***>That is not the papal office as it has been created or occupied.<
No, as you must well know, for hundreds of years the Pope reigned or sought to reign as a type of Caesar (as Boniface VII distinctly asserted), over those within her body and without, and while you may disagree that the level of exaltation and authority that it claimed (i can supply quotes) and enjoyed when it could constitutes a demi-god, i submit that even having your feet kissed by underlings (which only recently ceased), while seated in a royal palace with its accompaniments, is too close for spiritual comfort, as being contrary to Scripture. That applies to Benney Hinn as well.***
It does go back for some time. According to New Advent, the probable source of this is Isaiah 49:
22
Thus says the Lord GOD: See, I will lift up my hand to the nations, and raise my signal to the peoples; They shall bring your sons in their arms, and your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders.
23
Kings shall be your foster fathers, their princesses your nurses; Bowing to the ground, they shall worship you and lick the dust at your feet. Then you shall know that I am the LORD, and those who hope in me shall never be disappointed.
And it is mentioned in Church history early on. We read of it in the first “Ordo Romanus” belonging to the seventh century, but even earlier than this the “Liber Pontificalis” attests that the Emperor Justin paid this mark of respect to Pope John I (523-26), as later on Justinian II also did to Pope Constantine. At the election of Leo IV (847) the custom of so kissing the pope’s foot was spoken of as an ancient one.
It can certainly be misconstrued, I will agree.
***I might add that the spiritual manner in which Christ constituted the church, and the commands for it, and its N.T. example, (1Cor. 5:12,13; 1Pt. 2:14; Eph. 6:12; 2Cor. 6:1-01; 10:4) disallows the use of physical punishment in disciplining it members, such as was sanctioned by Rome in the Inquisitions, or establishing theocracies where the church ruled over those with it (even Pilgrims transgressed here), which was what was behind the Crusades, nor the use carnal force to defend or expand its rule.***
Could you expand on this thought further, please? Remember that Jesus did violence to the moneychangers in the Temple.
***>If the office was created, it needed to be perpetuated.<
Acceptable, but not always in the same manner. The priesthood of the O.T., though not necessarily analogous here, ceased with Christ’s death, with the N.T. priesthood of believers (not a separate class of sacerdotal priests) being the form in which it exists.***
Agreed. The NT priesthood of believers does not mean that the NT priesthood of ordained men does not exist. That is more than adequately shown by the ordaining of men to replace the first bishops.
***Yet the real issue is that an especially infallible and supreme human head of the church is not established, much less its Roman manifestation (the absence of the supernatural signs of an apostle also testifies against the pope). However, (hold on) i think a true to God central authority, as that of the apostles in Jerusalem, could be welcomed by real believers, though this could not be enforced, except by spiritual power, as the original were, and Rome is not even in the running, due to its works-merit gospel, and other manifestly false doctrines.***
That is where the anti Catholic forces are manifestly wrong. Understanding of the requirements of Judgement are key to the doctrine. If one does not act in a Christian manner according to the teachings of Jesus, then one is thrown into the fiery pit. The wicked servant has to repay all. And so on.
***Therefore, unlike the theocratic earthly kingdom of Israel, the body of Christ is not restricted to one formal organic union, and if one of the latter becomes corrupt, or institutionalized, the church that holds to essential salvific doctrine and effectual salvific faith, which the apostles and prophet laid, overcomes by faith in its chief cornerstone and head.***
I would respectfully disagree with this statement. Jesus mentions His Church as a perpetual institution (until He comes again) and promises His Holy Spirit to guide it.
***And if you are able to receive it, i would submit the Luther (among others) was a type of apostle or prophet, imperfect, but used of God to reprove Rome, and lead people into Reformation which has resulted in the great modern increase in the kingdom of Christ, to God be the glory, though it (and i) come much short of the prima N.T. church in purity, power and passion, and for which i need to seek more.***
Again, I must respectfully disagree. Without the Reformation, entities like the LDS and the Jehovah’s Witnesses could not have been created. Joel Osteen and Rick Warren would have been hucking snake oil and not salvation. Benny Hinn and Jimmy Swaggart would have been dealing three card monte on the streets and not having the souls of the would be faithful detour to possible perdition.
Hi Mark,
>Could you expand on this thought further, please?<
Certainly. As stated, the N.T. church never used physical force in countering its enemies, as this was contrary to its charter and spiritual constitution, nor did they use deceitful means, and instead the church must have spiritual power and integrity to prevail.
