If the varying sects of Christianity believe that the authority of the Apostles now reside in the Bishops, assuming this is correct (I'm not going to argue it one way or another), why do the schisms that exist within the Church exist at all? If Apostolic authority is truly handed down as you explain it to be, and this authority is sanctioned by God, shouldn't all the Bishops within Christianity be on the same page theologically? I mean, why aren't inroads being made to unify the Church when, instead, we see the exact opposite happening?
Why isn't there a shift within the Church to truly unify. It's great to talk about Apostolic authority existing within the office of the Bishop but what does that authority matter if we're talking about Protestant Bishops, Catholic Bishops, or Orthodox Bishops instead of one universal Bishop that all sects will recognize?
I didn't comment on the Catholic post, but it was pretty accurate as I learned it while getting my Bible degree from Wheaton College, a very evangelical college.
This post, too, is pretty accurate. (I don't have statistics on percentages of believers that are Protestant vs. Catholic vs. Orthodox vs. whatever, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn Dean is right about those, too.)
To come to the defense of Protestantism, I think that a lot of the anti-bishop stuff is a reaction to the specific bishops of past eras, many of whom were terrible, laying on of hands or not. Paul said "Follow me as I follow Christ", and many Protestants would say that their rejection of the old hierarchy was based on following those who actually had the blessing of God, and not those who had the blessing of some organization which had descended, in their view, into corruption.
Now, maybe some of those Protestants have thrown the baby out with the bath water. But, again, that's not a vice unique to Protestantism.
To come to the defense of Protestantism, I think that a lot of the anti-bishop stuff is a reaction to the specific bishops of past eras, many of whom were terrible, laying on of hands or not. Paul said "Follow me as I follow Christ", and many Protestants would say that their rejection of the old hierarchy was based on following those who actually had the blessing of God, and not those who had the blessing of some organization which had descended, in their view, into corruption.
You hit the nail on the head when it comes to my rejection of Apostolic Succession. Any vain organization can place their seal upon anyone. Because a seal is placed does not mean whatever is being sealed is worth a lick.
"Follow me as I follow Christ," seems to say to me there is a way of verifying that Paul is indeed righteously following Christ outside of Apostolic say-so. If there wasn't these words would be meaningless because we'd only have Paul's word for knowing how Christ conducted Himself.
So, the question is: If Apostolic Succession fails, what authority do we petition to know the ways of Christ? And if there isn't an outside authority to take our petitions to, how can we recognize when corruption enters into the Church?
You hit the nail on the head when it comes to my rejection of Apostolic Succession.
Perhaps I should say instead, my rejection is of how we're told to accept Apostolic Succession as presented by the Church today. The passing down of authority from one to another is Biblical. I don't reject that. I do reject that Archbishop So-And-So has Apostolic authority simply because some cabal of men say he does. I follow Christ, not Paul. And if Archbishop So-And-So doesn't line up with the Word of God he isn't a man to be listened to.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I find the various positions to be rather interesting in themselves, not to mention the interesting fact that many of these positions have analogous ones in various disputes within the Islamic tradition.
"These powers of Apostles were passed on to the Pope and Bishops. The Bishops, through the ordination of priests, transmit to others to a precise extent the power to consecrate; the power to teach and govern belongs to the Pope and Bishops.
Your questions are interesting, Kevin, and worth following up on. Especially because some of what you say is just in error; the Orthodox, the Catholic, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, and many others are still quite active in finding ways to get back together. Most of them recognize that they have far more in common with each other than what separates them, and in fact all of these old line churches are more in agreement with each other than they are with you "bible-only" Christians, who are in fact a radical and fairly modern minority, not just within Christendom as a whole but even amongst Protestants---and it's no insult to you to say so. You're part of why I'm writing this series and providing links. After I finish the article on the ecumenical councils and the Bible, perhaps some of your questions will be answered a bit more fully.
2.23.2008 3:03pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
If the varying sects of Christianity believe that the authority of the Apostles now reside in the Bishops, assuming this is correct (I'm not going to argue it one way or another), why do the schisms that exist within the Church exist at all? If Apostolic authority is truly handed down as you explain it to be, and this authority is sanctioned by God, shouldn't all the Bishops within Christianity be on the same page theologically? I mean, why aren't inroads being made to unify the Church when, instead, we see the exact opposite happening?
Why isn't there a shift within the Church to truly unify. It's great to talk about Apostolic authority existing within the office of the Bishop but what does that authority matter if we're talking about Protestant Bishops, Catholic Bishops, or Orthodox Bishops instead of one universal Bishop that all sects will recognize?
This post, too, is pretty accurate. (I don't have statistics on percentages of believers that are Protestant vs. Catholic vs. Orthodox vs. whatever, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn Dean is right about those, too.)
To come to the defense of Protestantism, I think that a lot of the anti-bishop stuff is a reaction to the specific bishops of past eras, many of whom were terrible, laying on of hands or not. Paul said "Follow me as I follow Christ", and many Protestants would say that their rejection of the old hierarchy was based on following those who actually had the blessing of God, and not those who had the blessing of some organization which had descended, in their view, into corruption.
Now, maybe some of those Protestants have thrown the baby out with the bath water. But, again, that's not a vice unique to Protestantism.
You hit the nail on the head when it comes to my rejection of Apostolic Succession. Any vain organization can place their seal upon anyone. Because a seal is placed does not mean whatever is being sealed is worth a lick.
"Follow me as I follow Christ," seems to say to me there is a way of verifying that Paul is indeed righteously following Christ outside of Apostolic say-so. If there wasn't these words would be meaningless because we'd only have Paul's word for knowing how Christ conducted Himself.
So, the question is: If Apostolic Succession fails, what authority do we petition to know the ways of Christ? And if there isn't an outside authority to take our petitions to, how can we recognize when corruption enters into the Church?
Perhaps I should say instead, my rejection is of how we're told to accept Apostolic Succession as presented by the Church today. The passing down of authority from one to another is Biblical. I don't reject that. I do reject that Archbishop So-And-So has Apostolic authority simply because some cabal of men say he does. I follow Christ, not Paul. And if Archbishop So-And-So doesn't line up with the Word of God he isn't a man to be listened to.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I find the various positions to be rather interesting in themselves, not to mention the interesting fact that many of these positions have analogous ones in various disputes within the Islamic tradition.
Bishop Pair
"The Bishop!"
(Note, "Special Effects by the Moderator of the Church of Scotland")
Even though Monty Python isn's exactly my deity either.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Pope Pius XII
I suppose Monty Python wouldn't agree.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.