Authority of the Church

[Kendy]

Subrosa,

No. No kids right . And no, plans to have eight of them, but we are not going to talk about that

As a protestant, I accept all the verses that you cited. I believe in the authority of the original twelve apostles. What I am not sure is what happens afterwards. I certainly believed in “all authority has been given to me…” But I thought he meant that all believers were authorized to use this authority in his name. Why is that wrong?

Kendy

Subrosa:

Hi Kendy - Congrats on your kids! 8 of them, eh? Do you already have them, or are you planning for them? Either way, God bless you!

Anyway, I want to take a crack at your authority questions.

For this you need to go to the very beginning. The Bible is the place for this. I know that you will appreciate Biblical truths. I’ll pick out a few passages because there are too many of them for this forum.

Let’s start with Ephesians 2:19-20. Paul here is speaking to the congregation about who they are and how they are part of the church. These verses I mention read “19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner*stone,” *KJV

Verse 20 shows what the Catholic Church has been saying since the beginning…built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

So, given that the Church has this apostolic foundation, let’s look at what kind of authority the apostles have…

Matthew 28:18-20 reads…
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Jesus’ command here to the apostles is to carry on His work and bring “all nations” to Him. The authority is passed from the Father through Him to the Apostles.

Also, in Matthew 18:17-18 we find authority established to His followers…
17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

I could go on with apostolic authority, but I think you may now get the point. There is much more, too.

So how does this authority move to others and not just stop at the apostles? Let’s look at Acts 1:20. Here, Judas is being replaced by Matthias, a decision made by Peter. (Hold onto that thought!)

Acts 1:20 20 “For it is written in the Book of Psalms:
‘ Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it’;a] and, ‘ Let**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts 1:20;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-26938b”)]another take his office.’c]
Footnotes:
Acts 1:20 Psalm 69:25

Acts 1:20 Psalm 109:8

Acts 1:20 Greek *episkopen, *position of overseer

Notice the footnotes. The word episkopen is translated in AngloSaxon as BISHOP. (Drop the first “E”, the “K” and last “EN”) So Judas is replaced with someone who will be an “overseer”, or a person with authority. Authority is thus transfered to Matthias, the first BISHOP.

Peter and the apostles acting on the authority granted them by Jesus have replaced Judas with an overseer Bishop, Matthias. They are concerned at this point with only Judas’ replacement. However, Christianity caught fire and spread quickly. Twelve overseers simply is not realistic. So what do they do?

 

[Kendy]

Subrosa,

I am confused about all these successors (Mark, Thomas, and James) are they different branches of the RCC
I am probably not reading something obvious. Sorry.

Kendy

Subrosa:

Let’s look at Paul. Paul was originally Saul and in Acts Ch. 9:1-9 we see that Jesus came to him in a vision and had him stop persecuting Christians to become one of the greatest of the Christian teachers. But Paul did not receive authority from Jesus dirrectly. He need to obtain it another way. Continuing Acts, we see in vss. 10-19 that Saul (Paul) needed two things to happen: baptism and the “laying on of hands”. (Vss. 12, 17, and 18)

So now with these two things, baptism and “Laying on hands” Paul receives authority to preach in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 19-22).

So does Paul have authority to do other things? We know that he started church communities in Ephesias, Phillipi and Thesselonia. But, after beginning these churches, who did he leave in authority?

Let’s have a look at Paul’s Second Letter to Timothy, ch1:6…

Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

Paul layed hands upon Timothy. So what about this? Timothy is now the Bishop of this church community. We see this in Chapter 4 of the same letter.

1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead ata] His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

We see here Apostolic succession at work. Authority is being transfered from one Bishop to another through the laying on of hands. The Catholic Church has never altered or veered from this practice. Nor have any of the other earliest churches.

Let’s look at apostolic succession…

Peter’s successors cfpeople.org/Books/Pope/CFPtoc.htm
sor.cua.edu/Patriarchate/PatriarchsChronList.html

Mark’s successors stmarycoptorthodox.org/patriarchs.htm

Andrew’s successors
ec-patr.gr/en/list/default.htm

Apostle Thomas
acns.com/~mm9n/marthoma/marthoma.htm
and AD 52

James, the Lord’s brother
nasrani-patriarchate.org/eng/

You see here apostolic succession, as documented in the Bible still continuing.

