Struggling with this "different definition of 'church'"

[Mintaka]

Re: authorship of epistles, actually N.T. Wright now thinks most and possibly all of the letters traditionally written by Paul were written by Paul. (There’s a ton of stuff about this in the early bits of Paul and the Faithfulness of God, and he keeps bringing it back again and again in later chapters. I haven’t read the whole book yet, so I don’t know if he’s saying Hebrews is by Paul, but certainly it goes along with his picture of Paul’s theology and teaching.)

He actually gets a bit sarcastic about why people are so willing to drop specific epistles for specific things they don’t like, and how this makes it awfully easy to miss bits that they would like (and which help explain Paul’s thoughts and wording in other letters). He also gets very sarcastic about scholars who don’t think that writing style should ever vary, when they themselves sound quite different in formal articles versus informal emails or texts.

If Hebrews isn’t by Paul, it is by the biggest Paul fan/student ever (except maybe for N.T. Wright).

 

[Randy_Carson]

It’s kind of making my head spin.

I gave someone Steve Ray’s “Finding the Fullness of Faith,” and, sadly, that didn’t settle any issues. Here’s part of the response (I wish I could just post the whole response and get everyone’s help on it!)

What do you think?

It comes down to this. “Did Christ found a visible Church or an invisible Church?”

 

[Randy_Carson]

I agree with the first statement, there is a local church and a universal church. I also agree that at first, the universal church had authority to establish the local churches.

And what verses indicate that this has come to an end or will at some point in the future?

My main issue is I don’t see any point on the succession of this authority. Don’t want to say we are left blind, but we have the Scripture and the Holy Spirit to guide us.

Many people deny that the modern Catholic Church is the one Church Jesus promised to build (cf. Mt. 16:18-19) claiming that the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is not found in the Bible. Is this argument valid?

Let’s begin by examining the evidence contained in scripture as well as the non-scriptural writings of the earliest Christians for evidence of Apostolic Succession. The Bible contains clear indications that the Apostle Paul taught Apostolic Succession to his disciples and fellow workers, Timothy, Titus and Clement. Here are the relevant passages:

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 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.

There are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach. Paul commanded Timothy to hand on the gospel to reliable men and further to ensure that those men would also hand on the gospel reliably.

Titus 1:5
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.

In the passage above, we see that Paul was concerned with the appointing of capable leaders in the Cretan church. So in addition to his concern for the content of the message, he is concerned with the succession of the leadership, as well.

Paul also outlined the beginnings of Church hierarchy (as well as the qualification for Church office) in his first letter to Timothy.

“Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer (bishop) must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

“Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.” (1 Timothy 3:1-10)

These verses illustrate that by the time this letter was written in the late first century, the Church had already established several positions of leadership: Apostles (Peter being the foremost among them), Overseers (or Bishops) and Deacons.

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

In the passage from Philippians, Paul mentions one of his fellow workers, Clement, who was ordained by the Apostle Peter and later became the fourth Bishop of Rome (after Peter, Linus, and Anacletus). Like Paul, who addressed to epistles to the Church of Corinth, Clement wrote his own letter to the Corinthians around 80 AD. In that letter, he stated:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

From these two passages, we can see that Clement had witnessed his mentors, the Apostles Peter and Paul, naming men to the office of Bishop and had received instructions from them that other men should succeed those Bishops appointed by the Apostles in the event that these first Bishops should die. Thus, history records that both the Apostles and their disciples such as Clement, Timothy and Titus understood and followed the practice of appointing successors to the Apostles in the Church.

While many seem to believe that anyone with a Bible may become a “pastor” by simply gathering around himself a group of fellow believers to form a church, the Bible itself teaches that true leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ must be ordained by those who were ordained before them. This process, known as Apostolic Succession, maintains an unbroken chain of continuity from Jesus, Peter and the Apostles to the leaders of the early Church.

 

[TxGodfollower]

In the passage from Philippians, Paul mentions one of his fellow workers, Clement, who was ordained by the Apostle Peter and later became the fourth Bishop of Rome (after Peter, Linus, and Anacletus). Like Paul, who addressed to epistles to the Church of Corinth, Clement wrote his own letter to the Corinthians around 80 AD. In that letter, he stated:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

From these two passages, we can see that Clement had witnessed his mentors, the Apostles Peter and Paul, naming men to the office of Bishop and had received instructions from them that other men should succeed those Bishops appointed by the Apostles in the event that these first Bishops should die. Thus, history records that both the Apostles and their disciples such as Clement, Timothy and Titus understood and followed the practice of appointing successors to the Apostles in the Church.

While many seem to believe that anyone with a Bible may become a “pastor” by simply gathering around himself a group of fellow believers to form a church, the Bible itself teaches that true leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ must be ordained by those who were ordained before them. This process, known as Apostolic Succession, maintains an unbroken chain of continuity from Jesus, Peter and the Apostles to the leaders of the early Church.

Randy, it is good to have a discussion with you again. I have always found your posts very insightful.

Thank you for that lesson on succession. However, the problem I have with the Catholic Church’s view on Apostolic Succession is dealing with Peter’s supremacy. The examples you gave are all of (for lack of a better term) lesser Apostles being replaced. If Peter was meant to start a line of leaders, there would be clear indication of how his successor would be chosen. Catholics claim Peter was given the authority by Christ. Taking that as given, he would have had authority to name a successor to “inherit” his authority. But there have been popes who were martyred or assassinated, before they were able to name a successor. If the line of Peter was of high importance, and knowing that persecution would claim some from that line, there would be a contingency in Scripture on what believers are to do.

 

[dmar198]

Randy, it is good to have a discussion with you again. I have always found your posts very insightful.

Thank you for that lesson on succession. However, the problem I have with the Catholic Church’s view on Apostolic Succession is dealing with Peter’s supremacy. The examples you gave are all of (for lack of a better term) lesser Apostles being replaced. If Peter was meant to start a line of leaders, there would be clear indication of how his successor would be chosen. Catholics claim Peter was given the authority by Christ. Taking that as given, he would have had authority to name a successor to “inherit” his authority. But there have been popes who were martyred or assassinated, before they were able to name a successor. If the line of Peter was of high importance, and knowing that persecution would claim some from that line, there would be a contingency in Scripture on what believers are to do.

Would there Need to be a special manner of selection, separate from the one used for other bishops? In your view, could a new pope be selected the same way other bishops were, or would there have to be a separate, special way of doing it with specific instructions? I don’t Think you mean there ought to be a separate way of doing it, therefore I think I must be misunderstanding you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, it is good to have a discussion with you again. I have always found your posts very insightful.

Thank you for that lesson on succession. However, the problem I have with the Catholic Church’s view on Apostolic Succession is dealing with Peter’s supremacy. The examples you gave are all of (for lack of a better term) lesser Apostles being replaced. If Peter was meant to start a line of leaders, there would be clear indication of how his successor would be chosen. Catholics claim Peter was given the authority by Christ. Taking that as given, he would have had authority to name a successor to “inherit” his authority. But there have been popes who were martyred or assassinated, before they were able to name a successor. If the line of Peter was of high importance, and knowing that persecution would claim some from that line, there would be a contingency in Scripture on what believers are to do.

If the succession of the office of pope depended on one pope handing on his office directly to his hand-picked successor, then the sudden death of a pope would have broken the chain of the papacy long ago. However, we see from the election of Matthias to the office formerly held by Judas Iscariot that the vacancy of the office for a time (regardless of how long or short) did not invalidate the apostolic authority of the man who succeeded the dead apostle (or bishop or pope).

I argue that the perpetual office of the pope was that of the Royal Steward - reinstituted by Jesus, and my argument goes like this:

Peter – The Royal Steward

Here are two questions that need to be answered:

1. Is Jesus a king?
2. Did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward?

You probably said “Yes” quickly to the first question, but you may have hesitated or even answered “No” to the second. Let’s take a look at what scripture and history tell us about the office of the Royal Steward.

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking to Shebnah, an unfaithful steward serving King Hezekiah. God is telling Shebnah that he is about to be replaced by Eliakim, and this confirms the existence of the office, the key worn as a symbol of the office, and the continuation of the office in perpetuity – despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter to the office of Royal Steward granting him the authority to speak universally in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter could not teach error. God’s protection of His own flock by preventing the formal teaching of error in His name is referred to as “infallibility”.

**Therefore, if Jesus, our eternal king, established Peter as His first Royal Steward in a perpetual office, then don’t Peter’s successors, the Bishops of Rome, continue to serve in that office today? **

 

[eddie_too]

if Jesus did not establish His authority on earth through a magisterial Church, we really have no way to know what Jesus did and taught. why would i claim this? because, the Gospel of Jesus Christ becomes a meaningless mish mash of whatever the most influential member of a community touts.

one community touts this as the Gospel. while a different community touts that as the Gospel. in the end, every community has it own gospel, but which of them is true to the Lord. there is no way to know. as a consequence, there is no Gospel of Jesus Christ. there are only the gospels of persuasive men.

