> > 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. >

These are all passages which encourage the readers to continue to believe the teachings passed on to them. No doubt the early believers all encouraged each other to stand firm, and keep the faith. At the same time it is clear that these teachings were being developed and applied to new situations - it is because there was so much change taking place that they reminded each other to remember the "first principles". What is important is that the power and authority to do this rested with the church as a whole, not with a special leadership.

> > 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.

Where does he say this?

> > 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.

What you are trying to establish is that there was a hierarchical leadership in the early church. I have pointed out that the letters read as those seeking to persuade others of their point of view, not sending out commands as to what should be done. If you agree that this is the tone and content of the letters, fine, but it leaves you struggling to find other evidence to support your position.

> > 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.

Matt 16:18 and 18:18-20 simply reference the "church", they do not set out a hierarchy, and indeed propose to resolve differences not by hierarchical authority but by the general concent of the church. The book of Acts typically consists of the apostles preaching to the unconverted Jews, where a church is established there is no evidence of a hierarchical structure operating.

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

What clergy? Where does it say there is a hierarchical spiritual structure in the NT?

> > 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.)

If they are not well sound, show me where they are not sound! These texts simply indicate a very common sense structure for the early church, (a) decisions made by general concensus, (b) listen to all the arguments put forward, (c) appoint people to organise and run local churches, for example make arrangements for collections, help the poor etc, (d) respect the elders who have had more experience and understanding, respect the apostles who are able to tell us about what Jesus said and did.

> > But you do not argue that, because it has no basis in reality.

I do not argue it because it is beside the point. If you are able to defend your position, it does not matter that you hold it for reasons of security and inability to take responsibility. What I object to is your attempting to "psychologise" my arguments as if they are symptoms of some deep-seated problem. To say "Perhaps you have been hurt by people who have exercised their ministry in an unloving fashion" is just ridiculously patronising, the same as if I came out and started accusing you of holding your views because you can't take the responsibility for your own beliefs. I just don't see the point of doing that sort of thing. If two economists are debating free trade vs protectionism, we expect them to exchange rational arguments, not for one of them to analyse all the other's arguments in some pseudo-Freudian manner. My point was that I just don't see it is appropriate to drag the argument down to that level.

> 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.

Where do you get these ideas from? It is sin that keeps us in an uncreative, unresponsive, unimaginative state, where we have no choice, are "slaves to sin", have no options, no alternatives. When we receive the Spirit we are at last free to become the full human beings that was always our potential. Becoming a Christian doesn't mean we lose our freedom, we gain it.

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

You need to expand this whole argument. What are you saying - Timothy is described as a "son in the faith" (1 Ti 1:2) and a "brother" (Phil 1) what other power and authority are you suggesting he had?

> > Timothy having entered the ministry. >

He "entered the ministry" in the sense that he went around preaching with Paul, not in the sense that he became some member of the clergy.

> > 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. >

This is a strange way to read this simple story. This is what happened. Widows were being overlooked in the daily food distribution, so there was a meeting to decide what to do. The decision was to put seven men in charge of food distribution, people who were known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom, the men were prayed over and hands laid on them. Why were hands laid on them? It seems this was typically done to receive the Spirit, for example Acts 8:17, where there is no indication that the laying on of hands means making someone of the "clergy" class.

> > The fact that laying on of hands is mentioned implies ipso facto a ministry.

Why? Where is this connection explained? The laying on of hands happens frequently as a way of receiving the Spirit, not of creating clergy.

> 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.

Where does the Bible say this?

> > 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 ?

What side stepping is being done here? I have directly addressed both the texts you gave regarding bishops/overseers and questioned why you think they had the role of clergy rather than as general administrators. Regarding laying on of hands, there is nothing to indicate it is liked to the creation of clergy, it occurs to mark receiving the Spirit.

> > 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.

Well, you cited those two passages as examples of people simply doing what they were told by the "clergy". Do you now accept that these Acts 17:1-15 does not show this at all, in fact quite the opposite!

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

I say that the NT letters are alive with debate and discussion and you want to have biblical evidence for this? OK, read Rom 1:1 - Jude 24 and you'll get the idea.

You are arguing that the NT letters contain references to a "clergy", I am arguing that they contain arguments of believers seeking to persuade other believers. I assumed - perhaps I am wrong - that you at least accepted that they contained argument and discussion, hence it was up to you to find the "missing texts" that referred to the clergy. That's simple logic - you are seeking to show something is there, I am seeking to show it is not there. For you to ask for texts to show something isn't there isn't logical, the point is, they aren't there. In order for you to prove your point, you have to provide the texts in support of your argument. In order for me to prove my point I have to demonstrate any texts you put forward can reasonably be understood as not referring to the clergy. For example if you site Jesus talking to Peter as an example of Peter being the first pope, I will argue that Jesus spoke to lots of people, so your argument isn't valid.

> > 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.

Well I don't agree - are you suggesting the state of the Catholic church prior to the counter-reformation wasn't a theological mess?

> > 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.

The point being made was that you claimed "serve" had a special Biblical defintion. You wrote:

"biblically defined methods of "serving" is providing access to the truth by informing the congregation exactly what the truth is"

I pointed out that the Biblical meaning of serve wasn't this at all. Do you now accept this.

It is interesting that you interpret my view of the church coming to a common agreement after discussion and debate as being equivalent to any individual "chucking out what they do not like, inserting what they feel is comfortable". Perhaps you could might like to re-study what I have been saying, if you have so badly misunderstood my position.

> > 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 "weaker view" as you put it, was the one "commanded" (your view) from the Council of Jerusalem and which - as I have commented - Paul felt justified to quietly ignore. We mustn't forget that Paul himself was one of the groups involved in the discussion, so it is not surprising he was "biased" towards his own view! However he still took the view that the two sides should respect each other's views, and in other parts of the book of Romans argues that Jewish Christians should not be treated as second-class believers.

The point we have established is that the Council of Jerusalem "passed judgement" on a dispute and that judgement was gradually ignored. Paul in Galatians glosses over the whole ruling. This shows not that the early church had a clergy who told the believers what to think and believe, but that the believers themselves were a lot more powerful than the "officials" at Jerusalem.

You have said the Council of Jerusalem view was the "weaker view", and the other view "the right one", but doesn't this totally undermine your argument about the existence and power of the clergy in the early church? By (your) definition the Council view must be the right view, and the believers' the "weaker view". Isn't this the Roman church "chucking out what they do not like, inserting what they feel is comfortable" with regard to the Council of Jerusalem ruling?

> > 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.

Since I assume you don't have a group of early Christians sitting near you as you type your reply, I assume you are as reliant on the available evidence for what the early Christians believed as I am. Since I have provided ample argument and evidence that the early Christians did not have a clerical layer in their church structure, we must assume that this argument and evidence demonstrates the truth of what the early Christians' view was. Thus my view is that of the early Christians, and therefore must be true.

> > 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.

This makes the fundamental error repeated by the church through the ages that there must be a single way of articulating truth. We know in science and physics there are different ways of representing the same truth, in art this is even more so - it is wholly illogical and against the evidence of the Bible to assume that truth can be articulated in one way and any other articulation is false. The Bible consists not of a single text written by one person, but many different experiences of God, but we don't say the Psalms is true and Proverbs false, they are all equally valid but different expressions.

> > 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. >

I am referring to "If God is absolute, there can only be one absolute truth". What is interesting about the NT view of truth is how inclusive it is. "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Christ" - although there is a lot of debate and discussion, it is actions, not beliefs that define the sinner. Early Christianity had "orthopraxis" not "orthodoxy" (right practise, not right belief).

> > 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.

I was just pointing out that the text totally failed to cite what you claimed. Sorry if this is a "narrow translation of the text only" but if we allow all sorts of allegorical readings we will be into this "free creative interpretation" you dislike so much.

> > 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 support my claim it isn't a hard and fast rule by the fact (as I refer to) that Paul himself doesn't follow it. How many times does Jesus teach us to forgive?

> > 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. >

Can you give examples of this? I found that most of the texts you cited were nothing to do with what you claimed. The example above of wiping dirt off your shoes being to do with the clergy disciplining the laity being typical. The same is true this time - the so-called "proof texts" of Peter being the first pope in the New Testatment are just lists of things Peter did. On the other hand my texts exactly show what I am arguing and support the point I am making. The reason for this is my arguments come from direct Bible study, whereas it looks as if your views have been taken from Bible studies done by other people. I have seen this so many times it is depressing. I am debating with someone and they cannot support their argument but continue to insist that their view is correct, then in the end they will send you the "original" Bible study they were taking their texts from. At this point you can't win - if you go point by point through each of the "arguments", the response is "you are twisting the texts", on the other hand if you point out that you have already answered these in earlier debates you will be told "you can't answer these arguments".

I hope I have shown that your arguments in support of a New Testament "clergy" are unfounded. You will be disappointed that the books you were using to study the Bible with have been found in error, and thus become anxious about how to find the truth in the Bible.

I would suggest just sitting down with the Bible and studying it first hand, without these "guides" to assist (and more often confuse) you. That way, what you discover will be your own discoveries, and all the more valuable for it. Of course you won't know if your view is the "official" one, or you are imagining some awful heresy, but that's the angst that comes with Christian freedom.

> 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.

What is clear is that in meeting your arguments point by point, text by text, verse by verse, I have shown them to be a confusion of tradition and "official interpretation". I know it is painful to come to this realisation, but I urge you to come back to these arguments when you feel strong enough and prayerfully study what God is telling you.

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