To evangelize is a modern concept.
We are talking about what is the role or position of an evangelist in the church, where the Bible does say that an evangelist is for the building up of the body (the church) -at least along with the others.
ECT What does authority in the church look like?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
We are talking about what is the role or position of an evangelist in the church, where the Bible does say that an evangelist is for the building up of the body (the church) -at least along with the others.
PhilipJames
New member
I'm still not quite sure what you mean by 'oneness'...Is it some kind of heresy I am unfamiliar with perhaps?
A view I have seen many take. But one I find not supported by scripture (or the traditions of the apostolic churches). Without actually going into that debate... assuming we can both support our view from scripture.. how do you think we could resolve this and still maintain the bond of peace and unity that we are called to? Who (if anyone) has the authority to resolve it to ensure that we are both led into all Truth? How does the Spirit, bring us ALL to hold: 'one Faith, one Baptism'
Right smack dab in the middle of Canada.
Where are you from? And its not just my view but that which my church teaches as well.
yes. I think it may surprise you what the 'Roman' church teaches in this regard..
YES!
although looking to visibly reunite all Christians in one communion is also a good idea, and one that I pray for often. Our disunity (and competing doctrine) impedes our witness to those who do not know the Lord. I am rather encouraged by the recent efforts between Rome and Constantinople to repair our fellowship.
Alleluia!
I am speaking of individuals yes. Myself, for example... I have lived the story of the prodigal son, and thus am the least of my brethren... but God, in HIS mercy, keeps working on me.
If you know some who have already been formed into the perfect likeness of Christ, our Head, they must be holy men indeed! I'd love to meet them.I agree! Which is why the Church cannot be overcome by the enemy. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit will not allow it!
this reminds of a funny anecdote. (and I'm paraphrasing here)..
Napoleon once said to a cardinal of the Church (I forget which one) that he would destroy the Church... the cardinal replied.. 'we've been trying to do that since it began but haven't managed to... so good luck..'
I don't have a problem with Jewish Christians following Jewish customs either. If you have never eaten pork for example and you decide to continue not eating pork to Glorify God, that's great... and if I as a gentile believer have always eaten pork and give thanks and Glory to God when I do.. that's also great... If I invite you over for dinner (and you're welcome anytime
) and I know you don't eat pork... I'll serve chicken .well yes, but I was primarily trying to show WHY we believe that, as opposed to Arianism... which seems to be resurfacing these days amongst some who have rejected the authority of the Church, because there are scriptural arguments that can be made to support that view...
Yes. I believe that when a full council of the bishops of the Church is called that the Holy Spirit will NOT allow them to definitively declare error as Truth and thus lead the whole Church into error.
(of course that begs the question... what's a 'full council of bishops' ?)
Peace!
PJ
PhilipJames
New member
I see all validly ordained authorities in the Church as elders.. bishops (overseers), priests (presbyters), and deacons.
I believe overseers can be evangelists, prophets, pastors and teachers... in fact most of the bishops I have met are all of the above.. some gifted more so in one area or another... the same can be said for all of the presbytery (that would be bishops and priests)
They could be, but not necessarily so. I believe Timothy was, based on the instruction and authority demonstrated in the letters Paul wrote to him.
Peace! (and good night!)
PJ
If you were to look it up we might for different reasons call it a heresy. I would probably just say false doctrine or a position I don't take or agree with.
The best way to resolve a matter, I believe, is to talk about it. To talk it through. For example, I believe that baptism and what it means to be born again are closely related or can be related but that they are distinctly different issues/matters.
I live in the United States of America. Can you see my profile?Right smack dab in the middle of Canada.
Well, what would a first birth have to do with water?
Right. Because the east and west of the catholic church split.
I eat kosher. I haven't always, but I do.Alleluia!
I am speaking of individuals yes. Myself, for example... I have lived the story of the prodigal son, and thus am the least of my brethren... but God, in HIS mercy, keeps working on me.
I agree! Which is why the Church cannot be overcome by the enemy. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit will not allow it!
this reminds of a funny anecdote. (and I'm paraphrasing here)..
Napoleon once said to a cardinal of the Church (I forget which one) that he would destroy the Church... the cardinal replied.. 'we've been trying to do that since it began but haven't managed to... so good luck..'
I don't have a problem with Jewish Christians following Jewish customs either. If you have never eaten pork for example and you decide to continue not eating pork to Glorify God, that's great... and if I as a gentile believer have always eaten pork and give thanks and Glory to God when I do.. that's also great... If I invite you over for dinner (and you're welcome anytime
What we call a council in Jerusalem where James (a Jewish man) was with the others may be different from your idea of a council. I'm more going off what the Bible says in the heading above that section than anything else.
You don't mention apostles and you do mention priests. I will just address what you do mention. If we are to take the book of Hebrews literally then we have I believe that there WERE Levitical priests. Unless I misunderstand something.
PhilipJames
New member
Hello Jacob,
I agree. However when it comes to matters that are dividing the whole Church, that are breaking the bond of peace and fellowship that we are called by the Spirit to pursue... it is the duty of our elders to resolve the matter and shepherd the Church... to identify and repudiate what is error and define what the Faith is, and sometimes this takes a council of our elders, as some of them may have fallen into error as well.. the case of Arius and those that followed him being the prime example.
And if we believe that the Holy Spirit guides and guards the Church, then the Truth MUST always prevail. Thus to reject the binding doctrinal statements of the Councils of our elders is to separate ourselves from the Truth that the Holy Spirit has affirmed.
born of water and Spirit is referring to Christian baptism. Nicodemus made the mistake of thinking that the 'water' was referring to the womb... he should have known better, as the Jews were quite familiar with baptism as a rite of cleansing...
We call that the great Schism. A schism occurs when a valid bishop (or bishops) cease to fellowship with other valid bishops.
And while our visible communion was broken, we are still united through the Blood of Christ, that is, the Eucharist. Like the 2 halves of the body, united only in the heart, and the HEAD.
This split was prefigured in the OT by the split between Judah and Israel... with the notable difference that the two halves of the Church remained faithful.
I believe that the fact that the eastern and western halves of the Church still teach essentially the same things after 1000 years of 'separation' is a proof that each has retained valid authority in the Church, and that they do in fact, hold fast to the one faith of the apostles.
This is different than what happened in the reformation as no valid bishops led (or joined) the rebellion against the Church. and after 500 years you have thousands of different 'churches' teaching widely different and often contradictory things.... proof, to me, that there is no valid 'authority' amongst them.
I think examining that council would be the logical next step in this discussion. I'll let you start.
Peace!
PJ
I agree. However when it comes to matters that are dividing the whole Church, that are breaking the bond of peace and fellowship that we are called by the Spirit to pursue... it is the duty of our elders to resolve the matter and shepherd the Church... to identify and repudiate what is error and define what the Faith is, and sometimes this takes a council of our elders, as some of them may have fallen into error as well.. the case of Arius and those that followed him being the prime example.
And if we believe that the Holy Spirit guides and guards the Church, then the Truth MUST always prevail. Thus to reject the binding doctrinal statements of the Councils of our elders is to separate ourselves from the Truth that the Holy Spirit has affirmed.
born of water and Spirit is referring to Christian baptism. Nicodemus made the mistake of thinking that the 'water' was referring to the womb... he should have known better, as the Jews were quite familiar with baptism as a rite of cleansing...
We call that the great Schism. A schism occurs when a valid bishop (or bishops) cease to fellowship with other valid bishops.
And while our visible communion was broken, we are still united through the Blood of Christ, that is, the Eucharist. Like the 2 halves of the body, united only in the heart, and the HEAD.
This split was prefigured in the OT by the split between Judah and Israel... with the notable difference that the two halves of the Church remained faithful.
I believe that the fact that the eastern and western halves of the Church still teach essentially the same things after 1000 years of 'separation' is a proof that each has retained valid authority in the Church, and that they do in fact, hold fast to the one faith of the apostles.
