The "Reformation"

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
5,393
364
83
#41
the Greek word presbyter translates as priest just an FYI
That's what the RCC would have you believe. Presbuteros = elder (used interchangeably with bishop (episkopos), and essentially pastors. All New Testament churches had a plurality of elders, who were the shepherds and overseers of the flock. Check out your New Testament. Since all believers are within a Royal Priesthood, the priests of the RCC are a sham, and there is no clergy and laity, with the clergy having the power to give absolution of sins.

Πρεσβυτέρους τοὺς ἐν ὑμῖν παρακαλῶ ὁ συμπρεσβύτερος καὶ μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων, ὁ καὶ τῆς μελλούσης ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι δόξης κοινωνός·

The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: (1 Peter 5:1)

Strong's Concordance
presbuteros: elder
Original Word: πρεσβύτερος, α, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: presbuteros
Phonetic Spelling: (pres-boo'-ter-os)
Short Definition: elder
Definition: elder, usually used as subst.; an elder, a member of the Sanhedrin, an elder of a Christian assembly.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon

STRONGS NT 4245: πρεσβύτερος
b. among Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches): Acts 11:30; Acts 14:23;Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22; Acts 16:4; Acts 21:18; 1 Timothy 5:17, 19; Titus 1:5; 2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:1; 1 Peter 5:1, 5; with τῆςἐκκλησίας added, Acts 20:17; James 5:14. That they did not differ at all from the (ἐπίσκοποι) bishops or overseers (as is acknowledged also by Jerome on Titus 1:5 (cf.Lightfoot's Commentary on Philippians, pp. 98f, 229f)) is evident from the fact that the two words are used indiscriminately, Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5, 7, and that the duty of presbyters is described by the termsἐπισκοπεῖν, 1 Peter 5:1f, and ἐπισκοπή,Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 44, 1 [ET]; accordingly only two ecclesiastical officers, οἱἐπίσκοποι and οἱδιάκονοι, are distinguished in Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1, 8. The title ἐπίσκοπος denotes the function, πρεσβύτερος the dignity;...
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
8,879
254
83
#42
the Greek word presbyter translates as priest just an FYI
No. Its "elder" as Nehemiah6 says.

Priest is ιερεύς (hiereus):

ὁ δὲ μετὰ ὁρκωμοσίας διὰ τοῦ λέγοντος πρὸς αὐτόν Ὤμοσεν Κύριος, καὶ οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται Σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
"...but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever."
Heb 7:21

This term is never used in any list of Christian church offices except of about Christ, who is a priest forever.
 
Last edited:

graceNpeace

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2016
2,180
81
48
#43
No. Its "elder" as Nehemiah6 says.

Priest is ιερεύς (hiereus):

ὁ δὲ μετὰ ὁρκωμοσίας διὰ τοῦ λέγοντος πρὸς αὐτόν Ὤμοσεν Κύριος, καὶ οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται Σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
"...but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever."
Heb 7:21

This term is never used in any list of Christian church offices except of about Christ, who is a priest forever.
Absolutely spot on!
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
4,799
346
83
#44
I wish to know how I made an "a priori" assumption that the Catholic Church is the true church. ... This is not an a priori assumption in regards to the validity of Catholicism as it does not state anything as to who the true church is(granted I would believe it is the Catholic Church). However simply by going over this step there are a few other viable options the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and Churches of the East for example. My statement would simply cross off Protestantism as Protestantism rejects the idea of a "visible entity" in the sense we are speaking of.

...

The discussion as to who the true church actually is, is another conversation for another day I am still waiting for any sort of historical, scriptural, or logical proof that can show that Protestantism is at least a viable option. On the other hand as for your comment on the ranks of the clergy merely being one as elders and the deacon merely being a layman. Again let's look at 1 Timothy 3 to see what St. Paul has to say on the order of bishop, priest, and deacon, the elder being the priest.


First you claim that you didn't presume that the RCC is the "visible church" and then you agree that such is your view... as I thought.

The statements of early Christians regarding offices in the church are rather suspect when they are filtered through the RCC and/or translated by RCC adherents.

If you are waiting for something, perhaps you should ensure that you have requested it.

Regarding 1 Timothy 3, it says nothing of "order" in the sense of hierarchy. It is addressing qualifications of elders and deacons.
 

Depleted

Senior Member
Dec 13, 2015
22,166
479
83
Philly, PA, USA
#45
[/LEFT]

First you claim that you didn't presume that the RCC is the "visible church" and then you agree that such is your view... as I thought.

The statements of early Christians regarding offices in the church are rather suspect when they are filtered through the RCC and/or translated by RCC adherents.

If you are waiting for something, perhaps you should ensure that you have requested it.

Regarding 1 Timothy 3, it says nothing of "order" in the sense of hierarchy. It is addressing qualifications of elders and deacons.
Dino,
Based on Rex's OP, I can guarantee whatever he thinks he knows of the history of the church, he doesn't. Assuming he does is something like getting all your education about Nascar from Charles Barkley.
 

Enoch987

Senior Member
Jul 13, 2017
288
6
18
#46
Respectfully, I suggest you start a new thread to discuss these issues.
RexCA accuses Protestants of not being sola scriptura. then he quotes the Church fathers. I point out specific verses where protestants don't follow sola scriptura to challenge what RexCA writes about the church fathers, that we should always obey the bishop which is the reverse of sola scriptura. RexCA points out that Protestants don't follow sola scriptura. He is correct. We follow the creeds to interpret the Bible. Protestants don't know they are following the creeds but they are taught to interpret the bible according to the creeds so it's harder for them to know they are interpreting according to the creeds because they think they are sola scriptura. Protestants follow proof texts thus so many sects/denominations. This is RexCa's point which he uses as justification to follow the church fathers.
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#47
RexCA accuses Protestants of not being sola scriptura. then he quotes the Church fathers. I point out specific verses where protestants don't follow sola scriptura to challenge what RexCA writes about the church fathers, that we should always obey the bishop which is the reverse of sola scriptura. RexCA points out that Protestants don't follow sola scriptura. He is correct. We follow the creeds to interpret the Bible. Protestants don't know they are following the creeds but they are taught to interpret the bible according to the creeds so it's harder for them to know they are interpreting according to the creeds because they think they are sola scriptura. Protestants follow proof texts thus so many sects/denominations. This is RexCa's point which he uses as justification to follow the church fathers.
I never said protestants don't follow sola scriptura I said sola scriptura itself is a problematic view that is both ahistorical and logically conflicting regardless if protestants fully adhere to this or not. My statement about certain protestants not adhering to the Lutheran interpretation of sola scriptura is a historical fact ask a Methodist or an Anglican if they believe that all truth must be directly within the Bible then ask a Lutheran or a Presbyterian the same question you'll get 2 different answers.
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#48
[/LEFT]

First you claim that you didn't presume that the RCC is the "visible church" and then you agree that such is your view... as I thought.

The statements of early Christians regarding offices in the church are rather suspect when they are filtered through the RCC and/or translated by RCC adherents.

If you are waiting for something, perhaps you should ensure that you have requested it.

Regarding 1 Timothy 3, it says nothing of "order" in the sense of hierarchy. It is addressing qualifications of elders and deacons.
I like how we ignore the historical quotes I brought up the terms bishop and elder were clearly not being used interchangeably by the fathers interpretation of the New Testament. On the other hand it seems fairly clear that the terms priest and elder are however. Even more ironically your statement that I was bringing in Catholic interpretations of the early church with these quotes is just blatantly false not one of the quotes I posted came from a Catholic website. A few came from an Eastern Orthodox site however but not entirely sure of the relevance of that. I could find the same quotes on Catholic, Orthodox, and even non religious historical sources stating the same information.
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#49
[/LEFT]

First you claim that you didn't presume that the RCC is the "visible church" and then you agree that such is your view... as I thought.

The statements of early Christians regarding offices in the church are rather suspect when they are filtered through the RCC and/or translated by RCC adherents.

If you are waiting for something, perhaps you should ensure that you have requested it.

Regarding 1 Timothy 3, it says nothing of "order" in the sense of hierarchy. It is addressing qualifications of elders and deacons.
And I claimed in my posts that nothing in my writings should be making the direct presumption that I am necessarily referring to the Catholic Church. Nothing I had posted except when admitting my own conviction of Catholicism is should I say inherently Catholic I made no mention of papal supremacy. Rather I only made reference to the episcopal polity and a priestly hierarchy other Christian churches than the Catholic Church would be in agreement on the validity of these viewpoints including some protestant groups such as the Anglican Church.
 

PaulCyp1

Junior Member
Mar 9, 2018
5
0
0
#50
The will of Jesus Christ was and still is, "Father, that they all may be ONE, even as you Father and I are ONE". He promised that ONE Church, "The Holy Spirit will guide you into ALL truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". Today, 2,000 years later, that first group of believers, the ONE Church He founded, remains ONE in belief, ONE in teaching, ONE in worship, ONE in biblical understanding throughout the world, in fulfillment of those divine promises. There have been many who have defected from the Church Jesus provided for them, and in every case the result has been the same - ongoing fragmentation into more and more conflicting denominations teaching moire and more conflicting, and therefore false, beliefs. You just can't beat God's plan.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
5,393
364
83
#51
Today, 2,000 years later, that first group of believers, the ONE Church He founded, remains ONE in belief, ONE in teaching, ONE in worship, ONE in biblical understanding throughout the world...
Why ONE Church are you talking about? The Greek Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church? Neither of those entities would accept the other as the one true Church.
 

graceNpeace

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2016
2,180
81
48
#52
And I claimed in my posts that nothing in my writings should be making the direct presumption that I am necessarily referring to the Catholic Church. Nothing I had posted except when admitting my own conviction of Catholicism is should I say inherently Catholic I made no mention of papal supremacy. Rather I only made reference to the episcopal polity and a priestly hierarchy other Christian churches than the Catholic Church would be in agreement on the validity of these viewpoints including some protestant groups such as the Anglican Church.
The system of church government in the Anglican Church is indeed very similar to the RCC, apart from the fact that the head of that church is the reigning English monarch. And the historical reasons for it being like this are based on pure pragmatism and nothing to do with strong theological conviction. If you are trying to use the fact that the Anglican Church elected to follow in the footsteps of the RCC, with respect to church government, as a good proof that this is the way to go then you quite fail to understand the history of the Anglican Church.
But, then again, nearly everything in the way that the RCC does business these days is based on political expediency anyway, so maybe it is a good proof!
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#53
The system of church government in the Anglican Church is indeed very similar to the RCC, apart from the fact that the head of that church is the reigning English monarch. And the historical reasons for it being like this are based on pure pragmatism and nothing to do with strong theological conviction. If you are trying to use the fact that the Anglican Church elected to follow in the footsteps of the RCC, with respect to church government, as a good proof that this is the way to go then you quite fail to understand the history of the Anglican Church.
But, then again, nearly everything in the way that the RCC does business these days is based on political expediency anyway, so maybe it is a good proof!
I'm aware of all of this my statement on the Anglican Church was meant to be a mere example not meant to be used as any sort of historical proof of any sort. Essentially the only reason I used any such example was because some on here seem to think that the fact that I was brining in the historical defense of the episcopal polity automatically making an "a priori" unreasoned statement that the Catholic Church is the one true church. The point of the statement was that on a purely historical basis there are other "possible contenders" based on the matters I presented as I did not even delve into any theological matters that are "strictly Catholic." Papal Supremacy for example, granted I would believe that the Catholic Church is indeed the one true and original church founded by Christ himself. However as stated above nothing I have so far stated gets into any strictly Catholic issues nor was the initial intent of the post to convince people of Catholicism but rather it was to get those who have unreasoned convictions against the Catholic Church based on false rumors to use a little bit of thinking based on logic, history, and scripture itself.

The fact of the matter is while I disagree with an Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Christian and do not believe that either one is the "one true church" but rather said churches are in schism with the true church. I would however not make such a post directed to either group of Christians due to the fact that neither Christian group contains the same historical and logical problems that many protestant denominations do, my apologies if I have offended anyone in all seriousness.
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#54
The system of church government in the Anglican Church is indeed very similar to the RCC, apart from the fact that the head of that church is the reigning English monarch. And the historical reasons for it being like this are based on pure pragmatism and nothing to do with strong theological conviction. If you are trying to use the fact that the Anglican Church elected to follow in the footsteps of the RCC, with respect to church government, as a good proof that this is the way to go then you quite fail to understand the history of the Anglican Church.
But, then again, nearly everything in the way that the RCC does business these days is based on political expediency anyway, so maybe it is a good proof!
I would also point out that before the 1970s the Episcopal polity was very much an important part of Anglican theology and still is in Anglo-Catholic and high church groups within the Anglican Church. I may also point out that for the longest time as you even noted yourself that caesaropapism (meaning caeser or the monarch takes on the role of the pope or "head of church on earth") was a very important part of Anglican theology somewhat similar to the Eastern Orthodox Church at various points in time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesaropapism
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
23,391
1,326
113
#55
In regards to the reformation and the subsequent theology and the movement called Protestantism that followed, the so called orthodoxy surrounding these movements must be questions. It is known that most on this forum will be scratching their heads at this post and claiming that I am trying to spread my own Catholic beliefs or that I am ignoring supposedly clear aspects to the scriptures that is not so, I am not even trying to spread Catholicism within this forum I am merely trying to get the majority of the people in here that have never thought about this or deliberately chose not to, to do so.
That is exactly what you are doing. Starting out by lying to us will go over well. NOT.
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#56
Why ONE Church are you talking about? The Greek Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church? Neither of those entities would accept the other as the one true Church.
No however bishops from both churches do admit that the other side is indeed a historical continuity from the early church rather than a new religion that popped up later in time. The break itself was a split within one church rather than 2 already separate churches with competing claims against each other.
 