Now all that is left is whether or not you accept Peter to be the Head of Christ’s Church here on earth. (Use that thought now!)

I’m tired of writing for now so I’m off. I hope this helps you along your path.

God bless,
Subrosa

 

[Kendy]

bear06:

I guess it’s a little late since you posted yesterday and it would seem that you’re meeting with your pastor today. Go to the home page and download the flyers if you want to get to the heart of the matter.

Flyers. You mean the stuff on the apostles? Yeah, I looked at that.

Anyway, my meeting with my pastor was not as hard as I thought. He pretty much said, catholics are Christians (and although he disagrees with some of the church’s teachings like authority and communion), he thinks, I should become catholic if I feel like that’s the right thing. Mostly, he just wanted to make sure that I found a good community to belong to and told me that I should use the vineyard for that for as long as I needed to because he didn’t want me to be an Island christian.

Kendy

 

[bear06]

No. No kids right . And no, plans to have eight of them

Ahhhhhhhh!!! Now I see. I’m not sure about a lot in life but I am sure of one thing - plans change!

My husband came from a family of 2. All of his aunts and uncles have 2. He figured it would be nice to have 2 but being the good Catholic he is, he was open to God’s will in this area. We now have 6 and he can’t wait to have more despite the unbearable pregnancies. He was hooked after the first one!

We teach marriage prep and whenever we get to the children part, I always explain that you don’t have to be a kid person to have kids. That always makes them laugh but that describes me perfectly. I’m not a kid person. I don’t enjoy playing house, eating pretend food, etc. That said, my kids are an endless source of joy and downright entertainment. While I still hate playing Candyland, I wouldn’t trade those days of playing it for the world!

 

[bear06]

Kendy:

Flyers. You mean the stuff on the apostles? Yeah, I looked at that.

Anyway, my meeting with my pastor was not as hard as I thought. He pretty much said, catholics are Christians (and although he disagrees with some of the church’s teachings like authority and communion), he thinks, I should become catholic if I feel like that’s the right thing. Mostly, he just wanted to make sure that I found a good community to belong to and told me that I should use the vineyard for that for as long as I needed to because he didn’t want me to be an Island christian.

Kendy

Go here and look at the library. catholic.com/

 

[jdc1084]

This has been a very interesting thread. I’ve always had questions concerning the authority of the Catholic church as well. A lot could be rectified between Catholics and Protestants if this issue was cleared up.

The Catholic Church is One, in that it remains unchanged since it was founded. Those truthes taught at the beginning continue to be taught today, 2000 years later, with some greater depth of understanding, but never a teaching retracted or changed from it’s previous position in terms of negating it’s original intent.

And I know that this is what the thread is all about, but I’ll ask again, how do you know it’s 100% true? I look at the verses that are pointed out, but I can’t see how they guarantee this. And you can’t tell me that the reason I don’t understand the verses in this way is because I don’t have the church’s authority to interpret them for me; if the high-ups in the Catholic church were wrong, would they tell you? Now please, please, I beg you not to take offense at that question, because I don’t mean to say that the Magisterium is wrong. They’re probably right in many things, but I’m just trying to make a point. We’d agree that the Bible has never changed. So wouldn’t it be a good idea to compare the Magesterium with the Bible just to double check? Many of the Catholic traditions come from specific Bible verses, which is great. But since the source of these traditions was the Bible, shouldn’t the Bible remain the measuring stick in all things? Well, I believe I’ve digressed into a Sola Scriptura argument and since that isn’t what this topic is really about, I’ll get back to the point.

As an outsider to the Catholic Church, I can see some ‘changes’ that have taken place. But then since I am an outsider, I admit that I don’t fully understand all the workings of the Catholic church. So anything that I say that is wrong, please correct me, because I don’t want to go around with the wrong idea in my head.
But for example, back in the 60’s my dad told me about how his school only served fish on Fridays since for Catholics, they could not eat meat on Fridays. I’ve heard of a lot of people that remember this. But now days, that rule doesn’t seem to be in place in schools. That’s about the extent that I know about the fish situation, so if anyone could enlighten me, that’d be great. But back to the point, how come that changed? I know that’s only a trivial change, but it is a change nonetheless. How come it changed if the Church is supposed to remain unchanged?
Thanks for putting up with my post. I really am here to seek the truth.

 

[Subrosa]

Kendy:

Subrosa,

No. No kids right . And no, plans to have eight of them, but we are not going to talk about that

As a protestant, I accept all the verses that you cited. I believe in the authority of the original twelve apostles. What I am not sure is what happens afterwards. I certainly believed in “all authority has been given to me…” But I thought he meant that all believers were authorized to use this authority in his name. Why is that wrong?

Kendy

Hi Kendy -

Could you ellaborate on “all believers were authorized”? Please forgive me, I do not have the protestant perspective. What were you taught about this? What Bible verses are used to substantiate this concept?

What I see in conflict with this idea are Matthew 28:16 where Jesus is speaking only to the eleven apostles that are left and Acts 1:20 where Peter and the apostles chose a successor to replace Judas’ OFFICE.

If we compare the word “office” in say politics, we find the the office of Mayor, Governor or President takes with it responsibilities and authority. The whole population does not carry such responsibilites or authority.

Can you show me where in the Bible any common person carried such authority? There were the 72 sent by Christ on a mission, but He sanctioned them to do so.

Subrosa

 

[Kendy]

Not sure what you are directing me to. I have looked at some of the stuff on the site.

Kendy

bear06:

Go here and look at the library. catholic.com/

 

[Kendy]

Thank you for your questions .

Kendy

jdc1084:

This has been a very interesting thread. I’ve always had questions concerning the authority of the Catholic church as well. A lot could be rectified between Catholics and Protestants if this issue was cleared up.

And I know that this is what the thread is all about, but I’ll ask again, how do you know it’s 100% true? I look at the verses that are pointed out, but I can’t see how they guarantee this. And you can’t tell me that the reason I don’t understand the verses in this way is because I don’t have the church’s authority to interpret them for me; if the high-ups in the Catholic church were wrong, would they tell you? Now please, please, I beg you not to take offense at that question, because I don’t mean to say that the Magisterium is wrong. They’re probably right in many things, but I’m just trying to make a point. We’d agree that the Bible has never changed. So wouldn’t it be a good idea to compare the Magesterium with the Bible just to double check? Many of the Catholic traditions come from specific Bible verses, which is great. But since the source of these traditions was the Bible, shouldn’t the Bible remain the measuring stick in all things? Well, I believe I’ve digressed into a Sola Scriptura argument and since that isn’t what this topic is really about, I’ll get back to the point.

As an outsider to the Catholic Church, I can see some ‘changes’ that have taken place. But then since I am an outsider, I admit that I don’t fully understand all the workings of the Catholic church. So anything that I say that is wrong, please correct me, because I don’t want to go around with the wrong idea in my head.
But for example, back in the 60’s my dad told me about how his school only served fish on Fridays since for Catholics, they could not eat meat on Fridays. I’ve heard of a lot of people that remember this. But now days, that rule doesn’t seem to be in place in schools. That’s about the extent that I know about the fish situation, so if anyone could enlighten me, that’d be great. But back to the point, how come that changed? I know that’s only a trivial change, but it is a change nonetheless. How come it changed if the Church is supposed to remain unchanged?
Thanks for putting up with my post. I really am here to seek the truth.

 

[Subrosa]

Kendy:

Subrosa,

I am confused about all these successors (Mark, Thomas, and James) are they different branches of the RCC
I am probably not reading something obvious. Sorry.

Kendy

What you are missing is this: These are NOT a part of the Roman Catholic Church. These churches were established by the Apostles seperately. They are called AUTOCEPHELOUS churches. Each established by the apostles I mentioned. These particular churches do not accept the Roman Catholic Church as supreme head. There are, however, other churches that were established or have broken with these churches that DO accept th RCC as supreme head. (Not just a protestant thing!)

Most noteworthy is the Greek Orthodox Church which has Patriarch Bartholomew as it’s head. These churches are as old as the RCC, but being established seperately from the RCC have never accepted her as head.

What you should notice is that all of them practice apostolic succession the same way the RCC does. That is to say the successors of the apostles, or BISHOPS, have filled the office of the apostle that founded the church.

Deep stuff, huh?
Subrosa

 

[Kendy]

Well, we believe that the mission of the apostles is passed on to all of us through the aspostles. We certainly do a lot of laying of hands in my church. And there are other people in the book of acts who exercised authority, like Junius (sp), Priscilla who are not one of the original apostles.

I wish someone could present this argument for me because I don’t believe that I can make it as adequately as I should so if there are any protestants out there, please intervene.

