How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

[mackbrislawn]

QUOTE=highrigger1;9214322]mack,
You know as well as I do that ordain carrys a different meaning than appoint. Ordain means make one an official clergy. Appoint simply means to give someone a job to do. Big difference and you should recognize it. There was no ordination in the NT or by the early ECFs. Probably many appointments however.

Gee, highrigger, you really come out swinging!

No, highrigger, I really don’t know as well as you that ordain carries a different meaning than appoint. And that I should recogize that difference? Are you chastizing me? Why? I’m only asking questions. So, don’t tell me about the big difference, tell it to the dictionary! The dictionary defines ‘ordain’ as ‘establish by appointment’. So argue with the dictionary, not with me. The dictionary indicates that ‘ordain’ can certainly mean to give someone a job to do.

Protestants ordain their ministers to have trained people who control the practices of the Church such as the sacraments and who have official recognition of their church for those duties. They might appoint a Sunday School teacher who does not have those same offical duties of a ordained pastor.

‘Ordain means to make one official clergy.’ Yes, I go along with that. The dictionary agrees too: ‘to invest officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority.’ This part of the dictionary definition is the technical definition of ‘ordain.’ That is, it would also be a modern definition that has been taken from the church’s usage, which is to appoint.

Does ‘ordain’ have a different meaning than the Greek word in scripture (whatever that Greek word is, which you haven’t answered to me yet). You would say it has a different meaning, but I don’t see any real evidence other than your assertion.

I further take it, then, that you mean to say ordination is not a biblical practice, does not have scriptural support, and hence must be a man-made tradition. Is that right?

The early bishops and elders were not clergy. In those days there was no separation between clergy and laity. They were simply christian leaders.

So ‘clergy’ is not biblical, but a man-made institution? I guess I have to ask now, what is ‘clergy’? ( I mean this question seriously and not combatively, as in my original post is not combative.)
I ask it because I always thought that the clergy were christian leaders. Perhaps not?

Paul Johnson, History of Christianity

p 44.
“The church was an inversion of normal society. Its leaders exercised their
authority through gifts of the Spirit, not through office. The two noblest
gifts were prophecy and teaching. The apostles set the process in motion,
then the Spirit took over and worked through many people: ‘And God has
appointed in the Church first apostles, then prophets, third teachers, then
workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in the
various kinds of tongues.’ Worship was still completely unorganized and
subject to no special control. There was no specific organization to handle
funds. And there was no distinction between clerical class and the laity.
There were, indeed, presbyters in the Judaic Christian Church, but not in
Paul’s new convert congregaions. The atmosphere in short was that of a
loosely organized revivalist movement. Many from time to time ‘spoke with
tongues’; all expected the parousia soon. Clerical control seemed needless
and inappropriate. And the atmosphere in the Pauline churches was reproduced
elsewhere, in a rapidly spreading movement.”

"

I’m not familiar with Paul Johnson nor his history. So I don’t know from what perspective he is writing, and how much of his opinion he is mixing in with actual history. A lot of history as written is the interpretation of events by the author. Another author may have a different interpretation of the same events.

However, it does seem that the earliest congregations as he explains, were strictly charismatic, that is, guided by the gifts of the spirit (such as the Corinthians). And, there were also pretty disorganized and chaotic. And yes, since the parousia was imminent, no clergy were necessary!

He makes an interesting distinction between the Pauline congregations and the Judaic Christian churches, which I presume would certainly include the Jerusalem church and possibly those started by Peter and the other apostles. But I don’t know what Johnson means when he says that the atmosphere of the Pauline churches was reproduced elsewhere, in a rapidly spreading movement. (?)

I’ll post this now, since it is getting long.

 

[ivebeenshown]

ivebeen,

So you dont know the difference beween and old man and a priest?

I’m pretty sure ‘presbyter’ doesn’t just mean ‘old man’.

 

[Abu]

Inkaneer #213
Matthias was only elected to fill the office of bishop as Peter plainly states

False – the facts are ignored. “There is no mention of imposing hands on Matthias,” – we can rely on the eminent Dom Bernard Orchard.

#218
Someday May 14 will be celebrated as the feast of St. Matthias, bishop

.
Idle speculation ill becomes, and the denial of Peter’s completing the twelve, as the eminent Fr John Echert of EWTN has explained, is churlish.

 

[mackbrislawn]

mack,

Paul Johnson, History of Christianity

p56
“The idea of a clergy seems to have been a marriage between Greek and Judiac
ideas. The Jerusalem elders of the Jewish-Christian Church possessed an
element of authority; they were ‘pillars’. The bishops and deacons of the
Gentile church originally had purely spiritually functions. They were
charismatics - not organizers, fund-raisers or legislators. This was the
situation portrayed in Paul’s genuine epistles and also in Luke’s Acts.”

 

[highrigger1]

So,** did God infallibly choose an Infallible mode to declare Who HE is infallibly?** If so, by His conferring, is that modus operandi infallible!

Is it His Word? Is it His Spirit? Is it His Church? Is it all Three? Are they separable from one another?

Are we as a fallen people capable us discerning His infallible unction?

Has His infallible unction been discerned before?

Let’s start with the common belief that **God is infallible and capable of declaring Who He is infallibly! **

Christianity is a revealed religion, I believe that God has revealed Who He is through the Person of Jesus Christ, who has condescended and manifested in the flesh to reach mankind, for our sake, because of His undying Love. The question is did He do so, Infallibly? I posit yes, so now the question is,** HOW was Christ infallibly revealed to Mankind? **

**Christ, infallibly revealed Himself to man, the mode that He infallibly chose is a visible social order (the Church). Christ intentionally, and infallibly chose a visible social order, to mediate His infallible authority to the world. **

That Social Order (the Church) by His grace has infallibly written, compiled, and discerned Holy Writ, to be profitable for teaching, correction and reproof!

Christ appointed **a Church **to infallibly preserve and communicate His revelation, why would that Church not be infallible, being that She is conferred by God Himself.

The Church actively participates in the Mediation of Christ Authority. This continuity can be traced back to Christ Himself. Christ makes Himself Present through the Church daily, bearing witness to His Majesty, and also to Her being an active participent in the unfolding of His divine wisdom. He is the Head, She is His Body. He is the Logos, the Actus Purus, but the Church, His Bride, an inseparable reality, that operates through Him, With Him, In Him, In unity, and in Conformity to Her Husband, Jesus Christ, which is Her Head!

Everything in all of creation has a function, we were made to love and serve God. That is our function as created beings, but we don’t see God, face to face. We live in a fallen world, but we still bear the mark of our Creator as created beings. Every fabric of our being has desires , but those God given imprints have been affected through sin, so we do not always follow them towards the good, which they were made to do initially. But, by the Grace of our Lord, we can partake in the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ and have our hearts of stone made flesh! We desire to honor and serve you, O Lord, just show us the way! We are imperfect people, serving a perfect God, so we do so at times, serve imperfectly. Is their a way provided that we may have our intellect and our wills moved towards the good, God Himself, that we were intended for? Yes, by grace, God will move us towards what is good, Himself, all we must do is surrender and follow the grace we receive. It seems like we either do not follow, or are unable to discern infallibly what He wants from us. Good for us, God provided a living voice of today to infallibly address the issues of discernment in this complex world!** He has declared His Manifold wisdom throughout the heavens and the earth, and His wisdom may be made known through the Church, but only by His grace**. So God, in His infinite wisdom, and divine authority, orders the entire universe towards Himself, and has revealed the Eternal Logos trough the Church.
**This very Church partakes in, “the One Divine infallible authority,” when testifying to the Christ, the logos of God. So the Church is both human and divine as an active participant in the Divine, while embodied in Flesh.**She truly is, His Bride!

Peace and Love in Christ

oneman,

What is your point? Plain english please. Of course God is infallible. But no man or woman is infallible. Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

That’s great, but why should I believe you? I’m pretty sure you weren’t appointed to continue in the teaching ministry of the Apostles…

ivebeen,

That is what historians say. Catholic historians agree. The NT never teaches about any christian priests. There were none. The early ECFs mention no priests. There were none.

You have to invent them to find them. That is why you should believe me and the historians. Because you cannot find them anywhere. Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

I’m pretty sure ‘presbyter’ doesn’t just mean ‘old man’.

ivebeen,

That is exactly what it means. Check your Greek-English bible like I have. You do have a Greek-English bible dont you?

How else could you be pretty sure? In fact old woman comes from the same root word presbyter in the feminine. Old women are mentioned in Titus. Do you think they had female priests? Why dont you check it out so you can really be pretty sure?

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

Gee, highrigger, you really come out swinging!

No, highrigger, I really don’t know as well as you that ordain carries a different meaning than appoint. And that I should recogize that difference? Are you chastizing me? Why? I’m only asking questions. So, don’t tell me about the big difference, tell it to the dictionary! The dictionary defines ‘ordain’ as ‘establish by appointment’. So argue with the dictionary, not with me. The dictionary indicates that ‘ordain’ can certainly mean to give someone a job to do.

‘Ordain means to make one official clergy.’ Yes, I go along with that. The dictionary agrees too: ‘to invest officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority.’ This part of the dictionary definition is the technical definition of ‘ordain.’ That is, it would also be a modern definition that has been taken from the church’s usage, which is to appoint. Every religious ordination of a clergy is an appointment but all appointments are not religous ordinations of a clergy.

Does ‘ordain’ have a different meaning than the Greek word in scripture (whatever that Greek word is, which you haven’t answered to me yet). You would say it has a different meaning, but I don’t see any real evidence other than your assertion.

I further take it, then, that you mean to say ordination is not a biblical practice, does not have scriptural support, and hence must be a man-made tradition. Is that right? .

We all know that the word ordain is a special appointment of a clergyman or a priest.
Ordain and appoint carry different meanings when applied to religion. This is obvious.

Yes ordination is not mentioned in scripture. It is a man made tradition for christians. The early church had no clergy.

So ‘clergy’ is not biblical, but a man-made institution? I guess I have to ask now, what is ‘clergy’? ( I mean this question seriously and not combatively, as in my original post is not combative.)
I ask it because I always thought that the clergy were christian leaders. Perhaps not?

clergy is one who is specially appointed to serve the sacraments and holds an office that other laymen do not hold with special clergyman duties.

I’m not familiar with Paul Johnson nor his history. So I don’t know from what perspective he is writing, and how much of his opinion he is mixing in with actual history. A lot of history as written is the interpretation of events by the author. Another author may have a different interpretation of the same events

.

All historians are saying the same thing. Do you read history?

The Jerusalem church was Jewish Christian whereas Pauls churches were mainly gentiles. Presbyters were a tradition in Jewish gatherings. They were not clergy but older wiser men leading the gathering. They were no more special than the president of a club.
Pauls churches had no presbyters. But decades later as the church develped in structure presbyters and deacons were included under the bishop. Many churches still did not have bishops. Here is the great Gibbons to explain the later structue of the church generally descibed in the Timothy letters.(not written by Paul who was dead by that time.)

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon page 172.

"The primitive bishops were considered only as the first of their equals,
and the honorableservants of a free people. Whenever the episcopal chair
became vacant by death, a mew presidentwas chosen among the presbyters
by the suffrage of the whole congregation, every member of which
supposed himself invested with a sacred and sacerdotal character.

Such was the mild and equal constitution by which the Christians were
governed more than a hundredyears after the death of the apostles. Every
society formed within itself a separate and independantrepublic; and
although the most distant of these little states maintained a mutual as
well as a friendlyintercourse of letters and deputations, the Christian
world was not yet connected by any supreme authority
or legislative assembly."

Notice no Pope and no Magesterium or Church Councils at that time.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

highrigger1;9214322:

mack,

Paul Johnson, History of Christianity

Okay, no major problems here. Although, Johnson says "the idea of clergy seems

to have been…" Seems to have been. In other words, he doesn’t know, and he is offering his opinion about it. He may be right though; I don’t dispute it. But he also refers to “Paul’s genuine epistles” as if the rest of them were not genuine. What does Johnson mean? That Paul’s other epistles are not canonical? Or does he mean that even if they are canonical, they were forged in Paul’s name?

As Johnson says, we see in the NT period that Paul’s early churches, such as at Corinth, were indeed charismatic, loosely organized, with no real leaders. But we also see that problems arose because of that lack of real leaders. That lack had to be rectified! Hence 1Timothy chapter 3. Chapter 5, verse 22. 2Timothy 2:2, 4:1,2.

So, do we take this to mean that Paul realized his error in not ordaining (oops, I mean appointing!) elders and bishops to begin with when he first formed churches? And he is now making up for it?

Or, do we take it that Paul did not really write these letters, and they were forged in Paul’s name early in the 2nd century as apostolic justification for the later development of clergy? Does Johnson believe they should be dropped from the canon?

Mack,

Most scholars agree that Paul did not write all the letters in his name. The first seven letters are accepted as valid by all. Some are combinations or paraphrases by someone else. Some are not written by Paul according to almost all scholars - 1&2 Timothy and Titus and noone thinks Hebrews was written by Paul.

The ancients who accepted the canon realized much of this. But they were written perhaps by disciples and so carried the authority of Paul. This practice of writing in anothers name was common in those days and not considered as falsehood as it is today. It gave respect in their minds.

But I think the idea of succession is pretty clear in the deutero-Pauline letters. But, after all, they are deutero, and may not actually be inspired at all. Perhaps they were written later, in Paul’s name, to deal with the recognization that the parousia did not come, the world did not end, and that the church, in order to survive, had to have organization and authority. The authentic Pauline letters were written from the perspective of an imminent end, and hence no provisions needed to be made for the long haul. That had to be corrected!

There was no idea of succession in the NT. That was generally fabricated in the third century in response to the Gnostics who claiimed direct succession from the apostles.

True, in the very earliest stages (in the Pauline churches at least), the “exclusive clergy class” was not present. However, the apostles corrected that subsequently. (Or did they? Maybe the NT writings that do that are fabricated!)

Now you are making up things. The apostles never introduced any form of clergy. They were all dead by 70AD anyway.

So, I’m not really sure what the quotations from Johnson are supposed to demonstrate.

They explain no clergy or priests. That was the issue.

Uh, I never said there were priests. I never did defend the idea, nor even bring up the topic. That is something you are imputing to me.

Sorry bout that but you said there must have been clergy.

Peace, JohnR

 

[inkaneer]

Mack,

Most scholars agree that Paul did not write all the letters in his name. The first seven letters are accepted as valid by all. Some are combinations or paraphrases by someone else. Some are not written by Paul according to almost all scholars - 1&2 Timothy and Titus and noone thinks Hebrews was written by Paul.

The ancients who accepted the canon realized much of this. But they were written perhaps by disciples and so carried the authority of Paul. This practice of writing in anothers name was common in those days and not considered as falsehood as it is today. It gave respect in their minds.

First of all it should bepointed out that this Paul Johnson who wrote History of Christianity was neither a theologian nor a historian. He was a journalist and author. The book aims to be controversial and was written for a BBC program. I submit that Paul Johnson’ds History of Christianity is nothing to hang one’s hat on as being an unbiased effort to tell it as it is because of it’s stated aim to be controversial…

There was no idea of succession in the NT. That was generally fabricated in the third century in response to the Gnostics who claiimed direct succession from the apostles.

Completely wrong. Read Acts 1 from verse 15 to the end. Matthias succeeds to the office of Bishop that Judas vacated. In addition there is the testimony of the early church which definitely says there was a succession. To wit this quote from Hegesippus

“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).

Or this quote from Irenaeus:

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian nails it with this:

“But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32 [A.D. 200]).

So according to Tertullian the true churches could produce a roll of their bishops succession dating back to one of the apostles. That is hardly a third century invention.

Now you are making up things. The apostles never introduced any form of clergy. They were all dead by 70AD anyway.

Wrong again. Read Acts 6 wherein th eapostles appointed seven men to tend to the material needs of the christians. These seven men were deacons, *diakoni * in Greek. They are one of the offices of the church in addition to bishops, episkope and priests presbuteroi. In 215 AD Hippolytus wrote about priests and deacons:

“When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop’s command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful.” . (The Apostolic Tradition 9 [A.D. 215]).

"On a presbyter, however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains. (ibid)

Earlier, in about 110 AD Ignatius of Antioch wrote this:

"“In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church.”
(Letter to the Trallians 3:1–2 [A.D. 110]).

 

[mackbrislawn]

ivebeen,

That is exactly what it means. Check your Greek-English bible like I have. You do have a Greek-English bible dont you?

How else could you be pretty sure? In fact old woman comes from the same root word presbyter in the feminine. Old women are mentioned in Titus. Do you think they had female priests? Why dont you check it out so you can really be pretty sure?

Peace, JohnR

Indeed, that is exactly what it means, old man. Older man. Elder

Or, rather, that is the generic meaning. The argument is that “elder” became to have a specialized, technical meaning apart from the root meaning. Timothy was an elder but was not an old man.

What is that specialized, technical meaning? Well, I guess that is part of the debate!

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Make disciples of all men/nations . What is a disciple ? Were the apostles “disciples” ? Did Jesus have two or three sets of disciples ,with differing authority and teachings ?

 

[onemangang]

onemangang,

I read all your quotes and none of them support your view.

OK, enlighten me, why? Just because you make a stern statement doesn’t make it true, when someone says that doesn’t support your view in a debate, usually the other person will point out why and offer an alternative perspective. You neglected to do that, you just done as david ruiz has been doing the entire thread, effectively said NOPE, THATS NOT IT!

In fact I see some problems with your translation. For example Acts 14:23 does not say “priests” nor “ordained.”
It actually says “In each of these churches they appointed elders…” I am quoting from the New Jerusalem Bible which corrected many of the errors of translation in the earlier Catholic bibles. Are you using the New Jerusalem translation or one very much earlier?
Neither in Titus does it mention priests. They are elders. Elders were not priests by any means. They were simply older wise men according to Jewish tradition, not christian clergy at all.

Wise men in a position of religious authority like the Sanhedrin, which many were priest BTW.

There were no priests in the NT nor was anyone ordained. Laying on of hands was signifying a special mission but not ordination at all. I can provide quotes from experts on this if you want me to.

Yes there were priest, and, ordinations, in the same way you like to discuss things I’ll just let that statement stand alone without any codifier to substantiate my claim

I’ve seen you try to say appoint and ordain are separate altogether , good luck with that

I am happy to discuss these issues with you but perhaps you need an up to date bible with proper translation like the New Jerusalem Bible. I dont think you will find many priests or ordinations in it. This is the protestant viewpoint and I have yet to hear from scripture or history that they are wrong about it.

Peace, JohnR

The word priest (Germ. Priester; Fr. prêtre; Ital. prete) is derived from the Greek presbyteros To apply the word priest to the magicians, prophets, and medicine-men of the religions of primitive peoples is a misuse of the term. The essential correlative of priesthood is sacrifice, consequently, mere leaders in the public prayers or guardians of shrines have no claim to the title priest.

Christ is the sole high-priest of the New Testament, just as His bloody death on the Cross is the sole sacrifice of Christianity.

If it is true that “the reception of the idea of sacrifice led to the idea of the ecclesiastical priesthood” (loc. cit., p. 48), and that priesthood and sacrifice are reciprocal terms, then the proof of the Divine origin of the Catholic priesthood must be regarded as established, once it is shown that the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass is coeval with the beginnings and the essence of Christianity. In proof of this we may appeal even to the Old Testament. When the Prophet Isaias foresees the entrance of pagans into the Messianic Kingdom, he makes the calling of priests from the heathen (i.e. the non-Jews) a special characteristic of the new Church (Isaiah 66:21):** “And I will take of them to be priests and Levites, saith the Lord”. Now this non-Jewish (Christian) priesthood in the future Messianic Church presupposes a permanent sacrifice, namely that “clean oblation”, which from the rising of the sun even to the going down is to be offered to the Lord of hosts among the Gentiles (Malachi 1:11). The sacrifice of bread and wine offered by Melchisedech (cf. Genesis 14:18 sqq.), the prototype of Christ (cf. Psalm 109:4; Hebrews 5:5 sq.; 7:1 sqq.), also refers prophetically, not only to the Last Supper, but also to its everlasting repetition in commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross (see MASS)**. Rightly, therefore, does the Council of Trent emphasize the intimate connection between the Sacrifice of the Mass and the priesthood (Sess. XXIII, cap. i, in Denzinger, “Enchiridion”, 10th ed., 957): "Sacrifice and priesthood are by Divine ordinance so inseparable that they are found together under all laws. Since therefore in the New Testament the Catholic Church has received from the Lord’s institution the holy visible sacrifice of the Eucharist it must also be admitted that in the Church there is a new, visible and external priesthood into which the older priesthood has been changed."

Clement of Rome (Ep. ad Cor., xliv, 4), the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didache, xiv), and Tertullian (On Baptism 17; “De præsc. hær.”, xli; “De exhort. cast.”, vii) recognize an official priesthood with the objective Sacrifice of the Mass.

newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm

 

[onemangang]

Please read thread # 175. In it I believe I have answered your question, for indeed, yes, faith cometh from hearing, and hearing by the word of God. For God so chose that by the foolishness of preaching should men be saved. One must be sent to preach, and blessed are his feet that bring the good news. I believe I gave honor and blessings to all those who contributed in planting the seeds (His Word-Gospel) in my dead heart. Please read it, for I was a respecter of no one and honored Catholics as well as Protestants .Alleluia !

So the unction of the Holy Spirit is infallibly imparted to all men, and nobody infallibly discerns the unction, as you pointed out with the wood hay straw reference. You do hold to the notion that the Unction of the Holy Spirit was infallibly discerned by the Apostles, I believe from one of your previous post! Correct me if I’m wrong?

My point of contention is not that the Holy Spirit’s unction will turn the heart of a sinner towards love, as God IS Love, but infallibly guide a Church into discerning Who Love is infallibly.

,I believe God chose to reveal himself infallibly thru His Son and the Holy Spirit .Period . Directly .Here is Jesus.There must come a point when the seed is planted and life begins and we sup with Him. He might be in you church,and maybe she even introduced me to Him , but I sup with him perfectly ,gloriously , even in the churches imperfection ,we find perfection:Him ! ,

Are you positing that you have been revealed who Jesus is infallibly from receiving Him?

I don’t mean has the Holy Spirit’s unction revealed infallibly Christ to you, but have you also been imparted infallible knowledge of Who Christ is in Essence and Being, or rather have infallibly discerned that?

Two natures, 100% God 100% Man, Most Holy Trinity, etc.,etc…

 

[mackbrislawn]

QUOTE=highrigger1;9215545]

Mack,

 

[mackbrislawn]

QUOTE=highrigger1;9215501]We all know that the word ordain is a special appointment of a clergyman or a priest.
Ordain and appoint carry different meanings when applied to religion. This is obvious.

Yes, you are right, that is the technical, or specialized meaning ‘ordain’ has come to have for us. But it also has the root meaning of to establish by appointment, so by that standard the Greek word (whatever it is) can still legitimately be translated ‘ordain’ in English. (What it is in other languages I do not know.) However, I see why you object to the use of the word ‘ordain,’ because it does have that specialized meaning you want to avoid.

Yes ordination is not mentioned in scripture. It is a man made tradition for christians. The early church had no clergy.

If by the “early church” you mean the early charismatic Pauline churches like at Corinth as having no clergy, that can be true. . I’m not entirely sure that can be said about the Judaic churches including the Jerusalem church though. What do you think?

At any rate, when most people hear the phrase “early church,” they most likely would think of even the later 1st century churches as well, which do appear to have clergy. Or maybe these churches didn’t either. You say not?

When you assert that ordination is not mentioned in scripture, do you mean to say that the references to appointments of deacons, elders, and overseers mentioned in Timothy, Titus, and Peter are not ordinations?

Or, do you mean to say that Timothy, Titus, and Peter are not to be considered part of real scripture and hence can be disregarded?

clergy is one who is specially appointed to serve the sacraments and holds an office that other laymen do not hold with special clergyman duties.

Fair enough. So, this means that the duties of overseers and elders and mentioned in 1Peter are not duties of clergy? Or, even if they are duties of clergy, it doesn’t matter because those books are to be excluded from the NT?

All historians are saying the same thing. Do you read history?

I read history, and that’s how I know not all historians say the same thing.

The Jerusalem church was Jewish Christian whereas Pauls churches were mainly gentiles. Presbyters were a tradition in Jewish gatherings. They were not clergy but older wiser men leading the gathering. They were no more special than the president of a club.
Pauls churches had no presbyters. But decades later as the church develped in structure presbyters and deacons were included under the bishop. Many churches still did not have bishops.

“The wiser older men leading the gathering.” Are you referring to Jewish gatherings, or to the early Jewish Christian gatherings?

True, many local churches even of today do not have bishops, but elders and deacons only. The bishop resides in a larger nearby city.

Here is the great Gibbons to explain the later structue of the church generally descibed in the Timothy letters.(not written by Paul who was dead by that time.)

