Liseux, I do not question a hierarchy of authority in the Church of Christ.
What I do question is whether there is any "chief apostle" other than our Lord Jesus Himself (Heb 3:1). Nor do I see any evidence of "chief elders" or "chief overseers" or "chief deacons" in the apostolic church.
These offices appeared later, as the church gradually changed in character.
The Lord's Supper
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Hello Paidon,
I don't think that we really need to go that far and discuss the "chief apostle" point right now.
I'm not presenting Clement of Rome as the "chief apostle," simply as a bishop who was appealed to by the Church in Corinth when disputes arose that they could not settle amongst themselves. Apparently, the elders in Corinth couldn't come to a decision after praying over it.
To me, it seems that deciding questions of doctrine (nature of Christ/existence of the Trinity) are not things left to the unordained. Sure, we laity have input, but back to my earlier point, what is the laying on of hands for if not for the benefit of the Church?
It also follows for me that the presentation and confection of the Eucharist is so serious, so important, that it too must be left to those who "preside."
The laying on of hands, with the necesarry preparation on the part of the ordained, I believe is the background preparing those who would preside over each Church established by the Apostles and their successors.
God bless,
Liseux
I don't think that we really need to go that far and discuss the "chief apostle" point right now.
I'm not presenting Clement of Rome as the "chief apostle," simply as a bishop who was appealed to by the Church in Corinth when disputes arose that they could not settle amongst themselves. Apparently, the elders in Corinth couldn't come to a decision after praying over it.
To me, it seems that deciding questions of doctrine (nature of Christ/existence of the Trinity) are not things left to the unordained. Sure, we laity have input, but back to my earlier point, what is the laying on of hands for if not for the benefit of the Church?
It also follows for me that the presentation and confection of the Eucharist is so serious, so important, that it too must be left to those who "preside."
The laying on of hands, with the necesarry preparation on the part of the ordained, I believe is the background preparing those who would preside over each Church established by the Apostles and their successors.
God bless,
Liseux
Last edited by woodhzru on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
P.S. Clement of Rome was the bishop while John the Apostle was still alive and in exile on Patmos in the 1st century. He was appealed to while this apostle was living closer to the Corinthians than Clement was to them. This is clear evidence of a type of "chief elder," to say the least.
Last edited by woodhzru on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
If you guys don't mind...could we post about this on the other thread? I'll give one brief reply here though:
Liseux,
My cousin's church, which is in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is basically Calvinist/Reformed. The elders come from Baptist and/or Reformed backgrounds (one may be a former Lutheran or Catholic, I forgot). Their membership (people who go to the church) are mostly former Catholics. In matters of essential doctrines, the elders and entire church agree. But on things like eschatology ("the last things") and the Eucharist (which they call the Lord's Supper) they allow for differing views and do not see these as essential. From what I understand, one elder leans toward Consubstantiationism (though he doesn't teach this). The church "teaches" the Memorialist view when the Lord's Supper is being served but do not demand that you accept it. What they demand is what matters; that when partaking of the Lord's Supper, it must be done in a worthy manner (by being a devoted Christian). I don't know if they have "open communion." I'll have to find out.
On matters of church discipline my cousin's church does better than any I have ever heard of! Without giving any examples I'll suffice it to say they are not only biblical but thoroughly biblical in dealing with sin problems in the church.
See y'all on the other thread
Rick
Liseux,
My cousin's church, which is in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is basically Calvinist/Reformed. The elders come from Baptist and/or Reformed backgrounds (one may be a former Lutheran or Catholic, I forgot). Their membership (people who go to the church) are mostly former Catholics. In matters of essential doctrines, the elders and entire church agree. But on things like eschatology ("the last things") and the Eucharist (which they call the Lord's Supper) they allow for differing views and do not see these as essential. From what I understand, one elder leans toward Consubstantiationism (though he doesn't teach this). The church "teaches" the Memorialist view when the Lord's Supper is being served but do not demand that you accept it. What they demand is what matters; that when partaking of the Lord's Supper, it must be done in a worthy manner (by being a devoted Christian). I don't know if they have "open communion." I'll have to find out.
On matters of church discipline my cousin's church does better than any I have ever heard of! Without giving any examples I'll suffice it to say they are not only biblical but thoroughly biblical in dealing with sin problems in the church.
See y'all on the other thread
Rick
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hello Rick,
Thanks for the answer and explanation. I do have to say that I cannot understand how the Last Things and the Eucharist are not essentials, especially in light of scripture and Christian history.
