Posted on 04/26/2005 9:00:20 AM PDT by TheTruthess
God brought His words to the world using whatever means He felt like using. If it was through the dominate and capable men of that time, then I believe it. Romans 9:14-18 "What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires."
God raised up Pharaoh because he used him to demonstrate His power and that His name would be proclaimed throughout the world - and it was. God chose to use the power the Catholic church had at the time to preserve the written word. I believe. Faith.
Power: I was not speaking of miraculous power. It simply meant that the men that were there at that time that collected letters or copies of letters and made decisions, WE believe God used them as His instruments to do that. Just like He used Pharaoh to show the world His power (God's power).
Capable men having knowledge of these inspired writings who were able to secure them and protect them. God used them the same way He used Pharaoh.
Everything you have brought up so far, is either a misunderstanding or misuse of God's Word by your pre-determined eiegesis. According to YOU, Joe. It's not a misunderstanding to me - it is as clear as it can be to me and a "few" Christians (few there be that find it...).
You said "...When I take the Lords supper - I remember Him."
"And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed [it], and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight." (Luke 24:30-31) During the breaking of the Bread, the Eucharist, I see with the eyes of faith Jesus' presence. I can "remember" Him without the breaking of the bread, your definition. Why did the disciples of Emmaus require the breaking of the bread to remember Jesus. They were "remembering" Him by discussing about Jesus while opening the Scriptures. Doesn't it sound silly, using your definition, that "their hearts were burning within them when He opened the Scriptures to us, but it wasn't until He broke bread with them that they 'remembered' Him"? Sounds pretty anticlimatic. And false.
This is making my head hurt! Obviously, we remember Jesus in many, many other ways. In our walk, in our speech, in our actions, in our worship. In everything we do, we remember Jesus. The partaking of His supper, Jesus says "do this in remembrance of Me", therefore, we do.
"JESUS HAS ALL AUTHORITY"
Another false dichotomy. Whoever said that the Church took away authority from Christ. Tell me, Lea, when was the last time Christ talked to you? The last time I read the Bible. I believe that every time I read the Bible - His OWN WORDS, Christ is talking to me. Have you seen Him? When I see a faithful Christian, I see Jesus. How do you know it was Him? Galatians 3:26-29 "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ . 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
How do you separate "God's Word" from "Lea's word"? I only speak God's Word - where God's Word is silent, I am silent. Where God's Word speaks, I speak. Not adding to or taking away:
Deuteronomy 4:2-3 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
Deuteronomy 12:32 "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it."
Revelation 22:18-19 "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book."
You have already stated you believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God. There is no other inspired writings. Therefore, we do not add to It nor take from It.
And if we read the Pastorals, you will find a number of verses that show APOSTLES ONLY laying hands and choosing successors, such as Timothy and Titus. They were then subsequently given authority to continue this. People just didn't step up and call themselves "apostles" or "overseers"! Joe, it is clear you do not understand that we believe there is no apostolic succession. We believe the Bible teaches that Jesus' Apostles were given authority by Him in order to confirm that the Gospel they were preaching was from Him. Part of that authority was able to be passed to selected other disciples for Jesus' purposes as is recorded in the Bible. Those people that were given this authority had no authority to pass it on. While we believe some of the Apostles were elders, we also believe that an elder does not have to be an Apostle. Titus selected faithful, qualified men to be elders - not to be Apostles.
1 Timothy 3:1-13 "This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." These qualifications are pretty clear.
"Again, one of the widely known requirements of Jesus' Apostles was that they were EYE WITNESSES of His life"
That is only in regards to choosing one to replace Judas! Why do you think that? Again, read the Pastorals and find Paul COMMANDING Timothy to choose overseers! When Paul lists the requirements for a bishop (overseer), where does it say anything about "witnessing Jesus' resurrection"? That requirement was only given in Acts 1 in choosing Mathias! We do not believe the Bible teaches this. Why do you say that this is only a requirement in the Acts 1 account - to be an eye witness? Was there something different about those Apostles?
Where is it recorded anywhere that God said the Bible is HIS Word??? God and God alone!! The Bible is His inspired Word.
You said "...NO - because it is not required of them to be traced back. Requirements were to be faithful men and have the values as described in Titus."
The Pastorals will disagree with you. Only men who had hands layed on them by authorized men would be considered apostolic successors, not just anyone. See previous notes 1 Timothy 3:1-13.
