For Heaven's Sake by Mike Morgan for August 09, 2010

Great start to the new week. Good Morning, Everyone.

Hey! I could get all kinds of versions of…. Umm, never mind.

Updated? God did a rewrite? New tablets from the mount? Moseying on down the cliffs with some help? Maybe it meant new translations?

Funny thing was that in the original it was The Apps of the Holy Spirit.

The Email to the Ephesians? The Kindle files from the Prophets?

I’m so ‘appy!

Sure is quiet around here without Mr. Doty…

Do I get in trouble if I admit that I don’t know what the apostles are?

Ephesians?

God is doing a rewrite? When?

BMONK Shh! Don’t wake the sleeping phoenix.

@LuvH8, the Apostles were the twelve chosen disciples of Jesus (various lists in Mk 3:13-19, Mt 10:1-4, Lk 6:12-16 and Acts 1:13) who acted as leaders of the Christians after Jesus’ resurrection. In various sacramental churches, bishops are known as the successors of the Apostles, heirs to their authority.

Actually, there were many apostles, Paul included and Acts records the election of one to replace Judas in the 13. The Apostles some authority but were also kept in check sometimes by the church council headed by James, Jesus’ brother (another apostle not one of the 12). Monk is repeating Catholic mythology rather than accurate Biblical references.

For Heaven’s Sakd and a number of others which did NOT post at Go Comics on MONDAY, August 16, 2010 can be found at Creators.com

For Heaven’s Sake and more at CREATORS.COM http://www.creators.com/comics/cat-seeall.html

Actually, I was aware of the other Apostles. I kept the answer simple for a beginner.

Let’s see: Matthias was elected to replace Judas, bringing the number back to 12 (Acts 1:15-26). Later, not only Paul but Barnabas were called Apostles, or at least “sent out” (the Greek word from which we get “apostle” in Acts 13. Paul, in several letters, uses the title. Others were also included: Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7), and Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25) are named.

James, neither in Acts 15 where he intervenes at the council, nor in his letter, is called an apostle–he may be one of the presbyters/elders. More likely, he was considered an apostle, but just not identified as such. Paul also knows of other apostles, apparently as an office in the church, mentioned twice (at the head of the list) in 1 Cor 13:27-31. And then there are the “super-apostles” he argues against in 2 Cor 10–13, especially 11:5, 12:11-12, and as false apostles in 11:13. (This last implies that there are true apostles.)

On the other hand, neither Timothy or Titus is called an apostle as such–although they are not said not to be apostles, and they seem to be doing the work of apostles, or work similar to those called apostles elsewhere. We simply don’t know for sure.

However, in the Church generally by the end of the first few centuries at latest, the use of “apostle” was discontinued, and episcopos (overseer, later became “bishop”) or presbyter (elder, later the origin of “priest”) was used.

Still later, others were called, by extention, “Apostle” to specific groups or areas where they were the first to preach or founded the Church: Frumentius (Apostle to the Abyssinians) Yelisey (to Caucasian Albania) Demetrius Augustine Gallitzin, 1770–1840 (Alleghanies) Juan de Avila, 1500–1569 (Andalusia) Hubertus, 656–727 (Ardennes) Gregory the Illuminator, 256–33 (Armenians) Thomas Russell (Berkshire) José de Anchieta, 1533–1597 (Brazil) Vergilius of Salzburg, 745–84 (Caratania) English: Augustine of Canterbury, died 604 (English) Franks: Saint Remigius, c. 437–533 (Franks) Willibrord, 657–738 (Frisians) Irenaeus, 130–200 (South Gaul) Denis (3rd century) and Martin of Tours, 338-401 (North Gaul) Georgians: Saint Nino, 320s (Georgia in Caucasus) Boniface, 680–755 (Germans) Vicelinus, 1086–1154 (Holstein) Anastasius, 954–1044 (Hungary) Francis Xavier; 1506–1552 (India, East Indies and China) John Eliot, 1604–1690 (“Indians” in US) Bartolomé de las Casas, 1474–1566 (West Indies) Patrick, 373–463 (Ireland) Francois Piquet, 1708–1781 (Iriquois) Severinus (Noricum) Ansgar, 801–864 (Scandanavia) Stephen of Perm, 1340–1396 (Permians) Alonzo de Barcena, 1528–1598 (Peru) Ninian, fifth century (Picts) Adalbert (Poles) Otto, 1060–1139 (Pomeranians) Columba, 521–597 (Scots) Cyril and Methodius, c 820–869 (Slavs, esp Bohemians and Moravians) Saint Evermode, d.1178 (Wends) Cherokees: Cephas Washburn (Cherokees) Hudson Taylor (China) Bishop Ulfilas (Arian, to Goths)

(And, traditionally, each of the Twelve had his own field(s) of work, for example Thomas was said to have gone to Parthia (modern Persia) and India–where there actually is evidence of an ancient Christian community in Kerala.)

