The tradition of Apostolic Authority

[MarvelousMarvin]

Maybe most of the list of Bishops of Rome is real, but there are sure some doozies in that list - like one pope who gave birth after ascending to the papacy. And another who had the body of his predecessor dug up, placed on trial, and then dragged through the streets and tossed into the river when he was convicted because he did not speak up in his own defense. (I don't have the book that documents this, it belongs to the pastor who gave me the left foot...hopefully, someday I can find my own copy, maybe on Amazon.com.)

Are you telling me that men (and a woman) like that are really in the line of succession that you claim gives you legitimacy as an elder?

If being excommunicated gave Luther legitimacy, then what about others who were also excommunicated from the apostate RCC? Why did not they start denominations or movements? If they did, would they and their successors be considered legitimate elders?

Also, the only reason that the Bishop of Rome managed to gain total control of the Church and become Pope was because of the power of the sword that the corrupt office of Bishop of Rome inherited from the corrupt and failing Roman government. The RCC's governmental structure is identical to the Roman government - the Pope is Ceaser and the College of Cardinals is the Senate. That is not what Jesus intended for His Church. He intended that a group of mature elders who live a life of holiness, not a self-serving dictator who falsely claims to be infallible when speaking ex cathedra, govern His body of believers.

Also, Steve is right about denominations being wrong. Jesus' prayer was that His followers are one even as He and His Father are one, not that every little squabble would result another denomination being formed. (See John 17:20-24.)

The major flaw in the congregational system of church government is that it gives control of the family to the children. It's like allowing your kids to vote on anything the family does, and if they don't like what mom and dad do, they can vote them out and vote in another set of parents.

What about those other lines of succession/appointment that you say exist? How can we document them? If I can't show an unbroken line of succession/appointment, does that make me a false teacher/elder? Most records outside of the RCC have been lost because the RCC had the power of the sword to enforce their false doctrines and corrupt policies, and many of the records of the RCC are made-up history revisionism. Remember reading in Fox's Book of Martyrs about the RCC burning heretics and their books? Even the Bible was on the official RCC list of banned books until Vatican II did away with that list in the mid-1960's. It was a death-penalty offense to own a copy of the Bible unless you were RCC clergy! The only reason that Luther was not burned at the stake as a heretic is because his friends kidnapped him and hid him out for several months.

I am called to ministry by God, not by a vote of the people or by another elder or group of elders or because I was excommunicated as a heretic for believing what the Bible teaches about families. Any gifting and anointing that I may have is recognized by other elders and the more-than-babes-in-Christ members of whatever local assembly I am serving, but they did not give those gifts to me, nor did they call me to serve - the Holy Spirit did.

And I don't think that I need to trace the line of succession for my appointment to that service back to the original Apostles through some line of totally apostate Popes or any other such line of succession.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

My apologies for not replying sooner. Getting to the computer and spending any time there is almost impossible these days.

I am trying to start a denomination."

if you only knew what an abomination they are."

Steve, I really don't know what to say to things like this. Are you really that unlearned in scripture? Certainly yes, some denominations are awful, but to be a denomination of Christianity is to be, well, Christian. Being Christian is an Abomination?

The writers of the New Testament assigned the name "sect" to themselves.This is Luke writing in this passage. Acts 24:5:

For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:"

Granted, he is quoting someone else, but he accepts the term "sect." Then there is Paul also in Acts, being rendered by Luke again. Acts 26:5:

Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee."

So Paul, quoted by Luke, places himself firmly in a "sect." In case we misunderstood him at all, Paul also declares loudly three chapters earlier:

Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."

So he STILL IS a Pharisee. How about that?

I am in fact altogether tired of self important persons who go about loudly declaring in keeping with the fashion of the age that they eschew "religion" and "sects" and denominations, when in fact the Apostles embraced them, albeit the correct ones. You Steve, have labeled yourself unknowing in this arena. In case you're wondering, the term in Greek for "sect" is the same in both cases.