You said "...Every miracle recorded in the bible was easy to see and was preformed to confirm the words spoken were from God. Why can't we see it? Why is it hidden????
It is a miracle that requires FAITH. That is why Jesus speaks of faith in conjunction with the Eucharist. That is how our "eyes are opened, in the breaking of the bread"! No miracles recorded in the New Testament required FAITH!! That's the point! A miracle did not require faith on the part of the one receiving the miracle. Nor did it require faith on the part of those who witnessed the miracles. By reading the scripture, I believe (FAITH) that these miracles actually happened. I did not see them. But I believe what was written.
"your evidence relies on tradition - mine does not"
Is this what Protestants say when they are stumped? Sorry to disappoint, but I am by far not stumped. What is ironic is that Protestants rely on traditions of men, not Catholics! Catholics hold traditions of men higher than Scripture.
When will Protestants realize their errors? I would prefer you not call me a Protestant. I wear only the name "Christian". I DID realize my error - I then obeyed the gospel and became a Christian. When in Christianity has it been believed that we are to take EVERYTHING from the Bible alone? Where??? When??? Who??? Not until Luther. Before Luther, people were not allowed access to the scriptures - it was kept from them. People were kept in the dark. Thus, the "dark ages". And Luther lived to regret his teaching "for every head there is another religion". How are you going to get truth, Lea, when everyone decides for herself what is truth? The Bible is Truth - God's Word is Truth. When I read It I get Truth. When Luther read it, he easily saw the error of what was being taught. When I read, I can easily see error.
The first century Jews had the old Law written down. They studied it and followed it with every jot and tittle. Most still didn't understand it. However, a "few" did. A "few" believed John the Baptist. A "few" believed that Jesus was the Messiah. FEW!
I am shaking off the dust. (Matthew 10:14).
In Christ,
Lea
I have a question to ask you:
How does one post all the colors or italicized words on the forum, like yourself? Perhaps my posts would be easier for you and others to read if I was able to differentiate better than "you said", "I said"...
Thanks for your help. I'll get to your question in your most recent posts. I hope you aren't ready to "shake the dust off" and write me off as going to hell...
Regards
Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. Phl 2:6-7
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, {and} being made in the likeness of men.
Hbr 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Jhn 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
If you decide which font and/or color you would like to use as YOUR words I will tell you the code for them.
By the way, you can't use MY red though. LOL
<p><i>Whatever you want to type</i></p>
By sharing these attributes, they are equal to one another and unique from anything else in spiritual and physical reality. They are in perfect agreement 100% of the time.
Because Jesus Christ chose to leave eternity and enter our time domain, He layed aside His Omnipresence. I say this because, to be a perfect example to us and be a bondservent to the Father via the Holy Spirit, He was in total reliance. He had a fleshly will of which the Father and the Holy Spirit never have had. Jesus perfectly submitted His fleshly will to the Father to demonstrate His worthyness as a ransom.
On the cross, when He took on the sins of the world, Jesus was briefly separated from the Father in order to be cursed of the Holy and Just Father in heaven. This separation was what most scholars think troubled Christ so much in the Garden. This separation also lets us know they are separate beings.
What differs our God from polytheistic gods, is the almighty Godhead is always unified in purpose and thought. Their Oneness is brought about by their perfect unity. Their unity makes them One, whether in the flesh divided by time and eternity, or existing in the timeless habitation of eternity.
Jesus Christ is in the body of a glorified man for eternity. The Father and the Holy Spirit are not.
Be careful. Again, this can be complicated. The Three Persons of the Trinity are NOT separate in any way. I think we all agree with each other essentially. For clarity we must always seek what the Bible says. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit inhabit eternity. They had no beginning. They were not created persons/beings. All three exhibit attributes that are shared by nothing else. Omniscience, Omnipresence and Omnipotence.
Sorry!
This section should have been in italics because jo kus posted it.
Be careful. Again, this can be complicated. The Three Persons of the Trinity are NOT separate in any way.
It is funny that I haven't written about the Trinity in quite some time on this particular thread!!! If you go back, I think it has been several weeks! Before I continue, I will start by saying that discussing the Trinity is fraught with difficulty, as we have only seen the slightest of light in the subject. This, like the Incarnation or the Eucharist, is a subject that we can only go so far. Our rational thought will not be able to grasp these concepts completely. With that said, let's see what's going on here.
You said "...They are in perfect agreement 100% of the time."
Yes. There is only one divine will. Each possesses the totality of the attributes of God, and each possess the will. They do not share it. Again, a difficult concept to grasp. But without this, we fall into the problems of trithesism.
You said "...Because Jesus Christ chose to leave eternity and enter our time domain, He layed aside His Omnipresence."
I think it would be better to say that Jesus chose not to use it. If you say He layed it aside, He no longer has the divine nature, correct? Then He is "only" Jesus the man. A good analogy (if you noticed, I like analogies) would be the following. The person of Jesus Christ is like a mountain, covered with clouds. Only the peak of the mountain pokes through the clouds. This portion represents Jesus divine knowledge. It has access to the light. The portion below the clouds represents Jesus in those moments when He "does not know the end time". Or when He is suffering on the cross. His humanity does not have access to the "light" during these moments. Yet, the person of Jesus, through His divinity, does. During His sufferings, Jesus did not have access to the light of His divinity - but there is no separation.
If we say that Jesus' divinity left Him during His sufferings, we are becoming docetists, the Gnostic heresy that John fought. They said that Jesus' divinity only appeared to suffer, or that His divinity left Him during the suffering on the cross. This goes against the Apostolic Tradition and the Scripture that somehow, Jesus the person suffered - which continued to include both the divine and human nature. If His divine nature left Him, what good would His suffering had been then, as it would not have been perfect. Only God can offer a perfect sacrifice.
Regards
Regarding fancy-smancy fonts and colors:
If it is alright with you, I'll keep the black color. I am not sure I like the italics followed immediately by my response. I had hoped there would be a blank space after, rather than the italics and then me responding on the same line.
I'll get back to your most recent response ASAP.
Regards
First, thank you for continuing this discussion. Perhaps it appears we are going around in circles, but don’t give up so soon. I think our motive should not be to “convert” the other, but to learn more about the other person’s points of view and reasons for why they believe as they do. I personally find the Catholic point of view the most logical and common sense one, but I like to hear other people’s points of view to examine their own beliefs. So in that vein, I will continue…
By the way, I will respond to all three subjects that we are discussing, how we know Scripture is God’s Word, Apostolic Succession, and the Eucharist. Feel free to look at my responses and choose which ever subject you would like to continue. Perhaps that would be easier, rather than going down three distinct subjects simultaneously.
1. Scripture…
You said “…Power: I was not speaking of miraculous power. It simply meant that the men that were there at that time that collected letters or copies of letters and made decisions.”
I think you need to look at this from an unbiased viewpoint. First, there were many different holy writings that were available during the time of Jesus and immediately after. There are Hindu and Buddist writings. Other Eastern religious writings. And consider the many different Gnostic writings, like the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Paul, and so forth. All of these were in existence during the time that the 1st and 2nd Letters of Timothy were circulating. Now, with this in mind, Lea, how are you going to know which of these are really the Word of God? Remember, we can’t use our current viewpoints to determine which are the correct ones. You have said that there are no infallible people. Thus, you can be wrong. So how do you know that the Gnostic version of the Gospel is really not the correct one? How do you know that Jesus did NOT have a wife and child, as the Da Vinci Code claims? How do you know that the NT as formulated and codified by the Catholic Church really is the right books? According to you, there are no infallible people. Couldn’t the Catholic Church have been wrong, if they weren’t guided by God Himself? Maybe they left some out? Maybe they shouldn’t have left Philemon in there? Or Hebrews? Or Luke?
What is your basis for telling an agnostic, say, that the Bible really is the Word of God? You certainly are not going to convince anyone by saying “God speaks to me, so I know it is true”. That is a circular argument, full of the very real possibility of self-delusion. My argument is that without the Catholic Church, we would not know what Scriptures are. Luther himself admitted this. They are not self-attesting. There MUST be an external authority that we can trust. One that God has said He would protect. For all time. The pillar and foundation of truth can be trusted to tell us EXACTLY what is Scripture. For without this external authority, we wouldn’t really know WHAT is Scripture.
You said "...Before Luther, people were not allowed access to the scriptures - it was kept from them. People were kept in the dark. Thus, the "dark ages".
