This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Why didn't protestants make their own "Vatican"?

#31actarusPosted 5/21/2013 10:49:24 PM
Silviiro posted...
sure, but honorifics are often attached to a bishop depending on the prestige of the location of the local church that he presides over.

The only bishops referred to directly in the New Testament are Peter and James.


Apostles travel together with evangelists but a bishop stays in the area and protect doctrines.
Prove in the Bible that Peter was a bishop.
---
Even the smallest star twinkles in the dark
#32CorporateKnightPosted 5/22/2013 5:03:57 AM
actarus posted...
Silviiro posted...
sure, but honorifics are often attached to a bishop depending on the prestige of the location of the local church that he presides over.

The only bishops referred to directly in the New Testament are Peter and James.


Apostles travel together with evangelists but a bishop stays in the area and protect doctrines.
Prove in the Bible that Peter was a bishop.


Peter as Bishop of Antioch. There's also the fact that the Apostle's life didn't end at the final part of Acts and that they lived some decades after it. Peter died being Bishop in Rome, according to Tradition.
#33Chaos ScadePosted 5/22/2013 7:07:23 AM
From: Silviiro | #030
sure, but honorifics are often attached to a bishop depending on the prestige of the location of the local church that he presides over.

The only bishops referred to directly in the New Testament are Peter and James.

ok, and what does that have to do with what I'm saying?
#34actarusPosted 5/22/2013 9:06:20 AM
CorporateKnight posted...

There's also the fact that the Apostle's life didn't end at the final part of Acts and that they lived some decades after it. Peter died being Bishop in Rome, according to Tradition.


bibletimeline.info/acts/1.htm
Act 28:30
And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in to him,
Act 28:31 Preaching the Kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence without hindrance.

Follow the link ended Acts around 62 AD
"Two whole years" later is in 64 AD (the year of the Great Fire in Rome and of Nero that blames the Christians.)
Peter dies follow the "tradition" between 64 and 67 AD (various sources)
And Paul was again arrested and beheaded between 65 and 67 AD (various sources)

This is not "decades after it".
---
Even the smallest star twinkles in the dark
#35CorporateKnightPosted 5/22/2013 6:22:40 PM
Oh.

Yes, you are correct, my bad.
#36SilviiroPosted 5/22/2013 7:54:17 PM
Apostles travel together with evangelists but a bishop stays in the area and protect doctrines.
Prove in the Bible that Peter was a bishop.


"So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed" -- 1 Peter 5:1

At the time the offices of Elder and Bishop had not separated. An apostle is just "one who is sent." Any evangelist who is sent somewhere is an apostle of the church which sent them, for example Barnabas was an apostle of Antioch. This is usually differentiated from the direct Apostles of Christ.

ok, and what does that have to do with what I'm saying?

We were discussing strict New Testament only teaching, and you brought up honorifics being used in a manner seeming to relate to the New Testament itself, but the only bishops in the New Testament were Peter, one of the Apostles of Christ that is often considered one of the most important, and James is often considered one of the most important figures in the early Church. Thus not much room for differing honorifics. Most likely you were discussing Orthodox tradition which would certainly not be accepted by sola scripturists.
---
"I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind." -- Ecclesiastes 1:14
#37CorporateKnightPosted 5/22/2013 7:56:01 PM
Silviiro posted...
Apostles travel together with evangelists but a bishop stays in the area and protect doctrines.
Prove in the Bible that Peter was a bishop.


"So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed" -- 1 Peter 5:1

At the time the offices of Elder and Bishop had not separated. An apostle is just "one who is sent." Any evangelist who is sent somewhere is an apostle of the church which sent them, for example Barnabas was an apostle of Antioch. This is usually differentiated from the direct Apostles of Christ.

ok, and what does that have to do with what I'm saying?

We were discussing strict New Testament only teaching, and you brought up honorifics being used in a manner seeming to relate to the New Testament itself, but the only bishops in the New Testament were Peter, one of the Apostles of Christ that is often considered one of the most important, and James is often considered one of the most important figures in the early Church. Thus not much room for differing honorifics. Most likely you were discussing Orthodox tradition which would certainly not be accepted by sola scripturists.


How do you ordain an elder?
#38Chaos ScadePosted 5/23/2013 3:32:16 AM
Silviiro posted...
ok, and what does that have to do with what I'm saying?

We were discussing strict New Testament only teaching, and you brought up honorifics being used in a manner seeming to relate to the New Testament itself, but the only bishops in the New Testament were Peter, one of the Apostles of Christ that is often considered one of the most important, and James is often considered one of the most important figures in the early Church. Thus not much room for differing honorifics. Most likely you were discussing Orthodox tradition which would certainly not be accepted by sola scripturists.


My point was that the existence of varying honorifics within the episcopate does not contradict the New Testament teaching that there is no order above that of bishop.
#39SilviiroPosted 5/23/2013 6:25:22 PM
How do you ordain an elder?

Going from a strict New Testament perspective there is no clear practice. Timothy was told to "appoint" Elders without much detail given to the process. The prototypical Deacons of the church in Jerusalem received the laying on of the Apostles' hands, but then so did everyone. Going to the early non-canonical writings, Clement wrote of Elders being appointed and the Didache lacks a ritual of ordination but mentions "appointing" Elders by the congregation. Due to laying on of hands being a common practice for many types of ceremonies in the first century, and used in the granting of spiritual gifts in the Church, ritual of ordination developed in most Christian communities as the laying on of hands of a previous Elder and/or the laying on of hands of the congregation.

My point was that the existence of varying honorifics within the episcopate does not contradict the New Testament teaching that there is no order above that of bishop.

Your point was difficult to extract.
---
"I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind." -- Ecclesiastes 1:14