Posts by a Christian

72

Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian in

james c,.

you wrote: the belief of apostolic succession is not a distinctly roman one.

the orthodox as well as the anglicans hold to it.

Burn wrote: To use your argument [that after the deaths of the apostles presumptuous men, seeking power and glory for themselves, falsely claimed to have inherited the apostles' authority] as a Jew in the OT times would mean to reject the priesthood and the Davidic kingship.

The difference here is that everyone agrees that the Davidic kingship and the Aaronic priesthood were both offices that were intended by God to be held by successors. The scriptures are very clear about that. The teaching that either the office or the authority held by any or all of the twelve apostles was intended by God to be held by successors is not a clear teaching of scripture. In fact I do not see that it is even an unclear teaching of scripture. As I said earlier, this teaching appears to be nothing more than the creation of presumptuous men who were seeking power and glory for themselves.

72

Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian in

james c,.

you wrote: the belief of apostolic succession is not a distinctly roman one.

the orthodox as well as the anglicans hold to it.

a Christian

Just Human asked:

1.Is the Holy Bible the only basis for the Christian faith?

No. A Christian's witnessing aided by God's Holy Spirit has often been sufficient to bring someone to Christ without a Bible anywhere to be found.

2. Can you indicate a verse in the Bible that claims our basis for Christian Faith is only the Bible?

No.

3. Who set the Biblical Canon?

See my earlier post, number 363.

4.What is the Protestand basis to accept the 66 books of the Bible instead of 77 that Orthodox and Catholic Church accepts?

It is the canon that was most widely accepted by the First Century Church.

5. Were in the Bible is telling us the Books that we should accept as the Biblical Canon are part of the Holy Scriptures?

Nowhere.

6. Can you indicate a verse in the Bible that claims to be infalible?

The books in the Bible were inspired by God. However, they were written, copied, and translated by fallible men. True Christians worship the God who inspired the Bible. They do not worship the Bible. Neither do they worship the Christian church, Christ's entire worldwide body of believers. Neither do they worship a particular organized portion of Christ's church, even if that particular Church organization presumptuously claims to be the only true Christian church organization.

7. Were in the Bible is telling us that the faith of the Church is being set according to the Bible and not the opposite?

Nowhere.

8. In the Early Christian Church we had the Apostoles and the Prophets and they were appointed by the Holy Spirit Elders (Episkopoi in Greek)and this succesion is being carried for over 2000 years in the Apostolic Church, starting from James the first Bishop of Jerusalim.Do JW's or any Protestand has any Apostolic Succesion?

I know that Mormons claim a form of Apostolic Succession.

9. Has the Apostolic Church ever Apostasized?

Christ's church, His entire worldwide body of believers, has never become apostate. For it has always contained many true Christians. However, many individuals within that body have often taught false doctrines, as the Apostles themselves prophesied would happen on a large scale. (Acts 20:29,30; 2 Thess. 2:1-3; 1 Tim. 4:1-3)

10.Why do Protestands accept a Bible that was set by the Apostolic Church with Saint Athanasius(Greek Orthodox) at the 3th century who defined the Biblical canon and accepted the Revelation of John as the last book?Is it correct on their behalf to accept a Bible that came out from the "apostate" Christians?

The collection of books which make up our Bibles was not determined centuries after Christ, as some would like us to believe. Again, see my earlier post on this subject.

11. What do the writtings of the first 2 centuries of Christianity indicate to us regarding the Christian faith since we have letters from the immediate succesors of the Apostles like The letter to the Church of Magnisis from Saint Ignatios the Bishop of Antioch? It was written between 97 AD - 107AD.

The Apostles had no official "successors." If you mean to say that we have letters written by Christian leaders who lived shortly after the deaths of the Apostles, I fail to see how that fact is relevant. Ignatiuswas an early leader in the Christian church. That does not make his writings any less fallible than those of modern day church leaders, especially when we know that false teachers were "already at work" in the Christian church even before the deaths of the Apostles. (2 Thes. 2:7)

12. Would Jesus allow Satan to turn the Church that He set with His Blood an "apostate"Church, and Satan would truimph over Jesus Church for hundreds of years?

Jesus Himself prophesied that Satan would actively corrupt the Christian church shortly after it was founded. (Matt. 13:24-29;36-43)

72

Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian in

james c,.

you wrote: the belief of apostolic succession is not a distinctly roman one.

the orthodox as well as the anglicans hold to it.

a Christian

I wrote: Popes certainly do not choose their own successors today. Rather, following a Pope's death, a gathering of Bishops elect a new Pope by popular vote.

Burn responded: Matthias was elected by the remaining apostles as a replacement for the fallen Judas.

First of all, I agree with Joseph that Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ to serve as His apostle, replaced Judas as His twelfth Apostle, not Matthias. I believe that the actions of the remaining apostles, in requiring that Christ choose one of only two men which they had selected as candidates to replace Judas, and then determining Christ's selection by casting lots, were improper. This clearly amounted to the eleven Apostles choosing Christ's twelfth Apostle, not Christ choosing His twelfth Apostle.

But this was not possible for them to do. An apostle is one who is appointed for a mission. The twelve Apostles, who were appointed by Christ for the mission of establishing His Church, could appoint their own apostles (missionaries) to help them do so. And this they did. But any and all men appointed to serve as apostles by the Apostles would be the Apostles' apostles, not Christ's Apostles.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say Burn is right. Let's say the remaining eleven Apostles appointed by Christ had the ability and the authority to appoint a replacement for Judas. How does that show that a group of men, following the death of Peter, had the ability and authority to select by popular vote a successor for him?

72

Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian in

james c,.

you wrote: the belief of apostolic succession is not a distinctly roman one.

the orthodox as well as the anglicans hold to it.

a Christian

Narksisis wrote: Apostolic succession claims no more (and no less) than continuation of apostolic authority through a line of bishops (not apostles).

This is merely a matter of semantics.

Catholics claim that Christ gave Peter greater authority than He gave to His other Apostles. Peter, they say, was the chief Apostle with authority over all the others. And they tell us that Peter's authority was later somehow inherited by someone else. And on and on this process supposedly went all the way down to the present day. Though how exactly this process supposedly took place at the time of Peter remains unclear.

Ruth refers to the laying on of hands by the apostles. By doing so does she mean to say that she believes that Peter gave his own authority to another by laying his hands on a chosen successor prior to his death? I don't belief that is what is said by the Catholic Church to have occurred. Popes certainly do not choose their own successors today. Rather, following a Pope's death, a gathering of Bishops elect a new Pope by popular vote.

How do Catholics explain this? If indeed Peter had the power to give his own Christ given authority to another man, which the Scriptures do not indicate is the case, how is it that after Peter's death a group of men, whom Christ had never directly given any authority, had the power to give the authority which Christ gave to Peter to another man?

72

Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian in

james c,.

you wrote: the belief of apostolic succession is not a distinctly roman one.

the orthodox as well as the anglicans hold to it.

a Christian

Ruth,

You asked: Who then decided, by the Holy Spirit, which books would become the inspired record, particularly who decided which writings would become the New Testament? When did this occur?

Early Catholic Church Councils, which some would have us believe assembled the collection of books which now make up our Bibles, actually did no such thing. These Councils merely debated the canonicity of a few books, but they changed nothing. The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit into the canon had never been included in it. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. These Councils only confirmed public opinion. They did not form it.

However, by medievel times most Catholic scholars considered the writings of the Old Testament Apocrypha to be a part of the Bibles. Yet many medieval Catholic scholars did not believe that these writings were inspired by God. The Council of Trent was convened in 1546 largely to deal with this matter. Only then was the Old Testament Apocrapha officially delared by the Catholic Church to be canonical. There is little doubt that they did this partly because the Apocrypha contains material which supports certain otherwise unscriptural Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory and praying for the dead.

The canon of the New Testament was set from the First Century (under the direction of both the Holy Spirit and the Apostles themselves). It is Catholic myth that Catholics gave the world the Bible.

In fact Catholic scholars use the terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration was accepted by the Catholic Church only much later.

You asked: If Apostolic Succession was not to happen, what was the use of Our Lord Jesus Christ imparting to St. Peter the power to bind and to loose, and imparting to the Apostles the power to forgive sins?

I don't follow your logic. Because Christ gave His Apostles these powers that means they must have then passed them on to others? If I appoint you to watch over my children and discipline them as needed in my absence does that mean I have also given you the authority to appoint whoever you wish to do so in your absence?

You asked: If Apostolic Succession did not happen, what was the purpose of the "laying on of the hands"?

The Apostles used the laying on of hands to confer spiritual gifts, blessings, and at times authority, but never all of the authority which Christ had given them.

You asked: Where was the Christian Church for the time between the death of the 12 original apostles and the beginning of whatever you believe to be the Christian Church now? In what group did the Holy Spirit abide for all that time, since Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to be the Helper of Christians?

The Christian church has never vanished from this earth. The Christian church, also known as "the Body of Christ", is made up of all true believers in Jesus Christ. Members of Christ's body have always been able to be found in all organized Christian fellowships and in none of them.

72

Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian in

james c,.

you wrote: the belief of apostolic succession is not a distinctly roman one.

the orthodox as well as the anglicans hold to it.

a Christian

accidental duplication

72

Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian in

james c,.

you wrote: the belief of apostolic succession is not a distinctly roman one.

the orthodox as well as the anglicans hold to it.

a Christian

Re 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Good point Joseph!

I wonder why James C has not weighed in on this yet.

72

Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian in

james c,.

you wrote: the belief of apostolic succession is not a distinctly roman one.

the orthodox as well as the anglicans hold to it.

a Christian

James C,

You wrote: The belief of apostolic succession is not a distinctly Roman one. The Orthodox as well as the Anglicans hold to it. In point of fact, so did just about all of the gnostics. That is to say, it was the universal teaching of the Church. One cannot find anyone seriously questioning it for the first 3/4 of Christian history.

The concept of apostolic succession is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures. (Except by some very far-fetched self-serving interpretation.) In fact, just the opposite. Christ taught that shortly after his leaving earth Satan would sew weeds, "sons of the wicked one," among the wheat "sons of the kingdom." (Mt. 13) And Paul prophesied that after the deaths of the apostles organized Christianity would be corrupted. (Acts 20:29,30; 2 Thess. 2:1-3; 1 Tim. 4:1-3) And, in very short order, it was. That being the case, it makes perfect sense that very shortly after the deaths of the apostles presumptuous men, seeking power and glory for themselves, would falsely claim to have inherited the apostles' authority. And they did. And they still do.

83

A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C

by Amazing in

the following are transports of postings on http://www.channelc.org/ made by jim penton and ros regarding myself and james caputo respectively.

the reason that i did not post directly on channel c is that ros and many of her board participants do not like to see anything that resembles catholic discussion, even if the responses are done respectfully and in a spirit of clarifying a false claim or misunderstanding.

i too do not like "catholic" discussions on channel c, and have not posted there for 9 months until i recently posted an announcement about tom cabeen's interviews on ewtn and with randy watters.

a Christian

James C,

Concerning the subject of scholarly bias. I can't help but think that the conclusions you have reached, regarding the Roman Catholic Church's highly questionable doctrine of "apostolic succession" and its related claims to divine authority, may have been biased by your being regularly paid by Catholic churches for performing in them and by the praise that is, no doubt, regularly heaped upon you therein by members of both the RCC's clergy and laity.

83

A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C

by Amazing in

the following are transports of postings on http://www.channelc.org/ made by jim penton and ros regarding myself and james caputo respectively.

the reason that i did not post directly on channel c is that ros and many of her board participants do not like to see anything that resembles catholic discussion, even if the responses are done respectfully and in a spirit of clarifying a false claim or misunderstanding.

i too do not like "catholic" discussions on channel c, and have not posted there for 9 months until i recently posted an announcement about tom cabeen's interviews on ewtn and with randy watters.

a Christian

As I recall, Jim W started this thread in order to respond publicly to criticism which had been publicly leveled against him and others of like mind on the Channel C discussion board.

As I understand it, Jim W did so here only because he was not allowed to do so there. (Jim W is not allowed to defend his Catholic beliefs on that discussion board and Jim C is not allowed to post anything there at all.) But those who are still allowed to post at Channel C, along with the owner of that board herself, are perfectly free to there criticize Catholic beliefs and to even there criticize individual Catholics who are no longer allowed to post there, like Jim C. (And, judging from the conduct of that board's owner, they are even free to post the contents of private E mails while they criticize people who are not allowed to there publicly respond to their criticism.) With these things in mind (and kowing that many Channel C readers read the posts on this board and that many JWD readers read the posts on Channel C) it seems perfectly reasonable to me that Jim W, Jim C, and others who are not allowed to publicly defend themselves on Channel C against personal attacks that are there publicly posted, would choose to utilize this board in order to publicly respond to such attacks.