How many Christians will be saved?
- Thread starter bbbbbbb
- Start date
NeedyFollower
Well-Known Member
It is interesting that Jesus says in Revelation to the churches to repent ..in other words ..to the SAVED to repent. All the epistles and the gospel was to believers not to the unbelievers. Jesus's words and WARNINGS were to believers . Paul's ministry was much given to the established churches after their conversion. Are we saved ? or are we bearing fruit ? Are we striving to enter in ?
The good news is For Us but not ABOUT US ..It is about God's Kingdom and His purposes . We err in making it about ourselves. and not about the God of Glory and His Christ , The Lamb. Follow the Lamb and salvation will take care of itself . It is not our judgment. Our job is to be transformed.
Upvote
0
Archmike
Active Member
On the contrary, Bruce. We are all angels of an earthly form. And in The Revelation we are alerted to the idea that we are all angels. Angels who started in Heaven, then our heavenly angelic souls are intermarried into a carnate body when we are born, we live a life on earth, and then our souls return to Heaven, or an intermediary space. While on earth, our thoughts and actions are recorded in the biographies of our life. And the total number of souls saved are shown in Heaven surrounding the Throne of God, and are numbered....10,000 x 10,000 = 100,000,000.....otherwise, there would be no reason, whatsoever, for John to reveal this number. And it was impressed upon him to reveal the number.
What do you think happened in the Garden of Eden, that changed the history of mankind ? Adam and Eve were given a soul from Heaven. Put another way, A & E were selected as the very first humanoids on earth to receive a heavenly soul. God even pronounces that "man became a living soul". After A & E bit the apple, God says, " And man has become as one of us, to know good and evil "
What do you think Jacobs ladder was all about ? Ever wonder ?
Ill leave you with that Doc....
Upvote
0
marineimaging
Texas Baptist now living in Colorado
- Jul 14, 2014
- 1,449
- 1,228
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
There are people who say Catholics won't. I know Catholics that will be in heaven. I know their heart, see their fruit, and know their love of Jesus is pure and real and their desires are unquestionable. They will be in heaven and the only thing someone in my Baptist faith can accuse them of is that they were sprinkled as a baby and didn't go up to a pastor and take their hand and confess as a sinner. No, every day of their life the confessed to anyone who would listen that they were sinners and that Jesus Christ was their savior. They live in faith, walk in faith, and talk in faith. There are others who call themselves Christians and who give a lot to the church and who attend church 104 times a year who will not be with God eternally.
Upvote
0
Archmike
Active Member
Indeed, it won't matter if you're Catholic or Protestant. ANYONE who refuses The Mark ( mentioned 7x in The Rev ) will fill the rolls of The Saved in The Great Tribulation coming. They shall find their redemption thru suffering in the GT. In fact, all Protestant and Catholic Churches and organizations....and every manner of reference to Christianity..... shall be utterly destroyed from the face of the earth by the Man of Sin. And the power of The Church shall then be transferred into the capable hands of the individual Tribulation Saints.
So, you see, it won't really matter what denomination you hail from.....anyone who is a TRUE Christian will be your welcome brother or sister as you sit in prison awaiting your execution.
THIS IS THE TRUTH !
Upvote
0
Hi PDV, at the Judgment, the Lord said of those in v22 above (who believed themselves worthy of Heaven due to the great works that they 'claimed' to have done in the very name of Christ), "I NEVER knew you" (not: I knew you at one time but you sinned and left the faith .. or something like that). How can anyone who has never "known" God, obey Him and do works according to His will, be they great works or small .. e.g. 1 Corinthians 2:14
Claiming to be a Christian, even if one fully believes his/her claim, does not a Christian make (neither does going to church/church membership, though I am more than hard-pressed to believe that any can be "true" Christians and live their lives apart from the church).
See below Matt 13:24-30, 36-43 as well, concerning those who are lifetime members of the visible church (the "wheat" and the "tares"). All claim (and I'm sure most believe) themselves to be true "Christians" in the church, but only some are!
Tares among Wheat
24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field.
25 But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away.
26 But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also.
27 The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’
28 And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’
29 But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them.
30 ‘Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ”
The Tares Explained
36 Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”
37 And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man,
38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;
39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels.
40 “So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.
41 “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,
42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
43 “Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
Yours and His,
David
Hi David, if you have not notice, in my post, I put a small (c) in cHRISTIANS, meaning they were not (C) CHRISTIANS, with a capital C, to begin with, therefore the reason Jesus DID NOT KNOW THEM, because they don't do the will of my Father, said Jesus.
There are many today who call themselves christians who are not Christians, for they do not the Will of the Father.
David are you a true Christian, do you do the Will of the Father without leaving one Will of the Father out? Here is one of the Will's of the Father and it is: John 6:40And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that EVERY ONE who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day. (David John 6:40 Speaks about the Eucharist, in the Catholic Church)
David, where can EVERY ONE OBEY the Father's WILL to See the SON and BELIEVE in HIM TODAY? The Answer is the Eucharist! The Eucharist in every Catholic Church. David do you do the Fathers Will by Visiting the Eucharist that you May See the Son and Believe in Him?
David, you will probably say, The Father does not mean the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. If you believe this, then, you believe that we who live today are not apart of "EVERY ONE..." in John 6:40. I will show you proof that that is does mean the Eucharist with our Lord's own words, below:
Note: the Lord's Words in John 6:40 may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day. Note: 14 verses later the Lord's Word in John 54He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. The Lord in john 6:54 stresses the Fathers Will in John 6:40. AMEN AMEN
David, Practically all John 6: verses 26 through 71 Speaks about the Eucharist.
Not only can we Catholics SEE the Son/Eucharist We Believeth in Him, We also Partake/Eat and Drink Discerning the Body and Discerning the Blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Visit Him Today so that you may come to Seeth the Son and Believeth in Him who is the Eucharist.
Upvote
0
Phil 1:21
Well-Known Member
That is a stretch of monumental proportions. You do realize this took place shortly after Jesus fed 5,000 people with two fish and five loaves of what? Bread.
John 6:26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.
John 6:35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.”
He's telling them the same thing he told the Samaritan woman at the well in chapter 4.
John 4:13-14 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
This has nothing to do with Catholics eating consecrated wafers. It has to do with giving your life to Jesus Christ for eternal salvation.
Upvote
0
- Jan 28, 2002
- 27,400
- 45,359
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Hi PDV, I didn't understand that small "c" cHRISTIANS was code for those who claimed to be Christians, but never actually were. It's clever, so I'll try to remember it for future use
You are correct about obedience, as well the 24/7 desire to please God in all that we do/say/think, our choice to live a holy rather than sinful life, etc. Since we cannot judge the heart like God does, even our own, those are some of the very best proofs we have to help us justify our/other's claim(s) of being a Christian .. James 2:24; 2 Corinthians 13:5.
Like John Calvin once said, "We are justified by faith alone, but the faith the justifies is never alone".
As for your understanding of John 6:40 (and John 6, in general), I'll have to get back to you, because that interpretation is so different from any I've previously encountered (which includes the years I posted regularly on Father Z's forum at Catholic.org), that I'll have to take a look at the passage in context and see if it's possible to apply your presupposition w/o drowning in the eisegesis
Yours in Christ,
David
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Where is the word "Eucharist" used in the NT as a noun (as you use it) instead of a verb (as used throughout the NT)?
εὐχαριστέω eucharistéō : yoo-khar-is-teh'-o; from G2170; to be grateful, i.e. (actively) to express gratitude (towards); specially, to say grace at a meal:—(give) thank(-ful, -s). (verb)
Generally, I believe you are applying eisegesis in your summary to David. Jesus spoke in direct metaphors throughout the Gospel of John. Reference John 4 where Jesus gives the Living Water discourse. If we drink water He gives us we will never thirst again (John 4:13-15).
The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is absent in the NT. Also, partaking of 'the Eucharist' is not central to any of the apostolic teachings including the so called "Catholic epistles" where Paul had ample opportunity to instruct Timothy and Titus on their sacerdotal duties. He did not because bishops/elders had no such instructions neither from Paul nor Peter.
