The historicity of the Church

[joe371]

Well, did any of St. Peter’s successors receive keys directly from Jesus ?

No. They received them from Peter. How could they receive them from Jesus. I’m lost now brother…

 

[joe371]

An example of leadership ,as St. Peter took the initiative (even citing scripture i think). Yet a bad example by drawing lots ? And have we ever heard of the one picked again ? Is he one of the twelve foundations spoken of in Revelations ? Many think it is St. Paul who replaced Judas. Don’t think the church is dogmatic on this. I say not a great start for the apostles, nor Peter but it was before Pentecost I think.

Bernard has not respond so I will ask you - apostolic succession:

OK. Did you read this clear assessment of apostolic succession. Did Paul say the following:

What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to each and every Christian?

Or did he say:

“What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

We see in 1 and 4 Timothy (1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14) where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands. Notice in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role.

 

[spina1953]

Hi benhur: In your response to Isaiah 45-9: concerning the council of Jerusalem and circumcision, one needs to remember that it was the Pharisees that had converted who thought and believed that one could not become a Christian unless one was circumcised and became Jews first. Peter argued that circumcision was not a condition of admittance to be a Christian as it was among Jews, that one did not have to become Jews first in order to become Christians. What Luke was saying in Acts was that the early Church was moving away from the Laws of Jewish thinking and stressing the teachings of Jesus as to whom can be Christians.

 

[benhur]

No. They received them from Peter. How could they receive them from Jesus. I’m lost now brother…

Go to post 506.

 

[benhur]

Hi benhur: In your response to Isaiah 45-9: concerning the council of Jerusalem and circumcision, one needs to remember that it was the Pharisees that had converted who thought and believed that one could not become a Christian unless one was circumcised and became Jews first. Peter argued that circumcision was not a condition of admittance to be a Christian as it was among Jews, that one did not have to become Jews first in order to become Christians. What Luke was saying in Acts was that the early Church was moving away from the Laws of Jewish thinking and stressing the teachings of Jesus as to whom can be Christians.

Agreed.ot has many lessons and in acts of pitfalls to be aware of

 

[benhur]

Bernard has not respond so I will ask you - apostolic succession:

OK. Did you read this clear assessment of apostolic succession. Did Paul say the following:

What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to each and every Christian?

Or did he say:

“What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

We see in 1 and 4 Timothy (1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14) where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands. Notice in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role.

It is still time to say Happy Easter. I would not go so far as to say that what is taught to a “bishop’’ is not to be taught to the Body. That is gnostic (special revelation for some). We probably agree that the gospel is for all, can be taught to all but not all can teach at any given moment. That is Paul gives many qualifications of a teacher/presbyter/bishop. It seems to be a maturity issue as well as calling issue and finally that not everyone will be a teacher/leader. That is not to say that in teaching you are not also entrusting to the hearer, to the student , for we are all to be disciples with different giftings. As far as knowledge and truth, it is available to all as John tells us “we know all things and all have an unction from the Holy One” Many think 5 : 22 deals with receiving an offender back into the church, or even rebuking one with hands and not so much ordination . I would also be careful to institutionalize ordination. God is the one who calls and gifts, for us. We are not to over observe(who is gifted an mature), even appoint as a “church” (Acts13) or a group of presbyters (1 Tim 4:14). Not sure what apostolic succession means to you . Yes Paul and presbyters sent/ordained Timothy and we are not sure but is probable Titus was ordained in same fashion, and told to do likewise in ordaining elders. There is a succession yes but It it seems to be done by the ''church” as much as soley by an “apostle”. For sure God gave us leaders and teachers and more back then down to today.

 

[benhur]

Let’s be fair; I asked my question first: Let me approach it from a different angle: does the Catholic Church in your opinion, possess the correct interpretation about the Eucharist, via divine illumination and grace?

I am laughing at the you go first , no you go first , like the couple of kids we are. May we always be good naturedly childlike. I don’t feel like being too argumentative today but I believe the CC has many rules and dogmas and doctrine on the Eucharist and many are via divine illumination but not all. I am sure you are not surprised by this and probably feel the same way vice versa. I want to hold on to the hope in the common ground that there is on the matter.

 

[benhur]

God is the one who calls and gifts, for us. We are not to over observe(who is gifted an mature), even appoint as a “church” (Acts13) or a group of presbyters (1 Tim 4:14). . .

had a misprint here meant to say , "We are to observe (to see who is gifted and mature)

 

[joe371]

It is still time to say Happy Easter. I would not go so far as to say that what is taught to a “bishop’’ is not to be taught to the Body. That is gnostic (special revelation for some). We probably agree that the gospel is for all, can be taught to all but not all can teach at any given moment. That is Paul gives many qualifications of a teacher/presbyter/bishop. It seems to be a maturity issue as well as calling issue and finally that not everyone will be a teacher/leader. That is not to say that in teaching you are not also entrusting to the hearer, to the student , for we are all to be disciples with different giftings. As far as knowledge and truth, it is available to all as John tells us “we know all things and all have an unction from the Holy One” Many think 5 : 22 deals with receiving an offender back into the church, or even rebuking one with hands and not so much ordination . I would also be careful to institutionalize ordination. God is the one who calls and gifts, for us. We are not to over observe(who is gifted an mature), even appoint as a “church” (Acts13) or a group of presbyters (1 Tim 4:14). Not sure what apostolic succession means to you . Yes Paul and presbyters sent/ordained Timothy and we are not sure but is probable Titus was ordained in same fashion, and told to do likewise in ordaining elders. There is a succession yes but It it seems to be done by the ''church” as much as soley by an “apostle”. For sure God gave us leaders and teachers and more back then down to today.

Happy Easter benhur.

Apostolic succession to me means that the church leaders beginning with the apostles, (and expanding as the church grows in time) pass on Jesus’ teachings to the next generation of leaders, and they do the same etc. That’s about it. Everyone else of course is free to teach as well, just as long as said teachings align with the deposit of faith preserved via apostolic succession which is safeguarded by the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

It’s purpose: prevent someone from viewing Jesus’ teachings in a different way. Of course they are free to leave Jesus’ church, start their own church, and proceed to teach something different.

 

[joe371]

I am laughing at the you go first , no you go first , like the couple of kids we are. May we always be good naturedly childlike. I don’t feel like being too argumentative today but I believe the CC has many rules and dogmas and doctrine on the Eucharist and many are via divine illumination but not all. I am sure you are not surprised by this and probably feel the same way vice versa. I want to hold on to the hope in the common ground that there is on the matter.

Lol…You did answer a question with a question though.:thumbsup: I just like to hit the Q/A sequentially.

 

[benhur]

Apostolic succession to me means that the church leaders beginning with the apostles, (and expanding as the church grows in time) pass on Jesus’ teachings to the next generation of leaders, and they do the same etc. That’s about it

Yes, pretty much how I think it all started in the early church as we discussed.

Everyone else of course is free to teach as well, just as long as said teachings align with the deposit of faith preserved via apostolic succession which is safeguarded by the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Yes, it is just that things have expanded, even evolved. Succession was to help in preserving existing truth which is a challenge in itself. The leadership part involving evolving or adding to that truth is more dependent on the Holy Spirit as you say, and I would say even more important than succession itself. Even the Lord says to take it “to the church”, as in the assembly and elders/apostles/presbyters. It’s like the bishop of Smryna is to shepherd his flock with existing truth. Now if more truth is needed he by himself is limited.

It’s purpose: prevent someone from viewing Jesus’ teachings in a different way. Of course they are free to leave Jesus’ church, start their own church, and proceed to teach something different. :

Agreed and that has been happening since the first council (splitting). I take “Jesus’ teachings” as those we have in writing, or to be more accurate, that He put in writing.

 

[joe371]

benhur;11918860]Yes, pretty much how I think it all started in the early church as we discussed.

Yes, it is just that things have expanded, even evolved. Succession was to help in preserving existing truth which is a challenge in itself.

:yup:

The leadership part involving evolving or adding to that truth is more dependent on the Holy Spirit as you say, and I would say even more important than succession itself.

Succession from the time of the apostles, is key to the guidance of the Holy Spirit - wouldn’t you say? For example: what if I decided that the Trinity has been wrongly defined by the CC, and I proceed to step outside of that apostolic succession and teach my own take on the matter. Surely the Holy Spirit is not guiding me in my efforts/determination?

Even the Lord says to take it “to the church”, as in the assembly and elders/apostles/presbyters. It’s like the bishop of Smryna is to shepherd his flock with existing truth. Now if more truth is needed he by himself is limited.

I sounds like you are talking about doctrinal development…Agreed.

Agreed and that has been happening since the first council (splitting). I take “Jesus’ teachings” as those we have in writing, or to be more accurate, that He put in writing.

That’s a problem for me, as a form SS advocate. For example, I have 6 family members, all belonging to a different churches and all claiming to defer to Jesus’ teachings as those we have in writing, or to be more accurate, that Jesus put in writing, and they all come away with something different, doctrinally speaking, and they all claim that they are right, as they are moved by the Holy Spirit. Some of them take it to their church while others insist that church is nothing more than a place for Christians to gather and praise God.

In your opinion, has God provided a way for my 6 family members, all belonging to different church, to know who is right and who is wrong?

 

[Traverse]

It would be easy to reason from the scriptures on the division of whether or not church is important or not as it pertains to those six family members. No doubt you’ve tried to do that yourself.

Having scripture to show them doesn’t mean they’re having a hard time interpreting it, it just means they’re refusing to listen. There are certain concepts that are hard to understand, but the significance of the church is definitely not one of them. If they refuse to accept what is plainly read then the fault is on them, not scripture.

Hopefully this does not come off as rude. I say this as someone with family members who also have diverse beliefs and seem to choose what they want over what is commanded. But I’d be kidding myself if I thought they only needed someone to explain it properly to them. They know what is instructed, they just find ways to justify against it.

 

[benhur]

Succession from the time of the apostles, is key to the guidance of the Holy Spirit - wouldn’t you say?

The way you put it almost makes it sound like our leaders can almost take the place of the role that the Holy Spirit should have in all of us, not just the leaders. The Holy Spirit seeks to guide the election process, as much as He chooses them( those to be ordained) beforehand. Of course leaders are for our guidance.

For example: what if I decided that the Trinity has been wrongly defined by the CC, and I proceed to step outside of that apostolic succession and teach my own take on the matter. Surely the Holy Spirit is not guiding me in my efforts/determination?

Yes. Just like He didn’t guide those who were properly ordained but then fell away over that matter centuries ago. Succession is no guarantee.

In your opinion, has God provided a way for my 6 family members, all belonging to different church, to know who is right and who is wrong?

Of course He has. The answers is not the right Church, or SS, or ECF’s, or Tradition. These things need not be judged merely by their unification results. In fact in and of themselves they are powerless. In the end we are all either united in graciously being written in the Lamb’s Book of Life or not. That is a good starting point.

 

[Nicea325]

yes, per CC interpretation. Even at that I said paplism, which includes many more things today than what is explicit in first church. I was using others logic that says the church operated before any written nt word (hence how could scripture be authoritative) , so did the church operate before any Jerusalem council (for 10 or 15 years ?), so how could council be authoritative ? …So again many things were not there the first ten or fifteen years of church, including the term SS.

Per CC interpretation? Then tell me who did Jesus intrust the true interpretation,if not the CC? Thousands of denominations all can’t be right.

How did the church operate? Easily…via Jesus granting her authority. Jesus did not have to write down scripture to prove his point or teaching.

 

[Nicea325]

Show me where any authority is above Holy Writ, or that the authority is not constrained, channeled, to be in line with, God’s intended meaning of His written Word ? Even Christ was subject to His own Word (and you can’t get any more of an authoritative position, office, person than that).

After you show me where Jesus granted full authority to Scripture-only?

BTW: Where does God state His Word is binded to written Words alone?

Answer and we will see what Scripture trulys says…

 

[benhur]

Per CC interpretation? Then tell me who did Jesus intrust the true interpretation,if not the CC? Thousands of denominations all can’t be right.

Actually it is not thousands. In this there is unanimous unity. There are Catholics who believe in the Pope and there are Protestants, who do not believe in that office. That’s it (except for the Orthodox). It’s not thousands of interpretations on this matter, just two.

How did the church operate? Easily…via Jesus granting her authority. Jesus did not have to write down scripture to prove his point or teaching.

Well it obvious that some do quite well without the office, but “pappas” (bishops), yes. As far as the Lord giving us Scripture it does help you explain the 5 or 6 offices you believe He has given the Body, and us the 4 or 5 offices that we believe in.

 

[benhur]

After you show me where Jesus granted full authority to Scripture-only?

I can’t cause scripture tells me He gave us parents and teachers and presbyters, prophets, elders and the Holy Spirit etc., etc., all with authority, yet all are subject to His Word,written or not.

BTW: Where does God state His Word is binded to written Words alone?

No where.

 

[joe371]

benhur;11920385]The way you put it almost makes it sound like our leaders can almost take the place of the role that the Holy Spirit should have in all of us, not just the leaders.

Gosh, I would never say that. In terms of preserving doctrinal truth, scripture reminds us that the Holy Spirit guides the church leaders, beginning with the very first Catholic Church leaders, namely the apostles. That idea does not negate the fact that the HS is in all of us.

The Holy Spirit seeks to guide the election process, as much as He chooses them( those to be ordained) beforehand. Of course leaders are for our guidance. Yes. Just like He didn’t guide those who were properly ordained but then fell away over that matter centuries ago. Succession is no guarantee.

Fallen-away leaders, such as Judas, do not render apostolic succession null and void. Apostolic succession is explicitly biblical, and the way God preserves truth. If apostolic succession is no guarantee, then nothing is…unless you can illustrate otherwise?

Of course He has. The answers is not the right Church, or SS, or ECF’s, or Tradition. These things need not be judged merely by their unification results.

I agree 100 %. Moreover, the answer is Jesus’ church.

In fact in and of themselves they are powerless. In the end we are all either united in graciously being written in the Lamb’s Book of Life or not. That is a good starting point.

Totally agree. Doctrinal truth can be known however via Jesus’ church, simply because God guarantees the preservation of doctrinal truth.

 

[joe371]

Actually it is not thousands. In this there is unanimous unity. There are Catholics who believe in the Pope and there are Protestants, who do not believe in that office. That’s it (except for the Orthodox). It’s not thousands of interpretations on this matter, just two.

Well it obvious that some do quite well without the office, but “pappas” (bishops), yes. As far as the Lord giving us Scripture it does help you explain the 5 or 6 offices you believe He has given the Body, and us the 4 or 5 offices that we believe in.

You forgot to answer his question: who did Jesus entrust the true interpretation, if not the CC? Hundreds of denominations can’t be right.

Sure they do quite well. No one is doubting that. I think what it comes down to is this: you do not believe that God preserves doctrinal truth within the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Churches, or one of the Protestant Churches? That is certainly one way to go…