The true nature of the original church

[mikepec]

Many modern day groups claim they want to "return " to the teaching of the original church.

It would surprise many of them to know what the real church was and what it taught. Because their groups are nothing like it!
As someone who meandered his way from protestantism and evangelical back to catholicism, reading what many of them thought along the way, I know what many groups do think!

The problem with scripture is it was never written as a manual of faith and on some issues it can be ambiguous or fail to state in a clear way. Take infant baptism. There is only one true faith, you either have it or you do not.

So how can we know what was true?
The answer is there is most certainly a historic record. The first discipes of apostles, the so called antinicene fathers, wrote abundant works.

Whilst it is true, that the works of the fathers are not inspired in the scriptural sense, they were fallible men. But when all the early fathers describe exactly the same and none dissent you can be certain it is a historical record of what the church did and taught!.
These people were taught by the apostles or by those taught by the apostles. And as St Paul tells us in scripture only those "sent" can preach. And as paul says "stay true" to what we taught you by word of mouth and letter"

What they describe is clear on many critical issues. None are dissenting.

Take being born again referrring to water baptism.
Take baptismal regeneration.
All agree - None of the fathers disagree on it.
So that is what the apostles taught their disciples.


So what matters about a religion anyway?.

First how do you enter. Be born again. Answer - by baptism with infant baptism clearly performed..

How is it organised. Answer bishops were appointed in succession from the first and have authority. From the disciples of john onwards. Igatius, polycarp, iraneus. All state it unequivocally . Iraneus knew the entire succession of all bishops to his time.They are the physical church. It is not just an invisible union.

How does it decide doctrine? The answer is take it to the church . Those bishops decided what was scripture. The books themselves fail to tell us which are scripture and which are not. Who authored them even. Even Jerome the later translater deferred to the church on what was scripture. You cannot decide it for yourself.

How does ir resolve disputes. Answer disputes are resolved by the agreement of bishops in succession. Which is why the church is the pillar of truth. They have the power to bind and loose.
So when they met to consider the circumcision it was not just original apostles, but included others appointed, who state It seemed "right to us and to the holy spirit". That is the magisterium working.

Finally what are the doctrines?
To a man they speak of the eucharist NOT being just a symbol. It IS the real flesh of jesus - ask ignatius, iraneus, justin martyr etc.
So they may not be inspired, and indidvidually they may go off the rails. But if they all agree on it, then that is clearly what Paul meant when he said profaning the eucharist is dangerous. That is because it IS the flesh of Jesus.

Sacred tradition carries the meaning of scripture. It is not unwritten ,and it is clear what was taught!
When one father says it, it is clearly questionable. When they all record the same, it is clearly the faith handed down to them and by them.
Which is the other issue. Valid teaching comes from the succession. Only those SENT can preach.

So you cannot like Luther try to redefine scripture. The early fathers decided what was scripture with the power to bind and loose.
Maccabees is in, whether or not Luther does not like the fact of prayers for the dead. Luther tried to redefine scripture in his image not Gods, and had no power to do so.

Which brings us to another issue.

Those who wrongly like to claim that the church did not decide what was scripture like Calvin who believed that what was true scripture is obvious and brings a tingle when you read it, or whatever, might like to realise that they are pronouncing exactly the same as the mormon church and even JWs! In reality scripture was chosen by the church with the powers given to them. You can read the story in the fathers.

You cannot invent other meanings for scripture which are not opposed by scripture.
Sccession , The eucharist of the real flesh, and infant baptism are clearly part of the true faith

It is not just writings of the church that also show what the early church was.
Long before there was a nicence creed, or even a defined new testament.

We see in the catacombs (around year 200) a tomb carries the inscription Here lies justin "peter and paul pray for him"
So that tells us that invoking saints and the efficacy of prayers for the dead (so therefore a place of purgation) are real.
That is what the church said and did and believed!

And protestants cannot change what was clearly the faith handed down from the first . (ie tradition)

Those who want to oppose the early church doctrines have a low view of Jesus. They must believe that he had no power to keep his church on track.

I often hear "are but we agree on essentials" by protestants. No they dont. THey disagrere on all matters of substance.
There is only one true faith, you either have it or you do not.

You will find it in the early fathers.

