out beautifully in the Orthodox Church today. A Catechumen repents for his/her sins, makes a confession of faith, is then Baptized for the remission of sins and is thus sealed with the Holy Spirit when chrismated with oil. IF the Catechumen has been previously baptized, we see Acts 8 played out…one is Chrismated and thus is sealed with the Holy Spirit.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Eliyahu]

Do we have to follow ECF's for Anti-Semitism?

St. Augustine (c. 354-430 A.D.), Confessions, 12.14 How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!

http://oneinmessiah.net/cfather.htm

Who can be included in ECF's ?

Would you like to accept Tertullian, Donatus, Nestorius ?

Why does this man talk about only the Bible?

1 Cor 15
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

How did these people get the Salvation?

Ac 17:11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

 

[Matt Black]

You assumed right the first time--the RCC existed from the time of Constantine onward. I prefer to take that historical approach.

Then I repeat my earlier question: how then can you dismiss the consensus patri of the ECFs, since that largely existed prior to Constantine and, as you see it, the RCC?

All these disagreements you not only can find between denominations but between Baptists themselves. Check out the different threads--particularly the Baptist theology and General Baptist Discussion threads.

I did - and to me that demonstrates my point. In fact, it was my earlier time on these boards and the 'witness' of the violent theological disagreements between Baptists that convinced me that soul liberty and sola Scriptura were epistemologically valueless and theologically bankrupt.

It is no great theological difference whether or not spiritual gifts actually ceased or not.

Here I will agree with you; that difference does indeed pale into insignificance compared to, say, the contradictory soteriologies of Calvinism and Arminianism.

The more important matter is how they are used today, if indeed they are the genuine gifts that are present. The Charismatics present to us quite a large umbrella under which "The Third Wave" falls, as well as the old time Pentecostal--both of which are very different in their theology. For example Benny Hinn is a heretic and we would in no way associate with him though he be under this umbrella. He denies the trinity, the atonement, and some basic orthodox doctrines of the Bible, pretending himself to be a leader of Christianity.

Yet both profess sola Scriptura, therefore of what value is this doctrine?

On the other hand there some Pentecostal churches, some Full Gospel Assemblies, that still preach the old fashioned gospel to this day. The fact that they all fall under this one all-inclusive umbrella of "Charismatic" is unfortunate. One has to be very discerning in this area. The key word is "evangelical." Which churches still preach that old fashioned gospel--Jesus saves! --the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ--his blood and his blood alone can save

I would include within that definition the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican Communions

and that by faith alone. Evangelicals are united on this basic message.

...which presupposes that their interpretation of Scripture on the matter of sola fide is correct.

Many of the other things that you mention are simply "peripherals" that we can agree to disagree on" and in most cases we do and have sweet fellowship one with another.

Not that I've noticed....

Let's stop here and see what he did say:

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Perhaps your statement was a bit ambiguous the way that it was written. But I am making sure that we agree that it is the Holy Spirit that is the subject here, and He is the one who is promised that will guide them into all truth.

True.

This is false. And nowhere in Scripture can you read into Scripture, demonstrate from Scripture, that there was a succession of bishops or a succession of anything--baptisms, churches, pastors, popes, bishops, etc.

And neither can you read into this passage that the HS was given only so that the Apostles could pen the NT.

There are no successions taught anywhere in the Bible. Search as you may it is not there.

Au contraire - Paul ordains presbyters in Lystra, Iconium and Pisidian Antioch in Acts 14:23 and bishops at Ephesus in Acts 20:28 to carry on his work in those places; later, Timothy is bishop at Ephesus (I Tim 1:3) having been ordained (I Tim 4:14; II Tim 1:6) and Paul gives him instructions on how to select bishops and deacons (I Tim 3) and also to keep the Tradition of teaching given to him orally by Paul (II Tim 1:13-14; 3:14) as well as Scripture (II Tim 3:15-17); similarly, Paul writes to Titus, to whom he has delegated his authority to appoint presbyters in Crete (Titus 1:5-6) and here he gives similar 'selection instruction' as to Timothy, also referring (Titus 1:7-9) to qualifications for a bishop, including "holding fast to the Word of God as he was taught it" in order to pass on sound doctrine to others (Tradition). It is likely (and here I admit there is a bit of brazen eisegesis on my part but not unreasonably so) that in the Pastoral letters the references to qualifications for 'bishops' are first and foremost to Timothy and Titus personally, in their capacities as bishops of Ephesus and Crete respectively. In any event, here we have the following elements in these passages:-

1. Paul, an Apostle, appoints bishops and presbyters to continue his work in the various congregations he has founded or helped set up.

