• 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!

Apostolic Succession

Polaris

Active Member
sojourner said:
No. I'm not suggesting it at all! I'm stating it. Jesus talked about an immanent parousia. Assuming that those statements are authentic, the apostles expected Jesus to return in their lifetime. There is no reason to suspect that those statements were taken in any way other than literally by the early Church. They would have had no reason to worry about an apostasy -- in their minds, there would not have been enough time left to them to experience an apostasy.
So how do you explain 2 Thess 2:3 where Paul explains that Christ's second coming will not occur "except there come a falling away first". Minor falling aways were occurring constantly as is evidenced by Paul's denouncing of various different heresies. This verse is clearly referring to a major falling away or apostasy that would happen before Christ's return.

sojourner said:
The OT was entirely oral tradition for thousands of years. No scripture. At all. These words didn't drop out of the sky...they had been passed orally from person to person over many, many years.
I'll admit that some of the OT may have initially been based on oral tradition, but I highly doubt you can prove that the OT "was entirely oral tradition for thousands of years." I'd like to see you prove that even a portion of it was not based on some early prophetic writings (though that's probably a topic for another thread).

sojourner said:
If, as you say, a completely oral tradition "would be a very dangerous way to preserve any considerable amount of information because it relies on humans to keep their story straight simply based on memory," this raises two questions:
1) In what way, then, are subsequent written translations (as well as
subsequent written historical documentation) seen to be more
susceptible to doctrinal "drift" or loss, than the original oral
transmission?
2) In what possible way can the original writings, themselves, be seen
as "accurate" using this criterion?
Fact is, scripture, doctrine and practice have been susceptible to
this since their inception!
Did you mean to say less susceptible? I would consider written translations less susceptible to error than oral tradition. I agree with you that between the mouth of Christ or his apostles and the pen of educated men there is definitely susceptibility to error, not to mention translational errors. The bible is indeed susceptible to such errors. However, I believe that for the most part it was put together with careful attention so that such errors would be minimal. I also believe in a living prophet, in our day, who can authoratively clarify and declare pure, undrifted doctrine.
 

Karl R

Active Member
FerventGodSeeker said:
Ah....Paul's "secret" teachings. What about his public ones that he repeated constantly and consistently to the whole Church? Is everything a big conspiracy theory with these people?
Apocryphon = secret teaching
Does that word sound familiar to you? It amuses me to hear a roman catholic express such contempt for the concept.

More to the point, just like Jesus taught some things to his closest disciples that he did not teach to the masses, the gnostics passed on these "secret teachings" to those who had enough spiritual maturity to understand them.

Quoting Jesus (from the book of Mark):
"To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables,"

FerventGodSeeker said:
So they snuck in to orthodox Christian churches and PRETENDED to be orthodox, and an orthodox Church leader called them on it and said they shouldn't be allowed....THAT makes them Christian???
Everything seems to be a conspiracy to someone ... but I don't think the gnostics win the prize.

The valentinians within the orthodox church would pass on their teaching to other church members they felt had achieved sufficient spiritual maturity.

According to one of Irenaeus' letter, one of the valentinians (Florinus) was an orthodox priest. Apparently a bishop was thoroughly convinced this man was a christian.

FerventGodSeeker said:
You forgot every epistle written by Paul, the two letters by Peter, and the 3 Epistles from John...
I'm surprised you consider Paul to be an apostle. He doesn't meet the criteria that Peter established when Matthias was appointed to be Judas' replacement. Paul wasn't a witness to the physical resurrection. (If you're confused about this, you can find details in Acts ... which is generally considered to be canon.)

I didn't forget anything. I was making a distinction between gospels and letters. I also wasn't bothering to mention multiple books by the same apostle. Even if you count letters, and count Paul as an apostle, that brings the canon up to five apostles. I already named seven apostles authoring gnostic gospels.

And I'll add in The Apocolypse of Paul to make eight. What did you believe you were proving?

By the way, there are 52 books in the Nag Hammadi library, do you really think you can win a numbers game?


The accuracy of apostolic succession was clearly debatable by the second century CE. It's even more debatable now.

There's only one valid adjudicator of apostolic succession, and he departed this world before they did. Obviously he could clear this matter up if it was truly important, but he has chosen not to. To me, that speaks volumes.
 
Karl R said:
Apocryphon = secret teaching
Does that word sound familiar to you? It amuses me to hear a roman catholic express such contempt for the concept.
I assume you refer to the so-called "Apocrypha" of the Old Testament? Just so you're aware, "Apocrypha" is typically term applied to those books by Protestants or others who reject them....Catholics do not use that term unless it is in the context of something a Protestant etc has said. Typically, if a Catholic is going to single out that portion of Scripture, they are referred to as the Deuterocanonicals.


More to the point, just like Jesus taught some things to his closest disciples that he did not teach to the masses, the gnostics passed on these "secret teachings" to those who had enough spiritual maturity to understand them.
Sure, except that He generally shared His teachings with ALL His disciples (unless, ironically, you count His unique words and commands to Peter...hmm, I wonder why that could be...). Gnostics often try to claim that He only gave such revelation to one or two disciples/Apostles in particular (e.g. the Gospel of Judas, where only Judas receives special insight ).

Quoting Jesus (from the book of Mark):
"To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables,"
That verse is Mark 4:11. This statement was said to "those around Him (Jesus) with the twelve." (verse 10). So again, the "secret" knowledge was given to the Apostolic leadership as a whole. The Apostolic leadership was maintained in the successors that the Apostles appointed in various cities. As this Apostolic succession continued from generation to generation, Christians could not agree on what books were inspired and which were not, and thus the Church, as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) called a Council, as in Acts 15. At this Council, the Canon of Scripture was offically determined. The Gnostic texts were not inspired.

The valentinians within the orthodox church would pass on their teaching to other church members they felt had achieved sufficient spiritual maturity.
As you just noted, the Valentinians were wolves in sheep's clothing, they weren't orthodox; they managed to convert those orthodox believers that they could to their particular brand of Gnosticism.

According to one of Irenaeus' letter, one of the valentinians (Florinus) was an orthodox priest. Apparently a bishop was thoroughly convinced this man was a christian.
An orthodox priest may have BECOME a valentinian; that doesn't mean that Irenaeus approved of it.

I'm surprised you consider Paul to be an apostle. He doesn't meet the criteria that Peter established when Matthias was appointed to be Judas' replacement. Paul wasn't a witness to the physical resurrection. (If you're confused about this, you can find details in Acts ... which is generally considered to be canon.)
Several of Paul's epistles are generally considered to be canon, too ;) ...
"Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ..." Romans 1:1

As for Peter's "criteria", let's examine what you're talking about in the passage where Matthias is elected:
"...one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." Acts 1:22
The replacement of Judas was to BECOME a witness of Christ's resurrection, that doesn't mean he WAS a witness to the resurrection. So just because Paul didn't see the resurrection happen (He did see the resurrected Christ: Acts 9; 1 Cor. 15:8) doesn't mean he was never an Apostle.

I didn't forget anything. I was making a distinction between gospels and letters. I also wasn't bothering to mention multiple books by the same apostle. Even if you count letters, and count Paul as an apostle, that brings the canon up to five apostles. I already named seven apostles authoring gnostic gospels.

And I'll add in The Apocolypse of Paul to make eight. What did you believe you were proving?
I was proving that the name game is irrelevant to the canonicity of individual books.

By the way, there are 52 books in the Nag Hammadi library, do you really think you can win a numbers game?
I wasn't trying to win a numbers game. I fully acknowledge that there were plenty of writings floating around in the early Church. Again, that was the whole point of the Council. Christians couldn't agree, so the Church through divine authority given by Christ established the canon authoritatively.

The accuracy of apostolic succession was clearly debatable by the second century CE. It's even more debatable now.
Debatable by whom? A heretical sect that died out? Catholic Christians certainly didn't debate over it, they clearly considered the Apostolic authority to have been passed on to the various bishops.

There's only one valid adjudicator of apostolic succession, and he departed this world before they did. Obviously he could clear this matter up if it was truly important, but he has chosen not to. To me, that speaks volumes
If you're referring to Jesus, He handed the job of apostolic succession over to His Apostles, and clearly they were aware of its necesity (2 Tim. 2:2; Titus 1:5).

FerventGodSeeker
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
So how do you explain 2 Thess 2:3 where Paul explains that Christ's second coming will not occur "except there come a falling away first". Minor falling aways were occurring constantly as is evidenced by Paul's denouncing of various different heresies. This verse is clearly referring to a major falling away or apostasy that would happen before Christ's return.

That passage isn't talking about an apostasy -- it's talking about eschatology. The word is translated as "rebellion" in the NRSV, not "falling away." It refers to the "antichrist" who will come and establish a foothold before the parousia. Are you saying that the "antichrist" has already come and has established his foothold by way of the Orthodox and Roman churches?

I'll admit that some of the OT may have initially been based on oral tradition, but I highly doubt you can prove that the OT "was entirely oral tradition for thousands of years." I'd like to see you prove that even a portion of it was not based on some early prophetic writings (though that's probably a topic for another thread).

Of course it was! The culture was a culture of oral transmission. I'd be happy to back up my statement, but I don't have time right now. I'll get back to you.

Did you mean to say less susceptible? I would consider written translations less susceptible to error than oral tradition. I agree with you that between the mouth of Christ or his apostles and the pen of educated men there is definitely susceptibility to error, not to mention translational errors. The bible is indeed susceptible to such errors. However, I believe that for the most part it was put together with careful attention so that such errors would be minimal. I also believe in a living prophet, in our day, who can authoratively clarify and declare pure, undrifted doctrine.

You have placed a great deal of trust in the authenticity of the ancient texts, stating that later revisions had to be mistranslated. The point I was hoping to make is that, based upon your statement of the danger of oral transmission, your argument is unfounded. The early texts in which you place such trust were more susceptible to "error" than the written revisions you dismiss as "erroneous."
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
iris89 said:
Dear sojourner

FIRST, I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about as I was not trying to explain 2 Thess. 2:3 which is a whole another topic. Also, the meaning of eschatology per the encyclopedia is:

Please explain yourself as I am in no way understanding you.

SECOND, I am thoroughly confused by your statement,

First, I do not know what you are talking about as I am NOT trying to prove the Old Testament was from oral tradition.

Second, your comment,

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Third, Your comment,

I have no idea what you are talking about as I was neither dealing with oral transmission or susceptibality of it to error.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Refer to post #21. My last post (#24) was in answer to post #21 (posted by Polaris) and has nothing whatsoever to do with you.
 

Polaris

Active Member
sojourner said:
That passage isn't talking about an apostasy -- it's talking about eschatology. The word is translated as "rebellion" in the NRSV, not "falling away." It refers to the "antichrist" who will come and establish a foothold before the parousia. Are you saying that the "antichrist" has already come and has established his foothold by way of the Orthodox and Roman churches?

You can't prove that it's not talking about an apostasy. The Greek word in question is ajpostasiva and is defined as follows (foreignword.com ancient Greek):
- a falling away, defection, apostasy

sojourner said:
Of course it was! The culture was a culture of oral transmission. I'd be happy to back up my statement, but I don't have time right now. I'll get back to you.

You have placed a great deal of trust in the authenticity of the ancient texts, stating that later revisions had to be mistranslated. The point I was hoping to make is that, based upon your statement of the danger of oral transmission, your argument is unfounded. The early texts in which you place such trust were more susceptible to "error" than the written revisions you dismiss as "erroneous."

My argument is not unfounded because I don't believe that most of scripture was based off of hundreds of years of oral tradition.
 
In regards to Polaris' question of how Apostles were also Bishops, consider this:

In Acts 1, Peter and the Apostles meet together to decide who was to take Judas' place. Specifically, Peter quotes Psalm 109:8, which says, "Let another take his office." The word for office in the Greek is episkope, where we gets the words "episcopate" or "episcopal", and is also translated "bishopric". It literally means "overseer" and is used to designate the office of Bishop....That's right, an Apostle with the office of Bishop, with clear succession taking place in the selection of Matthias. Clearly Apostles were Bishops as well.

FerventGodSeeker
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Polaris said:
In fact Paul states that apostles and prophets constitute the foundation of the church.
Both are used in a plural form. If it was to read as you understand it is should read “apostles and prophet”. Anyways, if I was a betting man I would put a dime on the fact that you and I understand the word and role of prophet slightly different.
Polaris said:
we believe that Peter was the chief Apostle. Part of the Apostles' responsibilty was to establish the chruch abroad, call Bishops to oversee the local congregations,
By local congregation do you mean one church? Or several churches? If you mean One Bishop oversees several churches, then I agree. In LDS theology who has authority at a local church?
Polaris said:
Certain accounts claim that Peter ordained Linus as Bishop in Rome. Other accounts claim that Peter himself was established as Bishop of Rome and that Linus succeeded him upon his death. It makes perfect sense to me to assume that Peter called and ordained Linus to be Bishop just as he did in Antioch with Evodius, but we just don't know for sure.
It would only make sense if Peter’s intent was to move on to another location. But if this is true why didn’t James the Apostle ordain another Bishop for Jerusalem? Apostles like archbishops today can be found in large cities.
Polaris said:
It is at this point that we disagree with Catholic tradition. Upon Peter's death Catholic tradition claims that Linus assumed both the Bishopric and the Keys to the Kingdom (Apostolic authority),
The Apostolic Authority was not just extended to Peter but to all Apostles/Bishops.
Polaris said:
essentially bypassing the remaining Apostles to become head of the church. We believe that while Linus may have been ordained as a Bishop, he was not necessarily given Apostolic keys and authority -- those remained with the Apostles who were still alive. Once the remaining Apostles died, we believe the Apostolic authority and church-governing revelation was taken with them. Unfortunately there is no reliable historical evidence that can confirm the truth either way.
Completely disagree. Too much historical evidence showing teaching from the Apostles was in fact handed down to others. It would make no sense what’s so ever to give authority and teachings if it was all going to hell in a very short period. Why even bother doing it all if we humans will always screw it up regardless if it happen 2,000 years ago or in the 1800’s…? Besides, how in the world could authority be lost if the Bible you read was not assembled until at least 397 AD? The "foundation" was laid by the Apostles (Eph 2:19ff; Matt 10:2ff; with Peter having the primacy, 16:18f) and the Old and New Testament Prophets (Eph 3:3ff; Luke 24:25ff; Heb 1:1ff; 2 Pet 1:19ff; etc). You cannot lay ANOTHER "foundation" of Apostles and Prophets, Christ being the "Chief Cornerstone" (cf. 1 Peter 2:4ff), but only teach the ORIGINAL Deposit.
Polaris said:
The only references to Linus' apostolic succession were made 150+ years after the fact. To my knowledge there is no document that explains who authorized Apostolic succession through the Bishopric and how such a succession actually occurred.

Listen to what St. Clement (97 AD) had to say,
Our Apostles knew," he says, "through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be dissension over the title of Bishop. In their knowledge of this, therefore, they proceeded to appoint the ministers I spoke of and they went on to add an instruction that, if these should fall asleep, other accredited persons should succeed them in their office."
Polaris said:
Either Peter informed the church leadership how the Apostolic succession would occur and made provisions for such a succession, or after his death, Linus and the other remaining leaders in Rome simply assumed leadership because they were of highest authority in Rome at the time, but without an official, authorized Apostolic ordination. The fact is we don't know.
Did you mean to say “how it would work?” I find FereventGodseeker’s reference to Acts and Judas carrying much weight. Not sure how you are going to explain yourself out of that one.
Polaris said:
There is no document that gives any details as to how such an Apostolic succession occurred.
I don’t think you realize how awfully odd this sounds in light of the fact that:
1. There was no scripture until 397 AD.
2. Even when scripture was formed, very few people had one in their possession.
3. Most people in the common world couldn’t read.

And you are asking for details? This is just 3 of many things that even if the details were provided it doesn’t seem to make a difference because people will interpret pink unicorns out of it. And I have said more then once that things were working themselves out in the early Church and expecting details is unrealistic. Not everything was put to writing as I have said more then once.
Polaris said:
Catholic tradition was formed, which declares that the Apostleship was absolved into the Bishopric, and by about 200 AD that was firmly regarded as the truth.
I’ve given 3 quotes dating much earlier then that. One is even before the death of the last apostle (St. John). I’m still uncertain as to what will fill you.
Polaris said:
As I mentioned before, Paul stated that Apostles make up the foundation of the church. Catholics and Orthodox claim it doesn't anymore.
Incorrect…Not sure how much you know of architectural but a foundation is only done ONCE in a home. Which is exactly how Catholics and Orthodox understand it.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Polaris said:
It would take solid, reliable historical evidence to convince me that the proper foundation of Christ's church has changed.
I’m starting to doubt that.
Polaris said:
Without such evidence, I will continue to believe that the church leadership was assumed by Linus without an official, authorized Apostolic ordination.
Wait just a cotton picking minute. I thought you were accepting anything before the death of the last apostle (100 AD). Now it’s at the time of Linus? That’s certainly what the LDS library says:
LDS Library
Polaris said:
Now let me be clear in what I mean by solid, reliable historical evidence. If we had any record from around the time of Peter's death that provided details as to Linus' "Apostolic succession" -- who authorized it, how it was realized, etc, then I would consider that pretty solid evidence. Without such records how can we know that he didn't just assume the leading position because he was the highest authority in Rome at the time?
Highest authority of what Polaris? Most of Rome was pagan at the time. I don’t know why you are talking about Linus like he was a somebody in Rome.
Polaris said:
Why did the succession fall to him and not to one of the remaining Apostles who were called by Christ himself?
You really do seem to be contradiction yourself Polaris. Earlier you said:
…then when the church in that area was sufficiently strong the Apostles moved on to continue the establishment of the church..
And now you are asking why didn’t the Apostle stay? You are honestly making no sense to me Polaris.
Polaris said:
These are questions that historical records simply cannot answer. Catholic tradition gained acceptance likely because it made sense to them at the time and was soon strongly rooted and believed as truth. This makes it difficult for me to consider writings after the 2nd and 3rd century as authorative. I cannot prove that Apostolic succession didn't occur, and without more detailed, and reliable historical evidence than what is currently available you can't prove that it did. You're left to trust in Catholic tradition while I trust in modern-day revelation.
Don’t compare us like we have equal weight Polaris. That is a slap in the face of every early writing I’ve read that was absolutely Catholic. There is absolutely no comparing.

Peace be with you,
~Victor

BTW, are you telling me you only take anything that is before 60 AD and before?
 

Polaris

Active Member
FerventGodSeeker said:
In regards to Polaris' question of how Apostles were also Bishops, consider this:

In Acts 1, Peter and the Apostles meet together to decide who was to take Judas' place. Specifically, Peter quotes Psalm 109:8, which says,
"Let another take his office." The word for office in the Greek is episkope, where we gets the words "episcopate" or "episcopal", and is also translated "bishopric". It literally means "overseer" and is used to designate the office of Bishop....That's right, an Apostle with the office of Bishop, with clear succession taking place in the selection of Matthias. Clearly Apostles were Bishops as well.

Remember Peter is quoting Psalms. I highly doubt the author of Psalms was familiar with the official terms Bishopric or Apostleship since there were no offices of Bishop or Apostle mentioned anywhere in the OT. I take this to mean what the author originally said -- office, and is not referring to the specific office of Bishop. It's referring to office in the general sense of the word. It is only coincidence that the Greek word for "office" or "overseer" is the same as that of "office of Bishop". There is no way that you can prove that the original author intended it to mean "office of Bishop".
 

Polaris

Active Member
Victor said:
Both are used in a plural form. If it was to read as you understand it is should read "apostles and prophet". Anyways, if I was a betting man I would put a dime on the fact that you and I understand the word and role of prophet slightly different.
It makes perfect sense to me as stated. God's not limited to one prophet. Just so you know... all of our Apostles are ordained as "prophets, seers, and revelators" though it is only the senior or presiding Apostle that we formally refer to as the prophet.

Victor said:
By local congregation do you mean one church? Or several churches? If you mean One Bishop oversees several churches, then I agree. In LDS theology who has authority at a local church?
Why is it important how many specific congregations the Bishop oversees? The point is a Bishop presides over a local area while the Apostles preside over the church as a whole. In LDS theology the Bishop is the presiding authority at the local level, which generally involves one specific congregation. There are cases where a Bishop may be authorized to oversee more than one congregation until adequate leadership is established to accomadate those needs.

Victor said:
It would only make sense if Peter's intent was to move on to another location. But if this is true why didn't James the Apostle ordain another Bishop for Jerusalem?
It would also make sense for Peter to ordain a Bishop to take care of the local church needs so that Peter could focus his time and efforts on the church-wide issues. How do you know that James didn't ordain a Bishop in Jerusalem?

Victor said:
The Apostolic Authority was not just extended to Peter but to all Apostles/Bishops.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that Linus already had Apostolic authority before Peter's death? If so, why was he not called an Apostle?

Victor said:
Completely disagree. Too much historical evidence showing teaching from the Apostles was in fact handed down to others. It would make no sense what's so ever to give authority and teachings if it was all going to hell in a very short period.
Just because teachings were handed down from the Apostles doesn't mean that Apostolic authority was as well. Just because an apostasy is prophecied doesn't mean you quit trying to save souls. Their efforts were not in vain, look at how many people today believe in Jesus Christ.

Victor said:
Besides, how in the world could authority be lost if the Bible you read was not assembled until at least 397 AD?
Whose writings/teachings are in the NT? The apostles who lived before the apostasy. The bible isn't speical because of who compiled and canonized it, it's special because it contains writings and teachings from the prophets and apostles. Sure it was assembled in 397 (and even done so without apostolic authority), but its teachings are those of the Apostles.

Victor said:
The "foundation" was laid by the Apostles (Eph 2:19ff; Matt 10:2ff; with Peter having the primacy, 16:18f) and the Old and New Testament Prophets (Eph 3:3ff; Luke 24:25ff; Heb 1:1ff; 2 Pet 1:19ff; etc). You cannot lay ANOTHER "foundation" of Apostles and Prophets, Christ being the "Chief Cornerstone" (cf. 1 Peter 2:4ff), but only teach the ORIGINAL Deposit.
If calling of new apostles constitutes laying ANOTHER foundation, then the early apostles are guilty of that too.

Victor said:
Listen to what St. Clement (97 AD) had to say, Our Apostles knew," he says, "through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be dissension over the title of Bishop. In their knowledge of this, therefore, they proceeded to appoint the ministers I spoke of and they went on to add an instruction that, if these should fall asleep, other accredited persons should succeed them in their office."
This statement is concerning the succession of Bishops. I see no reference at all to Apostolic succession or Apostolic authority.

Victor said:
Polaris said:
There is no document that gives any details as to how such an Apostolic succession occurred.
I don't think you realize how awfully odd this sounds in light of the fact that:
1. There no scripture until 397 AD.
2. Even when scripture was formed, very few people had one in their possession.
3. Most people in the common world couldn't read.

And you are asking for details? This is just 3 of many things that even if the details were provided it doesn't seem to make a difference because people will interpret pink unicorns out of it. And I have said more then once that things were working themselves out in the early Church and expecting details is unrealistic. Not everything was put to writing as I have said more then once.
Just because the NT wasn't compiled and canonized until 397 doesn't mean there weren't written records. We have the details concerning the selection of Matthias as an Apostle. Why is it unrealistic to expect details concerning the "Apostolic succession" from Peter to Linus? That, in my opinion, was a much more significant event (assuming that the Keys were indeed passed on to Linus).

Victor said:
I've given 3 quotes dating much earlier then that. One is even before the death of the last apostle (St. John). I'm still uncertain as to what you fill you.
None of your quotes explain how the Apostolic succession to the Bishops occurred. I believe you that Irenaus believed that it occurred, but how do we know he's right? Who authorized and realized the Apostolic succession to Linus?

Victor said:
Incorrect…Not sure how much you know of architectural but a foundation is only done ONCE in a home. Which is exactly how Catholics and Orthodox understand it.
The office of Apostle was established once. You also know that a foundation doesn't change and isn't removed. If the foundation of the church is apostles and prophets, it should always have such offices.
 

Polaris

Active Member
Victor said:
Wait just a cotton picking minute. I thought you were accepting anything before the death of the last apostle (100 AD). Now it's at the time of Linus? That's certainly what the LDS library says: LDS Library
I don't accept anything just by the date alone. I accept anything reliably written or taught by the apostles. Everything else I take with careful consideration.

Victor said:
Highest authority of what Polaris? Most of Rome was pagan at the time. I don't know why you are talking about Linus like he was a somebody in Rome.
What? Why would you assume I was referring to political or governmental authority, we've been talking about Apostolic and church authority throughout this whole thread. Linus was apparently one of the leading church authorities in Rome.

Victor said:
Polaris said:
Why did the succession fall to him and not to one of the remaining Apostles who were called by Christ himself?
You really do seem to be contradiction yourself Polaris. Earlier you said: …then when the church in that area was sufficiently strong the Apostles moved on to continue the establishment of the church.. And now you are asking why didn't the Apostle stay? You are honestly making no sense to me Polaris.
That's not at all what I'm asking. I'm asking why Linus was given leadership over the church when there were Apostles still alive.

Victor said:
Don't compare us like we have equal weight Polaris. That is a slap in the face of every early writing I've read that was absolutely Catholic. There is absolutely no comparing.
You simply can't prove that your position is superior to mine. You cannot prove that there was no Apostasy. You can't even provide details as to how Apostolic authority was actually passed from the Apostle Peter to Linus the Bishop. Who authorized it? How do we know that Linus didn't just assume leadership authority because he was the highest church authority in Rome at the time? Why was the head of church leadership given to Linus and not one of the Apostles who were still alive and who were actually called by Christ himself?

I would honestly be interested to hear you answer any of those questions.
 
Polaris said:
Remember Peter is quoting Psalms. I highly doubt the author of Psalms was familiar with the official terms Bishopric or Apostleship since there were no offices of Bishop or Apostle mentioned anywhere in the OT. I take this to mean what the author originally said -- office, and is not referring to the specific office of Bishop. It's referring to office in the general sense of the word. It is only coincidence that the Greek word for "office" or "overseer" is the same as that of "office of Bishop". There is no way that you can prove that the original author intended it to mean "office of Bishop".

Polaris, that is the biggest excuse I've ever heard, and you know it. The Apostle Peter specifically STATED exactly what the Psalms verse meant in referring to it in context of the succession of Matthias into Judas' place. Are you denying that Peter's interpretation of the Scripture was wrong, and that his specific use of the word "episkope" was a mistake? How can you, as one who claims to be a Christian who believes in the Bible, claim that Biblical references, especially interpretations of Scriptural references by the Apostles themselves, are "only coincidence"? Just so you know, Biblical word usage is NOT a coicidence. The Bible isn't called completely God-breathed and inspired for no reason. This passage clearly demonstrates that the Apostles held the office of Bishop, and maintained succession in such a manner.

FerventGodSeeker
 

Polaris

Active Member
FerventGodSeeker said:
Polaris, that is the biggest excuse I've ever heard, and you know it. The Apostle Peter specifically STATED exactly what the Psalms verse meant in referring to it in context of the succession of Matthias into Judas' place. Are you denying that Peter's interpretation of the Scripture was wrong, and that his specific use of the word "episkope" was a mistake? How can you, as one who claims to be a Christian who believes in the Bible, claim that Biblical references, especially interpretations of Scriptural references by the Apostles themselves, are "only coincidence"? Just so you know, Biblical word usage is NOT a coicidence. The Bible isn't called completely God-breathed and inspired for no reason. This passage clearly demonstrates that the Apostles held the office of Bishop, and maintained succession in such a manner.

Apparently you completely missed my entire point. First of all I doubt that Peter made the statement in Greek to begin with. However, either way, "episkope" is a perfectly valid term of interpretation. Here is the definition of "episkope" :
- overseership OR office OR charge OR office of bishop

You can't prove that Peter was interpreting Psalms to mean "office of Bishop". It makes much more sense to assume his interpretation as simply "office" or "overseership" (both equally valid definitions of the term "episkope"), since the author of Psalms likely had no knowledge of the office of Bishop.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Polaris said:
You can't prove that it's not talking about an apostasy. The Greek word in question is ajpostasiva and is defined as follows (foreignword.com ancient Greek):
- a falling away, defection, apostasy



My argument is not unfounded because I don't believe that most of scripture was based off of hundreds of years of oral tradition.

You may believe what you wish, but believing don't make it so...
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
all of our Apostles are ordained as "prophets, seers, and revelators" though it is only the senior or presiding Apostle that we formally refer to as the prophet.

This appears to come down to an issue of "who has authority" to you. if so, can you account for the modern "apostles -- 'prophets, seers and revelators?'" Why are they "ours?" I don't claim those people as "prophets, seers and revelators." By whose authority? Most of Christendom does not accept the authority of Joseph Smith. Authority is not an absolute thing.

I'm perfectly willing to "live and let live" here, but the LDS really have no more tangible claim to apostolic authority than anyone else. You're really living in a glass house and throwing rocks here.

Spiritual authority resides in the revelation of such to the community, not in documentable "proof."

Why is it important how many specific congregations the Bishop oversees? The point is a Bishop presides over a local area while the Apostles preside over the church as a whole. In LDS theology the Bishop is the presiding authority at the local level, which generally involves one specific congregation. There are cases where a Bishop may be authorized to oversee more than one congregation until adequate leadership is established to accomadate those needs.

There's a lack of understanding about what constitutes church here. In the apostolic churches, the diocese is the basic unit of the Church, of which a bishop is overseer. Individual local parishes are merely conveniences. In most bodies, there is an archbishop in authority over the bishops.

In the earliest model, the apostles acted as overseers of the Church in the areas they they evangelized. The modern model, as well as the LDS model is different from the early model of Church.

Just because teachings were handed down from the Apostles doesn't mean that Apostolic authority was as well.

Baptismal candidates have, from very, very early times been exhorted to "continue in the apostles' teaching, in the prayers, and in the breaking of bread." The apostles were "in authority" because the ecclesia knew they had been taught by Jesus, not becuase they had been ascended, or because they had a certificate, or because they had been "voted in." Ultimately, being the Body of Christ on earth and acting in accordance with God's will, it's the ecclesia that grants authority to its leaders, on behalf of Christ. These leaders are the people whom the Church feels are especially called to hand on the apostles' teaching.
 

Polaris

Active Member
sojourner said:
This appears to come down to an issue of "who has authority" to you. if so, can you account for the modern "apostles -- 'prophets, seers and revelators?'" Why are they "ours?" I don't claim those people as "prophets, seers and revelators." By whose authority? Most of Christendom does not accept the authority of Joseph Smith. Authority is not an absolute thing.
If you had followed the conversation closely you'd have easily determined that by "ours" I was referring to the LDS. Our Apostles -- i.e. the LDS Apostles. Also, I disagree with your last statement. True authority is an absolute thing. The question is who possesses it.

sojourner said:
I'm perfectly willing to "live and let live" here, but the LDS really have no more tangible claim to apostolic authority than anyone else. You're really living in a glass house and throwing rocks here.
Though there is supporting evidence to back up my claims, I have openly admitted that I cannot prove the Apostasy occurred (and therefore that the LDS have claim to apostolic authority). However I also argue that no one can prove that true Apostolic succession did occur.

sojourner said:
Spiritual authority resides in the revelation of such to the community, not in documentable "proof."
I agree. But those who claim authority must have some evidence or legitamate explanation as to how they acquired it.

sojourner said:
In the earliest model, the apostles acted as overseers of the Church in the areas they they evangelized. The modern model, as well as the LDS model is different from the early model of Church.
Actually the LDS model is not much different. The Apostles oversee the Seventies who oversee specific geographical regions that are presided over by regional and local leadership. Today the church is in nearly all parts of the world with millions of members so it just isn't feasible for the Apostles to be restricted to a certain region -- they direct their efforts where the need is greatest from a church-wide standpoint.

sojourner said:
Baptismal candidates have, from very, very early times been exhorted to "continue in the apostles' teaching, in the prayers, and in the breaking of bread." The apostles were "in authority" because the ecclesia knew they had been taught by Jesus, not becuase they had been ascended, or because they had a certificate, or because they had been "voted in."
The ecclesia knew they were Apostles because they had been authoratively called and ordained as such. A lot of people had been taught by Jesus and were never called or esteemed as Apostles.
 
Polaris said:
Apparently you completely missed my entire point. First of all I doubt that Peter made the statement in Greek to begin with.
The original epistle is in Greek, and Peter is quoting from the Greek Septuagint, so I'd say the Greek is the most valid to examine in this case.
However, either way, "episkope" is a perfectly valid term of interpretation. Here is the definition of "episkope" :
- overseership OR office OR charge OR office of bishop
Please cite one example (other than this one, obviously, since we disagree) of the term "episkope" in the New Testament where it refers to an office other than that of a bishop.

You can't prove that Peter was interpreting Psalms to mean "office of Bishop".
That's the only context in which the term was used in reference to an office in the New Testament. It's your job to prove it means something other than its generally accepted stadard definition.

It makes much more sense to assume his interpretation as simply "office" or "overseership" (both equally valid definitions of the term "episkope"), since the author of Psalms likely had no knowledge of the office of Bishop.
Old Testament writers and prophets often did not know what they were writing about, and things were hidden from them (Eph. 3:5). The fact that Psalmist may not have had total knowledge of the whole scope of meaning of his writings is irrelevant, because they're not his to begin with, they are God's words. The New Testament clarifies Old Testament prophecies time and time again, this time with a specific reference to the "office" being that of a bishop, the only office to which this words refers in the New Testament. I would hope that you would understand that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old, and often specifically references how it fulfills the Old. In this case, the fulfillment is clear: the office of Bishop was filled by Matthias, also as an Apostle.

FerventGodSeeker
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Polaris said:
If you had followed the conversation closely you'd have easily determined that by "ours" I was referring to the LDS. Our Apostles -- i.e. the LDS Apostles. Also, I disagree with your last statement. True authority is an absolute thing. The question is who possesses it.


Though there is supporting evidence to back up my claims, I have openly admitted that I cannot prove the Apostasy occurred (and therefore that the LDS have claim to apostolic authority). However I also argue that no one can prove that true Apostolic succession did occur.


I agree. But those who claim authority must have some evidence or legitamate explanation as to how they acquired it.


Actually the LDS model is not much different. The Apostles oversee the Seventies who oversee specific geographical regions that are presided over by regional and local leadership. Today the church is in nearly all parts of the world with millions of members so it just isn't feasible for the Apostles to be restricted to a certain region -- they direct their efforts where the need is greatest from a church-wide standpoint.


The ecclesia knew they were Apostles because they had been authoratively called and ordained as such. A lot of people had been taught by Jesus and were never called or esteemed as Apostles.

That was precisely my point. What gives anyone the right to claim "mine" or "yours?"
The Body of Christ is One. Not "yours." Not "mine." -- Christ's. If you were truly thinking ecumenically, then there would be no differentiation between "your" bishops and "my" bishops. There would only be bishops. Such has been the consensus of the ecclesia throughout history.

You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth now. You say you don't have any proof that the apostasy occurred, and therefore have no proof of the basis for LDS authority. Yet, you go on to say that, in order to have authority, one must have some evidence or legitimate explanation as to how they acquired it.

There is as much evidence for the historic apostolic succession, if in no other wise than in the sense of the Church, as there is for Joseph Smith's authority.

So...the LDS is different than the historic model...just as it became no longer feasible for the original Twelve to be in charge. They changed the "system," just as the LDS have changed the "system"...just as the historic Church has changed the "system" over time.

How did the ecclesia know? Because the apostles came and told them their story! And the ecclesia bought into it and ascribed authority to them.




 

Polaris

Active Member
FerventGodSeeker said:
Please cite one example (other than this one, obviously, since we disagree) of the term "episkope" in the New Testament where it refers to an office other than that of a bishop.

That's the only context in which the term was used in reference to an office in the New Testament. It's your job to prove it means something other than its generally accepted stadard definition.
The term "episkope" appears only 4 times in the NT and only once is it in reference to the office of Bishop and that's in 1 Timothy 3, where it is obvious that "office of Bishop" is the correct interpretation. One occurance is hardly grounds for a "generally accepted standard definition".

FerventGodSeeker said:
Old Testament writers and prophets often did not know what they were writing about, and things were hidden from them (Eph. 3:5). The fact that Psalmist may not have had total knowledge of the whole scope of meaning of his writings is irrelevant, because they're not his to begin with, they are God's words. The New Testament clarifies Old Testament prophecies time and time again, this time with a specific reference to the "office" being that of a bishop, the only office to which this words refers in the New Testament. I would hope that you would understand that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old, and often specifically references how it fulfills the Old. In this case, the fulfillment is clear: the office of Bishop was filled by Matthias, also as an Apostle.
Again "episkope" is defined as "overseership, office, charge, or office of bishop". That means Peter's statement should be interpreted one of four ways:
1. ... "and his overseership let another take"
2. ... "and his office let another take"
3. ... "and his charge let another take"
4. ... "and his office of bishop let another take"

Interestingly, #2 most resembles that actually recorded in Psalms.
 
Top