Independent Baptist vs Eastern Orthodox Church - What's the difference?

[AustinC]

“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.

It seems the succession of the Orthodox Church went the way of Hymenaeus and Alexander...

The New Testament documents cannot administer the Sacraments.

In fact what does the New Testament documents call the “New Testament”?

Any believer in Christ can administer communion and baptism, the only two valid ordinances in scripture.
All are the priesthood of believers.
This also means that the believers in Christ make up the succession, not a godless church building led by godless church leaders as we see in many Orthodox and RC churches.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

I think the comparison between Independent Baptist and EO isn't really possible unless it's on a Church-by-Church basis on the Independent Baptist side. SBC vs EO would be better.

I know Independent Baptist Churches that have women as Pastors, I know some that hold to Landmarkism, some that hold to strict separation of their Church from other Churches, others that hold to moderate separation.

One Independent Baptist (like myself) might tell you that he thinks most other Protestant Denominations are legitimate, while another may say they aren't legitimate because of secondary doctrinal issues, and another may say that nobody, even other Baptists, are legitimate unless they use the KJV Only.

 

[Mikey]

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.

Doesn't the Anglican Church (eg. Church of England) not have Apostolic succession?

 

[Cathode]

Doesn't the Anglican Church (eg. Church of England) not have Apostolic succession?

They don’t have valid ordination according to the ancient formula. Once they stopped using the ancient formula the succession was broken, and invalid.

 

[Salty]

They don’t have valid ordination according to the ancient formula. Once they stopped using the ancient formula the succession was broken, and invalid.

Your answer is that of the RCC - correct?

And now Anglicans - what say you?
What is Apostolic Succession, Anyway? - Anglican Compass

 

[Cathode]

It seems the succession of the Orthodox Church went the way of Hymenaeus and Alexander...

No, they still have valid ordination.

Any believer in Christ can administer communion and baptism, the only two valid ordinances in scripture.
All are the priesthood of believers.
This also means that the believers in Christ make up the succession, not a godless church building led by godless church leaders as we see in many Orthodox and RC churches.

That’s not how the church in the scripture was run.

Baptist churches and Protestant churches generally run on democratic principles, where the people can vote a pastor in or out, which is totally unscriptural. The Church in scripture we see people like Titus and Timothy apostolically appointed in their churches and were authorised to teach and reprove with all Authority. And through the laying on of hands appoint others.

“Do not be too quick in the laying on of hands and thereby share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure. “ 1Timothy 5:22

Only those who Timothy could thoroughly vouch for should be ordained by the laying on of hands. Otherwise he has to account for ordaining unsound men.

The Church in scripture wasn’t a democracy, Baptist and Protestant churches aren’t governed like the early Church which clearly shows Apostolic succession.

Once Protestantism rejected the ancient Apostolic succession, they became traditions of men with only human authority ( democratic vote of the people ), not Apostolic appointments with Divine authority through the laying on of hands.

Protestantism founded countless unscriptural democratic traditions of men, that are absolutely hostile to the scripturally and divinely appointed authority figures through the laying on of hands.

Could you vote out Timothy or Titus and argue with them on doctrine and vote on doctrine. No, they have Divinely appointed Authority over you by the laying on of hands and they could condemn you in this life and the next.
You argue with Timothy and Titus you were arguing with the Apostles and Christ.

That’s why a thread about a certain Baptist church recently and it’s governance issues with a popular pastor came to mind. It talked about non competition contracts and non detraction contracts and payment contracts, all enforced by secular authorities.
Voting and the popularity of the charismatic pastor.

This all smacks of a completely human institution and tradition. Do you see these issues arising in Timothy and Titus churches, no.

“Teach and reprove with all Authority, let no man despise you”

These were top down Apostolic and divinely ordained appointments through the laying on of hands. Not human contracts and human enforcement to secular authorities. Nor was it about popularity and democratic grass roots voting of the people.

If Timothy and Titus weren’t popular, tough luck, if you didn’t like what they were teaching, tough luck.

 

[Cathode]

Your answer is that of the RCC - correct?

And now Anglicans - what say you?
What is Apostolic Succession, Anyway? - Anglican Compass

Yes as far as I know generally. There are instances of valid ordination due to the correct formula being used in the Anglican Church, but that I think was an exception. Not sure on the details though.

 

[Cathode]

The Apostles are the Christ appointed rulers of the Church and they do this through their successors.

“Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: ‘I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.” Cyprian, To the Lapsed, 1 (A.D. 250).

There are no democratic appointments of the people, only Apostolic appointments in scripture and history.

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

 

[Squire Robertsson]

My question is:

Did the spokeman make a clear and objctive presentation?​

 

[Mikey]

They don’t have valid ordination according to the ancient formula. Once they stopped using the ancient formula the succession was broken, and invalid.

of course, the super secret ancient formula

 

[Mikey]

Youtube Channel: The Ten Minute Bible Hour

 

[Cathode]

of course, the super secret ancient formula

There’s nothing secret about as I recall, but there is a procedure for validity.

It’s not just a chain of custody as Salty’s anglican link suggests, but it is also the chain of Authority.

“And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

Apostle means, “sent one”. We see it numerous times in scripture.

Timothy and Titus had Apostolic Authority, they weren’t self appointed and they weren’t voted in by the community. They were Apostolically appointed and Apostolically sent.

A human appointed authority can be voted in or out, but not Apostolic Authority.

I see these dudes on tv sometimes, I rarely watch tv. Creflo Dollar was one, Joel Olsteen was another. These self appointed dudes are the net result of rejecting Apostolic Succession.
It’s a commercial corporation not a church, the self aggrandising sliminess of the whole thing is breathtaking.
I don’t sense Jesus in their preaching, I have a sense of horror in fact. And a great sense of Woe and dread for them. It is hard to describe. I can’t believe there are people who take these clowns seriously.

 

[Mikey]

There’s nothing secret about as I recall, but there is a procedure for validity.

It’s not just a chain of custody as Salty’s anglican link suggests, but it is also the chain of Authority.

“And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

Apostle means, “sent one”. We see it numerous times in scripture.

Timothy and Titus had Apostolic Authority, they weren’t self appointed and they weren’t voted in by the community. They were Apostolically appointed and Apostolically sent.

A human appointed authority can be voted in or out, but not Apostolic Authority.

I see these dudes on tv sometimes, I rarely watch tv. Creflo Dollar was one, Joel Olsteen was another. These self appointed dudes are the net result of rejecting Apostolic Succession.
It’s a commercial corporation not a church, the self aggrandising sliminess of the whole thing is breathtaking.
I don’t sense Jesus in their preaching, I have a sense of horror in fact. And a great sense of Woe and dread for them. It is hard to describe. I can’t believe there are people who take these clowns seriously.

And what is this formula?

 

[Campion]

There are no Sacraments according to the New Testament documents of the first century churches.

Incorrect. In fact the New Testament Scriptures actually calls one sacrament explicitly a sacrament.

. . . καινη διαθηκη . . . .

It calls the Eucharist the New Testament (or New Covenant):

Matthew 26:26-28
Mark 14:22-24
Luke 22:19-20
1 Corinthians 11:23-25 (Paul quoting Jesus)

Hence the books read during the celebration of the Eucharist came to be called the New Testament books.

 

[Campion]

It seems the succession of the Orthodox Church went the way of Hymenaeus and Alexander...


Any believer in Christ can administer communion and baptism, the only two valid ordinances in scripture.
All are the priesthood of believers.
This also means that the believers in Christ make up the succession, not a godless church building led by godless church leaders as we see in many Orthodox and RC churches.

The Orthodox Church most assuredly has valid orders because they have valid Apostolic succession.

And no, not every believer automatically has Apostolic succession. One has to receive it validly. Here is Scripture demonstrating it in practice:

Acts 6:6

Acts 13:3

Acts 14:23

1 Tim 4:14

1 Tim 5:22

2 Tim 1:6


We see this also in practice at the very first Ecumenical council of the Church at the Council of Nicea, where the dogma of the Trinity was defined and defended. It is in Canon 4 and this practice to ensure a valid Apostolic succession is still practiced today in the Church.

 

[37818]

Incorrect. In fact the New Testament Scriptures actually calls one sacrament explicitly a sacrament.

False teachings.

It calls the Eucharist the New Testament (or New Covenant):

Matthew 26:26-28
Mark 14:22-24
Luke 22:19-20
1 Corinthians 11:23-25 (Paul quoting Jesus)

Hence the books read during the celebration of the Eucharist came to be called the New Testament books.

It is a remembrance. Not anything more. Typically Baptists refer to it as an ordinance and refer to it as the Lord's Supper. And is understood to be symbolic.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is not intended to be a place where the EOC is defended as being the right way of doing things. So, I am closing it.