Catechisms

[Walpole]

Mattias equals apostolic succession? Hardly. God chose him. Just as God chose Paul without any of the other Apostles having a vote.

Matthias is but one example. Here are more...

Acts 6:6 --> "Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them."

Acts 13:3 --> "And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away."

Acts 14:23 --> "And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed."

1 Tim 4:14 --> "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery."

1 Tim 5:22 --> "Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure."

2 Tim 1:6 --> "Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands."

But, your pope was picked by the Roman government and your pope spent over a thousand years killing people and butchering anyone he of which he was afraid.

Which Pope was picked by the Roman government? Most popes were martyred by the Roman government. To become the bishop of Rome was almost a certain death sentence.

If you have evidence of a bishop of Rome being installed by the Roman government, please present it.

Try not to make it so obvious that you are simply talking out of your hat, making it up as you go. If you want to be taken seriously, try including some historical facts in your posts once in a while.

So, the scripture I shared places scripture over your pope and popes who falsely claimed God has picked them. No servant of God would do the wicked things the popes have done over the centuries.

You haven't posted one single verse of Scripture which supports, defines or demonstrates the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura. If you think you have one, by all means please post it.

It's a good reminder that the first hand-picked disciples of the Incarnate God did wicked things. One betrayed our Blessed Lord, one denied Him thrice and nine others abandoned Him. Only one of the twelve stayed faithful to our Lord to the end. That's a "wicked things" rate of nearly 92% of the hand-picked men our Blessed Lord chose to be His first Apostles. If you are surprised to find a similar rate today, you might want to re-read the Gospels.

 

[utilyan]

Your church just killed millions with no regard for them, as if they were animals. They supported the slave trade to South America and the Caribbean. They supported the hiding of Nazis in Argentina and approved of the slaughter of Jews.
Shall I go on to talk of the pedophile sodomites in your church?

I'm pretty certain the church has killed billions. I'm pretty sure Hitler and Stalin were Catholics We can even credit them with killing Jesus.

But all those wrongs are against church teaching. It doesn't matter if everyone in the church decided to murder someone tomorrow, were looking at the teachings of the church.

 

[Adonia]

Where does Jesus tell us to burn people at the stake, boil them in oil or cast them onto spikes? All three were done by the Roman Church as well as much more. Ultimately the Roman Church leaders have often been puppets of the devil.

You still going back to that stuff to prove what? Like Walpole said, Peter denied Christ 3 times and the other Apostles scattered - those were terrible things that they did to Christ, unforgiveable sins, yet Christ forgave them all.

Ultimately the Roman Church leaders have often been puppets of the devil.

As have been many from your side have been. Not all of them were sinless saints either.

 

[Adonia]

I'm pretty sure Hitler and Stalin were Catholics

They removed themselves from the Church when they sided with the evil one.

 

[atpollard]

Let me rephrase my question in the context of the previous poster's objection to an individual being an authoritative leader and spokesperson for God...

---> Which Apostle does Scripture call the protos?

Let's establish and identify this person and then we can see if this person truly was an authoritative leader and spokesperson for God.

Frankly, I have little problem with Apostolic Authority (which is scriptural) or even with the RESPONSIBILITY of the local church (assembly of believers like the "church at Corinth") to discipline members. Where I see a weaker case is the ability to inherit Apostolic Authority without having Jesus himself appoint one an "Apostle".

[Anticipating the question, yes, I see some problems with 11 men choosing Matthias by lot when God himself later chose Paul and Revelation speaks of 12 Apostles as the foundation of the Holy City. Which Apostle was not part of the foundation ... the one chosen by men or one of the Apostles chosen by God?]

 

[utilyan]

Frankly, I have little problem with Apostolic Authority (which is scriptural) or even with the RESPONSIBILITY of the local church (assembly of believers like the "church at Corinth") to discipline members. Where I see a weaker case is the ability to inherit Apostolic Authority without having Jesus himself appoint one an "Apostle".

[Anticipating the question, yes, I see some problems with 11 men choosing Matthias by lot when God himself later chose Paul and Revelation speaks of 12 Apostles as the foundation of the Holy City. Which Apostle was not part of the foundation ... the one chosen by men or one of the Apostles chosen by God?]

Quoting Paul here:

1 Corinthians 15

3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.


Emphasizing to the twelve rather then to the eleven.

 

[Walpole]

Frankly, I have little problem with Apostolic Authority (which is scriptural) or even with the RESPONSIBILITY of the local church (assembly of believers like the "church at Corinth") to discipline members. Where I see a weaker case is the ability to inherit Apostolic Authority without having Jesus himself appoint one an "Apostle".

