10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I am not anti tradition as it has obviously been very beneficial to the cause of Christ and his church. Even in my early reading and study as I have alluded to, I find the richness in some of what was happening. Furthermore, I do think there is an omission from the Protestant side, in general, when it comes to early tradition. However, as I am coming to read there was possibly a mischaracterization of how the reformers viewed the early church as well.

I think really what I was getting at, was that it didn't take long to get off course after a while. So I am not concerned with the Bible and acknowledge the human hands involved in that preservation. Most of the NT was circulating by 100AD, as I understand it, with many copies to boot. My concern is that it seems like there was a general simplicity in how the church operated in its infancy, and that is not what we have today. So the question is, for two millennia has the church just nailed it - truly captured the essence of Christ and his bride of what it was always meant to be? History tells me that's incredibly unlikely as we ***** after other things.

One analogy is a naval one - you get off course by a degree early on, and after traveling a thousand miles, you're not even close to your intended target.

---

I know several prominent Protestants (such as Wes huff, James white, etc) promulgate this idea too, but it sort of just skips over the question.

Let's grants that most (not all) of the books were in wide circulation by 100 AD. There were also several in wide circulation that were later excluded. Some books even read as a part of liturgy? Why not those? Why the others? Who decided on the criteria by which to judge the books? Who made the call to spread the letters in the first place? does the Bible define what belongs in the Bible? Does the Bible declare itself inerrant? Does the Bible claim itself infallible?

All those questions are rhetorical questions that lead to the crux of it all; If the early church got off course on things like the Eucharist, ecclesiology, praying to saints, etc, so fast, why can we be confident they were right about the Bible? To say "all of them were reading it" doesn't work unless you're willing to grant all the other things "all of them were doing".

It becomes a blind faith issue based on tradition no matter what we do. If the people that learned directly from the apostles got it wrong so fast, I see it as near impossible that some guys 1500 years later figured it out.

---

Just took this from a generic search...
"For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke's writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John."

So again, my takeaway is that the new testament was largely agreed upon and circulated widely. Elements of holy scripture also included apostolic authorship or direct contact with apostles. And the idea that it all needed to essentially support the main messages (No contradictory concepts).

With tradition, is there a similar path to legitimacy? Was the Eucharist, Mary, Saints, and everything else the Church embraces today built upon this kind of early and often checklist? I am genuinely asking, because if it is, then that definitely lends more credence to what you profess. If traditions were rather things that got incorporated past the time of the canonization of the Bible, that is where it would get pretty sketchy for me.

---

Yes.

https://store.ancientfaith.com/the-religion-of-the-apostles/

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Zobel said:

---

How do you distinguish between inspired scripture and spurious texts?

---

What spurious texts?

---

While I wouldn't classify it as spurious, First Clement is a really good examples of things that didn't make the cut. Read aloud in churches. Included in several local bibles. Written in 70 AD, or at least before many of the books that are included. Written by a direct disciple of an apostle. Fits all the criteria, but was left out for whatever reasons it was left out.

The didache was the same way.

---

It just wasn't as widely as accepted versus the other writings and epistles, as far as I know.

It is on my list to read; I have gotten bits and pieces and looking forward to reading all of it.

nortex97 said:

---

AGC said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

The activity of the spirit preceding scripture I get, but the activity of the church itself can be flawed, and often times is, not just in RCC/various Orthodox denominations/churches but as well with Protestant/non-denominational churches.

I don't want to make this too hostile/history-based, but the simple fall of Constantinople/the folks who run the Hagia Sophia today (and Rome being repeatedly sacked before that) make me think no particular denomination has had 'great/Divinely-guided' leadership through the centuries. That clownish non-denom pastor at a funeral you described also comes to mind. There is silliness in all churches/human structures, imho, is all I am really trying to say.

---

Would it be fair to sum up your response as, "why not me as the authority for holy scripture?" This is the argument being presented, after all.

