Priests - What For?

[visionary]

There is one shephard to lead His flock. This flock hears His voice and they follow Him. He will lead them to the green pastures, and by still waters. He will give rest to their souls.

 

[Archangel]

How can we be sure that your interpretation of Hebrews is absolutely correct? What assurances can you give us? If you are an expert
biblical exegete whose interpretation is correct perhaps Christendom should unite under your exegetical prowess.

No need for sarcasim, perhaps we should all read Hebrews and try to understand what this guy's point it because im guessing its probably right.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

No need for sarcasim, perhaps we should all read Hebrews and try to understand what this guy's point it because im guessing its probably right.

Do you think that "The Church" who put the Bible together didn't read Hebrews before they decided to include it as Canon?

Oh wait I see they were wrong.... They didn't read that correctly, they had no idea what they were doing.. and as a result "The Church" that still stands today has been in error all this time...

I think not.... We cannot interpret scripture outside the scope of "The Church" that compiled it.... To do so would allow for gross mis-interpretations of what our Fathers were trying to pass on to us.....

Forgive me...

 

[rugerfann]

How can we be sure that your interpretation of Hebrews is absolutely correct? What assurances can you give us? If you are an expert
biblical exegete whose interpretation is correct perhaps Christendom should unite under your exegetical prowess.

Its says what is means in hebrews why can't you accept this?

Probly becuase you want to go back to your day of atonement!

 

[Oblio]

+

There is a term for claiming we believe something that we do not in order to be able to defeat it easily and thereby prove 'your' point, when in reality you have done no such thing, but rather have simply proved your own distorted premise. It is called arguing:

A Strawman !

 

[Archangel]

Do you think that "The Church" who put the Bible together didn't read Hebrews before they decided to include it as Canon?

Oh wait I see they were wrong.... They didn't read that correctly, they had no idea what they were doing.. and as a result "The Church" that still stands today has been in error all this time...

I think not.... We cannot interpret scripture outside the scope of "The Church" that compiled it.... To do so would allow for gross mis-interpretations of what our Fathers were trying to pass on to us.....

Forgive me...

Do you mean to say that the NT books are there because they agree with the current traditions at that time? The Church did not decide the books in the bible...God did.

And yes...the universal worldwide church...as in every single christian joined together as the body of Christ do stand in error in many ways. Just look at the body of Christ...the bride is a mess here in on earth...only when we are in heaven shall we become perfect.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Do you mean to say that the NT books are there because they agree with the current traditions at that time?

That is exactly what I am saying... and that is exactly what "The Church" did. They chose the gospels from more than 4000 documents based on which writings agreed most with what "The Church" was teaching.

The Church did not decide the books in the bible...God did.

The writings in the bible are God inspired however the books themselves were written by men belonging to "The Chruch" and the decision of which books were to be included were decided by ecumenical council of Bishops acting as equals.

Specifically the "Council of Carthage held under Genethlius, A.D. 387" decided which books were to be included.

And yes...the universal worldwide church...as in every single christian joined together as the body of Christ do stand in error in many ways. Just look at the body of Christ...the bride is a mess here in on earth...only when we are in heaven shall we become perfect.

I disagree, there is no "universal worldwide church". And yes those who fall into that catagory are in a mess. However "The Church" does not belong nor does it wish to belong to such an organization.

Forgive me...

 

[Patristic]

Its says what is means in hebrews why can't you accept this?

Probly becuase you want to go back to your day of atonement!

Sure, I will accept it when Scripture actually says it instead of you telling me what it says. I can't accept it probably as much as you can't accept submitting to any authority but like being your own authority on how to interpret Scripture and telling us we are all incorrect.

 

[Archangel]

That is exactly what I am saying... and that is exactly what "The Church" did. They chose the gospels from more than 4000 documents based on which writings agreed most with what "The Church" was teaching.

The writings in the bible are God inspired however the books themselves were written by men belonging to "The Chruch" and the decision of which books were to be included were decided by ecumenical council of Bishops acting as equals.

Specifically the "Council of Carthage held under Genethlius, A.D. 387" decided which books were to be included.

So our bible today that we say is the Word of God is actually God inspired writings that havebeen put together because a group of leaders liked those particular writings. So that then means that the bible is man made?

