Just for....those who, well, not just for some, but for all who would love God.

[Philip James]

What does that involve exactly? To me, church oversight is to bring harmony to disputes, to bring clarity to confusion, to bring safety when wolves try to savage the flock. To shepherd the flock of God, even for Jesus my Shepherd.

You've asked a lot of questions in that last post and I'll be glad to answer them, but I'd like to expand on this first if we could. Because I agree with you.

What does it mean to 'bring harmony to disputes... to shepherd the flock' ?

First and foremost imo it means this:
'And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.'
and this 'feed my sheep'
and this 'But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,'
and this 'instruct certain people not to teach false doctrines'
and this 'Command and teach these things.'
and this 'attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching.'

and THIS: 'do this in memory of me'

What does it mean to you?

 

[Philip James]

So I'm OK to be called a Christian, but I'm in disunity with the true church. Got it.

Thank you for the clarification.

God did say that some division is needful so that others can know who is approved.

Much love!

Why does this 'So then not all are in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God' upset you? They are your words..

but, yes indeed: all things work for the good of those who love God.

Peace be with you!

 

[marks]

Why does this 'So then not all are in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God' upset you? They are your words..

but, yes indeed: all things work for the good of those who love God.

Peace be with you!

That's not what upsets me. Your words are divisive to me, and in my opinion work against unity.

But then, we can spin them around just the same. Your church is in disunity with the faithful church.

?

 

[marks]

You've asked a lot of questions in that last post and I'll be glad to answer them, but I'd like to expand on this first if we could. Because I agree with you.

What does it mean to 'bring harmony to disputes... to shepherd the flock' ?

First and foremost imo it means this:
'And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.'
and this 'feed my sheep'
and this 'But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,'
and this 'instruct certain people not to teach false doctrines'
and this 'Command and teach these things.'
and this 'attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching.'

and THIS: 'do this in memory of me'

What does it mean to you?

Entrust to faithful people is not the same as appoing rule over certain people.
"Feed my sheep" is what I'm to do, but that does not mean rule over you, does it?
Remain faithful, where is an authority instruction there?
Instruct certain people not to teach false doctrines. There's one.
Command and teach these things . . . what things?

6If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed. 7But reject profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise yourself toward godliness. 8For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come. 9This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. 10For to this end [c]we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. 11These things command and teach.

Is there a statement of authority here? One man to rule over another?

Reading . . . exortation . . . teaching . . . ruling . . . wait . . . ruling is not included . . .

Philip, I'm not trying to bust your chops here, I find it highly significant that there is not a single place in the Bible that gives one man authority over another, or that tells us what the authority encompasses, with the exception to tell certain ones not to preach certain things. Don't you find that significant?

Much love!

 

[Waiting on him]

You've asked a lot of questions in that last post and I'll be glad to answer them, but I'd like to expand on this first if we could. Because I agree with you.

What does it mean to 'bring harmony to disputes... to shepherd the flock' ?

First and foremost imo it means this:
'And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.'
and this 'feed my sheep'
and this 'But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,'
and this 'instruct certain people not to teach false doctrines'
and this 'Command and teach these things.'
and this 'attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching.'

and THIS: 'do this in memory of me'

What does it mean to you?

Hi Philip,

Is it not true that, prior to the late 60s’
That parishioners were discouraged by Catholic Priests from private reading of scripture?

 

[Waiting on him]

Once the printing press was invented, the most commonly printed book was the Bible, but this still did not make Bible-reading a Catholic’s common practice. Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation. Protestants rejected the authority of the Pope and of the Church and showed it by saying people could read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture.

Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so. And with Catholics studying Scripture and teaching other Catholics about what they were studying, familiarity with Scripture grew.

I don’t see this as feeding, this is more like keep the sheep ignorant so we can control them

 

[Philip James]

That's not what upsets me. Your words are divisive to me, and in my opinion work against unity.

My calls to unity are divisive? How so?

But then, we can spin them around just the same. Your church is in disunity with the faithful church.

?

well that brings us to:

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour.


They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.


If you can show me that I follow men who left the community of the apostles and that you can identify that community, I will consider their claims.

Peace!

 

[Philip James]

Entrust to faithful people is not the same as appoing rule over certain people.
"Feed my sheep" is what I'm to do, but that does not mean rule over you, does it?
Remain faithful, where is an authority instruction there?
Instruct certain people not to teach false doctrines. There's one.
Command and teach these things . . . what things?

All the things from the start of Chapter 2

Is there a statement of authority here? One man to rule over another?

Can you command something without the authority to do so? and of course:

Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Yes, Timothy is charged to command and teach the things he received from Paul, and that includes everything he received from Paul and the apostles, and not just what you see written.

Reading . . . exortation . . . teaching . . . ruling . . . wait . . . ruling is not included . . .

perhaps we should define what you mean by 'ruling'? Clearly the council in Jerusalem 'ruled' on circumcision, and that ruling was binding on all the Church.
Does not 'what you bind on Earth is bound in heaven', designate authority?

Philip, I'm not trying to bust your chops here, I find it highly significant that there is not a single place in the Bible that gives one man authority over another, or that tells us what the authority encompasses, with the exception to tell certain ones not to preach certain things. Don't you find that significant?

Much love!

Yes it's significant, it's significant because you have to listen to those who have gone before you , to understand.

For example Heb 6:2 instruction about baptisms and laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.

There is no 'instruction' about the laying on of hands in scripture, although we see it in the gifting of the Holy Spirit, and in the ordination of Timothy, and in the anointing of the sick... we see Peter, refusing to ordain Simon, and Paul warning Timothy to 'be careful who you lay hands on'..

And to just what that 'instruction' was, you have the living witness of not just the bishops in communion with the bishop of Rome, but that of those in communion with Alexandria and those in communion with Constantinople as well... Nowhere do you have an apostolic community 2000 years old that teaches otherwise.


And don't worry, I don't think your trying to 'bust my chops' . You're testing, and so you should. But I don't lay out my own doctrine, but that of my brothers and sisters for 2000 years... don't take my word for it, listen to them!

Peace!

 

[marks]

Yes it's significant, it's significant because you have to listen to those who have gone before you , to understand.

No, I have to read the Bible that God wrote for me. Isn't this what it comes down to?

There is no clear statement granting one authority over another, only certain specific instructions to be passed along - which is not the conferring of authority, and the many clear statements that none are to lord over another, and that we are all to submit to one another.

No statements about what that authority would even be towards.

And to just what that 'instruction' was, you have the living witness of not just the bishops in communion with the bishop of Rome, but that of those in communion with Alexandria and those in communion with Constantinople as well... Nowhere do you have an apostolic community 2000 years old that teaches otherwise.

Yes, I'm putting to the test.

Of everything you've posted, which one passage do you feel best presents this authority given to others? This dialog is becoming too broad in my opinion, and points are overlooked and not answered, I think.

Can we do this? Look at the most conclusive passage you know?

And for mine, I'd start with Ephesians 5, submit ye one to another. Rather than placing any in authority, we have all been placed in submission.

Can we put to the test the instructions of those whom you follow, your church leaders?

Do they not forbid to marry? Do they not command the abstinence of certain meats? Are these things not contrary to the Bible?

If I must choose between the Bible and a church leader, which should I follow?

Much love!

 

[marks]

My calls to unity are divisive? How so?

What is your call to unity, other to say I'm in disunity with the true church. Because your church leaders tell you that.

This is divisive. Unless it's true. I don't believe it is. It's not "the mother church" that makes us one. The Holy Spirit makes us one.

Much love!

 

[marks]

There is no 'instruction' about the laying on of hands in scripture, although we see it in the gifting of the Holy Spirit, and in the ordination of Timothy, and in the anointing of the sick... we see Peter, refusing to ordain Simon, and Paul warning Timothy to 'be careful who you lay hands on'..

Isn't this right here instructions about laying on of hands?

Much love!

 

[Philip James]

No, I have to read the Bible that God wrote for me. Isn't this what it comes down to?

No, it comes down to being united with HIM and through HIM with each other.

What is your call to unity

Have you not noticed? Perhaps I failed to give you an invitation..

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

(gotta run, I'll try and address the rest of your posts later )

 

[Philip James]

Isn't this right here instructions about laying on of hands?

Much love!

Aha, you surprise me. If you accept that the verses showing apostles and presbyters 'laying on of hands' are clear instruction on it then you have already partly answered your question here:

What I'm asking for is the verse or verses that confer authority to the elders, and what that authority encompasses.

They do indeed have the authority to administer the sacraments through the laying on of hands.

Of everything you've posted, which one passage do you feel best presents this authority given to others? This dialog is becoming too broad in my opinion, and points are overlooked and not answered, I think.

Can we do this? Look at the most conclusive passage you know?

hmm, while the Heb passage clearly shows that we are to submit to our bishops and presbyters, and you have yet to answer regarding how ' the rebellion of Korah' applies to Christians,

I guess the most obvious passage, to me, showing the conferral of authority would be:

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Rather than placing any in authority, we have all been placed in submission

Of course we are all in submission! Obedience is not optional. This of course includes, submitting to our bishops and presbyters.

Can we put to the test the instructions of those whom you follow, your church leaders?

Do they not forbid to marry? Do they not command the abstinence of certain meats? Are these things not contrary to the Bible?

Yes. No. No. Depends.

If I must choose between the Bible and a church leader, which should I follow?

That would indeed be a tough choice. How do you know which of you has the correct understanding of scripture?

Happily we can compare it with what our brothers and sisters have believed and taught for 2000 years; and it would be safe to assume that whichever of you was consistent with the teaching of the Church would be correct (or perhaps more correct would be more apt)

 

[marks]

I guess the most obvious passage, to me, showing the conferral of authority would be:

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

You may want to check the grammar on this passage.

This is the assurance of divine guidance. Here is Young's LITV, he brings this out:

19 and I will give to thee the keys of the reign of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.'

18 `Verily I say to you, Whatever things ye may bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever things ye may loose on the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.
19 `Again, I say to you, that, if two of you may agree on the earth concerning anything, whatever they may ask -- it shall be done to them from my Father who is in the heavens,
20 for where there are two or three gathered together -- to my name, there am I in the midst of them.'

Jesus told His disciples that their "loosings" and "binding", that is, the application of God's law or principles, binding in that we are bound to these things, and loosing in that we are not bound, as in Romans 7, the woman is loosed from the law of marriage by the death of her husband.

Anyway, Jesus told them what they bound would be just that, bound, because it has already been bound in heaven. Not that they have authority over heaven and earth, but that they would correctly know what the divine authority had already settled.

And then Jesus further defines this for us in that "where there are two or three . . .", whoa! Does that mean any of us?

Now. Let me ask. Does the authority you cite as being the unbroken successor to the Apostles have an unbroken record of Scriptural judgments?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Aha, you surprise me. If you accept that the verses showing apostles and presbyters 'laying on of hands' are clear instruction on it then you have already partly answered your question here:

They do indeed have the authority to administer the sacraments through the laying on of hands.

Wait a moment. I thought the instruction was to not lay hands too quickly on someone. Where is the rest?

Much love!

 

[marks]

For example Heb 6:2 instruction about baptisms and laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.

There is no 'instruction' about the laying on of hands in scripture, although we see it in the gifting of the Holy Spirit, and in the ordination of Timothy, and in the anointing of the sick... we see Peter, refusing to ordain Simon, and Paul warning Timothy to 'be careful who you lay hands on'..

And to just what that 'instruction' was, you have the living witness of not just the bishops in communion with the bishop of Rome, but that of those in communion with Alexandria and those in communion with Constantinople as well... Nowhere do you have an apostolic community 2000 years old that teaches otherwise.

So then coming back to this, as we agree then that there is instruction about baptisms, and the laying on of hands, and the resurrection and judgment, then this means we need look no further than the Bible, it actually leaves no gaps, is that not correct?

What is an apostolic community?

Much love!

 

[marks]

No, it comes down to being united with HIM and through HIM with each other.



Have you not noticed? Perhaps I failed to give you an invitation..

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

(gotta run, I'll try and address the rest of your posts later )

With all respect, I think you are skirting my point.

In your eyes, I'm not a full part of the true church. Isn't that right? Am I missing something here? Do you believe I'm as full-fledged as the pope?

Much love!

 

[Enoch111]

In your eyes, I'm not a full part of the true church. Isn't that right? Am I missing something here?

You are not missing anything. Only those who are a part of the Catholic Church are within the *true Church*. Not to worry. Most of us are not affiliated with this *true Church*.

 

[marks]

You are not missing anything. Only those who are a part of the Catholic Church are within the *true Church*. Not to worry. Most of us are not affiliated with this *true Church*.

Hi Enoch, What I'm wondering is this is actually what Philip himself thinks.

Much love!

 

[Philip James]

You may want to check the grammar on this passage.

This is the assurance of divine guidance. Here is Young's LITV, he brings this out:

19 and I will give to thee the keys of the reign of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.'

18 `Verily I say to you, Whatever things ye may bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever things ye may loose on the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.
19 `Again, I say to you, that, if two of you may agree on the earth concerning anything, whatever they may ask -- it shall be done to them from my Father who is in the heavens,
20 for where there are two or three gathered together -- to my name, there am I in the midst of them.'

Jesus told His disciples that their "loosings" and "binding", that is, the application of God's law or principles, binding in that we are bound to these things, and loosing in that we are not bound, as in Romans 7, the woman is loosed from the law of marriage by the death of her husband.

Anyway, Jesus told them what they bound would be just that, bound, because it has already been bound in heaven. Not that they have authority over heaven and earth, but that they would correctly know what the divine authority had already settled.

And then Jesus further defines this for us in that "where there are two or three . . .", whoa! Does that mean any of us?

Now. Let me ask. Does the authority you cite as being the unbroken successor to the Apostles have an unbroken record of Scriptural judgments?

Much love!

with respect, you are way off base here about authority. the 'keys to the kingdom' is a clear conferral of authority. See Isaiah 22:22 and Rev 3:7 . As for Matt 18:18-20
I note you left out vs 17 which is what v 18 is referring to:

If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Why? Because here clearly the church rules.... Does it do so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Of course!

For this you have correct: 'that they would correctly know what the divine authority had already settled'
It is Jesus who speaks through His Church, and a refusal to to listen to us is a refusal to listen to Him.

Further you see this authority exercized here: 'It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities,'

If some communities decided to ignore the council and impose circumcision on their members, could they remain in communion with the apostles? Or what of others ignoring the discipline imposed?

What do you mean by 'Scriptural judgements?'

Peace!