God's Order in the Church vs Man's Order

[LoveofTruth]

To all:

Paul said,


2 Corinthians 1:24
"Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand."

The word dominion here in greek means to control over or have supreme authority over as a master in title etc. Overseers and elders, apostolic workers etc, are not Lording over others in control over them or in some supreme authority. But they are helpers , watching over not Lording over.

But how many times do we see in the traditions of men the opposite to pals words here.

Paul saw it in his day also and had to rebuke those in gatherings for having men who exalt themselves over others and bring them into bondgage taking from them and smiting them on the face 2 Cor 11. He also warned them night and day with tears that men would rise up from among them drawing away disciples after themselves. He warned that all seek their own not the things which are Jesus Christ. False Lords over the flock have always been a problem and issue. As we see today as well.

Even in the past inIsrael they wanted a king to rule over them. And by doing so God said they stopped wanting him to reign over them. Jesus warned about this to not to be as the gentile authority and dominion over others as Lords. But as servants and ministers.

The word servant and minister today has been twisted to mean, the man who sits in the great chair over all and gets the money and fame and power over your faith and who is in control and supreme authority over others

 

[PeaceByJesus]

It is discourteous to other members to copy and paste material in debates.

I write all of my apologetics form scratch in order to ensure I properly respond to the points raised by each interlocutor. This, I believe, is thenonly reasonable way to do theology debates.

According to you, while Caths regularly, even usually reiterate standard Cath polemics, and thus portions of my standard refutations are entirety fitting. And enables my to respond in a more timely manner than spending even more time with my stiff, arthritic fingers, requiring me to lift up my hands for every letter (taking hours to type such responses as today's).

But what is also typical among Caths is resorting to complaints as yours in response to what refutes them.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Wait what? Are you suggesting Jesus is inferior to the Bible?

John 1:1-14 clearly identifies Jesus as the Word of God, who is God Himself.

Wait what? Jesus commanded man to live by the Word as He did, the doing of it being His "meat, not that He was inferior to it, while consistent with your perverse reasoning, the Eucharist is the only way to receive and be nourished by it, since according to you, and contrary to the context of the word as food which nourished, "the only way to feed the flock with the Word therefore is via the Eucharist."

Spare us even more spin.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

My Bible features very clear accounts of prayer to the saints.

Mine does.

More silence from Heaven.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The words of St. Ignatius are relatively more important than those of St. Jerome.

To you, while the words of Scripture are vastly more important than those of any so-called Cath church "father" (they were not). Ignatius may testify to the practice which Jerome state later arose, but as in this case, what is correctly stated is that that "bishop and presbyter are the same, that the first word is one of function, and the second one of age"/seniority and that the split into two offices " is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution of the Lord."

But i am tired of Catholics who dismiss any scholarly non-Catholic source if their findings are contrary to Roman propaganda, and then even Catholic ones if they do the same.

The two words are used interchangeably for those set over the flock to feed them.

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest 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, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; (Titus 1:5-7)

And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders [presbuteros] of the church.
(Acts 20:17)

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers [episkopos], to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
(Acts 20:28)

Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops [episkopos] and deacons: (Philippians 1:1)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

St. Jerome is neither specifically Roman Catholic (although a Latin Christian, he was under the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and therefore as much Eastern Orthodox as anything), nor is he infallible.

Even with church fathers venerated as a saints, their comments are only acceptable where they agree with the broader consensus of Holy Tradition.

I can even think of a case where the opinion of St. Athanasius, the most definitive and important early Church Father, was rejected (the OT canon).

Ah yes, once again we have a Cath type who will invoke ECFS but when he does not support them, then he is dismissed as he is not "infallible."

Indeed none of them are, nor is your church, nor was any authorative magisterial office of men promised perpetual ensured infallibility, despite more egregious extrapolative attempts by Caths to read it into Scripture.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The word priest is a corruption of the word Presbyter.

Presbyter is the formal title of Orthodox and Catholic priests. For example, a senior priest in the Orthodox Church is styled Protopresbyter or Archpresbyter. For example, noted 20th century theologian Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky.

So when we say Priest, we mean Presbyter.

All Christians are Hierii.

