Come on, be objective, honest, and admit that Matthew 16:18 is about saint Peter.

[Lanman87]

Following the Word of God through prophecy tells me that the Bible is not inerrant. The Bible was assembled by men and men have said it is inerrant. I have found no word of God proving them to be right.

Then my post was correct

"Great, another person who thinks that the New Testament, in its current form, that was/is affirmed by a consensus of Christians throughout history, is wrong."

Inerrancy is without error. If you believe it has errors then you believe it is wrong.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Then my post was correct

"Great, another person who thinks that the New Testament, in its current form, that was/is affirmed by a consensus of Christians throughout history, is wrong."

Inerrancy is without error. If you believe it has errors then you believe it is wrong.

If your point is that the New Testament is the word of God then you and your stated consensus are wrong. If you are "Great, another person who thinks" that the inspired words of men are the word of God, then for you and your consensus the New Testament is right. But that opens up a can of worms because God didn't assemble the New Testament, men did. Men CHOSE what was the word of God and how do you know that the specific group of men who assembled the New Testament were right? But you say they are right because history and a consensus has believed it!

But what's to stop a new consensus from revising the Bible and assembling other inspired words to be the word of God? Nothing!!! In addition, in the past, there used to be a consensus that the pope and the Catholic leaders words were the word of God. But the Catholics don't have a consensus any more so I guess the word of God has changed for the consensus, but those who are Catholic still believe. Having inspired words of men as the word of God means that the Catholics, Muslims, Mormon and other factions have their own word of God--they are all right too--they just might not currently have the consensus that you deem necessary. But if they have a consensus in the future are you going to follow them too?

 

[Lanman87]

If your point is that the New Testament is the word of God then you and your stated consensus are wrong.

That is all I needed to know.

Men CHOSE what was the word of God and how do you know that the specific group of men who assembled the New Testament were right? But you say they are right because history and a consensus has believed it!

Because I believe that God is sovereign and was able to deliver His written word to mankind and God enable His people to hear His voice. And that His people recognized His voice and, through a process, ultimately chose the books God preordained to be chosen.

And that consensus and universal acceptance by His people are signs that His will was done.

But what's to stop a new consensus from revising the Bible and assembling other inspired words to be the word of God?

God Himself is able to stop a new consensus. That is why people like you, who question the work of God in revealing the Word of God, will never change which books are accepted by Christians as the Word of God.

You must believe in a mighty weak God if your God can't provide and protect His message to His people.

Ultimately, acceptance of the New Testament as the Word of God is a matter of faith. But it is faith in God, not faith in man.

 

[JustTheFacts]

That is all I needed to know.

I knew that from the start.

Because I believe that God is sovereign and was able to deliver His written word to mankind and God enable His people to hear His voice. And that His people recognized His voice and, through a process, ultimately chose the books God preordained to be chosen.

Deuteronomy law requirements and the words of Jesus prove the Gospels, Revelation, and letters from John were preordained from God, but you are certain on the other New Testament documentation so you must have some evidence to present To validate your belief.

And that consensus and universal acceptance by His people are signs that His will was done.

Hahaha, again, what word of Gos supports this?

God Himself is able to stop a new consensus. That is why people like you, who question the work of God in revealing the Word of God, will never change which books are accepted by Christians as the Word of God.

You must believe in a mighty weak God if your God can't provide and protect His message to His people.

Ultimately, acceptance of the New Testament as the Word of God is a matter of faith. But it is faith in God, not faith in man.

I know the word of God, I don’t question it. I just done believe the stuff you claim is the word of God passes the smell test. You keep making claims and I keep asking for evidence. Do you understand what evidence is? Things are not true simply because you believe them to be.

 

[Lanman87]

Deuteronomy law requirements

Where is your proof the Deuteronomy is the Word of God and the Law given is the Law given by God? It was a book written and chosen by men, who claimed it is the word of God.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Where is your proof the Deuteronomy is the Word of God and the Law given is the Law given by God? It was a book written and chosen by men, who claimed it is the word of God.

