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.
What no one seems to want to tackle is the FACT of what the wafer and the wine turn into before it leaves the human body...
Is that REALLY what we want our Savior to be??
Indeed, just what does it mean? Does it mean that the body and blood which He said to consume was literally that which would be crucified and poured out , which certainly looked, felt behaved, and would taste and test as real human flesh, as the only body of the incarnated Christ did and would, and purely literal understanding of "take eat, this is my body which is broken for you" requires?
If taken literally, there is nothing in the words at the Last Supper that teaches that what the apostles consumed was anything less than actual bloody human flesh, which manifest physicality John emphasizes in contrast to a christ whose appearance did not physically correspond the Christ "which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life...That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life..." (1 John 1:1,2). And thus would scientifically test as corporeal flesh
. Or did "this is MY body" refer to what looked, felt, smelled, behaved and would taste and scientifically test merely as inanimate objects (bread and wine), down to the smallest particle, but which had ceased to exist at the "words of consecration, but becoming the “the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood,” "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross" of the Catholic christ. Until that is, the non-existent hosts manifests decay, at which point the Catholic christ no longer exists under the appearance of the non-existent bread or wine.
If you deny this then you do not know much of Eucharistic theology. And claimed "special miracles" such as bleeding hosts will not help you, since such are not what transubstantiation means, and which metaphysical nonsense is required because Cath priests cannot produce bleeding hosts, etc. as a practice.
Moreover, since even the smallest particle of the species of bread and wine are (imagined) to be the “true Body of Christ and his true Blood,” then such may become airborne, and end up who knows where.
In contrast the the Catholic metaphysical Christ, the metaphorical understanding alone easily conflates with the rest of Scripture. . And such use for eating or drinking is what the apostles would have been familiar with, to which the Lord's representative use of bread and wine for His body and bread is correspondent to, versus the foreign concept of requiring physical consuming human flesh for spiritual purposes. A few more examples from Scripture pertinent to this aspect are: And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:16-17) To be consistent with their plain-language hermeneutic Catholics insist a plain-language reading of such words requires in the gospels, then they should also insist this was literal. As well as when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: • “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9) Other examples of the use of figurative language for eating and drinking include, • The Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32) • David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2) • And complained that workers of iniquity ”eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord.” (Psalms 14:4) • And the Lord also said, “I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the Lord.” (Zephaniah 1:3) • While even arrows can drink: “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh ; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.' (Deuteronomy 32:42) • But David says the word of God (the Law) was “sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:10) • Another psalmist also declared the word as “sweet:” “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalms 119:103) • Jeremiah likewise proclaimed, “Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16) • Ezekiel was told to eat the words, “open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee...” “eat that thou findest; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 2:8; 3:1) • John is also commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 ) And Scripture refers to Christ being spiritual food and drink which even OT believers consumed: • And did all eat the same spiritual meat; "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:3-4) More at link .
Notice that in Catholic theology one needs to submit to Rome to assuredly know what is of God:
RC: People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, "Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith, p. 72;
...the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium
.in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8.
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity....Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
Thus, to avoid circularity,
..when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources... - Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility;
But what is the basis for Catholic assurance that there church is what it claims to be, the one true infallible church? It is because she has Rome has presumed to infallibly declared she is (if conditionally infallible), thus,
The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that [according to infallible us] the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter.." [as the premise is false, so is the conclusion] (Providentissimus Deus;Providentissimus Deus (November 18, 1893) | LEO XIII)
We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty..." "We have addressed to Catholic people, either collectively or individually; and above all, let them lay down for themselves as a Supreme Law, to yield obedience in all things to the teaching and Authority of the Church, in no narrow or mistrustful spirit, but with their whole soul and promptitude of will." - Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae - Papal Encyclicals
That is exactly what Roman Catholicism teaches.
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm
The wide ranging scope of this proclamation has been diminished or minimized by Roman Catholics. Unam teaches that every person, including presidents, governors, rulers, etc, are to be subject to the pope. Think about the implications of that statement.
When Unam is brought forward to Roman Catholics in light of the on-going debate over their current pope, RCs dismiss Unam Sanctam....yet, they maintain that Christians have to be a member of the RCC and follow the pope.
Roman Catholics don't practice what they preach....for if they did there wouldn't be the incessant posting of articles against the current pope.
Too bad the internet wasn't around for Luther!
Allow me to illustrate.
The five accounts we have of the Lord's Supper in the New Testament.
I have attempted to highlight the critical parts to help the reader understand the context of the passage.
| Matthew 26:26-29 | Mark 14:22-24 | Luke 22:14-20 | John 13:21-26 | 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 |
| 26While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29“But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” |
22While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” 23And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25“Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”. |
14When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. 15And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.”19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. |
21When Jesus had said this, He became troubled in spirit, and testified and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, that one of you will betray Me.” 22The disciples began looking at one another, at a loss to know of which one He was speaking.23There was reclining on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24So Simon Peter gestured to him, and said to him, “Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking.” 25He, leaning back thus on Jesus’ bosom, said to Him, “Lord, who is it?” 26Jesus then answered, “That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him.” So when He had dipped the morsel, He took and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. |
23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. |
Key Phrases/words:
Poured out: In the OT the blood sacrifice was never consumed; it was always poured out. We further have the drink offering which was poured out before God as a sacrifice (Ex 29:40, Numbers 15:4-5).
