The Church

[Josef1004]

So the New Testament was written to the building for the building?

[John Chrysostom]

No it was not written to the lower case church, which is a building. But to the Church upper case, meaning the The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It was written to the the followers of Christ through the Apostles and as such should be interpreted in that context.

[Josef1004]

Are the Apostles somehow on a higher strata than the rest of the church? Would they have liberty to change little things about the Bible later on? Or could it be that the teachings in the Bible were teachings that they delivered to us simply because they first received them? Could it be that there was no succession of apostles, but rather the Holy Ghost, who brought all things that Jesus had spoken to the minds of the apostles, also led them to write those things down, resulting in a complete, written Word of God? Could John have actually been correct in writing: "These things write we unto you, that your joy may be full." ? And also: "These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you, but the same anointing ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you:" Could it be that as long as you interpret the Bible only as a certain man or group of men allows, you will never have the privilege of being taught by the Spirit of God and experiencing the fullness of joy in the written Word of God?

[John Chrysostom]

Are the Apostles somehow on a higher strata than the rest of the church? No I'm not saying that, I'm saying they gave the Church teaching both orally and in writing that we need to continue to follow because they received those teachings from Christ.

Could it be that there was no succession of Apostles? No I think there is a succession of Apostles and I really don't see the reasoning in saying that the Apostles founded the Church like Christ told them to then left it without leadership after they died. Any way there wasn't an agreed upon Canon when the Apostles died so no there wasn't a complete Scripture at that point. Now yes they were led by the Holy Spirit, I've never denied that but what does that disprove about what I'm saying?

Could it be that as long as you interpret the Bible only as a certain man or group of men allows, you will never have the privilege of being taught by the Spirit of God and experiencing the fullness of joy in the written Word of God?

I don't believe so, as C.S. Lewis said Christ is the true Word of God and the written Word of God needs the guidance of good teachers and what better teachers than those who wrote the New Testament and their successors?

But I do believe I am being led by the Spirit of God not just individually though but as a Church too, just as the Apostles after Christ's Ascension didn't go home and wait for the Holy Spirit to teach them individually but gathered together to receive the Holy Spirit. Then later when they had disagreements, what how is that possible if they were each individually being taught by the Holy Spirit? When there was a disagreement about whether to circumcise new believers or not the issue went to Jerusalem and had a Council and they were led by the Holy Spirit as a group to solve the issue. The different sides didn't hold to their own personal interpretation and go off an start their own church but submitted their will to the Apostles.

As for St. John's writings. "ye need not that any man teach you" Do you go to a church with a pastor? If you do, why? Did you read commentaries of Daniel and Revelation or history books to learn which four kingdoms Daniel is talking about? If you did, why?

So no I don't believe that the Church was left without leadership after the Apostles, your point that it was the Bible doesn't make sense to me since it wasn't until the Council of Hippo in 397 that there was an agreed upon Canon. So are you saying that the Church was without leadership for 300 years?

[Josef1004]

That's one way to try to justify the tradition you have embraced, but it doesn't really give a direct answer to my questions.

My church have pastors, but that is irrelevant because pastoring(as true to the wording of Scripture) is a gift, not an office. As to commentaries--those with the gift of teaching who have a writing ministry and help others to understand the Word is a long way from a group of men claiming to have the right to issue official church teachings or creeds that stand on equal footing with the Bible. My question is: Do you believe indeed they have this prerogative?

[John Chrysostom]

I do indeed believe that the Church as a whole, not just the Priest and the Bishops, has the prerogative to decide which teaching and creeds are on equal footing with the Bible; for example the Nicene Creed. Now I agree that being a pastor is a gift but are you saying it's not an office too?

[Josef1004]

I do indeed believe that the Church as a whole, not just the Priest and the Bishops, has the prerogative to decide which teaching and creeds are on equal footing with the Bible; for example the Nicene Creed. Now I agree that being a pastor is a gift but are you saying it's not an office too?

So your basically saying the opposite of what you said before. You said the Bible was written to the church for the Church; Now your saying is that the church can decide on their own what the word of God to them is. The Nicene Creed my include some nice sentiments, but it can never replace the Word of God; the Bible supersedes it in its originality and authority.

Show me in the Bible any time a pastor was assigned to run a church. It didn't happen. Every time the leadership of a church was addressed, they were addressed as a plurality. You see words as: "Greet the elders", "To the elders" --or maybe sometimes they're called bishops. The practice of having one man in charge of any church was not started until a certain institution began using a false form of Christianity to take political control of many countries and thus begin to dominate the known world. They needed a man to make sure that the truth would not set the people free. They needed to make sure that only this false religion would come through. This is going to happen again very soon, the "church" will hold political/military power, merged with an ancient cult from Babylon. I'm praying that before that happens, you will come to a realisation just as Peter, James, and John did when overshadowed by God's presence; and that you will look round about, and see "no man anymore, save Jesus only".

[John Chrysostom]

I have been saying the same thing, the Nicene Creed is the Church's interpretation of Scripture. It doesn't replace or supersede Scripture it interprets and explains it to us, the Church together, not just one man, interpreting Scripture. I'm not arguing for one man being in charge of the Church, I'm not sure where you got that from what I said. I am arguing for a plurality of leadership in the Church and against a focus on individualistic interpretation of Scripture; whether that individual be the Pope or a lone Protestant.

I'm praying that before that happens, you will come to a realisation just as Peter, James, and John did when overshadowed by God's presence; and that you will look round about, and see "no man anymore, save Jesus only".

I'm not sure what you mean by this, what realization do you want me to come to?