Posted on 07/26/2014 4:41:46 AM PDT by michaelwlf3
I am coming up on my first year as an ordained minister in a continuing Anglican church, and I have noticed that participating on political forums (even when the topic is religious) I find that my opinions and postings more often than not generate more hatred than anything else. Among the things I often hear are that the laity are the real priests and that I am a Pharisee, that my vocation disqualifies me from offering an opinion on anything Christian because I am too narrow minded, and (my personal favorite) because I look too Catholic I must be a child molester.
Are these people really Christians?
Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided that is how they should do it.
If Peter had the authority he should have simply said, "I appoint so and so to replace Judas." That he didn't proves Peter recognized he did not have that authority you claim he did.
That is what a Gentile ruler would do, is it not ? Try to think about it as a Jew, and not just as a Jew, but a Jew led by the Spirit of God who was chief of all the apostles by being the humble servant of all the apostles.
And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. 25And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. 27For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. 28Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. 29And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 30That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
There was also a criteria placed on Judas' replacement. The new man had to "have accompanied ua all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us..." Nobody, after about 120 AD, would have met that criteria. That this requirement, ironically, as laid down by Peter, can no longer be fulfilled, shows the concept of apostolic succession is not found in the NT.
Except that Peter, who bound the first rule of apostolic succession, would have the authority to appoint his successor with different criteria. That his appointment of a successor is not recorded in Scripture as an example does not require that all the decisions he ever made while leading the holy catholic apostolic church also be recorded in Scripture. The pattern was established. Bishops were appointed and successors were named from the First Century until now.
They had the authority for anything the holy catholic apostolic church required. All they had to do was ask in the Spirit. Many things that the LORD Jesus said and did are not "in the text." Many things the Apostles said and did are not "in the text." Sola Scriptura is not "in the text." What is "in the text" is that Peter, and the other Apostles, had the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and loose.
Chief of the Apostles....again...no biblical support for such a title. That same argument could be made for Paul or James and maybe even John.
One thing I will say about the RCC....they love giving out titles where none exists.
Except that Peter, who bound the first rule of apostolic succession, would have the authority to appoint his successor with different criteria.
So Peter just starts making stuff up??
Well, that would be in line with the RCC.
However, I would be very surprised that Peter would start making stuff up. He knew Who he was serving and what his responsibilities were....to preach the Word!
You guys really amaze me with what you come up with.
It's this way when it fits your outlook, but not this way when it doesn't.
Have you stopped beating your dog yet?
“They had the authority for anything the holy catholic apostolic church required. All they had to do was ask in the Spirit.”
I believe you misunderstand authority.
“Many things that the LORD Jesus said and did are not “in the text.””
Which means nothing. God chose not to include them. Therefore, unnecessary for the Church going forward.
“Many things the Apostles said and did are not “in the text.””
Which tells you God chose not to include them and they are unimportant to the Church going forward.
“Sola Scriptura is not “in the text.””
Sure it is. Scripture is the only inspired source. Everything else is to be judged by God’s inspired truth.
“What is “in the text” is that Peter, and the other Apostles, had the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and loose. “”
And yet the church at large disagrees as to what those words mean.
“One thing I will say about the RCC....they love giving out titles where none exists. “
Don’t forget the fancy outfits, hats, shoes, garments to go with each invented office...
Make the case for another if you believe so. Gainsaying is not much of a case. There is biblical support for a chief among the Apostles, a first among equals as it were, different from the Gentile view of rulership. And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. 25And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. 27For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. 28Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. 29And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 30That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
So Peter just starts making stuff up??
Do you also think Jesus just starts making stuff up because he said and did things that were not shared with you in the Scriptures ? Do you trust him and those to whom he delegated authority over you ?
Where is it "in the text ?"
unnecessary for the Church going forward. ... unimportant to the Church going forward.
Which Church precisely ?
“Where is it “in the text ?”
Where does Scripture say it is inspired and sufficient for salvation, Christian maturity, etc.? Seriously, you have to ask? There is no other God-breathed source.
“Which Church precisely ?”
Christ’s gathering - comprised of every local assembly anywhere on earth, formed of those who’ve entrusted themselves to His sacrifice alone for salvation. There is no other.
And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, 6And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. 7And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. 8The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. 9For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. 10When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. 11And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 13And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.
At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, [2] Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: [3] All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Christ’s gathering - comprised of every local assembly anywhere on earth, formed of those who’ve entrusted themselves to His sacrifice alone for salvation. There is no other.
No names; I guess that includes all 30,000 or so denominations and sects, possibly a few cults, which puts us right back in the problem of church anarchy. If a person "trusts himself to His sacrifice alone for salvation" he might go to any of those, or even the cults unless he gets someone to name names for him.
“You wrote that Sola Scriptura is “in the text.” I assume there is not a text but rather it is a doctrine that developed later. I wonder when and by whom the term was coined ?”
The term is not in the text. The term Trinity isn’t either. The teaching of both is “in the text.”
“No names; I guess that includes all 30,000 or so denominations and sects, possibly a few cults, which puts us right back in the problem of church anarchy. If a person “trusts himself to His sacrifice alone for salvation” he might go to any of those, or even the cults unless he gets someone to name names for him. “
No cult is comprised of believers who entrusted themselves to His sacrifice alone. It can include any denomination or no denomination. It can include a handful of illiterate natives in the darkest jungle who get together to pray and worship. They are his and gathered. It can be a “house church” or a gathering in a movie theater on Sunday. If they are His and gathered, they are a gathering.
No need for special uniforms, candles, beads, etc.
It also includes many Catholics.
narses,
I hope you are not arguing against reading and interpreting the Scriptures as believers are instructed to do?
Now, please post your fractal! Also some verses about breathing.
Make the case for another if you believe so. Gainsaying is not much of a case. There is biblical support for a chief among the Apostles, a first among equals as it were, different from the Gentile view of rulership.
Was Peter a leader in the group? Yes he was. But we also have evidence James was as well. I think Paul's leadership goes without speaking.
Peter was a leader, but not in the RCC view of a leader. The "keys of the kingdom of Heaven" the RCC claims that gives Peter the ultimate authority, and ultimately the papacy, was what?
What is the key to gaining entrance into Heaven?
Belief in Christ.
What did Peter preach in Acts 2:38-39 when the people asked what must we do to be saved?
The Gospel. That's the key. He preached it to the Jews first. Then Paul to the Gentiles.
How was he able to "forgive sins" or "retain sins"? By sharing with people that your sins are forgiven if you believe in Christ. How are sins retained? By rejecting Christ.
He proclaimed this in Acts 3:19. "Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord."
Was Peter the only one who preached the Gospel? No. Acts 8:4 tells us those scattered about went preaching the word. So this "authority" claimed by the RCC isn't just limited to Peter. Nor did he pass his "authority" to Paul nor anyone else.
Were there others who came after the Apostles? Sure there were. We also have others who were preaching the Word when the Apostles were alive as just noted in Acts 8:4.
But to assume that all authority has come from Peter and can only be found in the pope and the RCC is not biblical if one simply reads the text in their proper context.
Again...context is the key to interpreting the Bible correctly.
That is absurd, for in reality, is your church - if it even can be called that (yet even the church of the Laodiceans was) - that does not have Scriptural holy orders, as the NT nowhere teaches,
1. Ordaining a class of clergy distinctively titled "priests." (See post 180 before you try to defend it)
2. Ordaining pastors who uniquely offered sacrifices, in distinction from the "laity."
2. Ordaining pastors whose primary function was dispensing physical food which gave spiritual and eternal life, interpretive of the last supper gospel accounts, versus preaching the Word of God.
3. Ordaining clergy who are almost all required to make and keep a vow of celibacy, which is a gift, in contrast to being physical fathers.
Meanwhile, rather than rejecting ordination, it is evangelical churches such as ordain men according to the Scriptural requirements of 1Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9 that are the ones which believe in Scriptural holy orders.
And which government was part of historical Protestantism, as seen by the affirmation by Westminster:
The Lord Jesus, as king and head of His Church, has therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.
Church censures are necessary,..For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition; suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.
It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same;.. - http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
Your objection must be that these magisterial authorities are not held as assuredly infallible, as per Rome, and thus it is possible that the "laity" can be correct and that they are not.
And which means that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
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.
But which is not Scriptural but fallacious, as can be shown by God's grace if you care to argue it.
No. Jesus doesn't make stuff up. The RCC however does.
I am glad you recognize we do not have everything Jesus ever said or did recorded. As John notes the whole world wouldn't be able to contain them.
I believe in Him and Him alone as the Bible tells us that is the only way to have eternal life.
I follow the Biblical instructions regarding honor to "whom honor is due".
I also follow the Biblical instruction to test every spirit.
1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
I have tested the teachings of the RCC and find many that are false prophets that have gone out into the world.
A lay minister indeed.
Indeed, but it was not a church that presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
And that disallows evangelical churches from even being called churches and having the authority to preach.
Moreover, the faith of the NT church was not one,
being presided over by a pope the whole church looked to as it supreme infallible head in Rome, and being taught that he was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18?
Or even a successor for the martyred apostle James (Acts 12:1,2) being chosen like Matthias was and after that manner (Acts 1, in order to keep the original number of apostles)?
And a separate sacerdotal class of believers titled "priests ," as they uniquely changed bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the masses to receive life in them and eternal life (RCs keep quoting Jn. 6:53,54 to us)?
And a hierarchical order of priests, bishops, Cardinals, etc., with ostentatious religious dress and titles, including "Most Reverend?"
And required (with rare exceptions) clerical celibacy, which presumes all such have that gift.
And incognizant (usually) souls being formally justified by interior holiness via sprinkling of water in recognition of proxy faith, and (usually) ending up becoming good enough to enter Heaven in purgatory ?
And a separate class of believers called “saints,
And praying to the departed, or angels, and before images?
And the apostles teaching Mary was born and kept sinless?
And a church that conformed to this world in using papal sanctioned physical oppression torture, burning and death to deal with theological dissent
Or who, having lost that power, treats even notorious manifestly impenitent public sinners as members in life and in death, in contrast to the NT means of disfellowship and spiritual discipline.
And which members overall come in near last in things such as evangelism, commitment, and personal Bible reading, the latter which it hindered for a long time, and later sanctions teaching millions such things as that OT miraculous stories are fables or folktales, etc.
And teaches that the deity Muslims worship (not as unknown) is the same as theirs.
And which boasts of unity while discouraging objectively searching the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of RC doctrine, while (on the other hand) lacking certainty about all the things they must hold as certain, and seeing varying degrees of interpretation by the magisterium, as well in the great liberty they have to interpret Scripture in order to support Rome.
This must suffice for now.
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.