Does Jerome Undermine Apostolic Succession?

[JM]

Dr. Ortlund draws a few conclusions from the writings of St. Jerome's works.

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

yes. apostolic succession is wrong. there was not a "pastor of pastors" or bishop who ruled over the other presbyters. The gnostic gospels were circulating and sola scriptura would be diluted if we had to rely on 1 man to tell us what to do or a gnostic agent to infiltrate the church and appoint his minions. It's just like the "designated survivor" show and continuity of gov because the gnostics would have infiltrated. Rather there was a Presbyterian style church gov, like representative democracy, and they used substitution ciphers to communicate like in Ancient Greece. Thus, the gnostics couldn't assasinate the bishop or dilute the scriptures; although I'm not officially a "scholar" on this. There's a famous book by James Bannerman debunking other forms of church gov. Lutherans never really thought about to the extent the Presbyterians did, and I'm not sure exactly what the LCMS does on this, but I have a list of like 20 books on this issue to read and don't have the money right now to buy them. People wanna claim that Jerome was just deducing what he was saying as if he didn't know what he was talking about.

 

[JM]

yes. apostolic succession is wrong. there was not a "pastor of pastors" or bishop who ruled over the other presbyters. The gnostic gospels were circulating and sola scriptura would be diluted if we had to rely on 1 man to tell us what to do or a gnostic agent to infiltrate the church and appoint his minions. It's just like the "designated survivor" show and continuity of gov because the gnostics would have infiltrated. Rather there was a Presbyterian style church gov, like representative democracy, and they used substitution ciphers to communicate like in Ancient Greece. Thus, the gnostics couldn't assasinate the bishop or dilute the scriptures; although I'm not officially a "scholar" on this. There's a famous book by James Bannerman debunking other forms of church gov. Lutherans never really thought about to the extent the Presbyterians did, and I'm not sure exactly what the LCMS does on this, but I have a list of like 20 books on this issue to read and don't have the money right now to buy them. People wanna claim that Jerome was just deducing what he was saying as if he didn't know what he was talking about.

Bannermans work is free online but way too lengthy for me to read.

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

Bannermans work is free online but way too lengthy for me to read.

there's this one that's shorter by Ernst Luthardt

Category: Classics In Dogmatics

Conrad Emil Lindberg (1852—1930) was an influential Lutheran theologian in both Sweden and the United States. He pastored congregations in Pennsylvania and New York, and later became a professor at...

www.jspublishing.org

 

[JM]

there's this one that's shorter by Ernst Luthardt

Category: Classics In Dogmatics

Conrad Emil Lindberg (1852—1930) was an influential Lutheran theologian in both Sweden and the United States. He pastored congregations in Pennsylvania and New York, and later became a professor at...

www.jspublishing.org

I've been looking at that one but still working my way through the Conservative Reformation by Krauth.

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

also the fact is that the doctrine of a visible church is tied to apostolic succession, that's why EO and Rome both anathematize each other. ACNA is wishy washy, but logically, I don't get how they trace their successors. So Lutheranism is better from that angle because we can say other denominations are saved. I would say this doctrine is pretty essential to the protestant reformation, but ACNA forced me to reexamine it.