What makes any given branch of Christianity an authority over my life?

[tom55]

As a general rule, when a leader in any organization begins to abuse his authority, it does not bode well for the organization. And we see that there has been a great many problems in the RCC.

We agree. This has happened in many churches. It could happen in your church, Love Inc.

For a starter, there have been too many cases of sex-starved priests taking their frustrations out on the children in their charge. It got quite messy before the church decided to do something about it.

Priest agree to be "sex starved". They don't go thru seminary college and at the end of the four years the bishop tells them "Surprise, you have to be celibate." There are also married catholic priest. Also, if you are equating being "sex starved" with pedophilia then why aren't all the men who are in sexless marriages pedophiles? And why have some men in marriages where they do have sex with their wife still commit pedophilia/incest? Once again it appears your goal is to attack the RCC church when ALL churches have the same problems on the same scale as the RCC.

Furthermore, I am sure you know what scripture said about the preference of being single if you are going to serve the lord. (1 Corinthians 7:32-35) Maybe the Catholic Church got this one right??


Respectfully......Tom

 

[Barrd]

I have never said the guy in Rome or I have that authority. If you are suggesting I have then please quote me.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you.
Does the Pope in Rome have the authority to interpret scripture for me, or doesn't he?

Your quoting of John 12:48 makes my point. Someone has to have authority to decide if I, Tom55, has rejected His words or if I rejected Him. I do accept Jesus words when he said, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." I believe communion is his flesh and blood, just like He said. Some churches teach that it is only a symbol of his flesh and blood. So who gets to decide if I am right or they are right?? Who has that authority?

So, when Jesus gave His disciples the bread and wine the night that He was arrested, He gave them His actual flesh and blood? Just how do you get that? Did He slice off pieces of Himself, or did the bread and wine turn into His flesh and blood as He stood there?
Again, if the host does become actual flesh and blood during the celebration of the Communion...just how much flesh and blood do you think Jesus has/had?
Come on, Tom. Cannibalism? Really?

What I have been saying to you is that, in my opinion, you have articulated in your writings that you have your own authority to decide what the truth is in scripture is to YOU. You are your own authority. You read the bible and you decide what it means to you. But now in your above statement, "There is One Who has that authority. It isn't me. It isn't you." It seems to me you are now saying you don't have authority to interpret scripture and decide what the truth is. So now I am confused.

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so

Where did those noble Bereans get the authority to decide whether those things were so from the scriptures?

God has given man the truth in scripture but man needs to interpret that truth. Man has interpreted that (singular) truth into 30,000 different truths.

Darling, do you know how a false doctrine is created? It is done by taking scriptures that agree with your premise...say you wanted to prove that God loves whores above all other people. Ridiculous...but possible. You take a few scriptures...Rahab, Tamar, Ruth, Esther, the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears and dried them with her hair, the woman taken in adultery, possibly a few others...and you put your own little "spin" on those verses, carefully avoiding verses like Proverbs 31, where it talks about The Virtuous Woman...and you depend heavily on your target audience not to read or study for themselves. Of course, you must be seen as an "authority"...that's very important. People have to believe that you are the one they should look to to interpret scripture for them.
And, before you can say "I baptize thee", you have 30,000 "bodies of Christ".

Catholics have Rome (not ONE guy in Rome) as their authority. Other Churches have their hierarchal structure as their authority.

No matter how you try to sugar coat it, the Pope does have the final authority. He is more than just a spokesman...he is the Big Kahuna. They actually kneel before him and kiss his ring.
Now, I'm not saying the Pope is not a nice guy...the current one seems to be pretty cool, anyway. But it is a sad fact that when one man has that much power, it is bound to go to his head.

You have you as your own authority because you read the bible and decide what it means to YOU. You have decided what you are going to believe and practice and interpret from the bible on your own. That is NOT what scripture says to do; that is not what the early church practiced.

