Death over Life wrote:

Quote :

I guess I'm not following ther question. There is no biblical prohibition on bishops, including the Pope, marrying. I wou,d say the Church used her authority, which is develped in part through Scripture, to establish this policy very early on. In theory, that could perhaps change, but I'm confident never would. But the fact Peter had a wife would in no way in-and-of-itself compromie his role in the church, as the rule had not been established yet. To clarify, the fasct the Bible doesn't prohibit does not not mean the Church cannot make a rule--certainly Scripture nowhere states that Bishops MUST be allowed to marry.

graybeardheadbanger

Yes, but the point that I was trying to make, was that there are some that use the marriage issue to disprove the Papacy, and that the Scriptures left that open for each individual to decide. However, despite that being, we do see at times in Catholic history where it was forbidden, as opposed to being open for the individual to decide. At the same time though, Scriptures nowhere state that Bishops are NOT allowed to be married.

I wouldn't agree that the Scripture leaves it open for the individual to decided in an absolute sense. As we live in a democracies, which tend to be skeptical toward authority, it is easy for us to assume that silence on a subject automatically means something is up to the individual.
The fact that the possibiluity for bishops to marry is acknowledged in Scripture does not mean that the Church would err in deciding to use the authority it is granted in Scripture to establish a discipline (once again, different than fundamental theology) that bishops are to remain single. In other words, theological teachings must have basis in Scripture, but this does not mean that the Church cannot make disciplines which are not demanded by Scripture, but certainly not porhiobited by it either. In other words, Scripture nowhere says that bishops MUST be allowed to marry--it simply says that there is no absolute prohibtiion on it. And the Church agrees---there would be no contradiction in hte Church suddenly saying that bishops could marry, though this won't happen, for reasons I'll now explain.

To the point, their is both a Biblical and hisotrical precedent for regarding the Bishop as the representative of Christ. To touch on a later stATEMENT, AS is Christolic Suucession in the sense that Christ transfers his own authority, at least certain respects, to the bishops (loosing and binding, etc.) Ignatius of Antioch stresses this as well, among many others. Now, Christ was single. He never married (according to standard Christian tradition). We must remembver that in hte earlist stages, Christianity was being spread to people who had grown up in cultures prior to Christianity, so most men beyond a certain age would have been married. By default most of the leaders in the NT church would be married, because you'd want men above certain age to be leaders, and in htose societties, people would have been married by that point in life. It would be extremely rare for men well into their 30s and 40s, or older, to be unmarried. But th example of Christ himself indicates the significance of the single person who remains completely devoted to the Church. Paul himself seems to pick up on htis (some think Paul may actually have been married, and his wife left when he became a convert, but we do not know). So, for someone writing in Scriptural times, it would be expected that leaders would typically marry. But there is also reason to move toward the example of Christ Himself in later generations as Christian culture came into its own.

Quote :

This is no way factual or anything, and it is not an attack on anybody, but I honestly do believe the heavy anti-marriage views Catholicism did have on the Priesthood (I'm not saying there aren't married Priests, but I remembered marrying Priests were suppressed) is a big reason as to why so many pedophilia cases have sprouted in the church.

I personally reject the mainstream media's potrayal of these deeds as "pedophilia." I consider it oto be more "ephebophilia" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia). Very few of these offenses are to girls, and very few are to boys younger than, say, 10 or 12. The offending preists (which by the way, stil lrepresent a very small percentage of priests overall, and are roughly the same as the percentage of offenders found amoung public school teachers, boy scout volunteers, etc.) to an overwhelming majority favor boys just before, or right at, the time of the puberty. In short, these priests are gay men with a preference for males entering into adolescence. I personally suspect that this is a fairly comkon preference, or at least interest, among gay men, but the studies are still out on htis. The mainstream media refuses to cast this as a gay problem because it supports the legtimacy of the gay lifestyle, but eveyrone (virtually) opposes "pedophilia."

Having said all this, I only indirectly agree that the marriage issue is linked to the probkem of epheobophilia. (Bear in mind that the celibacy of priests and the celibacy of boshops are sepparate matters). Where I would agree is that the prohibition on marriage makes it more likley that men who are not interested in marryig anyway will be the ones to pursue the priesthood. Even among married men, one finds pedophiles, so this prolem would be comparable, but ephebophilia would definitely reduce, IMO. BUT, one would have new problems introduced--divorce, adultery (both by the priest, or by the priest'sspouse), rebellious and disbeleiving children (and notice Paul wtes that peopole with such problems should not be in leadership), AND a much heavier financial burden on congfregations to provide finanical support for entrie families. I guarantee you that the same peopl among Catholics who complan about unmarried priethood would largley be the same people who would complain about more expectation to provide money to hte Church to care for these families. Indeed, after a period of time, undoubtedly people who had forgotten what things were like in hte unmarried preisthood days would say "Boy, maybe we should reocnsider this married priesthood thing--a lot of problem woukld be avoided in priests were single." It's just humannature to focus on the problem at hand and jump at the first apparent solution, without considering new and different problems that solution owuld cause.


BTW, in saying all these things, I am in no way defending the Church prior negligence in handfling these cases (though those days are basically over--the RC has really started to crack down--of course, this only get s a fraction of the media attention). Buyt in the past, they were naive, lax, and at times downright corrupt, and can failry be blamed for such--though the whole picture should be mentioned, which unfortunately it seldom is.

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

To clarify, the fasct the Bible doesn't prohibit does not not mean the Church cannot make a rule--

Quote :

I will be honest and would like to challenge that statement actually. In fact, that is how this thread came to be. Why I challenge is because I really see that as the Church is trying to overthrow the God they claim to be worshipping and declaring themselves God. At the same time though, you could make that very same statement with the Bible and the Books contained in it.

Then again, that particular would cause us to go to another topic on Textual criticism and then again, the whole battle on who's beliefs are correct and what books should be in the Bible etc.

It was indeed some of the rules the Church made and theological standpoints that did cause the Protestant Reformation to come about by the way.[/quote]

I'll come back to this. graybeardheadbanger

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

I wouldn't agree that the Scripture leaves it open for the individual to decided in an absolute sense. As we live in a democracies, which tend to be skeptical toward authority, it is easy for us to assume that silence on a subject automatically means something is up to the individual.
The fact that the possibiluity for bishops to marry is acknowledged in Scripture does not mean that the Church would err in deciding to use the authority it is granted in Scripture to establish a discipline (once again, different than fundamental theology) that bishops are to remain single. In other words, theological teachings must have basis in Scripture, but this does not mean that the Church cannot make disciplines which are not demanded by Scripture, but certainly not porhiobited by it either. In other words, Scripture nowhere says that bishops MUST be allowed to marry--it simply says that there is no absolute prohibtiion on it. And the Church agrees---there would be no contradiction in hte Church suddenly saying that bishops could marry, though this won't happen, for reasons I'll now explain.

With that in mind, may I ask for the burden of proof? My proof resides in the teachings of Paul. As we mentioned earlier, Paul mainly recommended against marriage, but recommended it if one “burns with passion” instead of keeping with abstinence. He spoke of pure opinion here. In addition to what he has straight up said for marriage, which if I recall correctly, He never said a specific person or group could not get married, but there was a teaching that if somebody puts away their spouse, they shouldn’t RE-marry, but that is something different. Despite the re-marriage portion, with it’s specific views on marriage, it claims nobody doesn’t have the choice.

In addition to that, we also have his’ views in 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 where although food was the example, he was speaking pretty much everything on semantic and material things that have nothing to do with Salvation that hasn’t been covered. He even said “nothing of itself is unclean, except for that which the individual sees as unclean, to him it is unclean”. So, with what you are saying, deep down, is it Biblical, or is it the individual seeing something as unclean? With this also being said, I do disagree with a ton of the church’s teachings, hence why we are discussing.

Also, when you speak of Church, what do you mean by it? I ask because Church = a body of believers. With what is being said, the kind of view I am getting at (indirectly) is, because the Higher ups and the Majority of the Group agree with each other, all of a sudden, what they say goes and it’s law? Because Church is a body of believers, wouldn’t this become a doctrine of man, which I have seen the Bible condemn? That is what I’m getting at on the marriage issue, as opposed to what we described earlier (like AS for example).

I despise politics and will only speak negatively of it, so outside of this, I would like it for no more politics to come in. With much anthropology in mind, USA is NO democracy! It is simply slavery disguised as democracy. I owe people money simply because I’m alive, and I’m more valuable dead than alive to them. Because I don’t have money, I have no power, and because I can’t get a job (thanks to our lovely economy), I may end up on the streets eventually. The only reason I can even do anything right now is because I’m living with my parents. We are slaves to the $, China, and big businesses, and because of this, we are seeing a great uprise in gangs and in illegal activities to obtain money, which is in turn, hurting the economy even worse. So, with all this being said, atm, the only hope I really have to support myself is if Obama, with His’ genius ideals, goes through with His re-distribution of wealth ideals and does that. I’d greatly benefit from it, although it will be greatly upsetting to me that I didn’t earn it, but at least I could get food in my mouth. USA is no democracy. It is only slavery/socialism, and that is the Truth deep down.

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

To the point, their is both a Biblical and hisotrical precedent for regarding the Bishop as the representative of Christ. To touch on a later stATEMENT, AS is Christolic Suucession in the sense that Christ transfers his own authority, at least certain respects, to the bishops (loosing and binding, etc.) Ignatius of Antioch stresses this as well, among many others. Now, Christ was single. He never married (according to standard Christian tradition). We must remembver that in hte earlist stages, Christianity was being spread to people who had grown up in cultures prior to Christianity, so most men beyond a certain age would have been married. By default most of the leaders in the NT church would be married, because you'd want men above certain age to be leaders, and in htose societties, people would have been married by that point in life. It would be extremely rare for men well into their 30s and 40s, or older, to be unmarried. But th example of Christ himself indicates the significance of the single person who remains completely devoted to the Church. Paul himself seems to pick up on htis (some think Paul may actually have been married, and his wife left when he became a convert, but we do not know). So, for someone writing in Scriptural times, it would be expected that leaders would typically marry. But there is also reason to move toward the example of Christ Himself in later generations as Christian culture came into its own.

Then, this would go to something my one occultic friend mentioned as a part of why he wasn’t Christian and even against it. He spoke: “Why is it the married people telling others they need to be single?”, and this is simply adding fuel to the fire, as I didn’t see the majority of believers married in the old days. I remembered (although not Biblical) I read somewhere that the majority of early believers were either slaves or prostitutes.

Yes, Paul and Christ were single when they lived. With that being said, I go to another Pauline text. I remembered somewhere, he spoke that certain individuals were called to be married and certain individuals were called to be single. Now, this is True, but this doesn’t mean that man needed to create laws to show who THEY say should be single and who should be married. That law is up to God. For me, God wants me so far to be single, so I am. I know what you are saying, because I’m trying to become like Christ and Paul in that aspect of fully devoting myself to the Church. However, the occultic friend spoke of this again. He said that if you noticed who devotes themselves entirely to the church full-time with the Pastors etc. (exceptions being the obvious), you notice all these guys are all married, some or most even with kids!

So, I do grasp the overall message of the quote above, but I think that is actually hurting the case rather than helping it. Just my .02 on the quote.

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

I personally reject the mainstream media's potrayal of these deeds as "pedophilia." I consider it oto be more "ephebophilia" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia). Very few of these offenses are to girls, and very few are to boys younger than, say, 10 or 12. The offending preists (which by the way, stil lrepresent a very small percentage of priests overall, and are roughly the same as the percentage of offenders found amoung public school teachers, boy scout volunteers, etc.) to an overwhelming majority favor boys just before, or right at, the time of the puberty. In short, these priests are gay men with a preference for males entering into adolescence. I personally suspect that this is a fairly comkon preference, or at least interest, among gay men, but the studies are still out on htis. The mainstream media refuses to cast this as a gay problem because it supports the legtimacy of the gay lifestyle, but eveyrone (virtually) opposes "pedophilia."

New insights, so thank you for the clarifications! This does make sense, and does show it could be more so with homosexuality than with pedophilia.

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

Having said all this, I only indirectly agree that the marriage issue is linked to the probkem of epheobophilia. (Bear in mind that the celibacy of priests and the celibacy of boshops are sepparate matters). Where I would agree is that the prohibition on marriage makes it more likley that men who are not interested in marryig anyway will be the ones to pursue the priesthood. Even among married men, one finds pedophiles, so this prolem would be comparable, but ephebophilia would definitely reduce, IMO. BUT, one would have new problems introduced--divorce, adultery (both by the priest, or by the priest'sspouse), rebellious and disbeleiving children (and notice Paul wtes that peopole with such problems should not be in leadership), AND a much heavier financial burden on congfregations to provide finanical support for entrie families. I guarantee you that the same peopl among Catholics who complan about unmarried priethood would largley be the same people who would complain about more expectation to provide money to hte Church to care for these families. Indeed, after a period of time, undoubtedly people who had forgotten what things were like in hte unmarried preisthood days would say "Boy, maybe we should reocnsider this married priesthood thing--a lot of problem woukld be avoided in priests were single." It's just humannature to focus on the problem at hand and jump at the first apparent solution, without considering new and different problems that solution owuld cause.

Good points! It may be human nature, but at the same time, it gives the vibe that all of a sudden, allowing married priests would be blasphemy! I know that isn’t what you are saying, but if marriage priesthood would cause at least some cases to be prevented, why is the Church so rock hard on this priesthood with the marriage? You are correct, it would not and will never be the solution to end all problems (that’s the Father and Christ for that), but it is a solution, that I think should be taken. That also doesn’t mean stop at that by the way.

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

BTW, in saying all these things, I am in no way defending the Church prior negligence in handfling these cases (though those days are basically over--the RC has really started to crack down--of course, this only get s a fraction of the media attention). Buyt in the past, they were naive, lax, and at times downright corrupt, and can failry be blamed for such--though the whole picture should be mentioned, which unfortunately it seldom is.

Agreed. Yes they have really been cracking down lately. I still remembered some of the disturbing reads about the church’s past ignorance on the subject that still haunts me. I think it is a good thing that they are stopping this. I also remembered that many within the congregation were outraged at what was going on, and in addition to that, the shocking number of individuals who confessed that had this happened to as a kid/teen are also staggering. I think the one really shocking thing was, I forgot which, but it was an organization like the Knights of Columbus or Knights of something, but the news came out, that the founder of the organization was indeed one of the gay priests who targeted teens and children. I’m pretty sure those who know what I’m talking about know, since this was headlined in much of the internet’s news and I think it even made the papers to.

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

To clarify, the fasct the Bible doesn't prohibit does not not mean the Church cannot make a rule--

Quote :

I will be honest and would like to challenge that statement actually. In fact, that is how this thread came to be. Why I challenge is because I really see that as the Church is trying to overthrow the God they claim to be worshipping and declaring themselves God. At the same time though, you could make that very same statement with the Bible and the Books contained in it.

Then again, that particular would cause us to go to another topic on Textual criticism and then again, the whole battle on who's beliefs are correct and what books should be in the Bible etc.

It was indeed some of the rules the Church made and theological standpoints that did cause the Protestant Reformation to come about by the way.[/quote]

I'll come back to this. graybeardheadbanger [/quote]

And I will happily await for the reply!

Death over Life wrote:

With that in mind, may I ask for the burden of proof? My proof resides in the teachings of Paul. As we mentioned earlier, Paul mainly recommended against marriage, but recommended it if one “burns with passion” instead of keeping with abstinence. He spoke of pure opinion here. In addition to what he has straight up said for marriage, which if I recall correctly, He never said a specific person or group could not get married, but there was a teaching that if somebody puts away their spouse, they shouldn’t RE-marry, but that is something different. Despite the re-marriage portion, with it’s specific views on marriage, it claims nobody doesn’t have the choice.

Like I said previously, Catholic teaching does not take the celibacy of bishops (and most priests) to be a matter of doctrine. It is a matter of church discipline/ law. What your position amounts to then is saying that church's cannot form disciplines for particular members which disallow for what Scripture generaly allows for. My posiiton, of course, is that Scripture does not prohibit this. Certainly, it would be wrong to not allow ANYONE to marry given Paul's remarks, but no one is OBLIGATED to become a priest or bishop. Keep in mind that Paul is talking to EVERYONE in his letters, not just leaders, etc. (Also bear in mind that there were people in Paul's time who were falsely teaching that marriage was forbidden in principle, etc.)

In any case, Paul doesn't tell us one way or the other if the Church can form non-obligatory celibacy practices on people who volutarily take up these posiitons. You are making an argument from silence (since he doesn't specifically okay such policies, they must not be okay). But arguments from silence cut in both directions (he doesn't specifically disallow such policies, so they must be okay). But, what does seem clear to me is that the Apostles, and their successors, are given authority to lead the church. So, it seems to me that what is not explicitly ruled out in Scripture is acceptable if those in AS exercsise their Scriptural authority to form such rules for voluntary positions. Likewise, the church would have the authority to change these rules downb the road--doctrine cannot be changed (though it can be clarified, etc.), but canon law and the like can be.

In addition, the fact that Paul speaks of celibacy as preferable would if anything make it more likely in my mind that he would find it acceptable for the Church to establoish these policies for those who choose to asume leadership postions. And, as I mentioned before, the fact that he was writing primairly to those who converted to Christianity means his allowance for marriage has to be considered in light of the fact that most of those equipped for leadership would have already been married when they joined the Church. This reading is even more plausible if one considers the implied position that those leaders whose wives died were not to remarry (a presbyter is to have but one wife was taken to mean, period, not just at the same time). So, we can reasonably surmise that his preference for celibacy, coupled with his prohibition on hte remarriage of widowed leaders, makes it quite plausible that he would accept the church forming a
discipline of unmarried bishops and clergy, as these posiitons are not required to be taken by anyone.







In addition to that, we also have his’ views in 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 where although food was the

Quote :

example, he was speaking pretty much everything on semantic and material things that have nothing to do with Salvation that hasn’t been covered. He even said “nothing of itself is unclean, except for that which the individual sees as unclean, to him it is unclean”. So, with what you are saying, deep down, is it Biblical, or is it the individual seeing something as unclean? With this also being said, I do disagree with a ton of the church’s teachings, hence why we are discussing.

The church certainly doesn't see marriage as unclean--it is after all regarded as one of the seven sacraments, along with ordination. In fact, Christ compares human marriage to His marriage to the Chufrch, which is His bride. So certainly, marriage is seen as good. But, once again, the fact that Christ Himself did not marry makes it reasonable for those who represent Christ (as bishops are said to, and as Paul speaks of himself) to imitate him by not marrying, though I would agree that this is a matter of church discretion, and not fundamental doctrine.

Also, as Pope John Paul II and Benedict have noted, celibacy only has value if it is understood as voluntarily sacrificing a good. One is not credited for sacrificing something "unclean," as they are not supposed to have this to begin with. Hence, the good of celibacy is precisely based on the goodness of marriage (and the sexuality inherent to this), much as fasting is good because it invlves forgoing food, hwich is in itself a good.

Quote :

Also, when you speak of Church, what do you mean by it? I ask because Church = a body of believers. With what is being said, the kind of view I am getting at (indirectly) is, because the Higher ups and the Majority of the Group agree with each other, all of a sudden, what they say goes and it’s law? Because Church is a body of believers, wouldn’t this become a doctrine of man, which I have seen the Bible condemn? That is what I’m getting at on the marriage issue, as opposed to what we described earlier (like AS for example).

I despise politics and will only speak negatively of it, so outside of this, I would like it for no more politics to come in. With much anthropology in mind, USA is NO democracy! It is simply slavery disguised as democracy. I owe people money simply because I’m alive, and I’m more valuable dead than alive to them. Because I don’t have money, I have no power, and because I can’t get a job (thanks to our lovely economy), I may end up on the streets eventually. The only reason I can even do anything right now is because I’m living with my parents. We are slaves to the $, China, and big businesses, and because of this, we are seeing a great uprise in gangs and in illegal activities to obtain money, which is in turn, hurting the economy even worse. So, with all this being said, atm, the only hope I really have to support myself is if Obama, with His’ genius ideals, goes through with His re-distribution of wealth ideals and does that. I’d greatly benefit from it, although it will be greatly upsetting to me that I didn’t earn it, but at least I could get food in my mouth. USA is no democracy. It is only slavery/socialism, and that is the Truth deep down.

