|
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 Elizabeth on Nov 11, 2019 2:42:37 GMT
This is not a new idea. The God of Paul and the God of Jesus are two different Gods. There is only one God. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. James:2:19
|
|
KGrim
Full Member
Coming back to Arktos...for a little while anyways...just to see how things are doing.
Posts: 442
Likes: 238
Country: USA
Region: South East
Location: East Texas
Ancestry: Scotch-Irish
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Hero: Jesus
Age: 33 soon to be 34
Philosophy: Hesychasm
|
Post by KGrim on Nov 11, 2019 2:48:20 GMT
Believe me, I don't believe in Orthodoxy just because a bunch of people loved me. I have intelligent reasons, I'm not stupid. Its just on top of all that these people really love me. They have sunk spent $1300 in medical expenses, taken me into their homes, made me a part of their family, and have helped me get on with SSI for my mental disability. Take away all that and the Religion still makes %100 good sense to me, except it would all be worthless without love. miner Is Jesus' God different than Paul's God? You don't even know Jesus' God or else you would know Paul's God. Another one who thinks they can interpret scripture on their own terms. Peter speaks of Paul saying: He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Pet. 3:16)
|
|
miner
New Member
Posts: 9
Likes: 1
|
Post by miner on Nov 11, 2019 2:59:49 GMT
James 2:17 James directly contradicts Paul. Luke in Acts 9:26-31 Luke is rather lukewarm over Paul. Even in Acts Luke denied the title of Apostle to Paul and he himself refers to Paul as merely a witness. Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. James:2:17 What's the contradiction with this verse? And here's the verse you mean... And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. Acts:9:26 Do you know why they didn't believe he was a disciple at first? He bacame a disciple in the book of Acts so this is the early stages of him being a disciples and people were not aware of it yet. Plus Paul was killing Christians before he became an apostle so it would be kind of unbeliable. But Paul converted and became Christian and an apostle. At first some couldn't believe it and then they knew it was fact. I do not have enough time to justice to you in a reply tonight. Nor do I want to hijack this thread. If you want to start a new thread I would be happy to reply when I have more free time. All of my objections are readily available all over the web. Paul was not an apostle.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 11, 2019 3:54:17 GMT
It is when it follows the a specific interpretation. There's only one true interpretation of the scriptures. Any church that follows that interpretation is of the body of Christ. That interpretation is exegetical, it is one of Biblical authority, as the Bible is God's word. This verse should be what tells anyone who calls themselves Christian why scripture comes before what any institution says is doctrine and instruction of our faith, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. And here in Acts 17 it says, 10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. We aren't supposed to just accept any doctrine we come across or that is preached to us, we are supposed to use the Bible as the standard to see if what they are telling us lines up with scripture. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 4:6, And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. Paul is clearly stating that men are not above what is written in the scriptures. Even Christ Himself told us of when Isaiah prophesied of those who would hold to these traditions that did not come from God, Mark 7:6-9 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. The Roman Catholic doctrine of indulgences would be where the commandment of God was rejected. Everyone says that, but where is it in scripture? Where does it say: "there is one interpretation of scripture" without interpreting in accords to a non biblical methodology, such as context analysis, that cannot be viewed as a tradition?
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 11, 2019 5:52:28 GMT
There's only one true interpretation of the scriptures. Any church that follows that interpretation is of the body of Christ. That interpretation is exegetical, it is one of Biblical authority, as the Bible is God's word. This verse should be what tells anyone who calls themselves Christian why scripture comes before what any institution says is doctrine and instruction of our faith, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. And here in Acts 17 it says, 10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. We aren't supposed to just accept any doctrine we come across or that is preached to us, we are supposed to use the Bible as the standard to see if what they are telling us lines up with scripture. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 4:6, And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. Paul is clearly stating that men are not above what is written in the scriptures. Even Christ Himself told us of when Isaiah prophesied of those who would hold to these traditions that did not come from God, Mark 7:6-9 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. The Roman Catholic doctrine of indulgences would be where the commandment of God was rejected. Everyone says that, but where is it in scripture? Where does it say: "there is one interpretation of scripture" without interpreting in accords to a non biblical methodology, such as context analysis, that cannot be viewed as a tradition? Stop ignoring the explanation I gave and passages I used to support it.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 11, 2019 6:04:37 GMT
Everyone says that, but where is it in scripture? Where does it say: "there is one interpretation of scripture" without interpreting in accords to a non biblical methodology, such as context analysis, that cannot be viewed as a tradition? Stop ignoring the explanation I gave and passages I used to support it. I am not, stop ignoring that obvious fact that you state "I gave.." and "I used..." What you gave is your perspective and selection of quotes. Show me the quote in scripture about contextual interpretation.
|
|
KGrim
Full Member
Coming back to Arktos...for a little while anyways...just to see how things are doing.
Posts: 442
Likes: 238
Country: USA
Region: South East
Location: East Texas
Ancestry: Scotch-Irish
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Hero: Jesus
Age: 33 soon to be 34
Philosophy: Hesychasm
|
Post by KGrim on Nov 11, 2019 6:28:11 GMT
minerYou know what? I owe you an apology. I'm sorry for the way I came at you. I should have been more compassionate. You think Paul wasn't an apostle, and that's your error, but I shouldn't snap at you the way I did. Once again I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 11, 2019 6:47:47 GMT
Stop ignoring the explanation I gave and passages I used to support it. I am not, stop ignoring that obvious fact that you state "I gave.." and "I used..." What you gave is your perspective and selection of quotes. Show me the quote in scripture about contextual interpretation. God uses doublespeak if there isn’t one true interpretation of scripture. At that point He can’t be trusted and may as well be Loki from Norse mythology.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 11, 2019 19:55:55 GMT
I am not, stop ignoring that obvious fact that you state "I gave.." and "I used..." What you gave is your perspective and selection of quotes. Show me the quote in scripture about contextual interpretation. God uses doublespeak if there isn’t one true interpretation of scripture. At that point He can’t be trusted and may as well be Loki from Norse mythology. God is both one and many and manifests himself multidimensionally Each apostle represents a different facet perspective of humanity (action, logic, emotion, aggression, nurturing, etc.) where each apostle is a variation of the one (Christ) through which Christ manifests himself. Each interpretation is from a different angle of awareness but is part of a whole. God, in his infinite depth, can say many things through one thing. God is triadic, and as triadic, one and many. Even, if memory serves, scriptural translation of elohim require defing God in a singular or plural nature relative to context. Take the whole of the bible and God is one and many.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 11, 2019 21:44:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Nov 11, 2019 21:48:20 GMT
I feel like we went into mythology now that has nothing to do with real life
|
|
miner
New Member
Posts: 9
Likes: 1
|
Post by miner on Nov 11, 2019 22:54:48 GMT
miner You know what? I owe you an apology. I'm sorry for the way I came at you. I should have been more compassionate. You think Paul wasn't an apostle, and that's your error, but I shouldn't snap at you the way I did. Once again I apologize. No apology necessary. We are going to disagree on whether the other is a Christian or not. And I am pretty sure that is not going to change. But we can disagree and still be friends.
|
|
miner
New Member
Posts: 9
Likes: 1
|
Post by miner on Nov 11, 2019 22:58:45 GMT
Peter speaks of Paul saying: He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Pet. 3:16) 2 Peter is a forgery and did not appear until the second century, long after Peter's death. I wish this letter was authentic because it is written against Paul.
|
|
miner
New Member
Posts: 9
Likes: 1
|
Post by miner on Nov 11, 2019 23:00:51 GMT
This is not a new idea. The God of Paul and the God of Jesus are two different Gods. There is only one God. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. James:2:19 That is one of my favorite verses. It is in direct opposition to the heretical teachings of Protestants that you only have to believe and you are saved.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Nov 11, 2019 23:59:26 GMT
There is only one God. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. James:2:19 That is one of my favorite verses. It is in direct opposition to the heretical teachings of Protestants that you only have to believe and you are saved. I would never be anything but a protestant but we don't believe in you just believing only and you're saved. That seems some stupid illusion.
|
|