• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Roots of Modern Christianity

No*s said:
The various churches, far from being isolated, were coming into closer and closer communication as Christianity spread and the Empire was helpless to stop it. When they did this, they passed along the teachings of the Apostles, who passed along the teaching of Christ (this is important: Truth is a Person in Christianity, not a concept, and thus, our coming to know it must be personal, in a model after the master-disciple model of the Master). Each one received faith in Christ in a personal fashion.

This method acts like a bunch of people seeing a movie several times. When someone misquotes it, the rest will correct him.
You have a point, the different Christian groups (those who differed on some point of doctrine) were definitely coming together. But I don't believe the empire was helpless to stop it, on the contrary after the conversion of Constantine, Christianity became protected and Constantine's desire for unity was what caused the groups to really come together.

I see the point you are making with the passing down of truth, but I see it a little different. What you are proposing as perpetuation truth seems a little dangerous to me. All it takes is someone with some persuasive ability to start to inject/alter some of the true beliefs that are being passed down. We can hope that there is divine influence that would keep that from happening, but who's to say for sure it is. In my opinion the only way to ensure the preservation of truth is through some continual line of prophets who actually communicate with God to get/clarify the truth, as was the method throughout the Bible. Councils have never been the means for establishing truth, revelation to a prophet has.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
KnightRider said:
Fair enough. The main group that comes to mind is the Arians. They were a group of Christians who believed that Jesus was the Son of God -- a seperate person, as opposed to the trinitarian notion that they are part of the same. The Arian beliefs had acquired a significant following in Alexandria and in much of the eastern Mediterranean. This resulted in considerable conflict within the Christian community. Constantine was determined to maintain a unified Christian church and as a result called the First Council of Nicea. Because the majority of the Bishops at the time were of trinitarian belief, that was the doctrine that won out. It was then pronounced that anyone who refused to accept this doctrine would be exiled. Constantine also ordered that the Arian book that proclaimed their beliefs be burned. This is likely why the church remained unified for so long, because it was enforced by the empire. It really wasn't until the empire split that major divisions/breakoffs occurred in the church.

So here are the problems I have with the early church:
  • The church seemed to be run as much by the emperor as by any ecclesiastical authority. And often that rule was with an iron fist.
  • To be honest I have a hard time accepting the trinitarian idea. There is scriptural evidence that God the father and Jesus his Son were just that: father and son - two seperate individuals (Acts 7:55, Matt. 3:17). In my opinion the Arians were justified in their belief, but because the majority of Bishops didn't agree, the Arians were exiled and their book burned. That is not Christian-like in any sense.

I think you should look more closely at the situation. Arius was a priest in Alexandria, Egypt, and he came to his doctrine while reading the book of Proverbs and saw that Wisdom was the first thing God made. Christian interpretation connects Wisdom with Christ. Arius, then, concluded that Christ was a creature and proceeded to meld Christianity very closely with Greek philosophy. Christianity had been appropriating the terms, but it also felt completely at liberty to redefine the terms wherever it wished. Arius, though, made a system that kept the terms largely intact, and the resulting system was congenial and defensible intellectually (the Trinity then, as now, was shunend).

He gained a massive following. So much so, that prior to Nicea, St. Athanasius may well have been the sole Orthodox bishop in the East. When Nicea was called, the majority of the bishops were on Arius' side, not Athanasius'. When they saw the implications of Arianism, though, they changed sides, and Arius was exiled.

That didn't stop the doctrine, though, and Arianism gained another foothold when Constantine, under the counsel of Eusebius, brought Arius back to the Empire. Constantine's son, Constantius, when he ascended to the throne was an Arian, and where Constantine exiled, Constantius killed (there is a story where three hundred people were killed by Roman soldiers because they acted as a delaying tactic against an order from Constantius to capture the saint).

Far from needing imperial support to win, it actually hindered the Nicean definition in its opposition to Arius. At first, people were suspiscious of it, and it used that term homoousia...that could be interpreted to allow Sabellianism. They rejected it, often on those grounds. St. Athanasius was exiled and recalled seven times during this period, and frequently had to use tactics such as hiding in wells to avoid capture.

This preaching gained acceptance of Nicea in spite of Constantius. The Emperor Julian the Aostate recalled all the exiled teachers and put them on equal standing so that they would cancel each other out and self-destruct (he was a smart fellow). There wasn't an Orthodox emperor in power again until Theodosius, and Orthodoxy was well on its way back. Nicea had come to be accepted, and the new Arians, those started by Macedonius, were on the downswing. When Theodosius held the First Council of Constantinople, it served to permanently end Arianism. It couldn't survive without official sanction after the comeback, whereas the traditional view had reinvigorated itself, not with state support, but in spite of state opposition. Arianism, and its offspring Macedonianism, died where Orthodoxy triumphed. It kind of died in a fit of internal squabbling (being an invention and all).

There was a really good biography of St. Athanasius, especially in relation to this issue, that I read a few months back. I'll see if I can dig it up. It may be in, now, to make Orthodoxy at the time look like the big boy, but it really wasn't.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
KnightRider said:
You have a point, the different Christian groups (those who differed on some point of doctrine) were definitely coming together. But I don't believe the empire was helpless to stop it, on the contrary after the conversion of Constantine, Christianity became protected and Constantine's desire for unity was what caused the groups to really come together.

Constantine started favoring Christianity (I don' think he'd yet fully converted) because the Empire had failed to stop it. Imagine, you're an emperor of an empire that had just barely survived a nasty civil war. There's this little religious sect that your people tried to utterly wipe out, and now they were a sizeable and vocal community (still not a majority by any stretch); the empire had failed to stop Christianity despite its best efforts (hence my use of the term "helpless"). It had succeeded with other religions, wiping out groups like the Druids almost entirely, if not entirely. Christians, though, persisted and thrived under the persecution. Not only that, it had an orginizational system that rivaled the Empires, one which worked with less intercommunication than the Empire had.

Such a religion would provide ample oppertunity for an emperor with a very shakey power-base (and his was very shakey) to unify his powerbase. If we add a miraculous vision of a cross in the sky (presuming you accept it) and superstitious tendencies, shake well, then you have a recipe for the Emperor to show favor to Christianity (he had not yet selected it as the sole state religion; that was the doing of the Emperor Theodosius).

Far from unifying Christianity and saving it, in many ways, the legalization of Christianity shows how resilient it was prior to its legalization.

