toldailytopic: What do you suppose God thinks of the Catholic Church?

[Cruciform]

You first have to have a correct definition of "the church" before you can even ask those questions.

Absolutely. See Post #260 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[IXOYE]

YOU were the one who brought it up dude, not HS, when you asked if he was qualified to lead a service. If you weren't talking about training to be able to teach then what were you talking about? That's how we generally think of qualification for a job or ministry. Get a grip, dude.

Ummm fact check, it was CHRYS that posed the question to him and he avoided it. I merely policed his avoidance of Chrys' question.



Take a look at Diotrephes in 3 Jn. who pastored a church John planted. Dio turned against John and convinced the people in that church to turn against John. Did John have the authority to take him out of office or kick him out of church? Nope.

Theh lack of authority isn't addressed. You presume... vs 10 shows he will address the issue, but it stops short of saying if he will rule against him or not. You can't conclude from the scriptural evidence what you claim. None the less, we can tell that JOHN felt he had an obligation to address the issue. So, apparently at least JOHN felt he had some authority.

All he could do was advise his buddy Gaius to not follow in his ways. What if Dio left on his own accord for whatever reason but the people were still turned against the mighty apostle John?

What if he didn't. What if he died of heart failure and his replacement fixed his ebul ways?

Nothing he could do about it.

It doesn't show that. It only shows he didn't do anything in the letter, but mention he would bring it up for discussion when he got there. Which according to the pastoral letters was how he should handle it. ALso, since he was on PATMOS most likely at the time of the writing, that sorta relieves his chance of being there from the equation. So it skews the chance of even considering if he would act or not on Dio's role.

The buck stopped with the elders of the church.

Why was Clement more than an elder, addressing the Bishop of Corinth? Interesting, the History of the same time as the writing of 3 john seems to contradict your claims.

No one was over them governmentally, just over them in terms of providing correction if they could receive it.

Who was timothy and titus over. :| Seems pretty disingenuous to me. Timothy was charged with getting the right elders. Hard to have that charge without some command over the situation.

Then there's Paul who always wrote his letters of correction to the body, only mentioning the leaders off-handedly.

ummmm, ok, 1,2, tim; titus...paul wrote to the people, he talked different things with the mature/perfect, his letters, other than pastoral letters were to new or baby believers for encouragement and direction on how to become mature.

It was theirs to follow Paul's admonitions or not, and if the elders didn't take responsibility to correct issues it was up to the body to appoint elders (pastors) after God's own heart. So in that regard the buck really stopped with the congregation.

Ok, lets forego the semantic argument on who actually pulled the trigger. Do you want to tell me that Paul's influence stopped after planting the church?

AND THEN, that he didn't train someone to keep it running as directed???

It's the same with our civil gov. When I worked in the state legislature I would get calls from people mad at their county commissioners for allowing cell towers in their neighborhood and thought a state legislator could "pull rank" on the county commissioner and tell him what to do. When I informed them the state legislature can only do something by getting a majority of the state legislators and the governor to pass a bill and they weren't going to do that just to keep someone from having to look at an ugly cell tower out their back window. They would ask, "Who then has authority over these stupid county commissioners?" I would tell them, "You do. You are a voter. If you don't like your leader find someone you like and work to get him elected. The buck stops with the voters. That's why we live in a constitutional democratic republic so you can fire those leaders who aren't looking out for the people.

nice analogy. Not sure I can agree church leadership is like govt, for the above reasons, but explained very nicely!


In the Catholic Church, however, the people have no recourse to fire leaders who don't really give a damn about the sheep or are even fleecing the sheep, or screwing their young boys.

Or the protestant pedophiles that don't make the news hardly at all, or that run off with the congregational member's wife, or or or or or....

That is NOT how God set up church government to protect the sheep. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people is a biblical principle.

show me.


Too bad churches don't apply it when it has proven to work so well in civil government.



Oh, and YOU don't do that?


Show me, if I make a statement like that, I've either provided or provide at that moment, examples and explanation. do the same.

People teach the Word in HS's church so I don't think that's what he means by "liturgical."

RCC covers the whole bible in every what, 2.5 years??? something like that? That's more thorough than the protestants do.

