Originally posted by DowardThat would be the Lord Jesus.
There is ONE mediator between God and humankind....care to guess who that is?
He is the only mediator between God and man. But there can be mediators between us and Him; that doesn't make His mediation any less unique. If St. Paul can ask other people to pray for him, so can I.
Originally posted by pyxelatedShe is not my mother.
No, it's asking for her help. Remember Cana? All she has to do is drop a word in Jesus' ear. She is his mother, after all, and as we are His brothers by adoption, she's our mother too. And if your mother won't help you, you're in a pretty bad way.
Kelly
Originally posted by pyxelated=============================
That would be the Lord Jesus.
He is the only mediator between God and man. But there can be mediators between us and Him; that doesn't make His mediation any less unique. If St. Paul can ask other people to pray for him, so can I.
He is the only mediator between God and man. But there can be mediators between us and Him; that doesn't make His mediation any less unique. If St. Paul can ask other people to pray for him, so can I.
=====================================
I am going to try to veer my end of the discussion back to the matter of the unity of the church.
Paul uses the picture of the Body of Christ to emphasize that every member receives its instructions from the head. My finger moves at the direction of my head. So does my arm. So does my hand.
Each member of the body receives its direction from the head. My hand may be attached to the end of my arm. But it moves at the direction of my brain which is in the my head.
In Christ's Body each of the believers is under the head. "The head of every man is Christ" (1 Cor. 11:3)
Yes, as Christians I may pray for you and you may pray for me. I may make petition to God for any other Christian. And any other Christian can make petition for me. We can intercede for one another. We may even confess our sins to one another (James 5:16).
But the Christ is the Head over every member. And Christ is the one Mediator between God and man.
I know that the Lord Jesus told His disciples "Whoever sins you forgive, they are forgiven them; and whosever sins you retain, they are retained." (John 20:23)
But with careful examination of the whole New Testament, this forgiveness is not for eternal redemption. This is a forgiveness related to fellowship and communion in the practical church life. Only Christ can redeem man eternally.
The disciples have the Holy Spirit breathed into them in John 20. And their authoritative forgiveness or retaining the offense is not for the eternal redemption of other men. It is a forgivness as is seen in the church in Corinth where the brother was cast out of the church for having relations with his mother in law. Then in the second letter it is evident that he was forgiven by the congregation and welcomed back into the fellowship.
The forgiveness of the sin of the churching brother was not for his eternal salvation. It was for his re-entering into the sphere of fellowship in the practical church life.
So no disciple is the Mediator between God and man for eternal redemption. We may pray for one another, of course. And the prayer of a righteous man avails much. But only Christ is the Head of the Body. Only He is the Mediator between God and man for eternal salvation.
Originally posted by pyxelatedso you don't believe that Jesus is God incarnate?
That would be the Lord Jesus.
He is the only mediator between God and man. But there can be mediators between us and Him; that doesn't make His mediation any less unique. If St. Paul can ask other people to pray for him, so can I.
Originally posted by pyxelatedWho you praying to for that to happen, Mary?
More's the pity. I pray she will be someday.
I pointed out that there is a difference between God and man, and that before
Jesus became a man He was God. Mary was not around then, she showed as
all other people did, and God gave her a great honor, to be the mother of the
Son of Man. The does not mean she was the mother of God.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, there is clearly a difference between God and man. But not so clearly, there is a unity between God and man in the person of the Lord Jesus. The Ecumemical Council of Ephesus thought emphasizing this unity important enough to condemn the title "Mother of Christ" and confirm the title "Mother of God" for the Blessed Virgin. (Actually the English title "Mother of God" is a paraphrase; the Greek title is "Theotokos," or "God-bearer." )
Who you praying to for that to happen, Mary?
I pointed out that there is a difference between God and man, and that before
Jesus became a man He was God. Mary was not around then, she showed as
all other people did, and God gave her a great honor, to be the mother of the
Son of Man. The does not mean she was the mother of God.
Kelly
And yes, that is exactly who I am praying to for that to happen. 🙂
--pyx
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau K================================
[b]The congregation in Milan is that of the Roman church in Milan. The assembly in Denver is of the Church in Rome in Denver. And the gathering in New York is of Rome's Church in New York.
No. This is false. In fact, New York is home to a number of Catholic church. There is obviously the Latin-rite church under the leadership of Archbishop Dolan. The ...[text shortened]... ommunities were under the responsibility of older churches. They were early suffragan churches.[/b]
A Ukranian Catholic would not refer to himself as Roman Catholic, nor would a Ukranian church be identified as Roman Catholic. They are Roman Catholic only in the sense of communion with Rome but are in many ways independent of Rome, having a separate canon law, their own rite and their own patriarch.
==============================
The churches in the New Testament had the city as their boundary of unity.
Two errors were not sanctioned. One is that a church would have a boundary of unity smaller than a city. And the other is that its uniting boundary would be larger than a city. Both sides were wrong. The city was the boundary of unity no less and no more.
If the churches in the Ukrain could be united to be Ukranian Catholic Church then there would have been a corresponding uniting of the churches in Judea to be a Judean church.
We only see "the churches of God which are in Judea" (1 Thess. 2:14).
The Romans defeated Judea. Subsequently Judea was changed from a nation to a province of Rome. Many churches, with one in each localoty, existed in the district, the province of Judea. The Holy Spirit did not have written in the Bible "the church in Judea", but "the churches ... in Judea" .
The scheme to unite the local churches in a nation or province into one Church of that nation is the tradition of men seeking to "improve" on the plan of God.
Another place, Galatia, like Judea, was a province. When the Bible mentioned Galatia, it never said "the church" in Galatia but "the churches in Galatia" (1 Cor. 16:1)
Several churches were not joined together in Galatia to form one church. God led the apostle to establish churches according to cities and not countries or provinces.
Many churches existed in Asia (1 Cor. 16:19). But they were not united to become the church in Asia.
We have from the Holy Spirit "the seven churches which are in Asia" . Therefore God did not see them as united to be one Asian Church. That they could all be in fellowship with one another was quite good and normal. But they were according to localities.
All the saints constituted "the churches of the saints" ( 1 Cor. 11:16)
That is not one church, but many churches according to cities. We see the churches of God and the churches of the saints.
The RCC was one of a number of manmade attempts to unite all the churches in the world to be one Church, a Catholic Church. IF God had wanted to unite all the churches on the earth to be one grand Church He would have done so through Peter, Paul, John and James. Why would He wait till three or four hundred years later to accomplish a uniting through the Pope ?
I believe in the example of the New Testament apostles. They were absolute for the Lord.
Hey jaywill, I haven't forgotten this thread. I just switched which of your posts I was replying to midstream, and coming up with a good comprehensive answer is taking a while.
Since it appears from the website that your church takes a somewhat unusual approach to the Bible and church organization, I want to take a little time to understand where you're coming from before responding.
--pyx
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillLook, I will research this further at another time. I am not at all convinced by your claim that the city was the 'boundary of unity'. It is clear that the churches across the cities felt some unity. The apostles met in Jerusalem to discuss not merely the practice of Jewish law in their local churches; they met to discuss what the whole Christian church should practice.
[b]================================
A Ukranian Catholic would not refer to himself as Roman Catholic, nor would a Ukranian church be identified as Roman Catholic. They are Roman Catholic only in the sense of communion with Rome but are in many ways independent of Rome, having a separate canon law, their own rite and their own patriarch.
============ e in the example of the New Testament apostles. They were absolute for the Lord.[/b]
It is quite obvious that you have not paid any attention at all to my previous post. The Catholic Church does not have any church of Asia or church of the USA. A church is strictly just the assembly of people under a bishop. Where there is a bishop, there is a church. When churches share rite and canon law, they may be grouped under a larger church (the Ukranian Church, for example --- which is not the 'Church of Ukrain'. The Ukranian Church is all over the world.) The Catholic Church is simply the communion of all these churches with the See of Rome. For Catholics, it is not particularly about city boundaries; it's about the bishop, it's about communion.
Originally posted by pyxelatedCan you show me some scripture that supports any prayers to anyone outside
Yes, there is clearly a difference between God and man. But not so clearly, there is a unity between God and man in the person of the Lord Jesus. The Ecumemical Council of Ephesus thought emphasizing this unity important enough to condemn the title "Mother of Christ" and confirm the title "Mother of God" for the Blessed Virgin. (Actually the English title ...[text shortened]... er." )
And yes, that is exactly who I am praying to for that to happen. 🙂
--pyx
of God?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHow about Rev. 5:8?
Can you show me some scripture that supports any prayers to anyone outside
of God?
Kelly
"And when he [the Lamb] had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints:"
Are the creatures (which have traditionally been interpreted to represent the four evangelists) and the ancients not offering these prayers to the Lamb--who is God? Looks a lot like intercession to me. And these people are already in Heaven.
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau K====================================
Look, I will research this further at another time. I am not at all convinced by your claim that the city was the 'boundary of unity'. It is clear that the churches across the cities felt some unity. The apostles met in Jerusalem to discuss not merely the practice of Jewish law in their local churches; they met to discuss what the whole Christian church sho it is not particularly about city boundaries; it's about the bishop, it's about communion.
Look, I will research this further at another time. I am not at all convinced by your claim that the city was the 'boundary of unity'.
===============================
There is no hurry. You sound serious about researching the matter.
Then don't worry about rushing for the sake of some Internet chat.
Take your time.
In your study I would ask you to include a couple of books:
"The Normal Christian Church Life" Watchman Nee
"The Problem of the Unity of the Church" Watchman Nee
"The Practical Expression of the Church" Witness Lee
" The Generality, Speciality, and Practicality of the Church Life" Witness Lee
The first title you may obtain from either Christian Fellowship Publishers or Living Stream Ministry.
All the other titles you only can obtain from Living Stream Ministry Publishers
==================================
It is clear that the churches across the cities felt some unity. The apostles met in Jerusalem to discuss not merely the practice of Jewish law in their local churches; they met to discuss what the whole Christian church should practice.
===================================
They went to Jerusalem to discuss it, not because Jerusalem was Headquarters. They went there because the SOURCE of the problem came out of Jerusalem.
===============================
It is quite obvious that you have not paid any attention at all to my previous post.
The Catholic Church does not have any church of Asia or church of the USA. A church is strictly just the assembly of people under a bishop.
=============================
I read that post. I did pay attention. I may not have offered a specific rebuttal to any point that I disagreed with. I think I only pointed out that the eldership was plural.
I don't think you have instance of ONE overseer, one bishop. The apostles appointed a plurality of elders. So you could not say a specifiv bishop had a church. The plurality of a team of at least TWO overseers was a safeguard to a one man authoritarian structure.
I believe that it was Ignatius, who in addition to some positive things he did, made the error of teaching that a bishop of a certain important city took the leadership over other bishops over surrounding cities. This was probably the beginning of the hierarchy of human invention being formed.
Ignatius proposed that in several cities ONE elder would be a overseer of the other overseers. This was a mistake and a departure from how God led the apostles.
===========================
Where there is a bishop, there is a church.
=============================
Nowhere is the church said to be the property of a bishop. Nowhere in the NT does it say the church belongs to the elder. The New Testament does say that the church is the church of the saints.
And saints are all Christians. First Corinthians 14:33 - "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace as in all the churches of the saints."
The churches are of the saints here. The churches are not of the overseers.
Now it IS true that an overseer is one of the saints. To that extent the overseer has a church. But the overseer has a church only in that he is of the number of common believers meeting in that locality. It is the church of the saints in that locality. It is not the overseer's church.
I am on a roll. But I have to stop for some duties. We WILL continue.
Originally posted by pyxelatedThe prayers of the saints are just that, what the saints prayed. Come on,
How about Rev. 5:8?
"And when he [the Lamb] had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, [b]and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints:"
Are the creatures (which have traditionally been interpreted to represent the four evangelists ...[text shortened]... Lamb--who is God? Looks a lot like intercession to me. And these people are already in Heaven.[/b]
give me a scripture that supports prayer to anyone other than God!
Kelly