I can understand that we do not agree on particular issues, disagreements on Scripture interpretation and such. But this is ridiculous. The Church kept the people in the dark? That is why it is called the Dark Ages? That is about the craziest thing I have heard! If it wasn't for the Church, all of Europe's culture would have been destroyed. Only they kept it. Only they continued to provide some order in people's lives during this chaotic time period. I can tell you that your history is incorrect. The Church has never kept the Bible from people. First, they were very expensive. You think every peasant (if they could even read) could afford one? And next, the Church had to protect the Word as it was written. To many “Reformers” were intent on changing God’s Word to suit their twisted ideas, such as Luther changing Romans 3:28 to say “faith ALONE”. Can you understand why the Church would protect the Scriptures from such people? If the Church didn’t, we would have a hard time even knowing what truly was written. This sounds more like some Protestant paranoia then legitimate accusations. Ridiculous. The Church is tasked with spreading the Gospel, not hiding it!
I asked “…How do you separate "God's Word" from "Lea's word"?
You said “… I only speak God's Word - where God's Word is silent, I am silent. Where God's Word speaks, I speak. Not adding to or taking away
Why do you confine God’s Words only to those that are written in the Bible? The Bible itself tells Christians to “hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by US, either by WORD OF MOUTH OR BY LETTER” (2 Thess 2:15). Lea, why do you keep ignoring this? I have asked you this question before. The Bible itself has given us two rules of faith. One written, one oral. Where was this command rescinded? Where does Scripture say that it now overrides all oral tradition? Interpretation of the Scriptures according to how the Apostles meant them to speak are considered Oral Tradition. ALL heresy uses the same written Word of God. The ignorant and the unstable twist it to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). Peter wrote of this possibility. Tell me, why would God allow His Scripture to be twisted WITHOUT an authority to tell us what it really means? What good is God’s Word if we don’t understand its intended meaning?
You said “…Therefore, we do not add to It nor take from It. (Scriptures)
We are the same. However, you seem to be confused in what Apostolic Tradition is. It does not “add” or “take away” from Scripture, but enhances it. It protects its intended meaning. It guarantees that Scripture is read properly. Don’t you think God would want to protect the meaning of His Scriptures?
You said “…Catholics hold traditions of men higher than Scripture.
Perhaps in your experience of other uninformed Catholics, you have been led to believe that, but the Catechism does not teach that at all.
“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the SAME divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own always, to the close of the age. (CCC 80)
“As a result, the Church, to whom the transmission AND interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scripture ALONE. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored WITH EQUAL SENTIMENTS OF DEVOTION AND REVERANCE. (CCC 82).
As can be seen, Catholics give a special place to BOTH Tradition and Scripture. Since they come from God equally, they CANNOT CONTRADICT.
2. The Eucharist.
You said "...Obviously, we remember Jesus in many, many other ways. In our walk, in our speech, in our actions, in our worship. In everything we do, we remember Jesus. The partaking of His supper, Jesus says "do this in remembrance of Me", therefore, we do.
So why is Jesus command at the Last Supper any different than His other commands, such as Mt 28:20, to preach and teach and remember all that I taught you? Are you saying they mean the same thing? The Last Supper and the Church’s Mission is the same? And why did Luke mention that the two disciples from Emmaus did not recognize Jesus until the breaking of the bread? Isn’t it obvious that “having the Scriptures opened to them” and “breaking the bread” do not mean the same thing? I think that Jesus left a particular gift, more precious than the manna from heaven, one that relies on faith. Yesterday, someone brought up the point in one of your devotional posts about coincidences being from God. I agree. Here is another one for you.
Today, the Lectionary reading of the Gospel is Mark 10:13-16. Jesus says “let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.”
To me, I believe Jesus is telling us that we must be trustful, as a child. To not try to rationalize the faith. To take God’s Word as we hear it, and not try to twist its meaning into something more suitable to our own desires. Trust in Jesus – even if we don’t quite understand it. Just as Peter did in John 6. He didn’t have a clue what Jesus meant when Jesus said “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you shall not have eternal life”. He acted as a child. Yes, Lord, whatever you say. I don’t know what you mean, but I will take your word for it.
