Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,868
1,311
sg
✟219,167.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Others will appear, there will be even more interesting interpretations. If John 20:23 is applicable only to the 12, technically the 11, then why isn't the Great Commission applicable only to the eleven? It was only given to the 11, yet I do not know of any Christian who will read the passage and say, oh, that was true only in Apostolic times and only for the 11 surviving Apostles.

Earlier, you exclude John 20:23 from ordinary Catholics and apply it only to the priests. Absolution

You still hold that point correct? So what is wrong with regarding Matthew 28:18-20 applying only to the same group as well?
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,868
1,311
sg
✟219,167.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Indeed this is entirely valid. It is a gross error to claim that the instructions given to the Apostles were not meant with us in mind.

But why not Matthew 19:28 and Luke 12:32-33 as well? What makes those different?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,313
5,766
49
The Wild West
✟482,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
But why not Matthew 19:28 and Luke 12:32-33 as well? What makes those different?

Luke 12:32-33 is clearly applicable to all Christians. Matthew 19:28 because of a numerical limitation might be limited to the eleven faithful disciples plus St. Matthias, not to be confused with St. Matthew, who was ordained by the remaining eleven Apostles including St. Matthew to replace Judas Iscariot. Given the role these twelve Apostles played in successfully converting Jews to Christianity, and also some gentiles, mainly Aramaic speakers in Syria, Mesopotamia and India by St. Thomas the Apostle, but with the majority of initial gentile converts converted by St. Paul, some by St. Andrew and St. Bartholomew, it makes a great deal of sense. But it can also be interpreted as applying to the laity.

In interpreting scripture, the correct approach is to rely primarily on the prevailing Patristic perspectives , with reason and exegesis along both a prophetic typological Alexandrian hermeneutic and a literal-historical Antiochene hermeneutic, the former preferrable to the Old Testament, which our Lord revealed at the end of Luke to be Christological prophecy, and the latter preferrable in the case of the New Testament, which aside from the Apocalypse of St. John also called Revelations, is much more literal than the Old Testament, which, while containing some historical accounts, is primarily, according to the incarnate Word of God Himself, is a prophecy about Him, the Christ.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,313
5,766
49
The Wild West
✟482,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Which KJV?

-CryptoLutheran

Indeed. I would argue only those KJVs which contain all the books originally translated, that is, the books labelled “Apocrypha” also known as Deuterocanonical, but regarded by the Orthodox as protocanon. Likewise in the case or Baruch, John Calvin considered it to be protocanonical.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,313
5,766
49
The Wild West
✟482,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
You have not met any protestants who don't even realized John 20:23 exists in their bible? ;)

None who have identified as such. I have met one who was almost totally unaware of the contents of Acts.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,313
5,766
49
The Wild West
✟482,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
None of us sell that we have and give to the poor, as in Acts 2:44-45. Do you?

This is entirely incorrect, for a great many Christians do sell all that they have and give it to the poor, as much as this idea may shock you. This includes all of those men and women called to a monastic vocation, for they dispose of all their worldly goods, whether Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist or Roman Catholic, so as to benefit the poor through monastic service in imitation of the life of St. Anthony the Great, who I will discuss in greater detail later.

What is more, Friars, who exist in the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches, such as the Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Capuchins, Servites, Minims, Trinitarians and Mercedarians, and also some other religious orders and monasteries, include a vow of poverty, so that the monasteries or friaries they inhabit are not wasteful, but rather, the money that would be spent on a luxurious monastery (something the Cluniac monks, who were a subset of Benedictines led by the monastery in Cluny, France, were known for) could instead be given to the poor. The excesses of the Cluniacs also led to the formation of the Cistercians, who lived a simpler life for the same reason, and when some Cistercian monasteries began to show excess, the Cistersians of the Strict Observance, better known as Trappists, were formed. The Capuchins are discalced Franciscans (the Franciscans are officially called the Friars Minor, and the Capuchins the Discalced Friars Minor) who do not wear shoes, but at most wear sandals, and are even more committed to poverty than the regular Franciscans (they can be distinguished from ordinary Franciscans by their brown habits (hence Cappucino, a variety of coffee named for its resemblance to their attire) whereas Franciscans wear grey habits. It must be stressed that these habits do not belong to the Friars but rather belong to the order and are held in common, just as the Apostles after selling their worldly property made use of assets owned by the church in order to survive.

Hermits like St. Anthony the Great, St. Paul the Hermit, St. Seraphim of Sarov, and the famed Stylites, who lived atop pillars, totally exposed to the elements, a very difficult vocation, depend even more on God to survive. There is a Roman Catholic physician, Brother Dismas Mary, who became consecrated as a Penitential Hermit of St. Mary, and who following in our Lord’s instructions, sold all his posessions and set up a hermitage in the Gambia, a small country in West Africa along the river of the same name, where he provides medical care to the local population, including the Muslim clerics from the local mosque, at no charge, and also celebrates the Mass on Sundays. His hermitage is entirely dependent on donations of medical supplies and the purchase of Rustic Rosaries hand-carved by Brother Dismas Mary to sustain its operations. Then there is the Coptic Orthodox hermit Fr. Lazarus el Antony, who lives in a cave near the cave of St. Anthony in the hills above St. Anthony’s monastery. In that cave he celebrates the Divine Liturgy at midnight before returning to his own cave, or when a guest is occupying it, to a secondary, more spartan cave. He gave up all his worldly posessions when he became a Serbian Orthodox monk and thus when he asked Pope Shenouda if he could come to Egypt he has been dependent on the Coptic Church, like other monks. He is a convert to Orthodoxy, having previously been an atheist philosopher, from Australia.

So yes, there are Christians who do this, who are called to live this lifestyle. It is a difficult life but it is possible. I myself have given away money during periods of severe financial hardship, but I am not yet sure if I am called to a life of monasticism or of marriage.

Now, interestingly, the directive in question also applies to married couples in a sense, in that their children are obviously without assets, and so in marriage, the husband and wife give away their worldly goods to each other and to their children.

In Orthodoxy, there are three kinds of martyrdom: actual martyrdom, known as the Red Martyrdom, the monastic life, known as the white or green martyrdom, and Holy Matrimony, which is also understood as a kind of martyrdom where each spouse offers themselves as a living sacrifice to their husband or wife (of the opposite sex* and their children.

I suggest you read The Life of Anthony by St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who also defended the doctrine of the Incarnation against the Arian heresy at the Council of Nicaea, for which he and other Christians were later persecuted for over two decades by vindictive Arian Emperors such as Constantius, the heir of St. Constantine, who was persuaded to embrace the heresy of Arius by the sinister Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was not present at Nicaea as far as I recall (there were also a few Arian bishops who left the council before the vote was held on whether or not to uphold the anathema against Arianism and the defrocking and excommunication of Arius, the presbyter in the Church of Alexandria who was defrocked and anathematized by St. Alexander the Patriarch of Alexandria, St. Athanasius being his protodeacon, and later, when St. Alexander reposed, was his successor, although while he was in exile, a horrible Arian bishop named George was put in charge of the church of Alexandria by the Emperor (I believe it was Constantius) in violation of the ancient canons, which did not grant civil authorities such as Emperors any authority to appoint bishops. In addition to defending Christianity against Arianism, St. Athanasius also defined the 27 book New Testament canon which all Christian churches have since accepted. So he is kind of a big deal among Patristic figures.

Of all his writings however, I found The Life of Anthony to be the most gripping, as it describes in great detail St. Anthony’s failed attempts during the Diocletian persecution to become a martyr, and his renunciation of his worldly life and his migration into the desert, and the extreme lengths the devil went through to try to stop him from pursuing his vocation. It is widely known that the devil attacks monastics and especially hermits, which is why Fr. Lazarus el Antony is the only monk at St. Anthony’s allowed to live in the caves above the monastery. Indeed cenobitic monasticism was developed specifically because of the extreme danger experienced by solitary hermits. There are also a few other forms of semi-hermetic life, such as the Carthusian Order in the Roman Catholic Church, and the Idiorythmic Sketes on Mount Athos, which are somewhat similar but are less organized, and the monks of those sketes lack lay brethren to support their needs, and instead must provide for themselves in terms of food. Mount Athos also has a small number of hermits who live off the land including a few who in pursuit of giving up absolutely every kind of posession do not even wear clothes, but rather hide themselves from view in order to preserve their modesty.