Last Things- heaven, hell, judgement..... Very important! I want to be one the RIGHT PAGE, not on the page of my current pastor, who disagrees with the Calvinist minister down the road.
Men and women have died for the Eucharist, and today it's "not essential" in some circles?
St. Tarsicius, martyred in the 3rd century, died protecting the Body and Blood of Christ (Eucharist) from thugs who wanted to take it from him. Tarsicius, a young man, was taking the Body and Blood much like our Eucharistic Ministers do today to the homebound and ill, except he was doing it undercover during a period of Roman persecution.
Of Tarsicius it is written: "St. Tarsicius went away beaing the mysteries of Christ, when a criminal tried to profane them. He, for his part, preferred to allow himself to be murdered rather than deliver the body of Christ to mad dogs."
How sad and ironic that what Christians died for for centuries, and still do in places like Iraq, Sudan, Papua New Guinea, and India are now called "non essential."
This is not the one Faith that our Lord asked us to keep.
Thanks for the answer and explanation. I do have to say that I cannot understand how the Last Things and the Eucharist are not essentials, especially in light of scripture and Christian history.
Last Things- heaven, hell, judgement..... Very important! I want to be one the RIGHT PAGE, not on the page of my current pastor, who disagrees with the Calvinist minister down the road.
Men and women have died for the Eucharist, and today it's "not essential" in some circles?
St. Tarsicius, martyred in the 3rd century, died protecting the Body and Blood of Christ (Eucharist) from thugs who wanted to take it from him. Tarsicius, a young man, was taking the Body and Blood much like our Eucharistic Ministers do today to the homebound and ill, except he was doing it undercover during a period of Roman persecution.
Of Tarsicius it is written: "St. Tarsicius went away beaing the mysteries of Christ, when a criminal tried to profane them. He, for his part, preferred to allow himself to be murdered rather than deliver the body of Christ to mad dogs."
How sad and ironic that what Christians died for for centuries, and still do in places like Iraq, Sudan, Papua New Guinea, and India are now called "non essential."
This is not the one Faith that our Lord asked us to keep.
Last edited by woodhzru on Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Back to the original question asked by Derek.
As for offering the Eucharist anywhere, by anyone, I believe that if one follows scripture- which speaks of the laying on of hands, and the writings of the 1st century churchmen- which speak of a liturgy and presiding bishops, one certainly realizes that an ordained minister, presbyter-priest, is the one to follow.
1 Timothy 3 deals with the laying on of hands, and has been quoted several times on this thread and the other one dealing with the related topic.
The Didache or The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles
was widely used as early as the 1st century. Section 9 presents detailed liturgical instructions for celebrating the Eucharist, entitled, "Of the Eucharist." We know, with confirmation from the Didache that the Eucharist was referred to as a sacrifice based on the prophecy of Malachi 1:11.
Section 9 contains a complete Eucharistic liturgy, word for word, that clearly shows the liturgy of the Church in the 1st century. It starts out, "At the Eucharistic, offer the eucharistic prayer in this way. Begin with the chalice.... then the broken Bread..." Crossing the Tiber, by Stephen K. Ray, p. 216
Certainly, not just anyone feeling that he could have a Eucharistic celebration in the 1st century called people together and did their own thing. 1st century Christians took his Eucharist seriously, as the Didache was required reading for catechumens and neophytes.
Ministerial priests needed the laying on of hands, according to Timothy. Clement, the third bishop of Rome after the first, Peter, sheds more light on the subject:
Writing in approximately 96 a.d., " Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate [bishop or group of presiding bishops] those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices." First Epistle to the Corinthians 44
This was part of Clement's letter addressed to the Corinthian to quell strife and contentiousness and to rebuke them for insubordination to their bishop and presbyters. Doesn't sound like any ol' Joe or Joanna can offer the Eucharistic sacrifice here either.
Clement continues: "The High Priest, for example has hs own proper services assigned to him.... There are particular ministries laid down for the Levites, and the layman is bound by the regulations affecting the laity. In the same way, my brothers, when we offer our own Eucharist to God, each one should keep to his own degree." First Epistle to the Corinthians, 40, 41
Clement is drawing a parallel with the Levites, the Jewish priestly tribe, for a specific reason. The Levites offered the gifts to God under the Old Covenant; with the New Covenant, presbyter-priests and bishops are doing so.
