Was the early Church 'Baptist'/Evangelical?

Yes it does alter the doctrine (considerably!), unless you assume that that is what it meant before that. Like with Scripture, you assume from later teaching only, that Ignatius understood it the exact same way.

In the case of "conssubstantial" (homoosion) this did pretty much preserve the Biblical truth. But it still was misunderstood by many; not just the Arians, but also many orthodox bishops. I do think that the Church did try to explain too much with non-biblical language, and this did cause confusion. So the creeds like this could be said to depart from Apostolic teaching by phrasing it in new ways, that the Spirit did not inspire in the Bible.
But this should further explain to you why we use a word like "metaphor" or "symbol". Just as "consubstantial" was coind to explain the Godhead, and "changed" was used to explain how bread and wine were flesh and blood; when people saw that that had deviaed way beyond the simplicity of what the Gospel teaches, they countered with their own words. You question me to find those words in history, but then you have not shown that "changed" is what Jesus meant (especially when He was still there the first time!) Your final authority is what people said centuries later.

You assume I'm just following Zwingli. I didn't even know that he taught that; as I thought all the early Reformers agreed with Luther that it was "Real Presence". I amd many others read the Bible on our own, and we do not see these wild interpretations in there. Now you can say "oh, that's private interpretation", But then if we must follow a "catholic" institution; then which? The RCC? The EOC?, The High Protestsnt bodies? Oh, while we're at it, the JW's, Church of Christ, and many Baptist groups claim to be the original Church too. Basically, you must choose a church, and read the Bible through only its eyes, then.

The Church is the people (two or three gathered in His name); not an institution of men. So the visible organized "Church" may have gone astray, but there were always be;lievers who placed simple faith in Christ. Even if they did believe some of thee errors, still, they were the true body in spite of that (NOT because of it.

And this is how the truth could be restored centuries later. What you consistently are not considering is that for all those centuries, there was a vast veil of darkness over the visible organization (not that there was not body of believers, keep in mind). Most leaders did not have the Spirit, and didn;t listen to His convicting, but rather continued exalting their own authority, as they added more and more corruptions. So these people would not be guided in to all truth, because they rejected the truth in favor of their own traditions and position. Proof of this is the same thing you accuse others of:

You keep talking about "novel" and "mutally conflicting doctrines" of Protestantism; but what about mutally conflicting councils of catholicism, and if you're not RCC, then you differ from them too. You cannot escape it, unless you believe, like the Mormons, JW's, etc. that yours is the only true group!)

Yes it does, because then His own words in their own right then mean nothing, unless interpreted by some Church tradition, at least in practice of what I have seen. OK, I looked up "ground" and "pillar", and they both mean "support". The word for "ground" can figuratively mean "basis", and this is what I had in mind when I opposed the idea of it referring to the Church, and this also seemed to be the way you were using it. Still, the Church's position as bearer (not source) of the truth is dependant on it remaining faithful to the written word, which as I showed, is the final authority, even over "the spirit".

 

Yeah, I'm pretty much throwing out "reading it on my own" since the Apostle Peter himself said that: "No prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation." And even if I'm privately interpreting that passage wrong, it's obvious that private interpretation has served to multiply divisions within Christendom rather than to bring about the unity that Christ prayed for in John 17. So, yes, when there is a consensus of belief among early Christians that conflicts with an interpretation I may have been taught (or at which I have arrived on my own), I tend to consider that belief particulary when it takes certain passages in a straighforward sense which I would have otherwise tried to explain away as a good Baptist.

Wow...it's those same arguments that people use to interpret miracles--which took place physically in time and space--in a "spiritual" sense. For instance, that Christ really didn't physically rise from the dead, but only did so "spiritually". This is a tragic consequence of some philosophical movements beginning at the time of the Reformation (but that actually resemble a quasi-Gnosticism--matter, "bad"; spirit, "good") which have led to a radical dichotomy between spirit and matter in the minds of many Christians and to a practical deism. The fact of the Incarnation should debunk such a radical distinction. Christ became a physical man, born of a physical woman, who suffered and died on a physical cross and shed physical blood before physically rising from the grave and ascending physically into heaven. This He did to accomplish our spiritual and physical salvation, because at the resurrection we will have physical, though transfigured, bodies. No, the early Christians had the more balanced understanding of matter (as opposed to the Gnostics) based on their understanding of who Christ is, and this understanding was certainly the biblical one. They didn't see matter (water, bread or wine) as ends in themselves, but as means of union with the Incarnate Christ as ordained by Christ Himself.

And how does that work? Which Scriptures interpret which other Scriptures? Those who preach OSAS have their own proof texts for unconditional eternal security and they interpret passages which suggest otherwise based on the former. Those who preach salvation can be lost point to host of scriptures which support their claim and use these to explain the proof-texts of OSAS advocates in a way consistent with conditional security. Who decides who is right and which passages should take precedence? Examples of mutually conflicting positions with their apparent proof-texts can be multiplied, not to mention the fact that the JWs also "interpret Scripture with Scripture". And all of these sola Scriptura groups can claim, despite the fact that one can pinpoint the origin in time of each one to within the last 500 years, that their's is the group practising "New Testament" Christianity.

.
The "Real Presence" view and the "symbolic-only" views are mutually conflicting views. (There is not a midway point--the exclusive middle--between "no change" and "change".) If the Apostles, as you claim, understood Jesus to be speaking only metaphorically, surely they would have communicated this clearly to their audiences. They, before the NT was even close to being completed or even collected, could have have explained clearly so that the new Christians wouldn't make the same mistake that the Jews (who walked away) allegedly made, especially given the fervency with which those such as Jude and Paul exhorted the early Christians to maintain the "deposit" and the "traditions". Considering how that culture had a much better capacity for oral transmission than ours, it would seem that at least some of these close disciples of the apostles would speak out when advocates of the Real Presence started claiming that they had the official apostolic teaching (since the church fathers did counter the heretics who alleged apostolic warrant for their errant views). Yet nowhere in the historical record is such protest to be found. So either (1) everyone in the known world within 2 generations from the apostles forgot this doctrine and was preaching heresy, (2) there were those who taught the "symbolic-view" but coincidentally none of their writings of protest or affirmation have survived, or (3) the symbolic-only view was never taught except by Docetist heretics until the Reformation. Option (1) is very implausible since it would imply that the same error crept in everywhere at the same time with no objections from anyone (Remember there was no "excluded middle" to gradually transition through.) Option 2 is obviously ahistorical. Even if writings of the hypothetical symbolic-only believers did not survive, one would expect a critique from the Real Presence advocates if such a view existed considering how concerned the Fathers were about what they perceived to be heresy. However the only mention of those who denied the Real Presence is by Ignatius of the Docetists who denied the doctrine since it was inconsistent with their erroneous belief that Christ did not become a physical human being. Indeed, denial of the Real Presence was (and is) certainly more characteristic of Docetists and Gnostics who opposed matter to spirit than it was of those who confessed that the Divine Word became physical man in space and time for our salvation.

He multiplied the bread and the fish, didn't He? Who are we to say that He can't communicate his divine-human life to His church in the form of bread and wine? It's called the "communion of His body and blood" for a reason.

And it is historical and scriptural (prophesied by the NT)truth, that people would misunderstand scripture (2 Pet. 2) and bring in Greek Philosophy. </font>[/QUOTE]Or how about those who brought in their 16th century European rationalistic and nominalistic philosophies into the Church, philosophies far removed in time from the culture in which the New Testament was written? I don't think false philosophy was (or is) the exclusive domain of the Greeks, nor is all Greek philosophical principles necessarily wrong. The NT was written in Greek within a culture that was familiar with Greek thought forms, so I'd be little hesitant to dismiss all Greek influence (even philosophical) as necessarily corrupting.

 

Christ did establish a visible church in space and time with visible leaders (the Apostles, then bishops, elders, and deacons) and with visible sacraments (particularly baptism and communion). He meant for this church to be one as He and the Father are one. He didn't establish multiple conflicting denominations. For each of these denominations, one can point to a specific beginning in time centuries removed from Christ's ascension. Looking at the historical data, I submit only two of those groups you mentioned have a legitimate claim to being the historical, apostolic church (and one of those claims appears stronger than the other's) But as Forrest Gump says: "That's all I've got to say about that".

