Smoke
Done here.
Okay. Now I understand why you think they were appointed to rule the Church. :biglaugh:Squirt said:"Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils [...]"
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Okay. Now I understand why you think they were appointed to rule the Church. :biglaugh:Squirt said:"Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils [...]"
Victor said:So there is no legitimate transfering of authority because the same mechanism was not passed by Christ? That right?
And what mechanism is this exactly? Please be clear.
Squirt said:I disagree, Scott. Christ clearly appointed twelve from among the many who chose to follow Him. They were not merely followers, but were followers whom He specifically set apart to fulfill a role. In addition to the passages Knight Rider has mentioned (two of which I was going to mention myself -- until he beat me to the punch!), Luke 9:1 also says:
"Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases."
He chose them, ordained them and gave them power and authority that not all of His followers had. I am aware of at least thirty references to this particular group of men, referred to throughout the gospels as "the twelve."
That's probably an accurate statement. Jesus, being the head of His own Church, did not require the council of these men. But, knowing that He would not always be physically present to preside over His Church, He obviously appointed them for some other purpose than for the pleasure of their company! Clearly, they held positions of authority. Why justification do we have for presuming that this structure or organization was intended to be temporary in nature?
Victor said:So you think the RCC had apostolic succession but lost it?
What I bolded above I find interesting and would like to discuss it further in another thread in a latter time.
I don't really want to make this a EO vs. RC thing because I think both James and No*s can make their case without me disagreeing. Just wanted to get clarification on this and I will fall back. My contribution to this thread will only bore some people and complicate issues somemore.
MidnightBlue said:I'm sorry but those synonyms just don't fly. There are significant differences when you talk about calling a group as opposed to organizing a council or establishing a quorum.
Just read the Gospels. It's not even clear exactly who the Twelve were, and Jesus never appointed them as a Ruling Council. He trained them to go out two by two as itinerant preachers. The very meaning of the word apostle, and every tradition recorded about the apostles, confirms that that's pretty much what they did with their lives, too.
Why? The evidence we have indicates that the apostles appointed bishops. I don't believe there ever was an "authoritative organization," but supposing there had been, why should it have to take the form you think it should have? Don't you think an authoritative organization established by Jesus would be competent to perpetuate itself in the best way possible?
It seems to me that you're straining mightily to justify the Restorationist position, but you haven't come up with anything concrete, or really any evidence at all to back your claims, other than a subjective opinion that another form of organization would have been preferable. That makes for bad history and bad theology.
KnightRider said:the Christians were heavily persecuted and many (if not all) of the apostles were killed.
KnightRider said:Look, the fact is this: the N.T. clearly states that Jesus ordained 12 Apostles (that sounds pretty official to me, but you're free to your opinion) and in Matthew the names of all the original 12 are given. Further in Acts, as I have mentioned, we learn that at least early on, there was an attempt to continue the succession of 12 apostles with the selection of Matthias. This process seems like a competent way to perpetuate the succession of authority to me. However, somewhere this succession process stopped, whether by choice of the apostles, or by means out of their control, is open for debate. The problem is that many people were completely rejecting Jesus' gospel, taught by the Apostles. To the point, in fact, that the Christians were heavily persecuted and many (if not all) of the apostles were killed.
Popeyesays said:This seems to have been crowd control more than anything else. Much like a concert performance is provided with "security" chief roadies, but the artist's agent is busy doing other things. In this particular case the AGENT is missing.
KnightRider said:That's fine, you can stick to your "crowd control" theory, but I continue to believe that the 12 apostles were intended for much more important things as they are mentioned many times throughout the N.T. text as if there was indeed something special about their calling.
Popeyesays said:It was not the will of God, for whatever reason, that an authoritative body or person was not established. I say this because in the covenant of Moses such an authoirtative mechanism WAS passed along.
In my own faith, I know, this mechanism was passed along and the medium by which it could be maintained was ordained by the will of God, or it would not have been established thus far.
Regards,
Scott
Popeyesays said:Not the same authority, but ANY authority. The Judaic mechanism was the priesthood and the anointed authority of Moses - Joshua.
I would expect the mechanism to be markedly different from Dispensation to Dispensation. Baha`i's have no clergy or priesthood at all. The Baha`i Mechanism is based on the dessignation of the Center of the Covenant, Abdu'l Baha, and the mandate given to him and his successors to lay the ground work for the Universal Houseof Justice.
Abdu'l Baha passed on the authority to his grandson, Shoghi Effendi as the Guardian of the Faith, and as the time was not right yet to establish the Universal House of Justice, Shoghi Effendi inherited that mandate as well. He fulfilled that mandate by setting up the election process, establishing many National Spiritual Assemblies to be the electorate and decreeing it would be elected in 1963. Shoghi Effendi passed away in 1957 without issue and no single person to designate a second Guardian, but the Hands of the Cause, saw through the first election of the House of Justice in 1963. That body is re-elected every five years by 200 or so National Spiritual Assemblies around the world. No nominations, no electioneering, secret ballot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_House_of_Justice
Regards,
Scott
Popeyesays said:The question originally was what authority did JESUS establish for after His passing? The Acts, the Epistles and the Apocalypse won't answer that question.
Popeyesays said:If that's the case, why did the "Apostolic authority" die out?
According to Paul, Jesus appeared to 500 of the brethren. Now you've got a council of 500.KnightRider said:Acts 1 :
2. Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: 3. To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
These verses suggest that the apostles continued to receive instruction from Jesus even after His death, resurrection, and ascension. According to this Jesus spent 40 days with them after His resurrection to instruct them pertaining to the kingdom of God. Why would he do this if there was no intention of some sort of succession of authority and responsibility? Further the apostles were instructed through the Holy Ghost after Christ had ascended, implying some continued work for them to do.
Earlier you protested that apostles could only be succeeded by other apostles, and couldn't be succeeded by bishops. Now you're suggesting they can be succeeded by deacons?KnightRider said:Acts 6:
4. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. 5. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: 6. Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. 7. And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
Sounds like the passing on of some sort of authority going on here.
And yet Paul himself didn't follow that advice.KnightRider said:Ephesians 2: 19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Ephesians 3: 4. Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ. 5. Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
Ephesians 4: 11. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12. For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13. Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Each of these passages from Ephesians describe an apparent authorative organization "built on the foundation of apostles" with Christ being the "chief corner stone".
Victor said:Since I am unfamiliar with Bahai understanding it's difficult for me to connect the dots. Perhaps when I am more learned in this area.
KnightRider said:OK first of all the council of Twelve was a term I used to distinguish the leading 12 Apostles. Second, how is this statement contradictory? I don't see Clement claiming that there should be no succession of 12 apostles. If you insist that he was indeed claiming that, maybe he (and the apostles that were concerned) were forseeing the fall of the organizational structure of the church and were trying to salvage as much as they could.
KnightRider said:I agree if the restoration is conducted by a man. But if there is divine involvement the "spirit of a religion" can most definitely be restored. If a religion is lost I believe that God has the power to restore it and whatever ceremonies, etc that are necessary.
No*s said:It is contradictory because the concept of a council of 12 succeeding through the generations is unknown to Clement. He couldn't appeal to that (and St. John would have been alive at this time, and he didn't even appeal to John). Instead of mentioning a succession or office like that, he mentions an apostolic succession of bishops. The absence and mention of another form of succession is a contradiction in and of itself.
No*s said:The problem is exacerbated, because no early source ever mentions such a council. They don't even hint at it. It is a modern invention and has no backing at all. In the absence of any evidence and the presence of a different model for succession (which doesn't mention a council of 12 apostles anywhere in it), then it constitutes contradictory evidence.
No*s said:God has never worked that way in history. He never restores a lost religion and has always worked within the culture He reveals Himself. He always works with tradition. False prophets, OTOH, frequently work that way. It was happening in the earliest days and has continued ever since. Some prophet appears and claims to restore the truth that was lost during an earlier apostasy (as opposed to an organic accretion to the tradition), or they claim otherwise to restore it. It's happened from the first century on.
The contrast between the two helps to illustrate why I say a religion that has died will remain dead. It can never come back to life.