 

[Grace ambassador]

op: true nature of original church?
Or:

The True natures Of Two Different assemblies of God?:

I have decided to follow Jesus?​

Amen.

 

[mikepec]

op: true nature of original church?
Or:

The True natures Of Two Different assemblies of God?:

I have decided to follow Jesus?​

Amen.

The early church was indeed organised. It was also the mechanism that resolved disputes on doctrine.

So unless you are part of a church presided by a bishop in succession, you are not following the early church that Christ set up.

And unless you have a true eucharist of the real flesh in each liturgical worship, presided by a bishop in succession you are not worshipping the way the early christians did! We know that from those apostle John taught, and what he taught John 6 meant.

And since faith is a gift,was it not Jesus who decided to follow you and allow you in? He chose you!

 

[dwight92070]

Many modern day groups claim they want to "return " to the teaching of the original church.

It would surprise many of them to know what the real church was and what it taught. Because their groups are nothing like it!
As someone who meandered his way from protestantism and evangelical back to catholicism, reading what many of them thought along the way, I know what many groups do think!

The problem with scripture is it was never written as a manual of faith and on some issues it can be ambiguous or fail to state in a clear way. Take infant baptism. There is only one true faith, you either have it or you do not.

So how can we know what was true?
The answer is there is most certainly a historic record. The first discipes of apostles, the so called antinicene fathers, wrote abundant works.

Whilst it is true, that the works of the fathers are not inspired in the scriptural sense, they were fallible men. But when all the early fathers describe exactly the same and none dissent you can be certain it is a historical record of what the church did and taught!.
These people were taught by the apostles or by those taught by the apostles. And as St Paul tells us in scripture only those "sent" can preach. And as paul says "stay true" to what we taught you by word of mouth and letter"

What they describe is clear on many critical issues. None are dissenting.

Take being born again referrring to water baptism.
Take baptismal regeneration.
All agree - None of the fathers disagree on it.
So that is what the apostles taught their disciples.


So what matters about a religion anyway?.

First how do you enter. Be born again. Answer - by baptism with infant baptism clearly performed..

How is it organised. Answer bishops were appointed in succession from the first and have authority. From the disciples of john onwards. Igatius, polycarp, iraneus. All state it unequivocally . Iraneus knew the entire succession of all bishops to his time.They are the physical church. It is not just an invisible union.

How does it decide doctrine? The answer is take it to the church . Those bishops decided what was scripture. The books themselves fail to tell us which are scripture and which are not. Who authored them even. Even Jerome the later translater deferred to the church on what was scripture. You cannot decide it for yourself.

How does ir resolve disputes. Answer disputes are resolved by the agreement of bishops in succession. Which is why the church is the pillar of truth. They have the power to bind and loose.
So when they met to consider the circumcision it was not just original apostles, but included others appointed, who state It seemed "right to us and to the holy spirit". That is the magisterium working.

Finally what are the doctrines?
To a man they speak of the eucharist NOT being just a symbol. It IS the real flesh of jesus - ask ignatius, iraneus, justin martyr etc.
So they may not be inspired, and indidvidually they may go off the rails. But if they all agree on it, then that is clearly what Paul meant when he said profaning the eucharist is dangerous. That is because it IS the flesh of Jesus.

Sacred tradition carries the meaning of scripture. It is not unwritten ,and it is clear what was taught!
When one father says it, it is clearly questionable. When they all record the same, it is clearly the faith handed down to them and by them.
Which is the other issue. Valid teaching comes from the succession. Only those SENT can preach.

So you cannot like Luther try to redefine scripture. The early fathers decided what was scripture with the power to bind and loose.
Maccabees is in, whether or not Luther does not like the fact of prayers for the dead. Luther tried to redefine scripture in his image not Gods, and had no power to do so.

Which brings us to another issue.

Those who wrongly like to claim that the church did not decide what was scripture like Calvin who believed that what was true scripture is obvious and brings a tingle when you read it, or whatever, might like to realise that they are pronouncing exactly the same as the mormon church and even JWs! In reality scripture was chosen by the church with the powers given to them. You can read the story in the fathers.

You cannot invent other meanings for scripture which are not opposed by scripture.
Sccession , The eucharist of the real flesh, and infant baptism are clearly part of the true faith

It is not just writings of the church that also show what the early church was.
Long before there was a nicence creed, or even a defined new testament.

