Christian Forums

1 Corinthians--9:2 If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

Paul's wording is very interesting here and makes it clear what an apostle really is: someone who brings the Gospel to a new place and starts a church where none was before.

The church in Corinth did not exist before Paul--he built it from the ground up, and that's why the Corinthians were the proof of the fact that he was an apostle as I defined above.

So Paul says "If to others I am not an apostle . . ." referring to all the others to whom he ministered but didn't start from the beginning, so to whom, then, are those who inherited "apostolic succession" actually apostles?

1 Corinthians--
12:28 God has set some in the assembly: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracle workers, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, and various kinds of languages.
12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all miracle workers?
12:30 Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with various languages? Do all interpret?
12:31 But earnestly desire the best gifts. Moreover, I show a most excellent way to you.

What I highlighted also makes it clear that anyone can be an apostle, and historically, we know that this is true from real missionaries who build churches from the ground.

: Cally  Sat Aug 01, 2009 - 08:35:53
1 Corinthians--9:2 If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

Paul's wording is very interesting here and makes it clear what an apostle really is: someone who brings the Gospel to a new place and starts a church where none was before.

The church in Corinth did not exist before Paul--he built it from the ground up, and that's why the Corinthians were the proof of the fact that he was an apostle as I defined above.

So Paul says "If to others I am not an apostle . . ." referring to all the others to whom he ministered but didn't start from the beginning, so to whom, then, are those who inherited "apostolic succession" actually apostles?

1 Corinthians--
12:28 God has set some in the assembly: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracle workers, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, and various kinds of languages.
12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all miracle workers?
12:30 Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with various languages? Do all interpret?
12:31 But earnestly desire the best gifts. Moreover, I show a most excellent way to you.

What I highlighted also makes it clear that anyone can be an apostle, and historically, we know that this is true from real missionaries who build churches from the ground.

thats hilarious.

You all of a sudden have enlightened the whole world and God has chosen to hide this secret from everyone for almost 2000 years.

wow your sooooo deep mr star trek.

The fact that you have contradicted pretty much everyone that ever taught on the subject in the first 19 centuries is amazing, don't you think? what, did everyone get it wrong in all of Christianity, including the disciples of the apostles?

lol

peace, papist

Funny, I thought you were interested in real debating. I would have thought that might include a real response besides simply declaring the infallibility of the Catholic church.

Likewise, you are being very deep.

How did Jesus define the difference between the people, the disciples, and his apostles in the parable of the sower?  For they were apostles during Jesus ministry, even before they had brought his teachings unto new people, Jew or Gentile. 

The difference is not in what they do, for James died by the sword before ever having a ministry of his own, and yet is still an apostle.  So it is not by thier works, nor thier preaching that defined them although it may have defined those that followed.

: JamesTheLeast  Sat Aug 01, 2009 - 14:24:32
How did Jesus define the difference between the people, the disciples, and his apostles in the parable of the sower?  For they were apostles during Jesus ministry, even before they had brought his teachings unto new people, Jew or Gentile. 

The difference is not in what they do, for James died by the sword before ever having a ministry of his own, and yet is still an apostle.  So it is not by thier works, nor thier preaching that defined them although it may have defined those that followed.

What's this about the parable of the sower?

When the disciples were first called "apostles" there was no way to NOT be the first ones to preach Jesus' ministry. And James worked with the other Apostles. Paul was converted after many churches were already established by the twelve apostles, and so converting and raising one on his own was the "seal of his apostleship"--it was proof that he was an apostle.

By the way, (papist), this hasn't been a secret at all, to many people. Many have "earnestly desired the greater gifts" from God and received them without man's permission.

: Cally  Sat Aug 01, 2009 - 13:25:30
Funny, I thought you were interested in real debating. I would have thought that might include a real response besides simply declaring the infallibility of the Catholic church.

Likewise, you are being very deep.

This habit by persons who interpret scripture according to their predetermined ideas is flawed at its root.  Are all apostles? no

The verse you decided to highlight is a pretext in order to try to somehow say that anyone can be an apostle.

If you are an apostle, then please, go and forgive the sins of others, and also, go and do not forgive the sins of others.

you see, you or I do not have that power. We can forgive a person for sinning against us, but we cannot personally forgive the sin in their soul. Apostles and presbyters can.

Also, if we do not forgive someone for sinning against us, God will not forgive us, yet the apostles have the power to declare someone not forgiven, something we do not have.

peace, papist

God commanded all of us to pray for sinners. How is that different from the authority to forgive sins?

How else would you explain the meaning of Paul saying to Corinth "you are the seal of my apostleship" as distinguished from the other churches?

I would not listen to someone who nullifies the word of God, period. That's exactly what the Pharisees did--they trusted in human traditions without question to perpetuate their existence, and that's how they nullified the word of God.

: CallyGod commanded all of us to pray for sinners. How is that different from the authority to forgive sins?

We certainly should all pray for sinners, and if we have sinned, we should ask for the forgiveness of our brothers, but if you ask me for forgiveness, I can give it for myself, but I can not give it for God.  I can give you my personal forgiveness, but I cannot absolve your sins.  Christ specifically gave that power to His Apostles, and they in turn gave it to their successors, by breathing the Holy Spirit on them and telling them so.  He did not give it to you or me.  Even Paul, chosen by Christ Himself, was ordained by the other Apostles by the imposition of hands.  If my kid steals some candy and comes to me in tears for forgiveness, I certainly will forgive him as my son, but I will tell him he needs to ask the store owner for forgiveness and make amends and he needs to ask God through the sacrament of confession as instituted by Christ.

If all Christians cannot intercede for all men in the way that (say) Moses did when he begged God to forgive Israel, then what is the point of commanding all Christians to pray for unbelievers?

An unbeliever is totally under God's wrath, and he is doing nothing to bring good things to himself (that is, praying for himself), then I am stepping in between and saying "God, forgive this man anyway."

And God listens! That's why he told all of us to do it. In that case, of course, that entails also bringing him to repentance before God, because (and do notice this): there is no scriptural account of anyone who dies in debauchery or other sin, unrepentant, being forgiven BY GOD just because some man arbitrarily decided he should be! It always entails repentance.

So in the end you can see, there's really absolutely no difference between an "ordinary" Christian's (or "righteous man's") appeal to mercy for others' behalf to God, and someone "special." We all have authority, and we're all commanded to use it.

This alone clearly accounts for God's statement "I give you authority to forgive sins" to the apostles. Yes, an Apostle can decide not to intercede anyway the same way we can choose not to pray for those who need mercy and yet are not pursuing it--yet God has commanded all people to do it.

Hi Cally,

I had brought up this point before, and what I discovered is that they do not believe that apostolic successors are actually apostles.

They only believe that they are successors, and bishops.

In order to be an apostle you have to have been personally selected by Jesus Christ to be a disciple.  The original 12 met this criteria and so did Paul.

As to whether the term apostle applied to their successors... I doubt it.

Notice that none were 'voted' in.

: Tantor  Tue Aug 04, 2009 - 15:35:54
In order to be an apostle you have to have been personally selected by Jesus Christ to be a disciple.  The original 12 met this criteria and so did Paul.

As to whether the term apostle applied to their successors... I doubt it.

Notice that none were 'voted' in.

One of them (Judas) was replaced just by casting lots to get the number back up to twelve after Jesus wasn't around. And the two leading "candidates" were determined by the other eleven, right? (Of course, they cast lots to get God's go-ahead).

That was their choice.. which still doesn't make it right... the Apostles made a lot of mistakes.. and made them often.

What made them special was the mutual accountability and respect they held each other to.

And their eventual downfall was ultimately one apostles desire for power over the others...

: CallySo in the end you can see, there's really absolutely no difference between an "ordinary" Christian's (or "righteous man's") appeal to mercy for others' behalf to God, and someone "special." We all have authority, and we're all commanded to use it.

Well, we don't however, just as we are not Bishops, Presbyters or Deacons without having proper authority.  If that were the case then you are saying that Christ's actions were just "for show" or had no actual power behind them.  I'm not trying to be insulting.  It may be from your last post, that I am just not understanding what your getting at.  A priest does not absolve any one's unrepentant sin, ever.  To do so would be an invalid confession.   When I go to confession, I must be truly repentant for absolution to be valid.  I confess to God all of my serious sins, the priest is there as Christ's representative through Apostolic Succession, but I still ask God, primarily, for forgiveness.  The priest through the power granted him by Christ, absolves me from my sins.  As for "praying for the unbeliever", I may just be unclear as to what your argument is.  We should always pray for unbelievers to receive the Grace that is necessary to begin to know Christ.  You may have to elaborate to your objections for me.

: desertknight  Tue Aug 04, 2009 - 16:29:25

: CallySo in the end you can see, there's really absolutely no difference between an "ordinary" Christian's (or "righteous man's") appeal to mercy for others' behalf to God, and someone "special." We all have authority, and we're all commanded to use it.

Well, we don't however, just as we are not Bishops, Presbyters or Deacons without having proper authority.  If that were the case then you are saying that Christ's actions were just "for show" or had no actual power behind them.  I'm not trying to be insulting.  It may be from your last post, that I am just not understanding what your getting at.  A priest does not absolve any one's unrepentant sin, ever.  To do so would be an invalid confession.   When I go to confession, I must be truly repentant for absolution to be valid.  I confess to God all of my serious sins, the priest is there as Christ's representative through Apostolic Succession, but I still ask God, primarily, for forgiveness.  The priest through the power granted him by Christ, absolves me from my sins.  As for "praying for the unbeliever", I may just be unclear as to what your argument is.  We should always pray for unbelievers to receive the Grace that is necessary to begin to know Christ.  You may have to elaborate to your objections for me.

It is clear that there are to be bishops (or overseers) and deacons--the latter is not defined specifically in the Bible.

If you're saying that we also NEED to make a confession to someone else, else we can't receive forgiveness from God, that is not biblical according to 1 John. The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector clearly demonstrates (and the entire point of the parable) that all a man has to do is humble himself before God without ritual--like the Pharisee did--and just say "have mercy on me, a sinner!" and he walked out justified, no other action required.

Everything else I said covers my use of scripture.

It's funny how two people can read the same thing, and come away with two different meanings.  The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector tells us that in order to be forgiven, we must be truly contrite, not just "going through the motions".  How we can do this, our Lord provided for within His visible Church and His anointed ministers.  I think you are missing what the sacrament of penance is.  Yes, one can confess directly to God -- but refusing to confess in the presence of a priest implies that one can also be one's own spiritual physician. Christ clearly, and Biblically, intended His Apostles and those they anointed into ministry, to fulfill that role. The sacrament, by its very nature, confers graces that help us to live a Christian life. Moreover, it was instituted by Christ as the proper form for the forgiveness of our sins. Therefore, we should not only be willing to receive the sacrament, but we should embrace it as a gift from a loving God.

Luke 18:11  "The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity--greedy, dishonest, adulterous--or even like this tax collector."

There is no "speaking prayers to oneself" in the confessional.  The purpose of the pastoral care provided is to act as the representative of Christ in guiding the penitent back to the God.  Had the Pharisee had the benefit of the sacrament, he would have been stopped cold, by any priest, and reminded of the humble and contrite heart that is necessary to receive God's forgiveness.  That is it's purpose.  

: desertknight  Tue Aug 04, 2009 - 18:09:18
It's funny how two people can read the same thing, and come away with two different meanings.  The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector tells us that in order to be forgiven, we must be truly contrite, not just "going through the motions".  How we can do this, our Lord provided for within His visible Church and His anointed ministers.  I think you are missing what the sacrament of penance is.  Yes, one can confess directly to God -- but refusing to confess in the presence of a priest implies that one can also be one's own spiritual physician. Christ clearly, and Biblically, intended His Apostles and those they anointed into ministry, to fulfill that role. The sacrament, by its very nature, confers graces that help us to live a Christian life. Moreover, it was instituted by Christ as the proper form for the forgiveness of our sins. Therefore, we should not only be willing to receive the sacrament, but we should embrace it as a gift from a loving God.

Luke 18:11  "The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity--greedy, dishonest, adulterous--or even like this tax collector."

There is no "speaking prayers to oneself" in the confessional.  The purpose of the pastoral care provided is to act as the representative of Christ in guiding the penitent back to the God.  Had the Pharisee had the benefit of the sacrament, he would have been stopped cold, by any priest, and reminded of the humble and contrite heart that is necessary to receive God's forgiveness.  That is it's purpose.  

Confessional???  Sacrament of penance???

The NT never speaks of a confessional!!

The NT never talks about penance!!

As a matter of fact, the NT never talks about a sacrament!!

And certainly none of those in relation to an apostle.

The reason it says that the Pharisee spoke the prayer to himself was because he was exalting himself and therefore, God wasn't listening at all. That should make enough sense. The Pharisee wasn't really making a "confession" at all, however--but just praying about how great he was. I agree, he could have used a good teacher.

Many others, however, are like that tax collector and know how to say a prayer in humility to God--moreover, the fact that Jesus chose a tax collector for that parable reinforces that the "average Joe sinner" can do so on his own.

I agree that the central point was "whoever exalts himself will be humbled, but whoever humbles himself will be exalted." But I was pointing out that he spoke straight to God and succeeded in being shown mercy from God without confessing to a man.

: JimmyConfessional???  Sacrament of penance???

The NT never speaks of a confessional!!

The NT never talks about penance!!

As a matter of fact, the NT never talks about a sacrament!!

And certainly none of those in relation to an apostle.

Oh? 

John 20:21-23  "Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

That is the sacrement of confession.

: CallyBut I was pointing out that he spoke straight to God and succeeded in being shown mercy from God without confessing to a man.

And they still can.  The Church does not teach that your sins cannot be forgiven outside of the sacrament, they teach that they should be confessed within the sacrament.  The Church, as pastoral shepherds, can also require that the faithful avail themselves of the sacrament at least once a year, just as one receives a physical checkup from a doctor on a regular basis.  Many sins, just as with a physical illness, require real pastoral care, not just continually, even if with true contrition, crying out to God for forgiveness.  Certainly God does provide forgiveness for all, but think of the multitude of serious sins that people face.  Drug addiction, serial adultery, same-sex attraction, abortion...these things are better dealt with spiritually, with the help of those who Christ intended to represent Him and His Church.  Many of my confessions have also included creative reparation, like reconnecting with disavowed family members, ("whoever has hatred in his heart for his brother..."), a real problem, sadly, in my dysfunctional family.  With some, a priest may recommend counselling, as well as ministering to those asking for forgiveness and receiving absolution.  Thank God for His Church and our good priests for giving us the pastoral care and the assurance of absolution, of truly starting again in God's good Grace, to set things right.

: desertknight  Tue Aug 04, 2009 - 19:07:27

: JimmyConfessional???  Sacrament of penance???

The NT never speaks of a confessional!!

The NT never talks about penance!!

As a matter of fact, the NT never talks about a sacrament!!

And certainly none of those in relation to an apostle.

Oh? 

John 20:21-23  "Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

That is the sacrement of confession.

I understand what the RC (and Orthodox?) church has cobbled together to call sacraments.  But even in the passage you quoted nothing is said about sacraments.  Nothing is even said about confession.

You would do yourself a favor by looking at some non-RCC explanation for that text.

So your objection is that because the label "sacrament" is not found in the Bible, that it somehow makes it invalid?  That's your objection?  The word "sacrament" simply means something that is holy, found throughout the Bible, or specific to Christianity, "An outward sign of something sacred. In Christianity, a sacrament is commonly defined as having been instituted by Jesus and consisting of a visible sign of invisible grace."  And you can remove the question mark behind "Orthodox" in your post.  All the Eastern Orthodox churches have the same belief we Catholics do regarding this issue.  If you have a link to a non-Catholic/Orthodox interpretation of John 20:21-23, please post it for all to see.  I would be interested.  

This is just an internet site, but I generally agree with it:

http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/a01catholics/john20v23.html

The Roman Catholic Church uses this passage to justify its teaching that the key of purgatory lies in the hand of the priest. In this unseen region of suffering he is said to open and shut, bind and loose. It is also held to lie within the priest's power to lessen the duration and severity of the suffering.

That site gets much basic Catholic theology wrong.  John 20:21-23, which the Church basis the sacrament of confession on, has nothing to do with purgatory as such.  Purgatory is just the final purification of the soul before entering the Kingdom of Heaven.  There is no permanent place other than heaven or hell and no one in purgatory is there because they have committed a mortal sin and no priest holds any power in "releasing" anyone from purgatory.  If you are guilty of a mortal or "deadly" sin, and have remained unrepentant of it until death, we can never say for certain, but hell is as close as we can guess, as to where you will go.  No purgatory, no heaven.   Only mortal sins need be confessed during the sacrament of penance and those have nothing to do with purgatory.  There is nothing that can lesson your "time" in purgatory as such, in any event.  It does not exist "in time."  You will still find some texts that use that as an analogy, just as we still instinctively point up when referring to heaven.   The Catholic Church also believes in, and teaches the truth of, the "royal priesthood of believers", but that does not negate that Christ anointed Apostles to be His ministers in acting in His name, and they in turn, with the full authority of our Lord, anointed others, to carry this on.   I know you and I have debated this before, so we can debate it again, or let others read our comments on this in other threads.  I think those threads are still active.

