|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/20/2007 7:02:20 PM
|
|
|
thOgre
Posts: 22
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sisterfaith
I'm sorry, but the Apostles had NO successors! Because to succeed them one needed to be a witness of Christ's ressurection! And Christ WAS the head of the Apostles, NOT peter!
So then Paul was not an Apostle?
_____________________________
nice to pet, better to chew . . . Jim Gaffegan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/20/2007 7:56:11 PM
|
|
|
sisterfaith
Posts: 25
Joined: 8/17/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thOgre
quote:
ORIGINAL: sisterfaith
I'm sorry, but the Apostles had NO successors! Because to succeed them one needed to be a witness of Christ's ressurection! And Christ WAS the head of the Apostles, NOT peter!
So then Paul was not an Apostle?
Paul was divinely chosen and called to preach the gospel to the gentiles (Acts 9:1-31; 22:5-21; 26:1-20). He had not traveled with Jesus on earth, but he possesed the apostolic qualifications of having seen Jesus after his ressurection. On the way to Damascus, Jesus appeared to him and spoke to him, changing his hostility into passionate devotion. Paul was able to say, "Am I not an Apostle? Am I not free? have I not seen jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Corin.9:1).
_____________________________
Luke 10:27......You must Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind. And Love your neighbor as youself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/20/2007 7:58:42 PM
|
|
|
thOgre
Posts: 22
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sisterfaith
Paul was divinely chosen and called to preach the gospel to the gentiles (Acts 9:1-31; 22:5-21; 26:1-20). He had not traveled with Jesus on earth, but he possesed the apostolic qualifications of having seen Jesus after his ressurection. On the way to Damascus, Jesus appeared to him and spoke to him, changing his hostility into passionate devotion. Paul was able to say, "Am I not an Apostle? Am I not free? have I not seen jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Corin.9:1).
Isn't this Apostolic succession then?
_____________________________
nice to pet, better to chew . . . Jim Gaffegan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/20/2007 8:02:38 PM
|
|
|
sisterfaith
Posts: 25
Joined: 8/17/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
quote:
ORIGINAL: sisterfaith
I'm sorry, but the Apostles had NO successors! Because to succeed them one needed to be a witness of Christ's ressurection! And Christ WAS the head of the Apostles, NOT peter! Actually they did have successors. Not Apostles, but Bishops. And they in turn appointed elders, deacons, etc...
This of course does not imply the Bishop alone has Apostolic authority, except if united with the whole Church.
Christ appointed the Apostles. They in turn appointed the Bishops, who in turn appointed priests and deacons. And at least two or three Bishops appointing other Bishops. This is what is meant by Apostolic succession.
One can easily verify if a local pastor comes from this succession, if you can trace their predecessors back to Christ. If they don't, then they were appointed outside the Church.
I disagree with that. the requirements of an Apostle or to even succeed an Apostle, was that he had to be an eyewitness of the events of the life of Jesus, he had to see him after his ressurection, and had to testify to mankind concerning him (Matt.10:2-42; Acts 1:21,22; 1 Corin.9:1).
_____________________________
Luke 10:27......You must Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind. And Love your neighbor as youself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/20/2007 8:04:44 PM
|
|
|
sisterfaith
Posts: 25
Joined: 8/17/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thOgre
quote:
ORIGINAL: sisterfaith
Paul was divinely chosen and called to preach the gospel to the gentiles (Acts 9:1-31; 22:5-21; 26:1-20). He had not traveled with Jesus on earth, but he possesed the apostolic qualifications of having seen Jesus after his ressurection. On the way to Damascus, Jesus appeared to him and spoke to him, changing his hostility into passionate devotion. Paul was able to say, "Am I not an Apostle? Am I not free? have I not seen jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Corin.9:1).
Isn't this Apostolic succession then?
No, he WAS an Apostle because he was an actual eyewitness of Jesus after his ressurection when Jesus appeared to him in Damascus.
_____________________________
Luke 10:27......You must Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind. And Love your neighbor as youself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/20/2007 8:10:26 PM
|
|
|
thOgre
Posts: 22
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sisterfaith
No, he WAS an Apostle because he was an actual eyewitness of Jesus after his ressurection when Jesus appeared to him in Damascus.
After Chr-st revealed H-mself, Paul becomes an apostle. You say there are no other apostles because no one els has this kind of revelation. So because no one else has had this kind of witness, no one else can be an apostle?
Okay, I'll accept that.
_____________________________
nice to pet, better to chew . . . Jim Gaffegan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/20/2007 8:20:56 PM
|
|
|
sisterfaith
Posts: 25
Joined: 8/17/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
quote:
And there is nothing in the Bible that says the Apostles appointed successors
Sis,
This has probably been mentioned in this thread already but there is a little problem with that statement given the fact Mattias is appointed in Acts 1:15-26. These appointments are continued with Paul via Timothy.
Otis
After Judas the number of Apostles was eleven, so they Cast Lots to choose between Matthias and another person Joseph, the lot fell upon Matthias, who was consequently elected (Acts 1:23-26). however the title "Apostles" was not limited to the 12 , for Barnabus (Acts 14:14) and James the Lord;s brother (Gal.1:19; 1 Corin.15:7) were also called Apostles.
_____________________________
Luke 10:27......You must Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind. And Love your neighbor as youself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/21/2007 12:01:20 AM
|
|
|
rosswell59
Posts: 1135
Joined: 3/25/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Timothy and Titus who were Bishops
And where do we read this?
Yours in Christ,
Ross
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/22/2007 11:47:09 PM
|
|
|
gatolover
Posts: 546
Joined: 6/23/2006
Status: offline
|
sisterfaith,
quote:
the requirements of an Apostle or to even succeed an Apostle, was that he had to be an eyewitness of the events of the life of Jesus, he had to see him after his ressurection, and had to testify to mankind concerning him (Matt.10:2-42; Acts 1:21,22; 1 Corin.9:1).
Chapter and verse, please.
In fact, I'm confused over your acceptance of Paul as an "apostle" according to your criteria.
St. Paul was not an "eyewitness of the events of the life of Jesus." Who told you this was a "requirement" I wonder?
Peace,
gatolover
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/23/2007 11:29:06 PM
|
|
|
rosswell59
Posts: 1135
Joined: 3/25/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gatolover
sisterfaith,
quote:
the requirements of an Apostle or to even succeed an Apostle, was that he had to be an eyewitness of the events of the life of Jesus, he had to see him after his ressurection, and had to testify to mankind concerning him (Matt.10:2-42; Acts 1:21,22; 1 Corin.9:1).
Chapter and verse, please.
In fact, I'm confused over your acceptance of Paul as an "apostle" according to your criteria.
St. Paul was not an "eyewitness of the events of the life of Jesus." Who told you this was a "requirement" I wonder?
Peace,
gatolover
Gato,
All of the original 12 apostles did have the distinction of having personally seen Christ.
quote:
Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. 23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
Paul saw Him in the glory which characterized his doctrines.
Yours in Christ,
Ross
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/24/2007 11:52:53 PM
|
|
|
gatolover
Posts: 546
Joined: 6/23/2006
Status: offline
|
Dear Ross,
quote:
All of the original 12 apostles did have the distinction of having personally seen Christ.
No argument there, friend. I'm just curious how sisterfaith finds her requirement that in order to be considered an apostle, "he had to be an eyewitness of the events of the life of Jesus," met in St. Paul. It appears, she has no problem recognizing St. Paul as an Apostle though he certainly was never "an eyewitness of the events of the life of Jesus." I'd just like to hear her justification for making an exception in St. Paul's case and I wonder what she makes of his letters to Timothy as far as her idea of succession goes.
quote:
Paul saw Him in the glory which characterized his doctrines.
The Lord had abundant mercy on Saul and renamed him Paul. We serve a God of mercy, love, and grace, Ross. I am eternally thankful!
Pax et bonum,
gatolover
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/25/2007 2:59:27 PM
|
|
|
rosswell59
Posts: 1135
Joined: 3/25/2006
Status: offline
|
gato,
I think you missed my point that all of the apostles personally saw Christ, even Paul. Paul has the special distinction of only having seen Him in glory. None of the other apostles saw Him this way. I don't see apostolic succession in Timothy.
Yours in Christ,
Ross
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/25/2007 5:46:56 PM
|
|
|
caoimhin
Posts: 81
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
In Acts 1 we see that a requirement for an apostle is that they were eyewitnesses of Jesus' earthly ministry. I don't see how this excludes Paul because we can't say that he was not an eyewitness. He might have been one, although as a hostile outside observer at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/25/2007 11:35:42 PM
|
|
|
rosswell59
Posts: 1135
Joined: 3/25/2006
Status: offline
|
I believe the fact that Paul saw the Lord in the glory alone qualified him to be an apostle.
Yours in Christ,
Ross
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/26/2007 8:05:13 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 910
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
Paul was an Apostle.
An Apostle is a teacher. One is an Apostle if they received their faith instruction and formulation directly from Jesus.
Nobody here on this forum is an Apostle. We did not receive our instruction directly from Jesus, but second-hand, from an Apostle, who wrote down what he learned.
Furthermore, this instruction was refined and discerned by a Church, who told us (...actually - discerned the revelation of...) which writings were inspired writings suitable for the support of faith instruction, and which were to be cast aside as the writings of someone who wished they were a real Apostle, but were merely making stuff up, or extapolating the known teachings into heretical nonsense.
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/26/2007 9:34:02 AM
|
|
|
rosswell59
Posts: 1135
Joined: 3/25/2006
Status: offline
|
Paul's writings were received as scripture long before the church declared them to be so.
Yours in Christ,
Ross
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/26/2007 3:07:28 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 910
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Paul's writings were received as scripture long before the church declared them to be so "Received" by whom? Under what instruction?
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/26/2007 3:46:38 PM
|
|
|
rosswell59
Posts: 1135
Joined: 3/25/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
Paul's writings were received as scripture long before the church declared them to be so "Received" by whom? Under what instruction?
2Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Yours in Christ,
Ross
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/26/2007 4:08:02 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 910
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
2Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. So, if we are ill-equipped through a lack of training or a lack of faculties, to undertake the discernment of Scriptures, and if we attempt to do this on our own, then we will do so at our own destruction? Presumably through our own poor job of exegis, and our poor job of intsruction?
Is that what you are saying by citing Peter?
Sorry - that was a tangent. So Peter, citing Paul in 2 Peter - is what makes Paul authoritative? What makes Peter authoritative?
Paul and Peter were the Church - and they taought their followers. Who had followers of their own. And their knowledge was passed to their followers. This is what is authoritative - the connection of the instruction back to the Apostle - and therefore - Jesus.
There is a latin name for this passing of teaching from one generation to the next - magisterium
By the way - I wanted to second the thought I saw in a reply to you on another thread. I have been reading your posts. You are a gentleman and the type of person I think of when I think of "Christian". You are an excellent example of the faith you profess in your posts.
< Message edited by Doghouse -- 8/26/2007 4:19:46 PM >
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/26/2007 11:36:45 PM
|
|
|
rosswell59
Posts: 1135
Joined: 3/25/2006
Status: offline
|
Apparently Timothy had the ability to discern scripture or Paul wouldn't have been able to write 2Tim. 3:16. I would also point out that this commendation of scripture is found in context with the failure of the church in chapter 2. This pattern can also be found in Acts 20 where Paul predicts failure among the Ephesian elders. We have these words:
32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
Yours in Christ,
Ross
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 10/9/2007 7:30:17 PM
|
|
|
rosswell59
Posts: 1135
Joined: 3/25/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Ross you should try using the Crosswalk bible tools. Here M Henry's commentary:
JN Darby's Synopsis of the NT:
The other was man's- he who professed the name of the Lord was to depart from all iniquity. This was man's responsibility, but it characterised the work and fruit of grace wherever that work was genuine and the true fruit borne.
But here we have distinct evidence of the state of things which this epistle contemplates; namely that the outward assembly had taken quite a new character, very different from that which it had at the beginning; and that now the individual was thrown upon his personal faithfulness as a resource, and as a means of escape from the general corruption. The sure foundation of God remained-His divine knowledge of those that are His; and individual separation from all evil; but the outward assembly assumes, in the eyes of the apostle, the character of a great house. All kinds of things are found in it, vessels of honour and vessels of dishonour, precious and vile. The man of God was to purge himself from the latter, to stand apart and not defile himself with that which was false and corrupt. This is a principle of all-importance, which the Lord has given us in His word. He allowed the evil to display itself in apostolic times, so far as to give occasion for the establishment of this principle by revelation, as that which was to govern the Christian. The unity of the assembly is so precious, it has such authority over the heart of man, that there was danger, when failure had set in, lest the desire for outward unity should induce even the faithful to accept evil and walk in fellowship with it, rather than break this unity. The principle therefore of individual faithfulness, of individual responsibility to God, is established, and set above all other considerations; for it has to do with the nature of God Himself, and His own authority over the conscience of the individual. God knoweth them that are His: here is the ground of confidence. I do not say who are. And let those that name the name of Jesus separate themselves from all evil. Here I get what I can recognize. To maintain in practice the possibility of union between that name and evil is to blaspheme it.
The whole of that which calls itself christian is looked at here as a great house. The Christian is of it outwardly, in spite of himself; for he calls himself a Christian, and the great house is all that calls itself christian. But he cleanses himself personally from every vessel which is not to the Lord's honour. This is the rule of christian faithfulness; and thus personally cleansed from fellowship with evil, he shall be a vessel unto honour fit for the Master's use. Whatsoever is contrary to the honour of Christ, in those who bear His name, is that from which he is to separate himself.
Yours in Christ,
Ross
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/16/2008 10:31:02 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
Ok, let’s get to the bottom of this. Where or Who is the real Church? No, this thread is NOT to prove the RCC is the real Church. But if you think it is, then you’re welcome to discuss it.
I know we come from many different denominations, so why is your denomination the True Church and not the others? Or are all of them the True Church? Why or why not?
Since each have different beliefs, I don’t see how can they all be the True Church.
In the title I included Apostolic Succession for a reason. I believe the True Church since the beginning has always been around thru succession. Maybe I need to explain this a little bit more. By Apostolic Succession, I don’t mean that the office itself was transferred thru the ages. What I mean is that Jesus appointed the twelve disciples, so they succeeded our Savior. Then the Apostles appointed bishops, so they in turn succeeded the Apostles. And then the bishops ordained other bishops, and so on.
This is one way the early Church was able to keep herself from false teachings. They argue that these other men were not disciples of the Apostles, or disciples of disciples of disciples. So they would not know what Christ taught, except those whom the teachings were passed on to.
Now, has this succession been broken somehow, or has it continue ever since? Is it possible that God would somehow forsake His Church for hundreds of years, and now revive it once again?
Or is following a succession of bishops not valid? Why would it be ok for someone to break away from the main Church and start a new denomination? Is this scriptural?
I know the RCC has claims to Apostolic Succession, but are they the only ones? How about the Orthodox Church? How about the Lutherans? How about the rest?
And if one of them IS that same Church that descends from the original, why are we not joined to her?
Hey Walter,
I just discovered this thread today. Great topic. Yikes, I have quite a few comments to read! Of course, nothing compared to the Calvinist/Arminianism thread!
Hope I don't suffer loss of vision, lol.
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/18/2008 10:08:33 PM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 742
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Silver Spring, MD
Status: offline
|
Walter, I was curious, what do you think of Pope Benedict's referral during the Papal mass in DC to "my brother bishops"
It's not a term the Popes have used regularly, and I know that Benedict doesn't say such things lightly or without greater meaning. Do you think it's a sign of his dedication to work towards reconciliation with the East? Or am I just reading too much into it?
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/19/2008 12:06:17 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
Walter, I was curious, what do you think of Pope Benedict's referral during the Papal mass in DC to "my brother bishops"
It's not a term the Popes have used regularly, and I know that Benedict doesn't say such things lightly or without greater meaning. Do you think it's a sign of his dedication to work towards reconciliation with the East? Or am I just reading too much into it?
Lurker,
While you are waiting for Walter's response, I'd like to make a few comments.
As far as reconciliation is concerned, I don't see how that can be accomplished without Benedict or any pope who would follow him, basically reversing the myriads of papal declarations that have been made throughout the centuries. Pope after pope anathamatized the EOC because they would not submit to the Roman Pontiff. How can there be a reconciliation without this matter being put on the table and addressed? And if it is addressed, do you think the EOC will then be willing to submit to the pope thereby binding themselves to all dogma declared excathedra?
I don't see how reconciliation can occur without one of the sides, or both, being willing to make compromises. Should the RCC concede, then that begs the question of the validity of the dogma declared at the First Vatican Council. And dogma declared excathedra cannot be reversed according to all the popes. Although many traditional RCC and Sedevacantists would say that the modern RCC has already done that since Vatican II.
Lurker, I ask you, how can reconciliation occur without compromise? And do you think that the Magesterium are desiring the EOC to submit to the pope? That's a tall order after 1,000 years, not to mention that the EOC would be changing the rubrics of their faith that have been in place for 2 millenium.
Just my opinion.
Heavendweller
|
|
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
