Posted on 05/16/2008 4:46:28 PM PDT by annalex
I’ve read it - no mention of an hierarchical church where authority flows from top to bottom.
Where does the Scripture teach this?
I would most certainly disagree if that church supposes to put itself on a par with it's Master
So would I.
He certainly is, in the precise sense of what the papacy is. You are trying to fight a metaphor with literalism. That never works. Of course Peter did not become rock; of course "rock" is a noun that requires different propositions that proper noun such as "Peter"; and of course the whole thing is related to Peter's confession, and not, for example, his capabilities as a fisherman. The Protestant watering down of Matthew 16 has no basis in scripture. We also see the gift of the keys to heaven personally to Peter, the prayer at the Last Supper in part referring only to Peter "I prayed for you that you confirm your brethren", and the charge to feed the sheep was personally to Peter. One can legitimately say the the way papacy has been exercised in the West is too strong compared to the Early Church standard of the antiquity, but one cannot deny that among the Apostles Peter had a leadership role.
Further, all other solemn renamings in the Bible have a deep theological meaning: Abram becomes the father of the nations, and Jacob becomes the father of the Jewish nation. Jesus could not have been unaware of these.
Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ (1 Cor 4:1)be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. For this cause have I sent to you Timothy, who is my dearest son and faithful in the Lord; who will put you in mind of my ways, which are in Christ Jesus; as I teach every where in every church (1 Cor 4:16f)
the saints shall judge this world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know you not that we shall judge angels? how much more things of this world? (1 Cor 6:2)
... you are the body of Christ, and members of member. And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? (1 Cor 12)
are the firstfruits of Achaia, and have dedicated themselves to the ministry of the saints: That you also be subject to such, and to every one that worketh with us, and laboureth (1 Cor. 16:15-16)
Not one word in any of these passages commanding the church to become an institutional, hierarchical body where authority flows from top to bottom.
Sure it does. The first and the last say that laity is accountable to priests; the second illustrates how apostles consecrate and empower bishops, and establishes Christ as their top authority; the third shows that the members of the Church ought to judge others; the next explains that different members have different responsibilities depending on their particular charisms.
Your reasoning reminds me of the arguments used by deconstructionsists to justify the reading into texts of all sorts of ideas according to the personal predilections of the reader.
Neither a loose nor a close reading of those texts justifies the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church or the authority granted those at the top.
The scripture I gave you shows a hierarchical Church; the precise structure of the hierarchy adapts to the needs of the times. The strong papacy in the West, for example, was a natural way to compensate for the feudal fragmentation of political power, and thanks to that it was easier for us to beat down of various Protestant heresies. The episcopacy system in the East also formed in response to their unique challenges.
Where does the Scripture teach this?
The baptism is a circumcision made without hands, and is an operation of faith:
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
(e-Sword: KJV)
It is the fulfillment of the outward circumcsion of the Old Testament. Yet being a circumcision 'made without hands', it is the circumcision of the heart- A commitment of faith in the recipient, in the hope of salvation by the Word of God, and is ongoing, beyond the act of baptism:
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
(e-Sword: KJV)
In that circumstance, baptism, as the fulfillment of the covenant of circumcision, must certainly be treated philosophically in the same way as circumcision:
Rom 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Rom 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
(e-Sword: KJV)
Rom 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
Rom 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
Rom 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
(e-Sword: KJV)
[I would most certainly disagree if that church supposes to put itself on a par with it's Master]
So would I.
Then can you endorse these words from the OP?
Using this conciliar doctrine as guide, we see that the Church is (in its way) as indispensable as Christ for man's salvation. On both counts, however, whoever is saved owes his salvation to the one Catholic Church founded by Christ.
I strongly disagree. Circumcision is a works of Jewish law, which St. Paul explained is not salvific. Baptism, however, is a rebirth in Christ and it is described as salvific in John 3 and 1 Peter 3. St. Peter explains that baptism is foreshadowed in the story of Noah and does not analogize it to circumcision.
