Who "Sent" Protestant Church Pastors

[Lapey]

If someone says you are not being honest, where do you take the conversation from that point?

Don’t think I was talking to you here. Any way, I thought our conversation was over before this as you stopped acknowledging my posts. You already are more enlightened than any of us Catholics because you can understand scripture better than 2000 years of tradition and the largest Christian congregation in existence.

I am not good at debating people who don’t debate, they only instruct. You say what the Church says or does is wrong and that’s it, there is no debate. It is then that you want to move on; that my friend is dishonest and condescending.

So, I guess the conversation goes nowhere.

 

[Lapey]

We have elder (s) plural rule with a distinction of the different three fold ministry with congregational polity a factor as well. Its an attempt to blend the three forms of polity seen in the NT.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_polity

We have collegiate rule, the Magisterium; the college of bishops, Pope Benedict XVI as the leader among equals.

Our group of elders numbers in the thousands, but they work and teach as one!

Cannot get more plural than that.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Don’t think I was talking to you here. Any way, I thought our conversation was over before this as you stopped acknowledging my posts. You already are more enlightened than any of us Catholics because you can understand scripture better than 2000 years of tradition and the largest Christian congregation in existence.

I am not good at debating people who don’t debate, they only instruct. You say what the Church says or does is wrong and that’s it, there is no debate. It is then that you want to move on; that my friend is dishonest and condescending.

So, I guess the conversation goes nowhere.

Okay then.

 

[Rightlydivide]

We have collegiate rule, the Magisterium; the college of bishops, Pope Benedict XVI as the leader among equals.

Our group of elders numbers in the thousands, but they work and teach as one!

Cannot get more plural than that.

Yes, the three forms are present in some manner in Catholic polity. I am not sure one can be a leader among equals unless the areas they lead in different areas though. In other words, this leader handles this area and this leader so to speak handles another area.

 

[Lapey]

Join Date: March 16, 2007
Posts: 1,991
Religion: Small church that follows the Bible.

Re: Who “Sent” Protestant Church Pastors

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lapey
Don’t think I was talking to you here. Any way, I thought our conversation was over before this as you stopped acknowledging my posts. You already are more enlightened than any of us Catholics because you can understand scripture better than 2000 years of tradition and the largest Christian congregation in existence.

I am not good at debating people who don’t debate, they only instruct. You say what the Church says or does is wrong and that’s it, there is no debate. It is then that you want to move on; that my friend is dishonest and condescending.

So, I guess the conversation goes nowhere.

Okay then.

---

Fundamentalist Bible believing Christian.

Religion: Large Church that follows the bible that she gave the world!!!

Signature : Catholic bible believing Christian!!!

 

[Lapey]

Yes, the three forms are present in some manner in Catholic polity. I am not sure one can be a leader among equals unless the areas they lead in different areas though. In other words, this leader handles this area and this leader so to speak handles another area.

No, you miss the point of that title that the Pope holds. The council of Jerusalem illustrates this beautifully. Peter only spoke when necessary, yet he was the leader among the group. This is the tradition of the Church and I see that illustrated in scripture. I know you do not but hey, you have your interpretation.

There is only one area, the salvation of souls. The pope is that leader among equals. He is but a bishop.

If you are referring to how change comes about then there must be mention of the laity. The counter reformation can be called a laymen’s revolt. This change was initiated and forced by the congregation. There are many examples of times in history where the laity brought about major changes.

 

[Rightlydivide]

No, you miss the point of that title that the Pope holds. The council of Jerusalem illustrates this beautifully. Peter only spoke when necessary, yet he was the leader among the group. This is the tradition of the Church and I see that illustrated in scripture. I know you do not but hey, you have your interpretation.

There is only one area, the salvation of souls. The pope is that leader among equals. He is but a bishop.

If you are referring to how change comes about then there must be mention of the laity. The counter reformation can be called a laymen’s revolt. This change was initiated and forced by the congregation. There are many examples of times in history where the laity brought about major changes.

I do not agree that Peter led the group in Acts 15. If he did, then the letter that was sent to the churches not containing anything he said but what James said is a rather curious factor. All Peter did was repeat essentially what was stated in the previous six chapters of Acts when he spoke. No new ground at all. James states what is applicable for the churches and only James has his words sent as the verdict of the meeting. But there are plenty of threads on Acts 15.
No need to go that route.

 

[Lapey]

I do not agree that Peter led the group in Acts 15. If he did, then the letter that was sent to the churches not containing anything he said but what James said is a rather curious factor. All Peter did was repeat essentially what was stated in the previous six chapters of Acts when he spoke. No new ground at all. James states what is applicable for the churches and only James has his words sent as the verdict of the meeting. But there are plenty of threads on Acts 15.
No need to go that route.

I told you that you would see it differently, dont worry about tradition it doesn’t mean anything.

 

[Erich]

I do not agree that Peter led the group in Acts 15. If he did, then the letter that was sent to the churches not containing anything he said but what James said is a rather curious factor. All Peter did was repeat essentially what was stated in the previous six chapters of Acts when he spoke. No new ground at all. James states what is applicable for the churches and only James has his words sent as the verdict of the meeting.

Hmm…
"Acts15:

7 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. 10 Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.” 12 The whole assembly fell silent

Sounds to me like Peter (not James) had the last word.

But there are plenty of threads on Acts 15.
No need to go that route.

