|
Post by DKTrav88 on Apr 24, 2018 0:16:23 GMT
www.gotquestions.org/apostolic-succession.htmlThe doctrine of apostolic succession is the belief that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed the apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing throughout the centuries, even unto today. The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the leader of the apostles, with the greatest authority, and therefore his successors carry on the greatest authority. The Roman Catholic Church combines this belief with the concept that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed Peter were accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. Apostolic succession, combined with Peter’s supremacy among the apostles, results in the Roman bishop being the supreme authority of the Catholic Church – the Pope. However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles. The apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray (Galatians 2:11-14). Yes, the apostle Peter had a prominent role. Yes, perhaps the apostle Peter was the leader of the apostles (although the book of Acts records the apostle Paul and Jesus’ brother James as also having prominent leadership roles). Whatever the case, Peter was not the “commander” or supreme authority over the other apostles. Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot, apostolic succession would not result in Peter’s successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors. Catholics point to Matthias being chosen to replace Judas as the twelfth apostle in Acts chapter 1 as an example of apostolic succession. While Matthias did indeed “succeed” Judas as an apostle, this is in no sense an argument for continuing apostolic succession. Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is only an argument for the church replacing ungodly and unfaithful leaders (such as Judas) with godly and faithful leaders (such as Matthias). Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority. No, Jesus ordained the apostles to build the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). What is the foundation of the church that the apostles built? The New Testament – the record of the deeds and teachings of the apostles. The church does not need apostolic successors. The church needs the teachings of the apostles accurately recorded and preserved. And that is exactly what God has provided in His Word (Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:15; 4:2). In short, apostolic succession is not biblical. The concept of apostolic succession is never found in Scripture. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right. The Roman Catholic Church claims that a lack of ongoing apostolic authority results in doctrinal confusion and chaos. It is an unfortunate truth (that the apostles acknowledged) that false teachers would arise (2 Peter 2:1). Admittedly, the lack of “supreme authority” among non-Catholic churches results in many different interpretations of the Bible. However, these differences in interpretation are not the result of Scripture being unclear. Rather, they are the result of even non-Catholic Christians carrying on the Catholic tradition of interpreting Scripture in accordance with their own traditions. If Scripture is studied in its entirety and in its proper context, the truth can be easily determined. Doctrinal differences and denominational conflicts are a result of some Christians refusing to agree with what Scripture says – not a result of there being no “supreme authority” to interpret Scripture. Alignment with scriptural teaching, not apostolic succession, is the determining factor of the trueness of a church. What is mentioned in Scripture is the idea that the Word of God was to be the guide that the church was to follow (Acts 20:32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is the Scriptures that teachings are to be compared with (Acts 17:10-12). Apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Apr 27, 2018 10:58:30 GMT
The Bible isn’t a man or a woman. It’s God. Trust God. Have a trusting relationship with God. With many respects to you, dktrav88, since you're man I can trust you're words. Take a As you said 'not to trust to people', ok, I won't. And I won't to trust you (because, you're a man, not God, aren't you?), and since your words are not truth, then the words 'Trust God' I will be understand like 'not trust to God'. Very funny. Yes you shouldn’t trust me, I am not God nor would I ever claim to be. When I tell you to trust God, you shouldn’t trust what I am telling you to do, you should seek to trust God on your own because you want to, not because I told you to. God’s word, the Bible, didn’t come from me, it came from God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2018 11:07:23 GMT
With many respects to you, dktrav88, since you're man I can trust you're words. Take a As you said 'not to trust to people', ok, I won't. And I won't to trust you (because, you're a man, not God, aren't you?), and since your words are not truth, then the words 'Trust God' I will be understand like 'not trust to God'. Very funny. Yes you shouldn’t trust me, I am not God nor would I ever claim to be. When I tell you to trust God, you shouldn’t trust what I am telling you to do, you should seek to trust God on your own because you want to, not because I told you to. God’s word, the Bible, didn’t come from me, it came from God. But it was made, completed and printed by men. Where's God here? I can see no signs of God in Bible. You, and few others tell me about it, God haven't spoken to me.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Apr 27, 2018 11:15:07 GMT
Very funny. Yes you shouldn’t trust me, I am not God nor would I ever claim to be. When I tell you to trust God, you shouldn’t trust what I am telling you to do, you should seek to trust God on your own because you want to, not because I told you to. God’s word, the Bible, didn’t come from me, it came from God. But it was made, completed and printed by men. Where's God here? I can see no signs of God in Bible. You, and few others tell me about it, God haven't spoken to me. I gave you the answer already. You didn’t put your full faith and trust in God, that the Bible is His word, God inspired, or in His promise to preserve His word forever. You don’t have faith. Nobody can give you faith. Nobody can make you trust. It’s a choice. I choose to believe the Bible is God’s word, I choose to trust and have faith in all that in there is. You choose not to. What more can I say?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2018 11:18:23 GMT
But it was made, completed and printed by men. Where's God here? I can see no signs of God in Bible. You, and few others tell me about it, God haven't spoken to me. I gave you the answer already. You didn’t put your full faith and trust in God, that the Bible is His word, God inspired, or in His promise to preserve His word forever. You don’t have faith. Nobody can give you faith. Nobody can make you trust. It’s a choice. I choose to believe the Bible is God’s word, I choose to trust and have faith in all that in there is. You choose not to. What more can I say? So, it's choice now... Your thesis is too very weak. I can choose anything, but according to its logic, I can choose to be Orthodox, an Atheist, or Protestant without being wronged. All of these possibilities are equal now, before 'choice' argument. It seems you can't give me a proof of that Bible is the word of God.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Apr 27, 2018 11:27:56 GMT
I gave you the answer already. You didn’t put your full faith and trust in God, that the Bible is His word, God inspired, or in His promise to preserve His word forever. You don’t have faith. Nobody can give you faith. Nobody can make you trust. It’s a choice. I choose to believe the Bible is God’s word, I choose to trust and have faith in all that in there is. You choose not to. What more can I say? So, it's choice now... Your thesis is too very weak. I can choose anything, but according to its logic, I can choose to be Orthodox, an Atheist, or Protestant without being wronged. All of these possibilities are equal now, before 'choice' argument. It seems you can't give me a proof of that Bible is the word of God. It’s always been a choice. Without being wrong? No, the Bible is always right, everything else is wrong. If what you believe doesn’t match God’s word then you’re wrong. It’s that simple. The proof is faith. I can’t prove anything to you anyway. Grass isn’t green if you’re color blind, unless you believe that you are color blind, then the grass is green even though you see brown. Hebrews 11:1 KJV [1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2018 11:32:46 GMT
So, it's choice now... Your thesis is too very weak. I can choose anything, but according to its logic, I can choose to be Orthodox, an Atheist, or Protestant without being wronged. All of these possibilities are equal now, before 'choice' argument. It seems you can't give me a proof of that Bible is the word of God. It’s always been a choice. Without being wrong? No, the Bible is always right, everything else is wrong. If what you believe doesn’t match God’s word then you’re wrong. It’s that simple. The proof is faith. I can’t prove anything to you anyway. Grass isn’t green if you’re color blind, unless you believe that you are color blind, then the grass is green even though you see brown. No way, I can prove some things a priori, and a posteriori; science does it all the time. And it's not always been a choice; you can't choose yourself, or you can travel to past, or to future. We're limited of ourselves. Which color of grass is something different to believing in God, because color is relative unit, while God is constant, isn't He?
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Apr 27, 2018 11:39:17 GMT
It’s always been a choice. Without being wrong? No, the Bible is always right, everything else is wrong. If what you believe doesn’t match God’s word then you’re wrong. It’s that simple. The proof is faith. I can’t prove anything to you anyway. Grass isn’t green if you’re color blind, unless you believe that you are color blind, then the grass is green even though you see brown. No way, I can prove some things a priori, and a posteriori; science does it all the time. And it's not always been a choice; you can't choose yourself, or you can travel to past, or to future. We're limited of ourselves. Which color of grass is something different to believing in God, because color is relative unit, while God is constant, isn't He? Science always changes, it isn’t constant like God. You’re swerving all over the place for some reason, seems you’re either confused or you’re trying to confuse me... I said what you want to believe is a choice. And you missed the point about being color blind, or avoided it, either way the point was that a color blind person isn’t going to believe the grass is green if they see brown, unless someone tells them they are wrong and they choose to believe that they are wrong. Any example can be used, I chose grass just because I could, I have that freedom of choice
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2018 16:22:28 GMT
No way, I can prove some things a priori, and a posteriori; science does it all the time. And it's not always been a choice; you can't choose yourself, or you can travel to past, or to future. We're limited of ourselves. Which color of grass is something different to believing in God, because color is relative unit, while God is constant, isn't He? Science always changes, it isn’t constant like God. You’re swerving all over the place for some reason, seems you’re either confused or you’re trying to confuse me... I said what you want to believe is a choice. And you missed the point about being color blind, or avoided it, either way the point was that a color blind person isn’t going to believe the grass is green if they see brown, unless someone tells them they are wrong and they choose to believe that they are wrong. Any example can be used, I chose grass just because I could, I have that freedom of choice Man, you're the one here who seems to be confused. My position is clear: I don't believe in God, because nobody have given me the proof. You're assure me in His existence because of Bible word, but Bible has been written by men. Plus, how do you want me to believe you, if you're saying: 'All men are liars', and with this being a man himself you tell me: 'God is the only Who is right'? I think that it's craziness, to claim at the same time two contradictions. Let me correct you: Acknowledge The Traditions to Bible and you're words will be more grounded and reasonable. Till now, only Orthodoxy seems to be more right for me, because it bases on the history and the culture. I respect Protestant because of their study of Bible, and because I've met lots of good Protestants in my life. But Solo Scriptura isn't good enough to proof existence of God for anyone. If you believe Bible, why don't you believe in Newton's 'The Math Origins of Natural Philosophy', or Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time'? Or, if you don't believe man's letters, you can believe in Egyptian 'The Book of Dead', or Tibetian 'Bardo Todol'? Your position on free choice is not an argument. But anyway, I think you're a good guy, because you're holding your traditions of holding on Bible only. This tradition is good, because it's the tradition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2018 16:25:27 GMT
Can someone teach me christianity and make me a disciple of this?
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Apr 27, 2018 16:48:27 GMT
Science always changes, it isn’t constant like God. You’re swerving all over the place for some reason, seems you’re either confused or you’re trying to confuse me... I said what you want to believe is a choice. And you missed the point about being color blind, or avoided it, either way the point was that a color blind person isn’t going to believe the grass is green if they see brown, unless someone tells them they are wrong and they choose to believe that they are wrong. Any example can be used, I chose grass just because I could, I have that freedom of choice Man, you're the one here who seems to be confused. My position is clear: I don't believe in God, because nobody have given me the proof. You're assure me in His existence because of Bible word, but Bible has been written by men. Plus, how do you want me to believe you, if you're saying: 'All men are liars', and with this being a man himself you tell me: 'God is the only Who is right'? I think that it's craziness, to claim at the same time two contradictions. Let me correct you: Acknowledge The Traditions to Bible and you're words will be more grounded and reasonable. Till now, only Orthodoxy seems to be more right for me, because it bases on the history and the culture. I respect Protestant because of their study of Bible, and because I've met lots of good Protestants in my life. But Solo Scriptura isn't good enough to proof existence of God for anyone. If you believe Bible, why don't you believe in Newton's 'The Math Origins of Natural Philosophy', or Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time'? Or, if you don't believe man's letters, you can believe in Egyptian 'The Book of Dead', or Tibetian 'Bardo Todol'? Your position on free choice is not an argument. But anyway, I think you're a good guy, because you're holding your traditions of holding on Bible only. This tradition is good, because it's the tradition. I can’t help you Eugene. I can’t make you believe in anything. That’s why it’s called faith. You just don’t understand. I’m not interested in having a debate about God’s existence. If you want to have that discussion, start up your own thread about it. This thread is about a specific doctrine. This is why I didn’t want to have a discussion with you because I knew it would degrade to this.
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Apr 27, 2018 23:20:37 GMT
Elizabeth So since the apostles preach the Gospels and Christians also do it..so we can say that the apostolic succession is according to the Bible!
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 27, 2018 23:22:31 GMT
Elizabeth So since the apostles preach the Gospels and Christians also do it..so we can say that the apostolic succession is according to the Bible! Incorrect. Show me a bible verse where it says that Jesus said make a apostolic succession of new laws that wasn't given in the bible.
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Apr 27, 2018 23:25:38 GMT
Elizabeth So since the apostles preach the Gospels and Christians also do it..so we can say that the apostolic succession is according to the Bible! Incorrect. Show me a bible verse where it says that Jesus said make a apostolic succession of new laws that wasn't given in the bible. Turning to the apostles, Christ de facto applied to the subsequent generations of Christians too .. But the Baptists do not teach this ?? .. sorry
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 27, 2018 23:29:58 GMT
Incorrect. Show me a bible verse where it says that Jesus said make a apostolic succession of new laws that wasn't given in the bible. Turning to the apostles, Christ de facto applied to the subsequent generations of Christians too .. But the Baptists do not teach this ?? .. sorry This is very bad! Even Paul and them say to turn to God anf no one else. Apostles are not God. Leave them alone. They are Chrsitians like us. Or at least only the apostles in the bible are. 2 Corinthians 3:16-18 16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Apr 27, 2018 23:46:42 GMT
Turning to the apostles, Christ de facto applied to the subsequent generations of Christians too .. But the Baptists do not teach this ?? .. sorry This is very bad! Even Paul and them say to turn to God anf no one else. Apostles are not God. Leave them alone. They are Chrsitians like us. Or at least only the apostles in the bible are. 2 Corinthians 3:16-18 16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord. Letters must be quoted in full! Then it makes sense..2 Corinthians 3 King James Version (KJV) 3 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? 2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: 3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; 6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. -we- So Christians ... the followers of Christ I did not catch your thought ... sorry! I do not claim that the apostles are God!
|
|