Originally posted by MontyF.


( MontyF: I know nothing of that group, just know from the Bible the Sabbath isn't the first day of the week. First century Christians began meeting, breaking bread, setting aside in store, preaching, edifing, ministering to needy souls on the Lord's day, which is the first day of the week. Oh yeah, this started about 33AD. Catholic church started about 300 AD?)



Where did you hear that the Church started in 300AD? Just curious.

Willis

Willis, I see this post and received your PM. I will post an answer to this soon. Did you notice the question mark beside the statement?..... means I was unsure.

monty

This is from a study we recently done on where all the demoninations came from. The portion we'll look at is from the first century to the time of the popes. If there is dispute on this, point it out to me with references. By the same token as for questions, I will try suppling additional scripture or references. Sorry for the long read but worth it.

1. 1st Century AD:
A) Christ's Church foretold by Christ himself. Matt 16:18-19

B) Christ's church est. with the belief, repentance & baptism as "terms of admission". Acts 2: 22-47

C) Christ's church is his body and He only established one. Eph 1:22-23, 4:4-6; Col 1:18, 24; I Cor 12:12-27
He is it's builder. Matt 16:18
He purchased it. Acts 20:28
Jesus is the church's only head and sovereign authority. Matt 28:19-20; Eph 1:22-23, 5:23-32
His church is God's church. I Cor 1:2
God adds the saved upon their hearing, believing, repenting and by faith obeying the gospel. Acts 2:47

D) Christ's church named. I Tim 3:15; Rom 16:16

E) Congregations of Christ's church all taught the same things. I Cor 4:17, 7:17, ect.
Apostles doctrine exclusively taught. Rom 16:17-18; I Cor 14:33-38 ect.

F) False teachers foretold. Acts 20:28-30; Gal 1:6-11; I Thes 2:13, 4:1-8 ect

2. 150 AD: One elder is elevated above the others in a congregation and given the title "Bishop", or "Head Elder". Soon certain Bishops are given authority over several congregations at once.

3. 3rd Century AD: Bishops met in councils to discuss issues and decide doctrinal disputes.

4. 312 AD: Roman Senate acknowledged Constantine as Emperor.

5. 313 AD: Constantine issued the "Edict of Milan" granting "toleration" of Christianity.

6. 325 AD: Bishops convened the first "Worldwide Council" of Bishops in Nicea, under Constantine. A new creed was issued (Nicine Creed) by the council, wherein "THOSE WHO WROTE EXPRESSED THEMSELVES AS DISATISFIED WITH THE SCRIPTURES". From this meeting came a new party with a new name: "Catholic". Constantine was also named "Pontifex Maximus" during this period.

7. 334 AD: Christianity (that is Christianity according to Constantine) became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

8. 337 AD: Constantine baptized.

9. 606 AD: Boniface III named "Universal Bishop" or "POPE".

Thanks Monty!

Yeah, thanks is right! That's going in my Bible.

Monty,

Thank you for your quick response. As a former Evangelical Protestant I was taught the same history with the same aparrant biases. I would like to look at one of these biases by quoting the mostly correct history you gave.


F) False teachers foretold. Acts 20:28-30; Gal 1:6-11; I Thes 2:13, 4:1-8 ect

2. 150 AD: One elder is elevated above the others in a congregation and given the title "Bishop", or "Head Elder". Soon certain Bishops are given authority over several congregations at once.



Given the order of these two paragraphs I think it is safe to assume that you were taught the same thing as I. That the office of Bishop was as a result of false teaching. Did you know that the word Bishop is of purely english origin? It comes from the Middle English word "bisceop" which means overseer.

The title Bishop which you refer under "2." above was actually the Greek word episkopos. In Latin the word is episcopus. These words can be appropriately translated as "bishop".

The question is whether of not there is a biblical basis for the position of episkopos.

If you go to 1Tim 3:1 you will see episkopos translated as overseer in the NIV and bishop in the KJV.

Titus 1:5 refers to the position of elder or presbuteros.

Titus 1:7 refers to the bishop or episkopos.

There is a clear difference between these usages in Titus. Historically the episkopos has been senior to the presbuteros in the Church from the earliest days.

I find it interesting that episkopos was translated as bishop in english bibles until the proliferation of modern protestant translations which sought to minimize the position of episkopos. (Could this be a reflection of a denominational bias?)

The Church hierarchy established by Paul in obedience to Christ is episkopos, followed by presbuteros, followed by diakonos.

Thus the position of Bishop is biblical and not a false teaching.

Willis, I can see this isn't going to be an easy thing to resolve in a few words. I did realize the name Bishop or Elder is used to signify an office of an overseer of the body. I'm also aware of the qualifications needed to hold this position; husband of one wife and having believing children.

However I wasn't aware of a hierachy established by Paul. As I recall Paul refered to himself as an evangelist or preacher and the least of the apostles. I see no indication he appointed the bishops or elders. I do know that he gave instruction to the early churches how they were to select elders. Also Biblically not aware of Bishops given authority on matters pertaining to bodies of believers other than thier "home assembly".

I'm at work now so will have to cut this short, will be back with other questions and comments when time permits.

monty

Willis, I can see this isn't going to be an easy thing to resolve in a few words. I did realize the name Bishop or Elder is used to signify an office of an overseer of the body. I'm also aware of the qualifications needed to hold this position; husband of one wife and having believing children.

However I wasn't aware of a hierachy established by Paul. As I recall Paul refered to himself as an evangelist or preacher and the least of the apostles. I see no indication he appointed the bishops or elders. I do know that he gave instruction to the early churches how they were to select elders. Also Biblically not aware of Bishops given authority on matters pertaining to bodies of believers other than thier "home assembly".

I'm at work now so will have to cut this short, will be back with other questions and comments when time permits.

monty

Monty,

I was merely pointing out that the office of episkopos was and is a biblical concept. No-one made it up. And the only reason I brought this up was the coupling of the false teacher verses with the appearance of Bishops.

Willis

I believe that the office of Bishop, and indeed the papacy began with Christ Jesus initiating them. I won't repeat what Willis posted from the Letters to Timothy and Titus. I believe he hit the nail on the head.

It would appear to me that the 12 apostles were indeed the first Bishops. They were set ahead of the priesthood and the diaconate. There was the need for a method of sucsession as evidenced by the replacement of Judas (Acts 1:15-26)

Further evidence as to the differentiation between priests and bishops appears in Acts 15. Verse 6 mentions both Apostles and presbyters. The entire issue over circumcission was handed over to a meeting in Jerusalem. This I believe is the first Church Council. One will note in reading this chapter that the apostles(bishops) are a seperate office and that Peter is clearly its head.

I also see the Catholic Church as founded by Jesus himself in Matthew 18:16. Jesus at that time founded a church that was intended to carry on. In Matthew 18:15-18 Jesus again references his church.

Therefore I believe that it is safe to say that the Catholic Church, whatever your opinion of it is today, was founded by Christ Jesus before he ascended into heaven, with the office of Bishop clearly defined. I would also opine that the first Council was the Council of Jerusalem and that the first pope was Peter, as appointed by Christ Jesus rather than any future appointees. They were all sucessors to Peter.

THANKS for the discussion! I would have invited myself in but have been too busy at work. Its great to be able to discuss these issues without any suicide bombers appearing.

Pax Christi

Willis, I can see this isn't going to be an easy thing to resolve in a few words. I did realize the name Bishop or Elder is used to signify an office of an overseer of the body. I'm also aware of the qualifications needed to hold this position; husband of one wife and having believing children.

However I wasn't aware of a hierachy established by Paul. As I recall Paul refered to himself as an evangelist or preacher and the least of the apostles. I see no indication he appointed the bishops or elders. I do know that he gave instruction to the early churches how they were to select elders. Also Biblically not aware of Bishops given authority on matters pertaining to bodies of believers other than thier "home assembly".

I'm at work now so will have to cut this short, will be back with other questions and comments when time permits.

monty

Thank you again Monty. The first paragraph of this quote has caused me to reflect on 1Ti 3:1-11.



<DIR>


<DIR>1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.


</DIR>

I don't know of any Ecclesial Community (non-Catholic church) today that holds to this standard. Do you?

We send our youth to seminary to train them and then give them leadership positions in our churches, regardless of marital status. Many cash strapped churches look for new grads as they require a lower salary! If we were all to hold to the above instructions our seminarians would all be middle aged, married, with believing children. I think that if we tried to hold strictly to that standard our seminaries and Bible colleges would be largly empty!

Concerning the husband of one wife restriction, I would like to point to the televangelist, mega-church pastor and author Charles Stanley. He is a Southern Baptist Minister who is divorced and re-married. A strict reading of the one wife standard would require that he hounded out of office.

But, we can look at the situation that Timothy (who was unmarried by the way) and Titus were in. They were sent by Paul to evangelize and found the Church in pagan areas. Places that may have heard rumors of Christ, but had never heard the Gospel.

What standard would these young men use to ordain the newly converted into the required Church offices? Length of time as a Christian? Educational status? Oops! There weren't any seminaries. In fact there wasn't even a New Testament. The only Scripture available in these Greek speeking areas was the Septuagint. These young men taught from the Septuagint and what had been passed down to them by the, still living, Apostles.

