Posted on 05/23/2018 2:50:24 PM PDT by pastorbillrandles
And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,(Ephesians 1:22)
For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. (Ephesians 5:23)
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.1 Corinthians 11:3) He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.(Collossians 1:18)
Scripture is very clear about the fact that there is one head of the church…the LORD Jesus Christ. He is the source, the sole authority, His is the final Word on any subject, To be conformed to His Image is the goal of every expression of the church, there can be no doubt, His is the pre-eminence.
It is a gross distortion for any church to set up any man as “the Vicar of Christ” , the church is not to be man-centered, and it is possible that men can enter into the church and subvert the place of Christ in the people’s hearts. That is one of the definitions of a cult…when a man takes the place in the church of the Head, who is Christ.
The Apostle John gives an example, Diotrophes,
I wrote unto the Church, but Diotrephes which loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore if I come, I will call to your remembrance his deeds which he doeth, prattling against us with malicious words, and not therewith content, neither he himself receiveth the brethren, but forbideth them that would, and thrusteth them out of the Church. ( 3 John 9-10)
Diotrophes displayed an unChristian spirit, first of all, in that He loved the Pre-eminence. In other words, He regarded himself as “First” among the Saints, and the Chief Believer. He put his own word and desires above even the Apostles, and would kick people out of the church for the crime of accepting the teaching of the Apostles and citing the Apostles as authoritative.
The teaching of the Apostles is the only authoritative source of instruction for the church, other than the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament. The church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets and no Pastor, Elder, Prophet, Apostle or Evangelist has any right whatsoever to supersede them.
The mark of whether or not a ministry is even of God, has to do with whether or not they will ‘hear the Apostles”;
We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.( I John 4:6)
Having said that, it is also true that Jesus ordained for the church principles of government, which grant to men delegated authority for the edification of the Church. Jesus is not personally going to exercise church discipline in a given situation, He has authorized Elders and leaders to do so. Paul set Titus in Crete and Timothy in the church of Ephesus to “set things in order”,
As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:( I Timothy 1:3-5)
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: Titus 1:3)
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith; (1 Timothy 1:3-4 )
My point is that within the church there are authoritative positions, ordained for the purpose of order and edification. All Christians are equal and there is a priesthood of every believer, but there is also a God ordained ministry, gifted and delegated with authority to carry out their labor of love and mercy.
Titus and Timothy were not to be overbearing, but neither were they to be timid. They were appointed to ordain elders, and command certain to cease and desist from their false doctrines, and to see to it that there was public reading of scripture, correction of the erring in doctrine. All of these tasks require the use of authority. The church is not a democracy, there are officers in the church with responsibilities, which is the flip side of authority.
Even within Eldership, there are different functions and tasks; there are Elders who administrate primarily, and there are teaching Elders,
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.( I Timothy 5:11)
The Church is to be led by a variety of gifts and ministries each having the responsibility and authority according to their gifting. Obviously the prime model of leadership is to set an example, but there are times when Authority is exercised,
These things command and teach. Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.(Ephesians 4:11-12)
It looks like Timothy was expected to wield God given authority, to command and teach… while at the same time live a life of an example… . The delegated authority has limits, which extend to the level of responsibility, no one is allowed to be a dictator or autocrat in the house of God. It extends to the standard of teaching and conduct within the church, and to the regulation of the ordinances , etc..
My point i that within the church there are legitimate cases where individuals wield delegated authority within the scope of their calling. This is neither autocratic or inappropriate, as long as it is done in the context of a properly functioning local church.
So, no will for you, eh?
You plan on living forever?
What’s with all the Catholic funerals then?
Please read above about the prohibition against eating blood and the link to metaphors.
Jesus COULD NOT have changed the Law. He stated Himself that He came not to change it but to fulfill it. If He had eaten the blood or commanded others to break the Law, He would have sinned.
Catholicism essentially tells us that Jesus did that then.
Seder customs include telling the story, discussing the story, drinking four cups of wine, eating matza, partaking of symbolic foods placed on the Passover Seder Plate, and reclining in celebration of freedom.[3]
The Seder is performed in much the same way by Jews all over the world. The Seder is the most commonly celebrated of Jewish rituals.[4]
I don’t know if you’re arguing in favor of the Catholic idea of transubstantiation here.
But most of your verses make good points regarding the Lord’s Supper being Jesus’ true body and blood.
I would personally focus on 1 Corinthians most though.
But I don’t think Scripture supports transubstantiation, though. Since verses refer to both bread and body, and transubstantiation says that there is no bread left, iirc.
Excellent answer!
9“I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved,...John 10:9
If we applied the Roman Catholic line of thought they use in John 6 we'd have to say Jesus is a literal door we have to pass through.
We know that is not the meaning of the text based on the overall context of the New Testament.
Other metaphors He uses:
I am the good shepherd. Believers are called sheep.
In John 4 He said He had living water which if anyone drank from would never thirst again.
Did He produce a vial of water to give the woman at the well? No.
In all of John these are references to belief in Him as being necessary for salvation.
Sure...but those are man-created words and not Scriptural terms and certainly not any confirmation that what calls itself the Roman Catholic Church is THE church Jesus established. What was handed down (succession) was the teachings of the truth as revealed by the Holy Spirit and which was preserved for us in Holy Scripture. The Vincentian Canon talks about the true faith as being that which was believed always, everywhere and by all. Roman Catholicism cannot truthfully make that claim. That is why the Roman Catholic church cannot assert it is THE church of Jesus Christ even though they co-opted the label "catholic" which meant UNIVERSAL. The true ekklesia - the body and bride of Christ - consists of all those throughout time, nations, peoples and tongues who have entrusted themselves to the saving power of Jesus Christ and not themselves.
Perhaps it's because that has always been enough for them to accept the "party" line? Having been thoroughly convinced that what they are told is unquestionable, that's all they have to offer. Usually those who do sincerely question and who are open to the leading of the Holy Spirit and willing to follow after the truth will recognize it is not found in Catholicism's traditions.
Amen and amen!
Is it any wonder when you look at how much hinges on Peter being that "rock"??? Yet, even IF that was what Jesus meant, it still wouldn't automatically mean every man after Peter that Catholics claim were his successors were handed that same authority from Jesus. Quite a bit of presumption going on.
In other words, it ultimately comes down to, ‘Because I say so,’ not ‘because the Apostles said so.’
Ultimately, if Roman doctrine contradicts what Jesus and the Prophets and Apostles actually taught—ESPECIALLY in regards to justification and worship—the Romanists CAN’T be the ‘one true church.’
And all the shouting in the universe from the usual suspects can’t change that.
Still waiting for chapter and verse to support your claims!
Let’s see.
(Not just an internet meme with misused verses)
And that, ladies and germs, is why there's so much shouting and vitriol coming from them especially on OPEN RF threads!
Here is a really great article on that topic Living Tradition (Viva Voce - Whatever We Say) A Repudiation of the Patristic Concept of Tradition
Hence the Lutheran view that in with and under the bread and wine is the true Body and Blood of Christ. Interestingly I have several nondenominational friends who share the same view. What that does not say however is that the bread and wine cease to exist or that the elements should be worshipped and adored. And certainly it dies not agree with the Roman view that Christ is sacrificed over and over again on the altar every time communion is celebrated.
