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

[justasking4]

Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, ja4. He gave the Apostles the power to bind and loose. This means that they have His authority, under the guidance of the HS, to change the Church disciplines to meet the needs of any given age.

In the Latin Rite, there was rampant corruption in the clergy in Europe, and one of the ways this was addressed was to appoint priests from those who have given their whole lives in an undivided way to Christ. This was one approach to eliminate illegitimate children, adultery, and other problems facing the European parishes.

It is sad that you cannot recognize or appreciate the authority that Jesus gave to the Apostles to manage the Church, however, this does not change the facts. The fact is that Jesus sent the Apostles with His own authority. He was able to tell one of his followers to sell all that he had, and follow, yet other followers were supported in keeping their property and money. The Latin Rite chose to follow the example of Christ and of Paul in celibacy to bring back purity to the Church. As we all know, this purity still has a long way to go, and the decision to choose for priests those who are undivided in their interests best serves this purpose.

This is a good example of solving problems by the way of men in thinking that celibacy alone will solve the problem instead of the scriptural command. Even in the Roman rite where celibacy is required you end up still with a horrible priest scandal that the church is still reeling from.

 

[justasking4]

We have been over this and over this with the ja4 cadre. He (they) choose Paul’s disciplinary instructions to Timothy as a higher guide than the words of Christ. Since they reject the authority that Jesus gave to the Church, they cannot accept that the successors of the Apostles have the authority to change rules of this kind.

What has happened here is that those churches that mandate celibacy as a requirement have rejected the Word of God on this. This is what Jesus warned about invalidating the word of God for the sake of tradition.

 

[Tomster]

You are incorrect. Jesus was fully man i.e. human and fully God. He had to be fully human so that He could pay the price for our sins. Secondly He was also fully human in that He got hungry and tired and knew the limitations of being a man. If He was a divine person He would not have shared in our humanity nor have our physical limitations as a human.

It can be hardly stressed too much that the doctrine of the hypostatic union is nothing more than the revealed doctrine of the Incarnation: “The Word was made flesh.” It is not the fruit of human speculation upon the revealed word of God; it is not a theological conclusion; it is itself a divine revelation. Hence the hypostatic union precisely as such can never be the subject of debate among Catholic theologians. Upon this all Catholics are, and must be, agreed: that the human nature of Christ, though real and complete, does NOT constitute a human person distinct from the Son of God; that the one Person of Christ is the Divine Person of the Word who, subsisting eternally in the divine nature, in the fullness of time took upon himself a human nature and thus is both truly God and truly man.

 

[GailMac]

Dear Justasking - Still stuck in the SS puddle of tears? How about this - We have all of those Words made Flesh and He dwells among us in the Blessed Sacrament.

Are all the years you’ve been preparing to receive Him in Holy Communion by reading His words to go to waste? If not, which I’m hoping, please try an Adoration Chapel and ask Him in your heart to help you get through them.

Try to think of our Traditions this way - All of those Words made Flesh and a few besides in the Blessed Sacrament. God Himself dwells in us in the Sacraments. There are 7. You only need 2 before the Holy Communion part. They would be Confession and Confirmation, which to me are two more ways God will speak to your heart and soul and help you get through your life with Him. Or if you’d prefer, you could keep talking yourself out of them.

Peace,

Gail

P.S. If you’re married, you and your wife could be preparing to receive Him in another Sacrament called Matrimony. You could have some very Holy times ahead of you!

 

[Tomster]

In 1 Sam God took away the authority from the wicked people.
In the middle ages God took the authority from the wicked people.
the authority of the Catholic Church has been stripped away and given Methodists, and Baptists and Lutherns and Presbyterians etc.

Why is there, then, so much doctrinal confusion and lack of unity between the different sects you have just mentioned? Surely you are aware that Jesus prayed to His Father that all may be one?

