• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Did God institute High Priests, Baptism, Eucharist, Papacy?

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by AnticipateHisComing, Sep 12, 2017.

  1. AnticipateHisComing

    AnticipateHisComing Newbie Supporter

    +363
    Christian
    Married
    Four questions, four answers; then is there something common to all four?

    1) Did God institute the office of High Priests? Yes, so clear from scripture.
    Exodus 28:1 “Have Aaron your brother brought to you from among the Israelites, along with his sons Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, so they may serve me as priests. 2 Make sacred garments for your brother Aaron to give him dignity and honor. 43 “This is to be a lasting ordinance for Aaron and his descendants."

    2) Did God institute the sacrament of Baptism? Yes, so clear from scripture.
    Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

    3) Did God institute the sacrament of the Lord's Supper? Yes, so clear from scripture.
    Luke 22:19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
    20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

    1 Corinthians 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

    4) Did God institute the office of the Papacy? Not clear from scripture, debated so much.
    I don't wish to get into that red herring of Peter was the first Pope. I just want people to acknowledge that the scriptural support for the Papacy as a lasting office is not even close to the scripture support for other important offices and sacraments. Further, scripture records the practice of the High Priests, baptisms and the Lord's Supper succeeding in time. There is no scripture recording Peter giving his "key" to another. Further when Jesus gave a key to Peter, he also gave them to the other apostles and said there would be 12 thrones in heaven; I think there have been more than 12 Popes. As for the argument that the Church has a shepherd, we know that the one Shepherd is the Son of God.

    Why would God leave it up to one contentious text to institute something as important as giving one in the office both infallibility and supreme authority over the Church? If God could write out the 10 commandments, Jesus could have been a lot clearer in instituting the Papacy if that was what he wanted to exist.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  2. 2Timothy2:15

    2Timothy2:15 Well-Known Member

    +586
    Christian
    Married

    This is where understanding the difference between the old and new covenant comes to be important.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  3. AnticipateHisComing

    AnticipateHisComing Newbie Supporter

    +363
    Christian
    Married
    It is not about the old and new covenant. It is about do you trust God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit gave us clear instructions with repeated references to the most important concepts and commands he would have us to know and follow.

    I believe the Papacy to be an unfortunate side effect of the first Christian state church. I believe that Jesus destroyed the centralized leadership of his Church. Evidenced by the destruction of the temple and sacrifices in it by a high priest.

    Is this what you mean by the difference between the old and new covenant? Old covenant executed through a central office, new covenant that had many scattered churches with equal authority where Christ is the head of them through the Holy Spirit.
     
  4. Oscarr

    Oscarr Senior Veteran Supporter

    +1,779
    New Zealand
    Pentecostal
    Married
    I have to be careful about my answers to this one because I don't want appear to be flaming any particular denomination that has these as a feature of their worship.

    I think that God is more concerned about what is in a believer's heart and his attitude to Christ than the forms of worship he decides to engage in.

    [/quote]1) Did God institute the office of High Priests? Yes, so clear from scripture.
    Exodus 28:1 “Have Aaron your brother brought to you from among the Israelites, along with his sons Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, so they may serve me as priests. 2 Make sacred garments for your brother Aaron to give him dignity and honor. 43 “This is to be a lasting ordinance for Aaron and his descendants."[/quote]
    This was a role in the Temple worship in Old Testament Israel. The High Priest was the mediator between God and the others. He was the only person permitted to enter the Holy of Holies to have direct fellowship with God. But when Jesus died on the cross, the Temple curtain was ripped apart from top to bottom to show that God was no longer in the Temple Holy of Holies, but He was preparing a new temple - the body of born again Christian believers filled with the Holy Spirit.
    For Christians, there is no longer a need for a High Priest to mediate, because all believers are made priests who could approach God themselves through Christ who is now the only mediator between God and man.
    Believers' baptism is certainly a part of Christian observance. It is symbolic of the believer going down into the grave with Christ and then rising up out of the grave with Christ into new life. It is not the ceremony in itself, but what it stands for in the heart of the believer. Incidentally, there is no record of believers having had the words, "I baptise you in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost" or "...in the Name of Jesus." This shows that God doesn't care what name believers are baptised under. He approves of baptism whatever words are used, because He sees the heart of the person being baptised and the Holy Spirit doesn't get involved in doctrinal differences.

