Posted on 05/15/2008 8:29:34 AM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
In the beginning of the church (first ten years) all the believers were Jews. The church began and was established in Jerusalem where Jesus did a good portion of his preaching and was crucified and raised.
The gospel went out from Jerusalem "you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth" Acts 1:8
Luke 24:47-48 that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (see Acts 10:36-37)
It wasn’t until years later that the gospel went to the Gentiles Acts 8:1 “At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.”
It was Saul who was given the commission who bought the gospel to the Gentile regions, even Rome., Paul tells his story to Agrippa Acts 26:19-20 "Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea , and then to the Gentiles."
The "Jerusalem Council" in Acts 15 shows us a number of things- first, Rome was not headquarters of the Church; Jerusalem was the focus (not the head) because the Jewish leadership had to decide on how to act with the Gentiles being saved in great numbers A serious doctrinal disagreement had arisen with the Gentiles beginning to be saved. Paul was present because he was the main apostle sent out to the gentiles with Barnabas. Then the Apostles and Elders met to consider the matter (15:6). If Peter had any special authority above all the other apostles, he would have called the Council together, officiated at the meeting, and given his final judgment in these matters by himself, but he did not. There was no Pope over the church then. James, who was the pastor of the Jerusalem church stood up and became the central figure in this council, and his appeal was in agreement with the other elders, it was to the Word of God and the Spirit (Acts 15:13-21) not to the church itself.
It was not until the early 300’s the church stopped hiding underground from persecution and became a legal entity that the power was shifted to pagan Rome, specifically under Constantine the conqueror. The Pope became like the Caesars before him in Rome, only now with a Christian veneer. First there was little influence, but the doors slowly swung open to allow the pagans to enter the church through water baptism instead of a confession of faith. The church mixed other teachings not found in the Bible and polluted itself to becoming religious and giving meaning to the outward rituals not understanding their spiritual intent.
Glad to see an open discussion.
No names.
It is a good question. I’ll have to do some research to see if I agree or not, because I don’t know at this moment. I am looking forward to the other posts.
“As an “open” discussion, let’s see if we can discuss this without calling one another nasty names.”
AMEN
What can be learned from the Jerusalem Coucil is that apostolic authority in the Church was exercised in a collegial fashion, not a dictatorial fashion. The Apostles and their episcopal successors functioned as overseers of the whole Church, not as individual overseers of specific regions. In other words, there were bishops, but no dioceses.
“In the beginning of the church (first ten years) all the believers were Jews”
I see no basis for this conclusion. You mean No non-Jews became believers in the first ten years of teachings. I doubt that.
As to main argument it has merit.
The issue is not “Rome,” it is Peter. The Lord appointed Peter the head of the apostles, and the Church (e.g. Matthew 16:18-20; Luke 22:31-32). This is recognized as a fact by the early fathers (e.g. “where Peter is, there is the Church”).
Catholics don’t believe that Peter or his successors (the bishops of Rome) can’t listen to the opinions and advice of others, or at times even rebukes from others; only that the in doctrinal controversy on faith or morals, their definitive judgment ends the matter (’Rome has spoken, the case is closed’).
In terms of Acts, it was Peter who stood up in the midst of the ‘debate’, declared his position and after which the argument fell ‘silent’ (i.e. ended) (Acts 15:7-12). James did suggest a course of action to communicate the resuls of the council.
ping
Since when is baptism not mentioned in the new testament?
Confessions of faith was a start, baptism after repentance was the door that got you into the church.
Since when is baptism not mentioned in the new testament?
Confessions of faith was a start, baptism after repentance was the door that got you into the church.
Almost impossible. Emotions--family ties--cultural heritage--personal pride are involved. You'll get the same reactons I get when I ask Catholics-- even one who is historian-- to simply read the "church fathers" from the second and third centuries: These had no concept of a pope or "church tradition" supplanting and directly contradicting the scriptures. All of that was all added through later centuries through the politicized RCC.
ping. good point about James as first head of the “Christian Church”, not Peter.
you could argue that as the Church expanded giving Bishops oversight over several parishes (dioceses) was a nessecity for Church unity, in order to keep cohesive.
This was in the late 40s AD, though, not in the first decade after the Resurrection
Dioceses were certainly inevitable- particularly as the original congregation in each city grew and underwent ecclesial mitosis. Still, bishops exercised authority over the whole church and not just theri own sees. This is what enabled one bishop to go into another area to correct a heresy.
James did speak last at the debate. Tradition records him as being the first Bishop of the See of Jerusalem. Tradition also puts Peter as the head of the Church at Antioch, which came to supplant Jerusalem as the main Church, which was later supplanted by Rome.
Then you've just shot down the Roman Catholic argument that Peter headed the early Ekklesia. The only time Jerusalem has not been the center of Jewish religious authority has been when Jews were not allowed to enter into it. This is why so important a question as how to handle the influx of Gentiles into the faith was decided at Jerusalem instead of, for example, Antioch, Tarsus, or some other easier-to-reach by ship city, and why Paul was so eager to make his pilgrimage there in 60 CE.
Jerusalem was still standing when Peter was martyred. Ergo, if Jacob (James) led the Jerusalem assembly, he was the de-facto leader of the Ekklesia--insofar as the Ekklesia had a single de-facto leader other than Yeshua, which they really didn't. Issues that involved more than a local body were decided by a Beit Din (House of Judgment, or Council) rather than by any single "bishop."
Shalom.
I agree with you that THE issue is not with geography, but with lordship. The “early fathers” are as fallible as you or I, evidenced by the quote you cited. What sophistry! Where the Lord Jesus is - THERE is the church. Nowhere in Scripture did Christ give any man lordship over the church, rightly interpreted as “the congregation” or “called out ones”.
For a detailed review of the verses you cited, please read this article: http://www.letusreason.org/RC26.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.