The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[PRmerger]

As the apostles warned: many false teachers and false prophets have gone out into the world. The onus is one each Christian to discern the spirit of truth and falsehood and each must give account personally before the judgment seat of Christ. “Work out your own salvation…”

With fear and trembling?

That seems a peculiar verse to quote as it indicates we can’t be sure of our salvation–and you’re connecting it to interpreting Scripture? Quite odd.

 

[SteveGC]

It seems to me the context here is using the words “the word of God” NOT as scripture but as to the sheer power of Jesus to effectively give us rest. Much like in the Genesis creation account. I really don’t think there was a literal speaking by God that one could hear him say - LET THERE BE LIGHT. This is simply a metaphor for His word having power; His will reigns supreme; He “says it” and it happens. That being the case - the kneejerk reflex that when the Bible speaks of “the word of God” in is NOT speaking of the Bible. The bible is generally pretty clear when it is talking of the written word – it says SCRIPTURE SAYS. And that is NOT the case here.

MonFrere

Agreed.

I tell ya. To limit the essence of God’s Word to just what is written down is an amazing concept. I guess it has be this way for those who must replace The Church with some other authority on earth. But man, what a stifling, boxed-in theology that presents. Dan, are you really sure God doesn’t want you to learn from people He inspired? I mean, He inspired prophets, and Apostles. That’s the only way the Bible is inspired, is because those people were inspired. Do you really think the Book is all we have left that is inspired?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I’m speaking my opinion but also having that opinion formed by the Church. It seems to me that the context of verses surrounding Hebrews 4:12 leads to the conclusion that “word of God” is not in this passage referring to scripture.

Certainly, in principle we can say that the Bible is powerful, living etc. because the scriptures are “the word of God” BUT in the context of this particular verse the Holy Scriptures are not in view.

MonFrere

Let’s take a closer look. I think the context shows the word of God is the message preached to the people. In verse 12, the Greek is impersonal “it” not “he” which would be the case here if the word of God is personal as Jesus here. The antecedents of “word of God” is the message or “gospel preached.” The “faith we profess” in v.14 is the “gospel preached” in v.2,6 which is the “word of God” in v.12 that must be obeyed in v.11.

1Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2For we also have had **the gospel preached **to us, just as they did; but **the message they heard **was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. 3Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
"So I declared on oath in my anger,
‘They shall never enter my rest.’ " And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. 4For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: “And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.” 5And again in the passage above he says, “They shall never enter my rest.”
6It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. 7Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before:
“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”[d] 8For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have **spoken later **about another day. 9There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. 11Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience. 12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, **it penetrates **even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; **it judges **the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account. 14Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. 16Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Agreed.

I tell ya. To limit the essence of God’s Word to just what is written down is an amazing concept. I guess it has be this way for those who must replace The Church with some other authority on earth. But man, what a stifling, boxed-in theology that presents. Dan, are you really sure God doesn’t want you to learn from people He inspired? I mean, He inspired prophets, and Apostles. That’s the only way the Bible is inspired, is because those people were inspired. Do you really think the Book is all we have left that is inspired?

The Book is the only written source that is inspired. It reaches out to the heart of all who diligently seek God.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

By careful and full study of the subject presented in scripture?

That sounds like many denominations of Protestants, who do not agree. How do we know which one is correct?

The Catholic Church has been practicing baptisms the same since the beginning of the Church, which is the body of Christ. There is documentation for this. Do you have documentation that states your Church has been doing this since the beginning?

I seriously disagree with Catholicism on the subject of baptism and have expressed this before in detail. If you wish to explore this in detail we could begin a thread.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Book is the only written source that is inspired. It reaches out to the heart of all who diligently seek God.

The book that contains the canon defined by the Catholic Church and was preserved for 1500 years before the Protestants took it and began private interpretation. How could the Catholic Church define the canon and keep the book for 1500 years with an incorrect interpretation?

