Does it matter what denomination you are a part of?

[MichaelP3]

FIRSTLY; maybe ask Jerome and Cejetan? Secondly… check the history…

But also. This is actually not adressing the problem. Which again I Implore you Mr Steve to SERIOUSLY CHECK HISTORY!

 

[steve-b]

FIRSTLY; maybe ask Jerome and Cejetan? Secondly… check the history…

But also. This is actually not adressing the problem. Which again I Implore you Mr Steve to SERIOUSLY CHECK HISTORY!

I gave you history properly referenced. Do you deny Jerome and Cajetan ultimately approved of the 7 books?

 

[Wannano]

Unity is easy. They need to discard their heretical beliefs, acknowledge the Church as the one founded by Christ and led by the apostles successors and humbly submit to their authority and teaching.

They have nothing we need, we have the fullness of Christ’s truth where they have but distorted fragments.

Oh dear friend…they indeed have something you need. Love.

 

[MichaelP3]

@edward_ george1 (how do I link a poster on here)

Care to correct this post as I obviously have no authority to do that.

Regards

 

[MT1926]

I apologize if that isn’t what you believe.

I’m back. My son graduated college yesterday. 2 down 3 to go, can’t wait until the last one finishes, I’m excited to see if money is still green.

We both know this and I think that is the problem here. I’m trying to discuss the basics by not bring this up, but your mind automatically goes here and says nope your wrong.

Not trying to shove the Catholic Church down anyone’s throat. Just trying to look at the Bible from a common sense point of view. The problem is I raise basic questions but get accused of what the other person assumes.

It’s like talking to someone about addition and them responding your calculus makes no sense.

I already know that the infallibility of the Pope makes no sense to you. So why try without first discussing whether or not Jesus left us an authority? That’s like a math teacher explaining calculus before teaching addition.

I know you object but doesn’t visible authority make at least a little sense? Just look at the world? Instructions are difficult to write so all can understand. Any father trying to put together all of the Christmas presents, that were made in China, the night before Christmas morning knows what I am talking about here.

We agree Jesus has authority and gave His authority to the Apostles. However we disagree when this authority ends.

Scripture tells us the place of authority in scripture is at the right and left hand of God. In Matthew 20 and Mark 10 James and John asked Jesus to sit at His right and His left in His kingdom. We can see in context that they were requesting to be the 2nd and 3rd in command when Jesus tells us about the Gentile leaders lording their authority. Notice Jesus never denies the need for authority He just defines the role of the leader. Also, if we back up to what Jesus says here…

40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”

Jesus does not deny that these positions of authority exist, in this world or in heaven. He tells us these positions of authority, have already been chosen.

Jesus placed Apostles in positions of authority and God placed people at the right and left hand of Jesus in heaven. So if Jesus started the Church, here on earth, with authority and this same Church in heaven has authority in it, why wouldn’t we believe that Jesus’ Church, here and now should still have positions of authority within it?

Unless we can even agree that Jesus intended authority (basically 2+2=4) then there is no way we would ever be able to even try to discuss how can we know who this authority is (basically algebra).

God Bless

Oh, and please don’t accuse me of saying Protestants don’t know how to do calculus.

 

[lanman87]

I’m back. My son graduated college yesterday. 2 down 3 to go, can’t wait until the last one finishes, I’m excited to see if money is still green.

Congratulations!

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

In Paul’s letter to the Church of Rome, he wrote (all emphasis mine)
Rom 1:7 To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints:

It was not the Roman Catholic church, it was simply the catholic (universal) church of which the people who followed Christ in Rome were a part.

The official name of the Church is the Catholic Church

It happens to be headquartered in Rome, Peter’s last see.

 

[lanman87]

Jesus placed Apostles in positions of authority and God placed people at the right and left hand of Jesus in heaven. So if Jesus started the Church, here on earth, with authority and this same Church in heaven has authority in it, why wouldn’t we believe that Jesus’ Church, here and now should still have positions of authority within it?

Unless we can even agree that Jesus intended authority (basically 2+2=4) then there is no way we would ever be able to even try to discuss how can we know who this authority is (basically algebra).

I agree Jesus placed the apostles in Authority. But the authority must teach by the rules. (if they say 2+2=5) then they lose their authority.

 

[lanman87]

It happens to be headquartered in Rome, Peter’s last see.

That came later. Rome didn’t even claim to be headquarters until the mid 3rd century and when they did the other churches basically said “I don’t think so”.

 

[MT1926]

I agree Jesus placed the apostles in Authority. But the authority must teach by the rules. (if they say 2+2=5) then they lose their authority.

This is good. Yes totally agree on the basics they must teach by the rules. Once again I am talking the basics here addition. So yes they can’t teach that 2 + 2 = 5. However, in my opinion the things we tend to argue about are not basic addition they are advanced math the has unknown components.

For example 2x+3y =4z. This is the point I am making. This is the equation for infallibility or purgatory.

Once again you are going beyond the point I am trying to make and making this about the Catholic Church.

My only point here is based on my reasoning does it make sense that Jesus intended for us to have a visible authority still present?

So what is your thought on the rest of my post and scripture?

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

This is good. Yes totally agree on the basics they must teach by the rules. Once again I am talking the basics here addition. So yes they can’t teach that 2 + 2 = 5. However, in my opinion the things we tend to argue about are not basic addition they are advanced math the has unknown components.

For example 2x+3y =4z. This is the point I am making. This is the equation for infallibility or purgatory.

How do we know they are teaching by the rules and not just making equations up? What is our response if we discover they are making equations up?

So what is your thought on the rest of my post and scripture?

I agree that God calls some to be teachers, preacher and evangelist and “Pastor” who oversee and shepherd the flock. However, I don’t think this is given via Apostolic Succession but is a call to certain individuals by the Holy Spirit.

 

[steve-b]

That came later. Rome didn’t even claim to be headquarters until the mid 3rd century and when they did the other churches basically said “I don’t think so”.

actually,

~ a.d. 180

Bp Irenaeus, from Smyrna, (in present day Turkey) who became Bp of Lyon in the West, and who knew Bp Polycarp of Smyrna, a direct disciple of the apostle John, wrote the following

From “Against Heresies”

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every [Church], who may wish to see the [truth] to contemplate clearly the tradition of the [apostles] manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the [apostles] instituted [bishops] in the [Churches] and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor [knew] of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the [apostles] had [known] hidden [mysteries] which they were in the [habit] of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the [Church] but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the [Churches], we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an [evil] self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the [apostles] of the very great, the very ancient, and universally [known] [Church] founded and organized at [Rome] by the two most [glorious] [apostles] Peter and [Paul] as also [by pointing out] the [faith] preached to [men], which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the [bishops]. For it is a matter of necessity that every [Church] should agree with this [Church], on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem]."

Look at the argument. Irenaeus says it doesn’t come from him. Who does he say this came from? This isn’t knew teaching.

AND

This is NOT an East / West political or geographical argument. It is from the apostles.

Let’s Back up to Bp Ignatius of Antioch. Like Bp Polycarp, Ignatius was also a direct disciple of John the apostle. In Ignatius letter to the Church of Rome

in his opening statement, he acknowledges the Church of Rome holds the presidency. No other church that Ignatius writes to does he acknowledge, holds the same position.

AND

From his letters to Smyrna and the Philadelphians, we see that he defines the Church as the Catholic Church and schism from this Church one "shall not inherit the [kingdom of God] "

 

[MT1926]

How do we know they are teaching by the rules and not just making equations up?

You are missing my point here.

What is our response if we discover they are making equations up?

My response would be how can you know they are making up the equation.

All I am trying to talk about is who has the authority to put the equation together in the first place.

Think about it unless you are claiming you were given that authority there is no way of even discovering the equation was made up in the first place.

I’m not trying to prove any equations here but you automatically jump to you know the equation is wrong. This is exactly what I am talking about here.

I agree that God calls some to be teachers, preacher and evangelist and “Pastor” who oversee and shepherd the flock. However, I don’t think this is given via Apostolic Succession but is a call to certain individuals by the Holy Spirit.

Could I ask how you come to this conclusion?

Like I showed I get to my conclusion showing that Jesus Appointed levels of authority through the Apostles here on earth and God appointed the levels of authority to the right and left of Jesus in heaven. From this I conclude that levels of authority here on earth are also appointed.

Can you show how you know that these levels here on earth, which you agree with have, are no longer handed their authority but are now given private revelation by the Holy Spirit that they are appointed with authority?

Once again not jumping the gun and saying see you are wrong, just trying to get to the basis of authority.

We made it through step one and both agree that their is authority over us here on earth. Now let’s try step two and see if we can find how we can be sure that the ones over us were actually given authority by the Holy Spirit and not just claiming they have it.

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

Look at the argument. Irenaeus says it doesn’t come from him. Who does he say this came from? This isn’t knew teaching.

• First of all, Irenaeus scoffs at the idea of a “Secret Tradition”. Which is what the Catholic church now teaches. That there was a secret tradition that can only be explained and revealed by the Bishops.
• Second, Irenaeus gives the possibility of those “successors” of the Apostles to “fall away”. Which is the opposite of Infallibility.
• Third, He contends that the Church of Rome, at that time, was the best example of a church that holds on and teaches the faith. Their “preeminent authority” comes from the fact that they are faithful to the teachings of the apostles. He doesn’t say that the church of Rome will always be the “Preeminent authority” or that it will always be necessary for every church to agree with Rome. If the church of Rome “falls away” and teaches things the apostles didn’t teach then they are no longer the Preeminent authority.
• Fourth, This is Irenaeus’s opinion and may or may not have been shared by other Bishops.

in his opening statement, he acknowledges the Church of Rome holds the presidency

His says the church of Rome holds the “Presidency of Love”. This isn’t a position filled by an office. It is a term of endearment to the Roman Church.

 

[lanman87]

Once again not jumping the gun and saying see you are wrong, just trying to get to the basis of authority.

Here is an article by Al Mohler (President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) on the “Call to Preach”.

https://albertmohler.com/2013/07/19/has-god-called-you-discerning-the-call-to-preach-2/

Here is another by Dr. James Merritt

Here is another. This is from a Methodist.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Look at the argument. Irenaeus says it doesn’t come from him. Who does he say this came from? This isn’t knew teaching.

• First of all, Irenaeus scoffs at the idea of a “Secret Tradition”. Which is what the Catholic church now teaches. That there was a secret tradition that can only be explained and revealed by the Bishops.
• Second, Irenaeus gives the possibility of those “successors” of the Apostles to “fall away”. Which is the opposite of Infallibility.
• Third, He contends that the Church of Rome, at that time, was the best example of a church that holds on and teaches the faith. Their “preeminent authority” comes from the fact that they are faithful to the teachings of the apostles. He doesn’t say that the church of Rome will always be the “Preeminent authority” or that it will always be necessary for every church to agree with Rome. If the church of Rome “falls away” and teaches things the apostles didn’t teach then they are no longer the Preeminent authority.
• Fourth, This is Irenaeus’s opinion and may or may not have been shared by other Bishops.

ch’s 1-3 Against Heresies How do you not see what Irenaeus is saying?

in his opening statement, he acknowledges the Church of Rome holds the presidency

Ianman87:

His says the church of Rome holds the “Presidency of Love”. This isn’t a position filled by an office. It is a term of endearment to the Roman Church.

Ignatius by his own teaching says to do NOTHING without the bishop ch 8 & 9. He’s NOT going against what he just wrote. Be sure to read ch 9 as well.

 

[lanman87]

Ignatius by his own teaching says to do NOTHING without the bishop ch 8 & 9 . He’s NOT going against what he just wrote. Be sure to read ch 9 as well.

There is no doubt that in the early church the Bishops or Presbyters were considered called by God and had authority.

However, according to Catholic Historian Raymond Brown, “the historical evidence indicates that there was no monarchical bishop in Rome until sometime between A.D. 140-150” . Instead of a single bishop, it appears that the Roman church was organized under a college of presbyters or presbyter-bishops.

When Ignatius wrote his letters to the churches there was no single bishop of Rome.

 

[lanman87]

Here is another Baptist Perspective on Authority of Pastors/Teachers

First, it’s clear in Scripture pastors have authority . Believers are expected to “respect,” “honor,” “obey,” “submit,” and “be subject to” those who “labor,” “are over,” “admonish,” “rule,” “preach,” “teach,” “care for,” keep watch,” or “devote” themselves to the work of the gospel ministry as those who will “give an account” for the tasks entrusted to them (1 Cor. 16:15–16; 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 3:4–5; 5:17; Heb. 13:17; 1 Peter 5:5)…

Second, the authority of pastors is derived : it comes from God (not the congregation). Although the congregation affirms their calling and authority, it’s an authority with divine origin. Paul tells the Ephesians elders the Holy Spirit made them overseers (Acts 20:28) and later indicates leaders are gifts given by Jesus to the church (Eph. 4:11).

Third, the authority of pastors is limited in at least three ways.
(1) It’s limited by the Scriptures. Pastors do not have absolute authority because they stand under the authority of God and his Word. Therefore, when they stray from the Word, they abandon their God-given authority. Furthermore, the authority pastors possess is found not only in their office, but also in the duties they perform. On one hand, pastors should be obeyed because they have been appointed by God for that particular office (Acts 20:28). Their authority is given by God and is not inherent in themselves. When a person obeys or submits to a pastor, it could be said that he is obeying or submitting to God. But, on the other hand, pastors should be obeyed because they have the responsibility of shepherding and teaching the congregation. And when their shepherding and teaching stray from Scripture, their authority as shepherds and teachers is compromised and may no longer be binding on the congregation.

Continued

 

[lanman87]

Could I ask how you come to this conclusion?

(2) It’s limited by the nature of shared leadership. The biblical example of church government is not to set up an aristocracy or an oligarchy, but each local congregation should have a plurality of pastors/elders. There’s no example in the New Testament where one pastor (elder) leads a congregation as the sole or primary leader. There were a plurality of elders at the churches in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30), Antioch of Pisidia, Lystra, Iconium, and Derbe (Acts 14:23), Ephesus (Acts 20:17; 1 Tim. 5:17), Philippi (Phil. 1:1), the cities of Crete (Titus 1:5), the churches in the dispersion to which James wrote (James 1:1), the Roman provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1), and possibly the church(es) to which Hebrews was written (Heb. 13:7, 17, 24). Thus, a pastor has accountability to the other leaders.

(3) It’s limited to their congregation. That is, the authority of a pastor does not exceed beyond the local church. There’s no evidence in the New Testament that pastors exercised authority outside their congregation similar to that of the apostles. As shepherds, they ministered to their flock, but once they ventured outside their community to another congregation, they no longer functioned authoritatively.

(4) It’s limited by the congregation. Congregations were involved in choosing new leaders (Acts 6:2–3), commissioning missionaries (Acts 13:3), making important theological decisions (Acts 15:22), and disciplining unrepentant church members (Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:2; 2 Cor. 2:6). In addition, Paul always addressed the entire congregation rather than the leaders of the church (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1) and the New Testament undeniably affirms the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

 

[MT1926]

All good articles. However, once again we aren’t on the same page. I never claimed that Protestants aren’t given the call to preach, I’m asking where does their authority come from.

Let’s break these down.

Article one was a great article on how someone can know they have intense desire to preach. That’s great sounds good. However, he never once mentions how someone can know that they were given the power to teach with authority. Sure he mentions…

Baptists believe that God uses the congregation to “call out the called” to ministry. The congregation must evaluate and affirm the calling and gifts of the believer who feels called to the ministry.

OK this is fine but all we did was kick the can down the road. Now we need to ask the question where did the congregation get the authority to affirm this man’s calling? I hope this doesn’t come across as unkind but the first thing that entered my mind is the people who deny God created the universe by claiming the Big Bang was just the product of another universe’s collapse. To this we would say OK that is fine but who created the original universe that collapsed. In the same way who gave the congregation their authority to give to this man in the first place?

Also, he seemed pull his teaching from 1 Timothy 3:1 and expanding that to teach how we can know that the aspiration is from God. I would say that if we read chapter 3 withing the context of chapter 1 we would see that Timothy can only authoritatively preach because he was charged to do so from Paul, not the congregations he served who believed in him.

Second article preached pretty much the same thing just using a different verse of scripture. He did a great job breaking down 2 Timothy 4:2 made a lot of sense what he had to say. However, I wish he would have backed up one verse and told us what the Word tells us when Paul says “I charge you in the presence of God”. Paul is speaking as the one given the authority to pass on to Timothy.

The rest of the article was interesting but never once brought up where the authority comes from.

Now the third article does concentrate on authority but never really goes anywhere with it.

First was “Calling from God”. He outright calls the calling from God an inner conviction. This would be a personal conclusion one draws about one self based on what they believe is evidence of the Holy Spirit working within them. OK I’m good with this person believes they are being called by God. But how does this puts the person on the same level as Jesus (having authority) and not with the scribes (positional authority)?

Second Calling from the Church. I would ask the same question I did above. Just because people agree isn’t a sign of authority. The people have to first show where their authority came from.

Calling in Context. He states in this argument that “People may give us leadership positions”. So on this basis where did these people get the authority to ordain them in the first place.

All good articles on preaching but really doesn’t teach anything about where true authority comes from.

God Bless