Yeshua desires a "church" in which he ONLY is the head and there are no other go-betweens. you are trying to create a system that usurps his position between YHWH and man."

I have stated my case openly elsewhere, indicating it was Jesus who set up those positions. In light of your towering error in the case of denominations, I am going to have to ask for a more detailed explanation, not merely your assertion.

Maybe most of the list of Bishops of Rome is real, but there are sure some doozies in that list - like one pope who gave birth after ascending to the papacy. And another who had the body of his predecessor dug up, placed on trial, and then dragged through the streets and tossed into the river when he was convicted because he did not speak up in his own defense. (I don't have the book that documents this, it belongs to the pastor who gave me the left foot...hopefully, someday I can find my own copy, maybe on Amazon.com.)

I'm a bit dubious of the "female pope" business, but have already stated regarding Caiaphas that entirely wrong people can occupy the offices set up by God. It is the office we are to show respect for, which transmits to it's occupant.

Are you telling me that men (and a woman) like that are really in the line of succession that you claim gives you legitimacy as an elder?'

Let's talk about Athaliah.

If being excommunicated gave Luther legitimacy, then what about others who were also excommunicated from the apostate RCC? Why did not they start denominations or movements? If they did, would they and their successors be considered legitimate elders?"

In general, if they started their own denominations, I would regard them as at least potentially legitimate. Let's please not mistake me for stating that only one denomination can be legitimate at a time. Perhaps one is better or best, but that doesn't invalidate others. What validates them is the line of authority that precedes them.

Also, the only reason that the Bishop of Rome managed to gain total control of the Church and become Pope was because of the power of the sword that the corrupt office of Bishop of Rome inherited from the corrupt and failing Roman government."

I don't know how to answer this other than to say "So?" Please, let's look at Caiaphas again.

Steve is right about denominations being wrong.'

No, he is clearly wrong and I find it distressing you agree with him.

Jesus' prayer was that His followers are one even as He and His Father are one, not that every little squabble would result another denomination being formed.'

Again, I point to the embracing of denominations in my response to Steve.

What about those other lines of succession/appointment that you say exist? How can we document them? If I can't show an unbroken line of succession/appointment, does that make me a false teacher/elder?"

It would make you no elder at all, which answers the previous questions as well.

Most records outside of the RCC have been lost because the RCC had the power of the sword to enforce their false doctrines and corrupt policies, and many of the records of the RCC are made-up history revisionism."

If God allowed the records of succession in a Church to be destroyed, he wanted the Church to expire.

 

[steve]

aw shucks, ya dun figgered out how ignerent ah is

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Steve, it's unseemly to "aw shucks" your way out of a bald faced error.

 

[steve]

that was not an admission of error.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Then it was an avoidance of a salient point. I say you are in flagrant obvious error, you say "aw shucks." That Steve, is NOT an answer and doesn't serve our LORD well. I've laid out clear evidence that Early Christians, particularly the Apostles, embraced sects or denominations.

I too would prefer there to be no denominations, but people divide themselves into groups and in those cases, at least one of them must clearly be wrong, the others not in the wrong group, must be in a group as well. I'm not nor would I have been a Sadducee. Hence, Pharisees.

 

[steve]

there are sects and disagreement because YHWH failed to write His word in way that would make misunderstanding it an impossibility.
so we are going to disagree, why argue and spill virtual blood over it? you say that i am ignorant, aw shucks.

btw: i was called a pharisee a few days ago on this very board, maybe we have more in common than just hairy faces.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

steve, here's what happened. You were completely wrong and lost the argument as a result. What do you mean YHWH failed? At ANYTHING? I beg your pardon?

