Christian: Interpretation (priests, Moses, tradition, Epistles, grace)

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by writer

26 The Church desperately needs restoration
That's what Revelation 2-3 indicate

It is possible to restore the Church to New Testament doctrine and practice
If it weren't, 2-3, especially 3:7-13, woundn't've been written. With God, all things are possible

The "not-restored" Church is inherently flawed and, therefore, not the "real" Church.
That's for sure. The Lord created not the divisions of a state-church, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism denominations, any denominations, Anglicanism, Anglicanism, nor ecumenisms

The church "I" attend has achieved #'s 1 and 2, and therefore is not flawed, like the #3 Church.
Whether it has, or's in the process of, the Lord can, and will, judge; as can His Body

These assumptions are what lead restorationists to dismiss certain aspects of the Church, like the apostolic succession, tradition, certain rituals, the organic nature of the Church, authority, ongoing revelation, organization (the Mormons are notable exceptions to these last three).
Mormonism is polytheistic and isn't even Christian.
There is no such thing either in the universe or in His Scriptures as a formal apostolic succession. To claim, like Mormons, Popes, or "Patriarchs," either that there is a formal, institutional, office of apostle to inherit; or that one has succeeded into it; is in itself a deviation from the apostles' teaching in the New Testament.
The NT church's bona fide tradition is both the apostles' Scriptural teaching, and all her saints' for the past 2 millenia experience of Christ and which comports with that teaching.
Christ's Body's only bona fide rituals are her Table in genuine oneness and baptism and anointing sick with oil at times.
The organic nature of the church is her life, who is Christ the Lord Himself (Col 3:4).
Her authority is her Head, who is Christ her Lord Himself (Eph 4:15).
Her ongoing revelation is Christ, the light of the world Himself (Jn 8:12; Eph 1:17-21).
Her organization is Christ the Lord Himself, who is not an organization, but an organism, a Vine, who is the embodiment of the processed triune God who became a life-giving Spirit in resurrection to make an abode with all who believe into Him (Jn 14:1-3, 23; 17:20-23; 1 Cor 12:12-13; etc)

These assumptions are based on the fallacy that everything pertaining to the Church must be Biblical (based upon a [usually] conservative, narrow and literalistic interpretation of the Bible) -- sola scriptura.
His church, which is His Body, like His word, is leavenless. Pure, unadulterated Him. His narrowness (cf Jn 14:6; Mt 7:14; 2 Tim 3:14-17) is only the breadth, length, height, and depth of the triune God Himself.
As Adam said, "This time this's bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman because out of Man this one was taken," Gen 2:23; cf Eph 5:30-32

They are convinced that the traditional Church is flawed and needs correction -- and that the correct way to go about this is to "just get back to the Bible."
"But you, continue in the things which you have learned and have been assured of, knowing from which ones you've learned them and that from a babe you have known the sacred writings, which're able to make one wise unto salvation through the faith which's in Christ Jesus. All Scripture's God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work," 2 Tim 3:14-17.
"...which in other generations wasn't made known to the sons of men, as it's now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in spirit, that..." Eph 3:5

sad for those who seek the unity of Christ's Church.
One Body and one Spirit, even as also you were called in one hope of your calling...Eph 4:4

Sorry. I didn't see anything in the Rev. scripture you cite that is a compelling argument for restoring the Church by completely circumventing Tradition.

Of course God didn't create the divisions. We did. But that in no way indicates that the Church, as manifest in those groups is not the "real" Church. It sounds as though you're the one promoting division by placing the condition of "not real" on some, and "real" on others.

I suppose that the apostles didn't lay hands on those who were chosen to succeed them in Acts. Burying one's head in the sand and refusing to look at something that has been in place for nearly two thousand years does not mean that the thing doesn't exist.

Which I don't see that the RC's, Anglican or Orthodox have deviated from...

None of your arguments serve to make my statments any less compelling.

[writer]

41 Sorry. I didn't see anything in the Rev. scripture you cite that is a compelling argument for restoring the Church by completely circumventing Tradition.
That maybe because i made no such argument: "completely circumvent tradition."
In any case, what do you precisely mean by tradition or Tradition?
Do u have any specific examples?

