Is the Bible properly described as "The Word of God"?

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff, of course the apostles left bishops. The church has always had bishops. No one questions this. The term in question is not "bishopric tradition" nor "bishopric succession". The term in question is "apostolic". No apostle was ever appointed after Paul. There is no apostolic succession. That is why the church's authority rests in the material that the apostles left us: the New Testament.

I think we have a misunderstanding because there are no other apostles. Apostolic succession or Apostolic see is defined this way:

An Apostolic see is any see founded by an Apostle and having the authority of its founder;

thus the authority is passed on to the bishop which succeeds the Apostle not that there is a new Apostle just a bishop with the Authority passed on. Thats the definition I'm working with. My statements are made with this view of what is meant by Apostolic succession.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Good point.
If there was truly Apostolic succession, then such Scripture as John describing the holy Jerusalem would be meaningless:

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Obviously, there were only twelve apostles, and no succession.

Which above definition would not be inconsistent with that verse.

 

[swaimj]

thus the authority is passed on to the bishop which succeeds the Apostle not that there is a new Apostle just a bishop with the Authority passed on.

OK. Thanks for the clarification. We are probably about three questions removed from the topic of the thread at this point. Let me retrace how I think we got here. Matt asked if the scriptures = The Word of God. He thinks the written scriptures are not the Word of God, if I understand him correctly. At that point, the question is, if the scriptures are not the Word of God, then where is the authority for the church? Matt sees authority lying in the "Apostolic Tradition". I equated "Apostolic Tradition" to "Apostolic Succession". However, Thinkingstuff, you are defining "AS" differently than how I understand Matt to take it and differently from how I have defined it. Yet, ultimately, the kind of "AS" I am describing, and with which I disagree, you seem to disagree with as well.

Having come through this circuitous route (and I have no guarantee that any one else thinks this is the route we have actually taken) I will ask you one question, Thinkingstuff, and make one observation.

First, does the church's authority reside in the scriptures or in the bishops who are in the direct line of the apostles (supposedly).

Second, my observation, there are many churches and many Christians who hold to orthodox faith but do so based upon their fidelity to the scriptures, not on their ability to trace themselves back through an unbroken line of bishops to an apostle. In fact, few believers and few churches in evangelicalism would even attempt such a thing or consider it important. Given that, would you consider these churches orthdox and, if so, on what basis?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

OK. Thanks for the clarification. We are probably about three questions removed from the topic of the thread at this point. Let me retrace how I think we got here. Matt asked if the scriptures = The Word of God. He thinks the written scriptures are not the Word of God, if I understand him correctly. At that point, the question is, if the scriptures are not the Word of God, then where is the authority for the church? Matt sees authority lying in the "Apostolic Tradition". I equated "Apostolic Tradition" to "Apostolic Succession". However, Thinkingstuff, you are defining "AS" differently than how I understand Matt to take it and differently from how I have defined it. Yet, ultimately, the kind of "AS" I am describing, and with which I disagree, you seem to disagree with as well.

Having come through this circuitous route (and I have no guarantee that any one else thinks this is the route we have actually taken) I will ask you one question, Thinkingstuff, and make one observation.

First, does the church's authority reside in the scriptures or in the bishops who are in the direct line of the apostles (supposedly).

Second, my observation, there are many churches and many Christians who hold to orthodox faith but do so based upon their fidelity to the scriptures, not on their ability to trace themselves back through an unbroken line of bishops to an apostle. In fact, few believers and few churches in evangelicalism would even attempt such a thing or consider it important. Given that, would you consider these churches orthdox and, if so, on what basis?

To be honest with you. Your questions are loaded. First we would have to agree with what Church means. I think you mean with in the context of your question in an invisible universal Church no matter what denomination you're a part of. Next you would have to identify what you mean by Othodox.

To be sure my studying of Church history and how the bible was put together has challenged me in many areas and in some areas I'm still uncertain of. However, those things of which I'm certain I will tell you.

I believe that All scriptures are God breathed or inspired by God and are for the edification and teaching of his people. The scriptures are a history of Salvation and informs us of salvation. I believe what the Apostles taught verbally coincided with scripture and did not conflict. The question is whether or not there are teachings that were not in scripture. Well, its clear by scientific study of archelogical finds and coinciding with Jewish practices which Christianity came out of that the earliest church had a structured liturgical style worship to it. Though to what extent I'm not certain obviously the Corinthians abused communion. Most churches were held in wealthy practitioners homes who had the room for fellowship. Society was entirely different then. A lot of aspects which would not necissarily be applicable in todays world. I don't believe the Apostles had any secret doctrine that they only passed on verbally. But many things probably were undertood in the context of their day that the Apostles just didn't feel any need to elaberate on in the greater context of the faith.