The office of Elder was never the word priest. The word for priest in Greek is hiereus and is obviously not presbuteroi. The priesthood as an office ceased when Christ fulfilled the requirement of High Priest (Heb 7:4-25) and believers became a class of believer priests (1 Peter 2:4-9) with their own access to the throne of grace directly with no mediator besides the Holy Spirit.

As you sort of note - the word Apostle has more than one sense of the meaning. The core selection by God required face to face meeting with Christ and conferring of the gift. Paul was the replacement for Judas. The election was only conferring a title but not the NT office. The actual Apostles were regarded as “pillars” and the “foundation” (Gal 2:9 & Eph 2:20 cf Rev 21:14) of the church. So those that are not the foundation of the church are not Apostles with the gift, but apostles in title. I would also add that any called apostle after John died would only have the title and not the gift and really should have been called elder - Irenaeus would not be a true apostle in the Biblical sense nor the rest of the list

@DerekA, the presbyteros was transliterated into English as “priest”, having lost the -by- and -eros. If it had come from the Latin (Sacerdos) or Greek (hieros) with the meaning “priest”, it would be more like “Sacred” or “Hierarchy”. Just as “Deacon” was carried over from diaconos, not from its meaning “minister”. Or Biahop came from episcopos and not from “overseer” or “steward”.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches would dispute with you on the ending of the office of priest–from the earliest historical records, ministers–in those days episcopoi–led the community worship, especially the Lord’s Supper. In the Pastoral Letters (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus), where the distinction between episcopos and presbyteros is not yet fully drawn, there is already indication that these ministers are leading worship: 1 Tim 5:17 speaks of those presbyters “who preside well”–and, interestingly, a little later of “laying hands on anyone”, which we interpret as handing on the ministry which Timothy received in just this way (2 Tim 1:6). From these letters, it’s only a few years or decades until we get to letters such as those of Ignatius of Antioch or Clement of Rome, in which the “modern” understanding of ordination and the different levels are recognizable.

In other words, these offices come from the first days of the Church, and have continued without break from those days. Hence, the church is “apostolic” still, as we say in the Nicene Creed.

As for needing mediators, it’s true on one level that we need none–in good times. However, mediators are valuable when we go astray, as even the best of us do. We pray for the clergy daily precisely because of their extra responsibility: they are to be Prophet, Priest and King (in persona Christi) to the Church just as the Church is to be the presence of Christ to the world as Prophet, Priest and King. We believe this to be according to Christ’s own word: Luke 21:31-34, among other sayings, such as the good steward who distributes the food to fellow servants at the right time.

Bmonk, I am sorry, but presbuteros was not transliterated as priest - that is why I told you what the word for priest was in Greek. Transliteration of presuteros would be presbyter. A transliteration is like the word Baptizo coming into English as Baptize. I would note that you did correctly transliterate diaconos. The same letters are used to form the English word is what makes a transliteration. If Paul wanted it to mean priest he would have used the word for priest. Episcopos also is not priest. All the words are not equal and not interchangeable.

There are numerous Greek lexicons that can be used to verify this.

The point of the priesthood ending is based oint he section in Hebrews where Christ is a priest on the order of Melchizedek. With no temple after 70 AD the last remnants of priesthood by ritual were removed. As I quoted scripture, we are all now believer-priests and there is no mediator between God and man but Christ Jesus. This is not just when things are “good”, but all the time He is our mediator. After all, only the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have the attributes of Omniscience, Omnipresence, love, veracity, Omnipotence, Justice and righteousness to carry out the mediation. Anything or anyone else is finite and has no power, omnipresence or omniscience to perform any function related to mediation - it requires divinity and no mere human has that trait. The clergy do not have the office or position or any authority as “prophet, priest or king” - that appellation is reserved for Christ. The church is instead to be the bride.

