THe proverbial Protestant "Silver Bullet"

[Ozzie]

Teresita:

Ozzie: I am puzzled by your assumption that Saints Peter and Paul could have had no successors because such is not recorded in the Bible. Since successors are appointed only after the death of their predecessor, and since Peter and Paul didn’t die until after they’d written the epistles that bear their name, how could their writings indicate this succession?

The Biblical account gives absoultely no indication that there would be Apostolic successors. I gave you the reason, based on Eph. 2:20-22. The true Church is being built UPON the FOUNDATION of the Apostles. Apostolic “succession” would mean that the “foundation” is still being built. Not so. A foundation is laid ONCE and then built upon. Plus, an Apostolic requirement is to have seen the Lord after His bodily resurrection (see 1 Cor. 9:1). Christ Himself chose His Apostles, they were eyewitnesses to the events and were entrusted with the “good news” message regarding salvation through faith in Christ alone.

There was/is no need for “Apostolic succession.” No other men can qualify for that office.

The Apostles came with Apostolic signs to validate their Divine message of salvation:

2CO 12:12 "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles."

They were not sent/appointed by men but by Christ Himself:

GAL 1:1 "Paul, an apostle (not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead),"

It is their word that we are to trust, and their word concerning Jesus Christ and salvation through faith in Him alone has been preserved for us in Holy Writ.

JUD 1:17 *“But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,”
*
*
*

 

[TNT]

Ozzie:

I know you want to take this thread down this road but eventually the thread monitor will “lock it” saying we’ve drifted from the original topic. And your topic has been thoroughly discussed on several other threads.

Great, Point to your answer on the alleged thread posts.

 

[Exporter]

Ozzie:

I know you want to take this thread down this road but eventually the thread monitor will “lock it” saying we’ve drifted from the original topic. And your topic has been thoroughly discussed on several other threads.

---

OZZIE, For the 6th time. You use 27 as the number of books in the New Testament. From WHERE does this number 27 come? Is it found in the New Testament? Where does it come from?

 

[dennisknapp]

Ozzie:

The Biblical account gives absoultely no indication that there would be Apostolic successors. I gave you the reason, based on Eph. 2:20-22. The true Church is being built UPON the FOUNDATION of the Apostles. Apostolic “succession” would mean that the “foundation” is still being built. Not so. A foundation is laid ONCE and then built upon. Plus, an Apostolic requirement is to have seen the Lord after His bodily resurrection (see 1 Cor. 9:1). Christ Himself chose His Apostles, they were eyewitnesses to the events and were entrusted with the “good news” message regarding salvation through faith in Christ alone.

There was/is no need for “Apostolic succession.” No other men can qualify for that office.

The Apostles came with Apostolic signs to validate their Divine message of salvation:

2CO 12:12 “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.”

They were not sent/appointed by men but by Christ Himself:

GAL 1:1 “Paul, an apostle (not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead),”

It is their word that we are to trust, and their word concerning Jesus Christ and salvation through faith in Him alone has been preserved for us in Holy Writ.

JUD 1:17 "But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,"

What is said here takes in no regard for the historical record.

Peace

 

[pnewton]

Ozzie:

Please inform me on what basis you made this assertion.

(FYI- The assertion that the following verse deals only with the fact and purpose of salvation, no the methodology)
Originally Posted by Ozzie
"Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, or of me His prisoner; but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in

My basis is simple grammar. The word “by” does not appear in the passage. This again is an example of how an individual’s pre-set theology is added to scripture to make it say something it doesn’t.

The only causality is a negative one. The* calling of Paul and Timothy* is according to the purpose of God and not their works. Of course! Anything beyond that is adding to this scripure.

 

[Ignatius]

Ozzie:

Ignatius:

Yes, you must have faith, but faith alone is not enough. You must have Faith as well as obedience. You can believe but refuse to obey. That’s the whole point. You must believe AND obey.

James 2:24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone

.
Faith alone is directly contradicted by Scripure, therefore it is a False, manmade doctrine.
Now tell me, what do you mean when you say, “you must have faith?”

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word means essentially steadfastness (Exod., 17:12), where it is used to describe the strengthening of Moses’ hands; hence it comes to mean faithfulness, whether of God towards man as in Deut., 32:4 or of man towards God as in Psalms 118:30. As signifying man’s attitude towards God it means trustfulness. In Acts it is used objectively of the tenets of the Christians, but is often to be rendered “belief”. In Romans, 14:23, it has the meaning of “conscience” – “all that is not of faith is sin”.

1 Cor 13:2 if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

1 Cor 13:13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

My personal favorite is Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

However we must remember not to cherry pick the bible. We must take it as a whole. If the bible says “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone” then I must believe it. If it says if you have faith to move montains but have not love, you are nothing; then I must believe it. If it says that I will be judged by what I have done, then I must believe it. If it is difficult for me to reconcile these things, then I must accept them and not ignore these clear statments in scripture. But I must believe what is written in the inerrant Word of God.

 

[Church_Militant]

Looks like Ozzie will not be answering us for a while…Let’s remember all these suspended guys at Mass.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Church_Militant]

Apologies for the gossip guys…didn’t intend it that way…
Pax vobiscum.

 

[Teresita]

Ozzie:

The Biblical account gives absoultely no indication that there would be Apostolic successors.
I gave you the reason, based on Eph. 2:20-22. The true Church is being built UPON the FOUNDATION of the Apostles. Apostolic “succession” would mean that the “foundation” is still being built. Not so. A foundation is laid ONCE and then built upon. Plus, an Apostolic requirement is to have seen the Lord after His bodily resurrection (see 1 Cor. 9:1). Christ Himself chose His Apostles, they were eyewitnesses to the events and were entrusted with the “good news” message regarding salvation through faith in Christ alone.

There was/is no need for “Apostolic succession.” No other men can qualify for that office.

The Apostles came with Apostolic signs to validate their Divine message of salvation:

2CO 12:12 “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.”

They were not sent/appointed by men but by Christ Himself:

GAL 1:1 “Paul, an apostle (not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead),”

It is their word that we are to trust, and their word concerning Jesus Christ and salvation through faith in Him alone has been preserved for us in Holy Writ.

JUD 1:17 "But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,"

There’s a beautiful bit of squirming! So you admit that there’s no way that the NT could record something that happened after the death of its writers - and then you have the chutzpah to tell us that it “gives absoultely [sic] no indication that there would be Apostolic successors”. Well, even if one were to agree with that, one could adduce a whole load of other things which Scripture gives no indication of, because circumstances didn’t arise until later on. (Examples on application.) But in fact, we see at the beginning of Acts that a successor/replacement is appointed in place of Judas - the principle is clearly that the faith is handed on via authorised people. Indeed, how else could it have been done?

As for your careful proof that there could be no further apostles, it is as illogical as your original contention.

Let’s take the NT alone as our source, as you prefer. St Paul himself seems to use the term with far greater application than you. He refers to Barnabas as one - he may or may not have been a witness of the resurrection (we’re not told), but he certainly isn’t counted as one of ‘The’ apostles in Acts 4; Andronicus and Junias are described as ‘outstanding among the apostles’ in Romans 16, and never mentioned before or afterwards. The word means ‘sent’, as I’m sure you know - and at a time when functions could be described in different ways (for instance, the way in which ‘episcopos’ and ‘presbyter’ are used in the earlier epistles), you can’t, just going by Scripture, make blanket statements about the exclusive meaning of ‘apostle’.

Mind you, since the tradition of the Church does, retrospectively, confine the term to the Twelve, that would support your point…except that then you have to accept the other vital thing which the Church teaches about the Apostles, which was that they handed on their administrative, teaching and sacramental functions (not their title) to successors - the bishops, with the Bishop of Rome having a claim to succeed St Peter himself. Since you don’t accept the Church’s teaching, I see no reason at all why you should be so picky about who was and who wasn’t an apostle.

As for your point about ‘foundations’, no one disagrees. The apostles and prophets are indeed the foundation of the Church, with our Lord Jesus Christ as the cornerstone. But one has to build on foundations: we’re all living stones (according to St Peter), but St Paul makes it clear that the bishop (the ‘episcopos’) is the leader of the community - there to build up the Church.

I note ‘suspended’ under your name - I don’t know if that means you can’t read this, but I’ll hope you can!

Sue

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Teresita:

There’s a beautiful bit of squirming! So you admit that there’s no way that the NT could record something that happened after the death of its writers - and then you have the chutzpah to tell us that it “gives absoultely [sic] no indication that there would be Apostolic successors”.

What a beautiful turn of phrase. I laughed reading this. Squirming and chutzpah certainly calls it. I do not know if the suspended can read what we post. I have noted a ‘retired’ logging in, however. God bless.

 

[Marquette]

I understand your feeling completely. I grew up in the Baptist church. One would think they never read the Bible. According to them, “once saved, always saved.” If you are “saved” when you are 12 and go on to live a life of total depravity, never say a prayer, never read a Bible verse, and never set foot in a church again, you are still “saved.” They say not by works, yet what is “THE prayer” but a “work.”

I remember a book former President Jimmy Carter wrote. He had considered “Faith is an Action Verb” as a title for the book. This says it all. And Baptists DO have the book of James in their Bible. (Incidentally, you will remember JImmy was/is a Baptist!! He must have read James.)