I believe the authority that the Church has is from the Holy Spirit. Evidence of the Holy Spirit guidance in the Church is visible application of faith in Jesus.


Now how do you define Orthodox? And we can talk about that because the Classical Christian Chruches would define acceptance of the 1st 7 ecumenical councils at orthodox belief.

 

[Jim1999]

Allow me to quote from the Church of England Common Prayer Book on the Bible:

Catechism

Question: What does the church teach about the Bible?

Answer: The Bible records the Word of God as it was given to Israel, and to the church, at sundry times and in divers manners; and NOTHING may be taught in the church as necessary to man's salvation unless it be concluded or proved therefrom."

Not tradition, the Bishops, vicars or anyone else less it be proved in the Bible itself. So, the Church of England accepts the Bible, as we know it, as the very Word of God.

Cheers,

Jim (Now, how baptistic is that!:saint: )

 

[swaimj]

/* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> First we would have to agree with what Church means. I think you mean with in the context of your question in an invisible universal Church no matter what denomination you're a part of.

I said churches, not church. I am talking about individual churches and I am asking if an individual church can be orthodox if it follows scripture if it cannot historically connect itself to an apostle through a succession of bishops. That's a pretty simple question. It is about a local church not a universal church. Really can't see why you cannot answer it.

The second question I asked

Given that, would you consider these churches orthdox and, if so, on what basis?

does not require us to agree about the definition of orthodox. It merely asks your opinion. Then it asks on what basis; a question that gives you the opportunity to explain what you mean by orthodox. There is nothing loaded here. These are opinion questions.

 

[Jim1999]

I am totally lost on that post, Brother Swaimj....I don't mind saying

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Marcia]

In the meantime, your starter for ten on the subject: ever heard of Vincent of Lerins and his 'Canon'?]

No, never heard of him.

 

[swaimj]

I am totally lost on that post, Brother Swaimj....I don't mind saying

My post or Thinkingstuff's? Not sure which you meant. :laugh:

 

[DHK]

Which above definition would not be inconsistent with that verse.

Let me quote the verse again:

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

There are only 12 apostles. Only 12 names will be written on the 12 foundations of the holy Jerusalem. There isn't any room for any more; for the Lord is the one building it. Only 12.

The expression "The Twelve" is used consistently throughout Scripture, although Paul was made an apostle, "born out of due time." He was given a "special dispensation."

Look at Scripture:
Paul states that there were specific signs of an apostle:

2 Corinthians 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
--Not everyone could do this. It was the mark of an apostle to show to the rest of the world that the message of the apostles was "apostolic", that is, an authentic message.

Hebrews 2:3-4 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
--The message was confirmed by the apostles. How? In verse 4 it says it was confirmed with signs, wonders, various miracles, and with the gifts of the Holy Spirit. These gifts have now ceased.

Let me give you an example of one such gift.
Here is a demonstration of the gift of healing which doesn't happen in the world today:

Acts 5:16 There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.
--Jerusalem was a big city. But they brought their sick not only from Jerusalem but from all the cities "round about unto Jerusalem. And they were healed every one!
Paraplegics, broken bones, serious diseases, leprosy, etc. Every disease was healed right in the presence of the crowd with no TV's to alter the environment of the so-called faith healer. That would be the equivalent of taking any of the so-called faith healers of today to an hospital and walk up and down the corridors of a hospital and healing each and every one, especially all those who come into the ER.
They won't do it. How come? They don't have the genuine gift of healing. It, along with all the other sign gifts have ceased.

They were a sign of an apostle.

 

[swaimj]

DHK, to addo to your excellent post, there is a passage in Acts where people were healed because the shadow of Peter fell upon them! There are no apostles today!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I said churches, not church. I am talking about individual churches and I am asking if an individual church can be orthodox if it follows scripture if it cannot historically connect itself to an apostle through a succession of bishops. That's a pretty simple question. It is about a local church not a universal church. Really can't see why you cannot answer it.

