Christian Forums

Quote from: WycliffeStephanie.

Dishonest.   You know you have called others "teachers", because we all have.  So did St. Paul himself.  I am just more honest than you about it.  Why do Protestants have such a hard time with the truth?

QuoteThe point of the verses is still the same - we are all equals before the Lord in position.  Admittedly, everyone is not equal in effort or efficacy, but Jesus told His disciples not to seek to hold authority over others.  We are to answer to God.  Anyone who gets in between and takes the place of God is doing their follower a disservice, because they cannot be a leader and a counselor up to the caliber of God

I must respectfully disagree.  Jesus specifically ordained ministers to be the charge of us in our journey to salvation.  Why would he appoint his 12 Apostles?  OK, so just those 12 you say, but no, the NT is specific about their passing on of  their authority by the act of ordination, by the laying on of hands.  Why do you make no comment on this?

QuoteThese elders take cues from the front office staff regarding events and such, but the monitoring of their behavior is largely the work of all the people they host and talk with, as communication is a two-way street.  It isn't an interrogation, it's a conversation.

No priest monitors my conversation or regulates my relationship with God.  He is strictly there as the anointed, through ordination, as a Presbyter, to the preaching of the Gospel and the celebration of Holy Eucharist.

QuoteYes please.  Likely, what you interpret as succession, I simply see as expansion.

That is in complete contradiction to the Bible and I am wiling to debate you on that point at any time.

QuoteOf course I do, its just a matter of using my eyes.  What does it matter if I personally own nothing, when I corporately control a trillion in assets and don't have to make fiscal reports to any government?

Every single quarter, in every single parish, throughout the entire word, every Catholic parish is required under Canon law to make a report to the exact penny of all of their finances.  It is done as a mater of Canon law.  I have the current total receipts of my parish at hand now and am willing to post them.  How is your church with this issue?

QuoteRiiiiight.  They just hold the purse-strings, form policy and marketing strategies at a higher level, and elect the pope.  They're not running things at all...[/sarcasm]]

Nope.  they are not.  The only consecrated leaders of the Church are Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons.

Quote from: papist1 on Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 07:03:38
Most debates in these types of forums are secondary topics.

The actual topic we should be discussing is AUTHORITY.

Let me give you an example.

I went to over 18 different denoms and non denoms of protestant bible believing churches.   I asked each of these pastors, who claimed the Bible Alone as their authority, what baptism was, if it was necessary, how to perform it(immersion, pouring, sprinkling of water, no water at all), and if it removed the stain of original sin from ones soul or was it just symbolic in nature?

I received several different and contradictory answers from each pastor.

Which one of these pastors was correct in their interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the utmost important doctrine of Baptism?  How do we know which one is correct? Is the definition of doctrine relative, and it does not matter what is true and what is not?

Each of these pastors would never back down from his/her own interpretation, and each would claim they are correct. This is the BIG question. Who is correct, and how do we know who is correct, and by what authority vested in the person interpreted gives them the ability and authority to make such claim as to what is deemed "true" and what is deemed "erroneous"?   

This situation is almost always turned back on scripture, for when I ask them by what authority they believe this, they inevitably answer that they are being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of scripture. So is the Holy Spirit a relativist? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradicting things from one church to another and each contradictory point of teaching is correct? In other words, when one church teaches that scripture says Baptism is not necessary, they are correct, and then when another teaches it is necessary, they are also correct?  This would be ridiculous. God is of ORDER and UNITY, not Chaos and Division. God does not contradict Himself, for He is TRUTH, and Truth does not change.

BTW, the first person to part from everyone else in their understanding of baptism was John Calvin. Does that mean that everyone else, including the original "reformers" were wrong for the first 1600 years of Christianity? By what measuring stick can one prove this? The Bible? of course :)

Is there a church authority that has the authority of God on doctrinal matters? It seems the apostles decided doctrinal matters IN scripture, why would God all of a sudden change His mind and let the individual start deciding these matters for themselves?  Who then can claim what heresy is, if everyone is right all of the time? There would be no heresy if this were so.

The circular argument used by most sola scripturists dos not wash, it only begs the question, again and again, "who/what is the authority on matters of doctrine and interpretation of scripture"?

In my reading of scripture, I have not found any proof text for sola scriptura. @ tim 3:15-17 is far from this, as it pertains to the OT scriptures(that timothy knew from infancy) and at the end it is "useful" for "every good work" and since good works don't save us, it must not be "necessary" as most claim. I mean the apostles didn't have a new testament, nor did they have the canon of the OT which was not decided until 382ad along with the new.

So what is your authority, and if it is scripture alone, where in scripture does God teach that scripture alone is the authority. and how can one prove his authority in interpreteing scripture?

peace, papist

Mike123
At the beginning of this thread the question was who is our authority. You argue that Protestants lean on different  interpretations. Some will say Christ some the Bible and some  will say the Holy Spirit is the authority.

The Catholics say that authority comes from the passing down of the authority from bishop to bishop  by the laying on of hands giving us a visible person who is ordained. One who is physical and earthly.

Catholics will argue that Jesus appointed 12 to be the visible authority with Peter the head authority, the pope of the early church, and from them other bishops succeeded them to be the charge of the church, thus the unbroken chain of authority leading all the way to the papacy that did not exist before 500 AD. Certain Bishops after 100 AD stressed the importance of obeying the Bishops. This would be consistent with scripture according to the RCC, however the papacy is quick to use this to justify themselves and use it with  an intimidating power over the church.

So Catholics say it is this unbroken chain of bishop authority over the course of four more centuries that gives the papacy its authority. A question comes to my mind. Before Peter was Crucified Catholics look to Him as the first pope. That is to say that he was the head chief authority even over the other apostles, or you might want to say that the other 11 were under bishops. Before Peter was finally taken who did he appoint to take his position to be head bishop over all other bishops? Paul had his Timothy and Ignatius was one of Johns. As far as I know there was no head pope after Peter until the fifth century when the bishops of Rome somehow got themselves appointed pope of all Christiandom. And that was only the west. 

How is that Peter left this vast void of 400 years with no Pope to be head bishop over all bishops and the churches throughout Asia. And why is it then the  bishops of the east would not recognize the bishops of Rome in their self appointment. Three to four hundred years with no official supreme pope, and yet they claim to be the authority that sits on  peters throne. And of course I do not believe Peter ever sat on a throne. How do you explain this void and suddenly the bishops of Rome claim to have the authority of Peter.       

The starting question was about Baptism and how or what or who gives such authority and who determines how baptism is supposed to be done. Who is the official authority for one to baptize. The poster might do well to answer the question that I have brought up before questioning the authority of others. The Pharisees questioned Jesus, by what authority do you do these things. Jesus replied by saying by what authority did John the Baptist , baptize. John was respected as a prophet among the people. Who made him a prophet. Was it the Pharisees? The  Pharisees could not answer. Jesus said then neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things. The RCC claims to have the only true prescribed ordained  authority and way to baptize, but John the Baptist did not do baptism according to the RCC. He did not do it by any religious authority of his day  nor did he answer to any authority but the one given him of God.  So why does the poster question the authority of others to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? I say they do it by the same authority that John baptized. And who shall deny anyone to be baptized if his heart is moved by God to be baptized?

Quote from: desertknight on Wed May 13, 2009 - 16:57:48

Quote from: WycliffeStephanie.

Dishonest.   You know you have called others "teachers", because we all have.  So did St. Paul himself.  I am just more honest than you about it.  Why do Protestants have such a hard time with the truth?

You don't have to believe me I suppose, but that simply makes you incredulous, not me wrong/lying.

Quote

QuoteThe point of the verses is still the same - we are all equals before the Lord in position.  Admittedly, everyone is not equal in effort or efficacy, but Jesus told His disciples not to seek to hold authority over others.  We are to answer to God.  Anyone who gets in between and takes the place of God is doing their follower a disservice, because they cannot be a leader and a counselor up to the caliber of God

I must respectfully disagree.  Jesus specifically ordained ministers to be the charge of us in our journey to salvation.  Why would he appoint his 12 Apostles?  OK, so just those 12 you say, but no, the NT is specific about their passing on of  their authority by the act of ordination, by the laying on of hands.  Why do you make no comment on this?

I thought the ball was in your court?  I'm still waiting on the verses you promised about succession in the Bible.  You say they are overwhelming evidence for succession, but I don't remember this in my Bible.

Quote

QuoteYes please.  Likely, what you interpret as succession, I simply see as expansion.

That is in complete contradiction to the Bible and I am wiling to debate you on that point at any time.

This is your chance.  Please provide the verses.

Quote

QuoteOf course I do, its just a matter of using my eyes.  What does it matter if I personally own nothing, when I corporately control a trillion in assets and don't have to make fiscal reports to any government?

Every single quarter, in every single parish, throughout the entire word, every Catholic parish is required under Canon law to make a report to the exact penny of all of their finances.  It is done as a mater of Canon law.  I have the current total receipts of my parish at hand now and am willing to post them.  How is your church with this issue?

The weekly budget is published in each Sunday's bulletin of events, though this is beside the point and a diversion from the original line of questioning.

Quote

QuoteRiiiiight.  They just hold the purse-strings, form policy and marketing strategies at a higher level, and elect the pope.  They're not running things at all...[/sarcasm]]

Nope.  they are not.  The only consecrated leaders of the Church are Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons.

Consecrated schmonsecrated.  They still hold the purse-strings, form policy and marketing strategies at a higher level, and elect the pope.  They're running things.

Quote from: WycliffI thought the ball was in your court?  I'm still waiting on the verses you promised about succession in the Bible.  You say they are overwhelming evidence for succession, but I don't remember this in my Bible.

This is your chance.  Please provide the verses.

Acts 6:6 "They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them."

Acts 9:15-17  "But the Lord said to him, "Go, for this man is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites, and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name." So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, "Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit."

Acts 13:2-3  "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.  Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off."

Acts 14:23  "They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."

Acts 15:24-26 "Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."

