Succession of Bishops

[Odell]

Odell,
You’re right… I as well as other denominations claim to have the truth… as does the Catholic church.

All denominations dont claim to have ALL Truth. Because They claim that it is ok for the Church down the road to believe something totally different than them. Does the Church down the road teach a truth they do not. How could they claim to have truth but reconize that the Church down the road is part of the same Church but teach differnt truths?

What is it that differentiates the Catholic church from the others as being the true Church? Is it that the Catholic church ‘claims’ to be the true church? All the churches claim that…
John

All Chruchs dont claim that there particular denomination is the True Church there only a few that do tough. Most claim that htey are only part of the true Church. But I dont think that was how it was 2000 years ago. Do you not think that the True Church would claim to be founded by Jesus Christ Himself? I dont think Jesus founded the Presbyterian USA Church. And you cant have a true Church today, the one Jesus founded if there was no succession.

At least Catholics claim all the things the True Church should be claiming. You dotn claim these things so you could not be the true Church.

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

So, Baptists were founded by Jesus Christ, trace their origin to Apostolic times, have existed from the time of the apostles to the present and as a result of these key ingredients, have the authority to baptize. This is a claim to apostolic succession.

Absolutely not, Apostolic succession is not merely stating that teaching is transferred, or that the authority to baptize is transferred, but that the same Apostolic office is transferred.

The authority to baptize is only qualified by one being a believer, and that they have already been baptized themselves. That is why I previously alluded to the possiblity of 75 men baptizing in Acts 2.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Sean Boyle,

Yet there is no physical nor historical proof that your “tradition” or beliefs have existed before the mid 1700’s.

Neither can you prove that your tradition or beliefs existed “as a church” before 312. But you, as well as I refer to statements made by others, and historical evidence. Yours being the ECF’s, mine being the recorded statements of the Apostles… the bible is a historical record too.

If Christ promised that he would build a church and the gates of hell would never prevail against it. Did he later say somewhere that it wouldn’t come about until 1500 years later (start of the protestant chruch)? I’ve never seen or heard of that teaching. Have you?

Of course not, the “true church” is not a physical one (see post #228 here)

Your are suspicious of the Catholic Church. I can promise you that fear does not come from God, it is your own. You’ve made that very clear. You would describe your self and your beliefs as protestant, right? What could be more anti-catholic than describing you belief system as “protesting” the Catholic Church.
Protestant/protesting see the relationship, now.

I understand the relationship perfectly, and I do not consider myself protestant. I know what protestant means.

My belief, and my doctrine is not based on a protest of the Catholic Church, it is based on Pauline doctrine that I saw well before I was aware of the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Therefore I am not “anti-catholic”, but “pro-truth”.

Christ promised that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide his Church.

Yes, the invisible one that will be visibly united in heaven. Does the Holy Spirit guide you? If He does not, then you are only operating on preconceived notions taught to you by the Catholic Church. If you are guided by the Holy Spirit, then you are part of that unkown number of Christians who are also guided by the Holy Spirit who are obviously not yet united.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

All denominations dont claim to have ALL Truth. Because They claim that it is ok for the Church down the road to believe something totally different than them. Does the Church down the road teach a truth they do not. How could they claim to have truth but reconize that the Church down the road is part of the same Church but teach differnt truths?

The churches you are describing are those who don’t have any convictions anymore, and are being absorbed by the eccumenical movement. I do not believe that way.

All Chruchs dont claim that there particular denomination is the True Church there only a few that do tough. Most claim that htey are only part of the true Church. But I dont think that was how it was 2000 years ago. Do you not think that the True Church would claim to be founded by Jesus Christ Himself? I dont think Jesus founded the Presbyterian USA Church. And you cant have a true Church today, the one Jesus founded if there was no succession.

The “true church” is not a denomination, or even a local congregation… it is the “body of Christ”. Any denomination or local assembly that claims to be the “true church” defeats their own argument that they are because the true church is a spiritual one.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[jimmy]

Odell,

The churches you are describing are those who don’t have any convictions anymore, and are being absorbed by the eccumenical movement. I do not believe that way.

The “true church” is not a denomination, or even a local congregation… it is the “body of Christ”. Any denomination or local assembly that claims to be the “true church” defeats their own argument that they are because the true church is a spiritual one.

John
www.gideonsword.net

It is physical as well as can be seen when Paul refers the people to the Church, which he calls ‘the pillar and ground of truth’, for their problems. The Church is spiritual, but it is also physical. The true Church is the Catholic Church. Those in heaven are Catholic.

All protestants have lost convictions. They read the bible and accept what ever they want. None of them can be said to be conservative Christians. They are the founders of modern relativism. Like you said, they say that there is no true church on earth, every ones faith is fine. Everyone can believe what ever they want…of course it goes without saying that this excludes those who actually have convictions like Catholics.

 

[Eden]

Eden,

Absolutely not, Apostolic succession is not merely stating that teaching is transferred, or that the authority to baptize is transferred, but that the same Apostolic office is transferred.

The authority to baptize is only qualified by one being a believer, and that they have already been baptized themselves. That is why I previously alluded to the possiblity of 75 men baptizing in Acts 2.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Claiming to have authority to baptize from Apostolic times directly from Christ and through the “Baptists” who were “alive at that time” is a claim to Apostolic Succession.

The article that you called “very informative” and “truthful” does not claim authority though being a “believer, having been baptized themselves”, it claims authority from Apostolic times from Jesus Christ Himself and the “Baptists” who supposedly passed this authority through the generations, underground for 1600 years.

I will give you the most basic definition of “apostolic succession” again, from the neutral source Wikipedia:

“In Christianity, the doctrine of Apostolic Succession (or the belief that the Church is ‘apostolic’) maintains that the Christian Church today is the spiritual successor to the original body of believers in Christ composed of the Apostles.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession

The Baptist article is clearly a claim to authority by apostolic succession (although a rather vague and unsubstantiated claim, since the claim is both wishful thinking and groundless).

 

[Eden]

I will ask again, since I have not gotten an answer. Were the 32 Popes before 313 A.D. Catholic?

A one word, yes or no, is fine.

 

[Odell]

John have you not said before in the Thred that was canceled on the true church that the True Church does not change its teachings. Was this a spritual Chruch or a denomination you was talking about? If so how can you belive this to be true if the spiritual Chruch isnt alowed to change teaching but are alowed to have different teachings? Perhaps the Church is not only spiritual but physical.

Also you admit that you have changed so you cant be the true Chruch if you believe the true Chruch is spiritual or not. You cant even be part of the spritual church because you have changed. acording to your theology.

 

[jimmy]

Neither can you prove that your tradition or beliefs existed “as a church” before 312. But you, as well as I refer to statements made by others, and historical evidence. Yours being the ECF’s, mine being the recorded statements of the Apostles… the bible is a historical record too.

The funny thing is that the bible was canonized by the Catholic Church. To take the bible apart from the Church removes it from the very group that declared it to be scripture. The only logical conclusion is that the new testament is not scripture because those who declared it to be are heretics.

You say you refer to the NT and we refer to the ECF’s. If you think this distinction is true you must ignore all our posts because I would gaurantee that my fellow posters have given you far more verses that show the Church is physical than you have to show the Church is not physical. Here are some verses though that show the Church is physical. Matt.16;18-19, Matt.18;18,Acts1;16-26,Acts6;1-7.

The last supper also shows that the Church is physical because Christ gives the Church a new form of worship. He associates it with both Sinai and the passover, the two founding events of Israel. He is creating His Church which is founded around the Eucharist.

Christ also shows that His Church is visible and physical when He gives them a prayer, the Our Father, in Matt.5. By giving them a prayer He is giving them an identity that is distinct from all others. They have become a new people. Christs Church is very visible and physical.

When the apostles choose a successor in Acts1 for Judas they are saying that the Church is physical. They are saying that there are leaders of the Church.

We also refer to the Church Fathers as well. Ignatius and Irenaeus are two very clear authors that mention the authority given by the apostles to the bishops. Ignatius refers to the bishop and says that to do nothing without his approval. He says to treat the bishop as you would Christ. Irenaeus gives the line of bishops of Rome from the apostles Peter and Paul up to the year 175 when he was writing.