2. These officers have been grounded in the Scriptures but also taught orally by Paul. They are thus steeped in both Scripture and Tradition.

3. They are charged with teaching others the above and also with pastoral care of the flock

4. They are also charged with ordaining others to similarly carry on that work and are given criteria for selection of those successors.

Therefore, we have Scripture and Tradition plus Apostolic Succession in a nascent form within the pages of the NT

This is where the teachings of man have superceded the teachings of God; that very thing that Christ himself condemned in Matthew:

Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

On the contrary, Apostolic Tradition continues the straight trajectory established in the above NT Scriptures.

 

[Matt Black]

You have a great misconception of "the church."
Demonstrate from Scripture that the Holy Spirit was ever given to the church, or more specifically to churches. The word "church" ekklesia always refers to a local assembly. It means assembly or congregation. There is no such thing as a church in a denominational form, or even as in a universal church. That goes against the very definition of the word ekklesia (church).

You're half right in that ekklesia can be and is used in that local sense in the NT. But DT has also pointed out that it is used (eg: in the LXX) to refer to the whole nation of Israel (cf: Hebrew qahal). And it is also used in that wider, universal, whole (catholic!) sense in the NT - by Jesus Himself ('nuff said) in Matt 16:18 and also by Paul eg: Col 1:18 - if ekklesia is only local in meaning, then how many Bodies does Christ have?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You have a great misconception of "the church."
Demonstrate from Scripture that the Holy Spirit was ever given to the church, or more specifically to churches. The word "church" ekklesia always refers to a local assembly. It means assembly or congregation. There is no such thing as a church in a denominational form, or even as in a universal church. That goes against the very definition of the word ekklesia (church).

What happened at the Day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit was not given to the church (at Jerusalem). It was given to each and every beleiver who trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour. This was the starting point of the age of grace, or some like to refer to it as the Church Age. But it is the time when the Holy Spirit began to indwell every believer, not a church corporately.

True Bible-believing churches are made up of regenerated baptized members. And thus the presence of the Holy Spirit can be said to be there. But it is only there because the members themselves are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and for no other reason.

GE

The ocaasion started, they all being gathered together -- and also it being the precise time according to Providence. Those were 'church'-events if ever there were. If not those conditions were met, no Holy Spirit would have been given. The Holy Spirit exactly is not the Spirit ordered around by any independent spirit-wisperer! The Church of Christ is comprised of much more than either individuals or individual congrgegations. It is that mystical Body of Christ's Own, only known by God Himself who knows who are His.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

But I believe not even God finds this Church outside the Christian Community of Believers

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

"Oh, a little word game, is it? Name-calling being the last refuge of those who have lost the argument and all that..."

Where did I call anyone a name?

What I did say is that these little "word games" that you and Agnus resort to is childish and silly. The tactics are childish and silly. Not the people.

And it surely is childish tactics. Myself, DHK, and others post reams and reams of scriptures that clearly...POWERFULLY...teach the truth of justification through faith alone or the truth of sola scriptura.

And in both instances you "nit pick" that fact that the scriptures dont use the word "alone" (even though they clearly teach it) or the word "sufficient".(even thought they clearly teach that.)

Silliness. Insulting to any thinking person.

Its no different than if you were defending the triune nature of God to a monotheist, and he sinks to the level of demanding of you...

"Prove it Matt. I'm still waiting for the scripture Matt that says "God is a Trinity"

You give him even more scriptures that support your view, clearly and strongly.

And he says "Still waiting for the word "Trinity", Matt.

Silliness.

(Of course, I'm guessing you wouldnt do that, you would probably just say "the Church has decided its true, so its true", but just imagine if you were defending it from the scriptures, as we would.)

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

"In fact, it was my earlier time on these boards and the 'witness' of the violent theological disagreements between Baptists that convinced me that soul liberty and sola Scriptura were epistemologically valueless and theologically bankrupt."

We are admonished to "contend earnestly for the faith" The theological discussions are healthy, necesarry and good.

