Posted on 01/02/2012 9:00:25 PM PST by RnMomof7
I love what Peter himself wrote:
“Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrises, and envies, and all evil speakings, As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To who coming, as unto a living stone, diallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold I lay in Sion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe He is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner. And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.” (1 Peter 2:1-8)
In 2 Peter 3:18 Peter exorts us to:
“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be glory both now and forever. Amen.”
I like you reference to 1 John chapter 4: It teaches us (believers) about the family(God’s family) and the world.
We as children are warned against false teachers, and
those that confess Jesus Christ; and those that confess not.
Verse 4 says: “Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world.”
Yes 1 John is a great chapter clearly written us who belong to the heavenly Father.
For evidence, just look at the great number of books in the Canon written by Matthias. (Doh!!!!)
Doesn't God make all of His great decisions by drawing lots? /s
Yeah, just like he selected Paul too.
Real loser decision there. Least of the apostles.
He didn’t select Paul by lots.
If he had he would have had a better apostle.
Do they get ranked by the word?
IIRC Acts has a very good example of what happens when men choose who is to take the place of an apostle. I think his name was Mathias. Never heard from again. Pray to God never to be chosen by men!
Even then in the appointment process they couldn’t discern God’s choice so after praying;they “cast lots and the lot fell to Matthias”. In the end they left it to God!(Acts chapter 1)
I find this “casting of lots” story in the discussion of apostolic succession a kind of 800 pound gorilla no one talks about! (like it was some type of evil “gambling” or something)
It might solve a lot of church conflicts if both sides of a situation pray and fast then cast lots over the issue...then abide by the results!
I disagree, when there is no clear consensus and both sides have prayed and fasted, the casting of lots leaves room for God to move; that is where there is strong agreement and faith on all sides to abide with the results of the lots cast.
The doctrine of apostolic succession appears to have begun primarily with Irenaeus in the late second century A.D. It was begun, not as a means of establishing a line of authoritative fellowship, but as illustrating a line of authoritative orthodoxy. It was begun as an argument against Gnosticism in Irenaeus’ classic work Against Heresies. Indeed, it proved to be the fatal blow against Gnosticism. Irenaeus’ argument, which the Gnostics could not counter, went thusly: We know of several congregations that were established by apostles, and we know who the bishops (or elders) of those congregations were from their time until now. None of those men ever taught the doctrines of Gnosticism. Therefore, Gnosticism is not an apostolic doctrine.
This line of thinking was later expanded by others in the third century, particularly Cyprian, to contend that those who were outside of this unbroken line of fellowship from the first century were not to be accepted as Christians even if they were orthodox in belief and practice.
Side notes: Irenaeus refers at times to a succession of bishops, and at other times to a succession of elders (or presbyters). At the time of Irenaeus there was a gradual change taking place in which the twofold offices of the New Testament period—bishops (also known as elders) and deacons—began to transition into the threefold offices of later times: bishops, elders, and deacons.
Cyprian (mid third century), although he argued for restricting fellowship to those within the line of succession, and was a proponent of the elevation of the office of bishop above that of elder, still did not ascribe to the later, more expanded versions of church government in which archbishops exercised authority over bishops beneath them, nor of a “universal bishop”. On one occassion he said:
“For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.” (Cyprian, in the Seventh Council of Carthage)
For a survey of the development of church government in the first and century centuries, see my posts on the following thread, especially post #23:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2827609/posts?page=21
No succession is therefore possible. No on can meet those requirements.
No replacement was chosen when a few years later the apostle James was killed leaving only eleven apostles.
You wrote:
“I’m a Messianic Jew. Do I count?”
Toward what?
“I mean Yashua being Jewish and all.”
Since Jesus released us from the ceremonial law, does it matter?
“Rome took over and look what happened.”
The then known world was converted. Yes, and?
“I’ve read the history of the popes.”
No, you probably just read about a few bad ones. Almost no one has read the history of the popes. If you have noyt read all of Ludwig Pastor, then your claim of having read the history of the popes is false.
“And that church history. But then, there was Luther.”
Just like that? See, you could not have read the history of the Church then!
You have a problem with that scenario. Unless you believe that all priests are in that line of “apostolic succession” your line of succession died off. Each Pope does not appoint his own successor. Each Pope is selected by those who have not been Pope so would not have been in the “line of succession”. After the original Apostles died the Popes of the CC have been appointed by others not in that line.
The idea that the selection of Matthias as the Apostle to replace Judas was somehow out of line, out of order, impermissable, "not what God wanted," etc., is also not found in Scripture. It's a rather bizarre Protestant "tradition of men" which nullifies the Word of God.
Incidentally, 2 Tim 2:2 clearly implies apostolic succession. Who do you think ordained the first generation of episcopoi in the Church? Do you think they ordained themselves? Hardly; in fact, Paul specifically talks about the authority he conferred on Timothy through the laying-on of hands.
A conundrum it seems. No other apostles (according to them) had the authority. They can’t show where Peter gave that authority to another but in any case when a Pope dies he has not appointed his successor so in order for the line to continue they must believe that others have the authority to give that right to another. “o what a tangled web we weave”.
Bishops don't report to archbishops in the Catholic church; bishops report directly to the Pope.
You do know that the pope is the Bishop of Rome, right?
“Apostolic succession” does not mean that bishops are apostles. The office of “apostle” no longer exists in the church militant on earth. What it means is that bishops derive their authority from the apostles through a chain of valid episcopal ordinations.
So you now know who the next Pope will be?
I know he will be a he and have been a priest through the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
This relates to Apostolic Succession, how?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.