1 Tim. 4:14  " Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."

1 Tim. 5:22  "Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another's sins. Keep yourself pure."

Tit. 1:5  " For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you."

In not one single example of the NT, is there any reference to anyone holding proper authority in the Church after the origional Apostles, without first having been so given that authority, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of hands at ordination, by those who are already properly ordained themselves, going back to the original Apostles chosen by Christ.

The prime example?  Even St. Paul, who was chosen by Christ personally on the road to Damascus, went to Jerusalem to be ordained by the laying on of hands.  In Acts 15, There is a dispute in the church with those who claimed authority.  St. Paul makes it clear that they have no mandate from him or any of the other properly ordained ministers of the church and sends replacements.

Where do Protestants derive their ministerial authority given this?

Quote from: DesertKThe only consecrated leaders of the Church are Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons.

Quote from: WcliffConsecrated schmonsecrated.  They still hold the purse-strings, form policy and marketing strategies at a higher level, and elect the pope.  They're running things.

You need to go back and read your original statement.  Your inference was that unordained members of the Catholic Church were "running things".  That is nonsense.  Only the ordained clergy have any governing authority in the Church, as God intended.  Whether they may be the Secretary of State for the Vatican or the Chancellor, or a Primate;  all are ordained.   The Church worldwide is "run" by her Bishops and Presbyters at the Diocesan level. 

You need to go back and read your original statement.  Your inference was that unordained members of the Catholic Church were "running things".  That is nonsense.  Only the ordained clergy have any governing authority in the Church, as God intended.  Whether they may be the Secretary of State for the Vatican or the Chancellor, or a Primate;  all are ordained.   The Church worldwide is "run" by her Bishops and Presbyters at the Diocesan level.


You would be right Night what you say is true. but I have more light to shed on this but I do not have time at this moment but will get back on this when i have time. the question is not so much succsession but how it is wrongly used by the Papacy.
mike123

Quote from: desertknight on Sat May 23, 2009 - 15:20:10

Quote from: WycliffI thought the ball was in your court?  I'm still waiting on the verses you promised about succession in the Bible.  You say they are overwhelming evidence for succession, but I don't remember this in my Bible.

This is your chance.  Please provide the verses.

Acts 6:6 "They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them."

This describes the ordination of the first DEACONS.  Do you now consider deacons to be apostolic successors?  I think not.  The deacons job was to distribute the food that was kept in common and for charities.  They did not exercise authority over their fellow Christians; they served them.

QuoteActs 9:15-17  "But the Lord said to him, "Go, for this man is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites, and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name." So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, "Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit."

This laying on of hands was for the purpose of healing.  Further, Ananias was neither an apostle nor an apostolic successor, so this clearly does not describe any sort of successorship.

QuoteActs 13:2-3  "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.  Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off."

Now this genuinely describes the ordination of an apostle.  Notice the language "for the work to which I have called them."  That carries a meaning identical to the meaning of the word "apostle."

However, where is the successorship?  Those laying hands on them are not apostles, they are simply the elders of the church at Antioch.  Further, apostolic successors are, by definition, not apostles, but bishops/overseers.  

So yes, this describes ordination, but it has nothing to do with "apostolic succession."  Further, it describes ordination as being the power of the presbytery, not of a single bishop.

You seem to have confused ordination for apostolic succession, with its implicity hierarchy and authority.  Ordination doesn't carry such a connotation.  Ordination is part of the church and the Bible.  Apostolic succession is nowhere in sight.

QuoteActs 14:23  "They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."

You're closer here, but again notice that it is a multiplicity of presbyters who are being selected, not a single "trustee" of doctrine, or a single authority over the rest of the church.  I would further argue that the function of "appointing" the presbytery is one that only happens at the instantiation of a new church because there is no existing presbytery to ordain others.  Further, presbyter means ELDER, which is not a term that implies hierarchy so much as indicating a mentoring relationship.

QuoteActs 15:24-26 "Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."

This is the ruling of the council of Jerusalem.  It does describe ordination as a "letter of recommendation" which is the same way I described it earlier.  However, there is nothing here to suggest that those who went stayed on as authorities.  They were simply preachers in the original sense of the word - they published a message.

Quote1 Tim. 4:14  " Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."

Again, the prebytery laid hands on...not a single apostle or successor.  This is just an ordination in the normal sense.  Further, the "gift" here should not presupposed to be authority, which is an office, not a gift.

Quote1 Tim. 5:22  "Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another's sins. Keep yourself pure."

This isn't even about ordination, much less succession.

QuoteTit. 1:5  " For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you." [/color]

See previous comments about establishment of new churches.

QuoteIn not one single example of the NT, is there any reference to anyone holding proper authority in the Church after the origional Apostles, without first having been so given that authority, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of hands at ordination, by those who are already properly ordained themselves...

Exactly my point.  But where are the descriptions of Cardinals or Metropolitans or Archbishops?  And yet these are positions held in the RCC.  You say they aren't ordained, and that's probably rightfully so.  But they are still holding authority, though perhaps not "proper authority" as you say above.

Quote...going back to the original Apostles chosen by Christ.

And that's what you've still failed to demonstrate.  There is no successorship here in the sense of a single bishop being put in charge, or of that office being passed down from one to the next.  Rather, presbyters (of all sorts) are ordained by the entire presbytery, and the office of bishop is in the Bible held by more than one person within each church.  There is a multiplicity of bishops in each church; not a 1-to-1 successorship.

QuoteWhere do Protestants derive their ministerial authority given this?

I already answered this question twice.  We don't seek to hold authority over our fellow christians.  Christ is the head, and we are the body, composed of various members but nonetheless interdependent.  Does my elbow exercise authority over my knees?  Neither do we exercise authority over each other.

Quote

Quote from: DesertKThe only consecrated leaders of the Church are Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons.

Quote from: WcliffConsecrated schmonsecrated.  They still hold the purse-strings, form policy and marketing strategies at a higher level, and elect the pope.  They're running things.

You need to go back and read your original statement.  Your inference was that unordained members of the Catholic Church were "running things".  That is nonsense.  Only the ordained clergy have any governing authority in the Church, as God intended.  Whether they may be the Secretary of State for the Vatican or the Chancellor, or a Primate;  all are ordained.   The Church worldwide is "run" by her Bishops and Presbyters at the Diocesan level.

You just need to understand my original post.  The point is is that the hierarchy of the RCC contains a number of positions which are glaringly absent from the Bible and early church.  I don't really care whether y'all ordain them or not, or give them legitimate titles in addition to their illegitimate titles, they are additions to the church that comprise a hierarchy which is not found in Scripture.  There are no archbishops or cardinals present in the Bible.

That these positions exercise authority beyond that of ordinary overseers and presbyters is obvious.  Your attempts to claim that they do not is disingenuous.

Quote from: WycliffThis describes the ordination of the first DEACONS.  Do you now consider deacons to be apostolic successors?  I think not.  The deacons job was to distribute the food that was kept in common and for charities.  They did not exercise authority over their fellow Christians; they served them.

I am fully aware that they were ordaining Deacons, and what the role of deacons are.  I am making the point that I did when I said, "In not one single example of the NT, is there any reference to anyone holding proper authority in the Church without first having been so given that authority, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of hands at ordination, by those who are already properly ordained themselves, going back to the original Apostles chosen by Christ."  Not one.  Not ever.  Even Paul, had to be ordained.  So where do Protestants get their authority?

QuoteThis laying on of hands was for the purpose of healing.  Further, Ananias was neither an apostle nor an apostolic successor, so this clearly does not describe any sort of successorship.

I'll give you that one.  My bad.  What I meant to quote in reference to my statement was...

Quote from: desertknightEven St. Paul, who was chosen by Christ personally on the road to Damascus, went to Jerusalem to be ordained by the laying on of hands.

Acts 13:2-3  "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." "Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off."

QuoteHowever, where is the successorship?  Those laying hands on them are not apostles, they are simply the elders of the church at Antioch.  Further, apostolic successors are, by definition, not apostles, but bishops/overseers.  

So yes, this describes ordination, but it has nothing to do with "apostolic succession."  Further, it describes ordination as being the power of the presbytery, not of a single bishop.

.

It is you who are missing the point.  The power of the Bishop and succession is through the power of the priesthood, held by all Bishops, and their power to ordain others.  No Bishop is so without being a priest, who is properly ordained and no one is ordained to the presbytery without being so by a validly ordained member or members of that priesthood themselves.  Paul clearly indicates that this is one of the prime responsibilities of a Bishop.  Surly you get that, don't you?  The NT is very clear in passage after passage pertaining to it.  That is why whether they were ordaining deacons as in Acts 6 or in Paul's commissioning Timothy as Bishop, (Tim 1:6), and Timothy's subsequent ordaining of presbyters, it is clear that the succession through ordination is what is mandatory, and that validity can only come from succession.  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.  I just think you are missing that this is the Apostolic Succession.

QuoteAgain, the presbytery laid hands on...not a single apostle or successor.  This is just an ordination in the normal sense.  Further, the "gift" here should not presupposed to be authority, which is an office, not a gift.

This would be completely consistent with current and past Catholic belief and practice.  At every ordination, in every circumstance I can think of, multiple priests and the Bishop are present.  All lay on hands in ordination.  It is practice, but not necessary, as Paul clearly states to Timothy when he commissions he, (not plural), to "ordain Presbyters for the churches."  Bishops have the power to ordain by themselves, it is virtually always done in conjunction with the available "Presbytery" however.

QuoteThis isn't even about ordination, much less succession.

If it isn't, then you have an interpretation of it that is completely at odds with every Catholic and Protestant source I can find.  What do you think it is about then?  Please cite your source.

QuoteSee previous comments about establishment of new churches.

I have, and I have no idea how you are saying it is in disagreement with my point.  Yes, Presbyter means elder.  A Catholic priest is a presbyter or elder.  Yes he mentors.  OK, so what?  And he is only validly ordained by a Bishop, (overseer), and joins the body of the presbyteriate.  And your point was?  

Your problem Wycliff will be solved and I will concede the argument if you can show me one, single, solitary, example in NT Scripture in which there is a Bishop or Presbyter or Deacon that is valid without the proper "mandate" through ordination going back to the original Apostles.  Show me just one, and I will shut up about it.  So again, where do Protestants derive their authority?

Quote from: DesertknightIn not one single example of the NT, is there any reference to anyone holding proper authority in the Church after the original Apostles, without first having been so given that authority, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of hands at ordination, by those who are already properly ordained themselves...

Quote from: WycliffExactly my point.

What?  What is exactly your point here?
You've lost me.  So if a Bishop of a big city is called a Metropolitan, or a Bishop who serves in special commission is called a Cardinal, all bets are off?  How's that?  So when ever a Bishop has been commissioned to some specific task...he is no longer valid?  How does that work?  The only "authority" that they hold is through their ordination.  That they be further assigned to special task by their superiors is not an invalidation of anything.

QuoteAnd that's what you've still failed to demonstrate.  There is no successorship here in the sense of a single bishop being put in charge, or of that office being passed down from one to the next.  Rather, presbyters (of all sorts) are ordained by the entire presbytery, and the office of bishop is in the Bible held by more than one person within each church.  There is a multiplicity of bishops in each church; not a 1-to-1 successorship.

Your posing two different arguments.  The last first.  Most parishes have more than one Presbyter, just as in the early Church.  Most Dioceses have more than one Bishop, in fact, all of them do as far as I know, just as in the early Church.  Both Bishops and the Presbyters in every Diocese meet and make decisions in groups, except in single priest parishes.  That is standard.  It is not necessary however.  If it were, why would Paul say to Timothy, "For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands.  One is apparently enough.

There clearly was a hierarchy, or Timothy would be considered as the equal of Peter.  The Presbyters that Timothy ordains would be considered the equal of him.  Clearly this was not the case.  Passages such as this show us Timothy the Bishop...

1 Tim. 1:3  " As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies...."

So what is your objection? To your first point,of course, there is succession, as there is no other possible way to confer validity.  I again make the challenge.  If you can demonstrate one, single, solitary case in NT scripture, of one, single, example of the authority of the Church in it's Bishops, Presbyters or Deacons being "valid" without, not just ordination, but the ordination by those with the mandate to do so, (That is the key that you seem to constantly overlook.  That is the Apostolic Succession mandated by Holy Scripture.), then I will concede.  Where do Protestants get their authority?

QuoteI already answered this question twice.  We don't seek to hold authority over our fellow christians.

Then that is completely contradictory with the NT model of the Church.

1 Thess. 5:12  "We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you",

Titus 2:15  "Say these things, (Timothy). Exhort and correct with all authority. Let no one look down on you.

Heb. 13:17  "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you."

1 Peter 5:5  "Likewise, you younger members, be subject to the presbyters,"

QuoteYou just need to understand my original post.  The point is is that the hierarchy of the RCC contains a number of positions which are glaringly absent from the Bible and early church.

You are making an argument where there is none.  Every "position" you refer to is held by a valid Bishop of the Church.  That they may be further tasked with some special mission or office or whatever, is of no consequence.  There are only Bishops and Presbyters, assisted by Deacons, who run the Church.

QuoteThat these positions exercise authority beyond that of ordinary overseers and presbyters is obvious.

Yes, and irrelevant.  If the Church wishes to appoint some Bishops for a special commission, so be it.  

Are you saying that ordination = apostolic succession ?

If you are, well, every church ordains its ministers.  So the question on which your argument rests "where do Protestants get their authority?" would seem to be undermined somewhat.

Since I do not consider you a great fool, I am assuming that is NOT the case.  There must be something more than simply ordination, yes?  You claim an unbroken transmission from the origin of the church to the present day.

I am tempted to ask you...do you not see that your succession is also the succession of the various Protestant factions?  All the founders of those same factions (ok not all, but most) came from the Catholic church, where they were...bishops, presbyters, deacons.

But, I'd like to strike my former question because asking it would imply that there is a legitimate answer to your question.  There is no legitimate answer, because it is still a flawed question.  One cannot answer HOW one does XXX, when the person in question doesn't do XXX.  My answer remains - we don't do that - we aren't trying to exercise authority over each other.

The overseer (bishop if you must) is the servant of the people - your own theology admits as much.  It is his service to them to oversee them, not a writ of mandate that he exercises over them.  He does not "lord it over them."  The shepherd serves the sheep, and not vice versa.

Now I'm sure you can point out some powermongering preachers who are like that, but in that behavior they pit themselves against their doctrine, which is that we are not to usurp the authority of Christ, but rather that when we serve each other according to Christ's example, he exalts us.  By serving, we lead.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that we have borrowed "servant leadership" from philosophers, pop culture, or the army of MBA's that assaults our countries.  It is rather the other way around.  Isn't this what Jesus taught?  The first shall be last, and the last shall be first; if you want to be great, be the servant of all.  Isn't it His example?  What is your example?  The Roman military?

I think the point where we lose each other is in our definitions:

To you, ordination involves a transfer of authority from one to another, or from many to one.  The ordained exercises authority over those under him (for their own benefit).

To me, and many like me, ordination is not a bestowal, it is a recognition of what has already been bestowed by God.  And that which is bestowed is not a writ, not a mandate, but a gift and a calling for service.

So when you quote me a dozen examples of ordination, you think you have proved succession to me, because to you, ordination and succession are nearly identical.

But to me, all you've proved is the practice of ordination, which is already known to me as something other than what you're saying it is.

QuoteIt is you who are missing the point.

Yes, I'm missing your point, and you are missing mine, because neither of us can suddenly redefine words into a radically different view.

QuoteThe NT is very clear in passage after passage pertaining to it.

I think so, and yet we don't agree.

QuoteThat is why whether they were ordaining deacons as in Acts 6 or in Paul's commissioning Timothy as Bishop, (Tim 1:6), and Timothy's subsequent ordaining of presbyters, it is clear that the succession through ordination is what is mandatory, and that validity can only come from succession.

That's silly.  Deacons didn't (don't) exercise any authority whatsoever, they served food and performed physical tasks for the betterment of the local community.  As far Timothy's appointment of presbyters, I've already argued that such was only necessary because there was a vacuum in existence.

QuoteIf 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.

Another question that assumes your premise.  Why should I give an example of someone utilizing top-down authority, when I don't believe that is how the church works at all?

But if I might adjust your question to my paradigm, I CAN name some who were recognized and sought out as leaders among the churches and in spiritual matters, and for which the Scriptures provide no record of an ordination:

Aquila (& Priscilla), Apollos, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, John Mark, Aristarchus, Demas (though he later apostacized), and Luke the physician and author.  That was about 3 minutes of research.

I assume you'll argue that since most of these traveled with Paul, they were in some way ordained by him.  But that isn't how Paul describes them.  Paul called them his "fellow-laborers." 

Quote

QuoteThis isn't even about ordination, much less succession.

If it isn't, then you have an interpretation of it that is completely at odds with every Catholic and Protestant source I can find.  What do you think it is about then?  Please cite your source.

I did a long word study on the imposition of hands throughout the Bible, from which I would define it much more broadly than you have here.

Nonetheless, I'm going to give you this point.  If we take it in a narrow sense, this could be the meaning.  Taken in a broader sense, ordination could still be part of the meaning.

QuoteSo again, where do Protestants derive their authority?

We don't derive authority.  We submit to Jesus, who holds all authority.  If He sees fit to honor one person, so be it, but that gravitas is voluntarily recognized by others.  It isn't an exercise of title or station that is mandated in the church.

Jarrod

Quote from: WycliffAre you saying that ordination = apostolic succession ?

No.

QuoteI am tempted to ask you...do you not see that your succession is also the succession of the various Protestant factions?  All the founders of those same factions (ok not all, but most) came from the Catholic church, where they were...bishops, presbyters, deacons.

Uh, no.  I don't take you to be a fool either, but you aren't serious are you?  Not only are they not traceable in any way back to Martin Luther or others, it would be an anathema for them to even suggest it.  It is a doctrine that Protestants oppose.  So first, you need to try to convince them why it is important, all 35,000+ sects of them, then explain it to us, but come on...seriously.

QuoteTo me, and many like me, ordination is not a bestowal, it is a recognition of what has already been bestowed by God.  And that which is bestowed is not a writ, not a mandate, but a gift and a calling for service.

That would be consistent with Catholic belief.

QuoteBut to me, all you've proved is the practice of ordination, which is already known to me as something other than what you're saying it is.

No.  I have proven that ordination is only valid according to scripture, when the one doing the ordaining, is himself, validity ordained, thus Apostolic Succession.  Bishops having that task.  You know it, or you wouldn't have put forward your claim of Protestant succession.  You have also, glaringly, as much as conceded as you can't offer a single, solitary, scriptural example to the contrary.

QuoteYes, I'm missing your point, and you are missing mine, because neither of us can suddenly redefine words into a radically different view

Gibberish.  I understand your point completely.  You just don't have a good argument.

QuoteI think so, and yet we don't agree.

If that is so, then as I have said before...win the argument!  I am ready to concede defeat any time you actually come up with a single, solitary, scriptural example that is contrary to what I have stated.  It isn't just my opinion.  It is the very definition of Apostolic Succession that is held by we Catholics and the Orthodox churches.

QuoteThat's silly.  Deacons didn't (don't) exercise any authority whatsoever, they served food and performed physical tasks for the betterment of the local community.  As far Timothy's appointment of presbyters, I've already argued that such was only necessary because there was a vacuum in existence.

Yes, yes, I know fully what Deacons did, and as I explained in some detail last time..irrelevant!  The point is that no one, including deacons, have legitimate authority in the Church without ordination by those who are already legitimately ordained themselves to empower them.  I don't know how much more plain English I can write that in.  Please site your source that Timothy was only given such power because of a "vacuum" in existence.  I would like to know where you are getting that.

QuoteAnother question that assumes your premise.  Why should I give an example of someone utilizing top-down authority, when I don't believe that is how the church works at all?

Aquila (& Priscilla), Apollos, Simeon called **badword**, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, John Mark, Aristarchus, Demas (though he later apostacized), and Luke the physician and author.  That was about 3 minutes of research.

Oh, then you should have in another three minutes where they have the power of Bishop, or Presbyter without Paul having ordained them to it.  I don't know whether they do or not, but I know when I've won an argument. 

QuoteWe don't derive authority.  We submit to Jesus, who holds all authority.  If He sees fit to honor one person, so be it, but that gravitas is voluntarily recognized by others.  It isn't an exercise of title or station that is mandated in the church.

That would be contrary to what Holy Scripture says...

John 20:21  "Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Just posted this on another thread, but it fits here too.

Quote from: desertknight on Tue May 26, 2009 - 22:41:06

QuoteI am tempted to ask you...do you not see that your succession is also the succession of the various Protestant factions?  All the founders of those same factions (ok not all, but most) came from the Catholic church, where they were...bishops, presbyters, deacons.

Uh, no.  I don't take you to be a fool either, but you aren't serious are you?  Not only are they not traceable in any way back to Martin Luther or others, it would be an anathema for them to even suggest it.  It is a doctrine that Protestants oppose.  So first, you need to try to convince them why it is important, all 35,000+ sects of them, then explain it to us, but come on...seriously.

Seriously, my point is valid.  But you're right it isn't important to us, and no, I didn't say that it was.  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...

Quote

QuoteTo me, and many like me, ordination is not a bestowal, it is a recognition of what has already been bestowed by God.  And that which is bestowed is not a writ, not a mandate, but a gift and a calling for service.

That would be consistent with Catholic belief.

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

If you truly believed that ordination was a recognition of what was already present, then you would have to believe the person was valid even without the ordination.  That's just the logical consequence of the argument.

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?

Quote

QuoteBut to me, all you've proved is the practice of ordination, which is already known to me as something other than what you're saying it is.

No.  I have proven that ordination is only valid according to scripture, when the one doing the ordaining, is himself, validity ordained, thus Apostolic Succession.  Bishops having that task.  You know it, or you wouldn't have put forward your claim of Protestant succession.  You have also, glaringly, as much as conceded as you can't offer a single, solitary, scriptural example to the contrary.

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

Quote

QuoteI think so, and yet we don't agree.

If that is so, then as I have said before...win the argument!  I am ready to concede defeat any time you actually come up with a single, solitary, scriptural example that is contrary to what I have stated.  It isn't just my opinion.  It is the very definition of Apostolic Succession that is held by we Catholics and the Orthodox churches.

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...

QuotePlease site your source that Timothy was only given such power because of a "vacuum" in existence.  I would like to know where you are getting that.

He was sent to Crete, a new territory for Christianity.  That a vacuum existed there is just history.

Quote

QuoteAnother question that assumes your premise.  Why should I give an example of someone utilizing top-down authority, when I don't believe that is how the church works at all?

Aquila (& Priscilla), Apollos, Simeon called **badword**, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, John Mark, Aristarchus, Demas (though he later apostacized), and Luke the physician and author.  That was about 3 minutes of research.

Oh, then you should have in another three minutes where they have the power of Bishop, or Presbyter without Paul having ordained them to it.  I don't know whether they do or not, but I know when I've won an argument. 

...but apparently not when you've lost one.  Priscilla and Aquila's home was the seat of the church in their city, which makes them probable elders.  That's as doubtful as it gets.

Apollos was TEACHING in the church, and BAPTIZING...he was an elder at least, and maybe more, because they didn't let just anyone BAPTIZE.  At least, that's the teaching of the Catholic church, I believe.  Only the ordained are allowed to minister sacraments, yes?

Simeon, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen are listed in Acts 13:1 as "prophets and teachers."  How many prophets do you suppose weren't also reckoned as presbyters?  I seem to recall the Didache putting a special place for the prophets right at the top of the local church.

John Mark, Aristarchus, and Demas all carried on the work of apostles.  But I'm sure they never acted as elders in the churches they helped found.

And Luke...he only wrote the 3rd gospel.  He formulated part of the official doctrine of the church.  You know, when they created the canon, they only let in books that came from apostles and Jesus brothers?  Oh, yeah, and Luke.  But I'm sure he was never viewed as an elder in the church.

Sheesh.  I'm beginning to think you don't know what a presbyter is.

QuoteWe don't derive authority.  We submit to Jesus, who holds all authority.  If He sees fit to honor one person, so be it, but that gravitas is voluntarily recognized by others.  It isn't an exercise of title or station that is mandated in the church.

That would be contrary to what Holy Scripture says...[/quote]
Submit yourselves, one to another...
But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant...
The first shall be last...

and a hundred other places.

Quote from: WycliffIn 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.

QuoteThat'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?

QuoteBut 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.  

QuoteDid 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!

QuoteI 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.

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

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

QuoteApollos 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.

QuoteOnly 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.

Quoteand a hundred other places.

Cite them.  

Quote from: desertknightIf 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.)

QuoteWhere 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:

Quote from: desertknightIf 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.

Quote from: wycliffYou 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...

Quote from: desertknightJust 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.

 

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...

Quote from: desertknight on Thu May 28, 2009 - 01:08:20
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

Quote from: broach972 on Thu May 28, 2009 - 12:59:02


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.

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.

Quote from: desertknight on Thu May 28, 2009 - 16:25:18
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.

QuoteYou keep dancing around the fact...

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

Quote...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?

Quote...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.

Quote from: WycliffHe 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.).  

QuoteI'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.

QuoteI 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?  

Quote from: desertknight on Thu May 28, 2009 - 17:19:39

Quote from: WycliffHe 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.

Quote

QuoteI'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?

QuotePlease 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.

Quote

QuoteI 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.

QuoteIn 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.

Quote from: WycliffThis 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.

QuotePerhaps 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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteYou'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?

QuoteNow, 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?

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: WycliffConclusion #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.

QuoteConclusion #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...

Quote1.  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.

QuoteApollos 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.

QuotePaul 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.

QuoteIt 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.

QuoteIt 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.  

QuoteSupposition #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?

Quote from: desertknight on Fri May 29, 2009 - 18:58:01

Quote from: WycliffConclusion #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.

No, no actual proof, but it is a logical conclusion.  Actually, I found a verse which I believe settles the matter:

1Cr 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?  

I hadn't realized it on the first pass, but the Greek for "ministers" is diakonoi.  It's just not translated as deacon, so I missed it before.

Quote

Quote1.  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). 

That's a misunderstanding of your church on my part.  I've never heard of someone being a presbyter but not attached to the church he is a presbyter of.  In Protestant churches, this title is generally used to refer only to those who are responsible for running the business parts of the local congregation.  Deacon and overseer/pastor are also titles that are only attached to those that are part of a local congregation.

((Aside from the argument: We do ordain itinerants such as evangelists, but they are ordained with the title "minister," not presbyter.  Actually, "minister" is usually the only title given, or ordained, a reflection of the Protestant idea of that leadership is just a function of service.  Some groups ordain with the title pastor or bishop, but in my neck of the woods we generally look at those with some suspicion.  I'm sure this doesn't apply to Lutherans and Anglicans, who we generally don't view as being Protestant anyway.))

Quote

QuotePaul 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.

Read a few more verses down, where he listed another few people, then a household, and then says he doesn't remember who else he might have baptized.  Nonetheless, I think this point is settled.

Quote

QuoteIt 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.

That's actually not true in this case.  Acts is the only book of the NT that is written as a historical document, and in this case it gives a clear chronology which places Paul elsewhere during this timeframe.

QuoteApollos 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.

He could have been at some point, but it wasn't by Paul prior to arriving in Corinth.  And the information isn't that sketchy here...we're dealing with a very short timeframe...a few months at most.  Wouldn't it be irregular for a brand new convert to be ordained?  You know...don't lay hands on suddenly? All the time before that is accounted for.  As for the "trip" from Ephesus to Corinth...it's a straight shot by boat.  There are no roads in between.

Quote

QuoteIt 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.

I had assumed that an itinerant new believer would not be placed as a presbyter because, well...that isn't ever done.  Except we don't share that point of doctrine.  This is also why I specifically noted that Apollos did not remain at the churches either at Ephesus or Corinth.  His "moving on" would disqualify him from all being an elder in my way of thinking.

Now, a very important question...can a deacon be itinerant in the Catholic Church?

QuoteNow 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.

There are no examples of a bishop being ordained within the Scriptures that I was able to find.  Acts 20:28 is the closest: Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.  At any rate, if there is some that I've missed, it's irrelevant, as there is nothing saying that Apollos was a bishop.

I found one example in the Bible of presbyters/elders being ordained with the laying on of hands (Acts 14), and another that hints at it without specifically mentioning the imposition of hands (Titus 1).  I also found the apostle Peter, and John the author of 2 & 3 John claiming to be elders.  I also found about 4000 (I'm exaggerating) references to elders used for the members of the Sanhedrin.  If I may suppose for a moment, I suppose that the churches' elders mirrored the Jewish elders in function.  That would make them responsible for presiding in judiciary functions among the church, and running business functions.  These do not appear to be functions that Apollos undertook.

As to deacons, which in light of 1Cor 3:5, seems to be the most important for the question at hand:

There is only one example of deacons being ordained with the laying on of hands within the Scriptures (in Acts 6).  Conversely, 2Cor 3:6 And Colossians 1 show ministers being created by God without mention of how such a thing may have happened.  Actually, much of 2Cor is addressed to those ministers (diakonoi) in Corinth.  Especially note chapter 6:

2Cr 6:4 But in all [things] approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,
2Cr 6:5 In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings;  
2Cr 6:6 By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned,  
2Cr 6:7 By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,  
2Cr 6:8 By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and [yet] true;  
2Cr 6:9 As unknown, and [yet] well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed;  
2Cr 6:10 As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and [yet] possessing all things.  

This indicates that a minister, or deacon if you prefer, is such because of their service.  (That is in agreement with my previously stated position that ordination is simply a recognition of what is already there.)  That is, the church is not a succession so much as a meritocracy.

The word deacon is used 30 times in Greek (using Textus Receptus).  A list can be found here.  You'll have to scroll down a bit.  There is very little to promote the idea of a deacon as an authority of any sort over anyone.  Rather, the emphasis is on servitude of the lowest sort.   See especially Matt 20:25-26, in which Jesus puts forward leadership and deacon-ship in a lovely contrast, after taking a nice shot at the top-down authority the RCC seems to hold as necessary:

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.  
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister (diakonos);  

QuoteWhy 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.

Required?... I mean, he was ordained at Antioch by the elders there, but he didn't exactly go seek it out.  Actually, he was making converts well before his ordination, in several places: Damascus, Judea, Asia Minor, Antioch.  He apparently didn't let the fact that nobody had laid hands on him stop him from preaching or teaching or serving the church in any way.  

Anyway, Paul made no ado over ordination...but a lot of ado over the Lord's personally commissioning him on the road to Damascus.  Unless you're considering that his ordination?  You find this very important...are we talking about the same event here?

QuoteWhy 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.

Obviously he would send him for the benefit of the (languishing) churches there that were having problems with internal divisions.  How does that require one guy who Paul didn't even meet until after the fact be one of those ordained?  That doesn't follow at all to me.  By the way, can you bcv me where Timothy was ordained by Paul?  I'm having some difficulty finding the passage, which I would like to see.

QuoteThere 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.

So now you're arguing from an absence of information?  That was my point.  If there was no ordination...how could there be a record of an ordination?  This very absence supports my point.  

At any rate, there aren't very many instances in the scripture of ANYONE receiving these "offices," as I've shown above.  And there are a couple at least, who are listed in these "offices" without any record of ordination.  And there are more still who are shown to be discharging the functions ascribed to these offices, without any record of ordination.

QuoteNow I can just as easily, and far more logically, deduce that Apollos was indeed met in Corinth by the Christiain 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.

There's a couple of problems with that theory.  One, I believe those two were actually in Asia Minor at this time.  See 1Tim 1.  Two, he did not "wish" to be left in Corinth, as his stated intention was to continue into Achaia, that is, northern Greece.  Corinth is not in Achaia.  Can a deacon be itinerant in your hierarchy?

QuoteNow 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?

Requirement of ordination?  You've showed no such thing.  You've only showed that ordination as a practice existed.  If you want to show it as a requirement, you need to show where someone was rejected, specifically because they weren't properly ordained.  Please show me that.

I've never said that ordination was not a practice of the church.  It very obviously was and has continued to be so.  But what I've said is that it is not a successorship.  Rather, that it was merely a recognition of the work that was already being performed.  I've provided a number of verses supporting that, including examples of people ministering without being ordained.  

QuoteOh, and where do Protestants derive their authority?

Again, we don't derive authority over others.  We seek to minister to them.  We seek to put ourselves UNDER people, not OVER people.  Ironically, or perhaps by design, serving people causes these people to look towards one for guidance.

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.  
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister (diakonos);  

Rather than keep dragging this on ad nauseum, let me make some points that we know from Holy Scripture are irrefutable.  We know for fact that the Lord picked, and charged His Apostles to act in His name, "as the Father has sent me, so I also send you."  We know for a fact that they in turn, passed this authority on through the process of ordination by the imposition of hands.  That is indisputable.  We know for a fact that those men in turn ordained others in exactly the same manner.  Now whether Apollos was, or was not a Bishop/Presbyter cannot be definitively proven by NT scripture.  We can only deduce that he might have been, but in doing that it is far more logical for me to deduce that if he was, he was also ordained, just as everyone else was that we do positively know of, in numerous examples from the NT.  No matter how many times you frame it, or we debate it point by point, it does not change the basic illogicality of your argument that, as just one example, Paul went to Jerusalem to be ordained.  He ordains Timothy.  At some point Timothy was given charge, (made a Bishop), and given specific instruction by St. Paul to travel to various cities and ordain Presbyters in various church communities.  Timothy is even cautioned to, "not lay on hands to quickly, "when choosing which men to ordain.  Now this is fact.  It is beyond dispute.  But you argue, that because Apollos's ordination is not specifically mentioned, (and neither is a single act he performed that would have required it.), that is somehow, "proof", that ordination was, mysteriously, not required of this one man.  Now you have never explained why, let alone that it is factually true, and I have given as ironclad argument as you can make, that it would be totally and completely nonsensical and illogical, to state that St. Paul, called by Christ directly, went to be ordained by proper authority, but Apollos, is again, mysteriously, exempt.  I think we have beaten this poor, dead horse into the ground, and you have failed to "prove" anything, including the logic of your argument as a deduction.  Many of the Apostles and their activities are quite unknown to us, except by tradition and extra-Biblical text, except for Peter, and possibly John, so that we know little of Apollos or Titus or Silas is not surprising, it does not however, bring into question what we do know definitively on this subject.

Acts 14:23  "They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith.

Acts 15:23-25  "This is the letter delivered by them: "The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings. Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,"

Titus 1:5  "For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,"

Heb. 13:7  "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.  

The NT is clear that the authority to ordain came from the Apostles, who consecrated Bishops who ordained Presbyters to lead the Christian communities.  Yes, those Bishops and Presbyters were there to serve, but their authority as the accountable vicars of Christ was to be obeyed and respected.  You are attempting to muddy the waters with shifting the argument to the role of deacons or other non-issues from that which I have outlined above and I have no desire to engage in such silliness just for the purpose of debating.  Yes, there is a link between the "elders" of the Jewish faith and the Church.  Yes Deacons are assistants to Presbyters and not "authorities" over the faithful.  I have no idea why you sidelined into that.  No one is claiming a Deaconal succession.  Ordaining by the imposition of hands is cited 5 times in the NT, not once, and the appointing of Presbyters is cited more times than that.  Where are you getting that Presbyters are just "found", indigenously, in Christian communities?  Please cite your Biblical reference for such belief.  The NT is specific that they are appointed, and valid, only if they have a "mandate" from a Bishop, who received their authority from the Apostles.  "Through the imposition of my hands.", Paul said.  And if ordination were to have been mentioned only once,  what is the standard?  If mentioned only once, it doesn't really count?  LoL.   The same goes for the ordaining of Deacons.  It is the same today with them.  When you said, "I've provided a number of verses supporting that, including examples of people ministering without being ordained,"... implying that this includes Bishops/Presbyters, (but of course, you were cleverly, not specific in that.).", really,   Where?  You have done nothing of the kind.  Just name one, single, solitary person, in the entire NT, who is named as a Bishop or Presbyter, who you can prove was not ordained.  Just one.  Just site one, single, solitary, verse of NT Scripture that says that.  Now, can people "minister", without being a Presbyter of Bishop?  Of course!  That is not the issue.  People can minister in teaching, preaching, caring for the poor, casting out demons, etc., without ordination.  All of the "religious", (Nuns and brothers), are not ordained.  Most teachers in Catholic schools and Catholic evangelist, are not ordained.  The issue is can they be Bishops/Presbyters without being ordained by those who have the authority of the Apostles, (i.e., the Presbyters that Timothy ordained can by traced through Timothy to Paul through the authority that Paul said he "gave to you through the imposition of my hands.").  THAT is the model that you have utterly failed to disqualify, or to prove an alternative to.  

The NT is quite clear.  You were given one challenge by me...

Quote from: desertknightJust tell me which one become a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, without being ordained by a legitimate person, and you've won!

You have failed to provide that.  You have failed to "prove" anything.  Case closed.

You can always tell when someone has lost an argument because instead of addressing what was said, they simply restate their original case and make rhetorical arguments instead of logical ones.

As for the example, Apollos, I've won.  I've demonstrated he was a deacon, which would make him ordained, even in your convoluted paradigm of rules and regs.  I've demonstrated him discharging a function you reserve to the bishop/presbyter, even though he is not specifically listed as such, and probably wasn't ever considered one!  Yet Paul has no problem with what he's done.  I've showed that there was no way he could have been ordained by the apostle between the time of his conversion and the time in which he began discharging the aforementioned functions.

Your argument has dwindled gradually as I've refuted your points one at a time.  You have two arguments left...one is to speculate what might have happened that isn't recorded.  But that is no argument at all.  The other is to say "show me where it says he wasn't ordained."  But of course, there is no record that "on the 25th of May, such-and-such was NOT ordained."  Things that don't happen aren't recorded.

But if you prefer to look at this macroscopically, since the example isn't going well for you, then yes, "ministering" can be done by the unordained (your example was nuns).  Now, I hate to break it to you, but that IS PERFORMING THE OFFICE OF A DEACON.  The word is diakonos, deacon, in Greek.  So, yes, you're right, anyone can do that.  No ordination required.  That's the point!  One's actions make them what they are in the church, nothing else.

Won?  Well let's see...

QuoteI've demonstrated he was a deacon, which would make him ordained, even in your convoluted paradigm of rules and regs.

OK, so show me the proof of your argument that he was not ordained.  Simple enough, and the crux of your case.  Where do you get that simply claiming that you know he was not ordained, based solely on it's not being mentioned, is "proof" of anything?  That is just the silliest "reasoning" there is.  It is far more logical to assume that if he was a Deacon, then he would have almost certainly been ordained, as other deacons we know of in the NT were!

QuoteI've demonstrated him discharging a function you reserve to the bishop/presbyter,

Please cite the Scripture where this is demonstrated.  What "function" are you talking about?

QuoteI've showed that there was no way he could have been ordained by the apostle between the time of his conversion and the time in which he began discharging the aforementioned functions.