My point on claims of apostleship is that they are claims by men and not conferred by God - reference your notation of Matthias. What you are attempting to do is argue for apostolic succession but as Tertullian indicated the test was not the voice of the present day church (for him) but of doctrine and must be shown from scriptures - he recognized the churches were NOT planted by apostles or apostolic men (AntiNicene Fathers Vol III Tertullian The prescription Against Heresies Chapter 32 & 36). I would also reference that this same idea of apostolic succession was used by the Pharisees with Jesus in Jn 8:33, 39, 43, 47 & 56. True succession is not a succession of men but of doctrine as the Apostle Paul taught in Gal 3:7 - Therefore know that only those who are of faith are the sons of Abraham.

Lastly the Luke passage - you do know that the reference to “this generation will not pass away” puts a time limit on your premise so it is limited to 40 years when the Temple was destroyed and has nothing to do with the church as prophet, priest or king. I will agree though that the believers in the church as a result of their regeneration by the Holy Spirit and being permanently justified after expressing faith in Christ, they should do works of sanctification such as feeding the poor - but that has no relation to salvation - it is post salvation and earns nothing - in reality if done in the power of the Spirit, then the works are God’s and not the believer’s. If not done in the Spirit, then it is wood, hay and stubble and should not have been done in the first place since it is not divine good works.

Thank you, Bmonk

@DerekA, but priest was derived from presbyter, in a shortened form, much as “comites” became “count”.

If we need no other mediator than Christ, then why does every single church develop a clergy of ministers? Why did Jesus Christ himself make provision for a “special” group of followers to lead his community? And they then made provision for the ministry to continue?

We believe that the various sacraments were instituted by Christ to give grace–so that the actor in each case is not the human being, but Christ. I cannot confer the grace required to become a Christian, but in the name of Christ I can minister baptism, at Jesus’ command. Similarly, I cannot feed God’s people with his own Body and Blood, but at Jesus command, I can minister that food. And so on. In each case, it is Christ who acts. In this we obey Christ’s own commands. The mediator remains divine–we only are fellow workers with Christ.

In fact, we see this in other times and places. Jesus sent out the twelve to proclaim the Kingdom and heal, and later (according to Luke) the 72 to prepare for the harvest. At the beginning of the Gospel, God enlisted Mary and Joseph to do their part in bringing the Kingdom to Earth. Later, the Apostles and others (such as the deacons) were sent to spread the good news; indeed, every Christian is called to this ministry.

If “this generation will not pass away”, why is Paul so sure of the same thing: that the Son of Man will return in his own lifetime, 1 Thess 5: 15? And Jesus also: “They will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.” (Lk 21:27) When did this happen, between about A.D. 30-80?

As for the authority of the Church, we believe it lies in the assurance of the Holy Spirit to guide us (as for example in John 14-17 and other places), not to mention Jesus speaking about the power to bind or loose (Mt 16: 18-19 and 18:18). Against that, plus the nearly 2000 years of a community that continues to be faithful, to produce saints worthy to be studied and learned from, what do I trust?

The Scriptures alone? If they are so transparent, why are there some 15,000 denominations that rely on “Sola Scriptura”?

My own judgment? But I have more than once proved how fallible my judgment is. Will I trust it with my eternal life?

The Scriptures, plus the community that preserved and identified them as inspired, plus that continues under the authority with the assurance of God’s Spirit to guide us?

For me, there’s no question: I trust Jesus and his Church.

By the way, my Luke reference was a chapter off–it should have been Lk 22: 31-34. Sorry about the error.

Mind if I jump in - a minister is NOT a mediator but a person to break down and teach the scriptures. You are confusing discipleship with church functions.

There are only two valid sacraments - baptism and the celebration of the Lord’s supper. Baptism does NOT save it is faith (Ephesians 2:8 & 9). The Lord’s Supper is NOT the mass which is defined by using the Latin term “sacraficium” meaning “sacrifice” and Jesus was the once for all sacrifice and no other is needed or need be used. Christ confers the grace through faith. The fact of a minister providing the bread and wine during communion does not make him a mediator but an administrator. There is no verse describing the minister as a mediator between God and man.

Actually what you needed to note is that everyone is commanded to witness concerning the completed work of Christ on the cross and resurrection.

The Binding and loosing was given to all the Disciples.

Since your church believes Scripture is infallible and inerrant - why would you allow fallible man to pull fanciful doctrines out of the air such as the assumption of Mary or the immaculate conception? if you don’t rely on what your church has established as infallible and inerrant as the final authority, then why not make up more doctrines - or does your church? Maybe I will post a list of these next time I am on here.

I would not phrase the hierarchical structure in such a manner since we are now digressing into the issue of sola ecclesia vs sola scriptura. Originally in the early centuries Scripture was supreme and the church was submissive to it. The church viewed and analyzed doctrines based on the following principles: The base was Direct Statements from Scripture. They overruled or were the high card and trumped all. That is still the rule today. Next came Direct Implications of Scripture. Then were Probable Implications of Scripture. Next came Inductive Conclusions from Scripture, the Conclusions Inferred from General Revelation and lastly Outright Speculation. So where does that put the Church of Rome? Well mostly in the speculation category since they moved to sola eccelsia. Once you create a doctrine based on pseudo traditions, you then have to move through that list and you start making up doctrines, traditions and dogma with minimal Scripture support. This forces you into another system - the one that says my church is right. This what happens when the Roman Catholic church says they are or have the rule of faith. Once that is done, that church is no longer bound by scripture. That process then forces that church to find tradition or dogma to support the “new” rule. Really when you think about it there are plenty of churches out there that behave in this manner - The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses have the same structure and bring in their own dogma and traditions. In the end though it is neither sola scriptura nor traditions that rule but sola ecclessia. See the Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 3 page 752 and note all the statements referencing the church alone as the authority and only means by which salvation is obtained. It is not a community with 2000 years of faithfulness but one that departed from that faith that was entrusted to it and for all the wrong reasons continues to adhere to that concept..

Also Luke 22:31-34 cannot be used to support this structure or any Apostolic succession. The strengthening of his brethren after Peter’s failure is to teach them the lesson about his arrogance - which he does in 1 Peter 5:8

DerekA said,

”Originally in the early centuries Scripture was supreme and the church was submissive to it.”

That is not quite true: in the early centuries, the Church was submissive to scripture, but was also discerning what exactly constituted scripture. Part of that process was seeing what writings fit and best described the faith of the community. Hence the rejection of the Gospel of Thomas, or the Infancy Gospel of James: even if they had been accepted as being written by the Apostles, they did not describe the God or Savior we knew.

As for the rest, I have to consider my response, probably check the reference and see if it actually says that.

I still stand by my prior principle: we are not sola ecclesia, but a Church guided by Scripture, plus other elements of Tradition not covered in Scripture, interpreted by the authority of the Church. It has kept us more or less united–we are still about half of all Christians, with one denomination in 25 or so rites, as opposed to thousands of denominations in the other half–and our doctrines are still recognizable as developments of those in the first years and centuries of the followers of Christ. We trust in Jesus Christ, and see Him at work in ways others have rejected.

For example, Phil N. DeBlanc said

Baptism does NOT save it is faith (Ephesians 2:8 & 9).

Baptism is an expression of faith, or it is pointless. Hence, this distinction makes no sense to me. Baptism “works” because it is what Jesus commanded us to do–and it is notable that the response in the Acts of the Apostles to faith is baptism, joining the community of faith.

The Lord’s Supper is NOT the mass which is defined by using the Latin term “sacrificium” meaning “sacrifice” and Jesus was the once for all sacrifice and no other is needed or need be used. Christ confers the grace through faith. The fact of a minister providing the bread and wine during communion does not make him a mediator but an administrator. There is no verse describing the minister as a mediator between God and man.

Ah, but it is through the celebration of the Lord’s Supper that we, as a community, find our deepest connection to Jesus Christ. As he said, “This is my Body” and “This is the Blood of the new Covenant”. Not “like” or “symbolic of” but “is.”

Through celebration “in memory of me” we tie into that one sacrifice, making it present again. We do not crucify Christ again, or make believe. Rather, we do what Paul is speaking of in 1 Cor 11:29: “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” “The body” here seems to have several meanings: first the death of Jesus, but also the community as the living Body of Christ, and likely the bread and wine as the Body.

Yes, the grace comes through faith–but it also comes, as one whole, through the whole human experience, which is not just intellectual or spiritual “faith” but also has bodily, physical expressions. We look to how Jesus used the body in healings: he touched, he used spittle to make mud that he then smeared on eyes, he spoke a word of healing. In the same way grace is seen to work through physical elements, which does not remove the element of faith. Rather, we say, the faith is the essential thing that makes the actions and elements effective.

God did not save us as disembodied spirits of faith–he sent his son in human flesh to save us as living human beings. And used human persons and institutions, and physical elements to continue that work, bringing it into every corner of the world.

You guys are having fun again!!!!