RCC has a much better claim to being of the Pneuma vs of the SARX than the protestants do. That's a losing proposition.

When the church was given the Holy Spirit at Pentecost a church "service" took on a whole different dimension than what they were used to at the synagogue. But it seems the Catholic church has gone back to what they were used to.

That makes no sense. The Cat'lik church occured after Pentecost, so if they went back to what they were used to, it would be what was established at Pentecost. Shortly after Pentecost, they were going to synogogues, tell me, how is the synogogue service different from what you find in the RCC

Probably because they lost the Holy Spirit somehow.


Speaking from the side of the aisle that caused dissents and factions. Gal 5: 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

The underlined are the evident of the protestant church on this board, and in society. Deal with those facts.:comeout:




You are just plain wrong about this and don't seem to want to consider an alternative interpretation of what we see in scripture.

Show me an alternative that includes the pastoral letters, that accounts for the Council of Jerusalem being ran by James as a form of authority, as the OT that foreshadowed the NT didn't set the example of the Priesthood for us later? Show me.

Don't throw mud at my face and call it icing, make it taste like icing too.




You've never really considered alternate interpretations of those historical facts, that is, just what we can say really happened based on the limited data. Your interpretation does not fit very well.

Really? you know that how. You've not really provided an argument for alternative interpretations that I can see. I've been told what to think, but not really had an exegetical consideration to make.

Also remember I had to change from SBC to where I am now. I did that because of research and arguments. I think it's problematic for you to make the assertion that my interpretation is wrong, because I didn't consider others, that haven't been presented fully, and that I'm wrong cause I don't agree with your substantially biased view (from what I've seen you say on here...) Really seems like a stacked deck.

I would venture to say HS has thought about all the things you bring up but you are not giving serious consideration to what he or I have been saying.

I'm sure he's thought about them. But his thinking is only how to prove his opnions, not to research the truth. That's painfully obvious to me. A very definite, this is what I've been told to believe parroted position.

I really welcome actual exegesis of vss we disagree with. I never find it on here, just opinions and pissiness that people don't agree.

Empirically I've proven I will change my views based on the evidence. What I see here is I'm a jerk if I don't support someone's point of view because I see scripture clearly against it.

 

[HisServant]

If you only adhered to the rules of evidence you would get a much better discussion on this board.

But you have a real issue discerning between evidence and hearsay (which is not admissible).

For example, Clement is 100% pure hearsay.. not corroborated by anyone but himself and those after him.

The scriptural baseline is 2 witnesses.. in Clement's case we have ZERO. And we have been through this multiple times, yet you still keep coming back to Clement again and again and again.

In the end, it is safe to assume that Clement was one of the wolves among the sheep that the apostles warned against.

 

[IXOYE]

An Ekklesia is not something that can be established... an Ekklesia is something that results from CHRISTS calling of his sheep. Hence Christ started calling together HIS ekklesia with Peter being the first (hence rock).

who parted the red sea, moses or God. :Anyway you want to cut the pedantics on this, CHRIST as the head acts through the rest of the body's members. The Apostles and Disciples were the next step from the head to the Body. They left behind those to perpetuate their responsibilities. There were things taught verbally that weren't written, and they were entrusted with those things to make sure they were enacted. That is straight scripture.



And that is where you have your problem of comprehending scripture.

Yeah, my problem is I actually face some you ignore. :| You are really good to point the finger, but you don't refute my positions, you merely keep stating and restating yours. I have a parrot I can do that with. Except he does it with a funny voice so there is SOME entertainment value.

For example, in ancient Greece, the King would call an Ekklesia of all the citizens to come and organize themselves and deal with civic issues. It was usually the older men that took up roles of leadership based upon respect... hence we have ELDERS in the ekklesia..

Yes, the word is common, I understand the word. I've not used it out of context yet. You've yet to present an explanation how I've missed it that will stick.

Who parted the red sea, God or Moses? (in one forum once, I asked that same question except I said noah. Errrrr, i just said, ok you win, that time. Just sharing my hiccups with ya.)

appointed by the ekklesia, etc. i.e. the language of the New Testament is very consistent with this form of organization. It is the antithesis of a hierarchical organization.

