Would you like some butter with that?
Posted on 01/25/2014 6:51:38 AM PST by GonzoII
Is it possible for someone to be “unsaved” and be a Disciple?
Again, you are playing word games and being pedantic.
We are instructed to do good works and lead others to Christ
“Where are the instructions that Peter left for choosing his successor?”
‘Mom’ you question diserves an answer. Kansas, Salvation...care to answer, with documentation of course...
I can lead them to Jesus, who then saves them.
*I* do not save them.
Neither does anyone else.
Would you like some butter with that?
The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.
Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).
The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.
Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).
Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be “profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field” (ibid., 41).
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession
Knock it off!
Look to the replacement of Judas Iscariot. A pattern of praying to the Holy Spirit and voting was set there. (Although it’s not always by lots. LOL!)
Understood but I was called “Satanic” before I fought back. My work is done on this thread unless asked a question.
“Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly,...”
Cite reference please...who is J. N. D. Kelly?
I do not consider this discussion nor the questions asked, a ‘LOL’ matter. Why so trite? No good answers? Judas Iscariot is not what we are discussing, nor his ‘succession’. Mathias was never heard from again. God, the Word, Yeshua, chose the true successor when he chose Paul of Tarsus.
It's tradition.
http://www.amazon.com/Early-Christian-Doctrines-Revised-Edition/dp/006064334X
A noted Protestant Historian and author.
John Kelly was prominent in the theology faculty throughout his association with St Edmund Hall. He was speaker’s lecturer in biblical studies from 1945 to 1948 and subsequently held a university lectureship in patristic studies until 1976. He published widely, writing on the development of the early Christian Creeds and doctrines, his Early Christian Creeds and Early Christian Doctrines becoming standard secondary works and seminary textbooks; commentaries on the pastoral epistles; biographical studies, including studies of St Jerome and St John of Chrysostom; and The Oxford Dictionary of Popes.[4] He was working on a companion volume to the Oxford Dictionary about archbishops when he died.[2]
In the ecclesiastical world, he became a canon of Chichester Cathedral in 1948, a position he held until 1993. He presided over the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Commission on Roman Catholic Relations from 1963 until 1968 and accompanied the archbishop, Michael Ramsey on his historic visit to Rome in 1966. He was a founder member of the Academic Council of the Institute for Advanced Theological Studies in Jerusalem.[2]
He was awarded the degree of Doctor of Divinity in 1951 and fellowship of the British Academy in 1965. He died a bachelor on 31 March 1997 and his cremated remains are interred in the antechapel of St Edmund Hall.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Norman_Davidson_Kelly
Hmmm. The ECFs quoted and expounded on Holy Scriptures. Should we believe they kept their cards close to their chest?
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.