The Church is Not the Source of Truth

  • 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!

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
First I have to say that this is one of the most appaling misuses of Scripture I have ever seen.

Jesus commissions His First Priests [ Matt. 28: 18-20 ]

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Mat 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,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

No, Jesus commissions Apostles, (sent one). What did he send them to do? Make disciples. The main function of a "priest" is to offer propitiatory sacrifices to God on behalf of the people he represents. The Apostles did not fulfill this function nor wer they ever called priests. No one except Jesus was commissioned to fulfill this function in the NT. There are no NT priests.


Jesus commissioned His priests to continue His work on earth [ 2 Cor. 5:20 ]

Nothing about priests whatsoever in this verse.

2Co 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.


What is a priest? [ Hebrews 5: 1 ]

Heb 5:1 For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.

No one in the NT is commissioned to fulfill this office except Jesus.

Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
Heb 10:13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.
Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.


Jesus is the High Priest [ Heb.2: 17 ]

No argument here.


Jesus made His apostles priests { Luke 22: 19 ]

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

Administering the Lord's Supper is not a priestly function because it is not the re - presentation of a propitiatory sacrifice as Trent would have it. Again:

Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
Heb 10:13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.
Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.


The apostles continued this priestly succession by ordaining other priests [ Acts 13:3, 14: 22, 1:24-26 and Titus 1:5 ]

Act 1:24 And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
Act 1:25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place."
Act 1:26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

A new apostle is chosen to replace Judas. No priests here.

Act 13:3 Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.

Act 14:21 When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch,
Act 14:22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.

We have here the sending and functioning of evangelists. No priests here.

Tit 1:5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you...

This verse mentions the appointment of "elders" not priests.


How did the apostles ordain priests [ Acts 13:3 ]

Act 13:2 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."
Act 13:3 Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.

This passage concerns the ordination of evangelists, not priests.

Where did the authority for the priests come from [ Luke 10: 16 ]

Luk 10:16 "The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

The passage you lifted this from concerns the authority given to 72 evangelists. No priests here.


Only a bishop can ordain a priest [ Titus 1: 5 ]

Tit 1:5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you...

Titus was to appoint "elders" not priests. No mention of priests here. Men like Timothy and Titus were not bishops in the RC sense of the term. They were evangelists. See below.

§ 44. Origin of the Episcopate


"...they were itinerant evangelists and legates of the apostles; only the doubtful tradition of a later day assigns them distinct bishoprics. If bishops at all, they were missionary bishops." —Phillip Schaff, The History of the Christian Church

The terms "bishop" (overseer) and "presbyter" (elder) were used interchangably in the NT. They're the same office. There were no bishops in the RC sense of the term until the middle of the second century.

§ 45. Development of the Episcopate


"It is matter of fact that the episcopal form of government was universally established in the Eastern and Western church as early as the middle of the second century. Even the heretical sects, at least the Ebionites, as we must infer from the commendation of the episcopacy in the pseudo-Clementine literature, were organized on this plan, as well as the later schismatic parties of Novatians, Donatists, etc. But it is equally undeniable, that the episcopate reached its complete form only step by step. In the period before us we must note three stages in this development connected with the name of Ignatius in Syria (d. 107 or 115), Irenaeus in Gaul (d. 202), and Cyprian in North Africa (d. 258). —Phillip Schaff, The History of the Christian Church,



§ 60. Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists.


The ministry originally coincided with the apostolate; as the church was at first identical with the congregation of Jerusalem. No other officers are mentioned in the Gospels and the first five chapters of the Acts. But when the believers began to number thousands, the apostles could not possibly perform all the functions of teaching, conducting worship, and administering discipline; they were obliged to create new offices for the ordinary wants of the congregations, while they devoted themselves to the general supervision and the further extension of the gospel. Thus arose gradually, out of the needs of the Christian church, though partly at the suggestion of the existing organization of the Jewish synagogue, the various general and congregational offices in the church. As these all have their common root in the apostolate, so they partake also, in different degrees, of its divine origin, authority, privileges, and responsibilities.

