Protestants, did Jesus Christ gave us a Church with authority?

[M0nkey]

i honestly don’t know how you say this “doesn’t go against what’s scripture” when it is so clear in the Scriptures.

How so?? You have heard of cases where a priest can be married as someone pointed out on this thread. Not sure where you are getting the CC goes against scripture.

 

[justasking4]

How so?? You have heard of cases where a priest can be married as someone pointed out on this thread. Not sure where you are getting the CC goes against scripture.

i’m aware of the “exceptions” but i’m addressing the “rule” that disqualifies married men. To deny married men from becoming bishops goes against I Timothy 3 where the qualifications for a bishop are clearly listed and in that list is being married and managing your children well. This is a denial of the Scriptures.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

i honestly don’t know how you say this “doesn’t go against what’s scripture” when it is so clear in the Scriptures.

Because it obviously doesn’t go against scripture.

Paul and Jesus both said celibacy is preferable. Neither mandated it.

That is the position of the Church.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

i’m aware of the “exceptions” but i’m addressing the “rule” that disqualifies married men. To deny married men from becoming bishops goes against I Timothy 3 where the qualifications for a bishop are clearly listed and in that list is being married and managing your children well. This is a denial of the Scriptures.

Marriage is not the requirement.

The requirement is that the man be a moral and monogamous if he is married.

 

[M0nkey]

i’m addressing the “rule” that disqualifies married men.

Do you not read what I write? THERE IS NO RULE!

I’m sorry… I must decrease so he may increase.

 

[justasking4]

Because it obviously doesn’t go against scripture.

Paul and Jesus both said celibacy is preferable. Neither mandated it.

That is the position of the Church.

It goes against I Timothy 3:2–2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

It goes against I Timothy 3:2–2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,

He must be above reproach and NOT have more than one wife.

1 Cor 7

38So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.

 

[cazayoux]

Since no one is infallible except God then it would be incorrect to claim that i am. If i’m wrong about my interpretations then you are going to have show me why and give a superior interpretation of the texts in light of the context.

Truth isn’t left to the one with the superior argumentative skills.
Otherwise, Arianism would still be alive.

I’m not being presumptuous but pointing out what the texts says in context. Its quite clear that married men are qualified to be bishops for example.

and in these discussions we’ve made several points, which throw a wrench in your interpretation.

By your method of understanding this scripture, marriage isn’t the only requirement for the bishopric or deaconate, but fatherhood as well.

You read the scripture to say ‘only married men are qualified for these offices’.
I read the scripture to say ‘a married man with children can be disqualified from these positions if he has not managed his household well’.

So answer these for me.
Can a married man that does not have children become a bishop?
Can a man who is widowed (single again) but has children become a bishop?
Can a man who is widowed (single again) but has no children become a bishop?
Can a man who is widowed (single again), then marries again become a bishop?
Can a man who is a bishop, who is then widowed (single again) stay a bishop?

The way YOU interpret the scripture brings you into many issues.
The way YOU interpret scripture is to ignore what Paul says about staying single or married when called to follow Christ, as will be the case with every man that aspires to the office of bishop.

Why intelligent Catholics who can read and understand the Scriptures that allows married men to be bishops don’t challenge their leaders on this issue is shocking to say the least. My comments are not prejudiced or slanted. You can check the Scriptures yourself and see that i’m speaking the truth. I suspect it has more to do with following the authority of men instead of the Scriptures.

So if I don’t have YOUR understanding, you call me unintelligent.
[skipping proof of my high intellect ]

I am checking the scripture myself.
I did not go to the catechism or any other official church document other than the bible itself to study this.
I’ve heard your take on it, and I am not moved in the least.
You’re probably shocked that we just don’t accept YOUR interpretation of scripture.
I mean, if we were smart at all, we’d see it just like you do.
Sounds like you rather us just follow YOUR INTERPRETATION instead of Scriptures.

IF I actually thought the scripture says what you say it does, I would have NO problem using that scripture to loudly challenge the leaders. (I’m not shy)

The thing is, I think YOU are the one that is reading more into the scripture than is actually there.
I think YOU are wrong.

michel

 

[cfrancis]

You say:

I’m not being presumptuous but pointing out what the texts says in context. Its quite clear that married men are qualified to be bishops for example.

The way this is stated, you are saying married men are qualified to be bishops, but marriage is not mandatory.
You then say:

The passage in I Timothy 3 for example says nothing of polygamy, nor of being widowed. Rather it is saying that the qualifications would include a married man who has children and how well he manages his household.

Which seems to now imply marriage and children are mandatory; this is confirmed in the same post:

Were not discussing marriage per se but what are the qualifications for a bishop.** He is** to be married and have children.

When asked:

Where does it say bishops must be married?

you reply with:

I Timothy 3:2-5
2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),

But you then say:

I don’t see the qualifications for being married with children as a requirement.

Which appears to be a contradiction of the above statements, going from “He is to be married and have children” to “I don’t see the qualifications for being married with children as a requirement.”

You also said:

Secondly, the Scriptures also do not endorse single men to be bishops.

The way this is stated, you are saying single men are excluded from being bishops.
You confirm this position:

Not so. One of the indicators for a leader is how well he manages his children. An unmarried-never married man cannot pass this test.

However, when asked:

Are you saying Paul is saying only married men can be bishops?

You replied:

No. I’m saying that the Catholic church disqualifies a married man from consideration just because he is married. Secondly, Paul does not make the case here where he speaks of church leadership directly for a single man to be a bishop. If single men were to qualiffy this would be the place to find it. However its not even mentioned.

It appears you even contradict yourself within the same reply.

Bottom line: I do not understand your position on this issue.

 

[guanophore]

It is true the church has authority. However no church has the authority to circumvent His word i.e. the Scriptures.

Goes back to authority. If this is going to change the only way it will in the Roman Catholic church would be because the church wills it so. The question is: will it go back to the biblical mandate or something else?

Since it was never a biblical mandate in the first place, I think that is probably not relevant. You have yet to prove how this instruction is different than the other instructions he gave about women in church, haircuts, etc.

I’m not being presumptuous but pointing out what the texts says in context. Its quite clear that married men are qualified to be bishops for example.

In that day and time, yes.

.

Why intelligent Catholics who can read and understand the Scriptures that allows married men to be bishops don’t challenge their leaders on this issue is shocking to say the least.

It may seem strange to you or shocking to have faith in the promises of Christ. It is true that the life of faith is folly to those of this world. However, we believe, however much you may find it shocking, that Jesus told the truth when He said he would send His Spirit to lead the Church into all Truth.

My comments are not prejudiced or slanted. You can check the Scriptures yourself and see that i’m speaking the truth. I suspect it has more to do with following the authority of men instead of the Scriptures.

Such as statement is prejudiced, and slanted.

i honestly don’t know how you say this “doesn’t go against what’s scripture” when it is so clear in the Scriptures.

Yes. It is also clear in scripture that if we sin with our eye or our hand, we are to cut if off. You still seem to have yours! Scripture is clear that women should wear a veil, and be silent in Church. I don’t see how you can say it is not clear!

Scripture also says “drink wine for the sake of your stomach”. Do you do that?

i’m aware of the “exceptions” but i’m addressing the “rule” that disqualifies married men. To deny married men from becoming bishops goes against I Timothy 3 where the qualifications for a bishop are clearly listed and in that list is being married and managing your children well. This is a denial of the Scriptures.

This is a misunderstanding of Holy Orders. No one has a “right” or an automatic 'qualification" for Ordination.

A person can’t be “disqualified” from something they are not participating in to begin with.

It appears you even contradict yourself within the same reply.

Bottom line: I do not understand your position on this issue.

What ja4 is promoting is that Catholics confront and depose our Magesterium because they are bringing false teachings into the Church. He is really trying to foment rebellion against the Magesterium. He thinks that the Magesterium do not really have the authority to bind and loose on earth.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Quite so!

Where do you disagree with what I’ve said, though?

Basically everything. That Jesus speaks to me alone, that my own understanding of scripture is infallible, that truth is relative. In fact I reread it because I didn’t realize at first just how much of a mockery it was, but I don’t think there was a single true statement in there about Protestant attitudes towards scripture, truth, or Biblical interpretation.

OK. Here’s what I said again:

If I were a protestant, I’d say “No!”.

Why? Because (to a protestant) there is NO absolute authority over any realm concerned WITH authority other than Jesus, who speaks to me alone.

My “Holy Spirit” inspired conscience, being infallible, or at least sufficiently “infallible” to never let me be TOO evil-doing, is the only authority I need to obey.

Of course, if it turns out that my conscience IS so woefully fallible as to allow me to be truly evil, then I’m just not one of God’s “elect” and was always doomed to hell for “just being me” anyway.

It’s all a matter of personal “perspective” and conscience. It’s all relative. I (as a protestant [which I’m not really!]) have to be relativistic, because everyone has the same relative “infallibility” that I do.

Diversity in doctrine is to the Glory of God! Belief in Christ IS a “market of ideas”, after all!​

You say that Jesus doesn’t speak to you alone. I’m sure your problem is with the word “alone”.

What I meant by “alone” was that regardless of whether Jesus speaks to anyone else, He DOES speak to me without any “intermediaries”, without any “interpretational personi”.

Do you agree with that?

I do in fact believe that you don’t think that you are infallible in your interpretation of scripture, but you DO believe that there is NO infallible authority on scripture, which makes you just as infallible as anyone else.

Do you agree with that?

Since you don’t believe that there is ANY infallible interpreter of scripture, how can scripture be anything but a relative “truth” as it can be known by human beings?

I look forward to your answers!

 

[rbarcia]

Protestants, did Jesus Christ gave us a Church with authority?

If he did, then when why do some of your fore fathers ignore Church authority?

If he did not gave us an Church with authority, whom did Jesus handed his authority too? Did Church authority fell away when the last Apostle die?

How would it justifying adding 27 NT text in the Bible? Since the Holy Bible did not added the 27 NT text into the canon but rather local Synods of the Church.

Jesus gave a Church to who? In the the Bible, church is used to refer to people. God gave Jesus to the church, which are people, not an institution.

 

[cazayoux]

Jesus gave a Church to who? In the the Bible, church is used to refer to people. God gave Jesus to the church, which are people, not an institution.

Jesus founded (instituted) a community of people.
Church isn’t just a reference to ‘people’.
Go to your searchable online bible and plug in ‘church’.
You’ll see that the CHURCH is who we ultimately go to when a brother sins against us. The CHURCH has authority.

michel

 

[O.S.Luke]

Protestants, did Jesus Christ gave us a Church with authority?

Yes.

If he did, then when why do some of your fore fathers ignore Church authority?

I’m sure some have ignored Church authority. However, my tradition takes authority very seriously.

If he did not gave us an Church with authority, whom did Jesus handed his authority too? Did Church authority fell away when the last Apostle die?

Not applicable.

How would it justifying adding 27 NT text in the Bible? Since the Holy Bible did not added the 27 NT text into the canon but rather local Synods of the Church.

Not applicable.

Not sure where you’re going with this thread.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Jesus gave a Church to who? In the the Bible, church is used to refer to people. God gave Jesus to the church, which are people, not an institution.

The Church was given authority by God. The Church is an institution. Jesus is the Head of the Church. Yes, the Church are people of God but it was not the people who dogmatically proclaim the Council of Nicea in 325 AD nor was it the People who form the Council of Jerusalem. It was the Elders of the Church, bishops.

Who has Authority? The bishops in union with the Pope. Not the people.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yes.

Good. God did gave authority.

I’m sure some have ignored Church authority. However, my tradition takes authority very seriously.

Good for you.

Not sure where you’re going with this thread.

To prove to you that Jesus Christ established One Church and none other. If this is true there is no justification for the Schism or the Protestant Reformation because those break was total disobedience to the Church authority.

 

[justasking4]

cazayoux;4269774]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I’m not being presumptuous but pointing out what the texts says in context. Its quite clear that married men are qualified to be bishops for example.

cazayoux
and in these discussions we’ve made several points, which throw a wrench in your interpretation.

By your method of understanding this scripture, marriage isn’t the only requirement for the bishopric or deaconate, but fatherhood as well.

You read the scripture to say ‘only married men are qualified for these offices’.
I read the scripture to say ‘a married man with children can be disqualified from these positions if he has not managed his household well’.

So answer these for me.
Can a married man that does not have children become a bishop?
Can a man who is widowed (single again) but has children become a bishop?
Can a man who is widowed (single again) but has no children become a bishop?
Can a man who is widowed (single again), then marries again become a bishop?
Can a man who is a bishop, who is then widowed (single again) stay a bishop?

These are excellent questions but they don’t address the one that i have been presenting: The Roman Catholic church disqualifies a married man from becoming a bishop. For a man to become a bishop in the Roman Catholic church he must be single and celibate. He must not have a wife. This goes against the Scriptures.

The way YOU interpret the scripture brings you into many issues.
The way YOU interpret scripture is to ignore what Paul says about staying single or married when called to follow Christ, as will be the case with every man that aspires to the office of bishop

.
These other passages you quote are not speaking about the qualifications of a bishop.

 

[justasking4]

Good. God did gave authority.

Good for you.

To prove to you that Jesus Christ established One Church and none other. If this is true there is no justification for the Schism or the Protestant Reformation because those break was total disobedience to the Church authority.

Do you believe that the church before the Protestant Reformation was without fault?

 

[Mannyfit75]

These are excellent questions but they don’t address the one that i have been presenting: The Roman Catholic church disqualifies a married man from becoming a bishop. For a man to become a bishop in the Roman Catholic church he must be single and celibate. He must not have a wife. This goes against the Scriptures.

Does your Church have bishops?

 

[justasking4]

Does your Church have bishops?

Some do.