I'll try to come back to these points later, as well as the one below.


graybeardheadbanger

Alright. Before you do so, it seems our marriage views are only going in circles.

We do have Paul's clear cut views on marriage. We also have the Song of Solomon, so what I'm speaking of isn't necessarily a silent arguement. Marriage is spoken of. If the thing goes, we'll need to see the Scriptures to end our differing views.

Now, because we seem to constantly go back and forth, be aware that I am not speaking on people choosing to not be married and wanting to follow the path Christ did. I'm not speaking on the choosing at all.

I think you already know of what I am speaking about for the arguement. I think it will continue much better with the other stuff answered.

Quote :

Alright. Before you do so, it seems our marriage views are only going in circles.

We do have Paul's clear cut views on marriage. We also have the Song of Solomon, so what I'm speaking of isn't necessarily a silent arguement.

I'm notn sure if you want me to address thispoint or not, but I'll say a couple of thngs. I don't see Songs as having bearing on this...I'm not sayng that Scripture is silent regarding the good of marriage and marital sexuality. We both agree that it sees these as good, and as I said,Catholic and Orthodox consider marriage to be a sacrament, and marital sexual consummation as being a model of the Eucharist. The "silence" I was talking about regards whether or not Scripture permits the authority of the Church, under AS (which is recognized by Scripture, IMO) to establish rules for leaders which entail celibacy. This IS voluntary (per your comments below) because no one is obligated to become a bishop (or priest). You are assuming, I think, that if Scripture sees marriage as a choice, then the Church must allow it to be a choice for every position in the church. But this isn't clear--it only tells us that people cannot be obligated to remain sngle--it doesn't tell us whether people can CHOOSE to assume an office were singlehood is expected (though as a matter of diuscipline, not fundamental doctrine). Since people freely choose to pursue this path, their celibacy would also be a choice as well--much as police officers aren't forced to learn how to use guns--they choose to learn how to use them when they freely choose to become police officers. But since that was a choice, so is the expectation that they will use guns.

Beyond this, like I've said, I believe there is adequate, if not ample, evidence to infer that Paul would be okay with the Church establishing this rule as a matter of discipline, though not doctirne (that is, the Church would not be acting unbliblically if it did not have this requirement either).

Quote :

Marriage is spoken of. If the thing goes, we'll need to see the Scriptures to end our differing views.

Now, because we seem to constantly go back and forth, be aware that I am not speaking on people choosing to not be married and wanting to follow the path Christ did. I'm not speaking on the choosing at all.

I think you already know of what I am speaking about for the arguement. I think it will continue much better with the other stuff answered.

I'll try to get back ot the other points of the previous points I still have not addressed. I do hope my position on the silence of Scrip[ture re: the permissibility of the Church forming rules for marriage for pri8sts, etc. is a bit clearer. Once again, the key is whether "freedom to choose marriage" MUST (as oposed to "may", at the Church's discretion) carry over to all positions in the Church, or whether it has to only be a choice only in that no one can be required to have a positsion which the Church has decided precludes marriage (see police example above). If the posiiton does not have to be chosen, then one always has the power to choose marriage, since they do not have to choose that position.


graybeardheadbanger

I know that this thread has been silenced for a while, but I do wish to add something else to the table. I have found an article about this subject and Apolistic Succession and I'm interested in the views of others about it:

http://www.cogwriter.com/apostolicsuccession.htm

Death over Life wrote:

I know that this thread has been silenced for a while, but I do wish to add something else to the table. I have found an article about this subject and Apolistic Succession and I'm interested in the views of others about it:

http://www.cogwriter.com/apostolicsuccession.htm

I'm on vacation but will say a bit more when I return. I would point out that the source is from the Lviing Church of God, which has roots with the 7-Day movement. They hold to Sabbath-only worship, etc. If you read through most of it, beginning to end (though it's long), you'll see their argument about AS starting to amount to this: those with early AS (e.g. Polycarp) defended practicing Easter during Passover, and not on a Sunday. Polycarp defends this as what he learned from the Apostles; thus, AS is ultuimately determined not by a chain of laying on hands (the author points out various problems with these records for various bishop-lines, etc., particulary for Antioch--which is relevant because it is associated with John, and John with Polycarp), but with those who uphold the proper teaching of the Apostles. Since the proper teaching of the Apostles (according to Polycarp) is Passover ceelbration and not Easter Sunday, then only those Christians who follow
this practice have "true" AS. That's the gist. While most of the facts he cites are correct, his manner of connecting them and interpreting them is highly problematic, IMO. But what reads need to know is that he (the autyhor) is using this to push Sabbath-only worship, and Christian ceelbration of Passover rather than easter-Sunday. Thus, one can use this aprticular set of argumetns against AS as it is understood by Orthodox, Catholics, etc. if ione accepts this agenda, whuch I am guessing none here are likely to. But i will make some additional comments alter.

peacwe, graybeardheadbanger

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

Death over Life wrote:

I know that this thread has been silenced for a while, but I do wish to add something else to the table. I have found an article about this subject and Apolistic Succession and I'm interested in the views of others about it:

http://www.cogwriter.com/apostolicsuccession.htm

I'm on vacation but will say a bit more when I return. I would point out that the source is from the Lviing Church of God, which has roots with the 7-Day movement. They hold to Sabbath-only worship, etc. If you read through most of it, beginning to end (though it's long), you'll see their argument about AS starting to amount to this: those with early AS (e.g. Polycarp) defended practicing Easter during Passover, and not on a Sunday. Polycarp defends this as what he learned from the Apostles; thus, AS is ultuimately determined not by a chain of laying on hands (the author points out various problems with these records for various bishop-lines, etc., particulary for Antioch--which is relevant because it is associated with John, and John with Polycarp), but with those who uphold the proper teaching of the Apostles. Since the proper teaching of the Apostles (according to Polycarp) is Passover ceelbration and not Easter Sunday, then only those Christians who follow
this practice have "true" AS. That's the gist. While most of the facts he cites are correct, his manner of connecting them and interpreting them is highly problematic, IMO. But what reads need to know is that he (the autyhor) is using this to push Sabbath-only worship, and Christian ceelbration of Passover rather than easter-Sunday. Thus, one can use this aprticular set of argumetns against AS as it is understood by Orthodox, Catholics, etc. if ione accepts this agenda, whuch I am guessing none here are likely to. But i will make some additional comments alter.

peacwe, graybeardheadbanger

So that is where you have been. Hope you are enjoying/enjoyed your vacation!

When reading the article, I did know about the "Church of God", but didn't know the specific denomination. After reading and researching Living Church of God, it originated in 1998 I think it was. Either way, I do know what you are saying, and disagree with the LCoG's stance on the Sabbath.

What really got me in that article though, was the introduction and all the sources in the intro. Then, the part they spoke of in Galatians where John is the Successor as opposed to (don't know the 2nd Pope) struck me as interesting. I admit I did not read all of it, due to the beginning being what I mainly wanted to discuss. I should have pointed that out at 1st and I apologize for not doing so.

The article does show in a way why I should stay with Sola Scriptora whilst discussing instead of taking another person's word for it. So, at least for the article, let us destroy the Sabbath on the 7th day only garbage and just concentrate on the Beginning with the view of AS being of preaching the same doctrine and not necessarily of the laying of the hands, although that can be one form of AS.

Death over Life wrote:

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

Death over Life wrote:

I know that this thread has been silenced for a while, but I do wish to add something else to the table. I have found an article about this subject and Apolistic Succession and I'm interested in the views of others about it:

http://www.cogwriter.com/apostolicsuccession.htm

I'm on vacation but will say a bit more when I return. I would point out that the source is from the Lviing Church of God, which has roots with the 7-Day movement. They hold to Sabbath-only worship, etc. If you read through most of it, beginning to end (though it's long), you'll see their argument about AS starting to amount to this: those with early AS (e.g. Polycarp) defended practicing Easter during Passover, and not on a Sunday. Polycarp defends this as what he learned from the Apostles; thus, AS is ultuimately determined not by a chain of laying on hands (the author points out various problems with these records for various bishop-lines, etc., particulary for Antioch--which is relevant because it is associated with John, and John with Polycarp), but with those who uphold the proper teaching of the Apostles. Since the proper teaching of the Apostles (according to Polycarp) is Passover ceelbration and not Easter Sunday, then only those Christians who follow
this practice have "true" AS. That's the gist. While most of the facts he cites are correct, his manner of connecting them and interpreting them is highly problematic, IMO. But what reads need to know is that he (the autyhor) is using this to push Sabbath-only worship, and Christian ceelbration of Passover rather than easter-Sunday. Thus, one can use this aprticular set of argumetns against AS as it is understood by Orthodox, Catholics, etc. if ione accepts this agenda, whuch I am guessing none here are likely to. But i will make some additional comments alter.

peacwe, graybeardheadbanger

So that is where you have been. Hope you are enjoying/enjoyed your vacation!

When reading the article, I did know about the "Church of God", but didn't know the specific denomination. After reading and researching Living Church of God, it originated in 1998 I think it was. Either way, I do know what you are saying, and disagree with the LCoG's stance on the Sabbath.

What really got me in that article though, was the introduction and all the sources in the intro. Then, the part they spoke of in Galatians where John is the Successor as opposed to (don't know the 2nd Pope) struck me as interesting. I admit I did not read all of it, due to the beginning being what I mainly wanted to discuss. I should have pointed that out at 1st and I apologize for not doing so.

The article does show in a way why I should stay with Sola Scriptora whilst discussing instead of taking another person's word for it. So, at least for the article, let us destroy the Sabbath on the 7th day only garbage and just concentrate on the Beginning with the view of AS being of preaching the same doctrine and not necessarily of the laying of the hands, although that can be one form of AS.

One quick word before I begin---one should be aware that there are multiple groups called variations of "Church of God." The Living Church of God is an offshoot of another group who backed away from the Sabbath-only view after their founder died (Herbert Armstrong), and
this LCG beleived those teachings should be retained. But there are other totally unbrelated groups with similar names, such as the Church of God of Anderson (a holiness Wesleyan group), the Church of God prophecyt (I believe a pentecostal group), the Church of God Seventh Day (some similar views to LCG, but I don't believe they are connected, but I'm not sure), etc. etc.

In any case, sola Scriptura is another topic. I would just say that one who says "I should just listen to Scripture instead of taking another's word for it" must be able to explain why they should tajke their own word for something (let alone expect others to take it) rather than some other. After all, if the other cannot be trusted to get it right, why should one assume that he or she has it right either? Especially given the limited exegetical training most have, etc. And if one reliues upon the language studies of others, aren't they just taking those persons; word for it, etc.?

Really quickly, I believe the LCG blog (which woulkd aoso argue that its views are SS, but the way : ) ), is not questioning the second pope per se, but the second bishop of Antioch. The issue has to do with the fact that some lists give Evodius, and others do not. I've read a bit on this, but not enough to sort it all out. But basically, there are several historical sources laying out that list, and tyey doin't all include Evodius. My take on it is that this raises little problem for AS--the fact that we have different recrods of who held AS in a particular region doesn't undermine the basic idea. If we found some historical lists that linked Thomas Jefferson to the presidency and others which did not, would this undermine the teaching about the president? One might argue that it creates difficulteis for holding with confidence to an UNBROKEN line of succession, but I think that difficulty can be dealt with along similar grounds.

In any case, I would agree (sort of) that in the ealriest days, AS, while passed on from one teacher (or set of leaders) to the next, may not have always followed a particular pattern--the Church certainly developed precise ways of doinfg things later (i.e. laying on hands only, etc.) Nevertheless, we DO have Scriptural precedent for laying on of hands being associated with the Apostles, and apparently wiqth their passing on authority and foreseeing that these others will pass it on (e.g. Paul to Timothy, Paul to Titus, though laying on hands aren't m,entioned in Titus, etc.) But if the Church had authority ot pass on authority through the Apostles, I owuld certainly think this would include authroti yto make the layiong on of hands normative as a method.

graybeardheadbanger