Posted on 01/25/2007 10:49:26 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
Though we all are to rule and reign with Christ . . . evidently there's SOME delegation of some sort of authority!
LOL.
No? There's no need? So we are all just floating out there individual believers. There's no authority, and every church just gets to decide what Scripture means. The Church has no power to excommunicate. The Church is not the pillar and ground of truth. The gates of hell can and do prevail against it everytime it is ripped apart by heresy.
Christ is Supreme King and Head of the Church. But to say categorically that no earthly leadership is *needed*...well, why do you have pastors at all then? Why councils? Why presbyters? Why appoint *anyone* over any Christian believer?
That, good Dr., is not religion but sheer madness. And moreover, I don't think your church works that way.
ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?
= = =
I assume you read that Scripture yourself.
It confirms what I've been saying about THE CONGREGATION in I Cor 12-14 having the authority--particularly wisely exercised toward humble wise old codgers deciding tricky things.
No hint of a multi-layered bureaucratic edifice of the sort Christ railed so much against.
Thanks for such a good Old Testament confirmation of the emphasis on THE CONGREGATION having the authority a la I Cor 12-14
Hey sure, why not LOL
My memory is going, actually John wrote it, lol
With your elevation of Peter and the pope, you return to wretched legalism, if not outright idolatry.
= = =
Since the fall, IT'S A HUMAN NATURE THING.
Therefore, the more sensible for Holy Spirit to reign THROUGH THE CONGREGATION and the humble wise old arts running loose in it.
Did you read that passage in Numbers? You saw one word and ran off with it. The whole sense of it is that *duly constituted* religious authority *cannot be circumvented*.
You don't think the Israelites had authority to depose Moses, do you?
Didn't say that it was. Said neither of us can be absolutely dogmatic. Based on the rest of what we see of Peter and the Apostles in Scripture I believe your interpretation is incorrect (i.e., we do not see him referred to or treated as one having unique authority among the apostles in the rest of Scripture).
we're both suffering from that today LOL....post it anyway. :)
The bible refutes that idea soundly. Here is what John wrote:
1 John 2:2:25
And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
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.
Why?
Because of his humility, God could trust him with such authority.
I know of no papal equivalent coming remotely close.
Nor in any other denomination though John Wimber was a great example of humility to his dying day.
And, interestingly, God saw fit to take him home through a most humble means--a fall in the shower. LOL.
Oh, there I agree. My opinion on its own means nothing.
No. Korah advanced the priesthood of all REBELS.
Very different thing.
Actually, a case could be made that the RC edifice is an edifice of rebels but that's a whole nother thread.
Amen. The authority being the written word of God as revealed by the Holy Spirit. And we are to try the spirits to see if they are of God and to rightly divide the word of God as Scripture interprets Scripture.
All earthly authority is to be weighed against the word of God, the final authority.
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." -- Matthew 24:35" Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." -- John 17:17
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
He's not renaming Simon in Matthew 4:18. That's the evangelist talking, and he's writing to Christians a few years after the resurrection who knew exactly who "Simon called Peter" was. Matthew designates him "Simon called Peter" in 4:18 to distinguish him from other men named "Simon," in particular Simon the zealot party member.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
Jesus was from the house of Judah, so how'd He gettobe the high Priest?
Is that anything like "the Pope and his minions breaking away from the Church of England"?
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.