Apostolic Succession

[8thdaypriest]

The revolt of the Nobles (1524) in Germany, actually gave the Reformation movement its first setback.  Up to that time Luther's doctrines had been spreading through all of Germany without much hindrance. 

Such abuses of the Church as the five pretended sacraments (in addition to baptism and marriage), indulgences, auricular confession to a priest with sins absolved by same, saint and relic worship, the celibacy of the clergy,  the denial of "the cup" to the laity, the (supposed) repeated sacrifice of Christ in the Mass, episcopal usurpation of lands or monies, and the Pope's supremacy were protested against. 

These things were TRADITION, and were NOT BIBLICAL.  

The Princes and the Emperor,  put down the revolt, and all German lands were absorbed into the lands of a few princely families, who were loyal to the Pope, and the reformation movement of Luther, was set back immensely.   

The peasants were held in cruel slavery.  They could not own land, and were paid no wages.   They were allowed to keep only 10% of their crops, and then the church took 10% of that, right down to every 10th egg, and every 10th pig.   A fee was paid to the priest or bishop, for every sacrament - from baptism, to wedding, to last rites, to funeral, to mass.  The poorest peasants could not afford the fees, and so lived without the special sacraments.  Lacking the sacraments, peasants were regarded as unsaved.  Landlords had the right to kill outright, any peasant.  All woods were off limits for hunting, as was the gathering of firewood.  When a peasant died, the landlord claimed all his possessions, leaving the widow and children without any means of shelter or food.  The peasants could not appeal to the law, because the law applied only to free men, which they were not. 

The Church did not criticize this arrangement, and only encouraged peasants to obey their overlords.  No prince or landlord was instructed to do penance for such treatment of his peasants.   

Luther was a pacifist and echoed "the Church's" admonition against any violence or revolt.  

The revolt of the nobles lead to the revolt of the peasants following in the same year.   The leaders of that revolt distributed copies of the "Twelve Articles" , which included free access to woods, fish, fowl and firewood on "common lands", punishments fixed by law (no arbitrary punishments), "death right" to be abolished, fair rents, restriction of "forced services",  payment for services above "what was allowed by law", serfdom to be abolished, no tithe of animals or eggs, and lastly that  the whole congregation shall have power to elect their minister, and to dismiss him if he does not conduct himself properly; and the minister must preach the pure gospel, without human addition."  

If the Pope and bishops and priests had not sunk into cruel depravity, and introduced "necessary" sacraments to enrich themselves,  then the peasants and nobles would not have protested and revolted.  

The revolt of the peasants was also put down.  Some 50 thousand are estimated to have died.   The reformation in Germany was suppressed , and the center of the active reformation then moved to Switzerland.  

 

[8thdaypriest]

Such abuses of the Church as the five pretended sacraments (in addition to baptism and marriage), indulgences, auricular confession to a priest with sins absolved by same, saint and relic worship, the celibacy of the clergy,  the denial of "the cup" to the laity, the (supposed) repeated sacrifice of Christ in the Mass, episcopal usurpation of lands or monies (simply by calling them "holy"), and the Pope's supremacy were all protested against. 

These things were TRADITION, and were NOT BIBLICAL.  

If you wish Gustave, we can discuss any of these things later, or eternal conscious torment in HELL, or the unconscious state of the dead, or Sunday sacredness - whatever.  

Show me - from the Bible - passages supporting "Apostolic succession" (beyond those first appointed/anointed by the first 11 Apostles).  

Let's start with Peter (the name means  "a rock" or "a stone")  4074 Pe,troj Petros {pet'-ros} 

 Matthew 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are (1) Peter, and on this (2) rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

Christ used TWO DIFFERENT WORDS.   1. Peter - a stone (4074)   2. rock  -  (4073) pe,tra petra {pet'-ra}  Meaning:  1) a rock, cliff or ledge 1a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground 1b) a rock, a large stone  or boulder 

One is a small stone - such as one would use to skip across water.  The other is a huge rock cliff - that could support a house  

Matthew 16:16-18 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." 

Christ - His identity as the Son of God and "the Christ" - is "the rock" upon which His church is built.   The church is NOT built upon Peter.  

Christ specially forgave Peter BECAUSE Peter had denied Him publicly three times.  Peter thought that he was cast away - like Judas.  

