Posted on 05/17/2014 4:31:22 PM PDT by Gamecock
A number of years ago, Albert Sundberg wrote a well-known article arguing that the early church fathers did not see inspiration as something that was uniquely true of canonical books.[1] Why? Because, according to Sundberg, the early Church Fathers saw their own writings as inspired. Ever since Sundberg, a number of scholars have repeated this claim, insisting that the early fathers saw nothing distinctive about the NT writings as compared to writings being produced in their own time period.
However, upon closer examination, this claim proves to be highly problematic. Let us consider several factors.
First, the early church fathers repeatedly express that the apostles had a distinctive authority that was higher and separate from their own. So, regardless of whether they viewed themselves as “inspired” in some sense, we have to acknowledge that they still viewed the inspiration/authority of the apostles as somehow different.
A few examples should help. The book of 1 Clement not only encourages its readers to “Take up the epistle of that blessed apostle, Paul,”[2] but also offers a clear reason why: “The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ was sent from God. The Christ therefore is from God and the Apostles from the Christ.”[3] In addition the letter refers to the apostles as “the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church.”[4]
Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, also recognizes the unique role of the apostles as the mouthpiece of Christ, “The Lord did nothing apart from the Father…neither on his own nor through the apostles.”[5] Here Ignatius indicates that the apostles were a distinct historical group and the agents through which Christ worked. Thus, Ignatius goes out of his way to distinguish own authority as a bishop from the authority of the apostles, “I am not enjoining [commanding] you as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, I am condemned.”[6]
Justin Martyr displays the same appreciation for the distinct authority of the apostles, “For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number…by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God.”[7] Moreover, he views the gospels as the written embodiment of apostolic tradition, “For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.”[8]
Likewise, Irenaeus views all the New Testament Scriptures as the embodiment of apostolic teaching: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”[9] Although this is only a sampling of patristic writers (and more could be added), the point is clear. The authoritative role of the apostles was woven into the fabric of Christianity from its very earliest stages.
Second, there is no indication that the early church fathers, as a whole, believed that writings produced in their own time were of the same authority as the apostolic writings and thus could genuinely be contenders for a spot in the NT canon. On the contrary, books were regarded as authoritative precisely because they were deemed to have originated fom the apostolic time period.
A couple of examples should help. The canonical status of the Shepherd of Hermas was rejected by the Muratorian fragment (c.180) on the grounds that was produced “very recently, in our own times.”[10] This is a clear indication that early Christians did not see recently produced works as viable canonical books.
Dionysius of Corinth (c.170) goes to great lengths to distinguish his own letters from the “Scriptures of the Lord” lest anyone get the impression he is composing new canonical books (Hist. eccl. 4.23.12). But why would this concern him if Christians in his own day (presumably including himself) were equally inspired as the apostles and could produce new Scriptures?
The anonymous critic of Montanism (c.196), recorded by Eusebius, shares this same sentiment when he expresses his hesitancy to produce new written documents out of fear that “I might seem to some to be adding to the writings or injunctions of the word of the new covenant” (Hist. eccl. 5.16.3). It is hard to avoid the sense that he thinks newly published books are not equally authoritative as those written by apostles.
Third, and finally, Sundberg does not seem to recognize that inspiration-like language can be used to describe ecclesiastical authority—which is real and should be followed—even though that authority is subordinate to the apostles. For instance, the writer of 1 Clement refers to his own letters to the churches as being written “through the Holy Spirit.”[11] While such language certainly could be referring to inspiration like the apostles, such language could also be referring to ecclesiastical authority which Christians believe is also guided by the Holy Spirit (though in a different manner).
How do we know which is meant by Clement? When we look to the overall context of his writings (some of which we quoted above), it is unmistakenly clear that he puts the apostles in distinct (and higher) category than his own. We must use this larger context to interpret his words about his own authority. Either Clement is contradicting himself, or he sees his own office as somehow distinct from the apostles.
In sum, we have very little patristic evidence that the early church fathers saw their own “inspiration” or authority as on par with that of the apostles. When they wanted definitive teaching about Jesus their approach was always retrospective—they looked back to that teaching which was delivered by the apostles.
I find that interesting in light of all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth by Catholics over the thought that Luther *added* a word to the Bible and *changed* Scripture.
But when Catholics do it, it's no big deal to them.
What hypocrisy.
Divergent from WHAT?
And so what if different denominations have different names? Since churches or religion does not save, but rather JESUS saves, what difference does it make that one church's name is different from another or that they have different governing boards?
metmom:
Take your post somewhere else. I have been through this with the likes of you enough already, not going through it again.
Its not just you, it is many others as well, and i ping others who have said they want to be pinged to threads of interest. Its more an evangelical thing. And i will also ping those who responded to the same post i did, which should cut down in saying the same things to each. ..
I have never posted anything, there is just as much protestant stuff posted here except you guys have hundreds of divergent sects.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. But i rarely see you on these RF threads. Go do a search even on the Catholic keyword and see what you find
No, men who know a heck of lot more than you do. When you say, know better than God, that implies you read the Bible and you know what God says. That is the of sola scriptura married to sola my own ego!!!
Since i never said i know better than God, but that this is what you are saying by laboring to justify titling presbuteros priests when out of the over 150 times archiereus/hiereus occurs in the NT then the Holy Spirit never gives them that title! Which is based upon the cultic premise of Rome's assured veracity, versus the NT church, or even the local SBC.
Thus the question why would a person want to defend kind of cultic presumption, unless it is their security?
I do accept the magisterium as the having the teaching authority. The Alternative is for me to list to who, you????
No, you do not simply accept the magisterium as the having the teaching authority, which Westminster itself upholds, but you uphold implicit assent of faith to a magisterium based upon the premise of assured perpetual infallibility, supposing this is necessary and promised to the stewards of Scripture for assurance of Truth. Which as said, is not how the church began, and which can be explained further if desired.
Yes it is. So we can play that game all night, You say No, I say yes, should we make a Beatles tune
You seem to be getting desperate. So your argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God?
Thus lacking both any Scriptural record or from early testimony, it is yet asserted, "The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
As for heresies, again, every heresy starts with someone who thinks they Know better and it starts with someone thinking the Holy Spirit inspired them to interpret the Bible correctly.
That explains Rome exactly, except she makes it not only individual (the pope) but promotes corporate error.
Now to come back to Romans 15:16,my Catholic NAB, RSV and Navarre Bible, all translate it as “priestly service for the Gospel” . The Navarre Bible has Jerome’s Latin translation along with it and word used there is “oblatio” which is associated with a solemn offering to God in the context of a Liturgical service. The English word “Oblation” which was directly derived from Oblatio refers to an offering or sacrificial offering and the term refers to the gift to be offered and the act of offering at Mass...
So all this to confess the word priest is not there in Romans 15:16 and that hiereus is not the root word used, and that offering sacrifices to God is not a unique function of NT pastors or priests, the latter being described as men who daily "offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins." But which is not the charge given to presbuteros/episkopos, but "Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." (1 Timothy 4:13) "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2) "we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." (Acts 6:4) "But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;" (Titus 1:3) And the difference btwn the two names reflects the difference, but Rome turns presbuteros into ritualist whose main function is dispensing human flesh for eternal life.
So Romans 15:16 in every Catholic Bible I have uses “priestly service of the Gospel”
Sorry, that part is correct, for as seen by my first reply on this, i was looking at the word for "offering," "prosphora," in "the oblation of the Gentiles" in the DRB, not the word "hierourgeō," (from a compound of sacred toil) rendered "sanctifying" the gospel of God in the DRB, and "ministering" in the KJV, which is what the NAB etc. derived "priestly service" from. In both cases hiereus is not there, nor as the root, but while it may be used all believers are called priests and offer sacrifices, even their own bodies to God. (Rn. 12:1) When the Holy Spirit makes such a manifest consistent distinction btwn hiereus and presbuteros/episkopos then it is presumptuous to ignore or negate it. But which befits Rome.
Bless God
First let me clarify how I went total knee-jerk on your quoting of Isaiah 44:6, knowing that you regard there to be a ‘God the Father’ and a ‘God the Son’ in that verse, I resorted to sarcasm, instead of presenting it as I believe it. (I will partly blame that on the fatigue that this week of extensive trucking has given me...and trying to maintain a conversation with my wife while typing. But hey, you make exuses for not answering questions, so I guess I’m entitled to one.)
Compare other verses to Isaiah 44:6:
45:11 Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker.....(the Christ is speaking the Words of his Maker, who dwells in him).
55:5 ...shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel.
The Son is holy because of the invisible Father that is in him. You can call it ‘my interpretation’, but, that is mostly what you offer, ...interpretations; as when you say the Father is in ‘unity’, but not literally one with Son, and not literally in him, contrary to what the Son spends half of the book of John explaining.
The man Jesus Christ can speak as God the Father because he has been GIVEN the authority to speak those words:
“I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.” And they understood not that he spake to them of the Father. Jn 8:26,27
“..I told you, and you believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me........neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is GREATER than ALL, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are ONE.” Jn 10:35-30
The Jews then wanted to stone him, for they knew that God was not a man. They were right about that, but, they could NOT grasp that the Father is in Christ, giving him all power; giving him the Words and works to prove the annointing.
I honestly don’t know how anyone can read this passage and not see that God the Father is THE omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent source of the Christ power:
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the WORDS I SPEAK unto you I speak NOT of myself: but the FATHER that DWELLETH in me, HE DOETH THE WORKS. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
There is no need to interpret those words, unless one wants to suit a desire for separate ‘persons of ‘God’.
**You are quoting Ephesians 4:6, you incompetent, nor is it speaking of the Father alone, but of “God.”**
You’re interpreting. Then you should put a comma in there where there currently isn’t (in the KJV anyway).
**Eph 4:10 He (Christ) that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.**
That is made possible by God the Father; defined by the Christ as a Spirit (Jn 4:23,24)
The MIND of Christ IS the Father. (remember, the man Christ Jesus said the words were not his own). The Son had his own will, but, it was tied to the flesh, just like ours is. The BIG difference is this: With the Father IN him, he had the power to remain sinless, and do the will of the Father.
**The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all coequal and living. The relationship is thusly: The Father begs from eternity; the Son is eternally begotten; the Holy Spirit proceeds from both. None are created, but all exist in this way from eternity.**
That is what I mean by ‘your interpretations’. “Eternally begotten”....??
