I believe it is twisting when it is used in a different context. I do not believe that you or anyone who uses those terms the way they do believe it is twisting. In other words, I do believe that it is twisting for me. I do not want to impugn anyone’s motives though. Just because I believe that it is twisting, does not mean that I think anyone’s actions are intentional. I always assume good motives as I am reminded by those who care.I do not expect anyone to ‘twist’ the Bible and don’t appreciate the insinuation that this is what I requested, because I assure you, I am not twisting the word.
You have to read things in context. Part of the context is who authored what, what languages did they use, are words being used that mean the same thing, who was being spoken too, etc. etc. We cannot read everything with a modern view, seeking only a meaning that can be applied to what we believe. We should be applying our beliefs to what is written and the context it is written in, and within the other scriptures.
So, if someone disagrees with your interpretation, which is that which is received when reading in context, it’s ‘twisting’ scriptures, whether intentional or not? See, this is where we part ways on ‘twisting’. I would quickly show you the authority of the Church/tradition, in addition to the authority of scriptures, using scriptures. Just as quickly, I would present a case, again using scriptures, that teach against private interpretation of scriptures. Thereby, I would produce by what authority I disagree with your interpretation. I would expect the same of you, since you say I’m twisting scriptures as opposed to attributing our differences to interpretations.I believe it is twisting when it is used in a different context. I do not believe that you or anyone who uses those terms the way they do believe it is twisting. In other words, I do believe that it is twisting for me. I do not want to impugn anyone’s motives though. Just because I believe that it is twisting, does not mean that I think anyone’s actions are intentional. I always assume good motives as I am reminded by those who care.
Why are still discussing this? The crux of this is not about you and me. So I would prefer to discuss consent of the whole church, what the Bible teaches about being sent, or any of the other issues. I have asked a lot of questions about what consent of the church means and directly trying to address who else holds valid apostolic succession.So, if someone disagrees with your interpretation, which is that which is received when reading in context, it’s ‘twisting’ scriptures, whether intentional or not? See, this is where we part ways on ‘twisting’. I would quickly show you the authority of the Church/tradition, in addition to the authority of scriptures, using scriptures. Just as quickly, I would present a case, again using scriptures, that teach against private interpretation of scriptures. Thereby, I would produce by what authority I disagree with your interpretation. I would expect the same of you, since you say I’m twisting scriptures as opposed to attributing our differences to interpretations.
So, please provide the scriptures that grant you such an authority as to claim someone who disagrees with your interpretation is ‘twisting’ scriptures.
Holy orders is scriptural. There are more and I have already produced those that show the imposition of hands through the authority passed on through Apostolic succession. As for the Catholic Church recognizing valid orders, only those with true Apostolic succesion; the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.Okay I will answer this one and then please answer my question about what churches the Catholic Church recognizes as having valid orders.
Okay now to your answer. When it is phrased the way you just phrased it I believe we actually almost agree! Using the Bible. Paul directly received his apostleship from God. We agree that he had hands laid on him by a disciple. We have no idea if that was someone who had hands laid on them by an existing apostle. Its an argument from silence either way. It never says that the laying on of hands can only occur from an apostle or someone chosen by an apostle.
Yes, the laying on of hands comes from the elders or presbyters. I agree with that. Okay, now tell me where you disagree briefly.
You are just wrong but unable to see it because of your bias.There is a seperate word for priest in the NT. I will not use it in relation to the three fold ministry. I find it personally objectionable because the Bible does not do it. I understand it is how you use the term but its not what the Bible teaches.
We can’t see eye to eye on this. Best to move on to the rest of content if you will.
The Polish National Catholic Church. The Assyrian Church of the East. The Oriental Orthodox as well…right? Prodigal the reason I am asking is that valid holy orders does not denote doctrinal agreement.Holy orders is scriptural. There are more and I have already produced those that show the imposition of hands through the authority passed on through Apostolic succession. As for the Catholic Church recognizing valid orders, only those with true Apostolic succesion; the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
**Act 20:28 Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Luk 22:19 And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.
Joh 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
Act 6:6 These they set before the apostles: and they praying, imposed hands upon them.
Act 13:3 Then they fasting and praying and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.
Act 14:23 (14:22) And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.
1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.
2Ti 1:6 For which cause I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by the imposition of my hands.
Tit 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:**
As for Paul’s appointment, God chose Paul, just as He chose the 12.
I was hoping you’d provide a demonstration of someone receiving an appointment through the ‘laity’ or themselves, since that seems to the be gist of your view that the congregation chooses Church leaders.
As I explained from your sources so far, CLERGY and laity put forth men who were approved by the WHOLE Church, through doctrines of the Church. Doctrines taught and passed on from the Apostles, who learned from Christ, and men appointed by the Apostles and on through succession.
See, when it comes to proving an authority of interpretation, it always becomes time to move along, nothing to see here.Why are still discussing this? The crux of this is not about you and me. So I would prefer to discuss consent of the whole church, what the Bible teaches about being sent, or any of the other issues. I have asked a lot of questions about what consent of the church means and directly trying to address who else holds valid apostolic succession.
The answer to your question is no. I do not believe different interpretations are twisting. I do believe using words outside of their original context and giving them new and extrabiblical meanins is twisting. Now can we go on to the meat of the conversation? No one gives a darn about what I think. Lets talk Bible!
I am offering my views. If you do not wish to engage in discussions, thats fine. I am giving my views based upon my interpretation of scripture. I believe that everyone makes a personal decision based upon their own interpretation of the evidence. If you choose to accept the interpretation of the Catholic Church, I get that…obviously. Do you ever notice I do not try to make this about other people but the content? I will take exception to how words are used buts its not usually about the other person. I find that kind of conversations odd and I tend to bristle at them.See, when it comes to proving an authority of interpretation, it always becomes time to move along, nothing to see here.
Are you a linguist? I used translators and the dictionary to show definitions, because I am not a linguist. You reject anything from a reliable source, based on your view of ‘twisting’, yet you can’t see the contradiction in this?
I do not twist. I sincerely pray for knowledge as God wants it known. I check original languages and ‘several’ translations to my native tongue, English. I read a verse in context of a passage and a passage in context of a chapter and a chapter in context of a book. I also read the context of other books to arrive at an interpretation. Once I’ve done that, I look in the Catechism to see if the Church offers an interpretation.
Since you don’t want to discuss where you have an authority to tell others their interpretation is incorrect, we can move on. The silence can speak for itself.
But you’re wrong. Doctrine is what validates Apostolic succession in the view of the Catholic Church.The Polish National Catholic Church. The Assyrian Church of the East. The Oriental Orthodox as well…right? Prodigal the reason I am asking is that valid holy orders does not denote doctrinal agreement.
The multitude of churches in Rome had leaders. I have no indication that it had to be in any form of a linear manner. None of these verses state that either. On the other hand, they do not state that it doesnt have to be in a linear fashion as well. It is silent on that. Do you believe the Great Commision only applies to the apostles? If so, how much other parts of the gospels only applies to the apostles as well?
You tend to bristle at them? How are others who disagree with your interpretation supposed to receive your correction of their interpretation and referring to it as twisting? For me personally, I will request by what authority…everytime.I am offering my views. If you do not wish to engage in discussions, thats fine. I am giving my views based upon my interpretation of scripture. I believe that everyone makes a personal decision based upon their own interpretation of the evidence. If you choose to accept the interpretation of the Catholic Church, I get that…obviously. Do you ever notice I do not try to make this about other people but the content? I will take exception to how words are used buts its not usually about the other person. I find that kind of conversations odd and I tend to bristle at them.
Lets do this one at a time, the Assyrian Church of the East, the various Oriental Orthodox bodies, the Eastern Orthodox and the PNCC and the Catholic Church all have valid orders but they certainly do not agree in doctrine. Certainly not the Papacy, right?But you’re wrong. Doctrine is what validates Apostolic succession in the view of the Catholic Church.
Scriptures show Apostolic succession, but it doesn’t specify a lineage to your satisfaction, because why? Would it invalidate someone who has assumed the authority from other than how it’s described in scriptures?
We are all called to a royal priesthood, that is to share the good news within us. We are all NOT appointed and cannot appoint ourselves or others. Where did Christ ‘appoint’ a multitude in scriptures?
1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?
See, we all have our places within the Church, but it was God that set the authority. Those that received the authority, can set authority.
Again, where is an example of someone, other than men of the Church, in scriptures appointing others or themselves? You’re the Bible only person. If it’s not in scriptures, it is not in line with scriptures.
Okay.You tend to bristle at them? How are others who disagree with your interpretation supposed to receive your correction of their interpretation and referring to it as twisting? For me personally, I will request by what authority…everytime.
Guess you didn’t read By What Authority.I would prefer to discuss consent of the whole church, what the Bible teaches about being sent, or any of the other issues. I have asked a lot of questions about what consent of the church means
Since this is a Catholic forum, a distinction needs to be made between “valid” and “licit”. Although we strive to observe both categories, validity is more important than liceity. So, for Holy Orders:and directly trying to address who else holds valid apostolic succession.
The original question was what orders does the Catholic Church consider valid and by what source. It’s doctrine. There are those of Apostolic succession in those Churches. The ‘differences’ in doctrines are being discussed in hopes of a unification. None are so far in disagreement near the degree as some of the denominations of Protestantism. Then we arrive at the point of this discussion, how does a Protestant denomination have claim to Apostolic succession if their leaders received their authority other than as taught in scriptures?Lets do this one at a time, the Assyrian Church of the East, the various Oriental Orthodox bodies, the Eastern Orthodox and the PNCC and the Catholic Church all have valid orders but they certainly do not agree in doctrine. Certainly not the Papacy, right?
Martin Luther a bishop? You sure 'bout that? I don’t see that anywhere on this timeline.Martin Luther was a duly ordained Priest and licitly consecrated Bishop. The Priests he ordained were validly connected to the Apostles. So it can be said there is succession there.
I have a couple of questions?Obviously many Protestant churches do not believe in a literal apostolic succession similar to what Catholics and the Orthodox believe. I, however, do believe it would be erroneous to think that all Protestants practice some sort of willy-nilly-do-what-you-like ordination process. Some churches are more formalized than others, but many require some sort of discernment and that their pastors be licensed.
This licensing can be either done by their home congregation or the local district and this might only happen after that person has shown sufficient maturity and attended an approved college for Biblical or pastoral studies. There are congregations that have committees that meet and pray over candidates or seek God’s help in approaching some that would be good.
The kind of places you are thinking of where somebody comes and just sets up shop may be renegades from larger churches where they didn’t fit in or perhaps they are licensed preachers from their denominations establishing a new church elsewhere under their auspices, like a mission church.
To categorically say they are all spreading false teachings is a bit unfair and uncharitable. Sure they don’t have the fullness of the Catholic faith, but many do have solid, Biblical understandings and preaching that are part of the Catholic faith. A lot of their pastors go through years of study and training under other pastors before getting a church of their own, sort of like serving an apprenticeship. I know in the UMC the vast majority of their ministers, and even just the licensed preachers (a step down from minister, which has more to do with the hierarchy and advancement rather than a difference in responsibilities) all have Masters-level degrees in theology, Bible studies etc.
ChadS
No. They do disagree in doctrine. Apostolic succession may help in being more similiar than different but it did not create anymore doctrinal unity than we have with the Baptists or non-denom churches in my view going off of scripture alone if you will. It just is not very convincing. People may or may not be aware that thousands of groups claim apostolic succession. So do I evaluate each of their claims? I suppose I could. I have looked into it but they run the gamut of the Traditional Catholics to the Gnostics claim it. They have websites with their lineages and such.The original question was what orders does the Catholic Church consider valid and by what source. It’s doctrine. There are those of Apostolic succession in those Churches. The ‘differences’ in doctrines are being discussed in hopes of a unification. None are so far in disagreement near the degree as some of the denominations of Protestantism. Then we arrive at the point of this discussion, how does a Protestant denomination have claim to Apostolic succession if their leaders received their authority other than as taught in scriptures?
Why would a Protestant bring up those differences as a justification of their own denomination? If you truly felt anyone of those Churches was more correct, wouldn’t you be seeking membership with them?
Acts 8:30-31:I am giving my views based upon my interpretation of scripture.
Luke consistently tells us that reading and understanding Scripture are not the same thing (e.g. Luke 6:3, Luke 6:39, Luke 10:26-28, Acts 13:27).Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.
YesLuke consistently tells us that reading and understanding Scripture are not the same thing (e.g. Luke 6:3, Luke 6:39, Luke 10:26-28, Acts 13:27).