Moses claimed that God spoke to him:

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM,” and he said, “You shall tell the children of Israel this: I AM has sent me to you.” (Exodus 3:14 –WEB)

Moses wrote that God described himself with the words, “I AM,” and with this as the description of God, Jesus claimed to be God:

Jesus said to them, “Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM.” (John 8:58)

Jesus validated himself equal to God through that description. Just so there is no debate about Jesus proclaiming himself to be God, Jesus clearly stated it:

“I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)

The religious leaders knew Jesus claimed to be stating he was God because the penalty for blasphemy—claiming to be God, was death:

Therefore the Jews took up stones again to stone him. (John 10:31)

John wrote that Jesus spoke the word of God and was God. As God, Jesus was certainly able to validate anyone else who is designated to be able to speak for God.

Jesus confirmed the words of Moses as the word of God:

For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me. But if you don’t believe his writings, how will you believe my words. (John 5:46-47)

The religious leaders in the days of Jesus studied the words of Moses and the OT prophets and believed them to be the word of God. Jesus claimed that Moses spoke the word of God because Moses wrote about Jesus. Moses predicted that God would send Jesus to the world:

Yahweh said to me, “They have well said that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brothers, like you. I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. It shall happen, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. (Deuteronomy 18:17-19)

Moses was told that God will speak through Jesus, called a prophet here, and God will require people to heed the word of God through Jesus. As Jesus stated, those who listen and follow the word of God through Jesus will have eternal life, but those who reject Jesus’ words will have the wrath of God poured out on them. Jesus validated himself as this prophet.

God then told Moses that false prophets will come who will claim to be speaking for God:

But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.” (Deuteronomy 18:20)

The words of false prophets are words of death and destruction. The words of false prophets will bring death even for themselves. Then God informed Moses how to separate false prophets from prophets sent by God:

You may say in your heart, “How shall we know the word which Yahweh has not spoken?” When a prophet speaks in Yahweh’s name, if the thing doesn’t follow, nor happen, that is the thing which Yahweh has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You shall not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:21-22)

God told him Moses that he spoke the word of God because he told the world about Jesus, and this ability to speak for God is extended to other prophets that predict the future presence and arrival of Jesus. Prophets who predict that Jesus will come have been sent by God because God will send Jesus as the proof. Only prophets who are proven to predict Jesus have been sent by God.

We can separate false prophets from prophets sent by God through proven predictions of the details of Jesus arrival and mission. Prophets who accurately predicted the details of the Messiah Jesus that have been proven to come true were sent by God and therefore spoke for God. For example, here are several prophets described in the OT that accurately predicted the coming of a Messiah from God—at least according to what has been documented in the Gospels:

• Isaiah 7:14 – from the house of David, “the virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Matthew 1:18-23)
• Micah 5:2 – “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, being small among the clans of Judah, out of you one will come out to me that is to be the ruler in Israel” (Matthew 2:1)
• Zechariah 12:10 – “I will pour on David’s house, and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication, and they will look to me, whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and will grieve bitterly for him, as one grieves for his firstborn.” (John 19:34-37)
• Hosea 11:1 – “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” (Matthew 2:13-15)
• Psalm 22:18 – “They divide my garments among them. They cast lost for my clothing.” (John 19:23-24)
• Malachi 3:1 – “Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me; and the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, behold, he comes!” says Yahweh of Armies. (Matthew 11:4-10)

Jesus also validated the OT prophets as speaking for God as long as they spoke about Jesus:

It is written in the prophets, ‘They will all be taught by God.’ (Isaiah 54:13) Therefore everyone who hears from the Father and has learned, comes to me. (John 6:45)

In summary, from the documentation in the Bible and proven through the documentation of Jesus in the Gospels we learn that Jesus, Moses, and prophets who predicted the coming of Jesus have all spoken for God. But this is true only if Jesus is proven as the Messiah that was predicted by Moses and the OT Prophets.

 

[Lanman87]

The religious leaders in the days of Jesus studied the words of Moses and the OT prophets and believed them to be the word of God.

And the Christian religious leaders in the 1st and 2nd Century and 3rd centuries, right up today, believe the New Testament is the word of God. We know this because the earliest Christians quoted and taught the New Testament text, even before a "canon" became the universally accepted writings for all the church.

