Jesus is the redeemer of all those who believe in Him.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Faith alone questions
- Thread starter donadams
- Start date
There is only one set of keys
Isa 22:21-22 Matt 16:18-19
How many churches are found in scripture?
Matt 6:33
Matt 16:18-19
Matt 18:17
Lk 22:29
Jn 10:16
1 Tim 3:15
Gal 4:26
Heb 12:22
Jethro Bodine
Member
The Catholic church is not it.
Lots of born again children of God born without the Catholic church prove the Catholic church is not the one and only true church. I don't consider it to be true at all because of its works justification theology.
Last edited:
Jethro Bodine
Member
Millions of born again, Spirit filled, fruit bearing children of God testify to the fact that there are lots of people outside of the Catholic church who have the keys of the kingdom.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Hi David,Hello Don, your not knowing about Mathias in the previous Chapter of Acts didn't make sense to me from the get-go, so I'm back trying to figure out what you were actually trying to convey, and this is where my mind has been wandering since then ;)
Is it your belief that the 11, in their choosing of the godly/faithful Mathias (who, just like the 11, knew the Lord Jesus personally and walked with Him during His ministry years on Earth) to fill the vacated position of the unfaithful traitor, Judas, somehow establishes the basis for (and the Biblical proof of) the RCC's doctrine of apostolic succession?
Considering the extent of all that is said in those verses and passages (in both Acts 1, as well as in the prophetic words from Psalms 69:25 and 109:8) such a conclusion can hardly be reached and justified.
So, perhaps I am still on the wrong track here. If not (and the above is actually what you mean), then please tell me/us what I am missing and/or where the Bible teaches us that, "the line of apostles must continue till Christ returns because only Peter and the apostles have jurisdictional authority".
Thanks
--David
You're writing to donadams above, but I'm trying to catch up with my posts and fell upon this.
I wouldn't want to prove apostolic succession from the bible because it's something that happened after Jesus death and also the death of the Apostles.
Succession has to be learned by learning church history.
Church history is not in the NT because it happened after the writings.
I'm not Catholic but I do agree with some of their teachings and I do believe the CC is the original church, though I know most of my Protestant brothers disagree with me. I did NOT say the True chuch, I said the Original, or First church.
Apostolic succession means that the Apostles taught others what Jesus taught them.
Some of these would be:
Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch (one of my favorites),
Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and others.
When the above died, they had taught others, and so on until today.
This succession was broken in about the year 1,000 when the Orthodox Church broke away due to a couple of important disputes, The filoque and the authority of only One Pope instead of local Bishops.
This makes a lot of sense to me and has nothing to do with doctrine.
A person could still agree or disagree with doctrine, but how do we disagree with history?
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Hi Don ,
Trying to catch up and I can't remember if I answered to the above.
I agree with all of it.
But you said that Redemption and Justification are the same...
this is the part I do not agree with.
They are two totally different teachings, which is clearly seen from your post above.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
I doubt you'll get a winner!I had no inner witness nor ever felt the presence of the Spirit until after I asked the Lord for that gift. Lutherans do baptize infants. I not sure how one makes use of the Spirit of God within us. I have however believed in and prayed to Jesus as far back as my memory goes. In the NT it was stated to those who believed "repent" and be baptized not something one can do as a infant. I do believe clergy have authority from above to baptize so if they baptize anyone they are baptized regardless of those who disagree. If I ever travel to Israel I have in mind to get baptized in the Jordan and I will have the upper hand in whose baptism is more proper.
God does the baptizing,
not man.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
There's no continuing office of Apostles.
All the Apostles are dead.
(I think I already replied to this - I'm so far behind).
My feeling is that you get continuing JESUS' teachings conflated with succession.
There's no doubt that the CC has a continuing line of successors to the Apostles.
I just can't explain it any better and we've talked about this enough.
Most Protestants disagree with me.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Agreed on the above, but I have one question which you've never answered.
You say that to be born again - saved - we must have faith and baptism.
I agree actually. Jesus said we must be baptized.
But here's my question:
What if I become a believer, place my faith in God, and about a few weeks later I die and was never baptized.
What happens to my soul/spirit?
Am I lost?
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Yes. There's a misunderstanding.
I also don't think the CC is in any way following the lineage of the teachings of the 12 Apostles.
But what church was around at the beginning if not the CC?
Do you know of one?
(except for heretical groups of course, which existed already when the Apostles were still alive?.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Hi David,Jethro Bodine, Randy, wondering, donadams, et al, I've been looking into the topic of apostolic succession again (thanks to this thread), and I came across a short article about it yesterday (at www.gotquestions.org). The article is so well-written that I thought that I'd come back here and post an excerpt from it for you. Here it is.
Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority. No, Jesus ordained the apostles to build the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). What is the foundation of the church that the apostles built? The New Testament – the record of the deeds and teachings of the apostles. The church does not need apostolic successors. The church needs the teachings of the apostles accurately recorded and preserved. And that is exactly what God has provided in His Word (Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:15; 4:2).In short, apostolic succession is not biblical. The concept of apostolic succession is never found in Scripture. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right. The Roman Catholic Church claims that a lack of ongoing apostolic authority results in doctrinal confusion and chaos. It is an unfortunate truth (that the apostles acknowledged) that false teachers would arise (2 Peter 2:1). Admittedly, the lack of “supreme authority” among non-Catholic churches results in many different interpretations of the Bible. However, these differences in interpretation are not the result of Scripture being unclear. Rather, they are the result of even non-Catholic Christians carrying on the Catholic tradition of interpreting Scripture in accordance with their own traditions. If Scripture is studied in its entirety and in its proper context, the truth can be easily determined. Doctrinal differences and denominational conflicts are a result of some Christians refusing to agree with what Scripture says – not a result of there being no “supreme authority” to interpret Scripture.Alignment with scriptural teaching, not apostolic succession, is the determining factor of the trueness of a church. What is mentioned in Scripture is the idea that the Word of God was to be the guide that the church was to follow (Acts 20:32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is the Scriptures that teachings are to be compared to (Acts 17:10-12). Apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession.
I have several comments that I'd like to make about the above, but I will have to do so later when I return (Dv).
--David
I forgot to state that I agree with the above, underlined by me.
I think we get THE TRUE CHURCH mixed up with THE ORIGINAL CHURCH (or first church).
There is only one true church, and that is The Church...The Body of Christ.
His Bride.
Hello again Wondering, I believe that the RCC would have one or two things to say about that belief of yours
I also agree with most of what the RCC teaches (as I believe all conservative Protestants do). We walk in lockstep with about 90% of their official teachings (but the remaining 10% is what gets more than just a bit "iffy", particularly some of their soteriological teachings, teachings/beliefs that simply cannot be harmonized with ours).
As for the location of the true "original church", was that not found in Jerusalem (where Peter and the rest of the Apostles were .. e.g. Acts 15), not in Rome?
If that's all that the RCC meant by "Apostolic Succession", I suppose that I would believe it too. Rather, apostolic succession has to do with the passing on/handing down of "authority".
Yes, in 1054 AD, the East and the West split over doctrine and other issues (the two that you mentioned being at the heart of the debate, I believe). The question is however, was it the East or the West who remained truer to the teachings of the Bible, the Apostles and the early church
I've looked into this pretty carefully, and it seems to me that it was the West (Rome) who departed (due to the growing number of their heretical teachings), rather than the East. Finally, while I agree that it's often difficult to disagree with historical "facts", choosing to question, and when necessary, disagree with the teachings/beliefs/traditions of what certain men have come to believe over time (especially as they get farther and farther away, time-wise, from the Source) is something that we must do, yes?
If this is something that we should never do (dispute "historical" beliefs, that is), then why did the Lord Jesus choose to do that very thing with many of the historical/traditional teachings of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes?
Just like the RCC, Jews (still) believe that they have an Oral "Tradition" (referred to by them as the "Oral Torah") that they believe was handed down, generation to generation, from God to Moses to the Jews who are alive today. So, while the "Oral Torah" or Jewish "Tradition" is certainly "historical", the Lord, nevertheless, pointed out to us that at least some of what it taught was not true, and/or was heretical (particularly when it disagreed with the teachings of the Written Torah, specifically).
The Lord made it clear to us that "authority" is from Him, and that it is found in the written, God-breathed Scriptures, which are also from Him (not in the beliefs of fallible/fallen men), saying again and again and again in the NT, as I'm sure that you recall, "It is written", when He began to teach the people.
On the other hand, the Lord Jesus also said things like this, "you have heard that it was said" concerning many of the Jewish "Traditional" teachings, and then He went on to explain why the Jewish (historical) "Tradition" that He was referring to was wrong.
This is becoming a very long post. Sorry about that.
God bless you!!
--David
p.s. - I
LOVE Italy BTW 
Last edited:
Jethro Bodine
Member
My understanding is the Freewill Baptists most closely resemble the original church.
One last thought about "history" is this wondering , if we fail to learn from the mistakes that we made in the past we will (as they say) be doomed to repeat them (or as one of my teachers also said, about both our successes AND our failures from the past, "the only thing that we ever learn from history is that we never learn anything from history" 
). Churches and/or Christians who have long held to their Traditions as the true, final authority/arbiter of truth, would do well to consider again the Jews, their "Traditions", and all that the Lord Jesus taught us about them (IMHO anyway).
Fortunately, the faith that we are to contend for, the very one that was once for all time delivered/handed down to the saints, was also 'written down' for us, and that prior to the end of the 1st Century (so that we can know what the "truth" really is, especially when we have been assailed by new/different teachings over the centuries, by certain teachers and churches who make extravagant boasts about the Holy Spirit's involvement in creating them, even though they clearly disagree with His written word).
God bless you!!
--David
). Churches and/or Christians who have long held to their Traditions as the true, final authority/arbiter of truth, would do well to consider again the Jews, their "Traditions", and all that the Lord Jesus taught us about them (IMHO anyway).Fortunately, the faith that we are to contend for, the very one that was once for all time delivered/handed down to the saints, was also 'written down' for us, and that prior to the end of the 1st Century (so that we can know what the "truth" really is, especially when we have been assailed by new/different teachings over the centuries, by certain teachers and churches who make extravagant boasts about the Holy Spirit's involvement in creating them, even though they clearly disagree with His written word).
God bless you!!
--David
Last edited:
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
David, You had posted the following:Hello Wondering
"The Roman Catholic Church claims that a lack of ongoing apostolic authority results in doctrinal confusion and chaos."
That's the only sentence about "church history" in my excerpt (unless I am missing something). Do you find it to be an inaccurate statement for some reason? If so, please let me know why (as I would like to know too).
Thanks! (and thanks for giving me the opportunity to use the "Thinking....." emoticon again too
God bless you!!
--David
Jethro Bodine, Randy, wondering, donadams, et al, I've been looking into the topic of apostolic succession again (thanks to this thread
), and I came across a short article about it yesterday (at www.gotquestions.org). The article is so well-written that I thought that I'd come back here and post an excerpt from it for you. Here it is.We were discussing Apostolic succession.
The CC is the only church that believes they have Apostolic succession, and also the Orthodox, but let's not complicate.
I suppose you linked GotQuestions because you were curious about this.
The problem is that Apostolic succession falls under church history...it is shown in the NT when an Apostle goes with another, for instance in missionary journeys, but it really belongs to what happened after the Apostles died. I might start a thread on this.
My comment was that Got Questions is not an authority on church history.
In this scenario did you call on Him in prayer?
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.
You could not have had believing faith in Him apart from the Father.
He follows His Fathers will.
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.