Replies

Yes, you’ve nailed it. Our definitions of Church are very different.

The primary diference in this context is the Church is given authority by Christ.

Not the individual member, but the Apostolic Church. We see this in Acts in the first council and following councils and continuously throughout the history of the Church.

A question and illustrative example, when an Calvinist and a non-Calvinist disagree, how do they “take it to the church”?

When you and I disagree about the meaning of scripture, which of our views is “the Christian view”?

And, finally, do you say, credo: in One Holy and Apostolic Church?

If so, what does it mean to you? What did it mean when it was decided in Council?

Yes, I believe the "church" was given authority by Jesus, but the question should be to whom was meant by the church and how long was this authority to remain with them?

In the first century, there were apostles who along with designated disciples started local churches. They ensured that there were leaders who were grounded in the faith. We see that even from the first, there were challenges to the orthodox faith. I believe the Holy Scriptures - the Bible - was given as the authority and from when it was first being written, it gradually substituted for the apostolic authority once the individual apostles died. Their founded churches then proceeded to send out evangelists who, in turn led people to Christ, trained their leaders and established new local churches. So, no, I do not believe as you say that there was this ONE, TRUE, ONLY Church (singular). Rather there were many across the continent, all being established and peopled by genuine, born-again believers in Christ and the Bible became their "rule of the faith". Certainly the early councils had a place while the Scriptures were being written and circulated and their proclamations were circulated throughout the regions as well.

There have been and will continue to be disagreement with certain stances on doctrine, but we have the Bible as our guide and authority on matters critical to the faith. A Calvinist has come to certain conclusions about some things that I differ with, but not all Calvinists believe all the teachings of Calvin on all things and some even go way past what Calvin even dreamed of in some areas (hyper-Calvinism). Regardless, we still agree on the major tenets of the Christian faith and that is what really matters. Certainly you can concede that not everything a Christian can think or believe in the minor areas is in black and white in Scripture and I think as long as we "get" the important stuff right, we will be able to get along just fine. There should be liberty on the nonessential.

Finally, when I have said the Apostles' Creed, I understand that "One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" means the universal body of believers in Christ that ARE one in him and the teachings of the Apostles are still being taught and believed - the Bible is the way we know that.

Yes, I believe the "church" was given authority by Jesus, but the question should be to whom was meant by the church and how long was this authority to remain with them?

In the first century, there were apostles who along with designated disciples started local churches. They ensured that there were leaders who were grounded in the faith. We see that even from the first, there were challenges to the orthodox faith. I believe the Holy Scriptures - the Bible - was given as the authority and from when it was first being written, it gradually substituted for the apostolic authority once the individual apostles died

But that does not pan out in reality. In reality, :

1. while the majority of what we now consider constitutes scripture, there were other texts (valid or not--the 'not' being Gnostic ones in particular) which were held in esteem
2. Even valid scripture was not completely accepted or available everywhere -- between AD 50 to 150 a number of documents began to circulate among the churches. According to Jerome, this included the Gospel of the Hebrews (the Gospel of Matthew that is attested as far away as the Syriac Churches in India). You also had epistles, gospels, acts, apocalypses, homilies, and collections of teachings circulating. While some of these documents were apostolic in origin, others drew upon the tradition they had utilized in their individual missions or were summaries of the teachings.

3. By the end of the 1st century, some letters of Paul were collected and circulated, and were known to Clement of Rome, but still the idea of scripture is the Tanakh. He may refer to "words of Christ" and to epistles, but there is no compendium noted.

4. Even later, Irenaeus in the 1st century cites 21 books excluding Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude

The net effect is that apostolic authority still was utterly necessary until (and necessary after) the Council of Nicea for ensuring that one stayed true to the faith.

I think it was Ignatius or Irenaeus who said that if anyone comes to you with the good news, ask him where he learnt it and where the person he learnt from learnt it and so on to trace back to the Apostles. Only then should you be satisfied with it -- this is nothing but apostolic authority.

****Now very importantly, books were not widely available until the 16th century and still cost a lot even then. The majority of the population including nobility were illiterate because, well, it didn't make sense to waste time learning to read and write when books were not easily available and cost more than a year's earnings for a labourer. Hence apostolic authority was necessary to still ensure that you knew who was telling you things was telling you correctly and wasn't an Arian or Gnostic

Their founded churches then proceeded to send out evangelists who, in turn led people to Christ, trained their leaders and established new local churches. So, no, I do not believe as you say that there was this ONE, TRUE, ONLY Church (singular). Rather there were many across the continent, all being established and peopled by genuine, born-again believers in Christ and the Bible became their "rule of the faith".

Again, this does not pan out in reality as is evidenced in history and in scripture. Let's deal with the scriptural aspects -- note in the Pauline Epistles how Paul sends letters to various missions admonishing them to stay true to the ONE faith. Note also that Paul writes to the Romans where he was not the apostle to spread the faith, so indicating that there was a "Mediterranean continent"-wise communication right through to Persia and India(as an aside, communication across the Mediterranean and right up to India was commonplace in those days, trade between India and Rome was part of normal everyday life such that Roman cuisine was spicier than Middle Ages European cuisine, so "heavy" was the trade of goods and ideas).

This is borne out by the similarities in beliefs, in rituals and in procedures between orthodoxy and the Ethiopians and indians and even to the Church in Mongolia (Naimans, Uighurs etc.).

Secondly, they all believed that they were part of the ONE True Holy Church. That was the essence of their and our belief that we are all connected in the body of Christ.

Thirdly, your statement the Bible became their "rule of the faith" is just not true because:
1. canon had not been defined until the 300s (note my above description of Clement's canon)
2. Because even in later councils we see appeals to apostolic authority to define the Faith.

Their "rule of faith" was that they believed in the Gospel of Christ and followed their bishops who were expected to know -- hence the bishops kept in touch across the churches.

Certainly you can concede that not everything a Christian can think or believe in the minor areas is in black and white in Scripture and I think as long as we "get" the important stuff right, we will be able to get along just fine. There should be liberty on the nonessential. -- personally, I see nothing wrong in your statement. The only difference is that I hold the Nicene Creed to be a true definition of faith. The Apostles Creed is a simpler definition, but by virtue of it's simplicity, one can make Arius-type errors. The Nicene Creed encapsulates the basic, fundamental, no-ifs-or-buts doctrine of Christianity, the basic tenet of faith that is Church dogma.

As you know in our debates with Oneness Pentecostals and Unitarians and Mormons, the Nicene Creed is what separates us from them.