"Let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind, for who are you to judge anothers servant"

Its Gods checks and balances system. The arminians keep the calvinists "in check"...holding them accountable...and keeping them from straying too far. The calvinists hold the arminians accoutable, keeping them in check, and keep them from straying to far. The pentecostals hold the fundamentalists accountable, as the fundamentalists hold the pentecostals accountable.

When this mindset is NOT in place, only chaos, heresy and falsehood result.

Look at the 2 largest examples of groups that reject sola scriptura. Romish Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Both groups are a cesspool of heresy, blasphemy, paganism, cultism, goddess worship, etc etc etc. They are held accountable by nobody, so the excess of falsehood continues unchecked..century after century.

Have you ever seen a 1500 year "timeline of doctrine" chart for the Catholic church? Its not a pretty sight.

God help them.

Mike

 

[DHK]

Then I repeat my earlier question: how then can you dismiss the consensus patri of the ECFs, since that largely existed prior to Constantine and, as you see it, the RCC?

This is a misconception on your part. The ECF were not agreed on much of anything. There may have been some basic doctrines that they were agreed on, certainly no more than what we agree on today. But the differed more than they agreed, and many changed their views midway through their adult lives. Tertullian when he was old was "converted," and then joined the Montanists. He then rejected his former views on baptism and accepted that baptism was after salvation by faith in Christ, and by immersion only. That wasn't his view before that time.

So when discussing Tertullian, which half of his life are you using to defend your views? That must be taken into consideration.
I have mentioned some of the views of the others.
Origen was considered a heretic even by the RCC.
Ireneus believed that Christ lived to 80, and possibly was one of the ones that came up with the concept of the purgatory. (I think he was, but I don't like to rely on my memory too much).
My point is that there wasn't a consensus. Their doctrine varied widely; was diverse between them; and somewhat heretical in many aspects. Make a choice: Was Tertullian a heretic in his views before he was a Montanist or after he became a Montanist? Only one view can be right.

I did - and to me that demonstrates my point. In fact, it was my earlier time on these boards and the 'witness' of the violent theological disagreements between Baptists that convinced me that soul liberty and sola Scriptura were epistemologically valueless and theologically bankrupt.

And there you are wrong. Theological disagreements are not bad but in most cases healthy. That is the whole purpose of this board--to have discussions where there are differences of view points. Look at what Paul says. It seems like an outlandish statement at first:

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
--It is good, he says, that there are "heresies" among you. The heresies are differences of opinions. Why is it good? "That they which are approved may be made manifest among you." Remember that at that time there were among the some that even denied the Resurrection. Good discussion would cause heresy to be manifest among them; as it would the truth. It would expose error and allow the truth to shine. This is one of the real benefits of sola scriptura. The truth always comes up on top, if the individuals are saved and genuinely studying their Bibles.
[quotee]Here I will agree with you; that difference does indeed pale into insignificance compared to, say, the contradictory soteriologies of Calvinism and Arminianism. Yet both profess sola Scriptura, therefore of what value is this doctrine?[/quote]
If you search out the beginnings of the Baptists in England you will find both Particular and General Baptists that existed alongside each other, though the Particular Baptists came first. Particular Baptists were Calvinistic and General Baptists were more Arminian in nature. The point is that both were Baptists and both could exist as Baptist.
I am not a Calvinst, and never have been. I cannot swallow all that TULIP teaches. Neither do I believe all the Arminian theological mindset. I don't believe either one is right. Neither do I believe that one must subscribe to either one. It is not an either or situation. And yet I have many Christian brethren in both camps. Sola Scriptura thus leads to soul liberty--the one distinctive that Baptists have fought for with their blood throughout history. They are the only ones who have fought--even for others--their religious freedom.

I would include within that definition the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican Communions ...which presupposes that their interpretation of Scripture on the matter of sola fide is correct. Not that I've noticed....

But it doesn't include those others. They are in no way evangelical and come nowhere close preaching an evangelical gospel which is a gospel by grace through faith and faith alone. If you want to accept salvation by faith alone then you can include yourself. But that is what evangelical groups believe. It is the bond that holds them together--the essential essence of the gospel--faith alone in the gospel--the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

And neither can you read into this passage that the HS was given only so that the Apostles could pen the NT.