This is different than what happened in the reformation as no valid bishops led (or joined) the rebellion against the Church. and after 500 years you have thousands of different 'churches' teaching widely different and often contradictory things.... proof, to me, that there is no valid 'authority' amongst them.
I think examining that council would be the logical next step in this discussion. I'll let you start.
Peace!
PJ
No. Jesus said, that which is born of flesh is flesh. He was referring to natural birth which is what Nicodemus asked.
Do you mean the Jerusalem council?We call that the great Schism. A schism occurs when a valid bishop (or bishops) cease to fellowship with other valid bishops.
And while our visible communion was broken, we are still united through the Blood of Christ, that is, the Eucharist. Like the 2 halves of the body, united only in the heart, and the HEAD.
This split was prefigured in the OT by the split between Judah and Israel... with the notable difference that the two halves of the Church remained faithful.
I believe that the fact that the eastern and western halves of the Church still teach essentially the same things after 1000 years of 'separation' is a proof that each has retained valid authority in the Church, and that they do in fact, hold fast to the one faith of the apostles.
This is different than what happened in the reformation as no valid bishops led (or joined) the rebellion against the Church. and after 500 years you have thousands of different 'churches' teaching widely different and often contradictory things.... proof, to me, that there is no valid 'authority' amongst them.
I think examining that council would be the logical next step in this discussion. I'll let you start.
Peace!
PJ
You now want to talk about councils, after you asked how the matter would be resolved. Well, if we haven't talked about it (the matter at hand, what it means to be born again and if water refers to physical natural birth from the womb), we should.
PhilipJames
New member
'apostles' can be used to refer to missionaries, but this should not be confused with the Apostles who were ordained personally by Christ Himself. They carry entirely different types of authority.
and just a further note regarding 'evangelist'. when I said a bishop could be an evangelist, but that an evangelist was not necessarily a bishop ; consider Philip the evangelist (Acts 21:8) He is one of the seven deacons ordained in Acts 6:5-6.
The levitical priesthood of the old covenant prefigures the presbytery of the new. Not according to the order of Aaron but that of Melchizedek, just as our High Priest, Jesus. (Heb 5:6). And it is our High Priest, working in and through the presbytery that exercises HIS priestly functions. Thus, in the sacrament of reconciliation, it is not a 'man' who reconciles us, but Christ Himself.
Peace!
PJ
PhilipJames
New member
Actually I referenced the baptism dispute primarily as an example of something that we may need valid authority to arbitrate the dispute (although I did try to answer your question). If you wish to thoroughly examine and have a discussion about baptism I am willing.
I mean the council in Acts 15. If that is what you mean by the Jerusalem council, then yes.
Peace!
PJ
He appointed or chose the apostles. They were not ordained. Were they unlearned men?
That is a good point, your reference and seeing this deacon who was an evangelist. BUt I don't know what a bishop is. It does not compute for me.
Jesus' priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek, rather than Levi. But we are not priests after the order of Melchizedek. My understanding is that this is about Jesus and His priesthood being different, not any of us having priesthood.
The discussion is not about baptism. You think it is. I have shown you about how these verses do not reference baptism. I have no idea what authority would arbitrate this. I don't recognize any arbitration authority in regard to reading the scripture and fellowship with brothers in Christ. If you do not see it the same way, at this point that will have to be that. But you can always read the scriptures for yourself. If you need me to walk you through the steps of those verses I am available to do so.
Right, but if we are going by the Bible I don't know that we know of another council, do you?
Jacob
Last edited:
PhilipJames
New member
Hello Jacob,
Do you not? Not even the elders of your own church? Consider Heb 13:17
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.
If you and one of your brothers have a dispute over doctrine and/or the meaning of some scriptural passage or another, and you cannot come to agreement, do you defer to the correction of your elders? do they?
The Church continued (and continues) to be guided and guarded by the Holy Spirit after the NT was written. There have been many councils of our elders since then, some regional (dealing with regional concerns) and some great councils, that dealt with issues that affected the whole Church.
The first council (the one seen recorded in Acts) sets the pattern for these subsequent councils)...
So let's have a look at that council now...
who is at the council? Acts 15:6 The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.
The issue: whether or not gentile believers need to adopt Jewish customs and laws (eg circumcision of the flesh, dietary laws, observing certain feasts....)
The debate: on one side the 'Judaizers' who insist that Jewish custom must be enforced, on the other Paul, Peter, Stephen...
after much discussion...
The result? Acts 15:28-29 28
'It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities,
namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.'"
(bolding by me)
The Holy Spirit has decided!! As the Truth does not change, this decision is binding on the whole Church, and cannot be contradicted!
And so if it was True then it must still be True today.
Just so for all the Great Councils that followed...
Peace!
PJ
Do you not? Not even the elders of your own church? Consider Heb 13:17
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.
If you and one of your brothers have a dispute over doctrine and/or the meaning of some scriptural passage or another, and you cannot come to agreement, do you defer to the correction of your elders? do they?
The Church continued (and continues) to be guided and guarded by the Holy Spirit after the NT was written. There have been many councils of our elders since then, some regional (dealing with regional concerns) and some great councils, that dealt with issues that affected the whole Church.
The first council (the one seen recorded in Acts) sets the pattern for these subsequent councils)...
So let's have a look at that council now...
who is at the council? Acts 15:6 The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.
The issue: whether or not gentile believers need to adopt Jewish customs and laws (eg circumcision of the flesh, dietary laws, observing certain feasts....)
The debate: on one side the 'Judaizers' who insist that Jewish custom must be enforced, on the other Paul, Peter, Stephen...
after much discussion...
The result? Acts 15:28-29 28
'It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities,
namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.'"
(bolding by me)
The Holy Spirit has decided!! As the Truth does not change, this decision is binding on the whole Church, and cannot be contradicted!
And so if it was True then it must still be True today.
Just so for all the Great Councils that followed...
Peace!
PJ
Last edited:
Do I not what? Not even the elders of my own church? First off, the church is not my church, it is Christ's church. Secondly I respect every single one of the elders in my church. Third, what do you mean by "arbitrate"? Remember, no one in the church "Lord's it over others" when they are submitted to Christ. I have no problem with any of the elders. And I don't know what you mean by arbitrate. Do you mean like a lawyer? Do you mean like when one person says mean things and someone needs to settle who is in the right? That is not a church scenario. At least not one I know of. I'm trying to understand your word arbitrate. Arbitrate over what?!
Well, you and I have not had a dispute over doctrine. And usually looking at scripture helps someone to see their false view. But it's not something to argue about if people disagree. The Bible can only mean one thing in any given case. But the applications if not even the understanding by different people may differ. It doesn't make anyone right or wrong, it just means that we continue to seek meaning in scripture, why we believe what we believe, and what scriptures says about it. I believe we are mature enough to examine scripture and talk about it together. If you believe I should be submitted to a Catholic arbitration you are wrong. But maybe that is why you mentioned leaders in my own church. That is trying to keep the peace. But I didn't disagree with them about this. I simply stated to you what I believe about what I read and why. I believe I have taken the entire passage, and the details therein, into account.
I don't know about other councils. Except if you mean in scripture. But then do you have a reference about that. I seem to remember something. But I don't think it is the same even then. This council was the big main issue. I don't know of issues and councils beyond that, except maybe Catholics learning what scripture says about different ideas or things that they adopted that were not scriptural.
But remember this first council... the decision was in regard to Gentiles in Gentile lands. At least that is how I understand it. But I am a Gentile by birth and yet circumcised. And not for my salvation either.
PhilipJames
New member
Hello Jacob,
you said: 'recognize any arbitration authority in regard to reading the scripture and fellowship with brothers in Christ'
so my question again restated... do you not submit to the elders of your community in regards to 'reading the scripture and fellowship'?
If you (or someone else in your community) believe that your understanding of scripture is correct...that is, the Truth, and it contradicts what your elders or someone in your community hold as Truth, do you submit to the correction of your elders? Do they?
By arbitrate, I mean to definitively settle the dispute (whatever it may be). Having been definitively settled... is it therefore binding on those who acknowledge the authority of the arbiter...?
if by 'Lords it over others' you mean elders who start thinking the Church is there to serve them rather than they the Church, I would agree with you. Any who did, would be abusing their office.
More like a judge ( in the sense of the judges in Israel before kings..)
While that kind of scenario might come under the purview of an arbiter, I am more interested in a dispute over the Truth, that is, the Faith that has been once, for all, delivered to the saints...
The central tenants of your Faith. not being familiar with your particular community I will use one of mine as an example...
It has been taught (and believed) in the Church catholic that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ. If I (or some other member of my community) began to teach that this was not so, based on my own interpretation of scripture... yet chose to remain 'Catholic', there would be a dispute within my community. The elders in my community have the authority to correct, rebuke and even excommunicate me if I continue to teach contrary to the Truth that they uphold.
now with that example in mind... who, if anyone, in your community has the authority to correct, rebuke or in the most serious cases... expel a member from your community?
I think that authority within the Church is an important doctrine; but I would agree that, so far, we have been discussing it, and not been in a dispute.
sometimes but not always... else we wouldn't have the confusion of doctrine amongst Christians that clearly exists.
Does the Truth matter?
Does it matter if Jesus is or is not God? Does it matter if the 'table of Lord' is truly a sharing of Christ's body and blood or merely a symbol? Does it matter if we are saved by faith that loves, or faith alone? Does it matter if Jesus was truly the Christ, or if Christ is some other being that took over his body?
I could go on... my point being that TRUTH matters, because Jesus IS the Truth. And if someone is misrepresenting the Truth that is Jesus, then we SHOULD dispute it.
I would hope so as well.
I believe that the bishops in the apostolic churches (this would include but may not be limited to, Catholics , Orthodox and Copts) are the legitimate elders of the Church, so yes I think that all Christians should submit to their teaching/correction.
Here is one reason why: 1John 2:19
'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.
Which to me, reads that remaining within the apostolic community is vital.
Look up great councils of the church if you're interested.... do you think any Catholic 'ideas or things' contradict scripture? If so why?
It was to the gentiles, in that they were not to be required to become 'judaized' but it was ALSO to those that had thought otherwise prior to the council.
Those that, prior to the council, believed that the gentiles needed to be circumcised in the flesh, now HAD to submit to the authority of the council in the matter (or leave the community). Wouldn't you agree?
Peace!
PJ
you said: 'recognize any arbitration authority in regard to reading the scripture and fellowship with brothers in Christ'
so my question again restated... do you not submit to the elders of your community in regards to 'reading the scripture and fellowship'?
If you (or someone else in your community) believe that your understanding of scripture is correct...that is, the Truth, and it contradicts what your elders or someone in your community hold as Truth, do you submit to the correction of your elders? Do they?
By arbitrate, I mean to definitively settle the dispute (whatever it may be). Having been definitively settled... is it therefore binding on those who acknowledge the authority of the arbiter...?
if by 'Lords it over others' you mean elders who start thinking the Church is there to serve them rather than they the Church, I would agree with you. Any who did, would be abusing their office.
More like a judge ( in the sense of the judges in Israel before kings..)
While that kind of scenario might come under the purview of an arbiter, I am more interested in a dispute over the Truth, that is, the Faith that has been once, for all, delivered to the saints...
The central tenants of your Faith. not being familiar with your particular community I will use one of mine as an example...
It has been taught (and believed) in the Church catholic that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ. If I (or some other member of my community) began to teach that this was not so, based on my own interpretation of scripture... yet chose to remain 'Catholic', there would be a dispute within my community. The elders in my community have the authority to correct, rebuke and even excommunicate me if I continue to teach contrary to the Truth that they uphold.
now with that example in mind... who, if anyone, in your community has the authority to correct, rebuke or in the most serious cases... expel a member from your community?
