Does it matter what denomination you are a part of?

[MT1926]

Second, the authority of pastors is derived : it comes from God (not the congregation).

That’s fine but how can this be proven?

Also, in my opinion this contradicts this…

1. It’s limited to their congregation.

How can an authority given by God be limited to only their congregation. If a person has authority given to them by God it would only seem logical that their authority would exceed anyone who wan’t given authority.

Think about it… later you sighted 1 Corinthians 1 as your proof for this. Well withing that text Paul tells the Corinthians that you agree on everything and their be no division among you. He goes on to say I follow Paul, I follow apollos etc.

Well isn’t that the exact scenario you just set up here. If Pastor Bob has no authority over me because he doesn’t teach the same way that Pastor Jim does aren’t I saying to Paul I follow Jim not Bob.

His response would be verse 13 “IS Christ divided”. Which is what I say above how can authority from God be limited without dividing Christ.

There’s no evidence in the New Testament that pastors exercised authority outside their congregation similar to that of the apostles.

Timothy wasn’t an “Apostle” he was ordained by an Apostle and told to pass it on.

Congregations were involved in choosing new leaders (Acts 6:2–3)

Not seeing how this is about church leadership, this is about ministering to widows? This is the job a a layperson not a pastor.

making important theological decisions (Acts 15:22)

This is the Apostles and elders, the men they ordained. The congregation didn’t have any say on what to do about the judaizers?

Matthew 18 Jesus is addressing the Apostles not the congregation

None of the other verses you site proves the congregation has any authority over their leaders.

Once again not proving I’m right and your wrong. Just trying to understand where authority comes from.

God Bless

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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.

I guess Irenaeus didn’t get the message. When He lists the bishops of Rome by name in succession, from Peter, he names 12 bishops, one bishop at a time, in succession, down to his day… Don’t take my word, count them yourself ch’ 3 Against Heresies

 

[Lwamsfarr51]

100% behind your comments.

 

[lanman87]

I guess Irenaeus didn’t get the message. When He lists the bishops of Rome by name in succession, from Peter, he names 12 bishops, one bishop at a time, in succession, down to his day… Don’t take my word, count them yourself ch’ 3 Against Heresies

Yet I’ve read 3 or 4 books by Historians, both Catholic and Protestant and they all agree that there was no monarchical bishop in Rome until the mid 2nd Century. Basically, you have a claim by Irenaeus that history doesn’t support. My guess is he was repeating a legend or something he was told by someone that was misinformed. Either that or he just made it up to prove a point.

 

[lanman87]

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.

Well, the Classic answer is that authority came from God by an inner working of the Holy Spirit on the person being called and the collective working of the Holy Spirit on those who affirm the person is being called.

We believe the Holy Spirit makes someone an overseer (elder, bishop, presbyter, pastor) of the flock.

Acts 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with his own blood.

Paul didn’t say “I made you an overseer” or “Peter made you an overseer”. It is the Holy Spirit who calls someone to be an overseer and the Holy Spirit who uses the assembly to confirm the calling.

Matthew 18 Jesus is addressing the Apostles not the congregation

Matthew 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

The word church means assembly or congregation. The institution of the church with a hierarchy, canon law, and catechism did not yet exist. To say he is talking about the Catholic church that developed over the next 300-600 years is putting a later definition of church onto the 1st century usage. When the apostles heard, “Take it to the church” they would have understood it as take it to the congregation. It is the congregation who has the final say when someone refuses to repent. This would include church leaders.

Paul is speaking as the one given the authority to pass on to Timothy.

Paul was exhorting Timothy to carry on and preach what He was taught. This does not mean that Timothy had the ability to write scripture or teach things Paul never taught. He passed on the teachings to Timothy. He didn’t pass on his position as an apostle.

 

[MT1926]

We believe the Holy Spirit makes someone an overseer (elder, bishop, presbyter, pastor) of the flock.

Yes you already pointed this out. I totally understand what you believe but still don’t see how a bunch of people claiming to have the authority of the Holy Spirit automatically gives them the authority.

Acts 20:28
Paul didn’t say “I made you an overseer” or “Peter made you an overseer”. It is the Holy Spirit who calls someone to be an overseer and the Holy Spirit who uses the assembly to confirm the calling.

I see no problem here because I do agree that it is the Holy Spirit who calls someone. Of course it is the Holy Spirit who makes the person the overseer but Peter and Paul are the ones who affirmed the calling and passed on the Authority.

The problem is you are adding “who uses the assembly to confirm the calling” to this text of scripture. Acts 20 says nothing about who has the authority to confirm someone’s calling, it only mentions who makes the person an overseer, which we agree on. We see over and over again that the calling is confirmed by the one being called getting appointed by one who was already called. The affirmation is handed down from the Apostles not handed up from the congregation.