Tom, if I didn't know better, I'd think that you agreed with those Catholics who once thought that the Bible should not be read by laymen. It was a tremendous battle, you know, for us to have our Bible in our own language...and I am grateful to the men who fought for me to have the privilege of having my own Bible to read for myself. Now I can also be like those noble Bereans, and search the scriptures to see what things be so...

Catholics and other churches have a hierarchal structure and the decision on what they believe is decided within this structure. Like what happened at the Council of Jerusalem.

You do know that the council in Jerusalem decided a dispute between Paul and Peter? Or...did they? It's rather confusing, actually...

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Here, it looks an awful lot like Peter was at fault.
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

And here, it looks as if Peter had changed his tune.

So, who was at fault, really?

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

I had always been taught that this was a dispute between Paul and Peter...and it seems that they did clash a bit. But in the end, it was James et al who were in the circumcision camp.

 

[Wormwood]

OK...I have read and re-read (several times) your response and I think I have put it all together in my little head! I still have some questions that my little brain can't seem to find the answer to in your response. I am going to use the RCC as my example of a large church since it is the largest Christian church worldwide and I will assume local churches are limited in size to one city or a large rural area.

For the record, I dont think you have a little head .

Who is a "local" leader in todays world? What is a congregational level? (not the world of 2000 years ago)

I think local leaders today are very similar to the local leaders in the 1st century. For instance, the Jews had synagogues all over the place and there were local men appointed to lead that fellowship (the local group of people that met together in that building). I think most cities have various churches that adhere to the Scriptures as the Word of God and therefore are leaders for that fellowship of believers. It would be nice if there was only one "real" congregation of believers in each city (the church in Corinth/the church in Dallas, or whatever). Obviously this is not the case for a number of reasons. Today, we have much larger cities and potentially hundreds of thousands of believers in one of those cities. Churches of that congregation size are just not very practical. Then, clearly we have all the denominational and doctrinal divisions. However, I personally believe a non-denominaltional Christian Church, a Baptist church and even a Catholic church on the same city block can all be viable bodies of fellowship and the leaders in each of those fellowships should be respected and submitted to if an individual is connected to that family of believers. Obviously, some fellowships are more biblically accurate than others and some are so wayward in their beliefs they should be avoided altogether. Nonetheless, adherence to the Scriptures is what makes a fellowship and its leadership viable in my estimation.

So, a "congregational level" would be that local fellowship of believers who meet under the same roof and have a group of men that lead those gatherings. Something beyond a congregational level would be like where someone is in charge of a whole region of churches. Here is perhaps a better way to illustrate it: think of it like a local diner. You might have a mom and pop's diner and mom and pop own the diner and they decide who to hire, fire and how their business will be run in that community. However, McDonald's is a corporate structure and while they have local managers and a pecking order in the local store, they also have a big hierarchy which has managers over regions and CEO's over those regional managers, and these are the ones who really call the shots. So, the church that has a "congregational" authority would be more like the mom & pop store in the local community whereas the RCC and other mainline denominations would be more like the McDonald's leadership structure that has leaders over leaders over leaders. The local manager in the store isnt calling the shots for the most part. He is answering to his bosses in corporate offices elsewhere. My point is that I see no precedent for the corporate hierarchy model in the church. Its seems things where handled on a local level like the mom and pop stores where local people made decisions on their own matters and were not answerable to authorities in other cities. The authority they answered to was the Word of God and Jesus Christ (not bishop Jones in another city).

You say the authority to remove someone from a local fellowship was handled by the elders of that church and they were sufficient to exercise this act of discipline alone. Isn't that kind of like the RCC Church (or any other large church) today only on a much larger scale since they are scattered worldwide?

I do think cutting people off from the fellowship is a real problem with modern (and especially Protestant) ecclesiology. I mean, someone can be kicked out of one church for immorality and rather than repenting and returning, they can just go down the street to another fellowship and place membership there. I do think that is the one strong suit of the RCC. Their hierarchy allows for them to work discipline much more effectively among their members. Protestants, unfortunately, are not very effective in this area.

Or are you saying that since Catholics are scattered throughout the world they can't recognize Rome as their authority? The Pope can't be "the elder" of their local Church, only the churches in Rome?

No, I am just saying that in the NT we see local leaders instructed and expected to handle local issues of heresy or behavior unbecoming of a Christian. There was no appeal to higher authorities to settle whether what someone was teaching or doing was worthy of them being withheld Eucharist or being issued an "anathama." I am sure the RCC has an effective means of doing this within their ecclesiology, I am just saying that there doesnt seem to be any inspired directives in Scripture to form such a hierarchy. So, such structures may be effective, but I just dont think they are divinely appointed as some believe.

If the overseers of a local congregation decide that the elder is not interpreting scripture properly which in turn leads the congregation astray can they fire that elder? And if so are they not makingthemselves the authority on scripture?

I am not sure I understand this question as it is written. Overseers and elder/bishop is essentially the same office. The Greek words for those who provide oversight and are elders is interchangable. However, I think I understand what you are getting at. Amongst protestants there are all kinds of approaches to handle questions like this. Some have structures similar to what you find in the RCC on a smaller scale and some operate more on a congregational level and just trust that God will use gifts of local believers to protect the flock...and of course if the congregation gets too out of line, then God can always snuff out that candle. I think that is what we see in Revelation. Jesus warns that if the leaders and the congregation do not repent and follow the truth, then he would remove their lampstands. I do believe that behind it all, Jesus is in charge and he knows who belongs to him and he has the authority and power to eliminate fellowship that fall into falsehood.

The local church has the authority to nominate a particular person (elder) or group (overseers) to interpret the Bible with authority and determine the truth. And if they don't interpret it properly and they lead the local people astray they are removed from the church as heretics or if the people don't accept it they are kicked out of the church. Isn't that kind of like the RCC, only on a smaller scale? It seems you are saying each local church has the authority to interpret scripture. That would mean each church thinks they have the truth and every other church is wrong; except theirs of course. The RCC does that on a worldwide scale!!

Well, not exactly. The major difference in authority and function of the RCC vs. that of a Protestant church is that the RCC sees the church as the source of God's grace. A person goes to Church, not merely to learn the truth of God's Word and apply it to their lives, but to receive Grace through the Church and her sacraments. Thus, if an authority in the RCC decides to kick someone out of the church, they are cutting them off from grace (via the sacraments of Mass, Eucharist, baptism, etc.). The fact is, Mass in the Middle Ages was often held in Latin and many people didnt even speak the language. Thus, the goal wasnt to "educate" people, but simply to cause them to participate in the sacraments by which they could receive life. Moreover, the RCC believes in the authority of Church tradition as equal to or even superior to the teaching of the Scriptures. THeir view is that the Scriptures come from the Church and therefore the Church is essentially on par or even over the Scriptures.

Protestants believe graces comes through faith, not the mother Church. People enter life through faith in the Word, not through grace bestowed through the authority of the mother Church. The heirarchy of various Protestant groups is not to organize how grace is dispensed, but to facilitate teaching and instruction in the authoritative Word. While many Protestant groups disagree on various interpretations, almost all Protestant groups would consider other denominations to be "Christian" and heirs of eternal life. They do not see their denomination as the "true Church" and the only true source of right doctrine. They would likely all agree that other Protestant groups also have the Scriptures and believe in the truth and thus have a right relationship with God by faith...but they might argue that their particular group has a better and fuller understanding of the teaching of Scripture as a whole and so their faith is a bit more sound or more well placed.

See the difference?

However, once again, if a local church makes some of the same decisions the RCC did/does (purgatory, icons etc.) who is to determine if they are wrong if no one has the authority to tell them they are wrong?

I agree with you. This is why I think Paul tells us we should all fear and we should not cast judgment on one another since we are all subject to God's judgment. God is the final judge. We are each just to walk in faith to the best of our ability and seek to grow in the knowledge of the truth and remain humble and ready to receive correction. The Bible is the standard for truth and we will be held to account on what God's revelation teaches and not what some church authority proclaims (in my opinion).

If all the authority lies at the feet of the local elder or the overseers of that local church no one has the authority to tell them they are heretics. They can only tell themselves they are heretics.

Again, I think the Scripture can be understood. People twist the Scriptures all the time. The Word is sufficient to teach them and I dont believe we need a person in some particular office to dictate who is in and who is out. The local leaders who have the Word can do that through its instruction and the guidance of the Spirit. If they twist the truth and lead people into error (such as the Mormons) then they will be held accountable by God..and i think the majority of Christians who know the truth of the Word can quickly spot such errors and hopefully will warn other immature believers to avoid such pitfalls.

Sorry, I have to run. Thanks for the dialogue so far.

 

[Barrd]

WW puts it so much better than I do...

 

[tom55]

Wormwood:

Again, I think the Scripture can be understood. People twist the Scriptures all the time. The Word is sufficient to teach them and I dont believe we need a person in some particular office to dictate who is in and who is out. The local leaders who have the Word can do that through its instruction and the guidance of the Spirit. If they twist the truth and lead people into error (such as the Mormons) then they will be held accountable by God..and i think the majority of Christians who know the truth of the Word can quickly spot such errors and hopefully will warn other immature believers to avoid such pitfalls.

Sorry, I have to run. Thanks for the dialogue so far.

I appreciate your time. The only reason I deleted everything before the above paragraph is so I can focus on the above only. You are very articulate in your thoughts.

Scripture is God-breathed and it is infallible. That means it does not make mistakes and it is not in error; it is THE truth. We agree people twist scripture all the time. So who decides what is "twisted"? Who decides the truth? Certainly not Tom55! It might be you. It might be TheBarrd! It might be the Catholic church or it might be a local church in any town USA. How do we know WHO is twisting scripture and who has the truth? Our salvation depends on it!

You think scripture can be understood but you also think it can be twisted. (for the record I agree with you) So how do I know when I am properly understanding scripture or when I am twisting it? Who can tell me when I am right or wrong? If Jesus was on earth he could tell me. When the apostles were alive they could tell us and they did. Now that they are not sitting here beside me to tell me, who do I turn too? I don't trust my unstable mind to discern the truth. How can every local church have the truth?

(to clarify I know Jesus is sitting by me right now and I have the Holy Spirit to let me know the truth but I suspect Joseph Smith and Martin Luther thought the same thing and we seem to agree at least Joseph Smith twisted scripture. Who is to say Martin Luther didn't also)

Respectfully....Tom

 

[Barrd]

Wormwood:

Again, I think the Scripture can be understood. People twist the Scriptures all the time. The Word is sufficient to teach them and I dont believe we need a person in some particular office to dictate who is in and who is out. The local leaders who have the Word can do that through its instruction and the guidance of the Spirit. If they twist the truth and lead people into error (such as the Mormons) then they will be held accountable by God..and i think the majority of Christians who know the truth of the Word can quickly spot such errors and hopefully will warn other immature believers to avoid such pitfalls.

Sorry, I have to run. Thanks for the dialogue so far.

I appreciate your time. The only reason I deleted everything before the above paragraph is so I can focus on the above only. You are very articulate in your thoughts.

Scripture is God-breathed and it is infallible. That means it does not make mistakes and it is not in error; it is THE truth. We agree people twist scripture all the time. So who decides what is "twisted"? Who decides the truth? Certainly not Tom55! It might be you. It might be TheBarrd! It might be the Catholic church or it might be a local church in any town USA. How do we know WHO is twisting scripture and who has the truth? Our salvation depends on it!

You think scripture can be understood but you also think it can be twisted. (for the record I agree with you) So how do I know when I am properly understanding scripture or when I am twisting it? Who can tell me when I am right or wrong? If Jesus was on earth he could tell me. When the apostles were alive they could tell us and they did. Now that they are not sitting here beside me to tell me, who do I turn too? I don't trust my unstable mind to discern the truth. How can every local church have the truth?

(to clarify I know Jesus is sitting by me right now and I have the Holy Spirit to let me know the truth but I suspect Joseph Smith and Martin Luther thought the same thing and we seem to agree at least Joseph Smith twisted scripture. Who is to say Martin Luther didn't also)

Respectfully....Tom

WW is an amazing guy...

I have said before, and it bears repeating...

The Bible was intended for simple people...carpenters, fishermen, tent makers, housewives....even a simple story teller from Alabama can read and understand it.
So can you, Tom...

 

[StanJ]

Seriously, don't you think we'd be better off to look to Christ to lead us?

He eventually will, in the NEW Millenia. Until then we use the offices HE gave the church and the authority that comes from those offices. Their authority is Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but it really is not up to us to make sure they obey.

 

[heretoeternity]

Jesus should be leading us now in spirit..."churches" or other religious organizations are there for positive re-enforcement, however as most are preaching a different gospel than that taught by Jesus, and the teachings of the scriptures in general, we should turn away from them..they are man made organizations with their own prejudicial teachings which, in most cases differ widely from the true word of God...Romans 16, 2nd Peter 2, 2nd Corinthians 11, Mark 13, Gal 1,Mark 7, 1st John 4, are examples.

 

[Barrd]

Jesus should be leading us now in spirit..."churches" or other religious organizations are there for positive re-enforcement, however as most are preaching a different gospel than that taught by Jesus, and the teachings of the scriptures in general, we should turn away from them..they are man made organizations with their own prejudicial teachings which, in most cases differ widely from the true word of God...Romans 16, 2nd Peter 2, 2nd Corinthians 11, Mark 13, Gal 1,Mark 7, 1st John 4, are examples.

That is why I do not belong to one of the denominations. I and three of my friends decided, back when churches started closing their doors if Christmas fell on a Sunday, that we'd rather have our own home church.
Yeah, I lost the toss on whether to meet on Sunday or Saturday...but we do get together sometimes for our day of rest.

 

[StanJ]

That is why I do not belong to one of the denominations. I and three of my friends decided, back when churches started closing their doors if Christmas fell on a Sunday, that we'd rather have our own home church.
Yeah, I lost the toss on whether to meet on Sunday or Saturday...but we do get together sometimes for our day of rest.

No denomination does it perfectly and they don't always truly represent all of God's will. I find this whole issue about Christmas is nothing more than a tool the enemy uses to divide the church. No body forces you to celebrate it nor do they force you not to, so why make it an issue?

 

[marksman]

I think WW is saying the same thing I am saying...only in more sophisticated terms.

Jesus is our authority. To add to what He commanded in the Bible, or to take away from it, as some men try to do, is to rebel against His authority.
If you or anyone else insists on doing that, don't be terribly surprised when the Lord says that He never knew you...

Would that include spending millions on buildings which you have no problem with?

 

[marksman]

How exactly did you study this NTC?

One. I read the whole of the New Testament and checked specific words in Greek.

Two. I read over 40 books on the subject. The author was irrelevant. If the book has the word "Church" in it I read it. This gave me a very wide ranging understanding of what other people thought.

Three. I contacted several denominational leaders including international ones to pose a few questions to them.

Four I wrote all my findings up including what others said about the subject.

 

[marksman]

As the word 'pastor' is only used once in the NT you would be safe in stating this although I have no idea what you infer by it?

What do you mean by "stating this?" Abstracts are difficult for autistic people to understand.

 

[marksman]

I suggest you read the gospels, where the term THE APOSTLES, is used many times. Sound like a title to me.

The word apostle is recorded eight times in the gospels and every one refers to the 12 that Jesus chose to follow him. My study was in the context of the church as I indicated and in that context it was Paul as apostle, a ministry not a title.

If I was studying the ministry of the apostle as a stand alone subject, which I wasn't, my finding might be different.

 

[marksman]

Well elders in the gospels was not local leadership as Peter and Paul defined in their letters, so you'll have to be a tad more specific.