We have more, older, and better preserved copies and fragments of the New Testament than any other books in history. During the first three centuries after the establishment of Christianity, all of the books in our New Testament were copied and sent to the churches throughout the known world and used as authoritative text and considered Holy Scripture. That is why we have so many ancient copies and why so many of the copies have very little difference in text. A few books, the The Shepherd of Hermas for one, was accepted in a few churches early on, but was ultimately rejected by the church at large and never rose to the level of "canon".

You are basically saying that you have "special knowledge" about the Holy Scriptures that show what the People of God have always accepted is false. Anytime someone claims to have "special knowledge" it means they either have an overinflated opinion of themselves and think their contrary understanding makes them special, are a troll just trying to get a reaction out of Christians, or they have been influenced by Satan in an attempt to bring confusion to the body of Christ.

@MoreCoffee sorry to hijack your thread but I always find it imperative to defend the Holy Scriptures against any who would seek to alter or negate them.

 

[Lanman87]

Saint Peter was called to feed Christ's sheep. His successors are also called to feed the sheep of God.

I would argue that all who are called to be pastors of a local church is a successor of Peters.

Christ was basically calling Peter to be a Shepherd/Pastor of the church. However, as the church grew other pastors/elders grew up from the church. These were men set aside to lead local congregations. They were to care for the flock under their care.

11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, Eph 4:11 NIV

11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds[a] and teachers,[b] Eph 4:11 ESV


In the 1st Century church the role of Bishop/Elder/Shepherd were all the same role. In the Didache, it says that the person in this role was appointed by the local church. (much like modern Congregationalist) It wasn't until later than the role of Bishop was elevated and the role of priest added to the government of the church. We see the first references to this Ignatius of Antioch. Who, for whatever reason, departed from the Biblical model of two offices as seen in the New Testament. Most historians believe it took a while for the three office model to become the standard church government in the metropolitan churches. Most likely it came from practical necessity (having a single representative of all the local churches in a metro area) instead of from apostolic teaching/instruction.

At any rate, Christ was calling Peter to be an under-Shepherd for the "flock" as Christ (The good Shepherd) was going away. As the church grew Christ has continued to call people to be under-Shepherds to feed and protect his "sheep" (the people of God).

Anyone who is given and accepts the call to be a Pastor/Shepherd/Elder/Bishop has the same call to "Feed my sheep" that Peter was given. Be it a Catholic Priest or a Pastor of a Baptist Church. Wherever the people of God gather, they need a Spirit Filled, God Called, Kingdom Seeking, Loving, Kind, and Humble pastor.

And in a certain sense, we are all Peters successors. While we may not having the specific calling and gift of being a Pastor we are still called to minister to each other, encourage each other, serve each other, and proclaim the gospel to those around us. We all possess the Keys to the Kingdom, which is Christ and His Gospel message which grants acceptance, adoption, forgiveness,and eternal life to all who enter into the Kingdom of God by Faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Moses claimed that God spoke to him:

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM,” and he said, “You shall tell the children of Israel this: I AM has sent me to you.” (Exodus 3:14 –WEB)

Moses wrote that God described himself with the words, “I AM,” and with this as the description of God, Jesus claimed to be God:

Jesus said to them, “Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM.” (John 8:58)

Jesus validated himself equal to God through that description. Just so there is no debate about Jesus proclaiming himself to be God, Jesus clearly stated it:

“I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)

The religious leaders knew Jesus claimed to be stating he was God because the penalty for blasphemy—claiming to be God, was death:

Therefore the Jews took up stones again to stone him. (John 10:31)

John wrote that Jesus spoke the word of God and was God. As God, Jesus was certainly able to validate anyone else who is designated to be able to speak for God.

Jesus confirmed the words of Moses as the word of God:

For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me. But if you don’t believe his writings, how will you believe my words. (John 5:46-47)

The religious leaders in the days of Jesus studied the words of Moses and the OT prophets and believed them to be the word of God. Jesus claimed that Moses spoke the word of God because Moses wrote about Jesus. Moses predicted that God would send Jesus to the world:

Yahweh said to me, “They have well said that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brothers, like you. I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. It shall happen, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. (Deuteronomy 18:17-19)

Moses was told that God will speak through Jesus, called a prophet here, and God will require people to heed the word of God through Jesus. As Jesus stated, those who listen and follow the word of God through Jesus will have eternal life, but those who reject Jesus’ words will have the wrath of God poured out on them. Jesus validated himself as this prophet.