KnightRider said:
I see the point you are making with the passing down of truth, but I see it a little different. What you are proposing as perpetuation truth seems a little dangerous to me. All it takes is someone with some persuasive ability to start to inject/alter some of the true beliefs that are being passed down. We can hope that there is divine influence that would keep that from happening, but who's to say for sure it is. In my opinion the only way to ensure the preservation of truth is through some continual line of prophets who actually communicate with God to get/clarify the truth, as was the method throughout the Bible. Councils have never been the means for establishing truth, revelation to a prophet has.

That's a good point. However, again, many of the people who defended Christianity at those councils were prophets. St. Gregory of Nyssa had an experience of God much like Moses on Mt. Sinai. St. John Chrysostom was a man of unique gifting in eloquence as an orator, and acted as a prophetic voice against arbitrary imperial power (he got in trouble for it also, but he prevailed). St. Gregory Nazianus (another anti-Arian saint) was miraculously rescued while at sea by his mother, and had been set aside at birth to defend the Church.

Orthodox history is full of prophets right down to our own time, an unceasing flow. Our most recent was St. John the Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Fancisco. God used exactly the method you described, and many of the greatest pundits in these councils were prophetic individuals, men of exceptional strength and character. Your point is good, and one that I should probably have addressed in my text.
 

may

Well-Known Member
matthew 24;45-47

"Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. 47 Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings................. so it seems faithfulness to Gods word brings blessings and responsiblities, so the question is, who is the faithful slave ? who has been faithful? who has been feeding the domestics.

(Matthew 25:21) His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’​


(Luke 12:44) I tell YOU truthfully, He will appoint him over all his belongings

 

Smoke

Done here.
ChrisP said:
Could you please point me to scripture/documentation regarding this?
Popeyesays said:
And yet Roman Catholicism will say Peter was the "rock" upon which the church is founded. The only direct Gospel assignment to James is in the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas
There are several reasons for thinking that the leadership of Jesus' followers passed to James after Jesus' death.

I think the early followers of Jesus viewed him as in some sense a successor to David, and were naturally loyal to his family.



Jesus and his closest followers were from Galilee, but he was also connected to the ministry of John, which drew followers from Jerusalem and Judaea. Luke records a tradition that the resurrected Jesus told his followers to "tarry ... in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." Acts says that after the ascension of Jesus,
Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey. And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.


So scripture tells us that the earliest community was located at Jerusalem, and included Jesus' mother and brothers.

After the death of Stephen, there was a "great persecution ... and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles." But where was James?

It's universally acknowledged that James was an apostle. Paul, who didn't have the smoothest relationship with James, calls him an apostle, and he's traditionally numbered among the Seventy Apostles mentioned in Luke. Everything we know about James after the resurrection locates him at Jerusalem. Christian tradition universally names James as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

We see that the Jerusalem community has a central position in the early church. Jerusalem sends out apostles to various places, and all the disciples send relief back to Jerusalem.

Okay, so James was at Jerusalem, the first headquarters of the movement, was an apostle, and was probably the presiding bishop of Jerusalem. But was he the leader of the apostles?

The Roman Catholic Church bases its claim of primacy on the supposed primacy of Peter. It's made the claim so long and so well that it's hard for Western Christians to think of anyone but Peter as the leader of the apostles. Even those who reject the primacy of Rome tend to go along with the primacy of Peter, partly because Peter figures so prominently in Acts, especially the first part of Acts. Eastern Christians tend to see the apostles in more collegial terms. What are the facts?

We know more about Peter than about most of the apostles, and Peter seems to be more outspoken. (Or is that just because we know more about him?) It's Peter who says that a replacement for Judas must be named. It's Peter who speaks to the crowd at Pentecost. When Ananias and Sapphira lay their gift at the feet of the apostles, it's Peter who rebukes them. It's Peter whose very shadow is thought to have miraculous qualities. The prominence of Peter in the community is undeniable.

Yet Acts records that "when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John." That's a hint that Peter wasn't in a position of primacy over the other apostles. The sender always has authority over the one sent; the apostles as a group were able to send Peter on a mission.

Paul claims to be the apostle to the Gentiles, and says that Peter is the apostle to "the circumcision." He even speaks of two gospels: "the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter." (What are the implications in that for his warning, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed"?) Paul compares and contrasts himself to Peter, and is not afraid to stand up to Peter: "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

Yet Peter isn't at all opposed to the reception of Gentiles into the community. It's Peter who has a vision that reveals the Gentiles should be accepted. It's Peter who orders the first Gentiles to be baptized, and Peter who defends the decision before the apostles and community at Jerusalem, winning them over to the idea that Gentiles can be part of the community. Peter is the very author of the idea that uncircumcised Gentiles can be full members of the Jesus community.

Once the Gentiles had been accepted, though, there were still arguments about what the exact terms of that acceptance were. For James, the Law was still valid, though there's no reason to think he interpreted it as Orthodox Jews do today. Jesus had radicalized the Law, but the early Jesus movement didn't abandon the Law, they just saw it differently than other Jewish sects did. For Paul, Jesus completely abrogated the Law. The Law was rendered obsolete, and Gentile, Pauline Christians need not concern themselves with it. Peter was a bit of a waverer, inclining to Paul's position when he spoke to Paul, and to James' when he spoke to James. Maybe he just wanted everyone to get along. But he was clearly not Paul's great opponent in the struggle; that was James. Why did Paul, in Galatians, contrast himself to Peter instead of James? Was it because he didn't dare to oppose himself to James?



Paul says:
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.


In other words, Paul at the beginning of his ministry was content to receive instruction from James and the others, and even later Peter was intimidated, according to Paul, by people sent by James. And there's no indication that Paul ever withstood James "to his face."



In the description of what has been called the Council of Jerusalem, it's James who renders the decision about how Gentiles are to be received:
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.



My sentence. Other translations say "my judgment" or "my decision." Once James has spoken, there's no more discussion, and the apostles and elders [presbyters] and the whole church [ekklesia] do as James has decided. So even in an account written by an ally of Paul's, who is sympathetic to Paul and his gospel, there's a clear indication of James' leadership. We see it near the end of Acts, when Paul, in peril of death because his attitude toward the Law has become a scandal to the Jews in Judaea, returns to Jerusalem.

Luke writes:
And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.





James tells Paul that he needs to demonstrate before all the people that he still follows the Law:
What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.