Surely there are similarities as both are also rituals of entry into a community of faith. However, if you read Col 2 further you see that St. Paul -- who so emphatically denied the salvific character fo circumcision -- hold baptism to be onto forgiveness of sins (Col 2:13) and therefore salvific.
Regarding the role of the Church, she is ordained by Christ to teach, baptize, forgive sin and offer the Eucharist, in order to save the world. I don't understand why doing what Christ commanded her to do is in any way diminishing the sovereignty of Christ.
Yes, they do: they show that different parts of the church are in subordination to other parts. It is not the only book where the hierarchy of the Church is described, but this one shows the hierarchical principle.
The early Church was strictly hierarchical from bishops down to priests, deacons and laity. Due to the difficulty of communication and the persecutions, papacy did not have a chance to fully develop till somewhat later.
Modern Catholics have a great gift in the papacy especially, because of the unique challenges of modernity. Thanks to that, the Church in the West was able to maintain unity that is a complete unknown in the Protestant world and is a bit tentative among the Orthodox. Conservative Catholics — the salt of the Church — want even stronger papacy today.
That’s just your opinion.
The scripture is not just my opinion, the structure of the Early Church is a matter of historical evidence, and the thousands of Protestant denominations wandering about like sheep without a shepherd is an objective fact.
What exactly do you find inconvincing? I did not cite any historical evidence.
To claim that the multitude of Protestant denominations are all guided by the Holy Spirit is riduculous.
Tell that to Jesus whose bride she is.
I use to really enjoy going to church at FreeRepublic, and frankly, I expected more, but if this is all the religious threads are going to turn into, mere "nanny, nanny, boo, boos", I will kindly stop responding and let them die a natural death around 10 or 15 posts so they dont clog up my forums page.
See, its easy-
(Jud 1:9) But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the Devil, he argued about the body of Moses, he dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy, but said, "Let the Lord rebuke you!"
I strongly disagree. Circumcision is a works of Jewish law, which St. Paul explained is not salvific. Baptism, however, is a rebirth in Christ and it is described as salvific in John 3 and 1 Peter 3. St. Peter explains that baptism is foreshadowed in the story of Noah and does not analogize it to circumcision.
I find your statement to be a bit disingenuous by it's diminishing of what the rite of circumcision was. It is not merely a matter of 'Jewish law', as you submit, but rather the very sign and seal of the covenant between Jehovah and Abraham: Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you.
(e-Sword: KJV)
Surely there are similarities as both are also rituals of entry into a community of faith.
There is more than a similarity- one is the sign and seal of the Old Covenant (Testament), and the other is inarguably the sign and seal of the New Covenant (Testament). The RCC makes the connection in regard to infant baptism:
Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism. This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision. In Place of Circumcision
However, if you read Col 2 further you see that St. Paul -- who so emphatically denied the salvific character fo circumcision -- hold baptism to be onto forgiveness of sins (Col 2:13) and therefore salvific.
As well he should promote the difference. We know now that there was no salvation in the Levitical priesthood. The sacrifice, and thereby the blood, of animals was only a placeholder for the Blood of Christ- Nonetheless, it was the only pattern of salvation available at the time. It is also a concept pursuant to our conversation- Paul rails against the symbolic rites in preference for the real. In the same way, I argue that the symbolism of the sacrament is outweighed by the reality of the circumcised heart. It is the function of the sacrament to symbolize the conviction of the heart toward the forgiveness and perfection in the Blood of Christ, for the purpose of bringing us close to the Father.
Regarding the role of the Church, she is ordained by Christ to teach, baptize, forgive sin and offer the Eucharist, in order to save the world. I don't understand why doing what Christ commanded her to do is in any way diminishing the sovereignty of Christ.
Because the Church is but a tool in the Master's hand. The tool makes nothing. It is the hand of the Craftsman that wields the tool, and it is the mind of the Craftsman that shapes the work. For the tool to claim credit is absurd.
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
(e-Sword: KJV)
*rolls eyes* Without a Shepherd... That is not yours to declare.
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.