[Gregory Matthews]

As I understand it, and Gustave can correct me if I am wrong, the following are the seven (7) sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church:

1)  Baptism.

2) Confirmation.

3) The Blessed Eucharist.

4)  Penance.

5)  Anointing of the  Sick.

6) Orders.   [of clergy]

7)  Marriage.

I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church has any other sacraments.

As to saints and relics, those teachings fall into the category of "Other Acts of divine Worship."  

As to celibacy of the clergy that is an administrative decision that the Pope can change as the Pope wishes.  I once knew a Roman Catholic priest who was married as the Pope had allowed him to be both married and a priest.

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

this kind of thing is a separate topic and doesnt belong in this one. I remember you now from a few years back on this forum doing the same things. I feel that you are simply here fishing for responses to "improve" your "apologetics." I applaud Gregory for being patient enough to give you civil and respectful answers, I can learn from that. But it gets tiring to respond to the many different directions your posting keeps going within one topic. If you could stick to the subject, it would be more interesting to engage r respond. Constant distractions and confusion are a classic "debate" form that soon runs its course. I have also figured out the web site where you have been getting most of your EGW responses from. You should be able to do better than that as an "apologist." And no, I wont be listing that web site here, at least for now.

This thread is called "Apostolic Succession"  & the primary point of Succession IS so that there is Authority. I'm not following you as to how you believe this kind of thing is a separate topic and doesn't belong here? I am also thankful and applaud Gregory for being patient enough with me that he provides civil and respectful answers. 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

As I understand it, and Gustave can correct me if I am wrong, the following are the seven (7) sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church:

1)  Baptism.

2) Confirmation.

3) The Blessed Eucharist.

4)  Penance.

5)  Anointing of the  Sick.

6) Orders.   [of clergy]

7)  Marriage.

I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church has any other sacraments.

As to saints and relics, those teachings fall into the category of "Other Acts of divine Worship."  

As to celibacy of the clergy that is an administrative decision that the Pope can change as the Pope wishes.  I once knew a Roman Catholic priest who was married as the Pope had allowed him to be both married and a priest.

Accurate. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Sorry if this is going off in a tangent for a bit.

If rhe Roman Catholic Chruch has seven (7) sacraments,  Why is it that the SDA Church only has two (2) sacraments?  Why does it not include marriage and ordination of clergy as sacraments.  The 25 page article referenced below is a scholarly response to this question.

https://www.adventistarchives.org/should-ordination-be-considered-a-sacrament-in-the-seventh-day-adventist-church.pdf

My non-scholarly response would include the  idea that as to marriage, the SDA Church teaches that a civil marriage is  a valid marriage, which takes it out of the sacramental catagory.  NOTE I am not making any statement about a Catholic view on this point.

In any case the article above may be informational to you on this subject.

As an additional note on the above article, I am one of the SDA clergy who believes that elements of Roman Catholic theology have entered into SDA ordination practices.  I am not saying that this is either right or wrong.  That would depend upon the specific element.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The two (2) SDA sacraments are Marriage and the Lords Supper  (also called Communion)  Foot washing is included in the Lords supper.

[Gustave]

On ‎8‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 6:07 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Are you making this thread about EGW?  Are you going to begin posting every questionable EGW statement?   I hope not!   I thought this thread was for discussing Apostolic succession.   EGW was not given any authority in direct succession from the first apostles.   

How do we today, determine who should "hold authority" within Christ's church?   By "Apostolic Succession" or by local church selection, or by a larger church hierarchy? 

This becomes of paramount importance as we approach the end, because Satan will empower men with seemingly righteous sentiments.  The one who looks like a lamb, will speak as a dragon.   Miracles may be of no help in our determination - because they can be counterfeited by demons.  Pharaoh's priests of Ra turned staffs into serpents.    Demons can even appear in human form - as glorious angels.  

What does this "authority" encompass?  Authority to anoint successors, absolve sins, determine doctrines, policies, church membership, use of monies donated, right to all tithe, etc. etc. etc.  

Because a person with "authority" within the early church,  proclaimed that tradition is equally important with Scripture, and should be used to interpret the Scriptures, should believers today accept that proclamation?  My short answer:  No!   "To the Law and to the Testimony" !

The parallel to this is the Torah, vs the Mishna, -the Oral Law supposedly spoken by Moses (but not written down), and transmitted orally down through the generations.  Which takes precedence?

 

If everyone has authority NO ONE HAS authority. It's rather simple to see how the Bible deals with this subject by looking at Moses through to the termination of his authority at the Resurrection of Christ. Contrary to many folks opinion Christ didn't create an invisible Church, it was visible with real offices within it. 

[Gustave]

16 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I have also figured out the web site where you have been getting most of your EGW responses from. You should be able to do better than that as an "apologist." And no, I wont be listing that web site here, at least for now.

Please, show us where I've been getting most of my EGW responses from. 

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/26/2018 at 1:35 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

As I understand it, and Gustave can correct me if I am wrong, the following are the seven (7) sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church:

1)  Baptism.

2) Confirmation.

3) The Blessed Eucharist.

4)  Penance.

5)  Anointing of the  Sick.

6) Orders.   [of clergy]

7)  Marriage.

I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church has any other sacraments.

As to saints and relics, those teachings fall into the category of "Other Acts of divine Worship."  

As to celibacy of the clergy that is an administrative decision that the Pope can change as the Pope wishes.  I once knew a Roman Catholic priest who was married as the Pope had allowed him to be both married and a priest.

The Catholic Church recognizes seven sacraments:

• Baptism.
• Eucharist.
• Confirmation.
• Reconciliation.
• Anointing of the sick.
• Marriage.
• Holy orders

I thought "Last Rites" is also a sacrament.   Last Rites are administered just before death, or just after death (in case the soul is still in the body).  

Mass includes the Blessed Eucharist".  The priest has the power, through trans-substitution, to bring Christ literally into the wafer and wine, and also to cause Christ Himself to "suffer again" all the pain of the crucifixion.   Ancient pagan cultures around the world, thought their "gods" came down literally, into the images of them,  to be present with worshipers. 

Baptism is of course commanded in the NT - but for adults who have believed and repented.  Babies can do neither.  

Confirmation as an adult is not needed, if one is baptized AS an adult.  

Reconciliation is through "Confession" (to a priest who then gives Absolution and assigns a Penance)  The word "penance" means repentance.   But a penance such as "say three Our Father's and three Hail Marys" is NOT enjoined in the Scriptures.  Scriptural "repentance" means to turn from what you are doing, back to the LORD and His ways.

Oral "Confession" to a priest behind a veil, is NOT enjoined in Scripture.   One is to go to the brother he has wronged.  Apologize, and make amends. 

James 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. 

Numbers 5:7 `then he shall confess the sin which he has committed. He shall make restitution for his trespass in full, plus one-fifth of it, and give it to the one he has wronged.

Protestants recognize: 

Baptism (as an adult), 

"The Lord's Supper" (a memorial of the last supper, or the Passover), 

Marriage, 

Anointing of the Sick (by the elders of the church) 

   

[8thdaypriest]

10 hours ago, Gustave said:

If everyone has authority NO ONE HAS authority. It's rather simple to see how the Bible deals with this subject by looking at Moses through to the termination of his authority at the Resurrection of Christ. Contrary to many folks opinion Christ didn't create an invisible Church, it was visible with real offices within it. 

If those claiming to have  "authority" over the Church of Jesus Christ,  are teaching things NOT FOUND in the Scriptures, and things CONTRARY to the Scriptures, then those claiming that authority are without it.   They are impostors.   

We are saved as individuals, not because we belong to a certain denomination, or because we recognize certain men as authorities.   

I am not opposed to organization within a church body, any more than I oppose organization of the military or government.   It helps to get things done.   Leaders should be chosen, elected to SERVE the body, as administrators, or teachers, or book-keepers etc..  But an election by the congregation does not equate with God's anointing.   Those individuals who receive special "gifts" from God - to teach or to preach, or to write,  are usually recognized as having great talent or a passion for the LORD.  Their anointing is recognized.  People speak of them as "gifted".  Still doesn't give them infallibility.    

Still must compare every teaching with the Scriptures.  

Isaiah 8:20  "To the Law and to the Testimony.  If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."   Sola Scriptura!  

[Gregory Matthews]

What used to be called "Last Rites," by many, is now called the Sacrament of the Sick.

My listing was taken directly from a Roman Catholic book of Canon Law.   However, it was published at a time when the term "Anointing of the Sick," was used in such publications.

As to Protestant Sacraments:  Historically, as  Sacraments, two have been recognized:  Baptism and the Lord's Supper.  The others that you have listed have typically been called either "rites" or "ordinances," but not sacraments as there is a theological difference.

I posted a reference to an article that  goes into some of this stuff.

https://www.adventistarchives.org/should-ordination-be-considered-a-sacrament-in-the-seventh-day-adventist-church.pdf

 

 

 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

If those claiming to have  "authority" over the Church of Jesus Christ,  are teaching things NOT FOUND in the Scriptures, and things CONTRARY to the Scriptures, then those claiming that authority are without it.   They are impostors.   

We are saved as individuals, not because we belong to a certain denomination, or because we recognize certain men as authorities.   

I am not opposed to organization within a church body, any more than I oppose organization of the military or government.   It helps to get things done.   Leaders should be chosen, elected to SERVE the body, as administrators, or teachers, or book-keepers etc..  But an election by the congregation does not equate with God's anointing.   Those individuals who receive special "gifts" from God - to teach or to preach, or to write,  are usually recognized as having great talent or a passion for the LORD.  Their anointing is recognized.  People speak of them as "gifted".  Still doesn't give them infallibility.    

Still must compare every teaching with the Scriptures.  

Isaiah 8:20  "To the Law and to the Testimony.  If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."   Sola Scriptura!  

Using that logic gives the Jehovah's Witnesses, Lord our Righteousness Cult & every other alien theological oddity license to do whatever it is that they did and continue to do. \

Contrary to Korah's charge against Moses it WASN'T Moses who set himself up over the people of the Lord - it was God.

Korah and his followers said: "why lift you up above the people of the Lord" (Numbers 16, 3). Moses answered that "protest" by saying: "and that all thy company should stand against the Lord?" You know what followed that.

That evidently wasn't enough of an education and the Children of Israel immediately accused Moses of killing "the people of the Lord" (Numbers 16, 41). 

This is the context of Christ's commandment to the crowds and to His Disciples (prior to His death) that the Scribes and Pharisees SAT ON MOSES' Seat - therefore do WHATSOEVER they command with the caveat that the Disciples and the crowds were  NOT TO DO AS THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES DID - because they didn't practice what they preached. 

I've already given you the Biblical foundation in the Old Testament for the Succession of Religious Authority, it's explicit. 

The New Testament teaching on Religious Authority is even clearer AND since the beginning there have always been folks who thought they knew better than God did - Lucifer, Korah, the Christian Jews who were teaching that Gentiles needed to be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses to be saved, etc., etc., etc. 

This makes it very clear:

"Forasmuch as we have heard, that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment" Acts 15,24

That's BLUNT, the well intentioned people running around "subverting the souls" of believers with their "matters of salvation" didn't have the Authority to teach Doctrine apart from the Apostles Deposit of Faith. Once it was established that their doctrines were NOT in keeping with the Apostolic Doctrine that was the end of it and given that the ONLY Scriptures that existed at that time favored the group WITHOUT AUTHORITY what does that ultimately tell you about the Authority of the Early Church?  So much for "the law and the testimony" whereas usurping God's established religious authority goes. 

"The Law & the Testimony" spoke of "God" coming to save us & Jesus claimed to John the Baptists disciples THAT Scripture indeed referenced Him. 

Now, I know you don't believe Jesus is "GOD" but consider this Scripture and justify your belief around it for me.

Matthew 10, 37: "He that love his Father or Mother MORE THAN ME is not worthy of Me and he that love son or daughter more than ME is not worthy of ME" 

What comes to mind other than the Greatest Commandment? 

"Jesus said unto him: thou shalt love the Lord they God with all thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind"

Only God would say that & it was God the Son who was given ALL Authority on heaven and on earth from God the Father = the Seat of Moses was terminated and became"The Church".

I wish I had more time right now to write more but unfortunately I do not - God will I will definitely be back to address your other points in a more thorough manner. 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

18 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Its important to realize that there is no such thing in the Bible as "religious authority;" and while I would commend the clever apologetics coming into play here, I would also say that the intended context of the scriptures involving Korah and the others listed in Numbers 16:1 has nothing to do with "apostolic succession" or "religious authority," socalled.