The institution of the church with a hierarchy, canon law, and catechism did not yet exist.

Once again you are getting hung up on how the Catholic Church works. You need to slow down and take it one step at a time. I am not bringing up the Catholic Church here but you keep saying I am even when I tell you over and over that I am not.

When the apostles heard, “Take it to the church” they would have understood it as take it to the congregation. It is the congregation who has the final say when someone refuses to repent.

Do you honestly believe Jesus was saying John if someone refuses to listen to you go get James and Andrew if they still refuse to listen to the three of you take that person to the general assembly and congregation and if the assembly happens to agree with you then let him be as a Gentile. But keep in mind if the congregation doesn’t agree with you well then you might end up being the Gentile here.

When the apostles heard, “Take it to the church” they would have understood it as take it to the congregation.

No they would have understood exactly what they did in Acts 15. If we just take our disputes to the local congregation then why didn’t Paul and Barnabas correct the judiazer’s, with the help of the congregation, in Antioch?

He passed on the teachings to Timothy. He didn’t pass on his position as an apostle.

I agree that Timothy wasn’t an Apostle but if his authority doesn’t come from Paul could you please point out which congregation affirmed his authority?

 

[lanman87]

Do you honestly believe Jesus was saying John if someone refuses to listen to you go get James and Andrew if they still refuse to listen to the three of you take that person to the general assembly and congregation and if the assembly happens to agree with you then let him be as a Gentile.

Yes. I do. Because that is what it says.

 

[MT1926]

Yes. I do. Because that is what it says.

So you are saying if the general assembly agree with the guy, the 3 Apostles are rebuking, then the Apostles are wrong because the church congregation has the final say?

You believe this is what Jesus was teaching the Apostles here?

 

[lanman87]

So you are saying if the general assembly agree with the guy, the 3 Apostles are rebuking, then the Apostles are wrong because the church congregation has the final say?

You believe this is what Jesus was teaching the Apostles here?

I believe if the person is genuinely in sin and refuses to repent the congregation has the authority to “treat him as a Gentile”. The church elders do not have the authority to “excommunicate” someone on their own opinion. It is the congregation who has the final say.

I also believe this is a safeguard against abusive elders who may be vindictive against someone. If someone is accused of something and an elder has a beef with that someone for some reason, this makes it more difficult for the elder to get rid of the person they are in conflict with. The elder may say the person is “guilty” when in fact they are not. He may also have power over the other elders to the point they will not go against him, even though they know he is wrong. Taking it to the congregation makes it much more difficult for an “innocent” man to be disciplined by the church.

 

[MT1926]

I believe if the person is genuinely in sin and refuses to repent the congregation has the authority to “treat him as a Gentile”. The church elders do not have the authority to “excommunicate” someone on their own opinion. It is the congregation who has the final say.

I believe what the Apostles actually taught disagrees with you.

Here is one example

If you read 1 Corinthians 5 we have a problem with a man sleeping with his step mother. Paul tells us in verse 2 that the “congregation” didn’t think excommunication was necessary. He even goes so far as to call the congregation arrogant. He himself (the elder of the Church of Corinth) excommunicates the man. then read verse 3-5

3 For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment 4 in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

These are the words of a man letting every member of that congregation know who is in charge, even when he isn’t around he is letting them know that the buck stops here. Paul here is pretty much exercising his authority over the congregation and overruling the congregation by excommunicating the man.

I am not seeing the congregation having the final say in the Corinth Church.

I also believe this is a safeguard against abusive elders who may be vindictive against someone.

I think this problem only occurs when no one else has authority equal to or over the elder. That’s why an authority outside the situation (congregation) at hand would be so vital in these situations. Because what happens when the roles are reversed? When you have an influential group in the congregation, whom no one is willing to oppose, becomes vindictive against the elders? I’m guessing in this situation it is not to difficult to get rid of the elder and find a new one who is more in line with what they want.

Just curious if you know of any scripture that actually shows us a problem in the church where the congregation had the authority and not the Apostles or those appointed by them?

God Bless

 

[Cjbhoward]

I don’t think it even matters what religion you are a part of, let alone which denomination

I used to think the same thing. Then I got to thinking about the people of Jesus’ time. Those who met, talked, & argued with Jesus himself.

So the men who looked up at Jesus & said,“If you are the Son of God, why don’t you save yourself & come down from that cross?”

& I thought, surely those guys weren’t saved. They couldn’t even recognize Him, face to face.

The bad thief didn’t recognize Him. Not saved.

The good thief recognized Him. Saved.

So I thought, it’s probably pretty important that I recognize Him.

Of course nowadays there are many claiming to know Him. Many claiming to be His body. How will I ever be able to tell which is the real body? The real Church.

Then one day, reflecting on the Gospel, I recalled the scenes after the stone was pushed away. Many people saw Him. But they couldn’t recognize Him. Until the breaking of the bread.

Kept looking found out what the Church teaches about the real presence. & for me that tied the Bible up as one comprehensive story from beginning to end.

It’s all about the sacrifice. The very first sacrifice mentioned in the bible points to Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary. The sacrifice in Revelation refers to Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary. The Mass is that same sacrifice.

Maybe it doesn’t matter what religion we are, what tradition we follow. But He spent an awful lot of time telling us about one in particular.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I guess Irenaeus didn’t get the message. When He lists the bishops of Rome by name in succession, from Peter, he names 12 bishops, one bishop at a time, in succession, down to his day… Don’t take my word, count them yourself ch’ 3 Against Heresies

Yet I’ve read 3 or 4 books by Historians, both Catholic and Protestant and they all agree that there was no monarchical bishop in Rome until the mid 2nd Century. Basically, you have a claim by Irenaeus that history doesn’t support. My guess is he was repeating a legend or something he was told by someone that was misinformed. Either that or he just made it up to prove a point.

Irenaeus work “Against Heresies” that I quoted, IS VALID, IS HISTORICAL.
Irenaeus is a Catholic Bishop, and writing about the Catholic Church. Adversus Haereses Bk 1 Ch 10 v 3

He shows Bk 3 ch 3 para 3 in Against Heresies

1. the succession of bishops from Peter in Rome, down to Irenaeus day.
2. The Church of Rome has preeminent authority that everyone is to agree with THAT Church.
3. Where did that teaching come from? Irenaeus says it came directly from the apostles Peter and Paul through the bishops who came down to Irenaeus day which numbered 12 and he named them, indicating that was already an important point, as in not only apostolic succession, but the successor to Peter as well.

Meaning Irenaeus is teaching here what is passed on by the apostles.

 

[lanman87]

Irenaeus work “Against Heresies” that I quoted, IS VALID, IS HISTORICAL.

It is a valid historical document. But that doesn’t mean everything in it is correct. Historians compare documents from multiple sources and other external “clues” to try and get a picture of what was actually happening in History. According the books I’ve read, Irenaeus’s claims of there being a single Bishop over the Roman Church is false, or at least the historical evidence points against it. The Roman church instead had a college of bishops that jointly governed the Roman church until the mid-2nd Century. When they finally elected a monarchical bishop to head the church in the entire city. Ironically, the Roman church was the last of the major churches to have a monarchical bishop.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Irenaeus work “Against Heresies” that I quoted, IS VALID, IS HISTORICAL.

It is a valid historical document. But that doesn’t mean everything in it is correct. Historians compare documents from multiple sources and other external “clues” to try and get a picture of what was actually happening in History. According the books I’ve read, Irenaeus’s claims of there being a single Bishop over the Roman Church is false, or at least the historical evidence points against it. The Roman church instead had a college of bishops that jointly governed the Roman church until the mid-2nd Century. When they finally elected a monarchical bishop to head the church in the entire city. Ironically, the Roman church was the last of the major churches to have a monarchical bishop.

What Irenaeus wrote, came from Bp Polycarp who was a direct disciple of John, and all those faithful bishops. who were also taught by the apostle. Making Irenaeus one man away (chronologically in time) from an apostle. Isn’t it interesting that the Church Irenaeus belongs to and writes about, is the same Church today, with pope Francis at the helm, 266th successor to St Peter in Rome. Look again at the succession Irenaeus gives of the successors to Peter. I gave you the link. Look also at the context.

So the books you read, while trying to persuade you and people who read them, to the contrary position of what Irenaeus is teaching on this matter, they got it wrong. And we can clearly see that.

The Orthodox for example, who came much later, aren’t a Church. They have no ONE in charge of all of them. Which is Cardinal Kasper’s point who is President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

When he said
“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.” from Zenit, Kasper, 2002

The Catholic Church was established by Jesus, on Peter and all those in union with Peter. And Our Lord’s Church has all His promises.

Re: Raymond Brown that you referred to before, he has huge baggage concerning his writings

 

[meltzerboy2]

Fair enough. I was coming at the question from the Jewish perspective.

 

[lanman87]

Raymond Brown that you referred to before, he has huge baggage concerning his writings

And yet and large number of prominent Catholics have praised his work and even attended his funeral.