The Seventh-day Adventist-Roman Catholic Dialogue

The Seventh-day Adventist-Roman Catholic Dialogue - Part 13
Stephen Korsman (Roman Catholic)

Hi !

> > 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?

The entire chapter of Acts 15 is a prime example. The clergy dictated to the laity exactly what to believe regarding circumcision and Judaising practices. I have no doubt this included the Sabbath, although this was not explicitly mentioned in Acts 15. See also 2 Thess 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2, 1 Cor 11:2, 1 Thess 2:13, 2 John 1:12, 3 John 1:13-14, Acts 2:42, Matt 18:18, John 20:22-23, Matt 16:18-19, John 21:17, Luke 22:31-32, Heb 13:17, Matt 23:2.

> 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.

I hardly think this was an order by the centurion to Peter. Far more likely a request. And the heirarchy did not differ that much from the laity in those days - it was quite normal for the highest ranking cleric to visit a low ranking lay member. While this definitely still happens today, running the Church takes far more time today than it did then, the Church has grown so much, and the Pope need to spend all his time keeping the Vatican going. But still, the Pope does do home visits in his parish, surprisingly.

> 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.

The priests in his day were corrupt, although he does mention that their doctrines were true. Had the priests had more heart, he would not have condemned them so. His desire is for his modern priests to be as loving as he was.

> 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.

Each letter is an instruction in the faith. It is telling them what to believe, and persuading them from the Bible and from common sense that this is the right belief. As are all Catholic instructions. Anyone who separated himself from the instruction given in the letters would no doubt have been considered a rebel, an outcast from the faith. There are clear instructions in Paul's letters, and it is expected that they be taken as the Gospel truth. Then, as today, the Catholic leaders felt the need to persuade by argument - there is nothing unnatural about it. What is unnatural and illogical is to claim that BECAUSE the Apostles explained their teachings, these teachings are not binding and absolute and the faithful are not expected to believe them.

> > 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?

Well, it's right there in the Bible. Matt 16:18, 18:18-20. The entire book of Acts lives out the distinction between clergy, the teachers of the Gospel, and the laity, those who hear and learn. The Council of Jerusalem is the perfect example of how the clergy were distinct from the laity, instructing the laity on what to believe regarding a certain controversy. It seems to me that had the Council of Jerusalem NOT been referenced in Acts, you would criticise the clergy for dictating the faith to those who merely wished to practice an alternate form of Christianity.

> 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)

Why does this unnul the formation of the ministry by the clergy as seen in the New Testament ?

> > 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.

There is very much reason to believe that. I do not find your reasons to be sound at all; it is obvious to me that they are biased against a formal clergy as witnessed in the New Testament (see those verses I mentioned before, as well as Acts 15:6,23, 1 Tim 4:14, 5:17-22, 2 Cor 5:18, James 5:13-15, 1 Cor 12.)

> 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.

But you do not argue that, because it has no basis in reality. God's church is not a democracy. We do not choose what to believe. God reveals his truth to us; if we reject it, we are heretics, if we accept it, we know the truth. There is no middle ground, no optional beliefs, no alternate ways of being a Christian.

> > > > 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.

The reference to the ministry is the fact that Paul is writing to Timothy, who was ordained.

> 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.

Timothy having entered 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.

The role of these men was distinct from that of the ordinary laity. They were set apart by the laying on of hands specifically for this function. Thus, by definition, they were ordained for this ministry. The direct implication is that a layman without such laying on of hands was not permitted to do this function.

> 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.

The fact that laying on of hands is mentioned implies ipso facto a ministry. The act of laying on of hands blessed a man and prepared him for a certain function in the church. This is the definition of a ministry by a certain group of individuals.

> 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!

I find it very interesting that you site-step the obvious meaning of these texts I gave you, to try to twist them to say something they do not. The act of laying on of hands was the distinctive act of induction to the ministry. If it was not, what do YOU think this action's purpose was, and what biblical evidence do YOU have for YOUR view ?

> > 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.

No. Some will reject it, some will have the grace to accept it without questioning it, some will have to struggle to find the truth. Blessed are those who believe yet have not seen.

[ ... irrelevant comments snipped ... ]

> > 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.

I notice the complete lack of biblical evidence for your view, which I requested in my last e-mail.

> 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.

Sometimes that is necessary. Protestantism abandoned the divinely ordained authority of the Church, and look what a total mess they have caused with Christian theology.

> > > "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.

So you are claiming that the ministry are not here to teach, but rather here to be menial servants to the laity. While the laity, totally contrary to the biblical example of Acts 15, define the truth for themselves, as they see fit, chucking out what they do not like, inserting what they feel is comfortable. That is EXACTLY how you come across. No offence intended, just an observation.

> 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.

Actually, sections like Romans 14 tell us that one view is a weaker view, the other view is the right one. It is where the weaker view is not blatant heresy that we are to tolerate those who cannot stomach the full and undefiled truth.

> > 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.

We have established nothing of the sort. You may have established that for yourself, by the method of private interpretation, but we - you and I - have not. Your view is not the view of the early Christians, and therefore it cannot be true.

> > 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?

That would mean that one group was wrong, and the other group was right. The Church would then turn to the Holy Spirit to determine which group was right. Until such a decision had been made, both groups would remain within the Church. Once the truth had been revealed by the Holy Spirit through study of the faith one delivered and of the Bible, the erroneous group would be outcasts, heretics, excommunicated unless they repented of their heresy.

> > 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?

Which point ? You yourself are arguing the first point. But the very fact that certain false doctrines are condemned as false in the New Testament seems to evade you completely. John, in his epistles, condemns certain doctrines as antiChrist, yet you wish to allow them into the Church as alternate forms of "truth" ?? As for the Church being the pillar of truth - 1 Tim 3:15.

> > 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.

If you understand the principle instead of sticking to a narrow translation of the text only, and ignoring any other valid implications, one might hold your view.

> 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.

Why then is it in the Bible ? It seems very much that you pick and choose the texts you wish to believe, and disregard the rest.

I find little biblical evidence supplied by you for these debates. Most of the time I supply the Bible texts, and you proceed to misinterpret them, ignoring their logical and obvious meanings, and sometimes, as above, blatantly disregarding them and thinking they do not apply to us today.

It is clear to me that you are not ready to understand. Perhaps you have been hurt by authoritarian Adventists in the past - I have witnessed many disgusting atrocities by many ministers of many churches. It is natural to feel the way you do, but please try to consider ALL the Bible has to say, and not just the sections that appeal to you.

God bless,
Stephen
--
The owls are not what they seem
Stephen Korsman
skorsman@global.co.za
http://home.global.co.za/~skorsman/

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