second question for our non-catholic brethern

[Randy_Carson]

But it trades one authority for another. It trades from God to man. If you are attempting to translate a verse you go to another man, who you believe is guided by the Spirit. I go to God Himself. It is a harder way to live in a sense, but it is what I see taught in scripture. I can only pray for myself that I humble myself enough to listen and respond to what is being taught to me via the Spirit. Again, that is why scripture plays such a key role.

Grace and Peace to you.

It does, but it is an authority established BY GOD.

Look, I pray every day, too, and I try to get a sense of what God is saying about this and that, but unless you are a lot more holy than I am, I suspect that you’re no more clear on God’s will and guidance than I am. I do the best I can, but sometimes all I hear in prayer is silence.

But the Church is different. She is led by the vicarious shepherd of the one flock whom Jesus commanded to “feed” or teach me. She is the one to whom Jesus said, “He who hears you, hears me.” She is the one sent forth by Jesus with the same authority with which the Father sent the Son into the world.

Can such a Church ever teach error on behalf of Christ?

 

[JonNC]

So the first half of the Old Testament is unreliable, then?

No. You are equating infallible with correct. The OT is inspired, and scripture inerrant, but men are not infallible.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

No. You are equating infallible with correct. The OT is inspired, and scripture inerrant, but men are not infallible.

Jon

Jon, you know Catholic doctrine better than most Catholics, but just to be sure…what does it mean to say that the pope is infallible?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy!

Its been awhile

 

[Kliska]

I want to agree with that. My favourite heresies ought to be excluded, for example.

Unfortunately, I don’t think I am the one in charge.

Neither am I (but really I would hate to be in charge, wouldn’t you?)

OH, good, we agree.

We both believe miracles can occur.

So, when Jesus ordained the 12 to be priests of the New Covenant ("Do this … " etc.), He wasn’t just making random conversation, right? :yup: :yup: :yup:

Absolutely He was not making random conversation, which I know you don’t think any Christian would believe. However, He wasn’t ordaining them for the things you think or in the way RC’s believe… I should say, I don’t see that implication there. What I was explaining what there is a Jewish reason why they’d be there, and why they gathered to eat that particular passover meal in that particular way.

Me, personally? No, other than to point me to the Church and let the Church be His voice, clearly heard. Otherwise, I could just make stuff up and say, “The Holy Spirit told me so,” kind of like how kids say, “My Mom said …” when really, she didn’t.

There’s only one problem with that analogy, your Mom isn’t God… well that’s what I assume anyway. lol The Holy Spirit can take care of Himself, and those who claim to hear from Him and don’t. You can’t say “no” and then say “yes.” Which is what you did… To read that statement, you claim the Holy Spirit lead you to the RC and then fled the scene. Which would mean you aren’t indwelt? Really?

God understands the weaknesses of our human nature, which is why He established a Church for us.

I would say that He understands all that, which is why He sent His Son to live, die, and live for us, and then sent His Spirit to guide us. The church is made up of all His outcalled ones; those that faithe on Him.

Christ only established one, so it’s essential to figure out who comprises His Church, so as to be among those counted as the Elect.

Agreed, He only established one and there is only one. Good luck figuring all that out, as we are instructed to let the wheat grow with the tares cuz we aren’t good at telling them apart… though He and His angels are.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

It seems clear that
[1] God did start a New religion [set of faith beliefs]

[2} did found a new church [structure and organization]

Mt. 10:1-8
Mt. 16:18-19
John 17:14-20
Mk. 16: 14-15
Mt. 28:16-20 are evidence of this.

SO DEAR FRIENDS MY QUESTION IS:

Did Christ give to the Apostles the Power and Authority to

[1] Teach this new faith FULLY and CORRECTLY?

[2] Give [transfer] the necesary Powers and Authority to them?

God Bless you!
Patrick

Good evening PJM. I have read your thread with great interest, and I have a few questions for you if I may. Firstly, are you asking Protestant readers on the forum to defend the legitimacy of the churches they belong to by means of affirming or denying authority based on apostolic succession? I will have some follow on questions.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Kliska]

It does, but it is an authority established BY GOD.

And this is where we cannot agree. If we could, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Absolutely He was not making random conversation, which I know you don’t think any Christian would believe. However, He wasn’t ordaining them for the things you think or in the way RC’s believe… I should say, I don’t see that implication there.

Yes, but this is exactly what happened.

You see, Jesus said, “If you forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven. If you retain men’s sins, then they are retained (not forgiven).” By telling the apostles to forgive and retain, Jesus had given them authority to hear confession and forgive sins.

At the Last Supper, Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” Do what? Consecrate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus. The Apostles couldn’t “do” unless Jesus had made them Priests of the New Covenant. The ordination is implicit in the command.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And this is where we cannot agree. If we could, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Did Jesus give authority to the Apostles as leaders of the Church He promised to build?

If so, would you say that the Apostles had more, less or about the same amount of authority in the Church that you personally have today?

Thanks.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, you know Catholic doctrine better than most Catholics, but just to be sure…what does it mean to say that the pope is infallible?

When the pope speaks ex cathedra (from the chair of St Peter), on faith and morals, he speaks infallibly.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

Absolutely He was not making random conversation, which I know you don’t think any Christian would believe. However, He wasn’t ordaining them for the things you think or in the way RC’s believe… I should say, I don’t see that implication there.

What does “do this” mean, to you? Jesus is speaking to the 11; not to the crowds. This is a “something” to do that is only for the 11, and those they appoint to work with them.

You and I, we are “the crowd”; we are not the 11.

What I was explaining what there is a Jewish reason why they’d be there, and why they gathered to eat that particular passover meal in that particular way.

Bear in mind that the Catholic Church is, at its root, the fulfilled Judaism that was prophesied by the Prophets.

There’s only one problem with that analogy, your Mom isn’t God… well that’s what I assume anyway. lol The Holy Spirit can take care of Himself, and those who claim to hear from Him and don’t. You can’t say “no” and then say “yes.” Which is what you did… To read that statement, you claim the Holy Spirit lead you to the RC and then fled the scene. Which would mean you aren’t indwelt? Really?

I am certainly “indwelt” with the gifts of the Holy Spirit - wisdom, understanding, knowledge, right judgment, fortitude, piety, and fear of the Lord; however, my every utterance is not from the Holy Spirit, and nor is every thought that wanders through my mind.

I would say that He understands all that, which is why He sent His Son to live, die, and live for us, and then sent His Spirit to guide us. The church is made up of all His outcalled ones; those that faithe on Him.

Except for the heretics … (as we established above) - which means we need a visible means of discerning between heresy and true teaching that doesn’t rely on interior locutions (which may well be something other than the Holy Spirit - after all, every heretic claims to be inspired by the Holy Sprit) but which we can know for certain is in conformity with the mind of the Apostles.

Agreed, He only established one and there is only one.

 

[Kliska]

Yes, but this is exactly what happened.

You see, Jesus said, “If you forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven. If you retain men’s sins, then they are retained (not forgiven).” By telling the apostles to forgive and retain, Jesus had given them authority to hear confession and forgive sins.

At the Last Supper, Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” Do what? Consecrate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus. The Apostles couldn’t “do” unless Jesus had made them Priests of the New Covenant. The ordination is implicit in the command.

This is indeed all the RC perspective, I don’t gather this from scripture. Sins are to be confessed one to another, esp when the sin is against another person in the church. The gospel message was to go to three distinct groups (Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles) and Peter made sure it did, hence the keys of the kingdom. Forgiveness can only be had by hearing and faithing on the gospel of Christ, once done, that person receives the Spirit. Til Pentecost that wasn’t possible. Peter’s preaching the gospel was key, you might say.

You see, we each see the Twelve as important, we just disagree on the details. The memorial was to have communion and partake of the Matzoh and the cup to show forth Jesus death til He returns. It doesn’t take ordained priests of the sort the RC believes in to do so.

Again, if we agreed on this stuff our conversation wouldn’t be happening. I’ve studied this and do not see it the way the RC teaches.

Did Jesus give authority to the Apostles as leaders of the Church He promised to build?

Not in the manner you mean for the idea you have of the church you mean.

If so, would you say that the Apostles had more, less or about the same amount of authority in the Church that you personally have today?

Depends on what you mean here by authority. If you mean knowledge and first hand experience, the keys to the kingdom and to be the first to spread the gospel to the public? Then they had more. What I don’t see is the same level of authority in a separate priesthood that you do. Remember I don’t say I have authority save by the Holy Spirit; He is the The Authority, I just endeavor to do as He leads, and to follow what He has inspired.

What does “do this” mean, to you? Jesus is speaking to the 11; not to the crowds. This is a “something” to do that is only for the 11, and those they appoint to work with them.

