The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church



Message

walterquez -> The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 2:25:21 PM)

Ok, let’s get to the bottom of this. Where or Who is the real Church? No, this thread is NOT to prove the RCC is the real Church. But if you think it is, then you’re welcome to discuss it.

I know we come from many different denominations, so why is your denomination the True Church and not the others? Or are all of them the True Church? Why or why not?
Since each have different beliefs, I don’t see how can they all be the True Church.

In the title I included Apostolic Succession for a reason. I believe the True Church since the beginning has always been around thru succession. Maybe I need to explain this a little bit more. By Apostolic Succession, I don’t mean that the office itself was transferred thru the ages. What I mean is that Jesus appointed the twelve disciples, so they succeeded our Savior. Then the Apostles appointed bishops, so they in turn succeeded the Apostles. And then the bishops ordained other bishops, and so on.
This is one way the early Church was able to keep herself from false teachings. They argue that these other men were not disciples of the Apostles, or disciples of disciples of disciples. So they would not know what Christ taught, except those whom the teachings were passed on to.

Now, has this succession been broken somehow, or has it continue ever since? Is it possible that God would somehow forsake His Church for hundreds of years, and now revive it once again?

Or is following a succession of bishops not valid? Why would it be ok for someone to break away from the main Church and start a new denomination? Is this scriptural?

I know the RCC has claims to Apostolic Succession, but are they the only ones? How about the Orthodox Church? How about the Lutherans? How about the rest?

And if one of them IS that same Church that descends from the original, why are we not joined to her?



Ps103 -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 2:31:49 PM)

The True Church is not a denomination, but all who believe in Christ as their Savior.



shouldknowbetter -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 2:35:19 PM)

Walter,

I'm going to think about this for a while, there is much to consider about this topic.

I might add though another consideration is that none may be the true church.

Food for thought....



walterquez -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 3:09:22 PM)

Thank you guys.

ShouldKnowBetter, I think that would effectively prove that God has taken His Church, and if not, then He has forsaken her which is highly doubtful.



rcjames -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 3:23:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez
…I know we come from many different denominations, so why is your denomination the True Church and not the others?. ..


I do not consider the Denomination to which I belong to be the only true segment of the Church. There are many other Denominations and many non-Denominational groups that are part of the true Church. Most Denominations are separated not by opinions of what is redemptive, but ideas of how to worship, dress, or otherwise live their lives in areas that are not redemptive.

What do I personally think brings one into the true Church?

(Eph 2:8-10) “For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them. “

And what keeps one in the true Church?

(2Pe 1:2-10) “Grace and peace be multiplied to you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, according as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who has called us to glory and virtue, through which He has given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, so that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. But also in this very thing, bringing in all diligence, filling out your faith with virtue, and with virtue, knowledge; and with knowledge self-control, and with self-control, patience, and with patience, godliness, and with godliness, brotherly kindness, and with brotherly kindness, love. For if these things are in you and abound, they make you to be neither idle nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he in whom these things are not present is blind and cannot see afar off and has forgotten that he was purged from his sins in the past. Therefore, brothers, rather be diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you do these things, you shall never fall.”

quote:

…In the title I included Apostolic Succession for a reason. I believe the True Church since the beginning has always been around thru succession. Maybe I need to explain this a little bit more. By Apostolic Succession….

….Now, has this succession been broken somehow, or has it continue ever since? Is it possible that God would somehow forsake His Church for hundreds of years, and now revive it once again?...


I must tread on your other thread about which came first the chicken or the egg to give my opinion on this.

Christ instructed the Apostles to go forth and teach what he had taught them; they did a very good job of that. Paul through the instructions he received from Christ did a good job of establishing new works and an excellent job of correcting those who got away from the spoken tradition. Paul’s writings of instruction and correction of course became the major part of our New Testament.