We notice first, those offices which were not limited to any one congregation, but extended over the whole church, or at least over a great part of it. These are apostles, prophets, and evangelists. Paul mentions them together in this order.
But the prophecy was a gift and function rather than an office, and the evangelists were temporary officers charged with a particular mission under the direction of the apostles. All three are usually regarded as extraordinary officers and confined to the apostolic age; but from time to time God raises extraordinary missionaries (as Patrick, Columba, Boniface, Ansgar), divines (as Augustin, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Melancthon, Calvin), and revival preachers (as Bernard, Knox, Baxter, Wesley, Whitefield), who may well be called apostles, prophets, and evangelists of their age and nation.

1. Apostles. These were originally twelve in number, answering to the twelve tribes of Israel. In place of the traitor, Judas, Matthias was chosen by lot, between the ascension and Pentecost. After the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Paul was added as the thirteenth by the direct call of the exalted Saviour. He was the independent apostle of the Gentiles, and afterward gathered several subordinate helpers around him. Besides these there were apostolic men, like Barnabas, and James the brother of the Lord, whose standing and influence were almost equal to that of the proper apostles. The Twelve (excepting Matthias, who, however, was an eye-witness of the resurrection) and Paul were called directly by Christ, without human intervention, to be his representatives on earth, the inspired organs of the Holy Spirit, the founders and pillars of the whole church. Their office was universal, and their writings are to this day the unerring rule of faith and practice for all Christendom. But they never exercised their divine authority in arbitrary and despotic style. They always paid tender regard to the rights, freedom, and dignity of the immortal souls under their care. In every believer, even in a poor slave like Onesimus, they recognized a member of the same body with themselves, a partaker of their redemption, a beloved brother in Christ. Their government of the church was a labor of meekness and love, of self-denial and unreserved devotion to the eternal welfare of the people. Peter, the prince of the apostles, humbly calls himself a "fellow-presbyter," and raises his prophetic warning against the hierarchical spirit which so easily takes hold of church dignitaries and alienates them from the people.

2. Prophets. These were inspired and inspiring teachers and preachers of the mysteries of God. They appear to have had special influence on the choice of officers, designating the persons who were pointed out to them by the Spirit of God in their prayer and fasting, as peculiarly fitted for missionary labor or any other service in the church. Of the prophets the book of Acts names Agabus, Barnabas, Symeon, Lucius, Manaen, and Saul of Tarsus, Judas and Silas. The gift of prophecy in the wider sense dwelt in all the apostles, pre-eminently in John, the seer of the new covenant and author of the Revelation. It was a function rather than an office.

3. Evangelists, itinerant preachers, delegates, and fellow-laborers of the apostles—such men as Mark, Luke, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Epaphras, Trophimus, and Apollos. They may be compared to modern missionaries. They were apostolic commissioners for a special work. "It is the conception of a later age which represents Timothy as bishop of Ephesus, and Titus as bishop of Crete. St. Paul’s own language implies that the position which they held was temporary. In both cases their term of office is drawing to a close when the apostle writes."

§ 61. Presbyters or Bishops. The Angels of the Seven Churches. James of Jerusalem.


We proceed to the officers of local congregations who were charged with carrying forward in particular places the work begun by the apostles and their delegates. These were of two kinds, Presbyters or Bishops, and Deacons or Helpers. They multiplied in proportion as Christianity extended, while the number of the apostles diminished by death, and could, in the nature of the case, not be filled up by witnesses of the life and resurrection of Christ. The extraordinary officers were necessary for the founding and being of the church, the ordinary officers for its preservation and well-being.

The terms Presbyter (or Elder) and Bishop (or Overseer, Superintendent) denote in the New Testament one and the same office, with this difference only, that the first is borrowed from the Synagogue, the second from the Greek communities; and that the one signifies the dignity, the other the duty.

