A Part of Something Greater, Part III: Defending Nazarene Apostolic Succession

Introduction

This is part of an on-going series which began as a reflection on my own ordination to the order of Elder in the Church of the Nazarene, and quickly expanded into an articulation and defense of apostolic succession and the ordination of women, and why I think it is important for Evangelical Christians to understand their biblical basis, especially as ecclesiology often gets put on the back-burner in American Evangelicalism (1). Though many Evangelicals may contend that their affirmation of the central Christian beliefs and the expression of their individual faith is enough for obedient discipleship; I would argue this isn’t the case (2). While Jesus definitely came so that we may all be saved as individuals redeemed and restored to His Image; he also desired that we would all be one, as Jesus and the Father are one (3). It is this unity in Christ, exemplified by love for one another that would show the World that we are truly His disciples (4).

So, for the sake of unity, one of the ultimate goals of this series is to not only develop a reasonable and scripturally sound ecclesiology for Evangelicals, which includes apostolic succession and the ordination of women; but also to defend the legitimacy of that succession and our ordinations to other communions who make up the majority of the Christian Faith. These include the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East. Each of these groups affirms the doctrine of apostolic succession and its relevance to ordination and the legitimacy of sacraments, and each declares Protestant apostolic succession (and therefore our ordinations and sacraments) to be invalid.

Their contention that our apostolic succession is invalid is based on two arguments: 1) that we have left the orthodox faith as (variously) held by their individual communions, and so do not have apostolic authority; or 2) that our ordinations, as being traced through the Anglican Communion, are invalid since Anglican ordinations lost their apostolicity after their form and intent were changed during the Edwardian Reforms following the English Reformation (5). In the piece below, I will demonstrate that the Church of the Nazarene retains apostolic authority both in its orthodoxy (right teaching) and in the form and intent of its ordinations.

Orthodoxy in Apostolic Succession

As members of the Church of the Nazarene, we hold that everything necessary to our salvation is inerrantly contained within scripture (6). This includes the central doctrines of the faith, namely those expressed in the only creed universally agreed upon by bishops from the entire Church in ecumenical council, namely the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381. The early fathers, called the creeds “symbolum” as in “Symbolum Nicaenum” and “Symbolum Apostolicum” or “symbolon” in Greek. The original meaning of the term meant “watchword” or “badge of identification” and identified the bearer as belonging to a particular community, in this case orthodox Christianity (7). All those who affirm the Creed are orthodox Christians, those who don’t, aren’t. That the creed itself is the definition of the apostolic faith was affirmed by Canon 1 of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381 and in Canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus (8).

This means that, if one uses the Creed alone as the symbol (in the ancient sense of the word) of orthodoxy, then the vast majority of Trinitarian Christians are in fact orthodox in their belief. This would include most Protestants, the Proto-Protestant Churches, the Anglican Communion, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Ancient Church of the East. If orthodoxy is a condition for apostolicity, then each of those churches has it.

Now the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, and Oriental Orthodox Church would all disagree with the above statements, as they all hold Ecumenical Councils beyond the first two to be authoritative and necessary for true orthodoxy (9). But it is this effort to define orthodox doctrine beyond scripture and the central Creed of the Church which simultaneously ushered in the first schism of the Church, and caused the visible institutions of the various churches to lose their catholicity and unity, two of the four marks of the Great Pre-Schism Church. The Creed which was defined at Nicaea and clarified at Constantinople was again affirmed at the Council of Ephesus in Canon 7 (10). But while the Fathers of Ephesus sought to clarify the christological understanding of the Church, they anathematized a portion of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church despite the fact that it held to orthodox christology and to the Creed mentioned above. That their christology was in fact orthodox has since been confirmed by joint declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East (11).

This effectively created two visible institutions within the Church: the Great Church and the Churches of the East, which were not in full communion with each other but which were both fully orthodox and who both preserved apostolic succession. Because of this disunity, all subsequent councils lacked true ecumenical character, as a certain number of orthodox bishops in true apostolic succession were barred from participating, and their sees were ignored and invaded by bishops from the other communions, in contravention of Canon 16 of the Council of Nicaea (12). More schisms have followed among bodies who all hold to the Creed and who also preserve apostolic succession, but which lack catholicity and unity and so cannot unilaterally anathematize or formulate doctrine as a means of denying the legitimacy of the other denominations within the Church. No denomination in existence today has the authority to deny the orders, sacraments, or ministry of any other denomination which holds to the central creed of the Church and preserves apostolic succession.

The only guides for deciding orthodoxy remain scripture and the Canons of the first two Ecumenical Councils, including the Creed which they formulated. Subsequent Councils may indeed be helpful and espouse solid theology, but they are effectively local synods with jurisdiction over their own denominations only. I, for instance, affirm the theology expressed in the Canons of Ephesus and the Definition of Chalcedon. But I deny that their councils are truly ecumenical in the way the first two are.

This means that those who would argue the Church of the Nazarene lacks apostolicity because we are “unorthodox” are simply wrong. We still hold to the only Symbol of orthodoxy which the Ecumenical Councils have affirmed, and as long as we preserve the apostolic succession with which we’ve been entrusted, no other denomination has the right or jurisdiction to take that away from us. And as long as the ancient schisms continue to mar the unity of the Churches, this will not change.

The Form and Intent Behind Ordination

Having addressed the first common argument against our apostolic succession from orthodoxy, we now move to the second: namely that our ordinations lack the form and intent present within the ordinations of the apostolic churches. This is an argument most often advanced by Catholics, who point to a papal bull issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1896 which declared that the Edwardine rite instituted by the Church of England “completely null and void,” as they supposedly changed the form of the ordination sufficiently to communicate an intent that was different from that which the apostles intended (13). Since the Church of the Nazarene traces its superintendents back through the Church of England, they contend that our apostolic succession was invalidated at the institution of the Edwardian reforms in 1552, when explicit reference to the Eucharist as a sacrifice and to the priesthood as a sacrificing priesthood was omitted (14). This meant that those ordained according to the Catholic rite prior to the Edwardian reforms, but after the schism in 1534, were still validly (though illicitly) ordained.

That schism does not ipso facto invalidate orders is supported by Canon 8 of the Council of Nicaea which made provision for the reception of Novatians who returned to full communion with the Church, and which recognized the ordinations which they performed while in schism (15). The papal bull referenced above recognizes this, and so affirmed that the bishops who separated from the Catholic Church with the Church of England remained bishops with the authority to ordain, even though they were in a state of schism.

The contention that the Edwardian rite changed the form as a reflection of the intention of Thomas Cranmer and others to deny the sacrificial role of the priest or the nature of the Eucharist as a sacrifice is possible, but is not conferred by the words themselves, as they do not expressly deny the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. Rather, the omission simply serves to allow for freedom of conscience when interpreting scripture with reference to the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, while still affirming its sacramental character as a means of grace. That the Eucharist is a sacrament and means of grace in which Christ is really present is still affirmed in the words of ordination and the doctrines of the Church of the Nazarene today (16).

That the intention of Nazarene ordination is to give the ordained Elder the full apostolic authority to administer the sacraments and lead the Church is evident in the words which were used at my ordination (17) and in the doctrine we hold regarding scripture, that it contains “all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith,” (18). This means the primary intention of ordination (whether Nazarene or by one of our Methodist or Anglican predecessors) is and has always been to transmit the fullness of apostolic authority and all it entails.

If scripture supports the contention that the Eucharist is a sacrifice (or more accurately is the participation of the Church in the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross), then the fullness of the Eucharist is inferred by our ordination. If scripture does not support the contention, then it is not and need not be inferred in the ordination. The form and intention behind the rite of ordination used in the Church allows for both interpretations inclusively as the Eucharist is positively defined as a means of grace by which Christ is truly present and does not negatively preclude a sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist or the priesthood (whether ministerial or corporate). And since the form communicates the intention of both the ordaining authority and the recipient of ordination to transmit full apostolic authority, that authority is exactly what is transmitted, since we know we can trace our apostolic succession back to the apostles themselves (19).

