Flowchart: The (Very) Early Timeline of Christianity

[gazelam]

Just out of curiosity, who are the twelve apostles today?

That’s a darn good question . Ephesians 4:11-13 states:

And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers,

to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry,for building up the body of Christ,

until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ

There hasn’t been a unity of faith yet so that means there ought to still be Twelve Apostles today.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Just out of curiosity, who are the twelve apostles today?

That’s a darn good question . Ephesians 4:11-13 states:

And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers,

to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry,for building up the body of Christ,

until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ

There hasn’t been a unity of faith yet so that means there ought to still be Twelve Apostles today.

Who are the Holy ones? Usually they are thought of as the clergy, but here it states they are to equip the “Holy ones.”

 

[Kei]

In answer to @Wannano I suppose Apostle was a title was specifically to a group of people, we need to go back to the Greek I suppose to understand exactly.

But, their essential role, I guess I would say they are the bishops. This can also be seen in the students of the apostles becoming bishops (for instance, St Ignatius of Antioch was student of St John the Apostle and was bishop.

 

[TigerLily-1]

Oops! I meant to respond to @Wannano!

The 12 Apostles are the ones mentioned by name in Scripture and Tradition. There are no modern Apostles.

The RCC Church is in the line of apostolic succession because it was founded by the Apostles and the apostolic line has never been broken. Here’s an article from The Catholic Encyclopedia on Apostolic Succession.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm

 

[gazelam]

Here’s my 2 cents worth on the chart.

The chart implies there were Apostolic successors like Ignatius and Polycarp who had authority similar to an Apostle. Ignatius didn’t seem to think so…

Seeing that I love you I thus spare you, though I might write more sharply on his behalf: but I did not think myself competent for this, that being a convict I should order you as though I were an Apostle. (Ignatius of Antioch quoted in The Apostolic Fathers, 73)

The chart infers that Ignatius’ writings and the Gospel of Matthew support the doctrine of the Trinity. Scholars say otherwise…

The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature. (William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 27.)

There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 44

Thus although there is nothing remotely resembling a doctrine of the Trinity in Ignatius, the triadic pattern of thought is there, and two of its members, the Father and Jesus Christ, are clearly and often designated as God. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 40

And the available documentation does not support the idea that bishops are or were successors of the Apostles.

“No doubt proving that bishops were the successors of the apostles by divine institution would be easier if the New Testament clearly stated that before they died the apostles had appointed a single bishop to lead each of the churches they had founded. Likewise, it would have been very helpful had Clement, in writing to the Corinthians, said that the apostles had put one bishop in charge of each church and had arranged for a regular succession in that office. We would also be grateful to Ignatius of Antioch if he had spoken of himself not only as bishop, but as a successor to the apostles, and had explained how he understood that succession. Unfortunately, the documents available to us do not provide such help.” (Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, pg 223)

I hope this helps…

 

[gazelam]

The RCC Church is in the line of apostolic succession because it was founded by the Apostles and the apostolic line has never been broken.

Did you know that 95% of Catholic bishops cannot trace their authority to an Apostle? Google “Cardinal Rebiba” for more info.

 

[TigerLily-1]

That’s not completely true. The article says 95% of Catholic Bishops can trace their succession through Cardinal Rebiba, who did exist and was himself in the line of apostolic succession. Of course this claim is something I can’t verify and have no idea of how to do so.

The other Apostolic Churches (Oriental, Eastern and other Churches of the East) claim apostolic succession and accept the Latin Catholic Church’s claim as authentic.

 

[adf417]

adf417:

Thinking this through…if the church did go into apostasy one would have only Jesus to blame - for leaving His church with insufficient authorty and leadership.

This could be an argument for faiths that believe in the apostasy as the OP pointed out. This is not the case with the vast majority of Protestants.

So why bring it up? Neither the OP nor myself mentions Protestants. As a matter of fact the OP was pretty clear on who he was speaking about, Mormons and JWs.

Peace!!!

 

[fredystairs]

The chart implies there were Apostolic successors like Ignatius and Polycarp who had authority similar to an Apostle. Ignatius didn’t seem to think so…

This from the letter of St. Clement to the Corinthians (ca AD 96):

[Paragraph 42] The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; and Jesus Christ was sent from God. Christ, therefore is from God, and the apostles are from Christ. Both of these orderly arrangements, then are by God’s will. Receiving their instructions and being full of confidence on account of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and confirmed in faith by the word of God, they went forth in the complete assurance of the Holy Spirit, preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God is coming. Through countryside and city they preached; and they appointed their future believers. Nor was this a novelty; for the bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. Indeed, Scripture somewhere says: “I will set up their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, page 10, William A. Jurgens.}

Couple of things here. First, Clement was a successor to St. Peter at the See of Rome and was thus a pope. (he is mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the thread). Second, he would have been an eyewitness to the early Church. What he wrote above would have been from his own experience; he is mentioned as a companion to St. Paul in Philippians 4: 3. He is saying that the apostles traveled setting up churches and left bishops in charge of those churches, thus establishing the succession and the authority that goes with those successions.

