The ROOT of our differences is the AUTHORITY we claim.....

[desertknight]

In fact, you seem to have omitted the part where I asked to strike the question because it assumed that too much of your question made sense...

I don't have a question.  Holy Scripture is quite clear to me.

That's not even consistent with your post here, where you argue that succession IS the only way that ordination can be legitimate.

I'm starting to think that you do not know what Apostolic Succession is.  It has nothing to do with the calling of the Holy Spirit.  It has nothing to do with an individuals ordination as such.  It has everything to do with whether the person doing the ordaining, can validly do so.  i.e., was he properly ordained by someone who was properly ordained by someone who, etc., etc., ...Get it?  This is extremely easy to understand and is very clear in Scripture.  Again, where do Protestants derive their authority?

But maybe it is consistent with Catholic belief.  After all, catholic belief doesn't have to be consistent with catholic belief, so if it agrees with part but not all, what harm done?

Another unsupported, unreferenced, cheap shot.  You know, it doesn't upset me.  It just lets me know I've won with you.  

Did you read my post?  I gave you a whole list of names...

Yes.  Did you read mine?  Just tell me which one become a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, without being ordained by a legitimate person, and you've won!

I think I already have won the argument since I've given you more than one single solitary scriptural example, but you seem to have some sort of ability to ignore that fact...

Oh good gosh!  You are kidding, right?  So your example is that Priscilla, for example, for YOUR example, is a Bishop or Presbyter of the Church?  And where may I find that in Scripture?  LoL.

probable elders.  That's as doubtful as it gets.

Ah!  yes, truth!  A definite....maybe, but no proof, however.

Apollos was TEACHING in the church, and BAPTIZING

I will stick with Apollos as a representative example.  In 1 Cor. 3:5, Paul refers to Apollos as a Minister of the Church, so clearly he is one.  My argument is how did he become one?  Your saying that as your example, Apollos was a Presbyter of Paul's, whom Paul simply neglected to ordain.  The same Paul who went to Jerusalem to be ordained himself, after being called by Christ directly.  That is no argument at all.  If your argument is that Apollos was almost certainly ordained by Paul, or another with legitimate authority, then you have agreed with me, not refuted my argument.  This is a really simple argument.  Maybe you should just look up Apostolic Succession on Wiki.

Only the ordained are allowed to minister sacraments, yes?

Yes.  Where are you finding that Apollos was not ordained?  Your saying that Paul allowed him to baptise others without ordination?  Is that your argument?  Even Luther didn't believe that, who called Apollos a Bishop.  Please show me where someone who is not ordained, is allowed to Baptize.  I can give you numerous examples of Scripture stating the unassailable argument of legitimate ordination by one who has legitimate authority to do so, being the only model in Scripture that is valid.

and a hundred other places.

Cite them.  

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

If you will simply provide one, single example of someone, anyone, holding authority in the Church in Scripture, without that authority being passed down, through those already validly ordained themselves, I will concede the point.

You have accepted that one of the persons I have offered as example, Apollos, was in fact, a bishop.  (Actually, you haven't denied any but one of them as church authorities...and I'll happily give you Priscilla if only to move the debate along.)

Where are you finding that Apollos was not ordained?

I don't believe that falls on me to prove me that he was NOT ordained.  I've played your game and given you the example you asked for, which you've acknowledged is a legitimate candidate.

I believe it now falls on you to demonstrate that he WAS ordained (by someone else who was legitimately ordained themselves).  I do not believe that there is anything there to support that supposition.

There is only your assumption that what your church teaches now has always been the case, and so it MUST have been done at some point.  Probably maybe.  But we'll keep that argument in the other thread.

Actually, I've given you better than half a dozen examples, which would seem to scream out that what I've given you isn't just a solitary "exception to the rule."

I'll be waiting for your demonstration that Apollos either wasn't a bishop, or was ordained.  Otherwise, I expect you to hold true to what you have said:

If you will simply provide one, single example of someone, anyone, holding authority in the Church in Scripture, without that authority being passed down, through those already validly ordained themselves, I will concede the point.