The New Testament is THE Apostolic Tradition written down so it could not be changed; It was written at the behest of God in the same manner that God instructed Moses to write the covenant. As the Apostles died off, the writings took their place and it is still that way today. Even Peter declares Paul’s writings to be Scripture;

(2Pe 3:15-16) “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

quote:

…I know the RCC has claims to Apostolic Succession, but are they the only ones? How about the Orthodox Church?...


History clearly shows that the RCC and the OC started claiming Apostolic Succession as a political maneuver to find favor with Constantine. It is phony baloney macaroni and cheese nonsense and should be avoided like the plague. Do an honest research on the Papal succession, the RCC historians cannot even agree on that. I did one on my dissertations on this subject and the proof of either Apostolic or Papal succession is non-existent

quote:

…And if one of them IS that same Church that descends from the original, why are we not joined to her?...


They aren’t, we shouldn’t.

The true Church is whosoever will (will what? See the Scriptures quoted above from Ephesians and 2 Peter 1)

Thanks
RC



unworthyseraphim -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 3:47:47 PM)

Basically stated I came to seriously consider Orthodoxy's claims just by following the broad outlines of Church history.

Who was the Church at the day of Pentecost, at the Jerusalem Council, at the end of the first century, during the Donatist controversy, during the Arian controversy...etc. Many of these crisis points were marked by an ecumenical council. One side prevailed, one side didn't. So at each major crisis point I asked who was the Church, who had kept faith and continuity with whoever was the Church the last major crisis back. So treking through history, of which Chalcedon was a close call, I found myself ultimately on the pro-Chalcedon side, on each of the other issues following unto the 7th council I found myself agreeing with the side that prevailed. ( I suppose at one time in my life I might have sided more with the iconoclasts...but they and everyone who believed like them disappeared for a few centuries...so by definition couldn't be the Church, else the gates of Hell did prevail).

The next major nexus of trouble was the time of the Great Schism, and I found Orthodoxy's case more compelling. Rome and the East went their own ways, Rome having major problems during the Reformation that produced a lot of new groups. The East had its share of internal difficulties, as well as external (Muslim opression and persecution), but noting really comparable to the Reformation. But since what happened in the Reformation mostly concerns Rome and the West its an issue outside Orthodoxy. So unless there is a new and looming schism in Orthodoxy, I don't see any any other place to be that can legitimately make the same claims. There's no other place to go.

Now had I opted for Rome's argument at the Great Schism, I would then have had to evaluate first Luthernism, then Anabaptists, and the Calvinists...and from them anything that came later....but I didn't follow that branching.

So while I cannot say those in other Trinitarian communions are not Christian, I do not see how those various communions have sufficient claim to themselves the Church, at least in its fulness. From the Orthodox perspectice they stand outside the historical continuity, not just of the historical succession of Bishops...which Arians also enjoyed, but outside the Charismatic succesion...the fullness of grace that must characterize the Ordinations of the "true church", not to mention that must 'energize' the spiritual life of that body.

Others of course have differing perspectives.



walterquez -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 4:00:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:

…And if one of them IS that same Church that descends from the original, why are we not joined to her?...


They aren’t, we shouldn’t.
I apologize, I didn't make my self clear.
I didn't mean the RCC or the EOC. I meant whoever is the real Church. Either the RCC, EOC, Lutherans, Baptists, etc... Take you pick.

My point was if there is a True Church, shouldn't we be joined to them?



rcjames -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 4:13:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:

…And if one of them IS that same Church that descends from the original, why are we not joined to her?...


They aren’t, we shouldn’t.
I apologize, I didn't make my self clear.
I didn't mean the RCC or the EOC. I meant whoever is the real Church. Either the RCC, EOC, Lutherans, Baptists, etc... Take you pick.

My point was if there is a True Church, shouldn't we be joined to them?


My bad, since I believe that many different sects are combined to be the true Church: yes.