We see in the catacombs (around year 200) a tomb carries the inscription Here lies justin "peter and paul pray for him"
So that tells us that invoking saints and the efficacy of prayers for the dead (so therefore a place of purgation) are real.
That is what the church said and did and believed!

And protestants cannot change what was clearly the faith handed down from the first . (ie tradition)

Those who want to oppose the early church doctrines have a low view of Jesus. They must believe that he had no power to keep his church on track.

I often hear "are but we agree on essentials" by protestants. No they dont. THey disagrere on all matters of substance.
There is only one true faith, you either have it or you do not.

You will find it in the early fathers.

The problem with Catholicism is manifold.

You said, "The problem with scripture is it was never written as a manual of faith and on some issues it can be ambiguous or fail to state in a clear way. Take infant baptism. There is only one true faith, you either have it or you do not."

The problem with your statements is that they contradict the scripture itself:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16

Common sense itself tells us that infant baptism is not a true baptism. An infant cannot repent and believe in the gospel, so it is a fraudulent practice. No infant was ever baptized in the Bible, which confirms it is false. No apostle or person who is in the body of Christ ever baptized an infant.

You said, "But when all the early fathers describe exactly the same and none dissent you can be certain it is a historical record of what the church did and taught!."

You have got to be kidding. There was great dissent among the early fathers about many issues. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that they all agreed on everything. So what, that STILL would not make their agreed upon opinion the truth. Only what was written in the canon of scripture is the truth.

You said, "Take being born again referrring to water baptism.
Take baptismal regeneration.
All agree - None of the fathers disagree on it.
So that is what the apostles taught their disciples."

You're living in the fantasy world of Catholicism. Here we have another false statement, that is not supported by Scripture.

You said, "So what matters about a religion anyway?.

First how do you enter. Be born again. Answer - by baptism with infant baptism clearly performed.."

False.

You said, "How is it organised. Answer bishops were appointed in succession from the first and have authority. From the disciples of john onwards. Igatius, polycarp, iraneus. All state it unequivocally . Iraneus knew the entire succession of all bishops to his time.They are the physical church. It is not just an invisible union.

Totally made up, no scriptural affirmation whatsover.

You said, "Finally what are the doctrines?
To a man they speak of the eucharist NOT being just a symbol. It IS the real flesh of jesus - ask ignatius, iraneus, justin martyr etc.
So they may not be inspired, and indidvidually they may go off the rails. But if they all agree on it, then that is clearly what Paul meant when he said profaning the eucharist is dangerous. That is because it IS the flesh of Jesus.

Sacred tradition carries the meaning of scripture. It is not unwritten ,and it is clear what was taught!
When one father says it, it is clearly questionable. When they all record the same, it is clearly the faith handed down to them and by them.
Which is the other issue. Valid teaching comes from the succession. Only those SENT can preach".

False and false again.

You said, "Maccabees is in, whether or not Luther does not like the fact of prayers for the dead. Luther tried to redefine scripture in his image not Gods, and had no power to do so.

False again.

Your whole post is filled with falsehood and antiBiblical statements, which is why Catholicism itself is an antiBiblical church.

 

[sethproton]

The problem with Catholicism is manifold.

You said, "The problem with scripture is it was never written as a manual of faith and on some issues it can be ambiguous or fail to state in a clear way. Take infant baptism. There is only one true faith, you either have it or you do not."

The problem with your statements is that they contradict the scripture itself:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16

Common sense itself tells us that infant baptism is not a true baptism. An infant cannot repent and believe in the gospel, so it is a fraudulent practice. No infant was ever baptized in the Bible, which confirms it is false. No apostle or person who is in the body of Christ ever baptized an infant.

You said, "But when all the early fathers describe exactly the same and none dissent you can be certain it is a historical record of what the church did and taught!."

You have got to be kidding. There was great dissent among the early fathers about many issues. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that they all agreed on everything. So what, that STILL would not make their agreed upon opinion the truth. Only what was written in the canon of scripture is the truth.

You said, "Take being born again referrring to water baptism.
Take baptismal regeneration.
All agree - None of the fathers disagree on it.
So that is what the apostles taught their disciples."

You're living in the fantasy world of Catholicism. Here we have another false statement, that is not supported by Scripture.