If he was ordained, who said it was the Apostle Paul that did it?  I simply suggested he may have, as well as many others.  Others, clearly, could have.  It was the very purpose of the mission of Timothy and Silas, who were in northern Greece, as you, yourself, put Achaia, but curiously, my lack of evidence, you claim to be no proof at all, whilst your lack of evidence, is definitively so.  How odd.  In Acts 18, they are reported as coming down from northern Greece in order to meet Paul.  There are other possibilities as well.

QuoteYour argument has dwindled gradually as I've refuted your points one at a time.

How is that possible when you have not answered one, single, solitary question? You have never answered this one...

Quote from: DesertknightJust tell me which one become a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, without being ordained by a legitimate person, and you've won!

Now your only answer to this is to claim that Apollos, and he is your only example, was, somehow, mysteriously, not ordained, or required to, when even Paul himself was, as well as everyone else that is actually identified as either a Bishop or Presbyter.  Of course, you cannot point to even the slightest scrap of actual proof for your claim that Apollos was not, instead, you argue that as it is not mentioned, and neither is his being even a Presbyter, then somehow, that is "proof" that he deffinately wasn't ordained.  I honestly thought you were a fairly intelligent person, but if you seriously think that is somehow an argument worth anything, or that it constitutes "proof" of anything, then it is really pointless to debate you.  I have way over-estimated you.  I really don't mean to be hurtful, but if you put forth the argument you have with me in any kind of formal debate..you would be the object of a total breakdown in laughter and derision.  That a complete lack of evidence is "proof" of anything is just the silliest thing I have heard in awhile.  It is total non-sense.

QuoteThings that don't happen aren't recorded.

Then anyone with any concept of common sense or honesty cannot possibly claim that it is a "fact" that he was not.  Everything that we know of others in similar positions in the NT, were ordained!  A topic that you are utterly silent on.

QuoteBut if you prefer to look at this macroscopically, since the example isn't going well for you, then yes, "ministering" can be done by the unordained (your example was nuns).

My examples are clearly, explicitly, described in NT scripture.  They require no "deducing" or "supposing" of any kind.  How bout' yours?

QuoteNow, I hate to break it to you, but that IS PERFORMING THE OFFICE OF A DEACON.  The word is diakonos, deacon, in Greek.  So, yes, you're right, anyone can do that.  No ordination required.

In some areas, like teaching, caring for the poor; absolutely.  No problem.  In other areas, as in the assistance to the Presbyters in the sharing of some of his duties;  no.  And in both cases, pretty much irrelevant.  As just one example, Deacons have traditionally been the "lectors", or readers, during the Mass.  They routinely delegate that duty to lay people in almost every church.  No problem, and no issue.  The only point is that the NT gives us clear example of the office of Deacon being an ordained office.  I guess it's just another case where you consider either scripture wrong, or your own "deductions" about it to be more legitimate than the actual examples that are given in the NT.

Your entire argument rest on the single person of Apollos, who may, or may not have been a Presbyter.  We don't know.  I have searched the internet and there is nothing definitive about him.  Whether he was or not, there is also no information about him as to his ordination, one way or the other, and yet you claim this is "proof".  How silly.  Really, your a smart guy, I thought at least, and you must know that saying there is no proof, somehow "proves" something, is just silly or dishonest.  We have ample examples from the NT on the fact of ordination being the mark of office, "through the imposition of my hands", Paul said, and you are continually mute on this fact.  I am beginning to doubt that you really believe what you are arguing for that reason.

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Jun 01, 2009 - 16:22:20

QuoteI've demonstrated he was a deacon, which would make him ordained, even in your convoluted paradigm of rules and regs.

OK, so show me the proof of your argument that he was not ordained.  Simple enough, and the crux of your case.  Where do you get that simply claiming that you know he was not ordained, based solely on it's not being mentioned, is "proof" of anything?  That is just the silliest "reasoning" there is.

Strawman.  That hasn't been my argument, or the extent of my argument.  At one point you asked me to name someone who wasn't ordained in Scripture, and I gave you a list of names.  From that single fact you've created this whole line of argumentation, which you then claim is the ONLY THING I've said.  If that were true, you wouldn't even be able to say the other things you said in this same post.

QuoteIt is far more logical to assume that if he was a Deacon, then he would have almost certainly been ordained, as other deacons we know of in the NT were!

Yes, this is the extent of your argument.  To paraphrase - Once upon a time, they ordained the first deacons, so, therefore, all deacons that ever existed must have been ordained.

I've given examples of others besides Apollos, such as Phoebe, who I don't believe even qualifies for ordination in your church, but you just ignore those for some reason.

I've also written multiple paragraphs, a short paper really, citing multiple verses on the nature of diakonia in the New Testament being a matter of leadership by service, but these you do not so much as acknowledge.  You might respond to the opposing point of view that I've presented.  But instead you sit and claim that I've never made another argument.  Prepostorous.

Quote

QuoteI've demonstrated him discharging a function you reserve to the bishop/presbyter,

Please cite the Scripture where this is demonstrated.  What "function" are you talking about?

Again?  Baptism.  1Cor 1.  We did this to death.

QuoteIf he was ordained, who said it was the Apostle Paul that did it?  I simply suggested he may have, as well as many others.  Others, clearly, could have.  It was the very purpose of the mission of Timothy and Silas, who were in northern Greece, as you, yourself, put Achaia.

The point is that, barring some sort of amazing coincidence, he wasn't ordained at that time.  Try to follow the events in Acts 18 & 19 with me...I'll spell it out:

The others you refer to were in Macedonia months prior to this, and then traveled through Achaia to Corinth.  Now, I know you're getting really excited right now because they were in Corinth, but try to keep reading  They joined Paul at Corinth and traveled through Cenchrea, Ephesus, Caesarea, went "up" to Jerusalem, and end in Antioch.  That all happened BEFORE Apollos shows up in Ephesus, hundreds of miles away from them.

Those who met Apollos were Priscilla and Aquila, because Paul had left them in Ephesus, as the text specifically says.  Maybe a map would help?

http://www.ephesuskusadasi.com/images/paul_s_missionary_journeys.jpg  <-plug that into your browser and follow the purple line through Acts 18, and then the yellow line through Acts 19.

All of Paul's traveling companions, including Timothy, were with Paul, save Aquila and his wife, until Paul returned to Ephesus many months later (and found those Apollos baptized with John's baptism).  Then, Paul and his companions stayed in Ephesus for 2 years (19:10) before Paul finally sent them back into Macedonia while he traveled through Ionia.  There is a window of about 2.5 years here during which Apollos could not have been in contact with Paul or any of his cohorts, because they were on a different continent.

It is during this period, probably while Paul is at Ephesus, that he writes to Corinth, and gives them a stern lecture about creeping sectarianism, saying that whether they are "one of his" converts, or one "of Apollos'" converts, they were all Christians, and boy it's a good thing I didn't baptize more of you while I was there.

Quote

QuoteYour argument has dwindled gradually as I've refuted your points one at a time.

How is that possible when you have not answered one, single, solitary question?

You began this post by ceding that Apollos was a deacon...nuff said.

QuoteNow your only answer to this is to claim that Apollos, and he is your only example, was, somehow, mysteriously, not ordained, or required to, when even Paul himself was, as well as everyone else that is actually identified as either a Bishop or Presbyter.

And you conveniently leave out deacon suddenly...could it be that you're starting to see it?  Also, I started with six examples, and you chose Apollos because he was the "best argument."  You also dismissed Priscilla, and I ceded that point.

QuoteOf course, you cannot point to even the slightest scrap of actual proof for your claim that Apollos was not, instead...

You mean other than the 2 1/2 year chronology I've presented over and over showing that everybody who could would be qualified to do it was on a different continent?

Quote...you argue that as it is not mentioned, and neither is his being even a Presbyter, then somehow, that is "proof" that he deffinately wasn't ordained.  I honestly thought you were a fairly intelligent person, but if you seriously think that is somehow an argument worth anything, or that it constitutes "proof" of anything, then it is really pointless to debate you.

This is the same strawman you stated at the beginning of this post.

QuoteI have way over-estimated you.  I really don't mean to be hurtful, but if you put forth the argument you have with me in any kind of formal debate..you would be the object of a total breakdown in laughter and derision.

Ridiculing someone's argument is an excellent rhetorical device, but I find your claim that you aren't trying to be hurtful a bit disingenuous.

QuoteThat a complete lack of evidence is "proof" of anything is just the silliest thing I have heard in awhile.  It is total non-sense.

Yes, that is silly.  Why did you invent it?  I never stated a lack of evidence as proof.  I did point out a lack of evidence.  You can tell the difference I'm sure, but it's easier to pretend that this is the extent of the argument I've made.

Quote

QuoteThings that don't happen aren't recorded.

Then anyone with any concept of common sense or honesty cannot possibly claim that it is a "fact" that he was not.  Everything that we know of others in similar positions in the NT, were ordained!  A topic that you are utterly silent on.

I don't think I ever said that.  And I haven't been silent about ordination at all.  Yes, people were ordained and still are.  God bless 'em!  I'm not arguing against ordination as a practice here.

The argument that I keep making, which you keep ignoring, is that ordination doesn't CONFER authority, it RECOGNIZES that authority which is GENERATED BY SERVICE.

Quote

QuoteNow, I hate to break it to you, but that IS PERFORMING THE OFFICE OF A DEACON.  The word is diakonos, deacon, in Greek.  So, yes, you're right, anyone can do that.  No ordination required.

In some areas, like teaching, caring for the poor; absolutely.  No problem.  In other areas, as in the assistance to the Presbyters in the sharing of some of his duties;  no.  And in both cases, pretty much irrelevant.  As just one example, Deacons have traditionally been the "lectors", or readers, during the Mass.  They routinely delegate that duty to lay people in almost every church.  No problem, and no issue.

Of course its no issue.  Everybody loves to be served, and one doesn't need a certification to serve.  That's kind of my point, actually, though you don't see it I guess.  The church ordains those who serve already.  It doesn't ordain those who don't serve, and then they're allowed.  Meritocracy, not hierarchy.

QuoteYour entire argument rest on the single person of Apollos, who may, or may not have been a Presbyter.

Nah it rests on Jesus statement - whoever will be great among you, let him be the servant.  Maybe you'd like to do an exegesis of that passage?  It would give us something other than Apollos, who, while an excellent exemplar, is getting a bit tiresome.  (Yes, I dislike repeating myself too).

One other thing...I like historical accuracy.  You keep stating that Paul went to Jerusalem to be ordained.  I don't remember this event.  AFAIK Paul was ordained at Antioch.  Could you BCV me the Jerusalem event?  I looked but did not find it.  2nd request.

QuoteThat hasn't been my argument, or the extent of my argument.  At one point you asked me to name someone who wasn't ordained in Scripture, and I gave you a list of names.  From that single fact you've created this whole line of argumentation, which you then claim is the ONLY THING I've said.  If that were true, you wouldn't even be able to say the other things you said in this same post.

No, you gave me some names of people of who we don't know whether they were ordained, or even holders of office necessarily, who may or may not have been ordained at some time, but to you that is "proof".

QuoteYes, this is the extent of your argument.  To paraphrase - Once upon a time, they ordained the first deacons, so, therefore, all deacons that ever existed must have been ordained.

Yes.  It's called logic and common sense.  Why would the Apostle Paul be ordained?  Why would he ordain Timothy?  Why would he send Timothy to ordain specifically?  Why did the other Apostles insist on ordination into churchly office, when of course, it is all so unnecessary?  Why was Apollos exempt?  Your model is also one that even most Protestant denominations do not accept.  Your argument is nonsensical.

QuoteI've also written multiple paragraphs, a short paper really, citing multiple verses on the nature of diakonia in the New Testament being a matter of leadership by service, but these you do not so much as acknowledge.  You might respond to the opposing point of view that I've presented.  But instead you sit and claim that I've never made another argument.  Prepostorous.

You haven't.  You have not named one, single, solitary, person, who was even a Deacon, who you can prove was not ordained.  Don't think so?  Then name one.  The absence of information is not "proof" of anything.  It is a silly and nonsensical argument to make.

QuoteAgain?  Baptism.  1Cor 1.  We did this to death.

1.  There is nothing in 1 Cor 1. that says he baptized.  In fact, in every single site on-line that I could find, including every Protestant one, Apollos is not listed or referenced in any of them, as having ever baptized anyone.  They all simply list him as an eloquent and skilled preacher.  BTW, there is no evidence that Peter was ever in Corinth to baptize then either, ("I am of Cephas!").  You are missing the point that Paul made when he said, "I am thankful that I never baptized any of you except..."  I have not found any biblical reference interpretation on-line that makes the same equation that you do, i.e., that "I am of Apollos!", refers to his having baptized anyone.  2.  FYI, Deacons can, and have always been able to, baptize.  That is not reserved for Bishops and Presbyters only.

QuoteThe point is that, barring some sort of amazing coincidence, he wasn't ordained at that time.

You have absolutely no knowledge of that.  

QuoteThey joined Paul at Corinth and traveled through Cenchrea, Ephesus, Caesarea, went "up" to Jerusalem, and end in Antioch.  That all happened BEFORE Apollos shows up in Ephesus, hundreds of miles away from them.  There is a window of about 2.5 years here during which Apollos could not have been in contact with Paul or any of his cohorts, because they were on a different continent.

Oh, but as it turns out, Apollos was very much in contact with Paul, Paul's third journey took place over the period of many years.  Paul's stay in Ephesus alone, according to the scholarly sources I could find, lasted for over two years, as you point out.  You are arguing that no one, including Paul, could have ever ordained Apollos, who who had gone to Achaia and Corinth, and undoubtedly as an evangelist, elsewhere, during the end of Paul's second journey and during his third, (The end of Acts 18, and Acts 19), when we don't even know where Apollos was for that entire time.  Ah, but this is the problem of the chronology of the Bible and who wrote what.  While Luke wrote Acts 19, and yes, when Paul arrives back at Ephesus, Apollos is in Corinth, but Apollos apparently didn't stay there.  As you put it, "It's a straight shot from Ephesus to Corinth."  Sure enough, and I should have caught it before, that is the exact time that the Biblical experts confirm Paul's writing of 1 Corinthians.  Now the problem for your theory is that Paul writes this,

1 Cor. 16:12  "Now in regard to our brother Apollos, I urged him strongly to go to you with the brothers, but it was not at all his will that he go now. He will go when he has an opportunity."
 
Now, Paul clearly wrote 1 Cor. in Ephesus.  He was there only twice where it would have been.  Every Biblical source I could find says that it was written during the time Luke was recording events of Acts 18, chronologically.  There is no other time he could have, as in Acts 19, he arrives back in Ephesus when Apollos is in Corinth and yet by verse 19:21 Paul is preparing to leave, which he does after the disturbance breaks out by the end of Acts 19.  He clearly didn't write 1 Cor. then.  That leaves very little other possibility.  Every source I could find, says that Apollos was clearly with Paul during this time.  Either the chronology of events in Acts 18 concerning Apollos and Paul simply fails to mention it, or Apollos, evidently spent some time visiting Paul back in Ephesus.  If you can find any other source that says differently, I would like to see it.  BTW, I found no source, anywhere, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, that ever refers to Apollos as a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon.  If you can find one that does, I would love to see it.  They all simply list him as a an evangelist.  They, Timothy and Silas, did not accompany Paul on that journey after Ephesus.  Paul sent Timothy back to Greece in Acts 19:22, along with Erastus.  Paul also sent Timothy to Corinth in 1 Cor. 4:17, when he may very well have met Apollos at that time.  In addition he sent him to Thessalonica in Greece as well.  Timothy and Silas or Erastus may not have even been the only ones in Greece who had the authority to ordain, I am simply pointing out that they could have.  The NT contains six letters of Paul's to Timothy.  Those letters comprise many, many, years of time and cover six separate places in Greece that Timothy was conducting his Episcopal mission in.  We don't even know where Silas and Erastus could have been during this entire time.  During that period of many years, Apollos could very well have been ordained by any number of them, or others who we do not know of.  To say he was definitely not ordained, during that period of many years, is nonsensical and without merit.

QuoteAll of Paul's traveling companions, including Timothy, were with Paul

Not true.  In Acts 18, Paul meets Timothy after Timothy came down from northern Greece.  In Acts 19:22 Timothy and Erastus are sent back to Greece from Ephesus.  We have no idea where Silas was.  Timothy was also sent from Paul back to Corinth, specifically to straighten out problems there as is referenced in 1 Cor.  

QuoteYou began this post by ceding that Apollos was a deacon...nuff said.

I never said that he wasn't.  I said that we don't know definitively.  It is still a dodge of my challenge however.  I will repeat it for the dozenth time...

Quote from: desertknightJust tell me which one become a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, without being ordained by a legitimate person, and you've won!

All these posts later...and you still have never answered that challenge.  There is no proof that Apollos, or anyone else that was a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, was not ordained.

QuoteAnd you conveniently leave out deacon suddenly...could it be that you're starting to see it?  Also, I started with six examples, and you chose Apollos because he was the "best argument."  You also dismissed Priscilla, and I ceded that point

Not at all.  I will even, for the sake of argument, accept that Apollos was a Deacon.  Now all you have to do is prove he was one, without the same process of other deacons described in the NT;  ordination.  I haven't dismissed Priscilla, I just refrain from claiming "proof" of anything that I have no information about.  You might try that.  You will come across as much more credible if you do.

QuoteYou mean other than the 2 1/2 year chronology I've presented over and over showing that everybody who could would be qualified to do it was on a different continent?

Everybody?  LoL, Oh gosh, really?  Everybody?  Please.  You have proven nothing of the kind.  Please see above.  Believe me, this caused me an exhaustive and educational search of the events on the Web, and most of the "experts", unlike yourself, know as little of the actual events surrounding Apollos or Priscilla or others mentioned, as I admit to.  It is pure guesswork.  You should shine your deductive reasoning on them...  BTW, Titus, who is indisputably a Bishop, was in Corinth at the time that Apollos was there, (2 Cor. 8:6).

QuoteThis is the same strawman you stated at the beginning of this post.

You obviously have no idea what a "strawman" argument is.  Please point out one, single, inaccurate statement I made in this paragraph of mine that you reference here, that constitutes a "strawman" argument.  I have not stated anything concerning your argument that is inaccurate.  I don't do that.

QuoteRidiculing someone's argument is an excellent rhetorical device, but I find your claim that you aren't trying to be hurtful a bit disingenuous.

That is only because you fail to understand that claiming that you can state a "fact" about something, based on the total lack of evidence of same, is silly and dishonest.  

QuoteThe argument that I keep making, which you keep ignoring, is that ordination doesn't CONFER authority, it RECOGNIZES that authority which is GENERATED BY SERVICE.

Holy Scripture flatly disagrees...

2 Tim 1:6  "For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God 5 that you have through the imposition of my hands."

Acts 14:23  "They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."

Tit. 1:5  "For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you."

1 Tim. 4:14  " Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."

Acts 15:24-26 "Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you,"

Obviously, the Presbyteriate was an appointed and ordained ministry.  Your claim of authority being "generated by service" is flatly unbiblical.  The only thing that Scripture says that "generates" one to be ordained is the calling of the Holy Spirit.

QuoteOne other thing...I like historical accuracy.  You keep stating that Paul went to Jerusalem to be ordained.  I don't remember this event.  AFAIK Paul was ordained at Antioch.

Your correct.  My bad.  Now if you could only answer...why was Paul required, (Yes, required, unless you think it was done unnecessarily.), to be ordained? Timothy ordained?  Paul is very specific that Timothy's authority comes from the "imposition of my hands".  The Presbyters that Timothy ordained were obviously required to be, otherwise, why Paul's instructions to do exactly that?  Why is every single, solitary, Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon, that we know held office without dispute from scripture, ordained into that office, by the imposition of hands, by only those who have the proper authority to do so, and yet, lil' ole' Apollos must have been a special fellow indeed.  In his case, you say, "ordination?  No need for that!".  Why and what are you basing that on?  Just the lack of evidence?  That is no argument and not proof.  The NT is crystal clear on the churchly offices of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon and just as clear on the validity of such office being traceable to Apostolic authority.  Again...case closed.

 

Quote from: papist1 on Tue Apr 28, 2009 - 06:17:16

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 16:51:56

Quote from: papist1 on Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 16:19:38

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 15:53:54
And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?

Pot.  Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.

Just because a pope says something, does not make it doctrine, in any way shape or form.  I am not aware of any pope counteracting his predecessor in the chair of peter. Maybe you can give me an example?

Then maybe you can tell me how one can prove their authority for their interpretation of scripture. :)

peace, papist

Not doctrine?

You put authority up as your argument, so by criticizing that authority, in its tendency to redefine what it meant in the past, I've drawn a parallel with the Protestant tendency to redefine what their authority (Sola Scriptura) has said in the past.

The argument is still valid.  The analogy still holds.  Are you really going to argue against the authority that you are putting forward?  What I hear is that this is legitimate authority, but only kind-of, sometimes, and when it's convenient to the argument.

As to examples of popes contradicting prior popes...well, I thought you wanted to keep discussions of 15th century papal indiscretion out of this argument.

Off the top of my head and without actually looking it up...I believe that THE CHURCH, in council, at the behest of the pope and with his approval, anathematized not only Luther but all German Protestants as well as anyone "aiding and betting."  JP @ Vatican (2? 3?) welcomes Protestants as true Christians.

Technically, that's a Pope & Council contradicting a Council which the Pope only tacitly endorsed, but the argument is the same:

Your authority redefines what its predecessors said, too.

Not true.

A Catholic, who knows and believes what the church teaches, who later commits heresy unrepentantly, is excommunicated. All of the reformers are most likely not in heaven. thats just my take. They caused terrible division, and they were Christian heretics.

True, Christians in other denominations, who have never known the fullness of truth, nor purposefully left it or taught against it after once knowing it, still have the opportunity at salvation.

So your theory is false, and consistent Catholic teaching confirms this point.

Once again, a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.


Bishop sheen once write that there are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they believe the Catholic Church to teach.

You fit into that category. unfortunately.

peace, papist

A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope
Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald - 1537


http://bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

 

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Jun 01, 2009 - 21:55:30
No, you gave me some names of people of who we don't know whether they were ordained, or even holders of office necessarily, who may or may not have been ordained at some time, but to you that is "proof".

Proof was your thing from the get go.  I have stated all along that a negative premise (that XXX never happened) is by definition not absolutely provable.  I have nonetheless offered evidence to try to establish a likelihood that Apollos was recognized in the function of one of your 3 "ordained offices," Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, and to establish the unlikelihood that he was ordained before he began excercising the functions of said office.  In short, I have argued on your terms from the get go.

QuoteWhy would the Apostle Paul be ordained?

The Apostle Paul was ordained in Acts 13 due to a word of prophecy specifically commissioning Paul to do certain work.  In short, God needed to tell Paul to go, because he was contentedly sitting at Antioch rather than going "to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel."  Interestingly, Paul is recorded as completing a ministry (diakonia) in Acts 12, right before that.

QuoteWhy would he ordain Timothy?

Paul and the presbytery laid hands on Timothy to impart an unspecified gift because there was a specific word of prophecy that directed such to be done.  Paul later urged him to exercise that gift and study more.  Authority is not what is being spoken of as being transmitted by the imposition of hands here, it seems.

QuoteWhy would he send Timothy to ordain specifically?

Paul didn't send Timothy to ordain anyone to my knowledge.  He sent Titus...ummmm...he left Titus...in Crete to "set in order the things that are wanting," which including the appointing of elders in every city, because the Cretans were permeated with Judaizers,  and "deceivers," who were teaching aberrant doctrines "for filthy lucre's sake."  In short, there was a specially bad problem with false teachers in Crete fleecing the flock, so it was necessary to have someone go through town by town and sort out the good guys from the bad guys.  Interestingly, the Greek words Paul uses do not indicate that this "ordination" was done with any imposition of hands, or by the mutual consent of the presbytery or congregations.  It's a simple selection by a committee of 1; not an election.

If I may digress a bit....  I believe that this is because the laying on of hands is for the transmission of something.  Here we agree.  But you think it is authority that is transmitted.  However, I would counter that what is transmitted is a spiritual gift for ministry.  Much of the book of 1 Corinthians deals with a number of such gifts.  While it may be that the gift(s) - or rather, the exercise of the gift(s) - causes one to be seen as authoritative, this does not necessarily mean that authority itself is what has been transmitted.

Such a gift appears to be what Paul is speaking of to Timothy in the prior section, though what the gift is, is not mentioned.

The most common thing to be transmitted by the imposition of hands, though, was health.  Oftentimes, this was done because the person in question was ill.  However, it was also done occasionally to those who were well, as a blessing.  For instance, when one was leaving, such as in the example of Paul's ordination above.

QuoteWhy did the other Apostles insist on ordination into churchly office, when of course, it is all so unnecessary?

I don't recall any of the apostles ever insisting on ordination...unless of course you're referring to this:

Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Could you show me where they insisted on ordination?  Yes, please show me where anyone in the NT ever insisted on being ordained.  This particular belief seems to be exactly the opposite of all of Jesus teachings in the gospels on service and leadership.

QuoteWhy was Apollos exempt?  Your model is also one that even most Protestant denominations do not accept.  Your argument is nonsensical.

Exempt from being recognized as a leader by the local presbytery?  I'm sure that at some point, somebody probably "ordained" good ol' Apollos, whether it was with a vote of confidence or a prayer of blessing.  It might even have been accompanied by the bestowal of a gift via the imposition of hands.  I am sure that it did not hold the pomp of the modern ritual.  I'm pretty sure that it was after he had already been leading by action for a while.

What I've been attempting to demonstrate is that Apollos (and really, everyone in the NT) did not have to wait to "get their ordination" to make converts, to cast out demons, to baptize, to exhort, to commend, to mentor, correct, lead, or serve their fellows.  Those who WERE RECOGNIZED via ordination, were recognized specifically because of what they were doing.  Ordination, like all certifications, follows after what one has accomplished; it does not precede it.

Quote

QuoteI've also written multiple paragraphs, a short paper really, citing multiple verses on the nature of diakonia in the New Testament being a matter of leadership by service, but these you do not so much as acknowledge.  You might respond to the opposing point of view that I've presented.  But instead you sit and claim that I've never made another argument.  Prepostorous.

You haven't.  You have not named one, single, solitary, person, who was even a Deacon, who you can prove was not ordained.  Don't think so?  Then name one.  The absence of information is not "proof" of anything.  It is a silly and nonsensical argument to make.

That's not even what I was talking about here.  I'm talking about the defining of the word deacon as a servant, I'm talking about this:

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister

I'm talking about how leadership in the church is not defined by a succession, but by service.  I'm talking about how leadership in the church is not exercised as an authority that compels.

Long post continued...

Quoteyour 3 "ordained offices

You mean the Church's don't you?  

Bishop:
Acts of the Apostles 20:28
Epistle to the Philippians 1:1
First Epistle to Timothy 3:2
Epistle to Titus 1:7
First Epistle of Peter 2:25

Presbyter:   Acts 11:30 and 15:22, and 14:23.
1 Tim. 1:3 and Titus 1:5, Titus 2:15

and Deacon:  Acts 6:5-6  1 Timothy 3:8-13

QuoteThe Apostle Paul was ordained in Acts 13 due to a word of prophecy specifically commissioning Paul to do certain work.  In short, God needed to tell Paul to go, because he was contentedly sitting at Antioch rather than going "to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel."  Interestingly, Paul is recorded as completing a ministry (diakonia) in Acts 12, right before that.

No Catholic would have a problem with that necessarily.  Many priests were men who were called for a specific ministry.  Every priest fulfills a Diaconate before being ordained as a Presbyter.  Your only omission is that the NT is very clear that their is a "Presbyterate".  Not just individuals performing an individual mission.

QuotePaul and the presbytery laid hands on Timothy to impart an unspecified gift because there was a specific word of prophecy that directed such to be done.  Paul later urged him to exercise that gift and study more.  Authority is not what is being spoken of as being transmitted by the imposition of hands here, it seems.

2 Tim. 1:6  "For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God 5 that you have through the imposition of my hands."

Acts 14:23  "They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."

1 Tim. 4:14  " Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the Presbyterate."

QuoteI don't recall any of the apostles ever insisting on ordination...unless of course you're referring to this:

Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Nope.  Not at all.  Any layperson can cast out demons.  That is Catholic orthodoxy.  Lay people have a number of charisms that do not require ordination.  What I am talking about is the clear and indisputable existence of a "Presbyteriate", that the Apostles ordered in their organization of the visible Church of Christ on earth.  Ordination by the imposition of hands, by those who have been properly ordained, is clearly and repeatedly demonstrated as the means of transmission of that authority.  The oddity here with you, is that although no Protestant body has proper authority, they all mimic the rites of ordination in the consecration of their pastors, because, unlike you, they all recognize from the reading of NT scripture that it was the sign of consecrating a minister of a congregation.  Your the first person that I have run into, who doesn't accept even the Protestant interpretation.

1 Tim. 5:22  "Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in anther's sins. Keep yourself pure."

1 Peter 5:1  "So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed."

QuoteI'm talking about how leadership in the church is not defined by a succession, but by service.  I'm talking about how leadership in the church is not exercised as an authority that compels.

As I've explained before, succession is not one Bishop passing off the baton to his successor as in a race, it is defined by one, single question.  Who has the authority to "ordain" ?  That question is clearly and consistently answered by the NT.  Only those who have been ordained by someone who's own authority can be traced back to the authority that our Lord charged His Apostles with.  They are all one Presbyterate.  Paul was ordained, he ordained Timothy, Timothy ordained Presbyters.  It's that clear, and beyond dispute.