Posted on 02/17/2015 8:43:39 AM PST by RnMomof7
Doctrine ping ...long read but good
Just a thought, the Apostles follow Jesus where witness to His miracles and teachings but never realized the reasoned He came. Not until Pentecost did their eves open.
The article leaves lot’s of questions. The 12 apostles and Paul are not the only ones called apostles. Barnabas comes to mind.
There are direct successors to the apostles...they are called Popes/Catholic Bishops.
The article has nothing to do with “apostolic succession” as understood by traditional Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, trad Anglicans, etc.). It’s a good refutation of those fringe groups which hold that there are modern-day apostles in the church, of whom the Mormons are the most ubiquitous. They don’t call their doctrine “apostolic succession” AFAIK, though, so the title is wrong no matter what.
Only in the Catholic Church fantasies and made up history.
But neither the Pope nor the bishops are apostles (properly so-called) themselves. They are the apostles’ successors because the bishops were originally appointed by the apostles and derive their authority from them through a chain of valid ordinations. The apostles per se all either knew Jesus in-the-flesh on earth, or were personally chosen by him; in most cases, both.
Who do you think appointed the first bishops (Gk episcopoi, “overseers”)? My Bible has Paul saying he had something to do with it, but maybe somebody used an X-Acto knife and excised those passages from yours.
No.
And yet that's what many of these new apostles say. That they had a *vision* of Christ, he appointed them to the role of apostle and that they can confirm it with miraculous signs.
Problem is, it's all on their say so.
Hardly trustworthy when you consider how soon the enemy was sending false prophets into the early church.
And yet none of these people even allow for the concept of false prophets and if they do, it's someone who opposes them.
Also in the following churches:
Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Eastern orthodox, Armenian Apostolic Church, Church of Ireland, Scottish Episcopal Church, Church of England, the Church in Wales, the Lusitanian Catholic Apostolic Evangelical Church, the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland, Church of Norway, Church of Sweden, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Lithuania, Church of Denmark, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia, the Moravian Church
And add to that Methodism:
We believe it would not be right for us to administer either Baptism or the Lord's Supper unless we had a commission so to do from those Bishops whom we apprehend to be in a succession from the Apostles. —Rev. John Wesley, 1745
Not that any of this is relevant to the very interesting article, which is about Apostles and not succession as a previous commenter helpfully noted, but thanks for playing, CynicalBear. Try again next time.
“but maybe somebody used an X-Acto knife and excised those passages from yours”
Paul also said a bishop must be the husband of one wife and keep his children under control. Seems like someone else used an X-Acto knife.
Amen. Thanks for saying what I was thinking.
She was right.
They all have popes and Catholic Bishops? Wow! News to me.
Show me where any apostle appointed a pope or Catholic Bishop.
The hypocrisy of the Catholic Church and it's followers knows no end it seems.
Yes they very definitely have them in their lines of apostolic succession.
A couple random examples:
http://www.christianallianceministries.com/APOSTOLICSUCCESSION.htm
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostolic_succession
Many more can be found through google.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.