Replies

And so we see how, little by little the Early Church Fathers took Christian churches from being a proliferation of little localized extended families, and made them instead into a worldwide hierarchical religious corporation. It is evident too how this first error made it inevitable that more errors would soon follow. This wrong teaching about the very nature of the leadership and government of the church gave Christian leaders, in the form of Priests and Bishops, such authority that whatever else they ended up teaching was accepted virtually automatically as being from the Lord. And this was the Apostasy of the Early Church......and it continues.

So what you're saying is that the Church of Christ within just a few years became corrupt and turned against its founding purpose? And that you have determined that, you have determined its extent, and you have determined the proper uses and doctrines? Are you claiming that Christ was incompetent in forming His Church? Are you further claiming that until Diego came around, all prior Christian beliefs were either corrupt or merely wrong? You must, since you claim that your interpretation of Scripture and therefore Christ's intent, is correct, even though presumably demonstrably different than anyone else's.

By the way, how have you determined all this, as opposed to all the millions of conflicting heresies that exist in the Christian world?

It all comes down to God's promise -- and how you read the Bible. On the one hand, folks of the "The Church was Bamboozled" school, which is large and pluriform, think that the promise of the Holy Spirit to the Church had a sell-by date of around, say 90-something AD. After that, it was chaos ... right up until they came along and discovered the true meaning of the Bible. And the problem here is that we have true meaning 1.0, 1.0b, 1.1, 2.0 and so on, up to and including why it is better to let babies die than to give them a blood transfusion, why we ought not to have musical instruments in church because it just MIGHT irritate God, or why when Paul disparaged homosexual activity he really didn't mean it and how Jesus was born make because, well, God flipped a coin .... (Okay, I made that one up.) What these groups share the one thing they share) is the sense that THEY KNOW what the early Church was and was meant to be.

But their claimed knowledge is fissiparous. The koinonia is shattered as each one claims for himself ALL the gifts of the Spirit, or, at least, those gifts which mean that they don't have to obey anyone else but can discern for themselves what God wants. When they encounter someone with "challenges" which WE would say make plain that they don't have the providential call to discern the Gospel truth through study and prayer, it's a theological and ecclesiological problem for them.

It's a problem for me to meet someone who is a better student and smarter than I am but that's because I'm proud and God is mercifully slapping me upside the haid. It's good for me to follow my pastor, 'cause my gifts are other than his. (If it was a gun-fight or a sheep-shearing, HE should follow me for the same reason.)

I'm trying to say here that by insisting that sharing in the Same Spirit means having ALL the gifts, these people loose the unity which ought to be the one gift we share, and the loss of which between the East and the West is one of the devil's great, albeit temporary, triumphs.

And over here on the other side we have the teaching that God conferred great authority and responsibility on persons notable chiefly for their unworthiness. BUT he also promised that the His spirit would be with the apostles. AND we have the evidence in the Epistles and Acts of an evolving/emergent structure developed (as it seems to me, at least -- YMMV) to administer charity, to guard and promulgate the gospel, and to administer the sacraments. By Acts the gathered council of the Church claims to speak for the Holy Spirit in beginning to understand and articulate what the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord means to the relationship between Jewish and Gentile Christians.

People speak of a family. That's fine, and it's notable that words like paternal, filial, and fraternal are littered throughout episcopal communications. When you're talking about a family with a billion members and lots of disagreements, there's going to need to be some structure, or you're going to end up with lots of families with widely differing understandings of the Gospel.

Further, it seems to me that Paul is clear in Corinthians that while there is ONE Spirit, there are diversities of gifts given by the one Spirit and that not all have the charisms of teaching or discerning what should be taught. When "we" say not everyone has the authority or concomitant gift to teach, "they" say we're being unScriptural (my rules of capitalization are the most Protestant thing about me) and accuse us of denying that they have access to the Spirit. Of course it is no such thing. We, sometimes rejoicing and sometimes in fear and trembling -- and sometimes both, take up the apostolic commission and charisms and git 'er done or try to, not insisting that each of us have every gift, but rather seeking to discern and obey the call given to us, hoping and trusting that God will enable what He commands.

So yes, they are saying the early Church abandoned the leading of the Spirit and it was lost until they came along. It's gonna be a tough sell as far as I'm concerned.

So what you're saying is that the Church of Christ within just a few years became corrupt and turned against its founding purpose?

Let's read what John has to say about this. Remember, John wrote late in the first century and by that time apostasy had become rampant.

[1 John 2:18] Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

[2 John 7] For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

And...[3 John 9-14] I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God. Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true. I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face. Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee. Greet the friends by name.

Can you honestly say, after reading these passages, that with in a few years after Our Saviour's death the Church did not experience corruption? John, himself, would not even put things in writing but wanted to wait to speak "face to face" to Gaius because of fear his words would be publicized. Here we have early bishops evidently excommunicating folks already and would not even let John communicate with him.