Communion.

You and I, we are “the crowd”; we are not the 11.

We aren’t the crowd either.

Bear in mind that the Catholic Church is, at its root, the fulfilled Judaism that was prophesied by the Prophets.

I don’t believe Replacement theology is biblical. God is not done with the Jews as the chosen people yet, and His promises to them still stand. In this age of grace the church takes central stage, but that will change.

I am certainly “indwelt” with the gifts of the Holy Spirit - wisdom, understanding, knowledge, right judgment, fortitude, piety, and fear of the Lord; however, my every utterance is not from the Holy Spirit, and nor is every thought that wanders through my mind.

Nor would it be; the question wasn’t ARE you the Holy Spirit, but are you indwelt by Him?

Except for the heretics … (as we established above) - which means we need a visible means of discerning between heresy and true teaching that doesn’t rely on interior locutions (which may well be something other than the Holy Spirit - after all, every heretic claims to be inspired by the Holy Sprit) but which we can know for certain is in conformity with the mind of the Apostles.

I agree in principle, but not specifics. The Bible contains the teachings, anything that contradicts is a no-no (so for example, the idea that Jesus is really the Angel Michael). Sola Scriptura, remember There is no man that can accurately determine everyone saved and unsaved, in fact, only God knows for a fact on any one person.

We agreed again!

 

[Randy_Carson]

When the pope speaks ex cathedra (from the chair of St Peter), on faith and morals, he speaks infallibly.

Jon

God will see to it that the Pope never commits the Church to an error in matters of faith. I’d like to focus on this by stating first what infallibility does NOT mean.

It does not mean any sort of inspiration given to the Pope. It does not mean that he will always know or understand more about our religion than anyone else. It does not mean that a Pope cannot be ignorant and a poor theologian. It does not mean that a Pope cannot make a mistake as a private theologian. It does not mean that the Pope will always give the wisest or best decision or that what he says will be well-advised or opportune. He may speak when silence would have been better; he may be regrettably silent just when speaking is called for. But if he does speak, and if he speaks in such a way as to commit the Church, then what he says may be inadequate but it will not be false. Papal infallibility is thus a negative protection. We are confident that God will not allow a certain thing to happen.

If we focus on the idea of protection, that all infallibility means is that God will not allow a certain thing to happen because it would mean the bankruptcy of His Church, many difficulties disappear. It is not necessary that every Pope should be explicitly conscious of it himself. God will take care that he does not make a shipwreck of the Church, whether he knows this or not.

Divine protection against error is possible in the case of every man. For all we know, God’s Providence may have determined that some popular preacher shall never make a theological mistake in a sermon. If so, the man most certainly will not do it. Then he, too, would be infallible, in the sense of the First Vatican Council. One cannot prove that it is not so, in any case (unless the man does make a mistake). All we could say would be that there is no proof of anything of the kind.

There is proof in the case of the Pope, because he is the final court for appeal for a Church that Christ promised shall not fail. The decisions of that final court must be accepted as final. God cannot allow His whole Church to fall into error. Put these three ideas together, and you have infallibility as articulated by Vatican 1.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Depends on what you mean here by authority. If you mean knowledge and first hand experience, the keys to the kingdom and to be the first to spread the gospel to the public? Then they had more. What I don’t see is the same level of authority in a separate priesthood that you do. Remember I don’t say I have authority save by the Holy Spirit; He is the The Authority, I just endeavor to do as He leads, and to follow what He has inspired.

Peter, James and John were apostles, so we know that they had special authority. And so did Paul, the “Apostle to the Gentiles”, right? They would have more authority in the Church than you and me.

What about Timothy? He wasn’t an apostle…would he have more authority than we do?

What about the men named by Timothy as leaders in the local church? Would they have more authority than you and me?

Let me show you what the scriptures are saying about the handing on of authority in the Church.

Apostolic Succession Through the Laying on of Hands Proved from Scripture

How was Apostolic Authority handed on? By a formal ceremony known as “laying on of hands” as we see in the following passages:

1 Timothy 4:14
Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders [or bishops] laid their hands on you.

2 Timothy 1:6
For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

Notice that multiple Bishops were present at the ordination of Timothy and that Paul was apparently among them. This practice of having multiple Bishops involved in the ordination of a new Bishop continues in the Catholic Church today to ensure the validity of the Apostolic Succession.

