• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.

B. B. Warfield on the Finneyite priesthood of evangelists

Moses was at a higher level than an apostle, he was a mediator!

Christ is mediator, and apostle!
And he has successors the apostles and they have successors
Otherwise there is no in charge of the government of the church / kingdom
Lk 22:29

Teach all nations, how could the original apostles teach all nations???

Christ is speaking to His apostles
Matt 28:19 I am with you (the apostles) till the end of the world
Acts same

Jn 20:21 apostles have the same authority as Christ, he made apostles so do they

Thanks
This is why I don't much care to debate with you. Not only do you repeat the themes and the faulty reasoning you employed the first and second time around, but you bring up red herrings and assume extra-biblical notions as fact, in some kind of circular reasoning. I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony, talking to you. I hardly know where to start!

You take Jesus command to teach the nations as though it were necessarily directed only at the Apostles and their Successors. You have no warrant for that. Do you also take, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved", to necessarily mean only that the jailor was to be saved from the penalty of failing to keep his prisoners captive? What does the rest of Scripture have to say about your proof-text?

The same goes for "I am with you". The question, per your logic as you have til now presented it, is not the level of Moses' status, but whether he was an Apostle.
 
This is why I don't much care to debate with you. Not only do you repeat the themes and the faulty reasoning you employed the first and second time around, but you bring up red herrings and assume extra-biblical notions as fact, in some kind of circular reasoning. I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony, talking to you. I hardly know where to start!

You take Jesus command to teach the nations as though it were necessarily directed only at the Apostles and their Successors. You have no warrant for that. Do you also take, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved", to necessarily mean only that the jailor was to be saved from the penalty of failing to keep his prisoners captive? What does the rest of Scripture have to say about your proof-text?

The same goes for "I am with you". The question, per your logic as you have til now presented it, is not the level of Moses' status, but whether he was an Apostle.
So Peter had no authority? Is that right?
 
Jesus does not exist in a vacuum, He is united in the new covenant church governed by the authority he established in the apostles.

I admit you do have a way with words!

Thanks

Are one of those who requires everything in context?
 
So Peter had no authority? Is that right?
Where did I say or imply that? Don't be absurd. The Biblical definition of moral authority over other believers does not hinge on whether that authority has moral perfection, nor upon whether they are limited (temporal) in their view, nor upon anything except their designation as such by God. I daresay that even as Peter was at one time or another wrong, even as an apostle, so was Paul and any other.

Peter's authority was by the Spirit. The Apostleship was a one-time thing for a particular purpose, and is not therefore implied to continue past the early church. The Catholic ("universal, actual, body of believers, 'Body of Christ' --not the RCC) church is not limited to those under the authority of a continuing set of Apostles.

Again, where is your evidence that the current RCC is the continuation of Apostleship, and, in particular, where is your evidence that they replace the Apostles' authority, and in your fabrication, even Christ himself, as mediators between God and man? Of course the church leadership prays for the rest (and for each other)! Of course they use scripture to teach and correct and even to judge as is necessary! Of course they minister the sacraments! Of course they have many duties specific to the growth of the body! HOW does that make them moral authorities over the rule of conscience, who have replaced Christ's position as the one and only mediator between God and man?
 
Where did I say or imply that? Don't be absurd. The Biblical definition of moral authority over other believers does not hinge on whether that authority has moral perfection, nor upon whether they are limited (temporal) in their view, nor upon anything except their designation as such by God. I daresay that even as Peter was at one time or another wrong, even as an apostle, so was Paul and any other.

Peter's authority was by the Spirit. The Apostleship was a one-time thing for a particular purpose, and is not therefore implied to continue past the early church. The Catholic ("universal, actual, body of believers, 'Body of Christ' --not the RCC) church is not limited to those under the authority of a continuing set of Apostles.

