ABOUT BAPTISM

[epostle]

Your ignorance does not mean independent churches did not exist. The monarchical bishops that morphed into the Institutional Churches didn't come with New Testament teaching. In the NT pastor, elder, bishop are synonyms.

Scripture gives no evidence of churches independent from the Apostles and/or their successors. You have no names, and no location of any independent church. The theory doesn't hold water.

Elder, Pastor, and Bishop are synonyms in the NT.

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers [bishops], to feed [shepherd] the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28) (KJV 1900)

Acts 20:28 is about the office of bishop, it does not disprove different roles.

The standard Catholic apologetics argument from the Bible for apostolic succession is the selection of Matthias to succeed Judas (Acts 1:16-26). That includes taking note that the word for “office” in 1:20 is episkopos: the word for “bishop.” Thus, we have some sort of equation of apostles and bishops, which is necessary, for we believe that bishops are indeed the successors of (but not identical to) the apostles.

The argument stems from how the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:1-32; 16:4) is presented in Holy Scripture. It's been one of my favorite arguments against sola Scriptura (i.e., Scripture as the only infallible authority), and as a rationale for Catholic ecumenical councils, to note the high authority of the Jerusalem council, guided by the Holy Spirit Himself (15:28) to make a proclamation binding upon all the Christian faithful everywhere. We know that, since Scripture reports that it was “delivered” and received at Antioch (15:30-31) and in various cities in Asia Minor (16:4); hence, the analogy to ecumenical councils, which are much more than mere local authoritative proclamations.

...the Apostle Paul “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (16:4; RSV, as throughout). This is the very opposite of sola Scriptura modes of thought. The Jerusalem council doesn't even seem (from what we know) to have been primarily concerned with biblical arguments and justifications. But however the decision was arrived at, regarding abstaining “from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity” (15:28), and the non-necessity of circumcision (15:5), it was authoritative and binding. As such, it is a compelling biblical argument for an infallible Church and against sola Scriptura, which precisely denies this.

Now I will be using it as an argument for apostolic succession, too. Here is how it works: the Jerusalem council presents “apostles” and “elders” in conjunction six times:

Acts 15:2 . . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

Acts 15:4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, . . .

Acts 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.

Acts 15:22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, . . .

Acts 15:23. . . “The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili'cia, . . .

Acts 16:4 . . . they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.

“Elders” here is the Greek presbuteros, which referred to a leader of a local congregation, so that Protestants think of it primarily as a “pastor”, whereas Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglicans regard it as the equivalent of “priest.” In any event, all agree that it is a lower office in the scheme of things than an apostle: even arguably lower than a bishop (which is mentioned several times in the New Testament).

What is striking, then, is that the two offices in the Jerusalem council are presented as if there is little or no distinction between them, at least in terms of their practical authority. It's not an airtight argument, I concede. We could, for example, say that “bishops and the pope gathered together at the Second Vatican Council.” We know that the pope had a higher authority. It may be that apostles here had greater authority.

But we don't know that with certainty, from Bible passages that mention them. They seem to be presented as having in effect, “one man one vote.” They “consider” the issue “together” (15:6). It's the same for the “decisions which had been reached” (16:4).

Therefore, if such a momentous, binding decision was arrived at by apostles and elders, it sure seems to suggest what Catholics believe: that bishops are successors of the apostles. We already see the two offices working together in Jerusalem and making a joint decision. It's a concrete example of precisely what the Catholic Church claims about apostolic succession and the sublime authority conveyed therein. There are three additional sub-arguments that I submit for consideration:

1) The council, by joint authority of apostles and elders, sent off Judas and Silas as its messengers, even though they “were themselves prophets” (15:32). Prophets were the highest authorities in the old covenant (with direct messages from God), and here mere “elders” are commissioning them.

2) St. Paul himself is duty-bound to the council's decree (16:4), which was decided in part by mere elders. So this implies apostolic succession (and conciliarism), if elders can participate in such high authority that even apostles must obey it.

