Converting to the RCC

[thomas]

If you assume that the council met before Paul's letter to the Galatians, why would Paul argue anything other than the authority of the council (which he didn't even reference)? What was his authority? Did Paul reference anything resembling an encyclical or "edict" of the coucil in the letter?

Then you would have to assume that a decision of such import would not have become known to the Galations beforehand , although information traveled quite quikly in those days.

If you assume that Paul's letter preceded the meeting of the council, how is it (from the RCC perspective) that Paul could take such an authoritative stance on such a controversial subject without subjecting it to the council (particularly since those he was correcting even seemed to have spoken with apparent authority from the church at Jerusalem) ?

My information has it that the letter to the Galatians was written shortly before the council. I therefore assume that it was such teaching that caused the conflict that needed the councils decision.

[Paidion]

Thank you, Steve, for responding to my post. I think I better understand your position. And now I need just a bit more explanation.

I suppose that spiritual things may sound idealistic to those who are looking at them from a different frame of reference. On these terms, God Himself is apparently very idealistic. He apparently believed that only those who have been born again have any part in the Kingdom (the True Church), and that one fact that accrues to all who have been thus reborn is that they all have the Holy Spirit. He also believed that the Spirit can lead the believer into all truth—to the extent that the believer does not really require men to tell him what to believe. He believed that Jesus' sheep will know His voice.

So what do we do with the fact that hundreds or thousands of people all claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, claiming "God told me this" or "God told me that", and yet hundreds of these people have been "led" in contrary directions as to church polilty or into contradictory beliefs concerning Christology or sotierology. Obviously somebody is not being led by the Spirit. How can we determine who IS being so led? It won't do to say that those who are regenerated are being led by the Spirit. For contrary beliefs and/or practices have been "revealed" to people who give evidence of having been regenerated. So do we not end up making up our own minds as to who is led? And if so, isn't this totally subjective? Even the use of our personal rationality does not lead us in the same way. Even the words of Christ, which seem so straightforward, are interpreted in multifarious ways. So is there no authority upon which to rely? Or do we end up relying on ourselves, much as we would like to rely on Christ and His teachings?

[Homer]

Steve, et al,

First I must say I agree with Steve to a considerable degree. I believe that there is no authority above the local congregation, other than Christ, and I believe the classifications of "clergy" and "laity" are not scriptural.

Regarding groups being led by "unofficial", or de facto leaders, many years ago the corporation I worked for was moving toward a "self-management" style of organization. Goups that had been supervised by a foreman would manage themselves. When discussing this with a management consultant from Europe he remarked: "You put together a group of dogs and they will have a leader in about two minutes. With people, it can take years and many bad things can happen in the meantime". We may tell ourselves we are born again and led by the Spirit. This is certainly true, but we are still people.


Steve wrote:

Like all things heavenly, the Church is spiritual in nature, not political or religious................ Whatever earthly leadership may exist in the church militant, if genuine and appropriate, would also be spiritual (Rom.12:6-8/1 Cor.16:15-16/1 Thess.5:12-13/Heb.13:7).

Agreed. And when the church chose the first deacons, spiritual was one of the two criteria, along with wisdom, and we should demand no less today:

Acts 6 (New King James Version)
1. Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. 2. Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. 3. Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; 4. but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”5. And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, 6. whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them.
And Steve wrote:

An organization without formal leaders is chaotic and subject to corruption, if it is not a spiritual institution, made up of spiritual people. In fact, such a carnal organization is as easily corrupted despite the formal appointment of leaders, since the group described is unspiritual, it will make unspiritual choices of leaders. This is not theory, it is the history of all churches which have been “earthly institutions”—no less of Catholics than of Protestants.

Amen to that!

And:

As you know, there are many groups who have appointed elders, where the very existence of the group itself has little legitimacy, or where their elders are not scripturally legitimate because they do not meet biblical qualifications

And amen again!

And:

Yes. I believe that both 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 provide instances of Paul's seeing the need to appoint what we might call "official teaching staff" for the church of Ephesus and for the churches of Crete. It is evident, from the contexts, that there was a special concern in these churches because of the presence of heretical teachers. Since there were good teachers in the church, as well as bad ones, Paul told Timothy and Titus to give official recognition to those who could be trusted. It is evident that the major qualifications had to do with godly character and well-ordered family relationships, more than with theological issues. IN all likelihood, the damage being done by the heretics was principally in the area of undermining Christian morals and character.

This would seem to be an argument for elders. As Paidion pointed out, it would appear that appointing elders was considered normative by Paul. While we can only speculate, it is easy to believe from what we read of the Corinthian church that the reason no elders are mentioned there was due to the complete lack of those qualified for the ministry. The same could be true of other churches. The lack of mention of elders in certain churches does not prove anything.

And:

He also believed that the Spirit can lead the believer into all truth—to the extent that the believer does not really require men to tell him what to believe.

To which Paidion replied:

So what do we do with the fact that hundreds or thousands of people all claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, claiming "God told me this" or "God told me that", and yet hundreds of these people have been "led" in contrary directions as to church polilty or into contradictory beliefs concerning Christology or sotierology. Obviously somebody is not being led by the Spirit.

Paidion has a valid point. I regard Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth to be a promise to the apostles and them alone. There was much revelation that was yet to be given, and they were not ready for it at the time. And this promise gives us confidence that the revelation that was given to the apostles is "all truth". If this promise applies to us today, just as much as it did to those Jesus gave it to, then how can we have any more confidence in the teaching of the apostles than we do in those today who say "the Spirit spoke to my heart" this or that?

God bless! Homer

[steve]

Hello Paidion (and Homer...I see you were posting at the same time as I was writing this),

So what do we do with the fact that hundreds or thousands of people all claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, claiming "God told me this" or "God told me that", and yet hundreds of these people have been "led" in contrary directions as to church polilty or into contradictory beliefs concerning Christology or sotierology. Obviously somebody is not being led by the Spirit. How can we determine who IS being so led?

These are good and challenging questions. Insofar as they may be answerable, they deserve thoughtful, and not shallow, pat responses. My own answers may not be acceptable to all parties (as with most other subjects), but I think we can make a start at a responsible answer.

Since Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as "the Spirit of truth," I think it is safe to say that no one who has been led anywhere except into the genuine truth can be said to have been led there by the Holy Spirit—no matter how they felt about it while making the journey. Thus, a very large percentage of the hair-brained things that gullible people claim to have had revealed to them by the Spirit can readily be disregarded by their obvious non-conformity to the truth—e.g., a woman at our school (a rather strange woman) once said to me, "The Lord told me that you are really pleased with the way your wife is dressed today!" Besides being a just plain weird comment, it wasn't true. I had not seen my wife yet that morning, and had no idea what she was wearing. A friend, whose son had cancer, said that the Spirit revealed to him that his son would be healed. His son died of cancer. This is not an unusual case. What people think is the Spirit talking to them is often little more than a case of wishful thinking. If the thing is simply not true, it is simply not of the Spirit of God.

Second, we are told that Jesus is the Truth. The Spirit of Jesus will always conform to Jesus Himself. If someone says, "the Spirit of God just moved me to make a sign that says, 'God hates fags' and to carry it at the gay pride parade," it doesn't require any special gift of discernment to know that this impetus did not come from the Spirit of Christ, since it is contrary to His nature.