God then told Moses that false prophets will come who will claim to be speaking for God:

But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.” (Deuteronomy 18:20)

The words of false prophets are words of death and destruction. The words of false prophets will bring death even for themselves. Then God informed Moses how to separate false prophets from prophets sent by God:

You may say in your heart, “How shall we know the word which Yahweh has not spoken?” When a prophet speaks in Yahweh’s name, if the thing doesn’t follow, nor happen, that is the thing which Yahweh has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You shall not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:21-22)

God told him Moses that he spoke the word of God because he told the world about Jesus, and this ability to speak for God is extended to other prophets that predict the future presence and arrival of Jesus. Prophets who predict that Jesus will come have been sent by God because God will send Jesus as the proof. Only prophets who are proven to predict Jesus have been sent by God.

We can separate false prophets from prophets sent by God through proven predictions of the details of Jesus arrival and mission. Prophets who accurately predicted the details of the Messiah Jesus that have been proven to come true were sent by God and therefore spoke for God. For example, here are several prophets described in the OT that accurately predicted the coming of a Messiah from God—at least according to what has been documented in the Gospels:

• Isaiah 7:14 – from the house of David, “the virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Matthew 1:18-23)
• Micah 5:2 – “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, being small among the clans of Judah, out of you one will come out to me that is to be the ruler in Israel” (Matthew 2:1)
• Zechariah 12:10 – “I will pour on David’s house, and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication, and they will look to me,whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and will grieve bitterly for him, as one grieves for his firstborn.” (John 19:34-37)
• Hosea 11:1 – “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” (Matthew 2:13-15)
• Psalm 22:18 – “They divide my garments among them. They cast lost for my clothing.” (John 19:23-24)
• Malachi 3:1 – “Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me; and the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, behold, he comes!” says Yahweh of Armies. (Matthew 11:4-10)

Jesus also validated the OT prophets as speaking for God as long as they spoke about Jesus:

It is written in the prophets, ‘They will all be taught by God.’ (Isaiah 54:13) Therefore everyone who hears from the Father and has learned, comes to me. (John 6:45)

In summary, from the documentation in the Bible and proven through the documentation of Jesus in the Gospels we learn that Jesus, Moses, and prophets who predicted the coming of Jesus have all spoken for God. But this is true only if Jesus is proven as the Messiah that was predicted by Moses and the OT Prophets.

And the Christian religious leaders in the 1st and 2nd Century and 3rd centuries, right up today, believe the New Testament is the word of God. We know this because the earliest Christians quoted and taught the New Testament text, even before a "canon" became the universally accepted writings for all the church.

We have more, older, and better preserved copies and fragments of the New Testament than any other books in history. During the first three centuries after the establishment of Christianity, all of the books in our New Testament were copied and sent to the churches throughout the known world and used as authoritative text and considered Holy Scripture. That is why we have so many ancient copies and why so many of the copies have very little difference in text. A few books, the The Shepherd of Hermas for one, was accepted in a few churches early on, but was ultimately rejected by the church at large and never rose to the level of "canon".

You are basically saying that you have "special knowledge" about the Holy Scriptures that show what the People of God have always accepted is false. Anytime someone claims to have "special knowledge" it means they either have an overinflated opinion of themselves and think their contrary understanding makes them special, are a troll just trying to get a reaction out of Christians, or they have been influenced by Satan in an attempt to bring confusion to the body of Christ.

@MoreCoffee sorry to hijack your thread but I always find it imperative to defend the Holy Scriptures against any who would seek to alter or negate them.

You keep arguing that the New Testament has to be the word of God because everyone believed in the past and still believes it to be. But you ignore prophecy and the words of Jesus warning about false teachers. You also ignore the words of John stating that the Church has been taken over by antichrists. Then you accuse me of having "special knowledge" about the scriptures when all I do is my job I had for thirty years--investigate and report my findings. I had a reputation of being dependable to find and report the truth and for the last five years I've been working for God.

