Theology Discussion

Discussion in 'Quackenbush's' started by Chop, Jan 7, 2021.

  1. Chop

    Chop 2,500+ Posts

    Post it here.

    Bearing in mind, you're getting a bunch of theology opinions from a sports message board...
  2. horninchicago

    horninchicago 5,000+ Posts

    I predict all will be solved in less than 10 comments.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. Chop

    Chop 2,500+ Posts

    IT WORKED!!!

    • Funny Funny x 2
  4. VYFan

    VYFan 2,500+ Posts

    Let me begin with a quibble...

    is this open to all religious discussion, or only “theology,” being discussion of the nature of God?

    Just kidding!
  5. LonghornCatholic

    LonghornCatholic Catholic like Sarkisian

    Im here :hookem:. Hope you don’t mind that I brought a good friend. Please meet Holy Spirit :fire:
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. LonghornCatholic

    LonghornCatholic Catholic like Sarkisian

  7. Chop

    Chop 2,500+ Posts

    Tough question for the Catholics: Scripture says all Christians are priests with one high priest intermediator between man and God—Jesus Christ. So how do you explain the Catholic requirements of specially ordained priests who are necessary to perform rituals and dispense sacraments?

    Interestingly, I mentioned this to a younger priest once and he said: you’re right, we are all priests, but the ordained priests are presbyters. So I said: Oh, so you mean like the Presbyterian Church, huh? I though you guys were still fighting them in Ulster. After detecting some mild annoyance in his demeanor, I let that one go.
    • Like Like x 2
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2021
  8. Chop

    Chop 2,500+ Posts

    Tough question for the Protestants: Jesus said (paraphrased), referring to the communion bread and wine: this is My body and blood. Whoever eats these shall live forever; whoever doesn’t, won’t.

    That’s pretty clear. How can you say it’s merely symbolic?
  9. Pomspoms

    Pomspoms 2,500+ Posts

    You can tell it's symbolic because the bread tastes like bread not flesh and the wine tastes like wine not blood.
    The meaning of the symbol is that we are to walk as Jesus did, dead to self.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Statalyzer

    Statalyzer 10,000+ Posts

    Is it pretty clear? He also said that we are the salt of the earth, but if we lose our saltiness, we cannot be made salty again and instead are only fit to be thrown out. Yet everyone seems to agree on this one being symbolic.
  11. LonghornCatholic

    LonghornCatholic Catholic like Sarkisian

    Good question Chop :hookem:. I'll try to do your question justice without making us go deep sea diving into my dusty binder :smile1:.

    True first Peter 2 tells us that all Christians are priests and doesn't mention a ministerial priesthood, but ordained ministers of the New Covenant are called apostles (cf. Eph. 4:11), presbyters (cf. Jas 5:14), bishops (cf. 1 Tm 3:1), and deacons (cf. 1 Tm 3:8ff).

    Reading of 1 Peter 2, verses 5 and 9 reveals a reference to Exodus 19:6: “. . . and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” This text from Exodus indicates a universal priesthood in the Old Testament, but yet in Exodus 19:22, we read, “And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves . . " In other words, a universal priesthood in the Old Covenant did not exclude the possibility of a distinct ministerial priesthood as well. It would be natural then to expect the same in the New Covenant. And I submit to you Chop, that is precisely what we discover.

    First let me throw this in.......the noun “priest” (hiereus) was not used as a title for New Covenant ministers: This same term was used by the more numerous Jewish and even pagan priests of the first century (cf. Lk 1:8-9, Acts 14:13). Using different titles for New Covenant priests would be one way of distinguishing them. However, the verb form of hiereus is used for New Testament ministers. It is found when Paul speaks specifically of his ministry as an apostle, referring to it as a “priestly service”: “. . . because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service (Gk. hierourgounta) of the gospel of God…” (Rom 15:15b-16a).

    Scripture reveals our Lord definitively choosing and sending apostles to act as priests, or “mediators between God and men," as you mentioned. For example, after the Resurrection, our Lord appears to the apostles and says to them: “‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (Jn 20:21-23). Here, Jesus communicated the power to forgive and retain sins—just as he himself had done—to the apostles. This is a priestly ministry (see also Lv 19:21-22).

    Also from James 5:13-17: Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. Is any one among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church . . . and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Elijah was a man of like nature.

    When it comes to one “suffering;” James says, “Let him pray.” “Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise.” But when it comes to sickness and personal sins, he tells his readers they must go to the “elders”, not just anyone in order to receive this “anointing” and the forgiveness of sins. In other words, we see ministerial duties, or rituals, as you described it.

    I could also share writings of the early Christians and their thoughts on the priesthood....and remember, they learned directly from the Apostles and others, but I've gone way too long, and probably didn't answer to your satisfaction, but let me just leave you with this to chew on and consider.......

    1. James had told us to go to the presbyter in verse 14 for healing and the forgiveness of sins. Then, verse 16 begins with the word therefore, a conjunction connecting verse 16 back to verses 14 and 15. The context seems to point to the “elder” as the one to whom we confess our sins.

    2. Ephesians 5:21 used this same phrase, “to one another,” in the context of teaching about the sacrament of holy matrimony....“Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Even though the text says “to one another,” the context limits the scope of the meaning of “to one another” specifically to a man and wife...not just anyone. Similarly, the context of James 5 bears out that the confession “to one another” refers to the relationship between “anyone” and specifically an “elder” or “priest” (Gk. presbuteros).

    3. The final words of the passage speak specifically of ministers called by God to minister to his people in his place, i.e., Elijah the prophet (cf. Jas 5:17). :fire:
    • Like Like x 1
  12. LonghornCatholic

    LonghornCatholic Catholic like Sarkisian

    Scripture teaches us this is a "hard teaching, who can accept it?" John 6:60.

    Is believing it's symbolic a hard teaching? No. And why did His followers abandon Him in 6:66 if only symbolic? Makes no since.

    If it were metaphorical or symbolic, a serious difficulty arises in 1 Corinthians 11:27, where Paul says that if one eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner he will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. In a Semitic culture, to be guilty of another’s body and blood is to be guilty of murder. Yet how could one be guilty of murder if the bread is merely a symbol of Christ? Paul goes on to say that some are dying because of this.
    • Like Like x 3

Share This Page