Were the NT churches independent or One?

[Randy_Carson]

The RCC and those groups such as the ones listed above are in error when they claim that the universal church does not include true believers in Jesus Christ that are found everywhere in all corners of the globe. Jesus said He is there among even 2 or 3 that are gathered in His name. That makes a “church”. It does not have to be a fancy, elaborate building with hundreds of people and all the trappings. Wherever there is preaching, hymns and prayers, you have a “church”.

Wow. A lot of tares mixed in with all that wheat, Yankee_Drifter.

Let me pull up one of those weeds.

Wherever two or three are gathered…**
**An Explanation of “Church” in light of Matthew 18:19-20

Non-denominational Christians often reject the concept of a structured, hierarchical Church led by bishops, priests and deacons. One of their common objections is that the “church” exists wherever two or three believers are gathered in His name. Is this really how the Bible defines the Church? Let’s take a closer look at the Word of God to see if this is true.

Matthew 18:19-20
19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

From this passage, many Christians conclude that the “church” is composed of small groups of believers that come together from time to time. While it is true that Jesus has promised to be with believers who are gathered in His name, it is obvious from another passage that this is not how Jesus Himself defines the Church.

In fact, just a few verses earlier, Jesus had given a fuller picture of the Church when He said:

Matthew 18:15-17
15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

If “two or three” believers gathered together really constitutes the “church” (as envisioned by those who reject “organized religion”), then it would not be necessary for us to refer the one who sins against us to “the church”. Doing so would be redundant! To the contrary, it is obvious in this passage that Jesus actually makes a clear distinction between the “two or three others” in verse 16 and “the church” in verse 17.

Clearly, Jesus does not consider that “two or three” constitute the Church that He Himself would build. Neither should we. Beginning with Peter, the rock, and the apostles, Jesus has built the Church just as He promised through their successors—the bishops, priests and deacons of the Catholic Church.

 

[PJM]

Wow. A lot of tares mixed in with all that wheat, Yankee_Drifter.

Let me pull up one of those weeds.

Wherever two or three are gathered…**
**An Explanation of “Church” in light of Matthew 18:19-20

Non-denominational Christians often reject the concept of a structured, hierarchical Church led by bishops, priests and deacons. One of their common objections is that the “church” exists wherever two or three believers are gathered in His name. Is this really how the Bible defines the Church? Let’s take a closer look at the Word of God to see if this is true.

Matthew 18:19-20
19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

From this passage, many Christians conclude that the “church” is composed of small groups of believers that come together from time to time. While it is true that Jesus has promised to be with believers who are gathered in His name, it is obvious from another passage that this is not how Jesus Himself defines the Church.

In fact, just a few verses earlier, Jesus had given a fuller picture of the Church when He said:

Matthew 18:15-17
15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

If “two or three” believers gathered together really constitutes the “church” (as envisioned by those who reject “organized religion”), then it would not be necessary for us to refer the one who sins against us to “the church”. Doing so would be redundant! To the contrary, it is obvious in this passage that Jesus actually makes a clear distinction between the “two or three others” in verse 16 and “the church” in verse 17.

Clearly, Jesus does not consider that “two or three” constitute the Church that He Himself would build. Neither should we. Beginning with Peter, the rock, and the apostles, Jesus has built the Church just as He promised through their successors—the bishops, priests and deacons of the Catholic Church.

Here is an interesting biblical point on the topic:

Eph. 2: [19] “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [SINGULAR][20] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [22] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit”.

 

[Kamalayka]

Philthy

Specifically define your concept of “the Church” in 90 AD. You have nothing but local congregations unless you have proof otherwise.

If you read the Didache (Written around the same time as Revelations), or early church fathers, you have to admit that they believed in apostolic succession and the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

As a matter of fact, many were Eucharistic martyrs!

The early Christians kept the Eucharist a secret from pagans, and when talking about it, they would talk in very literal terms about “eating flesh,” and “drinking blood.”

Many pagans thought that the Christians were cannibals and actually killed them for it!!

 

[Philthy]

If you read the Didache (Written around the same time as Revelations), or early church fathers, you have to admit that they believed in apostolic succession and the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
As a matter of fact, many were Eucharistic martyrs!
The early Christians kept the Eucharist a secret from pagans, and when talking about it, they would talk in very literal terms about “eating flesh,” and “drinking blood.”
Many pagans thought that the Christians were cannibals and actually killed them for it!!

Hi Kamalayka!

You make some excellent observations. The early Christians were Catholic by any objective standard - infant baptism, Eucharist, priesthood, church hierarchy, etc etc.
I realize that you used the phrase “you have to admit” figuratively, but I will point out nonetheless that RightlyDivide does not “have” to admit it. His interpretation of the Didache and other Early Church Fathers (ECFs) will be colored by the presumptions that he wishes to preserve. What he cannot deny in good conscience is that Scripture alone fails to clearly address many of the issues that he claims to extract from it. I pointed this out early on but to no avail…

Blessings!