It then becomes clear as we move along into the Gospels – the Last Supper. THIS IS MY BODY. Oh, so we must do THIS in memory of Jesus. Take the bread, break it, and eat it. Remembering that Jesus said that it was His Body. Whenever we proclaim the death of Jesus in this manner, we are making present His death and resurrection. We are doing something much greater than simply remembering what He did 2000 years ago. The disciples regarded what Jesus did at the Last Supper as something much more than a simple act of remembrance. Why did the disciples of Emmaus not recognize Jesus until the breaking of the Bread? Because Jesus makes Himself known – it IS His Body!
You said “…No miracles recorded in the New Testament required FAITH!! That's the point! A miracle did not require faith on the part of the one receiving the miracle. Nor did it require faith on the part of those who witnessed the miracles.
Wrong! The majority of the miracles required faith! I will post only a few:
A leper who came to Jesus knelt before Him saying ‘Lord, if you choose, you can make me clean’ Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him saying, ‘I do choose. Be made clean!” (Mat 8:2-3); (Mk 1:40-45); (Lk 5:12-15)
Great crowds came to Him, bringing with them the lame, the maimed, the blind, the mute, and many others. They put them at His feet, and cured them. (Mt 15:30); (Lk 7:19-22)
A leader of the synagogue came in and knelt before Him, saying ‘my daughter has just died; but come and lay your hands on her, and she will live’…Then, suddenly a woman who had been suffering from hemorrhages for 12 years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his cloak for she said to herself “If I only touch His cloak, I will be made well”…As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed Him, crying loudly, “have mercy on us, Son of David!”…Do you believe that I am able to do this? They said to Him “Yes Lord”…after they had gone away, a demonic who was mute was brought to him. And when the demon had been cast out, the one who had been mute spoke. (4 miracles in quick succession, all requiring faith for them to come to Jesus to cure them) (Mt 9:18-33); (Mk 5:21-43); (Lk 8:40-56)
I could go on and on. It is obvious that Jesus desired that the people have faith in Him and His abilities to cure and heal them of their sins and sickness. Didn’t the Pharisees attribute Jesus miracles to demons? Seeing a miracle is no proof that one will believe in them. Consider Lourdes. Consider Fatima. There are many other such scientifically proven miracles of the Eucharist. Do you believe in them? Why not? They require faith. Your point is lost on me. Jesus requires faith of His followers. Faith is a major component of John 6. It is by faith that we see Christ in the appearance of bread and wine. And the Church teaches, always, that it is something more than a mere “remembrance”.
3. Apostolic Succession.
You said “…We believe the Bible teaches that Jesus' Apostles were given authority by Him in order to confirm that the Gospel they were preaching was from Him. Part of that authority was able to be passed to selected other disciples for Jesus' purposes as is recorded in the Bible.
Agree.
You said “…Those people that were given this authority had no authority to pass it on. While we believe some of the Apostles were elders, we also believe that an elder does not have to be an Apostle. Titus selected faithful, qualified men to be elders - not to be Apostles.
I disagree! The Apostles DID have authority to ordain successors. The Scripture is clear over and over again that Paul and the other Apostles laid hands and SENT others to teach and preach (Apostle means one who is sent.). Jesus gave the original 12 Apostles the authority to teach and preach the Gospel. What makes you think that after they died, the Holy Spirit would no longer desire this function within the Church???
As to no authority, then why:
As you know and as God is our witness, we (Paul, Silvanus and Timothy) never came with words of flattery or with a pretext for greed. Nor did we seek praise from mortals, whether from you or from others, though we might have made demands as APOSTLES (notice the plural. Timothy, Paul and Silvanus are Apostles) of Christ (Timothy and Silvanus are apostles – one who was sent.…) (1 Thes 2: 6,7)
For this reason I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you (Timothy) through the LAYING OF MY (Paul) HANDS. (power was passed to Timothy. He didn’t give it to himself) (2 Tim 1:6)
I (Paul) left you (Titus) behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and (YOU) SHOULD APPOINT ELDERS in every town, AS I DIRECTED YOU….He must have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance WITH THE TEACHING (not his own interpretation) so that he may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and REFUTE THOSE WHO CONTRADICT IT (no private interpretation) (Titus 1:5, 9)
Then, after fasting and praying, they (THE ELDERS of Antioch) LAID THEIR HANDS on them and SENT THEM (Saul and Barnabas) off. So, being sent out by the HOLY SPIRIT (the elders and the Holy Spirit are sending Saul and Barnabas)…(Acts 13:3-4).