How you chose to use the term and its evolution is irrelevant as concerns what how it was used and what it meant in Scripture. Etymology does not give yo the original meaning, which it the case here, but it is 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.) Might as well support homosexual use of "gay" as being the original meaning.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

There have been many instances where the Eucharist has taken on a fleshynappearance, to the point that in the Orthodox church, if this happens, the priest is to send for the bishop.

One Muslim converted to the Orthodox Church after witnessing such an event. He was later martyred and became a saint.

Which as said, would be consistent with a face-vale (literal) reading, but which is plainly inconsistent with Eucharistic theology, which is the issue.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

This of course is inaccurate as a reading of the Gospel of John would confirm.

Which "of course" is merely begging the question, as it is the understanding by the NT church of John and words at the last super (which John does not provide) that is the issue, and which the record of the NT church (Acts onward) are interpretive of, and simply does not support the distinctively Catholic priestly Eucharistic show as described.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

On the contrary, the excavated synagogue at Dura Europos contains icons depicting a variety of OT events. This archaeological evidence suggests Judaic iconoclasm is not the ancient practice?

I myself have come to believe that Jewish iconoclasm, like Christian iconoclasm, originated in Islam. It is known that Byzantine politicians adopted iconoclasm in response to the military successes of the Ummayid Caliphate. I believe that the Judaic iconoclasm likewise originated as a reaction to Islam.

This is certainly what the archaeological record indicates.

The issue was OT Judaism, as stated, not whatever things developed outside of that, or was not commanded by God. Nor does even your record of icons mean that they were bowing/kneeling before such in excessive adulation and supplication of the created being it represented, which was the issue. Stop grasping things which simply do not refute what i said.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Well, the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria is elected by lottery.

Which is better, as far as the means. Just another difference btwn what both sides see tradition as teaching.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

On the contrary, the Eucharist of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic churhc is imp,icit in every book in the NT, a

Nonsense. A bare assertion of mere wishful thinking, but one who see the Eucharist as the only way to feed the flock with the Word.

"and explicit in the four Gospels, 1 Corinthians and elsewhere"

Wrong, as the understanding of the gospels by the NT church are manifest in the recorded life and teaching of it, and 1 Corinthians is the only manifest real description of it (aside from Jude 1:12), and which Corinthian accounts are not that of the priestly Cath Eucharist, with mere breaking of bread being elsewhere,

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I want to see you spend the same energy criticizing liberal Protestants that you spend criticizing Catholics or Orthodox.

If you find any promoting and defending their particular church as the one true one and denigrating all others, and claiming over a billion adherents, then such will warrant that equal energy. The cold war was not btwn the US and some 3rd world country.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

And enables my to respond in a more timely manner than spending even more time with my stiff, arthritic fingers, requiring me to lift up my hands for every letter (taking hours to type such responses as today's).

I also have stiff arthritic figures, and use an iPad. And yet I am composing everything for each individual member.

But what is also typical among Caths is resorting to complaints as yours in response to what refutes them.

No; I have complained about the posting style of Catholic members. Please do not refer to traditional Christians as "Caths" by the way; it is demeaning. I make a point of objecting when people call Protestants "Prots," by the way.

Wait what? Jesus commanded man to live by the Word as He did, the doing of it being His "meat, not that He was inferior to it, while consistent with your perverse reasoning, the Eucharist is the only way to receive and be nourished by it, since according to you, and contrary to the context of the word as food which nourished, "the only way to feed the flock with the Word therefore is via the Eucharist."

Spare us even more spin.

Are you of the opinion that Jesus Christ is inferior to the Bible? This is a simple yes or no question.

My Bible features very clear accounts of prayer to the saints.

More silence from Heaven.

No really, its in my Bible.

Ah yes, once again we have a Cath type who will invoke ECFS but when he does not support them, then he is dismissed as he is not "infallible."

Indeed none of them are, nor is your church, nor was any authorative magisterial office of men promised perpetual ensured infallibility, despite more egregious extrapolative attempts by Caths to read it into Scripture.

My Church is infallible. However we have no "authoritative magisterial office." We are not Roman Catholic.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

The cold war was not btwn the US and some 3rd world country.

The Soviet Union and the Eastern Block and Communist lands were reckoned "the Second World." The term "third world" referred to the usually impoverished neutral countries, for example, the Non-Aligned movement, but technically also includes Finland and Austria.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Nonsense. A bare assertion of mere wishful thinking, but one who see the Eucharist as the only way to feed the flock with the Word.