You said, "So what matters about a religion anyway?.

First how do you enter. Be born again. Answer - by baptism with infant baptism clearly performed.."

False.

You said, "How is it organised. Answer bishops were appointed in succession from the first and have authority. From the disciples of john onwards. Igatius, polycarp, iraneus. All state it unequivocally . Iraneus knew the entire succession of all bishops to his time.They are the physical church. It is not just an invisible union.

Totally made up, no scriptural affirmation whatsover.

You said, "Finally what are the doctrines?
To a man they speak of the eucharist NOT being just a symbol. It IS the real flesh of jesus - ask ignatius, iraneus, justin martyr etc.
So they may not be inspired, and indidvidually they may go off the rails. But if they all agree on it, then that is clearly what Paul meant when he said profaning the eucharist is dangerous. That is because it IS the flesh of Jesus.

Sacred tradition carries the meaning of scripture. It is not unwritten ,and it is clear what was taught!
When one father says it, it is clearly questionable. When they all record the same, it is clearly the faith handed down to them and by them.
Which is the other issue. Valid teaching comes from the succession. Only those SENT can preach".

False and false again.

You said, "Maccabees is in, whether or not Luther does not like the fact of prayers for the dead. Luther tried to redefine scripture in his image not Gods, and had no power to do so.

False again.

Your whole post is filled with falsehood and antiBiblical statements, which is why Catholicism itself is an antiBiblical church.

I agree with you that baptizing an infant is not Biblical. but it always troubles me to hear adamant statements about what the early church did without any scripture to verify: you said they never baptized infants as if you read that in the Word.I agree with your reasoning about why they would not have baptized infants: they cannot repent and receive. Consider how confused and off track the early church was, always needing guidance and correction. So to claim they never did something is overstatement. Again I agree to the idea that the Bible has no record of infant baptism and no teaching specifically.

 

[Frank Russell]

Wow, someone fulfilling Ecclesiastes 6:6 has posted on the internet and is speaking about the original church. I bet they had air conditioning and everything.

 

[mikepec]

I agree with you that baptizing an infant is not Biblical. but it always troubles me to hear adamant statements about what the early church did without any scripture to verify: you said they never baptized infants as if you read that in the Word.I agree with your reasoning about why they would not have baptized infants: they cannot repent and receive. Consider how confused and off track the early church was, always needing guidance and correction. So to claim they never did something is overstatement. Again I agree to the idea that the Bible has no record of infant baptism and no teaching specifically.

The church came first. Those sent to teach by apostles .

They left records dating back to the first centuries, so we know what they taught.

The early church was hierarchical and liturgical - a Eucharist of the real flesh valid only if presided by bishop in succession
That is the meaning of John 6.

If you don’t have that you are not the true church. No Protestant church can be the true church,

Scripture came later and carried specific meabing , the church appointed by Jesus to decide on matters of doctrine with the power to bind and loose determined that meaning. The church even decided what was scripture! You cannot begin to discuss what scripture says till first you decide what scripture is! THE church decide it. The temerity of Luther to even try to change it!

Only the Catholic Church has the true faith deriving from those sent and the power given

The rest of you make it up in your own image not Gods,
It doesn’t matter what YOU think on infant baptism.

the true church practiced it.

You were not sent . Your opinion is irrelevant . But you are part of the fragmented apostate protestant churches, who cannot agree on anything! Whatever you hear preached in a Protestant church you can be sure some other Protestant pastor just down the road is contradicting it. The house divided that cannot stand.

It seems to me all that unites the protestant church is hatred of authority. They all want to have their own version ! the right to be pope, and council Not to listen to the ones that Jesus appointed and sent. Alas the position is taken.

 

[Complete]

Subject Heading:- 'The true nature of the original church'

@mikepec
@Grace ambassador
@dwight92070
@sethproton
@Frank Russell

Hello there,

The Church is made up of those who believe God's word concerning the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord, and are trusting Him to raise them from the dead on that day of His choosing to life everlasting in Christ Jesus. It is not denominated by a building, or a creed, but by Christ Himself, In Whom they live, and move, and have their being. God places each individual believer 'in' Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30-31), He is their building, He is their creed, He is their Head, and they are complete in Him.