 

[bibleapologist]

jimmny,

It is physical as well as can be seen when Paul refers the people to the Church, which he calls ‘the pillar and ground of truth’, for their problems. The Church is spiritual, but it is also physical. The true Church is the Catholic Church. Those in heaven are Catholic.

Your statement quoted above demonstrates a common misconception concerning the “church”. Jesus only claimed to have founded “one” church… not many churches. But in the New Testament we see that the Apostles were active in starting many “churches”. So where is the discrepancy? There is none, because those “churches” are the physical local congregations (or assemblies) of Christians who are part of the larger whole who consist of the “church”. As a Catholic you should understand that. What we are debating is not whether local churches are scriptural, but what the “all inclusive” church is.

You are right, the churches are physical, but the “church” that Jesus founded is spiritual.

All protestants have lost convictions. They read the bible and accept what ever they want. None of them can be said to be conservative Christians.

Here is where I disagree with you (despite the fact that I am not a Protestant, but Baptist). You stated that none of the Protestants can be said to be “conservative Christians”, and you also said that they have lost their convictions.

To be a conservative Christian is not a conviction… it is conformity. Conservativism is only an acceptance of moral standards, it does not mean there is any true convictions. I know many republicans who are morally upright, and stand for conservative values, but that does not necessarily mean they have convictions.

Conviction comes from the Holy Spirit. Conformity can be attained in any situation apart from the Holy Spirit. To say that the Amish are good Christians just because they live peaceably, don’t drink, respect the earth etc. is heretical… I could conform to the Amish lifestyle, but doing that apart from loving God is not conviction.

My point is, it cannot be said that Catholics have convictions based on the fact that the agree with the moral standard of the Catholic Church, and that standard being conservative. Conservatism is nothing but self-righteousness.

A true Christian… and one who is part of the “true church”, is one who hasn’t just conformed to moral conservatism, but has has had the Righteousness of Christ imputed to them… Christ is the standard!

Paul, when speaking of the faith of Abraham, and the righteousness that was imputed to him said…

Rom 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

And that righteousness is imputed upon faith…

Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Rom 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which [he had] being [yet] uncircumcised.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

I will ask again, since I have not gotten an answer. Were the 32 Popes before 313 A.D. Catholic?

A one word, yes or no, is fine.

I really don’t think you would ask that question unless you had a repudiation of my answer ready.

If any of the pastors of the Church of Rome prior to 313AD considered themselves Catholic… I can assure you that it was a result of their own personal misconception concerning the spiritual nature of the “true church”… whether this misconception was a result of their own philosphy or a teaching from a peer, I can’t say… you’ll have to ask them

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Also you admit that you have changed so you cant be the true Chruch if you believe the true Chruch is spiritual or not. You cant even be part of the spritual church because you have changed. acording to your theology.

You must mean… According to your understanding of my theology…

Nowhere in the bible will you find that the primary distinctive of the “true church” is that it is perfect. The only way a person can be “unchanging” and be righteous is for that person or organization to be perfect.

The bible does say that Christians would be led into the fulness of the knowledge of the truth, which is of course a process, and would require change. We are also told that the Saints (us) are in a process of being prefected (Eph. 4:12). But we are not perfect only because we are saved.

We will not reach perfection until we are gathered together in heaven…

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Jimmy,

The funny thing is that the bible was canonized by the Catholic Church. To take the bible apart from the Church removes it from the very group that declared it to be scripture. The only logical conclusion is that the new testament is not scripture because those who declared it to be are heretics.

I don’t think it is funny at all; nor is it ironic. Whatever the Catholic Church canonized 312AD, they canonized for themselves. That version had other books that are not considered “canonized” by me or those I associate with, so how can you claim that the Catholic Church gave me my Bible? The truth is, the Catholic Church, by the order of Constantine gave itself a bible and used Jerome to do it.

… I would gaurantee that my fellow posters have given you far more verses that show the Church is physical than you have to show the Church is not physical. Here are some verses though that show the Church is physical. Matt.16;18-19, Matt.18;18,Acts1;16-26,Acts6;1-7.

Please see my answer to this in the top of post 210. Thanks.

We also refer to the Church Fathers as well.

As I have been saying… the Earliest of Church fathers and thier writings can be found in the New Testament scripture. If a quote by another Church father is contradictory to the New Testament scripture, they should be deemed a heretic, and divergent from Apostolic teaching.

When the apostles choose a successor in Acts1 for Judas they are saying that the Church is physical. They are saying that there are leaders of the Church.

When the Apostles did that, they were circumventing the work of Jesus to appoint Apostles. You can read my article on that here.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Eden,

I really don’t think you would ask that question unless you had a repudiation of my answer ready.

If any of the pastors of the Church of Rome prior to 313AD considered themselves Catholic… I can assure you that it was a result of their own personal misconception concerning the spiritual nature of the “true church”… whether this misconception was a result of their own philosphy or a teaching from a peer, I can’t say… you’ll have to ask them

John
www.gideonsword.net

Either the Catholic Church was invented by Constantine in 313 A.D. or it wasn’t. You make the claim that it was. If so, you are asserting that the 32 men who were Popes (A.K.A. “Bishops of Rome”) before Constantine “invented” the Roman Catholic Church were not Catholic. So, were the Popes before Constantine Catholic or not? And if not, what were they?

 

[Eden]

Here is where I disagree with you (despite the fact that I am not a Protestant, but Baptist).

I can understand why you would not want to be considered Protestant, but as a Baptist, history is not with you. You are Protestant.

“It has been shown that Baptists in America find their origins in Colonial and some English Puritanism. English Baptists continually avowed allegiance to the Protestant Reformation, their early leaders all being Puritans. The Anabaptism of the Continent, although holding some clear Baptistic principles, were not the fathers of modern Baptists (neither in America directly nor via Britain); nor were they without roots in Roman Catholicism themselves.”

biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/ecclesiology/baptism.htm

If the myriad Baptists religions are the true church, it shouldn’t be necessary to be intellectually dishonest in order to support their existence.

 

[Eden]

Eden,

You must mean… According to your understanding of my theology…

Nowhere in the bible will you find that the primary distinctive of the “true church” is that it is perfect. The only way a person can be “unchanging” and be righteous is for that person or organization to be perfect.

The bible does say that Christians would be led into the fulness of the knowledge of the truth, which is of course a process, and would require change. We are also told that the Saints (us) are in a process of being prefected (Eph. 4:12). But we are not perfect only because we are saved.

We will not reach perfection until we are gathered together in heaven…

John
www.gideonsword.net

I believe you meant to respond to Odell, as it is to Odell’s quotes
that you are responding here.

Bibleapologist:

I don’t think it is funny at all; nor is it ironic. Whatever the Catholic Church canonized 312AD, they canonized for themselves. That version had other books that are not considered “canonized” by me or those I associate with, so how can you claim that the Catholic Church gave me my Bible? The truth is, the Catholic Church, by the order of Constantine gave itself a bible and used Jerome to do it.

Can you refer me to a source in which I can read more about the Council which set the Baptist Canon? I can’t find any historical document that records the setting of the Baptist Canon. Can you please provide some links?

 

[Eden]

Either the Catholic Church was invented by Constantine in 313 A.D. or it wasn’t. You make the claim that it was. If so, you are asserting that the 32 men who were Popes (A.K.A. “Bishops of Rome”) before Constantine “invented” the Roman Catholic Church were not Catholic. So, were the Popes before Constantine Catholic or not? And if not, what were they?

You know what? I’ll just make this easier than a yes or no answer. Since we both agree that the Catholic Church has a Pope today, who was the first Catholic Pope?

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy,

I don’t think it is funny at all; nor is it ironic. Whatever the Catholic Church canonized 312AD, they canonized for themselves. That version had other books that are not considered “canonized” by me or those I associate with, so how can you claim that the Catholic Church gave me my Bible? The truth is, the Catholic Church, by the order of Constantine gave itself a bible and used Jerome to do it.

By order of Constantine it used Jerome? What? Are you serious? Is that seriously the history that you know? Jerome was 70 to 80 years after Constantine. He had no connection with Constantine. The canonization of the bible had nothing to do with Jerome and it had nothing to do with Constantine. All Jerome did was to make a new translation from the Greek, using the Hebrew of the OT as well. There were many translations dating back to the second century of the books of the bible. Your date 312AD is completely off. Jermome died in 417 and was probably born around 450.

You do not have one source for what the books of the bible are outside the Catholic Church. It is the Catholic Church which gave you the bible whether you like it or not. The only sources of the books of the bible are all Catholics. They include Melito, the councils of Laoudicea, Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. Please show me one source that is not from within the Catholic Church.

As I have been saying… the Earliest of Church fathers and thier writings can be found in the New Testament scripture. If a quote by another Church father is contradictory to the New Testament scripture, they should be deemed a heretic, and divergent from Apostolic teaching.

However none of them do contradict the apostles so they are deemed to be great saints.

When the Apostles did that, they were circumventing the work of Jesus to appoint Apostles. You can read my article on that here.

John
www.gideonsword.net

You have just declared yourself a heretic by contradicting the apostles.

What Peter and the other Apostles did in Acts chapter one, was to circumvent God’s will and do “what seemeth right to a man”.

This is the typical thought process of protestants. They place their own authority above that of the apostles. You have denied the authority of the apostles and you have made yourself a heretic. You might as well say that they cirmumvented Christ by writing epistles when Christ never told them to write epistles.

 

[jimmy]

Your statement quoted above demonstrates a common misconception concerning the “church”. Jesus only claimed to have founded “one” church… not many churches. But in the New Testament we see that the Apostles were active in starting many “churches”. So where is the discrepancy? There is none, because those “churches” are the physical local congregations (or assemblies) of Christians who are part of the larger whole who consist of the “church”. As a Catholic you should understand that. What we are debating is not whether local churches are scriptural, but what the “all inclusive” church is.

You are right, the churches are physical, but the “church” that Jesus founded is spiritual.

There is no distinction between the churches which you keep as individual local churches and that one which is universal. The act by Peter, Paul, and James to write epistles to the local churches to correct them is an act making them subject to the universal church. James is writing as bishop of Jerusalem and he is correcting the diaspora(those outside Jerusalem). He is correcting those in other churches. It is one universal Church and it is perfectly visible as can be seen from the scriptures.

 

[jimmy]

Here is where I disagree with you (despite the fact that I am not a Protestant, but Baptist). You stated that none of the Protestants can be said to be “conservative Christians”, and you also said that they have lost their convictions.

I was including you in that because you are a protestant. You might deny that your denom. is a result of the reformation but that does not change the fact that it is.

To be a conservative Christian is not a conviction… it is conformity. Conservativism is only an acceptance of moral standards, it does not mean there is any true convictions. I know many republicans who are morally upright, and stand for conservative values, but that does not necessarily mean they have convictions.

All protestants have accepted what they want of the Christian morals and faith. Almost all have accepted contraception. They have all rejected certain aspects of the faith which are important, like the real and true presence in the Eucharist. They have also rejected the meaning of baptism. It is pure relativism.

Conviction comes from the Holy Spirit. Conformity can be attained in any situation apart from the Holy Spirit. To say that the Amish are good Christians just because they live peaceably, don’t drink, respect the earth etc. is heretical… I could conform to the Amish lifestyle, but doing that apart from loving God is not conviction.

I wouldn’t call it heretical. They do live a very good life and it is an attempt to conform to the will of God. It is not simply an attempt to conform to the will of their community.

My point is, it cannot be said that Catholics have convictions based on the fact that the agree with the moral standard of the Catholic Church, and that standard being conservative. Conservatism is nothing but self-righteousness.

Your attitude toward scripture is nothing but self-righteousness. You reject what you want as can be seen by your response to Acts1. You have made yourself a heretic. You interpret as you want. By being conservative, we conform to the faith which was handed on by the apostles. You hold to your own relativistic faith. Your view takes no conviction, it only takes a willingness to read the bible and get out of it what you want.

A true Christian… and one who is part of the “true church”, is one who hasn’t just conformed to moral conservatism, but has has had the Righteousness of Christ imputed to them… Christ is the standard!

Of course Christ is the standard. However Christ has given the faith to the Church through the apostles. You have rejected the faith.