Nope. My view is clearly set forth in the works of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. Which you should obtain if for no other reason than to aid your polemics that address the Orthodox.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Wait what? Jesus commanded man to live by the Word as He did, the doing of it being His "meat, not that He was inferior to it, while consistent with your perverse reasoning, the Eucharist is the only way to receive and be nourished by it, since according to you, and contrary to the context of the word as food which nourished, "the only way to feed the flock with the Word therefore is via the Eucharist."

Spare us even more spin.

So John 1:1-14 saying Jesus Christ is God, is "spin"?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

But i am tired of Catholics who dismiss any scholarly non-Catholic source if their findings are contrary to Roman propaganda, and then even Catholic ones if they do the same.

I am not Roman Catholic.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Verbosity which one again evidences a lack of reading or comprehension of what refutes him, and is a poor excuse for a argument. I can imagine what you would tell souls following itinerant preachers who relied on Scriptural substantiation in word and in power to establish their claims but who were rejected by the historical authorative magisterium.

How any group said to have "true believers" and proper teachings from the Apostles could ever not stand together against abortions with Catholics is a question you need to ask Catholics, which can hardly be excused as a new movement which needed time to examine social issues.

"Stand together against abortions with Catholics?" Might as well as homosexual marriage to the list. See here by God's grace, or do I need to post some?

And do not try to relegate as excommunicated the vast multitude of liberal RCs, which is not your call, and Rome typically treats even proabortion, prohomosexual public figures as members in life and in death.

Not meaning to burst anyone's bubble, but let's not rewrite history when it makes us uncomfortable.
The Church was practically the soul voice of Christianity against abortion in the 60s. Note several of these links, like the first, are leading evangelical sources.

"Prior to Roe v. Wade in 1973, evangelicals were, with a few notable exceptions, confused and uncertain about the question of abortion.
by R. Albert Mohler
Were America’s evangelical Christians always stalwartly pro-life and opposed to abortion? Sadly, we were not, and the story behind that delay should be on our minds as we ponder the dark anniversary of Roe v. Wade. To our shame, when Roe came evangelicals were part of the problem."
"This fact would be shocking to many Americans today, who naturally associate evangelical Christians with the pro-life cause. But, prior to Roe v. Wade in 1973, evangelicals were, with a few notable exceptions, confused and uncertain about the question of abortion."
"The November 8, 1968 edition of Christianity Today,....
“A Protestant Affirmation” that stated: “Whether or not the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed, but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord.”


Birthright

"In the late nineteen-seventies, the Republican strategists Richard Viguerie and Paul Weyrich, both of whom were Catholic, recruited Jerry Falwell into a coalition designed to bring together economic and social conservatives around a “pro-family” agenda, one that targeted gay rights, sexual freedom, women’s liberation, the E.R.A., child care, and sex education. ...
"Falwell founded the Moral Majority in 1979; Paul Brown, the founder of the American Life League, scoffed in 1982, “Jerry Falwell couldn’t spell ‘abortion’ five years ago.”

"Evangelical hard-line views on abortion are not a matter of an unbroken tradition. In 1971, before Roe v. Wade, when nearly all states maintained abortion bans, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution calling for abortion laws that would recognize exceptions not only in cases of rape and incest, but where the “emotional, mental and physical health of the mother” might be endangered. Needless to say, that would be considered a radically liberal position among evangelicals today. "
Read more at Evangelicals and Abortion - Progressive Revival

https://www.onfaith.co/onfaith/2013...ow-abortion-became-an-evangelical-issue/11238

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You choose to post a provocative polemic that made the Catholic church out to be the one true church, and which thus invited refutation. And there is nothing wrong with saving typing by using links or posting from one's own material, which I (Daniel1212) did.

Why not just say you cannot tolerate such refutation of your "one true church?"

Just trying to understand why someone attempting to respond to in a discussion on one issue would feel the need to cut and paste general rants about the RCC and "liberal Protestants" in a sort of spew all over the table sort of style of debate.
Am rather use to the Church being the target of such hatred but it rather clutters the thread to tolerate someone doing this abusively. It also suggests there is not much such posters can bring to the discussion other than a rather single minded bulk spew of hatred. Sort of like the protestor with loudest mega phones wins I guess. Fine, your hatred wins I guess.