Who Do I Confess My Sins To?
- Thread starter Paul Christensen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,657
- 3,592
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
NONSENSE.
First of all - the replacement for Judas had to be a disciple who was with them from the beginning because he was replacing one of the original Twelve. After that, it wasn't required that a Bishop be there from the beginning.
Paul wasn't there from the beginning - yet he was called an "Apostle". Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus.
As for a successive clergy NOT being Scriptural, I give you the following Scriptural rebuttal:
2 Tim. 2:2
"What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also".
In the Old Testament, there were three levels of Priests:
1) The High Priest
2) The Levitical/Ministerial Priesthood
3) The rest of the people were a general priesthood of believers.
In the New Testament, there are also three levels of Priests:
1) Jesus, our High Priest (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:22-25)
2) The Ministerial Priests (James 5:14-15, Jude 1:11)
3) The general priesthood of all Christians (1 Peter 2:5-9).
Just as with all New Testament fulfillments, the fulfillment is always more perfect than the Old Testament type.
Sure, if it is a public sin, it is to be confessed publicly. If against an individual, go to that person. But the point I was making is you don't go confessing your sin to 'Confessor Father Pepe', when your sin was against brother Bob. You go to Bob.
Good. And if your sin is against God, go to God, not to a hypocrite.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,657
- 3,592
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Bishop and Overseer are interchangeable even today. The role of Bishop today is Overseer in the Diocese.
The word "Pastor" is not a Biblical term.
As to your second question - WERE the Apostles Bishops, Pastors and Prophets?
Yes, they were Bishops and Prophets. As I stated before - "Pastor" is not a biblical term.
stredaleve
Well-Known Member
It seems you might have a sin of bearing false witness, but that is not verified yet.
stredaleve
Well-Known Member
I confess it to a lot of people lol if it's a disadvantage why ts did not even informe... Or maybe he already forget about it
Remember the word is 'Office', not bishop. Besides you are making up rules as you go. Nowhere does it say that that office wouldn't have those requirements 'After that'.
The Church is not Israel.
Yes, but these are not 'successive'. Their qualifications (e.g. elders) were different than that listed in Acts 1.
Your Jude 1:11 reference is bogus...
Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah. Jude 1:11
Yes, and Jesus is the fulfillment of types and prophecies.
Yes and the fakes, the hupocrites, are worse than the Old Testament type, and suffer a far greater judgment , because a greater than Moses is here - they don't listen to Moses, and they reject Jesus too, so they have been gathering up , storing up , vast judgments for themselves.
101G
Well-Known Member
well lets see if "Pastor" is a Biblical term. Jeremiah 3:15 "And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding".
strike #1
as asked, was Paul the apostle, the one in the bible, was he a Pastor yes or No?.
PICJAG.
oops - the strike is yours ..... "with knowledge and understanding " is a requirement ... not present in your 'pastors'.... (according to your own posts)
also, not the , what would you call it ? office, position, appointment, ?
of the Apostles, as written throughout all Scripture....
and not at all like the position/ the employment-job-for money/ of pastors for how long now ? almost 2000 years ?
and to continue with the context of YOUR QUOTED VERSE:
Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings. Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art the Lord our God.
23 Truly in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills, and from the multitude of mountains: truly in the Lord our God is the salvation of Israel.
24 For shame hath devoured the labour of our fathers from our youth; their flocks and their herds, their sons and their daughters.
25 We lie down in our shame, and our confusion covereth us: for we have sinned against the Lord our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day, and have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God.
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
H7462 - ra`ah - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (KJV)
(a long list of the word translated 'pastor', of which today's pastors do not fit the description from Scripture.)
(a long list of the word translated 'pastor', of which today's pastors do not fit the description from Scripture.)
101G
Well-Known Member
ERROR, for the "UNDERSTANDING" and "KNOWLEDGE" is not your... LOL. it's a gift from God which you have no clue of.
and as for your quoting a scripture, we will answer that this way, with fits you perfectly,
Hebrews 5:11 "Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
Hebrews 5:12 "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Hebrews 5:13 "For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
Hebrews 5:14 "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil".
so good day to you............. :cool:
PICJAG.
