Succession of Bishops

[bibleapologist]

Mickey,

It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion (ibid 4:26:2).

And I hold the Catholic church in suspicion… so who is the true church? Maybe the church who’s representative on these forums gives the strongest argument is the one that has been entrusted with the clearest interpretation of truth…

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

This reply is to Eden… but is also intended to answer Odell and SeanBoyle…

First of all… If I am not completely sure of a truth, I won’t teach it.

Secondly, if there is a truth that I feel like I don’t understand completely, I study and pray about it until I am satisfied with my understanding as it compares with what has already been revealed to me as truth… So, If I harbor incomplete understanding of truth in a certain area… I’m not so apathetic to let them accrue to the number ten before I begin to rectify what would seem to be an inconsistency.

Thirdly, beside the fact that if I had them I would not give you a list of ten truths I did not understand… we are disussing the succession of bishops… and you as a Catholic have been challenged to defend the Catholic position with scripture and reason, and not from a fideist philosophical position.

John
www.gideonsword.net

I wasn’t asking for a list of ten truths you did not understand. I was interested in a list of the errors you have made when interpreting the Bible. You acknowledged that you are fallible, thus prone to error, so I was interested in what those errors are. Can you give me some examples?

 

[Eden]

Mickey,

And I hold the Catholic church in suspicion… so who is the true church? Maybe the church who’s representative on these forums gives the strongest argument is the one that has been entrusted with the clearest interpretation of truth…

John
www.gideonsword.net

If that were the case, then you would be heading to RCIA pronto.

 

[Mickey]

And I hold the Catholic church in suspicion…

Of course you do.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Of course you do.

To add to Mickey’s response…

That is your faith tradition. You also view the bible through rose colored glasses because being suspicious of the Catholic Church is part of your faith and tradition, protesting Christ’s Church. Cast aside your preconcieved notions of Christ’s Church then read the bible.

 

[Odell]

Notworthy,
The Holy Spirit doesn’t guide me to teach a falsehood, if I teach a falsehood it’s because I have failed to be led by the Holy Spirit.
John
www.gideonsword.net

Have you ever failed to be led since you have become a preacher?

If so how do you know that it is any different now? Did you fill certain then? Are you anymore certain now in what you teach knowing you have been wrong before? Do you not think that maybe you could change again.

I dont thank you are anymore certain now than you where then. Therefore I cant trust you. I can however trust the Church that has never canged because we have not failed to be led by the Holy Spirit.

If you have not tought falsehood than everything you teach is the Truth. But how can you teach all truth while every other denomination claims the same.

The problem is no one knows where to look for the truth. They think scripture alone and I know you dont teach scripture alone so scripture and bibleapologist is where we should be looking. but scripture alone can lead you into numerous denominations. God left us something where we can find the truth it was not the bible alone it was not you. It was his Church. Who has never tought falsehood. It cant because it is the uphholder and deffender of truth. (1Tim3:15)

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

I dont thank you are anymore certain now than you where then. Therefore I cant trust you. I can however trust the Church that has never canged because we have not failed to be led by the Holy Spirit.

If men are fallible, as I am fallible… how can you be certain that the Catholic Church is truthful? You can’t say that they are truthful only because they say they are, can you?

The leaders of the Catholic Church are no less flesh and blood than I am, so they are no more infallible than I. You must have a more logical reason for following those men, than following me.

If you have not tought falsehood than everything you teach is the Truth. But how can you teach all truth while every other denomination claims the same.

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

It should take a whole lot more than a claim to truthfullness for someone to follow the teachings of a denomination… what I am trying to show you is that there isn’t as much basis for truth in what the Catholic Church teaches as what they claim.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[NotWorthy]

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

Hmmm, what does the Catholic Church have that differentiates itself from all other churches? Hmmmmm, OH Yeah!!! What’s the title of this thread?

Succession of Bishops!!! The Catholics and our Greeks brothers are the only ones that can claim Apostolic Succession (except for the Anglicans, maybe?).

 

[bibleapologist]

Sean Boyle,

That is your faith tradition. You also view the bible through rose colored glasses because being suspicious of the Catholic Church is part of your faith and tradition, protesting Christ’s Church. Cast aside your preconcieved notions of Christ’s Church then read the bible.

I do not follow men, or traditional teaching…

I am also not anti-catholic… I am pro-truth. If the Catholic church teaches a truth, I will agree with them; ie. the trinity, deity of Christ, authority of apostolic teaching.

