Which Came First: New Testament or the Church?

Journey to Orthodoxy ^ | May 8, 2011 | Fr. James Bernstein

[Bokababe]

.....The guidelines I used in interpreting Scripture seemed simple enough: When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense. I believed that those who were truly faithful and honest in following this principle would achieve Christian unity.

To my surprise, this “common sense” approach led not to increased Christian clarity and unity, but rather to a spiritual free-for-all!

Those who most strongly adhered to believing “only the Bible” tended to become the, most factious, divisive, and combative of Christians-perhaps unintentionally. In fact, it seemed to me that the more one held to the Bible as the only source of spiritual authority, the more factious and sectarian one became. We would even argue heatedly over verses on love! Within my circle of Bible-believing friends, I witnessed a mini-explosion of sects and schismatic movements, each claiming to be “true to the Bible” and each in bitter conflict with the others. Serious conflict arose over every issue imaginable: charismatic gifts, interpretation of prophecy, the proper way to worship, communion, Church government, discipleship, discipline in the Church, morality, accountability, evangelism, social action, the relationship of faith and works, the role of women, and ecumenism. The list is endless. In fact any issue at all could-and often did-cause Christians to part ways.....

[DownInFlames]

The Church came first/. Without Christ, there is no church.

[Siena Dreaming]

I mean, is it a feeling?

More often than people with your point of view would know, it's not feeling but logic.

You can look up the Scriptures which have been cited. Then you will see how people who hold these other views come logically to the conclusions they've reached.

[1010RD]

Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you lose on earth, shall be losed in Heaven.

Clearly a delegation of authority.

[sasportas]

A few excerpts from one of my Bible Handbooks. The caps are mine:

“Original Mission of the Church

The Church was founded, not as an institution of Authority to force the Name and Teaching of Christ upon the world, but onLy as a Witness-Bearing institution to Christ. Christ himself, not the Church, is the Transforming Power in Human Life. But the Church was founded in the Roman Empire, AND GRADUALLY DEVELOPED A FORM OF GOVERNMENT LIKE THE POLITICAL WORLD IN WHICH IT EXISTED, BECOMING A VAST AUTOCRATIC ORGANIZATION RULED FROM THE TOP.

Peter

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION THAT PETER WAS THE FIRST POPE IS FICTION PURE AND SIMPLE. There is no New Testament hint, and no historical evidence whatever, that Peter was at any time bishop of Rome. Nor did he ever claim for himself such Authority as the Popes have claimed for themselves. It seems Peter had a divine foreboding that his “Successors” would be mainly concerned with “Lording it over God’s flock.” (1 Pet. 5:3)

Augustine’s “City of God”

Augustine wrote his monumental work, “The City of God,” in which he envisioned a Universal Christian Empire. This book had vast influence in molding opinion favorably to a Universal Church Heirarchy under One Head. This promoted ROME’S CLAIM FOR LORDSHIP. THUS THE CHURCH WAS CHANGING ITS NATURE, MAKING ITSELF OVER INTO THE IMAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

Imperial Recognition of the Pope’s Claim

Leo I (AD 440-461), called by historians the First Pope...HE PROCLAIMED HIMSELF LORD OF THE WHOLE CHURCH, advocated exclusive Universal Papacy; said that resistance to his authority was a sure way to hell; advocated death penalty for heresy.”

[Jeff Chandler]

people who hold these other views come logically to the conclusions they've reached.

But the private interpreters who hold other views claim to have come to them logically too.

[Jeff Chandler]

A few excerpts from one of my Bible Handbooks.

You can't use Bible Handbooks. Only the Bible itself. Or did I miss something?

[1010RD]

In Acts 14:23 Paul ordains Elders.

[sasportas]

The NT writers lived hundreds of years before Constantine and the Papacy. Hence my Bible handbook, which describes the historical departure from original Biblical Christianity, and eventual evolution into the tyrannical rule of the RCC.

The handbook is not written from the RCC perspective, no wonder you are distressed with it. Shining light into darkness usually has that effect.

[RoadTest]

Yes. “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;” - Ephesians 2:20

Note the “s” at the end of apostles. Note who the chief stone is.

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

[Jeff Chandler]

my Bible handbook

Sorry, you can't use that. anything other than the Bible is adding to Scripture.

