Posted on 08/01/2015 3:50:22 PM PDT by Salvation
Interesting read. I’ll have to take a couple of days to sort it out.
Thanks!
This is a keeper.
You will note that (besides biblestudy.orb being a SDA site and being wrong about certain words) ""priest" is missing as a words that something changed into. And none of these examples of the meaning of euphemisms or the breadth of meaning or changes of meanings is that of words which were abundantly but exclusively used for those of a specific office with a particular function of offering sacrifices for sin, yet was never used by the Holy Spirit for those of NT pastors, nor is what the words that were used for them meant;
But which was later were applied to them by men as a result of their (erroneous) developing understanding of the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin, and ascribing to NT pastors the unique sacerdotal function of offering the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin, though Scripture nowhere describes them so doing.
Go find a often used word that was exclusively used to define a certain type of thing, person or office with specific unique attributes, which postscripturally was given as a distinctive title to another certain type of thing, person or office due to imposed functional equivalence, but which the the Holy Spirit never used for them, nor did the titles that were used mean that, and I will show you a mistranslation.
"So far as i know, it was only ca. 200 that the term “priest” started to be applied to the bishop and only still later was it applied to the presbyter. This observation explains why some Protestant churches which insist on using New Testament language alone refuse to call their ministers priests. When in the post-New Testament period the language of priesthood did begin to be applied to the bishops and presbyters, it brought with it a certain Old Testament background of sacrificing Levitical priesthood. The introduction of that language was logically tied in to the development of the language for the eucharist as a sacrifice. (...I think there were sacrificial aspects in the early understanding of the eucharist, but I have no indication that the eucharist was called a sacrifice before the beginning of the second century.) When the eucharist began to be thought of as a sacrifice, the person assigned to preside at the eucharist (bishop and later presbyter) would soon be called a priest, since priests were involved with sacrifice." — Raymond Brown (Sulpician Father and a prominent Biblical scholar), Q 95 Questions and Answers on the Bible, p. 125, with Imprimatur.
Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions." "When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)
See Ctrent1564’sa post #59
No...that is the point. Would this individual have been forgiven if Paul had not written to the Corinthians?
Yes he would.
The majority of the church was willing to forgive and had forgiven him.
As we are all members of a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:5-9), with direct access to Christ Himself (Hebrews 4:14-16) we no longer have need of a priest to forgive our sins or make a sacrifice for us (Hebrews 10:12,26) as roman catholicism claims. Christ is our mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) who we have direct access to without need of an earthly priest.
As a side note: we note there was no penance performed or appeals to Mary noted in this passage. Why? Because these were not taught to the early church.
ealgeone:
You are baiting and switching, I did not mention penance nor did I mention Mary. Those are different theological issues, although Penance is related to Confession, that was also not the point of the this thread. It was about Priesthood/Presbyter (Elder) etc. That was the point. If you can stick to that point, fine.
And the fact that we are all members of a royal priesthood is true, nobody denies that, I don’t, nor does Catholic Doctrine. In fact Catholic Theology clearly teaches when an individual is Baptized, they are anointed priest, prophet and King as they are now incorporated into the Christ and the Holy Trinity. So Catholic Theology does not “Reject” the theology of priesthood of all believers, it is fully incorporated into Catholic Theology of Baptism and the Church.
Christ is indeed the eternal High Priest, that is not being denied, but his Apostles and the first generation of Presbyters did in fact as part of their commission perform priestly ministries, that would include the presbyters.
The need for a priest to offer a sacrifice or forgive sins is not needed nor present in the NT due to the sufficiency of Christ.
It was included based on the following.
1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance.
"http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4D.HTM
There is nothing we can do to "make satisfaction for" our sins. That is works based theology and was precisely what Paul argued against in his writings.
Our sins, past, present and future have been forgiven through the one time sacrifice of Christ.
We can directly access Christ without need of the priest. It is Christ who has forgiven our sins.
What could we possibly have to offer or do to "make satisfaction for" our sins that would be acceptable to God?
Nothing short of the blood of Christ.
Everything you said is true, but it’s also true that the false doctrines work effectively by keeping souls trapped in the self-reinforcing system, “needing” the ministrations of an ersatz (and invented) priesthood. All false religions are parasitical, feeding off the most basic need of man; “How can I be made right before God?”