I disagree with the Catholic teaching of Apostolic succession, not because of my preconceived notions, but because of my logical conclusions, and my study of the Apostle’s writings…

I have given conclusive arguments against Apostolic succession on this thread, if you fail to accept that, I am afraid that you are the one who won’t lay aside your preconceived notions.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Notworthy,

Hmmm, what does the Catholic Church have that differentiates itself from all other churches? Hmmmmm, OH Yeah!!! What’s the title of this thread?

Succession of Bishops!!! The Catholics and our Greeks brothers are the only ones that can claim Apostolic Succession (except for the Anglicans, maybe?).

The Catholic Church “claims” apostolic succession… but, there again… who is to say that doctrine is valid?

And even if it was, how do you know that the Catholic church has the “true” successors of the Apostles?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Notworthy,

The Catholic Church “claims” apostolic succession… but, there again… who is to say that doctrine is valid?

And even if it was, how do you know that the Catholic church has the “true” successors of the Apostles?

John
www.gideonsword.net

You claimed that you do not believe in apostolic succession, yet in post #185 of the thread “Baptism and the true Church”, you said that the following statements from a Baptist website were “very informative” and “truthful”:

Church Authority

To find out who Christ gave this authority, turn with me in your Bible to Matt. 28: 19-20 where we read these words, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” Here then is the commandment given to baptize. To whom was it given? When we find this answer we have the authority of baptism. In verse 16 of Matt. 28 we see to whom Jesus was investing the authority of baptism. “then the eleven went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.”

Historical Argument

These eleven composed the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, organized in His ministry (Matt. 16:18 & 18:17). Let us for a minute lay aside prejudice and see which church this was Jesus built. He did not build all the denominations existing today. They all teach different things and God is not the author of confusion. A mere look at history will give us the answer to this question.

History gives a founder for every denomination existing today except a Baptist church. Let us look: 1- The Catholic Church founded in 313 by Constantine; **2- **the Lutheran in 1520 by Martin Luther; 3- the episcopal in 1534 by King Henry VIII; **4- **the Presbyterian in 1536 by John Calvin; **5- **the Methodist in 1740 by John Wesley; 6- the Christian (Church of Christ, Disciples) in 1827 by Alexander Campbell; **7- **the Church of God in 1825 by John Winebrenner; **8- **the First Church of God in 1880 within the churches of God existing and founded by John Winebrenner in 1825. We could go on with every other denomination but we do not have the space.

Alexander Campbell, found-er of the Christian Church says the following of the Baptists: “The Baptists can trace their origin to Apostolic times and can produce unequivocal testimony of their existence in every century down to the present time.” So is the testimony of all honest historians of all denominations. The Baptist churches have no founder this side of Jesus Christ, therefore, it is the church to whom is given the ordinance of baptism.

baptistpillar.com/bd0205.htm

It appears that you now believe in the succession of authority as coming through the apostles.

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

It appears that you now believe in the succession of authority as coming through the apostles.

Because I agree that every other denomination including the Catholics have a founder???

Or because I believe that one day we will have unequivocal proof that there has been a succession of baptisms from the Apostles???

Seriously Eden, I don’t get your point. That has nothing to do with “succession of bishops” or “apostolic succession”.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Bibleapologist:

Of course not, I am only claiming to be more truthful than the Catholic Church on these points.

Maybe I have not made it clear what I am asking.

I am working with your statement that John’s truth > Catholic truth.

If you can quantatively state that your beliefs are more truthful than the Catholic Church, you should be able to articulate the points on which you are in error. Yet every time I request some sort of data or list of the errors you have made in interpreting the Bible, I don’t get what I requested.

Also, can you share with us the percentage of truth vs. error in your faith vs. the Catholic faith so I can see how you reached this mathematical conclusion? I assume that when you make this kind of truth vs. error calculation, you have data to support the conclusions. Pie charts are optional.

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

I shouldn’t have been so harsh in my last post.

I do believe you know what you are trying to say, and it is probably a good argument, I just don’t see what you are getting at yet.

Could you please explain yourself a little more completely?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Because I agree that every other denomination including the Catholics have a founder???

By the way, were those 32 Popes before Constantine “invented” the Catholic Church Catholic? That’s a yes or no question.

Or because I believe that one day we will have unequivocal proof that there has been a succession of baptisms from the Apostles???

Seriously Eden, I don’t get your point. That has nothing to do with “succession of bishops” or “apostolic succession”.

%between%

The article traces the authority to baptize through the Apostles from Jesus. That’s apostolic succession.

From 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. Different Christian denominations interpret this doctrine in different ways.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Succession

Now let’s look back at the article that you found “very informative” and “truthful”:

The Baptists can trace their origin to Apostolic times and can produce unequivocal testimony of their existence in every century down to the present time." So is the testimony of all honest historians of all denominations. The Baptist churches have no founder this side of Jesus Christ, therefore, it is the church to whom is given the ordinance of baptism.