---

Yes, I am asserting the new 'nortex97 doctrine of infallibility.' Perfectly hostile response, thx. I mean, really, I got a laugh so thank you.

We don't have to look too far to find examples of terrible church leadership in any denomination, from Rome, to Constantinople, to Frisco TX, regardless of claims of the Holy Spirit guiding the institutions.

---

Right, but what makes you the person that can discern these things? It's not hostile, it's a genuine inquiry. For you to be able to say these things with authority, you must have some vested from a source that can give authority, yes? What is that source? What makes your judgment divinely guided to the exclusion of faithful, historical Christians through the ages? That's the problem with this argument.

I'm not saying the church is perfect, but I'm also not Catholic and don't believe in its power structure as biblical or faithful to any tradition but its own (as opposed to the episcopal structure of the threefold offices). The church has existed for a long time in several variants with apostolic succession (even in Africa, so not exclusively western and eastern). Teaching and scripture has largely survived intact.

Apostolic succession is often cited on this forum as a panacea/magic wand as to being guided by the Holy Spirit. I find the theology and historicity of this claim to be lacking. In fact, a lot of it comes down to folks I think with a pride (I think Paul had some words about this) as to their Biblical studies/theology/opinions, not in fact anything approaching doctrine, dogma, or pick a term.

I believe there are smart people who hire/covenant with dumb/wrong people in all aspects of life over time; politics, business, family, you name it. I am and will remain dubious about claims as to divine succession leading to a given church (however one wishes to define it) being necessarily/by definition consistent with God's word without considering the actions/people/correctness (orthodoxy) of the organization at a given point in time.

People can dance around/assert various dogma's like 'papal infallibility' all they want, it's just not…something I believe.

Everyone on that list that recognized scripture were clerics in the church.

Clement, as I mentioned in another post, wrote a book of his own that was excluded in the end, despite it meeting all of the criteria (early work, direct contact with an apostle, etc). The same Clement that wrote on how the church leadership was supposed to work, which is what the Catholic Church does today. Bishops leave other bishops and elders in their place as they move on to the next stop. So the idea that the apostles and their successors were leaving people in their place with authority is found in ~70AD.

The didache, also 1st century, speaks on many things, one of which is the Eucharist. You can read it and see how elevated and holy it was considered. It doesn't use the term transubstantiation because that term doesn't come about until debates about the real presence arise.

Irenaeus, mentioned in your text, has some writings on Mary that would probably make all Protestants squirm. things like "And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin". Basically the foundation for mediatrix/co-redemtrix type of teachings today.

First certain writings by someone considered a church father we have on prayer to the saints is early 200s, but it's mentioned so casually that it comes across as written about something that is just being done.

I appreciate you posting it because it's a great example of what the issue is. If we are appealing to these guys to get our canon, how can we toss away the rest? If they were wrong about the rest, why bother listening to them on the canon? The Bible and the church. The church and the Bible. They go together because they stem from the same source.

nortex97 said:

---

Apostolic succession is often cited on this forum as a panacea/magic wand as to being guided by the Holy Spirit. I find the theology and historicity of this claim to be lacking. In fact, a lot of it comes down to folks I think with a pride (I think Paul had some words about this) as to their Biblical studies/theology/opinions, not in fact anything approaching doctrine, dogma, or pick a term.

I believe there are smart people who hire/covenant with dumb/wrong people in all aspects of life over time; politics, business, family, you name it. I am and will remain dubious about claims as to divine succession leading to a given church (however one wishes to define it) being necessarily/by definition consistent with God's word without considering the actions/people/correctness (orthodoxy) of the organization at a given point in time.

People can dance around/assert various dogma's like 'papal infallibility' all they want, it's just not…something I believe.

---

Why is their pride in saying that we believe apostolic succession protected the church, so we submit to its teachings (even the ones we don't like) but no pride in saying that one can simply read their Bible and figure out which church has it right enough to align with? In the first, we have submission to the church and in the other we seem to have a skillful ability to pick the right one?