All of these arguments regarding the validity of this or that denomination is futile, for they are man made institutions: and all doctrine must be measured by the word of God rightly divided (2 Timothy 2:15).

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[mikepec]

Subject Heading:- 'The true nature of the original church'

@mikepec
@Grace ambassador
@dwight92070
@sethproton
@Frank Russell

Hello there,

The Church is made up of those who believe God's word concerning the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord, and are trusting Him to raise them from the dead on that day of His choosing to life everlasting in Christ Jesus. It is not denominated by a building, or a creed, but by Christ Himself, In Whom they live, and move, and have their being. God places each individual believer 'in' Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30-31), He is their building, He is their creed, He is their Head, and they are complete in Him.

All of these arguments regarding the validity of this or that denomination is futile, for they are man made institutions: and all doctrine must be measured by the word of God rightly divided (2 Timothy 2:15).

In Christ Jesus
Chris

Not according to those taught by apostles.
It had structure even then.

The “foundation of truth” is the “ household of God” to whom you take disputes.
Where those given the power to “ bind and loose” give definitive judgement on disputes on doctrine.
That’s why you can only preach if “ you are sent “ by apostolic succession.
All scripture, look them up.

As those taught by apostle John stated you don’t even have a valid Eucharist without a bishop in succession without which you have “ no life in you” and you will not be “ raised up on the last day” John 6.

The reformation invented a lot of false doctrine.
As all and sundry made up their own meaning.

Proof none of you gave the truth is all of you read the same scriptire then completely disagree on meaning and doctrine on every material issue. Explain that if you think YOU can decide meaning!

You are right denominations don’t have truth. They are post reformation and fragment repeatedly when they can’t agree.
Lutherans don’t even agree with luther.
Calvinists don’t even agree with Calvin!
Neither were “sent “ so both are irrelevant.
Only the Catholic Church has the truth which is not denomination but is the apostolic succession.

 

[Fred]

It doesn’t matter what YOU think on infant baptism.

the true church practiced it.

Not found in Bible.

 

[civic]

Many modern day groups claim they want to "return " to the teaching of the original church.

It would surprise many of them to know what the real church was and what it taught. Because their groups are nothing like it!
As someone who meandered his way from protestantism and evangelical back to catholicism, reading what many of them thought along the way, I know what many groups do think!

The problem with scripture is it was never written as a manual of faith and on some issues it can be ambiguous or fail to state in a clear way. Take infant baptism. There is only one true faith, you either have it or you do not.

So how can we know what was true?
The answer is there is most certainly a historic record. The first discipes of apostles, the so called antinicene fathers, wrote abundant works.

Whilst it is true, that the works of the fathers are not inspired in the scriptural sense, they were fallible men. But when all the early fathers describe exactly the same and none dissent you can be certain it is a historical record of what the church did and taught!.
These people were taught by the apostles or by those taught by the apostles. And as St Paul tells us in scripture only those "sent" can preach. And as paul says "stay true" to what we taught you by word of mouth and letter"

What they describe is clear on many critical issues. None are dissenting.

Take being born again referrring to water baptism.
Take baptismal regeneration.
All agree - None of the fathers disagree on it.
So that is what the apostles taught their disciples.


So what matters about a religion anyway?.

First how do you enter. Be born again. Answer - by baptism with infant baptism clearly performed..

How is it organised. Answer bishops were appointed in succession from the first and have authority. From the disciples of john onwards. Igatius, polycarp, iraneus. All state it unequivocally . Iraneus knew the entire succession of all bishops to his time.They are the physical church. It is not just an invisible union.

How does it decide doctrine? The answer is take it to the church . Those bishops decided what was scripture. The books themselves fail to tell us which are scripture and which are not. Who authored them even. Even Jerome the later translater deferred to the church on what was scripture. You cannot decide it for yourself.

How does ir resolve disputes. Answer disputes are resolved by the agreement of bishops in succession. Which is why the church is the pillar of truth. They have the power to bind and loose.
So when they met to consider the circumcision it was not just original apostles, but included others appointed, who state It seemed "right to us and to the holy spirit". That is the magisterium working.

Finally what are the doctrines?
To a man they speak of the eucharist NOT being just a symbol. It IS the real flesh of jesus - ask ignatius, iraneus, justin martyr etc.
So they may not be inspired, and indidvidually they may go off the rails. But if they all agree on it, then that is clearly what Paul meant when he said profaning the eucharist is dangerous. That is because it IS the flesh of Jesus.