[marshmallow]

We're shortly approaching the feast of the Ascension of Our Lord into heaven. In those days, months and years following the Ascension of Jesus, what did the Apostles and early Christian communities do, I wonder? There was no New Testament. Paul himself wrote letters to some of the Christian communities which he had founded and instructed them. However, at the time of their writing, these were simply instructions and exhortations from an apostle of the Lord.

There were no arguments or flame wars about "the Bible sez.........". All the Church had was Tradition; specifically, what the Apostles themselves had been taught by Jesus and what they had handed on to others.

The Church was born on the day of Pentecost. Scripture came later.

[sasportas]

I see, we are supposed to be dumb as a post about the historical period after the apostles and rise of the RCC. I’m sure if you Papists had your way this would be the case. Thank God for Gutenburg, else we would still be Papist dupes.

[Jeff Chandler]

we are supposed to be dumb as a post

Your rules, not mine.

[Salvation]

The Church came first. The new testament was written anywhere from 30 to 100 years later — my estimates.

[Siena Dreaming]

But the private interpreters who hold other views claim to have come to them logically too.

Key word here is "claim".

So because everyone claims to be logical, logic should not be attempted?

Of course everyone "claims" that their views are logical in order to win. Liberals, for example, do it constantly. Do we cede them the field, declaring that logic isn't possible anyway?

Is God not logical? Then we must strive to understand Him using the reasoning facilities he has given us.

There is nothing wrong with reading the Scripture, then attempting to come to logical conclusions about it; yet you denigrate the poster who has done so.

I notice that you don't attempt to use logic to refute his/her observation from the Scripture. You only sneer that he attempts an interpretation.

[Siena Dreaming]

You can't use Bible Handbooks. Only the Bible itself. Or did I miss something?

Yes, you missed a lot. In the use of handbooks we see that people are NOT just lone rangers using only their own private interpretation. They are consulting others' opinions.

Extra-biblical material is fine (and necessary). However, it must line up with the sense of Scripture to have credibility.

[Bokababe]

In those days, months and years following the Ascension of Jesus, what did the Apostles and early Christian communities do, I wonder? There was no New Testament. Paul himself wrote letters to some of the Christian communities which he had founded and instructed them. However, at the time of their writing, these were simply instructions and exhortations from an apostle of the Lord.

There were no arguments or flame wars about "the Bible sez.........". All the Church had was Tradition; specifically, what the Apostles themselves had been taught by Jesus and what they had handed on to others.

The Church was born on the day of Pentecost. Scripture came later.

Yes, and martyrs died for Christ for hundreds years before the New Testament was written and it was decided what was to definitively be in it. Martyrs died for Christ for the first 1500 years before the Bible was even available to the general population, because before that, a handwritten Bible was too expensive for the general population to own or read at leisure. And then we think about how long it was before the general population was even literate and able to read the Bible, even if it was available. Most of the martyrs of this period accept Christ on Faith, not based on nitpicking Scriptural interpretations, personal or otherwise.

This not to diminish the role of Scripture in the Church, but nor should it be elevated beyond its role -- Tradition and Scripture need to go hand in hand.

I think that Scripture alone along with the Gift of the Holy Spirit can bring someone to Christ, as it did for Father Bernstein. But humans were intended for growth, and to truly grow in Christ, you need guidance and you need a community -- in short you need the Church. And if you are looking for teachers and what better place to look for them other than the 2000 years of Christian wisdom available in the Church Fathers, and through the Saints -- many of which really "put their money where their mouth" was, dying for Christ?

[Jeff Chandler]

I notice that you don't attempt to use logic to refute his/her observation from the Scripture.

If two personal Scriptural interpretations differ yet claim to be logical, it is not my responsibility to discern the logic in either one. By the standard of personal Scriptural interpretation, I can come up with my own interpretation as long as I can find the logic in it.

[Bokababe]

A few excerpts from one of my Bible Handbooks

Which, in an of itself, says that one needs more than Scripture alone in order to understand Scriptural context. Why is your context of greater value than those of the Church Fathers, Saints and Martyrs?

A nifty little history you've written there, except that Christ said that He founded a Church that even the Gates of Hell would not prevail against, yet you are basically saying that The Gates of Hell DID prevail against the historical Church. Please tell me when that happened? Before 1040AD or after? Because you seem to completely ignore that the Orthodox Church even existed or exists --only the Roman Catholic Church seems to have historical significance to you. Why?

I am really curious to understand your viewpoint on this. I am not trying to be snarky.

[Sprite518]

That’s easy the Church.

The Epistles section in the New Testaments points this out.

15 Books in all.