    Yes. But in the Early Church it was a very informal practice, usually in the context of a fellowship meal. In fact, according to the Scripture reference, we can remember the Lord's death every time we have a meal. But when the Church became formalised, the Lord's Supper became a formal ceremony, and instead of the Lord's Supper, it became the Lord's "snack" of a small wafer/piece of bread and a small mouthful of wine or grapejuice. But again, whether it is informal or formalised, the Lord looks at the heart of those entering into it, more than the ceremonial or informal words spoken in connection with it.
    Now this is a contentious point when discussing this with Roman Catholic believers. The office of the Papacy evolved over the first few centuries of the church as regional bishops were appointed after the First Century, and these merged together to become the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople. Then there was a major argument between the two and they excommunicated each other. The Bishop of Rome became the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and the Bishop of Constantinople became the head of the Greek Orthodox Church. These churches remained the only Christian churches for the next 1000 years, before the Protestant Reformation.

    Roman Catholics believe that the Papacy is instituted by God as part of the Apostolic succession from Peter, whom they believe was the first Pope. They base it on what Jesus said: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." To be fair, the Roman Catholic Church under the succession of Popes, preserved the basic doctrines of Christianity through the Dark Ages when Islam was a real threat to the Church. It was the armies of the emperors, loyal to the Pope who defeated the Muslim invaders in Spain and France and prevented its advance into Western Europe. The Catholic Crusaders halted the Muslin advances into Palestine and Greece, although Islam took over Turkey and put an end to the Christian Byzantine Empire.

    Many Christians revere the Pope as their spiritual leader and he is vitally important to their Christian faith. I am not going to argue against that. Again, God looks on the heart of people and their attitude to Christ. Revering the Pope is not a hindrance to salvation.
    I understand the reasoning. The Church is made up of many denominations, doctrines and theology. Some are found in Scripture, others are not. I don't believe that the Holy Spirit gets involved in these things. He is more concerned about a person's attitude to Christ. The right attitude to Christ is what unites Christian believers, even though some doctrines, practices, and theologies, if made more important than Christ to some - this is what can divide them.
    I think that the Lord gives us a choice about things. The Bible is not a Law-book. It is a guide to the nature and character of God and how He works with people in different time zones and places and dispensations. It is also the account of God's plan of salvation and how He has carried it out. It is also the record of the ministry of Jesus and how the Early Church started and grew. It also records the guide to holy living and appropriate representation of Christ in the world.

    The Old Testament is much more prescriptive than the New about how people should engage in the worship of God. This is because people had to be guided by a set of outward laws and rules. But when in the New Testament sinners became born again believers, the new law is written on the heart rather than a set of outward rules. This meant that the believer has more latitude (contrary to what some more legalistic folk would have us believe) about many things that seem vague in the New Testament. Church government, ceremonies, worship practices, etc., are left to believers' choices. When a believer's heart is right with God, then the Holy Spirit is able to guide that person in the most important aspects of Christian faith.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • List
  5. Lulav

    Lulav Well-Known Member Staff Member Administrator Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +4,943
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    Yes he did, but there is more to that, Eleazar's son, Phinchas was given the High Priesthood through his act of unselfish atonement offering. (read Num. 25) It is through his line that the Messiah came and the Priesthood continued.


    Actually baptism was something also instituted during the days of the giving of Torah as was the Aaronic priesthood. This immersion was a part of holiness, so it goes back to about the time they left Egypt as the book of Hebrews says they were all immersed on the way out and they also were in the river Jordon on the way into the promised land.

    This also comes from the time of leaving Egypt and was to be celebrated every year in honor of the saving of the people from out of slavery (sin). The fulfillment was when the true lamb came to save his people, this is what is to be celebrated, once a year at Passover.

    Agree. Actually a study (which is hard to do because those in charge of the history have hidden it) will show that James, the brother of Jesus was the next in line to lead the 'church', and this was to be kept in the family. They are called the 'Desposyni' which means, belonging to the Lord. This is speaking of his blood relatives.

    A careful reading of 1Corinthians 15:7 shows that the first person that saw the arisen Messiah was his brother James.

    I believe everything that was ever needed to follow the Lord was written down. As I said the leadership in Jerusalem was what Jesus set up, which was a Jewish leadership. However through the Roman wars they were persecuted, but some escaped but were later hunted down because they threatened the powers that be who had taken over the body as their own.
     
  6. Lulav

    Lulav Well-Known Member Staff Member Administrator Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +4,943
    United States
    Messianic
    Married

    " I believe that Jesus destroyed the centralized leadership of his Church. Evidenced by the destruction of the temple and sacrifices in it by a high priest. "

    Why on earth would he do that? I may not be understanding what you are saying but it's like when the Hellenistic members of the Sanhedrin accused Jesus of being beelzabub and he told them that

    Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.
     
  7. AnticipateHisComing

    AnticipateHisComing Newbie Supporter

    +363
    Christian
    Married
    Unfortunately, this Pope is not just a spiritual leader but has become a politician.
    Saying the same things politicians do, like calling a group of people stupid.
     
  8. Oscarr

    Oscarr Senior Veteran Supporter

    +1,779
    New Zealand
    Pentecostal
    Married
    In Acts, the High Priest slapped Paul and Paul turned around and said, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall", then, when told he was the High Priest, Paul apologised and quoted the Scripture, "You shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people" (Acts 23:1-4). Because the Pope is the leader of a Christian church, I am very hesitant, on the basis of the Acts passage, to say anything evil about him on a public forum. I believe that Luke included this because he wanted to show the example that Paul sets for all believers.
     
  9. AnticipateHisComing

    AnticipateHisComing Newbie Supporter

    +363
    Christian
    Married
    Since you are in the States, it is like a balance between state rule and federal rule. Different states have different laws, it doesn't mean they have to be divided. The main law comes from a core constitution, governing the important details. Smaller details can be managed independent of the central government.

    The RCC would be like a federal government making all the laws not allowing any differences. I don't believe the early church acted in this manner. I think Revelation describes various churches with different characteristics and problems. The text has Jesus rebuking the various churches, not Peter or even a council in Jerusalem.
     
  10. AnticipateHisComing

    AnticipateHisComing Newbie Supporter

    +363
    Christian
    Married
    The high priests did have authority to lead the Jews, but that authority did get revoked when the temple was destroyed. The big difference as my OP argues is that the Pope does not have authority from God to be the leader of all Christians. If I was RC, it would be bad for me to criticize him. As I am not, I am calling out an example of how errant he is, especially when he is more concerned with social/political issues than religious ones. It is more proof that the office is not instituted by God.

    Did I say something about the Pope that was evil? I guess it is OK for him to call a President and millions of people stupid though.
     
  11. Lulav

    Lulav Well-Known Member Staff Member Administrator Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +4,943
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    I would beg to differ with that assessment as the HP at that time was an appointment of Rome. The true ruler, as Paul should have known, was Jesus and he told his Apostles, that they have but one master, one Father, one teacher and that was him and his father.
     
  12. Lulav

    Lulav Well-Known Member Staff Member Administrator Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +4,943
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    Not sure I'm following you on that first part. The second, if you are speaking of Revelation that is said to have been written after the destruction of the Temple and the Jerusalem Congregation.

    Did you read my first post?
     
  13. AnticipateHisComing

    AnticipateHisComing Newbie Supporter

    +363
    Christian
    Married
    There was a transition time where the HP did still have authority even after Jesus came. The destruction of the temple was the end of it though.

    Hebrews 8:13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
     
  14. Oscarr

    Oscarr Senior Veteran Supporter

    +1,779
    New Zealand
    Pentecostal
    Married
    The fact remains that even thought Paul knew who his real Master was, he still aligned himself with Scripture concerning his attitude to being told that he had insulted the High Priest. He respected the position the High Priest had, although he had little respect for the man. In the same way, we respect the Pope in his position as head of the Roman Catholic Church, but we don't have to agree with what he says and does.
     
  15. AnticipateHisComing

    AnticipateHisComing Newbie Supporter

    +363
    Christian
    Married
    You associated different leaders with a divided kingdom. I gave an example where you can have different leaders with a United States, doesn't mean you have a divided kingdom.
    My point, no central bureaucratic organization or authority in one person or a council was responsible for keeping the various seven churches in line.
    Yes, my biggest differing point would be your assertion that the 12 apostles set up in Jerusalem had governing authority over the whole Church. I believe Paul was given his own authority to guide the Gentile church. I think the only reason he went belatedly to Jerusalem was to meet the apostles and set Peter straight.
     
  16. Lulav

    Lulav Well-Known Member Staff Member Administrator Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +4,943
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    Do you know what an 'angel' is in respect to a congregation? Do you understand that the meaning of these congregations was not about an organization or about keeping anyone in line?

    James was given the charge from his brother, Peter also served with him and we can see this synergism in the notes on the meeting in Acts 15 and John had his part as well. This is based on the premise of two or three witnesses. Two of the three of them were blood relatives of Jesus as well.

    Peter didn't need to be 'set straight' about anything. In fact if you read that thoroughly you see that James makes it clear in the council meeting that Peter was sent to the Gentiles (Cornelius and his household). Does it make sense that 12 Jews would be only sent to the Jews and 1 Jew would be sent to all Gentiles? That Jesus would send those who lived, ate, slept, worshiped, sat under him to only the Jews, but only one who never knew him and witnessed all the things he did would be sent to all the Gentiles?

    But we can agree to disagree. :)
     
  17. OrthodoxyUSA

    OrthodoxyUSA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,327
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    Just a few notes to add from the Orthodox Christian POV:

    Sts. Peter and Paul considered themselves equals.

    St. James was unanimously elected in Jerusalem, not assigned.

    All Bishops are liturgically equals. Anything else is for administrative purposes.

    The office of Metropolitan (a government system) among Bishop's started in the 260's for "housekeeping" (economia) reasons.

    The Pentarchy (another government system styled after the Roman government) started in the 300's primarily due to size and Christianity becoming legal. "Their relationship with each other, despite various periods of rivalry and dispute, was generally in terms of fraternal equality and conciliatory." Each See was considered liturgically complete and recognized as autocephalous.
    • Jerusalem - James 33ad
    • Antioch - Peter and Paul 38ad
    • Alexandria - Mark 38ad
    • Rome - Peter 42ad
    • Constantinople - Andrew 62ad

    Pentarchy - OrthodoxWiki
    "After the seventh-century Arab conquests and the Byzantine loss of the Rome-Ravenna corridor, only Constantinople's patriarchate remained securely within the capital of the Roman Empire—the Pope at Rome was independent (see Gregory the Great), Jerusalem and Alexandria were under Muslim rule, and Antioch was on the front lines of hundreds of years of recurring border warfare between the Byzantine Empire and the Arab Caliphate. Also during the Middle Ages, the center of gravity of Christendom had shifted northward, and the majority of Christians in Muslim-ruled Egypt and Syria were Non-Chalcedonians who refused to recognize the authority of either Rome or Constantinople. Together, these historical-political changes meant that the original ideal of five great co-operating centers of administration of the whole Christian Church grew ever more remote from practical reality."

    The word "Pope" was not exclusive to Rome. Any Bishop may have been called that if the language of the people was Latin.

    Forgive me...
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2017
  18. OrthodoxyUSA

    OrthodoxyUSA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,327
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    I have never heard a Roman Catholic explain that Peter's statement in Matthew 16:16 became the first baptismal creed of The Church. I have to wonder if that is not taught in their catechism, and why would they leave out such a detail.

    Mat 16:16
    And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

    Act 8:37
    And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

    Forgive me...
     
  19. LittleLambofJesus

    LittleLambofJesus PESKY DEVIL! GIT! l SAID GIT! Supporter

    +13,934
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    Who was was Chief Priest when the Romans sieged and destroyed Jerusalem and Temple in 70AD?
    Didn't Jesus tell the High Priest that he would be seeing Jesus coming on the clouds of heaven? Perhaps clouds are symbolic of armies?

    Matt 26:
    64
    Jesus Is saying to him "thou say, moreover I am saying to ye, from present/now ye shall be seeing the Son of the Man sitting out of rights of the power and coming upon the clouds of the heaven". [Jeremiah 4:13Reve 1:7/6:16]
    25
    Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!

    Romans 2:
    23 Who in law are boasting through the transgression of the Law, the God thou are dishonoring
    24 'For the name of the God is being blasphemed in the nations' because of ye, according as it has been written. [Psalm 74:10]

    Revelation 1:7
    Behold! He is coming with the clouds and shall be seeing Him every eye.........

    The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD

    "I consider the Prophecy relative to the destruction of the Jewish nation,
    if there were nothing else to support Christianity, as absolutely irresistible."

    (Mr. Erskine's Speech, at the Trial of Williams, for publishing Paine's Age of Reason)

    ..... The Temple now presented little more than a heap of ruins.........

    For five days after the destruction of the Temple, the priests who had escaped, sat, pining with hunger, on the top of one of its broken walls;
    at length, they came down, and humbly asked the pardon of Titus, which, however, he refused to grant them, saying, that, "as the Temple, for the sake of which he would have spared them, was destroyed, it was but fit that its priests should parish also:" -whereupon he commanded that they should be put to death...........

    Mal 2:
    7
    “For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge,
    And people should seek the law from his mouth;
    For he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.
    8
    But you have departed from the way;

    You have caused many to stumble at the law.
    You have corrupted the covenant of Levi,”Says the LORD of hosts.
    9
    “Therefore I also have made you contemptible and base before all the people,
    Because you have not kept My ways, But have shown partiality in the law.”

     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2017
  20. 1213

    1213 Disciple of Jesus

    +308
    Christian
    Single
    For this I want to say:

    For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
    Mat. 23:4-12

    If “Christians” are really disciples of Jesus, they should live as Jesus taught. For disciples of Jesus, Jesus is the high priest and teacher, disciples are brothers.


    Now in the things which we are saying, the main point is this. We have such a high priest, who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.

    Hebrews 8:1-2
     
Loading...