And after THEY (Paul and Barnabas) APPOINTED ELDERS for them in each church (notice, the individual church did not appoint their own leaders), with prayer and fasting they ENTRUSTED THEM TO THE LORD in whom they had come to believe (Acts 14:23)
YOU (Ephesian elders appointed by Paul previously) KEEP WATCH over yourselves AND OVER ALL THE FLOCK, of which the HOLY SPIRIT HAS MADE YOU OVERSEERS, TO SHEPHERD THE CHURCH OF GOD that He obtained with the blood of His own Son (Acts 20:28)
The gifts He (the Spirit) gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of the ministry for building up the Body of Christ (notice, no mention of Scriptures. The gifts given to the members of the Body are used to build it up). (Eph 4:11)
Do not neglect the gift that is within you (Timothy) which was GIVEN TO YOU THROUGH PROPHECY WITH THE LAYING OF HANDS BY THE COUNCIL OF ELDERS (not by his own self) (1 Tim 4:14)
Do not ordain anyone (Timothy) hastily. (1 Tim 5:22)
There are more – but why continue. It is quite obvious that you are mistaken. Not only does Scripture refute you, but the CONTINUOUS writings and beliefs of the Church as recorded by the Early Church Fathers tells us that they also considered Apostolic Succession normal and the will of God. I could quote dozens of Fathers that say this. Like the Eucharist, it is virtually unanimous until the Protestant Reformation. I would seriously reconsider your stance that is in opposition to both the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church for 2000 years!
Common sense would also show you wrong. Why would Christ and the Holy Spirit protect ONLY the teachings of the 12 Apostles? He certainly knows that the Church will not fall against the Gates of Hell. He will guard them and protect their teachings. Man alone cannot do this. Man alone is not infallible. Man alone will begin to rationalize and decide for themselves what they thought that God meant by the Eucharist, or whatever. And they would be wrong. The ONLY way we can know God’s teachings as given to the first Christians is by the Holy Spirit’s promise of infallibility to the Church.
You cited “…1 Timothy 3:1-13 These qualifications are pretty clear. “
Yes. I brought this up to show you that bishops, the successors of the Apostles, did not need to be eye-witnesses of Christ Himself. Because the future qualifications do not add them in there! Where does 1 Timothy 3:1-13 say anything about being an eye witness? Yet, these are qualifications for overseers, bishops. These are the apostles successors. Timothy didn’t see Christ. Silvanus didn’t see Christ. Yet, they are Apostles of Christ. Bishops/overseers as appointed by the Holy Spirit working through the elders of the Church, as I cite above. Are you saying that the Church was wrong to do this, and they were confused about the Apostles’ wishes to continue the teachings of Christ in this manner?
You said “…it is as clear as it can be to me and a "few" Christians (few there be that find it...).”
Although we disagree on a few items, some being quite important, I choose not to judge whether ANYONE is a “Christian” or not. Jesus tells us in Matthew 25 in two separate parables that the love that we share with others will determine our final place after we die. How much we give in to the graces of the Holy Spirit. These are the people of the Church. Not those enrolled in the Catholic Church, or those who take on your particular Bible interpretations. God will judge us based on what we know and how we responded to His Love. I find nowhere in the Scriptures where intellect will get us into heaven. Do you agree?
Brother in Christ
Joe
The unholiness was lain on Jesus' flesh and soul, not His spirit where His divinity exists. This is why He could show us that His fleshly will must be submitted to the Fathers will, and that His fleshly will may be different from His Fathers will. Never once did He act out on His fleshly will, there fore He was legitimately tempted in all points, yet remained sinless.
The three only ever existing persons -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- have a loving relationship that we won't know the intensity of until we are in heaven.
Regarding your comments on Jesus...
Well said. It certainly is a fine line, and it took hundreds of years for the Church Fathers to really define the relationship between the Father and the Son, as well as Jesus' divine and human natures. Stray ever so slightly and we venture into heresy.
We cannot imagine what God has in store for us, but we will partake in the divine nature somehow, according to Peter. We only see as in a mirror now (mirrors 2000 years ago weren't like ours now!) The only thing that we could even come close to seeing an image of this love is the love that exists between husband and wife (in an ideal, selfless relationship) - this relationship being fruitful that it even can produce another being - a child. And such is the Trinity - the Love of the Father and the Son for each other eternally produces the Holy Spirit. Lots to contemplate there!
Regards
Your fellowship is rich!
Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.