Did the Early Church Fathers Think That They Were Inspired Like the Apostles?

“And again, so now the Council of Nicea is heretical, is that it Mr. Rogers. You dodged the question. So do agree with Arius interpretation of Proverbs 8:22-31 ...”

The Council came at a time when there were ample heathens - non-Christians - who held church office. That does not make everything done at Nicea bad, but neither does it mean everything they did was equal in stature to scripture. The title of this thread is “Did the Early Church Fathers Think That They Were Inspired Like the Apostles?”. The Catholic Church seems to think they were, since all scripture must be distorted beyond recognition to read in to it the theology of the ‘church fathers’. I, OTOH, do not believe the Church Fathers were the equals of the Apostles, or that their teachings have much significance in understand the clear writings found in scripture.

“You dodged the question. So do agree with Arius interpretation of Proverbs 8:22-31”

I haven’t dodged it. Your question simply makes no sense to me. That section of scripture discusses divine wisdom. I don’t know what Arius thought, nor do I care. It is easy enough to read the poetry and follow the point:

8 Does not wisdom call?
Does not understanding raise her voice?
2 On the heights beside the way,
at the crossroads she takes her stand;
3 beside the gates in front of the town,
at the entrance of the portals she cries aloud:
4 “To you, O men, I call,
and my cry is to the children of man.
5 O simple ones, learn prudence;
O fools, learn sense.
6 Hear, for I will speak noble things,
and from my lips will come what is right,
7 for my mouth will utter truth;
wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
8 All the words of my mouth are righteous;
there is nothing twisted or crooked in them.
9 They are all straight to him who understands,
and right to those who find knowledge....

...19 My fruit is better than gold, even fine gold,
and my yield than choice silver.
20 I walk in the way of righteousness,
in the paths of justice,
21 granting an inheritance to those who love me,
and filling their treasuries.

22 “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work,
the first of his acts of old.
23 Ages ago I was set up,
at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
24 When there were no depths I was brought forth,
when there were no springs abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains had been shaped,
before the hills, I was brought forth,
26 before he had made the earth with its fields,
or the first of the dust of the world.
27 When he established the heavens, I was there;
when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
28 when he made firm the skies above,
when he established the fountains of the deep,
29 when he assigned to the sea its limit,
so that the waters might not transgress his command,
when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
30 then I was beside him, like a master workman,
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing before him always,
31 rejoicing in his inhabited world
and delighting in the children of man.

32 “And now, O sons, listen to me:
blessed are those who keep my ways.
33 Hear instruction and be wise,
and do not neglect it.
34 Blessed is the one who listens to me,
watching daily at my gates,
waiting beside my doors.
35 For whoever finds me finds life
and obtains favor from the Lord...”

That passage is about the Wisdom of God that God offers to men. It is not a systematic theology of Jesus Christ. It is about God revealing Himself to man, if man will only listen. To respond to God’s revelation is to have a treasure and enjoy life. To reject it is to loose everything worthwhile.

For a Council to debate it - apparently, since I have no interest in reading their debates or pronouncements on a passage in Proverbs - means they were acting like lawyers rather than pastors, and engaging in philosophy (and the sophistry that entails) instead of preaching the Gospel.

From Wiki:

“Arius taught that God the Father and the Son of God did not always exist together eternally. [5] Arians taught that the Logos was a divine being created by God the Father before the world. The Son of God is subordinate to God the Father. [6] In English-language works, it is sometimes said that Arians believe that Jesus is or was a “creature”, in the sense of “created being”. Arius and his followers appealed to Bible verses such as Jesus saying that the father is “greater than I” (John 14:28), and “The LORD/Yahweh created me at the beginning of his work” (Proverbs 8:22).[7]”

If Arius tried to twist Proverbs 8 into saying that Jesus was created, then Arius was a fool. If it required a major council to reject him, then the church was in a sad state. Simply reading Proverbs 8 should be easy enough that no one would try to apply that meaning to it, unless the person was as Paul describes: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”

Part of the folly of man is trying to use the Scripture for purposes it was not meant for, such as a systematic theology text. One can debate free will vs election till the cows come home, but God hasn’t chosen to reveal every detail to us - and as men, we need to submit to His discretion. The scriptures are not meant so fools can analyze God.

“...and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

That is the function of God’s revelation of Himself: to make us wise to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, and to train us in righteousness so we can do good works.

Someone who tries to use Proverbs 8 to determine the details of the Trinity is a fool. Someone inclined to do so is more interested in their vain speculation than in the lost souls around them - which reflects badly on the state of the church in the 300s AD. It is the natural result of allowing philosophers to dominate the church instead of shepherds...

Mr. Rogers:

Every heresy starts with someone reading the scriptures and coming up with an interpretation. In this sense, you are no different from Arius. The entire question was due to Arius view of Proverbs 8:22-31.

“Part of the folly of man is trying to use the Scripture for purposes it was not meant for, such as a systematic theology text. One can debate free will vs election till the cows come home, but God hasn’t chosen to reveal every detail to us - and as men, we need to submit to His discretion. The scriptures are not meant so fools can analyze God.”

So from this text, you are implicitly criticizing the Protestant position of the priesthood of all believers to read the bible and interpret it for themselves apart from the Larger Church.

So if the Church can’t reflect on the Scriptures to understand the Nature of God, the Relationship among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit [Trinity], the Person of Christ, then what is it you believe about those because they are not explicitly defined in the Bible. That is where the Church reflecting on the those Scriptures, The Councils an the Tradition of the Church as expressed by the orthodox Church Fathers comes into to play.

As for your take that the Wisdom there is referring to the Wisdom that God gives to men, nobody ever interpreted that passage to mean what you want it to mean. Everybody in the early Church saw it as referring to Christ, even Arius did, but in what fashion did it refer to Christ. It seems you are now admitting that reading the Bible on ones accord can lead to heresy!!, even though you want probably admit that here on FR. It is the logical consequence of Protestantism’s sola scriptura and all believers reading the Bible for themselves. This results each individual become the authority.

And as for the Title, no, the title is incorrect, if what is being implied is that Catholics think the Fathers are Apostles. The Fathers and their writings reflect orthodox writings to the degree that they stated in communion with the Church. WHile no individual Father is infallible, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, reflected on their writings to help formulate orthodox doctrine and not just rely on the individual scriptural interpretations of men like Arius. In some sense, Arius is more philosophically a Protestant in that he read the Bible on his own and came to a doctrinal conclusion that the Church rejected. Every heresy before him and after starts with one Man reading some text of Sacred Scripture and coming up with some novel notion that leads into some new theological movement and church group.

So let me get this straight, as I don’t want to put words in your mouth, which I might have done before. Question, 1 You reject the Council of Nicea and most of its decrees, is that Correct?,

Question 2. You reject Saint John Chrysostem’s interpretations in his Commentaries on Saint Pauls Epistles that I put forth earlier in favor of your own? Do I have this correct?

I am referring back to the discussion on the notion of Bishop/Presbyter/Deacon and the functions/ministries that those 3 orders of Church office performed and how they were understood by the early Church, in particular, in the case of John Chrysostem, from the East/Greek speaking part of the Church.

“Question, 1 You reject the Council of Nicea and most of its decrees, is that Correct?,

Question 2. You reject Saint John Chrysostem’s interpretations in his Commentaries on Saint Pauls Epistles that I put forth earlier in favor of your own? Do I have this correct?”

1 - I don’t care about the Council of Nicea. I’ve never read its pronouncements, nor am I tempted to do so. The Creed of 325 looks fine, but the Creed of 381 added “we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins” - which is fine if it refers to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, done by Jesus and sealing us in Him, but erroneous if it means, as I suspect, that water baptism remits sin - and yes, I’m a Baptist.

According to Wiki, here are its 20 canons:

1. prohibition of self-castration
2. establishment of a minimum term for catechumen (persons studying for baptism)
3. prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him under suspicion (the so called virgines subintroductae)
4. ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops and confirmation by the Metropolitan bishop
5. provision for two provincial synods to be held annually
6. exceptional authority acknowledged for the patriarchs of Alexandria (pope), Antioch, and Rome (the Pope), for their respective regions
7. recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem
8. provision for agreement with the Novatianists, an early sect
9–14. provision for mild procedure against the lapsed during the persecution under Licinius
15–16. prohibition of the removal of priests
17. prohibition of usury among the clergy
18. precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving the Eucharist (Holy Communion)
19. declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics
20. prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and during the Pentecost (the fifty days commencing on Easter).

This may come as a shock, but I’ve never been tempted to castrate myself, nor have I ever needed to talk someone out of it. And if someone wants to kneel and pray on Sunday, I’m just glad they wanted to pray!

And speaking of Paulian heretics, here is the Wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Samosata

“But Paul considered the service of the church as a very lucrative profession. His ecclesiastical jurisdiction was venal and rapacious; he extorted frequent contributions from the most opulent of the faithful, and converted to his own use a considerable part of the public revenue. By his pride and luxury the Christian religion was rendered odious in the eyes of the Gentiles.”

In most Baptist churches, he’d be tossed out on his ear in about 30 minutes. It took 12 years for the other “Church Fathers” to take definitive action.

2 - I haven’t read much of “Saint John Chrysostem’s interpretations”, nor do I feel a pressing need to do so. I have read a variety of the church fathers, and find them largely absurd. They pretty much believed whatever they wanted to believe, and at councils they excommunicated each other left & right.

I suspect I would disagree with his positions on Jews:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.asp

“So from this text, you are implicitly criticizing the Protestant position of the priesthood of all believers to read the bible and interpret it for themselves apart from the Larger Church.”

Not at all. I don’t think all the priests & bishops of 300 AD were Christians, and there is no sign they were all led by the Holy Spirit, or even gave a rat’s rear about anything besides their power and philosophy. I believe all should read the scriptures, and the Holy Spirit will lead those He indwells to understand. By understand, I do not mean they will be ready to count the angels on the head of a pin, but rather that they will be better able to serve God.

I would greatly prefer for Christians to read the Word of God than to not do so, although the position of the Catholic Church for hundreds of years opposed commoners doing so.

“As for your take that the Wisdom there is referring to the Wisdom that God gives to men, nobody ever interpreted that passage to mean what you want it to mean.”

Then they are stupid. Proverbs 8:

“1 Does not wisdom call?
Does not understanding raise her voice?
2 On the heights beside the way,
at the crossroads she takes her stand;
3 beside the gates in front of the town,
at the entrance of the portals she cries aloud:
4 “To you, O men, I call,
and my cry is to the children of man.”

Oh golly, is Jesus now a girl?

“10 Take my instruction instead of silver,
and knowledge rather than choice gold,
11 for wisdom is better than jewels,
and all that you may desire cannot compare with her.”

Is that poetry discussing the nature of the Trinity? Is it meant to be a description of Jesus Christ? I think not...but you believe what you will.

They clearly understood the word presbyter to mean priest in terms of function, even if the word was not used.

It did not and will not mean "priest," the word for which is a uniquely specific one, "hiereus" and out of 150 times in the NT it is NEVER used by the Holy Spirit as a title for NT pastors. A priest can be an elder, but elders preceded the Jewish priesthood, and is not the word for priest .

In conforming NT pastors to her erroneous understanding of the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Catholicism came to render presbuteros” as “priests,” due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT pastors engaged in a uniquely sacrificial practice, that of turning bread and wine into human flesh and blood, around which all else revolves, and the work of redemption is carried out.

By which is simply invisible in Scripture, in which no NT pastor is shown distributing food as part of his ordained function, and rather than presented as the source and summit of the Christ life by which souls gain spirit and eternal life by physically eating (as per the literalism inconsistently imposed on Jn. 6:53,54), the Lord's supper is only manifestly described once in the life of the church and all the epistles to them.

And which instance in 1Cor./ 11:13-34 has to do with the church as the body of Christ shows, declares, His death by how they partake of the communal meal, while spiritual life is obtained by believing the gospel message, and to "desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby," (1Pt. 2:2) and the preaching and hearing of the word is what is said to "build" them up, (Acts 20:32) and "nourish" the believer. (1Tim. 4:6)

No place in Scripture was spiritual and eternal life gained by physically eating anything literal. The metaphorical view is the only one which is consistent with Scripture, and the use of figurative eating and drinking, in which drinking water is called the blood of men and poured out as an offering to the Lord, and people are called "bread for Israel," while land "eats" them, and enemies come to eat David, the word of God is also eaten. (2 Samuel 23:15-17; Num. 13:32; 14:9; Jer. 15:16 ; Ps. 27:2; Ezek. 3:1; Rev. 10:8-9)

And which is what is consistent with John itself in which the Lord is figuratively the Lamb of God, the temple of God, living water, the Light of the world, the door of the sheep, the good shepherd, the true vine, etc. (John 1:29; 2:19; 4:14; 9:5; 10:7,10; 15)

However, as the erroneous view of the natural mind which favored gaining life by eating became the predominate, not only was bread and wine turned into human flesh and blood, but presbuteros was turned into "priest," and thus dictionaries trace priests as coming from presbyteros, because that is where it is etymologically derived from, "Middle English preist, from Old English prēost, ultimately from Late Latin presbyter." (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/priest)

And Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time. Etymologies are not definitions, but in using this to justify presbuteros as meaning priest, what we have is an etymological fallacy, which is "a linguistic misconception, genetic fallacy, that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning."

"Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions." — Catholic Greg Dues in “Catholic Customs & Traditions

As R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) states while also trying to justify the use of priest:

"The Greek word for this office is ‘ιερευς (hiereus), which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos. First century Christians [such as the inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest took on its definition." http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html

"So far as i know, it was only ca. 200 that the term “priest” started to be applied to the bishop and only still later was it applied to the presbyter... When the eucharist began to be thought of as a sacrifice, the person assigned to preside at the eucharist (bishop and later presbyter) would soon be called a priest, since priests were involved with sacrifice." — Raymond Brown (Sulpician Father and a prominent Biblical scholar), Q 95 Questions and Answers on the Bible, p. 125, with Imprimatur.