No God has used men to record his words and his will, and he has used men to create the bible. The bible is the creation of God through men.

I disagree, there is no "universal worldwide church". And yes those who fall into that catagory are in a mess. However "The Church" does not belong nor does it wish to belong to such an organization.

Forgive me...

There is a universal worldwide church..ou and I are part of it. It is called the Bride of Jesus. Every believer is part of the church, just different denominations. At the end of the day we Christians are all in the same kingdom, just in different neighbourhoods. This is not a man made or recodnised denomination, it is the church... [not the protestant, catholic charasmatic or orthadox church] but THE CHURCH...IE ALL Christians as one body under Christ.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

So our bible today that we say is the Word of God is actually God inspired writings that havebeen put together because a group of leaders liked those particular writings. So that then means that the bible is man made?

No God has used men to record his words and his will, and he has used men to create the bible. The bible is the creation of God through men.




There is a universal worldwide church..ou and I are part of it. It is called the Bride of Jesus. Every believer is part of the church, just different denominations. At the end of the day we Christians are all in the same kingdom, just in different neighbourhoods. This is not a man made or recodnised denomination, it is the church... [not the protestant, catholic charasmatic or orthadox church] but THE CHURCH...IE ALL Christians as one body under Christ.

We will have to agree to disagree then....

The Orthodox Church does not subscribe to this train of thought.

Forgive me....

 

[PaladinValer]

Oh right ok, sorry I was confused with the Church type.

Realize that historical fact is very relevent to this issue. The Church didn't just pop up in the Reformation; its existance was born on Pentecost, c. 30 CE and has yet to end. In fact, it shall not end on Earth until the End, and since no one knows when that is (though chiliasts try), it will still continue on for the Christ is the Head of the Church, who rules it in heaven.

Ok, thank you.

You're welcome.

So, the current setup of leadership in some denominations is the way it is because of Church Tradition.

It isn't just Holy Tradition, it is Scripture (which is technically a part of Holy Tradition anyhow, as its birth came out of Holy Tradition). The Letter of St. Paul to Titus implies that elders and bishops were connected (elders [priests] can become bishops and all bishops are of course elders); you will see that they have some of their own requirements aside from that of bishops, which is immediately discussed next. Later Holy Tradition simply expanded on this bit of Scripture; it didn't change it nor does the Holy Bible imply that elders=bishops only to the point that once a priest, always a priest, so all bishops are priests, even though not all priests are bishops.

To me I am not concerned what Traditions are kept by churches. Most traditions except communion and baptisim are man made.

The Ecumenical Councils were not Inspired? Gnosticism isn't a heresy? Apollinarianism isn't a heresy? Iconoclasm isn't a heresy? The canon of the Holy Bible wasn't chosen out of Divine Inspiration?

You need to realize what Holy Tradition is. Like it or not, the Bible didn't just pop up like supposedly the Qur'an did in Islam. God Inspired those in the Council that decided upon the Holy Canon to choose those books which would be a part of the official Scriptures. Is this the "decisions of man?" Those same Ecumenical Councils also deposed of the heretics and helped to unify Church dogma and doctrine to what we consider "orthodoxy" today. This includes the necessary "addition" of the clerical office of priest.

Traditions can sometimes be good and sometimes be bad, but as long as they do not contridict scripture then I suppose it is fine to practice them.

All true Holy Tradition is Inspired by God. It is truly Tradition if it has to do with doctrine and dogma, faith and belief. If it truly was cultural, then that is up in the air, as there are many ways to worship God. But that which deals directly to the Church and to the faith is Inspired. Otherwise, you'd still have Montanists, Docetists, and all sorts of other heretics still running around. You think all these denominations and churches are bad? Imagin if the ancient heresies were not dealt with (though they are sadly making comebacks in many denominations ). Christianity would then become truly a joke, and I have no shame in saying that; an absolute joke.

However. The tradition of priests and bishops only being allowed to administer communion and baptisim, how and why did that arise, and what [if any] biblical argument is there to support it.

There was no "Bible" when that decision was made. None. No Canon. The Holy Bible itself never existed as we know it today. All there was were a vast array of various gospels, letters, acts, and revelations. Some would become part of the Holy Canon. Others wouldn't be, but would still be considered of orthodox theology and still useful. Others would be declared to be heretical, and others would be somewhere inbetween those three, if not of possibly other types that escape me at the moment.

What then united the Church then? Holy Tradition; that very scary word that frightens so many. No one exactly knew which books would become a part of the Canon. In fact, the first suggestion of the Canon came from a heretic named Marcion. After that, the Church realized it had to get in gear and establish a set Canon before other heretics and potential heretics started to "establish official Canons" and destroy the Church. It took just about 400 years for an official Holy Canon to be established. The only "Bible" there was before that was Holy Tradition, which is exactly what each of the Canonized books were anyway before they were even written c. 70 <. What "Bible" did St. Paul use? There wasn't one, and his First Letter to the Thessalonians was the very oldest book! How the heck would he know what was orthodox if he didn't have some "Bible" to look in?

The answer is Holy Tradition. That orthodoxy taught by Jesus and maintained by the Apostles whom God ordained, and those the Apostles taught and ordained, and those that they taught and ordained, etc. This is called "Apostolic Succession," and it is vital to the survival of orthodox theology. From it came the only defense from the terrors of Gnosticism. That's it! You owe Holy Tradition from keeping each and every heresy out of the orthodox Christian faith and Church!

I understand that the passage is talking about the removal of the Old Covenant and establishment of the New. I was not confusing Old C. Priests with Church Priests.

Yes you did. You said basically "out with the old, in with the new."

However, I was using the passage to show that we don't have a mediator between ourselves and God. Since this is so, why then are priests traditionally the only ones allowed to administer baptisim and communion [and in some churches, the only ones allowed to administer forgivness for general sins?]

Jesus is the only Mediator between ourselves and God in terms of our salvation. No one denies this. But if you pray for your friend, you are being a mediator yourself! That's a form of "mediation;" your friends asks you to pray for him/her and you do. A priest or bishop does the same thing except that they were given, through their ordained apostolic office the same privileges as the Apostles did; to interpret Scripture and made sound doctrine out of it. Just about anyone can pick up the Bible and say "ah ha! The Bible says 'X,' so I must believe in it!" The heretic Nestorius loved the Scriptures, yet he used them in an unsound way apart from what Holy Tradition taught. The consequence was a heresy known as Nestorianism which denied Jesus to be both 100% God and 100% Man from conception.

Your answer to my statment about any believer being allowed to baptise any fellow believer was No. Why is this? Where is the biblical problem with this idea, and the idea that any believer can administer bread andwine?

What kind of people baptized all the new Christians in the New Testament? Just those who were Apostles or ordained bishops. Thus, it is from this that only bishops (and those priests who receive permission from their bishop) may baptize new initiates into the Christian religion.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree. My problem still however is this. You claim that Paul did not write Titus, when in fact my study bibles and commentries all say he did.

Probably because they make the same circular-reasoning fallacy that many conservative/evangelical Study Bibles and Bible Commentaries do. It goes something like this:

The B says here that X wrote Y.
X therefore must have written Y
Y therefore must have written a part of B.

So we have B -> X -> Y -> B. This is circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy.

All linguistical experts in the field of ancient Greek agree that St. Paul did not write the Letter to Titus. Why? Here's a list of reasons:

1. Vocabulary and style differently from those genuinely Pauline-written letters. (Why the heck would St. Paul suddenly write differently to such a gross degree?)
2. New concepts on such things as godliness, sound teaching, and good works (!) and now being emphasized (These are foreign to St. Paul's thought, so it didn't come from St. Paul himself)
3. A new treatment of more traditional Pauline concepts is done (Is St. Paul now changing his mind? Does orthodoxy suddenly "switch?")

This is, of course, a moot point in the topic, although since you asked, I gave.

Is this theory a well known one, or is it not taught often?

It is taught, though those who adhere to circular reasoning fallacies either reject it or don't realize their mistake.

You see...I am not concerned terribly with the Early Church you are referring to. I am not bound by Church Tradition, but rather by the biblical tradition.

No Bible, as I've shown above, without Holy Tradition.