 

[Philthy]

Hi YD! :tiphat:

You show the same misunderstanding that many, if not all, catholics make. The body of Christ is comprised of two aspects:

The universal church of God is all those who have received salvation through faith in Jesus Christ…(and ) The local church …a local body of believers. The universal church is comprised of those who belong to Christ and who have trusted Him for salvation. These members of the universal church should seek fellowship and edification in a local church.

I dont see what your point is above. You havent said anything that Catholics dont already embrace. I suppose that simply means that you dont really know as much about the Catholic faith as you think you do. Catholics beleive in a “universal Church” of all those - both in time and eternity - who are united to Christ. They also believe that some of those who are “united to Christ” are not members of the VISIBLE Catholic church.

The “church” is not a building or a denomination.

Heavy duty stuff man. I always thought the “church” had to be made of stone…

The RCC… (is) in error when they claim that the universal church does not include true believers in Jesus Christ that are found everywhere in all corners of the globe.

Ah - this confirms my suspicion: you dont actually know the Catholic faith. The RCC doesnt “claim” what you claim it claims! You should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). It spells out in clear terms what the Catholic faith is and what the CC beleives regarding salvation for those who are not within its visible confines.
Here - why dont you educate yourself with this tidbit from the CCC:

[838](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/838.htm’) "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

The entire section on the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church” is found here:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#III

Jesus said He is there among even 2 or 3 that are gathered in His name. That makes a “church”. It does not have to be a fancy, elaborate building with hundreds of people and all the trappings. Wherever there is preaching, hymns and prayers, you have a “church”.

Uhh - you went a little too far! Wherever Christ is, there is His Church - that much is true. And wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in His name, there He is! This does not mean that “Wherever there is preaching, hymns and prayers you have a church” Preaching, hymns and prayers happen where people gather to worship Satan as well…

Blessings!

 

[JRKH]

Wow. A lot of tares mixed in with all that wheat, Yankee_Drifter.

Let me pull up one of those weeds.

Wherever two or three are gathered…**
**An Explanation of “Church” in light of Matthew 18:19-20

Non-denominational Christians often reject the concept of a structured, hierarchical Church led by bishops, priests and deacons. One of their common objections is that the “church” exists wherever two or three believers are gathered in His name. Is this really how the Bible defines the Church? Let’s take a closer look at the Word of God to see if this is true.

Matthew 18:19-20
19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

From this passage, many Christians conclude that the “church” is composed of small groups of believers that come together from time to time. While it is true that Jesus has promised to be with believers who are gathered in His name, it is obvious from another passage that this is not how Jesus Himself defines the Church.

In fact, just a few verses earlier, Jesus had given a fuller picture of the Church when He said:

Matthew 18:15-17
15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

If “two or three” believers gathered together really constitutes the “church” (as envisioned by those who reject “organized religion”), then it would not be necessary for us to refer the one who sins against us to “the church”. Doing so would be redundant! To the contrary, it is obvious in this passage that Jesus actually makes a clear distinction between the “two or three others” in verse 16 and “the church” in verse 17.

Clearly, Jesus does not consider that “two or three” constitute the Church that He Himself would build. Neither should we. Beginning with Peter, the rock, and the apostles, Jesus has built the Church just as He promised through their successors—the bishops, priests and deacons of the Catholic Church.

Randy,
I wish you better luck with this than I have had.
I have tried to explain this very point also but it seems most protestants (including the non-denominationals) ignore it or just shoo it away with some “local assembly” sort of comment.
I instigated a thread a while back on this very topic of telling it to The Church, and had much good discussion.

The upshot of it was that, even though the passage COULD relate to bringing matters before a local assembly, stopping the process at this point fails to protect the Truth of the Gospel. It fails because there is nothing preventing a person who is teaching falsely from taking himself and any like minded persons down the road and starting their own “christian church”. The first church can do nothing to prevent this, nor do they have any real authority to tell anyone outside of their own local community that the other church is wrong.
Only a universally authoritative Church, made up of Believers in Salvation through Christ can preserve the True Gospel. This is why Jesus used the term Church but two times, Each time in connection with the Authority of binding and loosing.

This just occurred to me,
Has anyone ever considered that the term “Disciples” is used MANY time in the Gospels to refer to the followers of Christ. If “Church” is suppose to mean “body of believers”, or “followers”, why the difference in terminology?

For myself I must draw back from the discussion for the time being, As I have given the best answers I have. Randy, your posts are quite good and I learn a great deal from them. I will continue to follow the discussion and possibly pop in with a comment or two, but generally I’d like to take some time to determine what points of agreement there are and where the two sides may be talking “past” each other.

Peace
James

 

[yankee_drifter]

James,

You still confuse the word “church” as meaning an organization and hierarchy. You see it as a physical, powerful structure, although we see nothing of the kind in the NT.This is because the RCC has a different definition for it. Churches then were in homes.They were small groups. Whether there were 3 people or many more, they still constituted the church that Christ built. As long as there was preaching of God’s word. Something the RCC has forgotten.

James, what was the purpose for preaching the Gospel? So men could be saved and have assurance of that salvation. Catholics can never have this assurance because their salvation is never settled in this life. It is a sin for a Catholic to know salvation is secured. Canon 16 of the Council of Trent states, “If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end let him be anathema.” This canon is in direct opposition to the Bible. The apostle John wrote his epistle to believers of Jesus Christ, in order that you may know that you have eternal life (1 John 5:13) Therefore the RCC is calling the Apostle John a liar.

Church is the believers in Christ. Paul wrote: “To the church in your home.” Was it a church because it was a wooden structure with walls and a roof? Because it had a wooden altar, stained glass and statutes? Of course not. He was referring to the believers who gathered there. Its believers who constitute the “church”. This is the body of Christ. The universal catholic church is all christian believers everywhere. For example: the Lutheran church considers itself catholic because it uses the correct definition of the word catholic. Some Protestant denominations have a creed where it says we believe in one holy catholic church. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the RCC. It wasn’t until the 4th century when Christianity became legal that the church of Rome adopted the word catholic and many people today confuse the definition of the word.

Although the RCC has maintained some type of organizational unity, it has obscured the ancient, catholic and biblical faith with doctrines and practices not found in the NT and not part of the life of the Church in the first several centuries. This includes the pope as head of the Church, purgatory, the merit of the saints, the perpetual virginity, immaculate conception and assumption of Mary, transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the mass. These are not catholic doctrines, but Roman doctrines. They are additions to the gospel of Christ as taught by the Apostles, and believed by the ancient Catholic Church. Transubstantiation was not taught until the 9th century. Do the research and find out for yourself. You have more doctrines that were added at much later dates into the 20th century, contrary to the clear warning of the Bible in Revelation 22:18. So how can you say you’re apostolic?

The problem is James, you view the Bible through the window of Roman Catholicism. Whatever your church has taught you, determines how you understand and interpret God’s word. Many catholics don’t even read the Bible for themselves. They just blindly follow the teachings of their church. This not the way it was in NT times. Believers read the scriptures. They judged Paul, Silas and others by it. Not the other way around. Newly converted Christians were in charge of new churches. What experience or qualifications did they have? What they had was the Teacher, the Holy Spirit.

In the end its not going to matter how you or I define the word church. The only thing that will matter when we stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ is in what or whom did we trust our eternal salvation: A church, or Jesus Christ alone?

 

[JRKH]

James,

You still confuse the word “church” as meaning an organization and hierarchy. You see it as a physical, powerful structure, although we see nothing of the kind in the NT.This is because the RCC has a different definition for it. Churches then were in homes.They were small groups. Whether there were 3 people or many more, they still constituted the church that Christ built. As long as there was preaching of God’s word. Something the RCC has forgotten.

Yankee Drifter,
You still confuse the word “church” as unable to mean an organization and hierarchy. You see it as an ethereal and invisible “structure”, even though we see nothing of the kind in the NT.This is because Non-Catholic Christians have a different definition for it. A definition they must maintian inorder to justify their splitting from the Ancient Church and also the constant splits among themselves.
You might note that I took part of your paragraph and turned it around on you. In this matter as in many others, it is just as easy to show one view from Scripture as the other. This is why there is an organized Church to sort out the differences.

Churches then were in homes.They were small groups. Whether there were 3 people or many more, they still constituted the church that Christ built. As long as there was preaching of God’s word. Something the RCC has forgotten.

I do wish you would stick to discussing the topic instead of contantly bashing what you Think (erroniously) the RCC church is, teaches, has remembered or forgotton.
We are well aware that the Early church communites met in homes. They also met in caves, fields and anywhere else they could. No one has said that such groups meeting in this way were not part of the Church.

James, what was the purpose for preaching the Gospel? So men could be saved and have assurance of that salvation. Catholics can never have this assurance because their salvation is never settled in this life. It is a sin for a Catholic to know salvation is secured. Canon 16 of the Council of Trent states, “If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end let him be anathema.” This canon is in direct opposition to the Bible. The apostle John wrote his epistle to believers of Jesus Christ, in order that you may know that you have eternal life (1 John 5:13) Therefore the RCC is calling the Apostle John a liar.

If you care to look at the part of John preceding your quote you will note that John sets forth a whole list of things that one must DO to be assured of Salvation. Do these things and one is assured of salvation. Do not do them, or stop doing them and your salvation is no longer assured.
You confuse the term Assurance with “Insurance” or “guarenteed”. So long as I remain in a state of Grace, I am assured of my salvation. However I am not to boast of my salvation being “Insured” (like OSAS) for so long as I am a part of this life, I am at risk of losing my salvation by falling away.

Church is the believers in Christ. Paul wrote: “To the church in your home.” Was it a church because it was a wooden structure with walls and a roof? Because it had a wooden altar, stained glass and statutes? Of course not. He was referring to the believers who gathered there. Its believers who constitute the “church”. This is the body of Christ. The universal catholic church is all christian believers everywhere. For example: the Lutheran church considers itself catholic because it uses the correct definition of the word catholic. Some Protestant denominations have a creed where it says we believe in one holy catholic church. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the RCC. It wasn’t until the 4th century when Christianity became legal that the church of Rome adopted the word catholic and many people today confuse the definition of the word.

