The tradition of Apostolic Authority

[NeoPatriarch]

In another thread I discussed what a church is. In the most literal sense it means a gathering of believers.

Then the question of apostolic authority arose. So here are some questions.:

Is it necessary to have a living apostle to have a true conversion?

Is a living apostle required to establish a church?

Please support you answer.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Obviously I think yes. However, we should define the authority. Apostle of WHAT? I for instance claim apostolic authority. I use the little "a" to signify what I mean. The Apostle Paul possessed Apostolic authority from God directly, as well as that of men, signified by the little "a." Mine is from other men. I point to the succession of Kings and Priests and the appointment (at least initially) of leaders in the various New Testament churches.

 

[NeoPatriarch]

1 Corinthians 11:3
3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

This is the only verse that describes an authority structure that I can think of. Perhaps that is why "church" is most often described in homes.

Jesus is our high priest. So no priesthood.
Jesus is our king. So no monarchy.

There is a relationship between teacher and disciple. Perhaps that accounts for some interactions, that appear to be church organization.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I thought I did at first glance, but now I'm not so sure. If you're taking the church out of the chain of authority because of who Christ is, you need to know that Paul, who wrote that, didn't interpret that verse that way, based on his own actions.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Is it necessary to have a living apostle to have a true conversion?

If so where did the first apostle come from?

 

[Hugh McBryde]

That's not a serious question, right? It's rhetorical, isn't it?

 

[NeoPatriarch]

New Covenant Patriarchy

I am sharing my observation, and hope to pry open the discussion a bit.

It's curious that no one else has chimed in.

Prior to the sinai covenant the "authority structure" was patriarchy. That covenant has passed...perhaps that suggests something.

Why does Paul call himself Timothy's spiritual father? Especially in the light of the command not to call any man father.

Acts 16:31
31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household. ”
In this case first the father and then his household are saved.

Hugh,

I offer this only as possible explanation, for the "authority structure" that you have illuminated, and to illustrate that there may be other explanation for the narrative.

 

[NeoPatriarch]

Is it necessary to have a living apostle to have a true conversion?

If so where did the first apostle come from?

In one sense we need apostles. We encounter them in their words. Then we become an apostle of a sort when we believe.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Neo,

I'm truly close to giving up on this whole line of reasoning, at least in front of this audience. I cannot accept the answers I am getting. They range from "I'm not comfortable with that, " to "I don't see it that way," to going stone cold silent and the only valid claim that I see, which is to claim God is talking to someone and that someone is usually the one making the claim.

After Sinai, God uses human authority structures. His servants submit to them, including his only Son.

This group prides itself in believing scripture, yet they don't seem to believe the example provided by scripture ever since Sinai and the endorsement of God and the establishment of those groups by God.

I am not provided with the example of the "spontaneous" church in scripture, where a man decides to lead apart from all human authority based on God's sole calling of him.

That leaves me with the disturbing conclusion that the men in this group are only interested in one authority. Their own.

 

[Anonymous]

Hugh,
Don't give up on me/us. This topic requires more time and research than I have been able to devote to it. Consider your own tenaciousness to be part of the reason, you require a very carefully researched and laid out presentation. It is coming. One area of consideration for me to deal with is that which I have presented a couple of times. I do not accept that the Roman Catholic church ever was a genuine institution of God and never will be. You base much of your position of apostolic authority on the RCC. I am also one that does not accept the concept of a "universal" church. My position is that their are since apostolic times through this day, "churches". The church of the first born has not yet assembled, that will happen in heaven. Ecclesiastical authority could not have been vested in the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood, because the "ekklessia" did not yet exist until Jesus called out the 12 from among His disciples and named them Apostles. I am confident that my documentation will establish, fairly well, that Apostolic authority over churches does not exist, but rather that Jesus established churches (assemblies) as His authoritive voice in the community. This authority established, not by another ekklessia, but by the spirit of God speaking to or establishing His body. It will take a little more time for me to get my documentation ready.

 

[Anonymous]

NeoPatriarch wrote

Is it necessary to have a living apostle to have a true conversion?

If you mean an Apostle in the sense of the 12 that Jesus named, absolutely, unequivically, NO. If you mean an apostle in the sense of one that is sent preaching the gospel, possibly, somewhere along the line. Some one had to make the gospel known for a man to believe. Unless we take into account the possibility of a man or woman seeing the glory of God declared in the heavens and being led by that logical implication of a creator to seek out the Word of God, but then God puts in his way someone (apostle?) to share the Word, either personally or through print, such as tracts.

NeoPatriarch wrote

Prior to the sinai covenant the "authority structure" was patriarchy. That covenant has passed...perhaps that suggests something.

Why does Paul call himself Timothy's spiritual father? Especially in the light of the command not to call any man father.

Patriarchy was and still is God's design for the family, that has never altered. However, until the Sinai covenant, there was no nation of Israel. That covenant and associated law code was the basis of operation of a nation, both in their social structure as a nation and their particular religious function for God's glory. The covenant on Sinai was never about Heaven or Hell. It is about jurisprudence, affording life to the lawful and punishment up to death for the lawbreakers. Salvation of the soul of mankind has always been and always will be of the example of Abraham and not Moses administered law. Salvation has always been of Grace from God and not keeping the law....
The relationship between Paul and Timothy was identified as a father/son relationship because Paul sowed the seed of faith in Timothy (along with Lois and Eunice) and brought him up in discipleship as mentor to a student. It is a metaphorical example.