“The Holy Spirit proceeds from both”.....Do you mean that one can send the Holy Ghost out on a mission if the other is too busy to?
You see....Jesus Christ HAD to go away, OR the Comforter wasn’t going to come. He had comforted the disciples with his physical presence, fully displaying the power of the Father. “I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you”. The Father is so completely knit with the soul of the Son (they are one), that the Father can share that ‘mind of Christ’ in the baptism of the Holy Ghost (which proceeds from the Father).
**Notice that the Father not only calls Him God, but continues by declaring “You, Lord,” that is, the Son whom He is still speaking with, “laid the foundations of the Earth...”**
Yes, God the Father, who begat the Son, has appointed him heir of ALL things, BY whom (the Son) also he (God the Father) made the worlds. Who (the Son) being the brightness of his (the Father’s) glory, and the express image (the Son) of his (the Father’s) person.
**The Son is not the Father, nor does He claim to be the Father,**
But he claims that the Father is the source of all thing divine.
**but is always a distinct individual:**
The Son is the express image of the invisible God.
Notice, that all the salutations to the saints, call God the Father, and Jesus Christ as Lord. Notice the comma is after ‘Father’, NOT after ‘God’. Or else the salutations would be “God, the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”; which seems to be the way you portray it.
**However, the image of the Father is also God**
Interpreting again?
“God was IN Christ reconciling the World unto himself”. Jesus Christ says that God the Father is a Spirit. Jn 4:23,24.
And the Son of God told his disciples: “..handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have”. Luke 24:39.
I said: You brought up John 1:4, and I answer it with the Christ’s own explanation (”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),
You replied with more ‘yopios’: **Christ is speaking of the power and authority He received from the Father as man in the giving of eternal life, not of that life and authority that He has as the “Almighty”, who was “made flesh, and dwelt among us.”**
I’ll offer an interpretation of ‘made flesh’: “The express image of the invisible God”.
Like I said before, if you believe that the flesh of the Son is a separate and distinct person of God, then you must believe that Mary is the ‘mother of God’.
**And yet, the scripture explicitly declares that He has been seen, even in human form: Gen 16:13; Gen 32:30; Exo 24:10-11, Exo 33:14, Exo 33:19-23; Num 12:8; Deu 5:24, Deu 34:10; Jdg 6:22-23, Jdg 13:21-22; Isa 6:5; Joh 1:18; 2Co 3:18, 2Co 4:6; Gal 1:6; Eph 1:17; Col 1:15; 2Ti 1:10; Heb 11:27. The one seen in all these instances, therefore, must be....the Son, who is the same God, while the Father remains invisible.**
So when the Son says that God the Father is a Spirit, and John, who I certainly trust WAAYYY more than you, declared: NO man hath seen God at any time. 1Jn 4:12
**All three are active, performing their own unique roles in salvation, not one of them being an “it” or a mere “visual”: 2Co_13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. **
So, you have three Spirits in you when you are born again?
Well, I’ll be looking for the book you’re going to write that tells what Spirit can do this thing, but not this or that other thing, which only the other Spirit can do, etc. What Spirit of the three gives the fruit of the Spirit, if thou canst tell? Or maybe they divided them up.
**And we are commanded to baptize in the name of all three, confirming their equality and personhood:**
So, the apostles completely blew it by baptizing in the name of Jesus everywhere they went. That, or they understood that the name of Jesus covers the requirements.
Repeating a command is not necessarily obeying a command: My boss can tell me to “go and deliver that shipment to the customer in the name of the Founder, CEO, and felloworker of this Company. His name is none of those; they’re titles. (His name is on the trucks, too).
**This is in reference to Christ as man, who is made “both Lord and Christ.” The Word is made flesh, but the Word is from the beginning, and is therefore eternal (John chapter 1). When Christ is risen up and placed above all things, He is returning to where He was before: Joh_17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.**
Well, at least you’re getting closer to verses where the Son calls the Father ‘the only true God’. To which you replied:
**Christ also declares that only God is good:**
That’s your answer? Tell me you’re not a politician!
**Luk_18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. Is Christ good, true or false?**
I will interpret, since you like to debate that way:
I believe the Lord was testing the young ruler, to see if he would confess to knowing that God was in Christ. How could Christ be good without the Father? But, we don’t have to worry about that.
**False, since Christ isn’t just called the “Son of God,” though the Pharisees understood this as declaring equality with God.**
So, the phrase ‘God the Son’ is used by the Son, and by the Apostles in the scriptures. And what version of the Bible would that be? So, you (and those likeminded, believe that you are better than they at defining God?
**More technically, the Holy Spirit is in Christ: Luk_4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
But the Spirit is called the Spirit of God and Christ, if you recall.**
So, which of the three Spirits (you have indicated the three persons are divine Spirits) is the one which led him into the wilderness?
I said: When the Christ said that the Father is in him doing the works (Jn 14:10), was he telling the truth?
You say: **Dr. Gill notes that the phrase is “expressive of the sameness of nature in the Father and the Son; of the Son’s perfect equality with the Father, since the Son is as much in the Father, as the Father is in the Son.”**
If Gill is using that interpretation to describe the witness of the Son, who said “the Father that DWELLETH IN ME, he doeth the works”, then Gill apparently doesn’t want to take the Son at his word, and has probably made a comfortable living selling his interpretations.
**Is the Son in the Father, true or false?**
Can’t miss on that. Since the Father is omnipresent, the Son is definitely in the Father. And the Father is in Son, GIVING the Son all power in heaven and in earth.
Care to try again on this?
Jesus Christ declared throughout the book of John that EVERY single thing divine is sourced back to the Father. THE CHALLENGE IS FOR YOU: SHOW ME WHERE HE POSSESSSED ONE SINGLE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE THAT DID NOT COME FROM THE FATHER. SHOW ME ONE SINGLE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE THAT THE FATHER RECEIVED FROM THE SON.
Here is a commentary from Cambridge and I assume Anglican Divines which I have in Quotes.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
“16. the minister] The Gr. word (not the same as that in e.g. Romans 15:8,) is the original of our word liturgy; and is the same as in Romans 13:6; Php 2:25; Hebrews 1:7; Hebrews 8:2; &c. The word in Biblical Greek has a frequent sacerdotal reference; which is certainly present here, as the rest of the verse shews. For the word rendered “ministering” just below is lit. “doing priest’s-work with;” and it is followed, in the next clause, by “the offering-up of the Gentiles.” The whole passage is strikingly pictorial and figurative; representing the Gospel as the sacerdotal rule; the Apostle as the sacrificing priest; and the converts from heathenism as the victims of the sacrifice. A passage of somewhat similar imagery is Php 2:17, where the Gr. of “service” is kindred to the Gr. of “minister” here. There (in Bp Lightfoot’s words) “the Philippians are the priests; their faith (or their good works springing from their faith) is the sacrifice; St Paul’s life-blood the accompanying libation.”
It is clear that the Apostle here speaks of himself as a Sacrificer in a sense wholly figurative; and this passage and Romans 1:9 (where see note,) are the only examples of his application of the sacrificial idea, in even a figurative sense, to himself. Dr Hodge remarks that we here see the true nature of the priesthood which belongs to the Christian ministry: “It is by the preaching of the Gospel to bring men to offer themselves as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God.” See Romans 12:1.”
Of course, at the end, they of course say it is “figurative” go figure, whenever something does not fit Protestant doctrine, the literal all of a sudden becomes figurative.
The structure of the text and the word use do connote priestly ministry and as I said earlier, a the Greek root from where we get the English “Liturgy” is also in the text.
I will not get into your all of sudden I am a former Catholic and reject the magisterium and I read the bible and determine for myself what is correct doctrine. As GK Chesterterton basically put it, a Catholic comes to the conclusion of the unthinkable proposition that there are those that have come before us who are smarter in matters of Theology. And in another place he states [I am paraphrasing], Tradition is the Democracy of the Dead, it means that we take that what is good from our ancestors and let it guide us rather than being ruled by an arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be alive with us at the same time. Now, I am not calling you arrogant, I think you are misguided and incorrect, but you, as all Protestants ultimately rely on your own reading of the scripture to determine what is orthodox or not.
So for me, nothing anyone living today, despite what they think they read in Scripture will cause me to reject the Council of Nicea 325AD [Condemned Arius and declared Christ Con-substantial with the Father], Constantinopile 381AD [condemned the Macedonians and declared the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and Son], Ephesus 431AD [Condemned the Nestorians {and Pelagians] and declared Mary {Theotokos” or Mother of God, Chalcedon 451AD [Condemned the Monophysites], Constantinopile 553 [the 3 Chapters], Constantinopile III 680 [Condemned Monothelitism and censured Pope Honorius], Nicea II 787 [condemned Iconoclasm as a heresy against the Incarnation; lots of Inconoclasts here among the Protestant FR infantry] and Constantionpile IV, Lateran I, II, and III and IV [1123, 1139, 1179, 1215] along with Lyons 1 and 2, Vienne, Constance, Basle/Ferrara/Florence, Lateran V, Trent 1545-1563. Vatican I and yes, Vatican II, although nothing dogmatic came out of that council and whether it was a good council or bad is still to be seen. As Pope Benedict noted, we have to admit that in historical analysis, some Councils proved to be a waste of time and did not get the results hoped for. I think the attempt at reununion with the Orthodox was one he was referring to [Basle-Ferrara-Florence] 1431-1445.
Now, I accept those councils because I believe Christ sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church to teach orthodoxy and to be a visible sign of that orthodoxy down thru time till the 2nd coming.
End of discussion.
And one last thing, the Protestant litany of pings and why I ask which Protestant sect you, or other protestants here belong to is because deep down, once you all disclose which sect you belong to, you all will break your alliance against us “Catlicks”, to use a little southern yahoo English that I have run across in my life, and turn your “allegorical” war with each other. Case in point is in this thread where it appears one guy disclosed himself to be a Reformed protestant and one a “Oneness Pentecostal”, a movement that comes out of the broader Protestant Pentecostal movement of various sects.
I am sitting here eating popcorn and watching it all play out, but of course, I will have to say on this particular theological question, the Reformed guy’s views match mine as a Catholic much more than of course the Oneness Pentecostal.
And no I did not ping either one because I am not looking to get into their tit for tat. If they ask my opinion, I will give it.
Edit to earlier post:
One last thing, I agree the word hierus was not exactly used. Jerome used the Latin word “Oblatio”, that I can confirm from my own library. Still, the context of the passage still connotes a priestly context.
Daniel1212:
I apologize for the short post again, but I do have a commentary specifically on Romans by Father Byrne, SJ [Jesuit] and while I am not a big fan of the Jesuits for the most part, they do a good job with scholarship even though they push the envelope a little too much for me [I was taught by Dominicans]. In this commentary, Fr. Byrne does not Paul uses sacerdotal type language [Minister is translated from Leitourgos, which as I noted earlier is where Liturgy comes from], serving as a priest of God [or priestly service of the Gospel] is from the word “Hierogon” and offering from “prosphora”. So while the word Hierus was not used, the word “hierogon” is derived from its root. I think you would have to agree with it, even though you may go with a totally allegorical interpretation, while I would see both allegory and literal priestly connotations.
Read my post again and tell me why and for what reason I used it in the first place, and then tell me that you "know" how I regarded it. You knee-jerk twice in a row. Well, even worse, for example:
Compare other verses to Isaiah 44:6: 45:11 Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker.....(the Christ is speaking the Words of his Maker, who dwells in him).
The verse says no such thing. The speaker is Jehovah, who is both the Holy one of Israel and the Maker of Israel. He is not speaking of some other maker, nor talking about some other maker within Him who is speaking. From Young's Literal translation:
Isa 45:11 Thus said Jehovah, The Holy One of Israel, and his Former: Ask Me of the things coming concerning My sons, Yea, concerning the work of My hands, ye command Me.'
55:5 ...shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel.
This verse does not declare your previous claim either. It does not call the Son "holy because of the invisible Father that is in Him." I'll also mention your claim later that Christ is not Himself good, but is only good "because of the Father that is in Him." This is interesting too, as you are denying that Christ is Holy, even though the Spirit specifically calls Him a Holy thing to be born:
Luk_1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Note that the Spirit is not claiming that the "holy thing" is the Father within the Son. The "holy thing" is the Child Himself.
You also deny that Christ is sinless:
Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Heb 4:14-15)
If Christ was sinless because it was the Father in Him, then it was the Father who was "tempted like as we are" in the flesh, yet "without sin." Christ Himself, as you claim, is not good, but only the God that is in Him is good. In that case, Paul's lengthy discourse on the humanity of Christ is meaningless, since the humanity had nothing to do with our salvation at all, or with Christ sinlessness.
This is the height of sophistry, which you are reduced to because you know that if you admit that Christ is good, as the scripture teaches, that He must be God.
You can call it ‘my interpretation’, but, that is mostly what you offer, ...interpretations
Not true at all. As a matter of fact, I offer my verses without interpretation. When the scripture has Christ described as the "First and the Last" and the "Almighty," or the "Word" that was "with" God and is God, I understand it plainly. It is you who must "interpret" it, which, in the way you use it, is a concession that you make it say things it does not actually say. This is true for all your claims. Nowhere in the entirety of scripture will you find it explained or taught or even implied that when Christ is called God, that really, it's referring to someone other than Christ.
when you say the Father is in ‘unity’, but not literally one with Son, and not literally in him, contrary to what the Son spends half of the book of John explaining.
This is pure distortion. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "literally" one God, and I have declared that the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son. Learn our theology before daring to speak of it.
The man Jesus Christ can speak as God the Father because he has been GIVEN the authority to speak those words:
That goes without saying, as Christ who is in the "form of God," yet confirms Himself to the role of a servant. This does not negate His deity, no matter how hard you try to run from those verses. Your own verse betrays you when you try to claim that the "giving" of His words indicates inferiority. If the Father and the Son are indeed "one," then they are equal.
The Jews then wanted to stone him, for they knew that God was not a man. They were right about that, but, they could NOT grasp that the Father is in Christ, giving him all power; giving him the Words and works to prove the annointing.
Yet that is not what your own verse says:
"I and my Father are one."
If Christ was merely saying that God was in Him, then this has been true for all the Prophets since the beginning of revelation. He would have directly said "The Father is in me." The Jews understood that He was claiming to be God, which is exactly what they say:
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Your view can only work if the Jews themselves meant "You blaspheme because you say God is in you." But that's stupid. Why would it be blasphemy to say what is true for all the prophets?
I'll also add that no one else every understood these verses as you do. No one out there is reading these verses of Christ being called and saying to themselves that it means something else. Only you are so deluded that you can read such direct claims and say something different.
Ignatius, for example, who was a disciple of the Apostle John who died between 95AD and 115AD, never held to any of your teachings:
". . . united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our GOD" (Ignatius, First Epistle to the Ephesians)
So why did it take 2000 years for you to figure out what the Jews and everybody else misunderstood? And why is taking something at face value no longer a valid way of reading anything?
I honestly don’t know how anyone can read this passage and not see that God the Father is THE omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent source of the Christ power:
This is another irrelevant argument. When I said that Christ is eternally begotten, obviously I mean that there is a priority in the Godhead, with the Father "begetting" His Son, His Word, from eternity. There is a priority in the Godhead, but not a superiority and inferiority, as there cannot be more than one "Almighty," or more than one "Self-existant one'. The only thing the Father can "beget" must of itself be divine, and the Father is the sustaining and simultaneous cause of the Son, yet, this from eternity. There was never a time that the Father was without His Word. The same language Christ uses of His Father, is used by the Father towards the Son, who calls Him specifically "Yahweh".
