Here's the distinction: Bishops and Deacons (offices both mentioned in the Bible) The offices of Bishop and Deacon are clearly described in Acts and in the Epistles. The Bishop administers the sacraments, the Deacon assists the Bishop. They do this because they are trained to do it. But you are right about one thing: the office picks you, not the other way around.
You twirling around crying "NO NO NO" followed by demonization and ad hom fallacy while running to the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial ... is not an argument for much. Acts 19:5 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" In 254, Pope Stephen in the midst of the baptismal controversies with Cyprian declared that all baptisms in the name of Jesus are valid.
I viewed those as 'gifts within the ecclesia'. They are no more important or special than other gifts, and imo, do not warrant a clergy/laity distinction. I am an apologist.. a defender of the faith.. at least, i believe that to be my 'gift', or task while here in the flesh. Overseers and servants (deacons) within the invisible church have equally important tasks, but not enough to give them a separate category of 'clergy'. That is how i read the scriptures, but i don't see variables in the visible church administration as being 'essential' in the gospel message, or in the core definition of Christianity.
You cannot seperate the writings of Paul, a servant of Jesus, from the ministry of Jesus. There is no conflict.
You seriously do not know what Ad Hom fallacy is .. do you ? Almost everything on the UCG site is referenced. Quit attacking the messenger and thinking this qualifies as valid argument against the message. Its not ... It if fallacy 101. Just because some organization is "new" does not make claims made by that organization false. Once again - what is it that I posted from that website do you disagree with .. and why ?
You just made the distinction yourself. I often hear this from laity, they want to tell me that they are a "Royal Priesthood". And so they are. It is their job to spread the Gospel, sometimes using words. But it's my job, too, along with assisting the Bishop, administering the Sacraments, and presiding over the liturgy, which teaches you the history and the plan of salvation every Sunday. I was ordained by my Bishop, who was ordained by his Bishop, and so on, in a line of unbroken succession all the way back to Christ and the apostles. Most of the Apostles were martyred. Most of their successors were martyred. Your ordination gives you the strength to do your job, it's not a prize. This is a terrible job, but it's my job, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't minimize it.
Seems you view baptism from a spectrum of "religiosity". Don't overlook the symbol of dying to oneself and being resurrected by the power of the Holy Spirit. The ritual is merely an outward, public profession of what has taken place on the inside. Without the knowlege of that.....baptism is meaningless IMHO.
My comments on baptism related solely to the posters comments that the baptismal formulation was evidence of belief of early Christians in the modern Trinity Doctrine. I probably should not even been lured down that rabbit hole as just because some early Christians may have baptized "Father, Son, Ghost" rather than in the name of Jesus as suggested in Acts 19:5 ... this does not mean that these folks believed that Jesus was the Father.
Minimizing gifts was not my intent. Sorry if you took it that way . It is my observation and analysis of human history, that titles, competition, and the desire for power in human institutions have caused more harm than good. I see them as part of the human condition, and a function of the visible church. They can and have done good, but they have also been a problem. My side comment was only a caveat, not a condemnation of church organizations and administrations. The priesthood of believers is a critical teaching from Jesus and the apostles, and has been overlooked in times past. I am perhaps overly sensitive about anything that even hints at a Christian hierarchy. I was ordained many years ago, but do not consider that as the authority for my arguments here, nor necessary for the defense of the Gospel. I can give a fiery sermon, marry people, and visit the sick. But credentials are not my thing. I try to wield Truth and Reason, in these forums, and dismiss arguments of authority or expertise. They are useless in an internet forum, as nothing can be verified, anyway. Truth and Reason, however, stand with no need of credentials.
1)Your claim to "unbroken succession" to the apostles is tenuous at best. 2)The idea that even if this were the case, this somehow preserved doctrinal purity demonstrably false. 1) Have you read the history of the Popes ? It's not pretty .. When they were not persecuting Christians and torturing people they were deflowering virgins and young boys. When not engaged in these activities they were engaging in simony and/or putting their relatives in power. Some tradition. 2) The Apostle Paul was not on the same page as Jesus - and the Church of Jerusalem (founded by disciples that actually knew Jesus) disappeared from history prior to the close of the first century. Then you have the problem of oral tradition. Stories grow and change with each telling. Then you have the problem of "Pious Fraud" something that was not only common but accepted practice. Then you have the problem that you had numerous different Christian groups .. each having a different doctrine. Which doctrine your ordination descend from ? This division went on for centuries even after the official doctrine of the Universal Church was codified in the 4th century .. and even this codification process took many decades.
We don't look at it that way. Each new responsibility only means we are servant to more people than before. I will always be a Deacon, no matter what else they call me. And that's the difference. People don't invite me to garden parties on Sunday afternoons and offer me donations for the new Baptismal fount. That may have happened 50 years ago, not today. But, one thing we have going for us as far as this forum is concerned - at least we have put the time into learning this stuff (when we can remember it).
Oh surprise surprise ... another post where you do nothing but throw out insults followed by false claims. What is it that I got wrong about apostolic succession ?
It's authority, they are passing on authority, to preside over the Mass, to administer the sacraments, to bless the congregation.
Several times I've brought up Catholicism. I don't believe your strict definition can ignore that. The the differences of the Pope's position as intercessor, praying to Mary, purgatory, baptism of babies, etc. are not insignificant.
Nothing, you made up the doctrinal purity part, although if you teach what the Church has always taught you'll have doctrinal purity.
You're fooling yourself by reading single bible verses out of context. In the case of your verse, the immediate issue is circumcision and the relationship between the Christian community and the law of the heathen government under which they lived. I don't see a way to suggest your de Tocqueville quote is an indication that our direction on personal freedoms, checks and balances, etc., came from the Bible.
Thanks for admitting that your post had nothing to add to the discussion. Why you say "made up doctrinal purity part" as if doctrinal purity has not been the main point of discussion is strange and bizarre. This nonsense statement is then followed with fallacy (assumed premise) - that the Church doctrine has not changed. In a discussion about "how" Church doctrine has changed - one in which you have been given a plethora of evidence from early Church fathers and theologians that back up the position that doctrine has changed .. You standing on a soap box repeating your premise over and over again "No it hasn't - NO NO NO" followed by demonization of the messenger (Ad Hom fallacy) is hardly a refutation to the evidence presented.
I was in a conversation with someone else about something else. Is this going to become a habit with you?
Why are you telling me this ? Am I your mother such that you are requesting permission to talk with others ?
I strongly suspect there are many who interpret this passage quite differently than do you. Judaism and Islam are well aware of these passages, hold respect for Jesus, but don't consider these statements as an indication that Jesus WAS god in the sense you mean. I suspect Jesus could be considered one with god without actually being god, for example. That is, his message from god could be that accurate/clear. Once the discussion becomes one of not just defining Christianity but also attempting to verify its correctness, one has to accept evidence from outside the usfan "definition".
Okay, I had to remember where I saw this - remember that you brought up Ignatius? On page 92 of "Early Christian Doctrines" by JND Kelly, Ignatius says that [Christ] is our God, describing him as "God incarnate, God manifest as man", etc. There's more but I am not going to copy it all down because I know it would be a waste of time. Barnabas tells his readers to "Think of Christ as God" p. 91, and Clement writes that we have one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace poured upon us". It is clear that the propaganda from the UCG is quoted out of context for the purpose of discrediting the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. And you fell for it.
