Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 07/07/2009 10:31:26 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Alex Murphy
I was wondering how we as Protestants reject the doctrine of Apostolic Succession? Obviously, through Church history, this doctrine seems to be strongly affirmed

Even Obama is less obvious when he plants a question.

2 posted on 07/07/2009 10:32:56 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alex Murphy

“Apostolic succession” is a completely and utterly moot point. It does not exist. It is merely an Irenaean error introduced in the 2nd century, but has no relevancy to actual Christian doctrine. Any local church which stands on the Bible is as legitimately a “church” as was the one established by Christ Himself in Jerusalem. Any local church pastor, who stands on God’s Word and teaches it to his flock faithfully, is as legitimate a pastor as any of the Apostles themselves.


3 posted on 07/07/2009 10:34:42 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alex Murphy

The goal should be the restoration, not reformation, of the Church to a non-denominational Church with no manmade doctrines or creeds. No book but the Bible, no creed but Christ.


4 posted on 07/07/2009 10:36:32 AM PDT by BlackjackPershing (?The patriot's blood is the seed of Freedom's tree? - Thomas Campbell (Scottish poet))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alex Murphy
“Apostolic Succession” is a construct of power hungry humans hoping to have power over the Church. We are “free indeed” and each one of us has a PERSONAL relationship with God. The purpose of bishops, priests, deacons, and such is for SERVICE to the church, not power over it. As the Apostles were killed off, there was a power vacuum that was filled by the nearest opportunist to enslave the masses for themselves.

The Apostle's job consisted of starting churches and teaching the members until they could stand on there own. They moved on to the next location after that.

5 posted on 07/07/2009 10:50:22 AM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alex Murphy
They were chosen by Christ himself in an immediate way, not through the instrumentality of others.

Tell that to Matthias.

12 posted on 07/07/2009 11:24:07 AM PDT by trad_anglican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alex Murphy

Your argument basically boils down to this: “This is a Catholic doctrine. As Protestants, we reject Catholic doctrines. Here’s a Bible verse as justification.” But if existence of a single supporting verse in the Bible is justification, then apostolic succession IS in the bible. In 2 Timothy 2:2, Paul tells Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” Paul tells Timothy, who he has trained as a successor to himself, to likewise train others so that the succession may continue. The verse from 1 Corinthians that the author purports to reject apostolic succession clearly does not even address the issue, much less refute 2 Timothy 2:2.

As the question notes, the doctrine is strongly affirmed in Church history. In fact, it is affirmed before the Bible that Protestants use today is itself affirmed. Apostolic succession was in fact very necessary for the early Church because heretics simply put their own interpretations on Scripture. Only by demonstrating a line of succession could one verify that a speaker was speaking the truth as taught by the apostles.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp


19 posted on 07/07/2009 12:52:30 PM PDT by bienvenunet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alex Murphy

Apostolic succession, as explained by the CAtholic Church, has some difficulties. I posted an article about a year ago that covered them, and they were significant.

That, however, does not rid us of the church structure revealed in the Acts of the Apostles. Paul instructed Titus (and probably Timothy, too) on ordaining elders. The pattern was for elders to ordain elders.

The logic of that says that today’s churches should be connected to the earliest churches. Elders ordaining elders ordaining elders throughout church history.

The weakness of that, of course, is that the church has a spiritual legacy as well. “Those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.”

Likewise, Jesus was clear to his apostles when they complained of others not with them baptizing in Jesus’ name, that those not against Him were for Him.

At the same time, Paul insisted on the re-baptism of those who’d been baptized under the baptism of John. I suggest that Paul’s intent was to bring them into the one spiritual sheepfold.

My take on this is that the spiritual legacy is paramount, but that there is no shame in connecting oneself to the earliest church by way of a lineage of churches or ordained elders. To have both would be a blessing, in my view. I do not believe, though, that the Lord will permit the Church to fail. “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail.”

But, to have an ordination lineage and yet be steeped in spiritual unfaithfulness would mean nothing. Revelation 2, I believe, clearly indicates that the Lord will remove a church’s candlestick (light) for unfaithfulness.


22 posted on 07/07/2009 3:09:25 PM PDT by xzins (Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends those who seek His help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alex Murphy

“The answer is that the Reformation recovered the pure teaching of the original apostles themselves.”

Now thats a great one.

They cannot even agree on what it was that was recovered which is why they have so many splits.


25 posted on 07/07/2009 4:21:12 PM PDT by lucias_clay (Its times like this I'm glad I'm a whig.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Alex Murphy

Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

John 20:23
“If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

“Man-made” laws and rules given by the Catholic Church, such as apostolic succession are not man-made - the power to make these rules was given by Jesus himself. If the Vatican were to declare “ex-Cathedra” tomorrow that we needed to wear pink hats on Mondays or else it would be a mortal sin, then that would be a mortal sin. Of course that example is silly, but the power does lie in the Vatican to decide what is sinful.


30 posted on 07/07/2009 11:14:15 PM PDT by impimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson