Paul in Timothy & Titus, Bishops, World Church, Nicene Creed?

Artfuldodger

Senior Member
Was wondering if Paul expected a world Church leadership order when he mentioned bishops or did he expect to just leave it up to each Church? If it was to be left up to each Church, was it mans doings to come to the conclusion of the Councils of Nicaea?
I mean I know the actual councils were Constantine's doings but those bishops were already around those parts well before the first Council.

Even today most Church denominations adhere to the Nicene Creed that came out of those Councils.
I guess my question is did the world initially have a World Church order that most Churches adhered to and was that the way Paul got the message from God as the way God wanted it to be? Paul may have been the last apostle with a direct link to God in a way that's different from most of us.

Is there anything else from scripture that Jesus may have left us or one of the other Apostles that would lead us to believe in a World Church organization?
If not and even after the Protest, we sure seem to have a lot of huge Church organizations. I'm trying to compare that aspect with what Paul may have visioned. And for that matter what God or Jesus may have visioned after the Ascension.
Even before Jesus came to the earth as a man, we had Priests and a High Priest. There was already some type of hierarchy.

"Hierarchy"that's the word I was looking for.
 

Spotlite

Resident Homesteader
Jesus established the church - one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Man established denominations with their interpretations of what that ^^ is.

Scripture says He will give you Pastors. It was meant to have one faith, one doctrine and Pastors (Bishops) for each congregation. I don’t think it was ever meant to have a “national or world leader”.

Many Pastors, Bishops, Preachers, etc preaching the Apostles doctrine - “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed”
 
Last edited:

Artfuldodger

Senior Member
Jesus established the church - one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Man established denominations with their interpretations of what that ^^ is.

Scripture says He will give you Pastors. It was meant to have one faith, one doctrine and Pastors (Bishops) for each congregation. I don’t think it was ever meant to have a “national or world leader”.

Many Pastors, Bishops, Preachers, etc preaching the Apostles doctrine - “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed”
The thing that made me wonder or think about was most people sorta feel like you do but their Church still follows the Nicene Creed as if it came from God and not man.
 

Spotlite

Resident Homesteader
The thing that made me wonder or think about was most people sorta feel like you do but their Church still follows the Nicene Creed as if it came from God and not man.
We don’t acknowledge the Nicene Creed.

That said - we believe in one God……..but it’s because of what we find in scripture - not the Nicene Ceeed.
 

Artfuldodger

Senior Member
Jesus established the church - one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Man established denominations with their interpretations of what that ^^ is.

Scripture says He will give you Pastors. It was meant to have one faith, one doctrine and Pastors (Bishops) for each congregation. I don’t think it was ever meant to have a “national or world leader”.

Many Pastors, Bishops, Preachers, etc preaching the Apostles doctrine - “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
Maybe not a national world leader in as much as a world organization? Was Paul a Christian world leader or just a missionary? He seemed to act like a leader to me. He visited all the Churches and imposed rules, etc.
But I don't think he set up any type of hierarchy nor did Peter. But as far as spreading the gospel, etc. it seems like a world organization could do it better than a single Church.
 

Spotlite

Resident Homesteader
Maybe not a national world leader in as much as a world organization? Was Paul a Christian world leader or just a missionary? He seemed to act like a leader to me. He visited all the Churches and imposed rules, etc.
But I don't think he set up any type of hierarchy nor did Peter. But as far as spreading the gospel, etc. it seems like a world organization could do it better than a single Church.
I see it as “one body in Christ”.

I guess it can be viewed as “world organization” but for me it’d be similar to scripture, all in one mind, one accord - harmony.

But I see your point - it makes sense.
 

gordon 2

Senior Member
Ephesian 4:16 From Him the whole body, fitted and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love through the work of each individual part.

According to Paul the Church is one body , fitted and held together, growing and building itself up through the work of each individual part.

And the parts are not satellite bodies or independent campuses. The parts that are supporting every ligament of the one body are:

"And it was He who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for works of ministry and to build up the body of Christ,..."

This structure is a hierarchical structure. Paul gets the approval from the council in Jerusalem to evangelize the gentiles from which Paul (the apostle and evangelist) delegates and approves that Timothy is to be the pastor, the first bishop, of a community of saints which Paul evangelized.

There were no assemblies outside of this structure. Note that there was no bible as we know it today at this time. It was the Church with its hierarchical structure that equipped the saints for works of ministry and the build up of the body of Christ not the bible. There was no bible as we know it and only parts of what we know to be the bible was known to some.

The goal was to get the saints to the point where: " 3until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God, as we mature to the full measure of the stature of Christ.…


If I go by what the bible says and how Paul proceeds and even allow that my sins ( sin nature) might obscure meanings... the Church is meant to be one organization with one structure with a simple or clear purpose that is universal-- no exceptions. Anything else is the world's gain, and a back sliding. By itself with its structure, the organization, the Church Original was sufficient to build up the saints and the one body, even with the bible itself mostly absent as we now know it!
 
Last edited:

Artfuldodger

Senior Member
I wonder if there were any rogue Churches in Paul's time and what he thought of them?
Would he get wind of one and say "what the heck they doing? I haven't authorized that. I don't approve."

Maybe he said "Great news, someone is taking it upon himself to help spread the Gospel. People should realize I can't do everything, I'm just one man."
 

Artfuldodger

Senior Member
This could go back to The Great Commission. Did Paul see it as just for Apostles and their appointed successors?
And does it even matter what Paul thought? Why do we always have to base every issue on what Paul thought?
Seems like if he was really into The Great Commission and starting Churches he would be glad to hear there were thousands of Churches in the lands not started by himself or apostolic succession.
 

Artfuldodger

Senior Member
Not my words but I wanted to share;
Nothing of the sort. He spoke of not “establishing on another man’s “line”, indicating that different Apostles had direct authority over their own work. He said there are “differences of administrations, but the same Lord”. He listed a gift of “government’s (plural) in Romans 12. Paul fully allowed for alternate organisations under the umbrella of the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

However, in that framework, he presented that Christians should not see themselves as devoted to any one leader, nor even to claim to to be devoted to Christ alone, with no regard for the rest of the church.

It is not always an easy balance. One of the greatest travesties of spirituality has occurred when men destitute of the Spirit of Christ have sat in positions of authority on the pretence that they, and they alone, wielded the authority of Christ to literally write doctrine that sealed their power to commit rampant acts of immorality, corruption, even torture and murder, all in the name of Christ. This literally guarantees that truth seeking Christians would have no choice but to organise outside of those unholy ranks, and find their way without the dictatorship of an apostate church. The number of people burned at the stake for attempting to have the Bible translated into their own language by this very church who claimed to vouch safe and safeguard that self same word of life, by administering the instruments of death. Reform was attempted, continually. These efforts had tragic results. To believe that the Apostle Paul, who fought so hard fir spiritual liberty would advocate a system that would virtually guarantee that could be permanently hijacked using his words is to totally misunderstand and misrepresent the life and times of Paul, the Apostle.
James Rosten

I will say that I don't think Paul envisioned what path Christianity has taken in the form of it's Church. Maybe he didn't envision fingers and toes, so to speak.
I don't think he envisioned the power that went with the Church and that goes for all the divisional elements of it. I don't think he envisioned the political use and government use of Christianity for self gain and making it more than a way to personal salvation.
 

Madman

Senior Member
Was wondering if Paul expected a world Church leadership order when he mentioned bishops or did he expect to just leave it up to each Church? If it was to be left up to each Church, was it mans doings to come to the conclusion of the Councils of Nicaea?
I mean I know the actual councils were Constantine's doings but those bishops were already around those parts well before the first Council.

Even today most Church denominations adhere to the Nicene Creed that came out of those Councils.
I guess my question is did the world initially have a World Church order that most Churches adhered to and was that the way Paul got the message from God as the way God wanted it to be? Paul may have been the last apostle with a direct link to God in a way that's different from most of us.

Is there anything else from scripture that Jesus may have left us or one of the other Apostles that would lead us to believe in a World Church organization?
If not and even after the Protest, we sure seem to have a lot of huge Church organizations. I'm trying to compare that aspect with what Paul may have visioned. And for that matter what God or Jesus may have visioned after the Ascension.
Even before Jesus came to the earth as a man, we had Priests and a High Priest. There was already some type of hierarchy.

"Hierarchy"that's the word I was looking for.
1)Did Jesus start a Church?

Mathew 16:
18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.


My church is not plural it it singular.

2)Did Jesus put some one or someone's in charge?

Mathew 16:19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”


When a master left the house for extended periods of time he left the keys to the house to his head servant for care until his return.

3) Does the Church have authority?

In Mathew 18 is the teaching regarding a sinning brother who will not even listen to the Church. There must be one standard by which to judge actions in the Church so there needs to be one hierarchy to pass down what that standard is to be.

4) Who did Christ put in charge of his Church?

Acts 2:42 “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers”

The laying on of hands to Titus, Timothy, etc., was to continue the teachings that Christ had left to us through his Church until his return. The responsibility of the bishops is to pass on the teachings given to them EXACTLY as it had be given to them, therefore the need for apostolic succession is vital.
 

Artfuldodger

Senior Member
1)Did Jesus start a Church?

Mathew 16:
18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

My church is not plural it it singular.

2)Did Jesus put some one or someone's in charge?

Mathew 16:19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”


When a master left the house for extended periods of time he left the keys to the house to his head servant for care until his return.

3) Does the Church have authority?

In Mathew 18 is the teaching regarding a sinning brother who will not even listen to the Church. There must be one standard by which to judge actions in the Church so there needs to be one hierarchy to pass down what that standard is to be.

4) Who did Christ put in charge of his Church?

Acts 2:42 “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers”

The laying on of hands to Titus, Timothy, etc., was to continue the teachings that Christ had left to us through his Church until his return. The responsibility of the bishops is to pass on the teachings given to them EXACTLY as it had be given to them, therefore the need for apostolic succession is vital.
Did Paul continue what Peter had started? I was thinking Peter's mission was Israel and Paul's was to the Gentiles. I guess what I'm asking is was Paul a succession from Peter or a parallel so to speak since he was also an apostle with a direct link to God?
 

Madman

Senior Member
Did Paul continue what Peter had started? I was thinking Peter's mission was Israel and Paul's was to the Gentiles. I guess what I'm asking is was Paul a succession from Peter or a parallel so to speak since he was also an apostle with a direct link to God?
Tradition holds that St. Linus and perhaps a collection of bishops were in Rome after Peter was martyred..
 

Latest posts

Top