1. The identity of these officers is very evident from the following facts:
a. They appear always as a plurality or as a college in one and the same congregation, even in smaller cities) as Philippi.
b. The same officers of the church of Ephesus are alternately called presbyters
and bishops.
c. Paul sends greetings to the "bishops" and "deacons" of Philippi, but omits the presbyters because they were included in the first term; as also the plural indicates.
d. In the Pastoral Epistles, where Paul intends to give the qualifications for all church officers, he again mentions only two, bishops and deacons, but uses the term presbyter afterwards for bishop.
Peter urges the "presbyters" to "tend the flock of God," and to "fulfil the office of bishops" with disinterested devotion and without "lording it over the charge allotted to them."
e. The interchange of terms continued in use to the close of the first century, as is evident from the Epistle of Clement of Rome (about 95), and the Didache, and still lingered towards the close of the second.

With the beginning of the second century, from Ignatius onward, the two terms are distinguished and designate two offices; the bishop being regarded first as the head of a congregation surrounded by a council of presbyters, and afterwards as the head of a diocese and successor of the apostles. The episcopate grew out of the presidency of the presbytery, or, as Bishop Lightfoot well expresses it: "The episcopate was formed, not out of the apostolic order by localization, but out of the presbyteral by elevation; and the title, which originally was common to all, came at length to be appropriated to the chief among them."
Nevertheless, a recollection of the original identity was preserved by the best biblical scholars among the fathers, such as Jerome (who taught that the episcopate rose from the presbyterate as a safeguard against schism), Chrysostom, and Theodoret.

The reason why the title bishop (and not presbyter) was given afterwards to the superior officer, may be explained from the fact that it signified, according to monumental inscriptions recently discovered, financial officers of the temples, and that the bishops had the charge of all the funds of the churches, which were largely charitable institutions for the support of widows and orphans, strangers and travellers, aged and infirm people in an age of extreme riches and extreme poverty.

2. The origin of the presbytero-episcopal office is not recorded in the New Testament, but when it is first mentioned in the congregation at Jerusalem, a.d. 44, it appears already as a settled institution. As every Jewish synagogue was ruled by elders, it was very natural that every Jewish Christian congregation should at once adopt this form of government; this may be the reason why the writer of the Acts finds it unnecessary to give an account of the origin; while he reports the origin of the deaconate which arose from a special emergency and had no precise analogy in the organization of the synagogue. The Gentile churches followed the example, choosing the already familiar term bishop. The first thing which Paul and Barnabas did after preaching the gospel in Asia Minor was to organize churches by the appointment of elders.

3. The office of the presbyter-bishops was to teach and to rule the particular congregation committed to their charge. They were the regular "pastors and teachers." To them belonged the direction of public worship, the administration of discipline, the care of souls, and the management of church property. They were usually chosen from the first converts, and appointed by the apostles or their delegates, with the approval of the congregation, or by the congregation itself, which supported them by voluntary contributions. They were solemnly introduced into their office by the apostles or by their fellow presbyters through prayers and the laying on of hands.

The presbyters always formed a college or corporation, a presbytery; as at Jerusalem, at Ephesus, at Philippi, and at the ordination of Timothy. They no doubt maintained a relation of fraternal equality. The New Testament gives us no information about the division of labor among them, or the nature and term of a presidency. It is quite probable that the members of the presbyteral college distributed the various duties of their office among themselves according to their respective talents, tastes, experience, and convenience. Possibly, too, the president, whether temporary or permanent, was styled distinctively the bishop; and from this the subsequent separation of the episcopate from the presbyterate may easily have arisen. But so long as the general government of the church was in the hands of the apostles and their delegates, the bishops were limited in their jurisdiction either to one congregation or to a small circle of congregations.

