Diversity

[Doubting Thomas]

WO=Women's Ordination

In the ACNA it is left to 'local option', I believe. While in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin women are ordained as Deacons, there are no women ordained as presbyters. Some ACNA dioceses have women presbyters and other do not. There has been no decision made so far as to whether this 'local option' will continue within the ACNA province or not. There are seems to be many in the 'continuum' that are waiting to see what the ACNA does before deciding to join. That is what Doubting Thomas was speaking of when he mentioned his only concern was how WO would play out. There are other 'continuing Anglican/Episcopal churches' that are practicIing this local option. The Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches is one of them. Others, like The Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) and The Anglican Church of America (ACA) do not allow WO at all. I believe the Reformed Episcopal Church (part of the ACNA merger) would oppose WO. It is the 'fly in the ointment' for the ACNA province. I hope they can find a solution because what the 'continuing church' does not need is another split.

Correct--in ACNA the decision to ordain women (to the presbyteriate) is left to each separate diocese. I'm in the Diocese of the South which does not ordain women except to the diaconate. (BTW--The new Archbishop of ACNA, Foley Beach, has been our local bishop). The REC is against WO, and the older Continuing Churches (like the ACC and ACA mentioned above) don't allow it. I still have fondness for the old Continuing Anglican churches (I was confirmed in the ACC) and despite their jurisdictional splits, they tend to be more consistently orthodox in their theology and praxis than ACNA.

 

[The American Dream]

Not only is there no example of hierarchies in Scripture, or evidence, common sense dictates they are useless. They do nothing towards the work of the Lord. That is carried out by the local church. They sit in elaborate offices in elaborate buildings think up ways to interfere with the running of the local church. Money is wasted on their salaries. Regardless of whether you are a bishop, presbyter, cardinal, blue jay, in the synod, general assembly, or the Vatican, they are all dead weight and accomplish nothing. That money we waste on them could be used to support missionaries. Let the local church keep all their money.

They promote uniformity of belief? You mean as said before like the PCUSA sanctioning gay marriage. Yes, that means there is the uniform belief in the PCUSA church that we should be marrying two men or women together. Smooth move.

 

[Rebel]

Not only is there no example of hierarchies in Scripture, or evidence, common sense dictates they are useless. They do nothing towards the work of the Lord. That is carried out by the local church. They sit in elaborate offices in elaborate buildings think up ways to interfere with the running of the local church. Money is wasted on their salaries. Regardless of whether you are a bishop, presbyter, cardinal, blue jay, in the synod, general assembly, or the Vatican, they are all dead weight and accomplish nothing. That money we waste on them could be used to support missionaries. Let the local church keep all their money.

They promote uniformity of belief? You mean as said before like the PCUSA sanctioning gay marriage. Yes, that means there is the uniform belief in the PCUSA church that we should be marrying two men or women together. Smooth move.

I feel very sad for the little rural PCUSA churches around here just struggling to survive. All are conservative churches. Some are 175 years old, and their denomination has abandoned them.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Since DHK hasn't answered yet, I'll give a brief answer. The ministry of the apostles was a unique situation in the church's beginning that was unrepeatable. When they all died or were martyred, no one replaced them. Even so, they did not force their beliefs or decisions on anyone or require anyone to accept or abide by them. That pastors and churches should desire and give heed to their advice and counsel was only natural, and wise.

I don't know--it sure seems like the Apostles expected the Churches to whom they wrote/ministered to abide by their teaching and decisions, as their authority came from Christ. It seems that to reject the apostolic authority/teaching would be to cut oneself off from the Church, as continuing in their doctrine is said to be one of the marks of the earliest Church (ACTS 2:42).

For instance, if some predominately Jewish congregations decided to ignore the instructions of the Apostolic letter deriving from that first Jerusalem Council and began drifting off in perhaps an "Ebionite" direction, they had the freedom to do so, but they would no longer be considered to be in fellowship with the Apostle's Church. Likewise, a few decades later if congregations decided to give heed to teachers who taught a "Gnosticized" view of Christ and the Scriptures, they certainly had the "soul liberty" or "liberty of conscience" to do so, but they couldn't any longer in any meaningful sense be regarded as being part of the Apostolic Church founded by Christ.

