We know from both Biblical (1 Cor. 1:12-13) and Church history that division occurs when men look to other men rather than Christ Himself as their final authority. The message of the Apostles was Christ Himself, no one else, never themselves. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, must all learn from history and simply get back to Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 12:12-14; 2 Cor. 11:1-3).
I assume you mean the same Christ Who said “… he who hears you, hears Me” and the same Christ Who said “… he who rejects you, rejects Me, and the One Who sent Me …”
There are two situations here.
The problem is, in context, Christ did not say this to the Church, but to 70 Jewish disciples whom He sent out into the cities of Israel during His earthly ministry. It occurred before the cross and before Pentecost. They didn’t go out with the message of the cross, the message of forgiveness of sins, salvation and eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ, but they healed the sick and cast out demons. The Church didn’t begin until after the cross, at Pentecost when the Spirit came in power and they were baptized, by the Spirit, into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13).
There’s no such thing as “*twelve tribes of the NEW Israel.” * This is an Amillennial concept, derived from the non-Biblical notion that the Church has replaced national Israel. Tell me, “NotWorthy,” to which “tribe” of the “new” Israel do you belong? What’s the source of this knowledge? Did you know that for at least the first 300 years the predominate, eschatological view of the Church was Premillennial, not Amillennial? They didn’t view themwselves as the “new” Israel.
The Greek word “episkopos,” translated by some as"bishops," and others “overseers,” are the same as “elders.” See Titus 1:5 (“elders” gr. presbuteros) and verse 7, “overseers” (gr. episkopos). Elders, or, overseers (bishops) were oppointed in every church. They weren’t Apostles, nor did they take the place of THE Apostles. The Apostle Paul himself instructed Titus:
Jimmy Akins and a former Catholic Priest (elder) debate this in a new 2-CD set from CA. The “priest” gives these and many more arguments to justify the protestant position, and his leaving the priesthood. None will hold water upon closer examination. There IS a sacramental priesthood… and it is only found in the only Church Jesus founded… certainly before Pentacost (the birthday of the visible church). Afterall, the Church is 1] the visible Catholic Church 2] the body of believers 3] Jesus Christ Himself - Truth
I’m going to get back with you on this, once I figure out what Premillennial and amillennial is!
With all due respect, it is not clear at all that Peter had the last word at the Council of Jerusalem. He certainly did not literally have the last word, and the plainer interpretation is that James took multiple testimonies into account for his final decision.
Hi,
Who needs to guess, Ryan? It’s all right there in the text for ALL to read. The question brought before the Council in Jerusalem, made up of Apostles, elders and other brethren, was whether or not the believing Gentiles coming into the Church need to be circumcised according to the Law of Moses,* i.e.,* become Jewish (Acts 15:5). It caused a lot of debate amongst them (vs. 7a) and AFTER a lot of talk Peter stood up and reminded them of when he was instructed by the Lord to present the gospel message of Christ to Cornelius’ relatives and friends (Acts 10-11), and upon simply believing the message of Christ the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did on the Jewish believers on the Day of Pentecost. In other words, no circumcision (not even baptism) was involved - simply belief: “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way they also are” (Acts 15:11).
Hi. None of what you state above speaks of “sharing” the Apostolic office. Titus and Timothy were co-workers, but never called co-Apostles. The work of an elder is very important in the Church.
The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
But… (there is always a “but”
)
My friend linus,
Sure, “therefore” is used to introduce a logical conclusion from facts or reasons. James makes his conclusion to not trouble the Gentiles with circumcision based on Peter’s testimony, that of Paul and Silas, and even the written example of the ancient Prophet Amos. James’ conclusion seemed good to the Apostles and elders, with the others present at Jerusalem (notice the distinction: Apostles AND elders), so they sent a letter to Antioch to confirm their decision in writting.
[source](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=therefore)
What Simon declared was the primary data point, which is why it is the first thing mentioned (and the reason why everyone quit arguing in v. 12). Because of what Simon infallibly declared, a pastoral decision was then reached. This is in much the same way as happens now (BTW, sometimes there is quite a bit of disagreement about the pastoral decision, but never about the infallible declaration). The Pope makes a declaration (now, typically by encyclical), and then the Bishops discuss how to implement pastoral measures to assist in the declaration coming to fruition. Those pastoral measures can change (as St. Paul changed these in later epistles), but the infallible declaration cannot.
All the Apostles were considered “elders,” but not all elders were Apostles. This is made very clear in Scripture.
Of course there’s a “primacy” attributed to Peter - he’s an Apostle, they’re elders. As shown by the above quotes from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, their job was to exhort and build up the believers. But there’s nothing at all in Peter’s writings to suggest by what he wrote to those whom he addressed in his letter, especially concerning himself, that he was given by Christ any kind of primacy in respect to the other Apostles.
with what eventually developed down through the centuries fueled by the pride of men and their lust for power. The Apostle Paul warned of such developments in Scripture by the basic spiritual principle found in Gal. 5:9:* “A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough.”*
You’re not demonstrating “Apostolic Succession” by your example above. You’re demonstrating orally passing on Apostolic “teaching.” That’s something we all do even to this very day when we share the gospel message of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ to unbelievers, and exhort other brethren by expository teachings of the Scriptures. But we have no record of what Timothy taught to those in his care, do we? We can only assume he did not deviate from what he himself was taught by Paul.
Hummm, yet Christ Himself fought back the temptations of Satan by this “futile” method.
Men will ALWAYS twist the clear teachings of Scripture. Neither you or I can control that. Men even twist the meaning of the WRITINGS of the ECFs to conform to their doctrines. Even the conclusions of the Ecumenical Councils. I’ve heard endless debates on these. Just as Paul states: