History of the "Born Again Christian" movement.

redleghunter · Oct 17, 2018

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Ignatius seems to imply a difference between the functions of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon that does not accord with your understanding of the clergy.

Trallians 3:3 In like manner let all men respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as they should respect the bishop as being a type of the Father and the presbyters as the council of God and as the college of Apostles. Apart from these there is not even the name of a church.

Ignatius draws a symbolic connection between the Father and the Bishop while making a different sort of symbolic connection between the presbyters and Apostles. This would indicate at least some difference in their function, that they were not merely terms used to describe the same office or position in the Church even in Ignatius' time. This isn't the only time distinctions are mentioned:

To Polycarp (6) Pay attention to the bishop, if you would have God pay attention to you. I offer myself up for those who obey the bishop, priests and deacons. May it be my lot to be with them in God. Toil and train together, run and suffer together, rest and rise at the same time, as God’s stewards, assistants and servants.

It seems to me here Ignatius is casting the role of the Bishop as Steward, Presbyter Assistants and Deacons as servants. Even if as you argue they were more or less interchangeable terms those differences were emerging in the time of Ignatius hence I don't think you can rope Ignatius into being someone akin to a modern Evangelical. I wouldn't even rope him in for being a modern Orthodox Christian though the character of his epistles is more in line with Orthodoxy's understanding of these matters than any others.

Still I don't think any of this goes to address the OP's original point. Historically what does one do about the absence of a Born again movement throughout much of and I would say all of Church history till the current day?

I agree ecclesiastical duties developed with time. But such was not found in the New Testament Church.

Cis.jd · Oct 17, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
Tell me how an authoritative body of Scripture had quite manifestly been established by the time of Christ, from which both He and the NT church therefore appealed to in substantiating Truth claims. In RC theology, one cannot even discover the contents of the Bible apart from faith in her.

Scripture wasn't established (or canonized) during the time of Christ. Unless you are talking about the OT. The scriptures say that there are things that Jesus taught his apostles that were not written and during the time of their careers they preached and wrote to evangelize the world. Until the time of Constantine, there was no actual canon and from the time of Pentecost and to Nero there was no scripture for Christians to use to tell them what to adhere. It was all Jesus apostles passing down what he taught them to their apostles, and their apostles later passing it down to theirs, all the way down to the church we have now.

PeaceByJesus · Oct 17, 2018

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Ignatius seems to presume that Church is necessary to the Christian life. Evangelicalism says its good to have a Church but ultimately not necessary when compared to faith alone.

Where do you get the idea that "faith alone" apparently means faith that is alone, not being necessarily a faith which effects obedience by the Spirit, which includes the church being an instrument of God whereby we have the Scriptures as the sure word of God, and faith thereby? Do you think the affirmation of the sufficiency means it formally provides all that is needed?

PeaceByJesus · Oct 17, 2018

redleghunter said:
Catholics believe one cannot be born again (John 3) unless they are Catholic and physically partake of sacraments. Putting the church in possession of the sovereignty to declare one born again.

Actually it is to the opposite extreme, that a soul can become born again and fit for Heaven even without the Scripturally required personal repentant faith, (Acts 2:38; 8:36-37) with the act itself of baptism effecting this, even if by a Buddhist, etc., as long as he is intending to do as the RCC does, and uses proper form and matter. Thus usually a Baptist convert to Rome need not be rebaptized. (They just need to be converted to saving faith.)

redleghunter · Oct 17, 2018

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
I can't imagine any Evangelical or adherrent to the modern born again theology believing Church communion is just as necessary as faith in Christ.

Imagine no more. If your opinion is colored with the self proclaimed unchurched on internet sites I can see why you come to this conclusion.

The Apostle’s epistle to the Ephesians is quite instructive on the importance of walking in the Holy Spirit with the brethren.

PeaceByJesus · Oct 17, 2018

Cis.jd said:
Scripture wasn't established (or canonized) during the time of Christ. Unless you are talking about the OT.

I presumed that was obvious.

The scriptures say that there are things that Jesus taught his apostles that were not written

Not only, but "there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." (John 21:25)

And so you presume that your church has preserved at least some of this database, but the issue is just how is this wellspring of tradition verifiable, or what is the basis for assurance of the veracity of your church in asserting that certain things are from this deep well are the word of God? And are necessary? Read on.

As for necessity, note that God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31) Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)

And notice the distinction btwn what could be known, and the form of that which what is to be known:

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30-31)

and during the time of their careers they preached and wrote to evangelize the world. Until the time of Constantine, there was no actual canon and from the time of Pentecost and to Nero there was no scripture for Christians to use to tell them what to adhere. It was all Jesus apostles passing down what he taught them to their apostles, and their apostles later passing it down to theirs, all the way down to the church we have now.

And so Catholic popes and prelates speak as wholly inspired of God, and also provide new public express revelation thereby, as men such as the apostles could? If not, what is the basis for assurance of the veracity of your church in declaring such?

Is it (as some seem to argue) that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God? And what about the EOs?

redleghunter · Oct 17, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
However, just where in Scripture does it say to become a Born again Christian then all one needs to do is be baptized, even without personal repentant faith, which is the requirement for baptism?

Yes that is the pertinent question.

redleghunter · Oct 17, 2018

Cis.jd said:
Remember, there is no where in scripture that states what books are canon.

Jesus settles the OT canon in Luke 24:44-50

The apostles established their writings as Holy Spirit inspired by giving evidence of OT scriptures to prove their claims but also in deed and in the Power of God.

That is why long before a canon the early church recognized the authoritative nature of the apostolic works.

Irenaeus even calling those works of the apostles the pillar and foundation of our faith.

Hillsage · Oct 17, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
In general, I would suggest more education on the issue other than what you seem to have from sources such as "Catholic Answers." See, by God's grace,
Supplement C: The Canon and the Apocrypha
and even more in depth,
Luther and the Canon of Scripture

Actually, I never commented on anything based upon "Catholic Answers" which I've never seen/read. And I appreciate your other reference recommendations, but am not inclined to go study them. At 69 years of age, and as a Christian since '72' I have eaten enough off my plate, as concerns topics like these. I'm getting more interested in things that will enable me to 'walk the walk' rather than 'talk the talk', but thank you anyway.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Oct 17, 2018

redleghunter said:
Critical to growth of both the Christian and fellowship of other church members.

Didn't answer my question.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Oct 17, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
One should need to see what words are in the original in your cases, but regardless, the Fact is that as
redleghunter said: ↑
Bishop, Presbyter, Elder are all the same office in the NT.
There were no [separate sacerdotal Catholic] priests in the NT church. That was a later development.

Titus 1:5-7: Bishops and elders were one: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position). Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also what were ordained for every church in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1. This does not exclude that there could have been “archbishops/elders” in the New Testament church who were head pastors over others, but there is no titular distinctions in Scripture denoting such, and which distinctions are part of the hierarchical class distinctions which came later, and foster love of titles and position which the Lord warned about. (Mk. 10:42-44; Mt. 23:8-10).

Which is contrary to Catholic teaching (“Since the beginning, the ordained ministry has been conferred and exercised in three degrees: that of bishops, that of presbyters, and that of deacons” — CCC 1593), and the fourth century Roman Catholic scholar Jerome (347-420), confirms,

“The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptised, instead of leaving them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. And this is not my private opinion, it is that of Scripture. If you doubt that bishop and presbyter are the same, that the first word is one of function, and the second one of age, read the epistle of the Apostle to the Philippians. Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution of the Lord. (Commentary on Tit. 1.7, quoted. in “Religions of authority and the religion of the spirit," pp. 77,78. 1904, by AUGUSTE SABATIER. A similar translated version of this is provided by "Catholic World," Volume 32, by the Paulist Fathers, 1881, pp. 73,74).

As for the Catholic priesthood,
the words “hiereus” and “archiereus" (translated "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 of persons in the New Testament (over 280 times total*) and for pagan sacerdotal ministers and the general priesthood of all NT believers, which correspond to the Old Testament word for a separate class of sacerdotal ministers (Hebrew “kohen”). But which the Holy Spirit never uses for New Testament pastors ("poime¯n"), but instead He calls them presbuteros (senior/elder, referring to position or age) and episkopos (superintendent/overseer, referring to function) which denote those in the same office. (Titus 1:5-7: Acts 20:17,28; Phil. 1:1)

The English word "priest" is a etymological corruption of the Greek presbuteros, being referred to in Old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest."

Orthodox historian scholar John Anthony McGuckin 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)

Russell Jonas Grigaitis (O.F.S.) (while yet trying to defend the use of "priest"), informs,

"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." (http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html)

The problem is that translating both "hiereus" and "presbuteros" as "priest" (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently calls them: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5) means that the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term “hiereus” for NT presbuteros (and never manifesting them as having the Catholic unique sacerdotal function) is lost.

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, which Catholicism attempts to justify via an imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbuteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.

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)

Yet neither presbuteros or episkopos are described as having any unique sacrificial function. Rather than 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 (besides prayer) is 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 op the Catholic corruption of the Lord's supper, 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.

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.

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" [in the OT sense] 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)

It is revealing how Catholics can find prayer to created in Beings in Heaven despite there not being one single one among the over 200 prayers by believers the Holy Spirit inspired the recording of, but for which they extrapolate support for based upon principal, yet they cannot see the born again movement in Scripture based upon the principal of reaction to religion without regeneration.

For the latter was exactly what the issue was in John 3, a devout religionist being told he must be born again of the Spirit. And which we see in Scripture on response to believing the gospel (see my previous post above).

And thus, faced with institutionalized religion, then just as emphasis upon Trinitiarian religion came to be expressly emphasized in response to Arianism, so emphasis upon regeneration by faith come to be emphasized by the likes of George Whitefield, (1714 – 1770) thanks be to God.

Not a Catholic.

redleghunter · Oct 17, 2018

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Didn't answer my question.

I think I did. You were making a distinction between personal faith and abiding in Christ and if Evangelicals see the same commitment to church body.

I declared the affirmative in my response. Because we are called to love the brethren and work diligently in all aspects of church ministry. This extends to the community as well and missionaries.

Therefore the “Solo Meo” straw man is just that.

PeaceByJesus · Oct 17, 2018

Hillsage said:
Actually, I never commented on anything based upon "Catholic Answers" which I've never seen/read. And I appreciate your other reference recommendations, but am not inclined to go study them. At 69 years of age, and as a Christian since '72' I have eaten enough off my plate, as concerns topics like these. I'm getting more interested in things that will enable me to 'walk the walk' rather than 'talk the talk', but thank you anyway.

At 66.5 and and as a Christian since '77 I affirm your priority is correct, as needed, but if you are going to post faulty Catholic answers in a debate, even if not from "Catholic Answers," then I would recommended you get a little more education, though I do sympathize with the lack of energy to do as much as you could have earlier.

PeaceByJesus · Oct 17, 2018

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Not a Catholic.

Tell me what substantial difference there is in this regard.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Oct 17, 2018

redleghunter said:
I think I did. You were making a distinction between personal faith and abiding in Christ and if Evangelicals see the same commitment to church body.

I declared the affirmative in my response. Because we are called to love the brethren and work diligently in all aspects of church ministry. This extends to the community as well and missionaries.

Therefore the “Solo Meo” straw man is just that.

I'm still not seeing the absolute affirmation of it's necessity in the Christianity by you. What does necessity mean? It means that it is important to our salvation to be grafted into the Church. Perhaps this is where we differ because Evangelicals tend not to hold the Orthodox position that the Church itself is the body of Christ but is something primarily invisible, a list of people known only to God.

Ignatius' idea of the Church is primarily visible, seen in it's constituent members, laity and clergy whom each have their responsibility within the one body. For Ignatius to not be joined to a Church (a legitimate Church), is to not be Christian. Few of us would go that far today. I'm somewhat softer than Ignatius though I understand his position at the time given the emerging threats of Gnosticism and other errors. If as others have said in this thread, all that matters in establishing one as part of the Church is confession of faith in Christ which is the typical Protestant position, I can't see how you're not avoiding making a definitive statement on the necessity of Church.

Note that I have already accepted that you view it as important, but that is quite another thing from saying that it is necessary. The only thing really necessary in Evangelicalism is simple belief in Christ right? Detached from all other concerns or realities? Or am i mistaken>

redleghunter · Oct 17, 2018

Cis.jd said:
Right, from the apostles. Hence the answer to your question "...time of Irenaeus was apostolic tradition ".

Actually no. They had the NT writings of the apostles.

redleghunter · Oct 17, 2018

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
I'm still not seeing the absolute affirmation of it's necessity in the Christianity by you. What does necessity mean? It means that it is important to our salvation to be grafted into the Church. Perhaps this is where we differ because Evangelicals tend not to hold the Orthodox position that the Church itself is the body of Christ but is something primarily invisible, a list of people known only to God.

An erroneous assumption.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Oct 17, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
Tell me what substantial difference there is in this regard.

Is this a real question? Why do you think the Orthodox and Catholics aren't unified today? I can tell you it's not a minor point of Ecclesiology that forbids union at this time.

redleghunter · Oct 17, 2018

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Note that I have already accepted that you view it as important, but that is quite another thing from saying that it is necessary. The only thing really necessary in Evangelicalism is simple belief in Christ right? Detached from all other concerns or realities? Or am i mistaken>

Yes you are mistaken. The Evangelical Church I belong to has regional, national and international ties which were established by church planting. When I traveled from Texas to Hawaii my pastor sent a note to the pastor of our sister church in Honolulu to welcome me and family.

Church planting is a core mission for the network of churches I belong to. One does not plant churches if they don’t see such as central to the Christian faith and Body of Christ.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Oct 17, 2018

redleghunter said:
An erroneous assumption.

If I have made an error regarding Evangelicalism's view of the Church then correct me. As I understand the Protestant position generally on this subject, a member of the true Church is anyone who has faith in Christ regardless of denomination. Thus you probably allow for the possibility of even some Catholics or Orthodox being saved (unless you're CARM or Pulpit and Pen levels of partisan). This can only be justified on the premise that the true Church is invisible, known only to God and no one organised body on earth can lay claim to represent God's body completely. If I'm wrong, correct me because I've tried to be fair.

Also I would like to know, do you consider anything besides simple faith in Jesus Christ as necessary? I know you consider many things good, many things perhaps even absolutely important, but are they necessary in the grand scheme of things?

History of the "Born Again Christian" movement.

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Thank You Jesus!

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Dissident

Dissident

Thank You Jesus!

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Dissident

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Dissident

Thank You Jesus!

Dissident

Similar threads