The Church is an organism. It is the Body of Christ, and the believers are members of that Body organically joined to the Head who is Christ. It is a group of people united with Christ and it does have its institutional aspects, as it has an authority structure ordained by God. Of course, individuals in positions of authority have erred, but the entire organized visible church has not. To assert that would be to suggest that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church. Lest you say the gates of hell hasn't prevailed against the invisible church, it should be pointed out that the idea of an invisible church apart from united visible structure among different competing factions is also a novel concept in the history of Christian doctrine. (You ought to read what the early Fathers thought about schism) The unity that Christ had in mind was a visible one so that the world would believe (John 17:21) I don't think the world can be convinced by an "invisible unity" when Christians are visibly divided. (As far as two or three being gathered in Christ's name, even Mormons and JWs would claim to be the church on that basis. Many liberal Protestants, who deny the historic doctrines of the faith such as the Incarnation, the Atonement, and the Resurrection, also may claim to gather in Jesus' name--but do they really?)

 

So it's OK for a group of leaders, because they have a title, to intepret it privately, and I just have to belive what they say no matter what. Either way, someone is interpreting it, or relaying someone else's interpretation. What "private" actually means is more along the lines of "esoteric", and this is what leaders began bringing in after the apostolic age, even though it soon became widespread.

No it's not straightforward; it's adding mysticism to it.

I am not making matter bad, and have argues elsewhere against those who do. It's putting "matter" in its proper perspective. I did not say the elemtns were to be done away with because it was spiritual. But your side dopes in practice make idols out of them (gives them some mystical or saving power IN THEMSELVES). Sorry, but you cannot compare this to the incarnation and resurrection. In fact, it's your position that is closely related to what you have described: "Jesus' body looks like flesh; but it is really something else". That's what the Docetists and other monophysites said. So likewise, they would have to deny that the bread and wine were really bread and wine. This in fact, is probably one source of the doctrine, and though the fathers may have opposed those groups, they still were a bit unwittingly influenced or compromised with them.

Once again, your churches have differeng interpretations too, and have changed since the early centuries. There is no escape from that. If you just choose one church, then you have to deal with the fact that it continues to add doctrines, and you have to project them all back to the NT, which it would be very hard to do, as you could no longer rely on the early fathers, whom some of those doctrines were completely foreign to.
So it has to be an invisible body; because even the NT began warning of corrupt leaders coming in and taking over, and if you rely on them, denyong that they are fallen men, and they become above scriptural examination. How then could error be stopped then? No wonder they kept adding more doctrines, and not many challenged it. That is such a dangerous position.

The statements on the two conflicting views; I'll have to come back to later.

 

I agree that we should not ignore the ante nicene church. These men received the apostolic practice and faith, and more or less preserved this faith for future generations. I am not interested in the opinion of one or two church fathers where it disagrees with the universal church, but when we read the writins of distinguished bishops who knew the apostles, like Clement and Ignatius and Polycarp, and when the faith and practice can be shown to be held in the east and in the west, in Africa, the Middle East, and Europe, and covering a number of generations, then we can be sure that such doctrines and practices are apostolic. Tertullian for example tells us that women covered their heads in church across the ancient world, including in the congregation at Corinth in his day.

The apostles did warn of a falling away, and they also warned of false teachers. But we must distinguish. These false teachers are said to leave the church and start their own churches. Paul speaking to the Ephesian elders says that they will draw disciples after themselves. John says they 'went out from us, because they were not of us.' This refers to the gnostics, and it is clear that they would leave the church and start their own meetings, not that they would take over the church. HOWEVER the church does fall, and this is the falling away of the church from the faith, and it is followed by the removal of 'he that withholds', which was understood by the early church to refer to the roman emperor and empire. This falling away was under Constantine, when the church was reconciled with the world. in the thinking of the pre nicene fathers, the world was the enemy of the church, not the friend of it. I strongly affirm that the teaching of the ante nicene church is a far more reliable guide to the faith than Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Darby, or anyone else.

Dean

 

Very good point--I couldn't agree more.

Again, I agree, but would add that sometimes people of authority within the church advocated heresy before being forced out by the faithful in the church (for example, Arius and Nestorius).

I disagree with you here. DH Williams, who is a professor of patrististics (and a Baptist) in his book, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism, pretty much debunks the whole Constantinian-fall paradigm. He deals with the historical record honestly, IMO, and shows the continuity in doctrine between the ante-nicene and post-nicene church despite any imperial politics that may have involved itself in the church.

I agree with you again, but I don't see a sharp demarkation between the ante nicene and post nicene Church. Rather, I see continuity in doctrine and practice, even if the climate was conducive to more worldliness in the absense of persectuion.

I think at this point, I need to step away for awhile and spend my time more wisely. There are other priorities in my life that need my attention. Later...

[/submerging]

 

[surfacing] ...oops didn't see your post...

That's your unproven assertion. I submit you're subtracting the true spiritual meaning from it.

The charge of idolatry is a false one, but based on your interpretive scheme I'm not surprised you'd make it. The Jews thought the Christians were idolatrous for worshipping a man (Jesus) as God.

Sure I can. (See below) My "side" is more consistent and doesn't deny (in practice) the miraculous. It takes Christ at this words, through the eyes of faith.

Good spin, but no dice.

From Irenaeus (speaking of the Gnostics):
"Again how can they say that flesh passes to corruption and does not share in life, seeing that flesh is nourished by the Body and Blood of the Lord? Let them either change their opinion, or refrain from making those oblations of which we have been speaking. But our opinion is in conformity with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our opinion. We offer to Him what is His own, suitably proclaiming the unity of flesh and spirit. For as the bread, which comes from the earth, receives the invocation of God, and then it is no longer common bread but Eucharist, consists of two things the earthly and a heavenly; so our bodies, after the partaking of the Eucharist , are no longer corruptible, having the hope of eternal resurrection." (Against Heresies IV:18:5)

Compare this to Ignatius who called the Eucharist the "medicine of immortality" (Epistle to the Ephesians)and to John 6:54: "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise Him up on the last day."

In other words, the fathers didn't the deny the earthly (as did the Docetists and Gnostics) but affirmed both the earthly and heavenly, which was consistent with their view of the Incarnation--Christ having both an eartly and heavenly reality.

The fathers maintained both the earthly reality (the bread and the wine) and the heavenly (the Body and Blood of Christ) of the Eucharist.

That's your repeated assertion, but it's not proven. The only change has been in clarifying doctrine in response to heresy.

Which is precisely what protestants do.

Okay...my son is waking up from his nap so I really need to go...(Somebody else feel free to pick up where I left off)

[/submerging]

 

Yes, I feel the ante-Nicene church is often ignored as well: until someone tries to use them to justify their later interpretations, such as these doctrines of baptism and Eucharist, and a debate with both Church of Christ and some "traditional only" fundies on musical intruments. The ante-Nicene concept of the Trinity was a less-symmetrical "economic" model (Father generates Son, Father [and Son] generate Spirit; rather than the language of "three equals" of the creeds, which themselves may have been misunderstood; "equality" was understood as sharing the same nature). But what often happens is what we see in an issue like these: The postapostolic fathers received the apostles teaching, but put their own spin on it. Then the later leaders take that and put further their own spin on it. In a few centuries, you have this huge monstrosity of an organization filled with pagan ritual, infallibility of its leaders, that Eucharist of "flesh and blood" becomes a new "sacrifice" being done over and over (Christ said His work was "finished"), and the exaltation of Mary. This is wht people today try to cut this off at the source and go completely back to the Bible, and though they may not agree completely among themselves, still that does not justify the "catholic" churches' practice.

That is explicitly mentioned in the New Testamant. A lof of other things aren't, but are projected back. And thinsgs like this firther shows that nearly all churches, "catholic" and Protestant sect alike, that claim to be the "original" Church from the ancient period, are off the wall, because they do not practice this. (I know; some Churches of Christ do. But the have other problems).

And 3John mentions a new trend: leaders loving to "have the prominence" and expelling true Christians!

