Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
If you look at Titus you will find that Paul uses the term elder and bishop interchangeably and says he appointed Titus as an elder to Crete. The only laying on of hands that Paul received was from prophets and teachers at Antioch, not Apostles or bishops, along with Barnabas. Was Paul a bishop or not?
Paul in Ephesians sets out the offices given to the church to equip the saints for the work of the ministry. They are Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist and Pastor/Teacher. He does not mention bishop but he does add in other writings deacon, elder and bishop, but none of these are said to have any authority over the other offices.
A. 1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him
B. 2 Pe 1: 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.(exposition) 21 For the prophecy came not in old time F4 by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
It is obvious that the above are saying 2 different things if we see "A" as saying that the Holy Spirit inspires individuals to understand the things of God, to include the correct interpretation of scripture, and if we see "B" as saying that individuals cannot come to understandings of scripture on their own.
However, let God be true and every man a liar. Better to look for another answer than to say that God is confused.
2 Pe 1:21 gives the context for 2 Pe 20, and says very simply that prophecy did not come of "the will of man." This is intended to be synonymous with the foregoing statement in v. 20 that no prophecy in scripture CAME ABOUT by virtue of some individual's personal exposition or explanation.
In short, this verse is dealing with the ORIGIN of scripture, and not with our present day interpretation of scripture.
"that no prophecy in scripture CAME ABOUT by virtue of some individual's personal exposition or explanation"
Balaam, although not a holy man, is an example of what you are saying. He sure wanted to prophecy curses on Israel for the reward but God moved him to prophecy what He wanted.
Yes, you are correct.
God is the origin of scripture and not some smart dude with robes, a beard, and a wizard's staff.
Don't mess with Gandolf!!!
I've pinged Corin.
Either I'm in big trouble for messing with him, or you're in big trouble for misspelling his name. :>)
I need corin's popcorn-eatin' smilie.
Gandalf was not Ilúvatar.
"This is so good I added it to my Protestant Gospel collection. It is on my profile page at the end."
"Jesus was upset when He caught Peter fishing, so He told him to feed the sheep instead, and predicted his torturous death in order to further embarrass him."
This an interesting interpretation of what I said but not quite accurate. Jesus wasn't upset, He knew Peter and knew where to find him. He knew his heart that's why He kept asking the same question until Peter chose the right word. And He knew his ambition that's why He told him to mind his own business. He was not upset with Peter, He loved him like He loved all of His remaining disciples, but He wanted them focused on the work ahead, not torn between their old life and their Father's business.
You guys are close to tugging on his robe!! Just remember what Jim Croce warned against.
Now you done gone and did it.
I haven't the foggiest what an "Illuvatar" is...and I don't know how to put the accent over the "u."
No problem.
Neither of us have spit into the wind.
Speaking of good advice:
Don't be downwind from a nuclear explosion or a.......
(Oh well, delicate company around here. Let's put it this way: "I hate after-holidays DIETS!") :>)
I generally agree that the terms bishop, priest and deacon (as well as "saint" the way St. Paul uses it) are all in flux in the New Testament writings, as so is the hierarchy of the Church. I don't know how exactly St. Paul received his consecration but my guess is that it happened on the road to Damascus directly from Christ.
But these are historical detail. The important thing to our understanding is that according to the scripture the Holy Ghost was sent to the Church first and that Church has a hierarcical structure, which Peter designed under the guidance of the Holy Ghost to perpetuate herself. The notion that men should arrive at their understanding of the scripture privately is nowhere to be seen in the New Testament, and is in fact warned against.
You are making the underlying assumption that the Holy Ghost emerges from the Bible anytime a layman cracks it open. This is not true: otherwise we would not have the Bible-quoting atheists, the Jesus Seminar, Jehova's witnesses, and all the multiplicity of Protestant denominations. The truth is that the Chruch is hierarchical in nature and the Holy Ghost is something that propagates from the Apostles and through the Apostolic Church. A and B do not contradict each other, -- the say the same thing: that the Chruch is protected from error by the Holy Ghost and that lay interpretation is not similarly protected and is in fact a foolish enterprise.
this verse is dealing with the ORIGIN of scripture
St. Peter goes on to warn about false prophets and riots against the Church. So, no, the passage looks to the future of Peter's Church as well as its origin, and prophetically condemns Luther's error, as well as, of course, the earlier christological heresies.
This rhetorical device is called satire.
Where do nuns come from?
2: 1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; F5 by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. A. 1: 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time F4 by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Meaning:
Part A. The origin of scripture is from God through God inspired men.
Part B. False prophets and teachers in the church era will have some evil effect.
As you can see, this also does NOT say that an individual Christian cannot be guided by the Holy Spirit to understand God's scripture.
Did you ever finish downloading e-sword?
Wow. That's a new one on me. Just where in Scripture did you find that nugget?
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.