There is no hint of the laity being able to have their own Eucharistic service and for it to be valid in these 1st century writings. The priestly offering of the Eucharist was from the beginning with the apostles, and not something which developed in the 3rd and 4th centuries.
(Clement was appointed a presbyter and later a bishop in the Church by the Apostle Peter. They knew each other personally, and no time evolved for Clement to supposedly come up with different practices. He lived at the time of the Apostle Paul as well.)
God bless,
Liseux[/i]
As for offering the Eucharist anywhere, by anyone, I believe that if one follows scripture- which speaks of the laying on of hands, and the writings of the 1st century churchmen- which speak of a liturgy and presiding bishops, one certainly realizes that an ordained minister, presbyter-priest, is the one to follow.
1 Timothy 3 deals with the laying on of hands, and has been quoted several times on this thread and the other one dealing with the related topic.
The Didache or The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles
was widely used as early as the 1st century. Section 9 presents detailed liturgical instructions for celebrating the Eucharist, entitled, "Of the Eucharist." We know, with confirmation from the Didache that the Eucharist was referred to as a sacrifice based on the prophecy of Malachi 1:11.
Section 9 contains a complete Eucharistic liturgy, word for word, that clearly shows the liturgy of the Church in the 1st century. It starts out, "At the Eucharistic, offer the eucharistic prayer in this way. Begin with the chalice.... then the broken Bread..." Crossing the Tiber, by Stephen K. Ray, p. 216
Certainly, not just anyone feeling that he could have a Eucharistic celebration in the 1st century called people together and did their own thing. 1st century Christians took his Eucharist seriously, as the Didache was required reading for catechumens and neophytes.
Ministerial priests needed the laying on of hands, according to Timothy. Clement, the third bishop of Rome after the first, Peter, sheds more light on the subject:
Writing in approximately 96 a.d., " Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate [bishop or group of presiding bishops] those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices." First Epistle to the Corinthians 44
This was part of Clement's letter addressed to the Corinthian to quell strife and contentiousness and to rebuke them for insubordination to their bishop and presbyters. Doesn't sound like any ol' Joe or Joanna can offer the Eucharistic sacrifice here either.
Clement continues: "The High Priest, for example has hs own proper services assigned to him.... There are particular ministries laid down for the Levites, and the layman is bound by the regulations affecting the laity. In the same way, my brothers, when we offer our own Eucharist to God, each one should keep to his own degree." First Epistle to the Corinthians, 40, 41
Clement is drawing a parallel with the Levites, the Jewish priestly tribe, for a specific reason. The Levites offered the gifts to God under the Old Covenant; with the New Covenant, presbyter-priests and bishops are doing so.
There is no hint of the laity being able to have their own Eucharistic service and for it to be valid in these 1st century writings. The priestly offering of the Eucharist was from the beginning with the apostles, and not something which developed in the 3rd and 4th centuries.
(Clement was appointed a presbyter and later a bishop in the Church by the Apostle Peter. They knew each other personally, and no time evolved for Clement to supposedly come up with different practices. He lived at the time of the Apostle Paul as well.)
God bless,
Liseux[/i]
Last edited by woodhzru on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hello Liseux,
What I meant about differences on "the last things" really had to do with the second coming of Christ. As you probably know, Protestants are divided on how and when it will happen. I'm an amillennialist (the Roman Catholic view, btw, lol). My cousin's church is mostly premillemnialist (one elder may be postmillennial?) and there are differences of opinion on when the rapture will happen, etc. None of the elders teach you have to accept a "pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib" rapture or take any view about the millennium. In my cousin's church you can see these however you want.
I understand your (Transubstantiatonist) Catholic view of the Eucharist. While I do not agree with it, I do not see "us agreeing" about it as essential or absolutely necessary. Put another way, I am united with you in Christ himself whether I'm right or wrong about the Eucharist, imo. I'm united with Lutherans in Christ also, though they are Consubstantiationist...and with other Memorialists, (like myself), in the same way: The unity is in Jesus himself through the Holy Spirit! imo.
Yesterday I was listening to the dispensationalist Jay Sekulow's radio program. He believes Christians should support Israel and that the nation of Israel's coming into existence was a fulfillment of Bible prophecy which I don't believe (as an example of Protestant differences, (above)....
At any rate, Jay mentioned that Arab Christians are being persecuted and killed in the Middle East. If I'm not mistaken he said there is heavy persecution right now in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I've known for some time that Christians have been persecuted in Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Damascus, Syria...it really happens over the whole region. As an aside: I've read that some Arab Christians can trace their family tree back to the 1st century....
I was happy to hear Sekulow talk about this. I've heard him for years and this is the first time I've heard him say anything about it, that I recall. What struck me as odd was, as soon as he said this, someone called in and said, "We need to back Israel or our country (USA) will be put under a curse!"
So much for our Arab Brothers and Sisters.....
I don't care much for dispensational theology. I hate it to be honest.
Anyway,
Thanks,
Rick
There are different formulas of "The Essentials of the Christian Faith." Some use the Apostles' Creed. Whatever Creed, Confession, or Statement of Faith is used; all Christians essentially agree on the basics of the faith.You wrote:Thanks for the answer and explanation. I do have to say that I cannot understand how the Last Things and the Eucharist are not essentials, especially in light of scripture and Christian history.
Last Things- heaven, hell, judgement..... Very important! I want to be one the RIGHT PAGE, not on the page of my current pastor, who disagrees with the Calvinist minister down the road.
What I meant about differences on "the last things" really had to do with the second coming of Christ. As you probably know, Protestants are divided on how and when it will happen. I'm an amillennialist (the Roman Catholic view, btw, lol). My cousin's church is mostly premillemnialist (one elder may be postmillennial?) and there are differences of opinion on when the rapture will happen, etc. None of the elders teach you have to accept a "pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib" rapture or take any view about the millennium. In my cousin's church you can see these however you want.
I understand your (Transubstantiatonist) Catholic view of the Eucharist. While I do not agree with it, I do not see "us agreeing" about it as essential or absolutely necessary. Put another way, I am united with you in Christ himself whether I'm right or wrong about the Eucharist, imo. I'm united with Lutherans in Christ also, though they are Consubstantiationist...and with other Memorialists, (like myself), in the same way: The unity is in Jesus himself through the Holy Spirit! imo.
Virtually all Protestants practice Communion or The Lord's Supper (what you call the Eucharist with your particular view about it). It is "essential" to do as it was commanded by our Lord and taught by the Apostles. But it isn't a primary Essential (a first, basic doctrine). The Creeds don't spell out the Eucharist. I suppose it could be called a secondary teaching.You also wrote:Men and women have died for the Eucharist, and today it's "not essential" in some circles?
I've never heard of this Saint, thanks. I probably don't agree with what he thought about the Eucharist (Transubstantiationist) but I still consider him a martyr. He died for his faith in Christ...what unites all Christians of all times and denominations!Lastly, you wrote:St. Tarsicius, martyred in the 3rd century, died protecting the Body and Blood of Christ (Eucharist) from thugs who wanted to take it from him. Tarsicius, a young man, was taking the Body and Blood much like our Eucharistic Ministers do today to the homebound and ill, except he was doing it undercover during a period of Roman persecution.
Of Tarsicius it is written: "St. Tarsicius went away beaing the mysteries of Christ, when a criminal tried to profan tem. He, for his part, preferred o allow himself to be murdered rather than deliver the body of Christ to mad dogs."
How sad and ironic that what Christians died for for centuries, and still do in places like Iraq, Sudan, Papua New Guinea are now called "non essential."
Yesterday I was listening to the dispensationalist Jay Sekulow's radio program. He believes Christians should support Israel and that the nation of Israel's coming into existence was a fulfillment of Bible prophecy which I don't believe (as an example of Protestant differences, (above)....
At any rate, Jay mentioned that Arab Christians are being persecuted and killed in the Middle East. If I'm not mistaken he said there is heavy persecution right now in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I've known for some time that Christians have been persecuted in Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Damascus, Syria...it really happens over the whole region. As an aside: I've read that some Arab Christians can trace their family tree back to the 1st century....
I was happy to hear Sekulow talk about this. I've heard him for years and this is the first time I've heard him say anything about it, that I recall. What struck me as odd was, as soon as he said this, someone called in and said, "We need to back Israel or our country (USA) will be put under a curse!"
So much for our Arab Brothers and Sisters.....
I don't care much for dispensational theology. I hate it to be honest.
Anyway,
Thanks,
Rick
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
+++jmj+++
Hello Rick,
Afterward Luther and Calvin, it became a free for all, with private interpretation running rampant. Even what you call basics we cannot agree upon. To me, the last things are most important, even in the way that you view them.
When you bring up the "Last Things" my Catholic mind thinks of judgement, heaven, hell, and.... purgatory. As far as being raptured up, that's a tradition of men started about 200 years ago. Again, private interpretation gone amuck, and a million, for the guy that writes the books!
Yes, I too believe that we are united, by virtue of our Baptism in the Lord Jesus. I love all my Christian brothers and sisters.
Doesn't the relativism on truth bother you? I am not trying to be antagonistic, but I truly cannot see how there can be so many versions of Christianity out there. In John 17:17, Christ prayed that we may be one, as He and his heavenly Father are one.
I don't think the successors to the Apostles meant to include the entirety of the "essentials" of Christianity. I think this is why Christ left a teaching church, which is the pillar and foundation of Truth, 1 Timothy 3:15.
As far as the Middle East and elsewhere where Christians are persecuted, Christ tells us that our sufferings here on Earth will be nothing compared to what awaits us in heaven. We have already won the victory in Christ. We just need to start acting like it and have faith in Him.
God bless,
Liseux
Hello Rick,
I agree to a point in time- about the time of Martin Luther and Calvin. All Christians did agree primarily until then. If they didn't they were Monatists, Donatists, Arians, etc. Reformers such as St. Francis and St. Catherine of Sienna realized they could remain IN the Church that Christ founded and still reform it. Reform is nothing new. Rebellion is relatively new.There are different formulas of "The Essentials of the Christian Faith." Some use the Apostles' Creed. Whatever Creed, Confession, or Statement of Faith is used; all Christians essentially agree on the basics of the faith.
Afterward Luther and Calvin, it became a free for all, with private interpretation running rampant. Even what you call basics we cannot agree upon. To me, the last things are most important, even in the way that you view them.
When you bring up the "Last Things" my Catholic mind thinks of judgement, heaven, hell, and.... purgatory. As far as being raptured up, that's a tradition of men started about 200 years ago. Again, private interpretation gone amuck, and a million, for the guy that writes the books!
Yes, I too believe that we are united, by virtue of our Baptism in the Lord Jesus. I love all my Christian brothers and sisters.
No comprendo. How can something be essential as a commandment of Jesus, but not be primary? The Creeds do not spell out the Eucharist, nor do they spell out Baptism. Yet, that is what now saves us (Acts 2:38). Why isn't Baptism in the Creed? Is it not important? Some Lutherans think it's necessary for salvation, and so do some Methodists, based in part on John 3:5.It is "essential" to do as it was commanded by our Lord and taught by the Apostles. But it isn't a primary Essential (a first, basic doctrine). The Creeds don't spell out the Eucharist. I suppose it could be called a secondary teaching.
Doesn't the relativism on truth bother you? I am not trying to be antagonistic, but I truly cannot see how there can be so many versions of Christianity out there. In John 17:17, Christ prayed that we may be one, as He and his heavenly Father are one.
I don't think the successors to the Apostles meant to include the entirety of the "essentials" of Christianity. I think this is why Christ left a teaching church, which is the pillar and foundation of Truth, 1 Timothy 3:15.
As far as the Middle East and elsewhere where Christians are persecuted, Christ tells us that our sufferings here on Earth will be nothing compared to what awaits us in heaven. We have already won the victory in Christ. We just need to start acting like it and have faith in Him.
God bless,
Liseux
Last edited by woodhzru on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hello Liseux,
I withdraw what I said about Christians of all denominations being united by believing in certain core doctrines. I used to believe this and didn't realize till this past week that I no longer do....
And, sorry, no offense, but I'm not interested in Protestants V. Catholic debates.
Now back to your regularly scheduled topic....
Thanks,
Rick
I withdraw what I said about Christians of all denominations being united by believing in certain core doctrines. I used to believe this and didn't realize till this past week that I no longer do....
And, sorry, no offense, but I'm not interested in Protestants V. Catholic debates.
Now back to your regularly scheduled topic....
Thanks,
Rick
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
++++JMJ++++
No offense taken, Rick. I very much am interested in Christian history, scripture, and the pro-life movement. Hope to discuss more topics with you in the future and not evolve into Catholicism vs. Protestantism.
Have a blessed weekend.
Liseux
No offense taken, Rick. I very much am interested in Christian history, scripture, and the pro-life movement. Hope to discuss more topics with you in the future and not evolve into Catholicism vs. Protestantism.
Have a blessed weekend.
Liseux
Last edited by woodhzru on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: