If the priesthood of all believers rejects heirarchy, why have a leadership structure?

[Rosebud77]

A simple answer from a country lass… Sheep need a shepherd.

On the island we once had someone leave and leave his stock behind.

The sheep were lost souls, wandering lost here and there.

Jesus knew sheep… I learned a lot about His words when I had sheep to care for.

 

[eddie_too]

i believe there is a leadership structure because Jesus created it.

any interpretation of the “priesthood of all believers” that rejects Jesus’ decision to create a hierarchical church is in error.

 

[Nicea325]

I have no desire to make you Protestant. As to denominations, Scripture says nothing about them, as it says nothing about a magisterium or an infallible Pope.

Then you contradict your own rule-of-faith and convictions. You do not believe unless it is written in the Bible (first contradiction, no where does Bible make such a claim as sole-rule). Second, Scripture makes no mention of denominations and yet you evidently accept denominations?

Infallible pope? So every Gospel author was fallible according to your standard?

 

[pablope]

I have no desire to make you Protestant. As to denominations, Scripture says nothing about them, as it says nothing about a magisterium or an infallible Pope.

So, can you then show in Scriptures where it says there is no magisterium and infallible Pope?

How can you be sure this is according to Scriptures and not just your interpretation?

 

[Nicea325]

So, can you then show in Scriptures where it says there is no magisterium and infallible Pope?

How can you be sure this is according to Scriptures and not just your interpretation?

That is called denominationlism

 

[ltwin]

Matthew 16 Jesus makes Peter the foundation of the Church and gives him the keys to the Kingdom

Luke 22 Jesus tells Peter that He’s prayed for him specifically and that he will strengthen his brothers once he has turned back.

John 21 Jesus tells Peter to feed and govern His sheep.

So, can you then show in Scriptures where it says there is no magisterium and infallible Pope?

In Matthew 16, Peter is given the keys of the kingdom after confessing Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. It is true that Peter and the other Apostles are the foundations of the church. Yet, with regards to any authority given in this verse, it is given to other Christians in the context of dealing with unrepentant sinners in Matthew 18:15-20.

In Luke 22, the reason Jesus prayed for Peter was that “Satan demanded to have you” leading to Peter’s fall and denial of Jesus. Yet, because of Jesus’ intercession, Peter found stronger faith in the aftermath of his fall and is stronger for it. Jesus prays for all of us (Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25), and we all certainly need it… Nothing here to indicate that Peter is given special authority.

In regards to John 21, wouldn’t it make more sense given Jesus asking Peter 3 times “Do you love me” that Jesus is reassuring Peter and the others that he still loves him and still counts him as an apostle. He’s not raising Peter above the others, but confirming him in a position that would be in doubt given his earlier denial.

How can you be sure this is according to Scriptures and not just your interpretation?

How do you know that your interpretation is right? How do you know that you’re right about the Catholic Church’s authority?

When it comes down to it we all have to believe God will guide us into all truth, and I do believe that those who read the Bible truly yearning to know God’s will will find it.

 

[ltwin]

Then you contradict your own rule-of-faith and convictions. You do not believe unless it is written in the Bible (first contradiction, no where does Bible make such a claim as sole-rule).

It is not that I disbelieve everything that is not in Scripture. There are many things not revealed in Scripture that I believe in. Scripture itself makes it clear that we can know some things about God through means other than Scripture, such as observing his creation (Psalm 19, Romans 1).

The Bible is, however, sufficient in containing everything we need God to tell us for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly.

Second, Scripture makes no mention of denominations and yet you evidently accept denominations?

I accept denominations as convenient tools for the church to structure its work and ministry.

Infallible pope? So every Gospel author was fallible according to your standard?

The biblical authors wrote under divine inspiration, and they wrote the very words of God. They do not tell us that any successors of Peter or the other apostles would continue to pronounce authoritative divine revelation.

 

[James248]

In Matthew 16, Peter is given the keys of the kingdom after confessing Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. It is true that Peter and the other Apostles are the foundations of the church. Yet, with regards to any authority given in this verse, it is given to other Christians in the context of dealing with unrepentant sinners in Matthew 18:15-20.

In Luke 22, the reason Jesus prayed for Peter was that “Satan demanded to have you” leading to Peter’s fall and denial of Jesus. Yet, because of Jesus’ intercession, Peter found stronger faith in the aftermath of his fall and is stronger for it. Jesus prays for all of us (Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25), and we all certainly need it… Nothing here to indicate that Peter is given special authority.

In regards to John 21, wouldn’t it make more sense given Jesus asking Peter 3 times “Do you love me” that Jesus is reassuring Peter and the others that he still loves him and still counts him as an apostle. He’s not raising Peter above the others, but confirming him in a position that would be in doubt given his earlier denial.

In the passage about dealing with unrepentant sinners, Jesus is discussing this with His Apostles. So when He says “the Church,” he means the leaders of the community. Nowhere in that passage does Jesus give the other Apostles the keys.

In Luke 22 Jesus specifically tells Peter he’s gonna strengthen his brothers. If that’s not authority, then what is?

The Greek word used in John 21 means govern. So Jesus is saying to Peter, “Govern my sheep.” Jesus is putting Peter in charge of his brothers.

 

[James248]

It is not that I disbelieve everything that is not in Scripture. There are many things not revealed in Scripture that I believe in. Scripture itself makes it clear that we can know some things about God through means other than Scripture, such as observing his creation (Psalm 19, Romans 1).

**The Bible is, however, sufficient in containing everything we need God to tell us for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly.

**

I accept denominations as convenient tools for the church to structure its work and ministry.

The biblical authors wrote under divine inspiration, and they wrote the very words of God. They do not tell us that any successors of Peter or the other apostles would continue to pronounce authoritative divine revelation.

Where do you get that from? From Scripture or your own thoughts?

 

[Vonsalza]

In Matthew 16, Peter is given the keys of the kingdom after confessing Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. It is true that Peter and the other Apostles are the foundations of the church. Yet, with regards to any authority given in this verse, it is given to other Christians in the context of dealing with unrepentant sinners in Matthew 18:15-20.

Interesting interpretation. So your group finally “got it right” after 1500 years? Is that your argument, just to be clear?

In regards to John 21, wouldn’t it make more sense given Jesus asking Peter 3 times “Do you love me” that Jesus is reassuring Peter and the others that…

Where are these others in the dialogue? I just see Christ speaking to Simon Peter…

How do you know that you’re right about the Catholic Church’s authority?

Christ put his personal guarantee on the perpetuity of the Church. If one’s flavor of Christianity doesn’t have a founding date of approximately 30AD with demonstrable existence throughout the centuries from then to present, then their “church” cannot be Christ’s Church.

This leaves only three communions to choose between.

When it comes down to it we all have to believe God will guide us into all truth,

The assertion of personal revelation conflicts with the establishing of the offices of the Church. It has also been the seedbed of heresy for all time.

and I do believe that those who read the Bible truly yearning to know God’s will will find it.

I potentially agree here, but theirs is a more perilous path as it is outside of confines of Christ’s Church. Their path meanders closer to “self”; vis-a-vis, hell.

The Bible is, however, sufficient in containing everything we need God to tell us for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly.

So what about the 350 years the Church existed prior to the Catholic Church giving us our canon? What about Christians that lived and died prior to some NT books even being written? If a copy of Paul’s Epistle to Laodicea was found, would you admit it to canon? Why was one book admitted and another not?


If what you’re saying is true, Christ had no need to appoint apostles. He would have just written a text and promoted it.

I accept denominations as convenient tools for the church to structure its work and ministry.

As many have fundamental disagreements concerning soteriology (how one is “saved”), denominationalism is potentially a great recruiting tool for hell.

The biblical authors… do not tell us that any successors of Peter or the other apostles would continue to pronounce authoritative divine revelation.

They also do not tell us that God stop talking to his Church… Please, no arguments from silence, Itwin. They can be used to argue literally anything.

I’ve always found the “bible and me” approach to Christianity a little comical as textual literacy being common across wider humanity wasn’t a “thing” until almost within living memory…
You’d have needed to go to academy before you could become a Christian.

 

[Nicea325]

It is not that I disbelieve everything that is not in Scripture. There are many things not revealed in Scripture that I believe in. Scripture itself makes it clear that we can know some things about God through means other than Scripture, such as observing his creation (Psalm 19, Romans 1).

The Bible is, however, sufficient in containing everything we need God to tell us for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly.

I accept denominations as convenient tools for the church to structure its work and ministry.

The biblical authors wrote under divine inspiration, and they wrote the very words of God. They do not tell us that any successors of Peter or the other apostles would continue to pronounce authoritative divine revelation.

The words in red are false and shown time and time again, such a position is a novelty. Drinking water is sufficient to survive for x-amount of time, but solids are also required.

And yet the Bible also does not tell us of denominations being convenient tools? If so, chapter and verse please?

 

[Nicea325]

In Matthew 16, Peter is given the keys of the kingdom after confessing Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. It is true that Peter and the other Apostles are the foundations of the church. Yet, with regards to any authority given in this verse, it is given to other Christians in the context of dealing with unrepentant sinners in Matthew 18:15-20.

