Baptist Church installs first bishop, breaking tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter CompSciGuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CompSciGuy

Guest
A friend of mine posted this yesterday:
hamptonroads.com/node/336411

I was actually stunned. I don’t know what to think. The comments on the article say it all: what does a baptist bishop do?

They even gave the guy a ring and a miter.

Thoughts?
 
A) No apostolic succession therefore not a valid Bishop

B) I wonder why they would adopt Roman Catholic vestments
 
Wow!!!
We’ll see if this Bishop tries exercising any authority over congregations. I’m greatly surprised by this.
 
Taking into consideration that he now has been bishop for four years, this happened 2007, there should by now be some hints to what a baptist bishop does.

Anyhhow I see it as a good thing that they somehow are drawing closer to the office of the catholic church.

It may also be of importance in their relations with other denominations since a bishop somehow holds more respect in peoples eyes than an ordinary pastor.
 
MartyrForJesus said:
A) No apostolic succession therefore not a valid Bishop

B) I wonder why they would adopt Roman Catholic vestments
Click to expand...
Are you sure there is no apostolic succession? Its not only the catholic church that has apostolic succession, the article also says there was other bishops present but it does not give details about who those bishops were.

I think its a good thing that they do adopt Catholic vestments, slowly they come closer to mother church without even noticing it.
 
:banghead: wow, didn’t notice the year 2007 at the top… lame… lol

It seems the respect that the congregation has for the man definitely played a part in this.

Interesting enough, he now serves on the city council!!!
 
anjoh66 said:
Are you sure there is no apostolic succession? Its not only the catholic church that has apostolic succession, the article also says there was other bishops present but it does not give details about who those bishops were.
Click to expand...
I doubt that the other bishops were valid bishops (with apostolic succession), so the trace-ability back to the Apostles is impossible, I’d bet money on it.
 
ESMDHokie77 said:
:banghead: wow, didn’t notice the year 2007 at the top… lame… lol

It seems the respect that the congregation has for the man definitely played a part in this.

Interesting enough, he now serves on the city council!!!
Click to expand...
I didn’t notice the date either until the other poster brought it up. I assumed it was new because a baptist friend of mine just posted it yesterday.
 
anjoh66 said:
Are you sure there is no apostolic succession? Its not only the catholic church that has apostolic succession, the article also says there was other bishops present but it does not give details about who those bishops were.

I think its a good thing that they do adopt Catholic vestments, slowly they come closer to mother church without even noticing it.
Click to expand...
The only churches that have valid apostolic succession are those of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.
 
ESMDHokie77 said:
I doubt that the other bishops were valid bishops (with apostolic succession), so the trace-ability back to the Apostles is impossible, I’d bet money on it.
Click to expand...
You´re probably right in this but since i dont know, i anyhow doesn´t pass a final judgement.
 
CompSciGuy said:
I didn’t notice the date either until the other poster brought it up. I assumed it was new because a baptist friend of mine just posted it yesterday.
Click to expand...
What did your friend think about it? Positive, negative? 🙂
 
CompSciGuy said:
The only churches that have valid apostolic succession are those of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.
Click to expand...
And the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and several Catholic breakaway groups with validly ordained but illicit bishops (the Old Catholics in particular).
 
CompSciGuy said:
The only churches that have valid apostolic succession are those of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.
Click to expand...
It depends who you ask, the Orthodox do not recognize the existence of apostolic succession outside the Orthodox Church.

If it only means an unbroken chain of bishops then you´ll find it also among Lutheran denominations. But since things are never that simple i am very aware that according to canon law the office in the Lutheran church is not fully recognised but also not fully rejected.
 
  1. Apostolic Succession at its fringes (Old Catholic, traditional Anglican etc) is probably a lot more convuluted and possibly valid but illicit. However those who adhere to Apostolic Succession (outside of Rome if you will) probably do not care if they their line is recognized by the Catholic Church. For one, it would be completely unreasonable to expect the Catholic Church to investigate the claims of all the groups. As it was stated, the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, PNCC, and Old Catholics are already recognized as having valid lines of succession by Rome (someone will correct me if I am wrong).
  2. The Baptist bishop probably does not believe in Apsotolic Succession. Obviously not all denominations that use the term do believe in it.
  3. I would think a Catholic would like Protestants being more receptive and using things associated with Catholics and Orthdox.
 
Maybe they are trying to get more control over their churches. I have observed that some churches are becoming more like Catholics in their styles. My wife’s Lutheran church as Our Lady of Guadalupe statues and pictures and last Sunday had a nice sermon about Mary.
I think many Protestants are coming over closer to the Tiber and might be dipping their feet in without yet realizing it.
 
When I was a Southern Baptist (born and raised), I attended an ordination service. As I watched one Baptist pastor ordain another Baptist pastor, I wondered where he got the authority. The founder of the Baptists, John Smyth, baptized himself and presumably ordained himself. All Protestant clergyman ordain each other, having given themselves and each other the authority to ordain, as if they had the power. The same goes for this bishop, who isn’t a bishop.

To see a Baptist “bishop” dressed up like a Catholic – in a miter with a crozier no less – is pretty amusing, considering how anti-Catholic most Baptists are. The Baptists I knew ridiculed Catholic vestments. The miter was worn by the Jewish high priest, with whom the Baptists – the first denomination of Baptists began in 1607 – have no continuity. The Missionary Baptists were founded in 1858. So for this “bishop” to dress in first century attire is ludicrous.
 
Jim_Dandy said:
When I was a Southern Baptist (born and raised), I attended an ordination service. As I watched one Baptist pastor ordain another Baptist pastor, I wondered where he got the authority. The founder of the Baptists, John Smyth, baptized himself and presumably ordained himself. All Protestant clergyman ordain each other, having given themselves and each other the authority to ordain, as if they had the power. The same goes for this bishop, who isn’t a bishop.

To see a Baptist “bishop” dressed up like a Catholic – in a miter with a crozier no less – is pretty amusing, considering how anti-Catholic most Baptists are. The Baptists I knew ridiculed Catholic vestments. The miter was worn by the Jewish high priest, with whom the Baptists – the first denomination of Baptists began in 1607 – have no continuity. The Missionary Baptists were founded in 1858. So for this “bishop” to dress in first century attire is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Speaking as another former Baptist…my guess is that the denomination wants to give their people the trappings of authority. No matter how they dress they are not the “real thing”.🙂
 
CompSciGuy said:
A friend of mine posted this yesterday:
hamptonroads.com/node/336411

I was actually stunned. I don’t know what to think. The comments on the article say it all: what does a baptist bishop do?

They even gave the guy a ring and a miter.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
So much for traditions of men…isn’t it?🤷

I wonder what the other denominations have to say about it, those that do not have bishops?
 
The word “bishop” is just another word for “Regional Superintendent” or whatever the office used to be called.

A lot of the African American churches have “bishops.”

The United Methodist Church has “bishops.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top