The Early Church I focus onis the one laid down in the Book of Acts. In Acts they seem to only have elders and deacons. They do not operate under the Traditions we hold today.

Ohhhh yes they did. That Church in the Acts of the Apostles is the same One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that has existed since Pentecost c. 30 CE. The Church didn't just "switch."

A problem I see with Traditions is th rules and regualtions. It can and has become legalistic, with focus on the traditional laws and rules. Rather we are now free in Christ, and abide in obedience to his will. We follow his New Testimentcommands and live our lives as shining stars in a dark world.

Such as?

I suppose my original question has changed slightly.

I know now that Priests are simply a terminology for elder.

I'm glad you've changed your mind.

The Question now is, why is there Church Tradition that was not laid down in Acts and in NT. Why is it that Priests can preform these tasks such as communion and baptisim, and believers cannot. Where in scripture is there accounts or verses to support these ideas?

Because the need for the priestly class wasn't needed yet. The Acts of the Apostles is usually dated by scholars between mid-80's to 90 CE. The Church was not yet in necessity for the new order of priest (though strain I'm sure was beginning to be noticed). The Letter to Titus is dated somewhere after the 1st century; 125 CE let's say (the range is 100-150, so I'm going to assume a "middling" number). After nearly century of Church growth, the strain of the bishops must have been overwhelming. Remember that a bishop must be able to meet the demands of all in his or her diocese. This means going from town to town to town, even to the most tiny remote village if necessary for just one person. Imagin yourself as a bishop doing that. You cannot sufficiently provide for your own spiritual (or physical for that matter!) needs anymore! The solution was a new clerical order, the priest, which would be a local elder with the sacramental and apostolic Grace to meet all the congregation's needs. This freed the bishop to perform their more important role; to actually oversee the Church, to baptize/confirm (they'd need to travel, sure enough, but at a much reduced and less time and energy-consuming level), and to keep hold of Holy Tradition (orthodoxy theology) and to ordain new apostolic deacons and priests and bishops to keep the line going.

ThankYou.

You're most welcome. I will write more replies in just a bit, as I'm sure this post is over-filled anyhow.

 

[PaladinValer]

I agree that the bible is about the church. But church doctrine must be from the bible, because if it is not from scripture then it is not abiding by the laws God has put in place for his church.

The Church came before the Bible; it was even before St. Paul's First Letter to the Thessalonians. The Church in fact was the deviced that canonized certain books to form the official Holy Canon.

Where does the bible speak of the Holy Traditions?

Gospel according to St. John 21:25 is one (as earlier pointed out)
St. Paul's Second Letter to the Thessalonians 3:6 (hold to those traditions we've given to you)
St. Paul's Letter to the Romans 12:9 (what is good is "sound;" it is "orthodox")
St. Paul's First Letter to the Thessalonians 5:21 (again, "sound" is used)
St. Paul's Second Letter to the Thessalonians 2:15 affirms Holy Tradition
St. Paul's First Letter to Timothy 3:9 (the very idea of "Mysteries of the Faith" is from Holy Tradition)
St. Paul's Second Letter to Timothy 1:13 also affirms Holy Tradition
The Catholic Letter to the Hebrews 4:14 (holding to the confessions? It doesn't perhaps mean the Sacrament of Confession and Absolution, but it does mean hold on to creeds. Upon baptism, we recite a creed in liturgically-minded (and Tradition-minded) churches and denominations. Usually, it is the Apostle's Creed. This is a sort of "confession" that this passage would infer, and that is a part of Holy Tradition)
The Catholic Letter to the Hebrews 10:23 (same as above)

There's nine

In the bible there is only one baptisim. The Believers baptisim, full emersion. The bible does not support infant baptisim. The Greek baptize means to immerse or submerge. The bible clearly outlines that the person should be a believer in Jesus and that they should be immersed underwater.

No.

First, Jesus said "let the little children come to me." We cannot deny children the same sacraments if they are ready for them. This includes baptism.

Secondly, Acts has the Apostles baptizing households. These would include all occupants, including immature children and infants.

Thirdly, as it would be a bit cruel to totally immerse a baby or toddler, other methods would logically follow. Pouring water is fine, although some instead sprinkle. True, the immediate symbolism of the baptism (down in the sheol and back onto Earth a New Creation in the Christ) is lost, but the priest can simply state what the baptism's symbolism is if he or she wants to.

Yes, more to the life of Jesus...not more doctrines. These are things that Jesus did and said that we dont need to know. This verse is not talking about traditions.

There were many gospels about Jesus. Four were canonized. I'm certain the author of the Gospel according to St. John is referring to these other accounts which would be of benefit to their readers. They are different traditions of the ministry of Jesus. In addition, they would also refer to other acts, letters, and revelations going around too.

"All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God maybe thoroughlt equipped for every good work" [2 Tim 3:16-17]

Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance. Just because Holy Tradition isn't specifically stated here doesn't mean it too cannot be useful of teaching, rebuking etc.

In addition, what Scripture? He is talking about the Old Testament; the New one wasn't even canonized yet!

 

[Archangel]

No.


First, Jesus said "let the little children come to me." We cannot deny children the same sacraments if they are ready for them. This includes baptism.

Secondly, Acts has the Apostles baptizing households. These would include all occupants, including immature children and infants.

Thirdly, as it would be a bit cruel to totally immerse a baby or toddler, other methods would logically follow. Pouring water is fine, although some instead sprinkle. True, the immediate symbolism of the baptism (down in the sheol and back onto Earth a New Creation in the Christ) is lost, but the priest can simply state what the baptism's symbolism is if he or she wants to.

Actually...Yes.

It is true that Jesus did say "let the little children come to me". Jesus indeed had a great deal of time for children. He loved them, and used them to teach us the attitude of humble dependency that all of us need in order to recieve God's salvation. He blessed the children and rebuked the disciples for sending them away. But he did not baptise them, nor did he ask his followers to.

The commandment to go and make disciples, "baptising them" makes it clear who is to be baptised...disciples, that is those who are old enough to commit their lives to Christ. This is shown in the accounts in Acts of whole households being baptised such as that of the Jailer [Acts 16:25-34]. Paul's commandment to these people was "Believe in the Lord Jesus" first, not "be baptised"; that is he expected those who were listening to makea personalresponse of faith. Acts tells us that Paul "spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in the his house". Then the jailer was baptised "he and all his household" Finally the jailer organised a meal rejoicing greatly "having believed with his whole household".


It is very clear from the text that the whole household had the word of God explained to them, believed it, were baptised and ate together with great rejoicing. It is clear that infants were not included.

 

[Oblio]

But he did not baptise them, nor did he ask his followers to.

/me wonders how you plan to prove a negative

Why do we nowhere in Scripture see the age of Baptizm broken out. Occam's Razor (along with 2000 years of Christian belief) tells us that the answer is because, like the request for prayers from all the Saints, that all were Baptized, not just adults.

 

[Archangel]

* Oblio wonders how you plan to prove a negative

Tell Oblio that I don't understand what he means.

Why do we nowhere in Scripture see the age of Baptizm broken out. Occam's Razor (along with 2000 years of Christian belief) tells us that the answer is because, like the request for prayers from all the Saints, that all were Baptized, not just adults.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. Never heard of razors except theones u shave with.

That fact still remains, infant baptisim is not a biblical conception and therefore is not the baptisim that Jesus commands. It may have its place as welcoming a baby into a church fellowship...but it isnot the commanded baptisim, and a believer who has been baptised as an infant should look into getting the biblical believers baptisim that Christ commands.

 

[Veritas]

Because some say the entire Catholic tradition is based on a broken and questionable tradition, it raises many questions. Is it spiritually healthy to follow a tradition or idea that is has soo many unanswered questions? If it is not spiritually healthy, then should we not ask questions about it?

Is this what you say? It would seem so. Fortunately, such theories cannot be proven. In fact, the oppposite is easy verifiable. There is an unbroken line of succession and teachings that have come to us from the apostles. It is Protestantism that was cut from whole cloth 1500 years after the commencement of Christianity. Now there's where you should be directing you inquiries. That would be spiritually healthy!

 

[Oblio]

Tell Oblio that I don't understand what he means.

Prove there are no invisible pink unicorns in your garage, or blue aliens somewhere in the universe. Take your time.

That fact still remains, infant baptisim is not a biblical conception and therefore is not the baptisim that Jesus commands.

That's your opinion and fallible interpretation of what the Scriptures say, nothing more.

 

[Oblio]

Occam's Razor

 

[PaladinValer]

Actually...Yes.

No. You need to refresh (or start learning) your knowledge of Church history, because baptisms of infants and immature children did take place, though they weren't of the norm.

It is true that Jesus did say "let the little children come to me". Jesus indeed had a great deal of time for children. He loved them, and used them to teach us the attitude of humble dependency that all of us need in order to recieve God's salvation. He blessed the children and rebuked the disciples for sending them away. But he did not baptise them, nor did he ask his followers to.

Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance.

The commandment to go and make disciples, "baptising them" makes it clear who is to be baptised...disciples, that is those who are old enough to commit their lives to Christ. This is shown in the accounts in Acts of whole households being baptised such as that of the Jailer [Acts 16:25-34].

Which "disciples?" What were these disciples? They were the Apostles, not just any follower but those whom God Himself ordained. They were, as Tradition holds, the very first bishops. That is why a bishop (or a priest with permission) is the only clerical order that can baptize new initiates.

Paul's commandment to these people was "Believe in the Lord Jesus" first, not "be baptised"; that is he expected those who were listening to makea personalresponse of faith.

False.

1) Acts of the Apostles 2:38-39 directly states that immature children (including infants) are welcome to baptism. This seals infant/child baptism.
2) Baptism itself is the "new circumcision" and in the Council of Carthage, in 253), directly stated that baptisms of children should wait until the eighth day after birth. Why would this apostolic Council ask that baptisms for infants wait? It implies that baptisms of children were indeed done earlier to this point in time! And the Bible specifically shows A) Jesus saying not to hinder children to come unto him B) Whole households (including children and infants!) being baptized C) A direct command that children and infants are welcome to baptism.
3. A "believer's baptism" in those cases in Acts and in other places in Scripture needs to be looked at a lot more carefully. They all have people who were Jews who, as we already know, already believe in God! They already believed that the Messiah would come. All they needed was to be told that He was Jesus. There is no case where a Gentile received a "believer's baptism" in the Scriptures. Logic then dictates that these folks were already believers, and that they just needed a baptism to initiate themselves into the Christian faith.

It is very clear from the text that the whole household had the word of God explained to them, believed it, were baptised and ate together with great rejoicing. It is clear that infants were not included.

Only by picking and choosing. The Jews already believed in God, thus you took those "believer's baptisms" completely out of context. The Acts of the Apostles specifically states children and infants shouldn't be withheld from baptism. Jesus said not to disallow them to come to Him. The Scripture shows whole households (the world in Greek means everyone of the house) being baptized. And, I gave you an apostolic Council's canon specifically stating that infant baptisms were normal and allowable.

All of this of course is a moot topic away from the primary one. Shall we continue on that one?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Actually...Yes.

It is true that Jesus did say "let the little children come to me". Jesus indeed had a great deal of time for children. He loved them, and used them to teach us the attitude of humble dependency that all of us need in order to recieve God's salvation. He blessed the children and rebuked the disciples for sending them away. But he did not baptise them, nor did he ask his followers to.

The commandment to go and make disciples, "baptising them" makes it clear who is to be baptised...disciples, that is those who are old enough to commit their lives to Christ. This is shown in the accounts in Acts of whole households being baptised such as that of the Jailer [Acts 16:25-34]. Paul's commandment to these people was "Believe in the Lord Jesus" first, not "be baptised"; that is he expected those who were listening to makea personalresponse of faith. Acts tells us that Paul "spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in the his house". Then the jailer was baptised "he and all his household" Finally the jailer organised a meal rejoicing greatly "having believed with his whole household".


It is very clear from the text that the whole household had the word of God explained to them, believed it, were baptised and ate together with great rejoicing. It is clear that infants were not included.

Actually whole households were baptised en mass, infants included...

Infant baptism is no different that infant circumcision.

Do you think that a Jewish baby can make a decission as to whether he wishes to follow the Lord, or did his parents choose to:

[size=-1]"Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6)[/size]


Forgive me....