: desertknight  Tue Aug 04, 2009 - 20:30:11
So your objection is that because the label "sacrament" is not found in the Bible, that it somehow makes it invalid?  That's your objection?  The word "sacrament" simply means something that is holy, found throughout the Bible, or specific to Christianity, "An outward sign of something sacred. In Christianity, a sacrament is commonly defined as having been instituted by Jesus and consisting of a visible sign of invisible grace."  And you can remove the question mark behind "Orthodox" in your post.  All the Eastern Orthodox churches have the same belief we Catholics do regarding this issue.  If you have a link to a non-Catholic/Orthodox interpretation of John 20:21-23, please post it for all to see.  I would be interested.  

So according to the RCC, there are seven things that are holy?  Interesting.  I don't find that any of those seven things are ever called holy in the Bible.  But perhaps I just missed it. People are called holy, places are called holy, the law and the commandments are called holy.  Jesus is called the Holy One.  There is of course the Holy Spirit, but none of those things that RCC talks about as "sacraments" are ever called "holy".  Do you find that interesting also?

And there are any number of non-RCC commentaries that are readily available on the internet.  You should have no trouble finding them.

Well, to start with, there are more than seven things that the Church consideres "holy".  There is "Holy Bible", the "Holy Catholic Church", "Holy Matrimony"...come on, get with it!  Lots of good, holy things out there.  I do find it somewhat interesting that you don't think that Baptism into the faith, or the Lord's Supper is "holy", but I just chalk it up to people not really understanding what the word "holy" means. 

: desertknight  Wed Aug 05, 2009 - 11:53:48
Well, to start with, there are more than seven things that the Church consideres "holy".  There is "Holy Bible", the "Holy Catholic Church", "Holy Matrimony"...come on, get with it!  Lots of good, holy things out there.  I do find it somewhat interesting that you don't think that Baptism into the faith, or the Lord's Supper is "holy", but I just chalk it up to people not really understanding what the word "holy" means. 

I know what the word "holy" means and I checked every occurance of that word in the NT.  I even know the Greek word "hagios" that is translated into the English "holy".   Guess what, as I indicated above, in the NT people are called holy, places are called holy, the law and the commandments are called holy.  Jesus is called the Holy One.  There is of course the Holy Spirit, but none of those things that RCC talks about as "sacraments" are ever called "holy".  It never says anything about holy baptism, holy Lord's supper, holy confession, holy marriage or any of that.  Come on, get with it! Read your Bible sometime and forget all of that other stuff they have been teaching you that is not from the Bible.

The Lord's Supper is not "holy"?  If it is not specifically called "holy" in the Bible, we are not allowed to use that word?  And , tell us, where are you getting that admonition from God...from?  Please site your biblical source for this.  Does not Baptism come from God?  Are not things that come from God, that convey His Grace, not "holy"?  I'm interested in you explaining how our Lord said, "This is my Body", and you have decided that, that, is not "holy", well, it's not even that, it is that somehow, you have decided that no one else is allowed to call this special gift from God, "holy".   ???  

Ha!  I guess we Catholics are not the only one's who didn't get the memo.

...intended for a husband and wife to enjoy within the bonds of holy matrimony.

http://www.fbfi.org/content/view/35/22/ (http://www.fbfi.org/content/view/35/22/)

A Christian marriage is a service in which a man and woman as believers pledge themselves to each other and are united by God in Holy Matrimony.

http://www.clife.org/?pg=chapel (http://www.clife.org/?pg=chapel)

6.WE BELIEVE...and practice two ordinances—(1) Water Baptism by Immersion after repenting of one's sins and receiving Christ's gift of salvation, and (2) Holy Communion (the Lord's Supper) as a symbolic remembrance of Christ's suffering and death for our salvation.

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft_short.cfm (http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft_short.cfm)

You do talk in circles don't you?

Is that all you got?  I couldn't be more "on point".   ::smile::

: desertknight  Wed Aug 05, 2009 - 15:08:48
Is that all you got?  I couldn't be more "on point".   ::smile::

I do believe that you have forgotten just what point you thought you were on.  You went from apostle to confessional to sacraments to simply holy to well-maybe-it-isn't-really-called-holy-in-the-Bible to we-just-call-it-that-because-we-think-it-is. And I guess you think that gets you back what an apostle is.

But then there aren't any confessionals in the NT, nor are there any "sacraments" given in the NT but somehow that is supposed to "actually define an apostle".

I think I will just repeat it back to you.  Is that all you got?  But I do understand: you are trying to establish the basis for popes and bishops and priests within the RCC heirarchy.  It isn't working but you didn't really think it would at this forum did you?  There are a lot of things that we probably agree on.  In some things there might be some minor differences.  But in the case of the functional organization of the RCC there is no way to bring that one in line with the Bible.

: JimmyI know what the word "holy" means and I checked every occurance of that word in the NT.  I even know the Greek word "hagios" that is translated into the English "holy".   Guess what, as I indicated above, in the NT people are called holy, places are called holy, the law and the commandments are called holy.  Jesus is called the Holy One.  There is of course the Holy Spirit, but none of those things that RCC talks about as "sacraments" are ever called "holy".  It never says anything about holy baptism, holy Lord's supper, holy confession, holy marriage or any of that.  Come on, get with it! Read your Bible sometime and forget all of that other stuff they have been teaching you that is not from the Bible.

I guess when it becomes inconvenient for you, you tend to forget your own words.  I have been nice and answered point by point, your arguments.  Funny how when I answered this charge above with complete satisfaction you suddenly dropped the subject and accused me of "wondering".  Now what's that again about Catholics using the word "holy" outside of when the Bible does?  You mean, like when I demonstrated that everyone from the Baptist to the Assemblies of God do as well.  The word "sacrament"  Just means "a holy act"  or in Christianity, "any of certain rites instituted by Jesus and believed to be means of grace."  Now we Catholics call the Lord's Supper, "Holy Communion", which you say is wrong.  Well, if so, then Lutherans, Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Presbyterians, etc., are all right there with us and wrong as well.  Now, your church may call Baptism and the Lord's Supper both "Ordinances".  I have just one challenge for you.  Please site your reference in Scripture where they are referred to as "Ordinances".  Let me guess, if it's called an "ordinance", then that's OK, but if called "sacrament", well, that's just wrong. You object that we use a "confessional" and you can't find that in the Bible.  I assume that when someone in your church goes to the pastor's office to confess some terrible sin they have committed, in private, that you have raised the objection to your congregation that no ministers in the Bible had offices with a desk, so your church shouldn't have one either, right?  Or is it just we Catholics who the rule applies to, and in your research of Scripture, you have found that an office, with a desk, is just fine to talk to your pastor in and pray together in, but anything called a "confessional" is out.  Really, is that your argument?  Because it is you, Sir, who brings up "confessionals", not me, so don't come back with anything about my "wondering".  This is your topic!  I mean is your argument seriously based on the idea that because there is a quite and private place for a person to confess their sins to the pastor of their church that it is somehow, wrong?  You've got to be kidding, right? ???

: desertknight  Wed Aug 05, 2009 - 17:16:50

: JimmyI know what the word "holy" means and I checked every occurance of that word in the NT.  I even know the Greek word "hagios" that is translated into the English "holy".   Guess what, as I indicated above, in the NT people are called holy, places are called holy, the law and the commandments are called holy.  Jesus is called the Holy One.  There is of course the Holy Spirit, but none of those things that RCC talks about as "sacraments" are ever called "holy".  It never says anything about holy baptism, holy Lord's supper, holy confession, holy marriage or any of that.  Come on, get with it! Read your Bible sometime and forget all of that other stuff they have been teaching you that is not from the Bible.

I guess when it becomes inconvenient for you, you tend to forget your own words.  I have been nice and answered point by point, your arguments.  Funny how when I answered this charge above with complete satisfaction you suddenly dropped the subject and accused me of "wondering".  Now what's that again about Catholics using the word "holy" outside of when the Bible does?  You mean, like when I demonstrated that everyone from the Baptist to the Assemblies of God do as well.  The word "sacrament"  Just means "a holy act"  or in Christianity, "any of certain rites instituted by Jesus and believed to be means of grace."  Now we Catholics call the Lord's Supper, "Holy Communion", which you say is wrong.  Well, if so, then Lutherans, Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Presbyterians, etc., are all right there with us and wrong as well.  Now, your church may call Baptism and the Lord's Supper both "Ordinances".  I have just one challenge for you.  Please site your reference in Scripture where they are referred to as "Ordinances".  Let me guess, if it's called an "ordinance", then that's OK, but if called "sacrament", well, that's just wrong. You object that we use a "confessional" and you can't find that in the Bible.  I assume that when someone in your church goes to the pastor's office to confess some terrible sin they have committed, in private, that you have raised the objection to your congregation that no ministers in the Bible had offices with a desk, so your church shouldn't have one either, right?  Or is it just we Catholics who the rule applies to, and in your research of Scripture, you have found that an office, with a desk, is just fine to talk to your pastor in and pray together in, but anything called a "confessional" is out.  Really, is that your argument?  Because it is you, Sir, who brings up "confessionals", not me, so don't come back with anything about my "wondering".  This is your topic!  I mean is your argument seriously based on the idea that because there is a quite and private place for a person to confess their sins to the pastor of their church that it is somehow, wrong?  You've got to be kidding, right? ???

Neither I nor my church talks about baptism and communion being ordinances.  You have not seen me use such a phrase.  As to who brought up confessionals, please refer to your earlier post:

: desertknight  Tue Aug 04, 2009 - 18:09:18
It's funny how two people can read the same thing, and come away with two different meanings.  The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector tells us that in order to be forgiven, we must be truly contrite, not just "going through the motions".  How we can do this, our Lord provided for within His visible Church and His anointed ministers.  I think you are missing what the sacrament of penance is.  Yes, one can confess directly to God -- but refusing to confess in the presence of a priest implies that one can also be one's own spiritual physician. Christ clearly, and Biblically, intended His Apostles and those they anointed into ministry, to fulfill that role. The sacrament, by its very nature, confers graces that help us to live a Christian life. Moreover, it was instituted by Christ as the proper form for the forgiveness of our sins. Therefore, we should not only be willing to receive the sacrament, but we should embrace it as a gift from a loving God.

Luke 18:11  "The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity--greedy, dishonest, adulterous--or even like this tax collector."

There is no "speaking prayers to oneself" in the confessional.  The purpose of the pastoral care provided is to act as the representative of Christ in guiding the penitent back to the God.  Had the Pharisee had the benefit of the sacrament, he would have been stopped cold, by any priest, and reminded of the humble and contrite heart that is necessary to receive God's forgiveness.  That is it's purpose. 

James talks about confessing our sins to one another (James 5:16) , but he doesn't say anything about a priest in a confessional.  No man here on earth serves as a rrepresentative of Christ.  There is me, the Holy Spirit who lives within me, and my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  I am subject to the elders of my congregation, but they do not serve as representatives.

: JimmyNeither I nor my church talks about baptism and communion being ordinances.  You have not seen me use such a phrase.  As to who brought up confessionals, please refer to your earlier post:

Really?  Hummm, then why when I looked up information on the Lord's Supper, did I find this article, from a distinguished graduate of a Church of Christ approved divinity school, an elder, a lecturer at the Church of Christ college of Pepperdine, and the director of a ministry promoting the Churches of Christ.  He is a contributing writer to The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement.

"Christian churches and churches of Christ have long believed that two ordinances of Christ must be given the highest priority: baptism and the Lord's Supper."

"An Ordinance of Unity"

"Koinonia is a Greek word that means "communion, fellowship, sharing in common.

: desertknight  Wed Aug 05, 2009 - 20:45:52

: JimmyNeither I nor my church talks about baptism and communion being ordinances.  You have not seen me use such a phrase.  As to who brought up confessionals, please refer to your earlier post:

Really?  Hummm, then why when I looked up information on the Lord's Supper, did I find this article, from a distinguished graduate of a Church of Christ approved divinity school, an elder, a lecturer at the Church of Christ college of Pepperdine, and the director of a ministry promoting the Churches of Christ.  He is a contributing writer to The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement.

"Christian churches and churches of Christ have long believed that two ordinances of Christ must be given the highest priority: baptism and the Lord's Supper."

"An Ordinance of Unity"

"Koinonia is a Greek word that means "communion, fellowship, sharing in common.

: papist1  Sun Aug 02, 2009 - 09:01:37

: Cally  Sat Aug 01, 2009 - 13:25:30
Funny, I thought you were interested in real debating. I would have thought that might include a real response besides simply declaring the infallibility of the Catholic church.

Likewise, you are being very deep.

This habit by persons who interpret scripture according to their predetermined ideas is flawed at its root.  Are all apostles? no

The verse you decided to highlight is a pretext in order to try to somehow say that anyone can be an apostle.

If you are an apostle, then please, go and forgive the sins of others, and also, go and do not forgive the sins of others.

you see, you or I do not have that power. We can forgive a person for sinning against us, but we cannot personally forgive the sin in their soul. Apostles and presbyters can.

Also, if we do not forgive someone for sinning against us, God will not forgive us, yet the apostles have the power to declare someone not forgiven, something we do not have.

peace, papist

God is the only one that can forgive sins.

: JimmyHe isn't me and he doesn't go to my church.

So now, it isn't just Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, Congregationalist, etc, etc, etc, but it's also apparently, all those other churches of Christ except your individual one, because I found no church of Christ refutations of the information I posted, to the contrary, his views seem quite well respected among those churches.  Wow, you are in an exclusive club!

: JimmyThere is nothing there that says that Timothy was made an apostle of Christ.  In fact we aren't even told what the gift was that came by the laying on of Paul's hands.  The continuance of any so-called "apostolic line" or whatever you call it is simply bogus.  It is pure conjecture and not a very good one.  It is pretty clear that only the apostles had the ability to bestow spiritual gifts by the laying on of hands (see Acts 8 e.g.).  There is no record that the ability to do that was not given to anyone.

Well, that is because Timothy was made a Bishop, and the conveyance of an Apostolic line is not only not bogus, but is accepted by the vast majority of Christians on the planet and has been for 2,000 years.  On the other hand, they probably would have no idea who Thomas and Alexander Campbell are.  If only the Apostles had the power to bestow spritual gifts, then why did St. Paul say to Titus, "For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint Presbyters in every town, as I directed you," (Titus 1:5), or to Timothy, "Do not lay hands too readily on anyone," (1 Timothy 5:22). or that the faithful were told, "Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the Presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.", (James 5:14-15).  What I find fascinating by those who believe as you do on this, is that every scrap of evidence we have of the earliest of Christian writing is so abundantly clear on the Apostolic Succession being of supreme importance to the early church.  In fact, there is no evidence whatever, of there being any sort of orthodox Christian church organization that are without it.

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the Bishop. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those Bishops already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." St. Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

"True knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us," Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33:8 (A.D. 180).  

Here is one concerning the city of Antioch from the Greek Orthodox...

http://www.balamand.edu.lb/theology/ignpatriarchs.htm

It seems to match the Syriac orthodox list...

http://sor.cua.edu/Patriarchate/PatriarchsChronList.html

Funny, their list is the same us us Catholics, from Catholic Fordham University's Department of History...

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/byzantium/texts/byzpatant.html

Guess all those history professors are just "dupped".

: JimmyBy the way, I would think that any serious Christian would be embarrassed to tears looking at that picture that you showed.  Whatever grandiosity and hypocritical pretense of piety the Pharisees displayed by their loud and long prayers (Matt 23:14) and which Jesus condemned are certainly outdone by all those in there fancy robes and headgear.  I wonder who they are trying to impress.

"Pretense of piety"?  Sir, do you even know who those people in the picture are?  How do you know that they have any such pretenses?  It's so nice when someone claiming to be a Christian condemns his brother when he has no idea of even the slightest detail of them.  Nice.  No, again, in your "exclusiveness", you fail to grasp that the vast majority of Christians in the world find nothing objectionable in the picture,  that no one is being "impressed", but then, maybe they just are not as judgmental as you, for I am sure from what you have said so far, that you would not even consider them your brother Christians.  

: desertknight  Thu Aug 06, 2009 - 11:36:09

"Pretense of piety"?  Sir, do you even know who those people in the picture are?  How do you know that they have any such pretenses?  It's so nice when someone claiming to be a Christian condemns his brother when he has no idea of even the slightest detail of them.  Nice.  No, again, in your "exclusiveness", you fail to grasp that the vast majority of Christians in the world find nothing objectionable in the picture,  that no one is being "impressed", but then, maybe they just are not as judgmental as you, for I am sure from what you have said so far, that you would not even consider them your brother Christians.  

The majority of the Jews found nothing objectionable in the Pharisees either.  So what?  How do I know that they have any such pretenses?  By the way they are dressed.  They obviously want everyone to know that they are not just some ordinary run of mill catholics.  They aren't dressed that way to blend in with the common folk.  ::smile::

As far as Timothy being a bishop/elder, I could be wrong, but I think you will have a difficult time backing up that statement.   Paul told him to do the work of an evangelist (2 Tim 4:5), but I don't believe that Paul ever referred to Timothy as a bishop/elder.

: desertknight  Thu Aug 06, 2009 - 11:36:09
Guess all those history professors are just "dupped".

I don't know that "dupped" is the right word.  But they certainly are not inspired so far as I am concerned.  Whatever historical documents you might wish to present is fine, but they are no more than that;  Some are interesting but still just historical writings.  They carry no authenticity in terms of anything biblical.  That seems to be an RCC and an Orhtodox trait.  When they can support it Scripturally, they root around until they can find someone somewhere that will substantiate their claim.  I sort of understand.  It is tough standing out there all alone with the long john lap undone.  At that point, any cover will do.

The majority of the Jews found nothing objectionable in the Pharisees either.  So what?  How do I know that they have any such pretenses?  By the way they are dressed.  They obviously want everyone to know that they are not just some ordinary run of mill catholics.  They aren't dressed that way to blend in with the common folk.

No, they are not, just as when I wore my military uniform, I did not want anyone to see me as "joe", I wanted them only to see the authority and power of the United States.  If you think Christ's objection was to the way certain people "dressed", you are seriously missing His point.  He never questioned that the Pharisees had the right to sit on Moses's throne, nor did he question how they dressed.  He criticized them for lengthening the tassels on their prayer garments, (so people could see that they were pious), not for wearing them!  He condemned them for the difference in how they looked to how they acted.  Hypocrisy is what our Lord, and every Christian should condemn, starting with ourselves.  There are many "hypocrites" who are Catholic priests, some have been Popes, but it is unjust to judge brothers you do not even know, based on your different cultural bias in how they may dress.  Some Protestant pastors may dress like a car salesmen, but they stash millions in their bank accounts.  Catholic priests may dress in the traditional vestments of the Church, but underneath, all are poor as the Church requires it as a discipline of the Presbytery.  When a Bishop or Priest wears vestments, it is to do honor to the Holy Eucharist at Mass and partly to honor the traditions of the Church, but it is always, just as with my uniform, to identify the person wearing it as the representative of the Body of Christ, and not himself.

As far as Timothy being a bishop/elder, I could be wrong, but I think you will have a difficult time backing up that statement.   Paul told him to do the work of an evangelist (2 Tim 4:5), but I don't believe that Paul ever referred to Timothy as a bishop/elder.

As Timothy was ordained by Paul, and he told him to exercise care in who he ordained as well, he was clearly more than just an evangelist.  Titus was tasked in Crete to do what Timothy was to in Ephesus, and Paul refers to Titus as a Bishop.

That seems to be an RCC and an Orhtodox trait.  When they can support it Scripturally, they root around until they can find someone somewhere that will substantiate their claim.  I sort of understand.  It is tough standing out there all alone with the long john lap undone.  At that point, any cover will do.

Well, we call it Holy Tradition, which has been handed down to us from the Apostles.  It is the description of, and the importance of, Apostolic Succession.  " I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you."  1 Cor. 11:2.  The Bible agrees with us on this.  We feel for you, and we would accept your idea that you are the ones who are correct in your interpretation of the Bible, but you, of course, are just one representative of more than 35,000+ "churches" who claim to be the "real deal" original Christians.  The ones who corrected all those mistakes.  I know you mean well, but I think yours is a harder row to hoe.  You have to try to explain how all that long history is one of the depravity of a Church that our Lord promised the gates of Hell would never prevail against and that the Holy Spirit would reside within until the end of time.  You have to explain how, contrary to Scripture, the church almost immediately fell into apostasy for over one thousand eight hundred years, until Alexander Campbell and friends "restored" what was lost.  Funny that none of that is in the Bible.  We Catholics and Orthodox have seen this before though.  The fervor and "newness" of Lutheranism and Calvinism, as well as all the others, JW's, Adventist, Christian Scientist, Quakers, Mormons, etc., all insisting they were the ones who "restored" origional Christianity, just right.  They were all the rage once, now most, just shadows of their former selves.  We Catholics/Orthodox may have our respective bums exposed to the wind, as you put it, but we have the wisdom of tradition and the lessons of history as well as the guidance of Holy Scripture and the Holy Spirit, to know that it will pass also, and we will still be here.

A sense of our history and tradition...

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Vs6qZd_xP1w

: desertknight  Thu Aug 06, 2009 - 18:25:51
He never questioned that the Pharisees had the right to sit on Moses's throne, nor did he question how they dressed.  He criticized them for lengthening the tassels on their prayer garments, (so people could see that they were pious), not for wearing them!

Oh good grief.  Talk about trying to defend the indefensible.  

: desertknight  Thu Aug 06, 2009 - 18:25:51

As far as Timothy being a bishop/elder, I could be wrong, but I think you will have a difficult time backing up that statement.   Paul told him to do the work of an evangelist (2 Tim 4:5), but I don't believe that Paul ever referred to Timothy as a bishop/elder.

As Timothy was ordained by Paul, and he told him to exercise care in who he ordained as well, he was clearly more than just an evangelist.  Titus was tasked in Crete to do what Timothy was to in Ephesus, and Paul refers to Titus as a Bishop.

More than just and evangelist?  That is intersting.  Paul presents the spiritual gifts in a couple of places.  Ephesians 4:11 is probably the one most often cited.  There he says,

And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,

Assuming that there is some hierarchy associated with the listing here, evangelist ranks higher than pastor (elder/bishop).  Curiously nowhere do we find functions like cardinal or pope.  Even if there is no hierarchy implied, clearly apostle is not equated with elder/bishop.  So your argument of apostolic succession just isn't there.

: desertknight  Thu Aug 06, 2009 - 18:25:51

That seems to be an RCC and an Orthodox trait.  When they can support it Scripturally, they root around until they can find someone somewhere that will substantiate their claim.  I sort of understand.  It is tough standing out there all alone with the long john lap undone.  At that point, any cover will do.

Well, we call it Holy Tradition, which has been handed down to us from the Apostles.  It is the description of, and the importance of, Apostolic Succession.  " I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you."  1 Cor. 11:2.  The Bible agrees with us on this.  

I believe that is what the Pharisees called all that stuff that they added to the law of Moses.  Even Paul noted such traditions with what might seem to be less than complimentary, when he said,

Gal 1:13  For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure, and tried to destroy it;
Gal 1:14  and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.

Clearly these are the traditions which Jesus often ignored during his ministry here on earth.  The Pharisees were continually harping at him for it.  You will see that while He always honored the law of Moses as the righteous Jew should, he was not at all beholding to the "traditions" and often chided the Pharisees for it.

Even where Paul spoke of traditions in a positive way, they were simply teachings that he or perhaps one of the other apostles had delivered.  
1Co 11:2  Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

2Th 2:15  So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

The "us" of 1 Tim 2:15 is probably best viewed as an "editorial we".

: desertknight  Thu Aug 06, 2009 - 18:25:51
We feel for you, and we would accept your idea that you are the ones who are correct in your interpretation of the Bible, but you, of course, are just one representative of more than 35,000+ "churches" who claim to be the "real deal" original Christians.  The ones who corrected all those mistakes.  I know you mean well, but I think yours is a harder row to hoe.  You have to try to explain how all that long history is one of the depravity of a Church that our Lord promised the gates of Hell would never prevail against and that the Holy Spirit would reside within until the end of time.  

First I am not even asking that you accept any idea that I am correct.  You are free to do as you like.  But neither should you expect me to accept your "traditions" that have clearly been established outside the bounds of the NT and in many cases I believe are opposed to it.

Second, it is of course the premier fallacy to think that the RCC is the Church that Jesus was talking about when He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.  It does seem to me that so much of the RC teaching is geared to making that assertion yet failing to do so.  It is apparent that all the falderall about Peter being the first pope and all  the importance of "traditions" above scripture is so earnestly defended primarily in the attempt to make that case.   That begins perhaps with the terrible misinterpretation of Peter being the rock on which the Church was built.  That is so obvious from the video you posted.  But of course that is not the case at all.  I have no doubt that individual believers within the RCC down through the years do in fact make up part of His Church that Jesus spoke of.  But that certainly does not equate the two at all.

It is apparent that the Church that Jesus spoke of and the Church that the RCs speak of are not the same thing at all.  So there is no reason at all for me to have to explain anything about the horrific atrocities carried out by the RCC or even the tremendous good that was done by it.  As an organization it is a totally separate entity from the Church that Jesus established.

By the way, I thought it a bit disingenuous for the RCC to claim in that video that it established the scientific method in light of the fact that the RCC burned at the stake some of the very people who first began to treat scientific inquiry by the scientific method.

I would point out that all of these pages of back and forth have little to do with what actually defines an apostle.That as was noted, very early in this topic, was defined by the apostles themselves in the first chapter of Acts.

Oh good grief.  Talk about trying to defend the indefensible.

You'll have to better than that.  "Oh good grief" won't suffice for people who think.  But hey, lets look at what our Lord actually said to see if he is just being a fashion consultant, as you insist, or if the point is in condemning hypocrisy and not fashion, as I believe.

Matt. 23  ""The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels".

"They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues"  "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter."
 
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. (But) these you should have done, without neglecting the others".
 
"Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing."
 
Now your argument seems to be, "Those there Catholic priest wear fancy clothes and that's just like the Pharisees and so they're wrong!"  Mine is, you are simply confusing your own bias with what our Lord is truly saying here.  Notice He says, "On the outside you appear righteous", not, "You are dressed in a way that displeases my Father."  He says, " Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean."  He does not say, "That cup is too fancy and displeases my Father."  Now every serious Biblical commentary I have ever read on Matt. 23 refers to our Lord's specific condemnation of hypocrisy, NOT, fashion, so "Oh good grief" right back at you bud.  Your going to have to come up with a more serious riposte than that if you want to convince me you are not just one of those who thinks "Those Catholic priests dress too fancy." passes for some sort of serious biblical exegesis.  The school of "I don't go for candles and stuff in church and neither did Jesus.", may pass for some as serious biblical and doctrinal critisism but, "Oh good grief", it isn't.

Curiously nowhere do we find functions like cardinal or pope.  Even if there is no hierarchy implied, clearly apostle is not equated with elder/bishop.  So your argument of apostolic succession just isn't there.

No, there is no mention of Cardinal or Pope, or of secretaries or administrators or of the church custodian.  The Catholic Church has only three orders of ordained clergy, Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon. Humm...Just like the New Testament!  Cardinals are just an administrative term or honorific, meaning they have been chosen as special administrators, but they are just Bishops, in most cases, (some are only Presbyters), like any other Bishop.  In the East, the Bishops of large, historic cities like Antioch or Alexandria bear the title of Patriarch or Metropolitan;  they are just Bishops as well.  "Pope", non-Catholics, and Catholics as well, use as a mater of tradition and convenience.  It is just a Latin term of endearment that means, "Papa" or "Dad", the chief earthly Shepard of the flock.  There is no actual "office of Pope" as such.  It has simply become a convenient title of use.  The Pope is just the chief Bishop of the college of Bishops, by virtue of his being the Patriarch of the city of Rome, Peter's See.  The Catholic Church has evangelist, teachers, etc., but that does not negate that the Church, within the completion of the NT, had a recognized ordained ministry of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons.  Scripture is as clear as can be on this.  That is still the only ordained ministerial positions in the Church today.  How bout yours?

Clearly these are the traditions which Jesus often ignored during his ministry here on earth.

Please prove that scriptually.  Absolutely not.  Our Lord was a faithful Jew.  Even in your quotation of Paul, Paul is not condemning "tradition", if so, why would he proudly refer to exactly the point of the Apostolic Succession by telling Timothy, "And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well."  Notice he doesn't say, "It is all written", but "I charge you through my ordination of you to go and teach what I have taught you".  When he condemns false teaching in  Acts 15:24-26 "Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."  Note, Paul does not simply condemn erroneous teaching, but specifically, that they "do not have a mandate from us", the proper authorities of the very visible Church.  You say...

: JimmyEven where Paul spoke of traditions in a positive way, they were simply teachings that he or perhaps one of the other apostles had delivered.

Now what does that mean?  "Simply teachings", I doubt they were to be dismissed of in so cavalier a manner.  What you do not seem to understand is that there was only the OT to refer to at the time.  OK, you may understand that, but opponents of tradition seem to be between a rock and a hard spot when it comes to condemning the validity of the Catholic Church when she was the compiler of the Christian Bible.  No complete NT text existed for several hundred years after the ministry of Christ.  The NT text that were eventually canonized by the Church were those of dozens upon dozens of Christian Gospels that existed.  Which text were the people to read?  That is, the few people who could!  Literacy was common among upper income Roman citizens, but unknown to Palestinian peasants.  No printing press would exist for 1,300+ years from then.  It was through Holy Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, just as Paul says in Acts 15, that conveyed the 'Good News' to a wanting world, or as said in Heb. 13:17  "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you."

Your, impssible to understand religious view, is that for 1,830+ years, that passage of scripture did not apply.

...it is of course the premier fallacy to think that the RCC is the Church that Jesus was talking about when He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.  It does seem to me that so much of the RC teaching is geared to making that assertion yet failing to do so.

If you are aware of another Christian Church that existed, then I would like to see your proof of it.  I have a non-religious degree in history, from a non-religious state university, and in every one of my history classes concerning this topic, The Christian Church was the Catholic Church until the Reformation, or in your case, until the 1830's in America.  Now "restorationist", like Mormons and Adventist, like to believe that there was some sort of "other" Christian Church that existed and the Catholic Church didn't start until Constantine, but I would have been laughed out of the history department for advancing such clap-trap.

It is apparent that the Church that Jesus spoke of and the Church that the RCs speak of are not the same thing at all.  So there is no reason at all for me to have to explain anything about the horrific atrocities carried out by the RCC or even the tremendous good that was done by it.  As an organization it is a totally separate entity from the Church that Jesus established.

That is an "apparentness" that has eluded Christians for 2,000 years.  My Church's bona fides are historically proven, scriptually based, and obvious to the vast majority of Christians throughout the world and for two millenia.  Your's is that the Church that Christ founded, in complete contradiction to all scripture, fell almost immediately into apostasy and was not restored until a few guys in Kentucky did it in 1830's America.  I would say the burden of proof is far heavier for you to bear than me brother.




 

: desertknight  Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 11:23:47

Oh good grief.  Talk about trying to defend the indefensible.

You'll have to better than that.  "Oh good grief" won't suffice for people who think.  But hey, lets look at what our Lord actually said to see if he is just being a fashion consultant, as you insist, or if the point is in condemning hypocrisy and not fashion, as I believe.

Matt. 23  ""The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels".

"They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues"  "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter."
 
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. (But) these you should have done, without neglecting the others".
 
"Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing."
 
Now your argument seems to be, "Those there Catholic priest wear fancy clothes and that's just like the Pharisees and so they're wrong!"  Mine is, you are simply confusing your own bias with what our Lord is truly saying here.  Notice He says, "On the outside you appear righteous", not, "You are dressed in a way that displeases my Father."  He says, " Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean."  He does not say, "That cup is too fancy and displeases my Father."  Now every serious Biblical commentary I have ever read on Matt. 23 refers to our Lord's specific condemnation of hypocrisy, NOT, fashion, so "Oh good grief" right back at you bud.  Your going to have to come up with a more serious riposte than that if you want to convince me you are not just one of those who thinks "Those Catholic priests dress too fancy." passes for some sort of serious biblical exegesis.  The school of "I don't go for candles and stuff in church and neither did Jesus.", may pass for some as serious biblical and doctrinal critisism but, "Oh good grief", it isn't.

Curiously nowhere do we find functions like cardinal or pope.  Even if there is no hierarchy implied, clearly apostle is not equated with elder/bishop.  So your argument of apostolic succession just isn't there.

No, there is no mention of Cardinal or Pope, or of secretaries or administrators or of the church custodian.  The Catholic Church has only three orders of ordained clergy, Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon. Humm...Just like the New Testament!  Cardinals are just an administrative term or honorific, meaning they have been chosen as special administrators, but they are just Bishops, in most cases, (some are only Presbyters), like any other Bishop.  In the East, the Bishops of large, historic cities like Antioch or Alexandria bear the title of Patriarch or Metropolitan;  they are just Bishops as well.  "Pope", non-Catholics, and Catholics as well, use as a mater of tradition and convenience.  It is just a Latin term of endearment that means, "Papa" or "Dad", the chief earthly Shepard of the flock.  There is no actual "office of Pope" as such.  It has simply become a convenient title of use.  The Pope is just the chief Bishop of the college of Bishops, by virtue of his being the Patriarch of the city of Rome, Peter's See.  The Catholic Church has evangelist, teachers, etc., but that does not negate that the Church, within the completion of the NT, had a recognized ordained ministry of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons.  Scripture is as clear as can be on this.  That is still the only ordained ministerial positions in the Church today.  How bout yours?

Clearly these are the traditions which Jesus often ignored during his ministry here on earth.

Please prove that scriptually.  Absolutely not.  Our Lord was a faithful Jew.  Even in your quotation of Paul, Paul is not condemning "tradition", if so, why would he proudly refer to exactly the point of the Apostolic Succession by telling Timothy, "And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well."  Notice he doesn't say, "It is all written", but "I charge you through my ordination of you to go and teach what I have taught you".  When he condemns false teaching in  Acts 15:24-26 "Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."  Note, Paul does not simply condemn erroneous teaching, but specifically, that they "do not have a mandate from us", the proper authorities of the very visible Church.  You say...

: JimmyEven where Paul spoke of traditions in a positive way, they were simply teachings that he or perhaps one of the other apostles had delivered.

