| Poster | Thread |
| | Re: | | Quote:
The thing the Lord has shown me is that apostolic succession is not passed on in some hierarchical institutional manner, as many in these respective churches would have us to believe.
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. - 1 Tim. 2:2
This was written by an apostle to a bishop who was appointed to "Preach the word...reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine."
Sounds like hierarchy and succession to me. |
|  2009/10/14 3:13 | | KingJimmy
Member
Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC
| | Re: | | Quote:
This was written by an apostle to a bishop who was appointed to "Preach the word...reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine."
Contrary to popular myth and lie, Timothy was not "a bishop" or "sr pastor," rather, he was a fellow apostle with Paul, who served as a mentor to him. Notice:
1 Thes 2:6 nor did [b]we[/b] seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as [b]apostles[/b] of Christ we might have asserted our authority.
Notice the plural personal pronouns of "we" and "our" used in conjunction with the plural "apostles." Which group of apostles is he talking about? He's talking about the group of apostles that he visited with in the establishing of the church of Thesselonica, the one's he wrote this epistle with. And who were the one's that co-authored this epistle with him? Well, the introduction to the letter tells us:
1 Timothy 1:1 Paul and Silvanus and [b]Timothy[/b], To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace R5 to you and peace.
Paul, Silvans (Silas), and TIMOTHY, the "apostles" of 1 Thes 2:6 co-wrote this letter to the church. It is error to read the so-called "pastoral epistles" of 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus as letters to monarchical bishops. Rather, they must be read as letters to Paul's fellow junior apostles.
You should not read later contexts into the contexts of Scripture. That's called eisegesis, not exegesis. I did considerable research on this topic in undergrad and graduate school. I would encourage you to read the scholarly essay I turned in on the topic that goes into considerable detail on the issue of church polity in the first few centuries. Even Roman Catholic scholar, Anthony Sullivan, whom I use as a frequent source, agrees that the structure of the Roman Catholic Church was something that developed over the centuries, and did not exist in its hierarchical form in the first century. He sees the subsequent development as inspired by God, but, he does an excellent job at not reading things back into the Scriptures that aren't there.
http://www.iamadisciple.com/articles/papers/TheRiseOfBishops.pdf
_________________
Jimmy H
|
| | 2009/10/14 7:03 | Profile | KingJimmy
Member
Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC
| | Re: | | Quote:
I get it. They, even though they knew the apostles personally and you didn't, are WRONG. And you are right.
Even the apostle Peter said individuals like Paul were easily misunderstood, and the perverted distorted their letters. In fact, the elders of Ephesus, whom Paul personally raised up, and whom knew him very well, many would later turn away from the faith, and introduced destructive heresies that would, as Paul said in his farewell to them, cause men to seek after them. Do you not think these very men appealed to Paul and his teachings when they finally did begin to dispute with one another? They did in Corinth.
So, these men might have known the apostles. But that doesn't keep them from having perverted their teachings. Thankfully, we have their teachings reserved for us in the inspired and Holy Scriptures, to help us know where these men got it right, and where they got it wrong, as we read what the apostles themselves wrote, and instructed us in what to believe and practice in the faith once and for all handed down to the saints. It's all there for us to see, and we need not appeal to "tradition" to learn how to read a book.
_________________
Jimmy H
|
| | 2009/10/14 7:10 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Hebrews 8:11
No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.
The simplicity of Christ destroys the complexity of man. Many of the 'learned' have, and will, lord over their theologies as proper and absolute in their endless quest to silence all but their own voices. This is done in a spirit of pomp that takes away from the any real aspect of relationship and quells the calling of many. They have not much desire other than more information. They stumble many times throughout knowing and understanding that they we're wrong in their view... yet instead of humbling themselves they take this new knowledge and lord over once again. NOW, they have it figured out. The problem is that in the wake of this so called education.... enlightenment and the importance of transformation and regeneration are relegated to the bench..... stagnant to battle pride and self absorbed piety. Scholarship is of the highest regard, and those who they believe own this are the one's they quote the most. The church will not be outdone in scholarly attainment, truly they are just as intelligent as any in the world of secular lostness. Yet somehow, in the strangest of ways, they look just like them. Just as the presiding judge puts on his black robe and takes his place at the high seat, so too the learned scholar clothes themselves in endless theology and an insatiable quest to get this theology right before they are right with Christ. They want a seat at the prestigious table before they are willing to wash anyone's feet. The cart is before the horse.
Oh I remember those nuns, they had the knowledge and were ready to smack you with it ......more as a tool for behavior modification than for preaching the true Gospel. Yet their own troubling behaviors eluded them, they had no idea as to how they looked even to the common man. It wasn't their 'burden' as they suggested.... it was misery, it was confusion, it was frustration, self martyrdom. Oh I remember the priest, the same man who was at a family party drunk and playing poker, and decided to call my mother a 'b**ch' because she made my father... the business manager of the church... take a couple of days off to recover from illness which put the priest in some kind of a bind. Oh he could argue theology like none other I'm sure. Once he told me that God is an emotionless deity then declared over me 'theology 101!'. When, being quite naive at the time, I asked him how that could be if God described Himself as 'jealous' and sometimes 'angry' and that we were made in His image yet we are not without emotion, he responded: "now we're getting into a philosophical debate". It wasn't philosophical but scriptural. But his heirarchy trumped my scripture and was taken full advantage of, his calling being so sure that it was his duty to silence ignorance. He did. I was silenced, and more confused than ever about God and the work of the cross.
I thank God that Christ came to my rescue, eyes were opened, and through no work of my own.. I knew. It was Him. It was Him. I never thought that day would come but alone in my room, (not in a pew, not in front of a statue, not in 'theology 101', not in a crazed raucus of hand waiving and dancing) He came. Everything I had learned evaporated, He consumed the knowledge and gave me Himself. Now, as important as proper doctrine is, we are saved not because of it, but despite it. If we were saved because of it, as everyone claims correct doctrine, the world would be born again and the advancement of the 'church' would be a byproduct of the Holy Spirit that says 'know the Lord'. I'm proof that the doctrine of the church had nothing to do with my salvation lest it boast of it's own eloquence. No, it was because of a Person, the only One who could boast but doesn't. If you know the Lord you know it, He won't leave you as an orphan nor will His testimony be a fleeting whisper. It can be a still small voice, but our rejoicing ears make it as loud as thunder. No denying it, God isn't so nefarious to promise something only to dangle it around so you never know for sure. You know. This isn't proven through knowledge or education... anyone can learn... but not everyone can hear. The hearing is interactive as relationship takes two and it is in this relationship.... that The One on the other end makes Himself known. What a blessing considering that many, including myself, still go our own way and decide in our own intellect. It is His faithfulness that stands taller than any heirarchy, a heirarchy that, for many, strives to tower above all in the cesspool of self... a self that is also non-denominational, as many ambitions are, and is to the detriment of God with you. |
| | 2009/10/14 8:02 | |
| | Re: | | Quote:
Even the apostle Peter said individuals like Paul were easily misunderstood, and the perverted distorted their letters.
Right. It is "unlearned" and "unstable" men who would do the distorting. You can choose to believe that Peter would appoint Ignatius knowing that he would be "unlearned" and "unstable". I choose to believe that the apostle took his own advice and appointed a saint.
Quote:
In fact, the elders of Ephesus, whom Paul personally raised up, and whom knew him very well, many would later turn away from the faith, and introduced destructive heresies that would, as Paul said in his farewell to them, cause men to seek after them.
The evidence of heresy is always that men depart from the Church. (1 John 2:19 - written concurrently in Ignatius' time) The church is indefectible. (Matt. 16:18,19) It is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
We must conclude that these destructive heresies would always separate themselves from the Church. You could point out the Arian heresy that took root in such places as Constantinople for a time. But they were eventually and relatively quickly ejected from the Church. The consistent voice of the Church in all times and all places is one clear voice of orthodoxy. And, I might add, given what we can learn of human nature from history...quite miraculous.
Quote:
So, these men might have known the apostles. But that doesn't keep them from having perverted their teachings.
Here's the problem with the point you are trying to make. You say that Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, etc. perverted the teachings of the apostles. (i.e. the church was a miserable failure immediately after having been passed off from the apostles to the next generation) This poses a real problem:
1. It isn't that their teachings cannot be substantiated by Scripture. It is just that their interpretation is different than yours.
2. Since their interpretation is different than yours, you reject theirs in favor of yours.
3. For example, take the eucharist. They said that it was the real body and blood of Christ offered in a sacrificial manner. They interpreted the passage "do this in memory of me" in the sacrificial tones evident in the original languages "offer this as a memorial". You see the passage with 21st century protestant western eyes and say "do this" meaning to the best of your ability you are going to copy in practice what you read on the surface. You read "this is my body" and drop your literal interpretation of Scripture like a hot potato and say "this is (a symbol) of my body." You add meaning to the text that isn't there in your case. So you could argue that on the surface both parties are making judgment calls regarding interpretation.
4. So we are left with the option of trusting your 21st century removed opinion. Or we can trust the opinion of those who actually shared the participation in the body and blood of Christ with the apostles.
I choose the fathers. |
| | 2009/10/15 14:58 | |
| | Re: | | Quote:
Contrary to popular myth and lie, Timothy was not "a bishop" or "sr pastor," rather, he was a fellow apostle with Paul, who served as a mentor to him.
Even so. Let's assume for a moment that you are correct in your assumption that Timothy was not a mere bishop but an apostle.
In this case the argument is much stronger in my favor, since we are seeing apostolic succession not just of an apostle to a bishop. But of apostle to apostle. We are seeing that indeed there was an anointed succession of leadership in the early church that was intended to continue on in every generation until the return of Christ.
And this is exactly what we do see throughout history whether it is the Orthodox, Catholic, Ethiopic, Coptic, Syriac, Thomas Christians of India, Arminian, etc. How can they preach unless they be sent. We see this perpetual sending through the line of apostles and bishops through the ages. We see that even though some of the apostolic churches I mentioned are in schism, they ALL profess 99.9% the same doctrine. They all confess:
- the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
- the same seven holy mysteries/sacraments
- the same doctrine of the Trinity
- the same doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Christ
- the same doctrine about Mary the theotokos
I could go on and on.
But the point is that for you to claim anointing from heaven, you need to:
1. Discredit the historic Church
and
2. Show some pretty substantial evidence for the ministry of the likes of Martin Luther and John Calvin. I mean, we had better be seeing the dead raised or something spectacular to attest to the break in succession and apparent apostasy that would have to be present for such a wild claim to be true.
If you can't do this. Then you must admit that either you are wrong. Or you must admit that the church still remains lost to some degree...that it was snuffed out and has been trying to come back for a couple millennia. |
| | 2009/10/15 15:10 | |
| | Re: History bent is no history at all. Babylon lives!..for a short season. | | What your espousing as history, is CATHOLIC HISTORY, not the true and authentic history of the remnant church...[ which the Catholic and Orthodox church historically and vehemently persecuted unto death, and still does..]
..............................................
Orthodox said;
"In this case the argument is much stronger in my favor, since we are seeing apostolic succession not just of an apostle to a bishop. But of apostle to apostle. We are seeing that indeed there was an anointed succession of leadership in the early church that was intended to continue on in every generation until the return of Christ.
And this is exactly what we do see throughout history whether it is the Orthodox, Catholic, Ethiopic, Coptic, Syriac, Thomas Christians of India, Arminian, etc. How can they preach unless they be sent. We see this perpetual sending through the line of apostles and bishops through the ages. We see that even though some of the apostolic churches I mentioned are in schism, they ALL profess 99.9% the same doctrine. They all confess:
- the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
- the same seven holy mysteries/sacraments
- the same doctrine of the Trinity
- the same doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Christ
- the same doctrine about Mary the theotokos
I could go on and on."
................................................
I thank God that the standard of our faith is not rooted in "Apostolic succession", but in the Word of God, the Holy scriptures, which indeed DENY your doctrine of submission to your evil dogma.
No, Jesus is not "PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST"; as you say, and it is but a superstitious magic show that imputes authority to the priests of Baal as they twist the elements [ the blood and body ] into their own power, and theirs alone. It is an abomination.
I don't know or care what the 7 "Holy" sacraments are, but suspect that they are the same Babylonian bondage as the rest of the Papist sorcery is. My bible says that there is but ONE sacrifice for sins , and one MEDIATOR between God and man, the Lord Jesus. Any deviation from this pure truth is an ABOMONATION.
This leads us to the doctrine of the divinity and ascension of Mary, which, by the way, is not in the Bible. Why would something as important as the Mediatrix herself be denied by scripture?
Because the Catholic Mary is none other than a Satanic being, the queen of demons, Jezebel herself...[ not to be confused with the biblical Mary, a good and honored sister, the mother of Jesus, and his several brothers also.] Faith in this demonic Mary is wicked, and surely an abomination in the sight of the Lord.
As far as "discrediting the historical church," "to claim the true church's anointing as valid", that I indeed do, but it is the version of history that is espoused by the great whore herself, the Roman Catholic Church, that I discredit, and its many, many distortions and lies, both concerning "HISTORY", and it's present day authority.
It is MIXTURE! Unclean!, and is of course mixed with overtures that admit, but slight the Lordship of our glorious King, Jesus of Nazareth. |
| | 2009/10/18 12:23 | |
| | Re: | | Quote:
What your espousing as history, is CATHOLIC HISTORY, not the true and authentic history of the remnant church...[ which the Catholic and Orthodox church historically and vehemently persecuted unto death, and still does..]
Well if ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest man alive.
You can't even begin to show WHERE your heretic doctrines even WERE for the majority of Church history. How can you expect me to take you seriously?
Quote:
I thank God that the standard of our faith is not rooted in "Apostolic succession", but in the Word of God, the Holy scriptures, which indeed DENY your doctrine of submission to your evil dogma.
Don't confuse the Sacred Scriptures with YOUR INTERPRETATION of them. If your interpretation of the Bible is wrong...your interpretation can hardly be called the Word of God.
Quote:
No, Jesus is not "PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST"; as you say, and it is but a superstitious magic show that imputes authority to the priests of Baal as they twist the elements [ the blood and body ] into their own power, and theirs alone. It is an abomination.
"This is my body." No magic there. But something highly sacred which you seem comfortable to blaspheme with the greatest of ease.
Please show me just ONE early church father who believed your twisting of Scripture...
Quote:
I don't know or care what the 7 "Holy" sacraments are
That's like saying: "I don't know or care what a doctor is...I want to talk to someone who can help get me well!"
Quote:
My bible says that there is but ONE sacrifice for sins , and one MEDIATOR between God and man, the Lord Jesus. Any deviation from this pure truth is an ABOMONATION.
You're preaching to the converted.
Quote:
This leads us to the doctrine of the divinity and ascension of Mary
Do your research before you embarrass yourself. No apostolic church believes in the "divinity" of Mary. That is heresy.
We also do not believe in the "ascension" of Mary.
You're making yourself look uneducated. You probably are...but don't worry...that can be fixed.
Quote:
Because the Catholic Mary is none other than a Satanic being, the queen of demons, Jezebel herself...[ not to be confused with the biblical Mary, a good and honored sister, the mother of Jesus, and his several brothers also.] Faith in this demonic Mary is wicked, and surely an abomination in the sight of the Lord.
The Catholic Mary was the first Christian and first believer in Jesus Christ. To find out who she was you need to start at Gen. 3:15
Presumptuous they are...self willed...not afraid to speak evil of dignities...
God have mercy on your soul.
Quote:
As far as "discrediting the historical church," "to claim the true church's anointing as valid", that I indeed do, but it is the version of history that is espoused by the great whore herself, the Roman Catholic Church, that I discredit, and its many, many distortions and lies, both concerning "HISTORY", and it's present day authority.
It is the independently verifiable history born by Catholics, Orthodox, and secular sources alike. Sorry your conspiracy websites you frequent didn't fill you in. (not speaking of this website there)
Nice dodge. |
| | 2009/10/19 2:49 | |
| | Re: | | "Do your research before you embarrass yourself. No apostolic church believes in the "divinity" of Mary. That is heresy.
We also do not believe in the "ascension" of Mary." orthodox
As a former catholic I can attest that we were taught the 'assumption' of Mary. http://www.wf-f.org/Assumption.html
And what is your definition of 'divine'? I spent half my chilhood praying to her as taught by them... Why do this if there is not divinity? Do we pray to someone who is not divine, someone who cannot supernaturally intervene for our cause AFTER their physical death? Can we just pray to anyone who is dead, or just the one's the church tells us to? Where in scripture does it state that prayer to Mary is a mandate of God, or even an elective possibility?
|
| | 2009/10/19 8:05 | |
| | Re: | | EDIT: quote made my point confusing (others were mixed in there...)
orthodox,
The spirit in which you write screams anything but that of Christ. Please, consider your intentions.
This evening, I was speaking with my student who is a doctor and she mentioned how our goodness is exhibited in the good things we do for others and that in turn helps our relationship with God. Mind you she is a second language student, but she seemed to answer the question of this thread without even trying, because it is what she believes due to her being catholic.
My other male doctor student is most often seen carrying his rosary and most frequently when I visit him he has his head buried in the little book of mary (prayer booklet). I bought him a bible, but he prefers the other stuff. Not to mention that he became a catholic by writing a test (actually, he was too busy because at the time he was studying to be a doctor, so the priest let him slip through...).
The catholic church does not follow Jesus and/or the Word.
BTW, my whole family is catholic so I do not say this whimsically...they all believe themselves to be good enough for Heaven or at least doing good things to earn themselves a spot. |
| | 2009/10/19 9:16 | |
|
