Compiling of the New Testament

[Jon]

Does the fact that the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the "variants" which can trace their list of bishops back to the apostles, show that any one of them is the "true Church that Christ founded"? The early Church gradually changed both in its theology and its practice throughout the centuries. In my opinion, it had already gone too far off the original after the second century (though it was far closer to the original even in the fourth century than it was in subsequent centuries).

Suppose, Jon, that you had founded a club 30 years ago which became known as "Jon Cares", whose purpose was to help hungry or starving children. You appointed Rock Riley as president of the club, and the club expanded rapidly, and a second chapter was soon needed. Rock appointed a president, in the second chapter, and the club expanded rapidly, with many chapters arising throughout the country. Suppose you do not follow their activities much, but you decide to visit one of the local chapters next month. So you inquire about the location of the chapter, and you go where you are directed, and find a club that meets regularly, holds formal meetings, as well as provides fund-raising suppers, and holds golfing events. They are zealous to enroll new members, and they sometimes do acts of charity such as cleaning the streets of a neighbourhood, or helping with boys' hockey. You inquire whether the club provides for hungry or starving children.

The answer they give you is, "No. But we do many good deeds." Then you ask, "This IS a Jon Cares Club, isn't it?"

"Oh, it certainly is, Sir! In every one of our chapters, the presidents can be traced back to Rock Riley, that first president which the great leader Jon himself appointed."

If the Jon Cares Club has so changed in its purpose and its practices, is it really the club which you founded 30 years ago? Would you not identify more closely with the little club on the corner that provides for hungry and starving children, even though its president cannot trace his appointment back to Rock Riley?

Paidon,

Thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail. I know you said you wanted to respond further later.

I, of course, believe the answer to your first question is a resounding yes. I guess I will wait for you to answer one of the questions I already asked - if you do not accept the early Church that solidified which books should be included in the Bible, why do you accept the books of the Bible as they are today?

Your description of "Jon Cares" club - is this how you view the Roman Catholic Church? I see what you're trying to get at but the story is not an accurate analogy for the history of the Church. Suppose the requirements for being part of the Church are difficult, don't fit your lifestyle, or being well read you decide that you can interpret writings better on your own than with the direction of the Church that put those writings together. What would you do when you disagree with a particular teaching of the Church? You'd do what Luther did - you'd create your own version of the Truth that fits your lifestyle. Luther had a problem with chastity, so I believe he created his version of "once saved always saved" and "Bible only" so he didn't have to face his sin and do penance for it. It was the only way he could justify his actions. And, without the direction of the Catholic Church he could modify and interpret the Bible to fit his lifestyle. Since then so many others have done the same, and many today change Churches due tot he same thing. You may not be this way, but many are.

More later-

Jon

[steve]

Hi Jon,

This is the other Steve, the one whose debate with Tim Staples you heard. I have not had time to jump into the discussion before this.

I was interested in your comment about Luther having problems with chastity. I was not aware of this. He may have fund celibacy difficult, but this is not the same thing as being unchaste (He married, of course, but I am not aware of fornication or unchastity in his life). In any case, finding celibacy difficult can hardly explain his reasons for breaking with the church. If he wished to marry, he need not leave the church (it is, in fact, a sacrament in your church, isn't it?). He only would need to leave the monastery.

But since this matter of celibate vs. married priesthood seems to be on the table, it is interesting that you cannot recognize the Roman Catholic Church's departure from the apostolic teaching on this very matter. Peter (your first "Pope") was a married man, as were the other apostles and brethren of the Lord (1 Cor.9:5; cf., Mark 1:30). When Paul laid out qualifications for those wishing to be "bishops," he required that they be married men (1 Tim.3:2; Titus 1:5-7). The RCC forbids marriage to the church leaders, whereas the apostles required it. How can you put confidence in the "apostolic succession" of an organization whose leaders, first, are not married, and are therefore not qualified to be leaders, according top Paul's instruction and Peter's example; and, second, who teach and enforce the opposite of what the apostles practiced and taught? Just curious.

[Jon]

Hi Jon,

This is the other Steve, the one whose debate with Tim Staples you heard. I have not had time to jump into the discussion before this.

I was interested in your comment about Luther having problems with chastity. I was not aware of this. He may have fund celibacy difficult, but this is not the same thing as being unchaste (He married, of course, but I am not aware of fornication or unchastity in his life). In any case, finding celibacy difficult can hardly explain his reasons for breaking with the church. If he wished to marry, he need not leave the church (it is, in fact, a sacrament in your church, isn't it?). He only would need to leave the monastery.

