Here is what Jesus said regarding the LAW: For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

This would of course cover the first 5 books of the Holy Bible.

Do you have an actual point?

The point is that nowhere in God's Holy Word does God say to use the Clergy to establish doctrine, or go to a pope. Christians are advised to search the SCRIPTURES. To establish doctrine and find the standard, one is to go to the Bible, and the HOLY SPIRIT will provide the understanding.

So, you don't have an actual point

L O L

Hey, what can I say? When Doom's right, Doom's ri--

u The point is that nowhere in God's Holy Word does God say to use the Clergy to establish doctrine, or go to a pope. Christians are advised to search the SCRIPTURES. To establish doctrine and find the standard, one is to go to the Bible, and the HOLY SPIRIT will provide the understanding.


Hello LN,
I see in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 18 that one is to hear the Church. If one refuses to hear the Church, one is "as a heathen and a publican".

This certainly appears to me to the the Scriptures telling us to hear the clergy. After all, it was the decision of the clergy, in council, to list the very books that we call the "Bible". If I believe the Church can do that, and the scriptures they present say to hear the Church....on what basis would I think to imgine there is no Church and only the Scriptures can speak?


I just don't get the logic of it?


Thanks,
SDS

This is called "Garage Sale Theology" which assumes the Bible was just discovered (perhaps purchased at a garage sale) and no one has ever read it before -- especially not highly qualified people who knew the Apostles and spoke the languages the Bible was written in. So one person's interpretation is as good as anyone else's.

Oh, this is just fantastic, I am going to have to remember that one for the future

Matthew 18 has context: "If your brother sins against you..." It has nothing to do with interpreting Scripture.

Also, the church (lower case 'c') in that passage consists of 2 or 3 people. It is a passage about resolving disputes that stem from sin. The significance of 2-3 is in accountability, it's in contrast to someone acting alone which leads to abuse and isn't sufficient witness (like a pope). It's a concept expressed 3 times in that passage and it's consistent with legal tradition. It is derived from Deuteronomy 19:15:

A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.

The instructions in Matthew 18 work very well when such things happen and you have 2-3 godly men, of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 character. The work less well when you have no idea about the character of the clergy because those qualifications are ignored.

Sin is defined and revealed by the Moral Law (Matthew 5:17-48) and Paul teaches this as well:

Romans 7:7 - What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

Galatians 3:19 - Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.

What are epistle letters if not directions from men inspired by God to direct other men? Paul a man, gives directions to other men in these epistle letters written by him.

Acts 20; 28
"Take heed to yourselves and the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops, to rule the church of God, which he has purchased with His own blood."

Thats pretty clear from Paul that men are placed in positions of authority to direct the Church.

Matthew 18 has context: "If your brother sins against you..." It has nothing to do with interpreting Scripture.


Hello imscoop22,
,
Thank you for the reply. It is true that this section speaks of a case where “your brother sins against you” to bring it to the church. However, I would argue that the interpretation of Scripture and tradition is exactly the area where it is the church, and no two or three individuals, who speaks on matters of faith or morals. The scenario you envision may be fine for a personal matter over a parking space…but it won’t do anything to help me know what Gods will is on an issue like divorce and remarriage. Or on abortion or on several other issues where Christian churches can and do disagree. In their disagreement…they all cite scripture.

"The instructions in Matthew 18 work very well when such things happen and you have 2-3 godly men, of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 character. The work less well when you have no idea about the character of the clergy because those qualifications are ignored."

Don’t you imagine that these “qualifications” could be ignored in any context? In other words, just because “2 or 3” people are not ordained clergy….doesn’t mean they pass the test. Plus, the idea that these qualifications are “ignored” when naming Catholic clergy seems more like bias than any actual statement of fact.

The New Testament speaks of a Church, bishops and presbyters and deacons. They are instructed to guide and rule the affairs of the Church. So, while it is true that Jesus will be there in the midst of even “two or three” gathered in His Name….that does not mean that “two or three” gathered in His name speak authoritatively for the entire Church. It’s a logistical impossibility.


Regards,
SDS

Dear, Little Nipper
responding to the below quote from you.


Well it does, "What you hold bound on earth will be bound in heaven" is fairly clear.
Thats Christ to Peter

Then we have Luke 17; 14 "...go show yourselves to the priests."
This establishes authority also. Christ himself after healing those in need told them to present themselves to the Priests, the temporal authority who he recognized. The same is seen in Luke 5; 14 "Go show yourselves to the priests."

And here in 2 Cor 2; 9-11
"For this is why I wrote, to know your proven character, whether you were obedient in everything. Whomever you forgive anything, so do I."

This is Pauls Ministry! He is establishing the chain of command, he is testing those under him, and in doing so if they forgive so does he, and if Paul forgives so does Peter and if Peter forgives so does God.

Jesus sent the Apostles out to preach and teach. At Pentecost the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles and they began preaching. Clearly, Jesus DID leave authority to teach and to forgive sins to the Apostles and their successors.

Where did li'l snipper go?

John 7; 18 "He who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory"

Yer not finished listen'n to me. I got more where this came from. hehehehe

Likewise, hello! I hope you are well.

You are correct that the character qualifications can be ignored by anyone. In Catholicism, they are generally ALWAYS ignored (the notable acceptance of clergy from other denominations is the only exception I'm aware of).

"The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?"

A celibate priest or bishop cannot, by definition, meet those qualifications.

In Scripture, there is no distinction between bishops and presbyters. They are the same role. This site has a very good discussion of why both terms are used in Scripture. In fact, Peter calls himself a "presbyter" (usually translated as Elder), not an "episcopos" (usually translated as bishop): https://ofsaintsandshepherds.com/

Did you choose the Douay-Rheims because you like the way "rule over" sounds?

Have you done any exegesis on this passage to understand who the audience is, why he's saying it, what the original language and historical context are, etc.?

Indeed. And Jesus explains at the end of the passage why He says this...

"If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man's whole body well? Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

The Jewish leaders didn't understand that the authority they claimed for themselves to make and preside over rules totally missed the point of God's greatest commandments. In this situation, they chose their trivial Halakhah over mercy and compassion on a man that had been an invalid for 38 years. The account is in John 5. It is one of many examples of: "...for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God." (Matthew 15:6b)

It's sort of like labeling someone a heretic for translating the Bible b/c of a rule that the "church" must approve, then burning him at the stake.

Were you accusing me of such an infraction in quoting this verse?

In Matthew 23, Jesus speaks to the teaching "authority" of the apostles, in contrast to the exclusive authority the Pharisees claimed for themselves.

When Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:28 - "And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers..." he uses a different Greek word than what Jesus uses in Matthew 23:10 (and 23:8, depending on the Greek NT used...this is the only place in all of Scripture the word appears). The different Greek words are: kathēgētē (καθηγητής) and didaskalos (διδάσκαλος). God has appointed one type of teacher (the later) and Jesus specifically tells the disciples NOT to be the other type of teacher (the former). How do you interpret those passages? The different Greek meanings?

Jesus did not give anyone the authority to forgive sins on God's behalf, He gave taught them the responsibility of forgiving one another. If Peter was instructed to forgive his brother "seventy times seven" times, surely the God of the universe, our Creator, whom we have all transgressed (we are all guilty of lies, thievery, murder, fornication, blasphemy, no one excepted), would adjure more, no?

Nope, it says the Holy Spirit has placed bishops in authority to rule. As for the DR version its older than yours, aren't you always trying to hold Catholics to the oldest historically that you can find. Show me where that was in the 2nd century and so forth. hehehe
1611 Whatever. I just rolled my eyes like a teenage girl hehehehe