Later, Timothy was sent to Corinth with the Authority of Paul to teach and remind them of the things Paul had taught them personally. Again, Paul instructed Timothy concerning the handing on of his teachings:

2 Timothy 2:2
And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

In this one passage, we see four generations in the line of Apostolic Succession: 1) Paul, 2) Timothy, 3) those to whom Timothy would pass on Paul’s teachings, and 4) those whom they in turn would teach. Remember, the mission of the Church is to teach, and one office in the Church is that of teacher. Thus, Paul is instructing Timothy about the handing on of teachings of Christ which is the function of a Bishop. This is Apostolic Succession at work. Paul also told Titus:

Titus 1:5-7
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer [or bishop] is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless.

Paul also cautions Timothy:

1 Timothy 5:22
Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands

So we see that the ordaining of Bishops (“elders” in your Bible) is not something to be taken lightly or done spuriously. The mission of the teaching Church must be entrusted to reliable men through the laying on of hands – a ceremony which we now call “ordination”.

I’ve never had a Bishop lay hands on me and ordain me into the priesthood…have you? Consequently, we do not have the same authority in the Church that bishops have.

 

[jmcrae]

Depends on what you mean here by authority. If you mean knowledge and first hand experience, the keys to the kingdom and to be the first to spread the gospel to the public? Then they had more.

They had authority to write letters to churches (Dioceses) on the other side of the world and tell them how to conduct their services of worship.

Do you consider yourself to have that kind of authority?

The Pope does, within the limits of those Dioceses who are in full communion with him.

 

[Kliska]

Peter, James and John were apostles, so we know that they had special authority. And so did Paul, the “Apostle to the Gentiles”, right? They would have more authority in the Church than you and me.

They had a position in light of who they were and Who they got to be physically taught by. They opened the way.

What about Timothy? He wasn’t an apostle…would he have more authority than we do?

What about the men named by Timothy as leaders in the local church? Would they have more authority than you and me?

No, I can be as Timothy. All believers can, though he has an advantage of having personally known Paul and being mentored by him. God in His good grace insured that we can also be mentored by the writers of the gospel. The Holy Spirit grants certain gifts to certain individuals. Not everyone is called to teach, or to pastor, or to evangelize, or to become apologists, etc…

Let me show you what the scriptures are saying about the handing on of authority in the Church.

I know them quite well. I don’t see what you (or I should say the RC) sees. The limitations on who can fill what roles and what those roles entail, we disagree on. Surprise!

Again, we don’t disagree on the fundamental reading of the text, but rather the interpretation and application. For example, I, and most protestants, still believe and practice the laying on of hands.

So we see that the ordaining of Bishops (“elders” in your Bible) is not something to be taken lightly or done spuriously. The mission of the teaching Church must be entrusted to reliable men through the laying on of hands – a ceremony which we now call “ordination”.

They should be married even. hmmm…

I’ve never had a Bishop lay hands on me and ordain me into the priesthood…have you? Consequently, we do not have the same authority in the Church that bishops have.

I most certainly have had hands laid on me by elders of the church, but not to become a priest, I was already that the moment I faithed on Christ.

Do you consider yourself to have that kind of authority?

Well, I write on the World Wide Web all the time in my articles such things as they wrote, so just perhaps I have been called to teach and lead as they, but I claim no “authority.” I do claim the Holy Spirit is the authority, and that each believer needs to answer to Him, not man.

We have models in faith for a reason. What makes it so amazing is that we can indeed be as they, save those who got to interact with Jesus directly. But Jesus calls us more blessed because we believe without having seen.

 

[Randy_Carson]

They should be married even. hmmm…

The verse means that a Bishop should have been married no more than once. It does NOT mean that a Bishop MUST be married. IOW, the idea was that bishops shouldn’t have been hopping from bed to bed marrying and divorcing serially.

I most certainly have had hands laid on me by elders of the church, but not to become a priest, I was already that the moment I faithed on Christ.

You and I are members of the universal priesthood of all believers. We are not ministerial priests. This is off-topic, but you need the information:

Perhaps the following will help. In the OT, the structure of the priesthood looked like this:

1. Aaron, high priest
2. Levites, ministerial priests
3. Israel, a nation of priests

We see a similar structure in the NT.

1. Jesus, Our Eternal High Priest
   “Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.” (Hebrews 4:14)
2. Bishops, Priests & Deacons - The Ministerial Priesthood
   “But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 15:15-16)
3. The Universal Priesthood of All Believers (this is where you and I are)
   “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:9)

Jesus established the Ministerial Priesthood of the New Testament, and this priesthood has Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.

Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

The term for bishop, episcopos (“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.

Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

But Jesus calls us more blessed because we believe without having seen.

Amen.

 

[Kliska]

The verse means that a Bishop should have been married no more than once. It does NOT mean that a Bishop MUST be married. IOW, the idea was that bishops shouldn’t have been hopping from bed to bed marrying and divorcing serially.

Why do you interpret it that way? Because the RC does?

You and I are members of the universal priesthood of all believers. We are not ministerial priests. This is off-topic, but you need the information:

Thank you, but I’ve studied this information in the past. What I see is a different change from OT to new. In the OT the priesthood was needed because there was a chasm between God and man. The Holy of Holies was separated from the rest of the temple by the curtain. God had strict rules of who could be in the holy of holies, and what they had to do, sacrificially, to cleanse themselves. This priesthood was set up as well because an ongoing sacrificial system was in place, there could be no one sacrifice of bulls and goats to cover all sin.

Then things changed. The curtain that separated God from man was ripped from top to bottom upon Christ’s death, for there was now a direct bridge between God and man. When that happened there was no need for a ministerial priesthood that the RC teaches. The God-Man Jesus not only is that bridge, but His death, His sacrifice, wiped out all sin, and we can participate in His Righteousness. He is the High Priest, and each believer is in Him, and therefore has the rights and privileges that go along with that station, because we are in Him as a whole collective.

Further, His sacrifice is a once and for all sacrifice that is both necessary and sufficient to cleanse us of all sin, because the law was nailed with Him to the cross. Along with that we are indwelt by God Himself in a way they never were in the OT, the covenant is a new one that does not follow the structure of the old, because it is unnecessary.

 

[JonNC]

=Kliska;11406480]Why do you interpret it that way? Because the RC does?

Well, of course, Kliska. Randy is a good Catholic, and I define good here as a Catholic who follows the faith. BTW, his seems to logical interpretation. I don’t believe the meaning is a bishop must be married.

Thank you, but I’ve studied this information in the past. What I see is a different change from OT to new. In the OT the priesthood was needed because there was a chasm between God and man. The Holy of Holies was separated from the rest of the temple by the curtain. God had strict rules of who could be in the holy of holies, and what they had to do, sacrificially, to cleanse themselves. This priesthood was set up as well because an ongoing sacrificial system was in place, there could be no one sacrifice of bulls and goats to cover all sin.

Then things changed. The curtain that separated God from man was ripped from top to bottom upon Christ’s death, for there was now a direct bridge between God and man. When that happened there was no need for a ministerial priesthood that the RC teaches. The God-Man Jesus not only is that bridge, but His death, His sacrifice, wiped out all sin, and we can participate in His Righteousness. He is the High Priest, and each believer is in Him, and therefore has the rights and privileges that go along with that station, because we are in Him as a whole collective.

Further, His sacrifice is a once and for all sacrifice that is both necessary and sufficient to cleanse us of all sin, because the law was nailed with Him to the cross. Along with that we are indwelt by God Himself in a way they never were in the OT, the covenant is a new one that does not follow the structure of the old, because it is unnecessary.

While the Lutheran view of the ministerial priesthood differs from that of Catholicism, the contention that there is no longer a need for it seems to contradict not only scripture, but also the practice of the early Church.

Jon

 

[Kliska]

Well, of course, Kliska. Randy is a good Catholic, and I define good here as a Catholic who follows the faith. BTW, his seems to logical interpretation. I don’t believe the meaning is a bishop must be married.

The way I read it is that Bishops can be unmarried or married, but if they are married it needs to be inline with Jesus’ teachings. Now, does the RC allow Bishops to marry? Maybe I missed that change in teaching?

While the Lutheran view of the ministerial priesthood differs from that of Catholicism, the contention that there is no longer a need for it seems to contradict not only scripture, but also the practice of the early Church.

Jon

“Ministerial priesthood” is not taught in scripture as defined by the RC. What is taught are different positions to be filled in the different local communities of believers. The roles, titles, duties and authorities I see taught in scripture don’t line up with RC teaching as a whole. If we look at the title “priest” specifically, again, that applies to all believers in Jesus (literally all of us are in Christ), as does the word “saint.” We are part of the priesthood, with all the privileges thereof. We don’t need a bridge between God and man, we already have one.