What better way to judge the character of a man than to see how he had lived his life! These instructions by Paul were just for that reason. To best select stable, law abiding men to be examples in their leadership in the newly formed churches.

Timothy and Titus were fulfilling the role of Episkopos in establishing these new Christian communities, nurturing them, ordaining their leaders, and ensuring that only the truth was being taught. And don't forget that there were multiple villages in these areas, each ultimately, with their own growing church. Churches that needed leadership and oversight.

Just a few thoughts.

Willis


</DIR>

Willis, Sorry it’s taken me so long to respond. I found much of what you wrote in post #6 is accurate. I agree with the fact bishops are Biblical, no issues there. However the idea of a “Head Elder” or ONE bishop being elevated above the others, I can’t find Biblical reference for. The closest example, which is a real stretch, would be comparing a man to Jesus Christ, who is called “The Bishop” of our souls, 1Peter 2:25.

The spacing won't work right in the outline, please try to read though the problem.

monty</O:p

Bishop = Episkopos = Overseer.
(epi is over, skopeo is to look or watch) whereas the English is bishop which has precisely the same meaning as found in Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; Titus 1:7; 1Peter 2:25, indicating the character of work undertaken. According to Divine will and appointment as in the New Testament, there were to be bishops (note plural) in every local church, Acts 14:23 & 20:17; Phil 1:1; Titus 1:5; James 5:14. Where the singular is used, that passage is describing what a bishop should be. 1Tim 3:2; Titus 1:7.
<O:p</O:p

Elder = Presbuteros, an adjective, the comparative degree of presbus, an old man, an elder is used of:
A) age
B) rank or position of responsibility
1) of gentiles
2) in the Jewish nation
a) the heads of families and tribes
b) those assembled by Solomon
c) the members of the Sanhedrin
3) in the Christian churches, those who, being raised up and qualified by the work of the Holy Spirit, were appointed to have the spiritual care of, and to exercise oversight over the churches. To these the term bishops, episkopoi, or overseers, is applied, these indicating the nature of their work, presbuteroi their maturity of spiritual experience. The Divine arrangement seen though out the New Testament was for a plurality of these to be appointed to each church, Acts 14:23; 20:17; Phil 1:1; 1Tim 5:17; Titus 1:5. The duty of the elder is described by the verb episkopeo. They were appointed according as they had given evidence of fulfilling the Divine qualifications, Titus 1:6-9; 1Tim 3:1-7; and 1Peter 5:2.
4) of the 24 elders enthroned in Heaven
<O:p</O:p

Reference: The Bible and Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words pp B-128&129; E-20&21.

Thanks for that research Monty. I am curious about the timeline you posted, particularly the line about the false teaching. When you were shown this history, what was said in reference to the false teaching discourse? Did your teachers apply it to the Catholic Church as I took it, or was it just an item in the timeline?

Just curious and relieved to have a civil discussion. Thank you for your thoughtful answers.

Willis

<DIR>


I don't know of any Ecclesial Community (non-Catholic church) today that holds to this standard. Do you?



MontyF: I worship with a body that appointed elders with those qualifications.


******************



We send our youth to seminary to train them and then give them leadership positions in our churches, regardless of marital status. Many cash strapped churches look for new grads as they require a lower salary! If we were all to hold to the above instructions our seminarians would all be middle aged, married, with believing children. I think that if we tried to hold strictly to that standard our seminaries and Bible colleges would be largly empty!



MontyF: As i see it, many seminaries teach man's traditions and denominational biases to their students instead of the pure word of God. Unfortunately the goals seem to be numbers and money instead of obedient servants to Christ.



*******************



Concerning the husband of one wife restriction, I would like to point to the televangelist, mega-church pastor and author Charles Stanley. He is a Southern Baptist Minister who is divorced and re-married. A strict reading of the one wife standard would require that he hounded out of office.



MontyF: I've heard Charles Stanley. I don't know the particulars of his divorce and remarriage. Hope for his sake it was scriptural. Keep in mind the qualifications for an evangelist or preacher are different than those of an elder.



*******************




But, we can look at the situation that Timothy (who was unmarried by the way) and Titus were in. They were sent by Paul to evangelize and found the Church in pagan areas. Places that may have heard rumors of Christ, but had never heard the Gospel.



What standard would these young men use to ordain the newly converted into the required Church offices? Length of time as a Christian? Educational status? Oops! There weren't any seminaries. In fact there wasn't even a New Testament. The only Scripture available in these Greek speeking areas was the Septuagint. These young men taught from the Septuagint and what had been passed down to them by the, still living, Apostles.



