|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/19/2008 12:29:34 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sdaw
No, I do not. However, that does not prohibit the Apostolic Succession continuing "outside the True Church" for the reasons I have already given.
Walter: "But this is not scriptural or taught by the Church thru out the ages.
IBM sends out their own reps to do their job, and at the same time there is another company sending reps who say they are IBM employees. Get my point?"
Walter,
I thought about your comment while watching the news last night. Former President Jimmy Carter is on a mission over in the Middle East, but he has not been sent by our government. Yet, he presumes to represent our gov't and many of the heads of state he has met with dialogue with him in this regard. However, someone in our state department (can't recall her name), requested that the U.S. government revoke Carter's passport because he is defying our government and our policies. Interesting huh?
Carter's unauthorized visit got me to thinking about the Apostles who had been "sent" by our Lord to preach the gospel. And in turn, they laid hands on other godly men, and "sent" them to preach the gospel. And so it was for many centuries and has continued even to this day. However, in my studies and inquiries into various faith traditions, I have been confronted with the yearning to know where this unbroken, unchanging faith can be found. For I desire to worship with Christians such as these.
Which brings me to this question...How does one know if they are "sent"? Those being sent speak on God's behalf. Speaking on God's behalf should not be something taken lightly. Further, it would not be confusing or contradictory, for our God is not a God of confusion. Those sent would preach an uncompromising, continuous and unchanging faith. Yet when we look at the current "Christian" landscape, something quite different has emerged.
These are just some thoughts from a believer in Christ desiring to worship and commune with those Christians holding to the doctrine of the Apostles. During the course of my journey, my quest has brought me to some of the conclusions stated above.
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/19/2008 1:28:01 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
I believe Christ called it the practice of the Nicolaitans, and He said He hated it. Since Christ doesn't change then He probably still does hate it.
Walter:"If I remember, I believe the Nicolaitans were promiscuous. Since they were set free, they thought they were free to do whatever they wanted."
This reminds me of the "Way Ministry." They unabashedly drank to excess in public, and defended fornication because the body is dead to sin anyway and it doesn't matter what we "do" in the body since one's salvation is thoroughly secure.
Attending one of their Bible studies for the first time was an eye-opener. I had been a Christian for only a few weeks. While attending one of their meetings, I heard a voice speak to me (which I now know was the Holy Spirit), warning me not to pray with these people. Afterward, the Holy Spirit impressed upon my heart to flee from them. At the time, not knowing the scriptures at all, I didn't understand. But in the subsequent months and years, I would bump into them often and only then understood why the Holy Spirit warned me. They so strongly adhered to being saved no matter what, that they thought the manner in which one lives after "accepting Christ by faith" was totally irrelevant.
None the less, I've encountered some Christians along the way who subscribe to this way of thinking who do not belong to the "Way Ministry."
Seems the "old" heresies keep rearing their ugly heads over and over again.
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/19/2008 1:37:26 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Walter: "But, just like we have a physical evidence of the Jews and the Torah, there is also a physical evidence of the Church and the NT bible. Except that many only accept the physical evidence of the NT bible. How about the Church? I believe she is still around."
i-believe: "The church that is Christ's body will be around until Christ returns. It just does not exist under anyones banner (RCC, EOC, Presb. PCA/USA, Southern Bapt., etc.)"
So this begs the question, at least for me, which church should I attend that most clearly, accurately and truthfully represents the doctrine taught by the Apostles? Many of these churches that you mention claim they do, but they contradict each other in their doctrines and beliefs. Ergo, the very reason for so many schisms, sects, faith traditions. To which model should I subscribe? And will that model, that rubric if you will, most faithfully represent the teachings of the Apostles, and enable me in living out the Christian life to its fullest?
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/19/2008 1:49:07 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: i_believe
"he church that is Christ's body will be around until Christ returns. It just does not exist under anyones banner (RCC, EOC, Presb. PCA/USA, Southern Bapt., etc.)