Third, Jesus said to His Father, "Your word is truth." Since the scriptures are known to have been delivered to the Church of God, by the Spirit of God, through approved men, our impressions about what we think the Spirit is telling us can (and must) also be passed by this judgment seat. "If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Obviously, everyone who feels the Lord has led them into some belief also believes that the thing they have arrived at is scriptural. However, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit leads us into doctrinal positions (or behavioral decisions) that can be shown, by responsible exegesis to be patently false. I have heard women say, "Although I did not technically have scriptural grounds for divorce, I knew the Spirit was leading me to divorce my husband and marry this other man, who was someone else's husband at the time." To hear some people say it, the Spirit has allegedly led many into illicit sexual relationships, dishonest business dealings, and a host of other activities that a submission to the Spirit's revelation in scripture would easily have corrected.

I have often felt that the Holy Spirit was opening my eyes to some new understanding of scripture. This began as an innovative hunch about a given passage, but I never trusted these hunches until I could pull out the lexicons and look at the full context of the passage, and to discover whether any other known passage of scripture would contradict my intuitions. Even in matters where I suspected the intuition was from God, I simply would never allow myself to embrace the new insight unless I could find a better exegetical defense for it than I could find for any contrary view. If the Holy Spirit inspired the scripture writers to declare a certain thing true, He will not inspire me to think the opposite.

Sometimes I do not possess sufficient confirmation to assure me that something I am attributing to the Spirit is in fact true. In such cases, I never simply trust the intuition—not completely, anyway. If I think the idea has merit, I may share it tentatively, but I would never be such a fool as to preface my remarks with, "The Spirit revealed this to me..." I too-greatly fear the danger of taking the name of God in vain.

It is my observation that most reasonable Christians who have divergent views from each other do not necessarily claim inspiration for their opinions. If they wish to assert their view against a contrary one, they usually provide arguments (a much better thing to do) rather than saying, "I am right, because God showed me!" Mature Christians are usually a little more humble about their opinions—and even their own ability to correctly hear the voice of the Spirit—than to make irresponsible claims about such things.

The vast majority of people that I have heard use the "God told me" line have been either 1) very young and naive; 2) very shady (having some agenda to put over on other Christians); 3) mentally imbalanced; or 4) part of a charismatic/pentecostal culture in which they learn these phrases and repeat them thoughtlessly as a part of that culture's Christianese. I say the vast majority because there are some exceptions. Those who fit one of the four categories mentioned do not pose any problem to the conundrum you posed, because their talk is empty and unreliable, and their claims do not need to be taken into serious consideration.

On those rare occasions where you may find a mature and judicious Christian saying, "I believe the Spirit of God directed me to..." then you need to at least pay attention. Even then, as John tells us, we should not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1).

Usually, these can be adequately tested by the "truth tests" I mentioned above.

I might say in closing that the fact of there being disagreements among Christians does not disprove the claim that all are being led by the Spirit into the truth. It only means that not everyone has been led at this time to the eventual destination. We are all still en route to "all truth." It does seem that the Spirit leads some by a more circuitous route than others. This may be unavoidable, due to prejudices in them which He must overcome gradually, by stages. It is "line upon line; precept upon precept; here a little, there a little."

We are assured that He leads gently (Isaiah 40:11).

[steve]

Homer wrote:

This would seem to be an argument for elders. As Paidion pointed out, it would appear that appointing elders was considered normative by Paul. While we can only speculate, it is easy to believe from what we read of the Corinthian church that the reason no elders are mentioned there was due to the complete lack of those qualified for the ministry. The same could be true of other churches. The lack of mention of elders in certain churches does not prove anything.

I agree. Might we then suggest that the same problem that prevented Paul's appointing elders in Corinth might accrue in many modern "churches"—i.e., that there are no men qualified to be elders, so they would do best not to appoint any? Of course, in Corinth, unlike our American towns, all the local Christians were in one congregation and, we might say, in one "denomination" (though they were moving in the direction of changing that fact). If a local church today has no spiritual men to lead them, it would seemingly be best for them to disband and find another local group which has such men.

On the other hand, I have been in small fellowships that had the opposite reason for remaining elderless—namely, all the men were about equally qualified. The group needed no separate band of leaders within it, since the choice of a few to lead the rest would be entirely gratuitous. There was minimal de facto leadership, and little need for any. It would have seemed artificial and pretentious to give titles to set a few of them in a different category from the rest.