graceNpeace

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2016
2,180
81
48
#57
I'm aware of all of this my statement on the Anglican Church was meant to be a mere example not meant to be used as any sort of historical proof of any sort. Essentially the only reason I used any such example was because some on here seem to think that the fact that I was brining in the historical defense of the episcopal polity automatically making an "a priori" unreasoned statement that the Catholic Church is the one true church. The point of the statement was that on a purely historical basis there are other "possible contenders" based on the matters I presented as I did not even delve into any theological matters that are "strictly Catholic." Papal Supremacy for example, granted I would believe that the Catholic Church is indeed the one true and original church founded by Christ himself. However as stated above nothing I have so far stated gets into any strictly Catholic issues nor was the initial intent of the post to convince people of Catholicism but rather it was to get those who have unreasoned convictions against the Catholic Church based on false rumors to use a little bit of thinking based on logic, history, and scripture itself.

The fact of the matter is while I disagree with an Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Christian and do not believe that either one is the "one true church" but rather said churches are in schism with the true church. I would however not make such a post directed to either group of Christians due to the fact that neither Christian group contains the same historical and logical problems that many protestant denominations do, my apologies if I have offended anyone in all seriousness.
The "problems" you see with the Protestant church are purely and firmly rooted in an incorrect and historically unsubstantiatable view of the RCC...
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
23,391
1,326
113
#58
No however bishops from both churches do admit that the other side is indeed a historical continuity from the early church rather than a new religion that popped up later in time. The break itself was a split within one church rather than 2 already separate churches with competing claims against each other.
Protestantism is not a new religion. It is Christianity.
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
171
0
#59
You are not qualified to teach Christians anything; because Christians are by definition followers of Jesus teachings; and the RCC is, by practice, not following Jesus teachings.

Jesus taught: Love your enemies. Pray for those who despitefully use you. The Catholic church responded with crusades, inquisition, burnings and torture.

Jesus taught (in a Spiritual sense) Call no man father. Catholics call their priesthood father.

Scripture says that a pastor must be the husband of one wife. Catholics make their priests celibate and those priests sexually abuse children.

Scripture teaches 1 Tim 2:5-6
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
KJV

Catholics pray to Mary and to dead saints.

Peter was NEVER in any Way the leader of the 1st century Church.

James led the Church at Jerusalem.

There is much more but deal with this first
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#60
The "problems" you see with the Protestant church are purely and firmly rooted in an incorrect and historically unsubstantiatable view of the RCC...
First of all what is the "protestant church" it should be overwhelmingly obvious that every single protestant denomination has a different interpretation on scripture. To make matters even worse there are subsects within certain denominations that do not even agree with other rivalling sects within the same denomination. I brought in an earlier example based on the Lutheranism of my childhood with the LCMS who follow a borderline "fundamentalist" interpretation of scripture and put much emphasis on biblical literalism while the ELCA follows a very allegorical approach to the extent that they permit gay marriages and abortions. On the same note other conservative denominations such as the Southern Baptists would have a very different approach than the conservative LCMS, for example the LCMS would teach one is born again through the sacrament of baptism(much like the Catholic Church) and than during communion that Christ is present under the species of bread and wine(a bit different from Catholicism). While the Southern Baptists teach one is born again through a moment of faith that will bring about eternal security and they also would teach communion is a mere symbol bread and wine.

The problem with this is if we cannot agree one much of any doctrine than how do we know who is actually correct Christ clearly said his church would be one. As for a misunderstanding of the history of Protestantism? The lack of history is the main reason I left Protestantism. It should seem clear that the earliest Christians spoke very highly of the sacraments real presence view of communion, born again at baptism, episcopal polity of the clergy, etc. What should seem even more problematic is the fact that much of the theology that is important to the notion of Protestantism does not come around until the 12th century at the earliest. In a very keen way if the church fathers and all the early Christians were wrong and the true Christianity got hidden away we are turning Christianity into a gnostic cult(Gnosticism means secret knowledge). It would also seem to contradict Christ's own teachings that this would happen so even more strangely if the fathers are wrong so is the Christian religion.