[desertknight]

You have accepted that one of the persons I have offered as example, Apollos, was in fact, a bishop.  (Actually, you haven't denied any but one of them as church authorities...and I'll happily give you Priscilla if only to move the debate along.)

No. I said that Martin Luther said he was a Bishop.  It has nothing to do with the argument however.  I said in challenges repeatedly to you...

Just tell me which one became a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, without being ordained by a legitimate person, and you've won!

Now your response is what in legal terms, is arguing "facts not in evidence".  You are mentioning several people who may or may not have been Bishops, Presbyters or Deacons, and then as they are mentioned only in passing in Scripture and we know little of them, you are stating that because their ordination is also not mentioned, that this proves that one does not have to be ordained by proper authorities in order to hold those offices.  Well of course that is total nonsense.  You haven't "proven" anything.  I have.  In order for your argument to be valid we must believe St. Paul was called by Christ directly, and still went to Jerusalem to be ordained by the Apostles.  He in turn ordained Timothy by the laying on of hands and then confirmed him as a Bishop.  He subsequently gave Timothy specific instructions as a Bishop to ordain Presbyters in the churches of various cities, even cautioning Timothy to "not lay hands on to quickly", given the importance and position of the office of Presbyter.  Now we know this to be absolutely factual.  Your model is that Apollos, who may very well have been a Presbyter, but who's ordination, as well as pretty much every thing else about him, is not mentioned in Scripture, and given that, you have declared him to have been unordained, in some, magical, not cited or mentioned even in passing, way, in Scripture.  Your argument is, "I have no evidence, and there-in is my evidence!"   Nonsense.

You know very well that it is nonsense and that the NT is very clear on the holding of Apostles as Christ's chosen leaders and that they carefully selected and ordained by the laying on of hands, those who were chosen to exercise Christ's authority in His Church, those they ordained, having that proper authority, ordained others.  Case closed.  So where do Protestants get their authority?

If your just interested in playing silly word games, there are dozens of sites on-line where you can do that.

Either concede the point or make some attempt at an actual argument based on evidence that can be examined.

[broach972]

 

This is better than going to the movies...clash of the Titans indeed....

I can be unbiased here and so far...

sorry Wycliff, I think Desertknight is running circles around you...

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Now your response is what in legal terms, is arguing "facts not in evidence".  You are mentioning several people who may or may not have been Bishops, Presbyters or Deacons, and then as they are mentioned only in passing in Scripture and we know little of them, you are stating that because their ordination is also not mentioned, that this proves that one does not have to be ordained by proper authorities in order to hold those offices.  Well of course that is total nonsense.  You haven't "proven" anything.  I have.  In order for your argument to be valid we must believe St. Paul was called by Christ directly, and still went to Jerusalem to be ordained by the Apostles.  He in turn ordained Timothy by the laying on of hands and then confirmed him as a Bishop.  He subsequently gave Timothy specific instructions as a Bishop to ordain Presbyters in the churches of various cities, even cautioning Timothy to "not lay hands on to quickly", given the importance and position of the office of Presbyter.  Now we know this to be absolutely factual.  Your model is that Apollos, who may very well have been a Presbyter, but who's ordination, as well as pretty much every thing else about him, is not mentioned in Scripture, and given that, you have declared him to have been unordained, in some, magical, not cited or mentioned even in passing, way, in Scripture.  Your argument is, "I have no evidence, and there-in is my evidence!"   Nonsense.

You know very well that it is nonsense and that the NT is very clear on the holding of Apostles as Christ's chosen leaders and that they carefully selected and ordained by the laying on of hands, those who were chosen to exercise Christ's authority in His Church, those they ordained, having that proper authority, ordained others.  Case closed.  So where do Protestants get their authority?

If your just interested in playing silly word games, there are dozens of sites on-line where you can do that.

Either concede the point or make some attempt at an actual argument based on evidence that can be examined.

Concede that they were ordained?  Why would I do that?  There's absolutely no evidence that they were ordained.

Now then, as a logical rule, it is impossible to absolutely PROVE a negative premise, such as "prove that they were NOT ordained."  This is why I wanted you to prove the positive premise, that they WERE ordained.

Nonetheless, since you have declined the honor of providing such evidence (since, of course, it doesn't exist), I shall endeavor to more perfectly present a case that Apollos, our designated exemplar, was already practicing the functions of a bishop before ever he was ordained (if in fact he was ever ordained at all!).

About Apollos, of whom you claim that we know next-to-nothing, we actually know quite a bit:

He was a Jew, from Alexandria, and was already an adherent of the teachings of John the Baptist when he met the church at Ephesus.  (Acts 18)

He was allowed to teach in the Jewish synagogue at Ephesus (therefore, he was recognized as a Rabbi).  (Acts 18)

He was baptizing with John's baptism in the city of Ephesus, at which time he was ignorant of Christ's existence completely. (Acts 18)  Paul subsequently found many people who had been baptized only with John's baptism when he returned to Ephesus. (Acts 19).

We also know that Paul was not present at Ephesus when Apollos was there teaching & baptizing. (Acts 18)

We know that Apollos was convinced at Ephesus of Christianity, and then left to take the message to Corinth and the rest of Achaia (Northern Greece).  (Acts 18)

We also know that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul was traveling back to Ephesus.  (Acts 19)

Further, many of the Corinthians claimed to be "of Apollos," in OPPOSITION to others who said they were "of Paul."  This Paul immediately ties to the practice of baptism.  (1Cor 1)

And, Paul considers all of these who were at Corinth to be Christians, whether of Paul or Apollos, or Cephas.  (1Cor 3)

So we have someone who was already a teacher within Judaism, already accustomed to baptizing his converts, who, upon his own conversion, traveled to a new place, where he continued to convert people (this time to Christianity), and some of these converts saw fit to stylize themselves as "his" adherents, rather than the (apostle) Paul's. 

Given the facts that,

(a) Paul ties this dissent to baptism, and
(b) the Bible reliably demonstrates that Paul and Apollos were not acquainted before the time in which Apollos was preaching in Corinth,

I conclude that Apollos was baptizing believers in Corinth before he ever met an apostle.  And, that the apostle didn't have issues with with the legitimacy of those baptisms.

Looking forward to the response,

Jarrod

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

This is better than going to the movies...clash of the Titans indeed....

I can be unbiased here and so far...

sorry Wycliff, I think Desertknight is running circles around you...

Hi broach!  

I'm not so sure about unbiased...I sort of expect that conclusion from you, since your background and doctrine resembles his more than mine.  Nonetheless, you are probably between the two of us in position.

Feel free to add.  I'm sure we could probably use an arbitor that is somewhere between us.

[desertknight]

Wycliff, the Essenes all "baptized", but that is not the point.  You keep dancing around the fact that because there are no facts in evidence that it somehow, in complete contradiction to common sense, "proves" your case.  Nonsense.  The NT model is very clear.  I even think you know it is, but just can't stand loosing an argument.  Why do I suspect this?  Because you never, for a single moment, acknowledge or answer any of my examples, that Holy Scripture clearly records, of the models of Churchly office and ordination.  You keep insisting that I am to actually believe that although Paul went to Jerusalem, after being called personally by Christ, to be ordained, although he in turn, ordained others, including Timothy, and confirmed him as a Bishop, although Timothy was given orders to go and ordain Presbyters for the churches of various cities, and to use caution when exercising such great power, that somehow, without a scrap of evidence, we are to believe that your examples were mysteriously exempt from all this.  Pleazzze.  Come on.  Even you know better.  If you don't, than I have misjudged you.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Wycliff, the Essenes all "baptized", but that is not the point.

I think you misunderstood?  I am not saying that he baptized into John, and that's that.  He also baptized as a Christian before any sort of ordination occured.  It's the example you've been asking for.

You keep dancing around the fact...

No, I addressed it directly.  I think you've missed something.

...that because there are no facts in evidence...

I've just presented you with a long list of facts, followed by a conclusion reached from those facts.  I can republish it as a formal logical argument if it would make it easier?

...that it somehow, in complete contradiction to common sense, "proves" your case.  Nonsense.  The NT model is very clear.  I even think you know it is, but just can't stand losing an argument.  Why do I suspect this?  Because you never, for a single moment, acknowledge or answer any of my examples, that Holy Scripture clearly records, of the models of Churchly office and ordination.  You keep insisting that I am to actually believe that although Paul went to Jerusalem, after being called personally by Christ, to be ordained, although he in turn, ordained others, including Timothy, and confirmed him as a Bishop, although Timothy was given orders to go and ordain Presbyters for the churches of various cities, and to use caution when exercising such great power, that somehow, without a scrap of evidence, we are to believe that your examples were mysteriously exempt from all this.  Pleazzze.  Come on.  Even you know better.  If you don't, than I have misjudged you.

This seems to me like a case of "since I can't uphold my stance on this point, I'm going to reform my argument around a different point."

I will wait for you to address my exegesis of the Biblical events of Acts 18-19.

[desertknight]

He also baptized as a Christian before any sort of ordination occured.  It's the example you've been asking for.

Please cite your exact scriptural reference to where Apollos was conducting baptisms in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (a formula that every Christan denomination requires as mandatory.).  

I've just presented you with a long list of facts, followed by a conclusion reached from those facts.  I can republish it as a formal logical argument if it would make it easier?

No, you keep insisting that the lack of "fact" is somehow proof of your argument.

Please cite your exact scriptural example of Apollos, or anyone else, Baptizing in the name of Christ, without being properly ordained to do so.

I will wait for you to address my exegesis of the Biblical events of Acts 18-19.

Of course your kidding, right?  OK, mystery solved.  I should have read through Acts 18-19 before I wrote the first part of this post.  In Acts 18, neither Apollos, nor Priscilla and Aquila, are in any way, in any form, described as having conducted any of the responsibilities reserved for either Bishops or Presbyters.  Teaching, by the way, is conducted by Catholic laypersons all the time, in every Catholic college and Sunday school, every week.

In Acts 19, Paul specifically has to re-baptize, or to more accurately put it, as Scripture does, to Baptize the one, true time, properly, i.e., the "baptisms" conducted by Apollos, if he did so, as Paul states, are not valid.  (It actually says nothing of Apollos having baptized anyone BTW.)

Why in world would you pick something from Scripture that so obviously supports my case?  

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

He also baptized as a Christian before any sort of ordination occured.  It's the example you've been asking for.

Please cite your exact scriptural reference to where Apollos was conducting baptisms in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (a formula that every Christan denomination requires as mandatory.).

The primary verse is this:

1Cr 1:12-14 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.  Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?  I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;  Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

Here, the believers in Corinth are divided, some claiming "of Paul" some "of Apollos."  This Paul links to baptism and therefore, conversion.  This should not be difficult for you to grasp, as you have stated the equivalence of baptism and conversion in a separate thread.

I've just presented you with a long list of facts, followed by a conclusion reached from those facts.  I can republish it as a formal logical argument if it would make it easier?

No, you keep insisting that the lack of "fact" is somehow proof of your argument.

I did initially point out the utter lack of ordinations among a number of persons, which is not a proof, though it is still valid as evidence.  I have since moved on to make a positive argument.  Perhaps you could join me in that argument?

Please cite your exact scriptural example of Apollos, or anyone else, Baptizing in the name of Christ, without being properly ordained to do so.

I have provided a citation for the first part above.  The demonstration that he was not ordained at the time of those baptisms can be demonstrated by comparing the locations listed for Apollos and Paul throughout Acts 18 & 19.  Simply put, they were at no point in the same place at the same time.

I will wait for you to address my exegesis of the Biblical events of Acts 18-19.

