How Can Protestants Be Sure?

[Randy_Carson]

As I figured, another diversion via obfuscation. We could debate this at another, however it has nothing to do with immediate discussion at hand. That is presbyteros should/can be translated as priest in the NT. Do you concede that argument?

Apparently you’re not paying attention. I already provided the definition along with the Strong’s number back in post #246. There is nothing to concede since I agreed on this point from the outset.

Now, will you concede that the word “priest” is the modern English rendering of the Greek word “presbyteros”?

Additionally, will you also concede that by the authority given to them by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostles appointed helpers to assist them in the work of caring for the rapidly expanding Church?

Will you also concede that the first helpers were known as deacons or diakanoi?

Will you also concede that by the authority given to them by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostles appointed other men who could celebrate the Eucharist and perform other “priestly” duties?

Will you also concede that the four-post article explained all this plainly enough if you had bothered to read it?

Will you also concede that Jesus could have named the successor to Judas before the crucifixion since He had full knowledge that Judas would betray him or that He could have done so after the resurrection but before His ascension? Instead, He allowed the Apostles to make the call.

Will you also concede that the Apostle Peter - having already replaced one Apostle after his suicide (Judas) and a second after his beheading (James) - would have made provision for replacement of himself knowing full well that his own martyrdom had been foretold by the Lord Himself in John 21:18-19?

Will you also concede that Peter alludes to this very issue of Apostolic Succession in 2 Peter 1:12-15 when he wrote:

“So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.” Will you also concede that all of these things point to the Apostolic Succession of the Catholic Church as continued in the ministerial priesthood of Bishop, Priest and Deacon?

Finally, will you concede that the real issue preventing you from seeing the obvious is that your own faith tradition denies anything remotely “Roman”, that this presuppostion, predisposition and prejudice blinds you to the truth, and that in the absence of an infallible, authoritative Church to interpret the scriptures correctly, to judge doctrinal disputes and discern what is right and what is wrong, Protestants really can’t be sure that what they believe is true?

Moo.

 

[MrS]

One more thing, Randy

will he also concede that the admonition in Jude, which warns the laity of incurring the wrath of Koran (from Numbers).

it is hard to warn a laity to not take ministerial priesthood duties upon themselves… and if they do they will suffer… unless that ministerial priesthood existed.

And it does… and it is the Priest and Priests who received their ordination from competant and legitimate authorities (the Apostles and their legitimate successors.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

One more thing, Randy

will he also concede that the admonition in Jude, which warns the laity of incurring the wrath of Koran (from Numbers).

it is hard to warn a laity to not take ministerial priesthood duties upon themselves… and if they do they will suffer… unless that ministerial priesthood existed.

And it does… and it is the Priest and Priests who received their ordination from competant and legitimate authorities (the Apostles and their legitimate successors.)

Mr. Scriptura cannot understand Jude’s reference to Korah’s rebellion because without a ministerial priesthood, the passage is non-sensical.

If I failed to make this point to him previously, then I must apologize for his education has been incomplete.

Thanks for reminding me!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Korah and the Priesthood of All Believers

In the book of Exodus, we read the following:

“The sons of Izhar were Korah, Nepheg and Zicri.” (Exodus 6:21)

“The sons of Korah were Assir, Elkanah and Abiasaph. These were the Korahite clans.” (Exodus 6:24)

There’s not much in these two verses to catch anyone’s eye, to be sure. However, one of these people, Korah, became famous much later on, and I’m going to quote the entire story for you from the 16th & 17th chapters of the Book of Numbers. I’ll also highlight a couple of key verses that we’ll consider more closely.

Chapter 16

**Korah, Dathan and Abiram **
1 Korah son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and certain Reubenites—Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth—became insolent 2 and rose up against Moses. With them were 250 Israelite men, well-known community leaders who had been appointed members of the council. 3 They came as a group to oppose Moses and Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD’s assembly?”

4 When Moses heard this, he fell facedown. 5 Then he said to Korah and all his followers: “In the morning the LORD will show who belongs to him and who is holy, and he will have that person come near him. The man he chooses he will cause to come near him. 6 You, Korah, and all your followers are to do this: Take censers 7 and tomorrow put fire and incense in them before the LORD. The man the LORD chooses will be the one who is holy. You Levites have gone too far!”

8 Moses also said to Korah, “Now listen, you Levites! 9 Isn’t it enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the rest of the Israelite community and brought you near himself to do the work at the LORD’s tabernacle and to stand before the community and minister to them? 10 He has brought you and all your fellow Levites near himself, but now you are trying to get the priesthood too. 11 It is against the LORD that you and all your followers have banded together. Who is Aaron that you should grumble against him?”

23 Then the LORD said to Moses, 24 "Say to the assembly, ‘Move away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram.’ "

25 Moses got up and went to Dathan and Abiram, and the elders of Israel followed him. 26 He warned the assembly, “Move back from the tents of these wicked men! Do not touch anything belonging to them, or you will be swept away because of all their sins.” 27 So they moved away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. Dathan and Abiram had come out and were standing with their wives, children and little ones at the entrances to their tents.

28 Then Moses said, “This is how you will know that the LORD has sent me to do all these things and that it was not my idea: 29 If these men die a natural death and experience only what usually happens to men, then the LORD has not sent me. 30 But if the LORD brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the grave, c] then you will know that these men have treated the LORD with contempt.”

31 As soon as he finished saying all this, the ground under them split apart 32 and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, with their households and all Korah’s men and all their possessions. 33 They went down alive into the grave, with everything they owned; the earth closed over them, and they perished and were gone from the community. 34 At their cries, all the Israelites around them fled, shouting, “The earth is going to swallow us too!”

35 And fire came out from the LORD and consumed the 250 men who were offering the incense.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

At this point, I was going to expound on what this incident (actually there are two issues intertwined) is all about, but I discovered a Jewish website that discusses the matter far more eloquently than I could hope to do. Therefore, I provide the following passage taken from www.myjewishlearning.com:

Bible critics ascribe the difficulties of this section to a joining of two traditions. While a clear division is no longer possible, there appears to be a Korah rebellion that is directed against Aaron and levitic privilege and an anti‑Moses uprising led by Dathan and Abiram. [Authorship of] the former is assigned to the P (priestly) source and the latter to the J/E (Yahwist/Elohist) source.

The first story tells of Korah and 250 men who complain about the special religious status of the Levites. There is a contest involving censers; Korah’s people come to the Tent and are consumed by fire; their censers are taken away, destroyed, and symbolically refashioned; the 14,000 people who support the rebellion or who are unhappy with Korah’s punishment are killed by a plague. The story appears to reflect a struggle for priestly privilege. Once upon a time (as attested by Psalms) Korah’s people were full priests and singers, but after a power struggle they were reduced to doorkeepers.

The second tradition tells of the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram, and members of the tribe of Reuben, against the civil authority of Moses. They refuse a confrontation with him. Moses appeals to the community, which backs him up and withdraws from the rebels, who in turn are swallowed by the earth. This story may represent the memory of an intertribal struggle. Originally the tribe of Reuben was very important, but in time it was dislodged from its original preeminence. This is also reflected in the Jacob tale, where the first‑born Reuben is passed over in favor of others.

Korah’s rebellion (taking the intertwined stories as a literary whole) was directed against the leadership of Moses. Superficially, his act may appear to be the usual attempt by someone out of power to displace the incumbent rulers. But the Bible’s very silence about his motives directs our attention away from Korah’s true intention to his stated argument.

Korah said: “All the community are holy… Why then do you raise yourselves above the Lord’s congregation?” The question implies the challenge: If God is in our midst, then whoever is leading us will have His support. Or, going further (though this is not expressed): If we are all holy, what need is there for someone like Moses to instruct us, or why is there need for laws to make us holy? Since the people are holy, commandments from without are not necessary (Buber, Moses).

Note that Moses and Aaron make no answer to the first part of Korah’s statement, that is, the reference to communal holiness. They refer only to the latter (“Why do you raise yourselves…?”), leaving it to God to reaffirm their embattled leadership. He raised them to high position and He will answer the rebels, as indeed He does.

But the question still seeks its answer. Ultimately, as Buber emphasizes, the question Korah asked poses an insoluble contradiction: for holiness can never be fully realized within history, yet the people are to act as if it can be or even as if it has been realized. This is the biblical way of dealing with a divine impasse and it became the normative way of Jewish tradition. Korah’s argument turns on the eternal tension between authority and freedom. Like many demagogues after him, Korah offered himself as a fitting guardian of the spirit of freedom. But while the people might have accepted the offer of substitute leadership, God did not.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Do you see? Korah rebelled against the authority and leadership of Moses and Aaron by declaring, “all the community is holy”. To restate a portion of the above for emphasis, “If God is in our midst, then whoever is leading us will have His support. Or, going further (though this is not expressed): If we are all holy, what need is there for someone like Moses to instruct us, or why is there need for laws to make us holy? Since the people are holy, commandments from without are not necessary.” In a way, Korah was right! God declared the entire nation of Israel to be a nation of priests in the book of Exodus.

However, Korah’s error was not in his understanding of the “priesthood of all Israelites”, but in his rebellion against God and the authority God had vested in Moses and Aaron. God’s answer to this challenge was swift and final.

Let’s recap: the entire nation of Israel was a “kingdom of priests”, the tribe of Levi served as a ministerial priesthood, and Aaron served in the highest place. Thus, in the Old Testament, we find a foreshadowing of the New Testament priesthood that includes the Priesthood of All Believers, the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood consisting of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, and Jesus, our eternal High Priest.

Not convinced, are you? Well, let’s take a look at the Book of Jude beginning with verse 3:
Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them. Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion. These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever. Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.
Jude notes that there were some within the early Church who had rejected the authority of the Bishops and Priests, and he links their error directly to that of Korah and his followers who rebelled against God and the authority of the leaders He had placed over His people, Israel.

Today, there are Christians who refuse to accept the authority of the Catholic Church and the Bishops who have been established as its leaders. They believe that the “priesthood of all believers” replaces the ministerial priesthood in Christ’s church, and they reject the episcopate completely. The unfortunate incidents of the 15th century began in “protest” and rebellion against authority – not true reform, and that same rebellious spirit continues to proclaim a message that promotes denominational division.

Moo.

 

[SolaScriptura]

SolaScriptura:

As I figured, another diversion via obfuscation. We could debate this at another, however it has nothing to do with immediate discussion at hand. That is presbyteros should/can be translated as priest in the NT. Do you concede that argument?

Apparently you’re not paying attention. I already provided the definition along with the Strong’s number back in post #246. There is nothing to concede since I agreed on this point from the outset.

Oh, I’m sorry I missed when you admitted that in the NT presbyteros means Elder and it is never translated as priest, but that there is still the office of priest in NT. What kind of logic is that?

Now, will you concede that the word “priest” is the modern English rendering of the Greek word “presbyteros”?

Only for some(i.e. Catholics and EO), which is why bibles written in “modern English” still translate presbyteros as Elder. There are other words(e.g. hiereus) which are translated as priest. I don’t know of a single “modern day” NT translation, including Catholic translations, that uses priest as the translation for presbyteros. Do you know of any? This terminology and office is forced as a justification for the office of priest.

Additionally, will you also concede that by the authority given to them by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostles appointed helpers to assist them in the work of caring for the rapidly expanding Church?

Concede? I’ve been strongly arguing this the entire time. This is starting to get old. You say anything to make it seem like you are saying something.

Will you also concede that the first helpers were known as deacons or diakanoi?

Concede? I’ve strongly argued this also. Quit wasting words and time and say something significant.

Will you also concede that by the authority given to them by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostles appointed other men who could celebrate the Eucharist and perform other “priestly” duties?

Nope, I will not concede it.

Will you also concede that the four-post article explained all this plainly enough if you had bothered to read it?

Nope and I didn’t read it. If it makes a valid argument then you need to read it and summarize the significant points or should I post a 10 page article that refutes it?

Will you also concede that Jesus could have named the successor to Judas before the crucifixion since He had full knowledge that Judas would betray him or that He could have done so after the resurrection but before His ascension? Instead, He allowed the Apostles to make the call.

Yes, he could have and Jesus could have made everyone infallible so everyone would agree on all things instead of the splits. But he didn’t. Is this supposed to be a cogent argument? Oh brother.

Will you also concede that the Apostle Peter - having already replaced one Apostle after his suicide (Judas) and a second after his beheading (James) - would have made provision for replacement of himself knowing full well that his own martyrdom had been foretold by the Lord Himself in John 21:18-19?

Who did Peter appoint to replace James and document the evidence for this please? The rest of the paragraph is wild speculation, but you will stop at nothing to defend Rome. History, Scripture, and everything else are your playground to defend Rome’s teaching.

