[vladimir998]

1) Baptist Successionism was NOT believed in by the earliest Baptists. They admitted their sect was new.

2) Other Protestants admit that Baptist Successionism is untrue.

3) Baptist Successionism is completely disproven by James McGoldrick in his book called BAPTIST SUCCESSIONISM.

On the other hand,

1) The Catholic Church ALWAYS asserted and had much evidence of it ancient roots and intimate connection with the Apostles.

2) Catholics have always admitted that the Catholic Church is the true church. Only non-Catholics deny it.

3) No one can disprove the Catholic claims.

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

The difference between the two being that the Catholic Church actually has a historical record that goes back to the apostles and the successionist theory slaps together various groups from various times of history, many without any apparent connection. The article mentions the successionists claim of the Donatists —and I think they are misunderstanding the nature of that group— but just to play along: what group can they associate with before the Donatists came on the scene? I mean, some group in between John and the Donatists? And I don’t mean some group that had similiarities to Baptists, but with whom there is a definite historical link.

I’m not a Catholic, so I have no axe to grind here, but I just don’t care much for baloney.

[Between the Lines]

Most Baptists today would reject a successionism of churches

Maybe this line should have been placed closer to the beginning of the article.

[Uri’el-2012]

This discussion is all in the flesh, as Elohim
has "called out" (Ekklesia) each of us from prior
to the foundations of the universe.

We are "called out" for a personal relationship
with His Son Yah'shua.

When we call on His Name,
Yah'shua (which means YHvH is become our salvation )
for our salvation.

This is spelled out in detail in Ephesians 1:3 - 23

b'shem Yah'shua

[ravingnutter]

Okay...now we are down to "My Apostle's bloodline is better than yours"?" This is just childish. No small wonder why I don't belong to any organized religious group. I don't presume to speak for the Lord, but He surely can't be pleased with this type of discussion, it displays pure arrogance IMHO.

[wmfights]

Most Baptists today would reject a successionism of churches, said Anderson, opting instead for a “spiritual succession.”

I think this is supported by history.

Timely article.

[topher]

Blood of the martyrs is the most compelling way that the truth about the early was retained and passed on. There were many who sacrificed their lives because of their beliefs in the Early Christian Church.

Copies of the Gospels and other parts of the New Testament had to be preserved by the blood of the martyrs.

[dangus]

The Baptists claim that apostolic succession was maintained through true doctrine, such as the Albi? Unlikely as their inferences are about the Waldenses, there is a little fog of history, through which many statements can be asserted about the origin of the Waldenses. But the Albi? Their perversion of the name of Christianity is fantastic! The only thing they have in common with Baptists is a dissent from Catholicism... which puts them in the same mold as Muslims, Dan Brown, the New Age, etc.

In fact, they were quite antithetical to the Baptists. They believed that the world was *created* (not just ruled) by Satan; that Satan was the true God of the Old Testament; that souls were reincarnated; that YHWH was an imposter; His worsjip was an abomination; that the human spirit was all-holy, but trapped in YHWH’s “evil” subcreation; that salvation occurred through asceticism, to the point of starvation; that all sexuality was evil...