I reference only scripture, but you have yet to prove to me that anything I've interpreted and concluded is counter to having faith in Jesus. I get that it's hard to leave all the theology behind and focus on the word of God through Jesus and the OT prophets. At the start I had a difficult time focusing on just the evidence presented in the Bible. I call the Bible the evidence package because I've been through all the documentation I could locate to search for other evidence and found none.

Consider the difference between us. I am defending the words of Jesus as eyewitness testimony. I'm also defending the OT prophets that God selected to talk for him. I am not defending the words of other men to be the word of God, but you are--without anything to support I might add except claims that everyone else believes it to be. If I came out of one of my investigations saying that, I would have been fired and jobless!

 

[MoreCoffee]

I would argue that all who are called to be pastors of a local church is a successor of Peters.

Christ was basically calling Peter to be a Shepherd/Pastor of the church. However, as the church grew other pastors/elders grew up from the church. These were men set aside to lead local congregations. They were to care for the flock under their care.

11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, Eph 4:11 NIV

11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds[a] and teachers,[b] Eph 4:11 ESV


In the 1st Century church the role of Bishop/Elder/Shepherd were all the same role. In the Didache, it says that the person in this role was appointed by the local church. (much like modern Congregationalist) It wasn't until later than the role of Bishop was elevated and the role of priest added to the government of the church. We see the first references to this Ignatius of Antioch. Who, for whatever reason, departed from the Biblical model of two offices as seen in the New Testament. Most historians believe it took a while for the three office model to become the standard church government in the metropolitan churches. Most likely it came from practical necessity (having a single representative of all the local churches in a metro area) instead of from apostolic teaching/instruction.

At any rate, Christ was calling Peter to be an under-Shepherd for the "flock" as Christ (The good Shepherd) was going away. As the church grew Christ has continued to call people to be under-Shepherds to feed and protect his "sheep" (the people of God).

Anyone who is given and accepts the call to be a Pastor/Shepherd/Elder/Bishop has the same call to "Feed my sheep" that Peter was given. Be it a Catholic Priest or a Pastor of a Baptist Church. Wherever the people of God gather, they need a Spirit Filled, God Called, Kingdom Seeking, Loving, Kind, and Humble pastor.

And in a certain sense, we are all Peters successors. While we may not having the specific calling and gift of being a Pastor we are still called to minister to each other, encourage each other, serve each other, and proclaim the gospel to those around us. We all possess the Keys to the Kingdom, which is Christ and His Gospel message which grants acceptance, adoption, forgiveness,and eternal life to all who enter into the Kingdom of God by Faith in Jesus Christ.

In the Catholic Church, succession means that the current officeholder passes on their authority and the symbols of their office to their successor. However, in Protestant denominations, although a local pastor is appointed by someone, they are not required to be selected by their predecessor or to occupy the same position.

In Protestant denominations, the selection of a local pastor can occur through various methods and by different authorities. Some are chosen by congregational vote, others by presbytery appointment, some by a bishop or president, and some assume office by founding a church. Additionally, some denominations have female pastors, bishops, and presidents. In contrast, in the Catholic Church, succession is apostolic, structured, and maintained as the incumbent bishop appoints local pastors using his wisdom and authority. Within the Catholic Church, there are no female local pastors, bishops, or ordained deacons, although there are movements seeking to change this.

 

[Lanman87]

But you ignore prophecy and the words of Jesus warning about false teachers.

What are the false teachings of the New Testament? How do you know they are false?

You also ignore the words of John stating that the Church has been taken over by antichrists

18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

The Anti-Christ John was referring to were no longer part of the church. This does not say that the church has been taken over by Anti-Christ. I have know idea how you get that from that, or any other passage.

Then you accuse me of having "special knowledge" about the scriptures when all I do is my job I had for thirty years--investigate and report my findings. I had a reputation of being dependable to find and report the truth and for the last five years I've been working for God.

Dependable to who? Are you a Pastor or elder? If so, what is the name of your church?

 

[Lanman87]

In the Catholic Church, succession means that the current officeholder passes on their authority and the symbols of their office to their successor

I'm aware. I don't believe Apostolic Succession as understood by the Catholic church to be a valid apostolic teaching. Scripture never commands or gives an example of the Apostles appointing successors with the same gifts and authority. It does show them appointed the first generation of leaders and gives the qualifications of "overseers" and "deacons" in 1 Timothy and Titus. But neither describe a mystical ordination whereby authority and power are transferred.

The early church did use the term apostolic succession. In my understanding, the entire purpose of apostolic succession was to defend and protect the Gospel against heresy. Not to give power or control to a particular office over the other. It took several generations until apostolic succession came to mean what the Catholic church teaches today.

If a church or bishop was said to have apostolic succession it meant that he taught what was handed down from the apostles. The standard of succession was not that they were ordained by another bishop but that they taught what was handed down from the Apostles.

Even in early writings being ordained by an apostle or another bishop was not necessary.

We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by [the apostles], or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. 1 Clement 44.

Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Didache 15

We see, at least in Clement and the Didache, that Bishops/Pastors were appointed by "eminent men" or by the local church congregation. In both instances the congregation had a say in who was the Bishop/Elder. Neither give any indication that it was necessary to be ordained or even approved by another Bishop. This would not be acceptable in the Catholic (and many other) church today.

It seems the definition of apostolic succession changed after the ante-Nicean period. The list of bishops that succeeded from the apostles was meant to be an indication of fiedelty to the Gospel message but it later became to become more about the power and authority of the Bishops to rightly interpret doctrine and practice than a means to indicate that a church was faithful to the Gospel.

If you look at the list of bishops they are usually predicated by (I paraphrase) "this is how you know we have the right Gospel and those Gnostics are heretics".

 

[JustTheFacts]

What are the false teachings of the New Testament? How do you know they are false?

You're not paying attention. I've found that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, together with the letters and Revelation written by John, are the word of God. The rest are not the word of God. In regards to those other documents, why should I waste time trying to figure out what mere men had to say? I concentrate on the word of God and the rest of the New Testament is not the word of God--unless you or someone else on here provides me evidence that will change my mind.

18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

The Anti-Christ John was referring to were no longer part of the church. This does not say that the church has been taken over by Anti-Christ. I have know idea how you get that from that, or any other passage.

So there are two Churches in the days of the disciples? Do you have evidence of your claim? I have evidence that John is talking about the Church of Jesus Christ because prophecy describes that Church being taken over by false teachers.

Dependable to who? Are you a Pastor or elder? If so, what is the name of your church?

Considered dependable to those I worked for such as the Department of Energy and Los Alamos National Laboratory as the Investigations Group Leader with training and experience making me an expert to investigate and find the truth about the Bible and the word of God. Does it matter whether I'm a Pastor or elder at a Church? What is important is ensuring that the word of God is taught in accordance with what God demands. If the New Testament is not the word of God and Pastors and Elders claim it is and teach that, what does that mean?

 

[Lanman87]

Do you have evidence of your claim?

Are you denying that John said "they went out from us"? Who is John talking about, if not the church?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't believe Apostolic Succession as understood by the Catholic church to be a valid apostolic teaching.

You may not believe that the sun will rise tomorrow but it will regardless of your beliefs. So too with apostolic succession, it is there regardless of your beliefs.

Scripture never commands or gives an example of the Apostles appointing successors with the same gifts and authority.

Saint Paul appointed saints Timothy and Titus to be his representatives and his successors in the places that he sent them to minister as presiding bishops.

It does show them appointed the first generation of leaders and gives the qualifications of "overseers" and "deacons" in 1 Timothy and Titus. But neither describe a mystical ordination whereby authority and power are transferred.

Saint Paul laid hands on his successors. That is a "mystical ordination".

The early church did use the term apostolic succession.

Yes, the early church fathers did use the term and used it meaning that bishops are the successors of the apostles and were teachers of the faith with apostolic authority and whose teaching was apostolic teaching.

In my understanding, the entire purpose of apostolic succession was to defend and protect the Gospel against heresy. Not to give power or control to a particular office over the other. It took several generations until apostolic succession came to mean what the Catholic church teaches today.