In Luke 22, the reason Jesus prayed for Peter was that “Satan demanded to have you” leading to Peter’s fall and denial of Jesus. Yet, because of Jesus’ intercession, Peter found stronger faith in the aftermath of his fall and is stronger for it. Jesus prays for all of us (Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25), and we all certainly need it… Nothing here to indicate that Peter is given special authority.

In regards to John 21, wouldn’t it make more sense given Jesus asking Peter 3 times “Do you love me” that Jesus is reassuring Peter and the others that he still loves him and still counts him as an apostle. He’s not raising Peter above the others, but confirming him in a position that would be in doubt given his earlier denial.

How do you know that your interpretation is right? **How do you know that you’re right about the Catholic Church’s authority? **
When it comes down to it we all have to believe God will guide us into all truth, and I do believe that those who read the Bible truly yearning to know God’s will will find it.

See, that is where we differ. We as Catholics follow and obey a church founded by Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit. So we are covered, no need to worry about personal interpretations of the Bible, which exists in the circle of denominations. Denominations have no conclusive certainty “their” interpretation is correct or else thousands of denominations would not exist.

 

[Wannano]

See, that is where we differ. We as Catholics follow and obey a church founded by Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit. So we are covered, no need to worry about personal interpretations of the Bible, which exists in the circle of denominations. Denominations have no conclusive certainty “their” interpretation is correct or else thousands of denominations would not exist.

Itwin made the following statement: “The Bible is, however, sufficent in containing everything we need God to tell us for salvation.”

You make the claim that his statement is false. Would you kindly explain what is not in the Bible that is required of us to obtain God’s salvation?

 

[James248]

Itwin made the following statement: ** “The Bible is, however, sufficent in containing everything we need God to tell us for salvation.” **

You make the claim that his statement is false. Would you kindly explain what is not in the Bible that is required of us to obtain God’s salvation?

The statement that I bolded.

 

[Wannano]

The statement that I bolded.

Are you also posting as Nicea?

 

[James248]

Are you also posting as Nicea?

Obviously not.

 

[De_Maria]

Are you also posting as Nicea?

Fist of all, anyone can answer anyone’s question here. Unless you can produce a rule that only those addressed may respond to a query. I have never found one. But, maybe you can find it.

Itwin made the following statement: “The Bible is, however, sufficent in containing everything we need God to tell us for salvation.”

You make the claim that his statement is false.

1. I don’t see that in Nicea’s response. But, again, maybe you can produce it.
2. Even if you can find it, this forum is not about any particular Catholic’s teachings. We all strive to follow the Teachings of the Catholic Church.

Would you kindly explain what is not in the Bible that is required of us to obtain God’s salvation?

Catholic Teaching says that everything that is Taught in Sacred Tradition is in Scripture, either explicit or implied. So, your question is moot, since the Catholic Church does not deny that everything is in the Bible which is required to obtain God’s salvation.

However, the Catholic Church, in that very Bible which you hold in your hands, because the Bible is a Catholic Book, says that everything that one needs to obtain God’s salvation is first and foremost, contained in the Sacred Traditions passed down by Jesus Christ.

Therefore, the doctrine of Scripture alone is proven false by Scripture. As the Scripture says:

2 Thessalonians 2:115 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

And Protestants disobey Scripture by holding to Scripture alone and discarding the Traditions which are the basis of the New Testament. And to add insult to injury, proceed to interpret Scripture in contradiction of those Traditions.

 

[GLam8833]

I read in John 12:20 that some Greeks asked
Philip to see Jesus, Philip related this to Andrew
and both went to Jesus, so there seems to be
a Hierarchy even in Jesus’ Day. He chose the
Twelve but only Peter, James and John were
allowed in on many occasions to witness some
miracles and the transfiguration of Jesus.
And Jesus only gave Peter the Keys of the
Kingdom.

 

[Nicea325]

Itwin made the following statement: “The Bible is, however, sufficent in containing everything we need God to tell us for salvation.”

You make the claim that his statement is false. Would you kindly explain what is not in the Bible that is required of us to obtain God’s salvation?

Sure no problem.

Error 1: The notion the Bible has we know it today existed in the first 400 years of the church.

How did any Christian prior to any Bible being compiled as one volume attain salvation? Can’t read your way into Heaven.

 

[Vonsalza]

How did any Christian prior to any Bible being compiled as one volume attain salvation? Can’t read your way into Heaven.

Good grief, the problem is bigger than that.

I’d wager that 90% of all Christians who ever lived from 30AD to 1900AD lacked literacy sufficient to actually read the bible. They had to have someone read it to them.

…Like the Catholic Church has been doing for nigh-on 2000 years.