I actually think that Paul's idea of "appointing" elders was nothing more than giving his endorsement to those genuine de facto leaders whom the Lord had already raised up and who already were functioning in this gift. In other words, "appointment" would be little else than apostolic "recognition," and changed nothing about the actual status or activities of these men. After this formal recognition, I think, they bore no more or less authority over the church than they had possessed before. However, Pauline recognition meant that the church had the advantage of knowing that the men who provided de facto leadership to the group at least had Paul's approval, and this would make it difficult for any new wolves who might come into town to out-maneuver or oust the "good guys."

There remains no biblical evidence of succession to these offices, as if the office had taken on a life and authority of its own, apart from the identity of its actual occupant. Authority would have to remain a spiritual phenomenon, based upon spiritual qualifications, no less after than before the official recognition.

Paidion raised, a few posts back, the point that still lies at the heart of the legitimacy of modern church offices. The original elders were appointed by the apostles. The apostles have died, and are not here to appoint elders in modern churches and movements, so how do we decide who ought to hold such recognized status? Perhaps the casting of lots would suffice. As a method, it at least had the endorsement of the Old Testament (Prov.16:33) as well as the apostles (Acts 1:26).

[Homer]

Steve and Paidion,

Steve wrote:

Might we then suggest that the same problem that prevented Paul's appointing elders in Corinth might accrue in many modern "churches"—i.e., that there are no men qualified to be elders, so they would do best not to appoint any?

I agree completely!

On the other hand, I have been in small fellowships that had the opposite reason for remaining elderless—namely, all the men were about equally qualified. The group needed no separate band of leaders within it, since the choice of a few to lead the rest would be entirely gratuitous. There was minimal de facto leadership, and little need for any. It would have seemed artificial and pretentious to give titles to set a few of them in a different category from the rest.

I can't disagree here either, but I would say this was a highly unusual situation.

I actually think that Paul's idea of "appointing" elders was nothing more than giving his endorsement to those genuine de facto leaders whom the Lord had already raised up and who already were functioning in this gift. In other words, "appointment" would be little else than apostolic "recognition," and changed nothing about the actual status or activities of these men.

Perhaps the setting these men apart through prayer and the laying on of hands would be of significant benefit. I have a bit of sacramentalist in me! And there is benefit in having recognized elders as James indicated:


James 5:14 (New King James Version)
14. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

Paidion raised, a few posts back, the point that still lies at the heart of the legitimacy of modern church offices. The original elders were appointed by the apostles. The apostles have died, and are not here to appoint elders in modern churches and movements, so how do we decide who ought to hold such recognized status? Perhaps the casting of lots would suffice. As a method, it at least had the endorsement of the Old Testament (Prov.16:33) as well as the apostles (Acts 1:26).

But there were additional elders appointed by Titus:

Titus 1:5 (New King James Version)
5. For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—

So here we have, if not a succession of elders, a succession of elder appointer! To me, this is strong support for the idea that elders are to be the norm in the church. In Acts 6 the first deacons were appointed after being selected by the church. The very same word, kathistemi, was used by Luke that Paul used in commanding Titus to appoint elders, and was also used by Jesus in regard to making rulers.

Paidion earlier asked:

Homer, how did the first elders ever to exist come into being in the expression of the Church with which your local assembly is in fellowship? Did those first elders not arise in the "de facto way"?

We are new to this church, only being there since the beginning of the year, so I have no knowledge of how the first elders were chosen, and doubt if anyone there would know. Having a bad experience with the process at our former church, I inquired early on regarding the practice at our new church concerning qualifications and selection process and I think they have a good one. Essentially, the elder is selected by consensus, which helps to ensure that the man is "above reproach". In a system where people vote and a person is elected by majority, many votes are likely to be ignorant votes. There may be something in the person's life that is a problem that is unknown to many people voting. And politics is essentially out of the process.