Walter: "Then how does it exist? I don't think anyone can truthfully admit that ALL the denominations is the True Church, because there are sharp disagreements between them.
I don't believe the Church is divided. It is not scriptural. The bible talks about those that came out of her, and there is no mention of Christ recognizing them as part of the Church."
Walter,
This is the conclusion I have been painstakingly coming to on my faith journey. I say "painstakingly" because for MANY years I have subscribed to the same thinking as "i_believe." At times I wonder if perhaps I'm going a bit crazy. Other times, I wish I had never come down this path and arrived at this place, for it can be very troubling to the soul. For me I believe, ignorance was bliss. I was very content living the Christian life not being concerned with what I thought to be matters of unimportance.
However, this has been the work of the Holy Spirit and not of my doing. I would never have opted for this avenue or approach. It is too unsettling for one who has been convinced of their beliefs for most of their Christian life.
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/19/2008 2:34:02 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: salos
"There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." Mark 3:31-35
Who was it that Jesus said was closest to Him? Those who do the will of God. Apostolic succession means nothing, just as being in the Lord's human family meant nothing compared to doing or not doing God's will. So I'm for whatever denominations/churches search the scriptures and apply what they find clearly stated there.
But all the denominations stake their claim on searching the scriptures and applying what they find clearly stated there.
The Metholists/Wesleyans do, who are strong proponents of Entire Santification and believe a Christian can lose their salvation.
The Southern Baptists along with the Independent Baptists also subscribe to the same claim who believe in "once saved always saved" and no sin can cause them to lose their salvation. Yet, Independent Baptist churches have separated themselves from the Southern Baptist because they believe the SB have compromised their teachings and have become worldly.
Freewill Baptists and Primitive Baptists fall into another category entirely.
Then we have the Assemblies of God, who also subscribe to the same claim, yet believe in the gifts of the Spirit, practice speaking in tongues and being slain in the Spirit. These Christians are condemned in many fundamentalist Baptist churches as being heretical.
Then we have the Anglicans, who possess the same claim, yet believe they hold the true faith as opposed to the Episcopalians, who have broken away from them and become liberal in their teachings.
Then we have the Bible Fellowship churches who broke away from the Mennonites. The Bible Fellowship churches have departed from the teaching of the Mennonites who believe that a Christian can lose their salvation. And also who are passivists and refuse to partake in war.
Then we have the Amish, who believe they hold to the true faith as held by Zwingly, and oppose the modern ways of the Mennonites. Even among Mennonites, we have the old order, who consider the liberal Mennonites as having departed from the true faith.
Then we have the Quaker tradition which doesn't hold to the offices within the church. Anyone can stand up and speak a word to the congregation at their meetings. They have no pastor in their congregation.
Then we have the Reformed Calvinist Baptists and Presbyterians who subscribe to the same claim, yet strongly oppose the Methodists, Wesleyans, Anglicans, Lutherans regarding the 5 points ie. TULIP. And they do not recognize the baptism of many of these other faith traditions.
However, even among the Reformed, we have splits, such as the OPC, PCA, and the liberal wing of the Presbyterian church. The latter allows for women preachers, while the former claim this is unbiblical. And then we have the Reformed Baptists who disagree with their Presbyterian brethren regarding baptism. The former believe only in believer's baptism while the latter believe in infant baptism.
Then we have the Salvation Army who does not baptize at all, and who also subscribe to the same claim of searching the scriptures and applying what they find clearly stated there.
Then we have the Evangelical Free churches, the Calvary Chapels, the Word of Faith churches, the Nazarene churches, the Pilgrim Holiness churches, the United Churches of Christ, the Lutheran churches of which there are the ELC, MS and the WES. And then we have the Seventh Day Adventists, the Church of Christ (different from the UCC), the Christian Missionary Alliance....
And then we have.....Oh I give up. There are many more but why continue? I think I've made my point.
I just want to know which one of these faith traditions is right? Which teach the doctrine of the Apostles? Or are they all right? Or just some of them? And if only some of them are right, how can we determine this, since all lay claim to the scriptures as their guide.
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/19/2008 3:04:42 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames:
I believe there is ample evidence of "denominations" with the early Church. Up until the time of Constantine the Churches in the different parts of the world used some different "books" in their Churches (mostly the cannon we use today, but some used "Clement" or "The Sheppard of Hermes", etc.). This would certainly qualify then as different denomination. The Syriac Church would definitely qualify as a different denomination, as do the Orthodoxies."
So, did these different denominations as you call them, differ in their doctrine and teaching. Did some of these churches in the early church teach believer's baptism and others teach regenerative baptism? And did some teach baptism unnecessary altogether.
And what did these early churches differ in their teachings on The Lord's Supper? Did some believe in Christ's real presence in the Eucharist and some oppose it saying that it is just a memorial meal only? And did some believe in Consubstantiation, which differs from the two above? And did some believe that The Lord's Supper wasn't all that important after all and only participate in it once or twice per year?
And what about OSAS? What did each of these "denominations" within the early church teach? Were they Calvinist, Arminian, or somewhere in-between?
And what did these early churches believe regarding the gifts of the Spirit? Did they believe they had ceased with the Apostles or were still in operation within the body of Christ?
Were there bishops, pastors, and teachers that were elected and sent to teach these various churches the doctrine of the Apostles? Who taught these bishops, pastors, and teachers what the Christian faith was in order to hand it down and teach it to these early churches? How did the early church lay claim to its authority to preach the gospel of Christ so that they could boldy claim, "We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." I John 4:6 Isn't this claim arrogance and elitism?
Where did a person go in the first centuries if he/she wanted to hear the preaching of the gospel of Christ? Or did one have several churches from which to choose?
quote:
Yes there have always been some "denominational" difference, and that is a good thing, not a bad thing; because it has helped keep the truth out there.
By denominational" differences, do you mean that the early church of the first centuries taught differing doctrines on the major tenets of the faith, such as baptism, The Lord's Supper, the Trinity, whether works are of any value, and no sin, no matter how grave, can cause one to fall away from the living God?
Was unity in the doctrine of the Apostles just optional?
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/20/2008 12:28:07 AM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1375
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear Lurker, I am not familiar with Pope Benedict or his statement, so I don't don't have an answer.
_____________________________
St. Athanasius the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/20/2008 1:03:43 AM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1375
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear heavendweller, initially I have researched the different denominations how it got started. But this led me no where, because it only went back a short period of time. So then I researched the group they broke off from, and then in turn what group those came from. The farthest point I was able to go was the Lutheran. Because of this, I visited a few of their churches to gain some knowledge. But in the end, they still only went back a few hundred years ago. What about before this, since there is a "huge" gap between the NT Church and the Lutherans. At that time I was only familiar with the RCC, but was reluctant to know anything about them, since they believed in papal infallibility, purgatory, among other things. It was frustrating.
So instead of trying to go back into history to find out which denomination stood up, I decided to start from the beginning. I knew of the several Churches mentioned in the NT, like the Corinthians, the Church in Jerusalem with James, the Church at Antioch, and many others. And I asked myself, I know this is the real Church, so where are they now? Are they still around? Surprisingly, I found out they are still around, even to this day. Then I did a lot of study of what happened to the Church since the NT. This is because I decided to put aside the belief that somehow the early Church went apostate, only to re-emerge in the Reformation. It was kinda hard to believe that the Church was gone for so many centuries. And besides, I could not find any biblical proof that this happened.
Through the journey, I have found out that the NT Church has never gone away. And neither has she being silent. And when I studied the commentaries of the early Church Fathers, I was amazed, and began to read the scripture with a different understanding.
_____________________________
St. Athanasius the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/20/2008 4:43:13 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
Dear heavendweller, initially I have researched the different denominations how it got started. But this led me no where, because it only went back a short period of time.