 

[guanophore]

Let me encourage to spend more time studying the Scriptures in context instead of spreading your confusing ideas. What you find is that this passage has nothing to do with determining doctrines but church discipline. Doctrine is involoved here but not determined here.

So, it makes sense to you that people who have doctrinal errors should be in charge of the Church discipline?

In fact, the vast majority of the Church disciplinary problems are based on doctrinal errors. Jesus knew that there were going to be disputes about doctrine, that is why he set it up this way. When the heresies started to run rampant, it was the authority He appointed that settled them. That authority also took disciplinary measures to enforce the doctrinal truths that were entrusted to them. An example of this can be seen in the book of Acts, and it has never changed.

When there was a doctrinal dispute about circumcision, an dietary regulations, it was discussed by the authorities Jesus appointed. They made a doctrinal decision, then they wrote a disciplinary letter to the Church. The two cannot be separated.

This is a classic example of your confusion with Scripture. If you had read the passage where Jesus prays for unity you would seen that unity is not based on the “Rock” but on unity-oneness He had with the Father. See John 17:21

Jesus is the Rock, and He carries the Oneness of the Godhead in His body.

Col 2:8-10
9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fullness in him, who is the head of every ruler and authority."

He and the Father are One, and when Peter made a confession of faith:

Matt 16:16-20
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus pointed out that this truth was revealed to him by the FAther. This insight, that one who has seen the Father has seen the Son, is the divine revelation of unity. This was revealed to Simon, and at the moment of that revelation, Jesus grafted Peter into His own rockiness. All who are united with Christ are united with the Trinity, and all who are united to Peter are united to Christ.

 

[Tomster]

Dear Justasking - Still stuck in the SS puddle of tears? How about this - We have all of those Words made Flesh and He dwells among us in the Blessed Sacrament.

Are all the years you’ve been preparing to receive Him in Holy Communion by reading His words to go to waste? If not, which I’m hoping, please try an Adoration Chapel and ask Him in your heart to help you get through them.

Try to think of our Traditions this way - All of those Words made Flesh and a few besides in the Blessed Sacrament. God Himself dwells in us in the Sacraments. There are 7. You only need 2 before the Holy Communion part. They would be Confession and Confirmation, which to me are two more ways God will speak to your heart and soul and help you get through your life with Him. Or if you’d prefer, you could keep talking yourself out of them.

Peace,

Gail

P.S. If you’re married, you and your wife could be preparing to receive Him in another Sacrament called Matrimony. You could have some very Holy times ahead of you!

Good one Gail. Isn’t interesting, too, that our adversries claim to believe strictly in Sola Scriptura but when necessary they trot out formulations, i.e. the Augsburg Confession, et. al., which are nothing more than Protestant oral traditions which have been written down, to try and prove their position. It seems that our adversaries are relying on more than just the Bible.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4263145]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Let me encourage to spend more time studying the Scriptures in context instead of spreading your confusing ideas. What you find is that this passage has nothing to do with determining doctrines but church discipline. Doctrine is involoved here but not determined here.

guanophore
So, it makes sense to you that people who have doctrinal errors should be in charge of the Church discipline?

This is certainly true in the Catholic church where doctrinal errors are embraced.

In fact, the vast majority of the Church disciplinary problems are based on doctrinal errors. Jesus knew that there were going to be disputes about doctrine, that is why he set it up this way. When the heresies started to run rampant, it was the authority He appointed that settled them. That authority also took disciplinary measures to enforce the doctrinal truths that were entrusted to them. An example of this can be seen in the book of Acts, and it has never changed.

I agree that doctrine plays a part. Matthew 18:15-20 has nothing to do with the formulation of doctrines. It is about church discipline. Acts 15 is an example of formulation of doctrine.

When there was a doctrinal dispute about circumcision, an dietary regulations, it was discussed by the authorities Jesus appointed. They made a doctrinal decision, then they wrote a disciplinary letter to the Church. The two cannot be separated.