 

The biggest area of change that period was the development of monoepiscopacy. Yes, the grains of that may have gone back as far as Ignatious with his constant "look up to the bishop" language. But it was still a far cry from what actually did develop later, proving my point on the church changing, putting their own spin on things, and then projecting the new doctrines back onto both the NT and the early fathers. Of course, the end of persecution would allow them now to ascend and flex their political muscle, and themselves essentially take over the empire. Dean was right on that one; the Church was very different; much more simple and humble before recognition by Constantine. It became completely corrupt after that.

Then so does the Bible. The Bible states the practice, but does not assign any such meanings to it. So then something was added, or once again, it was simply "hidden" ("subtracted") from the writings.

Because God is a personal being, and Christ was a personal being who was the express image of God (Heb.) That is a far cry from physical items that our hands have made.

And adds your own spin to it.(see below)
Anyone can use that "Faith" line. Calvinists use it, when people question their doctrine, and so do the faith healers today. But faith is only good when it is faith in what has been revelead to us in God's Word; not what centuries of changing Church tradition says.

Still, what we are arguing here is not whether people are symbolically partaking of Christ, but rather some literal "transubstantiation". I know you see that in these statements, but I don't; necessarily. If you understand something completely "spiritual", then you will realize there is no need to say the bread and wine actually turns into flesh and blood in order to partake of this spiritual communion. Notice; BOTH "heavenly" AND "eartly", still; "no longer common bread". Not heavenly only, which we would expect if he was saying it actually transformed into something else, and was in fact, no longer bread and wine at all! That shows a spiritual representation. Your position is half-spiritual, half-fleshy, as you in essence are the one to deny that there is any spiritual reality apart from a physical reality. So you teach it must actually "change". But that is not how the New Testament or even the early fathers, apparently, saw it. As Paul said, "you do show (Gk. "proclaim"; "promulgate" —declare, preach, speak of, teach) The Lord's Death (NOT actually, physically recreate!)

True, but my point was; your church was not above that as well. If I had to choose between a Church, I would rather choose one that was truer to the teaching of the Scriptures, whether its organozation went all the way back or not. Actually, I have heard of groups of "families" of Christians around Israel that go all the way back. (Couldn;t find any more on them, thought). I don;t know whether they are affiliated with the catholic/orthodox institutions or not, but if not, that would be my ideal church.

 

Once again, you are comparing something that does not match what we are discussing. "multiplying" bread and fish WAS a physical supernatral miracle. The communion was not said to be such, but was rather spiritual. That's the difference. Just as we do not commonly see miracles today, this dispensation, God is focusing on spiritual change, rather than physical. Not saying "pysical" is bad, but rather quite the opposite; the "spiritual" area is where our problem lies (contrary to docetic style dualism, which says the physical is the problem), so this is what God deals in now. Today, He communicates his divine-human life to His church through the Spirit (2 Cor.13:14, Phil.2:1), through whom we are first baptized into the Body(1 Cor.12:13), and as two or three (or more) are gathered (which usually includes a meal), He is there. Your tradition gets hung up on the physical emblems of both of these ordinances, and this is precisely the type of focus God has always been trying to move people away from.

Maybe not a "middle" position, but what you left out is the "spiritual", in which physical "change" or "not change" is irrelevant. It is not even on that scale. "symbolically" and "metaphorically" are our words (just like "homoosion" in the Nicene era, to counter the heresy of the Arians). So no, they would not explain all that in detail. (Would have been nice if they would have, though!) Peter would go on to warn that Paul's rteachings would be misunderstood and twisted by the "unlearned". (2 Pet.3) And since their followers were supposed to have the Spirit (unlike the Jews), that would safeguard against heresy. But of course, people "no having the Spirit" would come in as well (Jude 19). Then the doctrine would change, and once again, it would often be so subtle, it would not be noticed.

Once again, nobody argued about "symbolic" versus "transubstantiation". Any "real presence" was understood as spiritual, not actually physically changing the bread and wine. From what you've show the earliest fathers still seemed to understand it pretty much like the Apostles, but began phrasing it a bit differently. This could easily be misunderstood as time went on, and then eventually, people would conclude that it was some metaphysical "change". It would not appear as heresy, because it was a matter of slight changes in expressing it over the centuries.

Regarding what Ignatius condemned, that would be a denial that there was any spiritual significance at all of the communion. People who were so dead set against the physical world would deny that Christ could be represented by any physical item at all. So the Docetists were NOT teaching the Protestant doctrine of a symbol. The argument there was not whether the bread and wine physically transmuted into flesh and blood, or was only a symbolic metaphor. It was whether Christ was "present" at all. (Remember, Christ is present through the spirit witout some physical item to "reside" in; other than our own "temples", of course.

 

The early fathers did not teach a spiritual representation only, a divine or human presence only, consubstantiation, or transubstantiation. The fathers taught the sacramental union of the heavenly (the divinity and humanity of Christ forever united in one person) and the earthly (the bread and the wine). The conservative Reformers (Lutherans) maintained the traditional and Sola Scriptura understanding of the "Real Presence".

 

OK, if in the heavenly, the divinity and humanity of Christ forever unity in one person, then the earthly (the bread and the wine)....are united in what? It seems your analogy left something out. Anyway, I don't see where that would necessarily contradict spiritual presence. After all, "Spiritual" is just as "real' as physical; if we truly "See through the eyes of faith".

 

Eric B,

Just as we can not understand how Christ can be fully God and fully man in one person, we can not understand how the Body and Blood of Christ, His humanity and divinity, can be united with the bread and wine in the sacramental union of Holy Communion. We can only trust Christ's word, "This is my body."

The Reform Calvinists believe in a spiritual presence of Christ only. However, that can not be true because Christ says, "This is my body". Christ's humanity is never separated from His divinity.

 

Hi Thomas, I guess then that you are in one of the traditional churches?

The facts in the case of Constantine seem so plain to me that it hardly needs the opinion of a scholar, though I am interested in hearing his arguments.

Under Constantine it became socially and politically expedient to convert to Christianity, resulting in a mass influx of semi-pagans into the church. If I remember correctly, money was given to converts. The ministers were put on the state pay. The church was split into five districts at Nicaea. Bishops became more and more ambitious. Icons and images, Mariolatry, and other false doctrines entered the church, contrary to the clear testimony of the ante nicene fathers. Infant baptism was never the universal practice prior to Constantine, and even for a century or more afterwards. The church was never meant to be reconciled to the world in this way, and because it did, it fell away and lost its candlestick.

There was a continuance of doctrine, to a degree, but it was mixed. The 'trinity' doctrine was supported by an unbiblical word, contrary to the command of Paul to 'hold fast the form of sound words.' The emperor had a say both in Nicaea and generally. In the West, under Augustine, the trinity was corrupted into 'one God in three persons.' The faith became increasingly institutionalised, and loyalty to the church over-rid everything else. Outwardly, many of the core teachings survived, but inwardly the life was gone. The Church even changed the apostolic teaching, for example at Chalcedon when the age of women deacons was lowered from 60 to 40. Icons were never part of the faith, as the second 'second council of nicaea' declared.

Regards
Dean

 

Hi again Eric! Yes, that is exactly what happened! I love Ignatius and his writings. He was urging the congregations to follow the bishops because many were following the false antichrist gnostic false teachers. It was the bishops who knew the apostles and were keeping the doctrine pure. As you say, whatever he advocated "was still a far cry from what actually did develop later."

At Nicaea the church was divided into five districts under 'patriarchs' (and Jesus said to call no-one on earth 'father'). Before then each of the churches of each city had their own apostolic tradition to maintain - there was no hierarchy of any other church to follow. Then of course, following the fall of Rome, we have the rise of the Roman papacy claiming authority never taught by the ante nicene church.
I think I would disagree with you on the mono-episcopal system - as far as I can tell it was instituted by the apostles themselves, possibly out of the ministry of evangelists. Timothy for example was given authority to appoint and remove elders in ephesus.....Titus for given jurisdiction to set in order all of the churches of Crete. These were not 'pastors' as apostate Protestantism claims. Paul tells Timothy to keep his charge until the coming of the Lord. Historically this office became the 'bishop' because it oversaw a number of churches.

Even among the early Baptists, they had 'subordinate apostles' which were basically bishops.