That the papal bull of Leo XIII is not as definite as it may initially seem for Roman Catholics is evident by the fact that the eight member commission tasked by Leo XIII to investigate the validity of Anglican Orders was split evenly, 4-to-4 on the question of whether or not Anglican orders were valid, and subsequent investigation by the US Council of Catholic Bishops suggests that a re-appraisal by the Catholic Church of Anglican orders is necessary, given a better knowledge of the tumultuous events and theological positions of the English and Roman bishops during the 16th century (20). In the same document, the USCCB cites the encyclical Sæpius Officio, a letter written by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to all the bishops of Christendom. This encyclical both affirmed the Anglican teaching of the Eucharistic sacrifice and pointed out that the precise terms required by Leo XIII were missing from the earliest Roman ordinals which had been used to consecrate bishops and ordain priests which the Catholic Church naturally considered valid, as they were instrumental to the Catholic Church’s own claim to apostolic succession (21). That the Anglican understanding of the Eucharist includes both a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving on the part of the recipient, and the joining of the recipient to Christ in His one sacrifice on the Cross on our behalf, as well as the reality that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, are all affirmed by both the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion (22). It goes to follow then, that Methodists and Nazarenes, as heirs of Anglican sacramental theology, affirm this understanding as well.

Conclusion

All of the above evidence demonstrates that the declaration of Anglican orders (and therefore Nazarene orders) as null and void by Pope Leo XIII is likely mistaken in both its estimation of the intent behind the Edwardian reforms and in the forms required for ordination. The deep irony of this is that the standard by which the Pope would require the Anglican Communion to conform would invalidate his very own ordination! Additionally, given the state of schism between multiple denominations in which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church exists; no single denomination, or pope, or even council has the authority contend the orders of other communions are valid or invalid, beyond what was already decided by scripture and the first two ecumenical councils which were decided when the visible institution of the Church still retained the fullness of the first two marks of the Church: Unity and Catholicity. Until the Church repairs its schisms and decides by Ecumenical Council otherwise, the apostolic succession (and therefore the orders, sacraments, and ministry) of the Church of the Nazarene remains valid, intact, and equal to that of any other Church.

Sources

(1) Hyde, Ian. “A Part of Something Greater, Part I: Apostolic Succession” Written Jun. 21, 2018. (Link); and Hyde, Ian. “A Part of Something Greater, Part II: Women’s Ordination.” Written Oct. 22, 2018 (Link).
(2) Though I fully affirm the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide, which says it is by grace through faith, and not works, that we are saved (Eph. 2:8-9); what I am talking about here is the obedient Christian walk, which requires community. Though faith saves, if a person refuses to walk with other believers as Christ commands, then do they really have faith in Him?

(3) Jn. 17:21.

(4) Jn. 13:35.

(5) Smith, S. “Anglican Orders.” In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. Web. Retrieved November 15, 2018.

(6) Para. 4. Manual, 2017-2021. Church of the Nazarene. Web. Retrieved Nov. 16, 2018.

(7) σύμβολον , τό. Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.

(8) “The Canons of the Council of Constantinople (381),” and “The Canons of the Council of Ephesus (431),” at Early Church Texts. Web. Retrieved Nov. 16, 2018.

(9) The Oriental Orthodox Church affirms the first three ecumenical councils. The Eastern Orthodox Church the first seven, and the Catholic Church claims twenty-one ecumenical councils through the ages.

(10) “The Canons of the Council of Ephesus (431),” at Early Church Texts. Web. Retrieved Nov. 16, 2018.

(11) Pope John Paul II and Mar Dinkha IV. “Common Christological Declaration Between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.” Signed Nov. 11, 1994. Vatican Website. Retrieved Nov. 16, 2018.

(12) “The Canons of the Council of Nicaea (325),” at Early Church Texts. Web. Retrieved Nov. 16, 2018.

(13) Pope Leo XIII. “Apostolicae Curae.” Written Sep. 13, 1896. On EWTN Website. Retrieved Nov. 16, 2018.

(14) United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “Anglican Orders: A Report on the Evolving Context for their Evaluation in the Roman Catholic Church.” Web. Retrieved Nov. 16, 2018.

(15) “The Canons of the Council of Nicaea (325).

(16) cf. Hyde, “A Part of Something Greater, Part I”, as well as COTN Manual, Para. 13, 515.4, 700.
(17) Ibid.

(18) Para. 4. Manual, 2017-2021. COTN. Web. Retrieved Nov. 16, 2018.

(19) For a full list of all the names in my line of apostolic succession, see Hyde, “A Part of Something Greater, Part I.”

(20) USCCB. “Anglican Orders: A Report.”

(21) Ibid.
(22) (22) Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue in the United States. “Five Affirmations of the Eucharist as Sacrifice.” Published Jan. 06, 1994. Web.

*Edited to clarify first paragraph and correct footnotes.

#Apostles #Ordination #ApostolicSuccession #Nazarene #ChurchOfTheNazarene #Catholic #Orthodox #Anglican

A Part of Something Greater, Part I: Apostolic Succession

This post lays out the reasons I pursued ordination in the Church of the Nazarene as well as a brief foray into some of the more controversial subjects associated with ordination, such as apostolic succession and the ordination of women. It’s my hope that this post provides a bit of a corrective to the all-too-often underdeveloped ecclesiology of many Evangelicals. At the end, I also included my lineage of apostolic succession traced all the way back to Jesus. Enjoy!

This past weekend I loaded my family into the minivan and we made the three hour drive up to Denver, where I was ordained an elder in the Church of the Nazarene. During the long drive, I had time to reflect on just what all this meant, and how I had come to the place where I would soon be formally consecrated to a lifetime of service. If you had asked me in High School or even in College if I was going to be a pastor, I probably would have laughed at the idea. But God has the habit of making funny ideas stick, and as I was drawn more and more into ministry, I eventually experienced the call to full-time pastoral ministry while deployed with the Army to Afghanistan in 2013.

During this time, I also reflected on what ordination really means. In our individualistically American flavor of the Evangelical faith, community often takes a back seat and authority figures are mistrusted. After all, one of the central foundational beliefs of the Protestant Reformation was the affirmation of the priesthood of all believers (1); and with it, the belief that the Holy Spirit enables Christ followers everywhere, whether lay or ordained, to study and interpret scripture for themselves. Unfortunately for many, the individual becomes the highest authority for scriptural interpretation, with no regard for historical, cultural, or textual context or how the text was received through the tradition of the Church. Add to this juicy narratives of corrupt clergy in popular culture and it’s a wonder anyone would seek ordination at all.

The “Why?” of Ordination

So why do we need ordained elders and deacons? Well, frankly because it is biblical. Not only is communal fellowship, worship, and support extolled repeatedly in scripture as necessary to the Christian walk (2) with Paul even calling it “the law of Christ” in Gal. 6:2; but the two-fold ordination system is itself prefigured in the designation of Jesus’ closest twelve followers as Apostles (3), and his extended seventy-two followers who are likewise “sent" and  who, along with the twelve, prefigure the spread of His Gospel, first to Israel and then to the whole World (4).

Those who are “sent” in this way find their model in the Apostle Paul himself, who is called by God and whose call is then confirmed through the work of the Holy Spirit in community (5). It is clear in Paul’s treatise on the uniquely different roles of members in Christ’s body, that not all are called in this way (6) but all are called to be ministers of the Gospel in their own unique way. For those called to be sent out as leaders in the Christian community, their call is to be recognized and initiated by the apostolic laying on of hands (7) an act which is itself understood to be a means of grace by which the recipient is enabled by the Holy Spirit to minister with special authority in the Church (8).

That this ordination initially consisted of a dual system (of presbyter-bishops and deacons) rather than a tripartite one (of deacons, presbyters, and bishops) is evident in Titus 1:5-8 and 1 Pet. 5:1-2, where both presbyteros (translated “elder” and transliterated “priest”) and episkopos (translated “overseer” or “superintendent” and transliterated “bishop”) are used interchangeably to refer to leaders of congregations. This is further confirmed by the fact that a council of elders ordained Timothy in 1 Tim. 4:14, rather than explicitly bishops. Additionally, in Phi. 1:1 overseers and deacons are greeted, but not elders, presumably because elders are the same as overseers. Finally, the qualifications for overseers and deacons outlined in 1 Tim. 3 clearly envision a system of dual ordination rather than tripartite ordination.

The Sacred Responsibility of Ordination

The sacred responsibility associated with the authority received through laying on hands is grave enough to warrant detailed instructions on the required character of those to be ordained (9), as well as a warning that the one ordaining another shares responsibility for their actions (10). This authority has been passed on through the laying on of hands from the original apostles to every elder-overseer since as a confirmation of the special calling by the Holy Spirit to certain women and men throughout the ages.

That’s right, I said women. That the call to the orders of elder and deacon are open to women as well as men is evidenced by Paul’s recognition of Junia as an apostle in Rom. 16:7, Phoebe as a deacon and Paul’s emissary to Rome in v. 1 of the same chapter, and the New Testament’s repeated references to the missionary team Priscilla and Aquila who also led a house church, where Prisca is often listed first in precedence (11). Jesus regularly pushed the cultural gender barriers of his time, and women formed an integral part of his ministry. The argument that Jesus had twelve male apostles (to the exclusion of women) ignores the limited scope of his ministry which was initially restricted only to Jews as well (12). But just as the Gospel message was opened to the Gentiles in the apostolic era, an act which was prefigured multiple times in Jesus’ ministry; so also was it opened to women. After all, the division between Jew and Gentile at the time was at least as large as that between men and women, and yet the Gospel message was to transcend all these divisions.

The argument that 1 Cor. 14:33-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-14 explicitly prohibit women from speaking in churches (13) ignores the great redefining statement of human relationships in Gal. 3:28 (ESV) that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female.” Additionally, the placement of the emphatic challenge in v. 36 of the 1 Cor. passage suggests that Paul may have been quoting (and correcting) a popular slogan among the Corinthians, as he does later in the same letter (14). As for the passage in 1 Tim., it may be that the writer is referring only to the churches over which Timothy is to take charge, as a concession to cultural expectation. From context, it is evident that Timothy was not being charged to lead the Church Universal, but rather was tasked with the leadership of a particular grouping of churches (likely around Ephesus, where tradition holds he was later martyred), and so it would make sense that instructions to him be contextualized as well (15). The fact that his reasoning includes the fallen submissive state of Eve seems to contradict the understanding set forth in Galatians and elsewhere that in Christ, the curse which afflicted human relationships with inequality is lifted. Finally, it is worth noting that the very Incarnate Word of God was brought into the World by a woman (16), and that it was women who first preached the risen Christ to the apostles (17). If the Apostles themselves received the Word from women, then who can say that women are unable to preach the Word today?

The Safeguard of Apostolic Succession

The term “apostolic succession” is one which most Protestants probably aren’t at all familiar with, even though it governs the theology of ordination for 72% of all Trinitarian Christians (18)(19). This means that almost ¾ of all Christians believe that it is essential that an ordained minister can trace their lineage back to the original apostles through the laying on of hands by bishops (or, as I argued above, elder-bishops) throughout the ages. It’s such a big deal for the majority of Christians, that one of the common arguments against churches with Congregational or Presbyterian polities (which includes the vast majority of Reformed, Baptist, Pentecostal and Non-Denominational congregations) is that they don’t have apostolic succession, and so their clergy have no authority. This objection to the authority of a significant number of Protestant elders (and the legitimacy of their preaching and sacraments) is a major stumbling block to Christian unity.

For some, this might not be a big deal. But I, like the vast majority of Christians, including the Church of the Nazarene, affirm the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed’s statement that there is only “One, Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Church” (20)(21). And I take seriously Jesus’ prayer in John 17:21 (ESV) that we “may all be one” just as Jesus and the Father are one (22). This means that there is only one Church and it must be Apostolic.

Many of the communions with an episcopal polity believe that their distinct communion is the only true Church. Other churches with valid apostolic succession, and therefore valid sacraments, are defined as “particular churches” by the Roman Catholic Church, while those without are defined as “ecclesial communities. They generally understand catholicity (universal character) and oneness to refer to practical polity as well as spiritual reality; and apostolicity as being defined by both a valid line of succession from apostles to bishops, and through them to priests and deacons, as well as orthodox belief (23).

However, since I believe there are only two orders of ordination (that of elder-bishop and deacon) as affirmed by the New Testament and by John Wesley (24)(25), with the order of bishop being a later development which essentially delegated the tasks of bishops to those who had already been ordained into the order of elder-bishop; that means that I also believe any elder can lay hands on another and ordain them (as long as they also maintain the stream of orthodox belief as affirmed by the scriptures and early creeds). For the sake of order, if a church has bishops, then its elders should refrain from ordaining; but if necessity arises, I believe any elder has the apostolic authority to ordain. I also believe that ordination within the Church of the Nazarene does not simply mean I am ordained into the Nazarene denomination, but that I am ordained through the Nazarene denomination into the Church Universal (26).

Essentially, I believe most ordinations within Trinitarian churches have valid apostolic succession, even if many in those churches don’t fully understand what that means. This paves the way for better inter-church relations between denominations. Though I don’t think it necessary for all churches to merge into one polity, I do think it is essential to the biblical mandate to Christian unity that we at least recognize the legitimacy of other orthodox denominations’ ordinations, sacraments, and right to exist. And to that end, a mutual understanding of apostolic succession among all the churches becomes necessary.

Why the Church of the Nazarene?

So, why did I get ordained in the Church of the Nazarene? Well, number one, because the Holy Spirit called me to a lifetime consecrated to full devotion to Christ and the service of His Church in Word and Sacrament. It’s true that I could have done that in a number of denominations, but after much study, I decided that Nazarene doctrines best reflect scriptural orthodoxy: especially in its Wesleyan-Holiness emphasis that God can free us from sin in this life by the consecrating, sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit (27); its affirmation of the early ecumenical creeds (28); its Arminian belief that God has restored the human will to be able to either receive or reject grace (29); that grace can be walked away from after having been received (30); that that the Sacraments are means of grace and not only symbols (31); its use of both infant and believer’s baptism (32); and its dual system of ordination for both women and men (33).

To address each of these (often contentious) theological assertions would require a bunch more posts, but they were instrumental in my move away from a more Reformed understanding of Scripture. And though the manual never explicitly mentions “apostolic succession”, I believe history demonstrates that our succession is valid along the theological lines I laid out in the paragraphs above.

My Spiritual Lineage

So without further ado, both to outline my claim to apostolic succession and for pure historical curiosity, I’ve included the line ordination from me going all the way back to the apostles below:

I was ordained June 16, 2018 through the laying on of hands at the Colorado District Assembly of the Church of the Nazarene by General Superintendent Dr. Gustavo A. Crocker, District Superintendent Dr. David Ralph, and all the Elders present; Dr. Crocker using these words:

“Ian Devlin Leigh Hyde, I charge thee before God and before the Church, preach the Word, watch thou in all things, endure affliction, do the work of an evangelist, discharge the duties of your ministry, and take thou authority to administer the sacraments and to lead in the Church of Jesus Christ. And now, Ian Devlin Leigh Hyde, by the power vested in me as a General Superintendent of the Church of the Nazarene, I ordain thee elder in the Church of God, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

Of the Nazarene General Superintendents…

Dr. Gustavo A. Crocker was ordained in 2003 by General Superintendent Paul G. Cunningham. Paul G. Cunningham in 1965 by Gen. Sup. Hugh C. Benner. Hugh C. Benner in 1923 by Gen. Sup. Roy T. Williams. Roy T. Williams in 1908 by Gen. Sup. Hiram F. Reynolds. Hiram F. Reynolds in 1886 by Bishop John Fletcher Hurst (Methodist Episcopal Church) (34)(35).

Of the Methodist bishops…

John Fletcher Hurst in 1862 by Bishop Thomas Asbury Morris (36). Thomas Asbury Morris ca. 1820 by Bishop Robert Richford Roberts (37). Robert Richford Roberts in 1802 by Bishop Francis Asbury (38). Francis Asbury in 1784 by Superintendent Thomas Coke (39). Thomas Coke in 1784 by Rev. John Wesley (Church of England) (40)(41). John Wesley was ordained presbyter in 1728 by Bishop (of Oxford) John Potter (42) and possibly consecrated bishop in 1763 by Bishop (of Arcadia) Erasmus (Eastern Orthodox Church)(43)(44).

Of the Anglican bishops…

John Potter was consecrated bishop in 1715 (45)(46). Jonathan Trelawney in 1685. William Sancroft in 1678. Henry Compton in 1674. Gilbert Sheldon in 1660. Brian Duppa in 1638. William Laud in 1621. George Montaigne in 1617. George Abbot in 1609. Richard Bancroft in 1597. John Whitgift in 1577. Edmund Grindal in 1559. Matthew Parker in 1559. William Barlow in 1536. Thomas Cranmer in 1533.

Of the bishops before the English Reformation…

John Longland(s) in 1521 (Roman Catholic Church). William Warham in 1502. Richard Fitzjames in 1497. John Morton in 1479. Thomas Bourchier in 1435. Henry Beaufort in 1398. Roger Walden in 1398. Robert Braybrooke in 1382. Thomas Brentingham in 1370. Simon Sudbury in 1362. William Edendon in 1346. Ralph Stratford in 1340. Robert Wyvil in 1330. Roger Northborough in 1322. John of Halton in 1292. Anthony Beck in 1284. Henry in 1255. Walter Kirkham in 1249. Walter de Gray in 1214. William of S. Mere L’Eglise in 1199. Gilbert Glanville in 1185. Peter de Leia in 1176. Roger of Cloucester in 1164. Thomas Becket in 1162. Henry of Blois in 1129. William of Corbeuil in 1123. Richard de Belmeis in 1108. Anselm in 1074. Thomas in 1070. Lanfranc in 1070. Siward in 1058.

Of the English bishops before the Great Schism…

Stigand in 1043. Eadsige in 1035. Ethelnoth in 1020. Wulfstan in 1003. Elfric in 990. Aelphage in 984. Dunstan in 957. Odo in 927. Wulfhelm in 914. Althelm in 909. Plegmund in 891 (47).

Of the Roman Catholic Popes…

Formosus in 864 (48). Nicholas I in 858 (49)(50). Benedict III in 855. Leo IV in 847. Sergius II in 844. Gregory IV in 827. Valentine in 827. Eugene II in 824. Paschal I in 817. Stephen IV (V) in 816. Leo III in 795. Adrian I in 772. Stephen III (IV) in 767. Paul I in 757. Stephen II (III) in 752. Zachary in 741. Gregory III in 731. Gregory II in 715. Constantine in 708. Sisinnius in 708. John VII in 705. John VI in 701. Sergius I in 687. Conon in 686. John V in 685. Benedict II in 684. Leo II in 682. Agatho in 678. Donus in 676. Adeodatus (II) in 672. Vitalian in 657. Eugene I in 655. Martin I in 649. Theodore I in 642. John IV in 640. Severinus in 640. Honorius I in 625. Boniface V in 619. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) in 615. Boniface IV in 608. Boniface III in 607. Sabinian in 604. Gregory I in 590. Pelagius II in 579. Benedict I in 575. John III in 561. Pelagius I in 556. Vigilus in 537. Silverius in 536. Agapetus I in 535. John II in 533. Boniface II in 530. Felix IV (III) in 526. John I in 523. Hormisdas in 514. Symmachus in 498. Anastasius II in 496. Gelasius I in 492. Felix III (II) in 483.

Of the Popes consecrated before the fall of the Western Roman Empire…

Simplicius in 468. Hilarius in 461. Leo I in 440. Sixtus III in 432. Celestine I in 422. Boniface I in 418. Zosimus in 417. Innocent I in 401. Anastasius I in 399. Siricius in 384. Damasus I in 366. Liberius in 352. Julius I in 337. Marcus in 336.

Of the Ante-Nicene Popes…

Sylvester I in 314. Miltiades in 311. Eusebius in 309. Marcellus I in 308. Marcellinus in 296. Caius in 283. Eutychian in 275. Felix I in 269. Dionysius in 260. Sixtus II in 257. Stephen I in 254. Lucius I in 253. Cornelius I in 251. Fabian in 236. Anterus in 235. Pontain in 230. Urban I in 222. Callistus I in 217. Zephyrinus in 199. Victor I in 189. Eleutherius in 175. Soter in 166. Anicetus in 155. Pius I in 140. Hyginus in 136. Telesphorus in 125. Sixtus I in 115. Alexander I in 105. Evaristus in 97.

Of the Apostolic Fathers to the Apostles…

Clement I in 88. Anacletus (Cletus) in 76. Linus in 67. Peter in 32. Jesus!

Footnotes

(1) Cf. Mat. 28:18-20; 1 Pet. 2:5; Rev. 5:9-10.

(2) Cf. Gen. 2:18; Ecc. 4:9-10; Eph. 4:2-3.

(3) The word “apostle” comes from the Greek apostolos used first in Mat. 10:2 in reference to the twelve closest followers of Jesus and is continually used throughout the New Testament, referring not only to the original twelve, but also specifically Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13:1-3, where they are also consecrated (“set apart”) and ordained through the laying on of hands.

(4) Luk. 10:1-16.

(5) Acts 13:1-3.

(6) 1 Cor. 12:27-31.

(7) Referenced in Acts 6:1-6 when the first seven deacons are ordained by the apostles, and in Acts. 13:1-3 when Paul and Barnabas are ordained as apostles.

(8) 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6.

(9) 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1:5-8.

(10) 1 Tim. 5:22.

(11) Acts 18:18, Rom. 6:3, 2 Tim. 4:19; cf. Acts 18:2-3 and 1 Cor. 16:19 where Aquila is mentioned first.

(12) Mat. 10:5-6; 15:24.

(13) “Speaking in churches” or preaching is a fundamental task associated with the apostles. Cf. Acts 6:2.

(14) Cf. 1 Cor. 15:29-34. Also Cf. Verlyn D. Verbrugge. “1 Corinthians.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Revised Edition. Vol. 11. Ed. By Tremper Longman III & David E. Garland. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 387. Only here, the commentator argues against it solely based on the passage’s length.

(15) “Apostle Timothy of the Seventy.” Orthodox Church in America. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(16) Cf. Mat. 1:18-2:23; Luk. 2:1-20, John 1:14.

(17) Luk. 24:9.

(18) Out of 2.385 billion Trinitarian Christians, 1.726 billion belong to either the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Anglican Communions. The number of churches which adhere to apostolic succession is actually a little higher, as the Assyrian Church of the East, as well as some Lutheran and Methodist bodies emphasize its importance as well.

(19) “List of Christian Denominations by Number of Members.” Wikipedia. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(20) “Historical Statement.” Manual 2017-2021. Church of the Nazarene. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(21) “The Nicene Creed.” Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes, Vol. 1. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(22) Cf. John 10:30.

(23) I define “orthodox belief” as that which affirms the validity of scripture, the writings of the apostolic fathers, and the pre-schism creeds of the 4th century in ordering Christian belief and practice. After the schisms, beginning with the separation of the Assyrian Church of the East, and continuing through the schisms with the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches, I believe no single polity can lay claim to full catholicity or oneness as laid out in the Nicene Creed.

(24) Through whom I also trace my apostolic succession. Wesley observed that for two centuries the Alexandrian Church (which all major communions agree still holds apostolic succession) ordained through presbyters alone.

(25) McClintock, John. Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Vol. 6. P. 170. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(26) Para. 502. “Theology of Ordination.” Manual 2017-2021. Church of the Nazarene. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(27) Ibid. Para. 10.

(28) Particularly the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Apostles’ Creed.

(29) Ibid. Para. 7.

(30) Ibid. Para. 8.

(31) Ibid. Para. 12-13.

(32) Ibid. Para. 12.

(33) Ibid. Para. 502.

(34) “General Superintendent (Church of the Nazarene).” Wikipedia. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.
(35) “Vermont Conference” in Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church: Spring Conferences of 1886. (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1886), p. 66.

(36) “John Fletcher Hurst.” Wikipedia. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(37) “Thomas Asbury Morris.” Wikipedia. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(38) “Robert Richford Roberts.” Wikipedia. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(39) “Francis Asbury.” Christian History. Christianity Today. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(40) Though ordained Superintendent in 1784 by John Wesley, Coke had already been ordained a presbyter in the Church of England in 1772. If one affirms that elders and bishops form a single order, then this should be the date recorded. But since he took on the role out of necessity, due to the lack of Anglican clergy available to administer the sacraments in the United States after the American Revolution, Wesley confirmed the call by consecrating him in 1784. It was this necessity which also prompted Wesley’s move to take on the role of bishop, which had lain dormant in his role as presbyter in the Church of England, but which was nonetheless valid by virtue of his ordination as presbyter-bishop.

(41) “Thomas Coke (Bishop).” Wikipedia. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(42) “John Potter (Bishop).” Wikipedia. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(43) There is hotly debated evidence that John Wesley may have been consecrated a bishop in 1763 during a private meeting with an Eastern Orthodox bishop named Erasmus of Arcadia. The validity of this evidence would require a whole other paper, but if it is true, then the rest of the lineage would be through the Eastern Orthodox bishops of Arcadia and the Patriarchs of Antioch (rather than through the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church); though they would still end at Peter just as the line through the Popes of Rome does.
(44) Cooke, Richard J. The Historic Episcopate: A Study of Anglican Claims and Methodist Orders. (Eaton & Mains, 1896), 144-145.

(45) “Potter, John.” Encyclopaedia Brittanica. 1911 ed. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018.

(46) Drews, Carl. “The Apostolic Succession of the Anglican Mission in America.” 2004. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018. Used as the source for John Potter through Nicholas I.

(47) The first Archbishop of Canterbury in this line of succession.

(48) The last Pope of Rome in this line of succession.

(49) The dates for Nicholas I to Peter correspond to their consecrations as Pope of Rome. Whether they were consecrated bishops before this date is unknown in many cases.

(50) “List of Popes.” New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. Web. Retrieved Jun. 21, 2018. Used as the source for Nicholas the 1 through Peter. Agrees with the list by Carl Drews, cited above.

Note: A special thanks to Jared K. Henry, whose own efforts to trace his lineage of apostolic succession in his post “My Ordination Means Something...” on his blog, Taking the High Road, inspired me to do the same.

#Apostles #Ordination #Women #OrdinationOfWomen #ApostolicSuccession #Nazarene #ChurchOfTheNazarene

Ivan's Solution to "A House Divided" & Follow-up Arguments

That's right folks, I'm totally writing this as if presuming to have the "real" answer. Well, I don't. But I think that what follows is honestly a decent (if radical) proposal to effect unity in the Church (supposing the Church exists, but while encompassing many Christian denominations, particular churches, and ecclesial communities). I don't think the Vegas odds on this ever happening are that great (don't bet your house on it... well, maybe just your mother-in-law), but I'm writin' it down anyway - just try and stop me!

And for those just tuning in: this effort is born out of a personal struggle concerning whether conversion to the Roman Catholic communion (or any other Apostolic communion, like the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox churches) is necessary to fully be in Communion with Christ and His body of disciples, or whether there is any other way for true unity to be accomplished.

14 Steps to Full Communion within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church:

1. Have the Major Tritinarian Communions sign a joint Declaration to strive for Full Communion within 100 years, pledging all the leadership to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures in its enactment.

2. Have the major Trinitarian communions sign a joint statement praying for forgiveness for nearly 1600 years of division. After all, we are all culpable for the pitiable state of division that exists between Christ's disciples today.

3. Unite the Eastern and Western liturgical traditions by setting the date for Easter on an agreed upon astronomically-correct (as much as possible) date, and never change it again.

4. Encourage liturgical and interpratory (sure, that's a word... at least it is now) cooperation in English speaking congregations through use of the Revised Common Lectionary, use of the NRSV and ESV bible translations, and use of a hymnal that draws from each of the traditions. Use of these tools would be encouraged, but not required. Non-english equivalents would be used to bring common worship and teaching to non-English speaking congregations.

5. Each of the Credal churches would have to scrap all but the canons of the first two Ecumenical Councils and each of the non-credal churches would have to accept these two councils. The reasoning for this is that the first two are agreements the entire Church made together regarding the establishment of Scriptural canon and the Trinity (which is clearly inferred from Scripture). All orthodox, Trinitarian accept these principles today, whether credal or non-credal and whether Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican or Protestant. These also happen to be the only two Councils the entire Church agreed upon together.

Also, they both took place before Theodosius made Christianity the State religion in 391 AD - thereby corrupting it with riches and lands, while also making it a political tool to be leveraged. This would also give enough guidance and interpretation to unite the Church on issues that Scripture is less clear about.

Finally, while the Apostolic Fathers especially (Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Didache etc.) and the other early Church Fathers are useful (as are many theologians into our own times), their authority should only be read in light of the Trinitarian and Canonical understanding of Scripture and the first two Ecumenical Councils.

6. The churches would have to make Scripture their primary authority for Church doctrine. This would be followed by the two Ecumenical Councils. All other Church dogma would be decided in councilliar agreement between all the bishops. However, the Church councils or synods (after the first two historically Ecumenical Councils) would not be able to enforce decisions on local congregations. In line with #5, the Apostolic and early Church Fathers would definitely guide interpretation, but only in so far as they conform to Scripture and the first two Councils.

7. The churches would have to agree that episcopal succession, from its origins in the New Testament relies not just in the Office of Bishop, but also in the Office of Presbyter. Scripture treats these (and the position of Pastor) as synonymous in Acts 20, Titus 1:5-7 and 1 Peter 5:1-2. Division of the two offices would be optional in each tradition, but ultimately those traditions which only ordain presbyters and deacons would still lie within the episcopal succession through their presbyters (in effect, making them presbyter-bishops).

8. The diaconate would be a seperate office dealing only with temporal affairs, being local and congregational in nature. Within these guidelines, and in accordance with scripture, the presbyter-bishop (or presbyter and bishop separately) and the deacon would be the only clergy. The congregation, as a corporate body, would exhibit the priesthood of all believers. Otherwise, administrative positions would be allowed locally, based on election or appointment, whatever each tradition desires.

9. The churches would have to agree that all bishops (including presbyter-bishops) are equal in authority. This would be tempered with the understanding that the Roman bishop would be first in honor among the rest, followed by the bishops of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Constantinople (in that order), then all bishops after that would be equal in honor (as well as equal in authority to all bishops).

10. Local congregations would elect their presbyter-bishops. Likewise, if groups of congregations wish to split the office of presbyter and bishop, a council of all the elected presbyters in a jurisdiction would then elect their bishops, and these bishops would attend synods based on jurisdiction or the greater Church council with other bishops and presbyter-bishops. These presbyter-bishops should conform to the teaching of Scripture in their character (each tradition would decide whether they could be married or not, though they should probably be men only), and while they would be elected locally, their ordination would be effected by the laying on of hands of other bishops - thereby maintaining both episcopal succession and the sovereignty of the local congregation.

11. Each congregation, or groups of congregations, within the Church would be free to govern their own customs and practices in regards to style of worship, veneration, architecture, liturgy, hymnody and local governance (and related issues, like speaking in tongues); as long as these conform to Scripture and the two Ecumenical Councils.

12. The communions would sign a document recognizing each other's baptisms, table fellowship and ordinations. This means locally or by tradition, each group would have the choice to follow either traditional baptism or believer's baptism, and all would need to recognize the mysterious real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

13. The communions (their general superintendents, patriarchs, popes and bishops) would have to sign an agreement, effectively conforming themselves to these principles, declaring themselves to be in Full Communion with each other. This would probably take a while, and there is no doubt congregational-polity churches would need to vote on these before sending their pastors as representatives to sign. It would be a good idea for the signing process to be available online (once identities are verified as actual representatives of congregations and communions) and then disseminated to each church.

14. The Church would be required to elect Ivan as King of All the Popes. Just kidding... I couldn't think of any more points, so this one's optional (though definately recommended).

Please note, this list is not intended to be guidelines for a new denomination, but solely to unify existing ones. Anybody that creates a new denomination based on these terms will get a swift kick to the weener from yours truly.

I'm sure there's a myriad of problems with the above steps. But I feel that they are the most orthodox steps that would still include Roman & Traditional Catholic, Eastern & Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Anglican and Protestant (including Mainline, Anabaptist, Adventist, Messianic, Evangelical, Fundamentalist & Pentecostal/Charismatic) congregations and communions.

Since there's no doubt in my mind that Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Universalists, Mormons, New Age groups & Non-Trinitarian Pentecostals (& Anabaptists) are heretics, I don't mind not catering to them.

Anywho, I'm no prophet or apostle, so I'm sure there are better ways of goin' about this. My hope is just that this get people thinkin' & praying that we would all be one (without sacrificing or watering down the Gospel), as Jesus prayed in John 17:20-21.

Fourth Rebuttal to "A House Divided" & Ivan's Response

Rebuttal by Edward N. Haas on a Catholic Forum

"Well, Johnny Blackpool, famous adventurer, I briefly consulted your blog. It causes me seriously to doubt you have any inclination toward joining the Catholic Church. I think you are merely using that line as a come-on to entice the guillible into your web -- a web in which you hope you can then "reason" them into quitting their Catholic affiliation. One ought not to waste one's time trying to debate with someone like yourself; but, since I'm looking for an excuse to delay cutting a quarter acre of grass and bushhoging 9 acres of weeds, I'll bother to go a brief round with you, little spider, in your web.

