That's a bizarre statement. The bible clearly lays out the form in Ephesians 4:11-12. The bible lays out the qualifications for elders and deacons in 1 Tim 3 and in Titus. The bible lays out a church service in 1 Cor 14:27 to 37. Are those not good enough?
That's a bizarre statement. The bible clearly lays out the form in Ephesians 4:11-12. The bible lays out the qualifications for elders and deacons in 1 Tim 3 and in Titus. The bible lays out a church service in 1 Cor 14:27 to 37. Are those not good enough?
What they mean is that Jesus did not designate the Church of Rome as His specific church organization....... Naming Peter "Rocky," didn't do it!
This is what makes sense to me:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-corinthians-14-27.html
That's a bizarre statement. The bible clearly lays out the form in Ephesians 4:11-12. The bible lays out the qualifications for elders and deacons in 1 Tim 3 and in Titus.
And in which Bishops and elders refer to those in one office: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position). Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also what were ordained for every church in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1.
And in referring to which the Spirit of Christ never uses the distinctive words for a separate sacerdotal class of clergy (“hiereus” and “archiereus", over 280 times in the NT, denoting for Old Testament kohen or their pagan equivlents) known in English as "priests."
While the English word "priest" is a etymological corruption of the Greek presbuteros, being referred to in Old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," the problem is that Catholicism translates both hiereus and presbuteros as "priest." thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers.
All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere are NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distinctive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, and Catholicism attempts to justify using the same distinctive word for both OT "ko^he^n" and NT presbuteros via an imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbuteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.
The bible lays out a church service in 1 Cor 14:27 to 37.
And 1 Cor 11, in which, besides "not discerning the body" contextually referring to the nature of the church in its unity with Christ who bought it, the Lord's supper is shown to be part of a meal, as it was in the Lord's institution of it, not a solitary bit of bread and wine, though the giving of that representative bread and the cup took place within it.
Nothing bizarre about it...totally accurate. JESUS only writings on this earth were some fingermarks in dirt. THE APOSTLES wrote down the structures you refer to, after having received them ORALLY (i.e. "tradition") from Christ before (and after) his Resurrection but before his Ascension (and, of course, by inspiration after his Ascension).