Note the difference (apparently) in what you think is a pastor, and what Scripture says directly >>>
The KJV translates Strong's G2783 in the following manner: preacher (3x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
a herald or messenger vested with public authority, who conveyed the official messages of kings, magistrates, princes, military commanders, or who gave a public summons or demand, and performed various other duties. In the NT God's ambassador, and the herald or proclaimer of the divine word.
1Ti 2:7
Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, G2783 and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
2Ti 1:11
Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, G2783 and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
2Pe 2:5
And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher G2783 of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
The KJV translates Strong's G2783 in the following manner: preacher (3x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
a herald or messenger vested with public authority, who conveyed the official messages of kings, magistrates, princes, military commanders, or who gave a public summons or demand, and performed various other duties. In the NT God's ambassador, and the herald or proclaimer of the divine word.
1Ti 2:7
Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, G2783 and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
2Ti 1:11
Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, G2783 and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
2Pe 2:5
And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher G2783 of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
oops, your error continued....
YOU posted "understanding and knowledge" from a quote in Scripture... right ? as a requirement of what you thought to be in your favor - but it was not. (as you have now double-judged yourself wrong) .....
The requirement for what is written in Scripture, which so far is lacking in your context of pastor today, and is not seen in your posts , clearly stated today.
YOU posted "understanding and knowledge" from a quote in Scripture... right ? as a requirement of what you thought to be in your favor - but it was not. (as you have now double-judged yourself wrong) .....
The requirement for what is written in Scripture, which so far is lacking in your context of pastor today, and is not seen in your posts , clearly stated today.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
The Bible contains sufficient enough indication of apostolic succession (though probably not “explicit” enough by unbiblical sola Scriptura standards to convince most Protestants: what else is new?).
St. Paul appears to be passing his office along to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6, 13-14, 2:1-2, 4:1-6). See, for example:
2 Timothy 2:1-2 (RSV) You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, [2] and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
There are many indirect indications. When Jesus gives His disciples charge to do certain things, it is seen, by and large, by Protestants, as commands to their successors as well (perhaps not always apostolic succession per se, but at least succession as believers in Christ). So, for example, when Jesus tells His disciples to preach the gospel or to baptize, virtually all Christians today think that this applies to all Christians in perpetuity. Yet when Jesus tells the same disciples to “bind and loose” (Matt 18:18; Jn 20:23; also to St. Peter individually in Matt 16:19), somehow that is not seen as a thing that is perpetually relevant through history, and is relegated to their time only.
This makes no sense. For one to take such a position, they have to establish a solid reason why they regard one instance as perpetual and the other as temporary. I contend that it can’t be done; that any such criterion would be completely arbitrary. Often, sadly, it comes down to merely a contra-Catholic mentality and rationale: “Catholics believe thus-and-so, and so we must oppose it, no matter what the Bible may state on the subject.”
The “send” motif in Scripture is right to the point:
Luke 9:1-2 And he . . . gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal.
John 17:18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
John 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
Luke 10:1-3 After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come. And he said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves.”
The latter passages appears to imply that there are many others involved besides just the 70 (which is already an expansion upon the original twelve). This implies succession and perpetuity.
read more here
St. Paul appears to be passing his office along to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6, 13-14, 2:1-2, 4:1-6). See, for example:
2 Timothy 2:1-2 (RSV) You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, [2] and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
There are many indirect indications. When Jesus gives His disciples charge to do certain things, it is seen, by and large, by Protestants, as commands to their successors as well (perhaps not always apostolic succession per se, but at least succession as believers in Christ). So, for example, when Jesus tells His disciples to preach the gospel or to baptize, virtually all Christians today think that this applies to all Christians in perpetuity. Yet when Jesus tells the same disciples to “bind and loose” (Matt 18:18; Jn 20:23; also to St. Peter individually in Matt 16:19), somehow that is not seen as a thing that is perpetually relevant through history, and is relegated to their time only.
This makes no sense. For one to take such a position, they have to establish a solid reason why they regard one instance as perpetual and the other as temporary. I contend that it can’t be done; that any such criterion would be completely arbitrary. Often, sadly, it comes down to merely a contra-Catholic mentality and rationale: “Catholics believe thus-and-so, and so we must oppose it, no matter what the Bible may state on the subject.”
The “send” motif in Scripture is right to the point:
Luke 9:1-2 And he . . . gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal.
John 17:18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
John 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
Luke 10:1-3 After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come. And he said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves.”
The latter passages appears to imply that there are many others involved besides just the 70 (which is already an expansion upon the original twelve). This implies succession and perpetuity.
read more here
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
How the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:1-32; 16:4) is presented in Holy Scripture:
It’s been one of my favorite arguments against sola Scriptura (i.e., Scripture as the only infallible authority), and as a rationale for Catholic ecumenical councils, to note the high authority of the Jerusalem council, guided by the Holy Spirit Himself (15:28) to make a proclamation binding upon all the Christian faithful everywhere. We know that, since Scripture reports that it was “delivered” and received at Antioch (15:30-31) and in various cities in Asia Minor (16:4); hence, the analogy to ecumenical councils, which are much more than mere local authoritative proclamations.
I have loved presenting the fact that the Apostle Paul “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (16:4; RSV, as throughout). This is the very opposite of sola Scriptura modes of thought. The Jerusalem council doesn’t even seem (from what we know) to have been primarily concerned with biblical arguments and justifications. But however the decision was arrived at, regarding abstaining “from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity” (15:28), and the non-necessity of circumcision (15:5), it was authoritative and binding. As such, it is a compelling biblical argument for an infallible Church and against sola Scriptura, which precisely denies this.
Now I will be using it as an argument for apostolic succession, too. Here is how it works: the Jerusalem council presents “apostles” and “elders” in conjunction six times:
Acts 15:2
Acts 15:4
Acts 15:6
Acts 15:22
Acts 15:23
Acts 16:4
“Elders” here is the Greek presbuteros, which referred to a leader of a local congregation, so that Protestants think of it primarily as a “pastor”, whereas Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglicans regard it as the equivalent of “priest.” In any event, all agree that it is a lower office in the scheme of things than an apostle: even arguably lower than a bishop (which is mentioned several times in the New Testament).
What is striking, then, is that the two offices in the Jerusalem council are presented as if there is little or no distinction between them, at least in terms of their practical authority. It’s not an airtight argument, I concede. We could, for example, say that “bishops and the pope gathered together at the Second Vatican Council.” We know that the pope had a higher authority. It may be that apostles here had greater authority.
But we don’t know that with certainty, from Bible passages that mention them. They seem to be presented as having in effect, “one man one vote.” They “consider” the issue “together” (15:6). It’s the same for the “decisions which had been reached” (16:4).
Therefore, if such a momentous, binding decision was arrived at by apostles and elders, it sure seems to suggest what Catholics believe: that bishops are successors of the apostles. We already see the two offices working together in Jerusalem and making a joint decision. It’s a concrete example of precisely what the Catholic Church claims about apostolic succession and the sublime authority conveyed therein. There are three additional sub-arguments that I submit for consideration:
1) The council, by joint authority of apostles and elders, sent off Judas and Silas as its messengers, even though they “were themselves prophets” (15:32). Prophets were the highest authorities in the old covenant (with direct messages from God), and here mere “elders” are commissioning them.
2) St. Paul himself is duty-bound to the council’s decree (16:4), which was decided in part by mere elders. So this implies apostolic succession (and conciliarism), if elders can participate in such high authority that even apostles must obey it.
