|
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 Eugene 2.0 on Nov 8, 2019 17:53:23 GMT
"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it," (Matt. 16:18). Its just not possible that every situation in the infinite future can be completely covered by the Bible. Most obvious are questions on Astronomy and Genetics. But fundamental general principles can be covered, the most clear being against hypocrisy - which is essentially about contradictions. So for the pope to endorse the kissing of rings - symbols of wealth - is contrary, sure. As it is the Bible is not infallible either, because the words it uses have gone through many translations and re-wording. That's for sure. Besides, there are some interpolations within the Bible. (One of alike sources.)
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 9, 2019 0:23:29 GMT
"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it," (Matt. 16:18). Its just not possible that every situation in the infinite future can be completely covered by the Bible. Most obvious are questions on Astronomy and Genetics. But fundamental general principles can be covered, the most clear being against hypocrisy - which is essentially about contradictions. So for the pope to endorse the kissing of rings - symbols of wealth - is contrary, sure. As it is the Bible is not infallible either, because the words it uses have gone through many translations and re-wording. That's for sure. Besides, there are some interpolations within the Bible. (One of alike sources.)Interpolations only matter if they aren't consistent with the rest of scripture. The article you shared doesn't address that at all, but hovers right over it and assumes any or all were an insidious agenda of men. It also presumes God didn't get the text right the first time; He did, but language is living and dying with time, so to make things more clear sometimes words need to be added for emphasis and clarification. The KJV italicizes words that were added. I've noticed that when those added words are ignored you get the same understanding and you get verification of doctrine. For example, in the book of John in the KJV, it is written with Jesus saying in a number of places "I am he", but the "he" is italicized. If you take that word out the Jesus is saying "I am", which means he was making the claim of being God. However, you don't need to remove the interpolation "he" to get this verification or understanding, because not only is it an obvious claim, but in so many other places in the Bible, God is called "the Savior", and Jesus is also called "the Savior", no interpolations involved. As long as the Biblical text is consistent with itself, then we can be sure it is inspired by God.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 9, 2019 3:04:02 GMT
But that is exactly what you say, the "church" being those who follow scripture. My church isn't a single institution or denomination, like he is saying his is. It is when it follows the a specific interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 9, 2019 4:04:43 GMT
My church isn't a single institution or denomination, like he is saying his is. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 9, 2019 11:05:25 GMT
Interpolations only matter if they aren't consistent with the rest of scripture. The article you shared doesn't address that at all, but hovers right over it and assumes any or all were an insidious agenda of men. It also presumes God didn't get the text right the first time; He did, but language is living and dying with time, so to make things more clear sometimes words need to be added for emphasis and clarification. The KJV italicizes words that were added. I've noticed that when those added words are ignored you get the same understanding and you get verification of doctrine. For example, in the book of John in the KJV, it is written with Jesus saying in a number of places "I am he", but the "he" is italicized. If you take that word out the Jesus is saying "I am", which means he was making the claim of being God. However, you don't need to remove the interpolation "he" to get this verification or understanding, because not only is it an obvious claim, but in so many other places in the Bible, God is called "the Savior", and Jesus is also called "the Savior", no interpolations involved. As long as the Biblical text is consistent with itself, then we can be sure it is inspired by God. No, the source is correct. Maybe it's not the perfect one, because the theme is pretty shared. Check it out. (If links don't work try to use Google saved (captured) pages. It works almost always.) src1src2 src3src4src5Bible is inconsistent, I tired to repeat myself here. It's obvious: evil and God; verses like Pslams 136:9, Mathews 10:34 and many, many others.
|
|
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 10, 2019 1:52:55 GMT
DKTrav88My church isn't denominational. Its pre-denominational. Jesus said a lot of things that Cult leaders say. Like how he said that you should hate your mother and father before me. Does that make Jesus a Cult leader? Of course not, if you understand the context and don't interpret his words the wrong way. The Orthodox Church is not a cult and Jesus isn't a cult leader.
|
|
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 10, 2019 2:10:42 GMT
DKTrav88 It never said that only scripture was sufficient. Did not the Ethiopian in Acts require help interpreting Isaiah? Seems to me that the scripture by itself wasn't sufficient for him to understand. I searched the scriptures and found this. "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."(2nd Peter 1:20) There is over 2000 years of history in the Orthodox Church, and yet you say that Orthodoxy had it wrong ever since its beginning. And when did Christianity start getting it right? Luther? Zwingli? Mennos? What then happened to the church that Christ said the gates of hell would never overcome? Your interpretation of scripture, all of protestant interpretation of scripture is novel.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 10, 2019 16:20:01 GMT
Interpolations only matter if they aren't consistent with the rest of scripture. The article you shared doesn't address that at all, but hovers right over it and assumes any or all were an insidious agenda of men. It also presumes God didn't get the text right the first time; He did, but language is living and dying with time, so to make things more clear sometimes words need to be added for emphasis and clarification. The KJV italicizes words that were added. I've noticed that when those added words are ignored you get the same understanding and you get verification of doctrine. For example, in the book of John in the KJV, it is written with Jesus saying in a number of places "I am he", but the "he" is italicized. If you take that word out the Jesus is saying "I am", which means he was making the claim of being God. However, you don't need to remove the interpolation "he" to get this verification or understanding, because not only is it an obvious claim, but in so many other places in the Bible, God is called "the Savior", and Jesus is also called "the Savior", no interpolations involved. As long as the Biblical text is consistent with itself, then we can be sure it is inspired by God. No, the source is correct. Maybe it's not the perfect one, because the theme is pretty shared. Check it out. (If links don't work try to use Google saved (captured) pages. It works almost always.) src1src2 src3src4src5Bible is inconsistent, I tired to repeat myself here. It's obvious: evil and God; verses like Pslams 136:9, Mathews 10:34 and many, many others. I see no inconsistencies.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 10, 2019 16:24:17 GMT
No, the source is correct. Maybe it's not the perfect one, because the theme is pretty shared. Check it out. (If links don't work try to use Google saved (captured) pages. It works almost always.) src1src2 src3src4src5Bible is inconsistent, I tired to repeat myself here. It's obvious: evil and God; verses like Pslams 136:9, Mathews 10:34 and many, many others. I see no inconsistencies. If you see no inconsistencies there, why on earth do you see inconsistencies in the Evolution Theory? The last one contains really less inconsistencies, than the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 10, 2019 16:26:12 GMT
DKTrav88My church isn't denominational. Its pre-denominational. Jesus said a lot of things that Cult leaders say. Like how he said that you should hate your mother and father before me. Does that make Jesus a Cult leader? Of course not, if you understand the context and don't interpret his words the wrong way. The Orthodox Church is not a cult and Jesus isn't a cult leader. I never said Jesus was a cult leader, I’m suggesting your church is a cult based on the fact that you and your church believe if people aren’t a part of your church they’re heathen. You and your church can honor Christ with your lips while your worship is in vain. Yea, every church makes the claim, especially the Orthodox and Catholic churches, that they’re pre-denominational. It means nothing.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 10, 2019 16:29:21 GMT
I see no inconsistencies. If you see no inconsistencies there, why on earth do you see inconsistencies in the Evolution Theory? The last one contains really less inconsistencies, than the Bible. You’re going to have to provide examples, then we can discuss it.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 10, 2019 16:44:34 GMT
If you see no inconsistencies there, why on earth do you see inconsistencies in the Evolution Theory? The last one contains really less inconsistencies, than the Bible. You’re going to have to provide examples, then we can discuss it. God promised to come. He didn't. God was presented as a powerful, omnipotent being. His followers are suffering, soon they will give up. God promised power to the followers of Him. They've got nothing. And so on... The Theory of Evolution - Each new day (brings) a new justification. The Theory of Big Bang - Each new day a new justification. Atheism - Each new day more followers of that. Islam - Each new day more followers of that. And so on...
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 10, 2019 16:50:06 GMT
DKTrav88 It never said that only scripture was sufficient. Did not the Ethiopian in Acts require help interpreting Isaiah? Seems to me that the scripture by itself wasn't sufficient for him to understand. I searched the scriptures and found this. "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."(2nd Peter 1:20) There is over 2000 years of history in the Orthodox Church, and yet you say that Orthodoxy had it wrong ever since its beginning. And when did Christianity start getting it right? Luther? Zwingli? Mennos? What then happened to the church that Christ said the gates of hell would never overcome? Your interpretation of scripture, all of protestant interpretation of scripture is novel. Then I guess you can blindly follow the men in your church in hopes they are telling you the truth without having an standard by which to make sure they are actually telling you the truth. The Ethiopian still had the scripture in front of him to make sure it lined up with what Philip told him. He didn't throw scripture out and rely on Philip as a guru for understanding God's word. Which prophecy of scripture are we talking about now? Orthodoxy, just like all other denominations, claim they are the continuation of the early church, and yet influences of eastern religions and paganism are quite obviously present in its doctrines and practices. That church is alive today, if it wasn't we'd be seeing the return of Christ. In my opinion based on the plain reading of the scripture it isn't the orthodox church that is that church. I would say it is the orthodox interpretation of scripture that is novel, but we can agree to disagree, unless you've you want to make it personal like some members of the orthodox church like to do. A member of this forum, who is an orthodox church member, has already tried to dox me and ruin a personal relationship with someone because he was jealous. I hope you're not like that, but I guess we will see.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 10, 2019 17:02:32 GMT
You’re going to have to provide examples, then we can discuss it. God promised to come. He didn't. God was presented as a powerful, omnipotent being. His followers are suffering, soon they will give up. God promised power to the followers of Him. They've got nothing. And so on... The Theory of Evolution - Each new day (brings) a new justification. The Theory of Big Bang - Each new day a new justification. Atheism - Each new day more followers of that. Islam - Each new day more followers of that. And so on... There are specific things that need to happen before Christ returns. Where is the inconsistency between God being powerful/omnipotent and people turning away from Him? Who exactly are you talking about when you say "They've got nothing"? As far as the evolutionary theory, I don't know where you are getting these examples you gave. Starting with one thing at a time, I would say a major inconsistency in the evolutionary theory is that for it is just a theory, it has not been proven and cannot be proven because we cannot observe the millions of years that it apparently takes for the process of transition from one species into another. Also, the evolutionary theory requires a miracle, that life come from non-life; abiogenesis, which cannot be replicated in a laboratory. The evolutionary theory is just another religion of sorts. There's new followers of Christianity every day as well. I don't know what your point is.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 10, 2019 17:20:55 GMT
God promised to come. He didn't. God was presented as a powerful, omnipotent being. His followers are suffering, soon they will give up. God promised power to the followers of Him. They've got nothing. And so on... The Theory of Evolution - Each new day (brings) a new justification. The Theory of Big Bang - Each new day a new justification. Atheism - Each new day more followers of that. Islam - Each new day more followers of that. And so on... There are specific things that need to happen before Christ returns. Where is the inconsistency between God being powerful/omnipotent and people turning away from Him? Who exactly are you talking about when you say "They've got nothing"? As far as the evolutionary theory, I don't know where you are getting these examples you gave. Starting with one thing at a time, I would say a major inconsistency in the evolutionary theory is that for it is just a theory, it has not been proven and cannot be proven because we cannot observe the millions of years that it apparently takes for the process of transition from one species into another. Also, the evolutionary theory requires a miracle, that life come from non-life; abiogenesis, which cannot be replicated in a laboratory. The evolutionary theory is just another religion of sorts. There's new followers of Christianity every day as well. I don't know what your point is. Every year some specific things, right? It means - never. I meant that God could bring back His followers, to make His church more powerful, etc. Christians have got nothing. Every day their number is falling down. I didn't make those researches, but it was showed in Arktos about half a year ago. I think some present statistic can help here too. (I'll drop some links at the end of my comment.) Those examples? Dinosaurs, new species on Earth, new species in Cosmos... tons of them. Any theory is just a theory. Recently, NineX told me about it in "Faith Argument" post. He said that we've sticked to loop thinking. There's no way to get out of the circle of thinking. We start with the void in our thoughts, and keep them be void all the time. (Or how a void becomes something?) All of Christians. Almost every church are loosing its followers. Statistics here show this. Christianity in 50 years100 next years of Christianity
Future of Religions
|
|