|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/22/2005 2:43:03 AM
|
|
|
alasoosie
Posts: 163
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Hey Walter and Meep,
I am working on a borrowed laptop and cannot figure out how to cut and paste without a mouse, so I can't do any quoting.
Just a few quick answers since it is already so late here. The orthodox and Catholic churches look nothing like the church as described in the NT. First of all the NT church was not liturgical. The gatherings were interactive and participatory, not lead from the front. You can see an example of this in 1 Cor 14:26-40, where Paul instructs the church how to have an orderly meeting: "how should it be then brothers, when you come together, each one brings a hymn, teaching, etc. when one man is talking and a revelation comes to another, let the first man sit and the second man speak..." No liturgy in that meeting!
The NT church gathered daily as mentioned in Acts "daily in public and from house to house" and in Hebrews 3:13..."encourage one another daily". The purpose of the gatherings were to strengthen the church (1 cor 14) and to encourage one another Hebrews 10:25. They were not worship services full of ritual and ceremony and liturgy, they were gatherings of believers for the purpose of one another...edify one another, teach one another, love one another, etc.
Simply put, the church was not about an organization, religion. It was about family and relationships and seeing Christ built up in one another. The believers really thought of themselves as a family...not just in words "I'm so glad I'm a part of the family of God"...but in truth a family with 100 mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters.
Leaven was not accepted in the church!!! A little leaven leavens the whole batch. This is what is happening in the churches today...including catholic and orthodox. Paul said to get the leaven out!!!! This doesn't work well in today's churches because of the lack of relationships. In Corinth when a man was put out of the church, it nearly killed him because his relationships with the believers were so much a part of his life. Rarely do you see those types of relationships in the church today. Churches are filled to the brim with "nominal christians", who of course aren't really Christians at all.
I know it sounds condescending when someone tells you to read your Bible. But sometimes it seems so obvious. Stop reading all the writings of the early church leaders and immerse yourself in the Bible. Reading the NT letters over and over as whole letters in context, the NT church shows itself to be far different than what we call churches today. It was a body of believers living their lives interwoven and interdependent, sold out to Christ and determined to see the fullness of Christ built up in one another.
Julie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/22/2005 11:43:21 AM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1357
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
rcjames, if you think that the LDS or JW are the true church, go right ahead. I personally don't think so, but you're welcome to believe whatever you want.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/22/2005 12:15:49 PM
|
|
|
meep meep
Posts: 89
Status: offline
|
Dear Alasoosie:
quote:
Hey Walter and Meep,
I am working on a borrowed laptop and cannot figure out how to cut and paste without a mouse, so I can't do any quoting.
Just a few quick answers since it is already so late here. The orthodox and Catholic churches look nothing like the church as described in the NT. First of all the NT church was not liturgical. The gatherings were interactive and participatory, not lead from the front. You can see an example of this in 1 Cor 14:26-40, where Paul instructs the church how to have an orderly meeting: "how should it be then brothers, when you come together, each one brings a hymn, teaching, etc. when one man is talking and a revelation comes to another, let the first man sit and the second man speak..." No liturgy in that meeting!
What, prithee, do you think liturgy is? It is a prescribed form of public worship; to Christians, in the early Church and to the Catholics today it is the eucharistia.
Paul’s epistles are letters of correction, and it is correction he is bringing to the Corinthians who were in a chaotic state.
Their LITURGY was not centered on the worship of God but in their carnal lusts. There was gluttony as they came together to share the eucharistia, with the wealthy eating more than was allowed to those less fortunate, there was drunkenness, their was disorder and an inordinate focus on the gifts of tongues, prophecy, healings and other miracles. Women had discarded their head covering which in those times and in that place was indicative of a woman being a prostitute. Many were approaching the eucharist while still in sin and were partaking of the meal unworthily.
Into this miasma comes Paul to PRESCRIBE the “rules” of worship for that church and to set order. Each was to speak in turn, women were to cover their heads, the exercise of the spiritual gifts were to be in an orderly fashion, women were to not speak above men, and more. EACH of these are part of the liturgy – prescribed by none other than Paul- as an orderly FORM of worship – for a specific situation in one church ( which does not mean it was only for THAT church).
quote:
The NT church gathered daily as mentioned in Acts "daily in public and from house to house" and in Hebrews 3:13..."encourage one another daily". The purpose of the gatherings were to strengthen the church (1 cor 14) and to encourage one another Hebrews 10:25. They were not worship services full of ritual and ceremony and liturgy, they were gatherings of believers for the purpose of one another...edify one another, teach one another, love one another, etc.
The early church met in houses while it was small enough to be able to do that. As the numbers grew, the “houses” of worship began to be built. Many times they had to move from house to house to for survival since the early Christians were persecuted and hunted. In Rome they moved to the Catacombs – underground. From there we have evidences of how the early Christians conducted their services and the practical application of their faith.
I don’t know about your church, but in my faith community we have the eucharist daily. In the daily mass (liturgy) we have an opportunity to worship and grow closer to Christ and to begin your day in praise, worship, and community with one another. It’s not a weekly, monthly, or quarterly observance, it isn’t done when the pastor or the board decides – it is done daily – in every corner of the earth where the church is found.
A pattern – I might add- which is historical and followed from the beginning.
Consider the Didache. It is seen by some scholars the earliest Christian document. Others date it about 80 AD. The document itself was discovered in the late 1880’s. When looking at what it has to say about the liturgy I see some of the very same words we use in our liturgy today – some 1900 + years later.
quote:
Simply put, the church was not about an organization, religion. It was about family and relationships and seeing Christ built up in one another. The believers really thought of themselves as a family...not just in words "I'm so glad I'm a part of the family of God"...but in truth a family with 100 mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters.
Nobody has said the Church is an organization, but it does not preclude organization either - nor order - which is what Paul was stressing in Corinthians. None of what you say is wrong, in fact it is very desirable. Read his letters again; the church DOES include an organization as Paul decreed in Corinthians, and it includes ORDER in liturgy (worship).
Your definition or view of “church”, however, precludes the fact that it is the BODY of Christ and that it is a witness to the truth of the Gospel.
quote:
Leaven was not accepted in the church!!! A little leaven leavens the whole batch. This is what is happening in the churches today...including catholic and orthodox. Paul said to get the leaven out!!!! This doesn't work well in today's churches because of the lack of relationships. In Corinth when a man was put out of the church, it nearly killed him because his relationships with the believers were so much a part of his life. Rarely do you see those types of relationships in the church today. Churches are filled to the brim with "nominal christians", who of course aren't really Christians at all.
Again, none of what you say is wrong, per se, but the man put out of the church was being put out of “community” – he was excommunicated and therefore, could not receive the sacraments – here’s where salvation found in the (teaching and community ) of the Church comes in.
quote:
I know it sounds condescending when someone tells you to read your Bible. But sometimes it seems so obvious. Stop reading all the writings of the early church leaders and immerse yourself in the Bible. Reading the NT letters over and over as whole letters in context, the NT church shows itself to be far different than what we call churches today. It was a body of believers living their lives interwoven and interdependent, sold out to Christ and determined to see the fullness of Christ built up in one another.
It may or may not be condescending, it doesn’t matter. It IS very presumptuous. Your assumption that we don’t read the Bible is without merit, especially since you don’t know me or Walter.
Second, may I suggest you read some history. It will strengthen your witness to those who are not Christians.
THE BIG difference between the Christian/Hebrew God and the mystery religions isn’t all the stuff you have posted above…all those “good” things are found even in pagan religions, and some unbelievers and pagans make better”Christians” than we ourselves.
The BIG difference is that our God is a God of history. He is a God who reached down into time and space and events and made himself known. It is important then to understand that in order to see the handiwork of God and for it to be more than myths and magic that so many of my brethren cling to thinking it is what God commanded.
Don’t presume I am not immersed in my Bible, don’t presume you know what the churches are teaching without being there.
Finally, what if Paul had followed your advice? Paul was a scholar, he knew and studied other religions, philosophies, history, and law (he had been a member of the Sanhedrin). His arguments to the non Christians were based on his knowledge of what they understood and believed. If you doubt this, read his epistles – I challenge you to find the Platonic, the Stoic and even the Aristotelian influences through out.
Thanks for your suggestion, though, but I am off to church for my daily dose of the liturgy of the word and the eucharistia.
In Christ,
Meep
_____________________________
"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church which is Catholic, and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies." - Augustine, The True Faith
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/22/2005 12:17:53 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5210
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
rcjames, if you think that the LDS or JW are the true church, go right ahead. I personally don't think so, but you're welcome to believe whatever you want.
Walterquez,
Please do not misinterpret my post in your repost. I only stated that the LDS and JW have just as much "proof" that they are the true Church as the OC or the RCC; the self-writings, self-promotions, denial that the Holy Scripture reveals sufficient truth to become a child of God, and an unsubstantiated claim that they are the one and only true Church.
I do not believe that the LDS or the JW are either one the one true Church, neither do I believe that the OC or the RCC either one or any combination thereof is the one true Church.
Of course I do not think that the Denomination that I happen to belong to is the one true Church either; just one segment of that true Church.