Again, where is your evidence that the current RCC is the continuation of Apostleship, and, in particular, where is your evidence that they replace the Apostles' authority, and in your fabrication, even Christ himself, as mediators between God and man? Of course the church leadership prays for the rest (and for each other)! Of course they use scripture to teach and correct and even to judge as is necessary! Of course they minister the sacraments! Of course they have many duties specific to the growth of the body! HOW does that make them moral authorities over the rule of conscience, who have replaced Christ's position as the one and only mediator between God and man?
I would note here, that it is a tendency of fallen man to, like a child with a parent, appeal to those they consider to be in authority over them, "permission", to do or believe what they want to do or believe. It is not what Christ taught, in that he alone is the moral mediator, and of full authority over all creation. This does not place those to whom they appeal as mediators, nor of any moral authority.

My point here may well be exaggerated for effect --that is to say, I easily admit to the authority of various individuals for permission, for example, to keep some from the participation in the Communion, and to authorize a legal marriage, and so on. But this is another matter, and not to be compared to Christ's mediation between God and man.
 
Where did I say or imply that? Don't be absurd. The Biblical definition of moral authority over other believers does not hinge on whether that authority has moral perfection, nor upon whether they are limited (temporal) in their view, nor upon anything except their designation as such by God. I daresay that even as Peter was at one time or another wrong, even as an apostle, so was Paul and any other.

Peter's authority was by the Spirit. The Apostleship was a one-time thing for a particular purpose, and is not therefore implied to continue past the early church. The Catholic ("universal, actual, body of believers, 'Body of Christ' --not the RCC) church is not limited to those under the authority of a continuing set of Apostles.

Again, where is your evidence that the current RCC is the continuation of Apostleship, and, in particular, where is your evidence that they replace the Apostles' authority, and in your fabrication, even Christ himself, as mediators between God and man? Of course the church leadership prays for the rest (and for each other)! Of course they use scripture to teach and correct and even to judge as is necessary! Of course they minister the sacraments! Of course they have many duties specific to the growth of the body! HOW does that make them moral authorities over the rule of conscience, who have replaced Christ's position as the one and only mediator between God and man?
Christ makes them what they are and he says the same as himself
Jn 20:21
 
Christ makes them what they are and he says the same as himself
Jn 20:21
I notice you didn't quote the verse. Maybe you did not because I would point out the definite word, "send", and the definite context in which he is sending his disciples. He is not saying that they are his substitutes, nor anything about them taking his office of mediator between God and man, nor of his position as moral authority over the consciences of believers.

NOR, certainly, is there implied there anything about a continuing apostolic succession.
 
I notice you didn't quote the verse. Maybe you did not because I would point out the definite word, "send", and the definite context in which he is sending his disciples. He is not saying that they are his substitutes, nor anything about them taking his office of mediator between God and man, nor of his position as moral authority over the consciences of believers.

NOR, certainly, is there implied there anything about a continuing apostolic succession.
Matt 28:20 and acts 1:8 require apostolic succession

Context

Jesus is not “the way” According to those who insist that you cannot take scripture out of context!

There are only two words on the whole Bible that say specifically “Jesus is the way”!

It is only found in one part of one verse of one chapter of one book of scripture!

Thanks

I suppose in denying that Jesus is the way they incur the penalty of
2 Tim 2:12 but that was also taken out of context?

Ex 20 only has 9 commandments in context or subject matter

Is this a non sequitur?
 
Matt 28:20 and acts 1:8 require apostolic succession
Well, no. They don't. In spite of your early attempted explanation as to why they do, they don't. The command is still in force, and yes, Jesus is still with us. How does that imply apostolic succession?
Do you say 'context' here to introduce context on those two verses, or as a header for your commentary on people who insist on context?
Jesus is not “the way” According to those who insist that you cannot take scripture out of context!

There are only two words on the whole Bible that say specifically “Jesus is the way”!

It is only found in one part of one verse of one chapter of one book of scripture!
How does the context of those two words not support the fact that Jesus is the way? You are stumbling pretty badly here. A standalone statement in Scripture is not negated by lack of context, but, in fact, your [apparent] method of claiming anything in scripture is standalone is bogus anyway. Apparently you think that the whole of scripture is not context. You are dead wrong. Even YOU would be able to show how the rest of scripture supports and demonstrates that Jesus is the way.
You're welcome
I suppose in denying that Jesus is the way they incur the penalty of
2 Tim 2:12 but that was also taken out of context?
No. They don't deny that Jesus is the way. False premise = bogus question.
Ex 20 only has 9 commandments in context or subject matter

Is this a non sequitur?
Is what a non sequitur —the statement, "Ex 20 only has 9 commandments in context or subject matter."? Or something you said before that? What are you talking about?

If you are asking whether the statement, "Ex 20 only has 9 commandments in context or subject matter", is a non-sequitur, I don't even know what the statement means.

What is your point there? You're not making sense to me. I mean, even if you are being funny by combining two of them into one, —perhaps the first two under the one command of not having other gods before him— or something else along those lines, what in the world does that have to do with those who insist on context for proper understanding of scripture?



"
 
Last edited:
Well, no. They don't. In spite of your early attempted explanation as to why they do, they don't. The command is still in force, and yes, Jesus is still with us. How does that imply apostolic succession?

Do you say 'context' here to introduce context on those two verses, or as a header for your commentary on people who insist on context?

How does the context of those two words not support the fact that Jesus is the way? You are stumbling pretty badly here. A standalone statement in Scripture is not negated by lack of context, but, in fact, your [apparent] method of claiming anything in scripture is standalone is bogus anyway. Apparently you think that the whole of scripture is not context. You are dead wrong. Even YOU would be able to show how the rest of scripture supports and demonstrates that Jesus is the way.

You're welcome

No. They don't deny that Jesus is the way. False premise = bogus question.

Is what a non sequitur —the statement, "Ex 20 only has 9 commandments in context or subject matter."? Or something you said before that? What are you talking about?

If you are asking whether the statement, "Ex 20 only has 9 commandments in context or subject matter", is a non-sequitur, I don't even know what the statement means.

What is your point there? You're not making sense to me. I mean, even if you are being funny by combining two of them into one, —perhaps the first two under the one command of not having other gods before him— or something else along those lines, what in the world does that have to do with those who insist on context for proper understanding of scripture?



"
These are all things I am accused of
Your taking scripture “out of context” context of the whole chapter they say
Well “the way” is only two words
No context possible
We still believe it cos even one word is still inspired word of God
And those of Jesus are eternal

I asked a question and was accused of being a non sequitur

Exodus chapter 20 has the content of the Ten Commandments
But there is no list
1, 2, 3, etc.

If you count by context or subject matter there are nine!

Ten Commandments

Ex 20

Scripture has no list (1, 2, 3, etc.) of the Ten Commandments

According to subject matter or context:

First commandment: ex 20:2-6
One God

Second commandment: ex 20:7
God’s name

Third commandment: ex 20:8-11
God’s sabbath

Fourth commandment: ex 20:12
Parents

Fifth commandment: ex 20:13
Murder

Sixth commandment: ex 20:14
Adultery

Seventh commandment: ex 20:15
Theft

Eighth commandment: ex 20:16
Lying

Ninth commandment: ex 20:17
Coveting

Yes thanks
 
Well, no. They don't. In spite of your early attempted explanation as to why they do, they don't. The command is still in force, and yes, Jesus is still with us. How does that imply apostolic succession?

Do you say 'context' here to introduce context on those two verses, or as a header for your commentary on people who insist on context?

How does the context of those two words not support the fact that Jesus is the way? You are stumbling pretty badly here. A standalone statement in Scripture is not negated by lack of context, but, in fact, your [apparent] method of claiming anything in scripture is standalone is bogus anyway. Apparently you think that the whole of scripture is not context. You are dead wrong. Even YOU would be able to show how the rest of scripture supports and demonstrates that Jesus is the way.

You're welcome

No. They don't deny that Jesus is the way. False premise = bogus question.

Is what a non sequitur —the statement, "Ex 20 only has 9 commandments in context or subject matter."? Or something you said before that? What are you talking about?

If you are asking whether the statement, "Ex 20 only has 9 commandments in context or subject matter", is a non-sequitur, I don't even know what the statement means.

What is your point there? You're not making sense to me. I mean, even if you are being funny by combining two of them into one, —perhaps the first two under the one command of not having other gods before him— or something else along those lines, what in the world does that have to do with those who insist on context for proper understanding of scripture?



"
Matt 28:19-20 and acts 1:2
Jesus is a speaking to his apostles

Not to individual Christians

I would say believers but believers are not Christians but only neophyte catechumens

Thanks
 
Back
Top