The church or body of Christ is made up of sinners who err every single day.

who is the head of the church?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

So this honestly wasn't a post to spike the football on Protestants, I just really wanted to hear a rebuttal to the question about the continuity of worship in the oldest churches in Christendom, to see if I can use this as a point in my apologetics moving forward.

---

Just a random observation from my learning about early church history. One of the biggest themes I have seen is the overall quest for power in the early centuries. Bishops and presbyters would argue who should be in charge; cities would debate which is best. It is only natural that pure doctrine is polluted by skewed motives, even by the most famous church fathers and bishops.

Is the Catholic view that the RCC has just hit it outta the park for the first two millennia since Christ?

---

Absolutely

---

They always fail to account for the divine protection of the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that divinely guided the OHCA church to define the canon of scripture.

---

That's what's so amazing. All it would take is for one Pope to say "gay marriage is sacramental start performing them" or "God is actually three distinct Gods" or something to that extent and the entire house of cards comes crashing down; but it hasn't.

It's because the church qua the church cannot err. It is the body of Christ. Much as the eucharist cannot transmit germs or disease, the church cannot err.

---

What do you mean the church cannot err? Like every RCC sanctioned church is perfect? Assume not...

---

If it helps, think of it as a cross between a tautology and a no true Scotsman defense. The church cannot err because it is the mystical body of Christ, with Christ at its head. If it errs, it is not the church.

So practically speaking the RCC has never done anything wrong ever in it's existence?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

So practically speaking the RCC has never done anything wrong ever in it's existence?

---

I don't know why you're focusing only on the Roman wing of the Catholic Church, but no, the church has never err'd in its existence. Random people have errred, but not the body.

Thanks. Just focusing on it since that is where the majority would align, at least here in the USA.

But, the West would say the East has erred and vice verse, correct?

I am just trying to make sure I get some basics confirmed.

The Church itself as an institution has never erred, but specific individuals have erred.
Yes, the Catholic view would be that the east as in big O Orthodoxy has erred. Though there are Churches in the east that are Eastern Catholic rather than Eastern Orthodox, and those are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The church or body of Christ is made up of sinners who err every single day.

---

That is true as far as it goes but it is not the point being made. I think the question that is being begged is "Erred how?" or "Erred in what way?"

Well us churches of christ are modeled after the first century church, so take that. And since we are modeled after the first century church, we only use PowerPoint 2000!

I figured my whinky face and reference to PowerPoint would indicate that I was making fun of my own denomination. My apologies for any misunderstanding.

If you are unfamiliar with the churches of christ, this was a typical response to why we did some thing, or more likely didn't do something in a particular way. Of course it was selectively applied.

Sorry didn't catch the wink.

I do wonder what the actual claim is tho. I mean, if someone says that to me, I'd like to know what they're basing it on.

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

The Church itself as an institution has never erred, but specific individuals have erred.

---

Let me ask this way then. I always thought that the RCC position towards the Reformation was that there were a couple things they needed to "fix." Is that not the case? They reject the idea that anything they were doing as an institution needed reforms? Because if the institution had never erred I would assume they would reject any and all items being pointed out.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

I understand Protestants consider themselves to be a reformation or renewal of authentic Christian teaching that was lost due to the unbiblical practices of the Catholic/Orthodox church.

My question is: what of the ancient Christian Churches: (Church of the Holy Sepulchre, St. John Lateran, Church of the Nativity, St Catherine's monastery, etc etc.

All of these churches have been founded hundreds of years before the reformation and most before the end of the 4th century.

All of these Churches began as Catholic/Orthodox and have been continuously worshipping as Catholic/Orthodox since then. How can it be said that these churches don't authentically represent ancient Christianity?

---

I would probably not agree with your first paragraph. Many Protestant churches I have been to do not really have a regard for "authentic" teaching and practices - they often times stress "relevance" to today's culture. My personal opinion is that there should be more regard to the early, post apostolic men who led the charge as opposed to only using references to Luther, Edward's, Wesley, etc.

Honestly not really educated on the churches mentioned. I think where it gets fuzzy is what really is following an authentic/ancient Christianity. We already know from Paul's letters that churches were moving away from Christ and the central gospel message. See Galations as an example. So, I can't see how churches as an institution cannot err if Paul himself is giving such a warning.

Gal 1:6-7
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ."

I guess my point goes back to the idea that anything involving people will produce sin. Yes, at the macro level, with Christ as head of the church, it is not going to be defeated. That doesn't mean there won't be problems along the way.

