Succession of Bishops

[bibleapologist]

Not Worthy,

As one of the impressionable bystanders , can I ask, Do the Baptists today share the same beliefs as the Donatists? The Paulicians? The Vale Olchans?

Your impatience to wait for my reply has allowed you to give away your strategy. If you would like to argue whether a Baptist should associate himself with the likes of the Donatists, Paulicians, or the Vale Olchan why don’t we do it on a new thread.

I would hate to see this thread terminated for straying off topic.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

You said that Paul recieved the power to preach and was only a apostle because he had seen Jesus. You quote (Act 9:3) Showing that is when he saw Jesus. If you notice even after Paul was chosen by Jesus he only ministered after the laying on of hands by a bishop verses 17-20 of the same chapter 9 read the whole chapter 9 you will be amazed. It is proof of the necessity of a sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate succssor of the apostles.

For one to be an Apostle there was never the need for an ordination from man… None of the original twelve were ordained by men. Even if you choose to claim Matthias was an Apostle we never read that he was ordained… only that he was counted with them.

Also, Ananias was not a Bishop… he was a disciple (Acts 9:10).

And Paul even says he was not sent by a man, or ordained by men…

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

My proof that the qualification to be an Apostle is to have seen Christ, and be sent by Him comes from Galatians 1:1, and this verse…

1Co 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

You also said…

verse 24 shows that some without mandate from the apostles went out and preached. That was a big no no. They went out with out the athority of the rest of the apostles.

Notice that people where upset but they did not go start there own Church. They waited untill more to come preach who had the athority do preach. They were sent out by bishops they where not people who just picked up a bible and preach what they believe to be true.

That is a gross misinterpretation of scripture. Verse 24 says nothing of the sort. That particular verse only says that some taught that the circumcision was necessary for salvation, and subverted their souls… that was a big no no.

The 12 Apostles were sent by Chirst to teach, evangelize and start churches. In the early days of the church, there was bound to be confusion… especially among the Jews who couldn’t let go of the circumcision. This case as recorded in Acts 15 was a perfect example of why Christ sent Apostles in the early days of the church… He gave them their doctrine, and they taught the Church.

God inspired those men to write, then preserved those writings for us to use in our day. Our doctrine is passed down from the Apostles, not through apostolic succession… but by their writings on what God gave them.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[NotWorthy]

Not Worthy,

Your impatience to wait for my reply has allowed you to give away your strategy. If you would like to argue whether a Baptist should associate himself with the likes of the Donatists, Paulicians, or the Vale Olchan why don’t we do it on a new thread.

I would hate to see this thread terminated for straying off topic.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Ahhhh, to be impressionable and impatient… You make me feel like a teenager again!!!

I still have no clue what a “Vale Ochan” is. But anyway, I did as you suggested. You’ll find it here.

 

[Odell]

Odell,
For one to be an Apostle there was never the need for an ordination from man… None of the original twelve were ordained by men. Even if you choose to claim Matthias was an Apostle we never read that he was ordained… only that he was counted with them.

Thats right and they cast valids and asked for Gods intersession. They were ordaned by God but threw men.

And Paul even says he was not sent by a man, or ordained by men…

So did you not see from scripture that Paul did not preach until after the laying of hands? Read the verses I gave you.

(Acts 15:22-27)- preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church.

Read it again John. Paul was sent by whoever wrote Luke he was sent by men. No way around it.

That is a gross misinterpretation of scripture. Verse 24 says nothing of the sort. That particular verse only says that some taught that the circumcision was necessary for salvation, and subverted their souls… that was a big no no.

THAT PARTICULAR VERSE says that those without mandate from the apostles went out to preach. Clearly showing that you cant go out with out mandate.

The 12 Apostles were sent by Chirst to teach, evangelize and start churches. In the early days of the church, there was bound to be confusion… especially among the Jews who couldn’t let go of the circumcision. This case as recorded in Acts 15 was a perfect example of why Christ sent Apostles in the early days of the church… He gave them their doctrine, and they taught the Church.

