Authority

[aspen]

Not sure about the difference between the interpretation of scripture of a large church and one nutty pastor...... Seems to me that each entity carryings its own inherent pitfalls
Not sure why my phone likes to double post - sorry about that

 

[Axehead]

Authority came from God to Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ to His followers through the Holy Spirit. Authority is the evidence of the Life of Christ in a person.

John_5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
John_5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

Act_1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Act_4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,

You submit to the Life of Christ in men, not to men.

A man can spout Bible verses but that does not give him authority. You don't submit to a man because he quotes the Bible. You submit to the presence of Christ in a man, if you discern Christ is indeed present.

Too many people think that you are supposed to submit to any person that is quoting scriptures.

Power and authority is when evil spirits know who lives in you.
Act 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
Act 19:16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

Powerful combination when a man is full of the Holy Ghost and understands how to wield the Word of God.

 

[StanJ]

2 Tim 3:16-17;
Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.

1 Peter 3:15-18;
And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him, speaking of these things in all his letters. Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures. Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard that you do not get led astray by the error of these unprincipled men and fall from your firm grasp on the truth. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the honor both now and on that eternal day.

KNOWING scripture is just the first step in growing in grace and knowledge of God.

 

[aspen]

Hmm... How about compassion? Seems to me, people are dogmatic and just plain mean. God is empathic. He lived see this horror through Christ. I remain in awe and long for the end of sufferring

 

[Axehead]

And where does the Spirit come in?

No, the first step is receiving the Spirit. Then the Spirit will lead you into all truth.

John_14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you...

1Cor_ 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Cor_ 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Cor_ 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[StanJ]

Hmm... How about compassion? Seems to me, people are dogmatic and just plain mean. God is empathic. He lived see this horror through Christ. I remain in awe and long for the end of sufferring

Yes compassion is also a fruit of the spirit but you'll notice Jesus didn't express much compassion on the Pharisees other than dying for them. I don't know about God having empathy, which is a human emotion. God KNOWS. We DON'T.
Of course we all respond to God's drawing and that is how we are saved, but thinking that is it and we have no further responsibilities afterwards is NOT what scripture teaches. I guess it's important to actually receive the Holy Spirit as Paul taught in Acts 19 and as it is evidenced also therein. Just saying one has the Holy Spirit without the experience of baptism in and by Him does not work.

 

[Axehead]

Hmm... How about compassion? Seems to me, people are dogmatic and just plain mean. God is empathetic. He lived see this horror through Christ. I remain in awe and long for the end of suffering

Hi Aspen,

Jesus is definitely empathetic.

Empathy is the capacity to understand what another person is experiencing from within the other person's frame of reference, ie, the capacity to place oneself in another's shoes.

Hebrews_2:18
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Hebrews_4:15-16
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

 

[aspen]

So?

 

[Axehead]

So?

I am agreeing with you and showing you scriptures that God is empathetic.

 

[StanJ]

I am agreeing with you and showing you scriptures that God is empathetic.

Not really.

Hebrews 2:18
Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Hebrews 4:15-16
This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same testings we do, yet he did not sin. So let us come boldly to the throne of our gracious God. There we will receive his mercy, and we will find grace to help us when we need it most.

John 2:24
But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people.

Matthew 9:4
Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?

Matthew 22:18
But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?

Luke 16:15
He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight.

There are more, but in the context of all the NT scriptures, Jesus KNEW us, there was no empathy. I can put myself in another man's place and have a certain amount of empathy but I still don't KNOW, Jesus DID and DOES.

 

[Axehead]

Psalms 56:8
Thou tellest my wanderings: put thou my tears into thy bottle: are they not in thy book?

 

[aspen]

Axehead - your posts mean a lot to me. Just wanted more of a good thing, brother

 

[Axehead]

Thanks bro, I pray the Lord helps and comforts you in your time of trial. He is our ever present help in time of need. May He help you to draw near to Him.

Matt_9:36 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.

A lot of things in life can cause us to faint, but thank God we have a Shepherd who cares for His sheep.

 

[justaname]

(1) Jesus establish the "sacrament" of the Eucharist. Luke 22:19 1Co 11:24-25
(2) Paul describes the "sacrament" of baptism as dieing and being "born again" to new life (Rom 6:3-4) and Peter stated that baptism was necessary to be saved and to receive the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38
(3) There is no sound basis on which to challenge the teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary and acceptance of that teaching is not necessary for salvation. It is commonly based on the reference to Jesus' "Brothers" by people who are ignorant of the fact that the words "brother" and "sister" refer to all relatives in a tribe other than parents. That usage remains normative today as it was 2000 years ago. So the presence in scripture of reference to Jesus brothers does not require that Mary had other children.

Plus, it is my experience that Protestants most often totally ignore the fact of Mary being dedicated to God as expressed by her conceiving a child by the Holy Spirit.

Scripture says that all generations will call her blessed. (Luke 1:48) Yet, in my experience, Protestants refuse to recognize her position as described by God in that "sola Scriptura" thingy. She was addressed by the angel Gabriel saying; " Hail, thou, highly favored of the Lord." That form of address is one that expresses an exalted position in God's eyes. Yet it seems to be reconstructed in the Protestant mind as, "Hey, Mary, how ya doin'?"

God calls her "Highly Favored" in His eyes.

(4) The veneration of icons is simply the expression of reverence for the heroes of the faith and the encouragement to emulate their piety.

(5) Would He be made head? He IS the head. Would He be recognized as head? He'd be recognized just as quickly as in any Protestant church and accepted by Protestant leadership just as quickly as well.

<< Again where is the authority? >>

The authority is exactly where Jesus put it, in the Church leadership, until He returns. (Mat 16:19)

The idea that scripture is the sole authority has produced tens of thousands of divisions in direct opposition to Jesus' stated will.

John 17:20-23 I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

What the existence of 50,000 different denominations suggests to the pagan world is; that the church can't agree on who God is or what (S)He said and that God probably didn't send Jesus and may not love them. That's pretty much the manner in which the Church and Christians are portrayed in the dominant media. (News, movies, TV programs) The position that scripture is the sole authority for the church is soundly refuted by the fact that the Protestant branch of the Church apparently has about 50,000 variant versions of that Sola Scriptura.

Since I have not heard of a single church, anywhere in the world, at any time since the Lord's ascension, in which Jesus was leading any church by His personal, physical, presence, I'll assume that nearly all churches are led in person, by created human beings, who have been designated as pastors or elders of bishops or whatever other designation is popular. (There are a few which have no leadership at all.)

Also, there was no "New Testament" when the church started. "The authority" was vested in the apostles who vested it in the bishops (overseers) whom they appointed and who were the next generation of authority. No one had a copy of the "New Testament". They might have copies of the "Memoirs of the apostles" and the letters of Paul which are commentary on scripture and the Oral teaching of Christ. It has always been the responsibility of the Bishops to insure the purity of the faith was preserved and passed on to the next generation. So, until the Council of Nicaea, (325 AD) there was no collection of writings called, "The New Testament" and the authority of the Bishops was a well established fact dating from those who were designated Bishops (Timothy and Titus, for example) by the apostles.

The idea that scripture alone is the authority is an artifact of the Protestant rebellion against the authority of the Church. (Fueled by the avarice of princes and kings who wanted the threat of excommunication to be removed as a restraint on their behavior.) But from the beginning of the church, the authority was vested in the Bishops of the Church. The proclamation that "scripture alone is authoritative" is a cover for the will of men and women to interpret scripture any way they like and use the defense that "it's right there in the Bible." So we get the doctrines of "soul sleep" and "annihilation" and "salvation without obedience to Jesus commandments because that would be salvation by works" and "you're not saved unless you speak in tongues" and...and...and...

That mess is NOT from God. IMHO

The first section of this post is a defense of the Orthodox religion... yet it still does not answer the question. We both know it might as well have been rhetorical. And I agree with your final statement in #5.

Now you say the authority is in Church leadership. Then you must concede to the fact that the Church is made up of individual believers who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit. There are many different leaders in many different denominations; as you like to tout 50,000 different ones. Basically you hold to the idea that the leaders of your denomination hold authority, yet your denomination is the result of a division none the less. 12 divisions are no better than 50,000. So then maybe the leaders in my particular congregation hold the authority...

Often man decides that size of the congregation holds authority, as I am certain you well know. Then Rome holds the authority...

1. Irenaeus, (130-202), “We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith,” (Adv. H. 3:1).

Scriptures were known to be authoritative before the reformation. Yet we still have reached an impasse as you express, individuals are not the authority.

I know for certain the Scriptures are authoritative. I know for certain God is the ultimate authority. I know for certain the Holy Spirit is the vicar of Christ.

I humbly submit my interpretation of the Scriptures is fallible, as is any other man's, be him an ECF or a modern day evangelist.

 

[JimParker]

The first section of this post is a defense of the Orthodox religion... yet it still does not answer the question. We both know it might as well have been rhetorical. And I agree with your final statement in #5.

Now you say the authority is in Church leadership. Then you must concede to the fact that the Church is made up of individual believers who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit. There are many different leaders in many different denominations; as you like to tout 50,000 different ones. Basically you hold to the idea that the leaders of your denomination hold authority, yet your denomination is the result of a division none the less. 12 divisions are no better than 50,000. So then maybe the leaders in my particular congregation hold the authority...

Often man decides that size of the congregation holds authority, as I am certain you well know. Then Rome holds the authority...

1. Irenaeus, (130-202), “We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith,” (Adv. H. 3:1).

Scriptures were known to be authoritative before the reformation. Yet we still have reached an impasse as you express, individuals are not the authority.

I know for certain the Scriptures are authoritative. I know for certain God is the ultimate authority. I know for certain the Holy Spirit is the vicar of Christ.

I humbly submit my interpretation of the Scriptures is fallible, as is any other man's, be him an ECF or a modern day evangelist.

<< Basically you hold to the idea that the leaders of your denomination hold authority,>>

They have apostolic succession from the apostles, through the bishops (overseers) whom the apostles appointed down to today. They have preserved the teaching of the early church. That teaching is authoritative; the individual leaders are human and, thus, fallible. (Ex: Nestorius was the Patriarch of Constantinople; Arius was a presbyter in Alexandria.)

<< yet your denomination is the result of a division none the less.>>

The Orthodox Church is not a result of division. It is what is left after otherss separated from Orthodoxy.

The national Orthodox churches are in harmony with regard to doctrine. They are separate only in language and culture. (Romanian, Bulgarian, Antiochan, Greek, etc.)

The Western Catholic Church ("Roman") separated itself from the Eastern Church because the Eastern churches refused to submit to the primacy of the Pope or accept the unilateral change to the creed. (Filioque)

The Coptic and Oriental Orthodox Churches would not agree to the Council of Chalcedon and separated themselves from the Orthodox Church. (As it turns out, the disagreement was primarily one of translation and semantics.

The Assyrian Church is Nestorian.
The Lutheran Church was the result of Father Martin Luther being ejected from the Roman church.
The Church of England separated from the Roman Church by the decision of king Henry VIII.

<<Often man decides that size of the congregation holds authority, as I am certain you well know.>>

No. I've never heard that before.

<<Scriptures were known to be authoritative before the reformation.>>

Of course they were.

It is not the scriptures that are the source of the multitude of divisions in the church. It is the interpretation of scripture which is the root cause of all factions and heresies.

The Orthodox Church depends on the teaching of the early church and the decisions of the 7 great councils for their interpretation of scripture.

The "reformed" and "protestant" churches are open to innovative interpretations such as the teaching that the elements of the Eucharist are "symbols" rather than the real the Body and blood of Christ as the Church taught from the beginning.

I believe that the most accurate understanding of the scriptures is that which the early church agreed upon.

However, I do not in any manner mean to suggest that members of "Bishop Joe Blow's 1st Church of What's Happening" or anyone else, is not a Christian because they don't attend "my" church.

As opposed, say, to those who teach that if you don't speak in tongues, you are not saved and those who teach that if you DO speak in tongues you probably have a demon and are not saved. And, lest we forget, even those who call the pope the anti-Christ and make "what's wrong with them damned KATH-licks" an essential component of their church doctrine, are also Christians.

<<I know for certain the Scriptures are authoritative.>>

Of course they are. (All of them, not just those printed in the abridged editions of the Bible favored by Protestants)

<<I know for certain God is the ultimate authority. >>

Certainly. But we are taking about the interpretation of scripture, not ultimate authority.

<<I know for certain the Holy Spirit is the vicar of Christ. >>

Instead of the pope? In what way is the Holy Spirit the Vicar of Christ? I haven't heard that before either.

And every heretic and sectarian will insist that he/she is led by the Holy Spirit. E.G.White claimed to be the sole possessor of the "Spirit of Prophesy" and then went on to predict Jesus return and start a denomination that teaches "soul sleep", "Annihilation" and vegetarianism.

<<I humbly submit my interpretation of the Scriptures is fallible, as is any other man's, be him an ECF or a modern day evangelist.>>

I agree that any individual's interpretation, other than that of the apostles, is fallible. That's why the Orthodox church depends on the what the ECF determined to have been taught everywhere (from western Gaul to India by the end of the 1st century) and at all times. No single person was ever recognized as "the authority." They depended on the teaching of the apostles and every teaching which seemed to be an innovation which deviated from the apostolic teaching, they, as a group, examined to determine its conformity to the Apostolic Tradition.

 

[StanJ]

They have apostolic succession from the apostles, through the bishops (overseers) whom the apostles appointed down to today. They have preserved the teaching of the early church. That teaching is authoritative; the individual leaders are human and, thus, fallible. (Ex: Nestorius was the Patriarch of Constantinople; Arius was a presbyter in Alexandria.)

You'll have to quantify this Jim. The Apostles never appointed ANY overseers or bishops, and the only Apostles not appointed by Jesus WAS a disciple and they drew lots. Acts 1:15-26
As far as the RCC website Catholic.com is concerned, they are a tad ambivalent or equivocal about the issue of Papal infallibility, however, it boils down to pretty much that POV.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

 

[justaname]

<< Basically you hold to the idea that the leaders of your denomination hold authority,>>

They have apostolic succession from the apostles, through the bishops (overseers) whom the apostles appointed down to today. They have preserved the teaching of the early church. That teaching is authoritative; the individual leaders are human and, thus, fallible. (Ex: Nestorius was the Patriarch of Constantinople; Arius was a presbyter in Alexandria.)

<< yet your denomination is the result of a division none the less.>>

The Orthodox Church is not a result of division. It is what is left after otherss separated from Orthodoxy.

The national Orthodox churches are in harmony with regard to doctrine. They are separate only in language and culture. (Romanian, Bulgarian, Antiochan, Greek, etc.)

The Western Catholic Church ("Roman") separated itself from the Eastern Church because the Eastern churches refused to submit to the primacy of the Pope or accept the unilateral change to the creed. (Filioque)

The Coptic and Oriental Orthodox Churches would not agree to the Council of Chalcedon and separated themselves from the Orthodox Church. (As it turns out, the disagreement was primarily one of translation and semantics.

The Assyrian Church is Nestorian.
The Lutheran Church was the result of Father Martin Luther being ejected from the Roman church.
The Church of England separated from the Roman Church by the decision of king Henry VIII.

<<Often man decides that size of the congregation holds authority, as I am certain you well know.>>

No. I've never heard that before.

<<Scriptures were known to be authoritative before the reformation.>>

Of course they were.

It is not the scriptures that are the source of the multitude of divisions in the church. It is the interpretation of scripture which is the root cause of all factions and heresies.

The Orthodox Church depends on the teaching of the early church and the decisions of the 7 great councils for their interpretation of scripture.

The "reformed" and "protestant" churches are open to innovative interpretations such as the teaching that the elements of the Eucharist are "symbols" rather than the real the Body and blood of Christ as the Church taught from the beginning.

I believe that the most accurate understanding of the scriptures is that which the early church agreed upon.

However, I do not in any manner mean to suggest that members of "Bishop Joe Blow's 1st Church of What's Happening" or anyone else, is not a Christian because they don't attend "my" church.

As opposed, say, to those who teach that if you don't speak in tongues, you are not saved and those who teach that if you DO speak in tongues you probably have a demon and are not saved. And, lest we forget, even those who call the pope the anti-Christ and make "what's wrong with them damned KATH-licks" an essential component of their church doctrine, are also Christians.

<<I know for certain the Scriptures are authoritative.>>

Of course they are. (All of them, not just those printed in the abridged editions of the Bible favored by Protestants)

<<I know for certain God is the ultimate authority. >>

Certainly. But we are taking about the interpretation of scripture, not ultimate authority.

<<I know for certain the Holy Spirit is the vicar of Christ. >>

Instead of the pope? In what way is the Holy Spirit the Vicar of Christ? I haven't heard that before either.

And every heretic and sectarian will insist that he/she is led by the Holy Spirit. E.G.White claimed to be the sole possessor of the "Spirit of Prophesy" and then went on to predict Jesus return and start a denomination that teaches "soul sleep", "Annihilation" and vegetarianism.

<<I humbly submit my interpretation of the Scriptures is fallible, as is any other man's, be him an ECF or a modern day evangelist.>>

I agree that any individual's interpretation, other than that of the apostles, is fallible. That's why the Orthodox church depends on the what the ECF determined to have been taught everywhere (from western Gaul to India by the end of the 1st century) and at all times. No single person was ever recognized as "the authority." They depended on the teaching of the apostles and every teaching which seemed to be an innovation which deviated from the apostolic teaching, they, as a group, examined to determine its conformity to the Apostolic Tradition.

Only the first bishops were appointed by the apostles. The rest were appointed by other bishops.

I would say the Romans would disagree with you, claiming you split from them leaving RCC to remain. The remainder of your section is your justification, yet it does nothing to solve the issue that the Church was splintered way before the reformation.

I say size of congregation because Rome was given primacy at councils because they were the largest.

Again interpretation of the Scriptures is the issue at hand. In truth the ECFs are all over the map in regards to interpretation with many divergent views. I understand the concept you present of "Orthodox church depends on the what the ECF determined to have been taught everywhere (from western Gaul to India by the end of the 1st century) and at all times." Yet here you are basically stating what the majority believed...and again at one time the majority believed in Arianism.

Some argue the earliest portion of the Church did not see a literal blood and body in the Eucharist. It is only the language given and interpreted by pagan authorities that was used to accuse them of being cannibals. The earliest Church never believed in transubstantiation, it was only hundreds of years later the view came into a different light given credence from Egyptian (Alexandrian) allegorical teaching. Simply because it is claimed the teachings of the apostles remain unaltered through tradition does not prove the validity of the point. This is why Irenaeus speaks of the Scriptures, "to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith."

 

[JimParker]

You'll have to quantify this Jim. The Apostles never appointed ANY overseers or bishops, and the only Apostles not appointed by Jesus WAS a disciple and they drew lots. Acts 1:15-26
As far as the RCC website Catholic.com is concerned, they are a tad ambivalent or equivocal about the issue of Papal infallibility, however, it boils down to pretty much that POV.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

<< The Apostles never appointed ANY overseers or bishops,>>

Clement of Rome, a contemporary of the apostles, says otherwise.

[SIZE=14pt]The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Chapter XLII. The Order of Ministers in the Church.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done sol from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they (the apostles) went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they (the apostles)[/SIZE] appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.

 

[StanJ]

Clement of Rome, a contemporary of the apostles, says otherwise.

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians

Chapter XLII. The Order of Ministers in the Church.

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done sol from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they (the apostles) went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they (the apostles) appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.

Well Clement may have said this, but God's Word doesn't convey this in any way shape or form, so trying to set himself up as the ultimate authority of the church in the same way the priesthood was only shows that Clement was a Judeo Christian, greatly influenced by the Judaic church in Rome.
Paul's words are very clear and as such all he does is teach who should be an overseer, not appoint them. That he may have lent credence to some going into office as he did Timothy and others, is not at issue, apostolic succession is, and IT is not taught by scripture. Clement is NOT scripture.

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/290.html

 

[JimParker]

Only the first bishops were appointed by the apostles. The rest were appointed by other bishops.

I would say the Romans would disagree with you, claiming you split from them leaving RCC to remain. The remainder of your section is your justification, yet it does nothing to solve the issue that the Church was splintered way before the reformation.

I say size of congregation because Rome was given primacy at councils because they were the largest.

Again interpretation of the Scriptures is the issue at hand. In truth the ECFs are all over the map in regards to interpretation with many divergent views. I understand the concept you present of "Orthodox church depends on the what the ECF determined to have been taught everywhere (from western Gaul to India by the end of the 1st century) and at all times." Yet here you are basically stating what the majority believed...and again at one time the majority believed in Arianism.

Some argue the earliest portion of the Church did not see a literal blood and body in the Eucharist. It is only the language given and interpreted by pagan authorities that was used to accuse them of being cannibals. The earliest Church never believed in transubstantiation, it was only hundreds of years later the view came into a different light given credence from Egyptian (Alexandrian) allegorical teaching. Simply because it is claimed the teachings of the apostles remain unaltered through tradition does not prove the validity of the point. This is why Irenaeus speaks of the Scriptures, "to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith."