 

[TxGodfollower]

Therefore, if Jesus, our eternal king, established Peter as His first Royal Steward in a perpetual office, then don’t Peter’s successors, the Bishops of Rome, continue to serve in that office today?

Not necessarily. Peter could continue serving in that role in Heaven.

Would there Need to be a special manner of selection, separate from the one used for other bishops? In your view, could a new pope be selected the same way other bishops were, or would there have to be a separate, special way of doing it with specific instructions? I don’t Think you mean there ought to be a separate way of doing it, therefore I think I must be misunderstanding you.

There wouldn’t if Peter was the same as other Apostles. It is because of his elevated authority that requires significance. If you assume that Peter was the one blessed by God to teach infallibly, then an infallible decision was made to replace Judas with Matthias, because Peter was part of that decision. Peter could also make an infallible decision and pick the perfect successor to his role. However, once a Pope was martyred BEFORE infallibly picking a successor, now you are left with, no doubt holy men, but no human with the authority to make an infallible decision.

 

[TxGodfollower]

There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

A good question to explore might be…if Jesus did intend for the authority He gave to the apostles to be passed on to the bishops, how would that impact your life?

I would be delighted to hear/read anything you can offer to enlighten me. Feel free to message me privately if you prefer.

If Jesus intend for the authority He gave to the Apostles to be passed on through all generations, and If you can show which line this authority has gone through time, then it would be an authority for me and all other Christians.

 

[guanophore]

Randy, it is good to have a discussion with you again.  I have always found your posts very insightful.

I enjoy them too.

**

Thank you for that lesson on succession. However, the problem I have with the Catholic Church’s view on Apostolic Succession is dealing with Peter’s supremacy.**

There was not a need for authority the way it was needed in later centuries. Peter would never think in terms of “supremacy” and this is not a term that came up in the early life of the Church.

TxGodfollower:

The examples you gave are all of (for lack of a better term) lesser Apostles being replaced. If Peter was meant to start a line of leaders, there would be clear indication of how his successor would be chosen.

While I think your conclusion is false (there are many things that Jesus intended without giving specifics), there was clarity about the leaders. There is much written in the NT about the laying on of hands, and the commissioning of authority. Peter used the traditional method to learn God’s will about a replacement for Judas (since the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out). There is also a line of bishops from Antioch of Syria that comes from Peter, and is older than the one in Rome.

Catholics claim Peter was given the authority by Christ. Taking that as given, he would have had authority to name a successor to “inherit” his authority. But there have been popes who were martyred or assassinated, before they were able to name a successor. If the line of Peter was of high importance, and knowing that persecution would claim some from that line, there would be a contingency in Scripture on what believers are to do.

Again, your conclusion is false. The Scriptures came out of the Church, not the Church out of the Scriptures. The NT reflects the faith of the Apostles, but it is not the Source. Jesus is the Source. The deposit of faith was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written.

Jesus left enough instruction with the Apostles so that they knew to appoint bishops.
The Bishops were then invested with the authority of the Apostles.

 

[fred_conty]

I would be delighted to hear/read anything you can offer to enlighten me. Feel free to message me privately if you prefer.

If Jesus intend for the authority He gave to the Apostles to be passed on through all generations, and If you can show which line this authority has gone through time, then it would be an authority for me and all other Christians.

It as said that Peter could be reigning as pope in heaven.

Christ has always been the reigning head of the church. This was so when he was on earth, and also when he ascended into heaven.

But when Christ left this earth, he also left a church behind. And it would just seem logical that he would leave someone here to be the director of that church right here. Someone has to be responsible for its direction for when you have many, there needs to be one principle to settle the different views and give direction. And if there were noone as head, then there would be many local churches going off on their own to settle their differences … a split in belief or practise. Or to put the pope in the vernacular … the buck stops here.

And whether other churches agree or not with this idea, it really has worked out that way. For we have but one Catholic church, and many other churches whose origin could be found in their differences of belief with the Catholic church. Or whose origin could be found in a human being and not in “the” Christ. And very much of this unity in the Cathlic church is because of its head giving it direction and maintaining its course in truth. So it is in this spirit that the prayer of Christ in the Garden was prayed that all be one. As Jesus said earlier to Peter, “strengthen your brethern in their faith.”