Acts 15 would be an example of the formulation of doctrine and it is not about church discipline.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
This is a classic example of your confusion with Scripture. If you had read the passage where Jesus prays for unity you would seen that unity is not based on the “Rock” but on unity-oneness He had with the Father. See John 17:21

guanophore
Jesus is the Rock, and He carries the Oneness of the Godhead in His body.

Col 2:8-10
9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fullness in him, who is the head of every ruler and authority."

He and the Father are One, and when Peter made a confession of faith:

Matt 16:16-20
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus pointed out that this truth was revealed to him by the FAther. This insight, that one who has seen the Father has seen the Son, is the divine revelation of unity. This was revealed to Simon, and at the moment of that revelation, Jesus grafted Peter into His own rockiness. All who are united with Christ are united with the Trinity, and all who are united to Peter are united to Christ.

Would you agree then that what unities all believers is not the pope or a church but it is those who believe Who Jesus is and what He came to do?

 

[justasking4]

Why is there, then, so much doctrinal confusion and lack of unity between the different sects you have just mentioned? Surely you are aware that Jesus prayed to His Father that all may be one?

Are not these sects unitied on the following?
1- Christ is God
2- died for our sins
3- Scripture is the ultimate authority in which all are bound to
4- the Trinity
5- believers must be baptized

 

[elvisman]

In 1 Sam God took away the authority from the wicked people.
In the middle ages God took the authority from the wicked people.
the authority of the Catholic Church has been stripped away and given Methodists, and Baptists and Lutherns and Presbyterians etc.

**1 Cor. 1:10-17 **speaks out against divisions and factions (denominations).
That would pretty much negate your false claim.

---

What’s more – Jesus himself prayed for the Unity of his Church (John 17) – that they may be ONE as he and the Father are ONE.

---

Thousands of quarrelling “denominations” do not fulfill this prayer – they make a mockery of it.

 

[justasking4]

**1 Cor. 1:10-17 **speaks out against divisions and factions (denominations).
That would pretty much negate your false claim.

---

What’s more – Jesus himself prayed for the Unity of his Church (John 17) – that they may be ONE as he and the Father are ONE.

---

Thousands of quarrelling “denominations” do not fulfill this prayer – they make a mockery of it.

Do you have a couple of examples what these denominations are quarrelling about?

 

[Tomster]

Are not these sects unitied on the following?
1- Christ is God
2- died for our sins
3- Scripture is the ultimate authority in which all are bound to
4- the Trinity
5- believers must be baptized

Some sects who call themselves Protestant do not believe that Christ is God, some deny that Christ died for our sins, some believe that the Bible is just an historical document, and some believe that Baptism is not necessary for salvation. As for the Trinity, you should know that that word is not in the Bible

It all depends on which Protestant “authority” you listen to.

BTW - Are we both agreed, now, that Jesus is a Divine Person?
You know, the matter was settled well over 1200 years ago by the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church. (Protestantism, as such, did not exist back then.)

 

[cazayoux]

Take a look at the Marian doctrines for starters. You don’t see them taught in the NT.
Where do we find anything about contraception in the Scriptures?

Aaahhhh … we see the dichotomy in just one post.

Marian doctrine is wrong because it is not in scripture.
Contraception is right because it is not in scripture.

Which is the requirement?
Define ONE measure and stick to it.

Does the bible oppose Marian doctrine? No.
Does the bible oppose contraception? Yes.

For starters …
Gen 38:8-10
[8] Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.”
[9] But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother.
[10] And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

Protestant churches that i’m aware of do agree on core doctrines such as the deity of Christ and forgiveness through Him.

I don’t remember reading in the bible which doctrines were considered core (essential?) and not core (non-essential?).
Is it possible this list comes from outside of scripture, say Tradition through the church that Christ founded?

The Catholic church on the other hand has made celibacy a requirement for church leadership (denies I Timothy 3:1-13).