*Orthodoxy views sodomy as a sin which causes great harm to those who engage in it, and thus views homosexual marriages as blasphemous.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,523
26,954
Pacific Northwest
✟734,465.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Bigger picture question:

Does the Church have, from Christ, the authority to proclaim sins as forgiven?

If we answer unequivocally "no", that introduces a whole lot of problems. What, exactly, then is the Church's sacred mission to preach and proclaim the Gospel then? Are we declaring the finished and perfect work of Christ to sinners, The Good News; or are we merely presenting "The Nice Suggestion"? Is there power from God in the Gospel? Or is the Gospel merely an opportunity for people to exercise their own power? These are the sorts of questions that are to arise from this.

If we answer "yes", then we have to ask, in what way does the Church exercise this authority?

The historic answer is what the Lord called "the keys of the kingdom". In Matthew 16 our Lord asked His disciples, "Who do you say that I am?" And Peter responded, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God"--Jesus could then say to Peter, "Blessed are you Simon bar Jonah", Peter's answer was correct, not by the use of human reason but because Peter's mind was awakened by God to perceive the truth. So Jesus continues, "I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build My Church" which He adds, "not even the gates of Hades shall prevail against". Now, much ink has been spilled about this statement, "upon this rock"; is Jesus identifying Peter uniquely as the rock? Well Rome says so today, and has for many centuries; but the earliest exegetes of this passage in the early centuries of the Church tell us that "this rock" is Peter's confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God". Simon is given this name "Peter" by the Lord, not because he is the rock, but because he confesses the Rock, the rock of faith: Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.

And on the basis of this confession, the Lord said to Peter, "I give you the keys of the kingdom, whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven". The only parallel to this we have in the other Gospels is in the Gospel of John, where Jesus turned to His apostles, breathed on them, saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit, whoever's sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whoever's sins you retain are retained".

On this basis, both Lutherans and the Eastern Orthodox, and many other historic Churches recognize that these "Keys of the kingdom" were not the unique possession of the Apostle Peter, but rather is the common possession of the Church. Through the Apostles, to and for the Church. Thus not only to Peter, but also to Andrew, to Philip, to Nathaniel, to Matthew, to John, etc--and not the Twelve only, but to Paul and Barnabas (being also Apostles of Jesus Christ). Thus this apostolic gift is not the private property of any single man; but rather is granted the Church because the Church is tasked with preaching to the whole word? What does the Church preach? The Gospel. She preaches forgiveness in Christ's name, she preaches repentance because of sin--and she does not do this of her own accord, but rather by the Spirit, "I will not leave you as orphans" the Lord said, "I will send another Comforter" and "He will convict the world" and "He shall lead you to all truth" and so on.

So then, does every Christian have this authority? That is where further debate resides. Our Eastern Orthodox brothers would answer that only those who are ordained, with valid holy orders, in valid succession of the Apostles and confessing the truth Orthodox faith have this.

The Lutheran confession also recognizes the essential quality of being an ordained minister; but we do not insist on Apostolic Succession the way our Roman Catholic and Orthodox brethren do. For we do not believe in holy orders the same way; rather recognizing in the sacred office of ministry--pastors--a delegation of responsibility and authority, which comes from the Church. To be a pastor is not to be set apart from the laity, but rather to be placed under the laity for the good order and spiritual health of the Church. Therefore, to have men who, properly vetted, and trained, and who can exercise the gifts of their calling and be good spiritual fathers, good shepherds, and rightly dividing the word of truth in order that the whole Church is edified, strengthened, comforted, and yes, even chastised and disciplined.

Therefore the Church vests in her ministers this sacred task, this sacred duty--and privilege--to preach, to administer the Sacraments, to serve Christ and His Church by proclaiming God's worth in full truth, both in the harshness of God's commandments and the need of repentance and the sweetness of God's grace in the Gospel of our salvation. That we should die to our old man, live in the new man--abiding in Christ. And, therefore, the sacred responsibility to not only declare sins forgiven, for whomever the Son sets free is free indeed; but even to retain--for without repentance there is no real confession of sins. To declare to us to do our Christian duty, don't offer vain words to God, God shall be neither fooled nor mocked; but to humble ourselves and come before God in contrition, humility, and lowliness--for great is our sin; but because so great is our sin therefore, so much greater is God's grace. "For where sin abounds, grace super-abounds" says the Apostle St. Paul to the Romans. Yes we are great sinners, but greater still is our Savior who has conquered sin, death, hell, and the devil. Therefore do not bring our pride to God's Throne of Grace, do not bring our stubbornness, our refusal to admit our guilt, we do not confess fake sins, but real sins. For God saves us from real sin, not fake sin; He gives us real grace, not imaginary grace.

I am a sinner. God be merciful to me. Jesus save me.
Crucify my flesh O God, and put me to death that I might live in and with You, for the sake of Your own Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

So yes, this precious gift from Christ to declare forgiveness of sins is the common property of His Church, the Church is not an anarchical state of wild and barbarous persons doing whatever they please; but the ordered institution of Jesus Christ and faithful community of His Word and Promises. There is to be discipline and order, not for the sake of human authority; but for the sake of our own wellbeing--because we are sinful and broken. And thus God uses the shepherd's crook to guide and to correct, to keep us from falling into snares or becoming the prey of wild beasts, whether they be roaring lions or lip-licking wolves.

Therefore honor is to be afforded the shepherd, for he serves the Good Shepherd and acts in His name; but neither is the shepherd lord or master over the flock, for the flock belongs to Another; they are His servants, His ministers. So they are to bear and preach His word, act in His name; and shame when they fail their responsibility; but glory and honor to God when they fulfill their sacred duty--for the word is preached, sins are forgiven, and the name of Christ is honored throughout the world.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,313
5,766
49
The Wild West
✟482,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Bigger picture question:

Does the Church have, from Christ, the authority to proclaim sins as forgiven?

If we answer unequivocally "no", that introduces a whole lot of problems. What, exactly, then is the Church's sacred mission to preach and proclaim the Gospel then? Are we declaring the finished and perfect work of Christ to sinners, The Good News; or are we merely presenting "The Nice Suggestion"? Is there power from God in the Gospel? Or is the Gospel merely an opportunity for people to exercise their own power? These are the sorts of questions that are to arise from this.

If we answer "yes", then we have to ask, in what way does the Church exercise this authority?

The historic answer is what the Lord called "the keys of the kingdom". In Matthew 16 our Lord asked His disciples, "Who do you say that I am?" And Peter responded, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God"--Jesus could then say to Peter, "Blessed are you Simon bar Jonah", Peter's answer was correct, not by the use of human reason but because Peter's mind was awakened by God to perceive the truth. So Jesus continues, "I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build My Church" which He adds, "not even the gates of Hades shall prevail against". Now, much ink has been spilled about this statement, "upon this rock"; is Jesus identifying Peter uniquely as the rock? Well Rome says so today, and has for many centuries; but the earliest exegetes of this passage in the early centuries of the Church tell us that "this rock" is Peter's confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God". Simon is given this name "Peter" by the Lord, not because he is the rock, but because he confesses the Rock, the rock of faith: Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.

And on the basis of this confession, the Lord said to Peter, "I give you the keys of the kingdom, whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven". The only parallel to this we have in the other Gospels is in the Gospel of John, where Jesus turned to His apostles, breathed on them, saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit, whoever's sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whoever's sins you retain are retained".

On this basis, both Lutherans and the Eastern Orthodox, and many other historic Churches recognize that these "Keys of the kingdom" were not the unique possession of the Apostle Peter, but rather is the common possession of the Church. Through the Apostles, to and for the Church. Thus not only to Peter, but also to Andrew, to Philip, to Nathaniel, to Matthew, to John, etc--and not the Twelve only, but to Paul and Barnabas (being also Apostles of Jesus Christ). Thus this apostolic gift is not the private property of any single man; but rather is granted the Church because the Church is tasked with preaching to the whole word? What does the Church preach? The Gospel. She preaches forgiveness in Christ's name, she preaches repentance because of sin--and she does not do this of her own accord, but rather by the Spirit, "I will not leave you as orphans" the Lord said, "I will send another Comforter" and "He will convict the world" and "He shall lead you to all truth" and so on.