And just who this rock refers to is manifest, as it must be, in the rest of Scripture. the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels) is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
And the belief that Peter was the rock of Mt. 16:18, and thus that the church looked to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme over the church (esp. from Rome) is not what we see manifest in the record of the NT church (and which even Catholic researchers, among others, provide testimony against , and is contrary to it. In contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
And rather than the church looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme over the church, we see no exalted reverence of Peter as in Roman Catholicism, with not even one exhortation in any of the letters to the churches to look to or submit to Peter as their supreme head. For good (the norm) or for bad, Peter is street-level leader among the 11, and lead pastor of the first church, and the first to use the keys to the kingdom of God, that being the evangelical gospel. (Acts 2; 10; 15:7-9; Col. 1:13) As such, unlike Paul, (Acts 20:17) he does not call any council and charge preachers, but exhorts the assembled elders to treat the Gentiles consistent with the gospel of grace, God having "purifying their heart by faith," (Acts 15:9) while consistent with this, it is James who issues the concluding Scripturally substantiated judgment as to what should be done. (Acts 15)
Peter is also listed after James in Gal. 2 as one of those who appeared to be pillars, and who (contrary to his overall holy character) lead souls astray by his example, resulting in him being publicly rebuked by Paul, who stated "in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing," (2 Corinthians 12:11) but who of his own accord sought to make manifest his sanction by those who seemed to be pillars.
After in contrast to the focus and centrality ascribed to the pope in Catholicism,Acts 15 Peter is left out of any mention in the last 13 chapters of Acts, the narrative focusing on the labors of Paul, who only mentions Peter (sometimes as Cephas) in two of his 13 letters of instruction, nor is Peter mentioned in Hebrews, James, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. And while Peters own 2 letters convey a general pastoral sense, what is lacking is any reference to him as a supreme head ("a servant," "an apostle," "an elder") or anything distinctively Catholic. Instead, Peter refers to Scripture as "a more sure word of prophecy," distinctively attesting to its Divine inspiration. (Note also that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" is not referring to interpretation of Scripture, which Catholics wrongly interpret it as forbidding, but of how prophecy was given by Divine inspiration, so that the prophets did not know "what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." - 1 Peter 1:11)
Except for Matthias being chosen for Judas (which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles: cf. Rv. 21:14, and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots: cf. Prov. 16:33), there are no manifest successors to any apostles as being apostles, even though James was martyred. (Acts 12:1,2) And the Spirit of Christ, who records things of much lesser importance, would not fail to record the election of a successor to James, or preparation for a successor to Peter.
But what we do clearly see is ordained of God is that of appointing presbyters/elders, who, like Timothy, were charged with taken the "oversight" of the churches. (1Pt. 5:2; Acts 20:28)
Thus the record of the NT church simply does not manifest Peter as being the RC pope, nor any successors to any apostles after Judas, while the elders are given oversight of the churches, and which are not Catholic priests.
Wrong, for,
1. 1. Besides there being no distinction in office btwn bishops and elders, these are not celibate Catholic priests.
Bishops and elders refer to those in one office: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position). Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also what were ordained for every church in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1.
2And in referring to which the Spirit of Christ never uses the distinctive words for a separate sacerdotal class of believers (“hiereus” and “archiereus", collectively over 280 times in the NT, denoting Old Testament kohen or their pagan equivalents as a separate sacerdotal class) known in English as "priests."
While the English word "priest" is a etymological corruption of the Greek presbuteros, being referred to in Old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," the problem is that Catholicism translates both hiereus and presbuteros as "priest." thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers, whose primary active function is offering up the Eucharist as a sacrifice for sins, which they are never shown doing in the inspired record of what the NT church believed and how they understood the gospels.
3. Rather than dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, offering the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sins, instead the primary active function of pastors is preaching, (1 Timothy 4:2) by which they “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) ) for the word is called spiritual "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 15:7-9; cf. Psalms 19:7) In contrast, nowhere in the record of the NT church is the Lord's supper described as spiritual food, and the means of obtaining spiritual life in oneself.
4. All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere are NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distinctive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, and Catholicism attempts to justify using the same distinctive word for both OT "ko^he^n" and NT presbuteros via an imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbuteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.
In addition, the normative state of NT pastors was that of being married, as almost all the apostles were as well, and with celibacy/continence being a gift not all have. This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;..One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) (1 Timothy 3:1-2,4-5) Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? (1 Corinthians 9:5) For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. (1 Corinthians 7:7) 5. Nowhere are NT believers shown regularly confessing sins to their pastors, or ever commanded to do so. Instead, the only exhortation or command to confess sins is to each other in general.
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16)
Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (James 5:17-20)
Here we see an example of spiritual binding and loosing, in which the heavens were bound from providing rain, and then loosed to do so, whereby believers of like fervent holy faith are encouraged as able to obtain such binding and loosing in prayer.
However, in the case of an infirm man the intercession of NT pastors (presbuteros) can obtain deliverance of chastisement, as indicated by James 5:14,15, as can the intercession of believers of fervent holy faith, but pastors as particularly expected to be so.
Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. (James 5:13-15)
Yet nowhere is the infirm man required to confess his sin, and which in this case is likewise one he is ignorant of, but chastened for. (cf. Mark 2:1-11) Nor is this an example of the Catholic "Last Rites," as healing is what is promised here, while the Catholic Last Rites is normatively a precursor of death.
And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion. (Mark 2:3-12)
One can be chastised for unconfessed sins he is not aware of, and mercy can even be requested for those who sinned in ignorance, (Lk. 23:34; Acts 7:60) and here we see healing and forgiveness being treated as one thing, for the latter obtained the former. And which was in response to the intercession of the man's friends, and is corespondent to James 5.
In both cases it seems that the afflicted were not aware of the sins that there were under chastisement for, and in neither case was confession of such required, and in both cases intercession obtained deliverance without sacerdotal clergy being required.
6 . Nowhere does any NT pastor teach believers that they need to be regularly confessing their sins to them in particular in order to obtain forgiveness.
Instead, Scripture simply states that,
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
And when Peter charged Simon Magnus with sin, he told him to pray to God himself if perhaps he might be forgiven. However, this does not mean that intercession for mercy cannot be asked of pastors or believers in general, as was also the case here.
Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me. (Acts 8:22-24)
7. As seen in James 5:16-18, the power of binding and loosing are is not restricted to clergy, but formal judicial actions are executed under leadership, not autocratically but in union with all the church.
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18:16-18)
While judicial actions are carried out by the whole church under leadership, that the power to bind and loose is not restricted to clergy is also evident by what follows Matthew 18:16-18, as it applies to two or three are gathered together in the Lord's name.
Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:19-20)
The formal corporate judicial binding and loosing is seen in action in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5:
For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 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.
Likewise is the corporate nature of forgiveness by the body that was harmed by public sin:
To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. (2 Corinthians 2:10-11)
8. Leadership does act in the person of Christ in such judicial and disciplinary cases (which flows from the OT: Dt. 17:8-13), together with the church, while Spirit-filled holy men such as the apostles can also declare one to be bound in sin, as seen before in Acts 8:20-23, and in Acts 5:1-10 (cf. Acts 13:6-12; 1Co. 4:21) be instruments of Divine judgment.
Yet this is not an endowment of office as if anyone in that office can execute such, but such can be the power of Spirit-filled holy men who are to occupy that office, while the power of binding and loosing in general is provided for all Spirit-filled holy believers. >
6. Outside of the above, nowhere is clerical intercession or that of anyone regularly required for forgiveness, but the promise that "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9) means that forgiveness does not require regular confession to clergy, let alone to Catholic priests.
But leadership does have authority, and together with the church to engage in judicial binding and losing, which again, flowed from the OT magisterium, (Dt. 17:8-13) and was not a normal practice of hearing confessions, nor as spiritual power of binding and loosing being restricted to the magisterium.. And thus the Westminster Confession affirms "it belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith," and we believe in ordaining elders (presbuteros) who are the only overseers of the church after the apostles, and who were not Catholic priests, and were normally married.
More error, which depends on reading the gospels as in isolation or as interpretive of the rest of the words of Christ, which reveals how the NT church understood the gospels. In which, besides what has already been provided in refutation of the papacy and Cath/ priesthood and its Eucharist, the latter is more extensively shown here by the grace of God, to be a Catholic corruption of the Last Supper,
What we see daily here is that RCs disagree even on which of their imagined claimants to be the successor to Christ and the apostles is!
But by the grace of God, see above as to Peter and RC priests
I've heard of...
Lions and tigers and bears...
OH my!
 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' |
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.