I think that authority within the Church is an important doctrine; but I would agree that, so far, we have been discussing it, and not been in a dispute.
sometimes but not always... else we wouldn't have the confusion of doctrine amongst Christians that clearly exists.
Does the Truth matter?
Does it matter if Jesus is or is not God? Does it matter if the 'table of Lord' is truly a sharing of Christ's body and blood or merely a symbol? Does it matter if we are saved by faith that loves, or faith alone? Does it matter if Jesus was truly the Christ, or if Christ is some other being that took over his body?
I could go on... my point being that TRUTH matters, because Jesus IS the Truth. And if someone is misrepresenting the Truth that is Jesus, then we SHOULD dispute it.
I would hope so as well.
I believe that the bishops in the apostolic churches (this would include but may not be limited to, Catholics , Orthodox and Copts) are the legitimate elders of the Church, so yes I think that all Christians should submit to their teaching/correction.
Here is one reason why: 1John 2:19
'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.
Which to me, reads that remaining within the apostolic community is vital.
Look up great councils of the church if you're interested.... do you think any Catholic 'ideas or things' contradict scripture? If so why?
It was to the gentiles, in that they were not to be required to become 'judaized' but it was ALSO to those that had thought otherwise prior to the council.
Those that, prior to the council, believed that the gentiles needed to be circumcised in the flesh, now HAD to submit to the authority of the council in the matter (or leave the community). Wouldn't you agree?
Peace!
PJ
Now that you remind me, I think I meant that whatever authority you have that when you come to a new understanding you should either share it or keep it to yourself. If you have indeed found yourself at odds with authority you should conduct yourself in a godly manner and stick with your conviction about a matter or your convictions. That is, only you know what it is that you believe.
As for the elders of the church and the synagogue (Messianic) I attend I don't believe I have been addressed about needing to change my beliefs. If I were to be addressed I would explain what I believe about the scripture in question and try to come to some agreement. But I don't see any issues at this time.
When you talk about scripture, do you believe you need to conform to a view or do you agree with what the scripture says? Do you hold doctrine above scripture?
As for authority, if you and I have the same authority, that is God and Christ, then we can fellowship. As for authority within the church you are on topic with the thread albeit from a catholic perspective. I am not catholic.
As to the matter you and I have been discussing, I don't believe the passage on being born again is about baptism. You had said you believe it is. So we have a disagreement on that matter. But I believe we can discuss it if you would like to. You can pm me if you would like, or you can post your thoughts on this thread or in another thread. I will comment if you start another thread if you want me to.
Here is a recommendation to do what is right, in all matters pertaining to authority (this is especially true outside the church?):
Romans 13:3 NASB - For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
These put us as Christians in the disposition of experiencing suffering or receiving suffering rather than inflicting suffering or inflicting harm.
Philippians 1:29 NASB - For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,
1 Peter 2:20 NASB - For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.
1 Peter 3:14 NASB - But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED,
1 Peter 3:17 NASB - For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong.
Romans 13:3 NASB - For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
These put us as Christians in the disposition of experiencing suffering or receiving suffering rather than inflicting suffering or inflicting harm.
Philippians 1:29 NASB - For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,
1 Peter 2:20 NASB - For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.
1 Peter 3:14 NASB - But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED,
1 Peter 3:17 NASB - For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong.
PhilipJames
New member
Hello Jacob
I agree with you here, to a point. We must be careful not to confuse pride in our own understanding with conviction by the Holy Spirit..
what am I saying? Yes we need to 'stick with our convictions' because each of us have to answer to our Master. And HE will hold us accountable for the Truth that has been reveled to us.
But we need to remain open to correction, and indeed conviction by the Holy Spirit...
Sounds like a good 'bond of peace' within your community... I hope it stays that way for you.
I agree with what scripture says. I do however check my understanding of what I read against what my brethren have always held to be True (the Truth does not change).
No. They go hand in hand.
God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is the ultimate authority. All authority comes from HIM, and to HIM belong all the power and Glory!
Ah, here we go with the definition of the word catholic again
If you are a member of Christ's Church, then you are a member of the whole. And can the foot say to the hand I don't need you?
Now getting back to legitimate authority in the Church,
Consider this analogy:
I was born in Canada. Canada has a queen. Queen Elizabeth II. The government and agents of the government are called ministers of the crown. They carry the authority of the Queen.
Now if I say I am loyal to the Queen, can I yet reject her duly appointed government? Can I instead create my own shadow government, with or without others, or follow others who have done so? If others have set up their own government on their own authority yet claim loyalty to the Queen, will she acknowledge their authority or will she not rather uphold the right of her duly appointed government?
I will gladly have a discussion with you about baptism... I'll start a new thread later tonight if I get time (off to my youngest's first school Christmas concert...)
Peace!
PJ
I agree with you here, to a point. We must be careful not to confuse pride in our own understanding with conviction by the Holy Spirit..
what am I saying? Yes we need to 'stick with our convictions' because each of us have to answer to our Master. And HE will hold us accountable for the Truth that has been reveled to us.
But we need to remain open to correction, and indeed conviction by the Holy Spirit...
Sounds like a good 'bond of peace' within your community... I hope it stays that way for you.
I agree with what scripture says. I do however check my understanding of what I read against what my brethren have always held to be True (the Truth does not change).
No. They go hand in hand.
God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is the ultimate authority. All authority comes from HIM, and to HIM belong all the power and Glory!
Ah, here we go with the definition of the word catholic again
If you are a member of Christ's Church, then you are a member of the whole. And can the foot say to the hand I don't need you?
Now getting back to legitimate authority in the Church,
Consider this analogy:
I was born in Canada. Canada has a queen. Queen Elizabeth II. The government and agents of the government are called ministers of the crown. They carry the authority of the Queen.
Now if I say I am loyal to the Queen, can I yet reject her duly appointed government? Can I instead create my own shadow government, with or without others, or follow others who have done so? If others have set up their own government on their own authority yet claim loyalty to the Queen, will she acknowledge their authority or will she not rather uphold the right of her duly appointed government?
I will gladly have a discussion with you about baptism... I'll start a new thread later tonight if I get time (off to my youngest's first school Christmas concert...)
Peace!
PJ
No worries. No need to rush or hurry.Hello Jacob
I agree with you here, to a point. We must be careful not to confuse pride in our own understanding with conviction by the Holy Spirit..
what am I saying? Yes we need to 'stick with our convictions' because each of us have to answer to our Master. And HE will hold us accountable for the Truth that has been reveled to us.
But we need to remain open to correction, and indeed conviction by the Holy Spirit...
Sounds like a good 'bond of peace' within your community... I hope it stays that way for you.
I agree with what scripture says. I do however check my understanding of what I read against what my brethren have always held to be True (the Truth does not change).
No. They go hand in hand.
God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is the ultimate authority. All authority comes from HIM, and to HIM belong all the power and Glory!
Ah, here we go with the definition of the word catholic again
If you are a member of Christ's Church, then you are a member of the whole. And can the foot say to the hand I don't need you?
Now getting back to legitimate authority in the Church,
Consider this analogy:
I was born in Canada. Canada has a queen. Queen Elizabeth II. The government and agents of the government are called ministers of the crown. They carry the authority of the Queen.
Now if I say I am loyal to the Queen, can I yet reject her duly appointed government? Can I instead create my own shadow government, with or without others, or follow others who have done so? If others have set up their own government on their own authority yet claim loyalty to the Queen, will she acknowledge their authority or will she not rather uphold the right of her duly appointed government?
I will gladly have a discussion with you about baptism... I'll start a new thread later tonight if I get time (off to my youngest's first school Christmas concert...)
Peace!
PJ
If I am to talk about John 3 and what it means to be born again, there in that passage we do not see mention of baptism.
Shalom.