Of course God didn't create the divisions. We did. But that in no way indicates that the Church, as manifest in those groups is not the "real" Church.
Christ's in His believers. But as the apostle wrote to the church:
Christ is not divided, 1 Cor 1:10, 13

It sounds as though you're the one promoting division by placing the condition of "not real" on some, and "real" on others.
To the contrary: pointing out that a division's a division isn't
promoting division. Otherwise Paul was promoting division in 1 Cor 1:12.
Paul wasn't promoting division

I suppose that the apostles didn't lay hands on those who were chosen to succeed them in Acts.
"Chosen to succeed"?
If u want to share something from Acts, or anywhere specific, please do.
It would sure beat the nebulous, and thus meaningless "Holy Tradition" phrase.
The apostles laid hands on coworkers and elders, and elders and coworkers laid hands on them. "Presbyter/Episkopos" are one role in the NT; "apostle" is another. Neither "succeeded" or replaced the other

Burying one's head in the sand and refusing to look at something that has been in place for nearly two thousand years does not mean that the thing doesn't exist.
What thing are you talking about?
I'd think if you wanted to succeed to the apostles, you might at least be familiar with their writings

Which I don't see that the RC's, Anglican or Orthodox have deviated from...
i do. For instance one of the apostles, John, wrote in Revelation 2, Christ's words that He hates the works and teaching of the Nicolaitans. "Nico, nike" in Greek means "conquer." "Laitans, laity" means "people." Meaning Christ hates such a practice and teaching of clergy-laity: that there is, or should be, a special class of believers who are "priests" and the majority who are an audience or subjects, as in a secular model.
Such a religious institution, practice, and even teaching within RC, Anglicanism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, or any and all of Christianity, deviates from the NT church and apostles' pattern

None of your arguments serve to make my statments any less compelling.
i think i'd agree w/ u if i found your statements to which you refer compelling. Thanks Sojourner

[sojourner]

By "Tradition," I mean the Church and its doctrine, practices, beliefs, structure, writings (which include the Bible), as they have been handed down to us through the apostles and their successors. By claiming that these practices and structures are "wrong," you're circumventing the Tradition.

Christ is in his believers -- and those believers constitute the Church -- wherever and whenever and however it is found, including Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, etc. To make distinctions based upon a system or an organization is to create a division that does not really exist. All such groups are part of the Church, for all such groups are composed of Christians.

If u want to share something from Acts, or anywhere specific, please do.

See Acts 1:23-26.

What thing are you talking about?

I'm talking about the apostolic succession of bishops. It exists, it is an historical record, it serves to bring order to the Church. You can't pretend it doesn't exist, because it does.

It's obvious from Acts that, from the beginning, the ecclesia looked to the apostles as "set apart" for a ministry of spiritual leadership. It's also obvious from Acts that the apostles established deacons (chapter 6) to serve. That historic apostlate is seen today in the "set apart" ministry of the elders, or bishops. Deacons are still "set apart" to serve in many places. It appears to me that these groups have remained faithful to scripture (and Tradition). These groups do not perceive the clergy as "above" the laity, nor the laity as "subjects" of the clergy. In fact, they view the clergy as the servants of the laity -- people -- ecclesia -- Church. There is no particular "class distinction" as you seem to feel there is. The clergy are servants of God, just as the rest of the people are. Just because they are "set apart" for special tasks does not place them in greater favor, or in higher position. All are equal.

