EricH Posted April 11, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 366 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,933 Content Per Day: 1.57 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 11, 2007 Very good, more examples where the Bible shows us that the pastors of the church from its beginning were taught by the Apostles. Further these men then taught others, and so on. The pastors of the church were never just anyone who claimed to have inspiration or knowledge. They were appointed and taught by the church fathers before them. We see the Apostles laying on of hands to appoint such men. Can your pastor trace his/her teaching back to the Apostles. Is there any other formula prescribed by the Bible. All other methods are traditions of men. thats why Im a believer of seminary schools. Paul was trying to organize, preach, and teach the good news. He did this without a bible, on foot under a time constraint. If he would of lived another 200 years he may be would of opened one.... 3xR0c|<stAr How does an institution become a seminary school. Who are the teachers. Would not those same teachers also need to be able to trace their teaching back to the Apostles. Who taught the teachers? If the seminary school does not have its roots in the progression described from the Bible would this not be a tradition established by man? I think it would be important to know a little about the seminary. What is its history? No, the teachers would need to be able to demonstrate that they know the word of God which was handed down to us thru the Apostles directly from God himself Show me scripture that tells us this or demonstrates this..Otherwise it is just your opinion, and a tradition created by man. I would rather follow a tradition started by the Apostles who were indwelled by the Holy Spirit. You can follow whatever example you want, I will choose to follow the example given to us by the Apostles through scripture. God Bless, K.D. So, do you choose your overseers by lot then? EricH, you have just given the qualifications of the overseer. In nowhere, does the prescriptive Paul tell us how that overseer is chosen. He merely states what all overseers or Apostles must be. I am sure that Matthias fit the bill. Paul gave us these qualifications. Paul was an Apostle. The instructions given in the passage I indicated are prescriptive. The passage in Acts is not. It simply reports what the Apostles did. There is not indication in that passage that anything they did is meant to be emulated through the ages. On the other hand, the passage in Timothy gives prescriptive qualifications for elders (being connected to the apostles is not one of them). A church would be free to use what ever "method" they chose, as loing as the method lands them on the things that are prescribed. I am still waiting for a prescriptive text that tells us overseers must be in a direct line from the apostles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricH Posted April 11, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 366 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,933 Content Per Day: 1.57 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 11, 2007 Very good, more examples where the Bible shows us that the pastors of the church from its beginning were taught by the Apostles. Further these men then taught others, and so on. The pastors of the church were never just anyone who claimed to have inspiration or knowledge. They were appointed and taught by the church fathers before them. We see the Apostles laying on of hands to appoint such men. Can your pastor trace his/her teaching back to the Apostles. Is there any other formula prescribed by the Bible. All other methods are traditions of men. thats why Im a believer of seminary schools. Paul was trying to organize, preach, and teach the good news. He did this without a bible, on foot under a time constraint. If he would of lived another 200 years he may be would of opened one.... 3xR0c|<stAr How does an institution become a seminary school. Who are the teachers. Would not those same teachers also need to be able to trace their teaching back to the Apostles. Who taught the teachers? If the seminary school does not have its roots in the progression described from the Bible would this not be a tradition established by man? I think it would be important to know a little about the seminary. What is its history? No, the teachers would need to be able to demonstrate that they know the word of God which was handed down to us thru the Apostles directly from God himself Show me scripture that tells us this or demonstrates this..Otherwise it is just your opinion, and a tradition created by man. I would rather follow a tradition started by the Apostles who were indwelled by the Holy Spirit. You can follow whatever example you want, I will choose to follow the example given to us by the Apostles through scripture. God Bless, K.D. So, do you choose your overseers by lot then? Being that Kansasdad does not claim to be an apostle, he does not. You seem to be letting on that the only thing the apostles did was cast lots to see which apostle would be chosen. Barsabbas and Matthias were the top two candidates, and after much prayer, the Apostles asked for a sign. They threw the lots to find the sign on which person would be given the Apostolic seal of approval from the almighty. I'm sure we do not do this anymore, but it sounds like you are criticizing the Apostles method of asking God for a sign. I do not believe that lots was the important thing here, but the fact that these Apostles of God were getting together in prayer and devotion in order to ask God above which should be the proper choice. If they used lots, a spinner, a witchdoctor's watering stick...it is safe to believe that these Apostles were the ones to choose this man...and were the only ones guided by the spirit enough to appoint that overseer. You don't seem to have grasped the point here. Those who argue for a requirement of apostilic succession, do so on the basis of historical descriptions of what the Apostles did in the Acts narrative. They can provide no prescriptive texts that list this as a requirement. If they are using historical texts that are descriptive to develop a doctrine of who can lead, they must be consistent in this approach. The passage in Acts that describes the way the Apostles chose Judas' successor list several considerations and a methodology. If one is going to be consistent, they cannot pick and choose through which they will accept as normative. So, it one is going to use the choosing of Judas successor as a model (and normative for the church today) of how one selects leadership, they must include the casting of lots as part of the requirement, or state a good reason for not doing so from the text. The guiding principle in good hermeneutics for discovering what is normative is only develop doctrine from historical texts, when one can find a supporting command from hortatory documents. No one is criticizing what the apostles did. We are questioning if it was intended to be normative for the church for all time. So, still waiting for a passage that lists apostolic succession as an ongoing requirement for leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted April 11, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Hey, EricH! You'll be waiting an eternity for that one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kansasdad Posted April 11, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,227 Content Per Day: 0.18 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/10/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/19/1964 Share Posted April 11, 2007 The instructions given in the passage I indicated are prescriptive. The passage in Acts is not. It simply reports what the Apostles did. There is not indication in that passage that anything they did is meant to be emulated through the ages. On the other hand, the passage in Timothy gives prescriptive qualifications for elders (being connected to the apostles is not one of them). A church would be free to use what ever "method" they chose, as loing as the method lands them on the things that are prescribed. I am still waiting for a prescriptive text that tells us overseers must be in a direct line from the apostles You are completely ignoring the scripture I gave you. For it is exactly what you have asked for. "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage we have the second generation, in Timothy, The future in faithful men whom Timothy teaches, and then even further in the future for the fourth generation that these men teach. This passage is the very prescription you are denying. It shows a continued prescription for preparing the church leaders one that is on going and continual. How many generations do you need Paul to describe. I think four generations should be enough for you to get the point. This is not a suggestion. This is the method given to us by the Apostles which bears out in historical fact. What you are prescribing has no basis in scripture. Again This succession is following the very traditions of scripture. What you have described is a tradition of man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaritateDei Posted April 11, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 400 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 11, 2007 Very good, more examples where the Bible shows us that the pastors of the church from its beginning were taught by the Apostles. Further these men then taught others, and so on. The pastors of the church were never just anyone who claimed to have inspiration or knowledge. They were appointed and taught by the church fathers before them. We see the Apostles laying on of hands to appoint such men. Can your pastor trace his/her teaching back to the Apostles. Is there any other formula prescribed by the Bible. All other methods are traditions of men. thats why Im a believer of seminary schools. Paul was trying to organize, preach, and teach the good news. He did this without a bible, on foot under a time constraint. If he would of lived another 200 years he may be would of opened one.... 3xR0c|<stAr How does an institution become a seminary school. Who are the teachers. Would not those same teachers also need to be able to trace their teaching back to the Apostles. Who taught the teachers? If the seminary school does not have its roots in the progression described from the Bible would this not be a tradition established by man? I think it would be important to know a little about the seminary. What is its history? No, the teachers would need to be able to demonstrate that they know the word of God which was handed down to us thru the Apostles directly from God himself Show me scripture that tells us this or demonstrates this..Otherwise it is just your opinion, and a tradition created by man. I would rather follow a tradition started by the Apostles who were indwelled by the Holy Spirit. You can follow whatever example you want, I will choose to follow the example given to us by the Apostles through scripture. God Bless, K.D. So, do you choose your overseers by lot then? Being that Kansasdad does not claim to be an apostle, he does not. You seem to be letting on that the only thing the apostles did was cast lots to see which apostle would be chosen. Barsabbas and Matthias were the top two candidates, and after much prayer, the Apostles asked for a sign. They threw the lots to find the sign on which person would be given the Apostolic seal of approval from the almighty. I'm sure we do not do this anymore, but it sounds like you are criticizing the Apostles method of asking God for a sign. I do not believe that lots was the important thing here, but the fact that these Apostles of God were getting together in prayer and devotion in order to ask God above which should be the proper choice. If they used lots, a spinner, a witchdoctor's watering stick...it is safe to believe that these Apostles were the ones to choose this man...and were the only ones guided by the spirit enough to appoint that