Some other Catholics also confess that “the Latin word presbyter has no lingual or morphological relationship with the Latin word sacerdos, but only an inherited semantical relationship.” - http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=744379.0;wap2z

As a result of this change, the CE states,

“presbyter soon lost its primitive meaning of "ancient" and was applied only to the minister of worship and of the sacrifice.“ - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm)

Yet as Vines correctly states, "The NT knows nothing of a sacerdotal class in contrast to the laity; all believers are commanded to offer the sacrifices mentioned in Rom. 12:1; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15, 16; 1 Pet. 2:5; (d) of Christ, Heb. 5:6; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; 8:4 (negatively); (e) of Melchizedek, as the forshadower of Christ, Heb. 7:1, 3." -Vine's NT Dictionary.

Appeal must thus be made to so-called church "fathers" for this, in which, from the relative little of the writings we see by them, then we see overall consistent support for at least some idea of a Real Presence, yet these stand in clear contrast to Divinely inspired Scripture.

And testifies to how men can be mislead about some things and perpetuate them, while yet holding to piety and salvific truth. But as the Lord showed in reproving other errors of tradition, (Mk. 7:2-16) Scripture stands as the supreme authoritative source as the assured word of God, to which all most conform to, rather than perpetuating errors by making tradition equal to Scripture under the premise of assured ecclesiastical veracity, and thus compelling Scripture to conform to her.

As good a summary of this issue as I’ve seen on FR. Great job Daniel1212.

I have already replied to the “metaphorical view in an earlier post. Not going to reply again. The only metaphorical views in the early Church, as Professor Pelikan noted were the Gnostic-Docetist, to whom Saint Ignatius wrote many of his letters against.

Again, the words are different, I am well aware of that, but elders in its most literal sense means older man. The NT in very few places describes what they did, although the Letter of Saint James does in Chapter 5 were the presbyters were called to “Use Oil and Anoint the sick” and also “hear confession” as the text states confess your sins to one another. In the context of the passage, it was the presbyters who were called to do the anointing thus the confession that took place, based on the structure of the text, involved the presbyters. Not too lay Christian men [women] confessing to each other.

I never said it meant priest. I said in terms of function, it the presbyters took on the role of priest in terms of ministry. The Apostles were the ones who presided over the Eucharist or Baptized when they were present. As the Church grew away from the major cities, overseers [Bishops] took on the roles that the Apostles did. For example, Timothy was told remember the laying on of hands that Saint Paul did to him in ordaining him Bishop[overseer] and he should not lay hands on men unwisely. That rather you want to admit it or not is a priestly function, reserved for a Bishop, and as I noted earlier, in the Saint James Letter, we see presbyters anointing the sick and hearing confession, again, priestly ministries in terms of function.

And it is not only Catholicism that rendered presbuteros as functionally priest, the Eastern Orthodox did the same thing and Greek is their language.

I am well aware of the canon 1, the reason for that canon is that some took Jesus words in Matthew literally and made themselves literally eunuchs. Those who are spiritually eunuchs, those who embrace celibacy as a gift, is what the Council is calling, not for someone to literally castrate themselves.

I am well aware of his position on Jews, there was certainly some anti-Jewish polemics in some of the Fathers writings, I am well aware of that. That was not the question at hand, the issue was the understanding of Bishop, presbyter and deacon and what their ministries were.

Ok you don’t care about the Council of Nicea, nor Constantinopile in 381. I do, so your presuppositions on understanding Doctrine and mine are totally at odds. Lets just cut to the chase.

I reject Baptist ecclesiology, sacramental theology, worship [Liturgical theology]. You accept it. So lets end it here and be done with it. You reject the Catholic position on these.

No sense in either of us wasting each others time.

I agree that we might as well agree to disagree, since neither is likely to sway the other to his side. We use a very different approach, but that difference is a critical part of a thread on how we should view church fathers, and how they viewed themselves.

“I am well aware of his position on Jews, there was certainly some anti-Jewish polemics in some of the Fathers writings, I am well aware of that. That was not the question at hand...”

But in a sense, it IS the question at hand. On the one side, you have Paul the Apostle writing:

“I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.”

That is hardly in accord with anti-Jewish feeling and belief. Thus, if a Church Father - and to his credit, John Chrysostem strikes me as above average in sincerity and honesty - strikes a directly contradictory approach, then it calls into question both who the ‘fathers’ thought they were, and how much we should trust them to reflect the views of the Apostles - all of which were Jewish.

Obviously, the Catholic Church respects the church fathers. Equally obvious, most Baptists do not. There isn’t going to be much common ground between us, nor will there ever.

Mr Rogers:

Lets not go overboard and criticize someone 1,600 years ago and point out there sins. His sin, i.e Anti jewish rhetoric, is know to us because some of his writings were polemics against the Jews. Some of the NT writings can sometimes, if not interpreted carefully have hints of anti Jewish rhetoric. The statement for “fear of the Jews” which appears in the Gospels needs to be qualified as fear of certain Jews, not the entire Jewish people.

And you are correct, we have differences in how we understand the development and defining of Doctrine. I accept totally the Creeds of the early Church and the Dogmatic Doctrinal statements in the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon. Most Baptist, like yourself, do not.

The only metaphorical views in the early Church, as Professor Pelikan noted were the Gnostic-Docetist, to whom Saint Ignatius wrote many of his letters against.

As basically expressed, what such said is not determinative of what it right, and Rome herself judges them more than they judge her and she literally lacks the “unanimous consent of the fathers” for all she teaches.

As for Jaroslav Pelikan, Lutheran later turned Orthodox, and scholar in the history of Christianity (with honorary degrees from 42 universities), you are being rather selective with him, since he also said things like

"Recent research on the Reformation entitles us to sharpen it and say that the Reformation began because the reformers were too catholic in the midst of a church that had forgotten its catholicity..."

“If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear."

"Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures, but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There was more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable"

"Every major tenet of the Reformation had considerable support in the catholic tradition. That was eminently true of the central Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone….That the ground of our salvation is the unearned favor of God in Christ, and that all we need do to obtain it is to trust that favor – this was the confession of great catholic saints and teachers….Rome’s reactions [to the Protestant reformers] were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers.

When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone – a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers – Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition.” — Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, pp. 46-49,51,52,),

"Existing side by side in pre-Reformation theology were several ways of interpreting the righteousness of God and the act of justification. They ranged from strongly moralistic views that seemed to equate justification with moral renewal to ultra-forensic views, which saw justification as a 'nude imputation' that seemed possible apart from Christ, by an arbitrary decree of God. Between these extremes were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism, it is not possible even there to speak of a single doctrine of justification." (Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther’s Reformation, p. )

Again, the words are different, I am well aware of that, but elders in its most literal sense means older man.

Which simply does not justify calling them priests.

presbyters were called to “Use Oil and Anoint the sick” and also “hear confession” as the text states confess your sins to one another.

That is compelling the text to support Rome, as it does not say to confess sins to the elders, but simply that the person being anointed will be forgiven, which correlates to the relationship btwn forgiveness and healing seen in Mt. 9:1-7, . "For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?" (Matthew 9:5) In which without confessing anything but in response to the faith intercession of his friends, the palsied man was healed.

Likewise the anointing in faith in Ja. 5 by the elders, in which "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 5:15) the Lord having mercy in removing His hand of judgment, even if the person was too sick to know his sin of ignorance or confess what it was that the Lord had against him/her. And which shows the interdependence of the body. But which is quite unlike Last Rites, as it was a precusor to healing, not death.

But it is after which instruction on anointing by the elders that the general admonition is given to all, "one for another," "Confess your faults one to another , and pray one for another, that ye may be healed." As this applies to all, thus he states, "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (James 5:16) And thus Elijah, who was not a priest, is set forth as an example.

the presbyters took on the role of priest in terms of ministry.

Wrong. Simply because they both were pastors does not renders them a separate sacerdotal priesthood, thus the Holy Spirit never titles them priest. Priest is a distinctive title which denotes a unique defining sacrificial function, offering up sacrifices for sin, (Heb. 5:1; 7:27; 10:11) but which all believers engage in, and pastors do not uniquely do.

The Apostles were the ones who presided over the Eucharist or Baptized when they were present.

Once again you are reading into the text for as said, nowhere do we see any NT pastor even distributing bread as part of their ordained function, while baptizing was not unique to apostles nor a function that makes one a priest. The Lord could have easily sent Paul to an apostle but He sent him to a "certain disciple, a "devout man."

As the Church grew away from the major cities, overseers [Bishops] took on the roles that the Apostles did.

Correct, but which still does not distinctively render them priests, while it was certain prophets and teachers who laid hands on and sent forth Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto God called them. (Acts 13:1-3)

That rather you want to admit it or not is a priestly function, reserved for a Bishop

Having a shared function does not equate the two and overcome the defining distinction. It is unfortunate that the Holy Spirit did not have you to instruct Him on what distinctively makes on a priest. He sees a difference you ignore, as He uses "priest 150 times in the NT but NEVER as a title for NT pastors. Instead he calls all believers priests.

And it is not only Catholicism that rendered presbuteros as functionally priest, the Eastern Orthodox did the same thing and Greek is their language.

Which, despite the division and significant differences, simply testifies to shared error. But you left out the Anglicans.

Lets just say I reject your views and it here. I will repeat what I told Mr. Rogers. You will never convince me of your “whatever Protestant beliefs” just as he will never convince me of his “Baptist beliefs”

And your citations of Pelikan were from 1959. His Development of CHristian Doctrine 5 volume work was from the 70’s and after his Patristic and Early Church History works, he became Eastern Orthodox and also worked from the East to help bridge the gap between Rome and the East. He was one of a group of Eastern Orthodox Patristic Scholars, along with Orthodox Clergy who were invited to hear the Late Pope John Paul 2’s Encylical Ut Unum Sint delivered in May 1995.

The reason the term priest was not used was largely cultural and reflects the early Church wanting to separate itself somewhat from Temple Jewish practice of the Levites and avoid a term that was also used by pagan Greeks who also had both priests and priestesses. The titles given were first Apostles, i.e. one who is sent, the Apostles were clearly charged to commemorate the Eucharist, Baptize, heal the sick, etc. So the term used was Apostle. As the Apostles started to get older or martyred ,they begang to appoint “Overseers” [Bishops, episcopi], Presbyters [Latin word from the original Greek, from whence the English word Priest comes from; Elder Men, the most literal meaning of the word] and finally Deacons. Those were the 3 names used.

What each ministry entailed definitively can’t be determined from the NT. Presbyter is used some 60 times ,yet nowhere is what they are charged to do defined. In some NT epistles, we see Timothy told by Paul [2 Timothy] to not neglect what happened when I laid hands on you. Laying on of hands is a sign of ordination and is carried over from the Old, as in the Book of Numbers when the Levites were ordained by laying of hands. So while the Levite priesthood was abolished via Christ Paschal mystery, the rite of ordination was still the laying of hands which expressed the Holy Spirit coming upon the man who was ordained by the Apostles [Acts is full of the same rite].

So again, in the NT we see Apostles, Bishops, Presbyter and Deacon. We now what Christ told the Apostles to do, the 4 Gospels are clear, but as the Apostles appointed Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, the ministries of each are never clearly defined, particularly for presbyters.

Now in Acts 2, we do see “breaking of the Bread” as the central act of Liturgical worship. Acts 20:7 again indicates that. That is a Liturgical rite of worship. So those appointed Overseers [Bishops] and Presbyters by the laying of hands would be the Leader of Divine Worship Liturgy [i.e. Eucharist] and would administer the sacraments [Baptism, Anointing, hearing confessions, etc]

The text of James 5, based on structural does indicate that it was the presbyters who did the “anointing of oil” that is a priestly function, despite your “protests” to the contrary. The connection of confessing sins and your take on it is interesting. For years on FR, the majority of the FR Protestant infantry had hammered the notion of “Confession” in general. Now, we read in James 5: Confess your sins. So you guys all believe in the Bible, is that correct? How many of you confess in sins in Church?? If one is to read the text the way you read it, then I guess we have these Southern Baptist standing up at the First Baptist Church [or maybe, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.....] saying Pastor, last night I was watching HBO and you know, my wife is not like she use to be, but well there were these beautiful woman that came on HBO and I just could not avert my eyes, although, I only looked with one and covered the other one in case I went blind!

Sorry, your take on the text is poppycock. The structural of the text given it was the presbyters [elders] who are called to anoint with Oil and the notion of confession indicates it was the presbyters who the sick person was confessing. Saint Paul himself spoke of a “ministry of reconciliation” in 2 Corinthians Chapter 5 which Catholics and Orthodox understand in the context of the Sacrament of Reconciliation [Holy Mystery in Orthodox Terminology]

Early on the Didache taking up Christ command to the Apostles to forgive sins [John 20:21-23), Saint Paul takes up this “ministry of Reconciliation [2 Cor 5:18] and in James 5:13-18 we now see presbtyers being associated with “confessing sins”. Early on, the early Church, as recorded in the Didache, we see “On the Lord’s Day, come together and Break Bread...having confessed your transgressions that your sacrifice [offering] may be pure. It seems at this time, late 1st century, parishoners [members of a local church] confessed their sins at the Liturgy [was it vocal or in silence is hard to tell] but what is not uncertain is that given the Liturgy of the Eucharist was presided over by and ordained “Overseer” [Bishop] or presbyter appointed by the Bishop to celebrate the Liturgy of the Eucharist gave them some form of absolution via appropriate prayer and the individuals sins were forgiven by God via the ministry of the Church and Bishop/Presbyter.

So in terms of function, I stand by the notion that while the terms Overseer, Presbtyer and Deacon were used after the Apostles began to pass on to describe the next generation of Church Leaders, in term of their ministry, they functioned as priests.

Saint Paul in his Letter to the Romans [Romans 15:15-16] speaks of his calling by Christ as “The grace given to me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

This notion by Saint Paul, while he was counted among the “Apostles”, connotes priesthood. As numerous Catholic Scholars note, the word translated as “minister” in English is “leitourgon” which is where Liturgy actually comes from. So the text suggest a “minister of Liturgy” for in the Roman/Greek/Jewish culture of the 1st century, not the culture of American Fundamentalist Protestantism, that connotes a Ritual and priestly role. This is further indicated when Saint Paul goes on to describe his “ministry” as a “priestly service” that is “sacrificial” and speaks of an “offering of the Gentiles”

With respect to him describing Apostolic ministry as a “ministry of reconciliation”, in the OT, that was a priestly role. In 1 Corinthians 4:1, he describes his Apostolic ministry as being “a Steward of the Mysteries of God”. The Greek word used is “mysterion” which is the term used in Greek for Sacred/Religious Rites. It is not surprising that the Greek Orthodox Church speaks of the 7 Divine/Holy Mysteries which we Catholics refer to as the 7 Sacraments. Saint Jerome, used “sacramentum” in Latin which is where the English word “Sacrament” comes from when he translated the Greek “Mysterion” into the Vulgate.

Saint Paul’s notion of Ambassador for Christ used in 2 Cor 2:10-11 we read “Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, to keep satan from gaining the advantage over us, for are not ignorant of his designs

Again, as numerous Catholic commentaries note [the orthodox ones, not the historical critic types], the Greek text reads “en prosopo Christou”. My checking on the meaning of prosopo suggests that it comes from the word “prosopon” which means “Face”. During the debates over the Trinity, The Greeks took the Latin word “persona” and translated “prosopon” and of course, “persona” is where we get the English “Persons” which is the English way we speak of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. Saint Jerome, who new Greek and Latin better than I will ever know, translated that passage “en prosopo Christou” as “in persona Christi”

So in the context above, Saint Paul say himself acting “in the person of Christ” in his “ministry of reconciliation”

In conclusion, I ex ante reject the your views of ecclesiology, sacramental theology and theology of ministry. It is obvious that you reject mine. So as I told Mr. Rogers [Baptist], lets end it right here and agree that you and I will not agree.

Placemarker to mark a very cogent post by you daniel - again - which I predict will fall on deaf ears. No one likes their experience invalidated - particularly those whose faith is experience-based.

For what it's worth, this is my 2 cents. Please understand that I do not write this as an attack on my brothers and sisters of the Catholic faith. However, I am an Evangelical non denominational Christian, and this is my response to the question;

"what makes Paul's God inspired revelations any different or important than the millions of other people who have had revelations from God over the ensuing 2000 years?"

In his second epistle, Peter testified that Paul's writings are on par with the ancient Hebrew Scriptures (i.e the OT Scriptures) used by him and the other Apostles. Peter referred to Paul's letters as Scripture a couple hundred years before the Canon was settled upon. Fact is, Paul's letters are the only ones that are actually referred to as Scripture by any of the Apostles who walked with Christ.

Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 2 Peter 3:14-16

When Peter uses the the words, "the rest", he puts Paul's letters on equal footing with everything written by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

As a rule, at the time of putting together the official Canon, unless an author was one of the 12 Apostles, or they knew in person one of the 12, their writings were not considered to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Take it for what it's worth. You can agree with their decision or not.

However, if you truly want to be picky, then as for Peter's testimony, Paul's letters are the only one's that are inspired enough to be considered Holy Spirit inspired, because as I said, Paul's letters are the only ones that are actually referred to as Scripture by any of the Apostles who walked with

By taking all the other epistles out, the NT would then contain only those which are known to be written by Paul. We would have no Gospels, no letters by John, Peter, Jude, nor James. We also would not have the book of Acts, Hebrews, nor the Revelations of Jesus Christ.

Under your assumption; the NT would be filled with the current 27 letters, all the apocrypha books, every Gnostic gospel and the letters written in defense of those gospel writings, plus anything we feel is inspired by the Holy Spirit including, but not limited to, this apologetic comment that could be construed to be a modern day Holy Spirit inspired epistle.

Good luck on deciding who gets the last say. Besides; imagine how much of a database we would need to get it all together in one place that allows for the addition of future Holy Inspired works. Oh yea, we then need to decide what on the WWW is inspired and what is not.

Personally, I believe God knew this problem would exist if He stopped the Canon from being closed when it was.
================================================

As an aside, and the reason for my disclaimer in the beginning, this is my take on the Catholic Bible including the extra books known as the Apocryphal books

As I understand it from my studies, the Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.

Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.

I ask you the ‘absurd’ question: Did Jesus Christ inherit his name? And you go take a bypass around it, saying:

**What name are you even referring to?**

Let me help you:
“Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and GIVEN HIM a NAME which is ABOVE every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,......” Phil. 2:9,10

“Being MADE so much better than the angels, as he hath by INHERITANCE....OBTAINED....a more excellent NAME than they.” Heb. 1:4

“I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive’(The Christ is plaining telling you that his name is not his own, because he inherited it).

**Do we teach that Jesus Christ is truly man and truly God? True or false?**

Trinitarians, of course, answer that ‘true’. Oneness know that Jesus Christ is the ‘Son of God’, just as he says; and that he is filled with ‘only true God’ (the Father. Remember John 17:1-3? One of the ‘absurd questions’ you just ignore).

**Do we teach that Christ in the mediator between God and man? True or false?**

True, and Oneness believe that as well.

**Do we teach that Christ is the eternal Word, the Son of God, the Alpha and the Omega? True or false?**

True, and the words that Christ speaks are directly from the Father.

**the scripture says “All things were made by Him; and without Him was there anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men.”**

Look closely, ‘IN’ Him was life......THAT’S the FATHER IN Him.......”For as the Father hath LIFE in himself; SO hath he GIVEN to the SON to have LIFE in himself; and hath GIVEN him authority...”. John 5:26,27

I said: Why would one person of God need to be redeemed by another person of God?

You replied: **What are you hallucinating? Where does it say that the Father is “redeeming” the Son? That is nowhere in any of the verses you have molested.**

The following the verse you presented a while back to declare two separate ‘persons’ of God: **Isa_44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.**

To which I replied: Sounds like the LORD of hosts is the REDEEMER of the LORD the king of Israel.

**Think logically for a moment: Christ does not just say the Father is in Him,**

You’re right about that, the Christ not ONLY says that the Father is in him; he gives the Father credit for ALL the WORDS and WORKS that take place.

**He declares that He is in the Father, and we are in Him, and He is in us!**

Put it in context. Only after one receives the Comforter, does one know that they have the same Spirit in them that is in Christ. Only He received it without measure.

**And yet, none of us are being worshipped or declaring ourselves Almighty.**

None of us were born sinless, given the Spirit without measure, and....ONLY He is the Saviour

**educate yourself about what we teach**

I was trinitarian for my first 28 yrs, fully indoctrinated, but couldn’t answer some of the questions that you continue to spin and dodge like these:

In the scriptures, neither Jesus Christ, nor the apostles ever used the phrase ‘God the Son’, only the ‘Son of God’. True or false?

The Almighty God is IN Jesus Christ without measure. That’s what he, and his apostles and prophets declare. True or False?

So, in John 17:1-3, when Jesus Christ calls the Father ‘the only true God’ is he speaking the truth?

When the Christ said that the Father is in him doing the works (Jn 14:10), was he telling the truth?

When Paul said in 1 Cor. 8:6: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, OF whom are all things, and we in him;(semi-colon) and one Lord Jesus Christ, BY whom are all things, and we by him.”, was he telling the truth?

**..you do not even understand anything about what Christianity has taught for 2000 years.**

If you do understand the Godhead, then you could answer those questions easily, and without condecending comments, too.

While your looking for the phrase ‘God the Son’ in scripture, you could also look for the phrase ‘God the Holy Spirit’.

Me, I’m ‘Zuriel of Illinois’. Not ‘Illinois the Zuriel’.

Lets just say I reject your views and it here. I will repeat what I told Mr. Rogers. You will never convince me of your “whatever Protestant beliefs” just as he will never convince me of his “Baptist beliefs”

Of course not as you are not to objectively examine the evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, as your assurance of Truth rests upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.

This you cannot deny, and is cultic, not Christian, as the NT did not begin under the premise of an assuredly infallible magisterium being essential for valid assurance of Truth, so that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation requires this.

And your citations of Pelikan were from 1959.

I myself stated that he was later Orthodox, and it was almost 40 years later that he was formally taken in by the EOs, stating that he had not as much converted to Orthodoxy as "returned to it, peeling back the layers of my own belief to reveal the Orthodoxy that was always there." And which does not invalidate what he said in those quotes, nor that he rejected it, as what he pointed out was the variegated beliefs of Rome before Trent and the historical basis for the Reformers, contra Roman apologetics.

We need not discount the scholarship of believers who later became apostate (not that i am judging Pelikan as saved or lost, even as a Lutheran), and if it was a proRoman scholar before becoming evangelical, then the testimony of his prior scholarship surely would be held as valid by RCs.

His Development of CHristian Doctrine 5 volume work was from the 70’s and after his Patristic and Early Church History works, he became Eastern Orthodox

And as another convert (former SBC) to EO states,

"The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." — .” Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135; And Pelikan is not alone in faulting Trent:

Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development." Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries ...

On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

and also worked from the East to help bridge the gap between Rome and the East.

The division btwn East and West is deeper and wider than the kisses, and after about a millennium will they not be reconciled.

The reason the term priest was not used was largely cultural and reflects the early Church wanting to separate itself somewhat from Temple Jewish practice of the Levites and avoid a term that was also used by pagan Greeks who also had both priests and priestesses.

Typical RC spin, and this cultural cause being one that feminist use to invalidate male headship. Pagans had priests and priestesses in the OT as well, but the Holy Spirit was not afraid of mixing them up, while what we do not have in the NT is NT pastors engaging in a unique sacrificial atoning function, which is the primary distinction of priests, and a manifest reason NT pastors are never given that title by the Holy Spirit.

And as said, Catholic scholars attribute the title as being due to the view of the Eucharist.

the Apostles were clearly charged to commemorate the Eucharist,

More extrapolation from Scripture. They were simply shown a simple ceremony and told, "this do in remembrance of me" "as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (Lk. 22:19; 1Cor. 11:25) and which the entire church is told to do.

And never is any more instruction given them on how to perform this or shown doing so, or is it otherwise evidenced to be a priestly function, but in the only manifest description of it interpretive of the gospel accounts then it is described contrary to a RC Mass, as instead it was a communal meal in which independent eating was actually not to eat the Lord's supper. For it was by and how they engaged in a communal meal that they showed the Lord's death, by recognizing each other as members of that body.

The idea of a class of clergy distinctively titled priests handing out a piece of bread and sip of wine to individuals to obtain spiritual and eternal life is not in Scripture, but is read into it.

As the Apostles started to get older or martyred ,they begang to appoint “Overseers” [Bishops, episcopi], Presbyters [Latin word from the original Greek, from whence the English word Priest comes from;

You already tried this, and the validity of which parroted RC polemic was clearly refuted. Do you suppose more posting of propaganda is convincing?

Presbyter is used some 60 times ,yet nowhere is what they are charged to do defined. Now you are subtracting from the Word. A Presbyter (elder) is a overseer/episcopi. Paul called all the presbuteros of Ephesus together and charged them to care for the church of God, which they were made overseers/episkopos, and he himself commend them to God, "and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up..." . (Acts 20:17,28,32)

Titus 1:5,7 also uses the terms synonymously, as does 1Pt. 5:1-2, in which, similar to Acts 20:17,28, the presbuteros functionally act by taking oversight, episkopeō.

Presbuteros are shown being the ones entrusted with money being given to help the impoverished brethren in Judaea. (Acts 1:30)

And that along with the apostles, Paul and Barnabas decides to go committe about a basic matter of contention, that being the apostles and presbuteros at Jerusalem, who together with the community thought it good to send Paul and Barnabas with the sentence of James and the church. But which two men soon split on their own. (Acts 15)

And presbuteros later ill-advised Paul to take a vow involving a Jewish sacrifice in seeking to make peace with the Jews, which attempted admixture almost left the apostle dead. (Acts 21:18ff)

In 1Tim. 5:17 we see that presbuteros labor in word and in doctrine, and as a presbuteros/episcopi Timothy is charged to "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. (2 Timothy 4:2)

Thus both your distinction btwn the two offices, and bare assertion that nowhere is what presbyters are charged to do defined, is refuted by Scripture. presbyters denote what they are while episkopos denotes what they do.

Laying on of hands is a sign of ordination and is carried over from the Old, as in the Book of Numbers

You also tried this before and what i said still stands. Laying on of hands in conveyance of virtue is not restricted to the priesthood, and is not their distinctive defining function which sacrifices for sin is, (Heb. 5:1; 10:11) and a common shared function btwn priests and NT pastors does not render them a distinctively class of clergy titled them priests. Stop trying to do what the Holy Spirit would not!

but as the Apostles appointed Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons

Rather, presbuteros were ordained which are episkopos.

presbuteros

And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders [presbuteros] of the church. (Act 20:17)

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers [episkopos],...(Act 20:28)

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Act 20:28)

Now in Acts 2, we do see “breaking of the Bread” as the central act of Liturgical worship. Acts 20:7 again indicates that. That is a Liturgical rite of worship. So those appointed Overseers [Bishops] and Presbyters by the laying of hands would be the Leader of Divine Worship Liturgy [i.e. Eucharist] In-credible! It is telling what a RC can blithely suppose he can extrapolate out of Scripture. Acts 2:46 does not describe any "Liturgical rite of worship," or any ritual but simply describes that as an organic community they "breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart." (Acts 2:46) Yet somehow RCs imagine a ritual mass going on in every house with priests dispensing bread. Do you really think the Holy Spirit would not be careful among the other details provided to at least once describe the apostles or NT pastors ritually blessing bread as being the Lord's real body and dispensing it, and perhaps miracles occurring because of it, esp. since this is the source and summit of the Christian life for Caths, around which all revolves, yet the Holy Spirit even records the use of Paul's handkerchiefs? (Act 19:12)

Once again the Holy Spirit does not cooperate with Catholicism in His inspired word

Acts 20:7 does does pertain to a preaching service, but simply says "the disciples came together to break bread," that's it, and no mention of Paul or a pastor doing the breaking or it being the means of grave, and instead it presents the preaching of Paul as the focus and means of edifying. Thus far what we see described is more Protestant than Catholic. Equating breaking of bread with the Mass is an example of egregious extrapolation, calling things that are not as if they were.

Presbyters...would administer the sacraments [Baptism, Anointing, hearing confessions, etc]

Again, as shown, it was not only presbyters who did so. A deacon baptized, and a certain devout disciple conveyed the baptism with the Holy Spirit to Paul, (Acts 9,22) and prophets anointed men.

The text of James 5, based on structural does indicate that it was the presbyters who did the “anointing of oil” that is a priestly function, despite your “protests” to the contrary.

Which again, fails to justify a distinctive class of clergy titled priests. Praying is a priestly function as well, but does not make one a priests in distinction from others who pray. If only the Holy Spirit had you there to advise Him, but the Scriptures are given by inspiration of the Spirit of God, not Rome.

How many of you confess in sins in Church?? If one is to read the text the way you read it, then I guess we have these Southern Baptist standing up at the First Baptist Church [or maybe, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.....] saying Pastor, last night I was watching HBO and you know, my wife is not like she use to be...

That honestly is what is needed, and has clear OT support, but in general terms Ja. 5 does not say this is a public confession, but "one to another."

And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all strangers, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers. And they stood up in their place, and read in the book of the law of the Lord their God one fourth part of the day; and another fourth part they confessed, and worshipped the Lord their God. (Nehemiah 9:2-3)

Sorry, your take on the text is poppycock. The structural of the text given it was the presbyters [elders] who are called to anoint with Oil and the notion of confession indicates it was the presbyters who the sick person was confessing.

The poppycock belongs to the papists, as structural of the text shows only the aspect of anointing was by the presbyters, and says nothing about the sick confessing, which is likely why he needs the elders, then it exhorts "confess your faults one to another" - not "confess your faults your sins to a priest'! For "the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," (James 5:16) which applies to all, not 'the effectual fervent prayer of a priest" or just the presbyters.

Even if this is restricted to presbyters, they offer no sacrifice for sin, which is the distinctive function in Scripture that titles them priests, while the priests or Rome are disallowed as they are not Biblical presbyters, but need conversion themselves.

The overall general nature of this chapter is evident throughout, in which the aspect of elders is the exception, and thus in the same spirit is concludes,

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 5:19-20)

Thus you first make presbyters distinctively into priests, then make anointing with oil by presbyters for healing into confessing sins as a precursor to death, then make "confess your faults one to another" as being restricted to priests! For all must be made subject to Rome.

Saint Paul himself spoke of a “ministry of reconciliation” in 2 Corinthians Chapter 5 which Catholics and Orthodox understand in the context of the Sacrament of Reconciliation

Which likewise is speaking to all believers, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation." (2 Corinthians 5:17-18)

Thus the general exhortation of the above verse, "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him..."

Early on the Didache taking up Christ command to the Apostles to forgive sins [John 20:21-23),

Resorting to testimony of initial ecclesiastical deformation only weakens your case, and John 20:21-23 sees its interpretation in church discipline as in 1Cor. 5 and the corporate (mainly) pastoral intercession of Ja., 5, as i explained, while Rome counts and treats even known public prosodomite murderers as members in life and in death, and even men morally more like Judas than Christ as popes. While Jn. 5:14,15 is turned in "Last Rites," as it is usually about the last wrong thing Rome does to her members.

Saint Paul takes up this “ministry of Reconciliation [2 Cor 5:18] ...

You already tried this. All are called into this ministry. Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word. (Acts 8:4)

It seems at this time, late 1st century,

Irrelevant. History only means what Rome says it does anyway.

Saint Paul in his Letter to the Romans [Romans 15:15-16] speaks of his calling by Christ as “The grace given to me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, The word for "priest" is not here, thus "the offering [prosphora] up of the Gentiles may be acceptable, " (KJV, NAB) Which word here says the LXX used in Dan. 3:34, where Nebuchadnezzar is offering praise to God. The fact is that all believers engaged in making sacrifice and making offerings, (Rm. 12:1; Heb. 13:15) thus all are priests, part of the general priesthood, (1Pt. 2:5,9) and there is nothing here or anywhere in which a NT pastor has a unique sacrificial call that distinctively makes him a priest.

Liturgy actually comes from. So the text suggest.. a “priestly service"

Give it up: there is nothing distinctive about presbyters that justifies distinctively titling them priest, and your problem is obviously with the Holy Spirit.

With respect to him describing Apostolic ministry as a “ministry of reconciliation”, in the OT, that was a priestly role...The Greek word used is “mysterion” which is the term used in Greek for Sacred/Religious Rites.

All believers are stewards of "mystery," as Scripture has revealed what was revealed to Paul, and like deacons, all are to be "Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience." (1Ti 3:9) Who makes this stuff up? You continue to make desperate arguments, supposing you know better than the Holy Spirit, which Rome presumes to do. If this makes Paul a priest, and by extension, even those who receive no new revelation, then why not call him that, unless God is afraid to confuse him with pagan priests, yet you derive it from them here! Why not stick with Biblical language, except that you do not want to be confused with those American Fundamentalist Protestants? The reality is that it was not because of some function held by priests and others that presbyters ended up being called priest, but due to the imposed functional sacrificial equivalence in turning the Lord's supper into a sacrifice for sins.

Saint Paul’s notion of Ambassador for Christ used in 2 Cor 2:10-11 we read “Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive...,

The lengths you go to in order to supply what the Spirit failed to do for you. Here believers are doing the forgiving, and Paul follows, yet i can agree with your rendering, but which does not interpret 2Cor. 5:18, and distinctively title him a priest. Why do you do so much work to do what the Holy Spirit did not and could have easily done? Except that like the Scribes and Pharisees of old, Rome presumes of herself "above that which is written." (1Cor. 4:6)

In conclusion, I ex ante reject the your views of ecclesiology, sacramental theology and theology of ministry. It is obvious that you reject mine. So as I told Mr. Rogers [Baptist], lets end it right here and agree that you and I will not agree.

So you decided, but the problem is that while you can only defend Rome, the Holy Spirit will never agree that NT pastors should have been and should be now titled "priests," versus what He called them in distinction, and it is Catholics who need to convert to His side, and respect the distinction He made.

I was using sarcasm to make a point. Jesus used sarcasm on the Nazareth ‘hater’ Nathanael, when he said, “Behold an Israelite indeed in whom there is no guile.”

