If I'm wrong about my MidActs position, it can't be said that I'm not taking the text literally on this subject. Jesus chose Twelve; He commissioned the Twelve; He gave authority to the Twelve. If I'm wrong on every other thing I believe, it can't possibly be said that I'm not taking this literally.
The relevant point is that you believe, against what evidence we have, that Jesus intended for the gifts he gave the Apostles to die out with them, and that that is what happened.
"Aye, I say that it is deeply entrenched in Catholicism because no non-Catholic would approach it the way you are approaching it, zippy."
Fair enough, but you must group at least the Lutherans, the Reformed, the Anglicans, the Mormons, most Evangelicals, and the Eastern Orthodox with the Catholics as well, because every one of them disagrees with you on whether Jesus intended the gifts to die with the Apostles. I'm guessing the MADists representing the view you are espousing make up a fraction of one percent of Christianity.
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee... Titus 1:5
Paul giving instructions to a disciple. Completely different than Jesus commissioning and giving authority to the Twelve for a specific purpose of preparing the nation for the coming judgment and kingdom.
You're just begging the question. We know from the text that Paul appointed others and commissioned them to ordain others. There is no reason to believe that it is not essentially the same as what Jesus did, an extension of the extendable orders which Jesus gave the Apostles (and was apparently given to Paul, who was not one of the 12...)
Already addressed this in my last post. There had to be 12 to fulfill the purpose and commission given to them over 12 tribes of Israel.
So there needed to be 12 for the 12 tribes even though the Gospel did not and could not have spread to all of the Jews in the lifetime of the original Apostles who you claim are the only Apostles. If they were to rule over the 12 tribes then they certainly required successors.
And even if that were granted, what about Paul? Do you believe he was given the power to bind and loose?
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. II Tim. 2:2
How is teaching others something the same thing as Jesus commissioning and giving authority to the Twelve? If that's the case, then we're all Catholic priests, because we've all been taught by others and committed things by faithful men.
Explained in the article that was referenced.
and in the writings of the Early Church (Ignatius, Irenaeus).
Writings which are not biblical, so not worthy of a place in this particular discussion.
Need we enter into the contradiction of
Sola Scriptura? You do realize the canon came into being through the Catholic Church...? The canon was established by the very Apostolic authority you are denying... :idunno:
With respect, zippy, you're reaching with all these points. Again, Jesus chose the Twelve for a specific purpose. The kingdom was to come soon, and they were to be judges in the kingdom. The kingdom was imminent. His entire earthly ministry was to prepare the nation for imminent judgment and the kingdom at-hand. There was no succession. The Twelve were to prepare, in Jesus' absence, the nation and then be their judges in that kingdom.
Did the judgment happen? :think: Where is the kingdom that they were preparing for? Which nation were they judges of?
But now we are just getting into MAD theology which wasn't my original intent, though it does seem to confirm my thought that your objections are essentially MAD objections. So feel free to give an overview of the answers, but know that I do not intend to enter into a long theological discussion here.
And the idea that Christ picked Apostles to head His Church but expected the church to die out once those Apostles died isn't feasible, and is not commonly held in non-MAD circles.
I don't understand this statement or where it came from.
You believe that it ends with the Apostles. Christ gave the church a head and visible authority and you believe all of that disappeared at their death. What happens to the church with no head or visible authority? (see Protestantism)
Any historian would tell you how crucial that Apostolic succession of Christianity was to the existence of Christianity today as well as the purity of the teachings.
Scripture trumps any historian. I can't really speak to this one too well.
I am referring mostly to the many power struggles in the early church that threatened to topple the religion completely.
The Protestants have what you claim the early Church had...
Which is what?
No head/authority.
, and they have broken into more than 30,000 denominations.
Yes. It's a shame.
Yes. But it's also common sense and human nature. :idunno:
We see nothing of the sort from the early Christians, for although there were always those who wanted to break off, the one thing that held the Church together was the fact that some could legitimately claim Apostolic authority.
Claiming something doesn't make it true. In Catholicism, it seems that the pope and his decrees trumps the scriptures. This topic is a great example.
Read the early Fathers and early Christian history :idunno:
I am. Thanks, zippy. Just my 2 cents.
Good to hear :e4e:
.