It seems to me that the question regarding succession is how elders are chosen when a new church is established. If a church is planted by someone who is essentially an evangelist or apostle (small "a"), then I think he would assist in the process when (and only when) the church had qualified people ready to serve. Reading the account of the first deacons chosen in Acts and using that as a model (it takes at least some "reading between the lines"), I would say the cream will rise to the top, the people can agree on who the leaders should be, seeking unanimity, and then they should be ordained through prayer and the laying on of hands.

I should say something about "ordained". I was much impressed by the book "The Social Gospel" by James Haldane, the Scotch reformer, pub. 1805, where he argued against an ordained person being stamped with an indelible mark, and being permanently of another class of persons. Ordained simply means being appointed to an office, and when you leave the position you were appointed to you are are no longer ordained.

May God bless you both! Homer

[Paidion]

I actually think that Paul's idea of "appointing" elders was nothing more than giving his endorsement to those genuine de facto leaders whom the Lord had already raised up and who already were functioning in this gift. In other words, "appointment" would be little else than apostolic "recognition," and changed nothing about the actual status or activities of these men. After this formal recognition, I think, they bore no more or less authority over the church than they had possessed before.

In a congregation of "open brethren" with whom I fellowshiped for years, elders came into existence in exactly this way. Men began to function as such, and were then recognized as such by the people. I am impressed that you see it this way.

Of course, in Corinth, unlike our American towns, all the local Christians were in one congregation...

I don't want to nitpick by detracting from the main theme, but I was wondering why you think there was only one congregation. My understanding is that there were several "home churches" in the city (all part of the One Church, of course), and that Paul's letter "to the Corinthians" was meant for all of those house churches as a whole.

[thomas]

Hola Steve:

But via what avenue does the Holy Spirit communicate Christ’s desires to the members of His body? There are two theories. The first is that He has set up a local branch headquarters office on this planet. This office has official staff, special officers, etc., through whom the troops receive their marching orders from the King. Individual believers, rather than having access directly to the King, must learn his or her doctrines from this branch office—which often has been known to teach things contrary to the things taught by the King Himself, when He was on earth. The believer is also dependent upon this office to dispense nourishment and strength (grace) to the troops, in the form of ritual sacraments. Without the mediation of this office and its officers, the troops would wander off in the wrong direction and perish.

If this idea is correct (and if this office is to be identified with the RCC), then we will have to assume that, for hundreds of years, during the Middle Ages, the Holy Spirit chose as His instrument of communication to God’s people an organization that was governed by adulterers, thieves, heretics, etc. As long as Christians are merely required to “salute the uniform,” it doesn’t matter whether those who wear it are pagans, idolaters and charlatains.
..........My reference to "worldly" leaders meant leadership roles that exist because of the worldly idea that a group of believers is a worldly organization (like the Kiwanis Club). You are right that God gives leadership to the church, but the leadership is not necessarily of an institutional type. What do I mean by "institutional type"? Take the military, for example. There are officers that must be obeyed. It makes no difference what kind of character is wearing the stripes; the authority resides in the office, not the individual holding the office. Any man—a George Patton or a Beetle Bailey—may hold the office and wear the stripes. The occupant is irrelevant. Underlings "salute the uniform"—not the character inside the uniform. This is institutional ("worldly") leadership......

I am personally thankful that God’s Kingdom is not run in such an inefficient and corrupt manner.

Don't hold back , tell me what you really think.

First off did He set up an "institution"? There is ample evidence that he endowed the Apostles with authority above that of regular believers. These Apostles did appoint officers in the church , overseers , elders , and deacons. And that this was passed on. 2 Tim 1:6 . The NT covers only about 35 years , so for what happened afterward I must go to extra biblical sources. In the oldest know source , 1 Clement , Clement upholds the authority of the deacons in Corinth. And such it is throughout history.

You seem to blame the institution because of the evil people who sometimes exist within it. But that is the institutions purpose , one "salutes the office" not the man , exactly because all of the people holding that office are imperfect. It is the purpose of the institution to survive the problems caused by the less than adequite people in it. And it is the resposability of the members of this institution to reform it when neccesary.
It is quite common for a person , who meets all the spiritual requirements , and is above reproach , to fall into to temptation or become authoritative once they are given a bit of responsability. And it is unpredictable.

I am leaving the Lutheran Church because of corruption.I've wasted 3 years trying to fight this. I am leaving not because of too much authority , but rather too little. The authority that should be there to correct the problem , in spite of knowing the problem, have washed their hands of it and refuse to act. I'm being a good protestant and am folowing the other 80% of the members out the door. Were similar problems to happen in the RCC I'd have a talk with the bishop . That's what the institution is for.

Corrupt it can be at times , but not inefficient , it's quite good at allowing those with talents to put them to use in a coordinated manner.

The other view is that every soldier has direct access to the headquarters in heaven, as the Holy Spirit carries the individualized instructions to the members of the body, and transports their prayers back to the throne room. Thus, the Holy Spirit by-passes the imaginary “branch headquarters” here, and communicates to the true Body of Christ directly (1 John 2:27). All of these believers, collectively, constitute the body of Christ, and they minister to each other's needs, encourage, strengthen, correct and work with each other, as the Holy Spirit gives each one his or her own assignment. The result is the presence of an almost-underground resistance movement, which, having landed in the territory occupied by their King's enemy, carry out His strategy of invasion, infiltration, recruitment and sabotage in the enemy's back yard. Sometimes this work is above ground and obvious. Other times it is driven by persecution into secrecy. In any case, it depends upon the supplies and strength sent from the King for its mission and survival. Even if all "branch offices" were to be turned into museums and barns by their enemies, and the movement remains unhindered.

.....Leadership in the Body of Christ is based upon virtue and upon the upholding of the truth. A virtuous man who upholds the truth will be followed by the church, whether he holds office or not. If he does hold office, this may be temporary, and may be entirely inconsequential. His authority does not reside in the office, but in spiritual qualifications.

My question with this , as good as it sounds , is does it work with anything larger than a small group?
It would seem to me that it would get to a certain size and then split or fall into authority problems.

My other comment is that this is something I cannot find in history , at least for that 1000 yrs. prior to the Waldensians. Even in times of persecution the church was institutionalised as per the letters written by Ignatios as he was hauled of to exicution.And even the reformation churches immediatly institutionalized.

Thomas

I would of replied earlier but it´s the rainy season and a thunderstorm took out my electricity yesterday afternoon , probably happen again today.

By the way both the Catholics an Orthodox recognize each other as the original church and each others Apostolic Succesion. They are two branches of the same church. The agument is primarily over whether the Pope is an equal of the other 4 Patriarchs (Orthodox) or an athority over them (Catholic).

[darinhouston]

By the way both the Catholics an Orthodox recognize each other as the original church and each others Apostolic Succesion. They are two branches of the same church. The agument is primarily over whether the Pope is an equal of the other 4 Patriarchs (Orthodox) or an athority over them (Catholic).

I thought the schism was largely credal and that the RCC Pope and Orthodox Patriarch anathematized each other and their positions over the procession of the Holy Spirit.

[Paidion]

My understanding, Darin, is that the issue of whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or the Father alone, was just the proverbial "straw". The issues were much greater than that, but that was used as the excuse for the division into two streams.

I think Thomas is correct in their seeing each other as succeeding from the same original universal Church.

What I'm wondering, Thomas, is whether they see the Episcopalian Church as a later stream. The Episcopalian Church seems to regard itself as such.

I can understand why they wouldn't regard the Protestant groups as such. My wife's Catholic history teacher did not speak of "The Protestant Reformation". He called it "The Protestant Revolution".