[writer]

By "Tradition," I mean the Church and its doctrine, practices, beliefs, structure, writings (which include the Bible), as they have been handed down to us through the apostles and their successors.
By the church i mean all those who are born again. Not the systems themselves of RC, EO, Anglicanism, Protestantism, denominationalism, "free groups," etc

By claiming that these practices and structures are "wrong," you're circumventing the Tradition.
By comparing any teaching, practice, structure, or tradition u care to specify
to the apostles' writings,
i'm discarding those that don't correspond

Christ is in his believers -- and those believers constitute the Church -- wherever and whenever and however it is found, including Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, etc.
That's correct. But as the Lord and apostles pointed out, in His parable on wheat and tares, and in their writings such as 2 Peter;
not all who'd call themselves believers are

To make distinctions based upon a system or an organization is to create a division that does not really exist.
U mean the system or organization doesn't exist?
Such sectarian organizations (such as RC, EO, and Prot denoms) don't need to "create" division. They R

All such groups are part of the Church, for all such groups are composed of Christians.
Only Christians comprise the church. Not merely attendees of meetings or members of groups.
Thanks

[writer]

See Acts 1:23-26.
There's no laying on of hands there.
Matthias took Judas' position as the 12 becuz Judas was an exception.
Those 12's position r unique. Not successive

I'm talking about the apostolic succession of bishops. It exists, it is an historical record, it serves to bring order to the Church. You can't pretend it doesn't exist, because it does.
To the contrary: The apostles laid hands on coworkers, elders, and other believers; and elders and coworkers laid hands on them. "Presbyter/Episkopos" are one role in the NT; "apostle" is another. Neither "succeeded" or replaced the other

That historic apostlate is seen today in the "set apart" ministry of the elders, or bishops.
The serving ones in Ac 6 don't appear to be either "apostles," nor elders/overseers there

Deacons are still "set apart" to serve in many places. It appears to me that these groups have remained faithful to scripture (and Tradition). These groups do not perceive the clergy as "above" the laity, nor the laity as "subjects" of the clergy. In fact, they view the clergy as the servants of the laity -- people -- ecclesia -- Church. There is no particular "class distinction" as you seem to feel there is. The clergy are servants of God, just as the rest of the people are. Just because they are "set apart" for special tasks does not place them in greater favor, or in higher position. All are equal.
i don't know who you have in mind, specifically. By your words i'm guessin it's probably nobody who sits on a throne or lets others attend him as if he can't dress himself.
Merci

[sojourner]

By comparing any teaching, practice, structure, or tradition u care to specify
to the apostles' writings,
i'm discarding those that don't correspond

yes, but since this isn't "the world according to Writer," it's "the world according to God," your own opinions regarding "what doesn't correspond" are just that -- your opinions. Your opinions appear to be in the minority within the Body of Christ here.

Anglican, Lutheran, etc.
That's correct. But as the Lord and apostles pointed out, in His parable on wheat and tares, and in their writings such as 2 Peter;
not all who'd call themselves believers are

But it's not up to you to make that judgment.

U mean the system or organization doesn't exist?
Such sectarian organizations (such as RC, EO, and Prot denoms) don't need to "create" division. They R

Differences do not imply division. If it's really that important to "go back to the way the first Christians worshiped" then we'd have to become Jewish and attend Synagogue every Sabbath. Additionally, we'd have to attend worship in the Temple...which is impossible now.

Only Christians comprise the church. Not merely attendees of meetings or members of groups.

Who are these "mere attendees" and how do we readily recognize them, so that we can point a finger and declare that they are not "one of us?" Further...why should we want to do that?

There's no laying on of hands there.
Matthias took Judas' position as the 12 becuz Judas was an exception.
Those 12's position r unique. Not successive

Again, in your opinion. This opinion is not shared by millions of Christians over the course of 2000 years.

To the contrary: The apostles laid hands on coworkers, elders, and other believers; and elders and coworkers laid hands on them. "Presbyter/Episkopos" are one role in the NT; "apostle" is another. Neither "succeeded" or replaced the other

Actually, "presbyter" and "episkopos" are two different offices. The office of apostle was taken on by their successors, the bishops, or elders (episkopos), by consent and intent of the apostles. You may think otherwise, but that doesn't make it so.

i don't know who you have in mind, specifically. By your words i'm guessin it's probably nobody who sits on a throne or lets others attend him as if he can't dress himself.

What appears to you to be a throne and "attendants" are the bishop's chair (not a throne) and the bishop's chaplains (not "attendants"). The bishop sits in a chair to teach, not to rule. The chaplains serve the bishop, just as we are to serve one another, not because he lords it over them.

You seem to have very biased and skewed perspectives about what actually goes on in the Catholic Church. The clergy really are all about serving, not dictating.

[writer]

Your opinions appear to be in the minority within the Body of Christ here.
The NT church's not a democracy

But it's not up to you to make that judgment.
To the contrary: I judge that Christ's word is true

Differences do not imply division.
Stating that the one church is oneness with a self-proclaimed "bishop" of Rome is more than a difference. It's divisive

If it's really that important to "go back to the way the first Christians worshiped" then we'd have to become Jewish and attend Synagogue every Sabbath.
"way they worship" is one thing, division's another

Additionally, we'd have to attend worship in the Temple...which is impossible now.
That has, and had, nothing to do with division

Who are these "mere attendees" and how do we readily recognize them, so that we can point a finger and declare that they are not "one of us?" Further...why should we want to do that?
Mebbe you should ask yourself, since you're the one who brings it up

Again, in your opinion. This opinion is not shared by millions of Christians over the course of 2000 years.
Since your opinion is that there's laying on of hands in Acts 1:23-26 (your posts 41, 43), care to show me where, so that mebbe i could share your opinion?
Thanks

Actually, "presbyter" and "episkopos" are two different offices.
To the contrary, and in contrast to Ignatius: the NT, polycarp, clement, didache, and Jerome point out that they are not. Rather "presbyter" = "elder" and refers to the person's person; and "episkopos" = "overseer" of which the old word is "bishop," referring to their role.
As Luke wrote in Acts 20:17, 28: "from Miletus he sent word to Ephesus and called for the elders [presbyters] of the church...Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among whom the Holy Spirit has placed you as overseers [episkopos] to shepherd the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood."
Furthermore they were always plural in one local church in the NT. Ignatius of Antioch (circa 100 AD) appears to have been the first to deviate from the apostles' teaching and example by saying the titles are two different offices or persons. And that an "episkopos," singular, was above the "presbyters."
This sad mistake on his part reflects the natural, even secular human mindset in regard to hierarchy and organization

The office of apostle was taken on by their successors, the bishops, or elders (episkopos),
Now in this quote of yours you sound like your calling translating "elders" "episkopos," which is a mistake.
But if you're identifying "bishops" as "elders," you're accurate per the New Testament

by consent and intent of the apostles. You may think otherwise, but that doesn't make it so.
To the contrary: "presbyter/episkopos" are one role in the NT; "apostle" is another. Neither "succeeded" or replaced the other.
Now those R "two different offices"

What appears to you to be a throne and "attendants" are the bishop's chair (not a throne) and the bishop's chaplains (not "attendants").
A fancy chair looks like a throne to me. In any case i was disparaging "St Peter's Throne."

The bishop sits in a chair to teach, not to rule. The chaplains serve the bishop, just as we are to serve one another, not because he lords it over them.
Who are "chaplains"?

You seem to have very biased and skewed perspectives about what actually goes on in the Catholic Church. The clergy really are all about serving, not dictating.
Then that must be why they R a clergy, because they're the same as everybody else

[sojourner]

The NT church's not a democracy

Democracy has nothing to do with it. It has to do with who the head of the Church is. The historic, apostolic Church claims that Jesus is the head, and that the Pope, Patriarch, Presiding Bishop are his servants, and act in a ministry that is representative.

To the contrary: I judge that Christ's word is true

You may judge that Christ's word is true. And you may formulate a perception of that truth and what it means for you. You may not judge someone else's formulation of truth and what it means for them.

Stating that the one church is oneness with a self-proclaimed "bishop" of Rome is more than a difference. It's divisive

The bishop of Rome is not self-proclaimed. He is elected by representatives of the Church. Choosing to not follow the bishop's teaching, under your definition, could also be seen as divisive.

"way they worship" is one thing, division's another

Maybe you could elucidate exactly what it is that you think creates division, if not the organization and worship practices of a given group. It's evident that the Church has always had some sort of organization.