The context gives me that privilege. What is the passage teaching in the context that it was given? Christ was teaching His disciples. He was promising them that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth. They would not live forever. But truth does. The "all truth" that the Holy Spirit would guide them into would be the truth that the Holy Spirit would soon want them to pen as Scripture. He would guide them as to the truth which he wanted them to write. He would guide them into all truth. No non-truth would ever be written by the Holy Spirit. This is what it says elsewhere:

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
The Holy Spirit moved, guided holy men (including the Apostles) as they spoke (or wrote) the Scriptures. This is the same thing that Christ is referring to.

Au contraire

- Paul ordains presbyters in Lystra, Iconium and Pisidian Antioch in Acts 14:23 and bishops at Ephesus in Acts 20:28 to carry on his work in those places; later, Timothy is bishop at Ephesus (I Tim 1:3) having been ordained (I Tim 4:14; II Tim 1:6) and Paul gives him instructions on how to select bishops and deacons (I Tim 3) and also to keep the Tradition of teaching given to him orally by Paul (II Tim 1:13-14; 3:14) as well as Scripture (II Tim 3:15-17); similarly, Paul writes to Titus, to whom he has delegated his authority to appoint presbyters in Crete (Titus 1:5-6) and here he gives similar 'selection instruction' as to Timothy, also referring (Titus 1:7-9) to qualifications for a bishop, including "holding fast to the Word of God as he was taught it" in order to pass on sound doctrine to others (Tradition). It is likely (and here I admit there is a bit of brazen eisegesis on my part but not unreasonably so) that in the Pastoral letters the references to qualifications for 'bishops' are first and foremost to Timothy and Titus personally, in their capacities as bishops of Ephesus and Crete respectively. In any event, here we have the following elements in these passages:-

That all boils down to one thing. It is this:

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.
--The words: elder, bishop, pastor, presbyter, are all words describing different functions of the same office; that office which we call a "pastor." There is no hierarchy. You cannot make a case for it.

Look again:
Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
Acts 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 you have all three functions.
He calls the elders of Ephesus to Miletus. They are elders.
In verse 28 they are called overseers, the same word as bishop and the same as presbuteros.
They are instructed to feed the church of God--the work of a pastor--shepherding. You have it all right here. He is talking to the same men and describes all the offices as applicable to the same men. One man--the pastor--is the same as all the others. The other names are just different aspects of the same office.

1. Paul, an Apostle, appoints bishops and presbyters to continue his work in the various congregations he has founded or helped set up.

No, he appointed elders in every church (Acts 14:23). They were pastors, and the churches were independent of each other.

2. These officers have been grounded in the Scriptures but also taught orally by Paul. They are thus steeped in both Scripture and Tradition.

Paul never taught Tradition. Whether oral or written what he taught was the Word of God. It doesn't matter whether the Word of God is taught out of a written text (a Bible) or from memory (orally); it is still the Word of God that is being taught--not tradition.
[quote3. They are charged with teaching others the above and also with pastoral care of the flock[/quote]
They, as in all the pastors he instructed--Acts 14:23; 2Tim.2:2

4. They are also charged with ordaining others to similarly carry on that work and are given criteria for selection of those successors.

No. He instructed Timothy to teach faithful men to teach other faithfulmen, and so on. (2Tim.2:2) This is a principle of spiritual reproduction. It is also just simple discipleship.

Therefore, we have Scripture and Tradition plus Apostolic Succession in a nascent form within the pages of the NT

We have NO tradition, but only the Word of God, and definitely no Apostolic Succession--no kind of succession whatsoever.

 

[Matt Black]

This is a misconception on your part. The ECF were not agreed on much of anything. There may have been some basic doctrines that they were agreed on, certainly no more than what we agree on today. But the differed more than they agreed, and many changed their views midway through their adult lives. Tertullian when he was old was "converted," and then joined the Montanists. He then rejected his former views on baptism and accepted that baptism was after salvation by faith in Christ, and by immersion only. That wasn't his view before that time.

So when discussing Tertullian, which half of his life are you using to defend your views? That must be taken into consideration.
I have mentioned some of the views of the others.
Origen was considered a heretic even by the RCC.
Ireneus believed that Christ lived to 80, and possibly was one of the ones that came up with the concept of the purgatory. (I think he was, but I don't like to rely on my memory too much).
My point is that there wasn't a consensus. Their doctrine varied widely; was diverse between them; and somewhat heretical in many aspects. Make a choice: Was Tertullian a heretic in his views before he was a Montanist or after he became a Montanist? Only one view can be right.

There was a consensus. The point is that that consensus patri exists between the ECFs when they are in agreement - thus Irenaeus' statement that Jesus lived to be 50 is outside of that consensus, as is Tertullian's Montanist views after he apostasised, and some of Origen's teaching (note that he was not condemned as a heretic, just some of his teaching).

And there you are wrong. Theological disagreements are not bad but in most cases healthy. That is the whole purpose of this board--to have discussions where there are differences of view points. Look at what Paul says. It seems like an outlandish statement at first:

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
--It is good, he says, that there are "heresies" among you. The heresies are differences of opinions. Why is it good? "That they which are approved may be made manifest among you." Remember that at that time there were among the some that even denied the Resurrection. Good discussion would cause heresy to be manifest among them; as it would the truth. It would expose error and allow the truth to shine. This is one of the real benefits of sola scriptura. The truth always comes up on top, if the individuals are saved and genuinely studying their Bibles.

Except that it doesn't without an Apostolic adjudicator - Paul in this case, Tradition in ours. Otherwise, if as you say "truth always comes out on top" then why doesn't that truth emerge on these boards? It doesn't; you just go round and round in circles anathematising each other.

If you search out the beginnings of the Baptists in England you will find both Particular and General Baptists that existed alongside each other, though the Particular Baptists came first.

Actually, IIRC it was the other way round - the Generals emerged with Smyth and Helwys c.1611 and the Particulars out of the "JLJ congregation" by the 1640s

Particular Baptists were Calvinistic and General Baptists were more Arminian in nature. The point is that both were Baptists and both could exist as Baptist.

Labels don't amount to much; the point is that they both had - and continue to have - mutually contradictory soteriologies and views of God

I am not a Calvinst, and never have been. I cannot swallow all that TULIP teaches. Neither do I believe all the Arminian theological mindset. I don't believe either one is right. Neither do I believe that one must subscribe to either one. It is not an either or situation. And yet I have many Christian brethren in both camps.

And here you and I agree on something at last.

Sola Scriptura thus leads to soul liberty

Maybe so...but with what epistemological value?

--the one distinctive that Baptists have fought for with their blood throughout history. They are the only ones who have fought--even for others--their religious freedom.

Granted.

But it doesn't include those others. They are in no way evangelical and come nowhere close preaching an evangelical gospel which is a gospel by grace through faith and faith alone. If you want to accept salvation by faith alone then you can include yourself. But that is what evangelical groups believe. It is the bond that holds them together--the essential essence of the gospel--faith alone in the gospel--the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Your view here is based on the presumption that what you call the 'evangelical gospel' is correct.

[/i]The context gives me that privilege. What is the passage teaching in the context that it was given? Christ was teaching His disciples. He was promising them that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth. They would not live forever. But truth does. The "all truth" that the Holy Spirit would guide them into would be the truth that the Holy Spirit would soon want them to pen as Scripture. He would guide them as to the truth which he wanted them to write. He would guide them into all truth. No non-truth would ever be written by the Holy Spirit. This is what it says elsewhere:

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
The Holy Spirit moved, guided holy men (including the Apostles) as they spoke (or wrote) the Scriptures. This is the same thing that Christ is referring to.

Here Peter is referring to the OT not the NT - the prophets of Israel specifically. I don't see how you can marry this up with John 14:26 and John 16:13-14

That all boils down to one thing. It is this:

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.
--The words: elder, bishop, pastor, presbyter, are all words describing different functions of the same office; that office which we call a "pastor." There is no hierarchy. You cannot make a case for it.

Look again:
Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
Acts 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 you have all three functions.
He calls the elders of Ephesus to Miletus. They are elders.
In verse 28 they are called overseers, the same word as bishop and the same as presbuteros.
They are instructed to feed the church of God--the work of a pastor--shepherding. You have it all right here. He is talking to the same men and describes all the offices as applicable to the same men. One man--the pastor--is the same as all the others. The other names are just different aspects of the same office.

No, he appointed elders in every church (Acts 14:23). They were pastors, and the churches were independent of each other.

On what basis do you conflate these offices? If they are meant to be conflated, why does Scripture not do so? 'Overseers' in Acts 20:28 is a translation of episkopoi and is the same word as 'bishops' but it is not the same word as presbuteroi, which is usually translated 'elders'

Paul never taught Tradition. Whether oral or written what he taught was the Word of God. It doesn't matter whether the Word of God is taught out of a written text (a Bible) or from memory (orally); it is still the Word of God that is being taught--not tradition.

Thanks - you've just given a quasi-definition of Tradition.

They, as in all the pastors he instructed--Acts 14:23; 2Tim.2:2

Presbuteroi and episkopoi, not pastors.

No. He instructed Timothy to teach faithful men to teach other faithfulmen, and so on. (2Tim.2:2) This is a principle of spiritual reproduction. It is also just simple discipleship.
We have NO tradition, but only the Word of God, and definitely no Apostolic Succession--no kind of succession whatsoever.

Labels, again. What you call 'spiritual reproduction' the Church has called Apostolic Succession.

 

[Bro. James]

Church polity

Episkipos and presbyterios--whence cometh the Pontifex Maximus, a monstrous stretch of the Petrine Pun?

I like ecclesiastikos--every member has one vote, including the bishop, deacon, deaconess and usher.

Only God is faithful--even when we are not.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Episkipos and presbyterios--whence cometh the Pontifex Maximus, a monstrous stretch of the Petrine Pun?

I like ecclesiastikos--every member has one vote, including the bishop, deacon, deaconess and usher.

Only God is faithful--even when we are not.

Selah,

Bro. James

Ummm....okay

 

[BobRyan]

The point to which I was alluding was this: most of the sola camp here seem to assert that Constantine is some way 'founded' the RCC and that it all went horribly wrong from about then until 1517 or even later; whereas I'm saying that many of the ECFs existed before Constantine and yet are being dismissed as being associated with the RCC. So my question is: did the RCC exist before or after Constantine?

1. Paul said in Acts 20 "AFTER MY departure men from among your own selves will come in with destructive doctrine" -- not "wait 300 years and finally someone will show up teaching error.

2. I 1Tim 1 Paul says Timothy is left in Ephesus to combat the raging heresy already seeking to take over the church.

And as for Titus

Titus 1
13 This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith,
14 not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men[/b] who turn away from the truth.

The argument that says "error suddenly sprang from the ground whole and complete during the time of Constantine" is not following closely the NT details for how quickly error was entering the church.

However when we look at this thread we see something very curious.

1. A SOLA SCRIPTURA argument that fully debunks OSAS by the standards of scripture alone -- convincingly given by those who are now arguing AGAINST sola scriptura!

2. The outlandish suggestion that follows that when (as in this case) a sola scriptura argument is not sufficient to convince "others" then a an appeal to the RCC or the ECFs WILL succeed where sola scriptura fails EVEN though this is an appeal to a FALLIBLE disputed source as opposed to the infallible ACCEPTED source of scripture.

And of course that suggestion has been a collossal failure to this point on this thread.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

I like ecclesiastikos--every member has one vote, including the bishop, deacon, deaconess and usher.

And where exactly is 'one member, one vote' in the NT? Chapter and verse, please.

PS Bob, if you're talking about the various brands of gnosticism, then I would agree that these were indeed the 'raging heresies' and 'wolves'. But the point is that they were vanquished, in part due to the episcopal structure of the Church and the same ECFs whom you deride.

 

[DHK]

On what basis do you conflate these offices? If they are meant to be conflated, why does Scripture not do so? 'Overseers' in Acts 20:28 is a translation of episkopoi and is the same word as 'bishops' but it is not the same word as presbuteroi, which is usually translated 'elders'

I don't understand how you can be so blind to Scripture. I will explain it again. These same men, called "overseers" or "bishops" in Acts 20:28 are the same men that are addressed "elders" in Acts 20:17:

Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

Paul didn't change his audience mid-stream. He is still talking to the same group of people in verse 17 as he is in verse 28. They are the same elders, the same bishops, overseers, with the same pastoral work of feeding the flock of God. All of these names are describing just one office!