3) Paul previously “had no small dissension and debate” with the circumcision party (15:1-2), but was unable to resolve the conflict by his own profound apostolic authority. Instead, he had to go to the council, where apostles and elders decided the question. All he is reported as doing there is reporting about “signs and wonders” in his ministry (15:12). He's not the leader or even a key figure.
This is not what the Protestant “Paulinist” view would have predicted.

Apostolic Succession as Seen in the Jerusalem Council

 

[Dave L]

Scripture gives no evidence of churches independent from the Apostles and/or their successors. You have no names, and no location of any independent church. The theory doesn't hold water.

Acts 20:28 is about the office of bishop, it does not disprove different roles.

The standard Catholic apologetics argument from the Bible for apostolic succession is the selection of Matthias to succeed Judas (Acts 1:16-26). That includes taking note that the word for “office” in 1:20 is episkopos: the word for “bishop.” Thus, we have some sort of equation of apostles and bishops, which is necessary, for we believe that bishops are indeed the successors of (but not identical to) the apostles.

The argument stems from how the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:1-32; 16:4) is presented in Holy Scripture. It's been one of my favorite arguments against sola Scriptura (i.e., Scripture as the only infallible authority), and as a rationale for Catholic ecumenical councils, to note the high authority of the Jerusalem council, guided by the Holy Spirit Himself (15:28) to make a proclamation binding upon all the Christian faithful everywhere. We know that, since Scripture reports that it was “delivered” and received at Antioch (15:30-31) and in various cities in Asia Minor (16:4); hence, the analogy to ecumenical councils, which are much more than mere local authoritative proclamations.

...the Apostle Paul “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (16:4; RSV, as throughout). This is the very opposite of sola Scriptura modes of thought. The Jerusalem council doesn't even seem (from what we know) to have been primarily concerned with biblical arguments and justifications. But however the decision was arrived at, regarding abstaining “from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity” (15:28), and the non-necessity of circumcision (15:5), it was authoritative and binding. As such, it is a compelling biblical argument for an infallible Church and against sola Scriptura, which precisely denies this.

Now I will be using it as an argument for apostolic succession, too. Here is how it works: the Jerusalem council presents “apostles” and “elders” in conjunction six times:

Acts 15:2 . . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

Acts 15:4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, . . .

Acts 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.

Acts 15:22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, . . .

Acts 15:23. . . “The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili'cia, . . .

Acts 16:4 . . . they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.

“Elders” here is the Greek presbuteros, which referred to a leader of a local congregation, so that Protestants think of it primarily as a “pastor”, whereas Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglicans regard it as the equivalent of “priest.” In any event, all agree that it is a lower office in the scheme of things than an apostle: even arguably lower than a bishop (which is mentioned several times in the New Testament).

What is striking, then, is that the two offices in the Jerusalem council are presented as if there is little or no distinction between them, at least in terms of their practical authority. It's not an airtight argument, I concede. We could, for example, say that “bishops and the pope gathered together at the Second Vatican Council.” We know that the pope had a higher authority. It may be that apostles here had greater authority.

But we don't know that with certainty, from Bible passages that mention them. They seem to be presented as having in effect, “one man one vote.” They “consider” the issue “together” (15:6). It's the same for the “decisions which had been reached” (16:4).

Therefore, if such a momentous, binding decision was arrived at by apostles and elders, it sure seems to suggest what Catholics believe: that bishops are successors of the apostles. We already see the two offices working together in Jerusalem and making a joint decision. It's a concrete example of precisely what the Catholic Church claims about apostolic succession and the sublime authority conveyed therein. There are three additional sub-arguments that I submit for consideration:

1) The council, by joint authority of apostles and elders, sent off Judas and Silas as its messengers, even though they “were themselves prophets” (15:32). Prophets were the highest authorities in the old covenant (with direct messages from God), and here mere “elders” are commissioning them.

2) St. Paul himself is duty-bound to the council's decree (16:4), which was decided in part by mere elders. So this implies apostolic succession (and conciliarism), if elders can participate in such high authority that even apostles must obey it.