Bishops are human and quite capable of mistakes, even those concerning the faith. If they are all equal, then who is to say who is right and who is wrong. Bishops need correction and guidance also. This is why Christ set up in his church the bishops as a body with the pope being a part of this body as its head and leader.

If Christ needed to set up a pope in the beginning when he had just started and created the church, fresh and alive, then the pope would be more needed today when the mature church is world wide among so many nationalities and peoples.

 

[steve_b]

There was not a need for authority the way it was needed in later centuries. Peter would never think in terms of “supremacy” and this is not a term that came up in the early life of the Church.

I would just point out

That argument of supremacy of ONE of them, was already waged and took place in the upper room, and Jesus answered it.

Peter is the greatest among THEM.

said in 4 different ways using the same gospel of Luke

#[30 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12641120&postcount=30) , #[385 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3688786&postcount=385) ,#[616 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11336903&postcount=616) , #[660 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11337764&postcount=660) ]

Obviously looking forward in time, it was important this argument took place THEN among the apostles, and it was Jesus who answered them about who was the greatest among THEM…
g:

There is also a line of bishops from Antioch of Syria that comes from Peter, and is older than the one in Rome.

As an aside,

Here is the ancient listing of sees, in order of importance (BC) before Constantinople

1. • Rome
   • Alexandria
   • Antioch
   • Jerusalem
   Rome was NOT considered first because it is the capitol of the empire. This is not a political list, or political argument, but a listing of Sees ranked in importance. If Antioch was considered Peter’s see, why is it listed #3? After emperor Constantine moved to Byzantium, and renamed the city Constantinople, making that city the new seat of the empire, it didn’t move to 1st place. So this isn’t a political listing. Here is the new listing of the sees
   
   1. • Rome
      • Constantinople
      • Alexandria
      • Antioch
      • Jerusalem
      Note : Antioch went to 4th place. And Constantinople didn’t go to 1st place now that it is the seat of the empire. Rome remained 1st because it’s the see of Peter
      
      Re: Peter’s see then,
      • It’s NOT where a bishop WAS, but where he IS. Peter didn’t stay in Antioch for long. He went to Rome, and he died there. Rome is considered Peter’s see by EVERYONE. One can also see that represented by the ranking of sees
      • when considering that popes ordain many bishops during their pontificate, obviously every bishop he ordains doesn’t become his successor.

 

[guanophore]

I would be delighted to hear/read anything you can offer to enlighten me. Feel free to message me privately if you prefer.

If Jesus intend for the authority He gave to the Apostles to be passed on through all generations, and If you can show which line this authority has gone through time, then it would be an authority for me and all other Christians.

This passage in Titus 2 may be a good topic of discussion:

15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise thee.

Where did Titus come by this authority?

 

[TxGodfollower]

This passage in Titus 2 may be a good topic of discussion:

15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise thee.

Where did Titus come by this authority?

Titus was given authority by Paul to preach what Paul had taught him. He wasn’t given authority to expand or to cover new areas. Also, consider some of the things Paul says about what is required of a bishop:

“For this cause left I you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed you. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;” (Titus 1:5-7)

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (1 Timothy 3:2-5).

Paul outlined clear instructions for who should and shouldn’t be a bishop. He emphasizes the importance (especially in Timothy) of being a father with children. Why do you think that is?

 

[guanophore]

Titus was given authority by Paul to preach what Paul had taught him. He wasn’t given authority to expand or to cover new areas. Also, consider some of the things Paul says about what is required of a bishop:

“For this cause left I you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed you. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;” (Titus 1:5-7)

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (1 Timothy 3:2-5).

You are right, as the Church expanded, Bishops were given specific areas over which to have juridication. But what Authority did Paul have to give to Titus?

Paul outlined clear instructions for who should and shouldn't be a bishop.  He emphasizes the importance (especially in Timothy) of being a father with children.  Why do you think that is?

He makes it plain above - that if a person cannot keep his own house in order, he is not ready to rule the Church.

Which begs the question of what it means for the bishop to “care for the Church of God”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not necessarily. Peter could continue serving in that role in Heaven.

If the sheep could adequately be lead by a shepherd from heaven, then Jesus didn’t need to bother appointing Peter as the vicarious shepherd here on earth. He could have done the job Himself remotely.

Unfortunately, sheep are rather stupid animals and need more tangible guidance.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the King has left the building, and He left his Royal Steward in command during his extended absence. When He returns, the pope will hand the keys back, because we will never be separated from Him again.

There wouldn’t if Peter was the same as other Apostles. It is because of his elevated authority that requires significance. If you assume that Peter was the one blessed by God to teach infallibly, then an infallible decision was made to replace Judas with Matthias, because Peter was part of that decision. Peter could also make an infallible decision and pick the perfect successor to his role. However, once a Pope was martyred BEFORE infallibly picking a successor, now you are left with, no doubt holy men, but no human with the authority to make an infallible decision.

Infallibility is not perfect knowledge, Tex.

Peter was PREVENTED from making doctrinal errors, but the apostles asked the Holy Spirit to show them which of the two candidates was God’s choice to replace Judas.

Similarly, the pope does not need to infallibly choose his own successor. The Cardinals today ask the Holy Spirit to guide their deliberations to the right candidate.

 

[steve_b]

Titus was given authority by Paul to preach what Paul had taught him. He wasn’t given authority to expand or to cover new areas.

Bishops have traditionally had certain areas under their control
T:

Also, consider some of the things Paul says about what is required of a bishop:

“For this cause left I you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed you. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;” (Titus 1:5-7)

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (1 Timothy 3:2-5).

Paul outlined clear instructions for who should and shouldn’t be a bishop. He emphasizes the importance (especially in Timothy) of being a father with children. Why do you think that is?

There is doctrine, dogma, & discipline in the Church.

You’re focusing on a discipline.

Unlike doctrine which develops, and dogma which doesn’t change, discipline can change or even go away.

Such is the case of married vs a celibate priesthood

In the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church a priest can be married. In the Latin rite, the discipline is for a celibate priesthood.

 

[steve_b]

It’s kind of making my head spin.

I gave someone Steve Ray’s “Finding the Fullness of Faith,” and, sadly, that didn’t settle any issues. Here’s part of the response (I wish I could just post the whole response and get everyone’s help on it!)

"We have a different definition of ‘church’. Not a religious organization, that is recreating the problem Jesus had with Judaism. The biblical definition of church, the body of Christ, is those who believe, repent, have been baptized, have the Holy Spirit. The church cannot be an organization. Even Christ rebukes the Churches in Revelations, but encourages individual believers.

Church discipline in Matthew 18 is in a local church. How big is a local church? Can be 2 or 3. The body of Christ compared to a local church. All the NT is written to local churches. Revelation 2-3 is written to local churches. Does Jesus tell us to listen to the ultimate authority of the church? "

What do you think?

These folks don’t have the authority to redefine the faith according to their own private notions and interpretations of scripture. It’s why Protestantism is one of the Great Heresies

Jesus said He would build HIS Church.Matthew 16:18-19 . That same Church at Pentecost, is here today, with Pope Francis 266th successor to St Peter #34… Jesus gave His Church all His promises and not even the gates of hell will prevail against His Church. Jesus DID authorize the apostles to transmit their authority to successors, and that there is substantial biblical and historical evidence to support this. His Church is to be perfectly one John 17:20-23All the writers of the NT are in the Church they are writing to and for. Which means they are one and there is to be perfect unity in the Church as well.

 

[guanophore]

It’s kind of making my head spin.

I gave someone Steve Ray’s “Finding the Fullness of Faith,” and, sadly, that didn’t settle any issues. Here’s part of the response (I wish I could just post the whole response and get everyone’s help on it!)

We have a different definition of ‘church’. Not a religious organization, that is recreating the problem Jesus had with Judaism. The biblical definition of church, the body of Christ, is those who believe, repent, have been baptized, have the Holy Spirit. The church cannot be an organization. Even Christ rebukes the Churches in Revelations, but encourages individual believers.

Church discipline in Matthew 18 is in a local church. How big is a local church? Can be 2 or 3. The body of Christ compared to a local church. All the NT is written to local churches. Revelation 2-3 is written to local churches. Does Jesus tell us to listen to the ultimate authority of the church?

What do you think?

You are right that this is a different definition of Church. Although there is a claim that it is “biblical”, and these aspects of the Church can be found in Scripture, these are not the ONLY aspects of the Church founded by Christ. On the contrary, the Church IS an organization, with visible, authorative leadership.

There is nothing at all in the text of Matt. 18, or anywhere else in Scripture, that this applies only to the “local church”. On the contrary, Scripture is clear that all disputes that occurred locally, if they could not be resolved locally, were taken to a higher authority.

Yes, the NT letters were written to local churches to deal with local problems. In those writings, the hierarchy created by Christ is made quite clear.