Jn. 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Eph. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
2Cor. 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
1Cor. 4:12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
1Pt. 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
Acts 13:9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.12 Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.
Likewise regarding disciplining its members (using spiritual power and the passive means of disfellowship), nor did it rule over those without:
1Cor. 4:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
>Remember that Jesus did violence to the moneychangers in the Temple.<
Yes, and He also allowed Peter the use of 2 swords. But both these were before the institution of the N.T., or covenant, which occurs by His death (Lk. 22:20; Heb. 9:16)
I also think that the use of precisely 2 swords (not armies) was in condescension to the disciples plight in the interim period of the absence of Jesus and endowment of the Holy Spirit, while the Lord’s use of corporal means of force was also His right, as it was His Father’s house, and yet operated under the Old dispensation. I would like to think that this also allows the use of corporal punishment of one’s own children, as needed (it was on me!), which is the only weak link in my position against outlawing physical force in chastising church members. But at the least such could never be used to enforce doctrinal conformity ala the Inquisitions, while the church is not constituted to rule as a civil power.
Yet abstaining from the use of physical force against the non-elect, in preference to spiritual means, need not outlaw any use of force at all times. Physically stopping a person from jumping off a bridge would be one example where it could be sanctioned, and it is hard to argue against reacting with some force as a last resort against an immediate threat in order to protect the innocent, with a willingness to take their place as the victim. But these are derivative arguments from reason and the intent of the law, but the explicit teaching under the New Covenant is that of only the use of spiritual means to defend and expand the church, and to discipline its members.
I would also hold that nothing prevents a Christian from the just use of force when acting for the government, as the use of the sword by them is explicitly sanctioned.
The feet kissing objection was, in context, part of the larger situation of one man being high and lifted up as the supreme human head.
Act 10:5 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man
Gal. 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Though brethren are to wash each others feet, in more ways than that, those that exalt themselves shall be abased, and the greatest shall be servant of all.
Certainly copelled obeisance will take place, in the context of judgment, but it is not to men who hold out their feet to be kissed.
Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
It is unclear what precisely you are referring to.
Indeed, and what i said is in conformity to it. The point is that the body of Christ is not simply one formal organic union, which Rome since V2 recognizes, though it marginalizes Bible-based evangelicals as “deficient in grace”, compared to Catholics, thorough evidence shows the opposite.
Not so, as heretics always existed, if suppressed. What you have to mean was if Rome had not lost her secular powers by which she suppressed such then they would not have existed. If every Protestant (legitimately or more broadly defined), became Catholic, that that itself would not prevent LDS types from arising. Without secular powers suppressing them, the only way for victory is spiritual superiority in spirit and in doctrine, and it was in that quest that the Reformation began.
As far as political power, if all Catholics became evangelicals that would have more beneficial effect, as consistently studies show that evangelicals are overall more faithful to doctrinal essentials and are more conservative. No that i am satisfied with out present condition.
The true test of spiritual superiority is when there is an even playing field, and even though the deck was overwhelmingly stacked against them, the early church did not overcome the paganism of Rome by the use of secular power, and if the early church had been in the spiritual condition that it was at Luther’s time, then it enemies would have prevailed. Early one it was already showing signs of corruption, and division, as Paul foresaw, and after 313 it was incorporating paganism.
And the litany of wonderfully holy and selfless Protestants would have been suppressed or killed, even as it did to its own Savonarola’s. Matthew Henry’s beloved and extensive practical commentary would not exist, the likes of which, in depth, is not seen in Rome. Likewise many other primary enlightening works (Barnes, Clarke, Gill. Keil and Delitzsch, etc., and other Protestants who even today are the primary voices and soldiers in the war against cults, and false preachers. The multitude of mighty and sacrificial laborers on the mission field who preached the gospel that Peter preached (Acts 10:43-47) would not be found. Absent would the tens of thousands of hymns penned by souls who knew, loved and walked with their Savior, whose glory He shed on their way, (which are such an expression of that relationship, that unless they are all relegated to being psychotic, they are a proof the existence of Christ) and are even sung by Catholics. Some may imagine that such souls would have converted to Rome, but it was their commitment to Biblical integrity that prevented that, while their spiritual fruit was of such a quality that to suppress them would be to fight against God.
P.S. I also want to add that i also do not think Christians cannot play contact sports, and which i do. And thank you for being reasonable.