Scriptural argument for the Apostasy

Squirt said:

I think I'll begin by addressing the comments made in this post and then working backwards (since I somehow failed to notice this thread until just now). Jesus Christ did establish an organized Church. He referred to it as His Church. Paul said that He (Jesus Christ himself) "gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers..." He personally called them, ordained them and gave them the authority to act in His name so that His Church might continue to function as it would have done had He not been put to death.

Jesus sent out seventy of His disciples, but He never referred to them as His "Apostles." On the contrary, Luke 6:13 states that "...when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles." There are, throughout the New Testament, numerous references to "the twelve," clearly indicating that (1)their role was unique among all of Christ's followers and (2)they were to function as an united body.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to provide a pretty reputable source to convince me of that. Jesus ordained "the twelve" to be His Apostles. The Apostles, acting under the authority He gave them, in turn ordained others (how many, we do not know) to be bishops. Furthermore, the New Testament record is quite clear that, for a period of time, at least, whenever a vacancy among the Apostles occurred, a new Apostle was chosen to replace the one who had died. The scriptures mention four individuals by name who were not among the original twelve, but who were at some point called to be an Apostle, these being Matthias, Paul, Barnabus and James (Jesus' brother).

To become "imbedded bishops"? Where are you coming up with these ideas? Jesus Christ's Church was built on a foundation of Prophets and Apostles and, according to Paul, this organization was to continue to exist until such time as "we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God." Are we there yet? Hardly! Therefore, the conditions permitting this organization to be discontinued have never been met. Living Apostles were intended by Jesus Christ to be a part of His Church, and a Church cannot be "Apostolic" without Apostles. It's that simple!

Click to expand...

The Church Jesus ws referring to was the ecclesia -- the Body. Jesus didn't establish deacons -- the apostles did! Jesus didn't establish different communities in different places -- the apostles did! Jesus didn't establish Christianity as the state religion -- Constantine did! What are you talking about? The Church did not function in the same way after Jesus died, as it did prior. The organization and character (not the nature) changed drastically following Jesus' death.

Again...semantics. There's nothing sacred about the names we use -- they're meant ot be descriptive of the function of the office. The word "apostle" means "sent out." Jesus gathered seventy people and sent them out! They were apostles, because that was the job they did! Just because the gospelers didn't specifically refer to them as "apostles," and just because the English may translate a little differently, does not mean that they weren't apostles -- those who were sent out.

Yes, the role of the Twelve was unique. They had been called out from the body of disciples for a special ministry. I've never contended that. When Jesus was about to leave, he ordained them to have authority and to oversee the Church. The word bishop, or episkopos, means "overseer." Jesus made the Twelve bishops, or overseers, of the Church. Their job was to "go out" (apostle) into the world, and to "oversee" (bishop) the affairs of the Church.

That's correct. That's what I've been saying, that the Twelve chose their own replacements and made them bishops, too.

Bishops do not travel anymore. They are in authority over a specific area, along with other bishops, who are in authority over other specific areas. Together, they govern the Church. But they do not travel. They are not "sent out" anymore. The "job" of apostle has become the "job" of bishop. Bishops are still called "apostles" out of a sense of who they descended from. There is an apostolic succession of bishops in the Church.

Remember that Paul's world view was much different than ours. To Paul, the unification of the Church through the ecumenical councils, the establishment of the Church as the state religion, and the political sway of the Church through the Middle Ages would have been indicators that they "had all come in the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God." Our world is much bigger than Paul's, and our religious scenery far, far different. For all intents and purposes, the Church was one for centuries!

Christ's Church was built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles -- and it has continued upon that foundation, led by its bishops, who have been authorized by the apostles. What's the problem?

sojourner said:

That's true, in a sense. We don't need someone to "make the sacrifice for us" anymore. BUT, we do need some human to lead us, if we're going to be a human organization. Just as all of us are Jesus' hands and feet on earth, somebody has to act on behalf of the head, which is Christ. Those people are the ones whw are specially set aside for that special ministry. Not everyone is called to act on behalf of the head -- but some are.

Click to expand...

So.... where are the scriptures telling us we HAVE to have some human lead us? We should be led by the SPIRIT.

Romans 8:12 Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. NIV

and again:

Galations 5:16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. NIV

Of course there is Paul's stern warning about listening to mere men:

Galations 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! NIV

How about Peter before the elders in Jerusalem???

Acts 4:18 Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. 20 For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." NIV

Oh yeah, I'm gonna desert the Spirit of the most Holy God and follow man! NOT!!!

A note... I am going out of town to train Boy Scout Leaders. I might not have access until Monday.

sojourner said:

Of course all Christians are set aside by their baptism to be a priesthood. That's scriptural! But we're aruging semantics, not substance. While it is true that we are all set aside to a priesthood, it is also true (from the biblical example of Jesus setting aside twelve from the disciples) that some are further set aside to a special ministry. That ministry, historically and Biblically, has been one of leadership. The Church has always had spiritual leadership in the form of ministerial offices -- originally bishop (or apostle, or elder), presbyter (priest), and deacon.