Because any type of malpractice is foreign to the very nature of the Church which is perfectly good. Errors can come from people inside of the institution that falsely represent its positions

So just to confirm, the Reformation in its entirety was rejected from a Catholic Institution standpoint?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

The Church itself as an institution has never erred, but specific individuals have erred.

---

Let me ask this way then. I always thought that the RCC position towards the Reformation was that there were a couple things they needed to "fix." Is that not the case? They reject the idea that anything they were doing as an institution needed reforms? Because if the institution had never erred I would assume they would reject any and all items being pointed out.

---

The "fixes" acknowledged at the time of the reformation were abuses to sound teaching. Indulgences is the most obvious one. Indulgences was not overturned or done away with. But the Church did acknowledge in Luther's area of Germany, certain priests were actually selling them, which went against church teaching. It wasn't "we were ok with selling indulgences but now we aren't". Instead it was a "selling of indulgences has never been ok and we're reiterating that anyone doing that needs to stop". The Church wasn't wrong in it's teaching, but individual priests were.

Ok, thanks

Banned summed it up perfectly below

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Thanks. Just focusing on it since that is where the majority would align, at least here in the USA.

But, the West would say the East has erred and vice verse, correct?

I am just trying to make sure I get some basics confirmed.

---

I think the key difference is in the definition of the church being used. I suspect if we define it, there will not be agreement.

Yep I agree. There is no doubt a disagreement of what "the church" is.

Assume the RCC and EO would essentially say my local church is not even a valid church. I don't really even know where you go from there.

Observations:

It was implied that Catholicism is true or right because of the number of divisions and disagreements within the protestant denomination.

1 Corinthians 11:17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

The sinfulness or divisiveness within the church does not negate a church existing.

Who is the church?

The church is people. It's sinful people who have been forgiven by Jesus the moment they first trusted in His finished work on their behalf. I would argue that this is the true church.

If this is true then this means that there are believers in the Catholic church and there are believers in the Protestant churches that are all members of the body of Christ or the one true church. This also means that there are people who have not placed their faith in Jesus that attend Catholic churches and protestant churches who are not members of the 'true' church. The true church is not defined by denomination it's defined by being born again, forgiven, the receipt of the Holy Spirit.

God wants believers "the church" to grow together and their knowledge of Him and worship together in Spirit and in Truth. Truth is defined by God. The church is made of people. Most of the NT is written to the people 'church' to address the areas in which they err. The "church" catholic and/or protestant is not immune to error.

DirtDiver said:

---

Observations:

It was implied that Catholicism is true or right because of the number of divisions and disagreements within the protestant denomination.

1 Corinthians 11:17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

The sinfulness or divisiveness within the church does not negate a church existing.

Who is the church?

The church is people. It's sinful people who have been forgiven by Jesus the moment they first trusted in His finished work on their behalf. I would argue that this is the true church.

If this is true then this means that there are believers in the Catholic church and there are believers in the Protestant churches that are all members of the body of Christ or the one true church. This also means that there are people who have not placed their faith in Jesus that attend Catholic churches and protestant churches who are not members of the 'true' church. The true church is not defined by denomination it's defined by being born again, forgiven, the receipt of the Holy Spirit.

God wants believers "the church" to grow together and their knowledge of Him and worship together in Spirit and in Truth. Truth is defined by God. The church is made of people. Most of the NT is written to the people 'church' to address the areas in which they err. The "church" catholic and/or protestant is not immune to error.

---

I would suggest to you the same as I did with 10andBounce. You are correct that there are divisions in the church. What we get to see Paul do in this chapter verse 23-34 is to define the correct doctrine on the Lord's Supper and tell the Corinthians, with authority, "this is how you're supposed to do it". He notes their divisiveness and gives them the answer to quash their divisions around this topic.

What we get to see in this chapter is the authority of the Church hierarchy (in this case Paul) stepping in to settle issues with finality. And this teaching on the Lord's Supper wasn't inerrant only because he wrote it down. This teaching was just as inerrant when he verbally proclaimed it as it is in the written form we have today.

How do we know the intent of Paul was to settle matters with authority? Because he tells Corinth in chapter 1 that they should be one:

10 Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[d] by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you should be in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you should be united in the same mind and the same purpose. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters.[e]

And in chapter 4 he tells them he has the authority and they need to listen:

14 I am not writing this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15 For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 I appeal to you, then, be imitators of me. 17 For this reason I sent[c] you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ Jesus, as I teach them everywhere in every church. 18 But some of you, thinking that I am not coming to you, have become arrogant. 19 But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people but their power. 20 For the kingdom of God depends not on talk but on power. 21 What would you prefer? Am I to come to you with a stick, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?

ETA: there are believers in all denominations, but the desire of Jesus and the attempts of the apostles to help achieve it outlined in the bible is for us to all be unified. Jesus wants us all on the same page, and the apostles went to great lengths to make that so.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yep I agree. There is no doubt a disagreement of what "the church" is.

Assume the RCC and EO would essentially say my local church is not even a valid church. I don't really even know where you go from there.

---

Does it have apostolic succession?

---

Can you provide where Paul defines this as a requirement in his epistles?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yep I agree. There is no doubt a disagreement of what "the church" is.

Assume the RCC and EO would essentially say my local church is not even a valid church. I don't really even know where you go from there.

---

Does it have apostolic succession?

---

Can you provide where Paul defines this as a requirement in his epistles?

---

Acts 1 shows Judas's particular role being filled by Matthias. 120 believers there and the other 11 apostles picked one of them, with the guidance of God

If you need Peter, i would suggest Titus 1:

5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint[a] elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe[b] and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7 Since an overseer manages God's household, he must be blamelessnot overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8 Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Paul leaves someone in charge. He tells that person to select others so that all towns may have someone who can help them know sound doctrine. This is a very basic description of apostolic succession

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yep I agree. There is no doubt a disagreement of what "the church" is.

Assume the RCC and EO would essentially say my local church is not even a valid church. I don't really even know where you go from there.

---

Does it have apostolic succession?

---

Can you provide where Paul defines this as a requirement in his epistles?

---

Apostolic succession can be intuited from scripture (namely in ACTS and Paul's writings to the churches in his "diocese" and logic, but is most strongly witnessed in the words of the early church fathers and the actual historical events of the church.

I can post dozens of references from the patristics about the necessity and the workings of the descendants of the apostles, but you've probably seen all those, so I would just ask you to look to the councils. How presided over them? Random Christians, or the Bishops?

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yep I agree. There is no doubt a disagreement of what "the church" is.

Assume the RCC and EO would essentially say my local church is not even a valid church. I don't really even know where you go from there.

---

Does it have apostolic succession?

---

Can you provide where Paul defines this as a requirement in his epistles?

---

Acts 1 shows Judas's particular role being filled by Matthias. 120 believers there and the other 11 apostles picked one of them, with the guidance of God

If you need Peter, i would suggest Titus 1:

5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint[a] elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe[b] and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7 Since an overseer manages God's household, he must be blamelessnot overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8 Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Paul leaves someone in charge. He tells that person to select others so that all towns may have someone who can help them know sound doctrine. This is a very basic description of apostolic succession

---

I would say our elder group fits the description given in Titus 1. So I am in a legitimate church?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yep I agree. There is no doubt a disagreement of what "the church" is.

Assume the RCC and EO would essentially say my local church is not even a valid church. I don't really even know where you go from there.

---

Does it have apostolic succession?

---

Can you provide where Paul defines this as a requirement in his epistles?

---

Scripture provides several passages that support the understanding of the Church as a visible body, led by bishops:

1. Matthew 16:18-19: Jesus says to Peter, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven." This establishes Peter's foundational role in the Church's visible leadership.

2. Acts 15:1-29: The Council of Jerusalem reflects the Church's visible and hierarchical structure, where the apostles and elders gathered to discuss and decide on matters affecting the entire Christian community.

3. 1 Timothy 3:

• 1-7: These passages provide detailed qualifications for bishops, indicating the established role of bishops in Church leadership.
• 8-10: These passages provied detailed qualifications for deacons.
• 14-15: These verses describe the church as the household of God, but perhaps most importantly THE PILLAR AND BULWARK (FOUNDATION) OF THE TRUTH.

4. Titus 1:5-9: Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders (presbyters) in every city, providing qualifications and emphasizing the hierarchical organization within the Church.

5. Philippians 1:1: Paul addresses the Church in Philippi, including its overseers (bishops) and deacons, highlighting the structured leadership.

These verses affirm the Church as a visible, organized body with a hierarchy of leadership that has been part of its structure since the earliest Christian communities.

Scripture also provides several passages that can be understood as referring to the practice of excommunication, which involves excluding a member from an actual entity or real organization that is subject to governance and authority, due to serious sin or heretical beliefs, with the goal of guiding them toward repentance and reconciliation:

1. Matthew 18:15-17: Jesus outlines a process for addressing a brother who sins: first through private correction, then involving witnesses, and finally bringing the issue to the Church. If the person refuses to listen even to the Church, Jesus says, "treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector," implying separation from the community.

2. 1 Corinthians 5:1-5: Paul addresses a case of immorality in the Corinthian Church, instructing the community to "hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord." This involves excommunication for the purpose of repentance and ultimate salvation.

3. 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15: Paul advises that anyone who does not obey the instructions given in his letter should be noted and not associated with, so that they may feel ashamed, yet emphasizes not regarding them as an enemy, but warning them as a brother.

4. Titus 3:10-11: Paul instructs Titus to warn a divisive person once or twice, and then have nothing to do with them if they continue in their ways.

These passages illustrate the Church's responsibility through its authorized leaders, the apostolic successors (bishops) to maintain its integrity and purity while also demonstrating mercy and seeking the spiritual restoration of those who have strayed.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yep I agree. There is no doubt a disagreement of what "the church" is.

Assume the RCC and EO would essentially say my local church is not even a valid church. I don't really even know where you go from there.

---

Does it have apostolic succession?

---

Can you provide where Paul defines this as a requirement in his epistles?

---

Apostolic succession can be intuited from scripture (namely in ACTS and Paul's writings to the churches in his "diocese" and logic, but is most strongly witnessed in the words of the early church fathers and the actual historical events of the church.

I can post dozens of references from the patristics about the necessity and the workings of the descendants of the apostles, but you've probably seen all those, so I would just ask you to look to the councils. How presided over them? Random Christians, or the Bishops?

---

Let me help a brother out:

• Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians (ca 96 A.D.) where Clement, a prominent early bishop, writes about the apostles appointing bishops and deacons to ensure the Church's continuity.
• The Didache: a 1st Century instruction manual (catachism) that provides instructions for choosing leaders, indicating an organized ecclesial structure with appointed individuals.
• Ignatius of Antioch: (ca 110 A.D.) - in his letters, Ignatius emphasizes obedience to bishops as successors of the apostles and highlights the role of bishops in maintaining Church unity and orthodoxy.
• Irenaeus of Lyons: (late 2nd century) - In "Against Heresies" Irenaeus argues for the authority of apostolic tradition and emphasizes that bishops can trace their lineage back to the apostles as a safeguard against heresy.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yep I agree. There is no doubt a disagreement of what "the church" is.

Assume the RCC and EO would essentially say my local church is not even a valid church. I don't really even know where you go from there.

---

Does it have apostolic succession?

---

Can you provide where Paul defines this as a requirement in his epistles?

---

Apostolic succession can be intuited from scripture (namely in ACTS and Paul's writings to the churches in his "diocese" and logic, but is most strongly witnessed in the words of the early church fathers and the actual historical events of the church.

I can post dozens of references from the patristics about the necessity and the workings of the descendants of the apostles, but you've probably seen all those, so I would just ask you to look to the councils. How presided over them? Random Christians, or the Bishops?

---

Let me help a brother out:

• Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians (ca 96 A.D.) where Clement, a prominent early bishop, writes about the apostles appointing bishops and deacons to ensure the Church's continuity.
• The Didache: a 1st Century instruction manual (catechism) that provides instructions for choosing leaders, indicating an organized ecclesial structure with appointed individuals.
• Ignatius of Antioch: (ca 110 A.D.) - in his letters, Ignatius emphasizes obedience to bishops as successors of the apostles and highlights the role of bishops in maintaining Church unity and orthodoxy.
• Irenaeus of Lyons: (late 2nd century) - In "Against Heresies" Irenaeus argues fo the authority of apostolic tradition and emphasizes that bishops can trace their lineage back to the apostles as a safeguard against heresy.

---

More help: https://eternalchristendom.com/becoming-catholic/quote-archive/apostolic-succession/

Zobel said:

---

Based on what evidence? What first century church in particular?

---

I have family near and dear to me go to the nondenominational church called Antioch, and with a straight face say they are part of the early church because of **the name**. A few years ago they implemented fasting for the first time. Not on the liturgical calendar, mind you, just a nice post christmas new years fast to slim down and think about God more.

Their boomer parents go to church of Christ and say the same thing. See, we are the church of christ- right there in the title. 'Moose shoulda told ya out front' level of interaction.

I said the word heretical last year in conversation and they both went, 'What does heretical mean?'

This is the page we are on in american catechesis.