<<Only the first bishops were appointed by the apostles. The rest were appointed by other bishops.>>

Are you suggesting that, once those 1st bishops died, there would be no leadership in the church?

<<I would say the Romans would disagree with you, claiming you split from them leaving RCC to remain.>>

You would be correct. That is their position.

<< In truth the ECFs are all over the map in regards to interpretation>>

That is false. Some, indeed, were heretics and their opinions were rejected. Their views are not authoritative for any doctrine. Thus Arius and Nestorius are not considered valid sources for the teaching of the ECF.

<<Yet here you are basically stating what the majority believed...and again at one time the majority believed in Arianism. >>

Again, that is false. And Arianism is a good example. The entire Western church would have been Arian had not Clovis been converted from paganism to Catholicism by his wife. He then imposed Orthodoxy upon all his subjects. But Arianism was condemned as heresy at the first great council. They did not base their decision on what the majority believed but on what they had received from the apostles and the scriptures.

<<Some argue the earliest portion of the Church did not see a literal blood and body in the Eucharist.>>

Who?

The earliest writings of the church fathers certainly did see the Eucharist as the literal body and blood of the Lord.

Including:

Ignatius of Antioch (30-107 A. D. A disciple of the apostle John and Bishop of Antioch)
Justin Martyr, the church’s first apologist
Irenaeus, in his "Against Heresies" (175-185 AD)

<<The earliest Church never believed in transubstantiation>>

Of course not! The word didn't even exist until the middle ages. Transubstantiation is not a description of WHAT the Eucharist is but an explanation of how bread and wine becomes the body and blood of the Lord. It is a product of the scholastics in their attempt to apply reason to every facet of faith.

But the absence from the ancient church of that Latin word from the middle ages says absolutely nothing about the universal teaching that the bread and wine is the body and blood of the Lord.

<<it was only hundreds of years later the view came into a different light given credence from Egyptian (Alexandrian) allegorical teaching>>

Again, Ignatius of Antioch, a contemporary of the apostles, who was taught by the John, the beloved disciple of Christ and, in this statement, he affirms the teaching of the apostles and Christ that the bread is Christ’s body and refutes that patently false notion.

Ignatius of Antioch (30-107 A. D. A disciple of the apostle John and Bishop of Antioch) in his Epistle to the Smyrnaens, Ch. VII: “Let Us Stand Aloof from Such Heretics” states; “They (the heretics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins,..”

and

Justin Martyr, the church’s first apologist, wrote in the first half of the 2nd century in his “The First Apology of Justin”, in Chapter LXVI.—Of the Eucharist. In it he reports what he was taught as a new Christian by the church. That would mean that the teaching he received was already established in the church. It is not some later innovation by the Roman church but was a part of the teaching of the apostles who taught what they learned from Jesus. It is God’s inspired teaching to the church by His Son, through the apostles to the church.

And here it is:

“And this food is called among us Eucaristiva [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; ”and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood; ”and gave it to them alone.”


<<This is why Irenaeus speaks of the Scriptures, "to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith." >>

Where? Can you give me a citation? I can't find it in Irenaeus' writings.

Perhaps Irenaeus missed where Paul said that it was the church, not scripture, which is that pillar.

1Ti 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Well Clement may have said this, but God's Word doesn't convey this in any way shape or form, so trying to set himself up as the ultimate authority of the church in the same way the priesthood was only shows that Clement was a Judeo Christian, greatly influenced by the Judaic church in Rome.
Paul's words are very clear and as such all he does is teach who should be an overseer, not appoint them. That he may have lent credence to some going into office as he did Timothy and others, is not at issue, apostolic succession is, and IT is not taught by scripture. Clement is NOT scripture.

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/290.html

<<Well Clement may have said this, but God's Word doesn't convey this in any way shape or form,>>

OH! "If God's word doesn't say it than it never happened." Is that your point?

Hey! YOU aren't in the Bible. Therefore, you must not exist!

And that makes about as much sense as you rejecting the historical report of a contemporary of the apostles because the procedure is not spelled out for you in so many words in scripture. Clement's letter is a document which gives us historical information about the church.

The Bible is not an exhaustive encyclopedia of everything that Jesus taught the disciples.

The trinity is not taught in so many words in the Bible. Do you reject it also?