The evolution of apostolicity in church history is a testament to the Church’s commitment to preserving the faith as handed down by the apostles. Through the practice of apostolic succession and the teachings of early Church Fathers, the Church has maintained doctrinal continuity and unity. As modern believers, we are heirs to this rich tradition, called to uphold and transmit the apostolic faith in our own time.

In the words of Polycarp, “Stand firm in your faith, dear children, for it is built on the unshakeable foundation of the apostles.”

The Church’s faith is built on the foundation laid by the apostles, and it is through the apostles that the foundation of the Church’s faith was laid.

This is only the beginning of our journey through the rich history of apostolicity. Join me for part two, where we will explore deeper into the contributions of later Church Fathers, investigate key theological developments, and examine how the principles of apostolic succession have been upheld and challenged through the centuries. Together, we’ll unravel the fascinating story of how the early Church’s foundations have shaped the faith we live today. [A Study of Apostolic Succession and Early Church Fathers]

If a church or bishop was said to have apostolic succession it meant that he taught what was handed down from the apostles. The standard of succession was not that they were ordained by another bishop but that they taught what was handed down from the Apostles.

One should say both ordained in succession from the apostles and teaching according to the faith handed down from the apostles.

We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by [the apostles], or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. 1 Clement 44.

What is 1 Clement 44? The work is divided into chapters, there are sixty-five of them. Do you mean chapter 44?
That chapter says:

1Clem 44:1 And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would
be strife over the name of the bishop's office.​

​

1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge,
they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a
continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men
should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were
appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the
consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the
flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all
modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these
men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.​

​

1Clem 44:3 For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have
offered the gifts of the bishop's office unblamably and holily.​

​

1Clem 44:4 Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their
departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one
should remove them from their appointed place.​

​

1Clem 44:5 For we see that ye have displaced certain persons, though they were
living honorably, from the ministration which had been respected by
them blamelessly. [First Clement: Clement of Rome]​

​

Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Didache 15

Chapter 15. Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof. Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel. But to anyone that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord. [Didache. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (translation Roberts-Donaldson).]​

If I am not mistaken you appear to interpret "appoint for yourselves" as an activity of the congregations rather than of the bishops. But the early church was intended to work in conjunction with their bishops rather than independently of them.

We see, at least in Clement and the Didache, that Bishops/Pastors were appointed by "eminent men" or by the local church congregation.

In its context, 1 Clement chapter 44, instructs that eminent men who had been appointed by the apostles would play a role in appointing their successors.

1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they [the apostles] appointed the aforesaid persons [eminent men], and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep [die], other approved men should succeed to their ministration.​

This is apostolic succession as practised by the ancient churches.

It seems the definition of apostolic succession changed after the ante-Nicean period. The list of bishops that succeeded from the apostles was meant to be an indication of fiedelty to the Gospel message but it later became to become more about the power and authority of the Bishops to rightly interpret doctrine and practice than a means to indicate that a church was faithful to the Gospel.

Bishops were always intended to maintain fidelity to and continuation of apostolic teaching. They do in fact do that even today.

If you look at the list of bishops they are usually predicated by (I paraphrase) "this is how you know we have the right Gospel and those Gnostics are heretics".

I am not sure what you intend to say by the above.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Are you denying that John said "they went out from us"? Who is John talking about, if not the church?

From the WEB
18 Little children, these are the end times, and as you heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen. By this we know that it is the final hour. 19 They went out from us, but they didn’t belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have continued with us. But they left, that they might be revealed that none of them belong to us. (1 John :18-19)

John wrote:
1. The end times have started
2. The antichrists are present and will continue in the future
3. They went out from "us." The antichrists didn't leave John, they left them--the disciples.
4. The never belonged to the disciples, therefore they were false teachers on a mission.
5. How many were false teachers? ALL OF THEM, because John stated that "NONE of them belong to us."

John is saying that everyone deserted the disciples, so who was left as the disciples died? You could claim that maybe they found some people to turn the church over to, but prophecy claims that the church was immediately and swiftly turned over to false teachers.

Jesus told his four eyewitnesses to be careful because false teachers would lead them astray. The disciples were led astray because false teachers fooled them in order to steal the Church of Jesus Christ from them.

 

[Lanman87]

Saint Paul laid hands on his successors. That is a "mystical ordination".

You are reading Catholic teaching into these events. Yes, Paul laid hands on Timothy and Titus to affirm them in the ministry. This however, is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is describing an event that happened, not giving instruction/command that this is how it must happen forevermore and if things aren't done just this way it isn't valid.

If I am not mistaken you appear to interpret "appoint for yourselves" as an activity of the congregations rather than of the bishops.

Yes, because the Didache was written to congregations.

For instance:

But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions... Chapter 14

Watch for your life's sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord comes... Chapter 16

But every true prophet that wills to abide among you is worthy of his support... Chapter 15

The Didache sounds very much like a sermon delivered to a congregation. Not instruction for Bishops.

In its context, 1 Clement chapter 44, instructs that eminent men who had been appointed by the apostles would play a role in appointing their successors.

Your missing the point. .

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that 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. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.

The original ministers (episcopate) were appointed by the apostles, after those appointed by the apostles "feel asleep", This new generation of "episcopate" was appointed by "other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church".

Clement is tell the Corinthians that neither those appointed by the apostles (the original elders appointed by them), or those appointed afterward by "other eminent men, with consent of the whole church" (the following generation of elders), who have blamelessly served the flock...cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.

Being appointed by an existing bishop/elder was not a requirement. This harmonizes with the Didache where "appoint for yourselves" was the instruction. Most likely, in a congregation, when an elder died or moved away or whatever then the men of the church known for a strong faith, had a good reputation, and were known for good judgement would bring someone before the church to be appointed as elder/bishop and the church would consent to the appointment.

Think about it practically. If you were part of a small church of 20-30 people in a remote village with only one elder and that elder suddenly died then there would be nobody to succeed from The men would get together and choose a new elder that would be acceptable to the entire group. For larger congregations there were multiple bishops/elders so that if one died, resigned, or was removed from office, then the elders would choose a new elder, with consent of the whole church. This was the case for at least the first 100 year of Christianity.

It wasn't until the mid-2nd Century the role of bishop changed to become the "Head elder" over the other elders in a region. "Monarchial" or "Metropolitian" bishops came into being in large cities with multiple congregations. Over time, this bishop gained power and started appointed elders over all congregations in his region.

We see this in the writings of Jerome

The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. . .Comm. Tit. 1.7

Apparently, Elders where forming factions vying for power and prestige and the solution was to elect a "head elder" to keep everyone in line.

Jerome goes own to say

do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord

 

[MoreCoffee]

You are reading Catholic teaching into these events. Yes, Paul laid hands on Timothy and Titus to affirm them in the ministry. This however, is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is describing an event that happened, not giving instruction/command that this is how it must happen forevermore and if things aren't done just this way it isn't valid.

Now, when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, when they were come, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. For he was not as yet come upon any of them: but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them: and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8:14-17 DRB)

Those upon whom hands are laid in Christian faith receive from God the gifts that they need for their role in the Church of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of truth.

 

[Lanman87]

Now, when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, when they were come, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. For he was not as yet come upon any of them: but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them: and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8:14-17 DRB)

Those upon whom hands are laid in Christian faith receive from God the gifts that they need for their role in the Church of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of truth.

Again, that is descriptive, not prescriptive. That doesn't mean that anyone else had the power to lay hands on someone and them receive the Holy Spirit. It also doesn't mean that this was the normative way someone receives the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians tells us that

13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,

Galatians 3:2
2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?

So we have at least two other ways receiving the Spirit is described. Belief in Christ and hearing with Faith.

Considering that Paul was writing to the congregation of two different churches, it appears that the normative way of receiving the Holy Spirit after the events of Pentecost was by faith/belief.

If the laying on of hands is necessary to receive the Spirit then only people who have had hands laid on them by a Priest/Bishop would be capable of proclaiming that Jesus is Lord.

3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor 12:3

The events in Acts 8 were a unique event, at a unique time, done by Apostles who had unique gifts.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Again, that is descriptive, not prescriptive.

And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Matthew 28:16-20 DRB)

Is this descriptive?