The second question I asked does not require us to agree about the definition of orthodox. It merely asks your opinion. Then it asks on what basis; a question that gives you the opportunity to explain what you mean by orthodox. There is nothing loaded here. These are opinion questions.

What do you mean I didn't answer. I did. I said The authority for the church comes from the Holy Spirit. The scriptures are the inspired word of God. And historically speaking there were churches that had Apostolic Succession (Based on the definition which I believe is the only correct deffinition that I previously gave) If you define orthodox is adherence to the Scriptures. I'm fine with that but as you can see there are many points of view on what scriptures are actually saying. Ie... SDA, CoC, etc... Originally Orthodox meant something differently like believe in the Trinity that Jesus had two natures etc... things that are alluded to in scripture but aren't specifically defined. So I wanted to understand what you meant by orthodox. That essential because I believe in the Trinity 3 persons 1 God each person Homoosious with the other and I believe Jesus has a hypostatic Union of Spirit and humaness and that he is perfectly God and he is perfectly human.

 

[DHK]

What do you mean I didn't answer. I did. I said The authority for the church comes from the Holy Spirit.

The authority always comes from the Scriptures. EGW claims to be inspired from the Holy Spirit. If it was any spirit it was a demonic spirit. The COC claims that you cannot be saved unless you are baptized first (baptismal regeneration). Will heresy come from the Holy Spirit. You mentioned in the rest of your post other heresies. Do heresies come from the Holy Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit the authority of heresies. But all these different groups claim to speak by the Holy Spirit.
Our one authority then, is the inspired Word of God. It is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

The scriptures are the inspired word of God. And historically speaking there were churches that had Apostolic Succession (Based on the definition which I believe is the only correct deffinition that I previously gave).[/qquote]
No. There was never any apostolic succession. The apostles themselves never appointed anyone to take their place. Here is one good example.
The Apostle Paul was a missionary, and went on three different missionary journeys, in which he established over 100 churches. In 100 churches did he leave an apostle at each one? I think not! But here is what he did:

Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
--The word elder is the same for pastor. The are different words pointing to the same office. Paul did not leave apostles; he left pastors at each church that he started. There was no apostolic succession. Every denomination today would like to claim that privilege for themselves, but it isn't there. Our authority is the Word of God.

If you define orthodox is adherence to the Scriptures. I'm fine with that but as you can see there are many points of view on what scriptures are actually saying. Ie... SDA, CoC, etc... Originally Orthodox meant something differently like believe in the Trinity that Jesus had two natures etc... things that are alluded to in scripture but aren't specifically defined. So I wanted to understand what you meant by orthodox. That essential because I believe in the Trinity 3 persons 1 God each person Homoosious with the other and I believe Jesus has a hypostatic Union of Spirit and humaness and that he is perfectly God and he is perfectly human.

Yes, orthodox is adherence to the Scriptures, not as the SDA accept the Scriptures, but as evangelical believing Christians accept the Bible--as the inspired Word of God as their only authority.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The authority always comes from the Scriptures. EGW claims to be inspired from the Holy Spirit. If it was any spirit it was a demonic spirit. The COC claims that you cannot be saved unless you are baptized first (baptismal regeneration). Will heresy come from the Holy Spirit. You mentioned in the rest of your post other heresies. Do heresies come from the Holy Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit the authority of heresies. But all these different groups claim to speak by the Holy Spirit.
Our one authority then, is the inspired Word of God. It is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

The scriptures are the inspired word of God. And historically speaking there were churches that had Apostolic Succession (Based on the definition which I believe is the only correct deffinition that I previously gave).[/qquote]
No. There was never any apostolic succession. The apostles themselves never appointed anyone to take their place. Here is one good example.
The Apostle Paul was a missionary, and went on three different missionary journeys, in which he established over 100 churches. In 100 churches did he leave an apostle at each one? I think not! But here is what he did:

Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
--The word elder is the same for pastor. The are different words pointing to the same office. Paul did not leave apostles; he left pastors at each church that he started. There was no apostolic succession. Every denomination today would like to claim that privilege for themselves, but it isn't there. Our authority is the Word of God.

Yes, orthodox is adherence to the Scriptures, not as the SDA accept the Scriptures, but as evangelical believing Christians accept the Bible--as the inspired Word of God as their only authority.

I didn't say he left an apostle but he appointed a bishop giving the bishop his authority. That is apostolic succession Which is the only valid definition of it. Simple, plain. I still believe authority comes from the Holy Spirit but the scriptures are the medium by which he leads. Why else would there be tounges of fire on Pentecost? I don't subjegate the Holy Spirit because he is God. Simple again. There are no futher revelations. There will be no further scriptures. You can rant all you want. But thats what I believe and its based on scripture.

 

[DHK]

I didn't say he left an apostle but he appointed a bishop giving the bishop his authority. That is apostolic succession

"And they ordained elders in every church." You can't argue with Scripture. This is the statement of Acts 14:23. Besides, the word "bishop" simply means "overseer," the same job description that every pastor has today. There is no succession. When Paul left Corinth, he left Apollos in charge. Apollos became the pastor of the church. Timothy became the pastor of the church in Ephesus. And Titus became the pastor in Crete. Paul had trained these men. Paul's motto was:

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 not apostolic succession; it is simple discipleship. Paul told Timothy. Timothy you take the things that I have taught you, and you teach faithful men, so those faithful men may in turn teach other faithful men, and in turn, the process may continue. It is spiritual reproduction; not apostolic succession. It is a principle that all Christians can apply to their lives as they witness and disciple others.

Which is the only valid definition of it. Simple, plain. I still believe authority comes from the Holy Spirit but the scriptures are the medium by which he leads. Why else would there be tounges of fire on Pentecost? I don't subjegate the Holy Spirit because he is God. Simple again.

Pentecost was prophesied in Scripture. They were commanded to wait in Jerusalem until the Spirit would come. Jesus promised them that at that time the Holy Spirit would come at that time. It was a one time event that will never again be repeated, just as God spoke to Moses in a burning bush--a one time event in history, never again to be repeated.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

"And they ordained elders in every church." You can't argue with Scripture. This is the statement of Acts 14:23. Besides, the word "bishop" simply means "overseer," the same job description that every pastor has today. There is no succession. When Paul left Corinth, he left Apollos in charge. Apollos became the pastor of the church. Timothy became the pastor of the church in Ephesus. And Titus became the pastor in Crete. Paul had trained these men. Paul's motto was:

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 not apostolic succession; it is simple discipleship. Paul told Timothy. Timothy you take the things that I have taught you, and you teach faithful men, so those faithful men may in turn teach other faithful men, and in turn, the process may continue. It is spiritual reproduction; not apostolic succession. It is a principle that all Christians can apply to their lives as they witness and disciple others.

Pentecost was prophesied in Scripture. They were commanded to wait in Jerusalem until the Spirit would come. Jesus promised them that at that time the Holy Spirit would come at that time. It was a one time event that will never again be repeated, just as God spoke to Moses in a burning bush--a one time event in history, never again to be repeated.

You're assuming that I believe that it will happen again. I don't. I'm just showing the supremacy of the Holy Spirit and that he leads his people through the inspired word of God.

 

[DHK]

You're assuming that I believe that it will happen again. I don't. I'm just showing the supremacy of the Holy Spirit and that he leads his people through the inspired word of God.

Even though at Pentecost the Holy Spirit was present, the supreme authority was the Word of God, more so than the Holy Spirit. Peter, in his sermon pointed out:

Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Even though at Pentecost the Holy Spirit was present, the supreme authority was the Word of God, more so than the Holy Spirit. Peter, in his sermon pointed out:

Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

Poor verse to use to make your point. BTW are you trying diminishing the person of the Holy Spirit or his activity with regards to his people? The Holy Spirit is God you know.

 

[DHK]

Poor verse to use to make your point. BTW are you trying diminishing the person of the Holy Spirit or his activity with regards to his people? The Holy Spirit is God you know.

So is Jesus Christ, who is made manifest to us through His Word.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

 

[Matt Black]

A few responses, first to Matt:
My point is that the appointed successors were not appointed by the original 12

Matthias? Timothy?

Paul defends his apostleship in the book of Galations. He does point out that his position is unique. He also points out that he received his revelation directly from Jesus. Given this, are you denying that he was an apostle?

Not at all; but his calling was effectively confirmed by the Twelve.

There are others in the NT who are apostles in an adjectival sense (such as Barnabas), but are not given the word as a title.

Sure about that? Surely Barnabas was appointed? And what about James the Less?

Well, the original term that Matt used was apostolic tradition which seems a little loosely defined as well.

See my reply to Marcia below

Apostle is an office. My contention is that the office is not passed on.

I'm afraid the historical record is not on your side there.