Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
This kind of thinking, if you take it to its logical end, will lead to egalitarian thinking in class and politics, which is the central organizing principle of left-wing ideology. It's one continuum.
-A8
Says who?
Why couldn't Philip confer the Holy Spirit to the Samaritans?
-A8
Was that true of the Apostolic office as well, that it was all about "power over the laity"?
-A8
“No, but the offices of episkopos and presbuteros are mentioned in Acts, 1 Timothy and Titus.”
Maybe Corinth had a “no priest” zone since Apollos, Peter and Paul all seemed to like to visit there so they were able to do for themselves like the early church did going from house to house.
By the way, as has been pointed out many times on this thread, episkopos and presbuteros are interchangeable with pastors and elders. There really is no difference, but they are not mentioned in Antioch, Rome, Corinth, Galations, Philippi, Colossae.
"Apostle" does not mean by definition a "witness" but rather an "envoy". It would be quite natural that when selecting a replacement for Judas that a witness to the Resurrection would be preferred since his testimony would carry greater weight. But there is nothing in the Bible to say that they authority of the Apostles would cease after that first generation. On the contrary, "apostleship" that is conferred upon Matthias is identified as an "episcopacy" in v. 20, the same episcopacy that is identified by Paul in 1 Timothy.
***On the contrary, “apostleship” that is conferred upon Matthias is identified as an “episcopacy” in v. 20, the same episcopacy that is identified by Paul in 1 Timothy.***
But it was done BEFORE Peter had power from the Holy Spirit. He acted, in my opinion, in error and in haste. God had a man picked to be the 12th apostle, Paul.
“That is an argument from silence. More than likely there were multiple presbyters there, not just one. The letter was probably addressed primarily to them, and secondarily to the congregation.”
No actually it is an argument from Paul’s method of doing business. If you read the opening of the letter it is to the church. If you read the closing he greets many people; noticeably missing is any mention of “priests” and after all, they would have been responsible for the schisms mentioned in chapter 1, the raucus meetings of chapter 14, the petty jealousies of chapter 12 and finally the eating orgies of chapter 11. He had no reluctance in embarrassing Peter in front of the Galation church.
-A8
Excellent point. There were only 12 apostles. Judas was never one. The apostles attempted to pick their own apostle and they couldn't. The 12th apostle was chosen by the same guy who chose the other 11. Jesus. In order to qualify as an apostle you had to be personally chosen by Christ and not by some committee, not even a committee of Apostles.
“On the contrary, “apostleship” that is conferred upon Matthias is identified as an “episcopacy” in v. 20,”
That’s just plain nonsense. They are quoting Psalm 109:8, “ Let his days be few; [and] let another take his office.” He was to be numbered among the twelve in Judas’ place; an apostle, an eye witness to the resurrection.
Pure speculation with nothing Biblical to support it. Paul indicated to Timothy and Titus his plan for the churches and this included the Biblical offices of episkopos, presbuteros and diakonos.
By the way, as has been pointed out many times on this thread, episkopos and presbuteros are interchangeable with pastors and elders.
If you wish, but these offices of episkopos and presbuteros were only conferred by the laying on of hands by those who already possessed these offices. There is no indication anywhere in the Bible that a local church group could institute them of their own accord. It is these offices of episkopos and presbuteros that you find preserved among the Catholics and Orthodox today.
Now we are to put your opinion above that of Peter? Nowhere in the Bible is Peter condemned for this nor is the apostleship of Matthias ever denied. What ever happened to sola scriptura?
God had a man picked to be the 12th apostle, Paul.
But I thought that blue-duncan said that an apostle had to be an eye-witness to the Resurrection and that this was why of office died with them.
***But I thought that blue-duncan said that an apostle had to be an eye-witness to the Resurrection and that this was why of office died with them.***
If I remember right, and I usually do, here were NO witnesses to the Resurrection, but there were many witnesses to the crucifiction. The 12 apostles were named before the Crucifiction, before the Resurrection. They were chosen by Jesus personally, just as Paul was. Matthias was chosen by lot, by men.
They were chosen by Jesus personally, just as Paul was. Matthias was chosen by lot, by men.
I do not deny Paul's apostleship but nowhere is that of Mattias ever denied. I am afraid that you are attempting to read back into Scripture to fit your man-made ecclesiology. This is the complete opposite of your claimed sola scriptura.
I must say, I commend you for both your patience and your unwavering, committed focus on Jesus and his gospel.
I am enjoying the clarity, as well as the depth and scope, of your testimony.
I look forward to finding your posts in the future, they are truly like sailing into a calm port for respite, to escape from the storms at sea. (pardon my poorly worded analogies, but hopefully you understand their intent.)
***In either case, Paul was not a witness.***
I seem to recall a road... a road to Damascus. Paul was visited by a resurrected Lord, was he not? That doesn’t count a post resurrection witnessing?
You deny that Matthias was chosen by the drawing of lots? Is that generally how God choses whom he choses? Or is it how man, when he has no idea what he is doing, choses?
In what is fast becoming one of my very favorite links, we learn from Father Baker that the offering of the bread and wine during mass can be "invalid" for several reasons...
they must of course use the correct words of consecration, use wheat bread and wine made from grapes, and have the intention of doing what the Church does in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass...""...A Mass can be invalid for a number of reasons (we presuppose that the priest has been validly ordained): 1) because of a defect in the matter, for example, using sweet rolls instead of bread made only from wheat flour and water; 2) because of a defect in the form, for example, changing the words "This is my body" or "This is the cup of my blood" into something else...
A "defect in the matter?" A "defect in the form?"
How can they say with a straight face that "the correct words must be used" in order for the alchemy of transubstantiation to transpire?
Do they truly not see how this mumbo-jumbo is the antithesis of the Gospel? It's wizardry; not Christ risen.
Holy Cow.
Jesus must have lied when he said "It is finished". Maybe he was delirious from all the blood loss. /sarc
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.