 

[steve]

i made a statement, you disagreed with it and provided your argument. i did not argue with you. if that is winning an argument, it seems rather hollow.
YHWH failing to make His word idiotproof is hyperbole. in simpler terms, He chose to not make His word so black-and-white simple that it could not be misunderstood. He is letting us see through a glass darkly at this point.

and you do not have to beg, i will happily pardon you. (that last was humour)

 

[Hugh McBryde]

It's not hollow steve. YOU ARE WRONG. Scripture SHOWS you to be CLEARLY WRONG. When you are WRONG , it's important for that to be shown, when you are WRONG about what the Bible says. This is not "the parts I like about the Bible Families," it's "BIBLICAL Families." You're using lame humor to distract from preaching AGAINST the word in clear ignorance or (much worse), REBELLION. "I beg your pardon" in context is OUTRAGE on my part. It was REBUKE steve, for preaching another "gospel."

 

[steve]

have fun being outraged

 

[Jim]

I can appreciate the importance of a true "line" or a true "key" holder, but is it really that important now for Gentile believers? After reading most of this thread, the resulting tension reminds me of certain cults. Whosoever is in-Christ is called, and if they build upon that foundation they're of the true "line". Are they Not? I think the only important line was the one to Jesus Christ.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Jim, if you read the thread you would have noticed Jesus set up the "lines," maintained them, submitted to them and perpetuated them. Even in the Gentiile church. I have made no claims regarding the "keys" to the Kingdom.

 

[Jim]

Doesn't ones authority come from the Holy Spirit during the Church age Acts 20:28?

 

[Hugh McBryde]

You're saying the Elders of Ephesus were not appointed by the actions of men? The actions of men do not preclude the Holy Spirit. They would simply describe how it was we saw the Spirit act. I think I would need a direct example of 1st hand appointing by the Holy Spirit alone with no human agency. From scripture.

 

[Jim]

Absent Apostles today, it appears that existing elders would have the authority to appoint elders. Although I think praying and casting lots could be better Acts 1:21-26. Titus 1:5-14, Acts 6:1-7.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

That's my point Jim. Existing Elders. Those that prayed & cast lots were already Apostles.

 

[Jim]

But does the question remain as to which elders today have authority?

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Ok Jim, you've said you've read the thread. I believe I mentioned this in this thread, but if not, I'll be happy to state it again. Churches and denominations have records. Those records trace their "ancestry of office" as far back as they keep records. If they don't bother to keep those records, then they can't say that their elders are legitimate.

Offhand I would look at three denominations of Christianity right away who trace their ancestries of office (in other words they kept records) back to an Apostle of Christ. The Coptics, the Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church. If you are a member of one of those denominations, it's pretty simple for you.

A good case has been made by me (I think) that casting out of a denomination without cause amounts to a sending similar to and as authoritative as being able to trace your ancestry of office backward to Christ via an Apostle Christ appointed. Thus as an Orthodox Presbyterian, I qualify through the Roman Catholic Church (perhaps by way of the Church of England). It goes like this: Rome casts out Luther (and Calvin). Luther and Calvin form the foundation for the Puritans/Presbyterians. The Presbyterians come to the Colonies which become the United States. Presbyterians believe that they should organize under the authority of a National Government so that they can be responsive to that ruler which God has clearly appointed. The revolution occurs in the USA. There is the American version of an English Presbyterian denomination. It casts out Gresham Machen, he forms the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, they cast ME out over my views on marriage.

Something similar could easily occur flowing from another Presbyterian denomination or from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, or the Coptics or the Greek Orthodox and not involve me or even the Roman Catholics.

I can trace my sending to a casting out by the Orthodox Presbyterians. They can trace their offices back through the reformation to the RCC. The RCC can trace their ancestry back to Paul. Paul is appointed as an Apostle by Christ and is recognized as such by the other Apostles.

We can go farther back through Christ submitting himself to John the Baptist (a priest) and going back to Moses and farther back to Melchizedek.

 

[Jim]

Thanks for sharing I learned something. I was not aware of existing church records going back to the time of Christ. I have heard that the Roman Catholic Church traces its roots back to Peter, but wasn't aware of there being records to prove it.