The Banned said:

---

I appreciate you posting it because it's a great example of what the issue is. If we are appealing to these guys to get our canon, how can we toss away the rest? If they were wrong about the rest, why bother listening to them on the canon? The Bible and the church. The church and the Bible. They go together because they stem from the same source.

---

Yes, that is kind of what I was getting to in my head. If we do toss some of it out, I think it is reasonable to understand why. I am thankful for yourself and others here that have largely prompted my curiosity, because it is important. I do not affirm this protestant stigma or whatever you want to call it, that we can just open the Bible and interpret what we think it means - that is a dangerous game - and one that I do not think the reformers were playing. But we can agree to disagree

nortex97 said:

---

Apostolic succession is often cited on this forum as a panacea/magic wand as to being guided by the Holy Spirit. I find the theology and historicity of this claim to be lacking. In fact, a lot of it comes down to folks I think with a pride (I think Paul had some words about this) as to their Biblical studies/theology/opinions, not in fact anything approaching doctrine, dogma, or pick a term.

I believe there are smart people who hire/covenant with dumb/wrong people in all aspects of life over time; politics, business, family, you name it. I am and will remain dubious about claims as to divine succession leading to a given church (however one wishes to define it) being necessarily/by definition consistent with God's word without considering the actions/people/correctness (orthodoxy) of the organization at a given point in time.

People can dance around/assert various dogma's like 'papal infallibility' all they want, it's just not…something I believe.

---

Right but the question is the same. On what basis are you an authority to evaluate what is and isn't lacking? What makes you different from all these other Christians, including the ones who compiled the Bible used today?

We can talk about how early most of it was read in churches, but who made the decision to read it? Who compiled it? Certainly not Paul or Jesus. References or not, as a complete work it exists as a product of the very church you question. You can't point to the single person who put it together. You also haven't begun to tell us anything about why you trust the person or people that translated what you read, since you can't read the source.

So question authority, but recognize that you undermine your own position by doing so.

All religious writings that you don't consider scripture, and especially ones that purport to be Christian.

Catag94 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm not sure I understand what the fall of a political government has to do with the church. Constantinople fell to Islam, so the church is fallible? That does not follow.

The activity of people within the church isn't the same as the corporate activity of the church. The principle is laid out by St Paul well. The individuals make up the body, but the body is Christ's with Christ at the head. The body is animated and made alive by the Spirit of Christ. If the church has error, it is Christ who errs.

---

So thinking back through the history of the church if we were to pick out the most awful things, the church is a whole has done one example perhaps being the Crusades, were those performed in error and was it not the whole of the church and all of its clergy leading this or do I have this all wrong and if I don't, are you suggesting that was Christ erring?

---

The church as a whole did not do the crusades.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The activity of people within the church isn't the same as the corporate activity of the church. The principle is laid out by St Paul well. The individuals make up the body, but the body is Christ's with Christ at the head. The body is animated and made alive by the Spirit of Christ. If the church has error, it is Christ who errs.

---

Are you talking about the church as we know it today and the one you are involved with today? Or the concept of the church? The church you belong to today is without error?

How do I not deduce from this that if individuals make up the church (I agree) that they are also not in error if the church is not in error (do not agree).

---

If you personally tell a lie, did the church lie?

Quote:

---

So again, my takeaway is that the new testament was largely agreed upon and circulated widely.

---

Agreed upon and circulated by whom?

Zobel said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The activity of people within the church isn't the same as the corporate activity of the church. The principle is laid out by St Paul well. The individuals make up the body, but the body is Christ's with Christ at the head. The body is animated and made alive by the Spirit of Christ. If the church has error, it is Christ who errs.

---

Are you talking about the church as we know it today and the one you are involved with today? Or the concept of the church? The church you belong to today is without error?

How do I not deduce from this that if individuals make up the church (I agree) that they are also not in error if the church is not in error (do not agree).

---

If you personally tell a lie, did the church lie?

---

Sounds like it.