Thanks
RC



salos -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 7:16:12 PM)

"There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." Mark 3:31-35

Who was it that Jesus said was closest to Him? Those who do the will of God. Apostolic succession means nothing, just as being in the Lord's human family meant nothing compared to doing or not doing God's will. So I'm for whatever denominations/churches search the scriptures and apply what they find clearly stated there.



walterquez -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 7:37:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: salos

Who was it that Jesus said was closest to Him? Those who do the will of God. Apostolic succession means nothing
And how is Apostolic succession NOT the will of God?
quote:

So I'm for whatever denominations/churches search the scriptures and apply what they find clearly stated there.
I agree, but what is that church that completely applies what they found clearly stated in the scriptures? You know that different denominations have dfferent interpretation on certain passages. They all can't be right.



kh31 -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 7:39:25 PM)

Is there too much of an emphasis on Apostolic Succession? That is, assuming that there has been an "unbroken human line" that is Blessed by God through the Holy Spirit at the highest leadership positions of the church (Bishops). Both RC and EO claim this. The EO (officially or unofficially) maintain the the schism of the RC more or less proves the point that it had lost it's place. But if schism is a factor there have been schisms in both. The most pronounced is the protestant reformation, especially in the West, sure. But is pronouncement or greatness or length of the schism a defining quality in the "rightness" of one ancient church over another ancient church?

How could we know that a church has indeed been Blessed by God, is the Bride and who is Indwelled by the Holy Spirit? I think Salos may have touched on this.



kh31 -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 7:49:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez
And how is Apostolic succession NOT the will of God?


Not saying that there isn't value or truth in this. I personally find this "strong" (as I see it used) argument weak. Ultimately, when I ask the question of bad bishops or bad priests to other Orthodox, the answer I get is that the administration of God's grace (including the sacraments) isn't dependent on the spiritual state of the priest or bishop. That is, the communion I took from Bishop so-and-so or Father so-and-so isn't invalid because he turned out to be a heretic. So then, how is the succession of Churches or believers dependant on the state or appointment of successive Bishops who oversee them?



rcjames -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 7:50:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez
And how is Apostolic succession NOT the will of God?


Walterquez, how about some Scripture that shows continued Apostolic succession is the will of God; and please from the New Testament, not from the ECF's or those trying to prove themselves as in the Apostolic seccession.

Thanks
RC



sdaw -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 7:54:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

quote:

ORIGINAL: salos

Who was it that Jesus said was closest to Him? Those who do the will of God. Apostolic succession means nothing
And how is Apostolic succession NOT the will of God?
quote:

So I'm for whatever denominations/churches search the scriptures and apply what they find clearly stated there.
I agree, but what is that church that completely applies what they found clearly stated in the scriptures? You know that different denominations have dfferent interpretation on certain passages. They all can't be right.


Dear Walter,

Apostolic succession and True Churchdom are not the same. A schismatic church may still maintain the Apostolic succession, at least from a Catholic POV. A church which has lost it may regain it, at least in part. For example, the Anglican Church maintained the Apostolic succession, and thereby the validity of its orders, until the introduction of the Edwardian ritual. Due to the difference in understanding of the nature of the priesthood, the succession was lost.
It is my understanding that some Orthdox bishops have participated in the ordination of some Anglican clerics. If they did so with the intent of the Orthodox Church in conferring ordination, and the candidates accepted it that way, from the Catholic POV, they stand in the line of the Apostolic succession once again. At least, that's what I read.

On the Feast of St. Januarius
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!



ayani -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 7:59:35 PM)

Walter:

I really think you have to define 'Church'.
The word 'church' has several levels of meaning: celestial, and earthly, general, and particular church congregations. And, I think people confuse the NT discussions of the heavenly Church (especially Paul), with particular human groups.

quote:

1 Corinthians 12:13
For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Here Paul says the Body of Christ includes all who are baptised into it, thorugh one spirit. This is my opinion too. All baptised Christians who profess Jesus as lord and savior and put their faith in Him are part of His church, not just those in XXXX organization.