Of course your kidding, right?  OK, mystery solved.  I should have read through Acts 18-19 before I wrote the first part of this post.  In Acts 18, neither Apollos, nor Priscilla and Aquila, are in any way, in any form, described as having conducted any of the responsibilities reserved for either Bishops or Presbyters.  Teaching, by the way, is conducted by Catholic laypersons all the time, in every Catholic college and Sunday school, every week.

You've missed the argument.  I'm talking about the people AT CORINTH that he baptized, not those IN EPHESUS.

Those in Ephesus he did not baptize as Christians, because, during most of his time in Ephesus, he wasn't a Christian.  He was an adherent of John, and the converts he won, he won from the Pharisaic sect into John's group - the "Baptizers" for lack of a better name.

In Acts 19, Paul specifically has to re-baptize, or to more accurately put it, as Scripture does, to Baptize the one, true time, properly, i.e., the "baptisms" conducted by Apollos, if he did so, as Paul states, are not valid.  (It actually says nothing of Apollos having baptized anyone BTW.)

Why in world would you pick something from Scripture that so obviously supports my case?   

You've just refuted that the baptisms at Ephesus were valid.  I said as much in my first post on the subject.  I knew you didn't understand from your response...

Now move forward...what changed at Ephesus?  Apollos did.  He went from "Jewish Baptizer" to Christian.
And, where did Apollos go afterward?  Corinth, and then through Northern Greece.

Now, please bring in the passage from Corinthians that I've cited above, and connect the dots.

[desertknight]

This Paul links to baptism and therefore, conversion.  This should not be difficult for you to grasp, as you have stated the equivalence of baptism and conversion in a separate thread.

Say what you want of it, but it has nothing to do with supporting your argument.  It says nothing about Apollos, or anyone else for that matter, properly baptizing, (and there is no such thing as an "improper" baptism.  It either is, or it isn't.). The only issue in question is did Apollos, or anyone else for that matter, baptize into Christ anyone, without being properly ordained to do so.  The only evidence you cited in Acts 19, says exactly the opposite.  Paul had to properly baptize those who thought they already were, and Apollos having baptized anyone, is never mentioned.

Perhaps you could join me in that argument?

No. I will not Jerrod, because you will not acknowledge the only valid model of Churchly office and authority, that Holy Scripture provides.  You keep insisting that it does not, somehow, really exist.

I have provided a citation for the first part above.

Actually, I can't find any place in either Acts 18 or 19 where it mentions Apollos having baptized anyone at all.  Am I missing it?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You've missed the argument.  I'm talking about the people AT CORINTH that he baptized, not those IN EPHESUS.

It is you who are missing something.  There is no mention, whatsoever, of Apollos baptizing anyone in Corinth.  Please show me where you are finding this.  The only mention of baptisms in Corinth are specific to the actions of St. Paul.  Where are you getting this about Apollos?

Now, please bring in the passage from Corinthians that I've cited above, and connect the dots.

There are no "dots" to connect.  The passage of Corinthians is a call, ironically here, to end the divisions caused by attachments to incorrect doctrine, and to commitment to Christ and His true Church.  The Church is He, not anyone else.  It makes no commentary at all on the discussion at hand.  If you can show me where in your passage of Corinthians, that Apollos is described as having conducted the responsibilities of either a Bishop or Presbyter, without being properly ordained, I will understand your point, and concede.  Those passages say no such thing, however.  The only example Paul gives, is that it is only proper to consider that we are baptized in Christ's name, not in the name of anyone else.  It, and Holy Scripture, is totally silent as to whether Apollos was a Presbyter or Bishop.  He is mentioned no where in Scripture as having baptized anyone.  He may have been, but we don't know, and if he was, it says nothing about when he may have been ordained.  Holy Scripture, however, is crystal clear that it is a requirement to have proper ordination, by those who are authorized to do so, from Christ's mandate given His Apostles, and of that authority being passed on, from Him, to them, to us, through an unbroken line.   So...where do Protestants get their authority?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

It's not something that it says outright, its a conclusion.  I layed it out in a logical fashion, twice, but you don't get it because you don't want to get it.

Apollos went to Corinth for the purpose of evangelism, and suddenly there were people claiming to be "of Apollos," which Paul instantly links to baptism.  Hmmmm.

Are logical conclusions not allowed?  If it has to say it in so many words or it didn't happen... then I've won by default, because it doesn't say they were ordained.

[desertknight]

If you want to "conclude" that Apollos was eventually made a Presbyter or a Bishop, sure.  You could conclude that.  Conclusion, if intelligent, should be logical, however.  So I "conclude", given the ample evidence from the NT model, that Apollos was ordained, in precisely the same way, for the precisely the same reason, (from all of the examples that we do NOT have to make conclusions about in the NT.), that every other Bishop or Presbyter was.  So on what basis are you concluding that Paul had to be, Timothy had to be, the Presbyters that Timothy em-placed all had to be...but Apollos, is somehow, mysteriously, exempt from what even St. Paul was not?  Can you show me, in any single place, anywhere, at any time, that, that model is not correct in NT scripture?  If not, then the only logical "conclusion", if Apollos was a Bishop or Presbyter, which scripture is silent on, is that he became one, through the exact method that every other example in the NT did.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Conclusion #1:  Apollos baptized people into Christ at Corinth.

What facts lead to this conclusion?
1. There were believers at Corinth claiming to be "of Apollos."
2. They were claiming this in opposition to those claiming to be "of Paul."
3. Paul links those claiming to be "of Paul" with his baptizing people at Corinth.

Do you accept that these facts support the conclusion I have deduced from them?  Yes / No
Are there other facts that you feel should be introduced?

If you agree that this conclusion follows from the facts, please proceed to:

Conclusion #2:  Apollos was not ordained at the time he was in Corinth.

What facts lead to this conclusion?
1.  Apollos declined to stay at Ephesus, and therefore was not eligible to be a bishop, or part of the presbytery, or a deacon there.
2.  Apollos did not stay at Corinth, and therefore was not eligible to be a bishop, or part of the presbytery, or a deacon there.
3.  It can be demonstrated that Apollos and Paul were not in the same location at any point from the time of Apollos conversion to the time at which he was in Corinth.

Does that not follow logically?  It is of course, possible that another apostle was met at Corinth or elsewhere who could have ordained him, but it seems improbable, all things considered.

I shall add a supposition:

Supposition #1:  The work that Apollos was performing was not the work of one attached to a particular church or city, but rather it is the work of an apostle or evangelist, being itinerant in nature, and focused primarily upon winning converts through discourse, first in the synagogue, and second in the market.

[desertknight]

Conclusion #1:  Apollos baptized people into Christ at Corinth.

There is no actual proof of that, but for the purposes of your argument, lets say he did.

Conclusion #2:  Apollos was not ordained at the time he was in Corinth.

There is definitely no record of this assertion.  Why would you assume that to be the case?  No record in scripture indicates anything, whatever, about it,  but let's proceed...

1.  Apollos declined to stay at Ephesus, and therefore was not eligible to be a bishop, or part of the presbytery, or a deacon there.

Where are you getting that?  From what we do know of Apollos, he was a preacher, and not necessarily a Presbyter.  He did not need to "belong" in any way with Ephesus to be ordained into any office there, nor would he have to be.  There are plenty of Presbyters today who have no assignment to a particular diocese or parish.  It's quite common.  Given his role as an evangelist, if he was further a Presbyter, he could be ordained and sent off to any assignment.  Acts 18 speaks of him desiring to go to Achaia, i.e., Corinth, and "the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him." (Acts 18:27).  Which disciples were written to?  Were any authorized to ordain him?  Timothy and Silas were both in Greece at the time, for that very purpose.  If not, almost none sailed directly to any city then,  as it was always a circuitous route.   Could he have stopped off anywhere, including Caesarea, or some other location to be ordained?  It's all just as possible under your model, and far more likely then just flatly stating that somehow he was mysteriously exempt from ordination, when no one else, including St. Paul, was.

Apollos did not stay at Corinth, and therefore was not eligible to be a bishop, or part of the presbytery, or a deacon there.

Irrelevant as per my previous answer.  Where are you coming up with this "eligibility" requirement from?  There is no such thing.  Timothy was a Bishop and was sent in almost continuous travel to various cites of the Aegean region.  Timothy may very well have been the one who ordained Apollos, if Apollos was.

Paul links those claiming to be "of Paul" with his baptizing people at Corinth.

He says exactly the opposite.  In answer to the division in the crowd saying, "I am of Paul!", Paul says, " I give thanks (to God) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius.", so clearly, the crowd shouting out who they were for had little to do with who actually baptized them.  Paul is "linking" baptism to what he says only to remind them to not have divisions amongst them and remember that they were baptized in Christ.  So there goes that "deduction" of yours.

It can be demonstrated that Apollos and Paul were not in the same location at any point from the time of Apollos conversion to the time at which he was in Corinth.

That's possible, but not certain by any means.  The NT was not written until some time after the events and not as a chronology.  We are engaging in pure speculation.  Apollos may well have been ordained by Paul or Timothy or Silas or another, and it is simply not recorded.  We just don't have very much information on Apollos as he is scarcely mentioned at all.  Again, only and purely for the sake of argument, lets proceed.

It is of course, possible that another apostle was met at Corinth or elsewhere who could have ordained him, but it seems improbable, all things considered.

Ah, big wrench in your theory there.  Assuming Apollos was a presbyter, why do you think it takes Paul or another "Apostle" to ordain him? Acts 18 clearly states that both Timothy and Silas met Paul there.  There is no reason not to assume that one of them had ordained Apollos a presbyter.  That was the specific purpose of Timothy's mission to Greece, to ordain Presbyters for the churches, but somehow, you insist, that in Apollo's case, for some unknown reason, it was deemed unnecessary.  

Supposition #1:  The work that Apollos was performing was not the work of one attached to a particular church or city, but rather it is the work of an apostle or evangelist, being itinerant in nature, and focused primarily upon winning converts through discourse, first in the synagogue, and second in the market.

He may very well have simply preached and won converts that were later baptized by whatever local Presbyters were available.  Acts clearly states that his "preaching" was faulty at first and he had to be given instruction.  Paul in Acts 19 encounters those who were in the same stage of faith that Apollos may have been early on, "knowing only the baptism of John", but that was not a baptism.  Paul specifically tells them so and baptizes them, (re-baptize if you like, but not technically correct.).

Now the problem with what you have said here, is what you have not said.  Why did you make no comment on the fact that whether Apollos was, or was not a Presbyter, the fact remains that in every single example given in the NT where we don't have to do any supposing or deducing, all Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons are ordained in precisely the same way, in precisely the same manner.  Why was ordination required of even St. Paul himself, but, mysteriously, not of Apollos?  It is there that your theory falls flat.  There is just no getting around that.  Why would Paul send Timothy throughout Greece to ordain Presbyters, but in the case of Apollos, well, it just isn't required for him.  That makes 0 sense.  I logically, as we are purely engaging in deduction and supposition, would have to conclude that even if Apollos were a Presbyter, and he may very well not have been, then at some point, he would not be considered valid without ordination, just as Paul himself had to be.  There is not one, single, solitary, example in Scripture, of anyone, receiving the office of either Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, without having been properly ordained, by one who has the mandate from the Apostles to do it, by the imposition of hands.  Not one.  Now I can just as easily, and far more logically, deduce that Apollos was indeed met in Corinth by the Christian community there, and was dully ordained by either Timothy or Silas, who were in Greece proper, for that specific purpose, ordaining him to the Presbytery and leaving him in Corinth, as per his wishes, before he moved on.  Now if you can just demonstrate the logic of your theory in relation to what I have just laid out as absolute fact in regards to the requirement of ordination, then we can proceed.  Can you show me, in any single place, anywhere, at any time, that, that model is not correct in NT scripture?  Oh, and where do Protestants derive their authority?