Moses; much like church leaders today have no "authority" in the manner which you describe, the context being found in the first two verses of Numbers 15:

Peleth, Dathan and Abiram were sons of Reuben, and therefore, its  much more likely they were dissatisfied with Moses' leadership of Judah, as they thought that Moses was  dissatisfied  with the  administrative efforts of his cousins.(which he likely was). Korah was cousin to Moses and Aaron, was great-grandson of Levi, Exodus 6:16-21, Numbers 26:9-10; Numbers 27:3, Exodus 6:18; Exodus 6:21, Judges 1:11.

All of the people in Numbers 16,verse one

If anyone tries to tell us that we have to believe exactly as did Kora and his cronies regarding the ministry of Moses in Judah as God's Messenger, then I would have to say that is completely out of context with the scripture's intention. It was Kora who claimed Moses had "religious authority" not God. God just told Moses what to say to the people; but the "authority" was always, and is always GODS.(I believe you did mention this too - but the rest of your post denies it)

GOD Himself was/is The One with "authority" so called. He told Moses what to say to the people of Judah, and all Moses did was to obey God and speak for him. I dont see anywhere where some kind of "religious authority" was bestowed upon Moses or anyone else.98% of the problems in the church today are directly as a result of the heresy of "religious authority," and everyone thinking that they have to claim some for themselves.

One of the biggest problems with Moses was he tried to claim "religious authority" when He hit the rock a number of times, when God specifically told him to hit it only once; and As we all know, that didnt sit so well and Moses did not get to see the promised land because of it.(  ) Apparently, if we do go with scripture on this, Moses thought that he had "religious authority," and he failed miserably because of it. In fact; God has clearly said:

God does not surrender His authority or His praise to anyone; ever. Moses, reminds me of the performance-based religion that I tried for years to live; it was always to accomplish new heights in "pleasing The God who loves me immensely; yet in the end, He will judge me", so my authority is going to rule the day." I am never going to be good enough for God's eagle eye and so I have the authority and the entitlement to do wrong things that I know are wrong. And thats the KIND of authority Moses, and indeed many today live for and die for. When Moses struck that rock three times, he provided a perfect example of our claimed authority, over God's actual authority. Moses often failed to recognize who had the actual and final authority in all things.As Moses learned, the terrifying thing about Grace is getting caught.But God loved Moses too much to allow him to stay in that world of "authority" that he unhappily, and angrily built for himself, and look where Moses ended up!

Apparently, "the seat of Moses" may NOT in fact be the best place to sit in church, today.

 

A) There is such a thing as "religious authority" in the Bible. 

Deuteronomy 5, 27:  "Go near, and hear all that the Lord our God will say; and speak to us all that the Lord our God will speak to you; and we will hear and do it.  And the Lord heard your words, when you spoke to me; and the Lord said to me, ‘I have heard the words of this people, which they have spoken to you; they have rightly said all that they have spoken.  Oh that they had such a mind as this always, to fear me and to keep all my commandments, that it might go well with them and with their children for ever!  Go and say to them, “Return to your tents.”  But you, stand here by me, and I will tell you all the commandment and the statutes and the ordinances which you shall teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess.’' 

God didn't say everyone had the right to get the information and interpret it for themselves - what God said was that the people were RIGHT when they said they would be TAUGHT by Moses. 

Numbers 27, 12-23 describes how Moses marked his successor Joshua - BY the laying on of hands. That's succession "socalled".

The same thing was said by Jesus Himself - exception being the teaching WASN'T to be what the Scribes and Pharisees commanded BUT WHAT CHRIST COMMANDED. 

Matthew 28, 19:  "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Like I said earlier this "Authority" is demonstrated clearly in Acts 15.

Verse 28: "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, AND TO US, to lay upon you no greater burden than......"

This simply doesn't work if everyone is their own Magisterium . 

The following is also representative of religious Authority being understood by the Apostolic Church as I said they understood it.

Acts 6, 5 -6 / Acts 13, 2 -3 

2 Corinthians 1, 21: "Now He that which stablisheth us with you in Christ, AND HATH ANNOTINTED US, [is] God". 

1 Timothy 4, 14: "Neglect not the gift that is IN THEE, which was GIVEN THEE by prophecy, WITH THE LAYING ON OF THE HANDS of the presbytery."

2 Timothy 1, 6: "Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up THE GIFT OF GOD, which is in thee BY THE PUTTING ON OF MY HANDS."

I realize that these may be stinging texts for someone that claims each believer is their own Magisterium and that all they need is a copy of the Bible. The facts are that there is a religious authority clearly taught in the Bible and this POWER was transmitted by the laying on of hands united with Apostolic Succession. All this seems "clever" because it's true - just accept it as it is. 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

14 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

well; I guess the first thing to point out is that there is nothing in scripture called "Magisterium." That is a denominational contstruct that is not found anywhere in the Bible. I know you would really like all of the finely laid out red fonts above to mean your own personal interpretation thereof, but none of them say that "authority" religious or otherwise was given to anybody. In fact, Church leaders in the Bible, and thankfully in the church today are not the boss of anything. They simply have a job to do of preaching and teaching. No authority needed, because God's Word is the authority. I cannot accept your apologetics here, because none of it is Bible study; it is nothing more that biblical quips that leave the author's intended context far behind in the confusions of "traditions."

So, in your understanding, the 'laying on of hands' in Scripture from Moses though to the Apostolic age did not denote any form of authority ( religious or otherwise ). Do I understand you right? 

[Gregory Matthews]

In common SDA understanding, the "laying on of hands," has involved both the "setting apart" to some  duty/responsibility and in addition the authorization to do so as given by the local congregation.

However, the SDA Bible Dictionary gives a number of other meanings included in that phrase to include: Ordination to the service of God, examples of which include the Levite priests (Num. 8:9-10) , Paul, Barnabas and Timothy.

[8thdaypriest]

This topic is a new and very interesting one - for me.   I think it well worth my study. 

We all understand that Christ was made "head of the church" through authority given Him by His Father.   

We're talking about those with whom Christ shares - in a limited way - His authority.   

To whom did Christ give authority?

Was this authority OVER His Church?  Were prophets, called by Christ, also given authority OVER His Church?  

How were they "given" their authority.     

Did Christ tell those to whom He gave authority, that they were to appoint their successors, following in an unbroken chain until His return?  

What authority did Christ give?   

Do those given authority, have authority to:   

baptize?  (those without the authority should NOT baptize)

forgive sins? or to withhold forgiveness? 

to condemn (to death)? 

to marry,  to forbid marriage 

to appoint their successors?   

to demand payment for sacraments?   

to demand that all tithe be paid to them?  

to add to the doctrines? 

to add new ceremonies or traditions or doctrines, beyond those commanded by Christ, or taught by Christ?   

to turn the bread and the wine into the LITERAL body and blood of Christ?  

How are those with authority, to be removed IF they have committed grievous sins against Christ's Church?  

What sins - committed by those with authority, would constitute reason to remove same from a position of authority?   

LOTS of questions!

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

I was looking at every reference with the word spirit, and the word called or call or calling.

Acts 6:3 “Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business;”

    Acts 6:5 “And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit,” 

Does not appear that Stephen was chosen BY one of the first 12 disciples.

Acts 13:2 “As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

        Who called them to this work?  Was it not Christ? 
    The Spirit speaking IS Christ speaking! 

Going back to Christ's OWN CALLING:

It appears that Christ was called and appointed and anointed BY "the LORD", who anointed Christ with His Spirit.

Luke 4:18 “The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed;” (quoted from Isaiah). 

During the OT "Holy man of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2Peter 1:21).   Those men called were NOT usually priests.   

PROPHETS, and PREACHERS were moved by, called by, the LORD, who anointed such men with His Spirit.   My point being that no man (except Christ) can anoint another man with the LORD's spirit.  That is for the LORD to do.   Any person (male or female) can be called by God, and anointed by the LORD.   Every believer is promised the Spirit.   Those especially "called" have a greater anointing, specific to their calling.  With his list of "gifts" in Corinthians,  Paul was clear that no one person received every gift.  

Acts 13:1 "Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off. (Act 13:1 NIV)

Acts 20:17 "From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. . . .  Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." (NKJ)

ACCESS TO GOD

Ephesians 2:18 “For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.”   

Paul writes that both Jew and Gentile "have access" to the Father, through Christ.  No intermediary is necessary.

Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice” (John 10:27).    ALL His Sheep, hear His voice.  They HEAR Him without an intermediary.  

CONCERNING APPOINTMENT OF LEADERS FOR THE CHURCHES

Here Paul appointed Titus, and instructed Titus to appoint elders (bishops) as stewards of the churches.