The distinction of "teaching presbyters" or ministers proper, and "ruling presbyters" or lay-elders, is a convenient arrangement of Reformed churches, but can hardly claim apostolic sanction, since the one passage on which it rests only speaks of two functions in the same office. Whatever may have been the distribution and rotation of duties, Paul expressly mentions ability to teach among the regular requisites for the episcopal or presbyteral office. —Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church

King Nomand Version:

[sup]18 [/sup]“Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already bound in heaven. :huh:

That's not quite right. It's sad that you simply ignore any evidence that is against your assertions and immediately enter into mockery mode.

Mat 18:18 `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. -Young"s Literal Translation

Once again:

"shall be" = future tense

"having been bound" and "having been loosed" = perfect passive participle

untitled-2.jpg
 

Rex

New Member
Oct 17, 2012
2,060
122
0
Kingman AZ
Thank you Nomad, I really appreciate your vast resources on historical documents. As well as your skilled handling of the sword.
 

neophyte

Member
Apr 25, 2012
669
12
18
[background=#fff]Nomad & Rex, your explanations means very little unless you take in consideration that 'the Church' is of course for 'the future"future meaning after ,in the future, after Jesus left us, in the "future" with His One True Apostolic /Universal or as in Catholic.Historical record tells us that Jesus Christ established a Church—not a book—to be the foundation of the Christian faith (Matt. 16:15-18; 18:15-18; cf. Eph. 2:20; 3:10, 20-21; 4:11-15; 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 13:7, 17). Christ said of his Church, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).
The many books that comprise the Bible never tell us that they are inspired, nor do they answer many other essential questions about their canonicity. Who can or cannot be the human authors of the texts? Who wrote them in the first place? But Scripture does tell us—remarkably clearly—that Jesus established a kingdom on earth, the Church, with a hierarchy and the authority to speak for him (Luke 20:29-32; Matt. 10:40; 28:18-20). If we did not have Scripture, we would still have the Church. But without the Church, there would be no New Testament Scripture. It was members of this kingdom, the Church, who wrote Scripture, preserved its many texts, and eventually canonized it. Scripture alone could not do any of this.
The bottom line is that the truth of the Catholic Church is rooted in history. Jesus Christ is a historical person who gave his authority to his Church to teach, govern, and sanctify in his place. His Church gave us the New Testament with the authority of Christ. Reason rejects sola Scriptura as a self-refuting principle.[/background]
 

Rex

New Member
Oct 17, 2012
2,060
122
0
Kingman AZ
[background=#fff]Nomad & Rex, your explanations means very little unless you take in consideration that 'the Church'[/background]

Thank You neophyte I have my guarantee
Ephesians 1:13-14

And I see you have yours.............

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. the exercise of this charism takes several forms:

well just have to wait an see, simply because I'm not moving.
It's rather impossible for me, I have tasted.

[sup]4 [/sup]For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, [sup]5 [/sup]and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,

BTW watch out for red letters
 

neophyte

Member
Apr 25, 2012
669
12
18
Rex,but God didn't set it up that way.that is your man-made private interpretation. God established a Church to do that, just as He set up an authority in the Old Testament ( Moses) to interpret the Word of God. Private judgment is not only denied by Scripture, but such a heresy was unheard of until the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century! This is why there are 30,000 + different denominations, who all are in either conflict, confused, disagree with each other on even the most basic doctrines of Christianity. Surely,i can safely surmise that you, as a reasonable man, can see the problem with sola Scriptura.

Let's connect with our intellect and use some logic here.We both agree that the canon of Scripture is the infallible list of books that belong in the Bible. But the Bible doesn't tell us what the canon is. No, history shows us that the Universal [Catholic means Universal ] and Apostolic Church tells us what the canon is (which she did at regional councils at the end of the fourth century). But if the canon is infallible (which it must be), then the Church who determined the canon must be infallible as well, because an effect is never greater than its cause. The greater never comes from the lesser. Again, you as a reasonable person, can see the truth of this statement.
 