Yes, I have taken the same course of action, over many years. This is why I have been involved with several denominations such as, Pilgrim Holiness, Wesleyan, Assembly of God, Reformed Baptist, and non-denominational. I have even investigated other churches and their conception, doctrine and teachings, etc., such as the Evangelical Free, Bible Fellowship, Presbyterian OPC & PCA, and Lutheran MS.
quote:
So then I researched the group they broke off from, and then in turn what group those came from. The farthest point I was able to go was the Lutheran. Because of this, I visited a few of their churches to gain some knowledge.
I also attended a Lutheran Church Missour Synod for several months and attended Bible study and received instruction from the pastor. However, becoming familiar with some of Luther's writings caused me to be very disappointed in the man. His sermon "Sin Boldly" was very troubling to read. There were, however, additional factors which dissuaded me from going in this direction.
quote:
But in the end, they still only went back a few hundred years ago. What about before this, since there is a "huge" gap between the NT Church and the Lutherans. At that time I was only familiar with the RCC, but was reluctant to know anything about them, since they believed in papal infallibility, purgatory, among other things. It was frustrating.
I too, have gone this same route, which almost led me to becoming Roman Catholic. But, for some of the reasons which you have stated, I arrived at the same impasse. I read quite a few papal encyclicals from different centuries and found there to be inconsistensies with the RCC. The whole idea of "development of doctrine" of which Cardinal Newman wrote extensively, convinced me that the RCC has been undergoing a metamorphosis over the centuries. This is not to say that there is no good to be found with the RC faith. But, to think that the faith can be re-defined and re-interpreted by excathedra statements, binding on the hearts of all RC, is not something I can submit to. My conscience wouldn't allow it. St. Jude in his letter has stated that the faith was "once for all delivered to the saints."
quote:
So instead of trying to go back into history to find out which denomination stood up, I decided to start from the beginning. I knew of the several Churches mentioned in the NT, like the Corinthians, the Church in Jerusalem with James, the Church at Antioch, and many others. And I asked myself, I know this is the real Church, so where are they now? Are they still around?
Yep, I too have taken up this challenge.
quote:
Surprisingly, I found out they are still around, even to this day.
I'm hoping that my studies and prayer will lead me to this Church as well.
quote:
Then I did a lot of study of what happened to the Church since the NT. This is because I decided to put aside the belief that somehow the early Church went apostate, only to re-emerge in the Reformation. It was kinda hard to believe that the Church was gone for so many centuries. And besides, I could not find any biblical proof that this happened.
I believed this for quite a long time. This theory is called the "Trail of Blood." According to this theory, the church went apostate within the first or second century and the true believers had to worship "underground" until the Reformation. But then we have other theories which say that the Church became corrupt during the era of the Emperor Constantine. I, for the most part, just ignored and hardly ever thought about the Christian Church and what she was like prior to the Reformation. It wasn't on mine or most of the Evangelicals that I knew.
Two things were majorly instrumental in helping me to disavow these assertions. I took a course in the Middle Ages in a secular college, which introduced me to the writings and biographies of REAL Christians who were martyred for their faith during the first thousand years of the Church's existance. Then I began delving into the writings of the Early Church Fathers of the first 5 centuries. Their understanding on the major tenets of the Christian faith was unanimous. They spoke about the Eucharist being "the medicine of immortality." And this Early Church all taught and believed the same regarding the sacrament of Baptism, the Trinity, and the deity of Christ. Theirs was a faith that was united in its understanding of the Apostle's teaching.
It was an eye opener to discover that this Early Church believed in Sacraments, outward signs of an inward grace given to the believer. All I had ever heard about were ordinances and there were only two, Baptism and The Lord's Supper. Both of which had very little meaning attached to them.
I must add one third significant discovery. As I was introduced to the holy martyrs and saints of this Early Church, and read their writings regarding the apostolic teaching, I started seeing Scripture in an entirely different light. The books of Hebrews and Revelation opened up before my eyes with an illumination that left me in awe. And reading the gospels has caused me to understand passages that before seemed obscure.
quote:
Through the journey, I have found out that the NT Church has never gone away. And neither has she being silent. And when I studied the commentaries of the early Church Fathers, I was amazed, and began to read the scripture with a different understanding.
I understand completely! It is as if you are writing my story in many respects. Thanks so much for sharing your journey.
Needless to say for me, this eye-opening experience has not been all sunshine and roses along the way. At times, I've wished that I could erase these past few years, and be the content Evangelical I once was. But one cannot put the lid back on Pandora's box, now can they? And even if the attempt is made, the outcome will be unsuccessful.
And so it is that I continue to pray, and study, and ask the blessed Triune God for His guidance on this blessed and pedagogic journey.
Blessed be the Lord God forever,
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/21/2008 1:24:49 AM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 754
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Silver Spring, MD
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
Dear Lurker, I am not familiar with Pope Benedict or his statement, so I don't don't have an answer.
It was merely how he addressed the bishops during the Papal mass in DC. He used the term "my brother bishops" which struck me and a few of the other Eastern rite Christians as out of the ordinary. There was much debate amongst some of the more learned Easterners about what this meant, was it simply a one time thing? Or is it the Pope's gentle, subtle outreach to the East by referring to himself as merely one of many bishops?
_____________________________
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 - 4/21/2008 9:43:55 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5054
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
Since the EOC and the RCC have been fighting like spoiled little kids for over a Millinium; it would be productive if they could get over themselves and and least acknowledge.
As Rodney King so graceously put it. "Whe can't we just all get along".
The answer of course is arrogance, pride, and deception.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/21/2008 1:40:33 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
RIGINAL: rcjames
Since the EOC and the RCC have been fighting like spoiled little kids for over a Millinium; it would be productive if they could get over themselves and and least acknowledge.
And the Protestants just all get along fine and dandy, which is evidenced by all the agreement we find here on Crosswalk, and of course, the many and various schisms, church splits, and sects.
quote:
As Rodney King so graceously put it. "Whe can't we just all get along".
The answer of course is arrogance, pride, and deception.
Thanks
RC
RC, wanna rethink what you've just said. The Reformers argued and sharply disagreed with each other, and called certain Protestants "heretics."
I think your comment might just possibly be laced with the very criticism you launch at the EOC and RCC.
When you judge others, you put yourself and those in your own faith tradition under the scrutiny of being judged as well. The outcome is that the platform from which a non-EOC or non-RCC would argue is fraught with the very same problems. Thus we have, as I've stated, schisms, church splits, contention, strife, and contoversy among Protestant ranks of various denominations and faith traditions.
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. That's a nice reminder for all of us, including me. The Christian landscape is filled with much that isn't well..."Christ-like."
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/21/2008 3:40:23 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5054
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Heavendweller
quote:
RIGINAL: rcjames
Since the EOC and the RCC have been fighting like spoiled little kids for over a Millinium; it would be productive if they could get over themselves and and least acknowledge.
And the Protestants just all get along fine and dandy, which is evidenced by all the agreement we find here on Crosswalk, and of course, the many and various schisms, church splits, and sects.
quote:
As Rodney King so graceously put it. "Whe can't we just all get along".
The answer of course is arrogance, pride, and deception.
Thanks
RC
RC, wanna rethink what you've just said.
No this thread is about RCC ond EOC heresy, if you want to discuss protestants please start another thread.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/21/2008 4:27:56 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
Since the EOC and the RCC have been fighting like spoiled little kids for over a Millinium; it would be productive if they could get over themselves and and least acknowledge.
As Rodney King so graceously put it. "Whe can't we just all get along".
The answer of course is arrogance, pride, and deception.
Thanks
RC
HD responded:RC, wanna rethink what you've just said.
RC, I direct you to your comments again.
quote:
No this thread is about RCC ond EOC heresy, if you want to discuss protestants please start another thread.
Sorry, but by making the accusations that you did, you made yourself wide-open for a response.
BTW, this thread is NOT specifically about the RCC either. Yet in discussing the New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession and the EOC, one necessarily will need to discuss Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, since comparisons will be made.
You are not a Moderator so I won't take your direction to start a Protestant thread. Besides, there are many started already.
BTW, did I offend you in my remarks regarding the schism, sects, and church splits? I think there is a direct correlation to this and Apostolic Succession. I also think such remarks are worth addressing, especially on this thread where you accuse the EOC of arrogance, pride and deception. You may do so, but then don't be expected not to be called to account for your comments. And on top of it, avoid a response by telling me to start my own thread.
If you would like to discuss the EOC and Apostolic Succession, surely I would love to. But I ask that you try to be respectful and charitable in your comments.
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/22/2008 12:20:22 AM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1375
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
No this thread is about RCC ond EOC heresy, if you want to discuss protestants please start another thread.
Dear rcjames, I think you're in the wrong thread. This thread is about finding the New Testament Church.
Also, calling the RCC or any other group heresy, I think is a TOS violation.
_____________________________
St. Athanasius the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/22/2008 9:33:52 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5054
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
No this thread is about RCC ond EOC heresy, if you want to discuss protestants please start another thread.
Dear rcjames, I think you're in the wrong thread. This thread is about finding the New Testament Church.
Also, calling the RCC or any other group heresy, I think is a TOS violation.
Hi Walter, long time no visit.
I do not think it is a TOS violation to point out that the Apostolic Sucess as promoted by the EOC and the RCC is heresy in my opinion; if it is the mods will spank me.
Heavendweller
I stand by my statement that the reason we can't all get along including the reason for the EOC/RCC split is arrogrance, pride, and deception.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/22/2008 10:08:21 AM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
ORIGINAL: walterquez
Heavendweller
I stand by my statement that the reason we can't all get along including the reason for the EOC/RCC split is arrogrance, pride, and deception.
Thanks
Ah, now that's a horse of different color! You've amended your statement to include ALL. Now the dialogue can begin. :)
I'm going to school shortly, but I'll pick this up when I come back.
Have a blessed and peaceful day in Jesus Christ.
The Son is always shining even when the weather is grey.
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/22/2008 10:19:19 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5054
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Heavendweller
Ah, now that's a horse of different color! You've amended your statement to include ALL. Now the dialogue can begin. :)
If you are going to refer to my post please do not try to change what I said. I said all in the first post and all in the second post. I then included the EOC/RCC split specifically.
The arrogance, pride, and deception between the EOC and RCC rest with the Bishops on one side and the Magistrum on the other. Sorta like my dog can whip your dog attitude.
Thsnks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/22/2008 8:35:16 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
Your first post
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
Since the EOC and the RCC have been fighting like spoiled little kids for over a Millinium; it would be productive if they could get over themselves and and least acknowledge.
As Rodney King so graceously put it. "Whe can't we just all get along".
The answer of course is arrogance, pride, and deception.
quote:
RC: "If you are going to refer to my post please do not try to change what I said. I said all in the first post and all in the second post. I then included the EOC/RCC split specifically.
RC, I must not have read between the lines. The word "all" is not there nor is it alluded to. You only mention the EOC and RCC which you go on to put in the category of "arrogance, pride, and deception."
The whole reason we are dialoguing is because I referred to Protestant schisms, sects and splits in comparison. To which you referred me to start my own Protestant thread. But you never addressed the issue of these schisms, sects and splits as a result of the same problem.
Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other. However, rather than go round and round in a "he said she said" let's just move on.
I'd much rather have a discussion about Apostolic Succession and the EOC. If you aren't interested, that's fine too. You've probably said all that you've wanted to say on this topic already. Am I right?
But let's submit to Scripture which says to "pursue the things that make for peace and mutual upbuilding." and to "strive for peace with all men." Not always easy to do, but a goal we need to work toward.
In Christ's Love,
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/22/2008 9:03:01 PM
|
| | | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