Now, of course, how that apostolic authority is trasmitted/continued (if at all) after the Apostle's departed is certainly another question. The Apostle Paul did command Timothy to hold to the "pattern of sound words" he had received from him (2 Tim 1:13) and to commit the same to other faithful men who would likewise be able to teach others (2 Tim 2:2). This at least implies a body of authoritative and authentic apostolic teaching that is to be passed on to faithful men in the Church who can in turn teach others. This sounds a lot like Apostolic succession in it's most important aspect--authoritative, authentic teaching taught by authoritative, faithful men who shared the faith of the Apostles.

This says to me that the true "apostolic succession" is in following the teachings of the apostles...

Yes, this is certainly the most important part.

and has nothing to do with who laid hands on a person.

I wouldn't say it has "nothing" to do with historical tactile succession, but I concur that the teaching is definitely the most important part.

This can be seen in all the apostate clergy who claim apostolic succession.

This is very true. I do however think that, ideally, the importance of having a communion of visible successors who have also faithfully maintained the Apostolic teaching is to serve as a visible manifestation of the unity of the Church throughout the world. However, the reality, sadly, is far from this ideal. In many respects, there have been those officially outside the visible historic episcopate that have been perhaps more faithful to certain aspects of Apostolic teaching (that may have been neglected with time and/or buried under human accretions) than those officially on the inside.

Yet, I can't get past the fact that God certainly has used the historic episcopate through out the Church's history, especially in those first few centuries in hammering out authoritative statements about the nature of the Trinity and Christ's Person in response to the heretics, as well has coming to a consensus on the boundaries on the Scriptural Canon. All orthodox Christians, whether in episcopal churches or not, seem to share a common heritage handed down by this early hierchical Church (despite all her warts). It gives one pause to consider that the historic episcopate, in it's three-fold form, arose and became widespread very early in the life of the Church, predating the final "closing" of the Canon, developing organically from the precedents and patterns of the NT Church, particularly that first Church in Jerusalem.

 

[Walter]

Since DHK hasn't answered yet, I'll give a brief answer. The ministry of the apostles was a unique situation in the church's beginning that was unrepeatable. When they all died or were martyred, no one replaced them. Even so, they did not force their beliefs or decisions on anyone or require anyone to accept or abide by them. That pastors and churches should desire and give heed to their advice and counsel was only natural, and wise.

This says to me that the true "apostolic succession" is in following the teachings of the apostles and has nothing to do with who laid hands on a person. This can be seen in all the apostate clergy who claim apostolic succession.

It is (obviously) true that the apostles were unique to the beginning of the Church, and that is indeed unrepeatable. It is true that no one (ultimately) replaced them in the sense of being full apostles. It is true that pastors and churches should heed their advice. Etc.

Partial truths are the most difficult ones to handle.

It sounds like you reject the idea of Apostolic Succession in the Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican sense of the bishops (collectively) continuing the full leadership of the the Church in the place of, or as successors to, the Apostles. The problem is likely to be rooted in a sola scriptura approach that refuses to look at how that same Scripture and the Apostles' teachings were actually lived out in the early centuries of the Church. My own opinion has been that, in matters of dispute, when it cannot be resolved by reading words written in scripture, (and you yourself pointed an example of this on the Pacifist thread) it is best to look at how those were applied and lived by people contemporary to the authors.

Of course, that is difficult, and many people will flatly refuse to even begin to do this. You have shown a willingness to not only look at the practices of the Early Church, you have stated you feel it significant.

 

[The American Dream]

Hi Walter,

I do believe the apostolic era was unique and transitional. As per Hebrews, we now have the complete revelation of the Lord in His Son and Scripture. I cannot speak for the RCC, but there is no direct evidence of Baptistic succession. For the RCC, I do have two questions on that front. How does the RCC claim apostolic succession from the time of Acts until around 400 AD when the RCC was founded? How do you explain how God preserved the NT church for 400 years? Of course, Baptists believe it could not have been the RCC, so it must have been local churches along side of the RCC of like faith and order.

Not only do I believe there is no succession of apostles, I believe the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit have long since ceased. God can perform them as He sees fit on individuals, but for one man to have say healing power today is used by frauds such as Benny Hinn. I believe we even agree on that one.

 

[Rebel]

It is (obviously) true that the apostles were unique to the beginning of the Church, and that is indeed unrepeatable. It is true that no one (ultimately) replaced them in the sense of being full apostles. It is true that pastors and churches should heed their advice. Etc.

Partial truths are the most difficult ones to handle.

It sounds like you reject the idea of Apostolic Succession in the Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican sense of the bishops (collectively) continuing the full leadership of the the Church in the place of, or as successors to, the Apostles. The problem is likely to be rooted in a sola scriptura approach that refuses to look at how that same Scripture and the Apostles' teachings were actually lived out in the early centuries of the Church. My own opinion has been that, in matters of dispute, when it cannot be resolved by reading words written in scripture, (and you yourself pointed an example of this on the Pacifist thread) it is best to look at how those were applied and lived by people contemporary to the authors.

Of course, that is difficult, and many people will flatly refuse to even begin to do this. You have shown a willingness to not only look at the practices of the Early Church, you have stated you feel it significant.

For what it's worth to the discussion, I wouldn't say I hold to sola scriptura but to prima scriptura. Further, I acknowledge that the historic episcopate is historic since about 200 A.D. I can even partially agree with the Anglicans that such is for the benefit of the church but not of the essence of it.

 

[Rebel]

I don't know--it sure seems like the Apostles expected the Churches to whom they wrote/ministered to abide by their teaching and decisions, as their authority came from Christ. It seems that to reject the apostolic authority/teaching would be to cut oneself off from the Church, as continuing in their doctrine is said to be one of the marks of the earliest Church (ACTS 2:42).

For instance, if some predominately Jewish congregations decided to ignore the instructions of the Apostolic letter deriving from that first Jerusalem Council and began drifting off in perhaps an "Ebionite" direction, they had the freedom to do so, but they would no longer be considered to be in fellowship with the Apostle's Church. Likewise, a few decades later if congregations decided to give heed to teachers who taught a "Gnosticized" view of Christ and the Scriptures, they certainly had the "soul liberty" or "liberty of conscience" to do so, but they couldn't any longer in any meaningful sense be regarded as being part of the Apostolic Church founded by Christ.

Now, of course, how that apostolic authority is trasmitted/continued (if at all) after the Apostle's departed is certainly another question. The Apostle Paul did command Timothy to hold to the "pattern of sound words" he had received from him (2 Tim 1:13) and to commit the same to other faithful men who would likewise be able to teach others (2 Tim 2:2). This at least implies a body of authoritative and authentic apostolic teaching that is to be passed on to faithful men in the Church who can in turn teach others. This sounds a lot like Apostolic succession in it's most important aspect--authoritative, authentic teaching taught by authoritative, faithful men who shared the faith of the Apostles.


Yes, this is certainly the most important part.


I wouldn't say it has "nothing" to do with historical tactile succession, but I concur that the teaching is definitely the most important part.



This is very true. I do however think that, ideally, the importance of having a communion of visible successors who have also faithfully maintained the Apostolic teaching is to serve as a visible manifestation of the unity of the Church throughout the world. However, the reality, sadly, is far from this ideal. In many respects, there have been those officially outside the visible historic episcopate that have been perhaps more faithful to certain aspects of Apostolic teaching (that may have been neglected with time and/or buried under human accretions) than those officially on the inside.

Yet, I can't get past the fact that God certainly has used the historic episcopate through out the Church's history, especially in those first few centuries in hammering out authoritative statements about the nature of the Trinity and Christ's Person in response to the heretics, as well has coming to a consensus on the boundaries on the Scriptural Canon. All orthodox Christians, whether in episcopal churches or not, seem to share a common heritage handed down by this early hierchical Church (despite all her warts). It gives one pause to consider that the historic episcopate, in it's three-fold form, arose and became widespread very early in the life of the Church, predating the final "closing" of the Canon, developing organically from the precedents and patterns of the NT Church, particularly that first Church in Jerusalem.

I enjoy reading your posts and Walter's posts because not only do you make good points but you present them in a kind and reasonable way.

I understand how important it was to try to assure that the actual teaching of the apostles were being adhered to and the developments that helped in that regard. No doubt the doctrine of apostolic succession was one such doctrine that many used to try and assure the continuance of apostolic teaching. Another was the development of the canon of scripture. There were lots of competing teachings -- for instance, those of Marcion and Gnosticism. Still, since the canon of scripture has been closed, it seems the surest way to adherence to the teachings of the apostles is by being faithful to scripture. Having the historic episcopate doesn't assure it, and, even though I highly value the teachings of the Greek fathers, even that doesn't assure fidelity to the apostles' teachings. So, while I use those writings of the fathers, and reason, tradition, and experience, as do the Methodists and Anglicans, and the leading of the Holy Spirit, scripture is still my final authority, and it seems to me it should be for everyone. I realize this does not assure that everyone believes the same, but I think this is better than any alternative. I would rather rely on scripture and then those secondary authorities I listed than on some Magisterium that tells me what I must believe. If that Magisterium contradicts scripture, I would have to go with scripture.

 

[Walter]

For what it's worth to the discussion, I wouldn't say I hold to sola scriptura but to prima scriptura. Further, I acknowledge that the historic episcopate is historic since about 200 A.D. I can even partially agree with the Anglicans that such is for the benefit of the church but not of the essence of it.

Thanks for clarifying your 'prima scriptura' position. I don't think it is generally a "good" argument to say that Apostolic Succession is based on Scripture because, as a matter of fact, it is not. Compatible, yes. Evidenced, yes. Comes from -- I doubt it. Seriously, it isn't as if the people of the Early Church sat around, Bibles in hand, debating what this or that saying meant and how to apply it. They were taught by the Apostles and their delegates, for the most part, in person and by word of mouth. Some of that got written down, and we have a few cherished letters. Clearly, different people interpret those letters in different ways, thousands of years later.

 

[Rebel]

Thanks for clarifying your 'prima scriptura' position. I don't think it is generally a "good" argument to say that Apostolic Succession is based on Scripture because, as a matter of fact, it is not. Compatible, yes. Evidenced, yes. Comes from -- I doubt it. Seriously, it isn't as if the people of the Early Church sat around, Bibles in hand, debating what this or that saying meant and how to apply it. They were taught by the Apostles and their delegates, for the most part, in person and by word of mouth. Some of that got written down, and we have a few cherished letters. Clearly, different people interpret those letters in different ways, thousands of years later.

I can certainly agree with that.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

For what it's worth to the discussion, I wouldn't say I hold to sola scriptura but to prima scriptura. Further, I acknowledge that the historic episcopate is historic since about 200 A.D. I can even partially agree with the Anglicans that such is for the benefit of the church but not of the essence of it.

I would describe my position as prima scriptura as well. Even more specifically, I'd say Scriptura omnia continet, or that "Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation..." as stated in Article VI of the 39 ARTICLES.

I'm basically on board with your comment about the historic episcopate being for the benefit of the church and not necessarily the essence of it. However, I'd probably push it's origin back at least a century based on: (1) the letters of Ignatius; and (2) the evidence from Eusebius (who had access to such writers like Papias and Hegisippus, whose writings are otherwise lost to us) that there was an 'episcopal succesion' of sorts in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and even Rome after the apostles, from about the latter half of the First Century onwards; and (3) the list of Roman presbyters/bishops of specific individuals in succession provided by Irenaeus.

Granted, the episocopate wasn't as precisely developed as it would later become (and the terms 'bishop' and 'presbyter' remained somewhat interchangeable for a little while longer in the West), but the precedent for what would become the widespread three-fold pattern occurred pretty early. This seems to have been the case at Jerusalem, since by the early 60s there appears to be a distinction in authority between James and "all the elders", with James at the very least being regarded as the 'first among equals' there (Acts 15 and Acts 20:18). I think this distinction and precedent at Jerusalem ultimately became the basis on which other local churches over time began to distinguish "bishop" from "presbyter", eventually assigning the former term exclusively to the chief pastor of the Church in a particular city and the latter to his 'associate or assisting pastors' (so to speak).

 

[DHK]

DHK, while you make a great case for the word usage of the NT, you do not explain why St. Timothy, who was placed in charge of a church by St. Paul, then writes to St. Paul for guidance in matters and St. Paul responds to him. If there was no hierarchy as you clam, then St. Timothy would have been on his own and felt no need to write St. Paul in the first place.

Likewise, there would have been no meeting of the Apostles in Jerusalem over the Judiazers issue and no letter sent to all the churches if there in fact were not a hierarchy in the early church.

Here is the first instance of Paul meeting Timothy:
Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
(Act 16:1-3)
--At this time he was a young man and now entering into the ministry he accompanied Paul on his missionary travels. He learned much from Paul, as Paul discipled him.
In fact when Paul writes to him in his first epistle he calls Timothy his "son in the faith."
1 Timothy 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
--Paul was like Timothy's spiritual father. Timothy was a very young man, and Paul had become "the aged apostle," who had much to share and teach this young man. Paul encouraged Timothy:

1 Timothy 4:12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
--Simply because he was young that shouldn't be a hindrance for him in serving the Lord.

The spiritual principle that Timothy was to follow is stated here:
2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
--This is spiritual reproduction. Timothy was to teach faithful men, who in turn would teach other faithful men, etc. This is how we operate. It is how another pastor is trained and another church is started.
Faithful men teaching faithful men.

As Paul was as a father to Timothy in the faith, it was only natural for Timothy to seek him out for guidance. They had worked together, lived together, traveled together, suffered together. Paul had discipled him.

You will notice the same pattern in the Corinthian church. Paul spent 18 months in Corinth building that church (the believers, not a building). He put his life into it. When he left he put Apollos in charge. Some time later he received a letter from the church with a number of questions concerning problems that were in the church, and that is the 1 epistle to the Corinthians, Paul answering those problems:
1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
--Just the first part of this verse: "concerning the things your wrote to me." They had written him a letter. He is answering it.

In chapter five, he is astounded by the immorality that they have allowed and gives them some very stern instruction, that they were to carry out, not him.
1Co 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
1Co 5:2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
1Co 5:3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
1Co 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

In both cases Paul was not the Pope, the bishop over the area, etc. There was no hierarchy. In Timothy's case he was as a father to him. There was a great difference in age and a very close relationship.
With the Corinthian church, Paul himself had founded the church. He knew the people. They still looked to him as the founder, the original leader and even pastor. There were as many as four epistles to the Corinthians that Paul had written. Only two were inspired Scripture.

Concerning the Judaizers, they followed Paul wherever he went stirring up trouble wherever he went. The entire epistle to the Galatians is written to counter this poisonous doctrine. He calls it "another gospel," and calls those that preach it "accursed." (1:8).
He refers to in his epistle to the Colossians.

Acts 18:12 And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat,
13 Saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.
--These were Judaizers here as well with the accusation "contrary to the law," the Jewish law.

This incident happened well after the "council" of chapter 15. It happened throughout Paul's life. They never gave up their cause. The decision at Jerusalem did not settle it just like Council of Nicea did not settle the matter of the Trinity for the United Pentecostals, and many others that still do not believe the trinity.

 

[Walter]

Here is the first instance of Paul meeting Timothy:
Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
(Act 16:1-3)
--At this time he was a young man and now entering into the ministry he accompanied Paul on his missionary travels. He learned much from Paul, as Paul discipled him.
In fact when Paul writes to him in his first epistle he calls Timothy his "son in the faith."
1 Timothy 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
--Paul was like Timothy's spiritual father. Timothy was a very young man, and Paul had become "the aged apostle," who had much to share and teach this young man. Paul encouraged Timothy:

1 Timothy 4:12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
--Simply because he was young that shouldn't be a hindrance for him in serving the Lord.

The spiritual principle that Timothy was to follow is stated here:
2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
--This is spiritual reproduction. Timothy was to teach faithful men, who in turn would teach other faithful men, etc. This is how we operate. It is how another pastor is trained and another church is started.
Faithful men teaching faithful men.

As Paul was as a father to Timothy in the faith, it was only natural for Timothy to seek him out for guidance. They had worked together, lived together, traveled together, suffered together. Paul had discipled him.

You will notice the same pattern in the Corinthian church. Paul spent 18 months in Corinth building that church (the believers, not a building). He put his life into it. When he left he put Apollos in charge. Some time later he received a letter from the church with a number of questions concerning problems that were in the church, and that is the 1 epistle to the Corinthians, Paul answering those problems:
1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
--Just the first part of this verse: "concerning the things your wrote to me." They had written him a letter. He is answering it.

In chapter five, he is astounded by the immorality that they have allowed and gives them some very stern instruction, that they were to carry out, not him.
1Co 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
1Co 5:2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
1Co 5:3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
1Co 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

In both cases Paul was not the Pope, the bishop over the area, etc. There was no hierarchy. In Timothy's case he was as a father to him. There was a great difference in age and a very close relationship.
With the Corinthian church, Paul himself had founded the church. He knew the people. They still looked to him as the founder, the original leader and even pastor. There were as many as four epistles to the Corinthians that Paul had written. Only two were inspired Scripture.

Concerning the Judaizers, they followed Paul wherever he went stirring up trouble wherever he went. The entire epistle to the Galatians is written to counter this poisonous doctrine. He calls it "another gospel," and calls those that preach it "accursed." (1:8).
He refers to in his epistle to the Colossians.

Acts 18:12 And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat,
13 Saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.
--These were Judaizers here as well with the accusation "contrary to the law," the Jewish law.

This incident happened well after the "council" of chapter 15. It happened throughout Paul's life. They never gave up their cause. The decision at Jerusalem did not settle it just like Council of Nicea did not settle the matter of the Trinity for the United Pentecostals, and many others that still do not believe the trinity.

The following comment you made is, of course, an opinion. 'In both cases Paul was not the Pope, the bishop over the area, etc. There was no hierarchy'.

You are merely offering up a premise, namely that there was a personal relationship only between Timothy and Paul and no hierarchical relationship. Then you are offering an opinion that supports it, based on ... your opinion. The fact that the Corinthians asked Paul for help by letter can mean there is a hierarchy, or a personal relationship, or both. With all due respect, nothing you have said proves there was no hierarchy.

 

[Walter]

Here is the thing, DHK, we both are sincere, intelligent people, and we are reading the exact same texts, yet coming to different conclusions about their meaning. There are really only three options here: You are right, I am right, or we are both wrong (or some confusing mix thereof). When the very object about which we disagree is the text and its meaning, itself, how can we come to a fruitful conclusion? How can we solve this disagreement? You see, I believe perhaps the only way -- of doing so is not to continue going back and forth about the meaning of the text, but to look at how the people who were, in fact, taught by the apostles and their immediate disciples actually practiced and applied them. Reading comprehensive Church history lead me away from individualism and Protestant/Evangelical interpretations (of which there are so, so many as evidenced on this board) of Scripture.

 

[DHK]

Here is the thing, DHK, we both are sincere, intelligent people, and we are reading the exact same texts, yet coming to different conclusions about their meaning. There are really only three options here: You are right, I am right, or we are both wrong (or some confusing mix thereof). When the very object about which we disagree is the text and its meaning, itself, how can we come to a fruitful conclusion? How can we solve this disagreement? You see, I believe perhaps the only way -- of doing so is not to continue going back and forth about the meaning of the text, but to look at how the people who were, in fact, taught by the apostles and their immediate disciples actually practiced and applied them. Reading comprehensive Church history lead me away from individualism and Protestant/Evangelical interpretations (of which there are so, so many as evidenced on this board) of Scripture.

And yet it has been the exact opposite for many others.
I keep repeating the fact that Paul established over 100 churches on 3 missionary journeys. Trace where he went. Those churches were not connected. They were independent of each other. Travel was difficult. Paul was the one person, as a missionary, that those churches had in common. But he fulfilled the office of an apostle. That office never continued. There is no such thing as apostolic succession.
The gifts listed in 1Cor.12 also ceased at the end of the first century.
Many of them were gifts that were given to the apostles, as Paul mentions in 2Cor.12:12--the gifts of an apostle; the same in Heb.2:3,4--the signs, wonders and gifts of the Holy Spirit attributed to the apostles.
They aren't in existence any longer. The churches are independent.

When Peter finally got to Rome in his final days, he was martyred.
When Paul finally got to Rome he was eventually martyred.
Every apostle except for John was martyred. And John was exiled.
There was no succession.

 

[Rebel]

The bottom line for me has to be scripture. And it is a fact that in scripture, there were only two offices, not three. There was deacon, and there was pastor. 'Bishop', 'elder', 'overseer', 'presbyter' were synonymous with 'pastor'. These were all one and the same office or order of ministry, not five different offices or orders. The apostles did not pass the office of apostle on.

The conflict is between those for whom scripture is the primary or final authority and those who make tradition equal with scripture. I could never do the latter, trying to find security.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The bottom line for me has to be scripture. And it is a fact that in scripture, there were only two offices, not three. There was deacon, and there was pastor. 'Bishop', 'elder', 'overseer', 'presbyter' were synonymous with 'pastor'. These were all one and the same office or order of ministry, not five different offices or orders. The apostles did not pass the office of apostle on.

The conflict is between those for whom scripture is the primary or final authority and those who make tradition equal with scripture. I could never do the latter, trying to find security.

Congratulations!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Here is the thing, DHK, we both are sincere, intelligent people, and we are reading the exact same texts, yet coming to different conclusions about their meaning. There are really only three options here: You are right, I am right, or we are both wrong (or some confusing mix thereof). When the very object about which we disagree is the text and its meaning, itself, how can we come to a fruitful conclusion? How can we solve this disagreement? You see, I believe perhaps the only way -- of doing so is not to continue going back and forth about the meaning of the text, but to look at how the people who were, in fact, taught by the apostles and their immediate disciples actually practiced and applied them. Reading comprehensive Church history lead me away from individualism and Protestant/Evangelical interpretations (of which there are so, so many as evidenced on this board) of Scripture.

But the RC differences <evidenced> are not <differences> but the exclusive and infallible truth?

Comprehensiveness and individualism are useless, <Evidence> must be RC to be <evidence> ... Excuse me... What an idea of itself has big-mouth anti-Christ!!

 

[DHK]

Here is the thing, DHK, we both are sincere, intelligent people, and we are reading the exact same texts, yet coming to different conclusions about their meaning. There are really only three options here: You are right, I am right, or we are both wrong (or some confusing mix thereof). When the very object about which we disagree is the text and its meaning, itself, how can we come to a fruitful conclusion? How can we solve this disagreement? You see, I believe perhaps the only way -- of doing so is not to continue going back and forth about the meaning of the text, but to look at how the people who were, in fact, taught by the apostles and their immediate disciples actually practiced and applied them. Reading comprehensive Church history lead me away from individualism and Protestant/Evangelical interpretations (of which there are so, so many as evidenced on this board) of Scripture.

One needs to back and let the Bible define the words that the scripture uses for you, not allowing other men's definitions to affect you. When you insert the definitions of other men you immediately go astray.
The basic definitions of the words in question I previously gave quite a while ago in this post:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2195378&postcount=40

 

[Walter]

And yet it has been the exact opposite for many others.
I keep repeating the fact that Paul established over 100 churches on 3 missionary journeys. Trace where he went. Those churches were not connected. They were independent of each other. Travel was difficult. Paul was the one person, as a missionary, that those churches had in common. But he fulfilled the office of an apostle. That office never continued. There is no such thing as apostolic succession.
The gifts listed in 1Cor.12 also ceased at the end of the first century.
Many of them were gifts that were given to the apostles, as Paul mentions in 2Cor.12:12--the gifts of an apostle; the same in Heb.2:3,4--the signs, wonders and gifts of the Holy Spirit attributed to the apostles.
They aren't in existence any longer. The churches are independent.

When Peter finally got to Rome in his final days, he was martyred.
When Paul finally got to Rome he was eventually martyred.
Every apostle except for John was martyred. And John was exiled.
There was no succession.

The historical record says otherwise and well before the 4th century 'origins' of the Catholic Church that you claim:

Hegesippus

"When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way" (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).

Clement I

Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

There was a lot of independence in that tumultuous period, which led to many errors in belief (heresies), councils to address those heresies, etc. However, it does not follow from that that, "There is no such thing as apostolic succession." Indeed, even the very connectedness between the churches led to problems -- to the contagion-like spread and entrenchment of heresies.

Your argument is a little like saying, "People varied on their perspectives regarding the presence of both the human and divine in Jesus Christ, and even in whether he was actually crucified. Therefore, Christ didn't didn't have a human or divine nature, and wasn't actually crucified." Obviously, such reasoning is a non-sequitur. But because we are all, to varying extents, victims of just deplorable education/formation on how to think about things clearly, few people recognize their own thinking errors.

It has been my experience that people are frequently unable to even recognize the possibility of positions other than their own because OTHER dynamics in their life (subconsciously) require them to continue believing as they do. Even the possibility of some other truth is incomprehensible. I don't know if this is the case with you,DHK, but after reading your posts for years here I'm starting to think you fall into this category. It is VERY frequent in political/moral discussions, which have very similar dynamics to religious ones. Too much of peoples lives depends on them NOT recognizing any truth other than that to which they've already subscribed. Most of the time, we aren't aware of these dependencies within ourselves. It takes time for them to rise to the surface.

Between poor thinking abilities and our personal psychologies, it can be very difficult to discuss or make progress on some topics. It takes us a long time to change deeply-rooted beliefs and values.