3) Paul previously “had no small dissension and debate” with the circumcision party (15:1-2), but was unable to resolve the conflict by his own profound apostolic authority. Instead, he had to go to the council, where apostles and elders decided the question. All he is reported as doing there is reporting about “signs and wonders” in his ministry (15:12). He’s not the leader or even a key figure. This is not what the Protestant “Paulinist” view would have predicted.
apostolic-succession-as-seen-in-the-jerusalem-council/
It’s been one of my favorite arguments against sola Scriptura (i.e., Scripture as the only infallible authority), and as a rationale for Catholic ecumenical councils, to note the high authority of the Jerusalem council, guided by the Holy Spirit Himself (15:28) to make a proclamation binding upon all the Christian faithful everywhere. We know that, since Scripture reports that it was “delivered” and received at Antioch (15:30-31) and in various cities in Asia Minor (16:4); hence, the analogy to ecumenical councils, which are much more than mere local authoritative proclamations.
I have loved presenting the fact that the Apostle Paul “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (16:4; RSV, as throughout). This is the very opposite of sola Scriptura modes of thought. The Jerusalem council doesn’t even seem (from what we know) to have been primarily concerned with biblical arguments and justifications. But however the decision was arrived at, regarding abstaining “from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity” (15:28), and the non-necessity of circumcision (15:5), it was authoritative and binding. As such, it is a compelling biblical argument for an infallible Church and against sola Scriptura, which precisely denies this.
Now I will be using it as an argument for apostolic succession, too. Here is how it works: the Jerusalem council presents “apostles” and “elders” in conjunction six times:
Acts 15:2
Acts 15:4
Acts 15:6
Acts 15:22
Acts 15:23
Acts 16:4
“Elders” here is the Greek presbuteros, which referred to a leader of a local congregation, so that Protestants think of it primarily as a “pastor”, whereas Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglicans regard it as the equivalent of “priest.” In any event, all agree that it is a lower office in the scheme of things than an apostle: even arguably lower than a bishop (which is mentioned several times in the New Testament).
What is striking, then, is that the two offices in the Jerusalem council are presented as if there is little or no distinction between them, at least in terms of their practical authority. It’s not an airtight argument, I concede. We could, for example, say that “bishops and the pope gathered together at the Second Vatican Council.” We know that the pope had a higher authority. It may be that apostles here had greater authority.
But we don’t know that with certainty, from Bible passages that mention them. They seem to be presented as having in effect, “one man one vote.” They “consider” the issue “together” (15:6). It’s the same for the “decisions which had been reached” (16:4).
Therefore, if such a momentous, binding decision was arrived at by apostles and elders, it sure seems to suggest what Catholics believe: that bishops are successors of the apostles. We already see the two offices working together in Jerusalem and making a joint decision. It’s a concrete example of precisely what the Catholic Church claims about apostolic succession and the sublime authority conveyed therein. There are three additional sub-arguments that I submit for consideration:
1) The council, by joint authority of apostles and elders, sent off Judas and Silas as its messengers, even though they “were themselves prophets” (15:32). Prophets were the highest authorities in the old covenant (with direct messages from God), and here mere “elders” are commissioning them.
2) St. Paul himself is duty-bound to the council’s decree (16:4), which was decided in part by mere elders. So this implies apostolic succession (and conciliarism), if elders can participate in such high authority that even apostles must obey it.
3) Paul previously “had no small dissension and debate” with the circumcision party (15:1-2), but was unable to resolve the conflict by his own profound apostolic authority. Instead, he had to go to the council, where apostles and elders decided the question. All he is reported as doing there is reporting about “signs and wonders” in his ministry (15:12). He’s not the leader or even a key figure. This is not what the Protestant “Paulinist” view would have predicted.
apostolic-succession-as-seen-in-the-jerusalem-council/
Better start taking lessons in English literature.
The whole book is about our relationship with God/Jesus so references to he/him etc refer to God/Jesus.
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,082
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
priceless
you are welcome to treat confess your sins, one to another however you like i guess, ignore it if you like, too, i am not your arbiter, nor am i talking down to you like that, ok; because i have no response to the realities of Scripture. Have a blessed day