If you consult the second chapter of St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he tells us faith should be founded on seeing a demonstration of the power of God, and warns us against this business of trying to found one's faith on what, in the original Greek, he calls "sophia". This is generally translated as "wisdom"; but the Greek word "sophia" was also used by the Greeks of that day to signify shrewdness, cunning, and craftiness. As you can perhaps see for yourself, the Greek word "sophia" is the root source for the English word "sophistry", and we all know what kind of verbal rigmarole that implies. Thus, what St. Paul is here telling us is this: Faith is not to be founed on an elaborate series of clever, dialectical arguments such as people like you relish in setting forth at great length in books or blogs or what have you; rather, faith is to be founded on the simple act of staring into the face of a what obviously bespeaks divine support.

Therefore, wherever one is truly a Catholic, one's faith is not based upon an elaborate display of verbal gymnastics; rather, it is based upon seeing what obviously says: Such a level of success could not possibly be, unless God is behind it. Incarnate God Himself promotes this principle when, in verses 24 thru 27 of chapter 7 of St. Matthew's Gospel, He tells us how only an edifice built on His word can endure best of all. He again promotes this same principle when, in Matt. 13:31, Mark 4:31, and Luke 13:19, He assures us the kingdom of heaven starts as the smallest of seeds but grows to be the LARGEST of shurbs --- so large it becomes a tree.

Now then, as even the bitterest of its enemies readily admit, Catholic Doctrine has built far, far more effectively than has any other ideology known to history (One group of zealots incessantly thunders that this outstandingly outstanding succees is what proves the Catholic Church is the work of the devil.). It has built by far the largest world-class, centrally organized institution in history and the only such institution to survive for 2,000 years. That it has done despite the fact that the institution it's built (i.e.: the Catholic Church) is also the most violently and persistently attacked institution in history. The military and intellectual assaults upon the Catholic Church are legion, and the number of its martyrs boggles the mind. For all of that, the institution built by Catholic Doctrine thrives far, far more effectively than does any other institution known to history. Past versions of France, England, Germany, and Italy have all tried to destroy the Vatican and to put an end to the Papacy. The Papacy, though, remains a sovereign state, and the France, England, Germany, and Italy which tried to crush it are gone with the wind. Shades of Luke 20:18!

Like so many others, you seem to think that, by listing the foibles of this or that pope or what have you, you make points against Catholic Doctrine's claim to be THE mouthpiece of God. I'm surprised you didn't mention Galatians 2: 11 in which St. Paul recounts how he had to correct St. Peter on a point of doctrine. I'm surprised you didn't mention Pope John XXII who had to be corrected by the king of France on a point of doctrine. Contrary to what you apparently think, you do not, in listing all these foibles, make points AGAINST Catholic Doctrine's claim. On the contrary, you UPHOLD its claim. For, the more you run into the ground those responsible for spreading Catholic Doctrine, the more you exalt the power of the Catholic Doctrine able to overcome such handicaps and, in spite of the Catholics, to thrive far, far more effectively than does any other doctrine. Sixteen hundred years ago, St. John Chrysostom alluded to this principle when he at least effectively said this: If you look at the success of Catholic Doctrine and then look at how pitiful are those charged with spreading that doctrine, it's all too obvious that the latter are much too incompetent to produce the former; and so, the success of the former plainly tells you that it must be God who has done this. Yes, God works thru the incompetent in order that, when great success follows anyhow, it may be obvious that it is God who is responsible for the success. Look at the wretchedness of all too many Catholic popes, bishops, priests, religious, and laity, and it is all too obvious that Catholic Doctrine's outstanding success can't be their doing and, so, is clearly and unequivocally God's doing. Thus is one face to face with what bespeaks divine support, and thus is one presented with faith based upon seeing a demonstration of the power of God rather than upon the long, drawn-out dialetcial, lawyer-like arguments of Johnny Blackpool and company.

Because of the scale on which it has obviously built, Catholic Doctrine's claim to be THE revealed word of God is the most substantiated claim ever given to the human race. That, then, is the basis upon which I rest my unshakably fearless conviction that, in Catholic Doctrine's testimony, I have found what is, by very, very far, the most reliable testimony there is, namely: THE TESTIMONY OF INFINITELY INFORMED GOD. This is the 73 year old, white bachelor, Edward N. Haas, financially independent by birth, and living and writing up a storm (17 self-published books in print) in the middle of 27 inherited acres at 39193 Haas Road in Haaswood, La."

Note by Ivan: Mr. Haas has provided a website you can visit at this link .

"Edward N. Haas here again. Add this to my prior reply. It's from pg. 42

of the Catholic Cathechism. It's also designated as paragraph 156. Here,

then, is how the Catholic Cathecism expresses and affirms what I said in

my prior posting:

So 'that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance
with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be
joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit.' Thus the miracles of
Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and
her fruitfulness and stability 'are the most certain signs of divine
Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all'; they are 'motives of
credibility' (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of
faith is 'by no means a blind impulse of the mind.'

Even as some saw Jesus raise the dead, they turned away from the obvious

demonstration of the power of God and chose, instead, to cling to a bit

of mental gymnastics using scripture as its source of power: "Scripture

speaks of no prophet coming from Galilee. But, this man comes from

Galilee; therefore, this man is no prophet . Furthermore, this man's

acts contradict scripture when he heals on the Sabbath. But, no man of

God contradicts scripture; therefore, this man is not from God.

Therefore, we shall not believe no matter how many people he raises from

the dead. Not even if he himself rises from the dead! For, we can prove

by logical arguments drawn from scripture that he cannot be a man of God

no matter what." No matter how powerful the demonstration of Divine

support, some always have preferred, and always will prefer, the

inferences produced by the complex gyrations of their own minds ---

particularly those inferences seeming to feed off of scripture. For

them, no miracle means anything, until one can thoroughly explode every

one of the adverse inferences which their mental gymnastics can produce.

And what good does it do to explode every one of their adverse

inferences? For, if you convert them that way, then they'll wind up with

a faith based on "logic" rather than on seeing the power of God

demonstrated. Such faith shall not endure. For, somewhere down the line

they'll come upon some new bit of mental gymnastics which shall

instantly destroy their faith, unless and until, they or someone else

can explode the new inferences produced by this latest bit of mental

gymnastics. Show me, then, a man with a catalogue of inductions and

deductions which must be exploded before he can believe, and I'll show

you a man who --- as long as that is his attitude -- is inherently

incapable of GENUINE faith, which is to say faith based upon SEEING THE

POWER OF GOD DEMONSTRATED."

Ivan's Response to Mr. Haas' Rebuttal

Mr. Haas,

you bring up many good points, and i think you bring up something that i really did overlook: that we are not saved by sophia, but by the demonstration of the power of God. and clearly the power of the R.C. Church and its ability to endure for so long do show that God's grace is with it. I don't contest that and it's something I shouldn't overlook any longer (also, if it's alright with you, i'd like to put your response up - and this answer - on my blog, as it was a very good one).

i do still have a couple of questions, though. while you stated that my "real" goal is to entice catholics into my web & suck the life out of 'em (not your exact words, but i like my description better), i assure you it's not. i think if their faith is genuine and the work God is doing in their lives is genuine as well, then they should stay put. i'm only asking, why should I convert to catholicism from my current tradition (Baptist)?

and maybe a little of my personal background would help you understand why it's even an issue for me. I am a Christian and i love God with everything i am. But i felt a call to the ministry and in my study of the Church, what she teaches and her history i became convinced of the importance for unity in the Body of Christ (that this is Jesus' desire during his last prayers in John 17:20-21 is clear). in fact, because Jesus prays so fervently for unity not just for his immediate disciples, but for all "those who will believe in [Jesus] through their word;" and this became my passion.

unlike a lot of other Baptist pastors, i'm not content to see the Church split in a million pieces. i think it would show a hard heart if i were. and so that left me looking at the largest Communion of Christians, with clear apostolic succession and continuity, and left me wondering whether i should convert. but that also left me looking at all these issues of doctrine (for instance "required celibacy," i have a wife & son and that would preclude me from R.C. priesthood, but not priestood in any of the other denominations). it also made me seriously consider the actions of the Church over the ages, as James makes it clear our actions are the sole evidence of our faith and Jesus states in John that our love for one another is the standard by which others will judge the truths that we speak.

but when we look at the history of the Church (and not just on the R.C. side, but on the Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant sides as well), we see a lot of inward strife, hatred and political machinations against fellow brothers and sisters. because of all this (and the doctrinal issues that seem to contradict scripture), i ask myself "Do I need to join the Roman Catholic Church to be fully in communion with God's people?"

Can I be just as fully in communion if I become Eastern Ortothodx (as they also have a chair of Peter in the bishopric of Antioch and exhibit the same ancient apostolic succession as the R.C. Church, as does the Oriental Orthodox communion)? Or if I become a Pentecostal preacher? You said to judge by the demonstration of God's power. They still speak in tongues, prophecy and cast out demons. In fact, they're the fastest growing Christian communion (especially in areas where the Church is heavily persecuted). We can't ignore their claims either.

I want to know what makes the Roman Catholic claims unique in the face of all this? i don't think the answer is to pull a Joseph Smith and start my own religion (what a mess that would be!). but i'm also not convinced that i or anyone else needs to join the R.C. Church or that the Roman communion holds the title of One True Church solely within her institution. but if we are to become unified as the people of God, how should we tackle these issues? by the way, i for one think this exact dialogue is a great first step; but we must have dialogue, ministerial cooperation, and dogmatic decision bottom-up (through regular believers) as well as top-down (through the hierarchy).

And since Mr. Haas was kind enough to submit his real name, here's mine:

Ian Hyde, Pasadena CA (though everybody calls me "Ivan").

Third Rebuttal to "A House Divided" & Ivan's Response

Second Rebuttal by Sambos671 on a Catholic Forum

Quoting Ivan:

I see your point about the distinction between infallibility and impeccability. How do we apply this in regard to the more corrupt popes listed? As James states that faith not backed up by action is no faith at all, these particular popes seemed to do everything in their power to actively oppose faith. also, what about Pope Honorius I who was declared a heratic both by the sixth Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo II? That particular episode shows pretty clearly that the Church doesn't always quickly catch heretical decrees.

I do not want to take the place of God but in my estimation and in speculation I would think by certain acts of certain Popes seem to have them condemn themselves to Christ judgement. Still a pope is not permitted to teach against the deposit. As far as Honorius we must consider that he did not defend orthodoxy against the Monothelites (nor did he openly approve it from the chair) and is condemend based on his letters saying that he followed Sergius in all things. If Sergius is condmened a Heretic so must Honorius. However, nothing was taught ex cathedra in violation of the Deposit of Faith.

Ivan's Response to Rebuttals by Silvereel and Sambose671

Quoting Silvereel:

You're not going to get anywhere by collecting a list of 'bad deeds' Popes did. We don't deny that they're sinners just like us. Some of them did some terrible deeds. But their personal lives are not infalible. This doesn't do any harm to their Infalibilty at all, it just goes to show that the Church IS protected by God - could a human institution stand through so many controversies and attacks? No, it could not. Any institution founded by men would have fallen due to our own deeds and sins. I fail to understand why Protestants always attack the celebate priesthood as well... would you attack Paul, too?

It is definately not my intention to attack the nobility of celibacy or Paul's estimation of it. And it is definately not my intention to attack those presbyters who choose to be celibate (as all Roman presbyters do). But I don't agree that the Church should enforce a doctrine that seems to me, at least, to go against scripture (the forcing goes against scripture, not celibacy itself).

I guess my personal concern is (and while you might not believe it, i am considering whether i should convert) as a baptist seminarian, i believe i am called to be a presbyteros (and for baptists, based on the testimony of the NT, this includes the role of episkopos as well). but i am married and have a son. so it's something i have to seriously consider. and i guess i'm really asking why i should consider the Roman Church's claims to be the One True Church as more valid than the claims of the Eastern Orthodox communion? They also have apostolic succession, they have an older bishopric of st. peter (in antioch) and disupute the immaculate conception of Mary (though they do believe her to be sinless throughout life), and they have withstood their own test of hardship.

anyway, to Sambos671, thanks for clarifying the issue about Honorius. that takes care of that though, since i still have issues with the immaculate conception, required celibacy and the supremacy of the pope in rome, these both affect the infallibility of the pope's and the Roman Catholic Church's decisions as they are ex cathedra doctrines that seem to go counter to the Deposit of Faith (at least, if one conforms the Deposit of Faith to Scripture). for me it's an issue of figuring out whether the Roman Catholic Church = The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (meaning i should convert to fully be in communion), or whether other Christian bodies have equal claim (like the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East or the Anglican Communion - though i have doctrinal issues with the last, too).

i do think the enduring Roman Church is a living demonstration of God's power in His Church. But I also think the enduring Orthodox and Assyrian Communions exhibit this as well. Even in the Protestant Churches I can see evidence of the miraculous intervention of God's grace (especially in the Pentecostal Churches enduring in areas of heavy persecution around the world). But I do want to know if true unity can only be achieved if other communions subject themselves to Roman doctrines and supremacy.

Honestly, I wouldn't even have a problem submitting myself to the Pope (I think many of the original issues raised by the first Protestants have been resolved), but I don't think I could blindly state that ex cathedra decisions are infallible, when there seems to be evidence that they aren't (at least in the above doctrines, and maybe others that i don't know about). If the Roman, Eastern, Oriental and Assyrian Churches do ever come into full Communion, then I think a very good argument will exist that their institution constitutes the full Church. That may happen someday, and there are encouraging developments in that area. But right now it doesn't, and these Apostolic communities are at odds with each other. To me, that means the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church encompasses something greater than the Roman institution and hieararchy. To what degree, however, I just don't know for sure.

While I put all my faith in Jesus Christ and love His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church with all my heart, as brothers and sisters, I think it would be remiss of me if I were to exclude elements of that Church by claiming it includes (or should submit to) only one of these communions.

Second Rebuttal to "A House Divided" & Ivan's Response

Rebuttle by Sambos671 on the Same Catholic Forum

Quoting Ivan:

I raised five serious theological issues I have with the Roman Catholic Church (Immaculate Conception of Mary, Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope, Transubstantiation, Forced Celibacy of the Clergy and the claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church)

Like Archer said in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties Inerrerant is not impecable with regard to the Scriptures. We can use the same view with regard to Infallibility. Infallibility does not equal impeccability. What it does mean is that the Pope can not make a declarative teaching on Faith and morals that contradicts the Deposit of faith. The Pope is in a community and cannot go against the deposit. His teaching is reflective of that deposit of faith. community members will verify if the Pope teaches something in error. But most likely any error that may be in germ from will be weeded out before any declaration from the council of Cardinals. In other words the Pope cannot teach against the deposit of faith.

Transubstantiation: Also terms must be properly understood in order to obtain an understanding what is being said here. Read Thomas Aquinas and understand the classical understanding of what substance means. In an attempt to define what it could not be. The protestants at the time denied that it was the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. But the deposit and writings of early Christians such as Ignatius and Justin verify that the elements are no longer just plain elements but have Mystically become the body and blood of Jesus. Therefore this doctrine cannot be taken to mean that these elements are meerly symbolic but in fact are the body and blood of this same Jesus Christ.

Immaculate conseption of Mary. The Catachism defines what it means when it says "everything we believe about Mary come about from what we believe about Jesus" Remember there is the deposit which has been passed down and we can see as early As John Chrysostom a particular view about Mary has existed throughout church history. In order to understand the Immaculate conseption you must first understand what Catholics believe about Jesus. The dual nature of Christ lends itself to Theotokos. Mother of God. The incarnation is about God becoming man. Mary did not give birth to just a man that became possesed by the Son. No she gave birth to Jesus who is man and the divine son. To say anything else lessens Jesus. Next you have to understand what Catholics mean by original sin. A quick review of St. Augustine can reveal that to you. But in order for Mary to give of herself in total obedience God's grace overshadowed her from her conseption. More can be said on this but you would have to list your particular disagreements. (I didn't read your entire article.) We See Elizabeth say of Mary "Mother of my Lord" etc...

As far as the one holy catholic and apostolic Church a quick review of Eusibius should give you insite into this consept. There are an apostolic succession of Bishops that have been passed down through the ages to this very day.

Forced Celebacy for the Chruch was devoloped initially because of abuse such as heredity in titles and land and wealth. It continues because... well there are many reasons not the least because they take Paul seriously when he says I wish you were as I. The Church wants total devotion to the lord for its clergy. Not a bad request. What are you willing to give up to do what Jesus calls you to do? I must say I never became a priest because I know I would have burned with desire an rahter have that problem I followed the Lord into sacramental marriage and raise children that honor him.

Quoting St. Anselm: For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this I believe - that unless I believe, I should not understand.

Ivan's Response to Sambos671's Rebuttle

Sambos, thank you for the clarification of terms, it's definately very helpful.

I see your point about the distinction between infallibility and impeccability. How do we apply this in regard to the more corrupt popes listed? As James states that faith not backed up by action is no faith at all, these particular popes seemed to do everything in their power to actively oppose faith. also, what about Pope Honorius I who was declared a heratic both by the sixth Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo II? That particular episode shows pretty clearly that the Church doesn't always quickly catch heretical decrees.

On transubstantiation, I think you would be surprised at how many Protestants agree (though, I tend to appreciate the Eastern Orthodox explanation of the Mystery of the Eucharist more). For me, this wasn't so much of a "theological problem" as it was a "theological question".

In regards to the immaculate conception, I totally agree that the point is that Jesus is fully human and fully Divine. But being born to a woman guilty of sin doesn't lessen His Divinity, it fulfills His humanity, which is necessary for Him to totally identify with us (if I understand Athanasius' On the Incarnation correctly). To take the burden of our sins on His shoulders and to experience the rejection that goes along with that, He had to be born into a sinful world, to a woman guilty of sin though still given God's grace.

Finally, I agree with your assessment in regard to the value of celibacy. I just don't think it should be forced, and I think the 1 Timothy passage cited in the essay supports that assertion.

First Rebuttal to "A House Divided" & Ivan's Response

Rebuttal by "Ender" on a Catholic Forum

Quoting Ivan:

On my Theological Discussions blog, I raised five serious theological issues I have with the Roman Catholic Church (Immaculate Conception of Mary, Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope, Transubstantiation, Forced Celibacy of the Clergy and the claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church) in the essay "A House Divided: A Critique of Roman Claims to be the One True Church".

I'll have to read the essay before commenting on it but I can make two observations now. The question of priestly celibacy is of a different type than the other four issues you raise in that, unlike the other four, the Church may at any time decide to change her position. This is not an unchangeable law of God, it a Church law and as such she may make of it what she will. I don't believe it rises to the level of a theological issue.

Your brief comment about justification by faith alone is unclear. The Catholic Church does not teach sola fide - are you saying you think she should?

Quoting Ivan:

The Church that can truly be described as One is that which spans across denominational or other dividing lines to reach those who truly believe they are sinners and that Christ's death on the Cross covers their sins and paves the way for their inclusion in the Kingdom of God.

What you describe is a collection of individuals who agree on one specific, theological point. It is not the definition of a church. A random aggregation of individuals that never meets, never discusses the implications of that (one) shared belief, and does not even know who is or is not included cannot be called a church by any reasonable meaning of the term.

Quoting Ivan:

Holy? Really? If the Church is holy, it is solely by the grace won at the Cross of Christ and not by the many traditions, dogmas and institutions of the churches.

The Catholic Church does not claim holiness derives from her any more than she claims that the doctrines she proclaims derive from her. "The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith." (Fides et Ratio) If she is the one true church then she would be holy by that fact alone.

Quoting Ivan:

The R.C. ceased being Catholic in a definite manner with the Great Schism of 1054

This is like the complaint that God doesn't exist because there are so many people who don't believe in him. After all, if he existed, surely he would want everyone to know about him so they could believe, but because not everyone believes he obviously doesn't exist. That not everyone accepts Catholicism is no more an argument that the Church is not what she claims to be than the fact that not everyone believes in God shows that he is not who he claims to be. Her catholicity is intrinsic to her and is unaffected by the actions of those who may or may not accept her.

Quoting Ivan:

Finally, to be truly Apostolic a church must not only hold Apostolic Succession (through the laying on of hands from bishop to bishop, though Scripturally many can make the argument that those who are presbyteros are also episkopos, and therefore are able to perpetuate that line) ...

You don't sound convincing on this point because you don't sound convinced yourself. If you don't take it seriously don't present it.

Quoting Ivan:

... but the church must also hold Doctrinal Apostolic Succession. Though a church retain lists of ordained bishops all the way back to the Apostles, if they don't preach the Gospel as stated in the Scriptures or hold dogmas that go against the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles as stated in Scripture, then they are not Apostolic.

It is not clear whether this is a merely claim for the validity of Sola Scriptura - which by definition rules out Catholicism - or (as it appears) a claim that the teachings of the Catholic Church disagree with Scripture. The latter is an interesting charge: are you claiming that the Baptist interpretation of scripture (if there is such a thing) is the true interpretation and all others are wrong? On what could such a claim be based? By what authority do you claim that only you (or only Baptists) correctly interpret scripture?

Aside from this, the claim that apostolic succession also means doctrinal apostolic succession is a real stretch. It is fair to argue that the Catholic Church is wrong on doctrine but that has nothing whatever to do with whether she is apostolic in the sensible meaning of the term.

Ender

Ivan's Response to Ender's Rebuttal
Ender, you bring up many great points and I'll try to address each of them in order (if it's alright with you, I'd like to put your comments up on my blog along with my responses, because your responses are honestly the only decent answers I've gotten back).

First, while not on the level of the other issues, clerical celibacy hits home to me. If I am called to be a pastor (presbyteros in the Church (as I believe I am, and this is the vocation I'm currently pursuing in the Baptist church), then it's something that I personally would have to address if I am to convert to Catholicism, especially as I have a wife and son.

As for sole fide, my understanding of the doctrine is that while faith alone is what opens us up to the grace of God, real faith always pours forth into pious action. If the action is missing, then the faith is too (these views are based primarily on Ephesians 2:8-9 and James 2:14-26). Where the Catholic system is one of grace born out of the merits (and meritous acts) of Christ (primarily and all encompassing) and the Saints, I think a Protestant could agree in the understanding that these merits are brought about by faith. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

You make an excellent point about the "Oneness" of the Church. The guidelines I provided were totally insufficient, though I think there is more cooperation between these groups than you realize. Those who are moved by the faith in and love of Christ find themselves working for charity in any way they can (and often with other communions). Currently the R.C. Church and most Protestant denominations use virtually the same lectionary, which means that the Gospel read in these churches on any given Sunday remains consistent. And recent documents between the R.C. Church, the ELCA, and the Eastern & Oriental Orthodox Churches (and the Assyrian Church of the East) have shown that the different sides ARE talking, though this dialogue must be bottom-up (like what we're doing right now) as well as top-down to be effective. To me this shows a desire on all sides to truly be One, but to do so, I believe the R.C. Church (and others) will have to seriously address not just why they broke apart, but what changes they've endured since then.

Anyway, I still haven't found a convincing argument that identifies the R.C. Church as THE One True Church above, say, the Eastern Orthodox Communion (as they have all the claims to apostolic succession the Roman Church has, and they also have a chair of Peter in the bishopric of Antioch).

Quoting Ember:

The Catholic Church does not claim holiness derives from her any more than she claims that the doctrines she proclaims derive from her. "The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith." (Fides et Ratio) If she is the one true church then she would be holy by that fact alone.

You bring up a good point here, too and I honestly can't contest it.

Though you dispute my claim that the Roman Church lost its Catholicity at least after the Great Schism, as far as I can tell the Eastern Orthodox Churches have as much a claim to that same Catholicity (based on the reasoning above).

On the next point of Apostolic Succession through both the presbyteros and the episkopos as they are arguably synonymous in the New Testament (see Acts 20, Titus 1:5-7 and 1 Peter 5:1-2), I do believe I am convinced (though only recently, and through much wrestling with the subject) based on the authority of Luke, Paul and Peter. Anyway, if they truly are synonymous from the earliest period, then the later (though still very early in the 2nd century) division of the office would still be an innovation and one that, while dividing the administrative duties of the office, cannot diminish its apostolic authority. So there, I will present it! Bwa ha ha!

Finally my appeal to Doctrinal Apostolic Succession is one of more of logic than an appeal to sola scriptura, which I agree would preclude Catholics. As Paul repeatedly lays the guidelines for appointing leaders in the Church, he emphasizes that they be taught rightly and uphold certain standards of behavior (two of which are being married only once and ruling over their children well).

Anyway, that all oughtta give us a few things to think about for a while. And, believe it or not, we did resolve a few things, namely the guidelines for the Holiness of the Church. I welcome any more comments on all this and above all I ask that whoever reads this prays for unity between the Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant Christians (on whatever terms God wills).

Ivan