The Barrd said:
Why do we need a man to interpret Scripture for us?
I don't know that any denomination has "a man" interpreting scripture (maybe Mormonism?) rather a group of men guided by the Holy Spirit? It was a group of men who canonized the bible via inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Can we not read for ourselves?
Why do we need a man to tell us what we ought to believe?
Did not God give us our own minds?
Read it, interpret it and decide what YOU believe. But then you have acknowledge that everyones individual (and contradictory) interpretation is just as valid as yours which then nullifies/denies the existence of unity or sanity in the Body of Christ and that makes a mockery of the absolute truth and unity Christians say they have. I have seen on this website some mocking the beliefs of the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Westboro Baptist and Catholics. Who has the right to condemn/mock them if they are interpreting scripture according to their own private judgment?
There is only One Lord.
And there is only One Faith.
There is only One Authority over the Church, and that is the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ. There is no other authority men must obey, other than Christ.
Don't all denominations think they follow Christ? But yet they all have different beliefs of "the truth" that they follow.
One day, I fear, we will find that all of this division, all of these "denominations", all of this petty arguing over "doctrine" has brought shame to the church, and to our Lord. We have been wicked children, tearing the Body of Christ into over 40,000 little pieces and scattering it to the winds...
It sounds like you, as I am , seeking for authority on the interpretation of scripture so that the truth won't be scattered into the winds!! However, I feel it already has been scattered especially since the reformation. I believe the reformation was necessary but it sure did fracture Christianity into 40,000 little pieces!!
What makes any given branch of Christianity an authority over my life?
- Thread starter Allegiant
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Wormwood
Chaps
I suppose, but that could get a bit confusing. "There is a popular Roman Catholic catechism, based on a quote from the New Revised Version of the New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha in the introduction that says, ...." I am happy to provide sources for anything I quote, but I can assure you my quotes do not come from some hack off the internet, but are all from well known, trusted and published sources. Feel free to ask about anything I quote and I will be happy to give you the information behind it. So, I try to provide some research in these conversations while maintaining the flow of the conversation without turning them into dry, formal research papers or dissertations. I just dont have the time to provide detailed footnotes and backgrounds of everything. But if you ask I am certainly willing to do so.
Where is your source for this? I can quote a lot of sources that disagree with this historical interpretation. The only councils you have sited on the matter were local councils in the Latin church and were not reflective of the Church as a whole...which is evident from the writings of many church leaders and translations of the Scriptures throughout the early church. Most is a relative term. The fact is that there was not a universal declaration on the matter as we have with the cannonization of the NT books and so forth. The decisions on this matter were localized and differed from one writer to another.
Haha, little words make a big difference.
Jesus affirmed the authority of the religious leaders, but that did not mean he accepted their interpretation or traditions. In fact, he condemned them on multiple occasions because their "traditions" were in violation of God's Word. So yes, he encouraged people to be submissive to their authority (we see Paul do the same) but he also publicly taught that their teachings on issues like divorce, using the lex talionis as rational for personal vengeance or hatred, using the Sabbath as rationale to ignore the needy, and, most importantly, their rejection of him who was the pinnacle of all the Scriptures was blindness on their part. He made it clear that they would be judged by the word of God...no matter what their traditions or rabbis proclaimed.
I dont think that is the point Peter is getting at. He is encouraging the people to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus so they are not decieved by false teachers. Peter has been explaining the traits of these false teachers throughout the letter with phrases like, "sensual," "denying the Master who bought them," "bold and wilful," they "blaspheme about matters of which they are ignorant," "eyes full of adultery," "insatiable for sin," and so forth. To suggest this is a plea for only allowing interpretation to come through the locally appointed bishop is way off the mark in my opinion.
On the other hand, we see many texts that suggest that individuals are capable of understanding, growing in and are accountable for what is written in the Scriptures. Here are just a few texts that make this evident...
“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30–31, ESV)
“for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’ ”” (Luke 16:28–31, ESV)
“I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.” (1 Thessalonians 5:27, ESV)
Of course the Holy Spirit empowers some to teach. Yet, there is no verse that suggests that the only ones who teach are those who are appointed as the official bishop of a local congregation. Rather, Paul seems to teach that while elders should be able to teach, teachers are not limited to elders. In fact, Paul encouraged the Corinthians to pray for the ability to prophesy (1 Cor. 14:1). Teaching and proclamation was not limited to the local bishop/interpreter nor was the ability to discern between spirits.
This is another reason why I am partial to the Protestant eccelsiology. While still far from perfect, it does a better job of permitting an atmosphere of the priesthood of all believers. The notion that the Church is some kind of temple where people come in to receive grace through sacraments that are bestowed upon them by the professional clergy is far far far from anything we see in the Scriptures. Rather, we see people coming together with a local leadership and everyone participates using the gifts they have from the Spirit to teach, encourage, give, admonish, administrate, and so forth. Spiritual maturity comes through service to others in the body as Christians gather, not being served by the local leadership (cf. Eph. 4:11-12).
