Apostolic Succession

[CDHealy]

Perhaps you missed the second question.  Lost books do not equal loss of apostolic teaching.

Makes for a great movie plot, though.

[BrianInChrist]

CD,

The fact is that you don't know what was written in those books that are lost.  For all you know, those lost books (which form the majority of the books written about the faith from that age) could teach the true doctrine taught by the apostles.  How can you know?  The historical record is woefully incomplete, so you have no basis for using the historical record to prove anything at all.  Even worse, the historical record has been deliberately purged of contrary thoughts.  So we can never know how reliable the texts that you have really are.  They are the deliberate result of a selection effect.  So it isn't surprising that you would find agreement between the texts that you do have and the Orthodox doctrine.  But, for the same reason, it doesn't prove anything at all... except that those are the books that were allowed to survive.  That's hardly impressive.

[James A. Wyly]

CD,

The fact is that you don't know what was written in those books that are lost.  For all you know, those lost books (which form the majority of the books written about the faith from that age) could teach the true doctrine taught by the apostles.  How can you know?  The historical record is woefully incomplete, so you have no basis for using the historical record to prove anything at all.  Even worse, the historical record has been deliberately purged of contrary thoughts.  So we can never know how reliable the texts that you have really are.  They are the deliberate result of a selection effect.  So it isn't surprising that you would find agreement between the texts that you do have and the Orthodox doctrine.  But, for the same reason, it doesn't prove anything at all... except that those are the books that were allowed to survive.  That's hardly impressive.

Hello Brian,

Well said.

Jim W.

[CDHealy]

Brian (and Jim W.):

What an amazing show: on the basis of absence of evidence you indict the entirety of 2000 years of Christian history.

But even more amazing than that is that you both apparently have failed to grasp that the limb you're sawing off is the very one on which you sit.  If the historical record cannot be trusted, if it has been purged, then how can the written documents of the Scriptures be trusted?  How many books have been left out because of those nasty proto-Orthodox?  What would St. Paul's letter to the Laodiceans have revealed to us, eternal truths that are now forever lost, because they had been purged?  Ah, you say, but we know that God has preserved just what we needed.  Oh, really?  And how do you  know this?  There's no Scripture you can appeal to, and you've just eliminated any historical evidence (including manuscript evidence, evidence from canonical lists in the Church Fathers, and so on).  No, you're back to being forced to trust the very Church you claim is untrustworthy.  You damn with one hand, and take with the other.

What insanity.  And since there is no point arguing rationally against irrationality, I leave you two to your hopelessly deluded fantasies.

[BrianInChrist]

CD,

The Bible verifies itself.  The effect that it has had on mankind.  The internal consistency.  The consistency with the external evidence.  The prophecies that have been fulfilled.  When one reads the Bible the words are alive in a way that other books aren't.  The Bible makes claims that God inspired it.  And it also claims that the Bible is the beginning of wisdom, and that those who reject it are fools who are unable to reason.  And it turns out that claim is true.  Those who reject Scripture have no answer to the skeptic.  There is no need to appeal to Church authority in order to believe God's Word.

BTW, I didn't even attempt to indict the entirety of 2000 years of Christian history.  That's a whopper of a strawman attack.  What I have shown is you have no evidenciary basis for asserting that the doctrine of the Orthodox church is the same as the doctrine of the apostles.

[CDHealy]

Note the bold:

The Bible verifies itself.  The effect that it has had on mankind. [Dependence upon historical record.] The internal consistency.  The consistency with the external evidence.  [Dependence upon historical record.]  The prophecies that have been fulfilled.  [Dependence upon historical record.]  When one reads the Bible the words are alive in a way that other books aren't.  The Bible makes claims that God inspired it.  And it also claims that the Bible is the beginning of wisdom, and that those who reject it are fools who are unable to reason.  And it turns out that claim is true.  Those who reject Scripture have no answer to the skeptic.  There is no need to appeal to Church authority in order to believe God's Word.

You can't escape history.  Part of the evidence to which you appeal is historical evidence.  You can't have it both ways: either the evidence can be trusted, or it cannot.  Which is it?

BTW, I didn't even attempt to indict the entirety of 2000 years of Christian history.  That's a whopper of a strawman attack.  What I have shown is you have no evidenciary basis for asserting that the doctrine of the Orthodox church is the same as the doctrine of the apostles.

Which is an indictment of 2000 years of Church history, because, as you claim, the history has been purged and cannot be trusted.  No strawman here, BIC, I'm just taking you at your word.  Either the historical evidence can be trusted--in which case, the Orthodox have an objectively verifiable claim to unbroken adherence to apostolic dcotrine--or it cannot, in which case, you have no basis for even knowing which books are Scripture and which are not, since Scripture itself doesn't give the list, and the only list we have are from the historical record.

But, then again, all this is a failure of exercise given that you hold to an illogical position from the get go.

[BrianInChrist]

CD,

I'm not trying to escape history.  I'm pointing out that the historical record is insufficient to prove that the doctrine of the Orthodox church is the same as the doctrine of the apostles.  Again, you resort to a strawman attack.

Which is an indictment of 2000 years of Church history, because, as you claim, the history has been purged and cannot be trusted.

No, it isn't an indictment of 2000 years of Church history.  It is an indictment of the current claims of the Orthodox church.

[Volkmar]

An Apostle would come in handy at this point...where are those dudes when you need 'em???


V

[Volkmar]

Allow me to axe again one of the questions posed earlier...


Even if you don't think/believe that the first two "offices" of Eph. 4:11 still exist, do you believe or have you experienced that certain individuals in the Body of Christ "function" in such a way that could be refered to as "apostolic"?

One example that I might point to comes from my youth in the CofC in which I was raised;  Homer Hailey (did I spelk his last name correct??).  HH was more than an Evangelist...he served as a connection between various congregations of CofC and provided wisdom from the "outside-looking in", so to speak.


V

[CDHealy]

I'm not trying to escape history.  I'm pointing out that the historical record is insufficient to prove that the doctrine of the Orthodox church is the same as the doctrine of the apostles.  Again, you resort to a strawman attack.

Which is an indictment of 2000 years of Church history, because, as you claim, the history has been purged and cannot be trusted.

No, it isn't an indictment of 2000 years of Church history.  It is an indictment of the current claims of the Orthodox church.

This will be my last comment, so we can get this thread back to Volkmar's intention:

If you intend to indict Orthodox claims to Apostolic teaching on the basis of the absence of evidence (which you imply to mean that the absent evidence would prove the Orthodox false), then you cannot but also indict the basis for which you attempt to establish the veracity of the Scriptures.

You are being dishonest with the evidence.  On the one hand you want to use the evidence to prove the Scriptures, but on the other you refuse to allow the use the same evidence to validate the Orthodox claims.

That is why I say you indict 2000 years of Church history--including your own use of it.

But, you and Jim continue the use of invalid doublestandards--it's an nice gig, I suppose.

[mdd344]

Where is a list I can read of this apostlic succession? Is it posted somewhere where it can be viewed?

[BrianInChrist]

If you intend to indict Orthodox claims to Apostolic teaching on the basis of the absence of evidence (which you imply to mean that the absent evidence would prove the Orthodox false), then you cannot but also indict the basis for which you attempt to establish the veracity of the Scriptures.

No, I do not indict the basis for which I establish the veracity of the Scriptures.  Your claim is that the apostles taught the same doctrine that the Orthodox church now teaches.  You base that claim on ancient sources that you believe teach the same thing as what you teach now.  What you neglect to admit is that there are ancient sources that have been purged from the historical record that could contradict what the Orthodox church claims.

There is no credible reason to believe that there are ancient sources that would contradict the historical evidence that the Bible changed the lives of Christians in the ancient world just as they are changed by the Bible today.

The historical record that we have shows that the world was very brutal, unjust, and not respectful of human dignity prior to Christ's birth.  The historical record that we have shows that the world became far less brutal, far more just and far more respectful of human dignity as the Christian faith grew.  There is no credible reason to believe that there were ancient sources that have been purged from the historical record that would contradict those views. 

There is no credible reason to believe that the external evidence that we have concerning the accuracy of the text has been tampered with in any way, nor is there a credible reason to believe that there is evidence waiting to be discovered that would contradict the Scriptural account of historical facts.

You can complain that I'm being dishonest with the evidence, but as I see it you are not being honest with me. 

FWIW, I don't use the historical evidence as the sole basis for my beliefs anyway.  Aside from a woefully incomplete historical record, tainted by a selection effect, what evidence does the Orthodox church have to support it's claim that the Orthodox Church is teaching the same doctrine that the apostles taught?

[Harold]

Personally, I'm always leery when an individual claims to be an apostle.  I'd rather recognize it by seeing it in action.  Proofs in the pudding.

Amen, V.  It still strikes me as odd.  Maybe that's all the word meant 2,000 years ago ("messenger"), but the word "apostle" has since acquired connotative baggage, theologically speaking, that is difficult to unload.

In the Apostolic Churches an apostle would be one gifted in planting churches, and caring for them in their infancy.

FTL

Their favorite titles are Pastor, or Bishop. As in T.D. Jakes

Thanks, Harold.

Now, a few questions for you and all who wish to think about it...

1.  Does "apostolic" gifing still exist?

2.  What do you think it looks like?

3.  In traditions where the title "apostle" is not/never used, can you think of individuals who function "apostolically"?


V

In third world or muslim countries, maybe. In the U.S. I don't think God could get an audience with any church group.

Jesus did not belong to a group, He started a group, with Him being the only succession necessary.

FTL

[Lee Freeman]

There's a modern apostles movement among some Protestant evangelical and/or charismatic churches, where some leaders are claiming to be apostles.

Pax.

[Smiles]

wow never heard of that. wierd

[Jimbob]

The Mormons claim to have present day apostles (the Quorum of the Twelve, iirc).

[s1n4m1n]

There's a modern apostles movement among some Protestant evangelical and/or charismatic churches, where some leaders are claiming to be apostles.

Pax.

Lee is correct in that. I have a book written by some of the big name charismatic characters about what they call the "New Apostolic Movement" or some such. Its interesting that they use a "restorationist" argument to justify modern day apostles. Basically, they say that office of "prophet" has been restored but that the office of apostle needs to be restored in order for the church to fully be the church. IOW, their argument is that in order for the the current day Church to be the same as the New Testament Church it has to have the same offices.

[BrianInChrist]

Those groups don't mean the same thing by "apostle" that is traditionally meant by "apostle".  They mean "messenger", not someone who has seen and learned at the literal feet of Jesus, and who is authorized and inspired to write Scripture.  IOW, they have watered down the traditional meaning of the word.  They are claiming to restore the original meaning to the word.

[s1n4m1n]

Those groups don't mean the same thing by "apostle" that is traditionally meant by "apostle".  They mean "messenger", not someone who has seen and learned at the literal feet of Jesus, and who is authorized and inspired to write Scripture.  IOW, they have watered down the traditional meaning of the word.  They are claiming to restore the original meaning to the word.

It was more than that, what I read was that they, the current-day "apostles", would oversee large numbers of congregations. So they are actually wanting to restore the function of the apostles without, perhaps, the inspiration part.

I'll double check from the book later, which I'll admit I didn't read all the way through.

Here's a link from Wikipedia:

New Apostolic Reformation

Note the idea is the the office of apostle is related to governance of the Church.

[BrianInChrist]

It was more than that, what I read was that they, the current-day "apostles", would oversee large numbers of congregations. So they are actually wanting to restore the function of the apostles without, perhaps, the inspiration part.

Yes, that's consistent with what I have experienced as well.  It is in that sense that they believe they are "messengers".

[s1n4m1n]

Sorry Brian I modified my post to include a link while you were posting.

[BrianInChrist]

Sorry Brian I modified my post to include a link while you were posting.

Thanks, s1n3m1n.

[Volkmar]

It was more than that, what I read was that they, the current-day "apostles", would oversee large numbers of congregations. So they are actually wanting to restore the function of the apostles without, perhaps, the inspiration part.

Yes, that's consistent with what I have experienced as well.  It is in that sense that they believe they are "messengers".

Yes, and that's exactly how "apostolon" (ἀπόστολον) is translated in Phil. 2:25...

But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger and minister to my need;


Also, II Cor. 8:23 conveys the same meaning...

As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker among you; as for our brethren, they are messengers of the churches, a glory to Christ.


It is interesting that our translations distinguish between "Apostle" and "messenger" (small 'a' apostle), though the same word is used for both..."messenger" or "ambassador", literally.  I do recognize the distinction that Peter stated in Acts 1:21-22 as to big "A" Apostle, but, scattered through the epistles are usages that denote others who functioned "apostolically", yet were not big "A" Apostles.


V