Titus 1:4-9  "To Titus, a true son in our common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior. 5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you-- 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict." (NKJ)

1 Timothy 3:2 "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; " 

[8thdaypriest]

What should happen IF a "bishop" is NOT BLAMELESS?    How is he to be removed - permanently? 

[8thdaypriest]

From what I've discovered, the whole reason for the "Reformation" was to reform the Church, not to start a new one.   Only when "the Church" refused any reform, and continued in treachery, gross sin, false teaching, and persecution of the people whom they were supposed to "shepherd",  did "reformers" call for a separation from "the Church".   

It all goes back to corruption.  Hence my question:   How to remove a "bishop" or even Pope, who was NOT "blameless" ?     

And then there's the issue of celibacy.  Paul wrote that a bishop should be married (to one wife).  

Paul's statement:  "For I would that all men were even as I myself" (1Co 7:7 KJV), meaning unmarried and celibate, was made because Paul thought that Christ would very shortly return.  He believe himself living in the last days.  He had already said that a husband's body belongs to his wife, and she should not be deprived of that relation.   He had already said that bishops SHOULD be married.  The entire celibate priesthood is UN-BIBLICAL.  

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/27/2018 at 5:48 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Gustave said:   It's rather simple to see how the Bible deals with this subject by looking at Moses through to the termination of his authority at the Resurrection of Christ. Contrary to many folks opinion Christ didn't create an invisible Church, it was visible with real offices within it. 

The original priesthood was "the firstborn" of family, clan, tribe.   At the rebellion of the golden calf, the LORD chose the tribe of Levi to serve the Tabernacle, and specifically the men of the line of Aaron to serve as priests.  

Moses was Aaron's younger brother.  Moses was leader - under God - to speak for Yahweh.   

The LORD told Moses to anoint Joshua to take the people across the Jordan and into the land.   There is no specific command to appoint one leader to succeed Joshua.  

The priests were to offer the sacrifices,  teach the law,  act as mediators in disputes, and to act as the court of last resort, if the elders (of clans or tribes) could not come to a decision.  Aaron was to ask God, by use of the Urimm/Thummim - the stones on the breastplate.  

After Eliazar (the third son of Aaron) died, the priesthood quickly became corrupt, and the people fell away from the LORD.   During the period of the judges, "every man did what was right in his own eyes."   The High Priest Eli seems to have been ok, but his two sons were not.   At this time, the LORD called Samuel - the greatest of the judges.  Most commentators say that Samuel was probably of the Tribe of Levi, but not necessarily of the line of Aaron.   The LORD spoke directly TO Samuel.   

Before Samuel left the field, God has chosen a king for Israel (at their request), and a second king (David).   

The governance of Israel was at that time,  divided between king and priests.  

[8thdaypriest]

13 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

what is the nature of that authority?

Yes

[Gustave]

On ‎8‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 1:36 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

What should happen IF a "bishop" is NOT BLAMELESS?    How is he to be removed - permanently? 

Peter wasn't blameless, Moses wasn't blameless - a Bishop can make mistakes and even sin - it doesn't effect official teachings.

[Gustave]

On ‎8‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 1:49 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

From what I've discovered, the whole reason for the "Reformation" was to reform the Church, not to start a new one.   Only when "the Church" refused any reform, and continued in treachery, gross sin, false teaching, and persecution of the people whom they were supposed to "shepherd",  did "reformers" call for a separation from "the Church".   

It all goes back to corruption.  Hence my question:   How to remove a "bishop" or even Pope, who was NOT "blameless" ?     

And then there's the issue of celibacy.  Paul wrote that a bishop should be married (to one wife).  

Paul's statement:  "For I would that all men were even as I myself" (1Co 7:7 KJV), meaning unmarried and celibate, was made because Paul thought that Christ would very shortly return.  He believe himself living in the last days.  He had already said that a husband's body belongs to his wife, and she should not be deprived of that relation.   He had already said that bishops SHOULD be married.  The entire celibate priesthood is UN-BIBLICAL.  

Hardly unbiblical and as Gregory already pointed out there are married Catholic Priests.

[JoeMo]

13 minutes ago, Gustave said:

a Bishop can make mistakes and even sin

So can an SDA pastor or even  General Conference President.