 

[Matt Black]

Yes, and bishops are also technically priests. That doesn't mean that the office of bishop is the same as the office of priest, it is just that, in the case of the bishop, the two are combined in the one person. Thus it was in Acts 20:28

 

[DHK]

Labels, again. What you call 'spiritual reproduction' the Church has called Apostolic Succession.

Spiritual reproduction (or discipleship, as I formerly referred to it) is not a label; it is a spiritual principle taught all throughout the Bible leaving your concept (and label) of Apostolic Succession spiritually bankrupt and void of any truth. Look at the Scripture that teaches:

Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

All teaching the same princple as:
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.

Discipleship is spiritual reproduction. Look again at Mat.28:19 in another translation:

Matthew 28:19 Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (WEB)

I follow the Biblical commands of the Scriptures, not the unbiblical traditions of mankind; the anti-biblical Apostolc Succession of what you speak of. This is entirely against what the Bible speaks of. It goes against the very principles set forth in the Great Commission and exemplified in the life of Paul.

 

[DHK]

Yes, and bishops are also technically priests. That doesn't mean that the office of bishop is the same as the office of priest, it is just that, in the case of the bishop, the two are combined in the one person. Thus it was in Acts 20:28

The bishops are not priests and it is blasphemy to say otherwise. The only way that a bishop can be a priest is the same way that every born again believer is a priest. That comes through salvation, and is known as the priesthood of the believer.

To claim that there is a priesthood modeled in any way after the Levitical priesthood (such as the RCC is) is blasphemy.
The Pharisees had it right when they said:

Mark 2:7 "Why does this man speak blasphemies like that? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
--No man can forgive sins; but the RCC thinks that their priest can--blaphemy!!

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
--No man can come between man and God; for Jesus alone is our mediator--but the RCC thinks otherwise--Blasphemy!!

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
--There is but one advocate between man and the Father--Jesus Christ. But the RCC thinks otherwise--Blasphemy!!

On the cross of Calvary Christ once and for all put away the entire system of priests. He became our Great High Priest, and every believer a priest before Him, that we might freely come right before Him at any time we please:

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Every believe is a priest, so much so that collectively we are a "royal priesthood."

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

The priesthood, such as the RCC and the Anglican, and the Orthodox have are not only unbiblical they are anti-biblical, of Satan, take away from the atoning work of Christ.
They in no way are another name for pastor, bishop, or any other Biblical name for the office of a pastor. That is insulting eisigesis.

 

[Matt Black]

The bishops are not priests and it is blasphemy to say otherwise. The only way that a bishop can be a priest is the same way that every born again believer is a priest. That comes through salvation, and is known as the priesthood of the believer.

Would you prefer the term 'presbyter', from which the English 'priest' is derived? To clarify, I was using 'priest' in my last post as a translation of presbuteros, not hieros. I agree that all Christians are hieroi but not all are presbuteroi. Do you at least agree that?

To claim that there is a priesthood modeled in any way after the Levitical priesthood (such as the RCC is) is blasphemy.
The Pharisees had it right when they said:

Mark 2:7 "Why does this man speak blasphemies like that? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
--No man can forgive sins; but the RCC thinks that their priest can--blaphemy!!

I suppose the Lord then was blaspheming when He gave the Apostles authority to forgive sins in John 20:21-23?

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
--No man can come between man and God; for Jesus alone is our mediator--but the RCC thinks otherwise--Blasphemy!!

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
--There is but one advocate between man and the Father--Jesus Christ. But the RCC thinks otherwise--Blasphemy!![/quote] Then why does the Apostle Paul, in the very passage to Timothy from which you have quoted above, exhort men to lift up holy hands to plead their advocacy before God before kings, rulers and others?

On the cross of Calvary Christ once and for all put away the entire system of priests. He became our Great High Priest, and every believer a priest before Him, that we might freely come right before Him at any time we please:

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Every believe is a priest, so much so that collectively we are a "royal priesthood."

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

The priesthood, such as the RCC and the Anglican, and the Orthodox have are not only unbiblical they are anti-biblical, of Satan, take away from the atoning work of Christ.
They in no way are another name for pastor, bishop, or any other Biblical name for the office of a pastor. That is insulting eisigesis.

Oh, please! Drop the insults! I've already explained the difference between presbuteros and hieros above, and presbuteros, as has been demonstrated, is 100% Biblical - I don't see how on earth you can argue that it isn't?!