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.

 

[Odell]

Odell,
If men are fallible, as I am fallible… how can you be certain that the Catholic Church is truthful? You can’t say that they are truthful only because they say they are, can you?

Would not the True Church claim to be truthfull?
Would not the True Church claim to have always been truthfull?

You cant be the true church because you change but Gods Church does not.

The leaders of the Catholic Church are no less flesh and blood than I am, so they are no more infallible than I. You must have a more logical reason for following those men, than following me.

Because they claim these things above in which you do not.
They are led by the Holy Spirit as you claim.

Only difference is we do not failed to be lead by the Holy Spirit as you have.

Do you not think The True Church God founded that he would not allow them to be misguided? Whats the point in him giving us the Holy Spirit for guidence of truth if we are going to fail in some matters anyway?

He gave us the Holy Spirit to be guided into all truth. And He wants his Church to be guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church Jesus Christ founded can not fail to be guided by the Spirit of God it is stupid on your part to think so.

It should take a whole lot more than a claim to truthfullness for someone to follow the teachings of a denomination… what I am trying to show you is that there isn’t as much basis for truth in what the Catholic Church teaches as what they claim.

Why should I believe you when you have believed something to be true at one pont and later on it is no longer true? Truth does not change. And we have alot more basis than you do you cant claim to have any better of a basis can you John. You Change the Church can not.

The Church is the upholder and deffender of the Truth. (1 Tim 3:15)

John
www.gideonsword.net

Notworthy,

The Catholic Church “claims” apostolic succession… but, there again… who is to say that doctrine is valid?

And even if it was, how do you know that the Catholic church has the “true” successors of the Apostles?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Mickey]

I am also not anti-catholic… I am pro-truth.

I disagree with the Catholic teaching of Apostolic succession

Of course you do. If you agreed with the teaching, you would have to be Catholic.

I have given conclusive arguments against Apostolic succession

That’s odd–I have not seen them yet.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Sean Boyle,

I do not follow men, or traditional teaching…

I am also not anti-catholic… I am pro-truth. If the Catholic church teaches a truth, I will agree with them; ie. the trinity, deity of Christ, authority of apostolic teaching.

I disagree with the Catholic teaching of Apostolic succession, not because of my preconceived notions, but because of my logical conclusions, and my study of the Apostle’s writings…

I have given conclusive arguments against Apostolic succession on this thread, if you fail to accept that, I am afraid that you are the one who won’t lay aside your preconceived notions.

John
www.gideonsword.net

take a deep breath… now let it out. Your posts are starting to get a little testy. I think that your starting to see the truth. Anger can be a common response when faced with the truth and it is opposed to “your own”.

You do not follow men?
Yet there is no physical nor historical proof that your “tradition” or beliefs have existed before the mid 1700’s. One of the proof’s, that you can hold, that the Catholic Church is the true church is your bible. It didn’t come about thru any other means than thru the Church. You can’t disprove that fact. Your free to believe otherwise, but your just kidding your self. Someone taught to read the bible the way that you do. Some person helped you along in you spiritual journey. You didn’t get to your current theology all by your self, did you? Was that person ever Catholic? Or is your “Jesus” better than our “Jesus”?

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?

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.

You say that you don’t have preconceived notions agianst the Catholic Church. Well do you know what she teaches? When was the last time you went to Mass? What if your logical conclusions are wrong? You are fallible, correct?

Christ promised that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide his Church. Now does that mean all 7 billion people on this planet are guided individually by the Holy Spirit to the truth or will the Holy Spirit guide the Church as started by Christ? Using historical proofs, who is that Church?

Your conclusive arguments, being one of 7 billion such arguements, are not what lead the faithful to God. The Truth does.

Come home to Christ’s Church…

 

[Mickey]

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.

In all fairness, I know many non-Catholic Christians who are loving charitable people. They would describe themselves as protestant but they are not consiously protesting the Catholic Church–it is something they were born into and they accept it as such. Having said that, I believe that BA knows he is protesting the Catholic Church and has been programmed by his “tradition of men” to teach that it is false.

Of course this is only my opinion.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

In all fairness, I know many non-Catholic Christians who are loving charitable people. They would describe themselves as protestant but they are not consiously protesting the Catholic Church–it is something they were born into and they accept it as such. Having said that, I believe that BA knows he is protesting the Catholic Church and has been programmed by his “tradition of men” to teach that it is false.

Of course this is only my opinion.

I see your point.