> > It sounds like you are objecting not to Catholic practice, but to > biblical practice. In biblical times, sound doctrine was not revealed > and taught by the laity. It was revealed and taught by the Apostles,

Perhaps you could cite some examples? I believe the Bible and in particular the New Testament is happy to ignore religious hierarchy - there frequent cases of individuals who do this. For example in Acts 10, Cornelius a Roman Centurian sends to Joppa for Peter. A Roman Centurian is summoning an apostle? That's fine - Peter just comes over. Imagine today if some "unbeliever" summoned the pope, people would ask "who do they think they are?" but clearly that attitude didn't exist in the time of the New Testament.

Jesus himself gathers around him outcasts, the poor, the dispossessed. He isn't part of the religious establishment, and doesn't think the people should only listen to the priests.

Each letter of the New Testatment is an argument. It is an attempt to persuade the listener. The letters clearly are not commands to be obeyed, as if a commanding officer had sent instructions to the ignorant troops, but each letter assumes the listeners are able to follow the logic and make up their own mind.

> and those chosen by God to teach. It was not Peter who said, "I am the > rock, you are my sheep, I will feed you, you shall eat" - cf Matt > 16:18-19, John 21:17. These were duties and responsibilities placed on > Peter's shoulders (and the other apostles) by Jesus. They are not roles > taken upon themselves by the modern papacy, or modern clergy - they are > biblical roles ordained by Jesus himself for that specific purpose.

Again, why do you assume Jesus is establishing some separate clergy-class? As I have argued on the Matt 16 passage, the meaning of the text clearly points to the promise of giving a new name to all believers (see also Revelation 2:17)

> > Perhaps you have been hurt by people who have exercised their ministry > in an unloving fashion. It is the lack of love that you should rebel > against, not the authority, which IS biblical.

As I am providing solid arguments to defend my position, there is no reason for you to assume I hold it purely on psychological grounds. I may as well argue that you feel unable to accept the responsibility of living outside of the "we have all the answers" church, and support it on the grounds that you cannot face the anxiety of freedom to choose.

> > > Ordination (laying on of hands) is given as the mode of entry to > > > the ministry, as is shown in II Tim 1:6, I Tim 4:14, Acts 6:6, I Tim > > > 5:22. Titus 1:5-7 talks of Titus' new role as bishop.

II Tim 1:6 reads:
"For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands"

This is a reference to the Holy Spirit, as verse 7 shows: "for God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline".

So this makes no reference to an entry into the ministry.

I Tim 4:14 reads:
"Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you".

Again, this is a reference to the Holy Spirit entering following the laying on of hands, no reference to a mode of entry into the ministry.

Acts 6:6 reads:
"They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them"

This concerns appointing seven men to be responsible for the distribution of food. Again no reference to entering the ministry.

1 Tim 5:22 reads:
"Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure."

Again no reference to entering the ministry.

Titus 1:5-7 reads:
"The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer (or bishop) is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless - not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to much wine, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain."

Here, as in other parts of the New Testament (e.g. 1 Tim 3:1) there are references to those who manage the church, and serve as examples to their fellow Christians. However there is never any indication given that these people are to be obeyed no matter what, that they are a new priesthood to replace the priests from the Old Covernant. Even Paul says if he preaches a different gospel the people are to ignore him!

> > Well, the Bereans and the Thesselonians accepted the message of the > Apostles without questioning ... yes, even the Bereans. A sound > analysis of the Berean issue will show that they in fact did not take > only the Bible as the source for doctrine, but also the teaching of Paul > and others. On the other hand, Jesus' teaching met with resistance too, > and many rejected it, just as many rejected the authorised teaching of > the Apostles, and their successors.

Just because a group of people accept the gospel without questioning, it doesn't follow that no believer is allowed to question anything - that is bad logic. However your examples are incorrect in any case. When Paul went to Thesselonians, he had to preach for three Sabbaths - why? Because "he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead" (Acts 17:2-3), following from this we read "some of the Jews were persuaded" (Acts 17:4), so this certainly doesn't sound as if they accepted the message without questioning.

Moving on to the Bereans, we read "they received the message with great eagerness" (Acts 17:11) - does this mean they received the message without questioning? No, for the passage continues "... and examined the Scriptures each day to see if what Paul said was true" (Acts 17:11). So again, we find no example of the claim that they accepted the message without questioning.

You say that some met Jesus' teaching with resistance and rejected it, implying that those who question what they are told will reject it. However the examples of the Thessalonicans and Bereans shows this is not the case, after argument and study, they decided that what was being presented to them was true.

> > > Even where there were "teachers" they had to put together a convincing > > argument or they wouldn't be listened to.

> > As is the case with any evangelical campaign. Even Jesus had to > convince people, yet he was possessor of the absolute truth. Likewise > it is perfectly reasonable to expect the Church to whom Jesus passed on > the absolute truth to have to convince people of it too.

OK, so now you are saying people can question the church and not simply have to believe what they are told? This is different to what you were saying before.

> > > They couldn't just say "this is > > what to believe and I'm not going to tell you why", Paul's letters show > > clearly people wanted to be convinced by argument and reason, not told what > > to think because their "commanding officer" forced them to.

> > And I think the Catholic Church does a good job at this today too.

Again, either you accept that the church can only seek to persuade through argument and reason, and if it can't persuade then the people are free to choose what honestly convinces them, or you say people must believe what they are told whether they are convinced or not. You can't have it both ways.

> > > The Bible tells us that the elders "rule" in I Tim 5:17, and that the > > > bishops are placed to rule over the church in Acts 20:28.

> > This is refering to organisational and logistical work, which of course had > > to meet with the concensus of the church as a whole, people wouldn't have > > had dictators imposed on them from above, they had to act "as a body", as > > one.

> > Do you have biblical evidence to support this theory, or are you merely > reading in your own desired interpretation into these passages ? I see > no biblical evidence whatsoever that the people had the right to decide > what the truth was and what the truth was not. Were they to decide for > themselves what the content of the Gospel was, to reject what they > didn't want, to accept what they found pleasing ? That IS the attitude > many took, and many take it today - it has resulted in Protestantism > with all its inventions and fantasies. Not one single Protestant sect > is faithful to the beliefs of the first century Christians ... who > accepted what was revealed to them by the Holy Spirit, and did not > argue. Christians do not have the right to try to make deals with the > Holy Spirit as to what truth they like and what truth they dislike. We > must either accept what God reveals, or we must reject it.

OK, so now you are back singing your original tune. As I have pointed out, the New Testament makes no mention of one group of Christians being "in charge" who everyone else has to obey - everywhere the New Testament is alive with debate and ideas. There are leaders who are told to be honest and good, but it doesn't say "obey your leaders and do what you are told". In the many arguments Paul makes in his letters, he does not say "do this because I tell you to" or even "do what your local elder tells you to", he always uses reason and argument to persuade. So it is up to you to provide the "proof" that the New Testament supports a totalitarian church organisation.

You imply that unless Christians are ruled with a rod of iron and told what to think and believe, they will only accept what they find pleasing. What a sad view of Christians! I my experience Christians have enough self-discipline and a strong enough faith in God to not require being treated like children by the church.

You argue that disagreement of opinion has resulted in Protestant "inventions and fantasies", yet there are hundreds perhaps thousands of groups within the Catholic church that have their own particular beliefs and traditions. Do you want everyone to be the same? To think the same thoughts, so hold exactly the same beliefs? Let one hundred flowers bloom, let everyone explore their own path. This isn't making deals with the Holy Spirit - if you reject the truth because you don't like it you are being as irrational as someone who blindly follows what they are told no matter if they are convinced or not.

> > > Paul tells us that there are certain requirements for being a bishop or > > > priest or deacon, these are listed in I Tim 3 where Paul spells these > > > things out to Timothy, a newly ordained bishop who will be ordaining > > > priests to serve in the churches under him.

> > > > "Serve" is the word to focus on here.

> > Quite. I have no problem with that. But one of the biblically defined > methods of "serving" is providing access to the truth by informing the > congregation exactly what the truth is. Serving is not limited to > providing comfort when times are bad, or to ensuring one's car is parked > safely when one attends services.

Where does the Bible say that? The Old Testament word frequently used for "serve" is "abad" which means to enslave, to keep in bondage, to compel. So no indication of "providing access to the truth by informing the congregation exactly what the truth is". Moving on to the New Testament there are two words frequently used: "douleia" which is derived from the word for "slavery" and means "bondage"; and "latreuo" which comes from a word meaning a hired menial, and means to do service, or to worship. Again, no suggestion about defining truth.

> > You can see from the letters of the NT that people didn't obey if they were > > not convinced, it was up to the teachers to put the case and make the > > argument.

> > But it is obvious from simple logic that those who were unconvinced and > did not obey were not in full communion with the Church and were not in > full agreement with the truth. They were not a special group of > Christians who had chosen to accept a different truth; they were > heretics, apostates, through and through.

Really? There were at least two groups of Christians in the early church - the Jewish Christians and the Roman/Greek Christians, and within both groups there appear to have been those with various leanings to mystery religions and gnosticism. We can tell from the letters of Paul that these all met together in the same group, and had various disagreements and that Paul tried to keep both groups together. For example in the book of Romans there is clearly a split between Jews and Romans. Does Paul tell them what to believe and lay down the law? No, he tells them to respect their differences, and not to assume that one group is better than another group, he writes "each one should be fully convinced in his own mind" (Rom 14:5).

So your simple logic might indicate that there is one truth and you'd better believe it or you can get out, but the New Testament paints a different picture, of believers loving one another and respecting their differences.

> > Historically it seems that the "teachers" didn't all speak with > > one voice, but each "teacher" was putting forward their own case to be > > listened to, so people were listening to what the different teachers said > > and making up their own minds - a bit like politicians today. Probably some > > people were in the "camp" of one teacher and some in another, while others > > took a bit from each and were in the middle.

> > The teachers generally all speak as a group. No one single teacher is > perfect, but the whole collection of teachers, forming the Magisterium, > weilds the authority given by Jesus to the Apostles, and acts as the > Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth, which cannot go astray > (Matt 16:18-19.)

Where do you get these ideas from? I can see no evidence that the New Testament "leaders" or apostles spoke as a single group or that they went about wielding authority. Every time you come up with this totalitarian vision of the New Testament you stick a reference to Matt 16 after it, but we have already established that this is an apocalyptic message referring to Deut 32, Dan 2, Rev 2 etc, and in no way establishes a dictatorial regime over the church.

> > Even within the Catholic Church today there is a variety of different > views on many issues, issues whose end is not dictated by Rome. My > favourite is a rather impractical, theologically useless issue, > interesting nonetheless - the question of whether God the Son would have > been incarnated as a man if Adam had NOT sinned. This is an undecided > issue in the Catholic Church. People are divided. Until division > starts developing, this doctrine will not become an issue, and the truth > will not be fully revealed in a decision by the bishops of the Church. >

So you are saying where there is disagreement in the Catholic Church it is only on theologically useless issues? Suppose there was disagreement on really important issues, what would that mean? Suppose a group of South American Catholics were arguing for the church to change in its relationship to the wealthy west? Suppose a group of European Catholics were arguing for the church to change on women priests? Suppose a group of US Catholics were arguing for changes in teachings on contraception?

Would all these people be "heretics, apostates, through and through"?

> Yes, the early Church was alive with different ideas. Some were > tolerable, for example circumcision under certain circumstances, or the > eating of meat sacrificed to idols, but others were not tolerated, such > as enforced circumcision of Gentiles. Some ideas were able to exist > within the framework of the truth, yet other ideas were rank heresy and > had to be rooted out of the Church. If God is absolute, there can only > be one absolute truth, revealed by Jesus through the organisation the > Bible calls the pillar and foundation of truth - the Church. >

Where are the texts? Any scripture to support this argument?

If God is absolute there is no reason at all for him not to want us to be free to find him in all his variety and difference. If God wants people to obey him without question and understanding, why are the books of the prophets so full of pleadings and arguments with God? Why are the Psalms discussions and conversations with God? Why does God reveal himself in so many different ways? He encourages and delights in difference, and wants us to understand that we only fully realise our lives when we realise we were made in his image, as creators.

> > Unwilling laity were expelled from the congregation, or simply never > included, as instructed by Jesus in Luke 10:10-12, and by Paul in Titus > 3:10-11. False doctrine was not tolerated in biblical times.

Luke 10:10-12 reads:
"But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.'

This does not refer to unwilling laity.

Titus 3:10-11 reads:
"warn a divisive person once, then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."

Here Paul is giving some advice to Titus, but we should not take this as a hard and fast rule. In 1 Cor 5 we read Paul urging an immoral brother to be expelled, but in 2 Cor 2 we find Paul saying "if you forgive anyone, I also forgive him" (2 Cor 2:10), so forgiveness is always available. As regards the general advice to Titus, of course if someone is being distruptive and not showing love to other Christians there may be occasions when it is suitable to have nothing to do with him. This doesn't mean it is the job of a Bishop or Elder to make these decisions, 2 Cor 2:6 makes it clear the punishment was the decision of the "majority".

> > Actually, it was not a democratic group representing the laity at all. > According to Acts 15, the laity were not represented at all - verse 6 > tells us that it was the Apostles and elders who gathered to discuss the > issue and make the decision, NOT the laity. It seems to me that you are > not willing to accept the biblical method, that you want to go off on > your own and be your own personal pope, as has happened countless times > in the Protestant world. >

It is clear from the beginning of the chapter that the different sides were represented at the Council. We read: "so Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question" (Acts 15:2).

The other side were also represented: "Then came some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said,'The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.' (Acts 15:5)

Again, what do you call the "biblical method"? There is actually no "method" explicitly stated here. There was a dispute between two groups in the church, they both appointed representatives to put their case and went to Jerusalem for a decision.

Again you are reduced to name calling for lack of any argument. What does the phrase "personal pope" really mean? Does it just mean you're self-disciplined because you are in charge of yourself?

> > I think the terms have picked up a lot of historical baggage, and at the > > time meant something different to how we understand them today. >

> Can you provide evidence for that statement ?

So you're arguing the term "bishop" meant exactly the same in New Testament times as it does now? Isn't it up to you to provide evidence for this astonishing claim? The simple evidence is to look up the places that "bishop" is mentioned in the NT and find if the current list of duties required of a modern day bishop are included. I suspect they are not.

> > Exactly - the early church showed us a community alive with ideas, debate, > > discussion. It is the later church which turned its back on this tradition > > and instead imposed something akin to a military occupation on the majority > > of the church by the "servants" supposed to serve the majority.

> > Not at all. In Acts 15 we see a Council that imposes rules and > doctrinal decisions on the entire Church. The people had access to > debate and controversy, but when an issue caused division, the clergy > stepped in (verse 6) and decided what the laity would do and practice > and believe.

First, notice that the two opposing sides asked the apostles to make a judgement on the issue, so it wasn't the case that the "clergy stepped in". Secondly, even after the judgement, which decided on the Noadic covenant to be followed by the gentiles, Paul ignored it and continued arguing that it was ok to eat meat sacrified to idols (e.g. 1 Cor 8). So the Council doesn't impose rules and doctrinal decisions, it made a judgement because it was asked to, and we are not even told what the status of that judgement was. There is nothing to say it was binding on believers or that they had decided "what the laity would do in practise and believe". Perhaps it may have been temporarily heeded, but this didn't last long as Paul's letters show, and of course "gentile" believers today do not follow such "imposed rules and doctrinal decisions".

> > So are you saying that the Mass, the Pope, and purgatory was God's > chosen truth for the first century, and in the 1500's or 1800's he > changed his mind, changed "truth", and made it Protestants ?

Why do you just want one truth?

> > If however we see truth like a painting - what is the "true" > > way to paint? What is the "correct" style or tradition? The question is > > absurd - the more styles and traditions the richer "painting" as a > whole is.

> > But Christianity doesn't grow richer from a collection of false > doctrines being taught by as truth. Is this what you are claiming ?

You claimed above the Catholic church has many different groups and beliefs. Are you saying only one of these is true and the rest false? You are assuming "truth" is this one-eyed, one-dimensional thing that can only be articulated a certain way and everything else if false. Can't you see the world is full of variety and individual expression? Why do you want it all squashed into one flat shape?

> > Similarly God wants us to understand him in all his unique and different > > roles and images, in all his different myths and sagas. God is too big to be > > contained in one truth, in one tradition, we need to fill our theology will > > many different and exciting passages into God. God is the god of freedom, he > > wants us to choose to be different, to create, to invent, to discover, to > > innovate, to imagine. The world is full of thousands of different creatures, > > the church should be full of thousands of different doctrines - let a > > hundred flowers bloom! Change is not to be feared, it is to be celebrated as > > the best celebration of the essence of God.

> > I doubt the Apostles or Jesus would have agreed. The Bible is full of > condemnation of false doctrines, heresies. Why should we accept false > doctrines as "different and exciting" if they were condemned > wholeheartedly by the writers of the Bible ?

You have evidence? As I have shown above, Paul taught that differences among believers were to be respected and tolerated. To make Jesus, the Apostles and God out to be intolerant petty-dictators who stamp on anyone who disagrees with them is to live in a spirit very different from that of 1 Cor 13.

> > The further I read, the more it becomes clear to me that you have > abandoned the idea that the truth can be determined from the Bible, and > that there is a difference between right and wrong. You seem to be very > relativistic, thinking that any false doctrine is not really false, but > merely "different and exciting." I hardly think that is biblical. I > base my beliefs on the Bible, and it appears to me that that is our > major difference.

I seem to be the one coming up with the quotes from the Bible, yet you are saying I have abandoned the idea that the truth can be determined by the Bible. The few quotes you use are generally incorrect and fail to substantiate the point you are making. So come on and stop this name calling, and see if you can find some decent arguments supported by some evidence!

God Bless

John

Stephen Korsman is a Roman Catholic
John Mann is a Seventh-day Adventist

© John Mann 2000
New Perspectives on Seventh-day Adventism
jon.mann@btinternet.com