Dean

 

And Paul said that Hagar was Mt. Sinai, and. Of course, he also said this was an allegory (Gal.4), but this gives you an idea that just because someone uses the word "IS", rather than "like" or "represents", does not mean that it literally "is" that thing. (Have to find some mor examples). Also, all of the symbols in prophecy (Rev. etc)
So you are overgeneralizing it by comparing it to the incarnation (as Thomas did). But the Bible tells us that in Christ, "God was manifest in the flesh", and this is called a "mystery" (even moreso than a concept of "threeness" as the later Church emphasized). But it doesn't say that God (Christ) was "manifest" IN the bread. That is reading too much into it.

 

And it's funny that Rome was only one of those patriarchates, which broke away from the others. Yet it was said to be the eastern Church (the other four) that "broke away" from Rome.

"mono-episcopacy" means, as you just criticized above, "the Roman papacy claiming authority never taught by the ante nicene church". i.e. one bishop supreme over all.

The offices have become all mixed up. "pastor" is mentioned only once and means a "shepherd" (of one congregation). "Elders" seemed to be literally "older" men, who were spiritually mature, and also watched the flock. Then there were teachers, etc.. "bishop" is an overseer of numerous congregations. Then of course the itinerant ministers: evangelists and their leaders, apostles. In much of modern Baptistic and independant Protestantism, "pastors" do practically everything. (and then complain of "burnout"). The lead local flocks. Then if new Churches branch out, a senior pastor oversees all of them. Pastors also fly around the world, to denominational conferences, and also to the mission field to speak, or visit, or whatever. All of this is financially supported by the local congregation, with 2 Cor. 9 and 1 Timothy 5:17 applied to this office of "pastor". "vacation", and other "perks" are often included. An irony, is that most of a Church's money goes to this, yet those passages dealt with two totally different offices; one older people in the church (probably too old to work), the other, what we today call missionaries; and yet, these stationary ministers do all of that, and they get all the money (but still get all of this sympathy or at least put a guilt trip on everyone for their being "overburdened") but return to their often nice homes, while the others whose lives are dedicated to traveling, and like Christ "have nowhere to lay his head" get what is left over. (as well as the other cause most money was raised for in the NT--struggling Christians and congregations). It is basically the secular business/govt. "executive" model (which itself is greatly unbalanced as it is). And it was Rome which basically started it, even though the positions were further rehashed afterwards.
Yes, it is all mixed up today, and I just pray God will begin opening people up to what He has really layed out for us in the Bible. Tradition is getting us nowhere.

 

And Paul said that Hagar was Mt. Sinai, and. Of course, he also said this was an allegory (Gal.4), but this gives you an idea that just because someone uses the word "IS", rather than "like" or "represents", does not mean that it literally "is" that thing. (Have to find some mor examples). Also, all of the symbols in prophecy (Rev. etc)</font>[/QUOTE]According to your representation theory, unworthy communicants are guilty only of consuming a symbol of the body and blood of the Lord. And they eat and drink damnation not discerning a symbol of the Lord's body. So the number of texts you must alter to accomodate your innovative theory is multiplied.

That what the scholastics did when they referred to the whole Christ being present in the sacrament. Scripture only tells that Christ's Body and Blood are present. Christ is spiritually present because, in the hypostatic union, His divinity is never separated from His humanity.

[ August 09, 2004, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

That's not true. Just like I told Thomas above, you are looking at there being no spiritual reality without a "physical" reality in the bread. They are guilty because they are violating a solemn spiritual communion (taking what it represents lightly). This says nothing about the food actually becoming the literal body and blood. And note how that is a meal people could be "filled" off of, not the flat wafers and little vials (with one only being taken by priests) as used in the churches).

But scripture does not say He is physically present in the sacrament! You're actually turning it backwards now, basing His spiritual presence on some supposed physical presence. (I thought it was His spiritual "presence" that made the items physically transform in the first place. So it all really hinges on the physical. No wonder that is so important!) But Christ said He would be with us through the Spirit, not through the communion. He is there in the Communion precisely because He is there in us in the Spirit.

 

But scripture does not say He is physically present in the sacrament!

"This is my body"

I thought it was His spiritual "presence" that made the items physically transform in the first place.

The bread and wine do not transform. His word, "This is my body", is efficacious wherever His word is spoken and the meaning of His word is not changed to something other than "This is my body."

So it all really hinges on the physical. No wonder that is so important!

Exactly!