How do you become a pastor?

[CaritateDei]

This is a truly ridiculous belief, CD. It is Catholic alone, and not of the Church of Jesus Christ. Typical, literal misinterpretations which are absolutely devoid of any spiritual discernment.

Do you for one minute think that Jesus Christ would leave this planet without giving us the Comforter? No. Do you think He would leave us without the ability to become teachers and preachers and prophets and pastors and overseers of churches (apostles)?

We are a family that has a rich ancestry of faith and mighty work in God, and we are the result of 2000 years of anointed workers in the Body of Christ handing down anointings to the next generation of believers. This is how it is done and always has been. By the Holy Spirit's direction and blessing, we anoint new leaders continually.

To believe that any office of the Church of Jesus Christ has died out with them is absurd. Paul set the standards and taught the churches how to do it and they have done it to this day. ( I am not talking about Catholic tradition--I am talking about furthering the Church of Jesus Christ as it started with the disciples and has continued to this day.)

So you are an apostle?

[CaritateDei]

No discussion of it being handed down? No discussion? Paul referring to his position in the church as an office that must have a successor? An office does not die with the officer. Someone must fulfill that office...and Paul hands that office down, handpicking the new overseer. No discussion?

So the apostles were only to be leaders, and their power died with them? Matthew 18:18 was only for the Apostles, and not the new people to hold that office? Is that what you are telling us? That Jesus Christ , in the Gospel of Matthew only wanted leaders of his church to hold things bound on heaven and on earth, and then after that, the church need no leadership? The church need no new overseers to hold office?

Really? No discussion?

Paul, an Apostle, gives Titus the right to appoint Presbyters - AND ONLY Titus the right to appoint Presbyters...but there is no discussion to be had?

Where did Paul give only Titus the right to appoint elders? I do not see that stated anywher in the text. He certainly gives Titus instructions and asks him to do it, but it does not say that only he is allowed to do this. Where is that in the text? In 1 Timothy no such statement is made. Only qualifications for elders are listed. You seem to me to be guilty of making an historical logical error. It only makes sense that since the original apostles were alive, that they would have trained and selected leadership. It was in fact an historical neccessity. You have made a logical leap that because the text reports this, it is a requirement for all time. It is a logical fallacy.

Again, you are avoiding the issue. Certainly there was to be leadership in the church. Paul (in 2 places in scripture) lists the requirements for selecting such leadership. In none of the places is the concept of apostolic succession even hinted at. Since Paul lists the requirements for selecting leaders (and does not introduce the concept of apostolic succession) any argument that it is there is an argument from silence. These letters were written to individual church bodies (or leaders in them), and were instruction as to how those bodies were to select leadership.

In termso of Matthew 18:18, here is the whole passage in context:

"If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he won't listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established. he pays no attention to them, tell the church. But if he doesn't pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you. assure you: Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven. Again, I assure you: If two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there among them."

Matthew 18:15-20 HCSB

As I read this passage, I do not see any mention of leadership here. What I see is a discussion on how each of us should deal with a person who has wronged us in some way. Here are the instructions:

1. If we feel a person has wronged us we are to go directly to them.

2. If the person does not listen to us, we arfe to take back 2 or three witnesses and approach him again.

3. If he still will not listen, we are to then take it to the whole gathering of believers of which we are a part.

4. The result of this step is that the person in question is now to be treated as an unbeliever.

Jesus then affirms the fact that whenever you (the same you that was addressed in "if your brother sins against you") complete this type of church discipline, it is backed by the authority of heaven. There is nothing mentioned here about a special office. These instructions are given to all believers, and tell us how we should deal with conflict in the body.

Again, You have not shown me a definitive text that indicates that there is a special apostolic office that will be handed down. One would think if that was important, Paul would have included it in the 2 lists he provided to local churches on how they should select and discipline leadership

Once again, I am wating for a prescriptive text that speaks of apostolic succession and lists this as a requirement

Titus 1:5

For this reason I left YOU in Crete so that YOU might set what remains to be done and APPOINT PRESBYTERS in every town as I directed YOU

Paul appoints Titus the one who appoints presbyters. Now, why couldn't a whole bunch of folks just get together, study, and set up their own pastorship? Why could not anyone who fit the bill call themselves an overseer? Because Paul knew that it was IMPORTANT to set aside the one HE APPOINTED to do the APPOINTING. I do not know what more kind of definitive answer you want here.

All you have provided here is a passage that says Paul left Titus behind to select leaders (A historical statement). You have added to this that Titus is the only one who could do this, and that there is succession implied. Again, you are guilty of commiting a historical fallacy. We would expect early on in the church for those who were selecting leadership to be limited in number, because the church was young, and there were no many so qualified. That is just as plausible an explanation as your for the historical events. You still have not provided a passage that spells this out as a command. The only commands we have are the qualifications Paul spells out in 2 places.

I guilty of no such thing. Why would he say it the way he said it, if there were other folks besides Titus???

Where you believe that I am guilty of historical fallacy, you are guilty of not following the example of the apostles.

Again, still waiting for a prescriptive passage. I will gladly obey any passage that commands me to do as you are suggesting. However, there are many things that people did that are described by the bible, that we were never intended to copy. I am still curious as to how you decide which historical events are to be copied and which are not. Your method seems inconsistent to me

Then, let's have a fair trade, shall we? You show me a prescriptive place where it says we should not follow the lead of the chosen ones of Christ Himself, and I will show you a verbatim place where it says, "You must appoint others." Otherwise, my church will continue following the lead of the Apostles, and you can go on believing that we need not follow their lead.

That is not a fair trade. Essentially you are attempting to argue from silence. Your logic is because the text does not tell me I can't, its OK.

The logic you have presented is this:

1. The apostles did certain things

2. Unless we find a prohibition from doing what the apostles did, we should in all cases proceed as if their actions were commands.

You you see the problem here? You are making a jump from action, to command. Do you apply this consistently (do everything the apostles did?)

No, do not put words in my mouth, sir.

We do not find a prohibition from doing what the Apostles did, in fact we find many instances where it is encouraged to follow their lead.

We should proceed as if we are following the shepherds that God chose. In order to follow these shepherds, it would be wise to do as they had done, otherwise we get faction and useless disagreements like this. The Unity of the Church will only occur if we are universal, if we are ONE. This can only happen, if all of the overseers trace their lineage to the original overseers...the Apostles.

[Floatingaxe]

This is a truly ridiculous belief, CD. It is Catholic alone, and not of the Church of Jesus Christ. Typical, literal misinterpretations which are absolutely devoid of any spiritual discernment.

Do you for one minute think that Jesus Christ would leave this planet without giving us the Comforter? No. Do you think He would leave us without the ability to become teachers and preachers and prophets and pastors and overseers of churches (apostles)?

We are a family that has a rich ancestry of faith and mighty work in God, and we are the result of 2000 years of anointed workers in the Body of Christ handing down anointings to the next generation of believers. This is how it is done and always has been. By the Holy Spirit's direction and blessing, we anoint new leaders continually.

To believe that any office of the Church of Jesus Christ has died out with them is absurd. Paul set the standards and taught the churches how to do it and they have done it to this day. ( I am not talking about Catholic tradition--I am talking about furthering the Church of Jesus Christ as it started with the disciples and has continued to this day.)

So you are an apostle?

Not gifted as an apostle, no.

[Floatingaxe]

The Unity of the Church will only occur if we are universal, if we are ONE. This can only happen, if all of the overseers trace their lineage to the original overseers...the Apostles.

Are you telling us that we must follow the lead of only those who can trace their bloodline back to the original apostles? That is preposterous. God never had that in mind. In fact, it is a heretical belief.

Jesus gave the ordr for us all to make disciples of every nation. The a[postles took up that challenge and we continue to this day, anointing each other in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit into the high calling of the Lord Jesus Christ. We are a Royal Priesthood! Hallelujah!

Soon He will be coming for His Church and will be finding a few faithfully serving in this way....thank God.

[Arash_the_archer]

I leave for 10 hours and 5 new pages posts arrive, i leave for 12 hours and another 6 pages arrive.

[exrockstar]

This is a truly ridiculous belief, CD. It is Catholic alone, and not of the Church of Jesus Christ. Typical, literal misinterpretations which are absolutely devoid of any spiritual discernment.

i agree with you. I am seeing that some people here are totally concentrating on works and

have forgotten they have a thing called a bible. when Paul said he "ran his race," he knew

he said all he could say. The appointment to office do what? bring a new message.

the message is clear and complete.

When all the apostles died they did not have a completed canon like the way we do. We

have a personal tutor now.

sometimes i feel as though the bible does not get the full respect it deserves.

The Titus scripture is Paul telling Titus to be in charge of cities in Crete.

So what?

There are so many other countries and Paul had established so many churches so this

line of scripture is taken as one person puts another in charge of the entire Christian belief system?

geee wiz!

Didnt Paul write earlier in 2 Cor 3:1-7

1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?

2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

that's what these members pushing that "proof" of who is keeping the appointments and

demand visual records.....3x|2ocKstAr

[Kansasdad]

The Unity of the Church will only occur if we are universal, if we are ONE. This can only happen, if all of the overseers trace their lineage to the original overseers...the Apostles.

Are you telling us that we must follow the lead of only those who can trace their bloodline back to the original apostles? That is preposterous. God never had that in mind. In fact, it is a heretical belief.

Jesus gave the ordr for us all to make disciples of every nation. The a[postles took up that challenge and we continue to this day, anointing each other in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit into the high calling of the Lord Jesus Christ. We are a Royal Priesthood! Hallelujah!

Soon He will be coming for His Church and will be finding a few faithfully serving in this way....thank God.

No body said anything about a blood line. Where did that crazy notion come from? Do you actually take the time to really read the post or are you jumping to conclusions before you have finished?

Scripture tells us how pastors were appointed. This is an indisputable fact. It is there in writing, and historical text. Paul does not give it as a suggestion, he is telling his disciples "This is how it will be done" period. If you choose to follow something different, that is your choice, but you are not following the traditions set forth by God. You are following a tradition set forth by Man. If this is not correct then show me where scripture sets forth how your pastor was appointed. After all don't you constantly preach that the Bible is ALL that is needed , and that it gives you everything you need. Show me scripture that supports your position. I have shown you scripture that supports mine. If you can't give me scripture then it is nothing more than your opinion.

[Kansasdad]

No discussion of it being handed down? No discussion? Paul referring to his position in the church as an office that must have a successor? An office does not die with the officer. Someone must fulfill that office...and Paul hands that office down, handpicking the new overseer. No discussion?

So the apostles were only to be leaders, and their power died with them? Matthew 18:18 was only for the Apostles, and not the new people to hold that office? Is that what you are telling us? That Jesus Christ , in the Gospel of Matthew only wanted leaders of his church to hold things bound on heaven and on earth, and then after that, the church need no leadership? The church need no new overseers to hold office?

Really? No discussion?

Paul, an Apostle, gives Titus the right to appoint Presbyters - AND ONLY Titus the right to appoint Presbyters...but there is no discussion to be had?

Where did Paul give only Titus the right to appoint elders? I do not see that stated anywher in the text. He certainly gives Titus instructions and asks him to do it, but it does not say that only he is allowed to do this. Where is that in the text? In 1 Timothy no such statement is made. Only qualifications for elders are listed. You seem to me to be guilty of making an historical logical error. It only makes sense that since the original apostles were alive, that they would have trained and selected leadership. It was in fact an historical neccessity. You have made a logical leap that because the text reports this, it is a requirement for all time. It is a logical fallacy.

Again, you are avoiding the issue. Certainly there was to be leadership in the church. Paul (in 2 places in scripture) lists the requirements for selecting such leadership. In none of the places is the concept of apostolic succession even hinted at. Since Paul lists the requirements for selecting leaders (and does not introduce the concept of apostolic succession) any argument that it is there is an argument from silence. These letters were written to individual church bodies (or leaders in them), and were instruction as to how those bodies were to select leadership.

In termso of Matthew 18:18, here is the whole passage in context:

"If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he won't listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established. he pays no attention to them, tell the church. But if he doesn't pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you. assure you: Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven. Again, I assure you: If two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there among them."

Matthew 18:15-20 HCSB

As I read this passage, I do not see any mention of leadership here. What I see is a discussion on how each of us should deal with a person who has wronged us in some way. Here are the instructions:

1. If we feel a person has wronged us we are to go directly to them.

2. If the person does not listen to us, we arfe to take back 2 or three witnesses and approach him again.

3. If he still will not listen, we are to then take it to the whole gathering of believers of which we are a part.

4. The result of this step is that the person in question is now to be treated as an unbeliever.

Jesus then affirms the fact that whenever you (the same you that was addressed in "if your brother sins against you") complete this type of church discipline, it is backed by the authority of heaven. There is nothing mentioned here about a special office. These instructions are given to all believers, and tell us how we should deal with conflict in the body.

Again, You have not shown me a definitive text that indicates that there is a special apostolic office that will be handed down. One would think if that was important, Paul would have included it in the 2 lists he provided to local churches on how they should select and discipline leadership

Once again, I am wating for a prescriptive text that speaks of apostolic succession and lists this as a requirement

Titus 1:5

For this reason I left YOU in Crete so that YOU might set what remains to be done and APPOINT PRESBYTERS in every town as I directed YOU

Paul appoints Titus the one who appoints presbyters. Now, why couldn't a whole bunch of folks just get together, study, and set up their own pastorship? Why could not anyone who fit the bill call themselves an overseer? Because Paul knew that it was IMPORTANT to set aside the one HE APPOINTED to do the APPOINTING. I do not know what more kind of definitive answer you want here.

All you have provided here is a passage that says Paul left Titus behind to select leaders (A historical statement). You have added to this that Titus is the only one who could do this, and that there is succession implied. Again, you are guilty of commiting a historical fallacy. We would expect early on in the church for those who were selecting leadership to be limited in number, because the church was young, and there were no many so qualified. That is just as plausible an explanation as your for the historical events. You still have not provided a passage that spells this out as a command. The only commands we have are the qualifications Paul spells out in 2 places.

I guilty of no such thing. Why would he say it the way he said it, if there were other folks besides Titus???

Where you believe that I am guilty of historical fallacy, you are guilty of not following the example of the apostles.

Again, still waiting for a prescriptive passage. I will gladly obey any passage that commands me to do as you are suggesting. However, there are many things that people did that are described by the bible, that we were never intended to copy. I am still curious as to how you decide which historical events are to be copied and which are not. Your method seems inconsistent to me

Then, let's have a fair trade, shall we? You show me a prescriptive place where it says we should not follow the lead of the chosen ones of Christ Himself, and I will show you a verbatim place where it says, "You must appoint others." Otherwise, my church will continue following the lead of the Apostles, and you can go on believing that we need not follow their lead.

That is not a fair trade. Essentially you are attempting to argue from silence. Your logic is because the text does not tell me I can't, its OK.

The logic you have presented is this:

1. The apostles did certain things

2. Unless we find a prohibition from doing what the apostles did, we should in all cases proceed as if their actions were commands.

You you see the problem here? You are making a jump from action, to command. Do you apply this consistently (do everything the apostles did?)

Oh I see, so you don't have any scripture to suport your position. Intersting.

[Kansasdad]

That is not a fair trade. Essentially you are attempting to argue from silence. Your logic is because the text does not tell me I can't, its OK.

The logic you have presented is this:

1. The apostles did certain things

2. Unless we find a prohibition from doing what the apostles did, we should in all cases proceed as if their actions were commands.

You you see the problem here? You are making a jump from action, to command. Do you apply this consistently (do everything the apostles did?)

Now you are trying to imply a legalistic view point. Do I think we should apply the essence of every message and example the Apostles give us in scripture.....YES Absolutely.

Do I think we should follow every gesture, NO that would be thinking like the Pharisees. For you to imply that our logic dictates such a notion is only a tactic to try and confuse the issue.

What is the essence of the message. Simple, not just any Tom, Dick or Harry can read scripture, and then start leading Jesus's Church. It will be led by men who have been trained by the Apostles through every generation.

Unless you can show me scripture that tells us anything different, I think I will follow scripture.

[AnotherTraveler]

How to get a headache.

Problem, car is running roughly. Solution, change the oil, plugs, and filters. Simplify answer, fix the car.

Meditate on answer....fix the car is like build a car...Ford made factory to build cars...build factory...disqualify all cars not produced in MY factory.

The leap from teach others to seminary is far larger than my example.

As I said (completely ignored), the efforts to disqualify, dismiss, and disillusion are essential to Catholic Doctrines, but certainly the Catholic church is not alone in these bizarre practices that are designed to disqualify anyone that is not of US, whichever group US might be.

This is not new behaviour, Jesus rebuked his soon-to-be apostles for forbiding someone that was casting out demons, but not following them. It is easy to get into an "I'm OK, but you aren't" position, but it is NOT what Jesus nor Paul taught.