They were teachers and advisers. But they never claimed authority over them. They sought to persuade. Their 'authority' was a moral authority that arose from the fact that they had known Jesus. They did not lord it over them. The final say lay with the churches. Once the Apostles were dead no one replaced them.
Titus was left in Crete to appoint elders in every town. Are you suggesting that Titus had no such authority within an independent church? He could only "teach and advise"?
Yes, they are unregenerate. It's a false church that has sent countless souls to Hell. While marginalizing Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, negating God's grace with the false doctrine that is purgatory, led billions to idol worship, worship of the dead, necromancy, and their body parts, (Relics), while making the smallest sovereign nation on earth and its "infallible" dictator beyond billionaires as an entity in itself. Think, 'Vatican Bank'.Really people I mean really...what do you expect from the RCC??? They are unregenerate people so you ought to expect them to produce fruit as such. It does no good to rub their noses in the open and evident sin of the hierarchy of the RCC. We are not called to point out sin but to testify of the saving grace of God.
Roger
Acts 6:1-8 the apostles used a fairly democratic methodology to appoint men to minister in the church. Is there any reason to think that Titus was appointing men in the churches by any other method? The local assemblies presenting men they felt worthy and with prayer anointing them in the assemblies to lead and teach?Titus was left in Crete to appoint elders in every town. Are you suggesting that Titus had no such authority within an independent church? He could only "teach and advise"?
The whole point of appointing elders was that it would be THEY who led each independent church. There is no suggestion that Titus then had authority over them. He would of course teach and advise. But he would not detract from their authority. Indeed it had to be so. There was no way in which anyone could watch over all the churches. Communications were too difficult. Even with the Corinthians Paul recognised that what they did was finally their choice, even though he sought to influence them in that choice.
2 Cor 10:8 is clear: Paul had authority over the church in Corinth.
well you have a strange idea of clear LOL the context makes clear that he was not speaking of an authority which meant they had to do his bidding. Paul had a general authority from God to provide the church with God's revelation and to build up churches. He had no direct authority over individual churches. Note verse 1. 'I entreat you ---.' That does not sound like someone exerting their authority. And later in the passage he says, 'not that we venture to class or compare ourselves with some of those who commend themselves.' And if anyone had the right to such authority it was Paul. He founded the church at Corinth. But he still recognised its right to go its own way under God.
Note 8.8. 'I do not say this as a command'. Indeed all Paul's arguments reveal that he realises that he has to 'persuade' them
Clearly the Holy Spirit says there will be those who do not walk with God who will try to deceive us into believing they are brothers in Christ. This is the Catholics who are trying to do. They do not have the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Its only those who have the Indwelling of the Spirit that are the true children of God.
no, that is not clear from the context.
in Gen 3 Gosaid "i will put emnity between.you and the woman, between your offspring and hers" the woman "Mary" was kept free from sin or even temptation since she cann have no part ofsatan. God Said her offspring also has this emnity between Him and SatanIf Mary was sinless, then there would be no reason for Jesus to come. The essential issue was without Jesus, and us understanding and walking in his love, we will always stumble into sin and not know the darkness we are walking in,would not exist. But the problem is simply how can a sinless person be born to someone who is sinful.
Because the nature of sin is not the flesh, or knowledge or understanding, it is shutting God out through lack of communion, or open relationship with Him. The only person recorded who was born into this relationship was John the Baptist.
As Jesus was God, he was born in fellowship with the Father, but the holder, ie his mother did not make him unclean or sinful.
But if you follow the idea that position of things makes things unclean or not, then ceremonies etc can cleanse you, like confession, the eucarist etc. which to me is a miss-understanding of holiness and purity of the heart. Now there is a real sense of contamination with illness, with certain foods, with not washing your hands but this is not spiritual contamination.
It is what the pharisees got wrong, which the RC church repeats.