Who ran the ecclesia when the greeks pulled it together? Did they all try to control it? Were there rules, and enforcers of the rules to prevent total chaos? And there is nothing I've presented not consistent with that picture. Just not drawing the same conclusion you draw.

Muchlike the clement conversation we had. I challenged you to show me any part of Clement that wasn't in line with scripture's words. You chose not to. I'm sure the reason is honest. Honestly trying to avoid facing things you can't answer... but....:grave:

Hence, Christ's church is SELF ORGANIZING..

So, self organizing you gt NOT UNITY, but dissension which is of the flesh. I would expect the flesh to defend the flesh. Gripe at me more about how I dn't have the Spirit behind what I've learned and you do, and I'll judge your position by its fruits. Empirically, you are over at that point.

it cannot be 'founded'. The apostles jobs were to declare witness to what Jesus had done and to teach what the Holy Spirit instructed them to teach.

So, Paul was out of line then. You are here to correct Paul. Well, hell! Why didn't you just say so!


But their ability and fitfulness to teach was at the behest of the ekklesia and they could reject an apostles teachings if they saw fit.

Funny, at the most active part of the "EKKLESIA, Acts, Pentecost, the Apostles/Disciples were running around not just teaching about Christ, but directing the CHurch. The whole council at Jerusalem speaks against your position here. it was deigning the rules for Gentile converts. Sounds like a bit of authority going there.

I realize youwont' answer anything here directly. And I'm sick of you just ignoring the stuff and repeating the same crap over and over, just with different words.

Put your alphabet after your name, and your refusal to speak WITH, and only TOO people on your resume and present it to God. Say I'm wrong one more time ONLY because you declare it and I'll blow my top. :wave2:

 

[IXOYE]

If you only adhered to the rules of evidence you would get a much better discussion on this board.

Tell me what you think the rules of evidence is, Then instead of just accusing me of not following them, make your argument and present it and show me my errors.

YOUR DECLARATION DOES NOT PROVE A THING EXCEPT THAT YOU HAVE AN OPINION. I can say, you are illiterate and can't read the Bible and that is why you can't really support your position from the Bible, and can't present my biblical issues within your paradigm. And that is as valid as what you give me. You rely on the NEENER NEENER not logic and argument in your discussion.


But you have a real issue discerning between evidence and hearsay (which is not admissible).

Hearsay is admissable but there are situations to it. Show me my hearsay, and answer the scriptural evidence presented.

OH WAIT!!!! I guess your argument is the witnesses of the BIBLE are HEARSAY, and YOU have more authority than them. That's sort of the position you'd have to take.

For example, Clement is 100% pure hearsay.. not corroborated by anyone but himself and those after him.

Same as CHRIST being raised from the dead. What's your point, idiot. Every piece of biblical history is the same, so why not disregard it all and YOU can tell the world how we are to live, ignoring 2k years of development. MY GAWD MAN, do you realize how petulant of a position that is? Are you stomping your hands and feet on the carpet as you say it?

The scriptural baseline is 2 witnesses.. in Clement's case we have ZERO.

We have no witnesses of Christ's resurrection either. Of Paul's martyrdom, of Paul's travels, blah blah blah. we have no witnesses of your grand father, and without a grandfather you don't exist, so I'm calling ghost busters. You take the rules of evidence to ridiculous levels, inconsistent and self serving you are very dishonest.


And we have been through this multiple times, yet you still keep coming back to Clement again and again and again.

He's a piece of history, no matter which CLEMENT IT IS, that has been accepted from within a generation of it's writing, albeit a long generation. Your opinion never existed back then, thus the opinions of CLEMENT is closer to the factual times than you are by 1900 years. So which is more likely to be least altered?

When you can take CLEMENT'S letter and show me that what he states about the CHURCH is not biblical we can have something to discuss. But all you are doing is crying like a baby expecting us to praise you and your alphabet's opinions, while you just say you can't trust historical father's of the church because they are hear say. :| seriously. I'd like to see a picture of these degrees you claim. I'm having a tough time thinking they weren't fictitious for narcissistic authoritative assumptions you don't really possess.


In the end, it is safe to assume that Clement was one of the wolves among the sheep that the apostles warned against.

It's good for you to assume that as it benefits your position. However, since HE agrees with EVERYTHING TAUGHT IN THE NT, except for that PHOENIX thing, I guess if he's a wolf so too was the NT.

:jawdrop: grow up.

 

[HisServant]

Same as CHRIST being raised from the dead. What's your point, idiot. Every piece of biblical history is the same, so why not disregard it all and YOU can tell the world how we are to live, ignoring 2k years of development. MY GAWD MAN, do you realize how petulant of a position that is? Are you stomping your hands and feet on the carpet as you say it?

We have 4 contemporary Gospels proclaiming his resurrection + we have Paul stating the resurrection + his acceptance by the original apostles.

It's good for you to assume that as it benefits your position. However, since HE agrees with EVERYTHING TAUGHT IN THE NT, except for that PHOENIX thing, I guess if he's a wolf so too was the NT.

And you do realize that the scripture tells us to search the scriptures against those that teach (in this case Clement).. and if there is ONE thing wrong, declare the person a false prophet.

Yet here you admit yourself about the phoenix thing not agreeing with the original apostles.

I rest my case... thanks for being your biggest enemy.

Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

And you believe anything this guy says.... lol.

 

[Krsto]

If you only adhered to the rules of evidence you would get a much better discussion on this board.

But you have a real issue discerning between evidence and hearsay (which is not admissible).

For example, Clement is 100% pure hearsay.. not corroborated by anyone but himself and those after him.

The scriptural baseline is 2 witnesses.. in Clement's case we have ZERO. And we have been through this multiple times, yet you still keep coming back to Clement again and again and again.

In the end, it is safe to assume that Clement was one of the wolves among the sheep that the apostles warned against.

Yes but not as big and bad a wolf as Ignatius. Some of the things he said make my blood boil.

 

[HisServant]

Yes but not as big and bad a wolf as Ignatius. Some of the things he said make my blood boil.

So true... most of the 'early church fathers' were out in the bushes when it comes to the majority of their writings.

 

[Cruciform]

So true... most of the 'early church fathers' were out in the bushes when it comes to the majority of their writings.

Thus spake HS, the self-proclaimed Patristics expert! :darwinsm:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[HisServant]

Thus spake HS, the self-proclaimed Patristics expert! :darwinsm:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Do you really want me to go there?... because I will.

 

[Sheila B]

The Holy Spirit wasn't given till Pentecost......

We also have scripture.. especially when Paul chastises Peter.. that warns against adhering to the old Jewish tradition

read scripture: I Peter 1:11 "...the Spirit of Christ that was in them. .."

 

[Cruciform]

Do you really want me to go there?... because I will.

I couldn't care less. Knock yourself out, or don't even bother. It really makes no difference, since your personal opinions about what does or does not constitute doctrinal orthodoxy in the Patristic Period are entirely irrelevant. Sorry for your confusion.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Krsto]

right.

and why is the early church so Jewish in morality and liturgically and prayer life and customs. . . even after 3800 years????

hint: same Holy Spirit????

With the exception of a few notables like David and the prophets who demonstrated they had the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit was not given to the OT church, that is, not to them generally. They didn't need the Holy Spirit within as everything was spelled out for them in the Law, though it would have been helpful to have the Holy Spirit to help them discern when the legalists (Pharisees) were being so legalistic as to counter the "spirit of the Law."

When the Holy Spirit was given to the church at Pentecost they did not need people, like a magisterum, to figure everything out for them to the nth degree and have their services planned out. They enjoyed the presence of God in their midst whenever and wherever they met and knew how to be led of God. Spontenaity was not something they were afraid of.

To go back to a Jewish way to meet together would indicate they had lost that ability to be led of God at each meeting.

 

[IXOYE]

With the exception of a few notables like David and the prophets who demonstrated they had the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit was not given to the OT church, that is, not to them generally. They didn't need the Holy Spirit within as everything was spelled out for them in the Law, though it would have been helpful to have the Holy Spirit to help them discern when the legalists (Pharisees) were being so legalistic as to counter the "spirit of the Law."