This is what I mean reference eisegesis vs. exegesis.
Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text. It is akin to taking a full bag and taking the contents out to see what's in it.
Eisegesis is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants. It is akin to taking an empty bag and stuffing in what you want to see the bag full.
Only exegesis does justice to the text. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation. Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.
More here: What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?
If one follows the entire chapter starting with the feeding of the 5,000, the direct metaphor of eating relates to the reality of believing.
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
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Not to mention in RC doctrine a priest can only confect the Eucharist. Given there was never a priestly class established by the apostles, this is another machination of the later 'doctrinal development church.'
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
So basically you came on Christian Forums owned and operated by Evangelical Christians, in the General Theology forum to inform them and the rest of us we are not Christians unless we become Roman Catholic.
How nice of you. And during Holy Week.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Indeed praise be to our Lord Jesus Christ for taking the nails for us.
Upvote
0
NeedyFollower
Well-Known Member
Hi New Birth Follower of Christ by the Will of God ..I trust you are a Sister by your moniker ..If not please forgive me. There are many teachers but not many fathers as Paul says . I believe we are in the days of " many false teachers and false prophets . I also believe salvation is a process started by the will of God through belief in His Son. It is a very , very serious calling because it pertains to eternal life and eternal death. That is why Jesus said If any come after me , let them first count the cost ..It requires sobriety in an age of lightness. It requires focus in an age of distractions. There are many who preach and teach for money but do not know you personally nor does the number of sheep they try to Shepard allow this ..It is the age in which we live . Ask God through His Son to give you what is needed to be fruitful ..Follow after Love as our Lord Jesus showed us . ( Love and sacrifice is synonymous . )Salvation will take care of itself .
Do not follow other Christians ..follow the Lamb of God...stay away from theology and follow Truth ..( Theologians have shed and caused the shedding of blood of others for close to 1700 years . ) We are peaceable people and do not get caught up in the affairs of a perishing world . A bazillion books on the market by well known and sound theologians ..but the problem is ...they do not know you and their theology is learned in seminary and taught by man .
Desire the sincere milk of the word so you can grow thereby just as a new born babe drinks milk often ..Give yourself to much prayer ..( see the relationship of prayer and faith in the of the widow and the unrighteous judge ...) It is a journey and you will be tested so be a doer of the Word not a hear so your house will stand when the enemy comes against you ...Also ( and this is for ME TOO ) stay out of senseless debates which engender strife and leads to more ungodliness ...The Holy Spirit , even the spirit of Truth will lead you ..
do not be caught up or deceived by emotionalism , praise and worship , "gifts of the spirit " but be found lacking truth ..we are saved by grace through faith which works by LOVE. ( There are of course gifts of the spirit but I often see this stressed in wealthy churches where money is lavished on buildings, musical instruments and salaries . ) When Paul wrote to Timothy saying evil men will wax worse and worse , deceiving and being deceived ...he was talking about professing believers ..I think he calls them seducers ..( The adulterous seeks the precious soul and many in church are committing spiritual adultery with the world ..worldly pursuits , entertainments and vain activities. ) beware of flattery ..find another believer with whom you may pray with and that loves you enough to speak truth . May our blessed God and the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ lead you into all truth through His Holy Spirit .
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
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
So straight up, are you saying that unless one is a Catholic and thus believes in and receives the Eucharist then they are not saved, or at least if they knowingly reject it, and will not be saved until they do? That is the obvious import of your words, so i do not expect you to make them of none effect by not confirming this.
Yet the Christ of Scripture was not incarnated in a body that looked, felt, acted and would scientifically test as a mere inanimate object, and yet which really did not exist, and instead what the people "saw" was an invisible Christ (as far as the manifestly incarnated Christ that was crucified for our sins and rose again), until non-existent host element began to decay.
Instead, the only Christ of Scripture the people saw was the Word always was made manifest in a body, being the Word that "was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 5:6)
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us
(1 John 1:1-2)Including after His resurrection:
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. (John 20:27)
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 15:4-6)
And thus when Scripture says that believers will made like Christ, then it is not speaking of them looking a bit of bread, but a real, if glorified body which looks like one.
In contrast, if seeing the Son means looking at an inanimate object, then the early church hardly needed the bodily resurrected Christ, for they could have just said the same thing as you, that a piece of bread "really" was Christ, really! And that you are damned if you do not see what Catholics "see" with their mind.
This metaphysical Messiah is not that of Christ, nor a face-value literal reading of the so-called "words of consecration" which state what they were to consume was the body that was broken for them and the blood that was poured out, which thus would be the manifestly physical bloody body of Christ, versus something that would only look, feel, taste and test to be mere bread and wine. That's some incarnation.
While within docetism you had the belief that what Christ looked and behaved like, as manifestly being incarnated with a tangible real body of flesh and blood, was not real (Christ being a sort of phantom but looking human), in Catholicism you have the belief that (in transubstantiation) what Christ looks, feels, tastes and would test as (bread and wine), is not the reality (Christ's corporeal body and blood only looking like and otherwise materially evidencing themselves to be bread and wine).
As for Cath proffered "proof texts," to save me time look here, by the grace of God.
Upvote
0
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Minor correction: there was never a priestly class established by the apostles distinct from that of all believers.
For others who do not know this, consistent with her erroneous understanding of the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Catholicism came to consider NT pastors to be a distinctive sacerdotal class of clergy, later called in English “priests” (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently calls them: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5) as the translation for the Greek word distinctively used only for a sacerdotal class of clergy, but which the Holy Spirit never does. For the words “hiereus” and “archiereus" ("priest" and "high priest" as in Heb. 4:15; 10:11) are the Greek words which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for a separate sacerdotal (sacrificing) class in the New Testament (over 280 times total*, mainly as archiereus”) that of Old Testament "priests" (Hebrew ko^he^n) as well as those of pagans and the general priesthood of all NT believers. But which words He never uses for New Testament pastors ("poime¯n"), which are called presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer), which as shown above, refers to those in one pastoral office. (Titus 1:5,7; Acts 20:17,28.
The English word "priest" is a etymological corruption of the Greek presbuteros, if with uncertainty, being referred to in Old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," which is also used for Old Testament ko^he^n, thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers.
R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) (while yet trying to defend the use of "priest"), reveals, "The Greek word for this office is...[hiereus], which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos [as for ko^he^n]. First century Christians [actually the Holy Spirit who inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest [from old English "preost"] took on its definition." (Russell Jonas Grigaitis)
And a Orthodox historian scholar admits that "the word "priesthood" is itself a corruption of the Greek "presbyter." (John Anthony McGuckin, "The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture)
All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere are NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distinctive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, and Catholicism attempts to justify using the same distinctive word for both OT "ko^he^n" and NT presbuteros via an imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbuteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function. Yet neither presbuteros or episkopos are described as having any unique sacrificial function, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.
Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."
"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist." (Catholic Customs & Traditions)
Moreover, instead of dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, and offering the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin, neither of which NT pastors are ever described as doing in the life of the church (Acts onward, which writings show us how the NT church understood the gospels), instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4; 2 Tim.4:2)) by which they “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) ) for the word is called spiritual "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; ;Acts 15:7-9; cf. Psalms 19:7) In contrast, nowhere in the record of the NT church is the Lord's supper described as spiritual food, and the means of obtaining spiritual life in oneself.
Thus the Catholic practice of using the same term for Old Testaments priests and for NT pastors, thereby making the latter into being a separate sacerdotal class of believers, distinctive from the only priesthood in the NT church (all believers) is not Scriptural or justifiable. Instead of using the same term for Old Testaments priests and for NT pastors, the latter should be called elders or overseers or equivalents which correlate to the original meaning and keeps the distinction the Holy Spirit made evident.
In response to a query on this issue, the web site of International Standard Version (not my preferred translation) states,
No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people.
Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description.
To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. (http://isvbible.com/catacombs/elders.htm)
Neither the Hebrew word, "ko^he^n," nor the Greek word "hiereus," or the Latin word "sacerdos" (plural, "sacerdotes") for priest have any essential connection to the Greek word presbyteros, and sacerdos has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter” (for which technicalities I rely on the knowledge of others, by God's grace). And hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.
