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.
Says who?
Nothing has changed since then!!!
--Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Hail Mary)
Simple doesn’t mean correct.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul says that to take unworthily of the Lord’s Supper is to sin against the body and blood of the Lord.
I’m gonna take that like it was written, just like I take Ephesians 2 like it was written.
The Bible.
as written?
really?
Perhaps you can explain what UNWORTHY means to me.
Should I start at the top, middle or bottom of the haystack you’ve tossed me?
Perhaps you can explain what UNWORTHY means to me.
***
Unrepentance.
But even if you can argue that, I don’t see how that changes the fact that Paul refers to the action as such: “So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”
I have no idea what you mean by that.
The Lutheran understanding is that it’s all of the above. Bread and body. Wine and blood.
You apparently think something else, but I really don’t understand what you’re trying to get at.
Explain?
I seem to be frustrating you.
“23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.”
That’s a direct quote from what Paul wrote to the Corinthians. Considering that Paul was trying to make sure that his letter was understood by anyone who read it, I cannot see any other explanation other than that he meant what he said and said what he meant.
And so I have to believe it.
1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
Excuse me?
Are you so angry that I’m believing the plain words of the Apostle that you’re calling me ignorant and unstable?
If anything, I’m doing the opposite of distorting by believing it as written.
Are you going to say that reading Ephesians 2 as it was written is also the result of the reader being ignorant and unstable?
Seriously, after all the time that we spend schooling the Catholics because they insist that the Bible doesn’t mean what it actually says about salvation, are we getting to the point where WE’RE going to ignore the plain words of Scripture because it goes against OUR theology?
Or does Scripture come first?
Might as well jump in, I guess. Not to argue, but to explore. Can I assume that you know that Jesus used two different words, when He was speaking to Peter about building His Church? Peter, he call Petros (a piece of rock). Then He said, “On this Petra (a mass of rock) I will build of Me, a Church. Because he used two different words, most of the protestant church believes He was referring to Himself, when He said the above. (Those words, “of me”, are in the original Greek text.) Why would he use two different words? I’m not familiar with how RC’s believe, but we refer to Jesus, as the Rock of our salvation: “The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.” Psalms 18:2 (In that versa, the Hebrew word for rock, means, “to be lofty; a craggy rock, literally; figuratively, a fortress, stronghold). My only other thought, is the relationship between Peter and Paul. As you know, Paul wrote a good portion of the New Testament. I recall at one point, Paul rebuked Peter, in front of the Church that was meeting together, there, because Peter tried to go along with the Jewish believers who still clung to traditions, and he would not eat with gentile Christians, when Jewish Christians were present. In Scripture, Paul says, “I withstood him (Peter) to his face...” Galatians 2:11-14. That passage of Scripture has always been very interesting to me. In fact, Paul decided (under the influence of the Holy Spirit, I’m sure) he would preach to the gentiles, and Peter would preach to the Jews. (Not for the above reasons, but because the Jews heavily persecuted him, and tried to kill him, several times. (Personally, I believe it is because Paul had been a learned Jew, of the Pharisee sect, before his conversion, and they knew that he was an expert regarding the Scriptures, so that he was very dangerous to their beliefs).
And the words are NOT 'plain'.
Are you going to say...
I'M not saying anything.
Peter wrong that SOME have a hard time with things Paul has written.
If anything, the way we each are determining what Paul REALLY meant when he penned the 'unworthy' verse, shows the reality of what Peter wrote.
Which of us is the 'ignorant and unstable' one?
the coin could flip either way.
(Or land on edge)
Millions of folks think the elements are merely reminders of what Jesus has done for us, while other millions think that somehow they turn into His 'body' and 'blood' when consumed.
I doubt that no matter what EITHER of us 'through the glass darkly' fellas writes here is going to sway the other one; seeing that CENTURIES of discussion about the subject has still left the human race divided.
I'm willing to put this into the 'disputable matters' bin and move on.
How 'bout you?
I’m willing to put this into the ‘disputable matters’ bin and move on.
How ‘bout you?
***
Sure.
Good!
We’ve a lot of many other things that we DO agree on.
We’ve a lot of many other things that we DO agree on.
***
Yes, and none of what we disagree on affects justification or salvation, thankfully.
I’ve seen that.
Many many Romanists on these threads are SO guilty of that too. Not just on Scripture, but on slandering non-Romanists.
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.