When the Holy Spirit was given to the church at Pentecost they did not need people, like a magisterum, to figure everything out for them to the nth degree and have their services planned out. They enjoyed the presence of God in their midst whenever and wherever they met and knew how to be led of God. Spontenaity was not something they were afraid of.

To go back to a Jewish way to meet together would indicate they had lost that ability to be led of God at each meeting.

Your last line is total unfounded bunk. ..

The rest I think is better described like, ..

The old testament had the spirit working on people, not so much indwelling people.

Its role in the new testament was a different assignment than was expected before Christ's resurrection.

What amazes me is people that get this part, but deny the wonderful fists such as removal of the sinful nature rom 8:9. People are real selective and very sure the bible dlsays just what they want it to.

 

[IXOYE]

We have 4 contemporary Gospels proclaiming his resurrection + we have Paul stating the resurrection + his acceptance by the original apostles.

@@@@@ and if Cellement was in contradiction to them it would make a difference. He does not contradict them.

To claim his letter which contradicts nothing but is in agreement with those four Gospels is errant would havebro claim the Gospels were errant. You are about eat yo with the ignorance. I find your multiple degrees highly unlikely.

Clement does nor contradict Scripture, what he does is provides a historical view of how THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED DURING THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES INTERORETED THEIR LETTWRS AND FIRST PERSON TEACHING! AND YOUR COCKY BUTT SITS THERE AND TELLS US THAT HE CANT POSSIBLY KNOW AS KUCH AS YOU DO.

BUDDY THAT MAKES YOU A HYOERBIASED IDIOT WHO WILL STOOP TO AJY LEVEL TO APPEAR RIGHT!

He most likely heard the apostles and thus had a much more clear view and understanding, much more uncorrupted as well viewnof their teachings. Plus it shows the Bishop role in effect during the lifetime of the apostles. At least some of the apostles.

We have comments from early enough in history that comment on authorship and date it to validate those parts of the historical relevance of the letter. Since all he wrote is in agreement with Scripture if you wish to say the gospels are more holy I have to ask, so frigging what? The mention of Clement wasn't to claim canonicity, its jot to change what Scripture says, it's to show how those alive during the apostles lives interpreted their teachings.

You would have us believe you are more authoritative than first person witness. @@@o


And you do realize that the scripture tells us to search the scriptures against those that teach (in this case Clement).. and if there is ONE thing wrong, declare the person a false prophet.

@@@I've already asked you to do so. This false dilemmabis an intellectual lie. I've told you to search the Scriptures and show me where Clement contradicts and you have not cuz you can not show a contradiction,

Jo one has declare Clement a prophet. You are scrambling for finding an excuse to justify you over clement. its like watching abfish flapping on the shire trying to find water. @@@@@@

Yet here you admit yourself about the phoenix thing not agreeing with the original apostles.
@@@I never said that. I mentioned the phoenix was the only qquestionable thing. If it ddisagreed with the apostles, the apostles would have had to have commented on it. Its an analogy of Clement's and the point of the analogy is biblically sound. For all anyone lnows Clement used the story of and knew it was a story only. You are really stooping. I mean you are so reaching for straws, if whomever issued you those multiple diplomas can see you now, they just be reworking those degree plans. @@@@o

I rest my case... thanks for being your biggest enemy.



And you believe anything this guy says.... lol.

I checked this guys observations against Scripture and found they were consistent. I then admitted he was a first person witness so hisbinterpretation bore more weight than mine. Therefore I yave nit changed scripture to suit my needs,I have changed my beliefs to suit scripture.

 

[IXOYE]

So true... most of the 'early church fathers' were out in the bushes when it comes to the majority of their writings.

Until you can show Clement was you are just another jaw flapping fool. You realize it takes lore than a trust. Me to make a case, right?

 

[IXOYE]

Do you really want me to go there?... because I will.

Liar. Over given you tomes of things to answer that you continually ignore. You wont go anywhere coward you will spit more vomit on the floor, tell people it is soup and expect them to eat and like it . That is all you have done so far. You are like udders on a steer.

 

[serpentdove]

True Christians do not make judgments about others...

Who told you that? :idunno: Hillary Clinton? :Shimei: Pr 31:9

 

[serpentdove]

Modern day Pharisees. linger: Gal. 1:6–8, Matt. 15:9, Eph. 4:14.

"The Bible clearly tells us that the only way to come to God is through faith in Jesus Christ. However, faith is misunderstood. Jesus warned against false faith or non-saving faith in Matthew 7:21-23.

He said, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you: Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'" Saving faith should not be confused with faith in a profession, or faith in faith, or faith in a decision, or faith in a prayer..." Full text: Soteriology - Two Kinds of Faith

 

[Krsto]

Ummm fact check, it was CHRYS that posed the question to him and he avoided it. I merely policed his avoidance of Chrys' question.

Oh yeah. :doh:

Theh lack of authority isn't addressed. You presume... vs 10 shows he will address the issue, but it stops short of saying if he will rule against him or not. You can't conclude from the scriptural evidence what you claim. None the less, we can tell that JOHN felt he had an obligation to address the issue. So, apparently at least JOHN felt he had some authority.

You are right in saying we don’t know if he acted or not. But by the same token we don’t know if he felt he had authority or not. Someone can make a lot of noise who has no official authority. I do it all the time. What we can say is he though it a good idea to expose Diotrephes for who he was and let the chips fall as they may. If he had done as Paul where after founding a church he would have turned it over to the elders and “commended them to God,” meaning let God take care of them, then he would trust God to take of the situation while providing any input as people were willing to receive. His only real obligation was to the truth. Had he had the authority you think he had he could have just fired him from Patmos. He wouldn’t need to wait.

The buck stopped with the elders of the church.

Why was Clement more than an elder, addressing the Bishop of Corinth? Interesting, the History of the same time as the writing of 3 john seems to contradict your claims.

1 Clement was not written to the bishop at Corinth. There was no bishop at Corinth. The letter was written to the church as a whole.

Unlike Ignatius (if memory serves), Clement equates bishop and elder, that is, they are the same ministry, which agrees with the New Testament, but is contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Clement affirms congregational affirmation of elders, which HisServant and I believe in, which is also seen in scripture at Acts 14:23 (as a potential interpretation, at least).

No one was over them governmentally, just over them in terms of providing correction if they could receive it.

Who was timothy and titus over. :| Seems pretty disingenuous to me. Timothy was charged with getting the right elders. Hard to have that charge without some command over the situation.

Sure, but their job was over when the church had its elders. They brought up, then stepped aside.

It was theirs to follow Paul's admonitions or not, and if the elders didn't take responsibility to correct issues it was up to the body to appoint elders (pastors) after God's own heart. So in that regard the buck really stopped with the congregation.

Ok, lets forego the semantic argument on who actually pulled the trigger. Do you want to tell me that Paul's influence stopped after planting the church?

AND THEN, that he didn't train someone to keep it running as directed???

You’re saying exactly what I’ve been trying to tell you. A church planter has lots of influence, even after he leaves and commends the eldership to God. The Holy Spirit uses people to speak to people and those with certain gifts are more effective. Beyond the gifting, a church planter has built trust and laid down his life for the sheep. You don’t need to have any official authority over a church to be able to influence them. Even if you do have official authority you are going to be a lot more effective if you rely on relationship building rather than position to influence.

Yes, Paul trained people and told those he trained to train others. Again, this supports my (biblical) model of church polity.

It's the same with our civil gov. When I worked in the state legislature I would get calls from people mad at their county commissioners for allowing cell towers in their neighborhood and thought a state legislator could "pull rank" on the county commissioner and tell him what to do. When I informed them the state legislature can only do something by getting a majority of the state legislators and the governor to pass a bill and they weren't going to do that just to keep someone from having to look at an ugly cell tower out their back window. They would ask, "Who then has authority over these stupid county commissioners?" I would tell them, "You do. You are a voter. If you don't like your leader find someone you like and work to get him elected. The buck stops with the voters. That's why we live in a constitutional democratic republic so you can fire those leaders who aren't looking out for the people.

nice analogy. Not sure I can agree church leadership is like govt, for the above reasons, but explained very nicely!

:e4e: My point is a constitutional democratic republic is more biblical than a lot of church governments.

In the Catholic Church, however, the people have no recourse to fire leaders who don't really give a damn about the sheep or are even fleecing the sheep, or screwing their young boys.

Or the protestant pedophiles that don't make the news hardly at all, or that run off with the congregational member's wife, or or or or or....

You must be referring to authoritarian hierarchical churches because in elder led churches the people do have recourse.

That is NOT how God set up church government to protect the sheep. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people is a biblical principle.

show me.

Egalitarianism recognizes all men are created equal and the Holy Spirit resides with the people, not just appointed leaders.

People teach the Word in HS's church so I don't think that's what he means by "liturgical."

RCC covers the whole bible in every what, 2.5 years??? something like that? That's more thorough than the protestants do.

You mean they read the whole bible to the people every 2.5 years . . . because the people can’t read it for themselves? That pales in comparison to the churches I’ve been in. You must be talking about the Lukewarm Lutherans.

RCC has a much better claim to being of the Pneuma vs of the SARX than the protestants do. That's a losing proposition.

That depends on how you define sarx or what you attribute to sarx. Not being able to receive of or from the Spirit is sarx as well.

When the church was given the Holy Spirit at Pentecost a church "service" took on a whole different dimension than what they were used to at the synagogue. But it seems the Catholic church has gone back to what they were used to.

That makes no sense. The Cat'lik church occured after Pentecost, so if they went back to what they were used to, it would be what was established at Pentecost. Shortly after Pentecost, they were going to synogogues, tell me, how is the synogogue service different from what you find in the RCC

They only went to the synagogue to preach the Gospel. If a church copies the synagogue service it is because they do not know how to be led of the Holy Spirit.

Probably because they lost the Holy Spirit somehow.

Speaking from the side of the aisle that caused dissents and factions. Gal 5: 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

The underlined are the evident of the protestant church on this board, and in society. Deal with those facts.

You think it’s supposed to be easy to get everybody back to the Promised Land by having them follow the cloud and pillar of fire? After camping for a time they would wake in the morning to find the cloud had moved on but some of them liked where they were so stayed behind while the rest followed the cloud. That’s a picture of God leading Christians from Luther to the end when he has restored biblical Christianity. Lots of divisions along the way. Don’t blame the Protestants, blame those who created a need for the Reformation.

Show me an alternative that includes the pastoral letters, that accounts for the Council of Jerusalem being ran by James as a form of authority, as the OT that foreshadowed the NT didn't set the example of the Priesthood for us later? Show me.

Don't throw mud at my face and call it icing, make it taste like icing too.

In the pastoral letters Paul never addressed a “bishop” because his churches didn’t have one or “the pastor” because that position did not exist. He established elders to whom he gave the job of pastoring and overseeing the church. That’s what the word “bishop” means, it comes from episkopos, one who oversees, that is, looks out over something and provides correction based on his expertise. This is clearly seen in his farewell address to the elders at Ephesus (Acts 20:28): Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost (notice who made them overseers) hath made you overseers (episkopos, bishops, plural), to feed (from the word to pastor) the church of God (notice who got Peter’s job to feed), which he hath purchased with his own blood.

You don’t need to have a position of authority to pastor or oversee. Let me give you an example. A church I had visited a few times bought a building and had a work party to remodel it. Since I knew they needed help with painting I volunteered. I walk in, oversee the situation, give a lot of advice as a professional painter, they follow my advice and before long, the pastor and the guy in charge of the building, and all the painters are coming to me asking what to do and what to do next. Did I have to be appointed as Bishop of Paint in order to do that? No, it just happens because of ability, wisdom, etc. Same for the Council of Jerusalem. People listen to those they trust, admire, and believe have the Holy Spirit working through them. Those kind of people can say, “My decision is this . . .” My broker is E.F. Hutton and when E.F. Hutton speaks, everybody listens. Why? Because he’s good at what he does. Notice also at the Council of Jerusalem the decisions where approved by the Holy Spirit, the elders, AND THE PEOPLE. It just wasn’t one man making a decree and that’s that. And no, the OT form of government was fine for that covenant since they (generally) didn’t have the Holy Spirit but once the Holy Spirit is given to the church at Pentecost they are in a New Covenant which requires a new way to govern. You can’t put new wine in old wineskins. The old wineskin can’t hold it very well.