Scriptural argument for the Apostasy

sojourner said:

In a certain sense, you're right, because baptism is not the beginning of the process, but closer to the end. Before baptism must come belief and a willingness to follow. This process can take quite a while and involve quite a bit of personal wrestling. But that really has little to do with the idea at hand.

Click to expand...

Actually, Acts 2 that in conversion you must be "Cut to the heart" and then you are open to being converted. It can happen in an hour just as it first did on the day of pentecost.

sojourner said:

How do we reconcile the tension between "everyone" and "few?":areyoucra

Click to expand...

What tension is there to reconcile? Everyone is called, but very few really respond. Who is able to judge who has responded??? Not me.

Thought I'd just bump this thread to see if there is anyone interested in discussing my claim of the apostacy's existance as evidenced by the scriptures I've provided.

Polaris said:

Thought I'd just bump this thread to see if there is anyone interested in discussing my claim of the apostacy's existance as evidenced by the scriptures I've provided.

Click to expand...

I didn't see any conclusive evidence in the scriptures you provided.

sojourner said:

I didn't see any conclusive evidence in the scriptures you provided.

Click to expand...

I agree. I have never claimed to have objectively conclusive evidence -- that's likely impossible due to the many differing interpretations of biblical passages. I argue however that the evidence for existance of an apostasy is much stronger than the evidence against it. Though your claims concerning the absolving of Apostleship into the Bishopric may carry weight according to tradition, I still am yet to see any scripture that supports the idea. To the contrary there are passages that emphasize the importance of the Apostleship and even imply its permanance.

Further there are prophecies of an apostasy, and there are several religious practices and beliefs that are found in the "Apostolic churches" that are contrary to those taught in the Bible. All of these points combined make a pretty strong case for the actual occurance of an apostasy.

Polaris said:

I agree. I have never claimed to have objectively conclusive evidence -- that's likely impossible due to the many differing interpretations of biblical passages. I argue however that the evidence for existance of an apostasy is much stronger than the evidence against it. Though your claims concerning the absolving of Apostleship into the Bishopric may carry weight according to tradition, I still am yet to see any scripture that supports the idea. To the contrary there are passages that emphasize the importance of the Apostleship and even imply its permanance.

Further there are prophecies of an apostasy, and there are several religious practices and beliefs that are found in the "Apostolic churches" that are contrary to those taught in the Bible. All of these points combined make a pretty strong case for the actual occurance of an apostasy.

Click to expand...

Much of that depends upon your point of view. If your impetus is to enshrine the ecclesia into a likeness of the early Church, kept behind glass and forever unchanged, then I could see your point. I, however, see the ecclesia as a living organism that has grown and changed over time and circumstance. There's nothing wrong with that. This is not the same world, and we are not the same people as 2000 years ago.

Polaris said:

No where in scripture does it indicate that Apostles passed their apostolic authority on to Bishops.

Click to expand...

You've made some good points, but I can't agree with this one.

Some Scripture to think about from www.scripturecatholic.com:


Acts 1:22 - literally, "one must be ordained" to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ's authority.
Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.
Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.
Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.
Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.
Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.
2 Cor. 1:21-22 - Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.
Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it's not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word "episcopoi" (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul's use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.
1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).
1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.
2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.
2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul's life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.
2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God's intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.
Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 - the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ's work. 1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

.... among others.... and I'm sure that you'll disagree with the content or context of a few of them (or all), but I'm pretty sure you'll at least agree that we have a Scriptural argument to support Apostolic succession.

In Christ,
Scott

sojourner said:

Much of that depends upon your point of view. If your impetus is to enshrine the ecclesia into a likeness of the early Church, kept behind glass and forever unchanged, then I could see your point. I, however, see the ecclesia as a living organism that has grown and changed over time and circumstance. There's nothing wrong with that. This is not the same world, and we are not the same people as 2000 years ago.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that the church grows, which necessitates changes over time. Also as times change certain issues arise that the church has not before encountered and must deal with. However, what I have troubles with is when fundamental doctrines and practices are altered from that which Christ established. Similarly, as we've discussed, I don't believe that the Apostleship - the very leadership foundation of the church - was ever intended to be absolved into the regional Bishopric.

Scott1 said:

Acts 1:22 - literally, "one must be ordained" to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ's authority.

Click to expand...

This verse describes the filling of the vacancy among the 12 and I agree with you that such a call requires that one be ordained. I don't however necessarily agree that Apostolic ordination was required in order to teach. Christ and the apostles ordained elders, preists, seventies, etc to teach yet they did not necessarily hold Apostolic authority like the 12.

Scott1 said:

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

Click to expand...

I agree that apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands. I also agree that early on this authority was transferred beyond the original twelve as was described in Acts 1, however, at some point this transfer of apostolic authority was discontinued (whether by choice or not is not certain) as there were no Apostles after the early centuries.

Scott1 said:

Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Click to expand...

You seem to be making some fairly profound assumptions about these verses. First of all does it actually say somewhere that Ananias was a bishop? Second, there is no indication that Ananias is ordaining Paul (Saul at the time) to any particular office of authority (Paul hadn't even been baptised yet). It sounds more like a blessing to heal Saul's sight.

Scott1 said:

Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

Click to expand...

I agree -- apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands. But where does it indicate that this authority comes from a bishop rather than from an Apostle?

Scott1 said:

Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.
Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything here except this - where in these verses does it mention anything about bishops. I see apostles and elders, but no mention of bishops. I assume that you are considering apostle=bishop, but where do we have any indication that that is correct?

Scott1 said:

2 Cor. 1:21-22 - Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.
Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it's not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.

Click to expand...

I agree. So why are there no more Apostles then? That would imply that for whatever reason the succession was terminated.

Scott1 said:

1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word "episcopoi" (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul's use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that Paul was describing the office of Bishop here. And here is the crux of the issue. I believe that Bishop is indeed an office, but there is no indication that Bishop=Apostle. Paul always referred to himself as Apostle, never Bishop -- because they are not the same office.

Scott1 said:

1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).
1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.
2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Scott1 said:

2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul's life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.

Click to expand...

Paul is indeed counseling Timothy concerning the ministry, but it is in no way evident that Paul is passing on his apostolic office to Timothy.

Scott1 said:

2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God's intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

Click to expand...

Again how does this verse imply the transferring of Apostolic authority -- it sounds more like a command to share the teachings of the gospel.

Scott1 said:

Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 - the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ's work. 1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

Click to expand...

I think you make a very good point here -- this is the whole motivation for this thread. You are absolutely right that truth and error should not be discerned just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves -- we're human and prone to error. We need inspired men, ordained of God, to provide the correct interpretation. That is in part was Apostolic authority is for -- to maintain purity of doctrines and ordinances. If there was no apostasy then the Catholic church has a valid claim to Apostolic authority and the correct scriptural interpretations. If there was no apostasy then the LDS have a valid claim to it.

Scott1 said:

.... among others.... and I'm sure that you'll disagree with the content or context of a few of them (or all), but I'm pretty sure you'll at least agree that we have a Scriptural argument to support Apostolic succession.

Click to expand...

If you are right that Bishop = Apostle then you definitely have a scriptural argument that supports Apostolic succession. However, I see no evidence that indicates that the offices of Apostle and Bishop are the same -- they appear to be two distinctly separate offices of authority.

Polaris said:

If you are right that Bishop = Apostle then you definitely have a scriptural argument that supports Apostolic succession.

Click to expand...

First of all.... thanks for taking the time to respond to all the quotes... it was not needed..... and again please remember that I'm a Roman Catholic.... my Church came BEFORE the Canon of Scripture..... a "scriptural argument" looks for answers to a question that was answered a few hundred years before scripture came to be.... kind putting the cart before the horse, I'd say.

However, I see no evidence that indicates that the offices of Apostle and Bishop are the same -- they appear to be two distinctly separate offices of authority.

Click to expand...

That's fine... I didn't think you would.... I've had this discussion with an LDS member about 20-30 times... it all goes on the same merry-go-round..... but good for you, any theological discussion you have that ignores the basis of your claims (Smith and the BOM story) is a "win" for the LDS in my book.

Peace be with you,
Scott