​No they were not as the Elders in the gospels were usually referred to in regards to the Jewish religion which I was not studying.

 

[marksman]

Yes, elders are normally more than one, as they are NOT considered LEADERS or OVERSEERS.

Act_14:23 And having handpicked elders for them in every assembly, having prayed with fastings, they committed them to the Lord into whom they had believed.


Act_15:2 Then dissension and not a little disputation with them having taken place by Paul and Barnabas, they appointed Paul and Barnabas and some others of them to go up into Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this question.


Act_15:4 And having arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the assembly and the apostles and the elders. And they reported what things God did with them.


Act_15:6 And the apostles and the elders were assembled to see about this matter.


Act_15:22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with all the assembly, to send chosen men from them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, Judas having been surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers,


Act_16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the need to keep the decrees that had been determined by the apostles and the elders in Jerusalem.


Act_20:17 And sending to Ephesus from Miletus, he called for the elders of the assembly.


Act_21:18 And on the next day, Paul went in with us to James. And all the elders came.


1Ti 3:1 Faithful is the Word: If anyone reaches out to overseership, he desires a good work.


1Ti 5:17 Let the elders who take the lead well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those laboring in Word and teaching.


Tit 1:5 For this cause I left you in Crete, that you might set in order the things lacking and appoint elders in every city, as I ordered you:
Tit 1:6 If anyone is blameless, husband of one wife, having faithful children, not in accusation of loose behavior, or disobedient,
Tit 1:7 (for the overseer must be blameless as a steward of God), not self-pleasing, not prone to anger, not given to wine, not a quarreler, not greedy of ill gain;


Jas 5:14 Is any among you sick? Let him call the elders of the assembly, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

I think that these verses which are all a literal translation speak for themselves and would disagree with your contention.

 

[marksman]

I have NEVER heard a local congregation define their elders as Pastors. Sounds like you experience is ONLY in the Brethren denomination, so using it as a true barometer for the church as a whole would be flawed indeed.

If you read what I said, you will see that I stated that my involvement was with the Brethren AND pastor led churches AND I have read over 40 books on the subject. I did not come to any conclusion based solely on "I".

 

[marksman]

Again your experience was VERY limited, which does NOT speak to the whole of Christianity. Elders and bishop are not paid in the Mormon church either, so is that your prerequisite in determining spirituality? Paul said a worker is worthy of his wages in 1 Tim 5:18, so are you disputing what Paul taught here?

My experience was based on attendance at Brethren Churches, Baptist, Methodist, Charismatic, Anglican, Pentecostal, Non Denominational and reading over 40 books on the subject of the church.

​I have never attended or been involved in the Mormon church so I cannot give any view as to their practices.

One thing I was taught at bible college was that you never form a doctrine based on ONE a verse of scripture. Many people contend that you pay people in the church based on the previous verse "Let the elders who take the lead well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those laboring in Word and teaching" but when you look into it it doesn't have anything to do with paying someone a salary as the word honour is the same word that is used to give honour to Jesus so that would mean according to the interpretation that you have to pay Jesus.

 

[marksman]

I have experienced MANY types of church governments, and they ALL have their strengths and weaknesses. None of them are perfect or ideal. Sounds like you spend way to much time in one type of setting to understand or appreciate diversity in any way shape or form.

​I don't consider being part of the Brethren, Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, Charismatic, Pentecostal and Nondenominational as being in one type of setting. The other thing about the Bible College I attended there were students from all sorts of denominations so I was exposed to all sorts of ideas and emphasis.

 

[marksman]

That also goes for people who refuse to accept proper instruction from their peers or elders, especially as Jesus gave those offices to HIS church.

I am not sure what you mean by this statement but I do not think that I have ever said that Jesus did not give those ministries to the church. What I have said elsewhere is that one of the reasons why the church is so weak is that they do not acknowledge all five ministries. In many case one man is expected to do all five and that is recipe for disaster.

In my country, there are over 10,000 ex pastors who have left the ministry because of burnout and excessive expectations.