Apostolic succession

[No*s]

NetDoc,

I placed my response on II Timothy, along with my request on hermeneutics herehttp://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=99376#post99376.

 

[Pah]

That only works if one believes that the chrism of ordination is permanent. If, however, it ceases in schism or the like, then it would not work that way.

In a schism, are not both parts right? Why could not both sides claim apostolic succession in the face of the others heresay?

 

[No*s]

In a schism, are not both parts right? Why could not both sides claim apostolic succession in the face of the others heresay?

I don't follow your logic here Pah.

If I'm reading you right, you're saying that in schism neither side knows what is true, and thus, both are equally valid.

 

[Scuba Pete]

when Paul names other authorities in the passage just before it

Cool, I musta missed it. Can you show it to me?

Then my etymology is false?

False? I don't claim that. BUT, no matter where "preist" came from, it does NOT mean the same now as the Greek it came from. Something changed in the migration. If it does meant the same, then why don't they translate it as "priest". You're dancing my friend. Lets look at this straight without twisting things.

That's right... at one time all who claimed to be Christian were also a disciple. It's a shame that most don't make that connection today.

 

[No*s]

Cool, I musta missed it. Can you show it to me?

I put that in the other thread, because Sola Scriptura and a protracted debate on II Timothy off-topic for this thread. Go here for that.

False? I don't claim that. BUT, no matter where "preist" came from, it does NOT mean the same now as the Greek it came from. Something changed in the migration. If it does meant the same, then why don't they translate it as "priest". You're dancing my friend. Lets look at this straight without twisting things.

And so, you grant the validity of my statement while denying it? The same thing referred to as an elder carried down, and became the term "priest." That's what the etymological meaning results in. If it isn't the "priest," then when did the priesthood come in? Where was its function introduced?

If the words presbyteros and "priest" do not denote the same office, then when was it replaced? Unless you can muster evidence for that, I am perfectly valid in saying that "elder"=="priest" in reference to a Church office. It refers to the same thing.

You can't deny this on any grounds but your personal theology. History, though, connects the NT elders to the priests of today.

That's right... at one time all who claimed to be Christian were also a disciple. It's a shame that most don't make that connection today.

Then you relinquish your argument that because Ananias was a "disciple," it meant he wasn't clergy? In that case, we are back wholly to only those with an office in the Church are shown to ordain people in the New Testament. We, thus, see the "laying on of hands" as being done only by clergy, a part of the ordination, and according to Scripture, one of the "elementery" principles (Hebrews 6.1-3).

 

[Pah]

I don't follow your logic here Pah.

If I'm reading you right, you're saying that in schism neither side knows what is true, and thus, both are equally valid.

I focused on claims - both may claim apostolic sucession based on their belief that the other is heretical.

 

[No*s]

I focused on claims - both may claim apostolic sucession based on their belief that the other is heretical.

Ah, OK. I understand now .

One of the best definitions I know, is that a heresy is an innovation to the faith, not an explanation of it, but an innovation, and it almost invariably comes from those who speculate.

For instance, when Nestorius insisted Mary could not be called the Theotokos, his speculation was new. It had already been done for we don't know how long. As a result, an uproar arose around him. We know where the heresy arose, because we know where the innovation arose.

Likewise a similar thing occured at Chalcedon. We had a theologian change terminology, and an uproar arose. Even the champion of "one nature," St. Cyril considered Chalcedon as endorsing his position (so did Nestorius). In fact, a large part of the anathema here resulted from Dioscorus' refusal to come to an ecumenical summons about the matter. In fact, I've read some of the Non-Chalcedonian documents, and it will openly say "We broke away from the Western Churches" or some other such thing.

Here, also, we see where the problem arose, and we see where the novelty was. Chalcedon, though, is by far the most troubling council for me for obvious reasons...it took a lot of thought for me to make my way through it.

Lastly, we come to the East/West divide. Here, we have novelties such as the Filioque and papal supremacy at the heart of the schism. Again, they are novel. The problem was made permanent in 1204 at Constantinople.

So, if we go just by perspectives, I'd agree with you, but we also have a historical teachings before that, and we can always ask "Where does the problem come from?" and almost invariably we will find the problem.

That, at least, is how I have approached the problem.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Of course, since there was no "clergy" back then, how could Ananias be a part of it?

Again, if it means "priest" why don't they translate it as such.

The term "Elder" and the term "Priest" are not synonymous... go check your thesaurus if you disagree. You are simply playing on words and twisting the history of a word to make it fit. It doesn't.

But again, when do you throw the Bible out? If it says that they are to be the "Husband of one wife", which do you see as more authoritative. How they did it in the First Century, or how you have CHANGED it? How can you have a succession if by the standards of the NT they haven't been true bishops since your church instituted celibacy as an additional requirement? Peter was married, are you saying that since he was not celibate that he wasn't a Bishop?

Again, you haven't discussed the fact that Apostles HAD TO SEE JESUS. Just passed that one right over.

As for Ananias, I am not about to start adding to the scriptures. The scriptures call him a Disciple... but it takes pains to ID apostles and such. Why the change here? You are claiming something not supported by scriptures.

I would also like to see a scripture that says a mere disciple can not lay hands on someone else. Where is this prohibited? You won't find it, because it was as common back then as all Christians being disciples.

 

[No*s]

Of course, since there was no "clergy" back then, how could Ananias be a part of it?

Begging the question just a little aren't we? "Ananias could not be clergy, because there were no clergy" when that is the issue under discussion. Besides, you contradict yourself, when you talk about "elders" and "apostles," but deny "clergy." Do some offices in the Church qualify, but not others?

Again, if it means "priest" why don't they translate it as such.

The term "Elder" and the term "Priest" are not synonymous... go check your thesaurus if you disagree. You are simply playing on words and twisting the history of a word to make it fit. It doesn't.

Why don't they translate it that way? Go check a Douay-Rheims, and get outside the Protestant translations, and you'll find that it has been translated that way.

As for their being not completely synonomous, that is true. However, they are the same word. After all, we are discussing an office in the Church called the presbytery. The word changed over time, and it denoted an office in the NT. It denoted the same office in the second century. We still find it in the third century (and here we're getting our Latin). The same office continues to our day. Where is the separation? When did it change?

But again, when do you throw the Bible out? If it says that they are to be the "Husband of one wife", which do you see as more authoritative. How they did it in the First Century, or how you have CHANGED it? How can you have a succession if by the standards of the NT they haven't been true bishops since your church instituted celibacy as an additional requirement? Peter was married, are you saying that since he was not celibate that he wasn't a Bishop?

Unless you are willing to praise Bush as a minister of God (Romans 13), advocate reinstitution of slavery (Eph. 6.5ff.), greet other men with a kiss (Rom. 16.16), and several other things, I don't think you have room to accuse me of this. You won't hold yourself to your own standards, but instead are using legalism as a hammar to criticize others, but will not obey the same.

Again, you haven't discussed the fact that Apostles HAD TO SEE JESUS. Just passed that one right over.

Apostolic succession has to do with bishops and clergy, and not all of those are apostles. I think you'll find that the bishops don't call themselves "Apostles," so there is no reason for me to do this. They are the gatekeepers for the faith the Apostles appointed and passed on their teaching to.

As for Ananias, I am not about to start adding to the scriptures. The scriptures call him a Disciple... but it takes pains to ID apostles and such. Why the change here? You are claiming something not supported by scriptures.

No, it doesn't. Just read the Gospels, the Apostles are there called "disciples" as well as "apostles."

I would also like to see a scripture that says a mere disciple can not lay hands on someone else. Where is this prohibited? You won't find it, because it was as common back then as all Christians being disciples.

You can justify anything with this argument, and you know it. Where does the Scripture prohibit wiping our butt with the Bible? It doesn't, but we would both condemn the practice. Where does the Scripture prohibit believing that Jesus was just a man (i.e., not an angel here)? It doesn't. Where does it prohibit monasticism? It doesn't (but I've heard you condemn it).

Where does it prohibit rebellion and schism? Well, for that we can go to I Corinthians, II Peter, Jude, and several others.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Do you see the term "clergy" used in the NT??? I don't. Do you see the term Catholic or Pope? Well, I don't either!

Bush... I have not rebelled against him and I have submitted to his authority. I am glad I only have to do that for 3 years and 11 months or so.

Ephesians 6 niether condemns or promotes slavery... just our attitude if we are a part of it.

The Holy Kiss... You don't do this? I do! Wasn't that a part of the service that Scott posted from the third century??? You don't even do that?

So you are saying that there are no more apostles? Some succession.

but we would both condemn the practice.

Speak for yourself. I would surely check someone's attitudes, but I would not consider it a condemnable act.

Where does the Scripture prohibit believing that Jesus was just a man

Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

But hey, you are free to believe what you believe, but the Bible does not support apostolic succession. Especially when your Bishops don't even qualify as such.

 

[No*s]

Do you see the term "clergy" used in the NT??? I don't. Do you see the term Catholic or Pope? Well, I don't either!

Nope, but I don't see the word "Trinity" in there either. You are pretty emphatic about that doctrine.

Bush... I have not rebelled against him and I have submitted to his authority. I am glad I only have to do that for 3 years and 11 months or so.

The text doesn't limit it to "rebel." It says "resist." You do resist him. You also wouldn't talk about a minister of God the way you talk about him.

Ephesians 6 niether condemns or promotes slavery... just our attitude if we are a part of it.

This is quaint. It's really funny that when it contradicts your views, it doesn't promote or condemn it. It most certainly does condone slavery. The Old Testament does establish it (and we have a positive statement there from the Bible). Paul also clearly expects it to be a part of the normative Christian society. He doesn't condemn it, but he does prescribe behavior in it.

Here, where it contradicts your views, Paul doesn't condemn or promote it. It's just something in there (for apparantly completely neutral reasons). It, thus, becomes a temporary measure that has no bearing in our society. It's a guideline, but when I used that exact same line of thought earlier, you accused me of changing it.

The Holy Kiss... You don't do this? I do! Wasn't that a part of the service that Scott posted from the third century??? You don't even do that?

The next time you go to Russia, go to a Church and see how many greet with a kiss. You'll certainly find the practice does survive.

So you are saying that there are no more apostles? Some succession.

So you'll argue against something, when you don't even understand the concept. Some seeker.

Speak for yourself. I would surely check someone's attitudes, but I would not consider it a condemnable act.

Then by all means, go do it. Teach others to do it.

Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

But hey, you are free to believe what you believe, but the Bible does not support apostolic succession. Especially when your Bishops don't even qualify as such.

You didn't even try to support it. Instead, you started condemning us, and applying standards of Scripture you won't adhere to, even implying we follow demonic teachings for not agreeing with you. You may believe yourself to be the "Voice of God," but nobody else does. I think there are many more people I could discuss this with who don't pretend to be the voice of God, and don't try to be legalistic where it is profitable.

If you're ever willing to discuss the topic and not start pretending to be the voice of God, I'll listen. However, until then, I'll interpret the Scripture as my Church sees fit, as I've seen other Protestants do, and I'll leave you to be the only one who knows the truth.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think that some of the confusion on the whole "preist" and "presbyter" thing is caused by the connection that each word implies. A presbyter is a servant and leader of the church. A preist connotates a much different role, that of a person standing between God and man, officiating the sacraments. I must plead ignorance on the role of the priest in the EO, but in Catholic theology the preist gives the people grace by means of the sacrament. This is where sola scriptura is useful. From reading the Scriptures based on this principle, Protestants believe in the doctrine of justification by faith, which means that people receive grace by placing their faith in the Savior of the World, the One God, Jesus Christ (which, incidently, is the primary objective of the apostolic witness). If we are justified by faith, which the Scripture teaches, the whole idea of receiving grace by means of the sacraments (which is why we would need apostolic succession - the guy giving you grace would have to have some legitimacy that does not come from Scripture). We have not yet discussed the reason for succession, which in my mind, requires that one's justification is at stake. The clear implication is that if one stands outside the teaching handed down by apostolic succession then one is outside of the grace of God. However, since we have the apostolic teaching in the NT, we are able to follow the apostles.

Interpreting correctly what is written is difficult, which is why it is written "lean not on your own understanding" and "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." One cannot master Scripture, but always stand under it like our revered fathers of the faith. None of them dared to stand on it or beside it, they continually point to Scripture alone as the inspired authority for believers.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You didn't even try to support it. Instead, you started condemning us, and applying standards of Scripture you won't adhere to, even implying we follow demonic teachings for not agreeing with you. You may believe yourself to be the "Voice of God," but nobody else does. I think there are many more people I could discuss this with who don't pretend to be the voice of God, and don't try to be legalistic where it is profitable.

If you're ever willing to discuss the topic and not start pretending to be the voice of God, I'll listen. However, until then, I'll interpret the Scripture as my Church sees fit, as I've seen other Protestants do, and I'll leave you to be the only one who knows the truth.
----

No*s,
You are getting a little contentious here. If apostolic succession is true and needed for the true church, and sola scriptura is heresy, then all Protestants have no legitimacy to their faith, and their entire experience with God is a lie. I think that you should expect some folks to lose it when so much is at stake. You are certianly implying the same thing for every Protestant Christian by the points that you are making. :tsk:

 

[No*s]

No*s,
You are getting a little contentious here. If apostolic succession is true and needed for the true church, and sola scriptura is heresy, then all Protestants have no legitimacy to their faith, and their entire experience with God is a lie. I think that you should expect some folks to lose it when so much is at stake. You are certianly implying the same thing for every Protestant Christian by the points that you are making. :tsk:

Yes I am Nate, and I've terminated my discussion with him.

I'm not using the reality of what's at stake as an excuse to proof-text, construct scarecrows, apply special standards to others I wouldn't submit to, and so on. Neither of us has any tolerance with this kind of practice.

I like NetDoc. I'm simply not going to debate him on this subject anymore. I find the approach dishonest, and NetDoc is over all very honest. I won't debate with him any more on this subject until he applies the standards to others that he has gotten angry at other posters for denying him.

 

[No*s]

I think that some of the confusion on the whole "preist" and "presbyter" thing is caused by the connection that each word implies. A presbyter is a servant and leader of the church. A preist connotates a much different role, that of a person standing between God and man, officiating the sacraments. I must plead ignorance on the role of the priest in the EO, but in Catholic theology the preist gives the people grace by means of the sacrament. This is where sola scriptura is useful. From reading the Scriptures based on this principle, Protestants believe in the doctrine of justification by faith, which means that people receive grace by placing their faith in the Savior of the World, the One God, Jesus Christ (which, incidently, is the primary objective of the apostolic witness). If we are justified by faith, which the Scripture teaches, the whole idea of receiving grace by means of the sacraments (which is why we would need apostolic succession - the guy giving you grace would have to have some legitimacy that does not come from Scripture). We have not yet discussed the reason for succession, which in my mind, requires that one's justification is at stake. The clear implication is that if one stands outside the teaching handed down by apostolic succession then one is outside of the grace of God. However, since we have the apostolic teaching in the NT, we are able to follow the apostles.

This is very true, and there are two different views here. If we have evidence of Apostolic Succession in Scripture, then it is also evidence for a sacramental view. That's the whole subject of the thread.

Interpreting correctly what is written is difficult, which is why it is written "lean not on your own understanding" and "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." One cannot master Scripture, but always stand under it like our revered fathers of the faith. None of them dared to stand on it or beside it, they continually point to Scripture alone as the inspired authority for believers.

You're right, and it is difficult. That's why we need to approach it humbly and not presume that just because we see it one way it must be. We should offer reasons for our views.

The discussion has shown the following pieces of evidence:

1). No layman can be shown to have ordained with the laying on of hands.
2). There is clergy, by admission on all sides, because we all see offices in the Bible
3). The laying on of hands is a fundamental doctrine.
4). Paul commanded that it should not be done hastily.
5). Laying on of hands happens with ordination to an office.

All these are seen in Scripture, and the argument is that apostolic succession is the result, because a valid ordination doesn't happen without the laying on of hands. It is hard to argue that it is not a normative part of ordination in light of that.

 

[Scuba Pete]

As for "Trinity" I don't believe in the term, but as I pointed out in many discussion, the beliefs therein do not violate any scriptures and so believing in it or not believing in has no bearing on salvation.

You do resist him.

I completely disagree with having a liar and a hypocrite in the whitehouse. But I don't resist him. Please show me specifically what I have done to resist him.

Here is the "other" scripture on slavery...
I Corinthians 7:20 Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.

Again, you put way too much emphasis on the physical and not enough on the spiritual. Jesus was NOT about social change. He was about heart change. That's not to condemn social change, and I am glad to see it. But the salvation of the heart is so much more important.

I'm not sure I understand your anger... it is obvious that it is there, but it is not mutual. I am not sure if it's just because I won't simply agree with you, or if some flaw in my personality has offended you. I profusely apologise for any of the latter, and pray that you can deal with it if it is indeed the former.

As for "The Voice of God", that is a private joke between me and "The Voice of Reason". No more and no less. I am sorry you see it differently, and since it seems to offend you, I will gladly change it when I have enough coins. It has outlived itself. I do not hold myself as the end all when it comes to understanding God.

As for interpreting the scripture, I guess this is where we really differ:

II Peter 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

If the prophets won't "interpret" scripture then I am not going to start. I'm just going to take it at face value. If I don't understand it, I will gladly say so.

Instead, you started condemning us, and applying standards of Scripture you won't adhere to, even implying we follow demonic teachings for not agreeing with you.

I never condemned YOU or your Church. No more than my church was condemned by you and yours. I addressed the concept of apostolic succession and that alone. I am sorry if that threatens you.

But I have to ask... which standard of scripture won't I adhere to? If there is something I need to change, I would like to know what it is. But making blanket statements about my unwillingness to do something without being specific is more melodramatic than it is beneficial.

But y'all have appeared to have left the conversation a bit prematurely and a bit disgruntled at me for maintaining my stance. I am still open to further dialogue, but it's entirely up to you.

 

[Scuba Pete]

1). No layman can be shown to have ordained with the laying on of hands.

Niether can it be proved that a layman DID NOT ordain with the laying on of hands. I may not be able to prove Ananias was NOT a Bishop, but you can't prove he was.

6) I Timothy 3 shows the requirements for being a Bishop or a Deacon
7) Acts 1 shows the requirements for being an Apostle

A valid ordination can't occur without a valid Bishop. Celibacy precludes being a Bishop OR a Deacon.
No one today can meet the requirements for being an apostle.

 

[No*s]

I never condemned YOU or your Church. No more than my church was condemned by you and yours. I addressed the concept of apostolic succession and that alone. I am sorry if that threatens you.

Actually, yes you did. I have never accused you, or yours of following demons; I would actually repudiate it. You did me in this thread.

But I have to ask... which standard of scripture won't I adhere to? If there is something I need to change, I would like to know what it is. But making blanket statements about my unwillingness to do something without being specific is more melodramatic than it is beneficial.

Demanding that if Paul puts a limit on something, that means it must exist. You wouldn't even open it for dialogue. You simply snipped away all my explanations on the interpretation of the text and declared your interpretation God's. However, on other Scriptures, there are other ways of looking at it than mine. It's legalistic when you use it against others, and malleable when you use it with you.

In this very post you accused me of being too focused on the physical. However, I'm the one that asserts that the parameters governing behavior are not necessarily hard and fast. You said this after trying to judge me and mine to adhere to the letter of the Law, while trying to argue the Spirit for yours.

You have also been snipping away most of the arguments, leaving just a sentance or two, often little more than a clause, and posting a rebuttal of what I "wrote" while keeping 95% of the argument out. That is dishonest. If you're going to declare me wrong, make a practice of actually addressing my arguments, not mere clauses you snipped out.

Heck, to change the subject to Sola Scriptura, you even edited a friendly joke, an inside jab, into a serious assertion by omitting the tell-tale smiley. You then proceeded to accuse me of twisting the Scripture. In that way, you changed the subject away from the Laying on of Hands and the interpretation of Scripture and whether you can or will apply that standard consistently to Scripture is the standard.

Further, I often have to ask for an explanation two or three times before getting it, and then, it's usually a declaration. In the meanwhile I've made a point to answer most of your arguments, and I haven't edited your posts.

I believe all these problems are things you've gotten angry at Iris for, and some other posters. I have not edited your posts to make them say things they don't, nor have I changed the subject and ignored your arguments. I have repeatedly addressed your arguments with your post intact, and I'm not only adhering to my own standards for evidence, I'm even dialoging with you using your standards for proof, which I think make no sense.

But y'all have appeared to have left the conversation a bit prematurely and a bit disgruntled at me for maintaining my stance. I am still open to further dialogue, but it's entirely up to you.

I am open to further dialogue, if you will treat others the way you want to be treated in the discussion. I don't like having to adhere to a double standard, I don't like having the vast majority of my arguments dismissed so that you can retort to a single clause, nor do I like the exploitation of my statements to change the subject when there is no viable support.

Those techniques are dishonest, and you've used them all. I will not discuss this subject with you again, until I can be guaranteed that you will do so honestly.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I must admit... I left out my smiley when I posted the twisting of the scripture quip. I apologise for that, and I missed the other being a joke... for that I also apologise.

As for the cutting and pasting... I can't stand it when large portions are quoted when there is only a small bit to be discussed. Maybe it's because I moderate so many boards and it becomes such a waste of time for me. It was not to lift out of context and I will be more careful in that respect with you.

No, I got angry at Iris for other reasons. Name calling mostly.

Can you point me where I said you were following demons? I just can't see it, but there is a ton of verbage to wade through.

 

[No*s]

I must admit... I left out my smiley when I posted the twisting of the scripture quip. I apologise for that, and I missed the other being a joke... for that I also apologise.

OK, I can understand that.

As for the cutting and pasting... I can't stand it when large portions are quoted when there is only a small bit to be discussed. Maybe it's because I moderate so many boards and it becomes such a waste of time for me. It was not to lift out of context and I will be more careful in that respect with you.

This is a good thing .

I can understand the dislike for verbage, but much of this requires verbage. The points and explanations take a bit, and if we remove those, we remove the whole argument. An argument that takes several paragraphs is rarely rebutted in five sentances.

This is why I keep the other guy's posts in tact. That way the arguments are clear, and so will my rebuttals be. This displays the premises, which I can criticize to show weakness, and then establish a counter-argument. This also keeps me from simply making a counter-declaration and a discussion of declarations and little argumentation.

I get testy on this point. If I continue to make arguments, use evidence, etc., and the other guy dismisses or makes short declarations, I get testy. You can't argue with that, you can only counter-declare, and the process is frustrating.

No, I got angry at Iris for other reasons. Name calling mostly.

She does do that...

Can you point me where I said you were following demons? I just can't see it, but there is a ton of verbage to wade through.

Post 14. If you take the interpretation seriously, then the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are demonic. If not, then you are picking parts of the verse that apply and parts that don't. This is one of those "consistent interpretation" things.