3) Paul previously “had no small dissension and debate” with the circumcision party (15:1-2), but was unable to resolve the conflict by his own profound apostolic authority. Instead, he had to go to the council, where apostles and elders decided the question. All he is reported as doing there is reporting about “signs and wonders” in his ministry (15:12). He's not the leader or even a key figure.
This is not what the Protestant “Paulinist” view would have predicted.

Apostolic Succession as Seen in the Jerusalem Council

The Apostleship did not continue. Their writings did. And all New Testament Churches were independent of each other. Elder, Pastor, and Bishop being synonyms. The Monarchical Bishops are not found in scripture. But deviate from the NT model for churches.

 

[Dave L]

WRONG - and I've already proven you wrong on this point.

Apparently, you are a glutton for punishment - so I will now give you an etymological spanking to go with the Scriptural spanking I gave you earlier . . .

priest | Origin and meaning of priest by Online Etymology Dictionary
priest (n.)
Old English preost, which probably was shortened from the older Germanic form represented by Old Saxon and Old High German prestar, Old Frisian prestere, all from Vulgar Latin prester "priest," from Late Latin presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Greek presbyteros.

bishop | Origin and meaning of bishop by Online Etymology Dictionary
bishop (n.)
Old English bisceop "bishop, high priest," from Late Latin episcopus, from Greek episkopos "watcher, (spiritual) overseer," a title for various government officials, later taken over in a Church sense, from epi- "over" (see epi-) + skopos "one that watches, one that looks after; a guardian, protector" (from PIE root *spek- "to observe").

Episkopos and Presbyteros are NOT synonyms, Einstein . . .

Scripture uses Elder, Pastor, and Bishop interchangeably. All names of the same local church person.

In the early Church the presbyters were all of the same rank. But it was natural that in each congregation one of the presbyters should take the lead. He would be president of the board of presbyters, and he would lead in worship and do the preaching. The presbyters were also called overseers. The Greek word for “overseer” is episcopos, from which we get our word “bishop.” The title of bishop was given to the presbyter who in course of time became the leader of the board of presbyters. So the other presbyters gradually became subordinate to the presbyter who was their overseer, or bishop, and the bishop came to rule the church alone. The Greek word for a man who rules alone is “monarch.” For that reason these bishops, who came to have all the authority in a church, were called monarchical bishops.

B. K. Kuiper. The Church in History.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Scripture uses Elder, Pastor, and Bishop interchangeably. All names of the same local church person.

In the early Church the presbyters were all of the same rank. But it was natural that in each congregation one of the presbyters should take the lead. He would be president of the board of presbyters, and he would lead in worship and do the preaching. The presbyters were also called overseers. The Greek word for “overseer” is episcopos, from which we get our word “bishop.” The title of bishop was given to the presbyter who in course of time became the leader of the board of presbyters. So the other presbyters gradually became subordinate to the presbyter who was their overseer, or bishop, and the bishop came to rule the church alone. The Greek word for a man who rules alone is “monarch.” For that reason these bishops, who came to have all the authority in a church, were called monarchical bishops.

B. K. Kuiper. The Church in History.

Nonsense.

I need you to prove this from SCRIPTURE - not a biased Protestant source.

 

[Dave L]

Nonsense.

I need you to prove this from SCRIPTURE - not a biased Protestant source.

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers [Bishops], to feed [pastor/shepherd] the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28) (KJV 1900)

 

[BreadOfLife]

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers [Bishops], to feed [pastor/shepherd] the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28) (KJV 1900)

Every time you respond, it is with more ignorance than your last post.

Episkopos means BISHOP
Presbyteros is where we get the word for PRIEST.
I have already proven this by showing you secular etymological evidence.

Now – ALL of this being said – you STILL fail to understand that EVERY Bishop (Episkopos) is a Priest (Presbyteros). Even the Pope is a priest.
NOT every Priest, however, is a Bishop.

If you are going to try to argue this point any further – I suggest you STOP and READ the information I have given you before you respond.

 

[Dave L]

Every time you respond, it is with more ignorance than your last post.

Episkopos means BISHOP
Presbyteros is where we get the word for PRIEST.
I have already proven this by showing you secular etymological evidence.

Now – ALL of this being said – you STILL fail to understand that EVERY Bishop (Episkopos) is a Priest (Presbyteros). Even the Pope is a priest.
NOT every Priest, however, is a Bishop.

If you are going to try to argue this point any further – I suggest you STOP and READ the information I have given you before you respond.

There were no monarchical bishops in the NT. They are pure fiction and man made positions.

 

[Enoch111]

Presbyteros is where we get the word for PRIEST.

That may be true for the Catholics and Orthodox, but presbuteros means "elder", and elders were NOT priests but shepherds (poimen = pastors) and overseers (episkopos = bishops) of the churches in the NT. At the same time all believers are within a Royal Priesthood, which tells us that the Catholic priests are an invention of man with the powers assigned to them by the RCC.

 

[marks]

Ephesians 4:4-6 KJV
4 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

And . . .

Romans 6:3-7
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

There is one baptism. We are baptized into Christ, into His death. Therefore our baptism which saves us, regenerating us, is being immersed not into water but into Christ.

The way I see it.

Much love!
mark

 

[BreadOfLife]

There were no monarchical bishops in the NT. They are pure fiction and man made positions.

Monarchial??

Episkopos and Presbyteros were two DIFFERENT positions within the hierarchy of the Church. That is just a fact that you refuse to accept. The Prebyteroi were in charge of the particular congregation and the Bishop was the overseer of multiple congregations.

This is the SAME as it is today.

 

[Dave L]

Monarchial??

Episkopos and Presbyteros were two DIFFERENT positions within the hierarchy of the Church. That is just a fact that you refuse to accept. The Prebyteroi were in charge of the particular congregation and the Bishop was the overseer of multiple congregations.

This is the SAME as it is today.

Scripture uses them as synonyms.

 

[BreadOfLife]

That may be true for the Catholics and Orthodox, but presbuteros means "elder", and elders were NOT priests but shepherds (poimen = pastors) and overseers (episkopos = bishops) of the churches in the NT. At the same time all believers are within a Royal Priesthood, which tells us that the Catholic priests are an invention of man with the powers assigned to them by the RCC.

WRONG.
Truth is TRUTH. There is no Catholic truth vs. Protestant truth . . .

EVERY SINGLE OT Type has an NT Fulfillment – without exception.

In the Old Testament, there were three levels of Priests:
1. Aaron, the High Priest
2. The Levitical/Ministerial Priesthood
3. The rest of the people were a general priesthood of believers.

In the New Testament, there are also three levels of Priests:
1. Jesus, our High Priest (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:22-25),
2. The Ministerial Priests (James 5:14-15)
3. The general priesthood of all Christians (1 Peter 2:5-9).

I have already presented irrefutable etymological proof that the Greek word “Presbyteros” is where the English word “Priest” comes from and “Episkopos” is where the English word for “Bishop” comes from.

Any argument against this linguistic fact is simply anti-Catholic sour grapes . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Scripture uses them as synonyms.

No it doesn't - and I've proven you wrong already.

A lie doesn't become true just because you keep repeating it, Einstein .
.

 

[Dave L]

No it doesn't - and I've proven you wrong already.

A lie doesn't become true just because you keep repeating it, Einstein .
.

Emotional outbreaks only show a lack of resources to prove your point.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Emotional outbreaks only show a lack of resources to prove your point.

Emotional outbreaks??

I have NO emotions invested in this discussion. However, I have given AMPLE resources for my argument – Biblical, historical, and secular resources at that. YOU have only given your opinions – and those of a biased Protestant writer.

You just can’t seem to admit when you’ve been defeated . . .

 

[Dave L]

Emotional outbreaks??

I have NO emotions invested in this discussion. However, I have given AMPLE resources for my argument – Biblical, historical, and secular resources at that. YOU have only given your opinions – and those of a biased Protestant writer.

You just can’t seem to admit when you’ve been defeated . . .

You have zero proof from scripture that elder, pastor, bishop, are different people.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You have zero proof from scripture that elder, pastor, bishop, are different people.

Let me ask YOU something: Can you show me where the Bible describes the process of HOW a person is baptized?

The answer is NO because the Bible is SILENT on the process. There is not one, single, solitary explanation in Scripture on HOW to baptize a person – whether it’s full immersion, pouring or sprinkling. We have learned the process from TRADITION – from the Early Church – to whom it was passed down by the Apostles. Documents like The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) (AD 50) describe the ritual in detail.

St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch was a 1st century Bishop (Episkopos) and student of the Apostle John. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, we read:
"You must all follow the BISHOP as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the PRESBYTERY as you would the Apostles. Reverence the DEACONS as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:1 [A.D. 110])."

Here, we see CLEARLY that the clergy was separated into THREE classes:
- Bishop
- Presbyter (Priest)
- Deacon

Not ONLY was this Letter written while the Apostle John was presumable still alive – the UNANIMOUS consensus of the Early Church Fathers agrees with this structure.

Now - the onus is on YOU to show me a contrary opinion from the Early Church . . .

 

[Dave L]

Let me ask YOU something: Can you show me where the Bible describes the process of HOW a person is baptized?

The answer is NO because the Bible is SILENT on the process. There is not one, single, solitary explanation in Scripture on HOW to baptize a person – whether it’s full immersion, pouring or sprinkling. We have learned the process from TRADITION – from the Early Church – to whom it was passed down by the Apostles. Documents like The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) (AD 50) describe the ritual in detail.

St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch was a 1st century Bishop (Episkopos) and student of the Apostle John. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, we read:
"You must all follow the BISHOP as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the PRESBYTERY as you would the Apostles. Reverence the DEACONS as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:1 [A.D. 110])."

Here, we see CLEARLY that the clergy was separated into THREE classes:
- Bishop
- Presbyter (Priest)
- Deacon

Not ONLY was this Letter written while the Apostle John was presumable still alive – the UNANIMOUS consensus of the Early Church Fathers agrees with this structure.

Now - the onus is on YOU to show me a contrary opinion from the Early Church . . .

Each Christian is a priest according to scripture. And Pastor, Elder, and Bishop are the same person.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Each Christian is a priest according to scripture. And Pastor, Elder, and Bishop are the same person.

And as I educated you and Enoch 111 back in post #72 - EVERY SINGLE OT Type has an NT Fulfillment – without exception.

In the Old Testament, there were three levels of Priests:
1. Aaron, the High Priest
2. The Levitical/Ministerial Priesthood
3. The rest of the people were a general priesthood of believers.

In the New Testament, there are also three levels of Priests:
1. Jesus, our High Priest (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:22-25),
2. The Ministerial Priests (James 5:14-15)
3. The general priesthood of all Christians (1 Peter 2:5-9).

We are a general priesthood - NOT a ministerial priesthood as James describes:
James 5:14-15
Is anyone among you sick? He should SUMMON THE PRESBYTERS of the church, and THEY should pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.

Consider yourself Scripturally-spanked again . . .

 

[Dave L]

And as I educated you and Enoch 111 back in post #72 - EVERY SINGLE OT Type has an NT Fulfillment – without exception.

In the Old Testament, there were three levels of Priests:
1. Aaron, the High Priest
2. The Levitical/Ministerial Priesthood
3. The rest of the people were a general priesthood of believers.

In the New Testament, there are also three levels of Priests:
1. Jesus, our High Priest (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:22-25),
2. The Ministerial Priests (James 5:14-15)
3. The general priesthood of all Christians (1 Peter 2:5-9).

We are a general priesthood - NOT a ministerial priesthood as James describes:
James 5:14-15
Is anyone among you sick? He should SUMMON THE PRESBYTERS of the church, and THEY should pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.

Consider yourself Scripturally-spanked again . . .

This is the work of your denominational lobotomy. You need to read scripture for yourself.