Succession of Bishops

[Eden]

Eden,

This is not levelled against the right of private judgment of Scripture; or to be understood as if a private believer hasn’t got a right of reading, searching, examining, and judging, and interpreting the Scriptures himself, by virtue of the unction which teacheth all things; and who, as a spiritual man, judgeth all things… otherwise, why are such commended as doing well, by taking heed to prophecy, in the preceding verse, and this given as a reason to encourage them to do it?

These words could be rendered, “of one’s own interpretation”… that is, such as a natural man forms of himself, by the mere force of natural thinking and wisdom, without the assistance of the Spirit of God; and which is done without comparing spiritual things with spiritual… and which is not agreeably to the Scripture, to the analogy of faith, and mind of Christ.

Thank you for sharing your private interpretation of 2 Pet. 1: 20-21.

Christ never made his religion dependent upon each individual’s private interpretation of the Bible. His infinite wisdom would not choose a method which would lead, and has led, as we have seen, to division, chaos, and driftage from religion altogether. He established the Catholic Church, and that Church can say with her divine Master to those who profess to believe in the Bible that the very Scriptures upon which they claim to rely bear witness of her (John 5:39). She is the appointed guide to which, in obedience to Christ, we Catholics submit.

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9212clas.asp

 

[Eden]

What purpose could you have for asking me who the first Pope was? Since answering that question would essentially be a confirmation of the papacy in some form,

Even the most vitriolic anti-Catholics accept that there is a papacy. That is why we find people like Dave Hunt using terms like “Papists” or “Popery”. (Or is that “pot pourri”? ) So, why do you have difficulty acknowledging the papacy?

and subsequently a validation of apostolic succession.

Identifying men who were Catholic Popes and accepting apostolic succession are two different questions. A Protestant can identify the current Pope as Benedict XVI while still disputing the legitimacy of the office.

Although there is clearly a leader of the Catholic institution, there is no “Pope” of the Apostolic sort.

O.K. If I change the language to make you more comfortable, then I will ask “Who was the first leader of the Catholic institution?” St. Augustine is not a legitimate answer because he didn’t even live in Rome and was not a “Bishop of Rome”. He lived in North Africa.

God never ordained Apostolic succession…

… is an anti-scriptural conclusion:

scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

As far as who was the first recognizable leader of the Catholic institution… In my opinion? That would have to be Augustine… The Catholic church as we know it today as a metamorphasis from Metropolitans to the “Mother church” occurred about the same time as Augustine. And since he formed much of the doctrine of Catholicism in his writings.

Please refer to my response above regarding St. Augustine.

 

[NotWorthy]

Even the most vitriolic anti-Catholics accept that there is a papacy. That is why we find people like Dave Hunt using terms like “Papists” or “Popery”. (Or is that "pot pourri"? ) So, why do you have difficulty acknowledging the papacy?

That’s it!!!

That’s why I always smell “wild lilacs” whenever I hear that word!!! Thanks for connecting the dots for me, Eden!!!

 

[Eden]

That’s it!!!

That’s why I always smell “wild lilacs” whenever I hear that word!!! Thanks for connecting the dots for me, Eden!!!

My pleasure!

 

[Eden]

I didn’t say that the Catholic church was wrong in acting on their convictions to resist fellowship with those they deemed to heretics. We need more convictions these days.

But what I said, was that your statement of a historical document that showed the Catholics were against others, does not prove that the Catholics were right. Neither does it prove that the other sects were wrong… It only proves that there were contrary belief systems.

I find this softball response so odd when taking into consideration the article that you wrote about “Catholic Persecution” and which appears on your website. Especially in light of your concluding paragraphs of that article:
bibleapologist in an article he wrote and posted on his website:

Again I ask, if the Catholic Church has repented of the atrocities they have committed in the past, which were carried out as a result of this dominionist worldview, why haven’t they removed the previously mentioned articles from the Code of Canon Law? This is what COMMUNIST Governments do. In order to stay in power, they must reserve the right and power to quell any oppositional idea.

Yet bibleapologist’s answer to me was I didn’t say the Catholic Church was wrong in acting on their convictions to resist fellowship with those they deemed as heretics.
bibleapologist in an article he wrote and posted on his website:

In fact the very act posting this page to the web, is cause for my death as an interdict to stop any incitation of oppositional ideologies from infecting the Catholic Church, or potential adherants to Catholicism. If it were not for the Constitution of the United States of America they would have every legal right to come and take my home, property, family, savings account, banish my family, and burn me at the stake. Thank God for our country!

