“Once Saved Always Saved” #3

[1beleevr]

You couldn’t be more wrong. This is not found anywhere in Scripture (or History for that matter) - in fact, you are just making it up.

What do you believe that Jesus means in John 3:8? And the Ethiopian eunuch met Jesus in the wilderness, thanks to Phillip being obedient!

 

[Rightlydivide]

There are “senses” to Scripture. The literal sense is the meaning the human author intented, and the spiritual senses (ie: moral as you are referring too), must be based upon the literal sense. So true, in a moral sense, you can find meaning and depth to the scriptures, but unfortunately, you missed the literal sense in this passage, and this is shown by the lack of a valid Priesthood in your Church (and all non-Apostolic Churches).

catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp

Valid priesthood? Presbyter and Priest are two different words. Jesus, Paul, Peter never used the word priest to refer to a NT office…did they? Look it up.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Do you mean Jesus’s words being spoken to us as well as the aposles? Why bother reading the Bible, if we don’t believe that Jesus is speaking directly to us? You know, like,“If you love Me, you will follow my Commandments,” is this just for the apostles? How about thou shalt not steal…?

Literal sense is not a literalistic sense my friend.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Valid priesthood? Presbyter and Priest are two different words. Jesus, Paul, Peter never used the word priest to refer to a NT office…did they? Look it up.

I don’t care for the distinction of the words - you have no priesthood, nor does anyone in your Church unless you have an unbroken line of succession to the Apostles.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

What do you believe that Jesus means in John 3:8? And the Ethiopian eunuch met Jesus in the wilderness, thanks to Phillip being obedient!

I wasn’t directly referring to the Free Will of the Holy Spirit, but rather the absurdity of meeting Jesus “anywhere”. He has to call you:

John 6:44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

And the place He call you to is into His Mystical Body - the Church via BAPTISM.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I don’t care for the distinction of the words - you have no priesthood, nor does anyone in your Church unless you have an unbroken line of succession to the Apostles.

Jesus and Peter never taught people about a NT office called priest so I would be in very good company in my view. While you may freely believe that the people that came after them slowly developed this concept in accord with your present beliefs, Christ and Peter never taught it. That…whether you care or not…is just a fact. Break open a Bible, look at the Greek and find the two different words; one for priest and one for presbyter.
An unbroken line of people who believe differently than the origin of the line is useless in my view.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Jesus and Peter never taught people about a NT office called priest so I would be in very good company in my view. While you may freely believe that the people that came after them slowly developed this concept in accord with your present beliefs, Christ and Peter never taught it. That…whether you care or not…is just a fact. Break open a Bible, look at the Greek and find the two different words; one for priest and one for presbyter.
An unbroken line of people who believe differently than the origin of the line is useless in my view.

Your “analysis” is inconsistent with what the Apostles and their successors actually taught. Early Christian, Medieval, and late Christian history all disagree with you. But I guess that doesn’t matter, right?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Your “analysis” is inconsistent with what the Apostles and their successors actually taught. Early Christian, Medieval, and late Christian history all disagree with you. But I guess that doesn’t matter, right?

No my analysis is spot on. I am not sure that what I said would even be rejected by many of those in your universities. Its really quite simple. The concept of a New Testament priest just does not exist. Priest is an OT concept. The NT does not use priest for the NT office. That is why they have two different words. Two different meanings as well.
Sure it developed. But it was not taught by them (ie Christ or Peter). That, once again, is just a stubborn little fact.
Priesthood and its concept developed. I personally will go with what they originally taught, you can go with the later stuff.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

No my analysis is spot on. I am not sure that what I said would even be rejected by many of those in your universities. Its really quite simple. The concept of a New Testament priest just does not exist. Priest is an OT concept. The NT does not use priest for the NT office. That is why they have two different words. Two different meanings as well.
Sure it developed. But it was not taught by them (ie Christ or Peter). That, once again, is just a stubborn little fact.
Priesthood and its concept developed. I personally will go with what they originally taught, you can go with the later stuff.

Sounds like you have a fixation which you can’t get past. I suppose as long as you are “okay” with completely disagreeing with what the overwhelming majority of all Christians across all time and space have believed, so be it.

Take care brother.

“Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).

 

[Rightlydivide]

Sounds like you have a fixation which you can’t get past. I suppose as long as you are “okay” with completely disagreeing with what the overwhelming majority of all Christians across all time and space have believed, so be it.

Take care brother.

“Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).

Yes, Ignatius believed in presbyters (elders) and did not use the term for priests. Well, he would not have, its not an NT office.
Um…thanks?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Yes, Ignatius believed in presbyters (elders) and did not use the term for priests. Well, he would not have, its not an NT office.
Um…thanks?

Again, fixation, and just simply incorrect on how your are even delineating between the terms. Fascinating. What is the difference, in your mind, between the two?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Again, fixation, and just simply incorrect on how your are even delineating between the terms. Fascinating. What is the difference, in your mind, between the two?

Is it correct to say that presbyter and priest are not used interchangeably in the NT?
I do hope you will answer that. I will remain optimistic until you prove otherwise.
Now, let me answer yours.
Everything. A priest’s role in the OT is nothing like the role of bishop/presbyter described primarily by Paul. I am sure you are familiar with what the specific roles in the OT were for priests. I am also going to bet you are familiar with what Paul wrote. So, without being flippant, everything.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Is it correct to say that presbyter and priest are not used interchangeably in the NT?
I do hope you will answer that. I will remain optimistic until you prove otherwise.
Now, let me answer yours.
Everything. A priest’s role in the OT is nothing like the role of bishop/presbyter described primarily by Paul. I am sure you are familiar with what the specific roles in the OT were for priests. I am also going to bet you are familiar with what Paul wrote. So, without being flippant, everything.

as stated:

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact,** the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros**. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Is it correct to say that presbyter and priest are not used interchangeably in the NT?.

This is a good explanation

History

The earliest organization of the Christian churches in Palestine was similar to that of Jewish synagogues, who were governed by a council of elders (presbyteroi). In Acts 11:30 and 15:22, we see this collegiate system of government in Jerusalem, and in Acts 14:23, the Apostle Paul ordains elders in the churches he founded. Initially, these presbyters were apparently identical with the overseers (episkopoi, i.e., bishops), as such passages as Acts 20:17 and Titus 1:5,7 indicate, and the terms were interchangeable.
Shortly after the New Testament period, with the death of the Apostles, there was a differentiation in the usage of the synonymous terms, giving rise to the appearance of two distinct offices, bishop and presbyter. The bishop was understood mainly as the president of the council of presbyters, and so the bishop came to be distinguished both in honor and in prerogative from the presbyters, who were seen as deriving their authority by means of delegation from the bishop. The distinction between presbyter and bishop is made fairly soon after the Apostolic period, as is seen in the 2nd century writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who uses the terms consistently and clearly to refer to two different offices (along with deacon).
Initially, each local congregation in the Church had its own bishop. Eventually, as the Church grew, individual congregations no longer were served directly by a bishop. The bishop in a large city would appoint a presbyter to pastor the flock in each congregation, acting as his delegate.

 

[Rightlydivide]

as stated:

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact,** the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros**. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Not in the Bible they are not. In the Bible they are two seperate words in the NT. Correct? They are not used interchangeabl in the Bible. Priests is not the same thing as presbyter.

 

[Rightlydivide]

This is a good explanation

History

The earliest organization of the Christian churches in Palestine was similar to that of Jewish synagogues, who were governed by a council of elders (presbyteroi). In Acts 11:30 and 15:22, we see this collegiate system of government in Jerusalem, and in Acts 14:23, the Apostle Paul ordains elders in the churches he founded. Initially, these presbyters were apparently identical with the overseers (episkopoi, i.e., bishops), as such passages as Acts 20:17 and Titus 1:5,7 indicate, and the terms were interchangeable.
Shortly after the New Testament period, with the death of the Apostles, there was a differentiation in the usage of the synonymous terms, giving rise to the appearance of two distinct offices, bishop and presbyter. The bishop was understood mainly as the president of the council of presbyters, and so the bishop came to be distinguished both in honor and in prerogative from the presbyters, who were seen as deriving their authority by means of delegation from the bishop. The distinction between presbyter and bishop is made fairly soon after the Apostolic period, as is seen in the 2nd century writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who uses the terms consistently and clearly to refer to two different offices (along with deacon).
Initially, each local congregation in the Church had its own bishop. Eventually, as the Church grew, individual congregations no longer were served directly by a bishop. The bishop in a large city would appoint a presbyter to pastor the flock in each congregation, acting as his delegate.

Of course, any undergraduate class that touches even briefly on polity would say as much. But do you see what was not included? Which is also basic history. When the concept of presbyter was lost and the grafting of priest and the connotations of that term augmented (in your terminology) or destroyed (my view) what Paul elaborated on.

Now drop the priest argument for a minute and look at what I have underlined, the changes in polity occur post-Apostles, heck I just said that! The bishop/elder was synonymous because…thats what Paul taught…well…he did.

 

[benidict]

I suppose that only a “perfect” Christian, who happens to be a member of the perfect church, could set me straight on scripture! But, when Christians, or for that matter anyone who reads the Bible, can and do believe that the words of Christ and the apostles are speaking directly to them! You see, the Holy Spirit(The wind blows where it will), is everywhere, not just in church! And you can meet Jesus anywhere. It still comes down to a matter of interpretation!

just a question my friend. are you contradicting yourself here first you say that you are guided by the Holy Spirit, then you say its still comes down to a matter of interpretation. so is there no truth? either you are guided by the Holy Spirit, or its just a matter of your interpretation. maybe im misunderstanding you. if so, i apologize and await your kind correction of my ignorance. peace

 

[jericho777]

Not in the Bible they are not. In the Bible they are two seperate words in the NT. Correct? They are not used interchangeabl in the Bible. Priests is not the same thing as presbyter.

Yes the only priesthood in the NT that refers to Christians is the priesthood of believers. Each congregation had its own group of elders which was responsible for their own congregation. They would oversee to make sure things would not go awry.

An additional qualification/requirement of the elder was they were to be the husband of one wife. 1 Tim 3:2 An elder then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Priest is not a NT an office for the church. A pastor or elder is a biblical NT office.

 

[benidict]

Yes the only priesthood in the NT that refers to Christians is the priesthood of believers. Each congregation had its own group of elders which was responsible for their own congregation. They would oversee to make sure things would not go awry.

An additional qualification/requirement of the elder was they were to be the husband of one wife. 1 Tim 3:2 An elder then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Priest is not a NT an office for the church. A pastor or elder is a biblical NT office.

hi jericho. why did you put the husband of one wife in red? is this a slap at a celebate priesthood, as held in the Catholic Church? are you saying its required that an elder be married? peace

 

[benidict]

any hooo. back on topic. what do protestants who believe in osas do with Hebrews chapter 6? especially verse 4-6? For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted the also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come. And if they are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery. doesnt sound like osas to me. Peace