Compare the quotation of Psalm 102:22, which Paul describes as the Father's speech to the Son. The LORD in our KJV in that Psalms is Yahweh, the name of God.
yeh-ho-vaw' From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.
If the Father calls the Son self-existant, then He is God. With the Father, the Son has always existed, is always "begotten," is always in the bosom of the Father. And the Father is never without a Son, never without His Word, never without His Wisdom, never without His power. And the Holy Spirit, who filled the Son on Earth, and fills us now, who is the Spirit of God and of Christ, was never not proceeding from the Father and the Son.
There is no need to interpret those words, unless one wants to suit a desire for separate ‘persons of ‘God’.
The hypocrisy of this is that you have created seperate "persons of God," you just refuse to call them God, even though that's what the scripture quite clearly says of them.
That is made possible by God the Father; defined by the Christ as a Spirit (Jn 4:23,24)
If God is making someone else omnipresent, then He has made a separate God, as this is a divine attribute. The scripture teaches there is only one God. The Son is omnipresent because He is God, exactly as the scripture teaches.
The MIND of Christ IS the Father. (remember, the man Christ Jesus said the words were not his own). The Son had his own will, but, it was tied to the flesh, just like ours is. The BIG difference is this: With the Father IN him, he had the power to remain sinless, and do the will of the Father.
You deny the pre-existence of the Son from eternity if you claim He had no will, or that His will was "tied to the flesh". He is described as being both "with God" and as God from the beginning, and that He was only "made flesh", as described in John 1, later.
That is what I mean by ‘your interpretations’. “Eternally begotten”....?? “The Holy Spirit proceeds from both”.....Do you mean that one can send the Holy Ghost out on a mission if the other is too busy to?
Christ is said to be "eternally" begotten, because it is not possible for the Father to exist without His Wisdom, His "Logos," or His power, or to even be a Father at all without a Son. This is not interpretation in your style, where you have nothing. This is based on the scriptures I've referenced all throughout, which say what I have claimed quite clearly. As for your comment about the Holy Spirit, I thought you said you were educated in the Trinity? If you don't know what I mean, then you lied to me, or you are deluded about how much you thought you knew.
You see....Jesus Christ HAD to go away, OR the Comforter wasn’t going to come. He had comforted the disciples with his physical presence, fully displaying the power of the Father. “I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you”. The Father is so completely knit with the soul of the Son (they are one), that the Father can share that ‘mind of Christ’ in the baptism of the Holy Ghost (which proceeds from the Father).
This is confusion: If the Father and Son are "one", then you repudiate your Jehovah's Witness claim of the Son being created, but declare the Son to be a different mode of the Father. This is back again to Oneness heresy, which is sorted with John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God..." If the Son is with God and is God, He did not cease His existence and get absorbed back into the Father. He returns to being "with" God, and maintains being "God," the second member of the trinity. Furthermore, Christ specifically declares that He has not ceased to exist, but is standing on the right hand of the Father, glorified again to what He was "before the world was," as previously quoted.
Yes, God the Father, who begat the Son, has appointed him heir of ALL things, BY whom (the Son) also he (God the Father) made the worlds.
The Father identifies Christ as Yahweh who "laid the foundations" of the Earth. This clearly indicates that Christ is God, and not merely a "tool" of God, like a wrench or a hammer. You seem to move back and forth between Modalism and the JW view. You should pick one and keep it. The Son is the express image of the invisible God. Notice, that all the salutations to the saints, call God the Father, and Jesus Christ as Lord. Notice the comma is after ‘Father’, NOT after ‘God’. Or else the salutations would be “God, the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”; which seems to be the way you portray it.
An empty statement, as Christ is clearly called God, which is why you must resort to the sophistry of Him only kidding whenever it is so applied.
Tit 2:13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
And the Son of God told his disciples: “..handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have”. Luke 24:39.
Are you denying again the pre-existence of the Son? If the Word was made flesh, He was not flesh beforehand.
You’re interpreting. Then you should put a comma in there where there currently isn’t (in the KJV anyway).
I'm not interpreting, the passage does not require a comma.
You replied with more ‘yopios’:
What, did you morph from Jehovah's Witness to Oneness Pentecostal to Catholic all in one post? Where's your magisterium? Don't copy the Catholics with their "your own personal intepretation of scripture" just because you see them in this thread. They all think you're going to hell too, and it makes no sense when someone like you, who does not even know the theological arguments of his cult, uses it. You are the definition of "your own personal interpretation of scripture."
I’ll offer an interpretation of ‘made flesh’: “The express image of the invisible God”. Like I said before, if you believe that the flesh of the Son is a separate and distinct person of God, then you must believe that Mary is the ‘mother of God’.
IOW, you are accusing me of saying that Christ is "fully man," when I only ever said that Christ is truly man and truly God. I did not claim that the Word lost His divine nature and became purely a creature of flesh. This is again more evidence that you know nothing of Christian theology. You are either ignorant of our position or purposely distorting it.
So when the Son says that God the Father is a Spirit, and John, who I certainly trust WAAYYY more than you, declared: NO man hath seen God at any time. 1Jn 4:12
A stupid response. Instead of interpreting 1 John 4:12 in light of all the passages which declare that God has been seen, you are asking me to believe that one verse is more scripture than the others.
The MIND of Christ IS the Father.
Are you saying that Christ had no mind? And there is no verse which says this. The Father is the Head of Christ, and Christ is our Head, but we are not mindless (1 Co 11:3). This is your invention.
So, you have three Spirits in you when you are born again? Well, I’ll be looking for the book you’re going to write that tells what Spirit can do this thing, but not this or that other thing, which only the other Spirit can do, etc.
More distortion, I said that we have the Holy Spirit, who is called both the Spirit of God and of Christ. You also didn't respond to the point of that verse: If the Holy Spirit dwells in us, and we are called the temples of God, then the Holy Spirit must be fully God.
So, the apostles completely blew it by baptizing in the name of Jesus everywhere they went. That, or they understood that the name of Jesus covers the requirements...Repeating a command is not necessarily obeying a command: My boss can tell me to “go and deliver that shipment to the customer in the name of the Founder, CEO, and felloworker of this Company. His name is none of those; they’re titles. (His name is on the trucks, too).
This is merely diversion. The Apostles baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as commanded. Nowhere does it say that they did not do this. Nor does your objection answer the problem posed by the verse:
That the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are differentiated and equalized in the baptismal formula. Unless that verse is not scripture, then this is a nut you must chew on. If the "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are merely titles of God, then you must believe that the Son and Holy Spirit are properly God, even though you confound the persons. If you confound the persons, why are they separated, and why are they always separated in scripture? Lastly, you again revert back to a Oneness Argument, after spending most of the post arguing that the Son isn't God at all, or God hiding under a different title.
How can I take you seriously when I find myself debating a Jehovah's Witness sometimes, and then a Oneness Pentecostal on other times, when these differing arguments destroy each other? Are you able to think rationally enough to understand the problem of claiming that Christ is not God, and then claiming that Christ is a mode of God?
I believe the Lord was testing the young ruler, to see if he would confess to knowing that God was in Christ. How could Christ be good without the Father? But, we don’t have to worry about that.
Well of course we do. We have to worry about it because you are saying that Christ (who is sometimes God and sometimes not in your claims) expected the young ruler to know something He never explained, and absolutely contradicted, when calling Himself God. You even claim that you know you are "interpreting," which, in your usage, means you're making up random stuff that is nowhere actually explained.
So, the phrase ‘God the Son’ is used by the Son, and by the Apostles in the scriptures. And what version of the Bible would that be? So, you (and those likeminded, believe that you are better than they at defining God?
A sad diversion, but one I expect from the cultists of FR. When nailed to the wall, they shut their eyes. Is Jesus Christ called God? Do the Pharisees recognize the term "Son of God" as declaring equality with God? Yes or no? It's that simple. Though, with you, I suspect it will not be so simple.
So, which of the three Spirits (you have indicated the three persons are divine Spirits) is the one which led him into the wilderness?
You accused me of being a politician, and yet, you not only distort my position but you ignore the problem. When the scripture declares that Christ was filled by the Holy Ghost, was it telling the truth? Yes or no?
This will cause you a problem depending on whether you are in Jehovah's Witness mode or Oneness Pentecostal mode. Were you a JW who converted to Oneness?
I said: When the Christ said that the Father is in him doing the works (Jn 14:10), was he telling the truth?
It is most certainly true, and Christ is here referring to His miracles, which were done with the power of the Holy Spirit. On Earth, Christ did not use His own power, but lived the perfect human life. He "took upon the form of a servant," and lived accordingly. This is not a claim that Christ has no existence or being. That is your "interpretation", based on your own assumptions, which ignores Christ's divinity and pre-existence, depending on whatever theological theory you are holding to at the moment, anyway.
Can’t miss on that. Since the Father is omnipresent, the Son is definitely in the Father. And the Father is in Son, GIVING the Son all power in heaven and in earth.
A pure example of sophistry: So, in other words, the Son is not really in the Father in the same way that the Father is in Him. Is that what you are saying? True or false?
Thank you very much for the encouragement!
As all believers are.
Of course, at the end, they of course say it is “figurative” go figure, whenever something does not fit Protestant doctrine, the literal all of a sudden becomes figurative.
I see. So Paul was literally sacrificing Gentiles. The endo cannibalism has affected the Catholic cortex. Go figure, whenever something does not fit Protestant doctrine, the figurative all of a sudden becomes literal.
The structure of the text and the word use do connote priestly ministry and as I said earlier, a the Greek root from where we get the English “Liturgy” is also in the text.
So while the word Hierus was not used, the word “hierogon” is derived from its root.
Which still fails to title Paul a hierus, or show him having a uniquely sacrificial function, or hierus directly as being the root, while the root word does not necessarily mean the same thing as its derivative, or make it exclusive here to priest. Now, I accept those councils because I believe Christ sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church to teach orthodoxy and to be a visible sign of that orthodoxy down thru time till the 2nd coming. End of discussion.
Meaning that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
Which again nukes the church, which actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation.