For more reading on the Catholic Organization, and what the purpose of their Dominion Worldview plans to accomplish - click here.

gideonsword.net/articles/DenominationalErrors/DEart/catholic_persecution.htm

 

[Eden]

Using bibleapologist’s form of paranoid propaganda against the Church, we can even make Jesus’ desire for a universal Church look frightening:

"The Christians are Coming: They Seek World Domination"

 

[bibleapologist]

Priority7,

What I simply see is that you seem sooooooo concrete in the conviction that you hold that you are willing to deny even history itself to make your claim and make it somehow true

What I see is that Catholics seem to have the misconception that; if someone in history has practiced something… it must be right.

I am not, nor have I ever denied historical accounts for the sake of winning an argument. I have though questioned the point of truth that they undeniably prove.

I made statement earlier on this thread that Eden has immersed himself in total “historicity” (the state or fact of being historically authentic). It seems to be the norm here, that truth is incapsulated in history… and it is not.

I have given many Biblical and logical proofs to refute Apostolic Succession… and the rebuttals are almost always historical quotes. Your historical quotes are irrelevant in our search for truth.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Since you stated recently that you do not like to read long posts, I will just give a short list of the topics that you have danced around:

And I will remind you where I answered those posts, and I did not “dance around”.

1. Who was the first Catholic Pope?

I answered that in post #222, and for the last time in post #252 in which post I explained my answer fully. I didn’t dance around, I’m just not as naive as you think I am to answer such a ruse.

1. Were the 32 Popes before Constantine Catholic?

I answered that question in post #211 in which I said “If any of the pastors of the Church of Rome prior to 313AD considered themselves Catholic… I can assure you that it was a result of their own personal misconception concerning the spiritual nature of the “true church”… whether this misconception was a result of their own philosphy or a teaching from a peer, I can’t say… you’ll have to ask them”

1. Where did the Baptist bible canon come from?

This question was intended to bolster your historical argument that the Catholic Church was the only church in existence in the 4th century

I addressed it in post #174, #213, by stating that according to Augustine and Eusebius there were “other” sects in existence in the mid-2nd century.

1. Was Eusebius describing the Catholic Church in his “Church History” and does his description of the Church with foundations at Rome not illustrate that he was, in fact, Catholic?

Again, I never claimed that Eusebius wasn’t describing Catholics… I said that in another quote by him that he was describing others when he referred to the scripture being translated in the 2nd century. So, your question to me wasn’t even relevant… I don’t have time to respond to questions that rebut statements I never made.

1. Noted redirection: On the topic of how the Pope defines moral theology, when the subject of abortion was brought up and I talked about abortion always being anti-Christian, the topic was immediately dropped. (That’s because the Baptist position on abortion does not have a pretty history, which I’m sure John would like to avoid discussing.)

Since Independent Baptists are not eccumenical, I couldn’t care less what your criticism of mistakes made by previous Baptist churches are. I am not affiliated with them just because they carry the name Baptist.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

She [the Catholic Church] is the appointed guide to which, in obedience to Christ, we Catholics submit.

Which is led by men who offer their “private interpretation” of scripture.

If you are led by the Holy Spirit, what makes your interpretation of scripture any more private than the Pope’s or Bishops’?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

O.K. If I change the language to make you more comfortable, then I will ask “Who was the first leader of the Catholic institution?” St. Augustine is not a legitimate answer because he didn’t even live in Rome and was not a “Bishop of Rome”. He lived in North Africa.

You answered the question for me.

Since there is no “Apostolic Succession”, the leader of the Catholic Church would not be required to live in Rome. And you asked specifically who was the “first leader of the Catholic Institution”… that would be Augustine.

If you are asking who was the first bishop of the church of Rome… the only verifiable answer I can give you is that it was Zephyrinus. Although Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome, it has never been verified concretely that Peter ever pastored that church.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

I honestly don’t intend to be disparaging here. But for someone who appears to be intelligent you don’t seem to understand my statements very well.

I find this softball response so odd when taking into consideration the article that you wrote about “Catholic Persecution” and which appears on your website. Especially in light of your concluding paragraphs of that article:

My statement was that I don’t blame… in fact I applaude Catholics abstinance from fellowship with those they deemed heritics.

To abstain from fellowship with a group of people is a whole lot different than seeking those people out to impose you beliefs on them.

The article I wrote concerning the Canon law, and the office of the inquisition, pointed out that Catholics (to be good Catholics) must not only abstain from fellowship with contrary sects, but seek them out and force them to cease or conform to Catholic teaching.

Are you claiming that you agree with that kind of Dominionist militant action?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Using bibleapologist’s form of paranoid propaganda against the Church, we can even make Jesus’ desire for a universal Church look frightening:

“The Christians are Coming: They Seek World Domination”

Where did you get that quote… you did leave a reference.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Odell]

Eden,
Although Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome, it has never been verified concretely that Peter ever pastored that church.

John

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first When ever the Apostles are listed by name

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - ONLY Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority. Why was Peter the only one?

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter’s formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see. Then Jesus goes on to say

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

 

[NotWorthy]

Priority7,

What I see is that Catholics seem to have the misconception that; if someone in history has practiced something… it must be right.

I am not, nor have I ever denied historical accounts for the sake of winning an argument. I have though questioned the point of truth that they undeniably prove.

But John, you should at least try and back up your theory that “Those who baptized infants were in error” with something that proves it. Maybe show some documents in history that these practices were questioned and/or condemned. Without that you’re stuck with the following proof.

1. The “households” could just as easily (and were more likely to) included children, so Scripture does not give us a clear picture on this. We’ve showed numerous quotes from Jesus and the Apostles that included children in the kingdom of God, but it’s not clear enough for others.
2. The ECF’s taught infant baptism
3. The Early Church practiced infant baptism even during Apostolic Times.

vs.

1. You’re opinion that it was wrong. This opinion was never voiced until what? the 1700’s? the 1800’s? How can we consider this any more than a Tradition of Man?

 

[Pryority7]

Priority7,

What I see is that Catholics seem to have the misconception that; if someone in history has practiced something… it must be right.

There have been many catholics throughout history that practiced things that were not in line with the Bible or Church teaching, and these things were refuted by the Church. We’re not blind slaves to a puppet master.

I have given many Biblical and logical proofs to refute Apostolic Succession… and the rebuttals are almost always historical quotes. Your historical quotes are irrelevant in our search for truth.

**UUUUHHHH…no you didn’t give proofs…you simply interpreted the Bible to your system of theology and expect others to follow it…Jim Jones did that…So did William Miller…so did David Koresh…I’m not calling you a cult leader, I’m simply stating the danger in where one’s interpretation of the scriptures can lead…

Honest scholarship is what we’re looking for here…you have not provided that…you just gave us some unsubstaniated claims…
P7**

John
www.gideonsword.net

[/QUOTE]

 

[Eden]

Eden,

Where did you get that quote… you did leave a reference.

Please read the post again. You seem to have missed the point.

 

[Eden]

Again, I never claimed that Eusebius wasn’t describing Catholics…

So, you agree that the Church whose foundations were laid in Rome by Sts. Peter and Paul as described by Eusebius in “Church History”, is the Catholic Church?And that the “Roman” Catholic Church was in existence well before the date of 313 A.D.?

I said that in another quote by him that he was describing others when he referred to the scripture being translated in the 2nd century. So, your question to me wasn’t even relevant… I don’t have time to respond to questions that rebut statements I never made.

bibleapologist:

It seems that from the time of Eusubius, to the time of Augustine there arose a type of “exclusiveness” pertaining to the “church” that Augustine attempted to retain. This allusion to “exclusiveness” did not seem to exist in the time of Eusubius… if it did Eusubius would not have quoted from those translations.

Therefore, those people who were responsible for translating the Bible into latin and greek in the 2nd century were not aligned with “one holy and apostolic church”, and apparently Eusubius did not see that lack of “exclusiveness” as a problem in the the 2nd century.

It seems then, that there were churches in the 2nd century that were not Catholic, and it also seems that Eusubius did not consider himself “Catholic” according to the present use of the term.

Firstly, in the quote above, you state that it is likely that Eusebius “did not consider himself ‘Catholic’”. Also, the “others” to whom you refer includes St. Hegesippus.

bibleapologist:

Eusebius says, (H. E. iv. 22,) that Hegesippus, (who lived and wrote about A. D. 188,) "made some quotations from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and from the Syriac Gospel.

Again you are wrong about St. Hegesippus. He did not belong to a 2nd century Church that was “not Catholic”.

Eusebius quotes from St. Hegesippus in the same document from which you quoted: “And the Church of the Corinthians remained in the true word until Primus was bishop in Corinth; I made their acquaintance in my journey to Rome, and remained with the Corinthians many days, in which we were refreshed with the true word. And when I was in Rome, I made a succession up to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And in each succession and in each city all is according to the ordinances of the law and the Prophets and the Lord” (Euseb., IV, 22).

Anicetus and Eleutherius were both “Bishops of Rome” (Popes).

Since Independent Baptists are not eccumenical, I couldn’t care less what your criticism of mistakes made by previous Baptist churches are. I am not affiliated with them just because they carry the name Baptist.

What exactly was the Independent Baptist response in the lead up to Roe v. Wade? The only firm opposition that I can find in historical documents is coming from the Catholic Church.

 

[Eden]

I addressed it in post #174, #213, by stating that according to Augustine and Eusebius there were “other” sects in existence in the mid-2nd century.

There were no other Christian churches in the time of St. Augustine and Eusebius. There was the Catholic Church and then there were heretics.

In the same “Church History” from which you culled the quote about Hegesippus, Book 1, Chapter 1 opens with the following paragraph:

It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing. It is my purpose also to give the names and number and times of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge falsely so-called [cf. 1 Timothy 6:20], have like fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ.

Eusebius could not have been more clear. There was one Church - “THE” Church. There is no mention of equally Christian, yet separate “churches”. So, we have the Church and the heretics “who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors”.

 

[Eden]

Which is led by men who offer their “private interpretation” of scripture.

If you are led by the Holy Spirit, what makes your interpretation of scripture any more private than the Pope’s or Bishops’?

1. Ordained leaders share in Jesus’ ministry and authority
2. Authority is transferred through the sacrament of ordination
3. Jesus wants us to obey apostolic authority

For Biblical proof that the above three statements are scripturally sound, please refer to the passages provided here:

scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

And let’s look at the witness of St. Ignatius of Antioch (where in the Bible, the term “Christian” was first used), who learned the faith at the feet of the apostles and was an auditor of the Apostle John:

“For, since** ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ**, ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, ye may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as ye indeed do, so without the bishop ye should do nothing, but should** also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ**, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all. For they are not ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They are bound, therefore, to avoid all grounds of accusation [against them], as they would do fire.” *Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians, 2 (c. A.D. 110). *

“And do ye also reverence your bishop as Christ Himself, according as the blessed apostles have enjoined you. He that is within the altar is pure, wherefore also he is obedient to the bishop and presbyters: but he that is without is one that does anything apart from the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons. Such a person is defiled in his conscience, and is worse than an infidel. For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as the holy Stephen did to the blessed James, Timothy and Linus to Paul, Anencletus and Clement to Peter? He, therefore, that will not yield obedience to such, must needs be one utterly without God, an impious man who despises Christ, and depreciates His appointments.” *Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians, 7 (c. A.D. 110). *

 

[Eden]

What I see is that Catholics seem to have the misconception that; if someone in history has practiced something… it must be right.

I am not, nor have I ever denied historical accounts for the sake of winning an argument. I have though questioned the point of truth that they undeniably prove.

I made statement earlier on this thread that Eden has immersed himself in total “historicity” (the state or fact of being historically authentic). It seems to be the norm here, that truth is incapsulated in history… and it is not.

The only reason that you fail to reinforce your Biblical defense of your beliefs with the historical testimony of early Christians, is that there are no quotes from the Early Christians that support your interpretation.

When you do use random, disembodied quotes, they inevitably prove to be a misrepresentation on your part. A good example is your recent use of the quote from Hegesippus via Eusebius.

I have given many Biblical and logical proofs to refute Apostolic Succession… and the rebuttals are almost always historical quotes. Your historical quotes are irrelevant in our search for truth.

You are misrepresenting the responses that you have received. In response to your claim that Apostolic Succession is not scriptural, you have been Biblical and logical proofs *and *historical testimony of early Christians to support Apostolic succession.

It’s all wrapped up in a neat package here:

Apostolic Succession - Biblical and Historical Support

scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html