Now what does that mean?  "Simply teachings", I doubt they were to be dismissed of in so cavalier a manner.  What you do not seem to understand is that there was only the OT to refer to at the time.  OK, you may understand that, but opponents of tradition seem to be between a rock and a hard spot when it comes to condemning the validity of the Catholic Church when she was the compiler of the Christian Bible.  No complete NT text existed for several hundred years after the ministry of Christ.  The NT text that were eventually canonized by the Church were those of dozens upon dozens of Christian Gospels that existed.  Which text were the people to read?  That is, the few people who could!  Literacy was common among upper income Roman citizens, but unknown to Palestinian peasants.  No printing press would exist for 1,300+ years from then.  It was through Holy Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, just as Paul says in Acts 15, that conveyed the 'Good News' to a wanting world, or as said in Heb. 13:17  "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you."

Your, impssible to understand religious view, is that for 1,830+ years, that passage of scripture did not apply.

...it is of course the premier fallacy to think that the RCC is the Church that Jesus was talking about when He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.  It does seem to me that so much of the RC teaching is geared to making that assertion yet failing to do so.

If you are aware of another Christian Church that existed, then I would like to see your proof of it.  I have a non-religious degree in history, from a non-religious state university, and in every one of my history classes concerning this topic, The Christian Church was the Catholic Church until the Reformation, or in your case, until the 1830's in America.  Now "restorationist", like Mormons and Adventist, like to believe that there was some sort of "other" Christian Church that existed and the Catholic Church didn't start until Constantine, but I would have been laughed out of the history department for advancing such clap-trap.

It is apparent that the Church that Jesus spoke of and the Church that the RCs speak of are not the same thing at all.  So there is no reason at all for me to have to explain anything about the horrific atrocities carried out by the RCC or even the tremendous good that was done by it.  As an organization it is a totally separate entity from the Church that Jesus established.

That is an "apparentness" that has eluded Christians for 2,000 years.  My Church's bona fides are historically proven, scriptually based, and obvious to the vast majority of Christians throughout the world and for two millenia.  Your's is that the Church that Christ founded, in complete contradiction to all scripture, fell almost immediately into apostasy and was not restored until a few guys in Kentucky did it in 1830's America.  I would say the burden of proof is far heavier for you to bear than me brother.

Oh good grief. Oh good grief.  Oh good grief.  That indocrination has really been driven deep into your brain.  What is so obvious in all of this is that you haven't even the foggiest notion of what the Church, i.e, the Boby of Christ, is.  But given where you are coming from that is understandable.  It has nothing to do with what you call the RCC.  It has nothing to do with whatever happened in Kentucky in the 1830s America.  It has nothing to do with any formal functional organization you might want to establish.

: desertknightYou'll have to better than that.  "Oh good grief" won't suffice for people who think.

I have a crystal clear understanding of what the "Body of Christ" is.  It is you who seem to not understand that your view did not appear on the scene for over 1,500 years after Christ.  It did not exist before the Reformation.  I am not "indoctrinated" as you say.  I am a Catholic convert.  Both of my parents were Church of Christ members from Oklahoma, but ceased to attend that church after some time.  I was brought to Christianity by searching my heart, prayer, and reading many times, the words of the New Testament.   I found it impossible to reconcile what I read there with the practices of the C's of C's or the Baptist or pentacostal churches that I attended.  I found it impossible to reconcile Protestantism with the writings of the earliest Church Fathers and documented early history of Christianity.  It was not enough for me to simply say, "They are not biblical, therfore, they can't be teaching me truth."  If I did that, I would never pick up a book.  I couldn't reconcile that Protestant churches I visited, like you, insisted that the Body of Christ was "invisible" or "without heirarchy and actual organization", when the Church that Christ founded, the Church of the New Testament, clearly was both.  I could not reconcile the fact that I was being told that the Catholic Church has no validity, and is apostate from Christianity, that the sole source of authority was scripture, when the undeniable historic fact was, that the Christian Bible was debated, compiled, and taught, by the Catholic Church, along with such vital Christian doctrines such as the Trinity or the nature of Christ's divinity and human nature.   The Church is not a symbol. It is the visible body of Christ, the living and breathing reality of Christ's presence among us. Remember also that Christ gave Peter and the apostles the authority to "bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth

: desertknight  Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 12:17:27

: desertknightYou'll have to better than that.  "Oh good grief" won't suffice for people who think.

I have a crystal clear understanding of what the "Body of Christ" is.

I do not think that you do.  It is unfortunate.

: desertknight  Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 12:17:27
The Church is not a symbol. It is the visible body of Christ, the living and breathing reality of Christ's presence among us.

Yes it is. And that has nothing to do with what is called the RCC.  There is a difference between the church and any organization within the church.  I believe there is a reason why there is so little spoken mention of any formal organization in the NT.  It was to avoid the very thing that later appeared in the form of organized religion.  The Holy Spirit purposely chose not to establish the very nature of an organization such as the RCC has established.  And perhaps even those such as many ICC/COCs have established.

The real irony of all of this is that it may be nearly impossible for anyone to ascribe to belonging to an organization such as the RCC and fully understand what Jesus means by His church.  The true meaning gets lost in all the pomp and circumstance.

: JimmyI believe there is a reason why there is so little spoken mention of any formal organization in the NT.

???  You must have a different New Testament than I do...

Acts 20:28  "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Tit. 1:7  "Since an Bishop is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain."

Phil. 1:1  "To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the Bishops and Deacons,"

1 Tim. 3:1  "Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an Bishop, he desires a noble task."

1 Pet. 2:25  "For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls."

1 Thess. 5:12  "We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you",

1 Peter 5:5  "Likewise, you younger members, be subject to the Presbyters,"

Acts 6:6 "They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them."

Acts 13:3  "Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off."

Acts 14:23  "They appointed Presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."

Acts 15:22  "Then the Apostles and Presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers."

1 Tim.  4:14  "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the Presbyterate."

1 Tim. 5:22  "Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another's sins. Keep yourself pure."

Tit. 1:5  " For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint Presbyters in every town, as I directed you."

1 Thes. 5:12-13  "Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other."

Heb. 13:17  "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you."

There is simply no way to explain that if the Church was intended to be invisible only, there is no record of that from the mass of Christian writing from either the New Testmament or the very first years of the Christian faith.  Every single early Church Father writes of a very visible, and hierarchical Church, led by her Bishops who were the only authorities who could pass leadership on through ordination by the imposition of hands.  If you can show me any scrap of evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it.

"Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the Bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the Bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."  St. Ignatius of Antioch, 107 AD.

"Catholicism is not an opinion to which one subscribes, but a reality to which one submits."  J.R.R. Tolkien

: desertknight  Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 14:04:53

: JimmyI believe there is a reason why there is so little spoken mention of any formal organization in the NT.

You must have a different New Testament than I do...

Yes it seems that you do have a different NT than I do.  I have ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NASB.  I suspect that you tend to use the Douay-Rheims.  In this I rather suspect it less to do with translation and more to do with interpretation.  Let's take a look at it.

: desertknight  Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 14:04:53
Acts 20:28  "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Tit. 1:7  "Since an Bishop is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain."

Phil. 1:1  "To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the Bishops and Deacons,"

1 Tim. 3:1  "Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an Bishop, he desires a noble task."

1 Pet. 2:25  "For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls."

1 Thess. 5:12  "We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you",

1 Peter 5:5  "Likewise, you younger members, be subject to the Presbyters,"

Acts 6:6 "They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them."

Acts 13:3  "Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off."

Acts 14:23  "They appointed Presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."

Acts 15:22  "Then the Apostles and Presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers."

1 Tim.  4:14  "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the Presbyterate."

1 Tim. 5:22  "Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another's sins. Keep yourself pure."

Tit. 1:5  " For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint Presbyters in every town, as I directed you."

1 Thes. 5:12-13  "Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other."

Heb. 13:17  "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you."

First, we need to understand the almost all of the references that you cited have to do with elders.  That is the main leadership role in the local churches that we read about in the NT.  The NT uses three main terms to describe this role: elder (presbyteros , Acts 20:17; 1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:5; 1 Pet 5:1). overseer or bishop (episkopos, Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:7; verb, episkopeo, 1 Pet 5:2), and shepherd or pastor (poimen, Eph 4:11; verb, poimaino, Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).

These terms are used interchangeably.  This is seen in Acts 20 which refers to the same group as "the elders of the church" at Ephesus (v.17) and as "overseers" (v.28), and says they were called "to shepherd the church" (v.28).  This same thing is seen in 1 Pet 5:1-2, where the apostle says, "I exhort the elders among you" to "shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight".  That elders and bishops are the same is also shown by the fact that Titus 1:5,7 uses the words interchangeably.  Thus according to these texts, no distincion shoud be made betweeen elders and bishops/overseers, or between elders and pastors/shepherd.

These terms in themselves show that the elders are the ones who exercise authoritative leadership in the local congregation.  The word "elder" as applied to chruch leaders does not simply have the generic meaning of an old person.    As in the OT it use is based on the idea that the poeple of God are a family.  Israel itself was a patriarchy, a term that means "rule of the father", those who are the eldest.  "the elders of Isreel" are mentioned often in the OT.  In a similar way, in the NT era the church is a spiritual family, and the elders are the father figures, the ones in the family who have the experience and the maurity to exercise spiritual leadership (talke a look at 1 Tim 3:4-5).