Scripture is appealed to by the system, followed always by a fatal “But...” It’s the multitude of “buts” that nullify the grace of God, preventing men from entering God’s rest.
ealgeone:
I agree with that doctrine as it does not reject that Christ forgives sins. Penance is indeed rooted in NT theology, it is you don’t want to see it. I suggest you read the Epistles of James and 1 Peter were both Apostles speak of Charity/love covering a multitude of sins, not all sins, but sins.
This is not a works based theology. it just doesn’t fit your theology or what you understand works to be or think Saint Paul was talking about with respect to works.
And again, you are baiting and switching. The point of the OP’s article was Priesthood-Presbyter (Elder), etc. That was what I have been writing about, yet somehow you want to lets see, Mary, penance, and now works, etc.
This is the problem with many on this site, and why I don’ post much more. It is like many of you people are just looking for a fight, in my younger days, my Sicilian temper would probably accommodate you, at this point I just say to “you know what with hit”. I am not going into tangential debates with you on these other issues, I have dealt with all of those in the past and not interested in it here.
The point of this thread again is Priest/Presbyters and what exactly did these “presbyters” mentioned in Acts and NT epistles actually do. That is again what I have been writing about. If you have something to comment about that or perhaps state what exactly you think presbyters did and did not do and how you arrive at that position, fine as well.
ealgeone:
Nor is it outright rejected. However, as I stated earlier God is the one who heals, yet he commands his Apostles to heal the sick and anoint with Oil, and later the Presbyters are directed to do the same thing as we read in the Letter of James [confession of sins also takes place in this context]. Only God can heal and only God can forgive sins and only God can anoint someone with the Holy Spirit. YET, he gives the power to the Apostles to do these things. Why have them do these things, why did the Apostles, at least in James case, give that power to the presbyters at the Churches he founded as an Apostle.
Again, all of these are in fact priestly mininistries for in both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Doctrine, it is the Priest who anoints with Oil in the Name of the Lord [heals the sick] and it is the priest who hears confession and thus Christ, who is invisible, is not visibly there and present via the priest, who is his minister, to forgive, i.e. as Saint Paul stated when he forgives, he does so “in persona (prosopo) Christi”
So if we take your statement “need for a priest....” then why are all things done so routinely in the NT by Apostles and later Presbyters. These practices are inconsistent with your theology, they on the other hand, are indeed consistent with Catholic, and also, Eastern Orthodox practice.
Christ is indeed the eternal High Priest, that is not being denied, but his Apostles and the first generation of Presbyters did in fact as part of their commission perform priestly ministries, that would include the presbyters.
The need for a priest to offer a sacrifice or forgive sins is not needed nor present in the NT due to the sufficiency of Christ.
Now to the current post.
Nor is it outright rejected.
It is by the NT.
However, as I stated earlier God is the one who heals, yet he commands his Apostles to heal the sick and anoint with Oil, and later the Presbyters are directed to do the same thing as we read in the Letter of James [confession of sins also takes place in this context].
Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous may can accomplish much. James 5:16, NASB.
There is nothing in this verse to indicate sins are being confessed to and forgiven by a priest. The believers are confessing their sins to one another and praying for one another.
While the disciples had the power to heal as witnessed in the NT, we have to keep things in context.
In James it does tell us to call upon the elders and have them pray over them if sick and they will be healed.
But we know this is not a cart blanche request we make before God that He will always heal. Paul asked three times for healing of some sort but did not receive it. The key is asking this according to His will. It is not always God's will someone will be healed as we see with the example of Paul.
But back to my question in post 68.
If Paul was acting as a "priest" as claimed by catholicism why did he not require penance of the individual so he could "make satisfaction for" his sins?
If the concept of the necessity of confessing sins to a priest for forgiveness is as catholics claim why didn't Paul require penance?
Why did Paul make it public what had happened?
All of that flies against what roman catholicism claims is taught in the NT.
I again repost from #68.
1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance.
"http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4D.HTM
There is nothing we can do to "make satisfaction for" our sins. That is works based theology and was precisely what Paul argued against in his writings.
Our sins, past, present and future have been forgiven through the one time sacrifice of Christ.
We can directly access Christ without need of the priest. It is Christ who has forgiven our sins.
What could we possibly have to offer or do to "make satisfaction for" our sins that would be acceptable to God?
Nothing short of the blood of Christ.
Could you provide examples of penance from these texts?
Catholics may not see it, but as with preaching the gospel, healing the sick, spiritually binding and loosing (as Elijah did), casting out demons, etc., nowhere in the life of the church (interpretive of gospel narratives) is the offering of Lord's Supper a unique or primary ordained function of the clergy. Nor is it described or treated as a sin offering (including 1Cor 10+11).
Go find even one place where the apostles or elders are shown even dispensing bread as part of their particular ordained duty, or instructed on celebrating this one of their particular part functions, versus preaching the word by which souls are feed and nourished. (1Tim. 4:6; Acts 20:28)
Rather than treating the LS as the "source and summit of the Christian faith, in which "our redemption is accomplished," by which one obtained spiritual life in themselves, and around which all revolved, it is not even manifestly described in any church epistle save for 1Cor., and in which recognizing the body of Christ as being the church is the issue.
The Holy Spirit was not neglectful in never calling NT pastors by the distinctive title of priest, or in manifesting what the meaning of the words of the Lord supper and Jn. 6 mean. Which only easily find their correspondence in the whole of Scripture under the metaphorical view. < /p>
The Epistle of Saints James speaks of elders “anointing the sick” which is a priestly function,
Which, along with other miracles is not restricted to NT elders,(Acts 8:5-7; 9:12,17; cf. Acts 6:8) nor do they have any unique sacerdotal function, and the only priesthood in the NT is that of all believers.
Moreover, the anointing of the sick that does specific elders is only in the case of one that is infirm, and in which case God can have regard to holy intercession in faith, as seen elsewhere, in removing His holy hand of chastisement so that one is made well.
forgiving sins or hearing confessions, which are again ministries the APostles received from Christ and now as the Apostles pass on,
Actually, in the only place where confession of sins is exhorted then it is to each other, for whom and binding and loosing is provided if they be effectual fervent prayer of righteous believers, as Elijah was in binding the heavens for 3.5 years and then loosing them. (Ja. 5:16ff
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16)
hese “older men (elders)” are in terms of ministry performing “priestly ministries”.
As for all believers, including offering sacrifices, and prophets and teachers could even send forth apostles, (Acts 13:1-3) while the unique function of pastors in administrators and ordaining clergy befits elders and does not distinctively make them priests, whose unique function is regularly offering sacrifices for sin
Saint Paul does indeed describe his ministry as a “priestly service of the Gospel” (cf. Romans 15:16].
Once again,the sacred service of ministering the gospel is not a unique function, but one all are called to do, as is offering one's own body (and by extension all one does) unto the Lord as a sweet savor. The Gentiles were not a sacrifice for sin.
In 2 Corinthians 2:10-11 Saint Paul writes “Anyone whom you forgive I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if anything for your sake in the presence of Christ to Keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us... hence Saint Paul is forgiving “In persona Christi”
And in whose name and in whose presence were the Corinthians to forgive the penitent incestuous man by, and which action on their part Paul awaited and would follow? Their own? Paul himself wrote,
And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. (Colossians 3:17) And
Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men. (2 Corinthians 8:21)
What blind guides we see in Catholicism, who cannot see that certain functions which they unique ascribing to their leadership are contradicted by the Spirit of God, but which is consistent with the worldly nature of the Roman empire she much took on.
Paul was not only acting in the presence/person/face of Christ, but performing a Priestly Ministry.
Again, as were the Corinthians whose action Paul awaited and would follow. In fact, Paul is saying that he would not forgive unless they would, and they also were to forgive in the name and presence of Christ.
So you use the word propaganda to describe the Catholic position, I could just as easily say your protestant understanding is propaganda.
You can say what you want, but clearly the propaganda is on your part, trying to justify doing what the Holy Spirit refused to do, despite a multitude of opportunities (presbuteros occurs 67 times in the NT), and then trying to justify your later change by falsely presenting presbuteros as uniquely engaging in functions which in reality are provided for believers in general.
Doesn't it bother you that the Spirit uses a word exclusively for priests but not once gives that distinctively to NT pastors? Well, seeing as the weight of Scripture is not the basis for the validity of RC teaching, why should it?
All such can do is justify what all believers are called priests, but presbuteros are never distinctively given that title.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:6)
You guys have struck out so many times in trying to justify "helping " the Holy Spirit do what He would not that it is doubtful it is wise to spend more time on it. Let me know when you find the Spirit actually giving presbuteros the distinctively exclusive title hiereus
Same to you.
“What is the original meaning as opposed to how it is used today?”
Please supply the “original meaning” ie translation for each non-English word you posted per Religion Forum guidelines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.