Oneness Pentecostals have a brief statement that we use to explain the Godhead: The Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Ghost in emanation, and that it’s all found BODILY in Jesus Christ.

I like to take it more in depth using the Lord’s, and his apostles’s own words, such as I have in this thread, the lastest comments are in post 114. You are welcome to evaluate aand answer the questions if you prefer.

I’ve trucked all over Iowa, and parts of Ohio (had a dedicated run to a pet food plant in St. Mary’s for a couple of years. The backhaul was usually out of Wapakoneta, or Toledo).

Who is Michael J. Kruger? A Protestant

Anyone who wants to know details about the author can go to the website already posted. I've seen you do this several times now, making it a point to come onto a non-Catholic Religion Forum thread and immediately challenge the writer's credentials. I haven't seen anyone do the same for all the RF threads Catholics post, why are you doing this? Does it somehow make what the writer says less truthful? Do you think everyone who isn't Roman Catholic is biased and whatever they say cannot be trusted?

Here's a thought...why don't you, instead, comment on the CONTENT of the article and don't worry so much about who wrote it? It sounds kinda petty to me.

Let me help you:

This is no help, you are quoting passages and are hoping to goad me into doing the hard work of explaining context, explaining what they mean, and teaching you all of theology. I know this game you cultists play, who, without ceasing, will never explain the scripture, but only throw out red herrings like some desperate gorilla soldier, who cannot survive an all out assault. Though unlike the gorilla fighter, this is intellectual cowardliness and spiritual depravity. It is not my job to do your work for you. If you want me to reply to you in more detail, you will need to do this yourself, and then I shall educate you. But only until then.

Oneness know that Jesus Christ is the ‘Son of God’, just as he says; and that he is filled with ‘only true God’ (the Father. Remember John 17:1-3? One of the ‘absurd questions’ you just ignore).

As a matter of fact, again, this is not what "Oneness" Pentecostals teach, though their views are not less damnable. Oneness Pentecostals are modalists. You teach that Christ is a created being, and that He is not God at all, which puts you into the JW's camp.

"Oneness Pentecostal theology affirms that there exists only one God in all the universe. It affirms the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. However, Oneness theology denies the Trinity." (Matt Slick, "What is Oneness Pentecostal Theology?", CARM)

Though, most likely, there are many cultists out there who do not even know the nature of what they themselves believe, being so ignorant and spiritually deceived. I have met a few of these on FR who defy specific categorization, unfortunately.

To which I replied: Sounds like the LORD of hosts is the REDEEMER of the LORD the king of Israel.

It is because you are not very clever or familiar with the text. God is calling Himself both the King of Israel and Israel's redeemer, the Lord of Hosts. He is not calling Himself His own redeemer, as that would make Him a sinner to be redeemed. The ESV makes it clear for even the cultists:

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Put it in context. Only after one receives the Comforter, does one know that they have the same Spirit in them that is in Christ. Only He received it without measure.

That makes no difference whether one receives the "Comforter" in time, who, by the way, you must acknowledge as God if you say it this way (you seem to deny this later in the post). You are ignoring the text: Recall your claim is that Christ isn't God because the Father is in Him. And therefore, all verses where Christ is called God or calls Himself God or almighty must not be about Him, even though He is speaking of Himself. You are not addressing the fact that the Son is in the Father, and both of them are in us. What difference does it make in degree or timing of receiving it when the end result is that God is in us, both Father and Son? You give no reading for this, what it means that they are in us, or what Christ's goal here is at all. All you are doing is repeating yourself hoping that we don't "put it in context". There is no denial of divinity here, nor a giving of divinity to anyone else, nor how being filled with more of the Holy Spirit gives one the right to speak as God, when all the Apostles and Prophets always spoke as messengers.

Please provide the verses that specifically explain "All of you are filled with God... but, because I have Him 'without measure,' I can speak as God, be described as God, and not as His messenger."

While your looking for the phrase ‘God the Son’ in scripture, you could also look for the phrase ‘God the Holy Spirit’.

But notice, thou hypocrite, you do not put yourself to the same standard, but just got done telling us things which are nowhere in the text. I can easily produce these passages, and I can produce them all day long:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)

Christ's being both with God and as God from the beginning of creation puts out Oneness Modalism all in one swoop, and the Jehovah's Witness view too, which requires that Christ be a created being. You can troll about it not saying "God the Word" all you want, but "The Word was God," in the opposite order, is just as good, no matter what the cultists and poor-man's sophists say. I would not even call you a right proper sophist, as at least they speak speak absurdities that at least sound plausible.

When the Christ said that the Father is in him doing the works (Jn 14:10), was he telling the truth?

He is most certainly telling the truth, and even declares that we shall do even "greater" works than He. So it follows then, if we are stupid sophists, that we are greater than Christ! But as I told you before, your stupid questions are all answerable by actually knowing what we teach. You can prattle on and on in this matter, but the answer will always be "In His role as mediator, as the 'man' Christ, mediator between man and God." It does not erase the verses which clearly teach that He is God, and that He humbled Himself "into the form of a servant," and lived the perfect human life.

Once you acknowledge ALL of the scripture, and read them in their totality, rather than trying to twist passages out of their scriptural context, then you shall break free of your heresies. But, unfortunately, I have never met a person as far gone as you who could even attempt to THINK about the scriptures I have mentioned. Vampire like, they cannot see the glory of God in Christ, but must flee at His approach.

So where does it say in Scripture that Jesus was with Paul for three years?

Try reading Galatians chapter 2. Paul speaks of receiving revelation directly from Jesus Christ and not from any man. It wasn't until three years later, that he went to meet with Peter and the other Apostles.

“The reason the term priest was not used was largely cultural and reflects the early Church wanting to separate itself somewhat from Temple Jewish practice of the Levites”

So the Apostles didn’t use the term “priest” because of their cultural concern that someone would associate them with Jews and the Temple...

Didn’t we have an exchange earlier on this thread about the lengths Paul went to do exactly that? He had Timothy circumcised, he took vows and participated in Temple activities, and did so at the urging of Jewish Christians. He boasted of his Jewishness, and made a habit of preaching the Gospel to the Jews first, and only then turning to the Gentiles.

James was written “To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion”, and Hebrews was obviously directed to Jews. Romans discusses Jews at length.

Peter, whom you believe was the Vicar of Christ, was the Apostle to the Jews (”On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles)”.

In 1 Peter we read, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.”

That phrasing is very Jewish in origin. But of course, Paul wrote that the Jews are the trunk, and we Gentiles are branches grafted on.

So where was this reluctance by the Apostles to be identified as Jewish?

“Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.” (Philippians 3:5-6)

Paul also wrote: “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city [Jerusalem] at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.” (Acts 22:3)

He also wrote, “Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.” (Romans 9:4-5)

So...I am to believe the Apostles NEVER used the word “priest” as an office in the Church because of “the early Church wanting to separate itself somewhat from Temple Jewish practice of the Levites”?

Call me skeptical...