Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, don't be too awfully pleased. Nate mentioned "leaders" who were "recognized as such." Any time you have leaders, you have some form of an organization. A person can become a leader in many different ways.
1. He can assume an Alexander Haig posture and declare, "I'm in charge now," and assume that everybody's going to fall in line.
2. He can be appointed by someone in charge, like the POTUS appoints those in his cabinet. The masses may not be happy with the appointment, but there's little they can do to change things.
3. He can be chosen by the people, by common assent. This works well in some instances, but it can also have some pretty disastrous results if the people are misled by empty promises or are influenced by a charismatic personality. 4. He can be called of God and ordained by those having the proper authority.
There may be other ways, too. But I believe the Apostles were called of God and given the authority to ordain bishops to oversee the affairs of individual congregations. These bishops, too, were given authority, but it was more limited than that of the Apostles. None of this means that any of these leaders were to be put on a pedestal and could do nothing wrong, nor does it mean that they were morally superior to the remainder of the congregation. But, they did have a function and they did serve a purpose, and I believe they assumed their leadership by the 4th way I mentioned that this can take place.
The most important part is that a leader LEADS; he does not control and authority is not his to exercise. An organization (minimal) does not need controllers to be organized.
Sure. Jesus personally chose and ordained His twelve Apostles. None of them were part of a "professional clergy," not while Jesus was alive and not afterwards. Graduating with honors from a divinity college or theological seminary does not qualify a person to serve in a position of leadership, and it didn't back in Jesus' day either. So many people today believe that once Jesus died, God's priesthood ceased to exist on the earth. I can't understand why, when Hebrews speaks of the calling of men to the priesthood. In Numbers 25:13 and Exodus 40:15, the Lord himself refers to the his priesthood as "everlasting."
In Hebrews 5:1, we read, "For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins..." and then in Hebrews 5:4, we're told how this ordination takes place: "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." So, how did Aaron obtain his priesthood? He was called by God through a prophet, Moses, and was formally ordained to the priesthood. Men don't just "choose" to have the priesthood. The person to whom the priesthood belongs (i.e. Jesus Christ) must choose and ordain them.
The word "priesthood" has an entirely different connotation today among most Christians than it did in Jesus Christ's day, and no wonder. It has evolved into something quite different than it was in the beginning.
What we have under the New Covenant is a priesthood of believers and every person is his own priest with Christ as the head and no man between. Indeed "priesthood" has changed from what Jesus instituted.
I'm aware of the idea of the "priesthood of believers," but I don't believe the scriptures as a whole support it.
The New Testament certainly does, it is what Jesus taught, as well as the apostles: "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, to proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." "5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," etc.
The most important part is that a leader LEADS; he does not control and authority is not his to exercise. An organization (minimal) does not need controllers to be organized.
I agree that a leader should not attempt to "control" his congregation, but I disagree that he has no authority.
The New Testament certainly does, it is what Jesus taught.
Sorry, Nate. I don't believe it does. We're reading the same words and interpreting them differently, and I don't think for one minute that either of us is going to change our minds.
The New Testament certainly does, it is what Jesus taught, as well as the apostles: "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, to proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." "5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Sorry, Nate. I don't believe it does. We're reading the same words and interpreting them differently, and I don't think for one minute that either of us is going to change our minds.
I am certain that is true. But to my mind, the idea that you interpret those words as remotely implying the existence of a human appointed authority over members of a church instead of a priesthood of believers over whom ONLY Jesus reigns just boggles my mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
The most important part is that a leader LEADS; he does not control and authority is not his to exercise. An organization (minimal) does not need controllers to be organized.
Amen.This is so badly understood because of the flaws in human leadership that are so prevalent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
I agree that a leader should not attempt to "control" his congregation, but I disagree that he has no authority.
What value is there to investing flawed and fallible human beings with authority to presume to speak for God or Jesus about anything???? Any pretense of Divine selection or control over such appointments is preposterous in the extreme. When the Catholic Church makes a ritual of installing such an authority using the very demonstration of humility and lack of hierarchy that Jesus performed among His disciples, it takes the perversity of humanity to extreme heights, IMO. The idea that there is ANY human authority who can speak for God or Jesus is ridiculous. It is unnecessary because Jesus abides with us as the Comforter sent in His name to guide us to the truth God has "written in our hearts." BUT "I don't think for one minute that either of us is going to change our minds."
What value is there to investing flawed and fallible human beings with authority to presume to speak for God or Jesus about anything???? Any pretense of Divine selection or control over such appointments is preposterous in the extreme. When the Catholic Church makes a ritual of installing such an authority using the very demonstration of humility and lack of hierarchy that Jesus performed among His disciples, it takes the perversity of humanity to extreme heights, IMO. The idea that there is ANY human authority who can speak for God or Jesus is ridiculous. It is unnecessary because Jesus abides with us as the Comforter sent in His name to guide us to the truth God has "written in our hearts."
You're so predictable, Mystic, that it's almost funny. While I don't appreciate your labeling my beliefs as "preposterous in the extreme," I've come to expect that exact reaction from you. I'm only surprised that the words "ignorant, barbaric savages" didn't crop up in your post. Must have been an oversight.
You're so predictable, Mystic, that it's almost funny. While I don't appreciate your labeling my beliefs as "preposterous in the extreme," I've come to expect that exact reaction from you. I'm only surprised that the words "ignorant, barbaric savages" didn't crop up in your post. Must have been an oversight.
I was not pinpointing your beliefs, Katz, because there are so many that believe in a Divine control exercised by human beings that I consider to be preposterous. I was warned not to use barbaric or savage or ignorant if they could be seen to apply to current believers even if the original reference was to ancients about whom it was most definitely true. I do still feel free to express my opinions accurately concerning ANY concepts about God.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was warned not to use barbaric or savage or ignorant if they could be seen to apply to current believers even if the original reference was to ancients about whom it was most definitely true. I do still feel free to express my opinions accurately concerning ANY concepts about God.
