Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
well then what makes it a dissent rather than a split...that's what I've been asking
Okay, now THAT WAS very helpful...thank you. So, let me ask you something...can a man be ordained and sent out to start an individual church.
The reason I ask...in some cases there are no good local churches and a denomination doesn't see fit towards putting a church in the place.
But a man is willing to sacrifice his time, training, and money into starting a small church in order to minister to the local area. (isn't this what st patrick did?)
Would that be wrong? And why?
Should we have man's ceremonial rights prevent the gospel from being (correctly) preached?
(my head is clearer today...sorry for being pesky in the last few posts)
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
by "government" I will presume that you mean church government of those churches that are considered (by you) to be legit.
In today's society, and the amount of splits, and ppl not knowing which church split from where, etc...are you saying that we need to trace the "lineage" of the church to consider it legit and be considered part of the "legitimet" church?
Wouldn't it be more scriptural to attend a church based upon whether or not it accurately taught the scriptures?
By your reasoning Luther and Calvin should have stayed within the Catholic church as THEY were the ones "given the keys".
The Catholic church "had the authority" so shouldn't they have stayed under that authority?
And if the Catholic church "dropped" the keys as you say...there are other churches that could try to claim the same for themselves.
Where is "dropping" the keys scriptural? (Lord, help my woman's mind...but tis just not logical to me)
I have not read Matt's paper yet - preaching is keeping me busy enough - but I believe that the holding to the WCF does not solve this issue. If an independent congregation held to the WCF, but did not have a true successive line of ordination (i.e. were schismatic) then it would not be valid.
I think this basically kills the PCA, OPC, ARP and RPCNA, all of which would be technically schismatic - that is, they separated from bodies that they did nmot declare apostate.
I don't think there would be a legitimate church left.
Please excuse my ignorance on this topic. I never knew the Apostolic Succession was spoken of in protty churches as this thread explains.
Where do you differ from papists in this respect?
Matts article speaks of a different succession, but I believe that is just semantics.
One would believe they were in an RCC forum reading about lawfull ordination, apostoilic succesion, the power of the keys.
According to the standards set forth here, there reaaly could be no true church.
When did this become an issue?
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Joe,
Why is this idea so hard to digest? Is it contrabiblical or is apostolic succesion scriptural?
We are protestants. We are fundamental, they are not. We see scripture along a whole different vista.
How is what Matt is saying any different from what I have posed?
I disagree. These fundamentals are biblical. If you relate their birth to Rome, you err.
Thats debatable.
Recently; But the concern dates back to the WCF
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Same here...this whole concept has been taught to me to be part of the papist belief system and non else
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Same here...this whole concept has been taught to me to be part of the papist belief system and non else (okay, throw in the mormons and other cults). I too was also taught and from what I have read of history that the keys were given to the entire church. His statement to Peter was symbolic as we know the terms keys was symbolic. Each church was autonomous. Isn't the idea of "lineage ordination" just one of the errors that were brought out from the Catholic church into protestantism? Isn't this why some churches that came out at the same time don't hold to it while others do?
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Scott, it is shown in that that no where in scripture do you see the different churches working under one leadership other than Christ. Also that even Paul had to prove himself. Each church had it's own issues and dealt with them accordingly. Once the apostles were gone there is no where in scripture where it shows that someone took their places over the "group of churches"...no they all remained autonomous.
I think this basically kills the PCA, OPC, ARP and RPCNA, all of which would be technically schismatic - that is, they separated from bodies that they did nmot declare apostate.
I don't think there would be a legitimate church left.
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Scott, it is shown in that that no where in scripture do you see the different churches working under one leadership other than Christ. Also that even Paul had to prove himself. Each church had it's own issues and dealt with them accordingly. Once the apostles were gone there is no where in scripture where it shows that someone took their places over the "group of churches"...no they all remained autonomous.
Colleen,
This is a completely different issue than that of successionism. And you are wrong. Acts 15 proves you wrong. Paul's letters prove you wrong.
Christ is the head of His Church; but he has apointed undershepherds (1 Peter 5)
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
The church never worked autonomously.............how'd you come to that conclusion? Independancy is schismaticism.
Originally posted by Scott
Joe: Do you have a Baptist background? Your interpretation of history sounds like the Trail of Blood theory that some Baptists hold.