Greatest Sect of Christianity

[Jon Miller]

Now I am, quite sincerely, baffled. What about the scriptures indicates a lack of organization in the early church? Apart from their smaller size and lack of ritual pomp, both of which were necessarily consequences of their underground status, they appear very similar to the later church, with bishops, presbyters and deacons. There was a great deal of disunity, but such was plainly not desired.

A given church was organized, but there were all sorts of differences between churches and many claimed apostle/etc support.

There wasn't one 'governing body' which controlled the churches, there were just letters like the ones from Paul (and an advisory council in Jerusalem).

The Baptists/etc also had churches which were organized, but there is very little higher structure.

While the SDA church and the Catholic church have regions and administrations and Universities and Hospitals and Schools and so on.

And both also have it so that the pastors or bishops/etc are selected by the higher authorities. At least the SDA church does not have a pope though, instead there is a democratic body which meets every 4 years (or something) and gives direction/appoints administrative leaders.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Paul specifically tells Timothy to admonish a fractious man once or twice, then eject him. I don't see how that's substantially less rigid than later, except insofar as the ejected man wasn't ejected into the hands of the civil authorities to be burned alive.

That was Timothy, in a church that Paul founded/etc. And it is quite obvious that it was with the support of the local elders/etc.

It wasn't some church in Jerusalem/etc.

Nowhere does it suggest that Paul appointed the elders in every location/etc.

JM

[Kidlicious]

I'm afraid reformers tend to make the early church something it never was. They were necessarily run entirely on the authority of their leadership, in the absence of NT scriptures--which clearly indicate a hierarchical power structure already in place less than 100 years after Christ's birth. What is the verse you refer to, about speaking as though they were perfect?

Romans 8 and the Book of Acts comes to mind. I think they had a big influence on John Wesley (a very influencial evangelist. See before the Council of Nicea the church fathers emphisized evangelism. After that it was more of a top down approach. Wesley believed that christians weren't filled with the Holy Spirit. When you got filled with the Holy Spirit you evangelised and your outward behavior changed. Wesley believed in the possibility of christian perfection, that is that a christian could escape sin completely if completely filled with the Holy Spirit. Wesley believed that this occured in the early church.

Now Wesley wasn't against church authority, just that the important stuff didn't come down from the top but with the individuals (or faithful as you call them).

[Kidlicious]

In my opinion the greatest evangelical preachers of the modern times were 1) not political and 2) didn't promote a specific denomination or try to start a new denomination.

[Elok]

A given church was organized, but there were all sorts of differences between churches and many claimed apostle/etc support.

Your evidence for this? I assume you're not referring to heresies here. Also, what do you mean by "apostle/etc" support?

There wasn't one 'governing body' which controlled the churches, there were just letters like the ones from Paul (and an advisory council in Jerusalem).

I don't see how Paul's orders are any less orders because they came from a distance, in letter form. And how is the council purely "advisory"? It clearly established rules for the entire church, as described in Acts: gentile converts don't have to be circumcised, but do have to abstain from behaviors X, Y and Z...

The Baptists/etc also had churches which were organized, but there is very little higher structure.

You mean every individual Baptist church is self-governing? This doesn't seem to be the case with the early church.

While the SDA church and the Catholic church have regions and administrations and Universities and Hospitals and Schools and so on.

The latter three, at least, don't strike me as bad things. Regions and administrations are the logical consequence of the church growing in size.

And both also have it so that the pastors or bishops/etc are selected by the higher authorities. At least the SDA church does not have a pope though, instead there is a democratic body which meets every 4 years (or something) and gives direction/appoints administrative leaders.

And in this they are generally correct, though I don't know the details. This is more or less how the OC is run, assuming that by "democratic" you mean the bishops all vote. If there's laity participation too, that is a bit different.

[Kidlicious]

Some baptists claim to have a continual church from the time of John the baptist.

[Elok]

I think I've heard of this. Don't they wind up tracing their descent through some rather unsavory, pseudo-gnostic groups, such as the aforementioned Cathars?

[Kidlicious]

Idk

[Elok]

To be fair, I could be thinking of some other group.

[Kidlicious]

I don't believe it because it's far fetched and politically motivated.

[Felch]

And both also have it so that the pastors or bishops/etc are selected by the higher authorities. At least the SDA church does not have a pope though, instead there is a democratic body which meets every 4 years (or something) and gives direction/appoints administrative leaders.

JM

How do Protestants get their pastors and bishops?

[Kidlicious]

I think I've heard of this. Don't they wind up tracing their descent through some rather unsavory, pseudo-gnostic groups, such as the aforementioned Cathars?

Google says this is correct, and no one believes this anymore. However, I know someone who believes it.

[Jon Miller]

How do Protestants get their pastors and bishops?

Some (Anglicans, Adventists, etc) get it from the top democratic body.

(Actually, the Adventist one has each church selecting elders to go/etc, it isn't just the world administrative leadership/bishops/etc).

Others, like Baptists, have each church select.

JM

[Jon Miller]

The issue is that a denomination can become very corrupt/etc, for example. So it is very beneficial to be able to leave for another.

On the other hand, if you make it so that everything is disorganized, then it is hard to do good works.

So the current status is better, there are (different) highly organized groups as well as highly disorganized groups, so that all might follow Christ.

Sort of how Paul was talking about him versus Apollos/etc.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

Sola scriptura continues to be a doctrinal commitment of conservative branches and offshoots of the Lutheran churches, Reformed churches, and Baptist churches as well as other Protestants, especially where they describe themselves by the slogan "Bible-believing" (See Fundamentalism).

IIRC, a lot of Baptists Churches like to refer to themselves as solely basing themselves on the Bible.

While I refer to myself as a Protestant, I'm far more a prima scriptura person. I think solely relying on the Bible results in a refusal of the Holy Spirit's actions working in the world today and denies God's further revelation to us (ie, such as slavery is evil in the eyes of the Lord). What confounds me is when some Pentecostal churches say that they solely teach from the Word of God - obviously that's not the case when they believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to bring new messages and revelations (I guess they say it is further explaining something already in Scripture?).

Regardless, I don't think Luther meant the concept to go as far as it did. However, the need to refer back to the Great Tradition is necessary. I believe, unlike a number of cessionists, that the Spirit continues to move and bestow gifts and therefore the tradition of interpretation of Scripture was inspired by God and should be held up for study.

Also it appears to be quite obvious, that like Jacob, we are meant to wrestle with God and His Scriptures in order to come up the truth. But things like the Tradition are there to help us in our struggle. When we become unmoored from 1800+ years of history, and decide we can just do it all by ourselves, we fall into trouble.