You said "Regardless, it means both "Elder" and "Priest".

That is incorrect. The New Testament answers this question once and for all. As I tried to explain the Greek word for priest is "hiereus". The N.T. was written in Greek. When the Bible means priest, it used that word. When it meant elder or presbyter it uses a different word, which is, "presbuteros". It never say "presbuteros" when it means priest.

Even the Roman Catholic bible bears this out. "And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers," Ephesians 4:11 RC New American Bible.

In 1 Timothy the word used in the KJV (1611) is "elders"; in 1 Tim.5:17 the same verse in the RC Bible uses the word "Presbyters." Nowhere is the word "priest" used in the N.T. to describe the functions of ministers or presbyters.

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
I have come across the name Loraine Bottner a number of times. Many people reccommend that you treat her works with caution because she is simply antiCatholic. Therefore, much of her work is, apparently, suspect.

I must taken exception to your comment that Loraine Boettner is "simply anti-Catholic". I have read parts of Dr. Boettner's book "Roman Catholicism" of which I have a couple of copies. This is a very scholarly in-depth examination of Roman Catholicism covering almost every doctrine and aspect in great depth.

Dr. Boettner was born on a farm in Missouri. He graduated from Princeton Theological Seminary (Th.B. 1928; Th.M. 1929), where he studied Systematic Theology under the late Dr. C.W. Hodge (an extremely knowledgable theologian whose two volume work, Systematic Theology, I am fortunate enough to have a copy of).

John UK wrote:
Thanks for that Wayne M - much appreciated.

I deleted part of this post because I just read the webpage you gave me about the use of the word "father" and want to make another comment.

I will have to give it some more thought.

The one thing though about Roman Catholics calling men "father" instead of "pastor" as we do, there is a significant difference in meaning I think you will have to admit. The RC priest is given a fairly elevated position in the minds of RCs which I don't believe is the same in Protestant churches. The priest is looked on as almost an infallible interpreter of spiritual truth. This could be what Jesus was warning against. Protestants believe that the Bible, as revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, is the absolute truth.

In other words, the term "father" seems to reinforce the idea that the priest is far above the laity and so when he is speaking on behalf of the RC church, what he says to be accepted as if from God. This seems to fit in also with the pretentious title he receives (Altus Christus), another Christ.

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
Hi Wayne,
Check out [URL=http://bible.cc/matthew/23-10.htm]]]this page[/URL]. You can see that it is translated as teacher, leader, master, guide, instructor or director depending on the version of the Bible. Regardless, that's not the point. Have a look at [URL=http://www.catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp]]]this link[/URL] for an explanation of the use of the title "Father".
Incidentally, in case you think the use of the term "Father" to refer to Clergy is a Catholic-only issue, have a look at [URL=http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1916]]]this article[/URL]. Apparently, it was a common Protestant practise as well.

"The NT used the term “Presbyter” many times which means, among other things, “Priest”."

The writers of the N.T. had two separate words for elder and priest. They do not mean the same thing. The Greek word for elder is "presbuteros". The N.T. never says "presbuteros" when it means priest. The N.T. Greek word for priest is "hiereus". This Greek word describes the functions of a priest which includes offering sacrifice. The Septuagint (Old Testament in Greek) uses the word "hiereus" which is a translation of the Hebrew word "kohen" and "kahen", the Hebrew word for priest.

The Hebrew and in the Septuagint, Greek, words for priest are used 400 times in the O.T. It is clear what the Hebrew and Greek words for priest are.

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
See Matt 23:10, Wayne. It says to call no man a teacher. Does that mean that we are not to call anyone "teacher"?

Also "Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven." Matt 23:9

Matthew Henry's Bible commentary says "Here is, a prohibition of pride. They are here forbidden to challenge titles of honour and dominion to themselves, v8-10. It is repeated twice; Be not called Rabbi, neither be ye called Master or guide. Christ's ministers must not affect the name of Rabbi or Master, by way of distinction from other people; it is not agreeable to the simplicity of the gospel. They must not assume the authority and dominion implied in those names."

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
Hi Wayne,
"Holy Father" is not God's name, it is one of His titles. It is used also by the Popes of the Coptic and Catholic Churches. The Pope is not adored nor is his hand kissed. It is his ring that is kissed. The lying on the floor is to show the Priest's devotion to Jesus not the Pope.

This is a blasphemous glorification of man. There is no authority in Scripture for such a practice. The Bible teaches that Christ's Vicar on earth is the Holy Spirit. (John 14:26)

What do you say about Jesus' words "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9

"I figure that if they were as bad as some people want us to believe or if they truly weren't actually God's Word, Jesus would have said something to either the Jews themselves or to His Apostles"

May I add a comment on this? Lorraine Boettner says in his book "Roman Catholicism" "There is no record that Christ or any of the apostles ever quoted from the Apocryphal books or that they made any reference to them, although they undoubtedly knew of them. There are in the New Testament about 260 direct quotations from and about 370 allusions to passages in the Old Testament; yet among all of those there is not a single reference either by Christ or any of the apostles to the Apocryphal writings. They quote from every major book of the O.T. and from all but four of the smaller ones. Thus they set their stamp of approval upon the Jewish O.T... The reason that neither He nor the apostles ever once referred to the Apocryphal book is obvious. They did not regard those books as Scripture, and they did not intend that those books should become a part of the Bible." Unquote

Who sits on a throne calling himself the Holy Father? This is God's name; what man has a right to take God's name to himself and accept the adoration of men, who, kneeling or lying prostate on the floor, bowing and kissing his hand? Vicar of Christ refers to the Holy Spirit because Christ said the Holy Spirit would be sent to earth. (John ch.16) Another title which belongs to God only.

Priests also are given the title, Altus Christus, meaning "Another Christ".
"For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." Matthew 24:5

One website says "What a load of rubbish! The Inquisition was simply the most diabolical institution ever created by humanity, and the state was for the most part merely its tool. For the pope to demur on the depths of the Inquisition's evil is like the chancellor of Germany refusing to condemn the Holocaust. Both are great, unspeakably horrible spiritual scars on humanity's collective soul whose wickedness cannot be fully comprehended"
http://www.weirdload.com/inquis.html

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
Did you read the entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Wayne? It states over and over what I have been saying: The Pope did not authorize capital punishment.

The writers of the CE have obviously tried to distance the popes from what happened and you have believed that. The CE appears to have convinced you that the church was not responsible for torture. One can read what they want out of the CE.

But you should remember the church (which was run by the Popes as an absolute monarchy) was in control over kingdoms. This was before the days of constitutional monarchies and any freedom of religion. What the church authorities said was law. There was no such thing as separation of church and state. So when you claim the popes had no part in torture, you are speaking without knowledge. It is an easy out for one's conscience to think the Popes were above such things, but that is not how things were. Bennett is correct in his video.

The Catholic Encyclopedia claims in one part that the church turned people over to the secular authorities for punishment (or torture).

What must be remembered is the church headed by the Pope was the absolute authority. The civil authorities obeyed the church.

"Officially it was not the Church that sentenced unrepenting heretics to death, more particularly to the stake. As legate of the Roman Church even Gregory IV never went further than the penal ordinances of Innocent III required, nor ever inflicted a punishment more severe than excommunication. Not until four years after the commencement of his pontificate did he admit the opinion, then prevalent among legists, that heresy should be punished with death, seeing that it was confessedly no less serious an offence than high treason. Nevertheless he continued to insist on the exclusive right of the Church to decide in authentic manner in matters of heresy; at the same time it was not her office to pronounce sentence of death. The Church, thenceforth, expelled from her bosom the impenitent heretic, whereupon the state took over the duty of his temporal punishment."

It is convenient to be able to use the civil authorities as the scapegoat.

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
Where did you get your information from, Wayne? According to what I could find, the Church was responsible for the judicial portion of the Inquisition but the torture part was run by the civil authorities. Also, the Spanish Inquisition was run by the Spanish Monarchy not the Pope.

The Catholic Encyclopedia describes the four methods of extracting a confession:
•fear of death, i.e. by giving the accused to understand that the stake awaited him if he would not confess;
•more or less close confinement, possibly emphasized by curtailment of food;
•visits of tried men, who would attempt to induce free confession through friendly persuasion;
•torture, which will be discussed below.

The popes authorized the inquisition and everything was done by their authority. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia (online) will tell you in great detail how the system was set up and worked.

"The Inquisitor, strictly speaking, was a special but permanent judge, acting in the name of the pope and clothed by him with the right and the duty to deal legally with offences against the Faith; he had, however, to adhere to the established rules of canonical procedure and pronounce the customary penalties."

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
Wayne,
I didn’t say that the Pope didn’t have anything to do with the Inquisition (except the Spanish Inquisition). I said that he had nothing to do with the tortures.

Wikipedia: "Torture
The methods of torture most used by the Inquisition were garrucha, toca and the potro. The application of the garrucha, also known as the strappado, consisted of suspending the victim from the ceiling by a pulley with weights tied to the ankles, with a series of lifts and drops, during which arms and legs suffered violent pulls and were sometimes dislocated.[53] The toca, also called interrogatorio mejorado del agua, consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had impression of drowning (see: waterboarding).[54] The potro, the rack, was the instrument of torture used most frequently."

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
So, who is correct? The experts on the History Channel or Richard Bennett?

You claimed the papacy had nothing to do with the Inquisition. This shows your complete lack of knowledge. The Inquisition was instituted by the papacy for the suppression of heresy.

Even a Roman Catholic writer, Peter De Rosa, who wrote "Vicars of Christ" tells a lot in his book. He said the Spanish Inquisition was authorized by Sixtus IV in the year 1480. "The most famous of all Grand Inquisitors was the Dominican friar Thomas of Torquemada. Appointed in 1483, he ruled tyrannically for fifteen years. His victims numbered over 114,000 of whom 10,220 were burned. Many others were sentenced to life imprisonment." pg 237. That was in just a short span of 15 yrs he had that many victims. What about all the other areas of Europe during the full 605 years?

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
He claimed that there were beliefs in Catholicism that simply aren't true.

I don't know if you have watched the video "Inquisition" which Richard Bennett has on their website bereanbeacon.org

I thought you might have watched that one in particular. I find it to be very revealing of what happened during the 605 yrs of the Inquisition and in the 20th century in Bosnia where 700,000 Serbs were murdered.

I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about the video after giving it a close look. I don't see anything in it untrue. If the truth hurts, then maybe that is a good thing. It sometimes hurts to hear the truth, especially when we have been lied to or misled for years.

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
I am not a historian but my understanding of the inquisition is that the Church had nothing to do with the torture of the people. That was strictly the responsibility of the civil authorities. Even in the case of the Spanish Inquisition - which was carried out by the King and Queen of Spain and not the Church - the Pope was very clear in his position: no one was to be permanently maimed or killed through the use of torture.

http://reformationfaith.com/2008/08/02/inquisition/

Michael Hranek wrote:
...I am a Baptist. I believe that regeneration is not before and not independent from repentance and faith in Christ but that the new birth in the Spirit occurs at salvation.

Ques.74 Are infants also to be baptized?
Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God, and through the blood of Christ both redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed." Heidelberg Catechism