Rex

New Member
Oct 17, 2012
2,060
122
0
Kingman AZ
Do you really need someone "the church" to interpret this verse for you? You can read as well as I can.
It contains the entire message "method" of salvation. Hearing the word "believing unto salvation" you received the HS, who is the guarantee of our inheritance
Nothing hear about church membership.


Ephesians 1:13–14

13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

And to be clear there is nothing about baptism, the laying of hands doing good works, repenting or anything other than hearing and believing.
Faith come by hearing and hearing by the word of God........... Romans find it and read it.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
As far as titles go, I have no need for them myself nor the need of anyone who uses them.

The reason you have no need of titles like "bishop", "priest", or "deacon" is because you have no church. I doubt you can find 2 Christians of any flavor that would agree with your 2 verse salvation theology, unless you are the leader of some bizarre cult.
 

Prentis

New Member
May 25, 2011
2,047
92
0
31
Montreal, Qc
While I agree that the church is mostly no longer what it should be.... The reasoning of the thread is wrong. To say that the body is not the source of the truth, but the head is doesn't make sense; they are one.

Christ and his church are one. Of course, things flow downwards, the truth comes from the head, Christ, and is to be administered on earth through the body. The body incarnates Christ here on earth, and is then, to the world, the source of truth.

This is true of a body in unity under Christ, functioning together with all it's part.... Something we see little of today in the western world.
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The reasoning of the thread is wrong. To say that the body is not the source of the truth, but the head is doesn't make sense; they are one.

It makes perfect sense. The reasoning of the thread is right.

1Ti 3:15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.

A pillar holds something up and a buttress is a support. In this case, the church holds up and defends the truth, but it is not the source of truth.God is the source.
 

Axehead

New Member
May 9, 2012
2,222
205
0
It makes perfect sense. The reasoning of the thread is right.

1Ti 3:15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.

A pillar holds something up and a buttress is a support. In this case, the church holds up and defends the truth, but it is not the source of truth.God is the source.

That is correct, Nomad about the OP. I do however acknowledge the truths that Prentis brings out but you have clarified why the Church is not the Source. But this one statement by Prentis, I may have a different way of saying it.

"The body incarnates Christ here on earth, and is then, to the world, the source of truth."

We are witnesses to the truth (the Reality of the Source-Jesus), but never the source. Jesus said, "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto Me". Each man must still come to the Source and receive Him.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Once we receive Him we are called to walk in Him. You see, we witness to and preach the Truth that is in Jesus and that IS Jesus.

Here is another way to put it.

There are four passages in the New Testament where both the foundation and the superstructure of the church are contained in the same context.

The first is Matt 16:18 - where the "foundation" is the "rock" and the "superstructure" is the "church".

Then 1 Cor 3:9-11 presents the church as "God's building" and then as the "temple of God." Here Paul boldly discusses the "foundation" by saying "For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

"can no man lay"

Eph 2:19-22 presents the church as "the household of God," a "holy temple" and a "habitation of God." And in the same verses he presents this body of people as "being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone..."

"Foundation of the apostles and prophets" - the "of" is genitive of possession not locative of position.

In other words, Jesus was Paul's foundation, and Peter's foundation and John's and James' and Andrew's and all the other apostles.

The apostles are not part of the foundation!

The Holy Spirit is saying the "apostle's and prophet's foundation (which is Jesus Christ)".

When Paul presented the foundation claimed by all the apostles and prophets - then as an appositive statement he explains who that foundation is: it is "Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone."

Finally, I Peter 2:4-8 this apostle presents Jesus as the "living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, precious" which is Jesus Himself. Then Peter quotes the three major "stone prophecies of Psalms 118, Isaiah 8:14 and Isaiah 28:16 and relates them all to Jesus.