Acts 15:1-11 describes a Jerusalem council that dealt with the question of circumcision. In verses 7-11, Peter spoke… and in verse 12, “the whole assembly fell silent”. In other words, debate over.

Acts 15:13-35 describes a Jerusalem decree dealing mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws (the same one Paul describes in Galatians 2:1-10). The Apostle James renders his judgement beginning in verse 19.

In rabbinical debates to this day, all listen as one person speaks, then another in turn. Finally, when the debate is finished, those who are to judge announce their individual decisions in inverse order of rank.

That is, the junior rabbi announces his decision first, using the ritual words “It is my decision.” The next senior then announces his decision, and so on. The final decision is pronounced by the senior rabbi, after hearing the decisions of those junior to him.

For James to speak first shows he was junior to the Apostles present. For his decision to be accepted without any further pronouncements shows that his words were fully accepted by those senior to him.

James, by the way, was a Pharasee – and the issue (strict adherence to the outward trappings of the Law) was a Pharasitical issue, so his pronouncement decided the issue, since he set aside all the outward trappings.

We now return to our regularly-scheduled “Who “Sent” Protestant Church Pastors” thread.

 

[Bill_Pick]

From what i can see, all the biblical passages relating to the Apostles, Bishops, Presbyters and deacons say that they were “sent” or were “ordained” by someone who was sent. The only people who were not “sent” or ordained seem to be the ones who were spreading false teaching. So what i want to know is if you do not have Apostolic succession who “sent” you and therefore how can you be a pastor?

All protestants Preachers are not send, all Bishop are not sent the onlly one that are send or Priest and Bishop and the person that sent them is my Lord Jesus Christ. People like Bishop Jake are NOt sent

 

[Rightlydivide]

I told you that you would see it differently, dont worry about tradition it doesn’t mean anything.

Ante-Nicene support? As it relates specifically to Acts 15?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Hmm…

Sounds to me like Peter (not James) had the last word.

Acts 15:1-11 describes a Jerusalem council that dealt with the question of circumcision. In verses 7-11, Peter spoke… and in verse 12, “the whole assembly fell silent”. In other words, debate over.

Acts 15:13-35 describes a Jerusalem decree dealing mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws (the same one Paul describes in Galatians 2:1-10). The Apostle James renders his judgement beginning in verse 19.

In rabbinical debates to this day, all listen as one person speaks, then another in turn. Finally, when the debate is finished, those who are to judge announce their individual decisions in inverse order of rank.

That is, the junior rabbi announces his decision first, using the ritual words “It is my decision.” The next senior then announces his decision, and so on. The final decision is pronounced by the senior rabbi, after hearing the decisions of those junior to him.

For James to speak first shows he was junior to the Apostles present. For his decision to be accepted without any further pronouncements shows that his words were fully accepted by those senior to him.

James, by the way, was a Pharasee – and the issue (strict adherence to the outward trappings of the Law) was a Pharasitical issue, so his pronouncement decided the issue, since he set aside all the outward trappings.

We now return to our regularly-scheduled “Who “Sent” Protestant Church Pastors” thread.

Support for your view concerning rabbis and their decision? Scholarly source would be nice.
So you believe that Acts 15 is two distinct meetings? That IS original.

 

[Erich]

So you believe that Acts 15 is two distinct meetings? That IS original.

No it isn’t, actually… Origen in the beginning of the 3rd century placed the second meeting in Antioch: “Wherefore, as there is some obscurity about this matter [food], without some explanation is given, it seemed good to the apostles of Jesus and the elders assembled together at Antioch, and also, as they themselves say, to the Holy Spirit, to write a letter to the Gentile believers, forbidding them to partake of those things from which alone they say it is necessary to abstain, namely, “things offered to idols, things strangled, and blood.”” [Contra Celsus 8.29]

Read Acts 21:25 (and the verses leading up to it) a bit more closely. Paul seems to be learning of the Acts 15:13-35 decree for the first time… which would definitely not be the case if it had been pronounced at the same council described in Acts 15:1-11.

 

[Erich]

Lapey;6255499:

I told you that you would see it differently, dont worry about tradition it doesn’t mean anything.

Ante-Nicene support? As it relates specifically to Acts 15?

Ante-Nicene support for tradition can be found in:

1 Corinthians 11:2 - “Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.”

2 Thessalonians 2:15 - “Therefore, brothers, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word, or our letter.”

2 Thessalonians 3:6 - “Withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us”

2 Timothy 1:14 - “By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you”

2 Timothy 2:2 - “What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”

2 Timothy 3:14-15 - “But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus”

Of course, it goes without saying that the “sacred scriptures you have known from infancy” referred to in 2 Timothy 3:15 can’t possibly be referring to any part of the New Testament, since none of the New Testament had been written yet when Timothy was still an infant.

 

[Bill_Pick]

No, you won’t use anything that might possibly confirm the Catholic view, or so it seems.

Joh 15:16 You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

The Greek for appointed is ‘tithēmi’.

G5087
τίθημι
tithēmi
tith’-ay-mee
A prolonged form of a primary word θέω theō (which is used only as an alternate in certain tenses); to place (in the widest application, literally and figuratively; properly in a passive or horizontal posture, and thus different from G2476, which properly denotes an upright and active position, while G2749 is properly reflexive and utterly prostrate): - + advise, appoint, bow, commit, conceive, give, X kneel down, lay (aside, down, up), make, ordain, purpose, put, set (forth), settle, sink down.

You are merely using semantics to validate your view.

D-