|
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 Peterās supremacy among the apostles, results in the Roman bishop being the supreme authority of the Catholic Church ā the Pope. However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of āapostolic succession.ā Further, neither is Peter presented as āsupremeā 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 Jesusā brother James as also having prominent leadership roles). Whatever the case, Peter was not the ācommanderā 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 Peterās successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostlesā 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 āsucceedā 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 ā 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 āsupreme authorityā 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 ā not a result of there being no āsupreme authorityā 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.
|
|
miner
New Member
Posts: 9
Likes: 1
|
Post by miner on Nov 12, 2019 1:16:37 GMT
The heretic (actually declared a heretic by the holy roman emperor) Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism wrote: "Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides... No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day" ['Let Your Sins Be Strong, from 'The Wittenberg Project;' 'The Wartburg Segment', translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521. - Cf. Also Denifleās Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite dāapres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. II, pg. 404]. Do you really think you can murder and commit adultery a thousand times a day and still be saved? And where did the heretic Martin Luther, father of Protestantism get this idea?-From Paul who said in āRomans 10:9-10, ESV If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (So are you a Protestant who rejects Paul? I have never met one, but that doesn't mean you couldn't be one. It's o.k. I grew up in, and mostly went to protestant churches.) So, in trying to bring this in line with the thread. Apostolic succession is a fiction created by the church-later called the Catholic church. However this cuts two ways with the protestants who are the rebirth of the Marcion heresy in trying to foist Paul up as an apostle. Being an apostle in the times of Christ in the Jewish tradition was strictly limited to only the people the rabbi, leader, in this case our lord and God incarnate, Jesus Christ picked directly himself. It is not permissible for others to claim apostleship. Christ even goes so far as to tell the 12 he hand picked their place in the kingdom (and that includes Judas). That means, those 12 are the only apostles of Jesus Christ in any meaningful way of talking about Christ's apostles. Paul is not one of those apostles.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Nov 12, 2019 3:11:53 GMT
The heretic (actually declared a heretic by the holy roman emperor) Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism wrote: "Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides... No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day" ['Let Your Sins Be Strong, from 'The Wittenberg Project;' 'The Wartburg Segment', translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521. - Cf. Also Denifleās Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite dāapres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. II, pg. 404]. Do you really think you can murder and commit adultery a thousand times a day and still be saved? And where did the heretic Martin Luther, father of Protestantism get this idea?-From Paul who said in āRomans 10:9-10, ESV If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (So are you a Protestant who rejects Paul? I have never met one, but that doesn't mean you couldn't be one. It's o.k. I grew up in, and mostly went to protestant churches.) So, in trying to bring this in line with the thread. Apostolic succession is a fiction created by the church-later called the Catholic church. However this cuts two ways with the protestants who are the rebirth of the Marcion heresy in trying to foist Paul up as an apostle. Being an apostle in the times of Christ in the Jewish tradition was strictly limited to only the people the rabbi, leader, in this case our lord and God incarnate, Jesus Christ picked directly himself. It is not permissible for others to claim apostleship. Christ even goes so far as to tell the 12 he hand picked their place in the kingdom (and that includes Judas). That means, those 12 are the only apostles of Jesus Christ in any meaningful way of talking about Christ's apostles. Paul is not one of those apostles. The holy romam emperor or whoever it is isn't a Christian nor is Martin Luther. I believe there's already a thread about why Martin Luther is no Christian. We can go to that thread so this one doesn't get ruined.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 12, 2019 5:10:47 GMT
God uses doublespeak if there isnāt one true interpretation of scripture. At that point He canāt 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. Word salad
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 12, 2019 5:21:16 GMT
I feel like we went into mythology now that has nothing to do with real life Kinda, I guess there are people here to believe there's more than one true interpretation of scripture. I didn't know God could be contrary to Himself, but I guess if someone doesn't really believe in Him or the Bible then anything sounds good. Might as well create a one world religion
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 12, 2019 21:17:11 GMT
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. Word salad If I have a line, composed of other lines, there are both one and many lines. Your standard number line is proof of this. You do know what a line is right? Or is that not scriptural...like toilet paper and football?
|
|