Replies

Yes, I will read because I have an open mind and heart and only want to please God. You have answered that there is no true and visible church but rather an invisible church which you cannot really identify. On the surface I find that very incongruent with the gospels, Acts, etc. I fully respect the authority of the Apostles. Their words were life to many, and death to some. If you did find out there was a church with apostolic succession, would you humble yourself and submit to its authority ?
Solitary churches or churches founded/centered around a person (Swaggarts, Osteens, Luther, Calvin, etc.) seem prone to illegitimacy and error. If the Reformation had maintained unity with the Orthodox churches, and the Schism had been repaired it would be far different. To claim there was no apostolic succession is to undermine what Jesus prayed for in John 17, not to mention what he told the apostles elsewhere. If you want to deny the legitimacy of the Catholic claim to apostolic succession convincingly it is incumbent on you to propose an alternate line of succession.

Here are your questions:

Post 48: Hokay, so what church is the true church founded by Jesus and as discipled by the Jewish apostles ? Where would one find it today ?

Post 50: For which church did you leave the Catholic church ?

Post 53: Is your church the true apostolic church ? If you say yes, please identify it by denomination or sub denomination.

Post 62: If someone opens the Bible whenever they want, should they join a church, and if you say one should, which denomination or subdenomination ?

If they are answered Scripturally according to the determinate will of The God, are you willing to understand and believe, or are you only posing a question to unload your preconceptions to create a debate?

"If you want to deny the legitimacy of the Catholic claim to apostolic succession convincingly it is incumbent on you to propose an alternate line of succession."

No, my FRiend, it is not incumbent upon me to prove anything with regard to the Romanist organization. We have the Scriptures with its perspicuity. That is, it plainly lays out the Gospel and Rome's doctrines do not comport with those clear, unequivocal remarks. Thus, I have no obligation to go further with any errant gathering.

If you found that there were no gatherings with apostolic succession, would you humble yourself to that truth? Well, I can tell you that if you simply read John 17 plainly through, you will find nothing about apostolic succession anywhere in the text. It is a fabrication of Rome and that "succession" is full of children of prostitutes and killers (go read about the Pornocracy).

The reformation could not "repair the schism" because there was no commonality between those who understood the Gospel of grace to be the free, unbounded love of God poured upon His chosen and those who claimed they held the "keys to the kingdom". The gap was a thousand miles wide. It still is.

You may despise Swaggart, Osteen, MacLaren, Hinn, and others who are shams and claim to represent the Gospel. I would venture to say every mature biblical believer here on FR will agree with you. These men are not teaching truth. But, oddly, if you can identify error, one might ask what standard do you use? The biblical believers around here will point to the Bible and tell you the reformation was simply calling out the same kind of charlatans from Rome.