Accurate Inquisition Statistics?

[BigTurkey]

To highly esteem a man as authortiy where God should be authority is to allow that man to be a lord over God’s heritage (1 Peter 5:3 above)

John
www.gideonsword.net

Of course, the problem is that you are acting as if the Catholics are placing an authority in God’s place. However, you do believe that the apostles and elders (in Acts 15) commanded the Christians to do some things? Were they taking God’s place, or was God working through them? I think the latter is the Biblical answer. In the same way, God can work through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church without the Magisterium displacing God from his rightful place of authority.

-BT

 

[BigTurkey]

1Pe 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

The word translated ‘feed’, according to Thayer’s, means “to rule; govern” in this context. Their is a great discussion of the meaning of this word in Butler, Scott, and (?) Jesus, Peter, and the Keys.

As far as the injunction not to “lord over” the flock a couple of verses down, looking at some lexicons it seems that the meaning is more of tyranny than of any type of ruling. If it mean any type of ruling, that would be at odds with the meaning of the “feed”. (I don’t have time to look more indepth at it)

Therefore, I think it one shouldn’t look at the verse as restricting the elders from having authority; instead, it is to tell them the proper way to “rule” the people of God.

But that a spiritual authority abuses their position doesn’t mean we can disobey them; remember taht Jesus told the apostles to be obedient to the Pharisees because they sat in the seat of Moses, even though they were abusing their position.

-BT

 

[bibleapologist]

BT,

I agree wholeheartedly with you that God can, and has absolutely exercised authority over man through an ambassador. In the New Testament, this would include the Apostles, for instance in Acts 15.

The Apostles were given authority by God, in order to establish the doctrinal foundation for Christ’s Church.

Our conflict (of ideas), comes from what I believe to be a mis-interpretation of the position of the Church today.

Catholicism adheres to the idea of “Replacement Theology” which means they understand the Church to have “taken the place of Israel”. With this worldview, it is completely comprehensible that they would see God preferring to use an emissary to accomplish HIs authority, as that is how God commanded authority with Israel; ie, prophets, judges, kings.

The New Testament is not in any way a continuance of the Old Testament, but a fulfillment of the Old Testament traditions, laws and covenants in the spiritual; ie. the circumcision of the heart Romans 2:29; writing the law on the tables of our hearts Jer. 31:33, Romans 2:15.

Old Testament Israel was typical (or symbolic) of an individual New Testament Christian. There are many comparisons to be made there, but the one that fits this discussion can be found in Genesis 17:8…

Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Israel: Every person born of the seed of Abraham qualified to inherit Canaan (physically).

Christian: Every person “born-again” is qualified to inherit the kingdom of God (spiritually).

1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

God also said He wanted to be their God in that same verse. It has always been God’s plan to be God, and rule His people without an ambassador.

When Samuel became old, the elders of Israel asked Samuel to give them a king so they could be like the other nations (who were not governed by God directly). This is how God felt about it…

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.

Christ died and rose again, so we could have the relationship with God that He has always desired to have with men… a personal one.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[BigTurkey]

It was the apostles and the elders that God worked through in Acts 15; when the decision is mentioned (and I think it is twice, once and the letter and once in the subsequent narrative - perhaps the end of ch. 15, perhaps the beginning of ch. 16 ) it is always mentioned as the apostles and the elders. You left out the part about the elders. But, I think that God thought it was important that the elders also be recognized as having part in producing an authoritative letter, so he made sure that the elders and apostles were mentioned together.

Also, I understand what you are saying about the Catholics and the “Replacement Theology”. That issue, plus a couple of other ones, have been the one I have devoted much of my thought to recently. I’m not sure Catholics are wrong; but I’m not sure they are right either. I understand your point, because I grew up in a Church that stressed a radical break with the OT Judaism. (The Church of Christ - by the way, the article on the ‘heresies’ of the Church of Christ on your well site was mistaken about a few things; the author confused the Chuch of Christ in God (a penecostal-type denom) with the Church of Christ of the Restoration Movement. That shows he didn’t do his research well; plus, to write a whole article off the testimony of one minister is poor scholarship, especially when dealing with a denom that pratices strict autonomy of congregations…I hope that you will at least revise the article (I know you weren’t the author) to correct some of the errors and the poor scholarship.)

Anyway (sorry for the aside), any Catholics willing to respond to the “Replacement Theology” claims of bibleapologist on a new thread (we probably need to move this discussion anyway to a relevant thread)? I would be interested in seeing the Catholic Church’s position. I come from a background of a church who doesn’t like typology between the OT and the NT, so I need much help in this to correctly assess the truth of Catholicism (most of what I have seen has been encouraging; I’ve been studying for almost a year now).

-BT