Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
You say things like this, but cannot establish that any possible situation was more than the way it was at the particular time in a particular place. In one particular place there is reference to the people having all things in common. But even that was somewhat overstated. It was generally true. More like theoretical communism in which needs are met, but not necessarily meaning that only the collective owned anything and not the individuals.
|
There are two questions to this. 1) what was it like in the early church? and 2) does it apply today?
Regarding the first question 1)
Actually testallthings already posted some factual things in Post number #53 "Various Themes by Evangelical" thread. I repost it here:
It is a clear historical fact that there was only one church in one city.
Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John, and the third bishop of Antioch, while on his way to be martyred in Rome, wrote to
“the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia,”
“the Church which is at Magnesia, near the Moeander,”
“the holy Church which is at Tralles, in Asia,”
“the Church...which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans”
“the Church …. which is at Philadelphia, in Asia,”
“the Church which is at Smyrna, in Asia,”
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/IGNATIUS.HTM
Regarding authority in the church he writes to the Ephesians (and to other churches, too)
CHAP. V.--THE PRAISE OF UNITY.
For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop--I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature--how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses[4] such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church !He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even[5] by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, "God resisteth the proud."[9] Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.
CHAP. VI.--HAVE RESPECT TO THE BISHOP AS TO CHRIST HIMSELF.
Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence,[10] the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household,[11] as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.
“The model of church organization that was formed during the first three centuries of Christianity was based on the principle of "one city-one bishop-one Church", which foresaw the assignment of a certain ecclesiastical territory to one concrete bishop. In accordance with this principle, the "Canons of the Apostles" and other canonical decrees of the ancient Church point to the inadmissibility of violating the boundaries of ecclesiastical territories by bishops or clergy.”
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articl...nOneBishop.php
..................................................
Dale Mody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation, page 435
https://books.google.com.tw/books?id...page&q&f=false
If we can agree that this is how things were in the early church, then we can focus on the question of whether it applies today?
To address the second question 2) does it apply today? I can easily show that the early church model continued for 1000 of years (in Catholic, Orthodox). It was considered important to keep to the apostolic traditions and still is today in many respects.
Protestantism was not a license to do church however we wanted, ideally it should have
reformed the existing Catholic church.
What you are advocating for is not reformation or continuing the apostolic traditions but a license to do whatever we want however we want.
I can easily show that going back to the way things were in 1) is the genuine expression of Christianity.
Therefore your church with its name doing things how it sees fit is a division of a division of a division, or a sect of a sect of a sect ..
Actually your idea that we can do church however we like would be a foreign concept to the early church just as it is a foreign concept to the denominations that hold to apostolic traditions today.