Will you also concede that Peter alludes to this very issue of Apostolic Succession in 2 Peter 1:12-15 when he wrote:
[INDENT
*snipped 2 Peter 1:12-15 … SS

Will you also concede that all of these things point to the Apostolic Succession of the Catholic Church as continued in the ministerial priesthood of Bishop, Priest and Deacon?

If I was convinced by fallacious arguments I would be, however since I’m not, I don’t. Can you say, “non sequitur”?

Finally, will you concede that the real issue preventing you from seeing the obvious is that your own faith tradition denies anything remotely “Roman”, that this presuppostion, predisposition and prejudice blinds you to the truth, and that in the absence of an infallible, authoritative Church to interpret the scriptures correctly, to judge doctrinal disputes and discern what is right and what is wrong, Protestants really can’t be sure that what they believe is true?

LOL!!! Preach brother!!

Oh, btw I thought you respected the argument of the guy who was much “smarter than you”? Didn’t he correctly make the point that one can know something with certainty without being infallible? You behave as if you are suffering from schizophrenia. You affirm something one minute then you argue against it the next.

 

[MrS]

Oh, I’m sorry I missed when you admitted that in the NT presbyteros means Elder and it is never translated as priest, but that there is still the office of priest in NT. What kind of logic is that?

Only for some(i.e. Catholics and EO), which is why bibles written in “modern English” still translate presbyteros as Elder. There are other words(e.g. hiereus) which are translated as priest. I don’t know of a single “modern day” NT translation, including Catholic translations, that uses priest as the translation for presbyteros. Do you know of any? This terminology and office is forced as a justification for the office of priest.

Concede? I’ve been strongly arguing this the entire time. This is starting to get old. You say anything to make it seem like you are saying something.

Concede? I’ve strongly argued this also. Quit wasting words and time and say something significant.

Nope, I will not concede it.

Nope and I didn’t read it. If it makes a valid argument then you need to read it and summarize the significant points or should I post a 10 page article that refutes it?

Yes, he could have and Jesus could have made everyone infallible so everyone would agree on all things instead of the splits. But he didn’t. Is this supposed to be a cogent argument? Oh brother.

Who did Peter appoint to replace James and document the evidence for this please? The rest of the paragraph is wild speculation, but you will stop at nothing to defend Rome. History, Scripture, and everything else are your playground to defend Rome’s teaching.

If I was convinced by fallacious arguments I would be, however since I’m not, I don’t. Can you say, “non sequitur”?

LOL!!! Preach brother!!

Oh, btw I thought you respected the argument of the guy who was much “smarter than you”? Didn’t he correctly make the point that one can know something with certainty without being infallible? You behave as if you are suffering from schizophrenia. You affirm something one minute then you argue against it the next.

Okay, I am convinced… not that God has either opened your eyes, or that God has seen fit to keep them closed for now…

Rather, I am convinced that you yourself choose to wear the blinders of your false “doctrine” of SS And that is okay, because this coming Lent (it’s a Catholic thing), you will be remembered in prayer and sacrifice in the hope that you will believe in Jesus Christ, in all that He preached, and in all that He left behind, safeguarded by His Church.

.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Okay, I am convinced… not that God has either opened your eyes, or that God has seen fit to keep them closed for now…

Rather, I am convinced that you yourself choose to wear the blinders of your false “doctrine” of SS

Well, since you are not infallible that means there is still the possibility that you are wrong and you yourself have on the blinders

And that is okay, because this coming Lent (it’s a Catholic thing), you will be remembered in prayer and sacrifice in the hope that you will believe in Jesus Christ, in all that He preached, and in all that He left behind, safeguarded by His Church.

Well, I already believe in Jesus and all His promises. I believe in Him so much that I refused to trust in the Catholic false doctrines that go way beyond believing in Jesus. So hopefully you understand if your remembering me in your prayers doesn’t do much for me, but if that makes you feel pious then that is your choice.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Well, since you are not infallible that means there is still the possibility that you are wrong and you yourself have on the blinders

Well, I already believe in Jesus and all His promises. I believe in Him so much that I refused to trust in the Catholic false doctrines that go way beyond believing in Jesus. So hopefully you understand if your remembering me in your prayers doesn’t do much for me, but if that makes you feel pious then that is your choice.

???

Are you saying that if God were calling you home to the Catholic Church that you would ignore his call to continue in your current faith?

 

[SolaScriptura]

???

Are you saying that if God were calling you home to the Catholic Church that you would ignore his call to continue in your current faith?

No, I’m saying her pious dribble in reference to Catholic theology means nothing to me.

 

[ncgolf]

SolaScriptura:

Well, since you are not infallible that means there is still the possibility that you are wrong and you yourself have on the blinders .

I do not think a Catholic will ever admit that the Truth does not lie within the Church. What I will and maybe others will admit is that we our understanding of those dogmas is not complete. Sola Scriptura rests on your first sentence. There can be no authentic and true interpretation of the Bible so each person is resposible themselves. I find it my more Sola than Sola Scriptura.

SolaScriptura:

I believe in Him so much that I refused to trust in the Catholic false doctrines that go way beyond believing in Jesus

That is the one statement I think you have made in complete honesty.

 

[kaycee]

The Bible speaks about being converted by the savior, NOT converting to another church!!! Does the church save or does Jesus?

If SS is made born again through Faith in Jesus, is he born again and again by joining the RCC?

No one goes to heaven by bowing the knee to a pope.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

The Bible speaks about being converted by the savior, NOT converting to another church!!! Does the church save or does Jesus?

If SS is made born again through Faith in Jesus, is he born again and again by joining the RCC?

No one goes to heaven by bowing the knee to a pope.

Christ is at the head of the Catholic Church.

Baptism into the christian faith occurs once.

You are the only one that has been taught the last statement.

 

[MrS]

The Bible speaks about being converted by the savior, NOT converting to another church!!! Does the church save or does Jesus?

If SS is made born again through Faith in Jesus, is he born again and again by joining the RCC?

No one goes to heaven by bowing the knee to a pope.

Let me guess…you don’t know much about the Catholic Church…

God creates, God saves, God judges,… and according to His plan, He does it with our cooperation… procreation… belief(obedience), and repentance.

Even Abraham was justified more than once… showing it is an ongoing process… and David, the anointed king was justified… commited murder AND adultry, and was justified again.

The difference between committed Catholics and all others is really quite simple…

A committed Catholic recognizes the need for a valid authority. And it ain’t the Scriptures… they are subject to the bias of the reader, and the agenda of the self-interpreter.

But God was one step ahead… so He not only left behind hand picked men in charge… but He also gave them the authority to rule in His Name until He returns.

Will they declare the Truth as Truth guided by the Holy Spirit… yep…Jesus said so

Will they screw up on occasion, commit errors, and even teach something wrong?.. yep, Jesus said so… but they will never teach that an error (like Sola Soma Scriptura) is a Truth.

.

 

[MrS]

so to answer the OP

How can protestants be sure??

they can’t, sadly, they can’t

 

[Sean_Boyle]

No, I’m saying her pious dribble in reference to Catholic theology means nothing to me.

So your lack of understanding of Catholic theology is holding you back.

 

[ncgolf]

The Bible speaks about being converted by the savior, NOT converting to another church!!! Does the church save or does Jesus?

That was not the jist of the thread. SS, the person, admits he cannot be sure … his assurance is based on the fact that no one else can be right either so therefore he may be correct.

If SS is made born again through Faith in Jesus, is he born again and again by joining the RCC?

We are not born again through faith in Jesus but by Baptism. So if SS was validly baptized he would not need to be baptized again.

No one goes to heaven by bowing the knee to a pope.

Bowing to the Queen of England doesn’t make me a royal subject either. What’s your point.

 

[SolaScriptura]

So your lack of understanding of Catholic theology is holding you back.

No, I’m saying it is based on false Catholic theology so it doesn’t matter to me anymore than anything else someone would do based on false teachings.

 

[kaycee]

That was not the jist of the thread. SS, the person, admits he cannot be sure … his assurance is based on the fact that no one else can be right either so therefore he may be correct.

Actually his assurance is based on the God Breathed scripture. Your “assurance” is based on a second generation trust and faith in the RCC, not the More Sure Word.

We are not born again through faith in Jesus but by Baptism. So if SS was validly baptized he would not need to be baptized again.

Yikes another whole thread.

Bowing to the Queen of England doesn’t make me a royal subject either. What’s your point.

(Edited by Moderator)