Protestants explanation of this verse(s), Part 1

[Nickolai]

Elders are not necessarily ordained.

Evidence please.

This says nothing about Catholic priests acting in the person of Christ. Jesus Christ is perfectly capable of acting on His own behalf.

Noone said that Jesus in incapable of acting on his own behalf. Just that Jesus set up an ordained Priesthood that could do certian things that not every other believer can do.

No, I'm afraid these verses don't say anything like that.

John 20:22-23 (King James Version) And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Seems quite clear to me.

Pretty much what it says: that the church has a ministry of prayer.

Private interpretation.

You're right. We base our teachings on scripture.

More truthfully, you base your teachings on your own reading of Scripture, as well as the interpretations of those around you.

 

[MikeMcK]

Evidence please.

Some churches do. Some churches don't. Most do not. Ours does not.

Noone said that Jesus in incapable of acting on his own behalf. Just that Jesus set up an ordained Priesthood that could do certian things that not every other believer can do.

And where is this found in scripture?

John 20:22-23 (King James Version) And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Seems quite clear to me.

Seems clear to me, too. That's why I'm not sure why you would take a passage regarding discipline within the church to read that men now have the authority to forgive sins.

More truthfully, you base your teachings on your own reading of Scripture, as well as the interpretations of those around you.

It's worked pretty well for 2,000 years.

 

[Nickolai]

Seems clear to me, too. That's why I'm not sure why you would take a passage regarding discipline within the church to read that men now have the authority to forgive sins.

Becuase Jesus literally says "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." That definatly is talking about the giving absolution.

It's worked pretty well for 2,000 years.

First off, the Scriptural Canon hasn't even existed for 2,000 years, only about 1,650. What were the people doing before that time? Secondly, We were never once taught to trust our own fallible interpretation of Scripture, but to follow the wisdom of the Church (The pillar and bulwark of Truth)

 

[MikeMcK]

Becuase Jesus literally says "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." That definatly is talking about the giving absolution.

No, I'm sorry, but this passage is referring to discipline in the church.

The Scriptural Canon hasn't even existed for 2,000 years, only about 1,650. What were the people doing before that time?

Studying the scriptures that existed a thousand years before that.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

but where you have ongoing revelation (new doctrines) and an authority that in effect is higher than scripture , you just don't need to agree with scripture , you can circumvent the Bible , by hot wiring an imposing authority ............. and few will notice , and if they do ..... just , threaten them with hell and damnation , it usually works!

Is that where Joe Smith and the Mormons got that from?

 

[ThirdDay3337]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

OK, so where in this verse does Paul say that once we have a defined cannon, we no longer then should hold to the traditions by word of mouth? Why are you adding something to this verse or the meaning of this verse that does not exist?

I'm not adding to the verse. Paul didn't know they would be able to mass produce his letters, so how could he have know they would make the canon of the scripture? See my point? Of course it is just speculation and I was responding to someone elses post.

Brother in Christ,
Luke

 

[ThirdDay3337]

The day you or any other Protestant can prove that everything Jesus and the Apostles taught was written in the Bible, I'll leave the Church.

The day you can prove that spoken word is infallable and tradtions bring me closer to God, I'll leave my Church.

Brother in Christ,
Luke

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Is that where Joe Smith and the Mormons got that from?

In all actuality, the LDS, Christian Spiritualists, Scientists, and many other such movements began in the area of New England known as 'the burned over district.' These areas, especially upstate New York, had been subject to lengthy and intense revivalist activity.

As such, these are the offspring of Protestant origins. I mean this in the most general sense, in the sam way that Montanists, Arians and Marcionites are 'children' of the early Church.

The added revelation is not akin to Catholic Tradition, but is more akin to the Christian heresy of Islam.

Catholic tradition is defined by them as appended to and equal alongside scripture. The language selected at Trent is unfotunate for them, for in many ways it makes it appear that they view tradition differently than does a Reformed Christian.

In reality, tradition is the way that each of those groups reads scripture.

 

[lionroar0]

The day you can prove that spoken word is infallable and tradtions bring me closer to God, I'll leave my Church.

The Gospel is a Tradition. It is something that has been passed down from generation to generation and it was Orally taught before it was written.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

I'm not adding to the verse. Paul didn't know they would be able to mass produce his letters, so how could he have know they would make the canon of the scripture? See my point? Of course it is just speculation and I was responding to someone elses post.

His letter were not massed produced. Also we know that only three of the letters in the NT are written by Paul with out a doubt.

Peace

 

[MikeMcK]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]..[/FONT]

 

[MikeMcK]

His letter were not massed produced. Also we know that only three of the letters in the NT are written by Paul with out a doubt.

We do?

Then why does the author of...

Romans
Galatians
Ephesians
Philipians
Colosians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon...

introduce himself as Paul?

 

[ThirdDay3337]

His letter were not massed produced. Also we know that only three of the letters in the NT are written by Paul with out a doubt.

Peace

Not massed produced? I have a Bible. You have a Bible. I'm sure there is a lot of Bibles in this world. That is called mass produced. And again I was responing to another post in saying Paul's letters.

Brother in Christ,
Luke

 

[elijah115]

Regarding the original post,


I find it to be severely self righteous, and meaningless. Christians getting an ego and lording their superiority complex over the rest of us. And to be clear the verse says elders of the church not priests.

 

[Jig]

The Eastern Orthodox Church is not a denomination. A one dollar bill is a denomination. So is a ten dollar bill. The gold that once backed up currency was not a denomination, and neither is the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Whatever you'd like to see it, I guess. You must now stick with your definition and also see 'other' groups of believers as such. Example: You can no longer call 'Baptists' a denomination.

The Eastern Orthodox Chruch is not an "institution."

I understand you and your 'institution' may not see it this way, but others do.

We are a communion, a synaxis, a gathering of autonomous churches who adhere to the communion and unbroken worship tradition handed down for 2000 years.

Unbroken? This is merely personal opinion, for the RCC say the same thing. Obviously, one of you is wrong.

We do not claim to be the only ones who have some modicum of truth, or church- we DO claim to be the fullest expression of apostolic worship and truth, not by our brilliance, but by the grace of God.

I love how you use the word 'modicum' to describe my church and relationship with Jesus. I do not have just a tiny bit of Him, You either have ALL of Him or none...there is not middle ground. This is why there is one huge Church, and it's made up of ALL believers. You claim your church has the 'full' truth. I claim everyone who believes in Jesus has the 'full' truth.

You have received your teachings from scripture, and more truthfully, from your reading and the readings of those have influenced you.

I'm glad you know me better than I do.

I agree- mob rule is a scary prospect. Scarier still is absolute anarchy. Representative government, holding fast to the founding documents and sensibility of founders, allowing for an eveolving, historic understanding of both, makes for the greatest liberty and justice for all.

And this works well for the United States also.

I was just trying to make a point about how sometimes the majority isn't always right...you went around this point.

Why is it that when people disagree with us, it is they who are blinded, and we who see? Believe me, I've taken the same position many times.

I don't have someone telling me what to believe. You do. Big difference.

Another question: Why is it that those who adhere to long-standing wisdom are captive in their minds, but those who make it up as they go along are the 'free-thinkers?'

You've set this question up in favor of an answer you'd wish to hear. Your question assumes your tradition, is in fact truth (wisdom), and that my beliefs were never held by any original discples. Not fair.

You have again erred in referring to the Church regions in Revelation as 'institutions.' And, keep in mind, though they each had their own thing going on, they were each being addressed by one Apostle and bishop, John.

You mean I have errored in believing what you believe. Sorry.

There is safety in an abundance of Godly counsel. No wise person sees themself as the last resort. Kings and Counselors all have counselors, and all are guided by wisdom ancient and contemporary.

And? Why can't scriptures be my guide? Why can't the Holy Spirit be my counselor? Are you saying we must resort to 'more' fallable humans to gain this truth your denomination provides?

God's words will always be read by fallible readers- you and I. From the beginning, the scriptures had teachers to teach them. That's not 'reading it for yourself.' Rather, that's reading and being taught.

So when Paul wrote a letter to a city, he sent himself along with it?

The schism was not a failing of apostolic tradition. It was a falling away from apostolic tradition.

By who? Not me.

Please address the issues.
Thanks, and regards
James

I did.

 

[lionroar0]

Then why does the author of...

Romans
Galatians
Ephesians
Philipians
Colosians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon...

introduce himself as Paul?

Because the Church said they were from Paul. The letters of Paul as being written by Paul stand solely on the Tradition and authority of the Church.

Also a knowledge of the customs of the times help. At the time it was perfectly acceptable for the diciples of Paul to write in his name, as if he himself were writting the letters.

Also if you read the end of Romans one realises that it was not written by Paul himself but by one of his diciplies.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Not massed produced? I have a Bible. You have a Bible. I'm sure there is a lot of Bibles in this world. That is called mass produced. And again I was responing to another post in saying Paul's letters.

Mass produced now. Not then.

Peace

 

[MikeMcK]

Because the Church said they were from Paul. The letters of Paul as being written by Paul stand solely on the Tradition and authority of the Church.

But the church didn't write the letters, the letters were written to the church.

Also a knowledge of the customs of the times help. At the time it was perfectly acceptable for the diciples of Paul to write in his name, as if he himself were writting the letters.

I disagree. I don't see anything to indicate that "I, Paul" means anything other than "I, Paul".

Also if you read the end of Romans one realises that it was not written by Paul himself but by one of his diciplies.

Would you mind showing us where it says this?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

[/font]

But the church didn't write the letters, the letters were written to the church.




I disagree. I don't see anything to indicate that "I, Paul" means anything other than "I, Paul".




Would you mind showing us where it says this?

Actually, there are lots of letters from 'Apostles' signed with their names that the Church did not accept or receive as authentic. Likewise, the authorship of the gospel of Mark is known by tradition.

Regarding Romans 16, vs 22
"I Tertius, who wrote [this] epistle, salute you in the Lord."

Paul's custom was to have a scribe record his thoughts, and he would personally sign his letters in his own hand at the end. 2 Thess 3:17

The Church did not have any of his originals, but the tradition maintained that he had done so.

Any moderately serious bible student should know these things.

I'm not sure what all this proves, except the Church as an essential agent in the preservation and discovery of that which is truly scripture

 

[MikeMcK]

Actually, there are lots of letters from 'Apostles' signed with their names that the Church did not accept or receive as authentic.

Well, since these became a part of the canon, evidently, they were accepted as authentic.

Regarding Romans 16, vs 22
"I Tertius, who wrote [this] epistle, salute you in the Lord."

That's different. There is a world of difference between someone transcribing someone's words on their behalf and writing something and attributing it to them.

Paul's custom was to have a scribe record his thoughts, and he would personally sign his letters in his own hand at the end. 2 Thess 3:17

You're right but that's not what we're talking about.

I'm not sure what all this proves, except the Church as an essential agent in the preservation and discovery of that which is truly scripture

It proves that the idea that Paul only wrote three books of the New Testament is bogus.