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.
Now notice in my last few posts, I/we are talking about 'apostles', and not 'bishops'.
Clearly 'apostles' had duty to testify of what they had actually witnessed themselves;
bishops (like Timothy) on the other hand were not direct witnesses, but also dutied to teach.
Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).
In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
In 1 Timothy 3:1-7 Paul even outlines to Timothy qualifications for Bishops - a clear indication for expansion and succession.
So right there we see in scripture that teaching authority to continue down a line of bishops, in expansion and succession.
Now notice in my last few posts, I/we are talking about 'apostles', and not 'bishops'.
Clearly 'apostles' had duty to testify of what they had actually witnessed themselves;
bishops (like Timothy) on the other hand were not direct witnesses, but also dutied to teach.
Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).
In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
In 1 Timothy 3:1-7 Paul even outlines to Timothy qualifications for Bishops - a clear indication for expansion and succession.
So right there we see in scripture that teaching authority to continue down a line of bishops, in expansion and succession.
Thanks for clarifying. I guess we have been conflating "apostles" and "bishops".
Yeah, thinking about it now, I think one of the requirements was that any perspective 'apostle' had to have witnessed Jesus while alive
(Paul being a special exception having witnessed the Living Resurrected Christ, and confirmed/ratified by living apostles):
"21 Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,
22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.”" (acts 1)
so certainly the later/last apostles would have recognized that 'time's up for any new witness apostles',
John being the last to die (and an interesting related story: https://www.churchpop.com/2016/09/01...-apostle-died/ )
It would have made a lot of sense that in the earliest days of the Church, the apostles would have decided that they wanted to choose from someone who had a firsthand knowledge of Christ. I don't think God ever intended that that be a criteria, though, and obviously, it would have had to change over time. Here's how I see it:
In Ephesians 4:11-16, we read:
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. As I said earlier to EscaAlaMike, I believe that the same organization that existed anciently was to continue until all Christianity was united (see my first underlined phrase). And if this did not happen, the purity of Christ's doctrine would be perverted by cunning and crafty men (see my second underlined statement).
I have also pointed out that there was anciently a very clear distinction between the apostles and bishops (who were called to preside solely over individual congregations). You can't just ordain a bishop, change his title to Pope, and still maintain apostolic succession. Simply stated, you can't have apostolic succession without apostles.
(P.S. I love you Catholics. You're so easy to get along with. )
The person (apostle) or the office (position)? (ceases to exist)
If the 'person' ceases to exist (like Judas), scripture (NT) shows us (Acts 1:15-26) that Peter used scripture (OT) - "let another fill his office" (Psalm 109:8),
to answer that portion of the question once and for all. I think they prayed & threw dice or something to select between the candidates.
If the 'office'/position of leadership 'ceases to exist'; undefined? Thoughts?
Scripture (OT) and (NT) also already show us about the office of keyholder re: keys - ISA 22 & Mt 16.
I believe that if the "person" dies, his position as apostle must be filled, and that he must be ordained by the other apostles, as they alone have the authority to do so. If the "office/position" ceases to exist (e.g., if all the apostles die and are not replaced), then the foundation has crumbled, even if the cornerstone remains. But the only way that body can be re-established is by the one who established the body in the first place -- i.e., Jesus Christ.
I believe that if the "person" dies, his position as apostle must be filled, and that he must be ordained by the other apostles, as they alone have the authority to do so. If the office/position ceases to exist (e.g., if all the apostles die and are not replaced), then the foundation has crumbled, even if the cornerstone remains. But the only way that body can be re-established is by the one who established the body in the first place -- i.e., Jesus Christ.
This is the Catholic position as well. Only an Apostle or his successor (down the line in perpetuity) can ordain.
This is the Catholic position as well. Only an Apostle or his successor (down the line in perpetuity) can ordain.
But what apostles exist in Catholicism today? I think we agree as to the concept of authority being passed down, but where we disagree is who holds that authority. To me, the successor to an apostle would be another apostle. Period.
But what apostles exist in Catholicism today? I think we agree as to the concept of authority being passed down, but where we disagree is who holds that authority. To me, the successor to an apostle would be another apostle. Period.
I see what you mean. You're right, we wouldn't call today's bishops "apostles"; they are successors to the original apostles.
But what apostles exist in Catholicism today? I think we agree as to the concept of authority being passed down, but where we disagree is who holds that authority. To me, the successor to an apostle would be another apostle. Period.
I think Paul shows us in part right there: - “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2), together with 1 Timothy 3:1-7 makes clear on the teaching authority portion, as clearly those who Timothy would choose (following 1 Tim 3 instructions) would clearly have not been witnesses themselves.
Maybe catholics made a mistake 'calling' it apostolic succession, as the successors are only bishops and not Apostles, and even the pope is only 'the bishop of Rome' and not an 'Apostle'.
Though we are all called to be 'apostles of Christ'!
I see what you mean. You're right, we wouldn't call today's bishops "apostles"; they are successors to the original apostles.
But if they were successors to the apostles, they'd be apostles. If you succeed someone, you assume his role. You become what he was.
Quote:
What is the definition of an "apostle" for you?
I see an apostle as someone who testifies of Christ worldwide and who, along with eleven others, serves in a leadership position over the Church as a whole, maintaining the purity of doctrine and defining policies that may change as the needs of the Church change.
As far as how Apostles function within Mormonism today, we believe that they jointly hold the keys that are held individually by the Prophet (or President of the Church), whom we believe to hold the same position as Paul did in the original Church. The Apostles can only utilize these keys upon the death of the Prophet, and that is to confer those keys upon the individual who succeeds the recently deceased Prophet. The Prophet must be chosen from among the Twelve, which then leaves a vacancy in that body. Collectively, they are authorized to call and ordain someone to succeed the man who was ordained as Prophet. Thus, apostolic succession continues. Once they have chosen a replacement, the new Prophet is once again the only person on earth who hold all of the keys. Traditionally, the most senior (in years of apostolic service) Apostle becomes the new Prophet, but this is not a requirement. The twelve could theoretically choose another from within the group.
Last edited by Katzpur; 09-27-2021 at 04:34 PM..
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.
)