But since this matter of celibate vs. married priesthood seems to be on the table, it is interesting that you cannot recognize the Roman Catholic Church's departure from the apostolic teaching on this very matter. Peter (your first "Pope") was a married man, as were the other apostles and brethren of the Lord (1 Cor.9:5; cf., Mark 1:30). When Paul laid out qualifications for those wishing to be "bishops," he required that they be married men (1 Tim.3:2; Titus 1:5-7). The RCC forbids marriage to the church leaders, whereas the apostles required it. How can you put confidence in the "apostolic succession" of an organization whose leaders, first, are not married, and are therefore not qualified to be leaders, according top Paul's instruction and Peter's example; and, second, who teach and enforce the opposite of what the apostles practiced and taught? Just curious.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I know you're probably an extremely busy man. I will be soon as well with another baby coming in a week, so if I fall off the grid, it's not because I'm not interested in keeping up this discussion.

I'll double check my source on Luther, I was in a hurry today when writing that. It's possible that the phrase was more "he struggled with his passions". In general though I think many people see Luther as different than he was - they see him as the great reformer, but actually he was a man with problems like all of us - probably more problems than many of us - some of his included rash words about peasants who did not support his movement, demeaning ideas about women, and acceptance of polygamy (to name a few). I believe that he was unjustified in his personal interpretation of the Bible to suit the way he wanted the Truth to be. I think he had valid concerns about some corruption in the Church but he handled it poorly and took it too far. He and others like him are part of the reason Christianity is so fragmented today.

You know the Bible much better than I. I won't be able to answer with great debate. However, why would you put the word Bishop in quotes if it is plainly shown in the Bible? I can see how you would write "Pope" given your lack of acceptance of his authority. Also, how can you think there is not a hierarchy, as you argued with Tim, when the Bible talks about choosing Bishops and ordaining Priests? Isn't it plainly written there?

I see where the Bible verses you quoted say only that a Bishop qualification be "husband with one wife". It does not say that unmarried men are not qualified to be leaders. Plus, qualifications for Bishops and Priests are likely not Dogmas to the Faith and Truth. The Pope has the power to bind and loose on earth, so the RCC is fully within her power to change this requirement without contradicting herself and Truth. And you know the Anglicans recently accepted into the Church have many married with Priestly orders yet they were not asked to leave their wives. It is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

I put my confidence in the organization founded by Christ himself, the Roman Catholic Church, because it has the entirety of the Truth. I did my fair share of Faith searching in college, and one thing that didn't add up then still does not add up today. If there is one Truth, then only one denomination can have the whole Truth, and all others must be misled, if only partially. How, then, does one choose the right denomination in the search for the full Truth? Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, non-denominational? There are too many variations to count. All of these variations started by men with their own interpretation of God's Truth, with none the clear choice for a newcomer seeking Truth.

I must ask, Steve, why do you have a "Statement of Faith" on your website? I would argue that it is useful for non-Christians who do not know the Faith. However, I think there is a problem with this. To me, the problem is your statement of Faith is unique to you and people who think like you or have interpreted the Bible like you. Your interpretation of the Bible, your Truth, not completely God's Truth. I am sure there are literally thousands of Statements of Faith for different Christian groups out there that all have different points. There is no unity of Truth between these groups, because all have only parts of the Truth. The Pope said it best when he published an encyclical stating that there are parts of the Truth in many of the Christian Churches, but the only Church with the complete Truth is the Roman Catholic Church.

Jon

[darinhouston]

I look forward to Steve's answers to your questions, but I had the following observations...

It's possible that the phrase was more "he struggled with his passions".

Don't we all...

In general though I think many people see Luther as different than he was

He was no Saint, but that's not exactly the point.

I believe that he was unjustified in his personal interpretation of the Bible to suit the way he wanted the Truth to be.

Apart from disagreeing with the church, which parts do you think he got wrong and why do you think he was unjustified? You might want to start a different thread to discuss each of them.

I think he had valid concerns about some corruption in the Church but he handled it poorly and took it too far. He and others like him are part of the reason Christianity is so fragmented today.

I would suggest that he had valid concerns about gross corruption in the Church and in the way it used its own official interpretation of doctrine for its own political purposes. That, regardless of how this individual hanled it, the Church had a greater responsibility to handle the trugh properly and it handled the matter poorly, took it too far, and that it was his excommunication that led to what you call fragmentation.

[jriccitelli]

You're right Jon, the only true Church should have put Martin Luther to death for his heresies and evil behavior, like they did so many other evil men. I think we could put an end to all these heretical denominations if the true church would just do as She had in the past. I think the Pope said this the best.

[steve]

Hi Jon,

You wrote:

...why would you put the word Bishop in quotes if it is plainly shown in the Bible? I can see how you would write "Pope" given your lack of acceptance of his authority.

The word "bishop" is not found in the Greek New Testament. The word "episkopos" is translated as "bishop" in some older translations, but it's literal meaning is "overseer." I object to the translation "bishop," because it has no meaning in English, other than as an ecclesiastical official. "Overseer" is the correct translation, and does not involve any connotations of ecclesiastical hierarchy, but describes a function or service performed by the elders.

Also, how can you think there is not a hierarchy, as you argued with Tim, when the Bible talks about choosing Bishops and ordaining Priests? Isn't it plainly written there?

As I said, "bishop" is not a biblical word, but an unfortunate non-translation of a Greek word that should, instead, have been translated (in which case, it would have read, "overseer"). The same is true of the word "priest", when applied to church officials in the Catholic New Testament. Your Bible translates the Greek word "presbuteros" as "priest"—but presbuteros is merely the generic term for an "old man," and is better translated "elder".

It is true that the English language, which developed under Catholic and Anglican influences, traces the etymology of the English word "priest" back to presbuteros, but this is an idiosyncrasy in the evolution of our language, and does not change the fact that the Greek word means "old man"—not "priest." There is an entirely different Greek word for the idea of "priest" (hiereus), which is never used in the Bible of church officials, but only of Jewish religious leaders.

Thus, in any accurate translation of the New Testament, neither "bishop" nor "priest" will be found in any passage describing church leaders.

This is why I used quotation marks.

I see where the Bible verses you quoted say only that a Bishop qualification be "husband with one wife". It does not say that unmarried men are not qualified to be leaders.

I would think that, if an apostle said (twice—the only two times he enumerated qualifications for church leaders) "an overseer must be the husband of one wife," then, if I were in a position to select overseers, I would be obliged to limit my search to those who were husbands of one wife.

Plus, qualifications for Bishops and Priests are likely not Dogmas to the Faith and Truth. The Pope has the power to bind and loose on earth, so the RCC is fully within her power to change this requirement without contradicting herself and Truth.

This distinction is interesting, since you earlier suggested there are no major and minor doctrines. I do not have any reason to believe that the pope has authority to contradict the apostles, but since you admit this to be a case of the pope doing so, it stands against any claims of the RCC that the church and pope are upholding apostolic tradition.

I put my confidence in the organization founded by Christ himself, the Roman Catholic Church, because it has the entirety of the Truth.

This, besides begging the question, implies that our faith should be in an organization. I find no evidence of this in scripture. Our faith and obedience are owed to God and Christ, but never to an organization.

If there is one Truth, then only one denomination can have the whole Truth, and all others must be misled, if only partially. How, then, does one choose the right denomination in the search for the full Truth? Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, non-denominational? There are too many variations to count. All of these variations started by men with their own interpretation of God's Truth, with none the clear choice for a newcomer seeking Truth.

This question assumes that the newcomer should seek truth from an organization, and that one such organization must possess all the truth, while all others are doomed to possess, at best, only part of the truth. I find no reason to suppose that any one organization possesses all the truth, and think it entirely likely that all organizations possess only part of the truth. Of course, "the church" is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim.3:15), but I see no reason to equate "the church" with any given organization, nor to read into this verse that the church would necessarily possess "all truths." There are "truths" that Jesus did not entrust to His apostles (John 16:12/ Acts 1:7) or to the church at large (2 Cor.12:4).

I believe that people should seek truth from God, and that this places His words in the highest position of credibility. Once we have read His words, we are in a position to assess the relative merits of the teachings of various organizations. However, we are not under obligation to join or to follow the official doctrines of any organization. If you say that we need an organization to help us interpret God's words, I would say you have not done enough to acquaint yourself with the New Testament. No part of it was written to a readership of theologians or scholars. Every book was written to common people, ordinary Christians—peasants, in many cases. It takes no organization or scholar, for example, to read and understand that Paul said an overseer must be the husband of one wife. The words are not esoteric and do not contain hidden meanings. It takes an organization or theologian to tell us that Paul did NOT mean an overseer should be married!

I must ask, Steve, why do you have a "Statement of Faith" on your website? I would argue that it is useful for non-Christians who do not know the Faith.

A "statement of faith" is not the same thing as a "catechism." It is not formulated, nor published, with a mind to instruct people in doctrine. The statement of faith is a means by which one identifies what one's own beliefs are on doctrines that others may wish to use as a gauge to assess their areas of agreement or disagreement.