"Priest" is not a synonym for "special minister" anymore, since there is no longer a sacrifice to be made on our behalf. Our use of "priest" to designate a special minister is a misnomer.

Interestingly, bishops are still referred to as "apostle," even though the function is not the same. I contend that, when Jesus placed the Apostles (original Twelve) in charge to govern, he ordained them to the office of bishop, or "overseer." As I said, as the Church became more stable and established, itinerant apostles were not needed, so much as bishops, who were imbedded in one specific community.

Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you have said. The point where we differ is the last paragraph. My argument with what you claim is that I believe the church was never stable and never completely established. It was a missionary church - always expanding, always looking to grow. With this as the case Apostles were always needed to be "sent out" to organize and strengthen the church where it was most needed. The Apostles ordained and oversaw the Bishops who, as you mentioned, were local to one specific community. What you are suggesting is a very horizontal leadership heirarchy. Christ and the apostles established one more vertical, with Christ being the head and the Apostles under Him.

NetDoc said:

So.... where are the scriptures telling us we HAVE to have some human lead us? We should be led by the SPIRIT.

Romans 8:12 Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. NIV

and again:

Galations 5:16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. NIV

Of course there is Paul's stern warning about listening to mere men:

Galations 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! NIV

How about Peter before the elders in Jerusalem???

Acts 4:18 Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. 20 For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." NIV

Oh yeah, I'm gonna desert the Spirit of the most Holy God and follow man! NOT!!!

A note... I am going out of town to train Boy Scout Leaders. I might not have access until Monday.

Click to expand...

Jesus led us. He was fully human. It's scripturally clear that the Twelve had assumed some kind of authority to lead. They were human. And they passed that authority on to other humans...like the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople. When the ecclesia senses that the Holy Spirit is working in some individuals in a special way, the ecclesia calls those people out, and sets them aside for a special ministry of spiritual leadership. The ecclesia trusts in those persons, because the ecclesia trusts in the Holy Spirit. They perceive the Holy Spirit working through these leaders.

Polaris said:

I agree with much of what you have said. The point where we differ is the last paragraph. My argument with what you claim is that I believe the church was never stable and never completely established. It was a missionary church - always expanding, always looking to grow. With this as the case Apostles were always needed to be "sent out" to organize and strengthen the church where it was most needed. The Apostles ordained and oversaw the Bishops who, as you mentioned, were local to one specific community. What you are suggesting is a very horizontal leadership heirarchy. Christ and the apostles established one more vertical, with Christ being the head and the Apostles under Him.

Click to expand...

And that hierarchy is still very vertical in the historic apostolic churches. Take a look at the Orthodox and Roman and Anglican Churches. Apostles are still, indeed, sent out. We call them evangelists now. The shifting that has occurred is a shifting of authority from the traveling evangelists to the embedded bishopric.

sojourner said:

Jesus led us. He was fully human.

Click to expand...

He was also fully God and fully Spirit.

sojourner said:

It's scripturally clear that the Twelve had assumed some kind of authority to lead. They were human. And they passed that authority on to other humans...like the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople. When the ecclesia senses that the Holy Spirit is working in some individuals in a special way, the ecclesia calls those people out, and sets them aside for a special ministry of spiritual leadership. The ecclesia trusts in those persons, because the ecclesia trusts in the Holy Spirit. They perceive the Holy Spirit working through these leaders.

Click to expand...

So trot out these scriptures... that was a part of the OP that we would rely on scripture. So far, I have done just that.

NetDoc said:

He was also fully God and fully Spirit.

So trot out these scriptures... that was a part of the OP that we would rely on scripture. So far, I have done just that.

Click to expand...

Read Acts.

sojourner said:

And that hierarchy is still very vertical in the historic apostolic churches. Take a look at the Orthodox and Roman and Anglican Churches. Apostles are still, indeed, sent out. We call them evangelists now. The shifting that has occurred is a shifting of authority from the traveling evangelists to the embedded bishopric.

Click to expand...

I agree at a local level the focus is on the embedded bishopric, but they must report to someone. Similarly a higher office is needed to regulate and oversee the affairs concerning the Bishops. As the chruch expands, there could be hundreds or thousands of Bishops. Some higher authority has to be responsible for calling, ordaining, training, and overseeing the local Bishops or the doctrines would begin to drift depending on which Bishop you were under. This role of general governing falls on the leading Apostles. This is very evident in the scriptures. Most of the epistles in the N.T. are corrective in nature and directed towards specific local groups (eg. saints in Corinth, etc). It is likely that some of these groups had their own Bishops but the Apostles saw the need to instruct and correct to keep the local membership, including the Bishops, on the correct path. Nowhere in scripture does it indicate that the general governing responsibilities of the Apostles would receed into the localized responsibilities of the Bishops, and it simply doesn't make sense for it to do so.