God’s inspiration worked beyond the authors hands to be in our hands today Daniel.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Daniel, it appears you’re avoiding the subject of whether or not your Church has it’s own website. You won’t answer the question directly. You said some individual Churches have a website and you directed me to “generic” websites, but you don’t give a yes or no as to whether your Church has a website. Is there something you don’t want us to see on it?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

For a guy who is discerning the spirit of truth and falsehood, and working out his salvation, you sure are confidently preaching and spreading salvific doctrine around as if you are no longer seeking, but have now found. Must feel pretty good to know for sure all that Christ wants you to know, Dan.

And you did that all on your own, you and the indwelt Spirit of God guiding you through Scripture. Nothing more remains for you doctrinally? Got it all figured out now?

I struggle to live out the radical call to peace and justice. There are teachings of Jesus and the early church that have been rationalized away by our modern sensibilities.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel, it appears you’re avoiding the subject of whether or not your Church has it’s own website. You won’t answer the question directly. You said some individual Churches have a website and you directed me to “generic” websites, but you don’t give a yes or no as to whether your Church has a website. Is there something you don’t want us to see on it?

The churches of christ have no central office or denominational headquarters or structure, and there is no person or website that represents us as a group. You can google “churches of Christ” and find a good deal of information.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Hi Dan,

I don’t think that answered PR’s question. He asked “what do we do…”?

And I would like to edit the question to ask, “what do we do when 2 baptized believers, each claiming inspiration by the Holy Spirit, read a verse in Scripture and come to different conclusions?”

How is it resolved? Who is right? Who would I want to follow?

Maybe you could give me an example, and I can respond. IN general I would say “examine the scriptures” to see if the things the 2 believers claim it says are true.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I seriously disagree with Catholicism on the subject of baptism and have expressed this before in detail. If you wish to explore this in detail we could begin a thread.

You’ve made it clear you disagree with everything the Catholic Church teaches, yet the Catholic Church brought all the letters and epistles together and defined the canon of the New Testament through intense prayerful research, which included interpretations. Then the Catholic Church preserved the sacred scriptures throughout history, yet you are trying to tell us your Church was founded in 33AD, prior to any of those writings being written. Why is it your authoritative Bible based Church didn’t do this? How can you trust a book put together by a Church that you believe got it so wrong? Why is it sola scriptura didn’t exist until after the 1500s reformation?

Until you can convincingly answer those questions in your favor, I’m afraid I’m going to disagree with your interpretation on any subject you feel your interpretation is superior on.

 

[SteveGC]

Daniel,

I’d be interested in your replies to Steve Ray’s views of your topic here, posted courtesy of Randy, …posts 427 and 428 I believe.

Whenever you get a chance, of course.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The churches of christ have no central office or denominational headquarters or structure, and there is no person or website that represents us as a group. You can google “churches of Christ” and find a good deal of information.

Daniel, read through your response and tell me where a yes or no answer is? I don’t believe you would lie about it, but it appears you are avoiding a direct question for some reason.

 

[SteveGC]

Maybe you could give me an example, and I can respond. IN general I would say “examine the scriptures” to see if the things the 2 believers claim it says are true.

But they both have done that. Countless times, with incredibly deep prayer. And still, disagreement (i.e. lifelong repentance of personal sin required for salvation).

What now? Who judges the correct doctrine? Do they both just have to wait until they die, and one of them will be right, and the other eternally separated from God?? Is it just kinda like, ‘oh well…sorry dude…you lost…guess you didn’t examine it as good as I did’?

That last part is sarcastic…my apologies, but it’s basically what I wanted to ask you.

 

[MonFrere]

In reading the passage quickly without use of commentaries it seems as if the “word of God” may be another way of saying “the gospel”. The reference to “entering into the Lord’s rest” first is spoken about in the earthly reference of Joshua entering into the promised land. This seems to be given an allegorical interpretation for Christians entering into “heaven” - the rest of God; for this is really the gospel’s end.

Now, in the Old Testament we have God speaking to the people through the cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night. For the people of God this voice from the cloud or the pillar was “the word of God”. It proved to be the sharp two-edged sword that Prodigal Son brought to our attention that was in view of the cutting implement of sacrifice.

Allegorically, again very typical of first century Jewish training in scripture, this is then given a new meaning. The people of God are now given the gospel promise of heaven, the true sabbath rest. Jesus accomplished this through His sacrifice and preached it through His ministry. As St. John’s gospel teaches us from the first verses – The Word was with God and the Word was God. This is, of course, Jesus. His eternal sacrifice is the sacrifice with the real power to effect all Christians to the real rest of God - heaven.

So, in both cases, in both Old Testament and New Testament the 'word of God" is not referring to scripture but to the theophany of God and His manifestation in the cloud by day and the pillar by night and in the New Testament as the eternal Word of God breaking open to the sons of men the eternal rest we were all created for.

I think the allegory is very powerful and as allegories are do not require a magnifying glass as to minute meanings of words. Magnify the allegory to get the most meaning out of the passage. This is very very Jewish and also very very Catholic.

MonFrere

 

[utunumsint]

Certainly there are statements ABOUT Rome and ABOUT singular bishops after a hundred years, and there are in various writngs references to their condemnation of others. But what is striking in the development of the papacy is the lack of any preserved writing FROM these alleged popes for 300 years. First, we have the NT written during intense persecution, then nothing for 300 years.

So with these words you invalidat all the information we have regarding the activities of the early popes?

I’m afraid you would not make a very good historian. To disregard three hundred years of recorded history makes no sense, nor does it show that you have either any knowledge of historical methods, You have jetisonned reason in favour of your own charismatic channel to God.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Here is another challenge for you Daniel. Using your striking merthod of analysis requiring direct primary sources such as epistles and personal correspondence in order to establish the historical reliability of an institution, prove the existence of Emperors Nero, Caligula, Titus, Vespasian, and the entire Severan dinasty.

After you have provided me with all such primary sources, we can talk about the validity of the information we have concerning the popes and the first three hundred years of Catholic Christian history. If you cannot provide this information, then we must conclud that these emperors never existed, or that the office of the emperor was not real during these time periods.

Or, provide me with direct correspondence of all the kings after David, so we can prove the legiyimacy of the Davidic dynasty.

Or provide me with direct correspondence from the pharaohs so we can prove their existence.

Or provide me with direct correspondence and primary sources for every apostle listed in the gospel.

Or provide me with direct correspondence from Jesus our Lord and saviour, so we can firmly and without a doubt prove his existence.

God bless,
Ut

 

[LionHeart777]

The letter refers only to a plurality of bishops and deacons and is not addressed to a singular bishop as Ignatius later does. Various responders justify something by the fact “it doesn’t say the moon is not made of cheese.” Hermas refers to Clemens and Grapte, two leaders of the church in Rome.

Daniel, again the plural talk does not exclude a singular Bishop (in my opinion.)

Here is an quote from St. Irenaeus’s “Against Heresies” to demonstrate my point;

“…The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians…” (newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm , accessed 6/ 7/ 2009)

Ok, notice the Apostolic succession layed out in the passage above- “…Clement was alloted the bishopric…” , and we have a succession of what appears to be singular bishops. Then later the statement, “…the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians…”

So, I would argue that even for Irenaeus, the understanding that there is a singular bishop at Rome doesn’t stop him from saying that it was “…the Church in Rome…” who sent the letter to Corinth. If I understand Irenaus correctly, both can be true. That is what I believe also, but according to you (if I’m understanding you correctly) the fact that Clement’s letter to the Corinthians is written from a we the Church of Rome perspective, this disqualifies Clement as being the singular Bishop. I disagree.

 

[stephraim]

The letter of First Clement does not support Clement as a singular head of the whole church because:
The name of Clement is not in the letter.

The name of Matthew is not in his Gospel, nor does it claim to be written by an apostle. Therefore, according to your logic, you should not trust the writings ‘about’ it.

 

[stephraim]

So you think the word of God here is Jesus, not the written or spoken word of God. I think the intent of the Hebrew passage is to say that the spoken or written word of God is powerful, living, and active. It is the mind of God reaching our hearts. We must hear and obey it in order to enter the rest spoken of. Is there a Catholic commentary that holds your view?

Exactly…***spoken ***or written.