In other words, it is not a statement claiming that all Christians should think a certain way on the issues, but a statement of the ideas that one is likely to hear defended and upheld by the person or organization who framed the statement. It warns people of other viewpoints that they may find something to disagree with, and informs those of similar views that they may be on the same page. One thing a statement of faith does not attempt to do is to standardize the beliefs of all Christians into some artificial homogeneity based upon some organization's authority to dictate such things to others.

However, I think there is a problem with this. To me, the problem is your statement of Faith is unique to you and people who think like you or have interpreted the Bible like you. Your interpretation of the Bible, your Truth, not completely God's Truth. I am sure there are literally thousands of Statements of Faith for different Christian groups out there that all have different points. There is no unity of Truth between these groups, because all have only parts of the Truth. The Pope said it best when he published an encyclical stating that there are parts of the Truth in many of the Christian Churches, but the only Church with the complete Truth is the Roman Catholic Church.

If unity is defined as uniformity of opinion, then the non-Roman Catholic Churches are indeed hopelessly disunited. I do not define unity in this way. Nor does the Bible. However, if Christian unity does in fact require uniformity of opinion, there are only two possible ways to hope for this to come about:

1) The Holy Spirit can, in His time and at His chosen rate of progress, lead each sincere follower of Christ into all truth, as each one humbly studies, meditates upon and submits to God's word; or

2) Some central authority—a man or a committee of men—can dictate what everyone must think on every subject. Conformity, in such a case, does not arise from honestly-arrived-at, common convictions, but from servile surrender of free inquiry to a tyrannical thought-police.

I believe in the former. All who love and humbly follow Jesus are at liberty to follow their own consciences, and are commanded not to judge or reject the others with whom they do not share full agreement (see Romans 14:1-6). Agreement on every detail is never presented, in scripture, as the goal for Christians, but love for the brethren is (John 13:34-35).

If one believes in the second model of conformity, then there are many groups, in addition to the Roman Catholic organization, that provide this service of telling every member what he or she must think. We call these groups "cults." They possess as much unity, internally, as does the RCC—and for the same reason. Once you adopt a policy of excluding from membership those who do not agree, you have guaranteed that your group will remain unified. However, you have not thereby guaranteed that your group will have the truth.

[Paidion]

Thank you, Jon, for your response to my post. Indeed, I will explain my position concerning the Bible, but today is a very busy day for me, so maybe tomorrow.

However, I do have an idea as to why Steve placed quotations marks around "bishops". When one thinks of "bishop", one thinks of the RC hierarchal system. The Greek word translated as "bishop" in the King James Version, the Catholic Douay version, and even the New King James which Steve uses, is "επισκοπη". This word literally means "overseer", and should be translated as such. So the apostles didn't appoint "bishops" (in the Roman Catholic sense of the word) in the churches. Rather, they appointed overseers, several in each assembly. Even the word translated as "church" should have been translated as "assembly". Of course, in Acts 19:32,39, and 41, even the Catholics translate the word as "assembly". It's impossible to translate it as "church" in that context.

[steve]

Paidion and I were obviously composing our replies simultaneously.

[Jon]

You're right Jon, the only true Church should have put Martin Luther to death for his heresies and evil behavior, like they did so many other evil men. I think we could put an end to all these heretical denominations if the true church would just do as She had in the past. I think the Pope said this the best.

John,

I think you missed the point. Also, when I paraphrased for the Pope, it was based on a real document found here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... us_en.html

Quote within that document here: "With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.57"

The document is saying that elements of Truth can be found outside of the Catholic Church, but not the full Truth.

If you are going to imply that the Pope has said "let's put to death all the heretics" please provide a citation or reference. To not do so is to put words in the Pope's mouth and slander him without merit. If he actually said something like that, please show us where.

Jon

[darinhouston]

f one believes in the second model of conformity, then there are many groups, in addition to the Roman Catholic organization, that provide this service of telling every member what he or she must think. We call these groups "cults." They possess as much unity, internally, as does the RCC—and for the same reason. Once you adopt a policy of excluding from membership those who do not agree, you have guaranteed that your group will remain unified. However, you have not thereby guaranteed that your group will have the truth.

I might add that does appear, in fact, to be very little practical uniformity among parishes and parishioners on many of the doctrines that really matter. I also dare say the RCC is in as big a disarray as the Protestants when it gets down to exegeting most scripture, even those affecting daily life. Even on interview panels, you don't really need to have a Priest, a Rabbi and a Methodist Minister -- you just need to have three priests.