AGC said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Apostolic succession is often cited on this forum as a panacea/magic wand as to being guided by the Holy Spirit. I find the theology and historicity of this claim to be lacking. In fact, a lot of it comes down to folks I think with a pride (I think Paul had some words about this) as to their Biblical studies/theology/opinions, not in fact anything approaching doctrine, dogma, or pick a term.

I believe there are smart people who hire/covenant with dumb/wrong people in all aspects of life over time; politics, business, family, you name it. I am and will remain dubious about claims as to divine succession leading to a given church (however one wishes to define it) being necessarily/by definition consistent with God's word without considering the actions/people/correctness (orthodoxy) of the organization at a given point in time.

People can dance around/assert various dogma's like 'papal infallibility' all they want, it's just not…something I believe.

---

Right but the question is the same. On what basis are you an authority to evaluate what is and isn't lacking? What makes you different from all these other Christians, including the ones who compiled the Bible used today?

We can talk about how early most of it was read in churches, but who made the decision to read it? Who compiled it? Certainly not Paul or Jesus. References or not, as a complete work it exists as a product of the very church you question. You can't point to the single person who put it together. You also haven't begun to tell us anything about why you trust the person or people that translated what you read, since you can't read the source.

So question authority, but recognize that you undermine your own position by doing so.

---

Again, just please kindly stop putting arguments in my username which are simply not my own, especially for purposes of this discussion.

• I am not different from 'all these other Christians' in being fallible/sinful.
• I am not disputing the composition of the New Testament/Bible overall (I have some issues with the ending of Mark etc. like many).
• I am not disputing, nor asserting the 5 sola's, including sola scriptura.
• I am not convinced having a Bishop (or See) of a congregation who can trace a flowchart back to the second (or third or later) century makes that church/worship/doctrine necessarily 'right' vs. others.

To your final point, questioning authority may seem culturally a 'reformed' or Protestant tradition, but reliance and faith in (human) authority is also a RCC/EO one. Inevitably, this leads to this sort of 'bad faith' argumentation, imho, when ecumenical respect and understanding is more helpful.

The truth is I am very disheartened, just fyi, as to the ordination process/masters of divinity education a great many pastors in the US receive today. It has significantly degraded over the past 50+ years. I don't think however that means Protestantism or various churches are just 'wrong' by virtue of the manifestation of this institutional decay, any more than I think Roman Catholicism is doomed just because I consider Pope Francis a Marxist fraud, or the pederasty scandals an utter disgrace.

The real 'Catholic' or universal church I believe is a remnant, period.

I mean the answer is no, because you are not the church. The church is not comprised of you as a person.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

So again, my takeaway is that the new testament was largely agreed upon and circulated widely.

---

Agreed upon and circulated by whom?

---

Those whom took the torches from the apostles and started churches, etc.

The early church started with apostles and then bishops whom were essentially local pastors to those cities or small communities. Mostly urban areas. They used "scripture" or the writings we know today and those writings most commonly used and accepted eventually were canonized. No?

When did it morph into this quasi-government(ish) behemoth that it is today?

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Zobel said:

---

How do you distinguish between inspired scripture and spurious texts?

---

What spurious texts?

---

While I wouldn't classify it as spurious, First Clement is a really good examples of things that didn't make the cut. Read aloud in churches. Included in several local bibles. Written in 70 AD, or at least before many of the books that are included. Written by a direct disciple of an apostle. Fits all the criteria, but was left out for whatever reasons it was left out.

The didache was the same way.

---

I see what you're getting at. The books in the Bible were letters, etc. that were widely circulated and acknowledged as Scripture early on. I assume First Clement wasn't like that.

I don't distinguish them because it's always been that way. There was no council (maybe Trent in the 1500s?) that made a list and identified those that shouldn't "make the cut."

I don't think you understand the argument of the church and apostolic succession but I'll save that for another time and place.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

So again, my takeaway is that the new testament was largely agreed upon and circulated widely.

---

Agreed upon and circulated by whom?

---

Those whom took the torches from the apostles and started churches, etc.

The early church started with apostles and then bishops whom were essentially local pastors to those cities or small communities. Mostly urban areas. They used "scripture" or the writings we know today and those writings most commonly used and accepted eventually were canonized. No?

When did it morph into this quasi-government(ish) behemoth that it is today?

---

You're letting the RCC guide your understanding of the church. Anglicans functionally are quite similar to the early church, as are the EO.

I admittedly don't probably know all the ins and outs of each group. I assume they all have some sort of man made structure that was bigger and never established by the earliest church or scripture. Maybe I am wrong?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I admittedly don't probably know all the ins and outs of each group. I assume they all have some sort of man made structure that was bigger and never established by the earliest church or scripture. Maybe I am wrong?

---

Acts 8:1 And Saul approved of his execution. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.

What is this phrase referring to? One congregation or multiple?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I admittedly don't probably know all the ins and outs of each group. I assume they all have some sort of man made structure that was bigger and never established by the earliest church or scripture. Maybe I am wrong?

---

Three-fold office of deacon, priest, and bishops. Bishops preside over multiple priests. Yes, there is a structure above that to govern overall church matters but nothing like the RCC churning out cannon law, dogmas, etc. It exists to admit new churches, administer business (funding missions, aid, etc.), consecrate new bishops, and handle discipline (for instance rogue bishops). It may make statements on doctrinal issues of the day as well, but it's not nearly as pervasive. Mainlines are closer as some control real estate, joint retirements, and other items as they didn't see their churches being split by women's ordination and that of gays.

Zobel said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm not sure I understand what the fall of a political government has to do with the church. Constantinople fell to Islam, so the church is fallible? That does not follow.

The activity of people within the church isn't the same as the corporate activity of the church. The principle is laid out by St Paul well. The individuals make up the body, but the body is Christ's with Christ at the head. The body is animated and made alive by the Spirit of Christ. If the church has error, it is Christ who errs.

---

So thinking back through the history of the church if we were to pick out the most awful things, the church is a whole has done one example perhaps being the Crusades, were those performed in error and was it not the whole of the church and all of its clergy leading this or do I have this all wrong and if I don't, are you suggesting that was Christ erring?

---

The church as a whole did not do the crusades.

---

I think my point is that when the leadership of the church enacts a prudential judgements (the point The Banned made) and that these can be in error, this is where some have a hard time separating that judgment from a potential error in teaching since the teachings are coming through the leadership of the same church that claims to be infallible.

I am not necessarily arguing that the church is fallible. What I'm saying is it's not hard to see why people who do not believe the doctrine that the church, or the totality of the bishops, or the Pope when speaking ex-cathedra is infallible on teachings and matter of faith and morals, pause here when the decision of all the same bishops, church, Pope issue judgments that can and have been in error.


Sorry for all the edits. I was attempting talk to text.

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I admittedly don't probably know all the ins and outs of each group. I assume they all have some sort of man made structure that was bigger and never established by the earliest church or scripture. Maybe I am wrong?

---

Three-fold office of deacon, priest, and bishops. Bishops preside over multiple priests. Yes, there is a structure above that to govern overall church matters but nothing like the RCC churning out cannon law, dogmas, etc. It exists to admit new churches, administer business (funding missions, aid, etc.), consecrate new bishops, and handle discipline (for instance rogue bishops). It may make statements on doctrinal issues of the day as well, but it's not nearly as pervasive. Mainlines are closer as some control real estate, joint retirements, and other items as they didn't see their churches being split by women's ordination and that of gays.

---

Thanks for the detail.

My main interest is the idea that letting things get too big often leads to power that is at stake, and when power is at stake, man's evil actions will surely follow.

I can think of one example in which there were certain founders of a certain country who intended a very limited central government but over the years it grew and grew into a completely unrecognizable conglomerate. A complete *******ization of the original intent. I don't want to assume parallels because I don't know enough, but that is where my head is going.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

So again, my takeaway is that the new testament was largely agreed upon and circulated widely.

---

Agreed upon and circulated by whom?