Heheheh … priestly celibacy is not doctrine, it is only a practice. As well, this ‘practice’ is only a normative practice in the Western church. There are married priests in the Eastern Church. Also, even in the West, we have priests that have converted to Catholicism who have been given an exception and not had to take a vow of celibacy.

Now let’s look at the scripture you mentioned.

1 Tim 3:1-13 gives the requirements for the office of bishop and deacon. I believe your specific focus would be on being ‘the husband of one wife’. As opposed to what? Bigamy? Of course not. This is referring to a widower not marrying again.
So the man referred to here is either married or widowed and not remarried.

This is not in opposition to the Catholic Church as I mentioned the married priests in the church above.

So where-oh-where do these celibate priests get the idea that what they are is okay? Let’s try scripture. Let’s see what Paul says about what to do when called to follow Christ.

1 Cor 7:27-28 and 32-38
[27] Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage.
[28] But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.

[32] I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
[33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
[34] and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
[35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
[36] If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry – it is no sin.
[37] But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.
[38] So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

Wow … Paul says it’s BETTER to be unmarried so that your focus is 100% on God.

Maybe the practice of celibate Catholic priests in the West is actually from scripture and even considered a ‘better practice’ (as Paul states).

So would you still consider priestly celibacy a man-made doctrine?

michel

 

[RNRobert]

If you look at the context of the passages you use here they are not about the requirements for church leadership. For the requirements for church leadership go to I Timothy 3:1-13

1 Tim 3:1-3 does not mean a bishop MUST have a wife. Paul is saying that bishops must not be polygamists. Otherwise, Paul would have been disqualified from his position.

 

[RNRobert]

Heheheh … priestly celibacy is not doctrine, it is only a practice. As well, this ‘practice’ is only a normative practice in the Western church. There are married priests in the Eastern Church.

Also, priests in the Orthodox churches must be married before ordination, afterwards they are not allowed to marry (or remarry if their spouse dies, and I believe their bishops are usually drawn from priests who are celibate.

 

[elvisman]

Do you have a couple of examples what these denominations are quarrelling about?

Where to begin?

Some believe in Consubstatiation - most other denominations believe it’s only symbolic.

Some believe in Baptismal regeneration - most others don’t.

Some believe that works are necessary - others don’t.

Some believe in predestination - others don’t.

Some are dispensationalists - others aren’t.

Shall I go on?

 

[cazayoux]

1 Tim 3:1-3 does not mean a bishop MUST have a wife. Paul is saying that bishops must not be polygamists. Otherwise, Paul would have been disqualified from his position.

I understand this to mean ‘not remarried after widowing’ rather than polygamy.

michel

 

[justasking4]

Tomster;4263699]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Are not these sects unitied on the following?
1- Christ is God
2- died for our sins
3- Scripture is the ultimate authority in which all are bound to
4- the Trinity
5- believers must be baptized

Tomster;
Some sects who call themselves Protestant do not believe that Christ is God, some deny that Christ died for our sins, some believe that the Bible is just an historical document, and some believe that Baptism is not necessary for salvation.

Would you happen to have the names of these?

As for the Trinity, you should know that that word is not in the Bible

true

It all depends on which Protestant “authority” you listen to.

True in a sense. After listening their teachings should be compared with what the Scriptures teach. If not in harmony they should be rejected as teaching falsely.

BTW - Are we both agreed, now, that Jesus is a Divine Person?
You know, the matter was settled well over 1200 years ago by the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church. (Protestantism, as such, did not exist back then.)

If by divine person you mean that He was fully man and fully God then yes.

 

[justasking4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
If you look at the context of the passages you use here they are not about the requirements for church leadership. For the requirements for church leadership go to I Timothy 3:1-13

RNRobert
1 Tim 3:1-3 does not mean a bishop MUST have a wife. Paul is saying that bishops must not be polygamists. Otherwise, Paul would have been disqualified from his position.

The Roman rite disqualifies a married catholic man from being a bishop simply because he is married. This violates I Timothy 3.