Therefore the "rock" upon which Jesus built his "church" was indeed Himself as the fulfillment of all redemptive purposes of God accomplished by Jesus Christ. And, as such He is the source of all truth and remains the source of all truth, providing life and direction for His Body.

Col 2:19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

Christ is on earth by His Spirit, directing His Church as a conductor conducts his orchestra. Just as all eyes are on the conductor for direction the eyes of each member of the Body are on Jesus for His direction. Our eyes should not be on men. As God's people keep their eyes on Jesus (Conductor), He will bring out the harmony in the functioning of the Body.

If a "leader" in the Church does not have his eyes on the Lord and we have our eyes on the "leader" then we will both fall into the ditch.

Axehead
 
  • Like
Reactions: jiggyfly

neophyte

Member
Apr 25, 2012
669
12
18
You reformers of God's One True Church refuse to accept the one true meaning of these verses- Matthew 18: 15- 18 ...tell it to the "church".
Luke 10:16 - if one refuses to listen to His "One" True Apostolic Church then that person [ you ] rejects the True Teaching Authority of Christ's Apostolic Church , the only Church that Jesus left us with .
 

Axehead

New Member
May 9, 2012
2,222
205
0
You reformers of God's One True Church refuse to accept the one true meaning of these verses- Matthew 18: 15- 18 ...tell it to the "church".
Luke 10:16 - if one refuses to listen to His "One" True Apostolic Church then that person [ you ] rejects the True Teaching Authority of Christ's Apostolic Church , the only Church that Jesus left us with .

I think you (RCC) are just jealous of the influence the Holy Spirit has on lives and you want this influence for yourselves.

Reminds me of the one in the garden who wanted Adam and Eve's devotion all for himself rather than God.
This is the age old battle for the hearts and minds of men. It will continue until the Lord ends it all.
 

dragonfly

Well-Known Member
Apr 19, 2012
1,882
141
63
UK
"Foundation of the apostles and prophets" - the "of" is genitive of possession not locative of position.

In other words, Jesus was Paul's foundation, and Peter's foundation and John's and James' and Andrew's and all the other apostles.

The apostles are not part of the foundation!

The Holy Spirit is saying the "apostle's and prophet's foundation (which is Jesus Christ)".

Hi Axehead,

Thanks for the above. That is helpful. I don't think I've ever seen that expounded before, simple as it is.

I think you (RCC) are just jealous of the influence the Holy Spirit has on lives and you want this influence for yourselves.

I found this a strange thing to say, but I guess you mean that if the RCC could take over controlling the Holy Spirit, so as to get Him to do what it wanted, it would. Reminds me of an event in Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. 20 But Peter said to him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. 21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. 22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.


But I don't think you mean that if neophyte, as an individual, wants to come under the influence of the Holy Spirit in his own life so that he knows God as his Father as we do, and sees in scripture what we and others see, that it would be a wrong thing to desire? God Himself is Jealous to know His own people are single-hearted towards Him, and, He wants us to guard our knowledge of Him, and keep ourselves from idols.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Hi Axehead,

Thanks for the above. That is helpful. I don't think I've ever seen that expounded before, simple as it is.

1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings... source

Axehead didn't post the verse so he can deify his opinion and re-write the bible.


I found this a strange thing to say, but I guess you mean that if the RCC could take over controlling the Holy Spirit, so as to get Him to do what it wanted, it would.

The CC (RCC is inaccurate) does not control the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit protects the CC from error.

Reminds me of an event in Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. 20 But Peter said to him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. 21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. 22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

Simony is a heresy and remains so. Remember that when the preacher tells you how much you will be blessed with a "love offering" that you can't afford.


But I don't think you mean that if neophyte, as an individual, wants to come under the influence of the Holy Spirit in his own life so that he knows God as his Father as we do, and sees in scripture what we and others see, that it would be a wrong thing to desire? God Himself is Jealous to know His own people are single-hearted towards Him, and, He wants us to guard our knowledge of Him, and keep ourselves from idols.

Who are you to say neophyte doesn't have the Holy Spirit? A person can have the gift of pastoring, but that does not supersede the office of pastor. That is something you don't seem to understand. Could it be that you have no pastors?
 

Rex

New Member
Oct 17, 2012
2,060
122
0
Kingman AZ
The CC (RCC is inaccurate) does not control the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit protects the CC from error.

Then you should also explain to everyone how catholic are taught "believe" the function of the HS is only found in the catholic church.
Isn't that evidence of SELF possession?


Don't let him tell you half truths dragonfly, you see here below, I assure you he doesn't believe you know God or the HS, which he believes is only found with-in the membership of the RCC.
Who are you to say neophyte doesn't have the Holy Spirit? A person can have the gift of pastoring, but that does not supersede the office of pastor. That is something you don't seem to understand. Could it be that you have no pastors?

Catholics also have two flavors of the HS one for management and another for the laity. Every promise you read about the HS is applied to management only. The laity is basically puppet drones, they aren't even allowed to interpret the bible or "handle" as in making decisions. This is why kepha copy's and pastes from the catholic web sites. He's not allowed to make a personal decision. Needless to say this is not the operation of the Holy Spirit, but simply the work of drone worker bees serving the queen of heaven, Mary
 

neophyte

Member
Apr 25, 2012
669
12
18
Then you should also explain to everyone how catholic are taught "believe" the function of the HS is only found in the catholic church.
Isn't that evidence of SELF possession?


Don't let him tell you half truths dragonfly, you see here below, I assure you he doesn't believe you know God or the HS, which he believes is only found with-in the membership of the RCC.


Catholics also have two flavors of the HS one for management and another for the laity. Every promise you read about the HS is applied to management only. The laity is basically puppet drones, they aren't even allowed to interpret the bible or "handle" as in making decisions. This is why kepha copy's and pastes from the catholic web sites. He's not allowed to make a personal decision. Needless to say this is not the operation of the Holy Spirit, but simply the work of drone worker bees serving the queen of heaven, Mary

Only God's Apostolic Church was ever infused with the HS at Pentecost . Care to show me from the Bible where your Protestant church received the infusion of the HS with ''Tongues of Fire" ?
 

Axehead

New Member
May 9, 2012
2,222
205
0
Then you should also explain to everyone how catholic are taught "believe" the function of the HS is only found in the catholic church.
Isn't that evidence of SELF possession?


Don't let him tell you half truths dragonfly, you see here below, I assure you he doesn't believe you know God or the HS, which he believes is only found with-in the membership of the RCC.


Catholics also have two flavors of the HS one for management and another for the laity. Every promise you read about the HS is applied to management only. The laity is basically puppet drones, they aren't even allowed to interpret the bible or "handle" as in making decisions. This is why kepha copy's and pastes from the catholic web sites. He's not allowed to make a personal decision. Needless to say this is not the operation of the Holy Spirit, but simply the work of drone worker bees serving the queen of heaven, Mary

True, true, true. Management has a BIG Jesus and the laity have a little Jesus.
 

Rex

New Member
Oct 17, 2012
2,060
122
0
Kingman AZ
Only God's Apostolic Church was ever infused with the HS at Pentecost . Care to show me from the Bible where your Protestant church received the infusion of the HS with ''Tongues of Fire" ?


But first you answer me, how is it that you or pope Benedict XV came to possess the Spirit that the Apostles received at Pentecost?

True, true, true. Management has a BIG Jesus and the laity have a little Jesus.

[sup]22 [/sup]And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He has Beelzebub,” and, “By the ruler of the demons He casts out demons.”
[sup]23 [/sup]So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: “How can Satan cast out Satan? [sup]24 [/sup]If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. [sup]25 [/sup]And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. [sup]26 [/sup]And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end. [sup]27 [/sup]No one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.