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
End of discussion
daniel1212:
No, it is allegorical language that Christ sees his work among the gentiles as a “priestly role” in that his work with the gentiles is to offer them as a sacrifice to God, so it has allegorical notion to it yes, but it points to reality of priesthood. The Protestant interpretation here means figuratively, Paul did not see his ministry at all as a Priest. He did, and he certainly had a Liturgical/Sacerdotal understanding of the Eucharist as indicated in his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians.
His priesthood is not his own, but is ultimately linked to the priesthood of Christ, the one eternal Priest, Saint Paul, as all ordained clergy with sacerdotal functions only make present through their ministerial priesthood the one eternal Priest, Christ. It is Christ priesthood acting in and through his Church, in particular ways with the ordained Priests and Bishops [administering sacraments of Eucharist, Annointing of the Sick, reconciliation, etc] and in a certain way with the entire Church, the universal priesthood as stated in the 1 Letter of Peter.
In your dreams.
Denominational affiliation does not mean anything. That's because we don't think our salvation is tied to the church we attend or are members of.
Our unity is being the body of Christ by being born again into it.
I'm not against anything but false teaching, teaching that does not line up with Scripture.
When I see it, I speak against it, be it Catholic, Mormon, Pentecostal, whatever.
I will reply more completely later (my wife has my weekend mostly booked).
You continue to believe that you can write a better witness than Jesus Christ and the apostles, demanding that ‘God the Son’ is an equally good description to the formers ‘Son of God’
You continue to believe that the apostles baptized in the titles, instead of the name of Jesus, which is the name the Word says they used. You have a rewrite in the works? (”Thou shalt call his name Son...”)
You contiue to believe that God is three Spirits. Two of which ‘fathered’ the Son’s flesh (although the Holy Ghost actually performed the miracle, making the Father an adoptive parent). And you believe that the Son voluntarily didn’t use his ‘separate and distinct’ power while here on earth. Whereas, I believe the power of the Son has always been, and always will be, the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God the Father.
You believe that all three are co-equal and none created. I’ve been on this earth for almost 60 yrs, raised cattle, hogs, chickens, dogs, cats, and sons. Every last one had only ONE head. They had members with which to perform various tasks. Is your tongue co-equal with your brain, or does your brain have absolute mastery over your tongue? Or is your ‘word’ a completely separate and distinct person from you? (clue: we are made in the image of God, but we are not made in the likeness of ‘God the image’, because there is no such thing. And you just toss aside John’s witness of God’s invisibility. More of your convenient interpretations)
The Son is the invisible Father’s most excellent means of displaying his divine attributes to the rest of creation.
And you continue to not touch this:
Jesus Christ declared throughout the book of John that EVERY single thing divine is sourced back to the Father. THE CHALLENGE IS FOR YOU: SHOW ME WHERE HE POSSESSSED ONE SINGLE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE THAT DID NOT COME FROM THE FATHER. SHOW ME ONE SINGLE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE THAT THE FATHER RECEIVED FROM THE SON.
**Ignatius, for example, who was a disciple of the Apostle John who died between 95AD and 115AD, never held to any of your teachings: “. . . united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our GOD” (Ignatius, First Epistle to the Ephesians)**
One of King David’s messengers, Ahimaaz, was considered a good man. David knew him personally. He was good at his job, especially at getting a messge delivered quickly (even knowing short cuts). But, there were things that he didn’t have right in a critical moment......because,.....he wasn’t .....a first...hand...witness to the facts. I’m sticking John.
Car’s packed. Adios, I’ll reply as soon as I can.
metmom:
I really don’t care what you think. You obviously decided to chime in on post that was not directed to you regarding my consistent request when being pinged by members of the FR Protestant brigade to disclose which among the various protestant sects “they” belong to. I have made this request to you years ago but you hide behind your “invisible body” theology, which is inherently Gnostic [i.e. Christ Body in the context of a Church is an invisible body notion].
Like I said, I am sitting back eating popcorn and watching the “Sola scriptura” tit for tat between a self described Reform Protestant and self described “Oneness Pentecostal” both are appealing to the plain text of scripture that they are reading and interpreting yet we have this sola scriptura tit for tat.
My theory is if all, or perhaps a substantial majority, of the FR Protestant brigades here [Protestant being used here in the broadest context, since most here do not disclose which among the various protestant sects they belong to] disclose which protestant group they belong to, we all would get to see more “sola scriptura” and “sola meo ego” battles between various members the FR protestants that post here.
Of course, I would need to make sure my wife buys lots more popcorn for me to eat when I come here.
Edit:
I meant “No is allegorical language that Saint Paul sees his work among the Gentiles....
This is a public forum open to comments by any who are members.
If you don't like what you hear from those you disagree with, then you have the option to stick to caucus threads.
I have made this request to you years ago but you hide behind your “invisible body” theology, which is inherently Gnostic [i.e. Christ Body in the context of a Church is an invisible body notion].
The body is Christ is visible in the individuals which comprise it. I am a member of the body of Christ by having been born again and placed into it by the Holy Spirit.
The body of Christ is an organism, not an organization. Denominational affiliation does not save. It does not necessarily mean that one has to agree with everything that denomination says in its statements of faith. There are good and bad individual church in every denomination as there are Christians and non-Christians in every church.
There are valid reasons for not revealing personal information on FR, least of which is not compromising one's screen name.
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.