---

Those whom took the torches from the apostles and started churches, etc.

The early church started with apostles and then bishops whom were essentially local pastors to those cities or small communities. Mostly urban areas. They used "scripture" or the writings we know today and those writings most commonly used and accepted eventually were canonized. No?

When did it morph into this quasi-government(ish) behemoth that it is today?

---

It didn't morph into a behemoth. It grew. Millions upon millions and now billions of people align with the Catholic Church. There are going to be disagreements. There are going to be questions. There are going to be challenges. How else do you handle all of that without church governance.

Every denomination does this. Every single large-ish denomination has a conference that they attend and agree to. The Catholics just happen to be much, much bigger. If we blew the SBC up to 1.3 billion members, I think you'd see quite the corporate structure come into play. It's how humans operate.

ETA: obviously all humans are going to fail and are susceptible to corruption. This is why we believe the church is protected in TEACHING and not necessarily from sinful people taking advantage of their particular position. Think of the Borgia popes. Terrible guys. Terrible faith leaders… also tended not to teach much, if at all. So while the crappy leaders were around, they didn't steer the church to teaching falsely. That's what we would say is protected by the Holy Spirit

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

So again, my takeaway is that the new testament was largely agreed upon and circulated widely.

---

Agreed upon and circulated by whom?

---

Those whom took the torches from the apostles and started churches, etc.

The early church started with apostles and then bishops whom were essentially local pastors to those cities or small communities. Mostly urban areas. They used "scripture" or the writings we know today and those writings most commonly used and accepted eventually were canonized. No?

When did it morph into this quasi-government(ish) behemoth that it is today?

---

It didn't morph into a behemoth. It grew. Millions upon millions and now billions of people align with the Catholic Church. There are going to be disagreements. There are going to be questions. There are going to be challenges. How else do you handle all of that without church governance.

Every denomination does this. Every single large-ish denomination has a conference that they attend and agree to. The Catholics just happen to be much, much bigger. If we blew the SBC up to 1.3 billion members, I think you'd see quite the corporate structure come into play. It's how humans operate.

---

Councils?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Zobel said:

---

How do you distinguish between inspired scripture and spurious texts?

---

What spurious texts?

---

While I wouldn't classify it as spurious, First Clement is a really good examples of things that didn't make the cut. Read aloud in churches. Included in several local bibles. Written in 70 AD, or at least before many of the books that are included. Written by a direct disciple of an apostle. Fits all the criteria, but was left out for whatever reasons it was left out.

The didache was the same way.

---

I see what you're getting at. The books in the Bible were letters, etc. that were widely circulated and acknowledged as Scripture early on. I assume First Clement wasn't like that.

I don't distinguish them because it's always been that way. There was no council (maybe Trent in the 1500s?) that made a list and identified those that shouldn't "make the cut."

---

Clement was circulated and read. It was chosen not to stay in along with multiple others.

Two local councils went on in the 300s and they decided on their particular canons. One of the councils was in Rome. After that, everyone else's canons naturally fell in line. So the councils don't appear to have a dictate, but in effect they did because the other areas followed their suit. Trent only officially declared it because of the challenges to the canon from the reformers. Like I said to someone else earlier in the thread, this is how official church teaching operates. If there is no challenge presented, no formal declaration is needed.

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

So again, my takeaway is that the new testament was largely agreed upon and circulated widely.

---

Agreed upon and circulated by whom?

---

Those whom took the torches from the apostles and started churches, etc.

The early church started with apostles and then bishops whom were essentially local pastors to those cities or small communities. Mostly urban areas. They used "scripture" or the writings we know today and those writings most commonly used and accepted eventually were canonized. No?

When did it morph into this quasi-government(ish) behemoth that it is today?

---

It didn't morph into a behemoth. It grew. Millions upon millions and now billions of people align with the Catholic Church. There are going to be disagreements. There are going to be questions. There are going to be challenges. How else do you handle all of that without church governance.

Every denomination does this. Every single large-ish denomination has a conference that they attend and agree to. The Catholics just happen to be much, much bigger. If we blew the SBC up to 1.3 billion members, I think you'd see quite the corporate structure come into play. It's how humans operate.

---

Councils?

---

You're picking up what I'm putting down

It was always a quasi-governmental structure. Exactly as Israel was before it - because it is a continuation.

But you missed the point. We can't just say well it was accepted and agreed upon and not realize it was accepted and agreed upon by the church. They also did not accept some writings, and by extension the teachings from those writings. That's all tradition is… the life of the church as expressed in its teaching and practice which includes the scriptures we use.

One. The scriptures are always one church singular for each city. There was in the NT and even into the second century one church (meeting) per city, which centered on the bishop of that city. Priests did not begin offering the Eucharist apart from the bishop (with his blessing) for centuries after.

I agree with you. But the church is not the bishops either, or one bishop in one city even if it is Rome. This is why the EO and the RCC aren't in communion.

Zobel said:

---

One. The scriptures are always one church singular for each city. There was in the NT and even into the second century one church (meeting) per city, which centered on the bishop of that city. Priests did not begin offering the Eucharist apart from the bishop (with his blessing) for centuries after.

---

Where did they meet? The church in Jerusalem had minimum 8000 members within weeks of Pentecost.

Corinth apparently was very large too and had multiple leaders.

So, to expound on the OP question, and in light of Jesus prayer in John 17:20-23, what are reaching your thoughts on the idea that Christian's of ALL rites should prioritize unity? It seems to me as I said before that there is an opportunity here, if not a responsibility for the church to work harder to this end. By "church" I'll go with CCC 751 (pic added).

And to more one claims, "The One True Church", perhaps the greater this responsibility. Perhaps that means finding a way to move to a more common ground.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I am not anti tradition as it has obviously been very beneficial to the cause of Christ and his church. Even in my early reading and study as I have alluded to, I find the richness in some of what was happening. Furthermore, I do think there is an omission from the Protestant side, in general, when it comes to early tradition. However, as I am coming to read there was possibly a mischaracterization of how the reformers viewed the early church as well.

I think really what I was getting at, was that it didn't take long to get off course after a while. So I am not concerned with the Bible and acknowledge the human hands involved in that preservation. Most of the NT was circulating by 100AD, as I understand it, with many copies to boot. My concern is that it seems like there was a general simplicity in how the church operated in its infancy, and that is not what we have today. So the question is, for two millennia has the church just nailed it - truly captured the essence of Christ and his bride of what it was always meant to be? History tells me that's incredibly unlikely as we ***** after other things.

One analogy is a naval one - you get off course by a degree early on, and after traveling a thousand miles, you're not even close to your intended target.

---

I know several prominent Protestants (such as Wes huff, James white, etc) promulgate this idea too, but it sort of just skips over the question.

Let's grants that most (not all) of the books were in wide circulation by 100 AD. There were also several in wide circulation that were later excluded. Some books even read as a part of liturgy? Why not those? Why the others? Who decided on the criteria by which to judge the books? Who made the call to spread the letters in the first place? does the Bible define what belongs in the Bible? Does the Bible declare itself inerrant? Does the Bible claim itself infallible?

All those questions are rhetorical questions that lead to the crux of it all; If the early church got off course on things like the Eucharist, ecclesiology, praying to saints, etc, so fast, why can we be confident they were right about the Bible? To say "all of them were reading it" doesn't work unless you're willing to grant all the other things "all of them were doing".

It becomes a blind faith issue based on tradition no matter what we do. If the people that learned directly from the apostles got it wrong so fast, I see it as near impossible that some guys 1500 years later figured it out.

---

The question that I ask is "why would God work through the Church to sift the wheat from the dross, painstakingly recognizing which writings were inspired, and which were not; only to then let people come to an infinite number of interpretations of a highly allegorical and symbolic collection of text, without guidance.

Is Papal infallibility one of these infallible traditions? What about transubstantiation?