0

How does the Catholic, Baptist and Pentecostal denominations justify the practice of following teachers given this in scripture?

"But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.", 1 Jn 2:27

and, this

"No longer will each one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest.", Heb 8:11

Obviously, they are appointed in the Church:

"And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.", 1 Cor 12:28

Then, apparently "you" should be teachers at some point,

"by this time you ought to be teachers", Heb 5:12

Then, there's 1 Jn 2:27 and Heb 8:11.

If you back up to Heb 8:10, this is largely acknowledged as the New Covenant where the Holy Spirit is given to dwell within believers transforming their nature to keep God's ways:

"This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.", Heb 8:10

That appears to be the anointing in v11. And, that anointing says you have no need of a teacher. So, why do the denominations justify their followers remaining under teachers, most their entire lives in the church?

Here's a New Testament example of how to conduct "When you come together":

1 Cor 14:26-39, and some points:

"everyone has a psalm or a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.", v26

"Two or three prophets should speak the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is seated, the first speaker should stop", v29-30

For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged", v31

"If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is the Lord’s command.", v37

The above is quite different from conventional church services.

Improve this question
13
  • 1
    @Ben No, listing three denominations like that isn't really a good way to ask a question. It's clear from across the New Testament that churches are in the business of teaching the truth of God to their members and to the world. That's really not in dispute. But there are a few verses like the ones you've listed which say they shouldn't need to be taught.
    – curiousdannii ♦
    Sep 16, 2022 at 2:49
  • 1
    I think the best thing for you to do would be to ask about each of those verses individually on Biblical Hermeneutics. Then you can see how each passage is interpreted. Do they cast shade on immature churches? Are they talking about the role of the Holy Spirit? Is their scope very limited, so that we don't need teaching about one thing, but need teaching for other things? Are they eschatological, looking forward to the return of Jesus when we will know him fully? These are all possibilities. But the idea that no church should have anyone ever teach anyone else? That's surely a misreading.
    – curiousdannii ♦
    Sep 16, 2022 at 2:51
  • 2
    @Ben Translation is definitely not as far as answers go on Hermeneutics.SE. You say "at some point there's no need for a teacher." I think all of us would agree. The burden is on you however to demonstrate that we are past that point.
    – curiousdannii ♦
    Sep 16, 2022 at 2:58
  • 2
    The persons who spoke the above words were the apostles who appointed elders and who also sent ministers (such as Mark, Timothy, Titus, Silvanus and Epaphras) to the churches. Yes, there is an anointing to all the body and there are gifts within the assembly. But there is also a Ministry which Christ Himself (from the glory and from the throne) sends to the church.
    – Nigel J
    Sep 16, 2022 at 6:55
  • 2
    The real problem with tis question is that it lacks a clear definition of "follow". At different places, we are counselled to listen to good teachers, avoid bad ones, and not to regard any teachers as our masters. They belong to us, not vice-versa (1 Corinthians ch 1 v12, ch3 v21).
    – Stephen Disraeli
    Oct 11 at 17:21

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

How does the Catholic, Baptist and Pentecostal denominations justify the practice of following teachers given this in scripture?

The proposed contradiction does not apply to this passage of Heb 8 because it is yet future - a prophecy from Jeremiah 31:31- still unfulfilled.

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 9It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they did not abide by My covenant, and I disregarded them, declares the Lord.

10For this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord. I will put My laws in their minds and inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they will be My people. 11No longer will each one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12For I will forgive their iniquities and will remember their sins no more.” Heb 8:8-

The House of Israel is not yet 'God's people'. They are still awaiting the veil to be lifted and their heart softened. 2Cor 3:14-15

I will be their God, and they will be My people

This is not true yet. True for God has decreed it, but not true for His people, chosen in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For His people, it will be realised when the prophecy is completed and the kingdom established.

The context of Heb 8 is continuing the High Priest explanation. Jesus is not the HP of Israel - certainly not in their minds, they continue to reject him in this present age.

This future time there will be no denominations or contrary doctrine or different teachings of things not Biblical. There will be one truth and everyone will know it. Then they will not need teachers as you suggest. In this age the devil fills the air with his message of self, hate and lies. In the next age he will be banished (Rev 20:1) and there will be only one message - love, truth and grace and only one God.

Improve this answer
4
  • @steveown, the future is a context, but so is the present, e.g. Gal 4:19. Also note the "House of Israel" and "House of Judah" are separately identified in Jer 31:31.
    – Ben
    Sep 16, 2022 at 13:11
  • I agree that the bible does not align very much with present practise - it went off the rails a couple hundred years after the Apostles with new teachings and strict adherence to new doctrines. They are not always writing to us now - some things are a sample of what it was like then in the early church which was usurped by political powers as the god of this world made inroads just as he has since the Garden.
    – steveowen
    Sep 16, 2022 at 13:30
  • @steveown, "And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.", 2 Cor 11:14
    – Ben
    Sep 16, 2022 at 13:35
  • Heb 8:11 is not for the future. This IS the New Covenant, and that NC is for now. The reason it is delayed is religion taking over and stunting-to-denying Christ's goal: Joel 1, which is a future prophecy (v15) rebuking the elders for failing to "bring in the crop" - all analogies defined elsewhere in scripture to prove that.
    – Ben
    Oct 12 at 16:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .