From Ready to Harvest:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Independent Baptist vs Eastern Orthodox Church - What's the difference?
- Thread starter Squire Robertsson
- Start date
- Status
One has Apostolic succession and therefore valid sacraments and the other does not. Thus one was founded by Christ and the other by someone who lived over a millennium later.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Oh boy, here we go with the Apostolic succession nonsense which is not even real first of all, and second is not based on Scripture.
Timothy, Titus easily spotted in scripture. Apostolic successors.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
And there is zero evidence your leaders had a complete line of succession AND there is no mandate of that in Scripture.
Oh boy, Apostolic succession ensures right doctrine and valid Sacraments. It is therefore tge antidote to pagan rites and unscriptural doctrine.
2 Timothy 2:2 ---> "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."
Apostolic succession in practice ---> Paul ---> to Timothy ---> to future generations
No Apostolic succession = A man made religion
Well we know there are no Apostolic successors in Protestantism and it’s offshoots, it was was the first thing they rejected at the reformation.
It was all self appointment leadership based on human opinion, without Apostolic Authority.
The Ancient Churches Catholic and Orthodox all maintain Apostolic Succession through the Laying on of Hands.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
No such thing as biblically mandated Apostolic Succession (or authority) seeing as how there are no longer any apostles.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
We know that is a load of hogwash seeing as how far from Scripture those traditions go.
“Say these things and teach and reprove with all authority. Let no man despise you.” Titus 2:15
No such thing as self appointed leadership we see in human founded traditions in Protestantism, Titus was sent with all Authority.
When Paul died you listened to Titus and Timothy, and the ones they appointed to succeed them.
Apostolic succession is all through scripture, you just don’t want to see it.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Nope just abuses of Scripture. We do just fine without Catholic and EOC nonsense.
Let me help you out here
All of 2nd century Christian writers stated that the Apostleship was no longer an office in the Church. And that it had died out with the last of the true Apostles of Jesus
Odd reply given that Scripture itself testifies it was written...from tradition. (Luke 1)
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Um, not the same thing.
Let me help you out here.
Here are Christian writers before the end of the 2nd century affirming and defending Apostolic succession...
Clement in 80 A.D.: “Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3)
Hegesippus in 180 A.D.: “When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord.” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22).
Irenaeus in 189 A.D.: “It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about.” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).
“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (ibid., 3:3:4).
“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
“t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2).
“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere.” (ibid., 4:33:8).
Well, maybe not Protestants - but there are Baptist who take "The Trail of Blood" which speaks of the Bible promises that the churches Christ established would continue until His return .... Scripture teaches what is called the Landmark Baptist view of church succession, -https://kentbrandenburg.com/2022/02/18/defense-trail-of-blood-james-m-carroll/
37818
Well-Known Member
The only genuine Apostolic succession are the New Testament documents themselves.
The New Testament documents cannot administer the Sacraments.
In fact what does the New Testament documents call the “New Testament”?
Brilliant rebuttal. You convinced me historical Christianity is wrong and you are right.
37818
Well-Known Member
There are no Sacraments according to the New Testament documents of the first century churches.
. . . καινη διαθηκη . . . .
- Status