The Jesus of the Gospels was not impressed with antiquity. He was not impressed with the priest and scribes who waved their heritage in people's faces, their "patristic succession" if you will, as if it were license from God, a license certifying their perfect righteousness and primary (or sole) place in God's kingdom.



ayani -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 8:04:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unworthyseraphim

So while I cannot say those in other Trinitarian communions are not Christian, I do not see how those various communions have sufficient claim to themselves the Church, at least in its fulness. From the Orthodox perspectice they stand outside the historical continuity, not just of the historical succession of Bishops...which Arians also enjoyed, but outside the Charismatic succesion...the fullness of grace that must characterize the Ordinations of the "true church", not to mention that must 'energize' the spiritual life of that body.



Unworthy:
What do you mean by "Charismatic succession"? Haven't run into that term before...



walterquez -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 8:32:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

Walterquez, how about some Scripture that shows continued Apostolic succession is the will of God; and please from the New Testament, not from the ECF's or those trying to prove themselves as in the Apostolic seccession.
You should know that the Apostles appointed bishops, elders or deacons in every church. That is scriptural. And those ordained, ordained other bishops and so on.

Why would you accept a bishop who was NOT ordained by the Apostles, or their disciples? You should see a GIANT red flag about where these persons is coming from.



walterquez -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 8:44:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sdaw

Dear Walter,

Apostolic succession and True Churchdom are not the same.
I disagree. Any group arising OUTSIDE of the continuity has no authority, because it was not given to them.

Imaging the USA in the beginning sending out ambassadors to other countries as representatives. Then imagine now, years later, except that now there are other political groups who do not agree with the government, so they form their own gov't and ordain their own ambassadors. Do you think this new group, with its new ordained ambassadors have any real authority? Do you think these new group really represents the USA?



Eutychus -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 8:52:18 PM)

Since the Gospel has come down by believers and believers have baptized believers and believers have discipled believers since the original Apostles, I guess you can say that there is indeed a succession of the priesthood of believers.



Ezra -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 9:00:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez
Ok, let’s get to the bottom of this. Where or Who is the real Church?... And if one of them IS that same Church that descends from the original, why are we not joined to her?


Walter:

I believe I pointed this out to you before, and we did get to the "bottom" of it. In the New Testament we have "churches" or assemblies of believers in various location, and the Church -- the Body, the Bride and the Building of Christ -- an invisible spiritual entity.

1. Every local church had (and has) its "wheat" and "tares" or "sheep" and "goats". The wheat or sheep are those who are genuine children of God. The others appear to be Christians but are not "possessors" of eternal life. They are simply "professors".

2. All those who are sheep are an integral part of the Body of Christ (regardless of external labels, quirks, or quarks). All those who are goats are outside the Body.

3. The Body cannot be viewed with the naked eye, since only God knows the heart of every individual. However, those who show the fruit of Christ prove through their words, actions, and attitudes that they are children of God. To that extent they can be recognized.

4. As to apostolic succession, while the apostles did appoint elders (pastor/elder/bishops), and elders did appoint other elders, the One who really appointed them was the Holy Spirit Himself. So "apostolic succession" should be seen as the appointment of shepherds by the Holy Spirit, regardless of connection to the apostles. While the apostles were generally active within the Roman Empire, the Holy Spirit appointed shepherds anywhere in the world, and has been doing so since the incepetion of the Church.

5. The claims of the church of Rome as the "true" Church are based upon its own pretensions. Since the Orthodox churches do not recognize this claim, we can safely let it go also.

6. The Orthodox churches have a concept of "autocephalous" churches [independent of a superior authority]. Among others, the churches of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem are considered autocephalous, so you could join any of them or none of them, and it would make no difference. Each one is a separate entity, none of them is "THE Church".