So then, does every Christian have this authority? That is where further debate resides. Our Eastern Orthodox brothers would answer that only those who are ordained, with valid holy orders, in valid succession of the Apostles and confessing the truth Orthodox faith have this.

The Lutheran confession also recognizes the essential quality of being an ordained minister; but we do not insist on Apostolic Succession the way our Roman Catholic and Orthodox brethren do. For we do not believe in holy orders the same way; rather recognizing in the sacred office of ministry--pastors--a delegation of responsibility and authority, which comes from the Church. To be a pastor is not to be set apart from the laity, but rather to be placed under the laity for the good order and spiritual health of the Church. Therefore, to have men who, properly vetted, and trained, and who can exercise the gifts of their calling and be good spiritual fathers, good shepherds, and rightly dividing the word of truth in order that the whole Church is edified, strengthened, comforted, and yes, even chastised and disciplined.

Therefore the Church vests in her ministers this sacred task, this sacred duty--and privilege--to preach, to administer the Sacraments, to serve Christ and His Church by proclaiming God's worth in full truth, both in the harshness of God's commandments and the need of repentance and the sweetness of God's grace in the Gospel of our salvation. That we should die to our old man, live in the new man--abiding in Christ. And, therefore, the sacred responsibility to not only declare sins forgiven, for whomever the Son sets free is free indeed; but even to retain--for without repentance there is no real confession of sins. To declare to us to do our Christian duty, don't offer vain words to God, God shall be neither fooled nor mocked; but to humble ourselves and come before God in contrition, humility, and lowliness--for great is our sin; but because so great is our sin therefore, so much greater is God's grace. "For where sin abounds, grace super-abounds" says the Apostle St. Paul to the Romans. Yes we are great sinners, but greater still is our Savior who has conquered sin, death, hell, and the devil. Therefore do not bring our pride to God's Throne of Grace, do not bring our stubbornness, our refusal to admit our guilt, we do not confess fake sins, but real sins. For God saves us from real sin, not fake sin; He gives us real grace, not imaginary grace.

I am a sinner. God be merciful to me. Jesus save me.
Crucify my flesh O God, and put me to death that I might live in and with You, for the sake of Your own Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

So yes, this precious gift from Christ to declare forgiveness of sins is the common property of His Church, the Church is not an anarchical state of wild and barbarous persons doing whatever they please; but the ordered institution of Jesus Christ and faithful community of His Word and Promises. There is to be discipline and order, not for the sake of human authority; but for the sake of our own wellbeing--because we are sinful and broken. And thus God uses the shepherd's crook to guide and to correct, to keep us from falling into snares or becoming the prey of wild beasts, whether they be roaring lions or lip-licking wolves.

Therefore honor is to be afforded the shepherd, for he serves the Good Shepherd and acts in His name; but neither is the shepherd lord or master over the flock, for the flock belongs to Another; they are His servants, His ministers. So they are to bear and preach His word, act in His name; and shame when they fail their responsibility; but glory and honor to God when they fulfill their sacred duty--for the word is preached, sins are forgiven, and the name of Christ is honored throughout the world.

-CryptoLutheran

That said some Lutheran churches preserved apostolic succession, specifically the Scandinavian Lutherans with their bishops, and I think the Baltic and Ukrainian Lutherans as well.

One could also argue apostolic succession exists but is maintained at the level of presbyters rather than bishops, since the majority of Lutheran churches trace back to Martin Luther and other Catholic priests and bishops.

By the way, an interesting historical connection exists between Lutheranism and the Oriental Orthodox church of Ethiopia, which I will be posting a thread about soon. I myself toe the line between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy because I believe the schism being continued is a violation of canon law, and my support for EO/OO recomciliation and reunification is why I identify as Generic Orthodox. Lutheranism, in its emphasis on communicatio idiomatum, and its emphasis on congregational singing of liturgy that uses hymns and chants to communicate doctrinal truths, is in many respects evocative of Oriental Orthodoxy. Eastern Orthodoxy is very similar but there is less congregational singing than there was prior to 1700, depending on the particular EO church, although it has increased in the past 150 years, particularly among Carpatho-Rusyns and other Slavonic and English speaking Orthodox.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,523
26,954
Pacific Northwest
✟734,465.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
That said some Lutheran churches preserved apostolic succession, specifically the Scandinavian Lutherans with their bishops, and I think the Baltic and Ukrainian Lutherans as well.

One could also argue apostolic succession exists but is maintained at the level of presbyters rather than bishops, since the majority of Lutheran churches trace back to Martin Luther and other Catholic priests and bishops.

By the way, an interesting historical connection exists between Lutheranism and the Oriental Orthodox church of Ethiopia, which I will be posting a thread about soon. I myself toe the line between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy because I believe the schism being continued is a violation of canon law, and my support for EO/OO recomciliation and reunification is why I identify as Generic Orthodox. Lutheranism, in its emphasis on communicatio idiomatum, and its emphasis on congregational singing of liturgy that uses hymns and chants to communicate doctrinal truths, is in many respects evocative of Oriental Orthodoxy. Eastern Orthodoxy is very similar but there is less congregational singing than there was prior to 1700, depending on the particular EO church, although it has increased in the past 150 years, particularly among Carpatho-Rusyns and other Slavonic and English speaking Orthodox.

This is true about Apostolic Succession in the Lutheran tradition. It does exist in some places. The Lutheran position isn't against Apostolic Succession in practice; but rather treating it as dogmatically necessary in a very particular way, apart from which there can be no valid ordination, and no valid Eucharist. Where Apostolic Succession promotes the preaching of the Gospel (as was the case with the Archdiocese of Uppsala), it is great; but if it is treated as an impediment to the preaching of the Gospel (as was the case in places like Saxony and other parts of Central/Western Europe) then nevertheless the Gospel is to be preached, and the Sacraments administered. For Word and Sacrament does not exist for the priest, but the priest exists for Word and Sacrament.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,868
1,311
sg
✟219,167.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is entirely incorrect, for a great many Christians do sell all that they have and give it to the poor, as much as this idea may shock you. This includes all of those men and women called to a monastic vocation, for they dispose of all their worldly goods, whether Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist or Roman Catholic, so as to benefit the poor through monastic service in imitation of the life of St. Anthony the Great, who I will discuss in greater detail later.

But you do not. That is my point.

None of us who are currently participating in Internet discussions do that.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,313
5,766
49
The Wild West
✟482,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
But you do not. That is my point.

None of us who are currently participating in Internet discussions do that.

You claimed that no one does that, which is false. Not everyone is called to such a vocation, but many are. Others live vocations of equal value, for example, doctors who work for free.
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,868
1,311
sg
✟219,167.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not everyone is called to such a vocation, but many are.

How would you reconcile this statement of yours with your belief that Luke 12:32-33 is to every Christian today?

FYI, to be accurate, I did not say no one does that, when I said none of us, I specified "None of us who are currently participating in Internet discussions do that."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,313
5,766
49
The Wild West
✟482,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
How would you reconcile this statement of yours with your belief that Luke 12:32-33 is to every Christian today?

You misunderstood. I said not everyone is called to a monastic vocation. However, Luke 12:32-33 is generally applicable both literally and figuratively concerning the need to avoid the sinful passions of avarice and covetousness and to give of what we have to the poor, including, within our own family, being liberal with how we spend on our children who are by definition the least of us in size and in wealth and in their ability to defend themselves according to their small stature.

There are different vocations for Christians and Luke 12:32-33 speaks in different ways to all of them, contrary your claim that it along with those verses dealing with confession and absolution are not addressed to all members of the Christian church, which is contrary to the belief of the early church and most other Christian churches (although I suppose the Prosperity Gospel people probably reject Luke 12:32-33).
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,313
5,766
49
The Wild West
✟482,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
This is true about Apostolic Succession in the Lutheran tradition. It does exist in some places. The Lutheran position isn't against Apostolic Succession in practice; but rather treating it as dogmatically necessary in a very particular way, apart from which there can be no valid ordination, and no valid Eucharist. Where Apostolic Succession promotes the preaching of the Gospel (as was the case with the Archdiocese of Uppsala), it is great; but if it is treated as an impediment to the preaching of the Gospel (as was the case in places like Saxony and other parts of Central/Western Europe) then nevertheless the Gospel is to be preached, and the Sacraments administered. For Word and Sacrament does not exist for the priest, but the priest exists for Word and Sacrament.

-CryptoLutheran

Indeed, I am well aware of this, and you might be surprised to note I take the same view. Specifically, i reject the Augustinian concept of apostolic succession in favor of a modified form of the idea of St. Cyprian of Carthage, modified in that in the event no one with apostolic succession can be found to perform an ordination, apostolic succession can continue on the basis of Orthodox doctrine, whereas apostolic succession is rendered invalid through heterodoxy, so at present I would argue that there are several churches which a hundred years ago had apostolic succession but have since that time lost it, but given the difficulty of finding bishops with apostolic succession to reconsecrate these churches, just as bishops can ordain another bishop by themselves without two co-ordaining bishops in an emergency, I would likewise argue that if circumstances require a church can be restarted on the basis of a purely doctrinal apostolic succession. Where I would disagree with Lutheranism is that I think the Episcopate itself is extremely valuable, and that the Church of Saxony, for example, should have sought to obtain bishops with apostolic succession from, say, the Church of Sweden, or another Scandinavian Lutheran church, rather than just operating under what I regard as a special contingency for emergent conditions, if that were possible (and I suspect for political reasons it was not, due to the complex relationships between the various German lands and the Kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden, which at the time were major political powers rivaling Austria and Bavaria and the up and coming electorate of Prussia).

But I would also argue that in the case of Saxony, a form of apostolic succession passed from Martin Luther to those pastors in the Electorate. John Wesley also believed presbyters could convey apostolic succession, or at least claimed as much, perhaps to take attention away from his illegal consecration as a bishop by the Greek Orthodox bishop Erasmus of Arcadia in 1763.
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,868
1,311
sg
✟219,167.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You misunderstood. I said not everyone is called to a monastic vocation. However, Luke 12:32-33 is generally applicable both literally and figuratively concerning the need to avoid the sinful passions of avarice and covetousness and to give of what we have to the poor, including, within our own family, being liberal with how we spend on our children who are by definition the least of us in size and in wealth and in their ability to defend themselves according to their small stature.

There are different vocations for Christians and Luke 12:32-33 speaks in different ways to all of them, contrary your claim that it along with those verses dealing with confession and absolution are not addressed to all members of the Christian church, which is contrary to the belief of the early church and most other Christian churches (although I suppose the Prosperity Gospel people probably reject Luke 12:32-33).

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

If you believe Luke 12:32-33 is applicable to you today, then you are to sell that you have and give to the poor, as shown in Acts 2:44-45.

If you are not doing that, then it is the same as saying it is not applicable to you.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,523
26,954
Pacific Northwest
✟734,465.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
You cannot have your cake and eat it.

If you believe Luke 12:32-33 is applicable to you today, then you are to sell that you have and give to the poor, as shown in Acts 2:44-45.

If you are not doing that, then it is the same as saying it is not applicable to you.

There is no basis to claim that Acts 2:44-45 is not applicable still. Nothing has changed between then and now. The problem is the hyper-dispensationalist hermeneutic you are applying to the Bible.

The sin of Ananias and Sapphira wasn't that they retained part of the money they acquired from selling their property, but that they lied about it. They were being deceitful and trying to look more generous than they actually were.

"But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.'" - Acts 5:1-4

Notice what Peter says, while Ananias owned the property, it was his to do what he wanted with it. He was under no obligation to sell it. After he sold it, the money he acquired was also his to do with as he pleased. He was under no obligation to give it to the apostles. It was that he was deceitful, lying, and trying to pull a scam that he had sinned, for he sought not merely to deceive people, but God. The result of this deceit is that Ananias fell down dead. The gravity of punishment for this raises questions about precisely how severe this scam was which we may not be privy to; but it is clear that the sin wasn't that Ananias sold his property and retained some of the money, but that he lied and tried to deceive.

That makes it pretty clear, at least to me, that selling one's possessions was not a requirement of being a Christian, not even at this early time. In Acts 2:44-45 the selling of possession and having all things in common did not originate as a commandment, but was entirely voluntary--done out of mutual love.

And your understanding of Luke 12:32-33 is likewise a misunderstanding, because the context provides us with relevant information about what the Lord is saying.

"And He said to His disciples, 'Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat, nor about your body, what you will put on. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! And which of you being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? If then you are not able to do as small a thing as that, why are you anxious about the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed as like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass, which is alive in the field today, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will He clothe you, O you of little faith! And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek His kingdom, and these things will be added to you.

Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.'
" - Luke 12:22-34

The Christian is to treasure not the things of this world, but rather have another treasure: The reign of God by which He rules over all creation, who makes provision for His creation and who will provide for us. God's reign, where the last is first, the least is greatest, and the slave is greater than all. The reign of God, where the humble are exalted, and the proud made lowly. God who dresses the field with flowers, and who provides seed for the birds, who knows the number of hairs on our head, and considers the sparrow--He knows our needs, He knows what we need and will provide it. Therefore we should not worry or be anxious about tomorrow, we should not despair over what might be.

"Sell what you own and give to the needy" is in the context of not worrying, and not clinging to our material possessions out of anxiety that we may lack without them; God will provide. It is not a commandment to own nothing, that every single Christian must never own anything. If it were, then we sin for owning clothes on our back, buying food for our table, for spending our money from daily labor for the roof over our head, providing for our spouses and children, etc. And that is not the case. It was never the case. And that is never how the Church has understood it.

It is not having things that is forbidden, but rather it is the lack of faith in God's provision and regarding the things of God chief in our hearts as our real treasure that the Lord wishes to correct. Trust in God, God reigns, His promises and faithfulness is found in everything.

If I am left homeless and on the street, God has not failed His promise to me; God will still be faithful.
If I am found with many things, but cling to these rather than to God's promise, I put my faith in the things which rot, which rust, and are consumed by moth. The clothes I wear will wear out, they will fade, and one day no longer exist. Houses can be burned down, or destroyed, and crumble with the passage of time. But God's promise will never fade, God reigns--what He says cannot pass away, or crumble, or turn to dust. If we are converted, and conform our minds to the ways of God, if our hearts are set upon the things that last, the things of God, then we learn to trust in the Lord and His provision. Therefore do not be anxious, do not worry, to not despair, God is with us and He is for us.

That is the lesson to be learned. That's the lesson I need to learn.

I struggle with anxiety, I stress about finances, about taxes, about bills, about having enough to get through each month. What the Lord is saying to me, as He says to all of us, is set our minds and our hearts upon the things of God, to learn to trust Him for everything.

And that, that is true in every circumstance of life. Regardless if we are talking about the first Christians who gathered around the Lord's feet as He taught them in parables, or whether it is we today who hear the same Lord through the divinely inspired Gospel text.
It is the same Jesus Christ who speaks.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,868
1,311
sg
✟219,167.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is no basis to claim that Acts 2:44-45 is not applicable still. Nothing has changed between then and now. The problem is the hyper-dispensationalist hermeneutic you are applying to the Bible.

"Sell what you own and give to the needy" is in the context of not worrying, and not clinging to our material possessions out of anxiety that we may lack without them; God will provide. It is not a commandment to own nothing, that every single Christian must never own anything. If it were, then we sin for owning clothes on our back, buying food for our table, for spending our money from daily labor for the roof over our head, providing for our spouses and children, etc. And that is not the case. It was never the case. And that is never how the Church has understood it.

-CryptoLutheran

What were they doing exactly in Acts 2:44-45, when you understand it literally?

If you are not doing what they are doing, then it is the same as admitting that Acts 2:44-45 is not applicable to you.

There is nothing wrong in admitting that, just as you have zero problems admitting that Genesis 6:14 is not applicable to you as well.

You will not even bother to say, Genesis 6:14 is a command to me to obey as well, but yada yada yada
 
Upvote 0