Who Has Authority?

[MariaG]

The Apostles were given authority in the very begining to go out and make diciples of all nations and they did. There special powers died with them. The gospel message they were preaching–thankfully did not die with them. The Apostolic Succession everyone talks about I believe is the passing on of the Gospel message of Christ so all can hear and believe. I do not believe it was passed on to a specific church. I believe it was passed on to whoever believed it.

Where in scripture is this belief of yours reflected?

We can see in scripture how they did in fact replace apostles who died, (Judas) through a layin on of hands. Yet you do not believe that Christians would continue to do this? Or that Mattias (?) had less authority? Not sure I understand you nor where your belief is reflected in scritpure?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi,
I have a bunch of stuff to post–one I already put up, but Im going to do it again but one post at a time so my posts are not too long.
1st

CHURCH
Definition. The word church (Gk. ekklesia) simply means “a called out group.” It is most often used in a technical sense of believers whom God has called out of the world as a special group of His own. It is, however, occasionally used in a non-technical sense to refer, for example, to a mob (translated “assembly” ), as in Acts 19:32. Church is used in two primary ways in the New Testament—the “universal” church and the local church. Paul uses the term to refer to the wide company of believers transcending a single congregation (Gal. 1:13; Eph. 3:10, 21; 5:23–25, 27, 29, 32). When the term is referring to the Body of Christ the universal sense is intended (Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18, 24). Church refers to the local church when a particular assembly of believers in a given location at a given time is intended. Thus Paul refers to the individual churches at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2; 4:17; 7:17; 2 Cor. 1:1; 8:1), Galatia (Gal. 1:2, 22), Philippi (Phil. 4:15), Colossae (Col. 4:15, 16), and Thessalonica (2 Thess. 1:1).
The church as a union of Jews and Gentiles on equal footing as fellow heirs in Christ (Eph. 3:6) is a distinctly New Testament entity. The church was unknown in the Old Testament (Eph. 3:5); the knowledge about the church was given to Paul through revelation (Eph. 3:3).

 

[ALLFORHIM]

2nd statement
Explanation. Paul depicts the church as an organism making up the “complex structure of the Body of Christ which carries on living activities by meanings of the individual believers, who are distinct in function but mutually dependent on and governed by their relation to Christ, the Head.”28
Entrance into the church is through the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit who places believers into union with Christ and with other believers (1 Cor. 12:13). The baptizing work of the Spirit occurs simultaneously with saving faith, is non-experiential, and includes all believers, regardless of class or social position. As a head gives direction to a human body, so Christ, as Head of the church, gives direction to the church, having authority over it (Eph. 1:22–23; Col. 2:10). It is through union with Christ that the church grows to maturity (Col. 2:19) as it subjects itself to the authority of Christ (Eph. 1:22–23).
Paul teaches that God has given spiritual gifts for the building up of the Body of Christ (Eph. 4:11–13). The doctrine of spiritual gifts is almost exclusively Pauline; the only reference apart from Paul is a brief statement in 1 Peter 4:10. Spiritual gifts is the translation of one Greek word charisma, literally, “grace gift.” A concise definition is “a God-given ability for service.”29 Paul describes the gifts in Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, and Ephesians 4. (See “Gifts of the Holy Spirit” for an expanded discussion.)

 

[chasjohn]

SterryFamily:
Thanks for your referral to the list. I notice that St. Linus [67AD] was first in line after Peter.

What authority did Peter give to St. Linus? Was it general authority to preside over the church, or was it the authority to preside over a local congregation?
Weren’t there other apostles still living at the time who would have had the authority to preside over the church?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

3rd statementThis is the one I already posted but it all goes together in order so I thought I would post it again.

Organization. While the church is a living organism, it is also an or ganization, involving offices and function. There are two designated offices in the New Testament church. The office of elder (Gk. presbuteros) emphasizes maturity and dignity and normally denotes an older person. Elders were appointed as leaders in the local churches (1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5). The term bishop or overseer (Gk. episkopos) denotes the work of shepherding by the elder (1 Tim. 3:1). The terms are basically synonymous, although elder signifies the office whereas overseer emphasizes function. The work of the elders involved teaching (1 Tim. 5:17), ruling (1 Tim. 5:17), shepherding, nurturing, and caring for the flock (1 Tim. 3:1). Their qualifications are listed in 1 Timothy 3:1–7.
The other church office is that of deacon (Gk. diakonos), meaning “servant.” From the qualifications cited in 1 Timothy 3:8–13 it is evident the deacons were also involved in spiritual ministry, albeit as subordinate to the elders. Along with the elders they had an authoritative position in the local church (cf. Phil. 1:1).
It is not entirely clear whether Paul was advocating a separate office of deaconness (1 Tim. 3:11). The word gunaikas, translated “women,” may refer to the wives of the deacons or to a separate class of deaconesses.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

4th statementAlthough this is not specifically what we are discussing it is what many churches believe and follow including mine.

Ordinances. Although the subject of baptism is prominent in the New Testament, it is not a major emphasis in Pauline theology. The verb baptizo is used eighty times in the New Testament, but Paul uses it only sixteen times and only eleven of those refer to water baptism (three of them in Acts). Furthermore, he uses the verb six times in his explanation that Christ did not send him to baptize (1 Cor. 1:13–17); thus, apart from that reference, Paul refers to water baptism only twice in the epistles (1 Cor. 15:29). In his explanation to the Corinthians Paul makes it clear that baptism is not a part of the gospel (1 Cor. 1:17–18). Paul seems to emphasize the baptism of the Spirit more than water baptism (cf. Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 10:2; 12:13; Gal. 3:27).
Paul provides a detailed explanation of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23–34), which he received through direct revelation from the Lord (1 Cor. 15:3; Gal. 1:12). Paul presents the Lord’s Supper as a memorial (1 Cor. 11:25) and admonishes the Corinthians not to partake in a casual manner; in so doing they would drink judgment to themselves. Paul’s further rebuke relates to an accompanying meal, sometimes referred to as the agape, in which some would gorge themselves while others would have little to eat. It disrupted fellowship and resulted in eating and drinking the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner; they were “eating without recognizing the symbolism which reminds of the Lord’s body, without seeing Christ and His death in it all.”30

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I have more but Ill wait.

 

[sterryfamily]

SterryFamily:
Thanks for your referral to the list. I notice that St. Linus [67AD] was first in line after Peter.

What authority did Peter give to St. Linus? Was it general authority to preside over the church, or was it the authority to preside over a local congregation?
Weren’t there other apostles still living at the time who would have had the authority to preside over the church?

Not sure you would find anyone who suggests that St Peter said specifically, “I give you such and such authority”. It stems more from the traditions at the time - of the transfer of authority within an office, and the way it was taught by the apostles to the early Christians (and the fact that it follows Old Testament models).

There are letters written from particular congregations to the Bishop of Rome, that ask him to clear up disputes for them even though their founding apostles were still alive.

 

[sterryfamily]

SterryFamily:
Thanks for your referral to the list. I notice that St. Linus [67AD] was first in line after Peter.

What authority did Peter give to St. Linus? Was it general authority to preside over the church, or was it the authority to preside over a local congregation?
Weren’t there other apostles still living at the time who would have had the authority to preside over the church?

Not sure you would find anyone who suggests that St Peter said specifically, “I give you such and such authority”. It stems more from the traditions at the time - of the transfer of authority within an office, and the way it was taught by the apostles to the early Christians (and the fact that it follows Old Testament models).

There are letters written from particular congregations to the Bishop of Rome (post St Peter), that ask him to clear up disputes for them even though their founding apostles were still alive.

 

[chasjohn]

I’m sure that you will agree that not everyone to whom the apostles gave authority, received the same authority. i.e. to some were given the authority of teachers, to others, the authority of priests, to others, the authority of bishops,etc. Just because a person was given authority to preside over a local congreation doesn’t mean that he should assume the authority to preside over the church [Heb 5:4], tradition notwithstanding

 

[sterryfamily]

I’m sure that you will agree that not everyone to whom the apostles gave authority, received the same authority. i.e. to some were given the authority of teachers, to others, the authority of priests, to others, the authority of bishops,etc. Just because a person was given authority to preside over a local congreation doesn’t mean that he should assume the authority to preside over the church [Heb 5:4], tradition notwithstanding

I’m sure that you will agree that your or my speculating about it is pointless. The only thing that matters is what the apostles taught.

How do we determine what the apostles taught? 1) We have the Church’s unchanging testimony 2) We have our Lord’s eternal promise of protection to His Church 3) We have the witness of the early Christians which attests to it.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I’m sure that you will agree that your or my speculating about it is pointless. The only thing that matters is what the apostles taught.

How do we determine what the apostles taught? 1) We have the Church’s unchanging testimony 2) We have our Lord’s eternal promise of protection to His Church 3) We have the witness of the early Christians which attests to it.

Dont forget we have the bible:thumbsup:

 

[E.E.N.S]

Dont forget we have the bible:thumbsup:

Don’t forget that the Canon of Scripture came from the Church.

 

[sterryfamily]

Dont forget we have the bible:thumbsup:

Absolutely! Thank you. The Lord gave us His Church and His Church gave us the Bible.

 

[jmcrae]

SterryFamily:
Thanks for your referral to the list. I notice that St. Linus [67AD] was first in line after Peter.

What authority did Peter give to St. Linus? Was it general authority to preside over the church, or was it the authority to preside over a local congregation?

It was authority over the entire Church. We see that with the person who was fourth in line, Pope Clement, who wrote a letter to the Corinthians (quite a far distance away from Rome; certainly well out of his jurisdiction if his authority was only local) explaining to them that as leader of the Church, he was commanding them to do this and that, and that if they didn’t do it, then they couldn’t be allowed to consider themselves Christians anymore.

Weren’t there other apostles still living at the time who would have had the authority to preside over the church?

St. John lived until the mid to late 90s AD, well into the pontificate of St. Clement, but we see in Matthew 16:18 that Peter’s authority as Pope was for himself and his own successors; not for any of the other Apostles (unless Peter himself had chosen them as his successor, but as it turns out, he did not do that) - so yes, there were Apostles still living, but they did not receive the authority to govern the whole Church.

 

[chasjohn]

Are you saying that St. Linus, the leader of a local congregation, had authority to preside over the whole church; while the apostle John did not?

 

[john_ennis]

I’m sure that you will agree that your or my speculating about it is pointless. The only thing that matters is what the apostles taught.

How do we determine what the apostles taught? 1) We have the Church’s unchanging testimony 2) We have our Lord’s eternal promise of protection to His Church 3) We have the witness of the early Christians which attests to it.

Not to butt in, but I always found the facts relating to your point #3 especially compelling when it comes to the questioning of the nature of Peter’s succession, as Chasjohn is wondering about.

When Irenaeus lists the successors of Peter from Linus to his present time, in order to illustrate the way to identify the Church “with which all other churches must agree” (his Against Heresies) we really get a flavor for how the earliest Christians viewed the successor to Peter.

I mean, this was the end of the second century, for Pete’s sake.

peace.

John

 

[jmcrae]

Are you saying that St. Linus, the leader of a local congregation, had authority to preside over the whole church; while the apostle John did not?

Yes.

The reason is that St. Linus received “the keys” from St. Peter (which we read about in more detail in Isaiah 22; Jesus is quoting from Isaiah 22 in Matthew 16;18), but St. John did not.

 

[Petergee]

Quote:
We believe that we share the same history because we were once the same church. So many wonderful things have come from the CC (the Bible, the writings of the ECFs) and I am thankful that they survived the first 800 years of existence so well. But, after the East-West Schism, things started going downhill. In all honesty, I wish they hadn’t. The CC had it right from the beginning but it took the Reformation to open everyone’s eyes to what was going on and how much the CC had strayed from its core beginnings.

***Can you honestly tell us that you believe that the Catholic Church of 830 AD or 1054 AD more closely resembled your denomination than it resembles the Catholic Church of today?/***I]

The more I read about it, I’d say it was the CC before 800 A.D… OK, just so I understand you clearly: You are saying that up until 800 AD the Catholic Church hadn’t put a foot wrong as far as doctrine is concerned? Yes/no?
And that you and your denomination aagree with everything that the Catholic Church taught up until 800 AD? Yes/no?

 

[chasjohn]

Yes.

The reason is that St. Linus received “the keys” from St. Peter (which we read about in more detail in Isaiah 22; Jesus is quoting from Isaiah 22 in Matthew 16;18), but St. John did not.

It doesn’t seem reasonable to me that Peter would give the keys of the kingdom to a local church leader [St. Linus], giving him authority to preside over the entire church, including authority to preside over John, a living apostle.