P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
:clapping:
- Status
C
cooterhein
Guest
Ahh, ok, teaching and defining faith and morals. My impression of this “teaching” and “being taught” paradigm is that a successful connection can only be made at the consent of those who are potentially taught. Therefore, insofar as you submit yourself to the teaching of one group of teachers or another, they are the ones teaching you and you are the one being taught. When that connection is made at your consent, I guess that’s the point where there’s a kind of relative or circumstantial authority- because you consent to the leadership of these teachers, you are being led by them, and they exercise authority over you.
I think I would disagree with an argument for absolute authority, though, where authority inherently exists in one particular group of teachers regardless of whether people consent to it or not. For any particular group of teachers, I would say their authority does not exist relative to me or anyone else who isn’t being led by them. I would also argue that no group of teachers can legitimately claim ownership of Christianity as a whole without its consent or me in particular without my consent.
With regard to your question, relative authority can certainly be lost on an individual level if and when people refuse to consent to the leadership of the Catholic Church due to some sort of scandal. And for those affected by a scandal who decide to continue in submission to the leadership of the CC, its authority relative to them would remain intact. If on the other hand you’re referring to some kind of absolute authority whereby the Magisterium has a God-given right to be the leaders and teachers of each and every Christian regardless of their consent, I would argue that this kind of authority has never existed and therefore cannot be lost.
C
cooterhein
Guest
Hm. None of my translations say “prelate.” I assume you’re using the D-R and a little bit of Middle English?
I don’t do much with Middle English and I don’t believe I’ve had personal contact with any people who would refer to themselves as “prelates.” The word in question, however, is ἡγουμένων, it comes from ἡγέομαι and this in turn is from ἄγω- working backwards from last to first, these words mean “I lead, bring, carry,” “to lead,” and “one who leads.” I don’t think there’s any linguistic basis for arguing that it refers to a certain kind of leader, but if you have a preference for the D-R translation, I guess I can’t stop you from feeling strongly about arbitrary preferences.
That said, look back to verse 7, if you please.
“Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God.”
Couple of things about Hebrews: First, the authorship is disputed, and we don’t know that it was Paul who wrote it. There was a time when most Christians would have said “He probably did,” but as of right now, most would say “He probably didn’t.” We really don’t know either way. Leading candidates include Barnabus and Apollos, although there are quite a few others- Paul included, of course.
Second, it’s not technically a general epistle, although some will erroneously call it that. It was written to a specific group of Jewish and Gentile Christians. Their exact location is unknown; it may have been Rome, elsewhere in Italy, or possibly Jerusalem. It could have been a group of Christians that fled Jerusalem but stayed in the area of Palestine, or perhaps Alexandria- they had more of a Christian population to speak of at the time.
Whoever it was written to, they had leaders- those who preached to them the word of God. Those leaders continued to watch over them.
I have leaders. None that call themselves “prelates,” but they did preach to me the word of God. They continue to watch over me. None of them are Catholic, but in spite of that, I’m sure you won’t mind if I choose to continue obeying them and submit to them (v. 17).
Regarding the people to whom Hebrews was written, this is only an exhortation to follow Roman leaders if these people happened to have been residing in Rome. If they were in another part of Italy or in Alexandria or Jerusalem or a different part of Palestine, the people who preached to them the word of God would not have been sent out by Rome (where Christianity was still illegal and largely practiced outside the city walls) and if there were any internal dispute on the matter, I’d imagine that something along the lines of “Some follow Paul, some follow Apollos” would have applied. Fitting, isn’t it, since either man may have written the letter.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Hope that helps. Both of the KJV on my computer use ‘obey’ as well. As for prelates vs. leaders, I see either as one and the same. Looking at who spoke the word of God to them, they were authoritative men, chosen and appointed to their positions.
If we view scriptures as the inspired word of God, what difference does the argument make in the scheme of things.
There was an authoritative Church established by Christ. There were no self appointments, or appointments by other than those with authority, bestowed upon them by Christ Himself, or those He chose and appointed with authority. Even reading Acts 6, when people put forth men, they had hands laid upon them and were prayed over by the authoritative men of the Church, confirming their positions that they were put forth for.
With that thought in mind, exactly what translated word we should use, who wrote the book, who was written too, when and where were they, seems to be an argument of convenience. No offense, but it has appearances of relativism.
Show me with scriptures where anyone had a freedom to choose who their authority was. When Christ told the people to observe and do whatsoever that those who sit on the seat of Moses said to you, He gave them no options of ‘pick and choose’. Reading the rest of the New Testament, there are no offers of pick and choose your leaders, that you are to be subject too.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
cooterhein,
Show me in scriptures where laypersons were instructed to reject any person in an authoritative position in the Church.
The scriptures are instructions to the men of the Church, by men of the Church. We are lucky enough to be educated, and privileged, to be able to read those instructions to the men of the Church, thus understanding some of what they teach us. To read in context, one must consider the audience. For example, we must read who Christ spoke and commanded to understand who those words were/are spoken and commanded to. Many Protestants ignore this and apply every thing to themselves personally. Show me in scriptures where Christ spoke to the multitudes and granted authority to them.
My point is, any ‘problem’ person in a position in the Church has to be addressed by authoritative men of the Church, and even then they have to consider that Christ did not remove Judas, but let him remove himself through his own actions. This is not to say, the authoritative men should not or cannot remove a problem person, they can through the authority to bind and loose. They are the Church, where disputes are to be taken. Now before applying one’s self to ‘Church’ in this context, read who Christ spoke those instructions to, it was not the multitudes. It was the men He chose and appointed.
As for denying ‘authority’ in the Church, God set the hierarchy of the Church, as listed in order by Paul. Note, he uses ‘first’, ‘secondly’, ‘thirdly’, ‘after that’ and ‘then’.
Show me in scriptures where laypersons were instructed to reject any person in an authoritative position in the Church.
The scriptures are instructions to the men of the Church, by men of the Church. We are lucky enough to be educated, and privileged, to be able to read those instructions to the men of the Church, thus understanding some of what they teach us. To read in context, one must consider the audience. For example, we must read who Christ spoke and commanded to understand who those words were/are spoken and commanded to. Many Protestants ignore this and apply every thing to themselves personally. Show me in scriptures where Christ spoke to the multitudes and granted authority to them.
My point is, any ‘problem’ person in a position in the Church has to be addressed by authoritative men of the Church, and even then they have to consider that Christ did not remove Judas, but let him remove himself through his own actions. This is not to say, the authoritative men should not or cannot remove a problem person, they can through the authority to bind and loose. They are the Church, where disputes are to be taken. Now before applying one’s self to ‘Church’ in this context, read who Christ spoke those instructions to, it was not the multitudes. It was the men He chose and appointed.
As for denying ‘authority’ in the Church, God set the hierarchy of the Church, as listed in order by Paul. Note, he uses ‘first’, ‘secondly’, ‘thirdly’, ‘after that’ and ‘then’.
Again, I request you provide the scripture and verse where anyone appointed themselves, or others without having the authority.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Rawb,
Blessings,
Marduk
I believe his use of the smilies means he was kdding around.Are you saying if the Catholic Church’s hierarchy sins, it does not effect her claims of having the fullness of Truth, but if any other Church’s hierarchy sins, it absolutely effects their claims of having the Truth? Isn’t that a bit of a double standard?
Blessings,
Marduk
B
Bezant
Guest
In any case, it seems you presuppose that Judas received from Christ some sort of “teaching-morals-and-faith-authority” (I have in mind something like the Apostolic Authority conferred at Pentecost on the other 11 apostles)?
If so, I’m not convinced of that assumption.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I don’t 'presuppose anything and am open to correction/instruction on this point.
Christ told them He chose and ‘appointed’ them. Also, was Judas present at the Last Supper? Christ did not exclude Judas. Was it for Judas to make final decisions concerning his own self?
As I say, no presupposition and open to correction/instruction…
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
It can. Read up on the history of antisemitism in the Church. It went on for centuries. The Nazis did not invent Jewish ghettos, identification badges, and denying Jews of a means to make a living. I would say that Her authority in those matters was undermined by the prejudice of her leaders, for more than 1,000 years.
E
ESMDHokie77
Guest
proof that this relates to the Church please!
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
Would you like papal proclamations spanning 500 years consistently promoting antisemitism? I think this relates to the Church, and also to the OP.
C
cooterhein
Guest
Prodigal Son, there’s a couple of things from consecutive posts by you that I need to put side-by-side for a moment. In the first one, you’re responding to some of the contextual details that I included about Hebrews- things we know and don’t know about authorship, the people to whom it was written, etc. In response, you offered this.
Then in your very next post, you offer this comment concerning Biblical context and its relevance to Biblical interpretation.
Here’s an idea. Perhaps you don’t always notice when Protestants are paying attention to context because you consistently imagine that they’re forming “an argument of convenience.” But of course when you do the exact same thing, it’s brilliant. Indispensable, really. Just as long as you (or another Catholic) is the one doing it.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Let’s see if I can make myself more clear for you to understand.
Are you saying that because a letter was written to Hebrews, no one else has to pay any attention to that letter? I don’t think that’s what you mean, but seems to be where you are taking the argument.
Now you should understand that I believe the Bible was written for everyone, but when we look at the stories inside we have to consider the audience. For example, start reading John at chapter 13 and see the audience that Christ is addressing. Reading through, we don’t see any others, than His disciples, until they come to arrest Him. ‘Many’ Protestants read all those chapters as if Christ is speaking directly to them today, yet He did not say those things when addressing the multitudes. Those things were only spoken to those He chose and appointed.
When we read Paul’s letters and epistles, it is contradictory, in my opinion, to separate them into individual letters to individual groups as the teachings are the same for each Church. Paul did not write, or endorse, different doctrines/teachings for different Churches. If you think I’m wrong on that point, please show us the different doctrines/teachings supported by Paul, from Church to Church.
The argument of who may have authored particular letters and epistles does seem to be a matter of convenience. Points are made using the writings and then we hear, well we don’t know for sure who wrote those.
C
cooterhein
Guest
If there’s something I’m not understanding, I’d like to understand it better.
What I was doing in general was establishing some of the basic facts about the book of Hebrews as it is understood by theologically conservative Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. Among these basic facts is the fact that there’s a basic list of epistles that are classed as “general” or “catholic.” That list can be seen here. newadvent.org/cathen/03453a.htm
According to the Catholic encyclopedia, these epistles are addressed to the faithful in general after the manner of an encyclical letter. Those that are not “catholic” (more likely called “general” by non-Catholics) are the ones written to a particular person or church. There is some distinction to be made with the second and third epistles of John, but this is explained within the source as well.
I pointed these things out in order to indicate that Paul very well may not have written this letter, we really have no idea exactly where the recipients of it were, and the only thing we really know about their leaders is that they are the ones who brought the Gospel to them. We don’t know that their leaders were commissioned by the apostles, and even if they were, we know that not all early communities of converts were directly tied to this kind of commissioning and sending-out.
Yes, of course. And we should always consider the audience- not just when it’s more convenient for you to make a point.
And on the other hand, “many” Protestants actually do understand the basics of interpreting Scripture.
Pauline epistles are largely confined to the same group; general or catholic epistles are the ones not written by Paul. The main difference between the two is that the largely Pauline group has in view a specific group of practicing Christians, and you may correctly assume that the recipients are almost exclusively of the “elect.” General epistles have a broader audience in view, though, and this audience includes plenty of tares among the wheat. You can tell the various authors have this in mind, too, and they abound with warning that should arouse and alarm the “mere professor.” This is hardly contradictory, and it doesn’t even involve a separation of Paul’s letters. They are still grouped together.
Hebrews, however, is not necessarily Pauline in origin, although it does join the “non-general” group. This is what another page from the Catholic Encyclopedia says on the matter. newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm
If you look to the portion pertaining to the authorship of Hebrews, you’ll want the section entitled “Most Probable Solution” and the portions leading up to it.
“The writer, the one to whom the letter owes its form, had apparently been a pupil of the Apostle. It is not possible now, however, to settle his personality on account of the lack of any definite tradition and of any decisive proof in the letter itself. Ancient and modern writers mention various pupils of the Apostle, especially Luke, Clement of Rome, Apollo, lately also Priscilla and Aquila.”
Does that look familiar? It’s basically identical to what most Protestant scholars will say concerning the authorship of Hebrews, although there are some (both Catholics and non-Catholics) that give a bit more credence to arguments for Pauline authorship. Overall, though- regardless of which arguments are favored by different people- we can all agree that no one can really know the author of Hebrews with any certainty.
It’s worth noting that all of these things I’ve indicated as “basic things about Hebrews” are largely agreed-upon between the bulk of Catholic scholars and theologically conservative Protestant scholars. IOW, I’m making statements about Hebrews on which your people and my people are in full or near-complete agreement. I’m not making an argument for a non-Catholic POV that is opposed to a Catholic POV- if I was, that would be sufficiently clear.
He didn’t espouse contradictory teachings, if that’s what you’re implying, but he did do different things that were more specific to the needs of a particular group or community. I don’t have enough characters to outline them in this post, though.
It’s a matter of fact; please check some more of your Catholic sources.
I’m only telling you we don’t know for sure who wrote Hebrews because it’s a matter of fact- we don’t. It comes as a surprise to me that I’m the first person you’re hearing this from. The fact that you don’t know this yet indicates a lack of communication between you and the Catholic scholarship that you depend on in these areas.
C
cooterhein
Guest
Here’s some brief summaries of the main themes in Paul’s different epistles.
Romans- on which there is excellent consensus to Pauline authorship.
It is only through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that sinners can attain salvation. Therefore, God is both just and the one who justifies. In response to God’s free, sovereign and graceful action of salvation, humanity can be justified by faith.
1 Corinthians- consensus on Pauline authorship is good enough to be “undisputed.”
Paul wrote this letter to correct erroneous views in the Corinthian church. Several sources informed Paul of conflicts within the church at Corinth: Apollos, a letter from the Corinthians, the “household of Chloe,” and finally Stephanas and his two friends who had visited Paul. Paul then wrote this letter to the Corinthians, urging uniformity of belief and expounding Christian doctrine. That’s the main reason for the existence of this letter and the nature of its content.
2 Corinthians- there is little doubt as to its Pauline authorship. Some speculate that material near the end is additional Pauline material that was tagged on at some point, but that’s about it.
Paul refers to himself as an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God and reassures the people of Corinth will not have another painful visit. What he has to say is not to cause pain but to reassure them the love he has for them. He feels that his authority has been challenged in unique ways by some Corinthians (in contrast to some others like the Galatians) and re-asserts certain doctrines that had been challenged by this specific group of people.
Galatians- undisputed in its Pauline origin.
Paul is principally concerned with the controversy surrounding Gentile Christians and the Mosaic Law within Early Christianity. It’s clear that some of the Galatians took “freedom in Christ” as permission to be antinomian, and Paul argues against this with copious use of emphatic negation.
Ephesians- traditionally attributed to Paul, but 80% of critical scholarship agrees that it could not have been written by Paul. Among those who matter more to people like us, though, there is Pauline consensus.
The purpose of Ephesians is wrapped up in the particular socio-historical context that Ephesus found itself in. To that end, Paul addresses issues appropriate to the diversity of the community. He focuses on hostility, division, and self-interest more than anything else, and his focus seems to be more behavioral than doctrinal. Where there is a doctrinal focus, though, it has to do with Paul’s Christology of sacrifice as a means of exhorting Ephesus to emulate Jesus’ example and be in peaceful submission to one another. In a different socio-historical context, certain passages from this book might- and have- been used in support of slavery rather than abolition.
Score one for “Context Matters!”
Philippians- universal support for Pauline authorship. Critical scholars in doubt of it have been few and relatively ineffective.
The occasion for this letter is multi-faceted and has everything to do with the historical reconstruction of its context. It is a “thank you” note to the Philippians for their most recent gift, with a reminder that God will take care of Paul and them; it is a response to the various questions and problems raised by Epaphroditus, including issues of poverty, quarrelsomeness, selfishness, as well as outside opposition to Paul’s gospel; and finally, the letter is a diplomatic reintroduction of Epaphroditus in light of the Philippians’ hope that Timothy would be sent.
Colossians- critical scholars increasingly question Pauline authorship, but it is consistently defended by those who are more traditional.
The Epistle to the Colossians declares Christ’s supremacy over the entire created universe and exhorts Christians to lead godly lives. The letter consists of two parts: first a doctrinal section, then a second regarding conduct. In both sections, false teachers who have been spreading error in the congregation are opposed. These false teachings were relatively unique to the Colossian experience, and the doctrinal and conduct-related sections are specific to the problems presented by them.
1 Thessalonians- the first of Paul’s letters, and while other details are somewhat disputed, Pauline authorship is not.
This letter is mostly personal; there is some doctrinal material, but it’s included almost as an aside. Paul’s main purpose in writing is to encourage and reassure the Christians there. He urges them to go on working quietly while waiting in hope for the return of Christ.
2 Thessalonians- there is more critical opposition to Pauline authorship, but there’s actually more early support for it than there is for 1 Thessalonians.
Apparently, some of the Thessalonians misunderstood what was written in the first letter. As it relates to the difference between these letters and “general” or “catholic” epistles, these would not have been “tares among the wheat” who were sowing dissention in the ranks- those who misunderstood would have been sincere Christians who simply misunderstood. They came to the conclusion that Jesus was about to return in the very near future. Paul corrects this misconception in the second letter, talks about what must happen before the End of Days, introduces the concept of the Great Apostasy, and also mentions the Katechon- something that restrains the revelation of the Antichrist.
Romans- on which there is excellent consensus to Pauline authorship.
It is only through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that sinners can attain salvation. Therefore, God is both just and the one who justifies. In response to God’s free, sovereign and graceful action of salvation, humanity can be justified by faith.
1 Corinthians- consensus on Pauline authorship is good enough to be “undisputed.”
Paul wrote this letter to correct erroneous views in the Corinthian church. Several sources informed Paul of conflicts within the church at Corinth: Apollos, a letter from the Corinthians, the “household of Chloe,” and finally Stephanas and his two friends who had visited Paul. Paul then wrote this letter to the Corinthians, urging uniformity of belief and expounding Christian doctrine. That’s the main reason for the existence of this letter and the nature of its content.
2 Corinthians- there is little doubt as to its Pauline authorship. Some speculate that material near the end is additional Pauline material that was tagged on at some point, but that’s about it.
Paul refers to himself as an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God and reassures the people of Corinth will not have another painful visit. What he has to say is not to cause pain but to reassure them the love he has for them. He feels that his authority has been challenged in unique ways by some Corinthians (in contrast to some others like the Galatians) and re-asserts certain doctrines that had been challenged by this specific group of people.
Galatians- undisputed in its Pauline origin.
Paul is principally concerned with the controversy surrounding Gentile Christians and the Mosaic Law within Early Christianity. It’s clear that some of the Galatians took “freedom in Christ” as permission to be antinomian, and Paul argues against this with copious use of emphatic negation.
Ephesians- traditionally attributed to Paul, but 80% of critical scholarship agrees that it could not have been written by Paul. Among those who matter more to people like us, though, there is Pauline consensus.
The purpose of Ephesians is wrapped up in the particular socio-historical context that Ephesus found itself in. To that end, Paul addresses issues appropriate to the diversity of the community. He focuses on hostility, division, and self-interest more than anything else, and his focus seems to be more behavioral than doctrinal. Where there is a doctrinal focus, though, it has to do with Paul’s Christology of sacrifice as a means of exhorting Ephesus to emulate Jesus’ example and be in peaceful submission to one another. In a different socio-historical context, certain passages from this book might- and have- been used in support of slavery rather than abolition.
Score one for “Context Matters!”
Philippians- universal support for Pauline authorship. Critical scholars in doubt of it have been few and relatively ineffective.
The occasion for this letter is multi-faceted and has everything to do with the historical reconstruction of its context. It is a “thank you” note to the Philippians for their most recent gift, with a reminder that God will take care of Paul and them; it is a response to the various questions and problems raised by Epaphroditus, including issues of poverty, quarrelsomeness, selfishness, as well as outside opposition to Paul’s gospel; and finally, the letter is a diplomatic reintroduction of Epaphroditus in light of the Philippians’ hope that Timothy would be sent.
Colossians- critical scholars increasingly question Pauline authorship, but it is consistently defended by those who are more traditional.
The Epistle to the Colossians declares Christ’s supremacy over the entire created universe and exhorts Christians to lead godly lives. The letter consists of two parts: first a doctrinal section, then a second regarding conduct. In both sections, false teachers who have been spreading error in the congregation are opposed. These false teachings were relatively unique to the Colossian experience, and the doctrinal and conduct-related sections are specific to the problems presented by them.
1 Thessalonians- the first of Paul’s letters, and while other details are somewhat disputed, Pauline authorship is not.
This letter is mostly personal; there is some doctrinal material, but it’s included almost as an aside. Paul’s main purpose in writing is to encourage and reassure the Christians there. He urges them to go on working quietly while waiting in hope for the return of Christ.
2 Thessalonians- there is more critical opposition to Pauline authorship, but there’s actually more early support for it than there is for 1 Thessalonians.
Apparently, some of the Thessalonians misunderstood what was written in the first letter. As it relates to the difference between these letters and “general” or “catholic” epistles, these would not have been “tares among the wheat” who were sowing dissention in the ranks- those who misunderstood would have been sincere Christians who simply misunderstood. They came to the conclusion that Jesus was about to return in the very near future. Paul corrects this misconception in the second letter, talks about what must happen before the End of Days, introduces the concept of the Great Apostasy, and also mentions the Katechon- something that restrains the revelation of the Antichrist.
C
cooterhein
Guest
1 Timothy- it, along with 2 Timothy and Titus, are consistently believed to be Pauline in origin while critical scholarship is increasingly divided on the matter.
This letter is specifically directed at Timothy. He is instructed to guard against false teachings throughout. He is also instructed on how to repair the church and restore conduct within, along with instruction on prayer, the qualifications of various leaders, and some material on the role of men and women in the church that is rather unique to this epistle. Widows, elders, slaves, more on false teachers…fight the good fight, word to the wealthy, and guard what has been entrusted.
2 Timothy- another letter to Timothy. This one largely instruct him on how to conduct himself- not with a spirit of timidity, without shame, and so forth. He is encouraged to patience under persecution and exhorted to deal with false teachings in a particular way. Additionally, Paul anticipates his own death; this much is clear.
Titus- written specifically to Titus, this one has to do with the selection and role of various leaders in the church. Near the end, Paul instructs Titus to leave Crete and join him.
Philemon- generally regarded as undisputed in Pauline authorship.
This deals with forgiveness. Philemon is a slave returning to his master; I think you know the gist of it. It’s a short one; a thorough description of the epistle would run about as long as the epistle itself.
Those are the Pauline epistles. We don’t know exactly who wrote Hebrews, but it is generally placed in this group instead of being included in the general epistles. There is a chance that it was written by Paul (however uncertain that may be), and it isn’t general or “catholic” in scope- it does deal with a specific group of people, although we’re not sure exactly where they were.
This letter is specifically directed at Timothy. He is instructed to guard against false teachings throughout. He is also instructed on how to repair the church and restore conduct within, along with instruction on prayer, the qualifications of various leaders, and some material on the role of men and women in the church that is rather unique to this epistle. Widows, elders, slaves, more on false teachers…fight the good fight, word to the wealthy, and guard what has been entrusted.
2 Timothy- another letter to Timothy. This one largely instruct him on how to conduct himself- not with a spirit of timidity, without shame, and so forth. He is encouraged to patience under persecution and exhorted to deal with false teachings in a particular way. Additionally, Paul anticipates his own death; this much is clear.
Titus- written specifically to Titus, this one has to do with the selection and role of various leaders in the church. Near the end, Paul instructs Titus to leave Crete and join him.
Philemon- generally regarded as undisputed in Pauline authorship.
This deals with forgiveness. Philemon is a slave returning to his master; I think you know the gist of it. It’s a short one; a thorough description of the epistle would run about as long as the epistle itself.
Those are the Pauline epistles. We don’t know exactly who wrote Hebrews, but it is generally placed in this group instead of being included in the general epistles. There is a chance that it was written by Paul (however uncertain that may be), and it isn’t general or “catholic” in scope- it does deal with a specific group of people, although we’re not sure exactly where they were.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Oh, this is one of those instances where, ‘if it’s not written, then it’s acceptable to believe this way?’ But, in the instances of Catholic beliefs not specifically stated, usually to a Protestant’s expectations, that is not acceptable?
The Bible has plenty of examples of the ‘imposition of hands’, as well as choosing and appointing. There are NO examples of anyone appointing themselves, or non-authoritative people ‘choosing and ordaining’ others, to positions of authority.
Your statement of ‘We don’t know that their leaders were commissioned by the apostles, and even if they were, we know that not all early communities of converts were directly tied to this kind of commissioning and sending-out’ appears to be looking for a loop hole, especially in light of the fact that you gave NO scriptural documentation to support that belief.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Read Nehemiah 8 for the basics of how the people ‘interpreted’ scriptures, then provide me the scriptures that state people should ‘attempt’ to interpret scriptures for themselves, then please list the scriptures with the instructions for those ‘basics’. Lastly, explain how those ‘many’ Protestants have the authority to tell everyone else their interpretation is wrong. Where is their ‘guarantee’ that they have it right in scriptures?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Paul did NOT endorse different doctrines/teachings. Paul taught against divisions.
It’s not the first time I’ve heard this, about questioning authorship of the inspired word of God. It’s the way it’s being used that pitches scriptures against scriptures, in what appears to be an attempt to validate many opposing doctrines/teachings as one truth that I see much irony in.
The Protestant reformation took place in the 1500s. Before that, there were not many Churches espousing different doctrines/teachings and being one as Paul wrote to be, or as Christ prayed we’d be.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I’ve thought about this part of your post a lot today. It appears you’re either saying, it can be ignored by most people except Hebrew Christians of a distinct area, or there are parts of the Bible that doesn’t belong with the rest of scriptures because we cannot be sure who wrote it. Which is it?
It really seems you’re putting forth an argument to deny ‘obey your prelates’ because of it’s message. It also seems divisive in nature. Are ‘Americans’ free from some scriptures because there is not a letter or epistle to the ‘Americans’? We are a ‘specific’ group.
Was Galatians 3:28 exclusive so that it did not include others except Jews and Greeks?
Does the above not include the Hebrews?
- Status