29.11 ἀνάμνησις, εως f: (derivative of ἀναμιμνῄσκω ‘to cause to remember,’ 29.10) the means for causing someone to remember—‘means of remembering, reminder.’ ἀλλ’ ἐν αὐταῖς ἀνάμνησις ἁμαρτιῶν κατ’ ἐνιαυτόν ‘but in those (sacrifices) there is a yearly reminder of sins’ or ‘… that people have sinned’ He 10:3. Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 347). New York: United Bible Societies.
What no one seems to want to tackle is the FACT of what the wafer and the wine turn into before it leaves the human body...
Is that REALLY what we want our Savior to be??
***
The sacramental union in that sense is not the Lutheran understanding, and much ink was spilled in the 1500s clarifying that.
Too bad the internet wasn’t around for Luther!
***
I can just imagine the meme war that would be happening...
How many of my conversations on this board have come down to this?
Me: “But God himself says-”
Romanist: “SHUT UP HERETIC!”
I have no idea what your point is, you asked me to provide passages, so I did.
A person can speak literally and figuratively at different times, even in the same conversation, if that’s what you are getting at.
But this:
“Jesus COULD NOT have”
is bothersome.
Jesus broke Mosaic law several times, never did He sin. He ate with sinners, He consorted with taxpayers, He worked on the sabbath, He discounted dietary restrictions, He ‘blasphemed’.
He made it clear in the discourse on divorce and marriage, that Mosaic laws were made for the weakness of men, not necessarily because God wanted those behaviors. Therefore, breaking Mosaic law is not necessarily a sin. It is never a sin if God tells you to do it.
The point of the ‘eat no blood’ prohibition is that people would claim to eat the flesh and blood of animals or their false gods in order to gain their power and become joined to that god or animal. It was part of “Have no false gods before Me”.
God commands us to eat His flesh and blood for exactly that reason. He is not a false god. He wants us to be joined to Him in a profound way. He made Himself flesh and lived and died on earth to give us that way.
The prohibition in Mosaic law was precisely to prohibit perversion of the unique bond that He was to eventually provide for us to Him.
God planned ahead that way sometimes.
Also, ANYTHING that Jesus led anyone to do could not POSSIBLY be a sin.
Love,
O2
I was supplying passages about Jesus’ assertions that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life, as requested.
I believe in Transubstantiation, but it is hard to argue against at least Consubstantiation from these passages.
In the long run, those 2 aren’t that far apart. I don’t think when we get to the pearly gates St. Peter is going to say, “there was bread in there too(or not), so you can’t come in!”.
Love,
O2
Then by your reasoning, Jesus was a liar.
Matthew 5:17-20 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Your comment, more than ever, shows that the Jesus of Catholicism is NOT the Jesus of Scripture, who fulfilled the Mosaic Law perfectly.
He HAD to have. He could not have broken the Law and remained sinless.
He was ACCUSED of Law breaking, but that was because the pharisees added their own nonsense to it and He violated THAT. But violating man made commands is no big deal. It's not sin.
Nor did He *blaspheme*. He spoke the truth and the truth is no blasphemy.
Jesus was instituting the New Covenant.
Guess someone forgot to tell that to the Holy Spirit then?
You are correct to say that it is believers responsibility to appoint elders and deacons. But the reason we do so is just like Moses; we can't do everything. The leaders of the Church realized that they could not take their valuable time "to wait on tables". Like Jethro's advice to Moses to appoint qualified men, the New Testament scriptures also lays down qualifications for those posts. We measure men and women against the scripture and appoint them accordingly. We ASSUME the men we appoint have been ordained from God based upon their past actions. If a person fails to live up to those qualifications, then they should be removed. But it is a big mistake to think that we have been granted some sort of mystical power to ordain people on earth. This is a very wrong Catholic notion.
God has not relinquish His sovereign control over us or "delegated His authority" for which we should be thankful for. He knows what is in our hearts.
True Harley, Ordination is only recognition of what God has been doing in a person’s life. Far be it from me to have communicated anything more than that. The reason for the qualifications in scripture are that the church might jude ministers and either accept or reject them.
It’s SO much simpler to just eat it and drink it and REMEMBER what it was for...
Someday; archeologists will find the missing verse(s)... John 20:29a-29b
Ok Thomas; now that you've stuck your finger in my side; lick it off; for it ain't gonna get any better than this.
The future holds just a wafer and some wine for folks.
Anything.
Revelation 21:21-25
22 I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.
23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.
24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it.
25 On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there.
I don't see Pete mentioned anywhere...
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.