|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/23/2008 11:23:52 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1375
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear rcjames, who do you hold to be the New Testament Church? Really, this thread is not so much about who is not, but who is.
Is your group it? If not, what are you still doing there?
_____________________________
St. Athanasius the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/24/2008 8:55:26 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 4739
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
Dear rcjames, who do you hold to be the New Testament Church? Really, this thread is not so much about who is not, but who is.
Is your group it? If not, what are you still doing there?
I hold the New Testament Church to be all those who have accepted Christ as the Son of God, believe in their heart that God raised Jesus from the Dead and confess it with their words and lives.
The Church is thosw that are obedient to the New Testament as in;
(Rom 12:1) I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
(Rom 12:2) And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
For Christ said;
(Luk 6:46) And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
I personally do not think it matters a hoot in a holler what building one goes to to worship God nor what moniker they want to call them selves. If they are true Believers, then they are part of the New Testament Church.
Walter, that is what I really think.
Thansk
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/24/2008 6:10:22 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1375
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
You said if they are true believers. According to the Holy Scripture, are these believers sprinkled in different denominations? Or are they united in one body?
In the bible, the Christians are united, not separated. Even though one is located at Antioch, and another at Jerusalem, the whole body is united. As well as the rest, they are all united. There are no denominations. In fact, there were a few who had discussions, but were not physically separated, saying I am of Paul, I am of Jesus, etc... These were rebuked for having this type of mindset. How much more is the rebuke to those who have physically separated themselves from the body of Christ?
_____________________________
St. Athanasius the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/24/2008 7:16:31 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 4739
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
You said if they are true believers. According to the Holy Scripture, are these believers sprinkled in different denominations? Or are they united in one body?
In the bible, the Christians are united, not separated. Even though one is located at Antioch, and another at Jerusalem, the whole body is united. As well as the rest, they are all united. There are no denominations. In fact, there were a few who had discussions, but were not physically separated, saying I am of Paul, I am of Jesus, etc... These were rebuked for having this type of mindset. How much more is the rebuke to those who have physically separated themselves from the body of Christ?
Yes Walter, I said what I said, I will assume you are a true believer in Christ and adhere to the EOC teachings. I consider that you, based on that premise, to be part of the New Testament Chruch.
I also consider myslelf to be part of the New Testament Chruch based on the same criteria of being a true believer and obedient to the New Testament.
I do think that the arrogance of exclusivism maintained by some is not based on the New Testament and might well disqualify them.
Some try to make the Church an organization or a building, but I do believe the New Testament speaks of The Church as the gathering of believers in Christ (not believers in a society or group)
The Word says "Whosoever will", and I will, and I hope you will also.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/24/2008 9:53:49 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1375
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
But the Body of Christ is, well, a Body, or an organization. The Body of Christ is not broken up into denominations. Denominations is not the Gospel of Christ. To divide the Body of Christ into separate groups is the work of the devil.
_____________________________
St. Athanasius the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/25/2008 10:21:30 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 4739
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
Yes, Walter
The body of Christ is not a denomination nor made of groups of denominations. That is what I am saying.
The body of Christ is made of of true believers (indwelt by the Holy Spirit, obedient to what the New Testament says), and that can and probably does include some folks from all denominations includeing the EOC and mine.
Now that truth produces another one; I do not think that any denomination consists completely of true believers, not the EOC and not mine.
By the way Walter are you still in touch with Unworthyseriphim, I do greatly miss him on the boards?
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/26/2008 1:51:46 AM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1375
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
But in the Holy Scripture, there is no evidence that the Body of Christ were made up of believers found in different groups. The whole group was recognized as the Body of Christ, and the faith was the same everywhere. And not only this, they were all in communion.
UWS has not been able to come here lately. You can find him in another forum at monachos.
_____________________________
St. Athanasius the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 4/26/2008 10:02:02 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 4739
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
And not only this, they were all in communion.
Walter could you please elaborate on what you mean by "In Communion".
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 5/20/2008 5:17:35 PM
|
|
|
Dred
Posts: 204
Joined: 10/11/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
Original by Walterquez:
I believe the True Church since the beginning has always been around thru succession.
The church you have in mind has been 'around' since the first century, but it has not been around everywhere and has even been entirely absent in places (and times) in which there was a strong Christian presence. Even when these Christians knew of its existence, they may not have known much about it or how to connect with it.
Even now, where I sit, the nearest Orthodox congregation is at least an hour and a half away. A person in my little town might like to be a part of the O.C., but still consider it a poor use of the time and gasoline God has provided him to make the trip frequently. What do you think would be best to do in such a situation? Should he be marginally involved in the True Church (as you put it) or try to be as useful as he can in fellowship with a local group of Christians? To me, the latter looks like the necessary choice. Might he consider himself a part of the O.C., but, for all practical purposes, be a member of a local group of believers? What if he is sitting in his office listening to "The Ark" right now? Would you view members of the local group as part of the O.C. though they don't know it?
_____________________________
"We count any belief in Him, even the smallest belief, better than any belief about Him." --from Robert Falconer, by George MacDonald
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 5/20/2008 11:31:12 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1375
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
From what I have learned, the early Christians from Africa, Europe, Middle East, and even as far as India and China, and also Russia where all in communion with each other. The early Christians were not in isolation. Unfortunately, these last few centuries, many groups who have broken off, not necessarily on purpose, but a consequence of the RCC breaking away with the Eastern Church, many are in isolation.
_____________________________
St. Athanasius the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 5/21/2008 10:03:56 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1375
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
I heard a story where the early Reformers sent a group to see the Patriarch in the East. They were looking to join, because they realized they were broken off. But unfortunately, an agreement could not be reached, because the Patriarch could not accept the Westminster Confession. At first, the reformers thought they gave him a bad translation, but the Patriarch wrote them a letter, point by point I think, why it could not be accepted by the Church.
Nothing happened after that, and I think later on in history, the Protestant pretty much lost touch with the East. The RCC occupying an area between Western Europe and the East, and also the Mediterranean Sea with Africa didn't help.
Many Protestants today never heard of the OC. And when they have, they think it's RCC, or if not, very similar. It is true the appearance and traditions looks pretty much the same, but when you look at the core beliefs, you will find they are not the same. For example, the whole concept of salvation is different. The RCC has I think a strong juridical view of salvation while the OC is more therapeutic.
What I mean is that the juridical says, you broke the law therefore you're guilty and must pay the price of death. But if a sacrifice is offered, than you will be forgiven. The concept of sacrificing a human life to appease the anger of an angry God sounds very pagan to the East, because this belief was very common with the pagans.
The East on the other hand understands salvation as given from the scripture, like the Good Samaritan, the Great Physician, etc... What happened was that when mankind sinned, he became sick unto death. Something worst than HIV that passes on to the children. And because of this deadly disease, we are prone to sin. This is because when someone is very sick, they don't think clearly and tend to do crazy things that otherwise would never have done if they were well. Some are more sick than others and are prone to sin more. Unfortunately for mankind, there is nothing we can do get rid of this. But God can and did something about it. He took on flesh and defeated death so that we would no longer be bound to death. And now in Christ, mankind is able to recuperate from this, that is if we follow Him. We are no longer bound to death, whether we believe in Him or not, but we still need to heal further. If you recall, in the end, even the unbelievers are free from the first death. But if we are not in Christ there is a second death for them.
To the OC, when they hear someone say they were saved on June 8, 1983, it sounds strange, because we believe we, or mankind, was saved 2000 years ago when Christ defeated death at the Cross. If you ask an OC when they were saved, the answer will be 2000 years ago. So to the OC, we were saved (2000 years ago), we are being saved (by [therapeutically] living the way as God told us to live), and will be saved when the end comes. In other words, salvation is not one event, but three.
The Protestants in general views salvation as one event. You accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior and you're saved. This sounds strange to the OC, because Christ already defeated death 2000 years ago, so then what were you saved from on June 8, 1983? Again, it can't be from the penalty of death, because Christ took care of it. And again, this is evident because in the end, no one, whether you believe in Christ or not will not have to pay for the penalty of death, or the first death that is. Every one will live for eternity. I know one will be with Christ and the other in the lake of fire, but nevertheless, they are still living. Death has no power.
Although there are many similarities with the RCC, and in some points with the Protestans, the understanding of scripture is not. Each one understands or sees the Holy Scripture with a different glass.
_____________________________
St. Athanasius the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 6/17/2008 12:58:37 AM
|
|
|
tmlcpastor
Posts: 1
Joined: 6/17/2008
Status: offline
|
It is interesting to me to follow this thread. I just found it today as I was surfing. To me, the issue of AS is somewhat moot. One argues about DNA, GM, etc. Not taking notice that DNA includes both male and female, GM makes SAABS (yet the original was Swedish made, NOT US GM made). My perception of the whole issue is not whether man decides and ordains people to be His servants in the Ministry, but that it is the Lord who determines this. Acts 4:13 states that they were unlearned and ordinary men - so many would be disqualified today if what is required is Seminary training and ordination at the hand of an AS person. (in fact Simeon wanted this type of "ordination" so that he could give out the Holy Ghost!) It is the Word alone when taught in purity that keeps us from going astray, not an ordained "bonafide credentialed" minister! Perhaps the parable of the Weeds in Matthew 13 may make it clearer - there are weeds (false Chirsitans) among the wheat (true Christians who place there faith alone in Christ alone). It is not for us to argue and be divisive about which church is true and which person is or is not a Christian. This is left for the Angels of Christ to do. (Bundle and separate at the last day) Also in 1 Cor 13 it tells us not to be divided. While we may not agree with every little doctrine, we are still family (in Christ Jesus). My wife may not agree with me, my son may not agree with me, my other son may not agree with me and we may not agree with anyone in our family on all points. But the fact is is that we are family all with the same last name.
I H S
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 6/20/2008 9:21:26 PM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 744
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Silver Spring, MD
Status: offline
|
I've been wanting to share this with my friends here, but wasn't sure what thread was appropriate. After some thinking, I believe this thread might be more appropriate than others.
That said, I'm overjoyed to announce that as of June 15th (Father's day) I am now fully in communion with the Byzantine rite of the Catholic Church. I was received by Fr. Anthony Hernandez of the Eparchy of Van Nuys and received the Holy Eucharist at that time. My Christian name is Michael Francis. :D
In addition to that, I'd like to mention that my wife and I are expecting our first child around September 20th. :) Truly God is great and generous. :D
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 6/21/2008 3:18:51 PM
|
|
|
Dred
Posts: 204
Joined: 10/11/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
I've been wanting to share this with my friends here, but wasn't sure what thread was appropriate. After some thinking, I believe this thread might be more appropriate than others.
That said, I'm overjoyed to announce that as of June 15th (Father's day) I am now fully in communion with the Byzantine rite of the Catholic Church. I was received by Fr. Anthony Hernandez of the Eparchy of Van Nuys and received the Holy Eucharist at that time. My Christian name is Michael Francis. :D
In addition to that, I'd like to mention that my wife and I are expecting our first child around September 20th. :) Truly God is great and generous. :D
Dual congratulations are in order! I've just started having kids in the last couple of years myself; our second is now on the way.
_____________________________
"We count any belief in Him, even the smallest belief, better than any belief about Him." --from Robert Falconer, by George MacDonald
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 6/25/2008 12:14:23 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 53
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
I am not really sure what everyone has said, so if i repeat anything anybody else has said I apologise. I have read the first couple of posts and think you are refering to lineage. I know that we are ignoring popes and all those good things, then yes it would be nice have a lineage straight to Jesus.
As a side note if I happen to misquote or misrefernce a bible verse please let me know. I dont have notes and all of that stuff on me because I am at work.
I think lineage is important because in two of the gospels i believe Luke and Mathew, point out his lineage. One to David and one directly to God. And in the old testament you family lineage was very important, so when Jesus created his church, it is important to see how he passed the lineage on down. An example is Paul passing authority down to Timothy. And to me it makes even more sense because originally there was Jesus>original 12>Paul>Timothy. It clearly states Jesus' lineage to God and then Timothy's to Jesus.
As far as the church that best represents this i look at many things. First the church must come from the time period of Jesus. Second the church's belief system must one methodology no matter where it resides. Also the body of believers must be in communion with the teachings of the church. I personally dont believe that every christian church falls under the criteria. I also dont accept that everysingle person is the church and that the church is invisible. Jesus says that there is one singular church. He says the church is the pillar truth, the people of the church should be one, just as he and the father are one. And to settle disputes we should go to the church. Some more reasons i dont believe the church is invisible is because Jesus gave memebers of his church the authority, to bind and loose sins in earth and heaven, to lead, to teach, to rebuke, to baptise and marriage.
Just my thoughts
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