MontyF: I'd like to point out Timothy and Titus were both true son's of the faith as addressed by Paul. If they didn't meet the qualifications and were elders they would have been disobeying the instruction given to them from the apostle Paul, 1Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1: 5-9.



*******************



What better way to judge the character of a man than to see how he had lived his life! These instructions by Paul were just for that reason. To best select stable, law abiding men to be examples in their leadership in the newly formed churches.



MontyF: I agree all Christians should live a life that brings glory to Christ. What better lifestyle can one live than that which makes God first? Jesus said, "by this will all men know you are my deciples if you have love one for another".



**********************



Timothy and Titus were fulfilling the role of Episkopos in establishing these new Christian communities, nurturing them, ordaining their leaders, and ensuring that only the truth was being taught. And don't forget that there were multiple villages in these areas, each ultimately, with their own growing church. Churches that needed leadership and oversight.



MontyF: see above comment on elders.



*************



Just a few thoughts.



Willis



MontyF: Thanks Willis



monty









</DIR>

Thanks for that research Monty. I am curious about the timeline you posted, particularly the line about the false teaching. When you were shown this history, what was said in reference to the false teaching discourse? Did your teachers apply it to the Catholic Church as I took it, or was it just an item in the timeline?

Just curious and relieved to have a civil discussion. Thank you for your thoughtful answers.

Willis

Hi again friend!

The timeline I presented was from a two night study we had earlier this spring. We were studing where all the denominations came from. Since we all profess believing in the same God and reading the same Bible, it's unlikely there would be such a large diversity in doctrine as there is among all these churches.

As the study started we looked at the scriptures stated to use as a "yard stick" to see how denominations measured up.

The teacher didn't single out catholics, all were equally scrutinized including our own body.

monty

Hi again friend!

The timeline I presented was from a two night study we had earlier this spring. We were studing where all the denominations came from. Since we all profess believing in the same God and reading the same Bible, it's unlikely there would be such a large diversity in doctrine as there is among all these churches.

As the study started we looked at the scriptures stated to use as a "yard stick" to see how denominations measured up.

The teacher didn't single out catholics, all were equally scrutinized including our own body.

monty

Thanks Monty! When I was a Protestant that was the point where we started talking about how the Catholics left the right path.

Willis

Willis,
What are your feelings on using the Bible to judge sound doctrine? How do you address it when what you see and hear don't match what you read?

I'm also from a protestant background. As I became more familiar with the scriptures and had questions about doctrine and teachings, was given answers that had little or no Biblical basis. Many of those questions I considered salvation issues. I found a group that preaches the whole word of God, I became convicted, I repented of my sins, I confessed Jesus is Lord. This November will be 4 years since I put on Christ in baptisim.

monty

Willis,
What are your feelings on using the Bible to judge sound doctrine? How do you address it when what you see and hear don't match what you read?

I'm also from a protestant background. As I became more familiar with the scriptures and had questions about doctrine and teachings, was given answers that had little or no Biblical basis. Many of those questions I considered salvation issues. I found a group that preaches the whole word of God, I became convicted, I repented of my sins, I confessed Jesus is Lord. This November will be 4 years since I put on Christ in baptism.

monty

The Bible is necessary to judge if one is preaching falsehood. But, what if what is being taught isn't specifically in the Bible? The Triune nature of God isn't specifically in the Bible, but it is easy to infer it from the bible. In other words, we must test everything. If it contradicts the Bible it is false teaching. If it does not contradict the Bible we must still measure it against the Bible. Even this process does not solve some differences. The Bible plainly says that we are to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine converted by His words and action to Body and Blood. It says that if we partake of this without recognizing it as the Body and Blood we are lost. Yet, most Protestant denominations deny the real presence of Christ and say that it is only something done in memory of Him. I use the Bible to judge doctrine concerning this and come up with a different answer than most Protestants.

Let us look at another issue of using the Bible to judge Doctrine. We have discussed the role of Bishops. If each individual congregation is left to itself error and differences of interpretation creep in creating the multitude of denominations and beliefs that we see today. The Bishops, as ordained successors to the original Apostles were, and are, charged with maintaining the quality of education and sound doctrine to prevent such differences. I find this a very biblical concept. Others find it an anathema.

I refer to Mary as Blessed, in fact, the Bible says that henceforth all generations shall call her Blessed. There are many who equate this to idolatry. I find that calling Mary Blessed is quite biblical.

I know of nothing the Catholic Church teaches that contradicts the word or spirit of the Bible. Some of the teachings may not be in the Bible, but they do not contradict what the Bible has to say.