Jewish elders (Hebrew "zaqen") as a body existed before the priesthood of Levitical priests (Hebrew "kohen"), most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) While elders could exercise some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, yet unlike presbuteros and episkopos (Greek), elders and priest did not mean the same thing in language or in distinctive function. Like very young Samuel, one could be a kohen/priest without being an zaqen/elder, and one could be a elder without formally being a priest, whose primary function was to offer expiatory sacrifices for the people.
Note also that etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, but etymologies are not definitions (examples: "cute" used to mean bow-legged; "bully" originally meant darling or sweetheart; "Nice" originally meant stupid or foolish; "counterfeit" used to mean a legitimate copy; "egregious" originally connoted eminent or admirable). It is an etymological fallacy to hold that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase means it is the same as its original or historical meaning. Since presbyteros incorrectly evolved into priest (and were assigned an imposed unique sacerdotal function) therefore it is erroneously considered to be valid to distinctively use the same distinctive term used for OT priests for NT pastors, despite the Holy Spirit never doing so and the lack of the unique sacerdotal function Catholicism attributes to NT presbyteros.
Finally, a literary source laments,
Heaven and hell alone will tell all the mischief which has been done to men's souls by the double meaning of our word 'priest.' In the Old English Bible ' presbyter ' was rendered by 'preost,' and 'sacerdos' or 'hiereus' by 'sacerd.' Now, neither has 'preost' the 'uteros' of 'presbuteros,' nor has the latter the '0' of 'preost.' 'Preost' seems to have been a form of 'prafost,' and to have been, as such, accommodated to the expression of 'presbuteros'; for this reason, that 'prafost' or 'prafast' signified exactly what a 'presbyter' was in the ancient Church, namely, a president or rector.
If 'priest' represents 'preost,' it does so badly in form; for it [priest] has an 'i,' which 'preost' has not, and it has not an '0,' which 'preost' has; and it represents it utterly falsely in meaning, for it means both elder and sacrificer, both 'presbuteros' and 'hiereus ' or 'sacerdos,' whilst 'preost,' [for presbuteros] as I have said before, did not do this.
Accordingly, neither in form nor in meaning does 'priest' represent either 'preost' or 'presbuteros'... (Aarbert: A Drama Without Stage Or Scenery, Wrought Out Through Song in Many ... by William Marshall, p. 38. Transcribed using OCR software. In his time he apparently wanted to stop using "priest" for the equivalent of the Jewish ko^he^n and Greek “hiereus,” and use it for presbuteros instead, as it essentially once was, but seeing as "priest" is well established denoting the Jewish ko^he^n and Greek “hiereus,”, and since "elder" or "overseer" correlates to the original meaning and keeps the distinction the Holy Spirit made evident, then the latter should be used, or equivalents.)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Charlie Mac
New Member
- Apr 12, 2017
- 3
- 0
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
This debate is as old as the new testament. Even Paul and James seemed to take differing points of view (although I think it is simply how you read them) "once saved, always saved" was how many described the beliefs of Southern Babtist, among many others. "Entire Sanctification" is another point of view ascribed by other groups of protestants (meaning salvation is a lifelong work). It comes down to something we can never know but only speculate about, at what point are Christians "saved". Whereas Paul spoke long and eloquently about grace that can't be earned, James felt it comes down to how you live. A born again believer behaves differently than his nature demands. Believers bear the "fruit of the spirit". But the difference in the Love, Joy, gentleness, meekness, etc. of a believer is that our fruit contains seed that compels non-believers to desire what it is we, as believers, have. I can only truly speak for myself, and in a bold act of faith, I speak for my family. "...As for me and my house, we Will serve the Lord!"
Upvote
0
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
If this is true, then god is a psychpath who couldnt be bothered to care for his creation. Itsike a married couple who sires children only to auction them off to cannabistic pedophiles as soon as theyre born. God hates most people and came to destroy most of them. If he really wanted to save, he couldve done a better job
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Poll