[Anticipating the question, yes, I see some problems with 11 men choosing Matthias by lot when God himself later chose Paul and Revelation speaks of 12 Apostles as the foundation of the Holy City. Which Apostle was not part of the foundation ... the one chosen by men or one of the Apostles chosen by God?]

Matthias aside, here is Barnabas being called an Apostle by St. Luke...

Acts 14:14 ---> "Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out"

In my earlier post in this thread, I tried to make the point why Apostolic succession is of the upmost importance. The Christian faith falls without it. Without it, one is not able to know what is or is not the faith of the Church, nor is one able to have valid Sacraments.

It is important to note that neither the Gospels, Pauline epistles, nor the catholic epistles address the issue of a post-Apostolic Church. (One would need to look to history for this.) Thus any appeal strictly to the Scriptures to see how the post-Apostolic Church functioned is simply not possible. However, what the Scriptures do show us is the how the structure of the Apostolic Church functioned, as well as how the Apostles planned for its eventual continuation apart from them.

The Gospels, epistles and personal correspondences which would later be compiled into what we call the New Testament carried weight amongst the early Church because they were tied to the person of an Apostle, which in turn led back to Christ Himself. We see the importance of the personage of the Apostles and a physical pedigree descending from them by the fact that they physically ordained men, “laying on hands,” in order to seal their word and mission to successors as authoritatively connected to them, and through them, back to Christ Himself. The faith does not and never has existed in a vacuum, isolated and cut off from its roots. The very fact that the Scriptures record the ordaining of men to continue their work is indicative of a hierarchical and institutional model; less any man would be free to independently do the mission entrusted to the Apostles by Christ. For example...

Acts 6:6 --> "Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them."

Acts 13:3 --> "And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away."

Acts 14:23 --> "And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed."

1 Tim 4:14 --> "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery."

1 Tim 5:22 --> "Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure."

2 Tim 1:6 --> "Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands."

The reason the Apostles did this was because Apostolic succession ensures right doctrine and valid Sacraments. Without it, you have nothing but a man-made sect. So important is Apostolic succession that the Church's first ecumenical Council, that of Nicea, prescribed strict consecration procedures to ensure valid succession, which is still practiced today..

 

[atpollard]

Emphasizing to the twelve rather then to the eleven.

So who was the TWELFTH. Judas was one of the Twelve before the crucifixion (so Matthias was not) but Judas was dead by the time of the resurrection (so Jesus did not appear to Judas). Mattias was not chosen to replace Judas until after the Ascension, so Mattias was not one of the Twelve when Jesus appeared glorified. Jesus himself DID appoint Paul an Apostle.

I acknowledge that MEN (the Council at Jerusalem led by James, the brother of Jesus) seem to have acknowledged Mattias, their choice, as an Apostle. Paul clearly did not challenge them on the point. Yet HUNDREDS of people saw the Glorified Christ and Paul was an Apostle and John says there are 12 Apostles upon which the House of God is built. I do not have an answer. However I can see a conundrum that defies a simple explanation.

 

[atpollard]

Apostolic succession ensures right doctrine and valid Sacraments. Without it, you have nothing but a man-made sect.

Actually, God himself insures that. If the OT taught us nothing else, it clearly teaches the frailty of humans in institutional authority. Arius had the same pedigree of Apostolic Succession as the rest of the bishops, and the Church still had to fight for orthodoxy. Even "some men from James" caused trouble between Paul and Peter ... so the Apostolic Church was not immune.

However, I generally agree that starting with the APOSTLES as a yardstick to check whether the building is going up straight or starting to lean is invaluable. Good thing we have their writings preserved.

Where things get tricky is when the building leans (like the Renaissance corruption that got out of hand), knowing how much of the building needs to be demolished and rebuilt. The Church of Rome (just to distinguish from EOC) has slowly remodeled one small area at a time. The Lutherans decided that all the interior needed to be gutted, but the structure was still sound and could be reused. Those out-of-control Baptists decided to just tear it all down to the Apostolic foundation and rebuild the whole thing from scratch.

We Baptists have a solid foundation IN CHRIST, but we have sacrificed a lot of beautiful work built over the centuries (and removed some rotting timbers that our Lutheran and Catholic (RCC) brothers still need to peel away the paint and find for themselves. Baptist Churches (local congregations) go astray due to lack of any submission to authority and Catholic Churches (local congregations) get into trouble because of submission to excessive authority. Your Laity needs empowerment as members of the Body of Christ and our Clergy needs accountability to other Clergymen.

 

[Yeshua1]

Matthias aside, here is Barnabas being called an Apostle by St. Luke...

Acts 14:14 ---> "Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out"

In my earlier post in this thread, I tried to make the point why Apostolic succession is of the upmost importance. The Christian faith falls without it. Without it, one is not able to know what is or is not the faith of the Church, nor is one able to have valid Sacraments.

It is important to note that neither the Gospels, Pauline epistles, nor the catholic epistles address the issue of a post-Apostolic Church. (One would need to look to history for this.) Thus any appeal strictly to the Scriptures to see how the post-Apostolic Church functioned is simply not possible. However, what the Scriptures do show us is the how the structure of the Apostolic Church functioned, as well as how the Apostles planned for its eventual continuation apart from them.

The Gospels, epistles and personal correspondences which would later be compiled into what we call the New Testament carried weight amongst the early Church because they were tied to the person of an Apostle, which in turn led back to Christ Himself. We see the importance of the personage of the Apostles and a physical pedigree descending from them by the fact that they physically ordained men, “laying on hands,” in order to seal their word and mission to successors as authoritatively connected to them, and through them, back to Christ Himself. The faith does not and never has existed in a vacuum, isolated and cut off from its roots. The very fact that the Scriptures record the ordaining of men to continue their work is indicative of a hierarchical and institutional model; less any man would be free to independently do the mission entrusted to the Apostles by Christ. For example...

Acts 6:6 --> "Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them."

Acts 13:3 --> "And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away."

Acts 14:23 --> "And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed."

1 Tim 4:14 --> "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery."

1 Tim 5:22 --> "Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure."

2 Tim 1:6 --> "Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands."

The reason the Apostles did this was because Apostolic succession ensures right doctrine and valid Sacraments. Without it, you have nothing but a man-made sect. So important is Apostolic succession that the Church's first ecumenical Council, that of Nicea, prescribed strict consecration procedures to ensure valid succession, which is still practiced today..

There were less and greater Apostles even in beginning of the church, as Barnabus was not seen as being equal to those such as a John or a Paul!
And there was NO Apostolic succession, as the only ones ever chosen for that role were the originals 12 and paul, so when John passed away, Apostles died!

 

[Yeshua1]

So who was the TWELFTH. Judas was one of the Twelve before the crucifixion (so Matthias was not) but Judas was dead by the time of the resurrection (so Jesus did not appear to Judas). Mattias was not chosen to replace Judas until after the Ascension, so Mattias was not one of the Twelve when Jesus appeared glorified. Jesus himself DID appoint Paul an Apostle.

I acknowledge that MEN (the Council at Jerusalem led by James, the brother of Jesus) seem to have acknowledged Mattias, their choice, as an Apostle. Paul clearly did not challenge them on the point. Yet HUNDREDS of people saw the Glorified Christ and Paul was an Apostle and John says there are 12 Apostles upon which the House of God is built. I do not have an answer. However I can see a conundrum that defies a simple explanation.

Paul was the Apostle that replaced Judas, as he was the one sent to the gentiles...

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually, God himself insures that. If the OT taught us nothing else, it clearly teaches the frailty of humans in institutional authority. Arius had the same pedigree of Apostolic Succession as the rest of the bishops, and the Church still had to fight for orthodoxy. Even "some men from James" caused trouble between Paul and Peter ... so the Apostolic Church was not immune.

However, I generally agree that starting with the APOSTLES as a yardstick to check whether the building is going up straight or starting to lean is invaluable. Good thing we have their writings preserved.

Where things get tricky is when the building leans (like the Renaissance corruption that got out of hand), knowing how much of the building needs to be demolished and rebuilt. The Church of Rome (just to distinguish from EOC) has slowly remodeled one small area at a time. The Lutherans decided that all the interior needed to be gutted, but the structure was still sound and could be reused. Those out-of-control Baptists decided to just tear it all down to the Apostolic foundation and rebuild the whole thing from scratch.

We Baptists have a solid foundation IN CHRIST, but we have sacrificed a lot of beautiful work built over the centuries (and removed some rotting timbers that our Lutheran and Catholic (RCC) brothers still need to peel away the paint and find for themselves. Baptist Churches (local congregations) go astray due to lack of any submission to authority and Catholic Churches (local congregations) get into trouble because of submission to excessive authority. Your Laity needs empowerment as members of the Body of Christ and our Clergy needs accountability to other Clergymen.

Christianity is built upon the Rock of jesus Christ, and the theology of the prophets and the Apostles, and there are no more of either sent by God since the passing away of John! The scriptures alone are all that God sent to us for doctrines and practices, and the Holy Spirit Himself brings to us wisdom and understanding about them, not the RCC! That claim RCC makes is exactly same one the JW makes, about being only sure interpreter!

 

[Particular]

Quoting Paul here:

1 Corinthians 15

3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.


Emphasizing to the twelve rather then to the eleven.

You realize Paul is talking about the Passover meal, the last supper, where Judas was present...the 12 disciples. Or were you unaware?

 

[atpollard]

Christianity is built upon the Rock of Jesus Christ, and the theology of the prophets and the Apostles, and there are no more of either sent by God since the passing away of John! The scriptures alone are all that God sent to us for doctrines and practices, and the Holy Spirit Himself brings to us wisdom and understanding about them, not the RCC! That claim RCC makes is exactly same one the JW makes, about being only sure interpreter!

Quoting the Baptist "Party Line" I see.

Be honest though, don't you just cringe inside what some "XYZ Baptist Church" decides to 'honor God' by disrupting a funeral and harassing people trying to bury their son? I do. Or when I attend a parade and some 'Church' marches up and down the sidewalk with a bullhorn telling everyone that they are all going to hell and quoting verses about tattoos to people that they see ... I like to shout counter verses to point out that THEY are misusing the word. We really could use an Apostle to sit some 'pastors' down and have a talk with them. Until God decides to send another Apostle, we could at least try and be accountable to each other.

For all of its flaws, you have to admit that the RCC does have a mechanism to deal with Priests gone rogue. They have OTHER problems, but they have a solution for that one.

 

[atpollard]

Paul was the Apostle that replaced Judas, as he was the one sent to the gentiles...

That is my opinion also, but it is not absolutely certain from scripture that Matthias did not count as an Apostle.
Revelation is a dangerous foundation to start building from (where it says definitively 12 apostles).

 

[Yeshua1]

Quoting the Baptist "Party Line" I see.

Be honest though, don't you just cringe inside what some "XYZ Baptist Church" decides to 'honor God' by disrupting a funeral and harassing people trying to bury their son? I do. Or when I attend a parade and some 'Church' marches up and down the sidewalk with a bullhorn telling everyone that they are all going to hell and quoting verses about tattoos to people that they see ... I like to shout counter verses to point out that THEY are misusing the word. We really could use an Apostle to sit some 'pastors' down and have a talk with them. Until God decides to send another Apostle, we could at least try and be accountable to each other.

For all of its flaws, you have to admit that the RCC does have a mechanism to deal with Priests gone rogue. They have OTHER problems, but they have a solution for that one.

I was just referring to where we get our theology from, and those cases you mentioned are those misusing that biblical theology!

 

[Yeshua1]

That is my opinion also, but it is not absolutely certain from scripture that Matthias did not count as an Apostle.
Revelation is a dangerous foundation to start building from (where it says definitively 12 apostles).

I see him in same light as a barnabus, as an Apostle, but in a lessor use of that term!

 

[Particular]

There were non-apostles whom God inspired to write his word, such as Luke. No Apostolic Succession needed. God chooses whom He wills. He doesn't pass it down via some smoke out of a chimney.

People who fight over succession are Muslims. Shiite's and Sunni's, in particular, have been fighting for over 1000 years regarding succession. In Christianity, God chooses his Prophets and Teachers. Look at all of scripture and you see this pattern.

 

[Yeshua1]

There were non-apostles whom God inspired to write his word, such as Luke. No Apostolic Succession needed. God chooses whom He wills. He doesn't pass it down via some smoke out of a chimney.

People who fight over succession are Muslims. Shiite's and Sunni's, in particular, have been fighting for over 1000 years regarding succession. In Christianity, God chooses his Prophets and Teachers. Look at all of scripture and you see this pattern.

One of the major tests for canon scripture was was it written by an Apostle directly, or else someone connected to one? mark under shadow of peter, Luke under that of Paul!

 

[utilyan]

You realize Paul is talking about the Passover meal, the last supper, where Judas was present...the 12 disciples. Or were you unaware?

So you think Jesus had the last supper AFTER being buried and resurrected?

Please read it carefully .


We can keep showing more of the context to reveal in detail the order of events.

1 Corinthians 15

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.


You think Jesus had the last supper AFTER being buried and resurrected?

Where do you see the word supper?