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon page 172.

"The primitive bishops were considered only as the first of their equals,
and the honorableservants of a free people. Whenever the episcopal chair
became vacant by death, a mew presidentwas chosen among the presbyters
by the suffrage of the whole congregation, every member of which
supposed himself invested with a sacred and sacerdotal character.

Such was the mild and equal constitution by which the Christians were
governed more than a hundredyears after the death of the apostles. Every
society formed within itself a separate and independantrepublic; and
although the most distant of these little states maintained a mutual as
well as a friendlyintercourse of letters and deputations, the Christian
world was not yet connected by any supreme authority
or legislative assembly."

Notice no Pope and no Magesterium or Church Councils at that time.

Gibbons probably has remained without equal in his use of the English language. In his historical conclusions, however, the same may not be said.

I wonder what Gibbon’s source material was for his statments. True, Gibbons says such and such, but upon what basis does he say it? That is, where are his footnotes? Because Gibbon’s assertions don’t seem to coexist very well with 1stPeter 5. Nor with the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. He is describing the late 1st century and early 2nd century church isn’t he?

 

[highrigger1]

Indeed, that is exactly what it means, old man. Older man. Elder

Or, rather, that is the generic meaning. The argument is that “elder” became to have a specialized, technical meaning apart from the root meaning. Timothy was an elder but was not an old man.

What is that specialized, technical meaning? Well, I guess that is part of the debate!

mack,

You are correct. An elder did not have to be old. A young wise man might be an elder. An elder was a person who led a Jewish gathering of some sort. The term got transferred to Jewish Christian gatherings (naturally) and in later decades to the general structure of the churches even gentile. But an elder was not a clergyman. There were none in the NT.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

Yes, you are right, that is the technical, or specialized meaning ‘ordain’ has come to have for us. But it also has the root meaning of to establish by appointment, so by that standard the Greek word (whatever it is) can still legitimately be translated ‘ordain’ in English. (What it is in other languages I do not know.) However, I see why you object to the use of the word ‘ordain,’ because it does have that specialized meaning you want to avoid.

Mack,

The word “ordain” implies clergy or priests. The word “appoint” is more proper and describes the circumstance better. That is why I object. Appoint descibes. Ordain misdescribes.

If by the “early church” you mean the early charismatic Pauline churches like at Corinth as having no clergy, that can be true. . I’m not entirely sure that can be said about the Judaic churches including the Jerusalem church though. What do you think?

 

[highrigger1]

…
inkaneer,

Johson is internally known and he has written many find books on history. His book is said to be the best one volume history of christianity.

Gary Wills, What Paul Meant

"Paul uses the word episkopi (overseers) only once, when he greets
the Holy in Philippi (Phil 1.1). "along with their overseers and
attendants (diakonoi)“These are informal leaders who have nothing
in common with the later bishopsand deacons of the church. The plural
and mixed “overseers” referred to are not the single-rule (monarchoi)
bishops that arose a half a century laterin the time of Ignatius,
and the “attendants” are not the seven supplymanagers elected in
Jerusalem according to Luke (Act 6:1-6). Attendants is such a general
term with Paul that he can refer to Satans attendants(2 Cor 11:15),
to his foes in Corinth as so-called attendents on Messiah(2 Cor 11.23)
to Jesus himself as an attendant on the circumcision (Rom 15.8)
as well as to himself and his team as attendants on God (2 Cor 6:4)
and on the new covenant (2 Cor 3:6). Those who try to make diakonos
mean the later “deacon” are embarrassed by the fact that Phoebe is a
diakonos (Rom 16:1). Paul is not referring to a ruling structure
under any of these titles,since the gatherings are still charismatic
groups where the Spirit singles out people for their function, not
their office. These include a wide variety of gifts - emissaries,
prophets, teachers, healers, readers, miracle workers,guides, speakers iin tongues,
interpreters of tongues, wise men, spirit testers, trainers, attendants, exhorters,
distributors, patrons, almsgivers,shepherds, (1 Cor 4:15, 12:8-10,27-28, rom 11:6-8). None
of these are ruling roles, and “overseers” make only fleeting
reference among them.“Priests” make no appearance at all.”

Yes, there were deacons and presbyters in Igniius church. None were ordained and none were priests.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

QUOTE=highrigger1;9215545]