This at a time after Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians! He's in great peril, but he's never hesitated to risk his life before; it's not cowardice that makes Paul obey. Paul, who has trouble getting along with anybody, constantly argues with his friends, and boldly defies those oppose him, will not stand up to James.
Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.



Is Paul afraid for his life? Not likely. Has he changed his beliefs? Also not likely -- and if he had, would Pauline Christians have become the dominant sect of Christianity? Would they even have handed down his letter to the Galatians? Paul has simply come up against an authority he cannot defy.

Catholics talk about Peter's primacy, and Protestants like to dwell on Pauline theology, but the scriptures make it clear that both Peter and Paul deferred to James. This despite the fact that the sources were written and assembled by men who admired Peter and Paul.

And when James died, tradition tells us he was succeeded as Bishop of Jerusalem by another member of Jesus' family, their cousin Symeon.
 
No*s said:
That's a good point. However, again, many of the people who defended Christianity at those councils were prophets. St. Gregory of Nyssa had an experience of God much like Moses on Mt. Sinai. St. John Chrysostom was a man of unique gifting in eloquence as an orator, and acted as a prophetic voice against arbitrary imperial power (he got in trouble for it also, but he prevailed). St. Gregory Nazianus (another anti-Arian saint) was miraculously rescued while at sea by his mother, and had been set aside at birth to defend the Church.

Orthodox history is full of prophets right down to our own time, an unceasing flow. Our most recent was St. John the Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Fancisco. God used exactly the method you described, and many of the greatest pundits in these councils were prophetic individuals, men of exceptional strength and character. Your point is good, and one that I should probably have addressed in my text.
Good posts. And thanks for the link, I'll take a look into it. I had never heard that prophets attended the Councils, I had always understood they were regional bishops or other local leaders. If prophets were indeed part of the council why weren't the correct doctrines simply declared by the lead prophet rather than debated and voted on? That's what a prophet is for, right? to tell us what God's truth is, not merely to help us decide on the truth as a group. I guess I'm still confused about the whole council issue. Why did it appear that the Emperor was in charge and not the lead prophet? It also still doesn't really answer the question concerning the non-Christian treatment of non-believers that persisted in the church/empire for centuries.

One other concern I have is illustrated by the other debate going on in this thread: the dispute over Peter vs James as head of the apostleship. If this debate has roots back to the 4th or 5th centuries then apparently there was no clear passing-on of authority. If there had been a clear succession of authority there would have been no need of councils and I would think that it would have been clearly documented. However, we have no such clear succession - we have what the Roman Catholic church claims and what the Orthodox church claims. How's anyone to know which if any are right?

One last question - doesn't the Nicean Creed declare a trinitarian Godhood (all three in the same being)? Is that what the Orthodox believe?
 
may said:
matthew 24;45-47

"Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. 47 Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings................. so it seems faithfulness to Gods word brings blessings and responsiblities, so the question is, who is the faithful slave ? who has been faithful? who has been feeding the domestics.

(Matthew 25:21) His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’​


(Luke 12:44) I tell YOU truthfully, He will appoint him over all his belongings

Hi May, you win, I'm confused, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with this.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
KnightRider said:
Good posts. And thanks for the link, I'll take a look into it. I had never heard that prophets attended the Councils, I had always understood they were regional bishops or other local leaders. If prophets were indeed part of the council why weren't the correct doctrines simply declared by the lead prophet rather than debated and voted on? That's what a prophet is for, right? to tell us what God's truth is, not merely to help us decide on the truth as a group. I guess I'm still confused about the whole council issue. Why did it appear that the Emperor was in charge and not the lead prophet? It also still doesn't really answer the question concerning the non-Christian treatment of non-believers that persisted in the church/empire for centuries.

"Prophet" is not an office: it's a function. Those men I named were all bishops, and most attended the councils.

Here, I'll clarify the way councils function: Christ appointed the Apostles to guard the doctrines of Christ, pass it down, and clarify it. He didn't found an office of prophets there. The Apostles, then in their turn, appointed men to the office of bishop (many from the Seventy that Christ sent out). These they passed the teaching of Christ that if the office is vacant, another should fill it.

Prophecy may be granted to these individuals, but they have another annointing from the Spirit specific for the episcopal role. The first council was the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. They didn't settle things with the word of a prophet. Instead, they came to a consensus (it wasn't simply a voting thing), and the consensus was binding. This consensus they, then, sent to the churches.

Later councils occurred with the same pattern. There were local issues, and the bishops, the successors to the Apostles, assembled and addressed them in the same manner as Jerusalem. They faced issues that hadn't arisen during the time of the Apostles, and they used the grace of their office to address them. When Sabellius began teaching that there was one God with one Person, and that it only appeared that there were three Persons, they felt that this violated the consciousness of the Church, and so, they banned it.

Later, when Arius came, a similar phenomena occurred. At first, Arius had the bulk of the clergy: they were led astray, but God raised up men like St. Athanasius to defend the faith. The laity, though, were not inactive, for they are the Body, not simply the clergy. The laity, frequently, fought for the faith even when their bishop was led astray. God used His Spirit to annoint the bishops and preserve His faith undiluted, both with the episcopacy and also by giving some people, many of whom were bishops, prophetic gifts or gifts very similar to them. One, non-episcopal example, is St. Anthony the Great who came back from the desert specifically to confound Arianism after he learned that they were claiming him as their own.

The Councils functioned by a sort of consensus. No vote was really taken. They argued until they came to an agreement and that agreement was presented as binding. The Spirit moved on the people to accept it, even in the midst of those circumstances, and so the councils became authoritative (there were robber councils, after all). The Ecumenical Councils were responses of the Christian world against errors, and rather than garnering local support they gained support from the whole world.

The Emperor's role is a bit more tricky. Emperors frequently attempted to play politics. The Emperors would assemble a pet council to teach their particular fancies (imperial power is rather arbitrary), but the people would reject the teaching until it was finally defeated. This occurred with iconoclasm, where the iconoclasts could not defeat the iconodules, even with counsels, but were defeated in the end despite their political power (as I described with Arianism).

The Emperor's role, though, is still rather large even if he had no power to define doctrine (and failed when he tried to control anything beyond the organization). Firstly, he summoned it, and as the summoner, he had a share of power in the counsel, which extended to when it was accepted. He, also, was the ruler of the land. St. Paul said that the rulers were ministers of God in Romans. The word he used, though, is leitourgos, which means "liturgists." In ruling their people, the rulers function as liturgical ministers to God and offer up holy worship to him, and Paul said this about pagan ministers. When Constantine, and his successers, began claiming Christ (frequently with lips alone, sadly), then they moved closer still. Since they were ministers, it is also fitting that they would have a voice in these proceedings, but as I have explained, that was limited: they never succeeded in taming anything but the organizational structure of the Church.

I hope that answers the question :).

KnightRider said:
One other concern I have is illustrated by the other debate going on in this thread: the dispute over Peter vs James as head of the apostleship. If this debate has roots back to the 4th or 5th centuries then apparently there was no clear passing-on of authority. If there had been a clear succession of authority there would have been no need of councils and I would think that it would have been clearly documented.

I don't have a problem with it. I take the same information Midnight Blue does and interpret it differently. We don't see Peter as a universal head any more than James. MB showed several places where Peter seems to be outspoken, and others where James clearly leads. We don't see much of James in the canon (even in the early years), and he certainly wrote more than one letter. We simply see a basic collegiality of Apostles here, and this collegiality works so that one appears in the fore one time, and on another another.

I can see how MB sees the James and Paul at odds, but it is also possible to see them as not being at odds (except on details). I also think that Paul didn't change his beliefs, but sometimes he is difficult to interpret (2 Peter deals with such major misinterpretations), and he himself says in his epistle to the Romans (written later than the council, though): "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law." Paul, in his lifetime, learned. His earliest letters were aggressive, and he would introduce himself as an "Apostle," but he began to introduce himself as "a slave of Christ." He was simply learning to be more clear. Paul, like us, had to learn and grow. Miscommunication is part of that growth (hence James' instructions for him to make visible his commitment to the Law; he already had that commitment, but people doubted it).

KnightRider said:
However, we have no such clear succession - we have what the Roman Catholic church claims and what the Orthodox church claims. How's anyone to know which if any are right?

Say you see five partners who have a long-standing relationship. They had helped each other in the past and had done so on traditional rules that they all recognized. Now assume that one of them began demanding something beyond what had been there (namely that they all bow to him), and worse, began amending one of the most important written documents, under various pretexts. The conflict results in a separation of the partners. Four go one way, and the one making the changes that offended the others is left to himself.

If we see something like that, then we immediately conclude the one offending the others is likely to be the culprit, not the four. That's the way it was then. There were five sees that acted coequally. In all reality, they were chosen because of their size and influence (Jerusalem being the last, because it was a small city, despite its stature in Apostolic influence, and it only did so when Christians began making regular pilgrimages, bringing them influence), which was augmented by their apostolic origins. Each one was independant, with differing positions of honor. Never did the papacy control Constantinople directly, for instance.

Now we also have the original form of the Nicene Creed. The Latins added a clause to a Creed created by the whole Church and demanded that it be formally recognized (and such was the state of the papacy at the time, that it even claimed the Greeks had removed the clause), and this after such changes were forbidden. It, further, asserted that all the other sees accede to it. This was unprecedented, and when either the change to the Creed or the claim to supremacy came to the attention of the East, they regarded it as scandalous (and the two issues are interconnected). Here it was the West innovating and changing things.

So, the question comes down to: did the papacy have the right to develop new, hitherto unseen, powers and change the most precious document in Christianity outside the Scripture, or did they overstep themselves in grabbing for power? If the answer is "they didn't have the right," then succession becomes crystal clear. If you say "They did have the right," then the East erred and succession goes to the West. In either case, it turns on this and a few related issues to it (virtually all of which are determined here anyway). We, therefore, do have a clear succession: one patriarch or the four offended patriarchs?

KnightRider said:
One last question - doesn't the Nicean Creed declare a trinitarian Godhood (all three in the same being)? Is that what the Orthodox believe?

Yes. We believe that the Father is the source of all being. The Son is begotten of the Father before all ages, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father (not the Father and the Son). All three are separate Persons and all three are equally God, the same God.
 

Smoke

Done here.
No*s said:
Most every heresy can be traced to a single founder, a single time, even if it doesn't die (there are exceptions, of course). [...]

In each case, though, we can trace the novelty of the teaching.
Not always. The Ebionites and Monophysites, for instance, don't have one clear leader or originator of their teachings, and modern Oriental Orthodox consider Cyril of Alexandria a proponent of Miaphysim, with some justification. Adoptionism is arguably a view that has existed throughout the history of Christianity.

At the same time, many orthodox doctrines do have a clear origin and a clear founder. The writings of Paul, of course, are the sine qua non of orthodoxy, and Athanasius undoubtedly went a long way toward formulating and defining the doctrine of the Trinity as it came to be accepted. Some of the doctrines that distinguish Eastern Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism originate with Photius the Great in the 9th century or Gregory Palamas in the 14th. (And Roman Catholicism has its own novelties.)

So the antiquity or novelty of a doctrine is no measure of its orthodoxy, and whether it's primarily associated with one leader isn't, either. As you say in another post, the majority of bishops inclined to Arianism before the Nicene Council, and were only persuaded to adopt the Nicene definition during the Council.

The point is that we can't see orthodoxy as this monolithic body of doctrine that existed in the first century and only refined its doctrines in response to heresy. There were tensions in the early Jesus community almost from the beginning. Besides the tension between what we might call Jamesian and Pauline Christianity, there were other perspectives and tensions floating around in the early community, as well.

It would be more accurate to see orthodoxy as a synthesis of some of these viewpoints. This orthodox synthesis was later refined, often in response to heresy, and sometimes excluding views that would have been "orthodox" in an earlier generation. Justin Martyr seems to have held to what was later called Chiliasm; Gregory of Nyssa was undoubtedly a Universalist; Cyril of Alexandria, whatever he meant by it, used terminology no Orthodox or Catholic writer would use today; the Orthodox Church commemorates saints who undoubtedly affirmed the filioque version of the Creed; and there are some saints (including Cyril, but also others) who are claimed by the Eastern Orthodox as dyophysites and by the Oriental Orthodox as miaphysites. Nothing is as neat or as clearly defined as the churches would like to make it.

KnightRider said:
One other concern I have is illustrated by the other debate going on in this thread: the dispute over Peter vs James as head of the apostleship. If this debate has roots back to the 4th or 5th centuries then apparently there was no clear passing-on of authority. If there had been a clear succession of authority there would have been no need of councils and I would think that it would have been clearly documented.
I didn't mean to say that James was a sort of Pope. I think his leadership was unquestioned, but nevertheless he acted in concert with the other apostles and even with the leaders appointed by the apostles.

There's an undoubted succession of bishops, and a clear passing-on of authority, at least in many of the early Christian groups. However, that historical continuity of leadership doesn't always translate into continuity of doctrine, as we can see by the fact that apostolic succession is claimed with a degree of credibility by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, and Nestorians alike -- and by other groups no longer extant.
 
No*s

OK, for the most part I am satisfied with your answers. If the historical description that you've provided is accurate I believe you have a lot stronger foundation than the Roman Catholic church. There are two aspects of a religion that I consider vital in establishing credible grounds for being a pure or true religion: how it came into existance (its founding), and its doctrines. You have given a compelling argument for Orthodoxy as the succession of the church that Christ established. There is still one piece that I question, and that deals with Apostleship. There is precedence in the New Testament when Judas died, that another, Matthias, was called to fill his vacancy among the 12. If there was unbroken succession then why were there no Apostles at the time of the councils (those after the Council at Jerusalem)? By Apostles I refer to the 12 who by N.T. accounts superceeded the Seventy and Bishops in authority.

I understand that you might argue that there were Apostles at that time and herein lies my confusion. If there were 12 Apostles why is there no mention of them (at least widely circulated), and why is there no documentation of succession like that found in the case of Matthias. Without such information, I'm left thinking either the Apostleship was somehow preserved without documentation, thus preserving the doctrine and authority that Christ established; or the Apostleship did not survive and we're left waiting for some heavenly intervention to reestablish the pure and true doctrines of Christianity.

Now on to the second aspect: the doctrines. There are a few doctrines that I feel very strongly about at a moral level that I can't see myself parting with. They include the following:
- I believe that indulgences (those acceptible by the Catholic church in earlier times) are a complete abomination. I don't know if the Orthodox have ever supported this doctrine but I think that any organization that has ever allowed for a "remission of sins" through financial means or by reciting N number of prayers is not founded on true principles and has no claim to divine inspiration.
- I believe that the establishment of religious ideas by force or persecution on people is completely contrary to Christ's teachings and any organization that does so is not founded on Christ. Fighting for defense of ones religious liberties is one thing, but forcing ones religion on another is entirely different. Again I'm not pointing fingers at the Orthodox, I don't know the history well enough.
- I believe that those who die without the chance to learn of Christ's gospel, including infants, are not going to Hell (or are denied salvation). This makes up a large portion of the human race over the ages and I believe that God is a merciful God and would not allow that. I cannot accept a religion that makes such claims. I do however believe that God is just, and acceptance of Christ and obediance to his laws are necessary for salvation. I believe the true gospel has a rational answer or solution for this apparent contradiction of ideas.
- I believe that any religion that promotes celibacy or discourages marriage, even among its leaders, is not consistant with the scriptures. There is evidence that Peter and other Apostles and Bishops, etc had wives and families. I can accept that religious leaders don't NEED to be married, but I think its flat out wrong to REQUIRE celibacy in order to be an Apostle, Bishop, or any other authority within Christ's church.

Other doctrines that I don't feel as strongly about at a moral level as those above but still concern me include the following:
- I have problems with icons, especially when they are used to pray to or communicate through in some form, as far as I know there is no support for it in the Bible, to the contrary there are continually commands against any form of such idols. Sculptures or paintings used for artistic or visual aid purposes are fine, but it troubles me when they are seen as much more than that.
- I'm still confused about the whole Trinity notion. For me the Nicean Creed adds to the confusion of the actual relationship between God and Jesus. When I envision them I think of Stephen's account in Acts where he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Two separate individuals. We know from the N.T. that Christ had a tangible, resurrected body. I would assume that God would have a similar glorified body and that sounds consistent with Stephens vision. So when you said "All three are separate Persons and all three are equally God, the same God", are you saying you agree that they are separate individuals? Then in what way are they equally the same God? I assume you mean they are the same in purpose, power, and righteousness, is that assumption correct? Or do you suggest that they somehow mysteriously merge into the same physical being to literally become one God? Such an idea I find difficult to get my hands around and just as difficult to swallow.

I realize that this could be broken into several different posts, and I apologize for adding so much breadth to this thead, but its important for me to look at the religion from a doctrinal stand point to help potentially support the foundational/historical claims, which lack in proof of Apostolic succession. Also I realize that my doctrinal views above may be wrong, but my moral views are all I really have to make any sort of judgement.
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
KnightRider said:
No*s

OK, for the most part I am satisfied with your answers. If the historical description that you've provided is accurate I believe you have a lot stronger foundation than the Roman Catholic church. There are two aspects of a religion that I consider vital in establishing credible grounds for being a pure or true religion: how it came into existance (its founding), and its doctrines.
Hi, KnightRider.

I hope you don't mind my jumping this far into the discussion, but I would personally have to add one additional item to the criteria you have already mentioned. Both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy claim to have been "founded by" Jesus Christ. While most Protestant churches are far less concerned with the organizational structure of the Church, and focus instead on Church as a body of believers (united, it appears, by a most disparate collection of doctrines), I believe that Jesus did, in fact, establish a Church and that He gave authority to specific individuals. The only way that this authority could be passed along was if a person who held it personally conferred it upon another someone else. Regardless of whether both the Roman and Eastern Churches claim to have the same founder, it is inconceivable to me that they now both hold the same authority.

Linus was, according to Roman Catholicism, the second Pope to lead Christ's Church, having immediately succeeded Peter. However, by the time Linus was Pope, not all of the Apostles had died. John the Beloved, for example, had been exiled to the Isle of Patmos. It was while He was there that he received the Book of Revelation. Doesn't it strike you as at all odd that God didn't give this very significant revelation through the individual who supposedly succeeded Peter? Why did He instead give it to an Apostle in exile? Could it have been because Linus really didn't hold the authority he claimed? Catholic and Orthodox Christians will, I'm sure, have an explanation for this. But as far as I'm concerned, God "bypassed" Linus and spoke to the only individual left living who had the authority given by Jesus Christ to lead His Church.