It is possible for a protestant church to be in error just as it is possible for a local bishop in a Catholic church to be in error. The error of such people (Mormons included) is based not on what the local authority says, but based on the word of God. The good news is that God is gracious to us in our errors so long as we are seeking him in faith. We are called to exhibit love to one another in our differences. Of course, I would consider Mormonism as a separate religion since it is so far outside the basic teachings of the Bible. So, in my estimation, we do have the truth. The truth comes from God's word, not an individual who speaks on God's behalf. God does not use a levitical priesthood or solitary prophets to reveal himself or his word anymore. He spoke through his Son and we have the testimony of his Son in the Spirit-inspired Scriptures.
What is the purpsoe of inspiration if we cannot understand the Bible apart from a designated interpreter/bishop to tell us what it means? To me, this seems like nonsense. Inspiration has no purpose because it doesnt mean anything to the masses but only to the one who has been gifted to understand and interpret it for the waiting masses. No, inspiration means that the Spirit guided the words that were written so they are both true and attainable by average, ordinary people. This is why these letters were circulated, copied and read publicly. They didnt need someone to read it and then provide an interpretation. They simply read them and understood that the listening audience was able to grasp the meaning without a mediator, because they were inspired, true and understandable.
As for differences of opinion on Scripture, notice how Paul doesnt say, "Go to the local bishop and have that person give you the God ordained truth on the matter." Even as an Apostle, he doesnt point to those in authority as the final arbitrators of such things. Rather, he says,
“As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” (Romans 14:1–5, ESV)
The means of dealing with division is not to appoint one person's opinion as divine or the only opinion that should matter among Christians. No, the way Scripture calls us to deal with divisive behavior is with love, compassion and the ability to maintain both personal conviction with loving concern of the other.
Wormwood said:I suppose, but that could get a bit confusing. "There is a popular Roman Catholic catechism, based on a quote from the New Revised Version of the New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha in the introduction that says, ...." I am happy to provide sources for anything I quote, but I can assure you my quotes do not come from some hack off the internet, but are all from well known, trusted and published sources. I searched the Catechism website for your quote...I went to the source. Feel free to ask about anything I quote and I will be happy to give you the information behind it. So, I try to provide some research in these conversations while maintaining the flow of the conversation without turning them into dry, formal research papers or dissertations. I just dont have the time to provide detailed footnotes and backgrounds of everything. But if you ask I am certainly willing to do so.
Where is your source for this? The writings of the apostolic fathers and the councils I mentioned earlier. I can quote a lot of sources that disagree with this historical interpretation. The only councils you have sited on the matter were local councils in the Latin church and were not reflective of the Church as a whole...which is evident from the writings of many church leaders and translations of the Scriptures throughout the early church. Most is a relative term. The fact is that there was not a universal declaration on the matter as we have with the cannonization of the NT books and so forth. The decisions on this matter were localized and differed from one writer to another.
Haha, little words make a big difference.
Jesus affirmed the authority of the religious leaders, but that did not mean he accepted their interpretation or traditions. In fact, he condemned them on multiple occasions because their "traditions" were in violation of God's Word. So yes, he encouraged people to be submissive to their authority (we see Paul do the same) but he also publicly taught that their teachings on issues like divorce, using the lex talionis as rational for personal vengeance or hatred, using the Sabbath as rationale to ignore the needy, and, most importantly, their rejection of him who was the pinnacle of all the Scriptures was blindness on their part. He made it clear that they would be judged by the word of God...no matter what their traditions or rabbis proclaimed.
I dont think that is the point Peter is getting at. He is encouraging the people to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus so they are not decieved by false teachers. Peter has been explaining the traits of these false teachers throughout the letter with phrases like, "sensual," "denying the Master who bought them," "bold and wilful," they "blaspheme about matters of which they are ignorant," "eyes full of adultery," "insatiable for sin," and so forth. To suggest this is a plea for only allowing interpretation to come through the locally appointed bishop is way off the mark in my opinion.
That is your opinion but what is the truth?? And who do I get that truth, instead of your opinion, from?
On the other hand, we see many texts that suggest that individuals are capable of understanding, growing in and are accountable for what is written in the Scriptures. Here are just a few texts that make this evident...
“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30–31, ESV)
“for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’ ”” (Luke 16:28–31, ESV)
“I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.” (1 Thessalonians 5:27, ESV)
Of course the Holy Spirit empowers some to teach. Yet, there is no verse that suggests that the only ones who teach are those who are appointed as the official bishop of a local congregation. Rather, Paul seems to teach that while elders should be able to teach, teachers are not limited to elders. In fact, Paul encouraged the Corinthians to pray for the ability to prophesy (1 Cor. 14:1). Teaching and proclamation was not limited to the local bishop/interpreter nor was the ability to discern between spirits.
This is another reason why I am partial to the Protestant eccelsiology. While still far from perfect, it does a better job of permitting an atmosphere of the priesthood of all believers. The notion that the Church is some kind of temple where people come in to receive grace through sacraments that are bestowed upon them by the professional clergy is far far far from anything we see in the Scriptures. Rather, we see people coming together with a local leadership and everyone participates using the gifts they have from the Spirit to teach, encourage, give, admonish, administrate, and so forth. Spiritual maturity comes through service to others in the body as Christians gather, not being served by the local leadership (cf. Eph. 4:11-12).
It is possible for a protestant church to be in error just as it is possible for a local bishop in a Catholic church to be in error. The error of such people (Mormons included) is based not on what the local authority says, but based on the word of God. The good news is that God is gracious to us in our errors so long as we are seeking him in faith. We are called to exhibit love to one another in our differences. Of course, I would consider Mormonism as a separate religion since it is so far outside the basic teachings of the Bible. So, in my estimation, we do have the truth. The truth comes from God's word, not an individual who speaks on God's behalf. God does not use a levitical priesthood or solitary prophets to reveal himself or his word anymore. He spoke through his Son and we have the testimony of his Son in the Spirit-inspired Scriptures.
What is the purpsoe of inspiration if we cannot understand the Bible apart from a designated interpreter/bishop to tell us what it means? To me, this seems like nonsense. Inspiration has no purpose because it doesnt mean anything to the masses but only to the one who has been gifted to understand and interpret it for the waiting masses. No, inspiration means that the Spirit guided the words that were written so they are both true and attainable by average, ordinary people. This is why these letters were circulated, copied and read publicly. They didnt need someone to read it and then provide an interpretation. They simply read them and understood that the listening audience was able to grasp the meaning without a mediator, because they were inspired, true and understandable.
As for differences of opinion on Scripture, notice how Paul doesnt say, "Go to the local bishop and have that person give you the God ordained truth on the matter." Even as an Apostle, he doesnt point to those in authority as the final arbitrators of such things. Rather, he says,
“As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” (Romans 14:1–5, ESV)
The means of dealing with division is not to appoint one person's opinion as divine or the only opinion that should matter among Christians. No, the way Scripture calls us to deal with divisive behavior is with love, compassion and the ability to maintain both personal conviction with loving concern of the other.
Not when they had division in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem. They got together, discussed, argued (whatever you want to call it) and then a decision was made as to what is binding on all Christians. It wasn't one persons opinion. It was a group of men, guided by the Holy Spirit, and then one MAN made the pronouncement for the group. That is the way Scripture calls us to deal with divisive behavior AND "If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. In other words we kick them out of our little group we call Christianity.So WHO or WHAT is The Church that makes the decision to treat them like a pagan or tax collector. It seems no one on this forum can answer me.
I don't know about you, but I have been curious about what those men may have left out.tom55 said:
Why do we need a man to interpret Scripture for us?
I don't know that any denomination has "a man" interpreting scripture (maybe Mormonism?) rather a group of men guided by the Holy Spirit? It was a group of men who canonized the bible via inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
So, I've done a bit of exploring of my own.
I've read a few of those "other gospels"...I didn't find any new information in any of them.
But I was impressed by Enoch. Look for "The Dead Sea Scrolls" if you're interested.
You do know how to ask me the hard questions, don't you?
So, let's think about the beliefs of Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Westboro Baptists, and Catholics...what the heck, the gray cells could use a bit of a workout.
Mormons...okay, Mormons.
This one is easy. Mormons believe that God was once a man, just like you and I...well, you, anyway -_- ...who lived on another planet and who worshiped the god of that planet. He was such a good follower of that god, that that god raised him up to be a God, and gave Him His Own planet to play with....and the Mormons believe that, if they are good followers of this God, that they, too, will be raised up to be gods of their own planets.
You can find the story of Joseph Smith and the "Golden Plates" online, if you're curious. If you're really curious, they will send you a free copy of the Book of Mormon.
Jehovah Witnesses...
Not much better. They, too, have their own special version of the Bible...translated from the Hebrew and the Greek by a group of "scholars". One problem, though....only one of them had any training at all in these languages...and that, not much.
In their version, Jesus is divine...well, sort of. He becomes sort of a "demi-god". Still a deity...but a lesser deity.
Westboro Baptists...
Mmmm....this is a tough one.
Their whole focus seems to be against gays.
Of course, they are quite right...God's law expressly forbids gay sex. And we, as Christians, need to speak out against it.
However, they seem to have forgotten the weightier matters of the law...such as mercy, and forgiveness.
I just don't see picketing a funeral, where a family is grieving over their lost loved one, as appropriate, do you?
Oh, and there are a few other sins that are rampant in our society today, that, for some reason, Westboro seems to ignore.
There just seems to be a lack of balance, there. Condemning sin is one thing....but where is the love that Christians are supposed to be known for?
And last, but not least, Catholics.
I probably ought to confess, here, that I grew up in an Episcopal church...a Catholic buddy of mine calls my faith "Catholic Lite".
I really don't have much to say about Catholics...except that, obviously, I do not believe in a "pope", nor do I believe that "Church Tradition" carries any weight whatsoever.
You know, it occurs to me that, if we were to sit here and cross-examine every single one of those 40+ thousands of denominations, we'd find something in each one of them that does not agree with the Bible.
Or, at least, the Bible as interpreted by those two exemplary Christians....Tom44 and The Barrd....
And yet, as you say, the followers of these denominations are sure that they are "right" and everyone else is wrong.
Most of the disagreements just seem so petty to me. For instance, baptism. Should we sprinkle water over the head of the new convert? Should we dunk him? Should he go in backwards, or can he kneel down in the water?
And what words should we say over him?
One denomination that I know of swears that it is the "one true church", and the one big difference you will find if you ever attend one of their services is that they do not have any instrumental music at all in their church. The congregation sings, but they do it "acapella"...that is, without any instrumental accompaniment. Not bad, if everyone in the congregation can actually sing...but drastic if you have even one "Edith Bunker" in the group... They claim that, since there is nothing in the NT that speaks of any instrument being used in the worship, therefore, God has forbidden it. Of course, this does not apply to such things as electricity, plumbing, hymnals....or even indoor "baptismals"....you know, that little pool behind the altar where people are baptized...although none of these existed in the NT.
People do get into death-grip type arguments over stuff like this.
It just seems so pointless to me.
Perhaps this is why we are warned to examine ourselves, to be sure that we in the faith that was once given to the Apostles.
And don't forget the fear and trembling as we work out our salvation...
I agree with you that the reformation was necessary.
But why?
Wasn't it because the RCC had taken too much power unto itself, giving mere men the authority that only God ought to have?
And what was the result? The Crusades? Yes, they started because Muslims were over running the Holy Land...but they wound up being about greed, didn't they? And...ugh...the Inquisitions? Not good....not good at all!
The RCC of the middle ages is a perfect example of why we must not set a mere man in charge of our faith. We must look to our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ for such instruction, which He has provided in His Word to us.
Okay, none of us is perfect, and we are going to make mistakes.
And we might not agree on small points....for instance, I suspect that you and I have quite different ideas about what happens after death...but since neither of us has been there....yet....I see very little point in us arguing about it. Perhaps, after all, neither one of us is "right"...and wouldn't that be a kick in the....erm....head...
Most of what tears the church apart are such silly arguments...kind of like churches splitting up because they can't agree on whether the new decorating scheme ought to feature hunter green carpets and pew cushions, or whether these ought to be done in red...yes, I've actually seen this happen, and it is heart breaking.
Wormwood
Chaps
Tom,Not when they had division in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem. They got together, discussed, argued (whatever you want to call it) and then a decision was made as to what is binding on all Christians. It wasn't one persons opinion. It was a group of men, guided by the Holy Spirit, and then one MAN made the pronouncement for the group. That is the way Scripture calls us to deal with divisive behavior AND "If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. In other words we kick them out of our little group we call Christianity.
I think you are looking for a silver bullet here (or you have already made a conclusion and are using the discussion as a means of trying to prove a point). I just do not think the silver bullet exists. As I have mentioned before, both RCC and Protestant models have their faults. If you want someone to show you the absolute, undeniable, God-ordained truth on any and every given issue, then I just do not think that is how God works. God has given us His Word, and that is truth. God gives us His Spirit to help guide us and lead us toward sanctification.
The 21st century church is not the 1st century church. The early church was trying to establish a foundation of what it meant to be a Christian (Gentiles accepted by grace alone or by grace + law). This church was guided by Apostles and relatives of Jesus. There is no indication that they established positions by which certain people would have their views made infallible and their decisions would end all debate or discussion among all Christians. We have the "foundation of the Apostles and prophets" and we build on that foundation. The foundation was their teaching, not their position. As I pointed out before, Paul pointed to his teaching and his Gospel, not his position as the final authority. He said " “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8, ESV) So, the issue is the "truth" that has been presented and confirmed to the church, not any position that makes someone the dictator of truth for ages to come. Again, John writes, “We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” (1 John 4:6, ESV) Those who are "from God" are revealed as such because they listen and accept the truth that was revealed through the Apostles. It is not by virtue of a position they are granted but a message they accept. The Spirit of truth is communicated through the Gospel of truth and not through an ordination or priesthood. Again, God uses teachers, but those teachers are determined to be godly not because of a position but because of their lives and the fact that they affirm the message of Christ as it has been passed down from the beginning. History clearly teaches us that many who held various church offices (even the title "Pope") were sometimes very crooked, ungodly and faithless men. Truth comes through people of truth, not through titles.
In sum, there is no silver bullet. There is no person who can come alone and settle every controversy or question by their own declaration. Rather, there are godly people who hold to the Word and strive together to rightly divide the word of truth and give each other grace in their differences as they strive to mature and grow together in the faith. We trust that God is at work in the midst of our differences and he saves us not because we have everything right, but because we love him and trust in his love that covers over a multitude of sins.
My point? Well, like you said, quote:I think it is important to be clear in this regard....Peter, by his confession in Matt 16:16, established the church...Jesus said He would BUILD his church upon that confession. As far as Jesus was/is concerned, there is only ONE church, HIS.StanJ said:
The scriptures declare that the foundation of the church is NOT Peter's confession, but rather the prophets and apostles, with Jesus being the chief cornerstone. So Peter, nor his confession, was the rock upon which the church was built, it was Jesus Himself.
As for there being only one church, I disagree. Babylon the Great is a church. And it most assuredly does not belong to Jesus.
Tom, the result of that church governance was apostasy. The result of trusting in tradition and the teachings of man resulted in the introduction of pagan concepts into the church, compromise with truth, and 1600 years of downward spiraling heresy until today we have a church in Rome that is so far from true Christianity it is barely recognizable. The one single most prominent heresy of the RCC that was the catalyst for the reformation was indulgences. The selling of which built St Peter's basilica. This was predominantly what Luther's protest was founded on. There were later additions to that protest of course which we are all aware of, but today, did that protest accomplish anything? Does the catholic church still teach and practice the belief that by doing some form of personal good work, a petitioner can lessen the degrees of time of temporal punishment for sin? The answer of course is a resounding YES! I am sure you are fully aware of the grand Jubilee offer of indulgence from the 8th December this very year right?tom55 said:
Did Jesus suffer the full punishment due sin? The answer to that my friend is a resounding YES! Thus the papacy is teaching a doctrine, and offering a false concept to her members, that utterly contradicts scripture. Yet you claim that one is closer to the truth by believing the bishops and cardinals of Rome above the teachings of the word of God.
What is even more shocking and which saddens my heart personally, is the truth that protestants have ceased to protest, and are returning to Rome no longer recognizing the abominations within.
As to your later assertion that the Holy Spirit must have left the church in order for her to fall away. The apostle Paul himself prophesied of the very falling away I speak of.
2 Thess.2:3 ¶ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;...but this did not mean an end to the true church as you think. You need to research you Christian history a little more. That Rome herself fell away, did not mean the falling away of the church everywhere else. Britain, Ethiopia, Persia,Asia minor, India, all nations along the silk road as far as China (Seres), the nations of Europe from Spain in the south to Norway in the north, had been fully established Christian churches within them by the 4th century.Even on Rome's doorstep, the Waldenses held to the true faith despite the ongoing persecutions from Rome throughout the ensuing centuries. And later, by the 7th and 8th centuries, the church was flourishing and was the predominant faith in whole kingdoms, the leaders of which were people such as the grandson of Genghis Khan. Rome was not the B all and end all of Christianity. Everywhere the early missionaries of the Catholic church ventured they already found Christianity established. What they did from then on was typical of all pagan religions...they used the force of arms and political meddling to usurp the local churches and demand and force subjection to the bishop of Rome. Over the past 1500 years of Roman tyranny, tens of millions have died over matters of conscience.
I declare here and now, as a Protestant who still is determined to "cry aloud and spare not" , to continue the protest of Roman heresy and the dangers of ecumenism, that I will not surrender my personal right of freedom of conscience over to any priest, pastor, bishop, or pope. There is but one Lord...one faith...one Savior...and the church of Rome is familiar with none of the above.
You are still getting mixed up Tom on who the church is. Two or three gathered together do not take a matter to the church. They are the church. "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them"tom55 said:
We get too hung up on whether there are 30 or 40 thousand or so denominations. It doesn't really matter. There are true people of God in every single one of those denominations, including Catholic ones. Not everyone in a particular denomination or church is necessarily a true child of God, for being a member of a church, any church, is not a condition of salvation. And it isn't a unity of church affiliation that is the unity Christ prayed for in John 17. That unity is already being accomplished by the Holy Spirit in congregations and churches, both denominational and house, all over the world. It is unity born of righteousness. It is a unity that brings together members of the royal household, the true priesthood of believers through a common surrender to the Lordship of Christ...not a mutual surrender of personal sovereignty to a UN sponsored and Papal led ecumenical movement which compromises truth and ignores doctrine.
That same unanswered question floats around in my brain as well....especially since Enoch answers a few questions that no other book answers.tom55 said:
Such as:
Who were the sons of God that mated with the daughters of men in Genesis 6?
Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Actually, I quite agree with Westboro about the sin of gay sex. It is dragging our "Land of the free and home of the brave" into perdition.
I do not agree with the way they are handling it, though.
Besides, I think the sin of abortion is much worse in our country, anyway. No one seems to be protesting the deaths of these poor innocent babes, ripped from their mothers' wombs and put to death for the crime of being "inconvenient"...
I think there is a good bit of difference between the scripture and the tradition of God, and the tradition of men.
Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mat 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
Mat 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
Mat 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
1Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
1Pe 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Philosophy and vain deceit? Doesn't sound too good to me....what do you think?
:wub:
I think what is important is what is going on between your heart and God's...not how wet you get or what words are said over you. I know that when I was baptized, it wouldn't have mattered if the preacher had said "I baptize thee in the name of Ronald McDonald...I wouldn't have heard him, anyhow. I was much too involved in the love affair going on between me and the Lord...
If I had to decide whether being baptized is sort of like a "birth announcement" or whether it is necessary for salvation, I'd say six of one and a half dozen of the other.
I would tell you that Jesus was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness"....and if it was good enough for Him, it is definitely good enough for you and me.
The Barrd:
I agree with you that the reformation was necessary.
But why?
Wasn't it because the RCC had taken too much power unto itself, giving mere men the authority that only God ought to have?
And what was the result? The Crusades? Yes, they started because Muslims were over running the Holy Land...but they wound up being about greed, didn't they?
I am kind of torn about the Crusades Barrd.. The Muslims needed to be stopped and the leader of Christianity at the time (The Pope) rallied the troops to stop them. That's good. The bad....men acting like men instead of Christians. Since there were no Protestants at the time we can't be mad at them for committing any atrocities. Which Crusade do you think was the worst? I have my choice; I'm just curious what yours is?
And...ugh...the Inquisitions? Not good....not good at all!
I understand the biblical backing for an inquisition but I think (and I think you, The Barrd would agree) they took the inquisition's to far when they started killing people over it. They should have just kicked them out of the Church. The Catholics killed more than the Protestants killed in their inquisition but both of them took it too far and the whole thing was a huge stain on Catholics and the new Protestant movement.
I agree with you that the reformation was necessary.
But why?
Wasn't it because the RCC had taken too much power unto itself, giving mere men the authority that only God ought to have?
And what was the result? The Crusades? Yes, they started because Muslims were over running the Holy Land...but they wound up being about greed, didn't they?
I am kind of torn about the Crusades Barrd.. The Muslims needed to be stopped and the leader of Christianity at the time (The Pope) rallied the troops to stop them. That's good. The bad....men acting like men instead of Christians. Since there were no Protestants at the time we can't be mad at them for committing any atrocities.
Which Crusade do you think was the worst? I have my choice; I'm just curious what yours is?And...ugh...the Inquisitions? Not good....not good at all!
I understand the biblical backing for an inquisition but I think (and I think you, The Barrd would agree) they took the inquisition's to far when they started killing people over it. They should have just kicked them out of the Church. The Catholics killed more than the Protestants killed in their inquisition but both of them took it too far and the whole thing was a huge stain on Catholics and the new Protestant movement.
The mindset that was at the heart of the inquisition did not come from the apostles. Rome was not satisfied with persuasion or trust in the power of the Holy Spirit in order to convince others of what they believed to be truth. When early councils began to write down formal creeds and doctrines, there were several opposing views, Gnosticism and Arianism among them. I am no theological teacher so I am not in a position to elucidate on the matter, but I have read that some Gnostic beliefs did creep into the church, and much more so at the time of the counter-reformation when the Jesuits were formed. As far as the Arians are concerned, Rome felt persuasion and Bible stdy insufficient to persuade any of their trinity theory, so waged war instead. Clovis, the first royal convert to Catholicism, was the king of the Franks, and was a tool of the papacy to wipe out the Arian believers. Rome also used the Empires armies to do the same in other areas, particularly in and around Rome. The Vandals, the Ostrogoths, and the Heruli were all victims of Roman church meddling in the wars and territory settlements of those turbulent years.
The thing is, that practice continued throughout its life. The responsibility for the Crimean war, the civil war in the US, the 30 year war, both world wars, the Vietnam war, can all be wholly or partly laid at the feet of the Vatican. As well as assassinations of presidents, (Lincoln and Kennedy) and many other civil wars and uprisings such as the Hutu uprising in Rwanda, the "troubles" in Ireland, the genocide of Serbs by the Croatian Ustachi, I could go on and on. There is even evidence of Papal backing and support for the Russian revolution in vengeance against the Orthodox. Yeah, I know "but they were Communist" you might say...actually, the vast majority of those involved were actually Jewish, not Hebraic Jews, but Jews nevertheless. And today there is mounting evidence that the Vatican, or more particularly the Jesuits, have been using Zionism for centuries as their front in their war against Protestantism and Islam in order to better hurry along Papal ambitions for world hegemony.
Life today is not simple. There are so many facets and layers to politics...nothing is as it seems. But when it comes to Rome, best to simply take the word of God and lay aside tradition and superstition...their ways are not God's ways...their system of religion is not Christian. Not in any sense of the word Christian. Catholicism is just what prophecy declared that she would be, the apostasy of the latter times. [2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4.] It is a part of her policy to assume the character which will best accomplish her purpose; but beneath the variable appearance of the chameleon, she conceals the invariable venom of the serpent. “We are not bound to keep faith and promises to heretics,” she declares. Shall this power, whose record for a thousand years is written in the blood of tens of millions of saints, be now acknowledged as a part of the church of Christ?
The thing is, that practice continued throughout its life. The responsibility for the Crimean war, the civil war in the US, the 30 year war, both world wars, the Vietnam war, can all be wholly or partly laid at the feet of the Vatican. As well as assassinations of presidents, (Lincoln and Kennedy) and many other civil wars and uprisings such as the Hutu uprising in Rwanda, the "troubles" in Ireland, the genocide of Serbs by the Croatian Ustachi, I could go on and on. There is even evidence of Papal backing and support for the Russian revolution in vengeance against the Orthodox. Yeah, I know "but they were Communist" you might say...actually, the vast majority of those involved were actually Jewish, not Hebraic Jews, but Jews nevertheless. And today there is mounting evidence that the Vatican, or more particularly the Jesuits, have been using Zionism for centuries as their front in their war against Protestantism and Islam in order to better hurry along Papal ambitions for world hegemony.
Life today is not simple. There are so many facets and layers to politics...nothing is as it seems. But when it comes to Rome, best to simply take the word of God and lay aside tradition and superstition...their ways are not God's ways...their system of religion is not Christian. Not in any sense of the word Christian. Catholicism is just what prophecy declared that she would be, the apostasy of the latter times. [2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4.] It is a part of her policy to assume the character which will best accomplish her purpose; but beneath the variable appearance of the chameleon, she conceals the invariable venom of the serpent. “We are not bound to keep faith and promises to heretics,” she declares. Shall this power, whose record for a thousand years is written in the blood of tens of millions of saints, be now acknowledged as a part of the church of Christ?
Wormwood
Chaps
Tom,
The term "church" is ekklesia. This is a basic Greek word that can be translated as community, assembly, congregation, gathering and so forth. My point I have been trying to make is that we see no heirarchy for the universal church in the New Testament. We see a people defined by a message, not a membership to a group with a series of positions that dictate the rules and the beliefs. I guess the issue I am having is that you do not seem to be trying to engage any of the points I am trying to address here. To me, this just indicates that you have your sights set on something specific. Maybe not, but I guess I would ask you where you find, in the NT, some sort of heirarchy that dictates the views of the church as a whole that was established as ongoing offices. It's okay if you think I am wrong (you wouldn't be the first) but I just do not see how you can say I am not providing any kind of answer for your question.
There are local congregations in the NT. The church at Ephesis. The church at Philippi. The church at Rome, etc. The only authority Paul ever refers to with these churches is the authority of the revealed Gospel as presented by the Apostles. Paul rarely points to his own authority and when he does, he pretty much only speaks of t hat authority which came by his bringing those people to faith and establishing the church in the first place. We just do not see any text where Paul or Peter refers to some specific office that would be an ongoing role and the person in that position would be the ultimate authority for the local churches. Jesus is the head of the church and the early church understood that his Spirit, not some role or person would guide the local churches.
This conversation reminds me of the Israelites seeking an earthly king like the other nations so they could be unified. That is not what God had intended. He was their King and their desire for an earthly King was merely revealing that they were not desiring to be subject first and foremost to God. If we start looking to human beings and their roles for ultimate authority, then we are losing sight of the fact that Christ is the head of the church and we have very real access to Him through the Spirit. As I mentioned, history has given us all forms of church leadership and none are perfect. We should be involved in local congregations that are faithful to the truth passed down once for all to the Saints and strive to be submissive to their leadership and serve local believers with the gifts we have been given.
Nicely put wormwood,
comes down to this,
Mat 20:20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
Mat 20:21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
Mat 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
Mat 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Mat 20:24 And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.
Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
and in the OT
1Sa 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
1Sa 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
Some things never change
comes down to this,
Mat 20:20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
Mat 20:21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
Mat 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
Mat 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Mat 20:24 And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.
Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
and in the OT
1Sa 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
1Sa 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
Some things never change
The NT does talk about prophets, evangelists, shepherds, teachers and appointing elders. Peter seems to take a leadership role in Acts. There was the seven that were chosen to take on some other duties so that the Apostles wouldn't have to give up preaching. Did all those people have the same level of authority? If you read the Didache (which was written same time NT was written) it indicates different levels of authority and someone with authority had to have written it. The early Church fathers (men who walked and talked with the apostles) also talk about an established church hierarchy. So now I have a tough decision! Do believe the NT and the example of the early Christians who walked and talked with the Apostles or do I believe Wormwoods theory? If no one had authority then who had the authority to repeat the words of Jesus since the NT wasn't put into writing for over 20 years after he died. Could anybody just tell His story and interpret what He meant when He said things? No, they couldn't. The NT talks about heretics and false prophets amongst them. Someone has to have the authority to call out the false prophets. I know nothing I said will change your mind. I suspect you believe in sola Scriptura?Wormwood said:
Wormwood
Chaps
Yes, I agree there are different authortative positions in the church. My point was that there is no indication in the NT that these roles had authority over multiple local congregations. Elders were appointed over the local congregation and other than the foundational teaching of the Apostles, we see no human authority over those local elders (i.e. Church of Rome elders overseeing the elders at the church in Jerusalem, etc.)
The Didache is an important work, but it is certainly later than most, if not all of the NT. Probably the latest NT book would be Revelation at around 80-90AD. The earliest date of the Didache would probably put it around 80AD while some suspect more around 120AD. The NT is not only inspired, but also most of it was written between 50s-60s. Considering Paul likely was beheaded around 63-64AD and he wrote 2/3 of the NT....the NT certainly predates the Didache by at least 20 years, and possibly more like 80 years.
I am not denying the hierarchy established by the church Fathers. Moreover, they had good reason for establishing that hierarchy. In the absence of a codified NT, it was important to establish links to those who walked with the Apostles so that the teaching of the Apostles could Be passed down. I think it is important to understand that the hierarchy, from a historical perspective, was based on preserving the teaching of the Apostles, not because there was a divine precedent for hierarchy as a means of determining truth. This is an important distinctive. It was the Apostles message, not any established offices that was the focus. Later, after the Edict of Milan, those offices took on more political forms and it became more about governance and convenience than anything related to the teaching of Christ or the Apostles.
My point is that the heirarchy was not necessarily a bad thing. It is simply that that heirarchy was established for expediency and to pass down the message of the Apostles. It was not something the Apostles set up and there is no concept in the NT or the teachings of Jesus of a papal authority that dictates truth or the proper interpretation of things.
You can say this is my "theory" but I assure you I have studied Church history at length and have a doctorate in theology. My thoughts, right or wrong, are not based in some personal musing or pulled off some website.
As for the first 20 or so years, my theory is that this is what the gift of prophecy, discerning spiritual, etc. in the NT was for. God revealed things to the prophets, but once the NT had been established, that gift was no longer needed. I assure you, there certainly was not a well established heirarchy after the death of John, and yet the message continued to be spread...primarily through the letters of the Apostles that were copied and shared amongst the different churches. Again, I agree there was local authority that had spiritual authority to interpret, discern spirits, etc. We see this taught in the NT. A papal authority in a city hundreds of miles away wouldn't really be helpful in addressing local heretical issues or discerning if something was true or not. So, I don't know how this would support your view of RC heirarchy for determining truth and proper interpretation. Local elders and gifts seemed sufficient for these purposes in Paul's writings to the church in Corinth.
The Didache is an important work, but it is certainly later than most, if not all of the NT. Probably the latest NT book would be Revelation at around 80-90AD. The earliest date of the Didache would probably put it around 80AD while some suspect more around 120AD. The NT is not only inspired, but also most of it was written between 50s-60s. Considering Paul likely was beheaded around 63-64AD and he wrote 2/3 of the NT....the NT certainly predates the Didache by at least 20 years, and possibly more like 80 years.
I am not denying the hierarchy established by the church Fathers. Moreover, they had good reason for establishing that hierarchy. In the absence of a codified NT, it was important to establish links to those who walked with the Apostles so that the teaching of the Apostles could Be passed down. I think it is important to understand that the hierarchy, from a historical perspective, was based on preserving the teaching of the Apostles, not because there was a divine precedent for hierarchy as a means of determining truth. This is an important distinctive. It was the Apostles message, not any established offices that was the focus. Later, after the Edict of Milan, those offices took on more political forms and it became more about governance and convenience than anything related to the teaching of Christ or the Apostles.
My point is that the heirarchy was not necessarily a bad thing. It is simply that that heirarchy was established for expediency and to pass down the message of the Apostles. It was not something the Apostles set up and there is no concept in the NT or the teachings of Jesus of a papal authority that dictates truth or the proper interpretation of things.
You can say this is my "theory" but I assure you I have studied Church history at length and have a doctorate in theology. My thoughts, right or wrong, are not based in some personal musing or pulled off some website.
As for the first 20 or so years, my theory is that this is what the gift of prophecy, discerning spiritual, etc. in the NT was for. God revealed things to the prophets, but once the NT had been established, that gift was no longer needed. I assure you, there certainly was not a well established heirarchy after the death of John, and yet the message continued to be spread...primarily through the letters of the Apostles that were copied and shared amongst the different churches. Again, I agree there was local authority that had spiritual authority to interpret, discern spirits, etc. We see this taught in the NT. A papal authority in a city hundreds of miles away wouldn't really be helpful in addressing local heretical issues or discerning if something was true or not. So, I don't know how this would support your view of RC heirarchy for determining truth and proper interpretation. Local elders and gifts seemed sufficient for these purposes in Paul's writings to the church in Corinth.
Similar threads