Kendy
Kendy

Subrosa:

Hi Kendy -

Could you ellaborate on “all believers were authorized”? Please forgive me, I do not have the protestant perspective. What were you taught about this? What Bible verses are used to substantiate this concept?

What I see in conflict with this idea are Matthew 28:16 where Jesus is speaking only to the eleven apostles that are left and Acts 1:20 where Peter and the apostles chose a successor to replace Judas’ OFFICE.

If we compare the word “office” in say politics, we find the the office of Mayor, Governor or President takes with it responsibilities and authority. The whole population does not carry such responsibilites or authority.

Can you show me where in the Bible any common person carried such authority? There were the 72 sent by Christ on a mission, but He sanctioned them to do so.

Subrosa

 

[St.Eric]

The answers thus far to the authority question are great. I also want to throw something else in here. The problem of submitting to authority in general is often times a cultural matter. Americans especially have had a historically difficult time submitting to authority. We were born out of revolution from the English Crown. We have a cultural sense of rugged individualism. Our constitution reinforces these deep held beleifs. So, I think in general Americans have a difficult time submitting to the authority of the Church and American Protestant reverts often have the most difficult time submitting to the authority of the Church. For me personally I had to take it on faith. Once I did that the H.S. slowly began showing me and convincing me of the authority of the church and I am now happy to submit to it. In practice it really is like the prodigal son or daughter who despises the father’s authority; once the child comes home and submits, the child becomes much happrier and so does the father…

 

[hurst]

Kendy:

Hi Hurst,

Couldn’t these passages refer to believers in Christ.

You mean to all believers? No.

I realize that Protestants tend to view scriptures as pertaining to them personally. But it is unfounded.

For example, could the following pertain to any believers:

John 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

2 Corinthians 5:18 But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.

Suppose believer A is resentful and does not forgive believer B. That would have to mean A caused B’s sins to be retained. But say believer C forgives believer B. Is believer B forgiven or not? Who overrides whom?

As a Protestant taking upon themselves the mission to preach, how do they forgive and retain sins? From what I have seen, they don’t. They merely assert they are forgiven, in Jesus’ name, as though it were automatic. But did John the Baptist automatically allow anyone to receive his baptism of repentance? No.

Matthew 3:7 And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them: Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance. 9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 10 For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire.

This is just one example of something that not any believer can do.

Kendy:

I always thought, he that rejected you rejected me would include me as a protestant as I tried to witness to others.

It would include whoever is sent in His name. The context of one passage shows it is not to anyone.

Luke 10:1 And after these things the Lord appointed also other seventy-two: and he sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was to come. 2 And he said to them: The harvest indeed is great, but the labourers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send labourers into his harvest. 3 Go: Behold I send you as lambs among wolves. … 16 He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. 17 And the seventy-two returned with joy

What applies to any believer is this:

Matthew 10:40 He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. 41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive the reward of a prophet: and he that receiveth a just man in the name of a just man, shall receive the reward of a just man. 42 And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.

This is not the same as hearing unto obedience, as shown here

Romans 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations, for his name;

When he says “we received”, why do Protestants tend to arrogate it to themselves as if it were given to all believers so to act? It is unfounded, because clearly not all have received it.

1 Corinthians 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?

There is clearly an office of ministry that not all believers have

Acts 1:25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

Acts 6:2 Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. 3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

Acts 26:16 But rise up, and stand upon thy feet: for to this end have I appeared to thee, that I may make thee a minister

Col 4:17 And say to Archippus: Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfill it

Instead, they risk falling under this category:

2 Corinthians 11:13 For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

(continued)

 

[hurst]

Kendy:

Does the Holy Spirit empower all believers, catholic or not?

Not in the way you are thinking. All are empowered to become the children of God and inherit eternal life.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.

Galatians 3:26 For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus.

But not all have the rights and duties of ministry etc.

1 Corinthians 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?

Kendy:

Certainly, there is evidence of it around us. Am I to believe that Billy Graham has not been called by God to preach the gospel? that he is, in fact, acting contrary to God’s will?

He has no authority of himself, does he? Does he forgive and retain sins? Are people divinely obliged to obey him under pain of sin? Can he or does he exercise an authority that Paul refers to?

Is he not rather only like a lay person repeating Jesus’ words with conviction and personal faith?

If Jesus personally commissioned him, then I am not aware of it. His preaching ministry has to be done in conjunction with the various protestant churches. They are not obeying Billy Graham, though they seem to respect him highly.

Also, it is certainly possible that God meant him to preach as a Catholic, and yet he has apparently rejected joining the Church.

But the case of Billy Graham does not support the belief that all or any believers are referred to in those scriptures which say things like:

Romans 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations, for his name;

1 Cor 4:1 Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.

etc.

hurst

 

[Kendy]

So, how are we to view these churches? Why should I not join Mark’s church? Why follow Peter instead of Mark? What if I just leave all of you and just follow Jesus in whose name I was baptized?

Kendy

Subrosa:

What you are missing is this: These are NOT a part of the Roman Catholic Church. These churches were established by the Apostles seperately. They are called AUTOCEPHELOUS churches. Each established by the apostles I mentioned. These particular churches do not accept the Roman Catholic Church as supreme head. There are, however, other churches that were established or have broken with these churches that DO accept th RCC as supreme head. (Not just a protestant thing!)

Most noteworthy is the Greek Orthodox Church which has Patriarch Bartholomew as it’s head. These churches are as old as the RCC, but being established seperately from the RCC have never accepted her as head.

What you should notice is that all of them practice apostolic succession the same way the RCC does. That is to say the successors of the apostles, or BISHOPS, have filled the office of the apostle that founded the church.

Deep stuff, huh?
Subrosa

 

[Orionthehunter]

jdc1084:

This has been a very interesting thread. I’ve always had questions concerning the authority of the Catholic church as well. A lot could be rectified between Catholics and Protestants if this issue was cleared up.

And I know that this is what the thread is all about, but I’ll ask again, how do you know it’s 100% true? I look at the verses that are pointed out, but I can’t see how they guarantee this. And you can’t tell me that the reason I don’t understand the verses in this way is because I don’t have the church’s authority to interpret them for me; if the high-ups in the Catholic church were wrong, would they tell you? Now please, please, I beg you not to take offense at that question, because I don’t mean to say that the Magisterium is wrong. They’re probably right in many things, but I’m just trying to make a point. We’d agree that the Bible has never changed. So wouldn’t it be a good idea to compare the Magesterium with the Bible just to double check? Many of the Catholic traditions come from specific Bible verses, which is great. But since the source of these traditions was the Bible, shouldn’t the Bible remain the measuring stick in all things? Well, I believe I’ve digressed into a Sola Scriptura argument and since that isn’t what this topic is really about, I’ll get back to the point.

As an outsider to the Catholic Church, I can see some ‘changes’ that have taken place. But then since I am an outsider, I admit that I don’t fully understand all the workings of the Catholic church. So anything that I say that is wrong, please correct me, because I don’t want to go around with the wrong idea in my head.
But for example, back in the 60’s my dad told me about how his school only served fish on Fridays since for Catholics, they could not eat meat on Fridays. I’ve heard of a lot of people that remember this. But now days, that rule doesn’t seem to be in place in schools. That’s about the extent that I know about the fish situation, so if anyone could enlighten me, that’d be great. But back to the point, how come that changed? I know that’s only a trivial change, but it is a change nonetheless. How come it changed if the Church is supposed to remain unchanged?
Thanks for putting up with my post. I really am here to seek the truth.

JDC, I just want to address the abstaining from meat on Friday’s issue. This is a sacrificial discipline designed for help us keep/turn our mind rightly to God. It is a matter of discipline and not of Doctrine (which is eternally unchanging). Discipline can change. Some disciplines are under the purview of Bishops and others under the purview of the Pope. Additionally the temporal and spiritual consequences of not following a matter of discipline is significantly less severe than not following a matter of Doctrine.

 

[Kendy]

St. Eric,

I have really searched my heart about this and I don’t think this some rebellion against authority. It’s really about finding the right authority, Godly authority. Because if the rcc does not have Godly authority, then they will lead me away from Christ. But if they do and I know that, then I will submit to it even if I occasionally whine .

Kendy

St.Eric:

The answers thus far to the authority question are great. I also want to throw something else in here. The problem of submitting to authority in general is often times a cultural matter. Americans especially have had a historically difficult time submitting to authority. We were born out of revolution from the English Crown. We have a cultural sense of rugged individualism. Our constitution reinforces these deep held beleifs. So, I think in general Americans have a difficult time submitting to the authority of the Church and American Protestant reverts often have the most difficult time submitting to the authority of the Church. For me personally I had to take it on faith. Once I did that the H.S. slowly began showing me and convincing me of the authority of the church and I am now happy to submit to it. In practice it really is like the prodigal son or daughter who despises the father’s authority; once the child comes home and submits, the child becomes much happrier and so does the father…

 

[Subrosa]

Kendy:

Well, we believe that the mission of the apostles is passed on to all of us through the aspostles. We certainly do a lot of laying of hands in my church. And there are other people in the book of acts who exercised authority, like Junius (sp), Priscilla who are not one of the original apostles.

I wish someone could present this argument for me because I don’t believe that I can make it as adequately as I should so if there are any protestants out there, please intervene.

Kendy
Kendy

Hi Kendy -

We all have received the “laying on of hands”, but for different purposes. In the RCC I received the holy Spirit with the laying on of hands. We call this “Confirmation”. This is seperate from “Ordination” in which the laying on of hands acts differently. Different prayers are presented to the holy Spirit in order to obtain these functions.

You must admit that in the Bible the Bishops, Deacons and presbyters have different roles than that of the rest of the congregation. Read James 5:13-15. The presbyters have a specific duty to perform. They must be summoned! Not just anyone can perform thier duties.

Please, show me where just any person at all can perform the duties of Bishop, Deacon or Presbyter.

Subrosa

(I’m off to work now. I’m going to be late! Seeya soon! )

 

[Kendy]

hurst:

You mean to all believers? No.

I realize that Protestants tend to view scriptures as pertaining to them personally. But it is unfounded.

For example, could the following pertain to any believers:

John 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

2 Corinthians 5:18 But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.

Well, I asked my pastor about this this morning and he said, we should confess to each other (I can’t remember the verse right now). Because we believe in a priesthood of believers, we believe that we should confess our sins to one another.

Kendy

Suppose believer A is resentful and does not forgive believer B. That would have to mean A caused B’s sins to be retained. But say believer C forgives believer B. Is believer B forgiven or not? Who overrides whom?

As a Protestant taking upon themselves the mission to preach, how do they forgive and retain sins? From what I have seen, they don’t. They merely assert they are forgiven, in Jesus’ name, as though it were automatic. But did John the Baptist automatically allow anyone to receive his baptism of repentance? No.

Matthew 3:7 And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them: Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance. 9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 10 For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire.

This is just one example of something that not any believer can do.

It would include whoever is sent in His name. The context of one passage shows it is not to anyone.

Luke 10:1 And after these things the Lord appointed also other seventy-two: and he sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was to come. 2 And he said to them: The harvest indeed is great, but the labourers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send labourers into his harvest. 3 Go: Behold I send you as lambs among wolves. … 16 He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. 17 And the seventy-two returned with joy

What applies to any believer is this:

Matthew 10:40 He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. 41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive the reward of a prophet: and he that receiveth a just man in the name of a just man, shall receive the reward of a just man. 42 And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.

This is not the same as hearing unto obedience, as shown here

Romans 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations, for his name;

When he says “we received”, why do Protestants tend to arrogate it to themselves as if it were given to all believers so to act? It is unfounded, because clearly not all have received it.

1 Corinthians 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?

There is clearly an office of ministry that not all believers have

Acts 1:25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

Acts 6:2 Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. 3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

Acts 26:16 But rise up, and stand upon thy feet: for to this end have I appeared to thee, that I may make thee a minister

Col 4:17 And say to Archippus: Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfill it

Instead, they risk falling under this category:

2 Corinthians 11:13 For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

(continued)

 

[hurst]

Kendy:

I certainly believed in “all authority has been given to me…” But I thought he meant that all believers were authorized to use this authority in his name. Why is that wrong?

Who was Jesus speaking to when He said that?

Certainly, as a Church, we do the work of the Lord. But the Church itself has government, for God is a God of order. It is wrong for us to think we can act on our own in the name of Christ. We must be sent. Even after Paul was sent, he went to meet with Peter first.

Besides, if any one had the same authority, they might object to another giving orders, as Paul did:

1 Corinthians 16:1 Now concerning the collections that are made for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, so do ye also.

Titus 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:

Clearly Paul was in charge, and delegated tasks as well. Should another believer start doing things in the name of the general authority they thought Christ gave before He ascended? Not if it conflicts with the government of the visible Church.

hurst