What Did The Ante-nicene Fathers Believe About Bishops?

[Jason]

Well the purpose of the apostle was not just missionary work. The NT shows that Jesus sent out seventies to proselytize as well. What the apostles had that seventies or bishops or deacons, et al, didn't have was a special witness of Christ's literal resurrection.

So in that sense, I think the apostles are necessary as special witnesses of Christ's resurrection, even if their main function is not dust'n'sandal proselytizing door-to-door.

It seems to me that if the apostles had authority to "call and install" bishops over various congregations, then the apostles would have authority to preside over the bishops, though so far there is no explicit mention of this arrangement in the ANF (which isn't conclusive in and of itself).

Back to this post from earlier, I cracked open my copy of Oscar Cullmann's "The Early Church: Studies In Early Christian History & Theology" and found this:

“In early Christianity the word “apostle” is used in two senses: in the wider sense it denotes simply an eye-witness of the resurrection of Christ, in the narrower sense a member of the group of the Twelve who must bear witness not only to Christ risen but also to Christ incarnate on earth. Consequently every apostle is not able, as a direct eye-witness, to pass on information about all the facts. Paul himself cannot report, as an eye-witness, the events of the earthly life of Jesus. And yet he is an apostle since he can give direct eye-witness evidence of the risen Lord whom he has seen and hard on the road to Damascus. For the other events he must rely on the eye-witness testimony of the other apostles. . . . It can now be understood how, in virtue of a real sense of community created by the function of an apostle as witness to Christ, all tradition which in reality he has received by way of other apostles. Thus Paul can say that he has received ‘from the Lord’ a tradition which in reality he has received by way of other apostles. Transmission by the apostles is not effected by men, but by Christ the Lord himself who thereby imparts this revelation. . . . The apostle is essentially one who passes on what he has received by revelation.” (72-73)

What do you think of that? I thought it was interesting and pertinent to our discussion.

I also came across this in the same text:

"Does this favorable estimate of the apostolic paradosis justify the attribution of the same normative import to later ecclesiastical paradosis? The Catholic Church claims that it does; and this is because it identifies the authority of the post-apostolic Church which preserves, transmits and interprets the apostolic message with the authority of the apostles." (75)

A footnote to this states: "In this transmission and interpretation of the message, the Church enjoys a divine, infallible authority as did the apostles as recipients of revelation."

Thoughts?

[CrimsonKairos]

"The apostle is essentially one who passes on what he has received by revelation." (72-73)

I guess I don't view the apostles' as merely messengers, but also as regulators of the message.

In other words, the scriptures convey the Lord's words, just as the apostles back then could do. And yet I view the apostles as having a duty beyond merely reporting what they heard Jesus say and do. I see Christ as using them to continue to reveal Christ's continuing words and will for the congregations of believers worldwide. I see Christ using living apostles as the foundation upon which doctrine and practice is built, with Christ of course being the chief cornerstone that determines the measure and placement of the rest of the foundation.

A footnote to this states: "In this transmission and interpretation of the message, the Church enjoys a divine, infallible authority as did the apostles as recipients of revelation."

Again, to me this overly simplifies and reduces the apostolic office to that of a mere scribe or storyteller. I think the emphasis in the books you cite is on the apostolic words and eyewitness, which admittedly is important. But I think they ignore the keys of the kingdom that Christ bestowed on all twelve as recorded in the gospels. I don't think these keys of the kingdom were limited to teachings or witnesses. I believe the keys consisted of authority received from God to organize and order His kingdom on earth. In other words, issuing callings, correcting errors, organizing congregations, regulating the ordinances, etc...

In that sense I don't view the apostles as merely those who handed down what they heard Christ say or do. I view them as being Christ's hands and feet on earth, continuing to oversee the gospel work just as Christ did when he was physically on the earth.

That is why I think it is appropriate to say, "If you lack apostles, you lack the keys of the kingdom, and without the keys of the kingdom, you cannot perform ordinances with valid authority to the satisfaction of God and Christ."

I appreciate your comments though, Jason, because I've never looked at the equation from the point of view that the apostles were primarily conveyors of sacred tradition and that those who possess and hand down those same traditions can be seen as the apostolic successors. Interesting stuff.

[Jason]

I owe you a few responses yet CK, and promise I will get to them shortly. I'm a bit tired tonight, but have a few new things to bring to the table.

By the way, I don't think we have to accept each other's position on this, it is more than sufficient to understand each other's point of view as I see it. :)

[Jason]

Yeah, me. B) Seriously though, it just seemed to me that Peter was leading the meeting. Amid the disputing, he stands up and lays it out in Acts 15:7-11. In fact, in those verses, Peter refers to the revelation he received concerning it being okay to baptize Gentile converts and welcome them into the Churches. In the end, neither your position nor mine can be decisively proved with just the text of Acts 15.

In my copy of the Jerome Bible Commentary, it says that Peter and James won two debates, and that Paul was a leading advocate.

Yet history also tells us that it was James who was both the Bishop of Jerusalem, as well as being an Apostle.

Weren't Abraham and Melchizedek before the time of Moses? What do you mean by "pre-Mosaic?"

Yes, anything previous to Moses and his laws. Yet I still don't know what evidence you have that would suggest a "hierarchy" at this time, or that Abraham was anything other than a simple priest?

----

When I asked: "Why is a "central authority" really necessary?" you replied:

Because there will always be disputes among mortals about what the scriptures mean, and even what the words of living prophets mean. If God said, "Bishops, project your best intrepretations and ideas onto your local congregations, even if they differ from other Bishops' ideas," then quickly division, confusion and apostasy would result. It's just human nature.

...

But there's a more pragmatic and pressing need for a central authority. God's kingdom isn't a democracy, though it operates upon the principle of unanimous consent. God reveals who He has chosen as his leaders (or Kings, in the OT) and then requires us to sustain them. We don't "run for office" and seek votes like in a political democracy. Hence, there needs to be a central, presiding authority to speak and act for God in calling Bishops to replace old ones, etc...

Ok, but you seem to assume here that Bishops cannot be led by the Lord as well as Apostles? Is God limited to giving His unfailing guidance to only 15 men, instead of hundreds? Further, have you forgotten about the era of Judges before King Saul was put on the throne? God's kingdom was supposed to be a Democracy, remember?

If the NT congregations in Antioch, Smyrna, et al, were to be self-sufficient and accountable only to their Bishops, then how would they decide who the successive Bishops would be when the old ones died or could no longer serve? Without an external, central presiding leadership, it would devolve into local nominations and elections, not divine appointments from above. Does that make sense?

Sure, but the new Bishops were selected by surrounding Bishops in the Early Church. They were then approved by local congregations, and everyone moved on.

In case you aren't aware, the "central authority" on any questionable matter was a Synod. Groups of Bishops across a given region would meet together and ask for the Holy Ghost's guidance in prayer as they discussed the problems on a given matter. The outcome was voted on (just as in your church) and the Lord's will was revealed.

I suppose we differ on how big a "central authority" God can have for His Church?

Now I'm not sure where you're headed with the Patriarchal Priesthood comment. Care to expand on that?

I'm suggesting that the Patriarch Priesthood (which is not generally understood by LDS) was originally designed to place each Man at the head of his family, eliminating the need of the Church entirely, except as a tool to bring in new converts. (Or that it will be so in the Millenium.)

[Jason]

I guess I don't view the apostles' as merely messengers, but also as regulators of the message.

In other words, the scriptures convey the Lord's words, just as the apostles back then could do. And yet I view the apostles as having a duty beyond merely reporting what they heard Jesus say and do. I see Christ as using them to continue to reveal Christ's continuing words and will for the congregations of believers worldwide. I see Christ using living apostles as the foundation upon which doctrine and practice is built, with Christ of course being the chief cornerstone that determines the measure and placement of the rest of the foundation.

I believe the Bishops exercise the same function. The only distinction between an Apostle and a Bishop is that an Apostle was a disciple of Jesus in his earthly Mission, or is a Bishop who has seen a vision of Christ. The Keys and Authority of loosing and binding are the same.

Obviously, nobody will say a vision of Jesus alone grants one authority. It may make you an Apostle, but it does not make you a Bishop with the Keys of the Priesthood.

[CrimsonKairos]

Fair enough. Thanks for your point of view Jason.

[Jason]

Again CK, it's not about winning an argument, it's about showing you an alternative point of view that could be just as valid. I hope I've done that much.

[CrimsonKairos]

Absolutely. That's what I was thanking you for.

[Jason]

Absolutely. That's what I was thanking you for.

Cool. In the process of this discussion, I've learned quite a bit. So I appreciate it! Thanks.

[CrimsonKairos]

Likewise. B)