You have given a compelling argument for Orthodoxy as the succession of the church that Christ established. There is still one piece that I question, and that deals with Apostleship. There is precedence in the New Testament when Judas died, that another, Matthias, was called to fill his vacancy among the 12. If there was unbroken succession then why were there no Apostles at the time of the councils (those after the Council at Jerusalem)? By Apostles I refer to the 12 who by N.T. accounts superceeded the Seventy and Bishops in authority.
Good point. Matthias was not the only individual called to be an Apostle, who was not one of the original twelve. Paul claimed to have been called to be an Apostle (1 Corinthians 1:1). According to the writer of Acts, Barnabas was also called to this office, and in Galatians, James (the brother of Jesus) is referred to as an Apostle. It is clear to me that Christ intended that a quorum of twelve men stand at the head of His Church and that the Apostles realized this. They obviously attempted to fill vacancies in the group as they came up. So what happened to this governing body that Jesus Christ organized? The notion that the function of the Apostles was somehow assumed by bishops, cardinals, etc. doesn't hold water, in my opinion. Seriously, how is it possible to have apostolic succession without Apostles?

Just my thoughts, but I'd be interested in hearing your comments.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
KnightRider said:
Victor, thanks for the links, I'll try to read through them the quantity is a little overwhelming, but worth it to me. From what I've studied, I agree with you through the first few centuries, when Apostles were still around and their established branches were still fresh. It appears to me however that the church eventually became spread quite thin with followers in many geographical locations but lacked the leadership outreach (communication, travel limitations) to adequately handle it. Not to mention the persecution that threatened and took the life of many of the early leaders. So it seems inevitable to me that by 300+ AD there were easily isolated groups that had completely differing thoughts or traditions on true Christianity. Thus resulting in a need for the councils to vote/decide on the true doctrines. I would like to believe that pure Christianity remained in tact through this period but I have a hard time believing it did with some of the doctrines and non-humane treatment that the resulting church endorsed over the next several centuries. Also what happened to the precedence of 12 apostles as established in the N.T. Please understand I'm not attacking Catholisism, there are just a lot of historical events and even current doctrines that I have troubles accepting represent the pure Christianity of the N.T.
The answer is that all of the early Christian sects thought that they were the "true" Christianity. I'm not convinced that they were isolated because the orthodox group sought to distinguish itself from the beginning. It was pretty easy to tell the difference between the heterodox and orthodox churches: the heterodox churches rejected the writings of the orthodox (the NT and patristic letters).
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
MidnightBlue said:
Not always. The Ebionites and Monophysites, for instance, don't have one clear leader or originator of their teachings, and modern Oriental Orthodox consider Cyril of Alexandria a proponent of Miaphysim, with some justification. Adoptionism is arguably a view that has existed throughout the history of Christianity.

At the same time, many orthodox doctrines do have a clear origin and a clear founder. The writings of Paul, of course, are the sine qua non of orthodoxy, and Athanasius undoubtedly went a long way toward formulating and defining the doctrine of the Trinity as it came to be accepted. Some of the doctrines that distinguish Eastern Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism originate with Photius the Great in the 9th century or Gregory Palamas in the 14th. (And Roman Catholicism has its own novelties.)

So the antiquity or novelty of a doctrine is no measure of its orthodoxy, and whether it's primarily associated with one leader isn't, either. As you say in another post, the majority of bishops inclined to Arianism before the Nicene Council, and were only persuaded to adopt the Nicene definition during the Council.

The point is that we can't see orthodoxy as this monolithic body of doctrine that existed in the first century and only refined its doctrines in response to heresy. There were tensions in the early Jesus community almost from the beginning. Besides the tension between what we might call Jamesian and Pauline Christianity, there were other perspectives and tensions floating around in the early community, as well.

It would be more accurate to see orthodoxy as a synthesis of some of these viewpoints. This orthodox synthesis was later refined, often in response to heresy, and sometimes excluding views that would have been "orthodox" in an earlier generation. Justin Martyr seems to have held to what was later called Chiliasm; Gregory of Nyssa was undoubtedly a Universalist; Cyril of Alexandria, whatever he meant by it, used terminology no Orthodox or Catholic writer would use today; the Orthodox Church commemorates saints who undoubtedly affirmed the filioque version of the Creed; and there are some saints (including Cyril, but also others) who are claimed by the Eastern Orthodox as dyophysites and by the Oriental Orthodox as miaphysites. Nothing is as neat or as clearly defined as the churches would like to make it..

Yes, Chalcedon was a mess. It was the thing that caused me the most trouble in deciding on where I could go. I found that Orthodoxy makes its peace with St. Cyril pretty easily also. The problem arose because there were monophysite teachings prior to this (like St. Ephraim the Syrian), but again, I noticed that when it came from a see so that all could notice it, it blew up. It's not the most complicated way of looking at it (more simplistic, trusting that Christ works things out).

The Filioque itself might not have been that great an issue had it not been tied to papal supremacy (and secular politics). None of the saints before it had been condemned heretics; the belief itself was controversial when seen, but the people weren't condemned.

Orthodoxy doesn't see saints as perfect, and thus St. Gregory of Nyssa makes mistakes, as does Ss. Augustine, Justin Martyr, and the others. This is especially so before there's a big hubub and something's clarified.

Good post and representitive of good reading :).
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
KnightRider said:
OK, for the most part I am satisfied with your answers. If the historical description that you've provided is accurate I believe you have a lot stronger foundation than the Roman Catholic church. There are two aspects of a religion that I consider vital in establishing credible grounds for being a pure or true religion: how it came into existance (its founding), and its doctrines. You have given a compelling argument for Orthodoxy as the succession of the church that Christ established. There is still one piece that I question, and that deals with Apostleship. There is precedence in the New Testament when Judas died, that another, Matthias, was called to fill his vacancy among the 12. If there was unbroken succession then why were there no Apostles at the time of the councils (those after the Council at Jerusalem)? By Apostles I refer to the 12 who by N.T. accounts superceeded the Seventy and Bishops in authority.

I understand that you might argue that there were Apostles at that time and herein lies my confusion. If there were 12 Apostles why is there no mention of them (at least widely circulated), and why is there no documentation of succession like that found in the case of Matthias. Without such information, I'm left thinking either the Apostleship was somehow preserved without documentation, thus preserving the doctrine and authority that Christ established; or the Apostleship did not survive and we're left waiting for some heavenly intervention to reestablish the pure and true doctrines of Christianity.

The Apostles were bishops. If you'll read the passage in Acts closely (I know the KJV has bishopric), you'll see this in Acts 1.20. The Apostles did appoint other people to the office they held (though, of course, they can never be of the same stature as the first, though some come close). Even today, some bishops are dubbed "Apostles" on account of their ministry. In the ninth century, Ss. Cyril and Methodius were the Apostles to the Slavs. St. Innocent of Alaska was an Apostle to America (My ecclesiastical name is Innocent).

KnightRider said:
Now on to the second aspect: the doctrines. There are a few doctrines that I feel very strongly about at a moral level that I can't see myself parting with. They include the following:
- I believe that indulgences (those acceptible by the Catholic church in earlier times) are a complete abomination. I don't know if the Orthodox have ever supported this doctrine but I think that any organization that has ever allowed for a "remission of sins" through financial means or by reciting N number of prayers is not founded on true principles and has no claim to divine inspiration.

No, this has no place in Orthodoxy. The RC soteriology and Orthodox soteriology are sufficiently different now that this is one of the results. It just wouldn't make sense in our faith.

KnightRider said:
I believe that the establishment of religious ideas by force or persecution on people is completely contrary to Christ's teachings and any organization that does so is not founded on Christ. Fighting for defense of ones religious liberties is one thing, but forcing ones religion on another is entirely different. Again I'm not pointing fingers at the Orthodox, I don't know the history well enough.

I'm ashamed to admit, there is some dirty history by Orthodox Christians. No Orthodox bishop has fielded an army. However, it has been the state church for states that have stepped over the line with various Christian sects (not quite like the Inquisition), and sadly, there were pogroms in Russia. These were the actions of individuals, not the Church, but it is still a spot on our history. When you get to be a couple of thousand years old, you'll always develop some skeletons.

KnightRider said:
I believe that those who die without the chance to learn of Christ's gospel, including infants, are not going to Hell (or are denied salvation). This makes up a large portion of the human race over the ages and I believe that God is a merciful God and would not allow that. I cannot accept a religion that makes such claims. I do however believe that God is just, and acceptance of Christ and obediance to his laws are necessary for salvation. I believe the true gospel has a rational answer or solution for this apparent contradiction of ideas.

Orthodoxy regularly prays for the dead and there is some disagreement on the afterlife here, but it is an accepted doctrine that people can escape Hell should they repent (this was part of the reason St. Gregory of Nyssa was a universalist), but not everyone will. Prayer can really help people, even the non-Orthodox (though the official services are offered only for the Orthodox).

We, further, do not know the state of anyone. Someone standing next to you, for some strange reason, may still make it into the after life even if he is an atheist. That said, though, we aren't going to present those odds as very sanguine if we're asked about them. The point is, we don't know, and we shouldn't judge the eternal fate of anyone.

KnightRider said:
I believe that any religion that promotes celibacy or discourages marriage, even among its leaders, is not consistant with the scriptures. There is evidence that Peter and other Apostles and Bishops, etc had wives and families. I can accept that religious leaders don't NEED to be married, but I think its flat out wrong to REQUIRE celibacy in order to be an Apostle, Bishop, or any other authority within Christ's church.

Orthodoxy allows priests to marry before ordination, but after ordination their marital status is permanent (barring the dissolution of the marriage by something like death). If a priest's wife dies, for example, he remains single. Bishops are pretty much always going to be single. It would be better to bring that up in the Orthodox forum. That (among others) is a thread in and of itself.

KnightRider said:
Other doctrines that I don't feel as strongly about at a moral level as those above but still concern me include the following:
- I have problems with icons, especially when they are used to pray to or communicate through in some form, as far as I know there is no support for it in the Bible, to the contrary there are continually commands against any form of such idols. Sculptures or paintings used for artistic or visual aid purposes are fine, but it troubles me when they are seen as much more than that.

We already have a thread on that one to address the issue on this thread. Most of the points/counter-points are already there. Icons were the most troubling doctrine for me (and the most troubling council was Chalcedon). I was something of an iconoclast before my conversion ;).

KnightRider said:
I'm still confused about the whole Trinity notion. For me the Nicean Creed adds to the confusion of the actual relationship between God and Jesus. When I envision them I think of Stephen's account in Acts where he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Two separate individuals. We know from the N.T. that Christ had a tangible, resurrected body. I would assume that God would have a similar glorified body and that sounds consistent with Stephens vision. So when you said "All three are separate Persons and all three are equally God, the same God", are you saying you agree that they are separate individuals? Then in what way are they equally the same God? I assume you mean they are the same in purpose, power, and righteousness, is that assumption correct? Or do you suggest that they somehow mysteriously merge into the same physical being to literally become one God? Such an idea I find difficult to get my hands around and just as difficult to swallow.

You aren't the only person with problems there. Once St. Augustine was wandering on the beach, thinking about the Trinity. He looked over and saw a young girl trying to fill a whole she dug with water, but as soon as she got it filled, the water would flow out; there was too much. He walked over and pressed her, "My child, what are you doing?"

She responded with, "I'm trying to put the ocean into my hole."

"Don't you know that the ocean is far too great for such a small hole or any hole you can dig?" he chided the girl.

Immediately she looked up and responded, "Then how is it that you, a finite man, think that you can comprehend then infinite God?" and immediately disappeared.

The Trinity is beyond us, and the language of the Creed is meant to limit which directions we go, not give us comprehension of it the same way we can comprehend a theorem or basic lesson in life. In fact, if you have a conception about an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator (who necessarily exists beyond the universe) that doesn't dizzy you, then you already know that you have the wrong conception. We scarcely understand ourselves, less our neighbors, and less things farther out. God is infinitely more complex.

So, following that, yes, they are all three literally one God. They have a bond of love, which they all share, and all of them being God, have love as their nature. This perfect union makes the three Individuals one Individual with three Persons, all equally God and beginningless.

KnightRider said:
I realize that this could be broken into several different posts, and I apologize for adding so much breadth to this thead, but its important for me to look at the religion from a doctrinal stand point to help potentially support the foundational/historical claims, which lack in proof of Apostolic succession. Also I realize that my doctrinal views above may be wrong, but my moral views are all I really have to make any sort of judgement.

No problem. I'm trying to fit it into one post ;).
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
"He looked over and saw a young girl trying to fill a whole she dug with water, but as soon as she got it filled, the water would flow out; there was too much. He walked over and pressed her, "My child, what are you doing?"

She responded with, "I'm trying to put the ocean into my hole."

"Don't you know that the ocean is far too great for such a small hole or any hole you can dig?" he chided the girl.

Immediately she looked up and responded, "Then how is it that you, a finite man, think that you can comprehend then infinite God?" and immediately disappeared."

"A drop of the billowing ocean of His endless mercy hath adorned all creation with the ornament of existence, and a breath wafted from His peerless Paradise hath invested all beings with the robe of His sanctity and glory. A sprinkling from the unfathomed deep of His sovereign and all-pervasive Will hath, out of utter nothingness, called into being a creation which is infinite in its range and deathless in its duration. The wonders of His bounty can never cease, and the stream of His merciful grace can never be arrested. The process of His creation hath had no beginning, and can have no end."
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 61)

Regards,
Scott
 
No*s said:
The Apostles were bishops. If you'll read the passage in Acts closely (I know the KJV has bishopric), you'll see this in Acts 1.20. The Apostles did appoint other people to the office they held (though, of course, they can never be of the same stature as the first, though some come close). Even today, some bishops are dubbed "Apostles" on account of their ministry. In the ninth century, Ss. Cyril and Methodius were the Apostles to the Slavs. St. Innocent of Alaska was an Apostle to America (My ecclesiastical name is Innocent).
After reading the above response I decided to investigate it a little further because you seemed to have a point. I found out what actual Greek word was used where we see bishopric in the KJV, and it was episkopes, which is literally translated/defined as follows (according to an online ancient Greek-to-English translation tool, so take it for what it's worth):
[font=Arial, Helvetica]
  1. investigation, inspection, visitation
    1. that act by which God looks into and searches out the ways, deeds character, of men, in order to adjudge them their lot accordingly, whether joyous or sad
    2. oversight
      1. overseership, office, charge, the office of an elder
      2. the overseer or presiding officers of a Christian church
[/font]Based on this it is not at all clear that the "bishopric" referred to the actual office of Bishop, but could have easliy been intened to be read as overseership, office, or charge.

Further there are scriptures where the term bishop is used in context separate from that of Apostle, like the one in Philippians 1:1.

Either way we don't know for sure the authors' true meanings. So we're left to make our best judgement, hopefully with inspired help.

However, you sort of sidestepped the point I was originally trying to make. When Matthias was chosen to be the 12th apostle, the original 11 cast lots between him and another man who was apparently qualified. The fact is that they kept the Apostleship to 12. We can only assume that Paul, Barnabas and others were similarly called to the Apostleship as vacancies arose. I agree with Squirt that the Apostolic succession should be a succession of 12 Apostles not numerous regional bishops. I also don't see any Biblical evidence that those called after the original 12 are necessarily inferrior to them. If so why does most of the N.T. contain the writings of Paul and not one of the original 12?
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
KnightRider said:
After reading the above response I decided to investigate it a little further because you seemed to have a point. I found out what actual Greek word was used where we see bishopric in the KJV, and it was episkopes, which is literally translated/defined as follows (according to an online ancient Greek-to-English translation tool, so take it for what it's worth):
[font=Arial, Helvetica]
  1. investigation, inspection, visitation
    1. that act by which God looks into and searches out the ways, deeds character, of men, in order to adjudge them their lot accordingly, whether joyous or sad
    2. oversight
      1. overseership, office, charge, the office of an elder
      2. the overseer or presiding officers of a Christian church
[/font]Based on this it is not at all clear that the "bishopric" referred to the actual office of Bishop, but could have easliy been intened to be read as overseership, office, or charge.

Further there are scriptures where the term bishop is used in context separate from that of Apostle, like the one in Philippians 1:1.

Either way we don't know for sure the authors' true meanings. So we're left to make our best judgement, hopefully with inspired help.

No, we aren't. "office," "bishopric," "overseership," "charge," and the like all refer to the same thing. They are quantitatively the same thing. The only class of definitions that differs among the ones you listed were the first along the lines of investigation, which cannot fit the passage. We, therefore, can narrow down the definition to the one shade of meaning in "office," "bishopric," etc.

On the difference between Apostle and elder/bishop, you are right. There is a qualitatitive difference in that not all bishops are Apostles and the Twelve were superior to the others. This is a truth which a I acknowledged above.

KnightRider said:
However, you sort of sidestepped the point I was originally trying to make. When Matthias was chosen to be the 12th apostle, the original 11 cast lots between him and another man who was apparently qualified. The fact is that they kept the Apostleship to 12. We can only assume that Paul, Barnabas and others were similarly called to the Apostleship as vacancies arose. I agree with Squirt that the Apostolic succession should be a succession of 12 Apostles not numerous regional bishops. I also don't see any Biblical evidence that those called after the original 12 are necessarily inferrior to them. If so why does most of the N.T. contain the writings of Paul and not one of the original 12?

Your question rouses up the answer: the office wasn't limited to twelve Apostles (and I did not mean to sidestep your answer). What of Barnabas, Silas, and all the others? There were numerous Apostles, and while Paul coexisted, did he not argue from the fact that he was qualitatively an Apostle like the others? It remains that there were more than twelve apostles, and had there intended to be a succession of a literal twelve, we would have seen them continuing to ordain those. The immediate successors to the Apostles, though, knew of Apostolic succession, but of a very different variety.

I cannot offer you a more in depth answer till later. I'm about to have to leave the board for tonight (maybe tomorrow). I'm about to have to get ready for bed and work :(.
 
You're correct that there were more than 12 Apostles, but I'm suggesting that there existed a leading council of 12 Apostles that constituted the primary leadership and authority of the church. From what little information we have it appears that Paul was made an Apostle some time near or after the death of James (the brother of John). Whether he became part of this leading council of 12 (filling the void when James died) is obviously debatable. The only others directly referred to as Apostles (as far as I could find) include Barnabas and maybe James (depending on which James is referenced). These two could also have become part of the leading 12 as vacancies
were created.

I realize that to most this doesn't seem like an important issue - who cares who, how, why or even if certain individuals were called to the leading coucil of 12 Apostles? But for me the organizational structure of the church was established by Jesus for a reason and if the fundamental organization of the church was altered, whose to say that
the authority and doctrines weren't as well? After Christ ascended to heaven the 12 Apostles represented the head of the church on earth to oversee the Seventy, the Bishops, Priests, Deacons, etc. The Matthias example illustrates an attempt to preserve that head - a literal succession of 12 ordained Apostles. If their succession just dissolved among the Seventy and Bishops over time, how are we to know that true doctrines and authority weren't dissolved (tainted, altered, lost, etc) as well?

The bottom line is this: either this Apostolic succession occurred in such a way as to preserve the proper authority and doctrines or it didn't. If it did, the Orthodox church appears a strong candidate for Christ's true church in which the proper authority and pure doctrines can be found. If not, then either the truth is found among one of the
restorationist movements or is not yet avaliable on the earth at all.
 
Top