Second, I do not know which of the seven letters of St. Ignatius you are quoting here so I cannot see the context that the quote is in. I found the following from his Letter to the Smyrnaeans (AD 110) [Paragraph 8]

You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, page 25, William A Jurgens)

continued

 

[fredystairs]

Ignatius was bishop of Antioch from AD 70 to his death around AD 110. So he too would have been a eyewitness to the early development in the Church. A few things about the Letter to the Smyrnaeans. First, it is obvious that the bishop is the leader. As Clement’s letter established, the apostles set up bishops to hold their authority. This is continued in Ignatius’ letter. Further, Ignatius describes the three fold hierarchy of bishops, priests (presbytery), and deacons which continues in the Catholic Church today. He also describes the Eucharist, which the Catholic Church continues to celebrate. Lastly, he calls the Church that he is a member of the “Catholic Church”.

@gazelam, your profile says that you are a member of the LDS; my understanding is that the LDS’ doctrine says that there was a Great Apostasy where the Church that Christ founded went into error. I have quoted two very early Church Fathers who describe doctrine that is identical to Catholic doctrine and these Fathers knew the apostles; this is an unbroken chain. Please tell me when the Great Apostasy happened.

 

[MichaelP3]

Fair enough. Not you nor the OP. The term has been going around on this thread and I guess I got confused.

I am always glad to find Catholics who understand how the Apostasy does not fit with Protestants and is generally NOT believed . Thank you!

Regards

 

[adf417]

Fair enough. Not you nor the OP. The term has been going around on this thread and I guess I got confused.

I am always glad to find Catholics who understand how the Apostasy does not fit with Protestants and is generally NOT believed . Thank you!

Regards

:+1:t3: indeed! However i would like to point out that you have just done exactly what you accuse some Catholics here of doing. Your statement above should read …“does not fit with SOME Protestants…”. Maybe one day we will all be better at using the proper qualifiers.

Peace!!!

 

[Melchior_1]

Good stuff from @fredystairs regarding Bishops.

There hasn’t been a unity of faith yet so that means there ought to still be Twelve Apostles today.

Paul said “some as Apostles”, he didn’t specifically say Twelve. It’s curious that you, as a Mormon, would take the literal approach to the Bible in this case - considering there’s a couple of Mormon beliefs which draw heavily on inferring concepts from Scripture.

The chart infers that Ignatius’ writings and the Gospel of Matthew support the doctrine of the Trinity. Scholars say otherwise…

If you are going to quote Fortman, please refrain form doing what the Jehovah’s Witnesses do and only quote a portion. Quote all of Fortman, where he talks about how the concept of the Trinity is very present both in Scriptures and the early Church. As language and communication skills evolved, we became better at breaking things down and explaining things.

We had some Mormons come to our house and use an obscure Bible passage to justify the idea of there being three levels of Heaven - what’s the different between extrapolating from that concept, exactly? Also, “celestial heaven” and man becoming a “god” and ruling over their own planets aren’t explicitly mentioned in the Bible either.

What is explicitly mentioned? The gates of Hades not prevailing against the Church. That lefthand side of the chart I’d like you to address.

(Also, the same scholar makes it very clear Ignatius et all believed in Jesus Christ being one with the Father. I assume if you take Fortman as an expert on this, you agree with him?)

 

[MichaelP3]

I see. I actually carefully constructed my first post to you to say “majority of Protestants” to not say it like that. This one slipped my mind unintentionally. But then I at least said “generally NOT believed”. But judging from your last reply I believe you “get” me

Regards

 

[adf417]

I see. I actually carefully constructed my first post to you to say “majority of Protestants” to not say it like that. This one slipped my mind unintentionally. But then I at least said “generally NOT believed”. But judging from your last reply I believe you “get” me

Regards

I do andI hope you get how easy it is to do this, unintentionally fail to qualify our statments on these casual discussions.

Peace and Merry Christmas!