Sacred tradition carries the meaning of scripture. It is not unwritten ,and it is clear what was taught!
When one father says it, it is clearly questionable. When they all record the same, it is clearly the faith handed down to them and by them.
Which is the other issue. Valid teaching comes from the succession. Only those SENT can preach.

So you cannot like Luther try to redefine scripture. The early fathers decided what was scripture with the power to bind and loose.
Maccabees is in, whether or not Luther does not like the fact of prayers for the dead. Luther tried to redefine scripture in his image not Gods, and had no power to do so.

Which brings us to another issue.

Those who wrongly like to claim that the church did not decide what was scripture like Calvin who believed that what was true scripture is obvious and brings a tingle when you read it, or whatever, might like to realise that they are pronouncing exactly the same as the mormon church and even JWs! In reality scripture was chosen by the church with the powers given to them. You can read the story in the fathers.

You cannot invent other meanings for scripture which are not opposed by scripture.
Sccession , The eucharist of the real flesh, and infant baptism are clearly part of the true faith

It is not just writings of the church that also show what the early church was.
Long before there was a nicence creed, or even a defined new testament.

We see in the catacombs (around year 200) a tomb carries the inscription Here lies justin "peter and paul pray for him"
So that tells us that invoking saints and the efficacy of prayers for the dead (so therefore a place of purgation) are real.
That is what the church said and did and believed!

And protestants cannot change what was clearly the faith handed down from the first . (ie tradition)

Those who want to oppose the early church doctrines have a low view of Jesus. They must believe that he had no power to keep his church on track.

I often hear "are but we agree on essentials" by protestants. No they dont. THey disagrere on all matters of substance.
There is only one true faith, you either have it or you do not.

You will find it in the early fathers.

reading this for the first time. the problem I have is the NT church met in homes not in buildings. in the 2-4th centuries they started reverting back to the OT temple model in buildings where there was a single person that took on the role of the " Priest" before the people with alters, pews etc... and the believers became spectators listening to a sermon, message that came from " God".

in the NT they all used their gifts and ministered to one another building up each other in the faith. this stopped happening after the end of the ERA of the Apostles. in the NT its the PRIESTHOOD of all believers. the early church fell away from that biblical model and what we see today in churches is far removed from the NT believers gatherings.

 

[mikepec]

reading this for the first time. the problem I have is the NT church met in homes not in buildings. in the 2-4th centuries they started reverting back to the OT temple model in buildings where there was a single person that took on the role of the " Priest" before the people with alters, pews etc... and the believers became spectators listening to a sermon, message that came from " God".

in the NT they all used their gifts and ministered to one another building up each other in the faith. this stopped happening after the end of the ERA of the Apostles. in the NT its the PRIESTHOOD of all believers. the early church fell away from that biblical model and what we see today in churches is far removed from the NT believers gatherings.

This is where Bible alone is a #fail without context,

First Christian’s met in the temples, were Jewish first, Christian second, till the main temple was destroyed in 69. Jews scattered.

Since Christianity was illegal they met where they could.
Catacombs. Houses. Upper room in Jerusalem!

See letter pliny to Trajan for those who got caught. It wasn’t pleasant. They could not build!
Most of the leaders were executed!! So why the crazy idea of church buildings then?

They met weekly for the Eucharist. After confessing sins so sacrifice may be pure . Didache end first century, but clearly breaking bread was long before that , Paul refers.

Only in mid 3rd century did things ease up enough for church buildings,
but Diocletian took a torch to most of those.

It took till Constantine for buildings to house the church in the open.

Doesnt altar the fact that the church hierarchy existed since the beginning so that ignatius in 110 wrote about the need for a bishop to have a valid Eucharist wherever it was held. Justin martyr mid second century gave an outline liturgy, showing the split still used today - mass of the catechumens, then breaking of bread.

So the hierarchy and weekly meeting came first wherever they coukd get away with it.
What was underground was practiced freely from Constantine on.

In all times of repression the church goes underground :
it had to - catholic mass held by English martyr priests in peoples houses. Just like first century.
It is still underground in hostile countries.
but Eucharist which is the purpose of meeting ( not a sermon!! ) only valid if performed by a priest authorised by bishop, we see from ignatius ,

 

[praise_yeshua]

Not according to those taught by apostles.
It had structure even then.

The “foundation of truth” is the “ household of God” to whom you take disputes.
Where those given the power to “ bind and loose” give definitive judgement on disputes on doctrine.
That’s why you can only preach if “ you are sent “ by apostolic succession.
All scripture, look them up.

As those taught by apostle John stated you don’t even have a valid Eucharist without a bishop in succession without which you have “ no life in you” and you will not be “ raised up on the last day” John 6.

The reformation invented a lot of false doctrine.
As all and sundry made up their own meaning.

Proof none of you gave the truth is all of you read the same scriptire then completely disagree on meaning and doctrine on every material issue. Explain that if you think YOU can decide meaning!

You are right denominations don’t have truth. They are post reformation and fragment repeatedly when they can’t agree.
Lutherans don’t even agree with luther.
Calvinists don’t even agree with Calvin!
Neither were “sent “ so both are irrelevant.
Only the Catholic Church has the truth which is not denomination but is the apostolic succession.

Where is Timothy and Titus?

Who did they choose?

Paul didn't authorize anyone else. If you believe differently, prove it.

 

[mikepec]

Where is Timothy and Titus?

Who did they choose?

Paul didn't authorize anyone else. If you believe differently, prove it.

Don’t have to prove anything.
Sola scriptura is a total fail. It is not even biblical!

 

[praise_yeshua]

Don’t have to prove anything.
Sola scriptura is a total fail. It is not even biblical!

I didn't ask for Scripture. I've argued for years that most everyone is practically Prima Scriptura.

Don't feel obligated to just use Scriptures.

 

[Grace ambassador]

Don't feel obligated to just use Scriptures.

?

Sola scriptura is a total fail. It is not even biblical!

Precious friends, respectfully disagree; I believe we are all here to "kindly and humbly discuss
our differences" and Encourage and Edify all "members Of The Body Of Christ" Who Are
"Transformed By God's Grace!" [In Addition, Beseech those who may be lost, To Be Saved!]
The Only Way, God's Way Is, In Biblical Fact, "Sola Scriptura":

1) Where, Exactly, Does God Himself Place His Pure, Preserved, and Inspired Word?:

"I will worship toward Thy holy temple, and praise Thy Name for thy Lovingkindness​

and for Thy Truth: for Thou Hast Magnified Thy Word Above All Thy Name."​

(Psalm 138:2 AV)​

Loving, obeying And living For God, we all Should Also "do the same" Should we not?:

2) God Again Declares "Sola Scriptura" In His Precious Word Of Truth!:

"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and​

to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think above that​

​

► ► ► ► ► ► ► Which Is Written, ◄ ◄ ◄ ◄ ◄ ◄ ◄​

​

that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. " (1 Corinthians 4:6 AV)​

Thus rather than "being obligated" to use Uninspired writings and traditions [ making
them Equal To (or Higher Than ) God's Word, Above All His Name which causes
being "puffed up", eh? ], let us from This Day Henceforth, let us "Be Obligated" to
Honor God By This, eh?:

"But He answered and Said, It Is Written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but​

By Every Word That Proceedeth out of The Mouth Of God." (Matthew 4:4 AV)​

​

And:

3) So Much More!: Handling The Precious Word Of Life!

Amen.

 

[praise_yeshua]

?

Precious friends, respectfully disagree; I believe we are all here to "kindly and humbly discuss
our differences" and Encourage and Edify all "members Of The Body Of Christ" Who Are
"Transformed By God's Grace!" [In Addition, Beseech those who may be lost, To Be Saved!]
The Only Way, God's Way Is, In Biblical Fact, "Sola Scriptura":

1) Where, Exactly, Does God Himself Place His Pure, Preserved, and Inspired Word?:

"I will worship toward Thy holy temple, and praise Thy Name for thy Lovingkindness​

and for Thy Truth: for Thou Hast Magnified Thy Word Above All Thy Name."​

(Psalm 138:2 AV)​

Loving, obeying And living For God, we all Should Also "do the same" Should we not?:

2) God Again Declares "Sola Scriptura" In His Precious Word Of Truth!:

"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and​

to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think above that​

​

► ► ► ► ► ► ► Which Is Written, ◄ ◄ ◄ ◄ ◄ ◄ ◄​

​

that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. " (1 Corinthians 4:6 AV)​

Thus rather than "being obligated" to use Uninspired writings and traditions [ making
them Equal To (or Higher Than ) God's Word, Above All His Name which causes
being "puffed up", eh? ], let us from This Day Henceforth, let us "Be Obligated" to
Honor God By This, eh?:

"But He answered and Said, It Is Written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but​

By Every Word That Proceedeth out of The Mouth Of God." (Matthew 4:4 AV)​

​

And:

3) So Much More!: Handling The Precious Word Of Life!

Amen.

View attachment 811

He can make an argument relative to oral tradition. I'll listen.

 

[mikepec]

?

Precious friends, respectfully disagree; I believe we are all here to "kindly and humbly discuss
our differences" and Encourage and Edify all "members Of The Body Of Christ" Who Are
"Transformed By God's Grace!" [In Addition, Beseech those who may be lost, To Be Saved!]
The Only Way, God's Way Is, In Biblical Fact, "Sola Scriptura":

1) Where, Exactly, Does God Himself Place His Pure, Preserved, and Inspired Word?:

"I will worship toward Thy holy temple, and praise Thy Name for thy Lovingkindness​

and for Thy Truth: for Thou Hast Magnified Thy Word Above All Thy Name."​

(Psalm 138:2 AV)​

Loving, obeying And living For God, we all Should Also "do the same" Should we not?:

2) God Again Declares "Sola Scriptura" In His Precious Word Of Truth!:

"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and​

to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think above that​

​

► ► ► ► ► ► ► Which Is Written, ◄ ◄ ◄ ◄ ◄ ◄ ◄​

​

that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. " (1 Corinthians 4:6 AV)​

Thus rather than "being obligated" to use Uninspired writings and traditions [ making
them Equal To (or Higher Than ) God's Word, Above All His Name which causes
being "puffed up", eh? ], let us from This Day Henceforth, let us "Be Obligated" to
Honor God By This, eh?:

"But He answered and Said, It Is Written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but​

By Every Word That Proceedeth out of The Mouth Of God." (Matthew 4:4 AV)​

​

And:

3) So Much More!: Handling The Precious Word Of Life!

Amen.

View attachment 811

A badly needed scripture lesson for you,

Catholics are sola dei verbum - only the word of God.

But the word of God was handed verbally, Jesus said “ do this” not” write this “ or “read this”.

It was preached by those “who were sent” , so you are told to “hold true” to what was handed down ( the actual meaning of paradosis -translated as “tradition” ) . Only later was it committed to paper. And only in the fourth century was the table of contents of scripture decided.
Jesus made sure his word would be handed down faithfully by giving the power to “bind and loose “ to only the apostolic succession which means resolve disputes on doctrine. That’s why the “pillar of truth “ is stated in scripture as “ the physical church “ “the household of God”.

So even scripture disagrees with sola scriptura!!! Scripture says THE church is the “pillar of truth.” Not scripture.

The only true descendant of that church is the Catholic Church. The apostolic succession of bishops noted from the beginning. Someone else called it Roman we did not. It is not. Denomination, which refers only to protestant splits,

So you should listen to the “ pillar of truth “ not “ lean on your own understanding”
We rever scripture but we are assured of the true meaning.

All in quotes is SCRIPTURE.

Sola scriptura is a man made apostasy of the reformation and the source of all division -

the demonstrably false belief Protestants have rhat they can determine the meaning of it.

They can’t , and that’s why they all DISAGREE with each other , even on all, the BASICS l and they split and split again, when they can’t agree, so Calvinist’s now disagree with Calvin. Lutherans disagree with Luther who was right about just one thing - the monster he created with his false doctrine of sola scriptura , when he said “ it is the greatest scandal, every milkmaid now has their own doctrine!”. Quoting Luther himself!

Nowhere at all does God say or mean SOLA scriptura indeed he specifically disagrees by identifying the church as the plllare of truth, and to hold true to the word handed down ( ie tradition) which carries the true meaning.
You only have the word of God if you have the true meaning. Not any meaning will do.

So listen ti those who are “ sent” and the “pillar of truth “ and to what they “hand down “ as true meaning “ tradition”