Polaris said:

I agree at a local level the focus is on the embedded bishopric, but they must report to someone. Similarly a higher office is needed to regulate and oversee the affairs concerning the Bishops. As the chruch expands, there could be hundreds or thousands of Bishops. Some higher authority has to be responsible for calling, ordaining, training, and overseeing the local Bishops or the doctrines would begin to drift depending on which Bishop you were under. This role of general governing falls on the leading Apostles. This is very evident in the scriptures. Most of the epistles in the N.T. are corrective in nature and directed towards specific local groups (eg. saints in Corinth, etc). It is likely that some of these groups had their own Bishops but the Apostles saw the need to instruct and correct to keep the local membership, including the Bishops, on the correct path. Nowhere in scripture does it indicate that the general governing responsibilities of the Apostles would receed into the localized responsibilities of the Bishops, and it simply doesn't make sense for it to do so.

Click to expand...

You have to kick it down a notch. Because it became impossible for the bishops (apostles) be be everywhere, they authorized people to act in their stead -- presbyters. Presbyters were called out of the local congregation to lead the congregation in the absence of the bishop. But the presbyters were (and still are) under the guidance and control of their bishops.

Why is it so difficult to see that the apostlate became the bishopric? In the Anglican Church, for example, there is a college of bishops, who are all in the apostolic succession of bishops. They are all co-equal in authority. No bishop may tell another bishop what to do. New bishops are consecrated by the laying on of hands of three other bishops. In this way, the apostolic succession is maintained. In the Anglican communion, there are hundreds of bishops, each one responsible for his or her own diocese. There is the Archbishop of Canterbury, but, even though he is the Primate, he does not have authority over any of the American bishops, for example.

It actually does talk about the collegiality of the bishops in the NT. Peter was in charge of the Church in Jerusalem. Phillip went elsewhere, Andrew went somewhere else. Thomas went to India, for Pete's sake. All of the apostles were "sent out" into the world to spread the gospel, but they all wrote letters and discussed matters of doctrine and practice with each other. When they got where they were going, they began planting congregations, and became the bishops of the areas where they settled. As far as I know, Paul was the only one who remained itenerant...and even he was in authority over the congregations he planted...and had presbyters to take care of them. In the ancient world, those areas of jurisdiction would have been very large for one person to cover. That's why they needed more and more as the Church grew. Today, the number of bishops in the Anglican, Roman, Eastern, and ELCA churches is staggering...and each one within the apostolic succession.

sojourner said:

You have to kick it down a notch. Because it became impossible for the bishops (apostles) be be everywhere, they authorized people to act in their stead -- presbyters. Presbyters were called out of the local congregation to lead the congregation in the absence of the bishop. But the presbyters were (and still are) under the guidance and control of their bishops.

Click to expand...

Wait, I thought you said Bishops were embedded in a local area.

sojourner said:

Why is it so difficult to see that the apostlate became the bishopric? In the Anglican Church, for example, there is a college of bishops, who are all in the apostolic succession of bishops. They are all co-equal in authority. No bishop may tell another bishop what to do. New bishops are consecrated by the laying on of hands of three other bishops. In this way, the apostolic succession is maintained. In the Anglican communion, there are hundreds of bishops, each one responsible for his or her own diocese. There is the Archbishop of Canterbury, but, even though he is the Primate, he does not have authority over any of the American bishops, for example.

Click to expand...

Again, what you're describing here sounds like a very horizontal heirarchy. There has to be some higher centralized authority above that of a regional or local Bishop. Otherwise how do you keep a Bishop (or succession of Bishops) from slowly altering the doctrines or practices. There has to be a smaller body of centralized leadership (by centralized I mean in constant contact to discuss and resolve chruch-wide issues) at some higher level to maintain purity of doctrine. This was the role of the Apostles in the N.T. and should still be so today.

sojourner said:

It actually does talk about the collegiality of the bishops in the NT. Peter was in charge of the Church in Jerusalem. Phillip went elsewhere, Andrew went somewhere else. Thomas went to India, for Pete's sake. All of the apostles were "sent out" into the world to spread the gospel, but they all wrote letters and discussed matters of doctrine and practice with each other. When they got where they were going, they began planting congregations, and became the bishops of the areas where they settled. As far as I know, Paul was the only one who remained itenerant...and even he was in authority over the congregations he planted...and had presbyters to take care of them. In the ancient world, those areas of jurisdiction would have been very large for one person to cover. That's why they needed more and more as the Church grew. Today, the number of bishops in the Anglican, Roman, Eastern, and ELCA churches is staggering...and each one within the apostolic succession.

Click to expand...

Just because the early Apostles traveled to various locations doesn't mean that they made permanant residence there to become the embedded bishop. They were likely there just long enough to establish the church and get it going strong, which included ordaining a bishop to stay and watch the flock. Then when things were well established they moved on to expand the church to other locations. Unfortunately we don't have a lot of accessible information to know for sure where they went or exactly what they did. But it seems reasonable to assume that they did similar things to Paul only in different geographical locations.

So are you implying that the discussion of qualification for the office of Bishop as detailed in 1 Timothy 3 refers to the office of Apostle? I understand them as two completely separate and distinct offices with the Apostles to oversee the church on a large scale and Bishops to oversee the local congregations but report to the Apostles, and nowhere in scripture does it indicate that Apostleship will become absorbed into the Bishopric.

sojourner said:

The Church Jesus ws referring to was the ecclesia -- the Body. Jesus didn't establish deacons -- the apostles did! Jesus didn't establish different communities in different places -- the apostles did! Jesus didn't establish Christianity as the state religion -- Constantine did! What are you talking about?

Click to expand...

Yes, the Church was the body of believers who chose to follow Jesus Christ. But it was an organized, structured body. Jesus Christ established the doctrines and the priesthood offices that were to be a part of His Church forever. I'll go along with you that "Jesus didn't establish different communities in different places." But that particular fact has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the He intended that His Church operate under a specific heirarchy of leadership. As to whether Jesus established Christianity as a state religion, I'm not sure why you would even make such a pointless reference. As far as Jesus was concerned, His Church was to exist without geographical or political boundaries. Declaring His Church to be a "state religion" would be the furthest thing imaginable from His mind.

The Church did not function in the same way after Jesus died, as it did prior. The organization and character (not the nature) changed drastically following Jesus' death.

Click to expand...

And this very point is proof that an apostasy did, in fact, take place within a few short years after the deaths of His Apostles. The Prophets and Apostles He had ordained were martyred. There was, of course, persecution from the outside, but rejection of approved authority within the Church was also widespread. Once there were no more Prophets and Apostles, Christianity split into many factions, each one of these accusing the others of being apostate and by the middle of the second century, there was no clear-cut line between orthodoxy and heresy. As a matter of fact, the 2nd century Christian writer, Hegesippus stated that "the Church reamained a 'pure virgin' in the Apostles' day and was then corrupted by heresies."

Again...semantics. There's nothing sacred about the names we use -- they're meant ot be descriptive of the function of the office. The word "apostle" means "sent out." Jesus gathered seventy people and sent them out! They were apostles, because that was the job they did! Just because the gospelers didn't specifically refer to them as "apostles," and just because the English may translate a little differently, does not mean that they weren't apostles -- those who were sent out.

Click to expand...

I've already commented on this once. The "other seventy" (see Luke 10:1) that the Lord appointed were not called Apostles, not by Him, not by themselves, and certainly not by "the twelve." You can continue to insist that they were all one and the same, but your opinion is quite simply not supported in the scriptures.

That's correct. That's what I've been saying, that the Twelve chose their own replacements and made them bishops, too.

Click to expand...

It would certainly be nice if you could provide some scriptural evidence to support this statement. Bishops are not Apostles and never were Apostles. They were Bishops. They had a different function entirely than the Apostles.

Remember that Paul's world view was much different than ours. To Paul, the unification of the Church through the ecumenical councils, the establishment of the Church as the state religion, and the political sway of the Church through the Middle Ages would have been indicators that they "had all come in the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God." Our world is much bigger than Paul's, and our religious scenery far, far different. For all intents and purposes, the Church was one for centuries!

Click to expand...

I'm speechless! (Well, almost. ) Is this honestly what you believe? How extensively have you studied the medieval Church, and what do you really know about the medieval mindset? I can assure you (and can provide a lot of evidence to support my argument) that if the medieval Church was "one," it was for one reason and one reason only: In the medieval mind, there was simply no room whatsoever for doubt; skepticism was completely out of the question. "Overstating this absolutism," according to at least one medieval scholar, "is impossible."

Christ's Church was built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles -- and it has continued upon that foundation, led by its bishops, who have been authorized by the apostles. What's the problem?

Click to expand...

Everything I've stated.

I would like to add the following link because Religious Forums will not allow posts with more than 10,000 characters (article is more than 16,000). The article (which is mine) deals with the admonition of Paul the Apostle not to mix philosophy with religion, which Augustine did, thus showing an apostasy.

http://www.iowatelecom.net/%7Ehosea/index.html/_sgg/f10000.htm

opuntia said:

I would like to add the following link because Religious Forums will not allow posts with more than 10,000 characters (article is more than 16,000). The article (which is mine) deals with the admonition of Paul the Apostle not to mix philosophy with religion, which Augustine did, thus showing an apostasy.

http://www.iowatelecom.net/%7Ehosea/index.html/_sgg/f10000.htm

Click to expand...

Even if you were right (which I would dispute) how does anything that Bl. Augustine did become evidence of a general apostacy? He was one man, not the whole Church and all men, including saints, are fallible. In addition to this, considering his almost complete lack of an impact on any church outside of the See of Rome (he wasn't even translated from the Latin until very late so the Greek-speaking east could not even read his writings) even if it was evidence of some sort of an apostacy, it would be confined only to the west. Bl. Augustine's theology is still not accepted in the east and some of it is condemned heresy (after his death). We consider him a saint because of his great piety, not his erroneous theology. He does not have and never has had the sort of position in the east that he has had in the west (the sort of super-Father view) and frankly his views are of little consequence to us.

James

Polaris said:

Wait, I thought you said Bishops were embedded in a local area.



Again, what you're describing here sounds like a very horizontal heirarchy. There has to be some higher centralized authority above that of a regional or local Bishop. Otherwise how do you keep a Bishop (or succession of Bishops) from slowly altering the doctrines or practices. There has to be a smaller body of centralized leadership (by centralized I mean in constant contact to discuss and resolve chruch-wide issues) at some higher level to maintain purity of doctrine. This was the role of the Apostles in the N.T. and should still be so today.



Just because the early Apostles traveled to various locations doesn't mean that they made permanant residence there to become the embedded bishop. They were likely there just long enough to establish the church and get it going strong, which included ordaining a bishop to stay and watch the flock. Then when things were well established they moved on to expand the church to other locations. Unfortunately we don't have a lot of accessible information to know for sure where they went or exactly what they did. But it seems reasonable to assume that they did similar things to Paul only in different geographical locations.

So are you implying that the discussion of qualification for the office of Bishop as detailed in 1 Timothy 3 refers to the office of Apostle? I understand them as two completely separate and distinct offices with the Apostles to oversee the church on a large scale and Bishops to oversee the local congregations but report to the Apostles, and nowhere in scripture does it indicate that Apostleship will become absorbed into the Bishopric.

Click to expand...

1) They are over a specific area...it's called a "diocese." There are several congregations within a particular diocese. The bishop cannot be present at each congregation, so the bishop appointed presbyters to act in his stead. it's Biblical.

2) That was the role of the bishops -- and still is. Remember, constant contact in ancient times included writing letters that were hand-delivered...constant contact took months of time! And, yes, we do see evidence that the bishops disagreed with each other. One of the more famous is the dispute that Paul had with Peter over the circumcision issue. Bishops disagree today. That's the way it is with human organizations.

3) Now you're thinking too small. The apostles did go to widely-dispersed areas, and they established churches all over those areas. Some went to the area of Africa. Some went to the area of India. Some went to the area of Greece. Some went to the area of Asia Minor. When they got there, they stayed there and became the bishops of those (rather large) areas. They were the representative of the Church to those rather remote areas. But, yes, they did travel around those areas, establishing churches and visiting established churches.

4) Yes. That's what I'm not only implying, but asserting. You're thinking of the bishop in the presbyter role -- over a particular congregation. The presbyter governs a particular congregation, and reports to the bishop, who is over several congregations in his diocese. The bishop, in some churches, reports to his archbishop, who, in some churches, reports to his cardinal, or pope, or patriarch. The Episcopal Church has the simplest system: each diocese has a bishop. There is a college of bishops, and a presiding bishop, but the presiding bishop has no authority over the diocesans.

5) It is not explicit, but it is implicit in the scriptures, because it talks about how Peter, for example, led the Church in Jerusalem. It is implied that Peter was the diocesan bishop of Jerusalem, even if that language is not used. I use it to draw comparisons between "then" and "now," in order to show the flow of authority to the present day.

Squirt said:

Yes, the Church was the body of believers who chose to follow Jesus Christ. But it was an organized, structured body. Jesus Christ established the doctrines and the priesthood offices that were to be a part of His Church forever. I'll go along with you that "Jesus didn't establish different communities in different places." But that particular fact has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the He intended that His Church operate under a specific heirarchy of leadership. As to whether Jesus established Christianity as a state religion, I'm not sure why you would even make such a pointless reference. As far as Jesus was concerned, His Church was to exist without geographical or political boundaries. Declaring His Church to be a "state religion" would be the furthest thing imaginable from His mind.

And this very point is proof that an apostasy did, in fact, take place within a few short years after the deaths of His Apostles. The Prophets and Apostles He had ordained were martyred. There was, of course, persecution from the outside, but rejection of approved authority within the Church was also widespread. Once there were no more Prophets and Apostles, Christianity split into many factions, each one of these accusing the others of being apostate and by the middle of the second century, there was no clear-cut line between orthodoxy and heresy. As a matter of fact, the 2nd century Christian writer, Hegesippus stated that "the Church reamained a 'pure virgin' in the Apostles' day and was then corrupted by heresies."

I've already commented on this once. The "other seventy" (see Luke 10:1) that the Lord appointed were not called Apostles, not by Him, not by themselves, and certainly not by "the twelve." You can continue to insist that they were all one and the same, but your opinion is quite simply not supported in the scriptures.

It would certainly be nice if you could provide some scriptural evidence to support this statement. Bishops are not Apostles and never were Apostles. They were Bishops. They had a different function entirely than the Apostles.

I'm speechless! (Well, almost. ) Is this honestly what you believe? How extensively have you studied the medieval Church, and what do you really know about the medieval mindset? I can assure you (and can provide a lot of evidence to support my argument) that if the medieval Church was "one," it was for one reason and one reason only: In the medieval mind, there was simply no room whatsoever for doubt; skepticism was completely out of the question. "Overstating this absolutism," according to at least one medieval scholar, "is impossible."

Everything I've stated.

Click to expand...

1) Jesus called his apostles and sent them out. Then, he called them to be in authority. It makes no difference that the Biblical writers don't use the terminology of "bishop" in the gospels. Bishop means "overseer," which is what the Twelve did when Jesus commissioned them to "go into all the world"...which they did! When they got into all the known world, they became the overseers (bishops) of the churches they founded and appointed presbyters to act in their absence. Jesus, once again, did not ordain deacons, or presbyters. The apostles did.

Jesus worshiped in the Temple. That was his practice, and the practice of his disciples. they were practicing Jews. However, after Jesus' death, the Jews kicked the disciples out of the Temple and synagogues. Not what Jesus wanted, at all. The disciples had to fashion worship on their own, out of necessity. The "church" to Jesus was not an organization, but a group of people who followed. it became an organization at the hands of the apostles.

2) Give me a scriptural reference to Jesus having "ordained prophets." I don't know what you're talking about.

The "rejection of authority" you refer to comprises two problems of the early Church: a) "when the cat's away, the mice will play." The congregations, separated from the apostles by distance, often developed their "own" ways of doing things that did not please the apostles. When the apostles visited, they reprimanded the people and brought them back in line. b) The apostles, in charge of churches in different cultural regions, disagreed with each other about the "proper" theology and praxis. Disagreement does not constitute apostasy. The Church tried its very best, given constraints of distance, modes of transportation, and problems with communication, to develop and maintain an orthodox and uniform system of belief and praxis.

Are you telling me that the LDS is exactly the same, in doctrine and praxis, as the group of disciples that Jesus taught? It's not. It's different in some ways, just as the catholic Church is different in some ways. The Church is a living thing, and living things change in order to stay alive.

3) Again, anyone who is "sent out" is an apostle, just as anyone who travels is a "traveler," and anyone who speaks is a "speaker." Just because the gospel writers didn't give them the "official title" of apostle, doesn't mean that they weren't apostles.

4) You're right...they're two different jobs. Apostles are "sent out" and bishops "oversee." But the same people did those two jobs. Just because the nomenclature changed somewhat does not, once again, indicate an apostasy, nor does it mean that the people to whom Jesus gave authority either abused it, or lost the authority to act, as the Spirit led them. If you want scripture, read Acts. It's full of stories of the Twelve acting in their office as bishop.

Let's turn this around. I've hesitated to do this, because I don't want to offend...but you all seem to have no problem saying that I'm apostate, so here goes...
What if the churches in the apostolic succession are the "true Church," and it's the LDS who are apostate, by having shunned the apostolic succession of bishops? Sounds preposterous to you, doesn't it? It's inconceivable that something you've cherished all your life, that seems so true to you, could be in error, and, in fact, deviant from what Jesus wanted? I'm not saying that you are apostate...it's a "what if."

If the prophecy of the apostasy must have been fulfilled, why not you? Because somebody came along and said, "God talked to me and said...?" And because you happen to believe that person? There are many, many people who believe in the authority of the apostolic succession, too. We don't believe that the prophecy of the apostasy applies to us, either.

People can look at the Bible all they want to and find all kinds of things that indicate what they want to be indicated. The fact is that we just don't know for sure. All we can do at the end of the day is believe. Did an apostasy occur? We can't prove it by the Bible. Therefore, I choose to be in agreement with the saints and apostles of the Church as they have stood across the centuries. Is the Church "correct?" I believe that, for the most part, it is. In any case, it's the best we've got, and I love her.

sojourner said:

1) They are over a specific area...it's called a "diocese." There are several congregations within a particular diocese. The bishop cannot be present at each congregation, so the bishop appointed presbyters to act in his stead. it's Biblical.

Click to expand...

Where in scripture do we see a Bishop appoint anyone to act in his stead?

sojourner said:

2) That was the role of the bishops -- and still is. Remember, constant contact in ancient times included writing letters that were hand-delivered...constant contact took months of time! And, yes, we do see evidence that the bishops disagreed with each other. One of the more famous is the dispute that Paul had with Peter over the circumcision issue. Bishops disagree today. That's the way it is with human organizations.

Click to expand...

My question for you then is what do Bishops do today when they disagree? How are such disputes resolved? I find it hard to envision all of the Bishops meeting together to resolve such issues, there's just too many of them.

sojourner said:

3) Now you're thinking too small. The apostles did go to widely-dispersed areas, and they established churches all over those areas. Some went to the area of Africa. Some went to the area of India. Some went to the area of Greece. Some went to the area of Asia Minor. When they got there, they stayed there and became the bishops of those (rather large) areas. They were the representative of the Church to those rather remote areas. But, yes, they did travel around those areas, establishing churches and visiting established churches.

Click to expand...

I can accept that, though I believe that they called Bishops to lead at the local levels.

sojourner said:

4) Yes. That's what I'm not only implying, but asserting. You're thinking of the bishop in the presbyter role -- over a particular congregation. The presbyter governs a particular congregation, and reports to the bishop, who is over several congregations in his diocese. The bishop, in some churches, reports to his archbishop, who, in some churches, reports to his cardinal, or pope, or patriarch. The Episcopal Church has the simplest system: each diocese has a bishop. There is a college of bishops, and a presiding bishop, but the presiding bishop has no authority over the diocesans.

Click to expand...

If there is any leadership higher than a Bishop it should include Apostles somewhere in the heirarchy. Where did these other offices (cardinal, pope, archbishop, etc) come from? They are not referred to at all in the N.T.