I am sure that there are many members of the one true Church who are part of the RCC or the OC or the LDS or the JW; and this in spite of the hierarchy of those organizations, and the man-made dogma of that hierarchy.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/22/2005 12:21:32 PM
|
|
|
meep meep
Posts: 89
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
i_believe listed a couple links of the Catholic Church. Maybe he is Catholic. 
www.catholic.com
www.newadvent.org
Here is one of the Orthodox here in America.
http://www.goarch.org/
Are there any other links of any other organization that proves they are the True Church? Or more links to help us in this discussion? I welcome you to post them as long as it doesn't violate the TOS. I think it is better to get the information from the source rather than get second hand information.
I am not going to list the LDS or JW. I think we know they are not.
Walterquez,
Why would you not list the LDS or JW, as they use the same "proof" for justifying their position as do the OC and the RCC. They each use extra-Scriptural writings to self-promote and try to prove themselves to be the "True Church". I of course see a lot of differences in the end product, but the self-justification is exactly the same.
When any of these; OC, RCC, LDS, or JW, are compared to the New Testament, "The revealed word of God", their claims to be the one true Church all fall far short of being valid.
Thanks
RC
Hey, go ahead and include them if you want.
They like every Reformation and post reformation Church use man made teaching. They are not Apostolic- just look at who founded each.
That's not a judgment, it's just reality.
Also, in answer to your question in another post -
Any See with a bishop who was appointed by an apostle or by those appointed by apostles is apostolic .
Disagreements and splits don't determine Apostolicity...
Now how about the substantiating sources to the questions I asked you.... 
Meep
_____________________________
"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church which is Catholic, and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies." - Augustine, The True Faith
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/22/2005 12:29:13 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5210
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: meep meep
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
i_believe listed a couple links of the Catholic Church. Maybe he is Catholic.
www.catholic.com
www.newadvent.org
Here is one of the Orthodox here in America.
http://www.goarch.org/
Are there any other links of any other organization that proves they are the True Church? Or more links to help us in this discussion? I welcome you to post them as long as it doesn't violate the TOS. I think it is better to get the information from the source rather than get second hand information.
I am not going to list the LDS or JW. I think we know they are not.
Walterquez,
Why would you not list the LDS or JW, as they use the same "proof" for justifying their position as do the OC and the RCC. They each use extra-Scriptural writings to self-promote and try to prove themselves to be the "True Church". I of course see a lot of differences in the end product, but the self-justification is exactly the same.
When any of these; OC, RCC, LDS, or JW, are compared to the New Testament, "The revealed word of God", their claims to be the one true Church all fall far short of being valid.
Thanks
RC
Hey, go ahead and include them if you want.
They like every Reformation and post reformation Church use man made teaching. They are not Apostolic- just look at who founded each.
That's not a judgment, it's just reality.
Also, in answer to your question in another post -
Any See with a bishop who was appointed by an apostle or by those appointed by apostles is apostolic .
Disagreements and splits don't determine Apostolicity...
Now how about the substantiating sources to the questions I asked you....
Meep
You seem to be confused about more that what the Church is Mr. Meep.
You did not request any references from me, you requested them from I_Believe in your post 86, in reference, I think, to his post 80.
Oh, by the way; fabricating successions and using non-Scriptural sources does not determine Apostolicity either.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/22/2005 12:49:44 PM
|
|
|
i_believe
Posts: 1298
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Many in the OT could have made the same arguements against the Levites. They could say, the Levites are no longer following the old doctrines. They have changed and added other stuffs. Then you have other tribes ordaining their own priests to sacrifice for them. It doesn't matter how well or better they are than the true Levites, they don't have the DNA. They are fakes. Not the real thing.
They are all fakes since Christ is "the" high priest for all NT believers.
_____________________________
Grace and Peace,
IB
Phi 3:12 Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect; but I press on...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/22/2005 12:51:52 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1090
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
This thread has grown.
Alaloosie (#101): You assert that the neither the EOC nor the RCC nor any other ancient communion looks like the NT Church. You further assert that the early Church was non liturgical and that it did not use leavened bread. All of these assertions are demonstrably erroneous.
1. Not looking the same: Did Jesus ever compare the Kingdom of God or any aspect of spiritual life to a seed...like a grain of wheat, barley, mustard, etc.? Please perform the following experiment. Take a handful of corn go out into a prepared field. Plant the corn. Water as needed. Return to the field in one month and dig up the seed. I doubt you will find it. Instead where you planted the seed will be these tall grassy stalk things that look nothing like the seed at all...obviously no relation...better to pull them up and start over.
2. The NT church was of course liturgical. The worship of the both the Temple and the Synagoge were (and the synagoge remains) liturgical. In Acts we find that much of the early preaching was done in Synagoges...did those who believe sudden jump up start clapping their hands and singing Maranatha worship choruses. Didn't the early church in Jerusalem gather at the Temple at its liturgical hours of prayer? Doesn't the book of NT call the meeting and worship of the Church liturgy (lieturgeo) or identify its service as liturgically priestly (hierourgeo)?... BTW it does: Rom. 15:16, Heb 1:14, Heb 10:11, Acts 13:2. Early Christian worship borrowed a great deal form both the synagoge and the temple...this is an indesputable fact. The service of the synagogue became the foundation for the service of preaching and instruction, known as the liturgy of the Word. And the Temple liturgy is foundational to the Eucharistic celebration known as the Divine Liturgy. The earliest known liturgy in the Church is attributed to St. James, the one who presided at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. To be sure it has known a little revision and enlargement over the centuries...but not much, and an analysis of the language used in its oldest parts can be affirmitively dated to at least the second century. That Christian worship was not some freeform tent meeting can be shown from the Didache, an early Christian writing that dates to around 70 AD. The only free form praying that it allows is when a prophet is present to celebrate the Holy Eucharist. And even that had limits. Read it for yourself to see. So as you may surmise, liturgy, perhaps a bit simpler in some respects than is practiced now, but liturgy nonetheless was the normative mode of worship and instruction known to the Church from the day of Pentecost.
3. No leaven. The Orthodox Church has always used leavened bread for consecration in the Holy Eucharist. It has no memory of ever useing anything else. Indeed even Rome used leavened bread as late as the 8th century. This is because in the NT when Jesus broke bread with His disciples at the Mystical Supper (last Supper) the bread he used is called "artos" ordinary leavened bread. Unleavened bread is called azymes. The bread He used was artos not azymes. Some may argue that on occasion the term artos is used generally enough to mean any kind of bread leavened or not. And that is true...but this continuity of historical practice argues hard against that interpretation in this case. Consider the Syrian Church which has not been in communion with Orthodoxy since the fifth century, and whose liturgical language is Aramaic...the native language of Christ and the Disciples. They are the descendants of the first Jewish converts and they have no memory of ever having used unleavened bread. Indeed their translation of the Gospels (which dates to the 2nd or 3rd century if not earlier) in Aramaic leaves no doubt. Thier words for either kind of bread admits no abiguity. One word means leavened the other means unleavened bread...only. And they translate "artos" as leavened bread, not unleavened. So the weight of the evidence "artos" in the Gospels, no record or memory in the ancient communions of the Middle East of a change in practice, the unambiguity of a very early Aramaic translation, and record of an 8th century change of practice in Rome argues very hard that leaven bread was used in the early Church no matter how badly it upsets certain modern day expectations and interpretations of the Gospels.
I_Believe (#82) You wrote: "Which of those who claim to be "the church" and have the same claim to Apostolic Succession is correct in the areas where they disagree? Remember, they all claim that their doctrine was passed down from the Apostles. "
That's really part of this disucussion of how do you know whose succession was successful. Which relates to RCJames question in (#82). First who are these ancient communions: Rome (and those in communion with her), The Eastern Orthodox Communion, and the non-Chalcedonian communions, Copts, Armenians, Syrians, Chaldeans, and Malankara (Mar Thomas): The Orthodox, Syrians, and the Copts all worship and believe almost exactly alike, the only difference is in regard to the Christological formulation espoused by the Council at Chalcedon. The Copts rejected it for their own formulation, which was similar in many respects, the Syrians never really got involved with that council and have no formal opinion on it per se, but seem to prefer the thinking of the Copts without actually accepting their formulation. Neither the Copts nor the Syrians have signed on to any of the other great councils, but they don't see the need to, the things taught by those councils have never been doubted in their communions. The Armenians are originally a daughter church of the Syrians but identify more strongly with the Coptic Christological position. The Chaldeans tend to embrace a Netorian Christology, but otherwise worship and believe, much like the Orthodox. The Malankara Churches were founded by St. Thomas and were originally part of the Syrio-Chaldean (non nestorian) communion but got seperated by a long time by the winds of history. They are less adamant one way or the other but tend to follow Syrian practice...when they are not following the Roman example (its a little confusing). Rome and Orthodox have a 1000 years of shared history, theology, and practice. Orthodoxy disagrees with the supremacy of the Roman pontiff, the insertion of the filioque in the Creed, the dogmatization of certain beliefs in Rome in recent history, certain forms of piety common to Rome, and a rejection of a scholastic mindset (like that of thomas aquinas) regarding spiritual life and theology.
Boil it all down and you've got two major areas of difficulty, The papal claims and theological approach of Rome, and how to best theologically describe the union of the Human and the Divine in Christ. Everything else the ancient communions all are virtually in complete agreement on: Holy Trinity, liturgy, hierarchy, canon of Scripture, real presence, communion of the Saints, role of Mary, prayers for the dead, sacraments, ascetical life, icons, etc. Take your pick. You have three basic camps: Rome, Orthodoxy, or Non-Chalcedonians.
Here is the Christological problem: Do you believe the second Person of the Trinity has two distinct natures—one divine and one human and that these two natures exist inseparably in one person. Or do you belive that in Jesus there were not two natures (divine and human) but one (divine), that in Christ's Incarnation, the humanity of Jesus swallowed up like a "drop of vineger in a sea" of divinity... Or This doctrine, that Christ operated with but one will, although he had two natures. Or that Christ is perfect in His divinity, and He is perfect in His humanity, but His divinity and His humanity were united in one nature called "the nature of the incarnate word". The Chalcedonian questions come to this, is Christ: that Jesus Christ was ‘one Person’ made known ‘in two natures’, or is He ‘from two natures’ now joined in ‘one incarnate nature’. So unless one is a Eutychan, Nestorian, or a monothelite, then these are the two "big" positions. As you can see any difference that matters on the ground is difficult to recognize. There is a difference...one is the more accurate/safer expression than the other though they both seem to be trying to say much the same thing.
Those are the differences that substantially matter between the ancient communions. Gorsh..not quite the theological mish mash mess some thought it might be. hmmm.
rcjames (#87): You wrote: Are you really saying that unless one is EOC or RCC that they cannot say what a Christian is? or be one?
Well you might want to include most of the Non-chalcedonians...but strip the velvet off the glove...yeah...that's pretty much it. We wouldn't go so far as to say one couldn't be a Christian (in some sense) though...we would probaly couch it in terms of being outside the visible historitcal fold of the Church. Sort of one of the Lord's sheep that has not made it inside the safety of the fold yet. A page from early church history may illustrate our understanding better. We affirm that outside the Church is no salvation, and that union with the Church and hence with Christ is in the washing of regeneration...baptsim. And in the Church while it is normative for priests to baptise, in emergencies others can as well (part of that charismatic succession thing). So from this one might deduce that baptisms performed outside the Church are meaninless. But that would not be true. In the Roman persecutions Christians would sometimes be mocked in the arena by actors performing or recieving fake comic baptisms, but on occasion it was reported that sometimes those actors went into the water pagans, but came out of the water Christian...illumined suddenly, change, and they preached Christ boldly and unfeined..until the soldiers or beasts were set upon them. Now if a fake baptism can sometimes produce a real Christ, what are we to say to a heterodox baptsim by one who is doing as well as he knows to obey and serve the Lord? Seems likely that those are more likely to "take" on average. So we decline to speculate on their actual status as Christians. That is for the Lord to determine. We do note, that if they are outside the formal bonds of His Church, and have an imperfect knowledge of teh faith.
rcjame (#107) While I would agree fabricating chains of succession (which partiuclar fabrications were you refering to) is not an indication of apostolicity but you've yet to establish how using non-scriptural points of reference cannot serve as "valid" proof. Non-scriptural is not the same as antiscriptureal. Theres a whole lot that is real and true that is not mentioned anywhere in the NT. You object in other posts to self-kept records. I suppose the insinuation is that that makes them defacto untrustworty. But if the Church in earlier ages did not keep records of its life and problems, trimupths and difficulties...then who else was supposed to so you could feel comfortable over a 1000 years later with the veracity of the record that does exist?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/22/2005 12:56:14 PM
|
|
|
i_believe
Posts: 1298
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
We hardly know what these small groups fully believed or practiced, so you have no idea if they truly followed the NT Church. For all we know, they could have been heretics.
For all we know... all are heritcs. I have read the sources of those who claim they are the true church and they are, without exception, self-documented. They may share some facts that exist in outside documents but their claim to fame is from their sources.
_____________________________
Grace and Peace,
IB
Phi 3:12 Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect; but I press on...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/22/2005 12:58:29 PM
|
|
|
i_believe
Posts: 1298
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
rcjames, if you think that the LDS or JW are the true church, go right ahead. I personally don't think so, but you're welcome to believe whatever you want.
Don't be silly Walter. The point was that they all make the same claim to be true NOT that ANY are true.
_____________________________
Grace and Peace,
IB
Phi 3:12 Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect; but I press on...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/22/2005 1:22:46 PM
|
|
|
nowimfound
Posts: 389
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
nowimfound, I like your DNA analogy.
Only those who are of the same lineage as the Jones will have the same DNA.
You can have another group of people that has learned to eat, drink and live just like the Jones, but no matter how hard they try, they are still not the Jones.
It is the same with the Church. There is only One Church. And only those who descend from her have the Church's DNA. Any other group who did not descend from her, no matter how holy they act, no matter how hard they try, they don't have the DNA.
Many in the OT could have made the same arguements against the Levites. They could say, the Levites are no longer following the old doctrines. They have changed and added other stuffs. Then you have other tribes ordaining their own priests to sacrifice for them. It doesn't matter how well or better they are than the true Levites, they don't have the DNA. They are fakes. Not the real thing.
And besides, what gave these people the right to start their own denomination apart from the body? Under whose authority? Where is the scripture that says they can do this? They are apostates.
Walterquez,
But the intent of the DNA analogy was to identify the spiritual DNA of the Church. Of course DNA is handed down, but unless the modern church can identify its spiritual DNA as the same as that of the Apostles, claims of linage are meaningless (ordination succession). As I said before, it only takes a single unfaithful act to corrupt the DNA in a lineage. So, what in your opinion is the spiritual DNA that needs comparison to that of the Apostles to prove spiritual inheritance and lineage?
Grace and Peace,
NIF
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/22/2005 2:01:30 PM
|
|
|
meep meep
Posts: 89
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: meep meep
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
i_believe listed a couple links of the Catholic Church. Maybe he is Catholic.
www.catholic.com
www.newadvent.org
Here is one of the Orthodox here in America.
http://www.goarch.org/
Are there any other links of any other organization that proves they are the True Church? Or more links to help us in this discussion? I welcome you to post them as long as it doesn't violate the TOS. I think it is better to get the information from the source rather than get second hand information.
I am not going to list the LDS or JW. I think we know they are not.
Walterquez,
Why would you not list the LDS or JW, as they use the same "proof" for justifying their position as do the OC and the RCC. They each use extra-Scriptural writings to self-promote and try to prove themselves to be the "True Church". I of course see a lot of differences in the end product, but the self-justification is exactly the same.
When any of these; OC, RCC, LDS, or JW, are compared to the New Testament, "The revealed word of God", their claims to be the one true Church all fall far short of being valid.
Thanks
RC
Hey, go ahead and include them if you want.
They like every Reformation and post reformation Church use man made teaching. They are not Apostolic- just look at who founded each.
That's not a judgment, it's just reality.
Also, in answer to your question in another post -
Any See with a bishop who was appointed by an apostle or by those appointed by apostles is apostolic .
Disagreements and splits don't determine Apostolicity...
Now how about the substantiating sources to the questions I asked you....
Meep
You seem to be confused about more that what the Church is Mr. Meep.
You did not request any references from me, you requested them from I_Believe in your post 86, in reference, I think, to his post 80.
No argument there! That's why I read, study and pray... 
Please go back to Post 59 where I asked about your dissertations and the claims you say you made in them.
quote:
Oh, by the way; fabricating successions and using non-Scriptural sources does not determine Apostolicity either.
Well, you have made the claim of fabrication. Since it is not the consensus of scholars (including Protestants) then the onus is on you to substantiate your claim with verifiable information ...otherwise that makes it your fabrication, and your opinion [at best].
As to "non-scriptural" sources: Jesus said the Holy Spirit would bring ALL things to the remembrance of the Apostles; the NT itself says that Jesus did and said many other things which would fill many other books (and are presumably not set down in the NT).
Non - scriptural is not unscriptural nor is it bad. But then you might ascribe to the unscriptural man made doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Little question: Is the NT self authenticating and "self documenting?"
Meep
_____________________________
"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church which is Catholic, and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies." - Augustine, The True Faith
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/22/2005 2:44:21 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5210
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unworthyseraphim
This thread has grown.
rcjames (#87): You wrote: Are you really saying that unless one is EOC or RCC that they cannot say what a Christian is? or be one?
Well you might want to include most of the Non-chalcedonians...but strip the velvet off the glove...yeah...that's pretty much it. We wouldn't go so far as to say one couldn't be a Christian (in some sense) though...we would probaly couch it in terms of being outside the visible historitcal fold of the Church. Sort of one of the Lord's sheep that has not made it inside the safety of the fold yet. A page from early church history may illustrate our understanding better. We affirm that outside the Church is no salvation, and that union with the Church and hence with Christ is in the washing of regeneration...baptsim. .... So we decline to speculate on their actual status as Christians. That is for the Lord to determine. We do note, that if they are outside the formal bonds of His Church, and have an imperfect knowledge of teh faith.
Not wanting to be disredspectful, but that is utter arrogance. Being a Christian "In some sense", or "outside the formal bonds of His Church", where do you find that in the Scriptures.
quote:
ORIGINAL: unworthyseraphim
rcjame (#107) While I would agree fabricating chains of succession (which partiuclar fabrications were you refering to) is not an indication of apostolicity but you've yet to establish how using non-scriptural points of reference cannot serve as "valid" proof. Non-scriptural is not the same as antiscriptureal. Theres a whole lot that is real and true that is not mentioned anywhere in the NT. You object in other posts to self-kept records. I suppose the insinuation is that that makes them defacto untrustworty. But if the Church in earlier ages did not keep records of its life and problems, trimupths and difficulties...then who else was supposed to so you could feel comfortable over a 1000 years later with the veracity of the record that does exist?
I objected to revisionist records produced in 4th centrury, to curry favor with Constantine that by any examination outside of your organizations is highly suspect. There is no Holy Scripture that directs that traditions beyond those written in the New Testament are legit.
There is no Holy Scripture that puts Peter as Head, or Bishop, or Holy See, or Pope, or Grand Poopa or even being in Rome; just the opposite is true. Peter never claimed to be anything other than a servant and Apostle; those claims just don’t give one much confidence. Not even at the birth of the whole “unbroken succession” thing: Peter being the first Pope and all.
If Jesus would have been talking to John in Matt 16:18 (that sorely misinterpreted verse that is the bedrock of your succession proposition), then you would be calling the Isle of Patmos a suburb of Rome. Doing that would be no more of a stretch than taking Peter's statement of being in Babylon as not being in Babylon but in Rome. Now how handy was that exegesis.
The one thing that I see that would separate those that feel as you do from the saving grace of God is the arrogance. I just don't find that as a qualifier for salvation in the Scriptures, but as a disqualifier. If I missed that verse then please post it.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/22/2005 3:28:20 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1357
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: i_believe
For all we know... all are heritcs. I have read the sources of those who claim they are the true church and they are, without exception, self-documented. And your point? What does that mean? Even the bible is self documented.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/22/2005 3:45:03 PM
|
|
|
meep meep
Posts: 89
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: unworthyseraphim
This thread has grown.
rcjames (#87): You wrote: Are you really saying that unless one is EOC or RCC that they cannot say what a Christian is? or be one?
Well you might want to include most of the Non-chalcedonians...but strip the velvet off the glove...yeah...that's pretty much it. We wouldn't go so far as to say one couldn't be a Christian (in some sense) though...we would probaly couch it in terms of being outside the visible historitcal fold of the Church. Sort of one of the Lord's sheep that has not made it inside the safety of the fold yet. A page from early church history may illustrate our understanding better. We affirm that outside the Church is no salvation, and that union with the Church and hence with Christ is in the washing of regeneration...baptsim. .... So we decline to speculate on their actual status as Christians. That is for the Lord to determine. We do note, that if they are outside the formal bonds of His Church, and have an imperfect knowledge of teh faith.
Not wanting to be disredspectful, but that is utter arrogance. Being a Christian "In some sense", or "outside the formal bonds of His Church", where do you find that in the Scriptures.
quote:
ORIGINAL: unworthyseraphim
rcjame (#107) While I would agree fabricating chains of succession (which partiuclar fabrications were you refering to) is not an indication of apostolicity but you've yet to establish how using non-scriptural points of reference cannot serve as "valid" proof. Non-scriptural is not the same as antiscriptureal. Theres a whole lot that is real and true that is not mentioned anywhere in the NT. You object in other posts to self-kept records. I suppose the insinuation is that that makes them defacto untrustworty. But if the Church in earlier ages did not keep records of its life and problems, trimupths and difficulties...then who else was supposed to so you could feel comfortable over a 1000 years later with the veracity of the record that does exist?
I objected to revisionist records produced in 4th centrury, to curry favor with Constantine that by any examination outside of your organizations is highly suspect. There is no Holy Scripture that directs that traditions beyond those written in the New Testament are legit.
There is no Holy Scripture that puts Peter as Head, or Bishop, or Holy See, or Pope, or Grand Poopa or even being in Rome; just the opposite is true. Peter never claimed to be anything other than a servant and Apostle; those claims just don’t give one much confidence. Not even at the birth of the whole “unbroken succession” thing: Peter being the first Pope and all.
If Jesus would have been talking to John in Matt 16:18 (that sorely misinterpreted verse that is the bedrock of your succession proposition), then you would be calling the Isle of Patmos a suburb of Rome. Doing that would be no more of a stretch than taking Peter's statement of being in Babylon as not being in Babylon but in Rome. Now how handy was that exegesis.
The one thing that I see that would separate those that feel as you do from the saving grace of God is the arrogance. I just don't find that as a qualifier for salvation in the Scriptures, but as a disqualifier. If I missed that verse then please post it.
Thanks
RC
Once more you make an allegation without any substantiation.
What is so hard about stating your sources? What do you base your allegations upon?
Which documents are you talking about and which reputable organizations can credibly support what you are saying?
This is my third request - there is nothing to say you have to answer- but it would certainly help to understand your opinion.
Second, Unworthy is EO, thus it is nonsensical to throw the issue of the Pope, which is not the point of this thread, at him since his faith community doesn't accept the papacy.
Third, Apostolic succession is not based on Peter, although to the Roman rite Christians it is also found there; Apostolicity has to do very simply and scripturally with the teaching and passing on of the truth received from Christ himself to those who learned it from Christ and who were approved by him, taught others (TRADITION), approved them, and who in turn passed that on tho those taught and approved by them.
What is it the Apostles learned and passed on? What Jesus taught and the Holy Spirit brought to remembrance.
Who did the Apostles approve? Those who learned and held to their teachings.
Which Churches were Apostolic?
Those founded by the Apostles, later on by those approved by the Apostles, and onward, and who preserved the "deposit of faith" as it was given to the Apostles.
Finally, what you see as "arrogance" is merely the truth as we have received it - that's what Apostolicity is all about.
Humbly,
Meep
_____________________________
"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church which is Catholic, and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies." - Augustine, The True Faith
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/22/2005 5:23:55 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1090
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
Dear RCJames,
I accept that you see Orthodoy's stance as arrogant. That was my first reaction too...well I debated arrogant or ignorant...both seemed so apt at the time.
But tell me this when Jesus was questioned directly as to whether He was the Son of God, the Messiah, and He did not deny it...was He being arrogant? Hey this guy claims He and the Father are one....that He's Messiah. Comeon we all saw him grow up in Nazereth, we know his parents.
Tell me RC, was Jesus arrogant not to deny what He knew to be true about Himself? Why confuse all those nice people who saw him grow up a poor carpenter's son? Is it arrogant to say the only way to the Father is by the Son...think of all the wounded pride of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and Wiccans. How can you say He is the only way? Sheer arrogance?
You know as well as I that He would have had to lie to deny Who He was no matter who it upset. You know we cannot deny that Jesus' name is the only one given whereby men might be saved else we deny Him.
Orthodoxy knows who she is and whence she is, and to deny this is to lie regardless of who this upsets. If for the sake of arguement, what she believes about herself to be true shouldn't she refuse to deny who she is so that others won't feel insulted by her arrogance?
So feel free to call it arrogant. I understand, I really do since I used to feel the same way. Indeed I am thankful for that "arrogance" I could not believe how any rational body of Christians could think so exclusively about themselves and I was courious to find out why and how they they could. Much to my surprise once I looked at the world a little through their eyes...I was convinced.
The real danger of this "arrogance" is the possibility that it might be justified. That means if what they say about themselves is true, and they are the Church that means that I have been the one decieved into thinking I was in the Church all my life, when in reality I have just been a member of a heterodox communion that has never been in historical sniffing distance of the Church Christ founded. And it is disorienting, because I do love the Lord, and I do believe His word, and I do want very much to be part of His Body, the Church...but I discover that I am not...and I don't know what I am...neither Orthodox, nor Protestant...but a lone sheep suddenly aware that it is nowhere near the fold. But that is a hard thing to even consider, let alone admit...I know I'm a Christian, and if a Christian then a member of the invisble Body of the Church...they must be the ones who are wrong...their 2000 years of experience in Christ and historical witness give them nothing to say compared to my "New and Improved" Azuza St. Tulsa sized style of Christianity. The gall and arrogance of that cabal of pomp and ceremoniacs... cheesh.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/22/2005 5:48:39 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1090
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
Actually NIF's DNA analogy has merit, though I think it somewhat mislocated in reference to the Scriptures.
What is DNA for? Its the biological mechanism, the genetic code that enables creatures to reproduce after their own kind.
So to take this analogy and apply it to the Church...if we take the Church as shown to us in the first century to be more or less the "seed" or let us say the life in Christ known by the early Church to be the seed, then we must expect that the Church no matter how it grows and changes outwardly in regard to the original seed the ontologial relationship between the seed as planted and the mature plant at some later point in time will be unbroken. The life of the seed is the life of the plant. Further we must expect that the plant will reproduce in kind...that is the kind of life sown will be the kind of life reaped. It will produce the same kind and depth of life in Christ as enjoyed by that first generation of Christians.
And that was the point I was making about the charismatic succession in its reduplication of an apostolic caliber walk with Christ among the faithful. Its best fruit is of the same kind as the best fruit of Apostolic times. Which is why Orthodoxy says, the proof of Orthodoxy is the saints. If Orthodoxy was not what it claimed to be such Christians could not be borne of her, such Christians who walk as the Apostles, Elders, and their disciples walk, who know Christ-God in that sa | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