Are you sugesting that the bound to confusion has got any better.
If you ask me it has only got worse. Its worse now than it was then. This is a perfict example of why we still need Apostolic succession. They sill teached the Church today.

God inspired those men to write, then preserved those writings for us to use in our day. Our doctrine is passed down from the Apostles, not through apostolic succession… but by their writings on what God gave them.

But threw whos interpritation? And if that is true than is it biblical show me in the bible that doctrine is passed down only threw scripture.

Why do not all the apostles have books in the bible? And do you not think the apostles would leave someone who can athoritivly claim to interprit scripture correctly.

Catholics suggest that doctrine is passed down both by word and scripture. Just as the bible suggest.

By claiming what you have said than The Church would only exist if it wasnt for the bible. But was there no doctrine or Chruch for 300 some years until the bible was complete. Did the Chruch exist without doctrine?

You dont belive in apostolic sucession. So who tought the doctrine after the apostles died and before the bible was complete?

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

So did you not see from scripture that Paul did not preach until after the laying of hands? Read the verses I gave you.

No, and I never take verses out of text, but I compare them with other verses… and the portion of scripture I quoted you proves that Paul was not sent by men, but sent by Christ. The other Apostles were not sent by men either… can you prove they were?

THAT PARTICULAR VERSE says that those without mandate from the apostles went out to preach. Clearly showing that you cant go out with out mandate.

No, that particular verse says that those Judaizers went out from them… but verse 1 of that same chapter tells us that those men came down from Judaea on their own…

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

But, the fact that these men were not sent by the Apostles does not in any way prove that their wrongdoing was found to be preaching without a mandate… in fact we are told that the only thing they were reproved for Judaizing the Christians…

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

Are you sugesting that the bound to confusion has got any better.
If you ask me it has only got worse. Its worse now than it was then. This is a perfict example of why we still need Apostolic succession. They sill teached the Church today.

Of course not, but we have the foundational teaching and doctrine of the Apostles, and anything that is oppositional to that is questionable as truth. We also have the Holy Spirit which is to guide us into all truth (if we are willing). The Catholic Church has efforted to “replace” the work of the Holy Spirit, maybe that is the reason there is so much confusion today.

But threw whos interpritation? And if that is true than is it biblical show me in the bible that doctrine is passed down only threw scripture.

Jesus never said He would send more Apostles, He did say though that He would send scribes… and since we can trust Jesus’ promise to send scribes, and that He promised to preserve His word, we can deduce that those scribes were sent, and His word was preserved… we believe that to be the Byzantine line of text which was compiled shortly after the death of the Apostles in the Peshito, and the Itala Biblia (150 to 200 years before the Latin Vulgate)

Can you tell me where Jesus’ promise to send scribes and preserve His word was fulfilled in the Alexandrian line of text… you can’t, the Latin Vulgate was not written by Jerome until the 4th century.

Jesus never said He would send more men with the authority of the Apostles after the 12: He only said He would send Prophets (preachers), wise men (Teachers), and scribes (copiers and translators of the written word).

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Mickey]

The Catholic Church has efforted to “replace” the work of the Holy Spirit

How utterly sad and unfortunate that such a statement is believed.

 

[Eden]

Mickey:

How utterly sad and unfortunate that such a statement is believed.

It is sad. Paranoia and fear serve to keep people who believe this kind of thing from finding truth. But many Baptists have had their eyes opened to the Church by the Holy Spirit despite their anti-Catholic programming and have embraced the fullness of the faith. There is always hope.

 

[Mickey]

It is sad. Paranoia and fear serve to keep people who believe this kind of thing from finding truth. But many Baptists have had their eyes opened to the Church by the Holy Spirit despite their anti-Catholic programming and have embraced the fullness of the faith. There is always hope.

Indeed! My brother-in-law is a wonderful example of a baptist who has had the veil lifted from his eyes!

 

[Eden]

Indeed! My brother-in-law is a wonderful example of a baptist who has had the veil lifted from his eyes!