 

[gazelam]

This from the letter of St. Clement to the Corinthians (ca AD 96):

[Paragraph 42] The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; and Jesus Christ was sent from God. Christ, therefore is from God, and the apostles are from Christ. Both of these orderly arrangements, then are by God’s will. Receiving their instructions and being full of confidence on account of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and confirmed in faith by the word of God, they went forth in the complete assurance of the Holy Spirit, preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God is coming. Through countryside and city they preached; and they appointed their future believers. Nor was this a novelty; for the bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. Indeed, Scripture somewhere says: “I will set up their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, page 10, William A. Jurgens.}

He is saying that the apostles traveled setting up churches and left bishops in charge of those churches, thus establishing the succession and the authority that goes with those successions.

Which part of the letter says that succession was established? Setting up bishops and deacons is a far cry from declaring that bishops will replace the apostles.

Second, I do not know which of the seven letters of St. Ignatius you are quoting here so I cannot see the context that the quote is in. I found the following from his Letter to the Smyrnaeans (AD 110) [Paragraph 8]

You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, page 25, William A Jurgens)

continued

Again, nothing in this second quote states that bishops will replace apostles. Nowhere is there a statement that the apostles shouldn’t be followed some day. That’s why Father Sullivan, SJ, who I quoted above says “Likewise, it would have been very helpful had Clement, in writing to the Corinthians, said that the apostles had put one bishop in charge of each church and had arranged for a regular succession in that office.”

 

[gazelam]

@gazelam, your profile says that you are a member of the LDS; my understanding is that the LDS’ doctrine says that there was a Great Apostasy where the Church that Christ founded went into error. I have quoted two very early Church Fathers who describe doctrine that is identical to Catholic doctrine and these Fathers knew the apostles; this is an unbroken chain. Please tell me when the Great Apostasy happened.

I don’t know exactly when the Great Apostasy happened. It might have been gradual, just like when someone’s hair turns gray.

Perhaps it happened after the Apostles completed their mortal ministry. Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus on the subject of false teachers and referring to the condition of the Church about the close of the first century:

The Church continued until then as a pure and uncorrupt virgin, whilst if there were any at all that attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the saving Gospel, they were yet skulking in dark retreats: but when the sacred choir of Apostles became extinct, and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then also the combinations of impious errors arose by the fraud and delusions of false teachers. These also, as there were none of the Apostles left, henceforth attempted without shame, to preach their false doctrine against the gospel of truth. (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, bk. 3, ch. 32)

Eusebius referring to his own day wrote:

We [sank] into negligence and sloth, One in being and reviling another in different ways, and we were almost, as it were, on the point of taking up arms against each other, and where is sailing each other with words as with darts and Spears, prelates inveighing against prelates, and people rising up against people, and hypocrisy and dissimulation had arisen to the greatest height of malignity; … we added one wickedness in misery to another. But some that appeared to be our pastors, deserting the law of piety, were inflamed against each other with mutual strides, only accumulating quarrels and threats, rivalship, hostility and hatred to each other. (Eusebius, ecclesiastical history, 8:318)

Tertullian observed “The gospel was wrong we preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized… so many priestly functions, so many ministries were wrongly executed.” (The Ante-Niceness Fathers, 3:256)

 

[gazelam]

If you are going to quote Fortman, please refrain form doing what the Jehovah’s Witnesses do and only quote a portion. Quote all of Fortman, where he talks about how the concept of the Trinity is very present both in Scriptures and the early Church. As language and communication skills evolved, we became better at breaking things down and explaining things.

Which page of Fortman’s book are you referring to?

(Also, the same scholar makes it very clear Ignatius et all believed in Jesus Christ being one with the Father. I assume if you take Fortman as an expert on this, you agree with him?)

I believe that Jesus Christ is one with the Father too, just not consubstantially.

 

[Melchior_1]

Which page of Fortman’s book are you referring to?

I found a site which has the full text, rather than snippets. Very illuminating.

I believe that Jesus Christ is one with the Father too, just not consubstantially.

So you’re going against the early Church and the Gospel of John?

 

[gazelam]

gazelam:

I believe that Jesus Christ is one with the Father too, just not consubstantially.

So you’re going against the early Church and the Gospel of John?

John 17:21, 22 so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.

And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one,

Here in John 17:22 Jesus is pleading with the Father that His disciples become one with each other in the same way that the Father and Son are one. The disciples could never be consubstantial with each other, so the oneness must be another type of oneness, such as, unity of purpose, desire, knowledge, etc.

So, I’m clearly going with John and with the early pre-Nicene Church! Take care.