There is further evidence that the office of Apostle and Bishop are not one in the same. Paul, for example, always referred to himself as an Apostle and never claimed to be a Bishop, yet he described the qualifications for the office of Bishop. Also references to Bishop in the N.T. are almost always accompanied by a reference to Deacons as both are restricted to a local level of authority. None ever referred to any of the Apostles as Bishops.

sojourner said:

5) It is not explicit, but it is implicit in the scriptures, because it talks about how Peter, for example, led the Church in Jerusalem. It is implied that Peter was the diocesan bishop of Jerusalem, even if that language is not used. I use it to draw comparisons between "then" and "now," in order to show the flow of authority to the present day.

Click to expand...

Just because Peter appeared to be stationed in Jerusalem for most of His ministry does not imply that He was the Bishop there. Remember that Jerusalem was the effectual headquarters for the church so it makes sense that Peter, as one of the leading apostles, if not the leading apostle, spent much of his time there. Peter is never referred to as a Bishop, only as an Apostle.

Polaris said:

Where in scripture do we see a Bishop appoint anyone to act in his stead?



My question for you then is what do Bishops do today when they disagree? How are such disputes resolved? I find it hard to envision all of the Bishops meeting together to resolve such issues, there's just too many of them.



I can accept that, though I believe that they called Bishops to lead at the local levels.



If there is any leadership higher than a Bishop it should include Apostles somewhere in the heirarchy. Where did these other offices (cardinal, pope, archbishop, etc) come from? They are not referred to at all in the N.T.

There is further evidence that the office of Apostle and Bishop are not one in the same. Paul, for example, always referred to himself as an Apostle and never claimed to be a Bishop, yet he described the qualifications for the office of Bishop. Also references to Bishop in the N.T. are almost always accompanied by a reference to Deacons as both are restricted to a local level of authority. None ever referred to any of the Apostles as Bishops.



Just because Peter appeared to be stationed in Jerusalem for most of His ministry does not imply that He was the Bishop there. Remember that Jerusalem was the effectual headquarters for the church so it makes sense that Peter, as one of the leading apostles, if not the leading apostle, spent much of his time there. Peter is never referred to as a Bishop, only as an Apostle.

Click to expand...

I think we're largely arguing semantics here. I don't think the Bible is as cut-and-dried in its nomeclature of people and offices as some people would like to think it is. There is somewhat of an amorphous quality to the early Church, before it coalesced into the organization that was present later on. The meat-and-potatoes of what I'm saying is that the first authoritative leaders of the Church were the Twelve, and those who replaced them, and those who replaced them, and those who replaced them. This apostolic authority became the bishopric at some very early point. I don't find any scriptural basis for an apostasy, as described by the LDS.

sojourner said:

I think we're largely arguing semantics here. I don't think the Bible is as cut-and-dried in its nomeclature of people and offices as some people would like to think it is. There is somewhat of an amorphous quality to the early Church, before it coalesced into the organization that was present later on. The meat-and-potatoes of what I'm saying is that the first authoritative leaders of the Church were the Twelve, and those who replaced them, and those who replaced them, and those who replaced them. This apostolic authority became the bishopric at some very early point.

Click to expand...

True, part of what we're arguing is semantics, however the fact that you believe the apostolic authority became the bishopric and my belief, that Apostles were completely separate from Bishops and the office of Apostle should have remained had there been no apostasy, is not an issue of semantics.

I also believe that the N.T. was quite consistant in its nomeclature concerning church offices and their responsabilities. It is the post-apostle church that began to introduce the inconsistancies.

sojourner said:

I don't find any scriptural basis for an apostasy, as described by the LDS.

Click to expand...

Apostolic authority is only one of the evidences that I mentioned. In posts #3 and #5 I provided further scriptural evidence of the apostasy that discusses prophecies of an apostasy and doctrines that have been corrupted since the passing of the Apostles.

sojourner said:

I think we're largely arguing semantics here. I don't think the Bible is as cut-and-dried in its nomeclature of people and offices as some people would like to think it is. There is somewhat of an amorphous quality to the early Church, before it coalesced into the organization that was present later on. The meat-and-potatoes of what I'm saying is that the first authoritative leaders of the Church were the Twelve, and those who replaced them, and those who replaced them, and those who replaced them. This apostolic authority became the bishopric at some very early point. I don't find any scriptural basis for an apostasy, as described by the LDS.

Click to expand...

That's the whole problem... The twelve were not replaced (except at the very first). There is no record of Apostles at any time later than late in the first century. You seem to think that we can substitute one title for another, which just isn't the case. While I can agree that the name by which these officers are known is secondary to their function, the function of bishops, archbishops, cardinals and popes is not the same as the function of Apostles was. Twelve men were to serve as an authoritative body at the top of the heirarchy of Church leadership. Furthermore, all bishops were to have the same authority. They were to preside over individual congregations (as you pointed out). I would agree that calling the congregation a "diocese" (as is the case within Roman Catholicsm) or a "stake" (as is the LDS custom) need not be a major point of contention. But, there is no Biblical precedent for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. None. And who appointed these bishops? Originally, they were appointed by the Apostles. But by the fourth century (if not long before), some of them came to be appointed -- and "promoted" to more prestigous congregations -- by the Emperor Constantine who, at that time, was not even a Christian. At one time or another, bishops, popes and patriarchs were appointed by state, as opposed to Church, leaders throughout the Christian world. How can anyone argue that such succession was divinely appointed?

sojourner said:

The "church" to Jesus was not an organization, but a group of people who followed. it became an organization at the hands of the apostles.

Click to expand...

I couldn't possibly disagree more. The Apostles were called and ordained by the Savior himself. This much is established fact. But it seems as if, from this point forward, we have a difference of opinion. You apparently think that the other offices were initially established by the Apostles; we believe that they were established by the Lord himself. If Jesus called prophets and apostles as the foundation on which He built His Church, wouldn't it stand to reason that He also instructed them as to the way that Church would be organized, rather than simply leaving it up to them to talk it over and come to some sort of an agreement?

John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Hebrews 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

2) Give me a scriptural reference to Jesus having "ordained prophets." I don't know what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

Luke 11:49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute...

If the foundation of Christ's Church were the prophets and apostles, and if we have scriptural proof that the apostles were ordained, why should be even question that He also ordained the prophets?

The Church tried its very best, given constraints of distance, modes of transportation, and problems with communication, to develop and maintain an orthodox and uniform system of belief and praxis.

Click to expand...

I have absolutely no doubt that you are correct. But doing their best and succeeding over an extended period of time against the worst possible odds are two entirely different things.

Are you telling me that the LDS is exactly the same, in doctrine and praxis, as the group of disciples that Jesus taught? It's not. It's different in some ways, just as the catholic Church is different in some ways. The Church is a living thing, and living things change in order to stay alive.

Click to expand...

With respect to doctrine, that is exactly what I am saying. Doctrines do not change; they are eternal truths and they are constant. Practices do change over time due to the needs of the people and their circumstances. I would agree wholeheartedly that the Church is "a living thing" (although I would never have thought to put it quite that way). That is precisely why God absolutely must keep in touch with the Church through a divinely appointed prophet who is authorized to receive revelation from Him and to speak to the Church as a whole on His behalf. The Holy Spirit, of course, speaks to all Christians and guides them along their own spiritual path. But the fact that there are today over 30,000 distinct Christian denominations is conclusive evidence that the Holy Spirit speaking individually to 2 billions Christians is the way Christ intended that His Church stay united.

3) Again, anyone who is "sent out" is an apostle, just as anyone who travels is a "traveler," and anyone who speaks is a "speaker." Just because the gospel writers didn't give them the "official title" of apostle, doesn't mean that they weren't apostles.

Click to expand...

:banghead3 I give up on this. You obviously have a mindset that is not going to be changed by the facts.

Let's turn this around. I've hesitated to do this, because I don't want to offend...but you all seem to have no problem saying that I'm apostate, so here goes...
What if the churches in the apostolic succession are the "true Church," and it's the LDS who are apostate, by having shunned the apostolic succession of bishops? Sounds preposterous to you, doesn't it? It's inconceivable that something you've cherished all your life, that seems so true to you, could be in error, and, in fact, deviant from what Jesus wanted? I'm not saying that you are apostate...it's a "what if."

Click to expand...

First of all, Sojourner, I like you and respect you and I know that you are not one to intentionally offend. Let me simply respond with this brief statement:

"Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue's end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: 'You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that's all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us: while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism: but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.' " (From The Strength of the Mormon Position by Orson F. Whitney)

The Roman Catholic Church claims the authority given by Jesus Christ to His Apostles (with the leadership vested specifically in Peter). I'm not absolutely certain of the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims the same authority as the Roman Catholic Church, stating that it was at first lost, and then restored by the one individual who had the right to restore it -- Jesus Christ. From our perspective, there are no other options. We believe that the Lord did, in fact, establish an institutional Church and set apart certain individuals of His choice to govern it in His absence. We believe that He intended that this organization to exist until He returned to the earth in person, although He knew it wouldn't and promised His Apostles that it would be restored prior to that time. Of course, it's conceivable to me that "something [I've] cherished all [my] life, that seems so true to [me], could be in error." If I hadn't seriously considered that possibility, I would be very, very uncomfortable stating my views so strongly. And although it may appear to you that I am calling you "an apostate," I really don't look at it that way at all. And that's the truth. I believe there is good and truth in all churches, probably more in most Christian churches than in most non-Christian churches. I just don't believe that God doesn't really care how closely our doctrines match the ones Jesus taught. I believe they were lost for centuries and that He has since restored them. If I'm right, I'm going to want to be a part of the Church that teaches those doctrines and operates under the authority He personally gave mankind. If I'm wrong, I hope he'll judge me with love and mercy. I trust that He will, as I trust He will judge all of us.

People can look at the Bible all they want to and find all kinds of things that indicate what they want to be indicated. The fact is that we just don't know for sure. All we can do at the end of the day is believe. Did an apostasy occur? We can't prove it by the Bible. Therefore, I choose to be in agreement with the saints and apostles of the Church as they have stood across the centuries. Is the Church "correct?" I believe that, for the most part, it is. In any case, it's the best we've got, and I love her.

Click to expand...

You are right. If we could prove any of this, we'd all agree. I'm sure we are all trying to get it right and would change our beliefs at the drop of a hat if anyone could prove to us beyond the shadow of a doubt that we were wrong.

Respectfully,
Squirt