ECT AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTLES HANDED ON: Apostolic Succession

[Nihilo]

Paul explicitly says he is the apostle to the gentiles (uncircumcision). Do you belong to it or do you belong to the Jews (circumcision)?

Put yourself in AD 64 or whenever Paul was murdered.

You follow Paul, the Apostle, one of the foundation stones of the Church.

Do you literally ignore Timothy and Titus once Paul dies, and what they have to tell you about the epistles that Paul left behind, and about what other things Paul himself told them, face-to-face?

I don't think you do that. I think you recognize that Timothy and Titus (among others, not as prominent in the NT) are the living sources of Paul's Apostolic teaching; the bishops.

But that's just me.

 

[Nick M]

Google may also help.

Do you quote the Bible when necessary?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Do you quote the Bible when necessary?

Saving faith (initial justification) is not divorced from loving obedience to the revealed law of God.

 

[Nick M]

Put yourself in AD 64 or whenever Paul was murdered.

No need. Red herring.

You follow Paul, the Apostle, one of the foundation stones of the Church.

No, the foundation is the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul has a different church. He said so. He taught different. You know this.

Do you literally ignore Timothy and Titus once Paul dies, and what they have to tell you about the epistles that Paul left behind, and about what other things Paul himself told them, face-to-face?

Yes. If they speak in contention with what Paul taught and wrote then they are to be accursed.

 

[Nihilo]

Nice strawman.

Jamie's post was not a nice strawman. A nice strawman would be more difficult to discern.

Roman Catholic "Priests" don't marry. Yet Peter did. Explain the contradiction.

The Church has been blessed so much so in the intervening centuries between when Peter shepherded the Church till now, that she has had the luxury of requiring the discipline of celibacy for her clergy, being able to fully exploit Paul's own Apostolic counsel in 1st Corinthians 7:1,6-8,25,32-33,35.

 

[Nick M]

Saving faith (initial justification) is not divorced from loving obedience to the revealed law of God.

Nick's view seems to reduce us to sock puppet automatons and requires ignoring large sections of Scripture. He also misunderstands the nature of faith vs works, morals vs metaphysics, Star Trek vs Star Wars, Venus vs Mars, etc] You are simplistic to think it is a matter of what the Bible says when you interpret and twist to fit a preconceived idea. It is arrogant to assume that godly, capable, great thinkers through the centuries who reject MAD (new doctrine anyway) are clueless or without the leading of the Spirit

 

[Nick M]

Antecedent and external factors influence the agent but cannot determine the agent insofar as the agent is self-determining. The ultimate cause and explanation for a free agent's behavior goes back to the agent, no further. (so God cannot be blamed for sin and evil and we are morally culpable vs deterministic views that impugn His holy character).

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Antecedent and external factors influence the agent but cannot determine the agent insofar as the agent is self-determining. The ultimate cause and explanation for a free agent's behavior goes back to the agent, no further. (so God cannot be blamed for sin and evil and we are morally culpable vs deterministic views that impugn His holy character).

Are you sure this post is germane to the conversation?

 

[Nihilo]

Saving faith (initial justification) is not divorced from loving obedience to the revealed law of God.

I agree, unless you get so tied up in obedience that you lose the big picture. Obedience is not the big picture. The new heaven and the new earth are. IMO, anyway.

 

[Nick M]

Are you sure this post is germane to the conversation?

You are undermining His finished work (Hebrews shows the superiority of New/reality in Christ over Old/shadows and types) by suggesting there is a temporary 'Jewish/circ' gospel before Paul. Keeping the Law after the Lamb of God sheds His blood is nonsense and futile, even for Jewish Christians. The dividing wall is down because of the cross and there is nothing needed for Jew/Gentile to be one in Christ based on the one true NT gospel. Two gospel theories are not biblical post-cross. MAD confuses eschatological/covenantal issues and soteriological issues. If this sounds robotic, so be it. I will keep pounding away this basic truth till you guys wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[Nihilo]

No, the foundation is the Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm referring to Ephesians 2:20.

Paul has a different church. He said so.

"The Church" is said by Paul though. I don't think he was being ambiguous.

He taught different. You know this.

Yes, he did. And the other Apostles accepted him as one of them. And after the flurry between AD 33 and AD 64/65, what we see emerge in history, is a single organization we know as the Church, or the Christian Church. I believe that that visible, outward organization, is the very one that we now call the Holy Catholic Church, and that this organization is the very one that our Lord said that He would build upon Peter.

Yes. If they speak in contention with what Paul taught and wrote then they are to be accursed.

All right, you called it a red herring---indulge me for a bit longer.

You're living in AD 64 and before Paul died, you heard him speak personally, perhaps in a synagogue but probably by that time in local Church parishes. You also know Timothy and Titus personally. Once Paul dies, you immediately look upon Timothy and Titus with suspicion? Or did you already suspect them, even though Paul schmoozed with them whenever possible, even going so far as to literally "lay hands" upon them?

I really don't believe that you do. But I've been wrong before and it will not be the last time either.

 

[jamie]

Please explain how this is relevant in a body of people where there is neither Jew nor Gentile.

Were Jews ever expelled from Rome?

 

[Nihilo]

Were Jews ever expelled from Rome?

Yes.

 

[jamie]

...and that this organization is the very one that our Lord said that He would build upon Peter.

Jesus never said that. That's an urban legend.

 

[Nihilo]

Jesus never said that. That's an urban legend.

Then, it's an urban legend that found its way into our Lord's mouth somehow.

Instead, I choose to believe that He is its source, and that it's not an urban legend at all.

 

[jamie]

Yes.

Was Peter ever considered a Jew?

 

[jamie]

Then, it's an urban legend that found its way into our Lord's mouth somehow.

But Jesus never said that.

 

[Nihilo]

Was Peter ever considered a Jew?

But Jesus never said that.

I'm tiring of this. Make your point.

 

[jamie]

I'm tiring of this. Make your point.

My point is simple, Peter did not subscribe to the theory of being a lord over Jesus' flock, which Jesus forbid his disciples from doing.

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you..." (Matthew 20:25-26)​

 

[john w]

Saving faith (initial justification) is not divorced from loving obedience to the revealed law of God.

Both you and Nick the great, Mayor, are out of step with mainline, orhodox prooftexting, in the context of sound, Biblical hermeneutics. You are mudding the waters, and your exegesis/eisegesis is based on faulty constructs, and your cult is a modern sect, not accepted by most credible biblical scholars, and has been rejected by most credible biblical commentaries.. . Zeal without knowledge is not good. Sincerity does not create truth. Are you sure you are not a closet Calvinist? Your traditions of men has blinded you to balanced truth, as you cannot see the baby through the trees. You should not throw out the trees with the bath water.Within the evangelical, biblical tradition are a variety of non-essential views that can cause division, but few are as presumptious as you to attack our exegesis over controversial issues or nuances of articulation/understanding. Not uncritically accepting your personal, subjective views of some proof texts is indefensible, and does not shed light on your proof texts, as you filter it through your preconceived Breen-ism presuppositions, which is inconsistent with orthodox Christianity, and is problematic. I will continue to clarify my beliefs in the face of ad hominem attacks, misrepresentation, and sweeping/hasty/broad generalizations(even as Paul and the Jesus Christ did), in the broader context of other relevant passages. Rejecting your proof texting out of context is not the same thing as rejecting the truth of the Lord Jesus' words in light of the rest of the word of God, as that is substantial, not presumption.A wrong assumption leads to wrong conclusions. It is a challenge to not retain preconceived ideas that cloud our understanding of all the relevant verses, not just proof texts.Doctrinal truths are often couched in historical settings. We need to find out what the passage means to the original audience, in light of church history, and mainline, orhodox theology. In sum, we should not allow cultural biases, preconceived notions,and figures of speech/wooden theological literalisms,subjective opinions, etc., blind us to diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive views, and morsels of balanced Bible truth, as the challenge is to not let our preconceived eisegeses distort our exegesis.

What are both of your shoe sizes?

etc.