overseer. You don't seem to have grasped the point here. Those who argue for a requirement of apostilic succession, do so on the basis of historical descriptions of what the Apostles did in the Acts narrative. They can provide no prescriptive texts that list this as a requirement. If they are using historical texts that are descriptive to develop a doctrine of who can lead, they must be consistent in this approach. The passage in Acts that describes the way the Apostles chose Judas' successor list several considerations and a methodology. If one is going to be consistent, they cannot pick and choose through which they will accept as normative. So, it one is going to use the choosing of Judas successor as a model (and normative for the church today) of how one selects leadership, they must include the casting of lots as part of the requirement, or state a good reason for not doing so from the text. The guiding principle in good hermeneutics for discovering what is normative is only develop doctrine from historical texts, when one can find a supporting command from hortatory documents. No one is criticizing what the apostles did. We are questioning if it was intended to be normative for the church for all time. So, still waiting for a passage that lists apostolic succession as an ongoing requirement for leadership. Again, though...you miss the point. Paul, an apostle, is the one who has the prescriptive text of the overseers. No one but him, and obviously, through the descriptions of the process by which the apostles chose, could really make those same conclusions of those qualifications. Matthew 18: 18 also tells us that it is the Apostles who truly have that authority to do so, given them by God. There is no stretching here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kansasdad Posted April 11, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,227 Content Per Day: 0.18 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/10/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/19/1964 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Hey, EricH! You'll be waiting an eternity for that one! Is 19 minutes an eternity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaritateDei Posted April 11, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 400 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 11, 2007 I have courage enough to say that Apostles cannot elect Apostles. Apostles were hand picked by Jesus Christ and altough they cast their lots and it fell on Matthias; you never hear of Matthias again. God chooses Paul next and is personally taught. ... 3xR0c|<stAr Ok...so Matthias was not a proper replacement? So they had no authority to ask God for guidance in which should be his next Apostle? The Apostles, the same folks that hold things bound on earth and in heaven above...have no authority to appoint others by the grace, authority, and guide of God above? Your statement is unbiblical, exrockstar. on the contrary show in scripture that God accepted Mattias. After personally being with Jesus Christ they still put faith on casting lots. Whatever the result was for Mattias we don't know about it in scripture. What we do know is God talked to Paul and asked him "why do you persecute me?" and Christ taught Paul the same way Christ taught the apostles. We both know that the Apostles weren't perfect because they just sold Jesus out not long before. As I said, I know Im walking on eggshells, but I've never seen anything about Mattias only Paul. Paul was handpicked by God and Mattias was not. I'm not taking away from scripture and Im not adding either. ... 3xR0c|<stAr edited to add this scripture: Acts 1:1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. Although Luke is writing Acts with inspiration by the Holy Spirit it is clear the Christ is the one that chooses. The casting of lots never said God chose Matthias. The scripture says "the lots fell on Matthias." And we don't put faith in God answering the prayer of HIS own Apostles?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted April 11, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Hey, EricH! You'll be waiting an eternity for that one! Is 19 minutes an eternity? I'm still waiting for any definitive scripture... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exrockstar Posted April 11, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,673 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 111 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/21/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 11, 2007 And we don't put faith in God answering the prayer of HIS own Apostles?? He did by choosing Paul. You do know Paul had a great impact on Christianity right? you also know God provides what you need and not what you want. ... 3xR0c|<stAr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaritateDei Posted April 11, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 400 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 11, 2007 And we don't put faith in God answering the prayer of HIS own Apostles?? He did by choosing Paul. You do know Paul had a great impact on Christianity right? you also know God provides what you need and not what you want. ... 3xR0c|<stAr I'm not denying that...but even Paul had to be anointed by a man. And on top of that, you seem to be denying that Matthias has any significance because he was not chosen by God...but the Apostles prayed to God that He show them the right choice. The lots which they cast fell on Matthias. Did God say, "Sorry guys, not going to have the lots go anywhere else. You guys screwed up...you, the men who hold all things bound on earth and in heaven, are doing the WRONG thing in appointing someone new." On top of that, going against the Apostles, we go against God himself. Luke 10:6. I do know that Paul had a great impact on Christianity. I will not, however deny that the other 12 Apostles had a pretty good impact as well, and had all the rights to find a successor to Judas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts