The history of the church.

[Carbon]

In these centuries there appeared two tendencies which were later to influence strongly the life of Christians. One was asceticism. This is discipline of character affected by self-denial in things which in themselves are not wrong. Examples of this in this time were fasting and renunciation of human fellowship by solitary living. It began to be thought that special righteousness could be attained in such ways.

Seems during times of peace, people had time to relax and think of worldly ways to live their lives. Catholicism comes to mind here. Especially this solitary living and self-denial. I don't see anywhere where this could come from scripture.

 

[Carbon]

In these centuries there appeared two tendencies which were later to influence strongly the life of Christians. One was asceticism. This is discipline of character affected by self-denial in things which in themselves are not wrong. Examples of this in this time were fasting and renunciation of human fellowship by solitary living. It began to be thought that special righteousness could be attained in such ways.

The other tendency was legalism. This is interpretation the moral meaning of a religion as obedience to definite rules or laws. Examples in this time were prayer and fasting on certain days of the week and regular almsgiving. The freedom of the Christian life which Paul had taught was somewhat replaced by a system of rules.


In times of rest from persecution, we have said people of inferior character entered the Church. Thus its moral average was somewhat lowered. Hence earnest Christians became dissatisfied with the kind of living which the Church was accepting.

A distinction was drawn between two grades of Christian conduct. The "requirements" of the gospel were for the mass of Christians; the "advice" of the gospel was for those who would go higher and aspire to perfection. Thus, a double standard of Christian living developed. The "requirements" of the gospel were the keeping of the church's rules. The "advice" was voluntary self-denial, ascetic living. The most esteemed elements of this higher morality were poverty and celibacy.


Okay now, what does this sound like? Sounds like the Roman Catholic Church is coming.

Let's look a little further and see what took place.

 

[Carbon]

The worship and sacraments of the Church.

Worship: By the middle of the second century the custom was established of having on the Lord's Day a meeting for scripture reading, prayer, the singing of Psalms and hymns, and preaching, concluding with the Lord's supper. Since this was a work day like the others, the meeting had to be in te early morning. The first part of the service was public, but only believers might be present at the sacrament. Forms of prayer came into use in the second century and in the third liturgies or full orders of worship were employed.

Sacraments: Baptism was given in an elaborate ritual by the end of the second century. It was believed to wash away all previous sins. The Lord's Supper, or Eucharist was administered in liturgical form. Thought about its meaning produced in the third century a doctrine which had two aspects. The Lord's supper was considered a sacrament in which Christ was really present so that the believer had communion with him. It was considered also a sacrifice that influenced God to be favorable to the communicants, and those for whom they prayed.

 

[Carbon]

The organization of the Church.

Local Church organization.

In the first century, we saw there was no uniform pattern of local church organization; but some churches were governed by groups of presbyter-bishops and deacons. By the middle of the second century, there was a uniform pattern. Practically every church had a bishop at its head, and groups of presbyters and deacons. The word "bishop" here should not mislead us. These bishops did not have districts under their control. They were pastors, each a leader of his church. It is easy to see how this form of government developed out of governments by the two groups. One man can direct affairs and give leadership better than several.

 

[Carbon]

The Catholic Church.

Rise of the Catholic Church.

In the first century, we saw churches were independent; there was no government having authority over more than one church. In the second century also there was no such government. But by the third quarter of this century, there had arisen what was called the Catholic Church."catholic" meaning universal.
This was a federatiuon or association of churches which were bound together by agreement in three formal ways. In the first century the churches had a spiritual unity, through love resting on faith.
In the second centurythere was also an external unity. The churches of the Catholic Church were united by all having one kind of government, i.e., by bishop, presbyters, deacons; by all holding one creed, substantially the Apostles Creed; and by all receiving one collection of books of the New Testament. There were churches that did not have the form of government just described, or did not altogether agree with the creed, or did not receive some of the approved books. They were regarded by the Catholic Church as heretical.

The formulation of the Catholic Church was necessary in the face of great danger. Gnosticism was confusing people's minds about Christian truth. Another movement was causing dissension - Montanism. The Montanists desired a church like that of the first century, under direct control of the Spirit. They held that authoritative officers were likely to hinder the moving of the Spirit, and objected to the growing power of ministry. Their belief in the immediate guidence of the Spirit led some to some strange and fanatical utterances.

To keep the Christian religion from being lost in the confusion some means of unity was needed.
The means taken was the formation of the Catholic Church, an institution which claimed authority to define the Christian religion and exercised it by excluding those who did not agree with it. This development had harmful results later, but was necessary in its time.





At this point, I may find some disagreement from other protestants. Because, I do believe that the Catholic Church was at one time the only Christian Church. As the author says above: "To keep the Christian religion from being lost in the confusion some means of unity was needed." I agree. I believe God united the Christian churches together for her protection, which was the Catholic Church. Not the Roman Catholic Church. It was later that the catholic Church became corrupt.

 

[Carbon]

Other developements in Church organization.

In these centuries changes took place in the position of mininstry. The distinction between clergy and laymen, unknown in the first century, was gradually marked. Bishops, presbyters and deacons were seperated in rank from members of the churches. The growth of the idea of the higher morality caused the belief that the clergy ought to not be married. This became law in the Church in the west in the forth century. In the larger churches therr came to be clerical officers of lower grades, such as sub-deacons and readers. In 251 the Chuch of Rome, largest of the churches, had over a hundred and fifty clergy of various ranks.

The idea that the Christian minister is a priest, i.e., that he stands between man and God, became widly held in the third century. This went along with the belief that the Lord's supper is a sacrifice offered to God for the people. Naturally the idea of priesthood gathered specially about the bishop. The office of the bishop was magnified. He was thought to have authorty from God enabling him to teach Christian truth aright. Sometimes he was regarded as empowered to give God's forgoveness.

We have seen that in some churches a centralization of authorty too kplace by which one officebearer came to be the head. Another step in centralization followed. In the second century the bishop was the pastor of a congregation in a city. As the number of Christians increased, other groups would be formed in the city and the surrounding territory. All of these would be under the bishop of the mother church. Each of them would be cared for by a presbyter, and the bishop would have oversight of the whole district or diocese.

In the third centuy there was as yet no organized general government of the Church. There had been synods or meetings of bishops to deal with particular needs. Two ideas of the unity of the Church were expressed in this century.
One was that unity was in the agreement of the bishops. The other was that unity consisted in the acceptance of the authority of one bishop, the bishop of Rome. as the church of the imperial capital and the largest and richst of the churches, Rome naturally grew in influience. From the late second century the bishop of Rome claimed wide authority. A hundred years later they had acknowledged leadership in the West, but not in the East.

 

[prism]

There were many thousands from all over the world in Jerusalem during Pentecost, who were saved. Those folks went back home carrying Christ with them. There is a great deal more to Church history than commonly read!

Weren't they mostly Jews, part of the Diaspora?

(Act 2:5) And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

 

[Carbon]

The rise of the Roman bishop.

This is another step taken in the centralization of the government of the Church.
Among the five patriarchs, the two most prominent were those of Rome and Constantinople, the two principal cities of the world. Several causes worked to raise the Roman bishop to the highest place. The chief was that he was bishop of the ancient capital of the world. For centuries authority had gone forth from Rome. Inevitably its bishop had a power that no other bishop could have. Another was the custom which grew up of appealing to the Roman bishop in church disputes. This custom became more influential through the encouragement from emperors. Then from the fifth century, the so-called Petrine claim was generally accepted.
This is the claim that Christ made Peter first among the apostles and that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and bequeathed his primacy to his successors there so that they had a divine right to first place among the bishops. The general acceptance of this made conditions just the same as though it were true. Besides all this, the Roman bishops pursued a consistent policy of holding all authority that they had gained, claiming still more, and taking advantage of every opportunity to use their power. A striking example of this was Leo I (440-461) sometimes called the "first pope" He asserted his universal authority in the strongest terms and claimed the right to give commands to bishops everywhere. Though his claims were utterly denied by the bishop of Constantinople, and met some resistance in the West, his aggressiveness greatly increased the power of his office.



As history says, the so-called Petrine claim was generally accepted. Um, @Arch Stanton & @donadams ? Were you both aware of this?

History says, that it was not until the late second or early third century that Catholic tradition came to regard Peter as the first bishop of Rome, it was Linus, not Peter who was considered in the earliest succession lists to be the first pope.

You see, tradition is not a fact factory, it can't make something a historical fact when it is not. The nonsense of a pope wasn't even accepted until the fifth century.

 

[Carbon]

Weren't they mostly Jews, part of the Diaspora?

(Act 2:5) And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

That's the way I understand it. Jews of 26 dialects I believe.

 

[Carbon]

Let's stop for a bit and take a look at some of the lives of some popes.

Clement IV
Born Guy Foulques, son of a successful French judge, he was a widower with two daughters and was cardinal bishop of Sabina at the time of his election, on Feb 5, 1265.
During his pontifices, Clement IV decreed that appointments to all benefices in the West were papel appointments, thereby preparing the way for the present, relatively recent system in which the pope makes all episcopal appointments.

Boniface IX
1350-1404,
The second of the popes in the Roman line during the Great Western Schism (1378-1417) Boniface IX ruled like a benevolent despot in a pontificate marred by nepotism and simony (the buying and selling of ecclesiastical offices and spiritual benefits, such as indulgences)


Honorius I
Honorius is one of the first popes in history to have been condemned by an ecumenical council (the third council of Constantinople in 680-81) for doctrinal deviation.

Leo II ST.
A Sicilian, Leo II was the pope who formally approved the acts of the Third Council of Constantinople (680-81) which condemned Monothelitism (a heresy that held that in Jesus Christ there is only one divine will rather than a human and a divine will) and which also included an explicit condemnation of a previous pope, Honorius I, for doctrinal deviation.


Alexander VI
Alexander VI was the most notorious pope in all of history. His pontificate was marked by nepotism, greed, and unbridled sexuality.

 

[Binyawmene]

Leo II ST.
A Sicilian, Leo II was the pope who formally approved the acts of the Third Council of Constantinople (680-81) which condemned Monothelitism (a heresy that held that in Jesus Christ there is only one divine will rather than a human and a divine will) and which also included an explicit condemnation of a previous pope, Honorius I, for doctrinal deviation.

Leo was a cool pope.

 

[Alive]

Weren't they mostly Jews, part of the Diaspora?

(Act 2:5) And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

I believe so and almost certainly gentiles who followed Judaism. Proselytes.

 

[donadams]

The rise of the Roman bishop.

This is another step taken in the centralization of the government of the Church.
Among the five patriarchs, the two most prominent were those of Rome and Constantinople, the two principal cities of the world. Several causes worked to raise the Roman bishop to the highest place. The chief was that he was bishop of the ancient capital of the world. For centuries authority had gone forth from Rome. Inevitably its bishop had a power that no other bishop could have. Another was the custom which grew up of appealing to the Roman bishop in church disputes. This custom became more influential through the encouragement from emperors. Then from the fifth century, the so-called Petrine claim was generally accepted.
This is the claim that Christ made Peter first among the apostles and that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and bequeathed his primacy to his successors there so that they had a divine right to first place among the bishops. The general acceptance of this made conditions just the same as though it were true. Besides all this, the Roman bishops pursued a consistent policy of holding all authority that they had gained, claiming still more, and taking advantage of every opportunity to use their power. A striking example of this was Leo I (440-461) sometimes called the "first pope" He asserted his universal authority in the strongest terms and claimed the right to give commands to bishops everywhere. Though his claims were utterly denied by the bishop of Constantinople, and met some resistance in the West, his aggressiveness greatly increased the power of his office.



As history says, the so-called Petrine claim was generally accepted. Um, @Arch Stanton & @donadams ? Were you both aware of this?

History says, that it was not until the late second or early third century that Catholic tradition came to regard Peter as the first bishop of Rome, it was Linus, not Peter who was considered in the earliest succession lists to be the first pope.

You see, tradition is not a fact factory, it can't make something a historical fact when it is not. The nonsense of a pope wasn't even accepted until the fifth century.

Ask Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, who fell dead at peters feet
Don’t think they doubt His authority

 

[donadams]

Let's stop for a bit and take a look at some of the lives of some popes.

Clement IV
Born Guy Foulques, son of a successful French judge, he was a widower with two daughters and was cardinal bishop of Sabina at the time of his election, on Feb 5, 1265.
During his pontifices, Clement IV decreed that appointments to all benefices in the West were papel appointments, thereby preparing the way for the present, relatively recent system in which the pope makes all episcopal appointments.

Boniface IX
1350-1404,
The second of the popes in the Roman line during the Great Western Schism (1378-1417) Boniface IX ruled like a benevolent despot in a pontificate marred by nepotism and simony (the buying and selling of ecclesiastical offices and spiritual benefits, such as indulgences)


Honorius I
Honorius is one of the first popes in history to have been condemned by an ecumenical council (the third council of Constantinople in 680-81) for doctrinal deviation.

Leo II ST.
A Sicilian, Leo II was the pope who formally approved the acts of the Third Council of Constantinople (680-81) which condemned Monothelitism (a heresy that held that in Jesus Christ there is only one divine will rather than a human and a divine will) and which also included an explicit condemnation of a previous pope, Honorius I, for doctrinal deviation.


Alexander VI
Alexander VI was the most notorious pope in all of history. His pontificate was marked by nepotism, greed, and unbridled sexuality.

The are the successors of peter in an office of jurisdictional authority not impeccable

Btw
Moses was mediator of the old covenant
“A perfect saint”? Or forbidden to enter the promised land?
David king in Israel murdered a man
Noah got drunk
And the successors of moses in matt 23 having the office of jurisdictional authority of the kingdom were commanded by Christ to be obeyed yet were of bad character and it is this office of jurisdictional authority of the kingdom that was taken from then and given to peter matt 21:43 and the command to obey this authority remains!

Thks

 

[Arch Stanton]

As history says, the so-called Petrine claim was generally accepted. Um, @Arch Stanton & @donadams ? Were you both aware of this?

History says, that it was not until the late second or early third century that Catholic tradition came to regard Peter as the first bishop of Rome, it was Linus, not Peter who was considered in the earliest succession lists to be the first pope.

Clement of Rome​

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch​

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

 

[Carbon]

The are the successors of peter in an office of jurisdictional authority not impeccable

Btw
Moses was mediator of the old covenant
“A perfect saint”? Or forbidden to enter the promised land?
David king in Israel murdered a man
Noah got drunk
And the successors of moses in matt 23 having the office of jurisdictional authority of the kingdom were commanded by Christ to be obeyed yet were of bad character and it is this office of jurisdictional authority of the kingdom that was taken from then and given to peter matt 21:43 and the command to obey this authority remains!

Thks

So that's your reply then, defend the popes no matter what they did or do?
That was only a few, there are so many more that did unspeakable things and you would probably defend them as well, and worse all put them on equal grounds with Moses and such.

 

[donadams]

So that's your reply then, defend the popes no matter what they did or do?
That was only a few, there are so many more that did unspeakable things and you would probably defend them as well, and worse all put them on equal grounds with Moses and such.

I defend the ofiice of jurisdictional authority instituted by Christ

Christ is king and established a kingdom with authorized ministers

 

[donadams]

I defend the ofiice of jurisdictional authority instituted by Christ

Christ is king and established a kingdom with authorized ministers

Are gonna list all of the sins of those who followed luther (anti-semite) Protestant ministers and all their dirty laundry as well?

Equal time!

 

[Carbon]

I defend the ofiice of jurisdictional authority instituted by Christ

I dont believe you are being true to that. If you were you would probably see where your Church left the path and you would start agreeing with what Luther tried to do.

Christ is king and established a kingdom with authorized ministers

Ha. And look what happened.

 

[donadams]

I dont believe you are being true to that. If you were you would probably see where your Church left the path and you would start agreeing with what Luther tried to do.

Ha. And look what happened.

Was luther an apostle?
Did have any authority?

Where does scripture authorize a Protestant reformation?

Explain matt 16:18-19 shall not prevail!
Jn 16:13 apostolic church lead by the spirit
Jn 15:5 apart from Christ nothing
Eph 5:24 apostolic church is subject to Christ