No doubt a sign of the fruitfulness of your prayers, Mickey.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Nothing but my explication of scripture, my comparitive analysis of other scripture, and God given ability to reason. You have every liberty to reject my postition. But if you’re not prepared to offer a rebuttal I can only assume that you can’t, and since my explanation is the most thorough I can only assume that I have given a better argument.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Not casing stones… I looked at this statement and realized that someone really beleves it. WOW!!!

Relativism, would be a good description of this statement. If you look at it, it could be summarizied as “If I can think it, that proves I must be right according to God”.

The rebuttal to this form of selfish logic is always faith in God.

That statement does deserve a rebuttal. Relativism and faith can not exist together and still be called christianity. Your statement seems to imply that the two are interdependent on one another for faith to exist.

WOW!!

 

[Odell]

Odell,
No, and I never take verses out of text, but I compare them with other verses… and the portion of scripture I quoted you proves that Paul was not sent by men, but sent by Christ. The other Apostles were not sent by men either… can you prove they were?

The apostle that replaced Judas was sent by God. They prayed for his intercession and the valid landed on Matthias. It would not be recorded in scripture if it was not so. Remember the bible is truth not truthfullness.

No, that particular verse says that those Judaizers went out from them… but verse 1 of that same chapter tells us that those men came down from Judaea on their own…

without any many mandate form whom?

But, the fact that these men were not sent by the Apostles does not in any way prove that their wrongdoing was found to be preaching without a mandate… in fact we are told that the only thing they were reproved for Judaizing the Christians…

(Mandate- an order or command) They went out without command
They were not orderd to preach. So what did the apostles do they sent (orderd) people to go preach. This is exactly why we send people out by command so there will not be any false teachings. like Judaizing

(Reproved- disaproval) are you saying they aproved of them going without mandate?
Either they did or didnt.

Odell,

Jesus never said He would send more Apostles, He did say though that He would send scribes… and since we can trust Jesus’ promise to send scribes, and that He promised to preserve His word,

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

without any many mandate form whom?

Like I said… it doesn’t matter that they weren’t sent out from the Apostles, they were only reproved for teaching a false gospel.

(Reproved- disaproval) are you saying they aproved of them going without mandate?
Either they did or didnt.

We are not told whether they approved of the Judaizers going out without a mandate… so it would be presumptuous to say they were out of line by going out without a mandate.

How do you know he never said that. Does the bible not say there are thing Jesus did that are not recorded in the bible. How do you know everything Jesus said was recorded.

Yes, in fact the last verse in John says that if everything Jesus did were recorded the world could not contain the books… But that does not mean we presumptuously decide that Jesus “would have said” this, or “would have said” that.

What about artificial insimination what does the bible say about that. I bet Jesus disproves of it. Im willing to bet you do too. But what does the bible tell us? Who do we turn to for truth or is truth in this regard impossible to come too. I believe Jesus left us with a succession so we will know exactly what the True Church teaches.

Thank you Odell, for proving my point to the other participants of this thread… The Catholic Church has efforted to replace the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. Let me explain…

Once again we come back to the topic of truth, and my explanation of John 16:13. The Holy Spirit, being the third person of the Trinity, is God Himself; and as such, is the originator of truth and infallible. Since we have been given the Holy Spirit (John 14:7), we have the origin of truth within us which testifies of the truth to us through our conscience’.

Artificial insemenation, is one of those things that a believer should abstain from, first because the act of doing it should violate the conscience of the believer (1 Cor. 8:7-12), and secondly because the fact that such a practice has violated thier conscience… they should investigate the matter further to find out why such an act is immoral.

I am glad the Catholic Church takes a stand against Abortion, Artificial Insemenation, Homosexuality, etc., as should any group of believers who are sensitive to the Holy Spirit… but, for the Catholic Church to disregard the pre-eminence of the Holy Spirit, and His guidance to the individual believer, is to circumvent the work of the Holy Spirit on this earth.

You said… “Who do we turn to for truth or is truth in this regard impossible to come too? I believe Jesus left us with a succession so we will know exactly what the True Church teaches”.

Well, we turn to the origin of truth… God, and His real presence in the heart of believers who will “reveal” that truth to us.

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Mickey,
Eden,
and SeanBoyle,

My reply to your statements about my post concerning the Catholic Church efforting to replace the Holy Spirit can be found in my previous post #133.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Odell]

Odell,
We are not told whether they approved of the Judaizers going out without a mandate… so it would be presumptuous to say they were out of line by going out without a mandate.

John they sent someone else to replace those who where not sent out. It would be presumtuous to say that it is ok to go without mandate.

Yes, in fact the last verse in John says that if everything Jesus did were recorded the world could not contain the books… But that does not mean we presumptuously decide that Jesus “would have said” this, or “would have said” that.

And your not presumptuos when you say Jesus never said somthing.
But the bible says many things Jesus did are not in the bible. Do you not think some of these things would be passed down by tradition.

Thank you Odell, for proving my point to the other participants of this thread… The Catholic Church has efforted to replace the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. Let me explain…

Artificial insemenation, is one of those things that a believer should abstain from, first because the act of doing it should violate the conscience of the believer (1 Cor. 8:7-12), and secondly because the fact that such a practice has violated thier conscience… they should investigate the matter further to find out why such an act is immoral.

What if it does not violate there conscience? How would they investigate?

I am glad the Catholic Church takes a stand against Abortion, Artificial Insemenation, Homosexuality, etc., as should any group of believers who are sensitive to the Holy Spirit… but, for the Catholic Church to disregard the pre-eminence of the Holy Spirit, and His guidance to the individual believer, is to circumvent the work of the Holy Spirit on this earth.

I just dont get it John you say any one sensitive to the Holy Spirit should preach aginst these things. I presume you do. But the Church disregards the Holy Spirit by preaching aginst these things. Yet some how you preach the same serman and you dont disregard the holy spirit? Please explain what we do different or what you are doing different.

Well, we turn to the origin of truth… God, and His real presence in the heart of believers who will “reveal” that truth to us.

How do we turn to it? Cant ask a priest he vialates the Holy Spirit. But you can go to the baptist preacher down the street. He may teach it is wrong but he could tell you there is nothing wrong with it. After all two loveing parents want a child a child is a gift from God. Whats wrong with that? How do we investigate?

And what is the difference in a baptist investiagating in what his pastor believes that a Catholic asking what the Chruch believes?

Sorry John but you havent proven anything. But you can keep trying if you like

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

John they sent someone else to replace those who where not sent out. It would be presumtuous to say that it is ok to go without mandate.

No, they didn’t Odell. They sent Paul, Barnabas, Judas and Silas to correct the teaching that the Judaizers taught them in Antioch concerning the circumcision. Only Silas stayed, and that wasn’t because he was ordered to by anyone…

Act 15:34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.

you also said…

What if it does not violate there conscience? How would they investigate?

If a matter does not violate the conscience, and that person is a believer, the bible says their conscience is seared with a hot iron…

1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

If a person is not a believer, and who has not receieved the Holy Spirit, their conscience is defiled…

Tit 1:15 Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

That’s not to say they can’t learn good and moral things, but they don’t learn them from the Holy Spirit… they learn them from another source.

I just dont get it John you say any one sensitive to the Holy Spirit should preach aginst these things. I presume you do. But the Church disregards the Holy Spirit by preaching aginst these things. Yet some how you preach the same serman and you dont disregard the holy spirit? Please explain what we do different or what you are doing different.

Yes, to be sensitive to the Holy Spirit we should preach against these “moral” issues. But, there is big difference between scriptural preaching, and the teaching of the Catholic Church…

Scriptural preaching never involved only the preacher and the listener… it always involves the Holy Spirit. The work of the Holy Spirit is to impress upon the conscience of the listener, and the preacher (also led by the Spirit) is to impress upon the listener what the Holy Spirit is saying to that listener.

The Catholic Church, by claiming to be the infallible origin of truth, thereby negates the work of the Holy Spirit, and disregards the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a person. Since the Catholic Church lifts themselves to a position of sole-authority, by claiming infallibility they disregard the Holy Spirit working in the heart and conscience of a believer, and hence… they take pre-eminence over the Holy Spirit in the heart and conscience of that believer…

Paul, when speaking to the Corinthians about his own ministry, he verified that his purpose in preaching was to commend themselves to the conscience of the listener…

2Co 4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

They (Paul and Baranabas) manifested the truth to every man’s conscience, declaring nothing but what in their own conscience they believed to be true, and what might serve for the conviction of their consciences who heard them, who were to judge for themselves, and to give an account for themselves.

This is not to mean that every person has the liberty to judge what is true, or not true… and I suspect you understand that Odell. But because we are not infallible, we cannot judge truth of our own… we are not God, therefore we are not the origin of truth… As Paul verified of the gentiles who have not the truth… who are become as law to themselves…

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Since we cannot judge truth of ourselves, the only way we can judge truth is by God within us through our conscience…

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Mickey]

The Catholic Church, by claiming to be the infallible origin of truth, thereby negates the work of the Holy Spirit, and disregards the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a person.

Poppycock! It is the Holy Spirit that guides the Church to infallible teaching. Please cease and desist from your insults against the Holy Spirit and the Catholic Church.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Mickey,
Eden,
and SeanBoyle,

My reply to your statements about my post concerning the Catholic Church efforting to replace the Holy Spirit can be found in my previous post #133.

John
www.gideonsword.net

So as believers Mickey, Eden and I are in disagreement with you on a fundamental issue in matter of faith, for one, the succession of Bishops. Assuming that each of us is led by the Holy Spirit as you seem to state, the Holy Spirit can’t be guiding you to your way of thinking and the three of us to our way and have both position be correct in the eyes of God. The Truth should prevail somehow. How is that? How does the bible say we are to resolve these types of disagreements?

 

[bibleapologist]

Sean Boyle,

Assuming that each of us is led by the Holy Spirit as you seem to state, the Holy Spirit can’t be guiding you to your way of thinking and the three of us to our way and have both position be correct in the eyes of God. The Truth should prevail somehow. How is that? How does the bible say we are to resolve these types of disagreements?

Although I do think that fidiestic philosophy has made some good contributions to Christianity, existentialism is not a complete explication of truth… and existentialism does not explain a fundamental paradox, which is exactly what you have described above.

We, as believers each have an existential relationship with Christ but we cannot be the originators of truth. Only God can be the infallible originator of truth. Subsequently, we as believers, who are led by the Holy Spirit are only capable of interpreting that truth for practicle purposes, but we are not originators of truth as existential philosophy would lead us to believe.

So, as a man reasons… he does not necessarily unfold the truth by merely reasoning (as Plotinus alluded), but as a man reasons he is only reiterating what has been revealed to him by another source. That source could be the truth of God as revealed by the Holy Spirit, but sometimes the interpretation of that truth is corrupted by an integration of other ideas… (preconceived notions).

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Sean Boyle,

Although I do think that fidiestic philosophy has made some good contributions to Christianity, existentialism is not a complete explication of truth… and existentialism does not explain a fundamental paradox, which is exactly what you have described above.

We, as believers each have an existential relationship with Christ but we cannot be the originators of truth. Only God can be the infallible originator of truth. Subsequently, we as believers, who are led by the Holy Spirit are only capable of interpreting that truth for practicle purposes, but we are not originators of truth as existential philosophy would lead us to believe.

So, as a man reasons… he does not necessarily unfold the truth by merely reasoning (as Plotinus alluded), but as a man reasons he is only reiterating what has been revealed to him by another source. That source could be the truth of God as revealed by the Holy Spirit, but sometimes the interpretation of that truth is corrupted by an integration of other ideas… (preconceived notions).

John
www.gideonsword.net

Okay, How does the bible say that we are to resolve these matters of faith? a difference between two believers?