The Church is the Church because it is made up of the Believers in Christ who have organized themselves in such a fashon as to protect and defend the teachings of Christ. Try just once to LISTEN to what I am saying:
**THE CHURCH IS BOTH THE BODY OF BELIEVERS AND THE ORGANIZATION DEVELOPED BY THAT BODY OF BELIEVERS TO PROTECT AND DEFEND AND SPREAD THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL AS GIVEN TO HER BY CHRIST.

(cont)**

 

[JRKH]

Although the RCC has maintained some type of organizational unity, it has obscured the ancient, catholic and biblical faith with doctrines and practices not found in the NT and not part of the life of the Church in the first several centuries. This includes the pope as head of the Church, purgatory, the merit of the saints, the perpetual virginity, immaculate conception and assumption of Mary, transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the mass. These are not catholic doctrines, but Roman doctrines. They are additions to the gospel of Christ as taught by the Apostles, and believed by the ancient Catholic Church. Transubstantiation was not taught until the 9th century. Do the research and find out for yourself. You have more doctrines that were added at much later dates into the 20th century, contrary to the clear warning of the Bible in Revelation 22:18. So how can you say you’re apostolic?

If I believed at this point that I could engage you in any kind of meaningful dialogue I might try to make time to do so. As it is - you prefer to throw out broadsides based on poor teaching and misunderstandings of Church teachings and refuse to listen or accept any evidence presented to you in defence of the church.
My life situation right now precludes me from trying to mentor you in these things - especially since you are not here to learn, but rather to attack.

The problem is James, you view the Bible through the window of Roman Catholicism. Whatever your church has taught you, determines how you understand and interpret God’s word. Many catholics don’t even read the Bible for themselves. They just blindly follow the teachings of their church. This not the way it was in NT times. Believers read the scriptures. They judged Paul, Silas and others by it. Not the other way around. Newly converted Christians were in charge of new churches. What experience or qualifications did they have? What they had was the Teacher, the Holy Spirit.

You do NOT know me, nor do you know what “Lens” I use to interpret Scripture or Church teaching, nor do you know my relationship with God, or His most Holy Spirit.
All you know is that I don’t agree with you and therefore I MUST BE WRONG.

I can say the exact same thing about you and your interpretations. You interpret ONLY from the position of protestantism. That, not matter what, the Catholic Church MUST be wrong. Well I can tell you I’ve been down the road. I have seen, heard, and read many things. I am a Catholic because it IS Christ’s Own Church, Founded upon Peter and the Apostles and ALL of their successors, who wrote, defended, and spread teh Gospel; Who gathered and discerned the Books of the Bible, and then copied, translated, defended, promulgated, and taught from that Bible for 1000 years before the Protestant reformers came along.

When you are really and truly ready to listen to what others are explaining to you - then we may have something to talk about. But as long as you remain in your “stiff-necked” obstinancy there is nothing I or anyone else can do to help you better understand your brothers in, or the Beauty and richness of, the Catholic Church.

In the end its not going to matter how you or I define the word church. The only thing that will matter when we stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ is in what or whom did we trust our eternal salvation: A church, or Jesus Christ alone?

You’re right. In the end, what matters is that, when we stand before Christ, we do so in Faith and Love. That is why I will no longer respond you your posts. Because I find that My Charity is failing me and I do not wish to injure you or myself further by useless debate.

Peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

James,

You still confuse the word “church” as meaning an organization and hierarchy.

You still confuse what you THINK Catholics believe with what they ACTUALLY believe.

But Catholics, ever mindful of the Word of God, look to these verses:

Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

Colossians 1:24
Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

 

[yankee_drifter]

James,

A church cannot mean a hierarchy such as the elaborate and complex form of the RCC with an unequal, passive laity who pledges allegiance and obedience to the church above the Word of God. Every member of the body of Christ is to bring glory to God. That glory belongs to God alone, not to popes. No man has the right to sit upon a “throne” and declare laws as if he were God. Jesus said whoever wants to be a leader must be a servant. In other words, we are not to think ourselves above anyone else. Christ also said to call no one “Rabbi” or “father” for only Christ is our Master and we are all brethren.There is only one Father who is in heaven. (Matt 23:8,9)

The church cannot be the institution that “mediates” salvation to the souls of people. Or dispenses indulgences for “removal” of punishment of sin.The Bible never once refers to anything like the “Treasury of Merit,” or that atonement can be made by one believer for the sake of another’s sin. In Rom. 9 and 10, Paul said that if it were possible, he would sincerely be willing to be accursed if that would mean the redemption of his fellow Israelites. Each of us must come to the cross on our own in complete contrition and submission to Christ, acknowledging that we are sinners who cannot save ourselves and trusting Jesus alone for salvation. Salvation is an accomplished work, purchased by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (1 John 2:2). God offers us salvation and assurance of it because Jesus’ sacrifice was ** fully, completely, and perfectly sufficient**. If we receive God’s precious gift of salvation, we can know that we are saved (1 John 5:13). The church of Rome says its a sin to have that assurance.