Who are these "mere attendees" and how do we readily recognize them, so that we can point a finger and declare that they are not "one of us?" Further...why should we want to do that?
Mebbe you should ask yourself, since you're the one who brings it up

But you're the one who brought it up.

Only Christians comprise the church. Not merely attendees of meetings or members of groups.

Who are the "mere attendees," and why should we seek to identify them?

Since your opinion is that there's laying on of hands in Acts 1:23-26 (your posts 41, 43), care to show me where, so that mebbe i could share your opinion?

My assertion is that the apostles chose replacements for themselves. Your opinion (which I clarified as an opinion) is that Matthias was some kind of "special case."

To the contrary, and in contrast to Ignatius: the NT, polycarp, clement, didache, and Jerome point out that they are not. Rather "presbyter" = "elder" and refers to the person's person; and "episkopos" = "overseer" of which the old word is "bishop," referring to their role.
As Luke wrote in Acts 20:17, 28: "from Miletus he sent word to Ephesus and called for the elders [presbyters] of the church...Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among whom the Holy Spirit has placed you as overseers [episkopos] to shepherd the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood."
Furthermore they were always plural in one local church in the NT. Ignatius of Antioch (circa 100 AD) appears to have been the first to deviate from the apostles' teaching and example by saying the titles are two different offices or persons. And that an "episkopos," singular, was above the "presbyters."
This sad mistake on his part reflects the natural, even secular human mindset in regard to hierarchy and organization

This is all an argument of semantics. The names changed slightly when the Church grew larger than a local college of bishops could reasonably oversee. It was a change of practicality, not theology. Anciently, one elder was in charge of one congregation. One elder cannot personally oversee more than one congregation. So the elder (overseer) became a bishop (episkopos) over several congregations, and presbyters were appointed to oversee individual congregations under the bishop's care. The presbyer acts on behalf of the bishop, so the office is really one -- carried out by two people. Again, a change that does not necessarily bring division (or, particularly, deviation from scripture, except as necessitated by circumstance).

[sojourner]

A fancy chair looks like a throne to me. In any case i was disparaging "St Peter's Throne."

My wife looks like Bonnie Hunt. That doesn't make her Bonnie Hunt... In any case, a chair is a chair.

Who are "chaplains"?

The bishop's "attendants."

Then that must be why they R a clergy, because they're the same as everybody else

They are the same as everybody else. The difference is one that you perceive. Yes -- they are called to certain specific ministries -- just as others are called to other specific ministries. But they are not fundamentally different from anyone else.

[writer]

Democracy has nothing to do with it.
We agree

It has to do with who the head of the Church is.
We agree more

The historic, apostolic Church claims that Jesus is the head,
We agree


and that the Pope, Patriarch, Presiding Bishop are his servants, and act in a ministry that is representative.
The presiding Overseer of the church is resurrected: "that great Shepherd of the Sheep" (Heb 13:20), Jesus Christ.
The Son is also called "Eternal Father," in Isaiah 9:6, and He is His Father's Representative


You may judge that Christ's word is true. And you may formulate a perception of that truth and what it means for you.
Merci

You may not judge someone else's formulation of truth and what it means for them.
Mebbe i'm not sure what u mean by "judge" here. If I speak to another the truth in love, then the Lord's word won't return to Him vain


The bishop of Rome is not self-proclaimed. He is elected by representatives of the Church.
Then that does sound like a democracy. I meant the ridiculous proclamations that there Is a "bishop of Rome;" or, like the one in the 1800s, where he proclaimed that he speaks "infallibly" on Christian truth


Choosing to not follow the bishop's teaching, under your definition, could also be seen as divisive.
It is divisive from a division


Maybe you could elucidate exactly what it is that you think creates division, if not the organization and worship practices of a given group.
I did to u. In post 21. And 47. "Christ's oneness is not the oneness of a presiding bishop, Pope, headquarters, Vatican, nor patriarch." "Stating that the one church is oneness with a self-proclaimed "bishop" of Rome is more than a difference. It's divisive." Nor did i say "not the organization" in 47.
Thanks


It's evident that the Church has always had