Apostasy Of Authority - How Do We Demonstrate?

[Hamilton Porter]

The apostasy of truth is easy to show:

1. Trinity was deduced to reconcile the 3 gods of the NT with the one God of the OT, when now we know the notion that there was only one God in the OT (when it's clearly Elyon and Yahweh were clearly separate).

2. Creation ex nihilo not Biblical, cooked up to beat the gnostics.

3. Anthropomorphic God jettisoned by Origen to gain Platonic respectability.

But in regards to an apostasy of authority, Catholics have the names of the bishops succeeding the apostles. How do we show a break in the succession?

[Calm]

Do we need to? Can bishops replace apostles in church structure? Catholics need to not only demonstrate the accuracy of their succession line, but also need to justify the disappearance of apostles. Depending on how one feels about this point would, imo, be the major influence in deciding whether Catholics or Restorationists were correct about authority.

Don't Orthodox claim succession of authority as well? If so, we have to include them (and anyone else that has legitimate claims) in the discussion.

[LDSToronto]

Do we need to? Can bishops replace apostles in church structure? Catholics need to not only demonstrate the accuracy of their succession line, but also need to justify the disappearance of apostles. Depending on how one feels about this point would, imo, be the major influence in deciding whether Catholics or Restorationists were correct about authority.

Don't Orthodox claim succession of authority as well? If so, we have to include them (and anyone else that has legitimate claims) in the discussion.

A Catholic priest could produce a line of authority back to Jesus Christ as easily as a Mormon could.

H.

[Calm]

I agree. That's why I said "depending on how one feels about this point"....

[Log]

After I get back from work, I intend on posting the process of apostasy in its own thread, which, I hope, may contribute to this one, even if indirectly. I got inspired after getting banned out of that evolution reconciliation thread.

[3DOP]

The apostasy of truth is easy to show:

1. Trinity was deduced to reconcile the 3 gods of the NT with the one God of the OT, when now we know the notion that there was only one God in the OT (when it's clearly Elyon and Yahweh were clearly separate).

2. Creation ex nihilo not Biblical, cooked up to beat the gnostics.

3. Anthropomorphic God jettisoned by Origen to gain Platonic respectability.

But in regards to an apostasy of authority, Catholics have the names of the bishops succeeding the apostles. How do we show a break in the succession?

Hi Hamilton Porter,

There is no break in episcopal succession. Catholics believe that the bishops succeeded the Apostles by design.

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

---First Clement, 44

You have to take the position that Clement of Rome was wrong.

I am more troubled at the reasons you give for why there was what you call, an apostasy of truth. You express assumptions about why the early Christians proposed their beliefs. It appears you are saying that they deliberately departed from the truth, at one time for polemical reasons, and another out of human respect. It is one thing to disagree, it is another if you presume to judge the interior dispositions of people who might possibly have been convinced that they were speaking the truth passed down from the Apostles. Does it seem impossible to you that they were sincerely mistaken?

Edited April 24, 2012 by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

But in regards to an apostasy of authority, Catholics have the names of the bishops succeeding the apostles. How do we show a break in the succession?

Point out that the supremacy of Rome was a late invention.

[The Nehor]

A Catholic priest could produce a line of authority back to Jesus Christ as easily as a Mormon could.

H.

Uhhhhh....no. They can claim a papal line but if a Catholic priest could trace their line of authority surely they would.

[Spammer]

A Catholic priest can trace his line to the apostles through his bishop.

[LDSToronto]

Uhhhhh....no. They can claim a papal line but if a Catholic priest could trace their line of authority surely they would.

You are splitting hairs. The papal line traces right back to St. Peter (ergo, Christ). The Mormon line of authority relies on a supernatural jump (If I recall mine, the resurrected Peter, James & John ordain Joseph). Priests may not walk around with a piece of paper in their wallet, but they do trace their ordination through bishops, and thus, through popes.

H.

[Spammer]

The apostasy of truth is easy to show:

1. Trinity was deduced (by whom? names and dates, please) to reconcile the 3 gods of the NT with the one God of the OT, when now we know the notion that there was only one God in the OT (when it's clearly Elyon and Yahweh were clearly separate).

2. Creation ex nihilo not Biblical, cooked up (by whom? names and dates, please) to beat the gnostics.

3. Anthropomorphic God jettisoned by Origen (when? dates and references to document the act and its motivation, please) to gain Platonic respectability.

But in regards to an apostasy of authority, Catholics have the names of the bishops succeeding the apostles. How do we show a break in the succession?

Thank you.

[The Nehor]

You are splitting hairs. The papal line traces right back to St. Peter (ergo, Christ). The Mormon line of authority relies on a supernatural jump (If I recall mine, the resurrected Peter, James & John ordain Joseph). Priests may not walk around with a piece of paper in their wallet, but they do trace their ordination through bishops, and thus, through popes.

H.

Except that the concept of having a pope is a late invention and they also rely on a supernatural jump (Jesus giving divine authority to Peter). They are also very stretching the evidence in suggesting that Peter gave any kind of papal authority to Linus.

[The Nehor]

I am more troubled at the reasons you give for why there was what you call, an apostasy of truth. You express assumptions about why the early Christians proposed their beliefs. It appears you are saying that they deliberately departed from the truth, at one time for polemical reasons, and another out of human respect. It is one thing to disagree, it is another if you presume to judge the interior dispositions of people who might possibly have been convinced that they were speaking the truth passed down from the Apostles. Does it seem impossible to you that they were sincerely mistaken?

Someone can depart from the truth with sincere intentions. I think Augustine falls into this category for example. He didn't see himself as replacing revelation with with the pagan beliefs prominent in his schooling but that is exactly what he did. I really can't blame him. Revelation was gone. Something had to fill the vacuum and Neo-Platonic philosophy beats many of the alternatives. They did the best they could with what they had.

[Hamilton Porter]

Thank you.

1. Council of Nicaea 325 AD

2. There is no consensus when creation ex nihilo entered Judaism/Christianity/Islam anywhere from 100AD to Middle Ages.

3. Origen vs. Celsus debate.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen161.html

[Hamilton Porter]

Except that the concept of having a pope is a late invention and they also rely on a supernatural jump (Jesus giving divine authority to Peter). They are also very stretching the evidence in suggesting that Peter gave any kind of papal authority to Linus.

Can we demonstrate Peter didn't give any authority to Linus? I don't see why the Supremacy of Rome has to do with anything. The LDS Church was much more egalitarian ecclesiastically during its formidable years than it is today.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Hamilton Porter

[The Nehor]

Can we demonstrate Peter didn't give any authority to Linus? I don't see why the Supremacy of Rome has to do with anything. The LDS Church was much more egalitarian ecclesiastically during its formidable years than it is today.

No, we also can't prove that Peter didn't give Lord Xenu his authority and that that is the secret foundation of Scientology.

If Rome isn't supreme then there is no Pope; just a lot of bishops. The Catholic/Orthodox split occurred when the Roman bishop insisted he was in charge.

What years were we most formidable in? The Utah War?

[Hamilton Porter]

No, we also can't prove that Peter didn't give Lord Xenu his authority and that that is the secret foundation of Scientology.

If Rome isn't supreme then there is no Pope; just a lot of bishops. The Catholic/Orthodox split occurred when the Roman bishop insisted he was in charge.

What years were we most formidable in? The Utah War?

I'm not looking for proof, just a strong case that he didn't. Do you have any resources?

Michael Quinn said the LDS Church was originally a "priesthood of believers" without the hierarchy that exists today.

[The Nehor]

I'm not looking for proof, just a strong case that he didn't. Do you have any resources?

Michael Quinn said the LDS Church was originally a "priesthood of believers" without the hierarchy that exists today.

There is no strong case that he didn't just like there is no strong case that he did. Linus is a virtual unknown. So was his successor. They aren't even sure exactly how the succession went at a few point.

Michael Quinn is wrong. Joseph Smith was in charge. The hierarchy and the scriptures from the period make that very clear.

[Hamilton Porter]

There is no strong case that he didn't just like there is no strong case that he did. Linus is a virtual unknown. So was his successor. They aren't even sure exactly how the succession went at a few point.

Michael Quinn is wrong. Joseph Smith was in charge. The hierarchy and the scriptures from the period make that very clear.

Thanks but don't know about that last part. Bushman said the D&C "sowed the seeds" for a hierarchy, but functionally, the Church was very egalitarian, like all the other restoration movements.

[seriously honestly]

2. Creation ex nihilo not Biblical, cooked up to beat the gnostics.

May I ask why is this one such a threat to your faith?

[The Nehor]

Thanks but don't know about that last part. Bushman said the D&C "sowed the seeds" for a hierarchy, but functionally, the Church was very egalitarian, like all the other restoration movements.

I don't see it. Not in my reading of the history of the period or the writings of those who lived through it. A lot of Church leaders imagined they were equal in authority to Joseph. We refer to them as apostates.

[The Nehor]

May I ask why is this one such a threat to your faith?

Not a threat but I think it is incorrect and untruths in religious belief are dangerous even if they aren't overtly threatening.

[Hamilton Porter]

May I ask why is this one such a threat to your faith?

It's not a threat.

[seriously honestly]

Not a threat but I think it is incorrect and untruths in religious belief are dangerous even if they aren't overtly threatening.

You think it's incorrect based on...? I agree that untruths are dangerous (I disagree that this belief is one of them), but what is the danger in believing God has the ability to do such?

Edited April 24, 2012 by seriously honestly

[Hamilton Porter]

You think it's incorrect based on...? I agree that untruths are dangerous (I disagree that this belief is one of them), but what is the danger in believing God has the ability to do such?

I don't believe this belief is dangerous. But it is a major belief about the nature of God, and that it's a sign of deviation from the revealed witness.