7. This is almost equivalent to churches being autonomous under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. That was the NT pattern, since in the letters to the Seven Churches of Asia Minor, each one is treated as an autonomous entity under Christ, and is directly responsible to the Lord Himself. There you have it.



walterquez -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 9:07:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ayani

I really think you have to define 'Church'.
The word 'church' has several levels of meaning: celestial, and earthly, general, and particular church congregations. And, I think people confuse the NT discussions of the heavenly Church (especially Paul), with particular human groups.
quote:

1 Corinthians 12:13
For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
Here Paul says the Body of Christ includes all who are baptised into it, thorugh one spirit. This is my opinion too. All baptised Christians who profess Jesus as lord and savior and put their faith in Him are part of His church, not just those in XXXX organization.
The Church, whether celestial or earthly is one and the same. There is no Church that is celestial, and another that is earthly.
Baptized by whom? Does this include cults too who baptize using the same pattern? What about those who were baptized but refuse to assemble with the brethren, or refuses to submit to the authority of the Church?

quote:

The Jesus of the Gospels was not impressed with antiquity. He was not impressed with the priest and scribes who waved their heritage in people's faces, their "patristic succession" if you will, as if it were license from God, a license certifying their perfect righteousness and primary (or sole) place in God's kingdom.
It was God who established it. It was God who established the Levites for their priestly office. It was God who established the Davidic line. It was God who established the office of the Apostles and gave them authority to appoint bishops.



walterquez -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 9:18:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ezra

4. As to apostolic succession, while the apostles did appoint elders (pastor/elder/bishops), and elders did appoint other elders, the One who really appointed them was the Holy Spirit Himself.
Show me in scripture where the Holy Spirit ordained someone outside the Church who started their own group separate from the body. Or were all ordination thru the Church? I believe is the latter.
quote:

the Holy Spirit appointed shepherds anywhere in the world, and has been doing so since the incepetion of the Church.
How and where is the evidence?
quote:

6. The Orthodox churches have a concept of "autocephalous" churches [independent of a superior authority]. Among others, the churches of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem are considered autocephalous, so you could join any of them or none of them, and it would make no difference. Each one is a separate entity, none of them is "THE Church".
I understand there are physically separate congregations thru out the world, but even so, they are united.
For example, in the Assemblies of God there are many churches independent of each other, but are all in unity.
But when talking about the AoG versus the Baptists, they are not united.
quote:

7. This is almost equivalent to churches being autonomous under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. That was the NT pattern, since in the letters to the Seven Churches of Asia Minor, each one is treated as an autonomous entity under Christ, and is directly responsible to the Lord Himself. There you have it.
So why was it necessary for the Church at Antioch to receive instruction from Jerusalem if they were responsible to the Lord Himself?



walterquez -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 9:20:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Eutychus

Since the Gospel has come down by believers and believers have baptized believers and believers have discipled believers since the original Apostles, I guess you can say that there is indeed a succession of the priesthood of believers.
I agree.



rcjames -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 9:29:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

You should know that the Apostles appointed bishops, elders or deacons in every church. That is scriptural. And those ordained, ordained other bishops and so on.
.


Nice sidestep there Mr. Walterquez, appointing someone to lead (pastor) a Church is a far cry from what you are trying to espouse. Please show the Scripture where this translates into the Apostolic Succession proclaimed today by the EOC and RCC and to the "Vicar of Christ" (the head of the Apostolic Succession). I just don't seem to be able to find it. Please help me.

Thanks
RC



walterquez -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/19/2005 9:57:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

Nice sidestep there Mr. Walterquez, appointing someone to lead (pastor) a Church is a far cry from what you are trying to espouse.
Well, this is exactly what I am talking about. What did you think I was talking about?[>:]

You probably missed the part where I talked about what I meant by succession. I was NOT talking about the transfer of the office, meaning that the bishops had Apostolic authority like the Apostles.

Let's say your organization planted 10 locations, and let's assume your organization is called the XYZ.org. And from these 10, 20 other locations were planted, and from these more were planted. Now it makes sense that each of these locations can claim they are the XYZ.org, because they are.

And now let's say there is another group of people who planted 10,000 locations on their own. They do basically the same thing as the XYZ.org, but they are not from the XYZ.org. Nevertheless, their location say they are the true XYZ.org. See my point?



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI