Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the passage from Philippians, Paul mentions one of his fellow workers, Clement, who was ordained by the Apostle Peter and later became the fourth Bishop of Rome (after Peter, Linus, and Anacletus). Like Paul, who addressed to epistles to the Church of Corinth, Clement wrote his own letter to the Corinthians around 80 AD. In that letter, he stated:
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)
From these two passages, we can see that Clement had witnessed his mentors, the Apostles Peter and Paul, naming men to the office of Bishop and had received instructions from them that other men should succeed those Bishops appointed by the Apostles in the event that these first Bishops should die. Thus, history records that both the Apostles and their disciples such as Clement, Timothy and Titus understood and followed the practice of appointing successors to the Apostles in the Church.
Originally Posted by Rightly Divided
Quote:
And once again you have to filter all of that through the man-made doctrine you have accepted in order to make it mean what you need it to. None of this supports your church. Period.
Clement could not have come with liturgical vestments as they did not exist that early. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits this, regarding the time of Stephen 1 (254-257):
Admittedly the Catholic position, that bishops are the successors of the apostles by divine institution, remains far from easy to establish...The first problem has to do with the notion that Christ ordained apostles as bishops...The apostles were missionaries and founders of churches; there is no evidence, nor is it at all likely, that any one of them ever took up permanent residence in a particular church as its bishop...The letter of the Romans to the Corinthians, known as I Clement, which dates to about the year 96, provides good evidence that about 30 years after the death of St. Paul the church of Corinth was being led by a group of presbyters, with no indication of a bishop with authority over the whole local church...Most scholars are of the opinion that the church of Rome would most probably have also been led at that time by a group of presbyters...There exists a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that such churches as Alexandria, Philippi, Corinth and Rome most probably continued to be led for some time by a college of presbyters, and that only in the second century did the threefold structure of become generally the rule, with a bishop, assisted by presbyters, presiding over each local church (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, pp. 13,14,15).
In the past, Catholic writers have interpreted this intervention as an early exercise of Roman primacy, but now it is generally recognized as the kind of exhortation one church could address another without any claim to authority over it...I Clement certainly does not support the theory that before the apostles died, they appointed one man as bishop in each of the churches they founded. This letter witnesses rather to the fact that in the last decade of the first century, the collegial ministry of a group of presbyters...was still maintained in the Pauline church of Corinth. This was most likely also the case in the church in Rome at this period (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, pp. 91,101).
Clement could not have come with liturgical vestments as they did not exist that early. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits this, regarding the time of Stephen 1 (254-257):
Admittedly the Catholic position, that bishops are the successors of the apostles by divine institution, remains far from easy to establish...The first problem has to do with the notion that Christ ordained apostles as bishops...The apostles were missionaries and founders of churches; there is no evidence, nor is it at all likely, that any one of them ever took up permanent residence in a particular church as its bishop...The letter of the Romans to the Corinthians, known as I Clement, which dates to about the year 96, provides good evidence that about 30 years after the death of St. Paul the church of Corinth was being led by a group of presbyters, with no indication of a bishop with authority over the whole local church...Most scholars are of the opinion that the church of Rome would most probably have also been led at that time by a group of presbyters...There exists a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that such churches as Alexandria, Philippi, Corinth and Rome most probably continued to be led for some time by a college of presbyters, and that only in the second century did the threefold structure of become generally the rule, with a bishop, assisted by presbyters, presiding over each local church (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, pp. 13,14,15).
In the past, Catholic writers have interpreted this intervention as an early exercise of Roman primacy, but now it is generally recognized as the kind of exhortation one church could address another without any claim to authority over it...I Clement certainly does not support the theory that before the apostles died, they appointed one man as bishop in each of the churches they founded. This letter witnesses rather to the fact that in the last decade of the first century, the collegial ministry of a group of presbyters...was still maintained in the Pauline church of Corinth. This was most likely also the case in the church in Rome at this period (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, pp. 91,101).
But in Matthew 16:18, Jesus is the Builder, not the rock.
Don't mix your metaphors.
There is only one rock and that rock is christ. Don't mix flesh and blood with spirit and truth.
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ(1 Cor 10:4).
Those that believe upon him build upon the teachings of him/ the rock. The church is built upon the revelation of Christ in you and his sayings. Whosoever hears these teachings of mine and does them, i will liken him unto a wiseman who built his upon the rock( the anointed sayings of Jesus)
There is only one rock and that rock is christ. Don't mix flesh and blood with spirit and truth.
One rock?
Jesus, God, the apostles and Peter individually are all referred to as rock or stones in various places in scripture. However, the key is the proper context of Matthew 16:18.
Here is how Baptist scholar Donald A. Carson explains it:
Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor's Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)
The point of this thread was too challenge the succession of authority within the Catholic Church.
My question is, why is that succession of authority denied as it relates to Church leadership, while that same succession of authority is believed, as it relates to the contents and finalization (by Bishops) of the Bible.
Also:
You claim that Christ never appointed a leader, or built an organized church, etc. --- however he never told anyone to write a single word, either. Why the inconsistency?
The point of this thread was too challenge the succession of authority within the Catholic Church.
My question is, why is that succession of authority denied as it relates to Church leadership, while that same succession of authority is believed, as it relates to the contents and finalization (by Bishops) of the Bible.
Also:
You claim that Christ never appointed a leader, or built an organized church, etc. --- however he never told anyone to write a single word, either. Why the inconsistency?
The point of this thread was too challenge the succession of authority within the Catholic Church.
My question is, why is that succession of authority denied as it relates to Church leadership, while that same succession of authority is believed, as it relates to the contents and finalization (by Bishops) of the Bible.
Also:
You claim that Christ never appointed a leader, or built an organized church, etc. --- however he never told anyone to write a single word, either. Why the inconsistency?
Gabe-
How can apostolic succession be denied when the Bible is so clear on this topic? The Bible contains clear indications that the Apostle Paul taught Apostolic Succession to his disciples and fellow workers, Timothy, Titus and Clement. Here are the relevant passages:
2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.
In the passage above, there are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach. Paul commanded Timothy to hand on the gospel to reliable men and further to ensure that those men would also hand on the gospel reliably.
Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.
In the passage above, we see that Paul was concerned with the appointing of capable leaders in the Cretan church. So in addition to his concern for the content of the message, he is concerned with the succession of the leadership, as well.
Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
Paul also cautions Timothy:
1 Timothy 5:22
Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands
So we see that the ordaining of Bishops is not something to be taken lightly or done spuriously. The mission of the teaching Church must be entrusted to reliable men through the laying on of hands – a ceremony which we now call “ordination”.
Jesus, God, the apostles and Peter individually are all referred to as rock or stones in various places in scripture. However, the key is the proper context of Matthew 16:18.
Here is how Baptist scholar Donald A. Carson explains it:
Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor's Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)
There is only one rock. There is only one God and Father. We are all referred to as lively stone, just like Peter.
As you come TO HIM the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. The guy you believe to be the first pope is saying this.
There is only one rock. There is only one God and Father. We are all referred to as lively stone, just like Peter.
As you come TO HIM the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. The guy you believe to be the first pope is saying this.
Dude, I have quotes from 25 Protestant scholars who say you're wrong.
This is what you want to believe because you are not a Catholic, but all the wishful thinking in the world can't change the facts of Greek grammar and the underlying Aramaic.
I understand you've been taught this all your life, but you've been lied to by people who had an agenda or misled by folks who were themselves badly misinformed.
Now, are there other verses that point to all the apostles or you and me as rocks or stones? You bet.
BUT NOT MATTHEW 16:18.
So, unless (and even if) you have a PhD. in Greek, give it up.
Jesus, the builder, promised to build His Church on Peter, the rock.
Dude, I have quotes from 25 Protestant scholars who say you're wrong.
This is what you want to believe because you are not a Catholic, but all the wishful thinking in the world can't change the facts of Greek grammar and the underlying Aramaic.
I understand you've been taught this all your life, but you've been lied to by people who had an agenda or misled by folks who were themselves badly misinformed.
Now, are there other verses that point to all the apostles or you and me as rocks or stones? You bet.
BUT NOT MATTHEW 16:18.
So, unless (and even if) you have a PhD. in Greek, give it up.
Jesus, the builder, promised to build His Church on Peter, the rock.
That is because the protestant hierarchy just like Rome cannot accept that light dawning out of the darkness of a man's being and revealing the Christ is possible. You can never control a person or enslave them when they have experienced this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