The church is primarily a “communion of saints,” or a spiritual fellowship of all who believe the Gospel and are justified. What the visible church must do is bring the lost to the Word of God through preaching. Every believer in the NT got saved through the medium of preaching. Paul preached nothing but Christ and Him crucified. The work of the Holy Spirit is to convict sinners and bring them to the Gospel. The NT believers were never told to follow rules, traditions and rituals for their entire lifetime as an aid to salvation. The Bible tells us that the wages of sin is death, All the indulgences and “good works” in the world cannot save anyone. Isaiah 64:6 says our righteous acts are like filthy rags to God. So what can satisfy God? Nothing but the redemptive work of Christ.

The man in Scripture who cried out: “Have mercy on me, a sinner!” went home justified because he understood the Gospel of grace and that salvation is found in Christ alone.

The Bible tells us that sins are forgiven only by appropriating the shed blood of Jesus in our place. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God” (Rom.3:23-25).

 

[Philthy]

A church cannot mean a hierarchy such as the elaborate and complex form of the RCC with an unequal, passive laity who pledges allegiance and obedience to the church above the Word of God.

Well, this is insulting! Fortunately you have shown yourself not worthy of much attention let alone any emotion.
The Church evolved in its hierarchical complexity even within the short span of time of the Apostles. This is indisputable. Scripture does not make mention of how much hierarchical complexity is too much - it is simply silent as if that information were irrelevant. Your contention that the RCC has an “unequal, passive laity” is inflammatory and incorrect, as is your claim that the Church is “above the Word of God.” It shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that you either have read nothing that the Church claims regarding the role of the laity or that you are intellectually incapable of understanding what was presented to you. Either way your opinion as stated is worthless for anyone seeking the truth.

Every member of the body of Christ is to bring glory to God. That glory belongs to God alone, not to popes. No man has the right to sit upon a “throne” and declare laws as if he were God. Jesus said whoever wants to be a leader must be a servant. In other words, we are not to think ourselves above anyone else. Christ also said to call no one “Rabbi” or “father” for only Christ is our Master and we are all brethren.There is only one Father who is in heaven. (Matt 23:8,9)

We dont “bring glory to” a pope. You are, once again, speaking from ignorance with confidence. It isnt very impressive.

The church cannot be the institution that “mediates” salvation to the souls of people.

The Apostles disagree with you. They preached the gospel(aka they "mediated it) for the salvation of all

Or dispenses indulgences for “removal” of punishment of sin.The Bible never once refers to anything like the “Treasury of Merit,” or that atonement can be made by one believer for the sake of another’s sin. In Rom. 9 and 10, Paul said that if it were possible, he would sincerely be willing to be accursed if that would mean the redemption of his fellow Israelites. Each of us must come to the cross on our own in complete contrition and submission to Christ, acknowledging that we are sinners who cannot save ourselves and trusting Jesus alone for salvation. Salvation is an accomplished work, purchased by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (1 John 2:2). God offers us salvation and assurance of it because Jesus’ sacrifice was ** fully, completely, and perfectly sufficient**. If we receive God’s precious gift of salvation, we can know that we are saved (1 John 5:13). The church of Rome says its a sin to have that assurance.

You know very little of the Catholic Church, otherwise such comments - its actually a rant - would constitute bearing false witness. Again you exhibit confidence in ignorance. Fortunately some of us can meet such behavior with charity.

The church is primarily a “communion of saints,” or a spiritual fellowship of all who believe the Gospel and are justified. What the visible church must do is bring the lost to the Word of God through preaching. Every believer in the NT got saved through the medium of preaching.

I suppose you are ignoring the references to people being “saved” through baptism or being “added” to the number of those saved??? In addition, there was no NT to be read and even if there had been no one could read. Preaching was the only option…what is your point?

 

[steve_b]

James,

A church cannot mean a hierarchy such as the elaborate and complex form of the RCC with an unequal, passive laity who pledges allegiance and obedience to the church above the Word of God.

Taking your points in order

• “Hierarchy” was established by Jesus and implemented by His aposrtles. If by complex you mean bishop, priest, deacon, these are all scriptural vocations/offices mentioned in the pages of the NT.
• “unequal passive laity”, is a mischaracterization by you. All people are equal in dignity before God, but not all people are made equal in gifts or service we provide. You don’t believe that? Jesus really gives power to those He puts in position of power. It’s not make believe, it’s real authority and power. Not EVERYONE gets equal authority. Explained down the page
• “allegiance and obedience to the Church” IS absolutely called for in scripture. .

1 Tim 3:…

14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, 15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Or what about when Paul writes to the Church of Rome the following

Rm 16:

17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.

Why is Paul complimenting the the Church of Rome on their obedience to the Church and what exactly is so evil that he wants them to avoid?

The following shows real authority being given by God to certain members of His Church, (NOT everyone got this authority) and anyone who is disobedient to those who have this authority are not only disobedient to THEM, but Jesus too, AND the Father. Catch that?

Lk 10:
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

For further clarification, that word reject is ἀθετέω atheteō which means to annul, reject, despise, frustrate, refuse what is being taught, and Jesus makes it personal by saying they don’t do it to you alone, they do it to Me and my Father.

Enough said?

• “The Word of God” is both a person incarnate through His Mother Mary, AND what He taught, either directly or through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It’s not an either/or but both.

yd:

Every member of the body of Christ is to bring glory to God. That glory belongs to God alone, not to popes. No man has the right to sit upon a “throne” and declare laws as if he were God.

So in otherwords don’t believe the following?

Mt 19:28
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
yd:

Jesus said whoever wants to be a leader must be a servant. In other words, we are not to think ourselves above anyone else. Christ also said to call no one “Rabbi” or “father” for only Christ is our Master and we are all brethren.There is only one Father who is in heaven. (Matt 23:8,9)

Not everyone is given equal power from God.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744432&postcount=59

 

[yankee_drifter]

Please show me via the Scriptures (Ch.and vs.) where Christ specifically established the same type of hierarchy that the RCC has. When we read Matt. 20:25-28, we see that Jesus clearly condemns hierarchy. Over and over Christ said a leader must be a servant. In fact, He mocks those who dress and act in such a way that distinguishes themselves as more “lofty”. (Matt. 23: 5,6)

Succession of bishops and of popes are not even scriptural. It was first established by Irenaeus after the close of the NT writings. He never claimed to be inspired nor are his writings such. The RCC must accept the fact that it has traditions that are not even based on Scripture. Some are even contrary to what the Scriptures teaches.

Ex. 20:4,5 tells us not to make or have graven images, not to use or have any type of worship with them.Yet we see that the RCC has removed this 2nd Commandment. Peter said we (Christians) are a holy priesthood. Yet the RCC has a totally different, separate priesthood.

Why are there no Scripture verses that teach how the office of Pope is to be transmitted by Peter to his successors? Why is it that the Apostle Paul never mentions the office of Pope in any of his epistles when he teaches about the offices in the Church? When Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom, doesn’t Scripture show that Jesus gave the same keys to the other apostles? (Matt 18:18-20). When the other apostles declare the Gospel, Peter drops from sight in the scriptural account. When he reappears, at the council of Jerusalem, why is it that the Apostle James leads the Church and not Peter? Paul mentioned Peter more than once, but he never mentioned him with any special title of honor, such as the Vicar or Pope, or above any of the other apostles.

Paul never mentions the papacy when he referred to the offices of the Church in I Cor 12 and Eph 4. Paul as an apostle claimed authority over the Roman Church itself in Rom 1:5,6 and 16:17. Paul said: " For in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. (2 Cor 12:11), and then you have Paul rebuking Peter, without any mention of Peter’s supremacy, in Gal. 2. If Peter was the chief, it would seem that Paul would have acknowledged that in his epistles and would have acknowledged it in the respect he gave when there was a matter of doctrine on the table.

Many roman catholic apologists have realized the sheer difficulty of tracing many Roman dogmas to the primitive Church. When they try to establish authority for the RCC they depart from Scripture and have only some quotes from early church writers. Irenaeus was not a writer of scripture, nor did he ever claim to write anything under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the RC apologists fail to establish from the Scriptures any succession of bishops and popes.

Yes, we are given different works in the church, but Jesus said we are not to think more highly of ourselves to lord it one over the other. That’s why in the NT there’s no distinction between elder, bishop, presbyter, deacon, etc. Some were different offices and some were different names used interchangeably, but one is not superior over the others. Apostles are servants of Christ. Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 4 that we are not be puffed up one against another, if we remember that all are instruments, employed by God, and endowed by him with various talents. Jesus Christ who is our supreme example lowered Himself and washed the feet of others. That is the very same mindset we all must have.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Please show me via the Scriptures (Ch.and vs.) where Christ specifically established the same type of hierarchy that the RCC has. When we read Matt. 20:25-28, we see that Jesus clearly condemns hierarchy. Over and over Christ said a leader must be a servant. In fact, He mocks those who dress and act in such a way that distinguishes themselves as more “lofty”. (Matt. 23: 5,6)

Thank you for the opportunity to shed some light on this, Yankee.

The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: 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.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Succession of bishops and of popes are not even scriptural. It was first established by Irenaeus after the close of the NT writings. He never claimed to be inspired nor are his writings such. The RCC must accept the fact that it has traditions that are not even based on Scripture. Some are even contrary to what the Scriptures teaches.

Thank you for the opportunity to shed some light on this, Yankee.

Many people deny that the successors of Peter and the Apostles had Apostolic Authority because they believe that the idea of “Apostolic Succession” is not found in the Bible. Is this really true?

To the contrary, the Bible contains clear evidence 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.

In the passage above, 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.

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.

In the Letter to the 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). Clement wrote his own Letter to the Corinthians, and 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 1) witnessed his mentors, the Apostles Peter and Paul, naming men to the office of Bishop and 2) 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.

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 down to the present day.

Hope that helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ex. 20:4,5 tells us not to make or have graven images, not to use or have any type of worship with them.Yet we see that the RCC has removed this 2nd Commandment.

Thank you for the opportunity to shed some light on this, Yankee.

In Exodus 20:2–17, which gives the Ten Commandments, there are actually fourteen imperative statements. To arrive at Ten Commandments, some statements have to be grouped together, and there is more than one way of doing this. Since, in the ancient world, polytheism and idolatry were always united—idolatry being the outward expression of polytheism—the historic Jewish numbering of the Ten Commandments has always grouped together the imperatives “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:3) and “You shall not make for yourself a graven image” (Ex. 20:4). The historic Catholic numbering follows the Jewish numbering on this point, as does the historic Lutheran numbering. Martin Luther recognized that the imperatives against polytheism and idolatry are two parts of a single command.

Jews and Christians abbreviate the commandments so that they can be remembered using a summary, ten-point formula. For example, Jews, Catholics, and Protestants typically summarize the Sabbath commandment as, “Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy,” though the commandment’s actual text takes four verses (Ex. 20:8–11).

When the prohibition of polytheism/idolatry is summarized, Jews, Catholics, and Lutherans abbreviate it as “You shall have no other gods before me.” This is no attempt to “hide” the idolatry prohibition (Jews and Lutherans don’t even use statues of saints and angels). It is to make learning the Ten Commandments easier.

The Catholic Church is not dogmatic about how the Ten Commandments are to be numbered, however. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “The division and numbering of the Commandments have varied in the course of history. The present catechism follows the division of the Commandments established by Augustine, which has become traditional in the Catholic Church. It is also that of the Lutheran confession. The Greek Fathers worked out a slightly different division, which is found in the Orthodox Churches and Reformed communities” (CCC 2066).

Hope that helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peter said we (Christians) are a holy priesthood. Yet the RCC has a totally different, separate priesthood.

Thank you for the opportunity to shed some light on this, Yankee.

The Office of New Testament Priest

by James Akin
cin.org/users/james/files/ntpriest.htm

In both Old and New Testaments, there are three ranks of priests, which are commonly referred to as the high priests, the ministerial priests, and the universal priests.

At the time of the Exodus the high priest was Aaron (Ex. 31:30), the ministerial priests were his four sons (Ex. 28:21; the sons were Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar, the first two of which were killed for abusing their priestly duties), and the universal priests were the people of Israel as a whole (Exodus 19:6).

Prior to this time, there had been neither a high priest nor had God elected all of Israel as universal priests. There was only the ministerial priesthood, which appears to have resided in the firstborn male of each family. The existence of the pre-Aaronic ministerial priesthood is shown in Exodus 19:22 and 24, which differentiate the priests from the people but occur before the establishment in the Aaronic priesthood in Exodus 28. The fact that the ministerial priests were held by the firstborn is suggested (though not proven) by the exchange of the priestly tribe of Levi for the firstborn of Israel in Numbers 3.

In any event, the three-fold model of the priesthood which was in use at the time of Aaron was carried over into the New Testament and thus we find there also a high priest, ministerial priests, and universal priests. In the New Testament age the high priest is Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1), the ministerial priests are Christ’s ordained ministers of the gospel (Rom. 15:16), and the universal priests are the entire Christian people (1 Peter. 2:5, 9).

So the Bible clearly states that all Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9), as the Catholic Church clearly teaches for all who bother to read its teachings, see Catechism of the Catholic Church 1141-4, 1268, 1305, 1535, 1547, 1591-2 on the common priesthood. But the Bible also said the same thing about the Israelites (Ex. 19:6), yet this did not prevent there from being a separate, ministerial priesthood even before the Law of Moses was given (Ex. 19:22, 24).

Furthermore, since the top, Old Testament office of high priest corresponds to Jesus, the New Testament high priest, and since the bottom, Old Testament universal priesthood corresponds to the New Testament universal priesthood, the middle, ministerial priesthood in the Old Testament corresponds to a middle, ministerial priesthood in the New Testament.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

At this point, I was going to expound on what this incident (actually there are two issues intertwined) is all about, but I discovered a Jewish website that discusses the matter far more eloquently than I could hope to do. Therefore, I provide the following passage taken from www.myjewishlearning.com:
Bible critics ascribe the difficulties of this section to a joining of two traditions. While a clear division is no longer possible, there appears to be a Korah rebellion that is directed against Aaron and levitic privilege and an anti‑Moses uprising led by Dathan and Abiram. [Authorship of] the former is assigned to the P (priestly) source and the latter to the J/E (Yahwist/Elohist) source.

The first story tells of Korah and 250 men who complain about the special religious status of the Levites. There is a contest involving censers; Korah’s people come to the Tent and are consumed by fire; their censers are taken away, destroyed, and symbolically refashioned; the 14,000 people who support the rebellion or who are unhappy with Korah’s punishment are killed by a plague. The story appears to reflect a struggle for priestly privilege. Once upon a time (as attested by Psalms) Korah’s people were full priests and singers, but after a power struggle they were reduced to doorkeepers.

The second tradition tells of the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram, and members of the tribe of Reuben, against the civil authority of Moses. They refuse a confrontation with him. Moses appeals to the community, which backs him up and withdraws from the rebels, who in turn are swallowed by the earth. This story may represent the memory of an intertribal struggle. Originally the tribe of Reuben was very important, but in time it was dislodged from its original preeminence. This is also reflected in the Jacob tale, where the first‑born Reuben is passed over in favor of others.

Korah’s rebellion (taking the intertwined stories as a literary whole) was directed against the leadership of Moses. Superficially, his act may appear to be the usual attempt by someone out of power to displace the incumbent rulers. But the Bible’s very silence about his motives directs our attention away from Korah’s true intention to his stated argument.

Korah said: “All the community are holy… Why then do you raise yourselves above the Lord’s congregation?” The question implies the challenge: If God is in our midst, then whoever is leading us will have His support. Or, going further (though this is not expressed): If we are all holy, what need is there for someone like Moses to instruct us, or why is there need for laws to make us holy? Since the people are holy, commandments from without are not necessary (Buber, Moses).

Note that Moses and Aaron make no answer to the first part of Korah’s statement, that is, the reference to communal holiness. They refer only to the latter (“Why do you raise yourselves…?”), leaving it to God to reaffirm their embattled leadership. He raised them to high position and He will answer the rebels, as indeed He does.

But the question still seeks its answer. Ultimately, as Buber emphasizes, the question Korah asked poses an insoluble contradiction: for holiness can never be fully realized within history, yet the people are to act as if it can be or even as if it has been realized. This is the biblical way of dealing with a divine impasse and it became the normative way of Jewish tradition. Korah’s argument turns on the eternal tension between authority and freedom. Like many demagogues after him, Korah offered himself as a fitting guardian of the spirit of freedom. But while the people might have accepted the offer of substitute leadership, God did not.
Do you see? Korah rebelled against the authority and leadership of Moses and Aaron by declaring, “all the community is holy”. To restate a portion of the above for emphasis, “If God is in our midst, then whoever is leading us will have His support. Or, going further (though this is not expressed): If we are all holy, what need is there for someone like Moses to instruct us, or why is there need for laws to make us holy? Since the people are holy, commandments from without are not necessary.” In a way, Korah was right! God declared the entire nation of Israel to be a nation of priests in the book of Exodus, but He also destroyed those who dared to make themselves equal to the priests that He had established.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why are there no Scripture verses that teach how the office of Pope is to be transmitted by Peter to his successors?

Thank you for the opportunity to shed some light on this, Yankee.

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

---

Let’s begin with the principle of succession as seen in the Old Testament:

---

****Numbers 27:15-23
Moses said to the LORD, “May the LORD, the God of the spirits of all mankind, appoint a man over this community to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in, so the LORD’s people will not be like sheep without a shepherd.” So the LORD said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand on him. Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him. He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by inquiring of the Urim before the LORD. At his command he and the entire community of the Israelites will go out, and at his command they will come in.” Moses did as the LORD commanded him. He took Joshua and had him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly. Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the LORD instructed through Moses.

Deuteronomy 34:9
Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the LORD had commanded Moses.

Moving on to the New Testament:

Matthew 16:18
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

Jesus did not say “churches”; he said, “church” – singular. Notice that Jesus did not say, “and on this rock I will build what I must call my loosely-affiliated network of non-denominational fellowships.” He said, “I will build my church.” Each word of that little phrase is packed with implication. We also see in this passage that the Church will never be defeated by Satan.

Matthew 28:18-19
“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’”

First, notice in the passage known as the “Great Commission”, that the Apostles were commanded to make disciples of “all nations”. How would it have been possible for these Eleven men to travel to every country on earth at a time when travel was slow and difficult? Given that the last of the Apostles died no more than 60 years or so after the Ascension of Jesus, would there have been time for them to physically visit every nation on earth to fulfill His command? No! Clearly, the instruction of Jesus only makes sense if it was given to the Apostles and those who would take the place of the Apostles after their deaths. Those who took the place of the Apostles would have to have the same Apostolic Authority given to the Apostles handed down to them. Thus, the “Great Commission” would be fulfilled over time through the missionary efforts of a greatly expanded Church.

Second, how could He fulfill this promise if the disciples themselves did not live until the end of the age? Again, how could Jesus remain with the church until the end of the age if the Apostolic Authority of the church ended with the death of the last Apostle? Clearly, Jesus must have intended that the apostles would be succeeded by other men who are still with us and will live until the end of the age. Jesus can be with the Apostles through their successors who also have the same Apostolic Authority by means of Apostolic Succession.

John 14:16-17
"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.”

Does it make sense for Jesus to say “forever” if He anticipated that the Holy Spirit would depart from the church with the death of the last Apostle? No! The Spirit would remain with the Apostles and, through those who succeeded them, with the church forever.

I have lots more verses if you need them.

Hope that helps. :tiphat: