Diversity

[DHK]

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

The Word of God always has the final say.
The true historical record will never contradict the Word of God.
Many times history is "reinterpreted" through the eyes of the beholder.

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]).

All the ECF are translated works.
From the EFF come both truth and error. Most of the error that churches hold today come from this era.
Concerning translation and interpretation, in the above quote, there is nothing definitive that "succeeded" has a meaning anything other than "follows after" whether used in a "Baptist sense" or otherwise. It doesn't imply a succession in the sense of apostolic succession. There was a deacon. A deacon is a servant. They needed another deacon, and so they chose another to replace the one that retired. We do the same without even calling "deacon" an office. It isn't. It is a ministry, a service. The word "office" is not in the Greek. This is not a matter of "deacon successionism," if such a thing even exists.

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]).

The good guys here are the Novatians. They are the evangelicals separating from the established "church" because of the corruption.
Here is a quote from John T. Christian, "A History of the Baptists"

The rise of the Novatian churches was another outcropping of the old strife between the lax and strict discipline. In the year 250 Novatian strenuously opposed the election of Cornelius as the pastor of the church in Rome. Novatian declared that he did not wish the office himself, but he pleaded for the purity of the church. The election of Cornelius prevailed, and Novatian carried many churches and ministers with him in his protest. The vast extent of the Novatian movement may be learned from the authors who wrote against him, and the several parts of the Roman empire where they flourished.

The independency of churches and pastors is maintained, even as they followed Novatian's protest against the corruption in the "church".

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]).

This is what the Bible describes isn't it? A bishop/overseer is also an elder and pastor--all names for the same person. The pastor and the deacon were the only two "offices" per se mentioned in the Bible, and they weren't really considered "offices," for the word isn't found in 1 Timothy 3; it is ministry or service. And they are servants, not "officers."

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.

There was a lot of independence in that day. Is this part of that quote or what your opinion is?
Either way, it is a true statement. The "heresies" came from the EFC who strayed from the truth of the Apostles. Each of the apostles warned those that they spoke to of false teachers to come. Paul said in no uncertain terms that they would come (Acts 20:29ff).

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.

The truth never changes. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. When a person knows the truth, and the truth has radically changed his life, he has no desire to go back to a life of lies and falsehood.

My default will always be to the Word of God. From it comes my strength.
It is my authority. I know it to be true.
I have gone down the road of Catholicism. I see the contradictions between its doctrine and the Bible, its practice and the Bible, its history and the Bible, and none of it lines up. It was the Holy Spirit that led me out of the RCC 45 years ago and I have never looked back since. Yes, my beliefs and values have deep roots, but they are deeply-rooted now in God's Word.

 

[Rebel]

The Word of God always has the final say.
The true historical record will never contradict the Word of God.
Many times history is "reinterpreted" through the eyes of the beholder.


All the ECF are translated works.
From the EFF come both truth and error. Most of the error that churches hold today come from this era.
Concerning translation and interpretation, in the above quote, there is nothing definitive that "succeeded" has a meaning anything other than "follows after" whether used in a "Baptist sense" or otherwise. It doesn't imply a succession in the sense of apostolic succession. There was a deacon. A deacon is a servant. They needed another deacon, and so they chose another to replace the one that retired. We do the same without even calling "deacon" an office. It isn't. It is a ministry, a service. The word "office" is not in the Greek. This is not a matter of "deacon successionism," if such a thing even exists.


The good guys here are the Novatians. They are the evangelicals separating from the established "church" because of the corruption.
Here is a quote from John T. Christian, "A History of the Baptists"

The independency of churches and pastors is maintained, even as they followed Novatian's protest against the corruption in the "church".


This is what the Bible describes isn't it? A bishop/overseer is also an elder and pastor--all names for the same person. The pastor and the deacon were the only two "offices" per se mentioned in the Bible, and they weren't really considered "offices," for the word isn't found in 1 Timothy 3; it is ministry or service. And they are servants, not "officers."

There was a lot of independence in that day. Is this part of that quote or what your opinion is?
Either way, it is a true statement. The "heresies" came from the EFC who strayed from the truth of the Apostles. Each of the apostles warned those that they spoke to of false teachers to come. Paul said in no uncertain terms that they would come (Acts 20:29ff).



The truth never changes. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. When a person knows the truth, and the truth has radically changed his life, he has no desire to go back to a life of lies and falsehood.

My default will always be to the Word of God. From it comes my strength.
It is my authority. I know it to be true.
I have gone down the road of Catholicism. I see the contradictions between its doctrine and the Bible, its practice and the Bible, its history and the Bible, and none of it lines up. It was the Holy Spirit that led me out of the RCC 45 years ago and I have never looked back since. Yes, my beliefs and values have deep roots, but they are deeply-rooted now in God's Word.

I held my tongue because Walter's post was directed to you, so I wanted to give you a chance to reply before I said anything.

I don't have much to add, except this: There can be no succession of something that didn't exist in the first place -- monarchial bishops. Therefore, those claiming succession of such bishops back to the apostles are basing such claims on a false premise.

I am so thankful for scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

The Bible knows NO Papacy period, as it only records to us the offices of a Pastor/Elder/Deacon, and vaious titles for some of those roles such as Overseers/Presbators etc...

James would have been seen as being the "Pope" by the jewish churches. not peter, as james headed up Jerusalem Church, and paul would have been seen as the 'pope" to the gentiles by even peter himself, but thankfully, THAT office never was meant to exist within the true church of christ!

 

[Walter]

I held my tongue because Walter's post was directed to you, so I wanted to give you a chance to reply before I said anything.

I don't have much to add, except this: There can be no succession of something that didn't exist in the first place -- monarchial bishops. Therefore, those claiming succession of such bishops back to the apostles are basing such claims on a false premise.

I am so thankful for scripture.

I am also thankful for scripture, however, as you know, non-Catholic Christians tend to identify the Bible as the highest and usually exclusive earthly authority, rejecting both the Magisterium and extra-Biblical examples from history (Tradition). However, it has long been my opinion that non-Catholic Christians (of which I was a member for 20+ years) don't actually reject the interpretive authority of the Magisterium or Tradition. They merely replace these with *their own* opinions and experiences. It is very easily demonstrated on this board. The reason is that an interpretive agency is necessary, inescapable.
The net result is a general state of doctrinal Incommensurability: there is no reconciling various positions because, in reality, they are little more than individual and arbitrary (if sincere) opinions regarding complex and sometimes-obscure writings.

That being the case, the only question is who or what will serve that ultimate, authoritative, interpretative purpose -- me and my ego? I asked DHK this question in an earlier post but apparently he overlooked it. Feel free to jump in, Rebel. You had a very interesting thread going in which you made the following comment: " Yes, I would agree that Acts 16:31 is at the heart of the Gospel. What I wouldn't agree with is that Jesus died to pay a sin-debt. Many interpret the death of Jesus that way, but many do not. So, who is correct?" The question you asked illustrates my point.

 

[Rebel]

I am also thankful for scripture, however, as you know, non-Catholic Christians tend to identify the Bible as the highest and usually exclusive earthly authority, rejecting both the Magisterium and extra-Biblical examples from history (Tradition). However, it has long been my opinion that non-Catholic Christians (of which I was a member for 20+ years) don't actually reject the interpretive authority of the Magisterium or Tradition. They merely replace these with *their own* opinions and experiences. It is very easily demonstrated on this board. The reason is that an interpretive agency is necessary, inescapable.
The net result is a general state of doctrinal Incommensurability: there is no reconciling various positions because, in reality, they are little more than individual and arbitrary (if sincere) opinions regarding complex and sometimes-obscure writings.

That being the case, the only question is who or what will serve that ultimate, authoritative, interpretative purpose -- me and my ego? I asked DHK this question in an earlier post but apparently he overlooked it. Feel free to jump in, Rebel. You had a very interesting thread going in which you made the following comment: " Yes, I would agree that Acts 16:31 is at the heart of the Gospel. What I wouldn't agree with is that Jesus died to pay a sin-debt. Many interpret the death of Jesus that way, but many do not. So, who is correct?" The question you asked illustrates my point.

Yes, but interpretation does not enter into the question of apostolic succession when it is a plain fact that in the NT there are only two offices or orders of ministry. If there were different ways to interpret it, or any scriptural evidence that 'bishop' was a third order of ministry and not synonymous with 'pastor', 'elder' 'presbyter', and 'overseer', then a case could be made for the "Catholic" position. However, that is not what the fact is; thus, no case can be made. Apostolic succession is based on tradition alone, without scriptural support. It is true that by the late second century, monarchial bishops were the general rule everywhere, but that was a historical development as even the Anglican church recognizes. And even so, as I wrote elsewhere, presbyters in the church of Alexandria ordained even their own bishops for more than two hundred years in the earliest ages of Christianity.

So, the point is, when tradition contradicts scripture, which do you go with? When there is only one way to interpret a particular part of scripture because only that interpretation is an objective, historical, scholarly fact, and yet tradition disagrees and contradicts that fact, which do you go with?

You may think it is safer to go with tradition, but it is not. You may think it is better to trust interpretation to a Magisterium, surrendering your God-given right to read the scriptures for yourself and interpret them with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, testing that interpretation by the wider church, but I do not. The former method does not provide assurance of correct doctrine any more than the latter, and I contend not as much as the latter. I would never surrender my liberty in Jesus to any Magisterium.

So, what about the danger of heresy? Well, the RCC has not prevented heresy; in fact, it has contributed to it by its constant and evolving doctrinal innovations over the centuries, to the point that it bears little resemblance to NT Christianity. It's sad to me that converts to the RCC cannot see that and they would give up their Christian liberty and subject their conscience to something ruled by "tradition", a tradition which is far too often contrary to scripture.

Having said all that, I think you are a good and sincere person, and I understand your struggles which lead you to the RCC. I am glad we can have these good discussions and be respectful doing that. I wish you the best -- I just wish you had gone to conservative Anglicanism or Orthodoxy since you felt the need to change. But I have no doubt I'll meet you in heaven.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

So, the point is, when tradition contradicts scripture, which do you go with? When there is only one way to interpret a particular part of scripture because only that interpretation is an objective, historical, scholarly fact, and yet tradition disagrees and contradicts that fact, which do you go with?

This is the central point, and why the RCC/Baptist debate will never be solved.

You cannot deny there is Catholic doctrine that either adds to, or outright violates scripture. Tradition always trumps it.

Baptists will never accept anything over scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

This is the central point, and why the RCC/Baptist debate will never be solved.

You cannot deny there is Catholic doctrine that either adds to, or outright violates scripture. Tradition always trumps it.

Baptists will never accept anything over scripture.

The Church of Rome MUST deny the truth that Scripture alone is to be seen as the infallible and authoritative guide to all our doctrines and practices, for most of their theology is denied by the scriptures. so must support their beliefs somewhere else...

 

[Bro. Curtis]

That's because the Catholic church has always been a business, first.

 

[Walter]

Yes, but interpretation does not enter into the question of apostolic succession when it is a plain fact that in the NT there are only two offices or orders of ministry. If there were different ways to interpret it, or any scriptural evidence that 'bishop' was a third order of ministry and not synonymous with 'pastor', 'elder' 'presbyter', and 'overseer', then a case could be made for the "Catholic" position. However, that is not what the fact is; thus, no case can be made. Apostolic succession is based on tradition alone, without scriptural support. It is true that by the late second century, monarchial bishops were the general rule everywhere, but that was a historical development as even the Anglican church recognizes. And even so, as I wrote elsewhere, presbyters in the church of Alexandria ordained even their own bishops for more than two hundred years in the earliest ages of Christianity.

So, the point is, when tradition contradicts scripture, which do you go with? When there is only one way to interpret a particular part of scripture because only that interpretation is an objective, historical, scholarly fact, and yet tradition disagrees and contradicts that fact, which do you go with?

You may think it is safer to go with tradition, but it is not. You may think it is better to trust interpretation to a Magisterium, surrendering your God-given right to read the scriptures for yourself and interpret them with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, testing that interpretation by the wider church, but I do not. The former method does not provide assurance of correct doctrine any more than the latter, and I contend not as much as the latter. I would never surrender my liberty in Jesus to any Magisterium.

So, what about the danger of heresy? Well, the RCC has not prevented heresy; in fact, it has contributed to it by its constant and evolving doctrinal innovations over the centuries, to the point that it bears little resemblance to NT Christianity. It's sad to me that converts to the RCC cannot see that and they would give up their Christian liberty and subject their conscience to something ruled by "tradition", a tradition which is far too often contrary to scripture.

Having said all that, I think you are a good and sincere person, and I understand your struggles which lead you to the RCC. I am glad we can have these good discussions and be respectful doing that. I wish you the best -- I just wish you had gone to conservative Anglicanism or Orthodoxy since you felt the need to change. But I have no doubt I'll meet you in heaven.

I agree that that in the New Testament age there well may have been only two orders identified. This topic has been discussed quite a bit on the board and to my knowledge nobody giving the Catholic view disputes that. This is because in the apostolic age the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. On one occasion Peter described himself as a "fellow elder," 1 Pet. 5:1, even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder. The term for bishop, episcopos-overseer- was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time. It's not hard to find the historical record (to which you, Rebel, have awknoledged) which shows that by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament. I don't think that contradicts scripture and I think the Church was transitioning to and being instructed to have a three-fold ministry much earlier than the second century. Ignatius, who sat at John' feet, traveled from his home city to Rome, where he was executed around A.D. 110, on the way he wrote letters to the churches he passed. Each of these churches possessed the same threefold ministry. Without this threefold ministry, Ignatius said, a group cannot be called a church.

Ignatius of Antioch:

"Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Magnesians 2 A.D. 110).

BTW, Rebel, thank you for your kind words and in the respectful way you post on this board. I have no doubt I will meet you in Heaven as well.

 

[Walter]

Totally off-topic but of interest to Rebel, Doubting Thomas and others following the struggles of bible-believing Anglicans with The Episcopal Church. The Diocese of Fort Worth just became the third diocese of the five which withdrew from TEC over it's unbiblical 'innovations' over the last years to have won in the lawsuits over who gets the property. Fort Worth is now associated with the Anglican Church of North America. The Episcopal Church has been handed it's hat in court recently. Very happy for my Anglican brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Zenas]

You may think it is safer to go with tradition, but it is not. You may think it is better to trust interpretation to a Magisterium, surrendering your God-given right to read the scriptures for yourself and interpret them with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, testing that interpretation by the wider church, but I do not. The former method does not provide assurance of correct doctrine any more than the latter, and I contend not as much as the latter. I would never surrender my liberty in Jesus to any Magisterium.

* * * *

It's sad to me that converts to the RCC cannot see that and they would give up their Christian liberty and subject their conscience to something ruled by "tradition", a tradition which is far too often contrary to scripture.

Rebel, Christian liberty is obviously very important to you. It was also very important to the liberal ("moderate") wing of the SBC before and during the great purge of SBC institutions some 25 to 30 years ago. However, I can't find anything in scripture to support it. Can you help me out here?