There is a great deal more that I could say about the elders and their role in leadership of the local congregations, but suffice it to say that in none of the references to the elders and their function is their anything at all like the humongous (and erroneous) hierarchy of the RCC.

There is, in addition to the elders, another role defined in the NT.  That is the role of deacon.  Not much is said about the deacons, so I won't bother to go into that unless you wish.

I would point out that the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls in 1 Pet 2:25 that you posted above is Jesus Christ Himself.

: desertknight  Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 14:04:53
There is simply no way to explain that if the Church was intended to be invisible only, there is no record of that from the mass of Christian writing from either the New Testmament or the very first years of the Christian faith.  Every single early Church Father writes of a very visible, and hierarchical Church, led by her Bishops who were the only authorities who could pass leadership on through ordination by the imposition of hands.  If you can show me any scrap of evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it.

I have not said anything about an intentionfor the Church to be invisible.  But there simply is nothing in the NT to indicate anything more, except for the apostles,  than the leadership and authority for the local congregations than the elders and deacons.

: desertknight  Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 14:04:53
"Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the Bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the Bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."  St. Ignatius of Antioch, 107 AD.

"Catholicism is not an opinion to which one subscribes, but a reality to which one submits."  J.R.R. Tolkien

If I were you I would not rely upon J.R.R. Tolkien for my guide to choice of church or church leadership.  I wouldn't give that reliance to St Ignatius of Antioch either except as it reinforces and substantiates that which is given in the NT.  And in the instance that you cited, it clearly seems not to.

: JimmyYes it seems that you do have a different NT than I do.  I have ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NASB.  I suspect that you tend to use the Douay-Rheims.  In this I rather suspect it less to do with translation and more to do with interpretation.

No, I have never owned a Douay-Rheims, I use any acceptable translation, including NAB, ASV, or even KJV.

: JimmyThese terms in themselves show that the elders are the ones who exercise authoritative leadership in the local congregation.  The word "elder" as applied to chruch leaders does not simply have the generic meaning of an old person.    As in the OT it use is based on the idea that the poeple of God are a family.  Israel itself was a patriarchy, a term that means "rule of the father", those who are the eldest.  "the elders of Isreel" are mentioned often in the OT.  In a similar way, in the NT era the church is a spiritual family, and the elders are the father figures, the ones in the family who have the experience and the maurity to exercise spiritual leadership (talke a look at 1 Tim 3:4-5).

There is a great deal more that I could say about the elders and their role in leadership of the local congregations, but suffice it to say that in none of the references to the elders and their function is their anything at all like the humongous (and erroneous) hierarchy of the RCC.

That at first the terms were interchangeable, I agree with.  That there began, even within the compilation of the NT, to be a clear distinction between the role of "elders", Presbyters, being the leaders of local Church communities and Episkopos, Bishops, being in charge of larger geographic areas, is overwhelmingly accepted by virtually every Biblical scholar that I know of.  Even looking up the topic on Wiki, or World Book or any basic source of Christian history will confirm the same.  The two had a clear distinction within the writing of the NT as when Paul, writing to Titus or Timothy, is commanding them to "ordain Presbyters" in various cities, (Titus is told he should ordain in various cites of all of the island of Crete.), and that Timothy should take care when ordaining in Ephesus.  We also know that it is a distinct office with authority, that people are "ordained" to, by a higher authority, hence "overseer", Bishop, that is not even a native, necessarily, of that area.  We also know from scripture, that these offices are not just locally self-administered.  In Acts 15:24-26, the problem was not simply that the local Christian communities had ministers who were "disturbing" them with their teachings and actions, but that they had no mandate from us.  So clearly, we have the Church as being hierarchical, obviously one does not have to be an "apostle" to have that authority over other Christians as the examples of Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, Silas, and others prove.  Presbyters are not just indigenous, self-appoionted "elders", as scripture tells us clearly that they are appointed and that their appointments must have the authority tracing back to the Apostles.  So...so much for the Church not being visible, or not having structure and authority.  On to your next point.  You have me scratching my head as to why you make the statement that, "in none of the references to the elders and their function is their anything at all like the humongous (and erroneous) hierarchy of the RCC."  OK, lets see.  A Catholic Bishop is an overseer of a large geographic area, or large population center, just as Titus was in Crete for example.  That Bishop is responsible for ordaining and being in charge of the "elders", presbyters of the local Christian communities, just as Titus was, and all the members, therefore, of the 'presbyteriate', Bishops and Presbyters, must have the authority that Titus did and those Presbyters he appointed for the various cities of Crete, going back to the original Apostles.  So far, I can't see where there is a difference, can you?  You will have to explain what that is. ???  I noticed you didn't.

: JimmyI have not said anything about an intentionfor the Church to be invisible.  But there simply is nothing in the NT to indicate anything more, except for the apostles,  than the leadership and authority for the local congregations than the elders and deacons.

Well, that's clearly not the case for just the examples that I cited above.  There are even more examples than what I have posted so far as to the leadership of Christian communities not being indigenous.  That doesn't mean that local people were not appointed to various positions, but if what you are saying is true, then you will have a difficult time explaining why Titus, and Timothy, along with Barnabas and Silas, were sent to lands with the specific task of "appointing presbyters".  You will have a difficult time explaining how in Acts 15, clearly, a "mandate" from the Apostles, or their representatives, had to "prove" legitimacy.  Lastly, you will have to be proactive, and demonstrate where in history we see your model existing.  We do have quite a bit of Christian writing from the very first generations of Christians, and no model close to what you are saying, exist in any of them.  There is simply no history of Christianity being based on "local" leadership only, without oversight from, well, "overseers", Bishops, with Apostolic authority, who ordain Presbyters to lead local communities with the assistance of Deacons.  That is precisely the organization of the Catholic Church today, as it has always been.

: JimmyIf I were you I would not rely upon J.R.R. Tolkien for my guide to choice of church or church leadership.  I wouldn't give that reliance to St Ignatius of Antioch either except as it reinforces and substantiates that which is given in the NT.  And in the instance that you cited, it clearly seems not to.

I accept the opinions of anyone...who is right.  ::smile::  As to Ignatius, I'm glad you are finally in agreement with me, but if you don't like them, how bout' this?

"To study the history of Christianity is to cease to be Protestant."  John Cardinal Newman.

: desertknight  Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 18:27:14
That at first the terms were interchangeable, I agree with.  That there began, even within the compilation of the NT, to be a clear distinction between the role of "elders", Presbyters, being the leaders of local Church communities and Episkopos, Bishops, being in charge of larger geographic areas, is overwhelmingly accepted by virtually every Biblical scholar that I know of.  

Well bless your heart. I seems a shame to be so limited in knowledge of biblical scholars.  But you're catholic, so that perhaps explains a lot.   ::smile::  But I just showed you based upon the NT from early to late that the terms were used interchangebly in the NT.  That the terminology was bastardized early on after the NT era is pretty obvious.  But so much was.  And that was largely due to the RCC or to what was to eventually become the RCC.

: desertknight  Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 18:27:14
Even looking up the topic on Wiki, or World Book or any basic source of Christian history will confirm the same.  

J.R.R. Tolkien, St Ignatius of Antioch and now Wiki.  I can see why you think as you do.

You forgot John Cardinal Newman!   ::priest::

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_slalK5PhgaE/Sd4nAPeSbGI/AAAAAAAACi4/cK22YWVpaoU/s400/Eucharist.jpg)

Peace brother.

I didn't forget him.  I'm sure he was probably a very nice guy.  But, he just didn't really seem all that important.  And his implication that a protestant can't know history is a bit shallow.  But then the implication that if you aren't RC that you are a protestant is shallower still.  But I understand, given a bit of a similarity in backgrounds, that you might revere him.

Peace to you brother.

I accept the opinions of anyone...who is right.  Smile  As to Ignatius, I'm glad you are finally in agreement with me, but if you don't like them, how bout' this?

"To study the history of Christianity is to cease to be Protestant."  John Cardinal Newman.


MIke
Thats good that you except opinions of those who are write. Perhaps now you can except this that in Gods kingdom there is neither Catholic or Protestant. The church is not just a organization and magisterial leadership but a body of believers  who's faith is in Christ. The church is not a place or a thing but it is a people of faith that walk not after earthly things but a spiritual heavenly calling.

Your quote is not correct. To really know and understand the early church and the teaching of Christ and the apostles is to cease being Protestant and Roman Catholic. neither existed when the church was born. What saved a man and made the early believers followers then is exactly how god sees his church today. Satan who is the master of confusion has divided the church and misguided leadership starting with the RCC when power and authoritty became corruption and abuse.