 

[Anonymous]

DTT wrote,

If so where did the first apostle come from?

Luke 6:12-16
And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

These were the first that were named Apostles. Each one was first a disciple of John the Baptist and then Jesus and then chosen by Him to be His particular emmissaries or ambassadors in this world. When Judas Iscariot was being replaced a requirement of a candidate was that he had to have been with the disciples of Jesus from the baptism of John.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I do not accept that the Roman Catholic church ever was a genuine institution of God and never will be."

If you regard the current institution to NOT be a political descendant of the Roman church to which the letter of Romans was written, I'd agree. I do think they are. If they aren't, the bulk of the reformation is decertified as it were. We should all seek to be part of another tradition. I would have to find legitimacy in the Church of England to continue with the line of authority I think I possess. I may not find it there.

If it is the doctrines, the behaviors and the unbelief of various different Popes you refer to, then I still point out the persistent temple worship of early believers, right up to being pushed out into a doorway and the prophecy of Caiaphus, which he is scripturally said to have uttered, because he was "High Priest." I don't think any of us expect to see Caiaphus after judgement day, but stranger things have happened.

You base much of your position of apostolic authority on the RCC."

Currently without that foundation, my argument dies. Like I said, I may have to "re-write" my certificate in terms of the Church of England. I cannot say with confidence that I would find that certification legitimate, and I would then go probably to a Greek Orthodox community and seek to submit to their authority and be in fellowship with them.

I am also one that does not accept the concept of a 'universal' church. My position is that there are, since apostolic times through to this day, "churches". The church of the first born has not yet assembled, that will happen in heaven."

*If the "Church of the First Born" as you call it, is your "Universal Church," that's pretty much mine too. I'm not trying to create a "Universal Church under Hugh." I don't that is either proper or possible. I am trying to start a denomination. Presbyterians organize along national lines. They recognize that whatever they call the church is but one of many and has a local, regional and national sense. At no point do we say our memberships are comprised of 100% "first borns." We say it resembles (poorly) that Universal Church that will be known on judgement day.

I am confident that my documentation will establish, fairly well, that Apostolic authority over churches does not exist, but rather that Jesus established churches (assemblies) as His authoritive voice in the community. This authority established, not by another ekklessia, but by the spirit of God speaking to or establishing His body. It will take a little more time for me to get my documentation ready."

Well John, if you think the Spirit of God is speaking that distinctly, you're an intellectual charismatic. I believe that the charismatic movement started essentially as an intellectual response to reading scripture. Correct me if I am wrong. They sought to see how gifts of the spirit might all manifest themselves today. They rejected cessationism. I just think they're wrong. So it's not a slap to say that to you, it's just an observation, you're going down the charismatic path with a Holy Spirit speaking that clearly. By all means show me that this is the case, I would welcome it. A cessationist, or at least THIS cessationist, believes that all the gifts will return when He is near.

*Editing mistake, did not place quotes around John's quote.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Hugh,

What would your thoughts be that the Reformers did not believe what you yourself now believe? From my readings of Luther and Calvin, and from my lectures by numerous Reformed scholars they both thought, along with others after them, that a true church was anywhere where the Spirit reigned through the proper teaching of the word and gospel, the right administration of the ordinances, and where discipline was carried out.

To me their own teachings reveal that the original apostles set the foundation to which anyone called today can go back to and build upon with them (Christ and the apostles) being the foundation and Christ being the cornerstone. In other words, it looks like the Reformers taught that Christ was the cornerstone, the apostles and prophets were the foundation and these were universally established so that every place for all time now has a foundation that can be built upon by those who are called, equipped, and gifted by the Holy Spirit.

For me it is NOT about new revelation nor is it about charismatic doctrine or ideology but it is about the Great Commission of making disciples. So in part wherever discipleship in the gospel takes place the kingdom is passed along through that line. If A disciples B and then B disciples C and C disciples D and D disciples E and E disciples F and so on and so forth the gospel is transmitted directly through multiple lines because there were multiple strands of people who received the gospel from the beginning and not just one solitary line.

Whoever receives discipleship is given the gospel, and then from that point with the gospel the person may build upon what is already set forth as a universal doctrine for every single sphere of the world because of the universal apostolic doctrine that serves as the foundation to every region that now exists. For me since we live and move and have our being in Him and since the universal doctrine for all regions has already been set none of us are adding new revelation but we are with the gospel, with the Spirit, and thus demanded and commanded to go make disciples wherever we are. We either must add those disciples to an existing line or take them unto and under ourselves and build from that point forward.

Thus the only solution to that is to use the universal doctrines as set in stone now by the Lord and his prophets and apostles and build upon that discipleship efforts today. Some will use their serving gifts to help an existing line and spiritual order whereas others like Evangelists will go out and start a distinct line yet still built upon the universal foundation that has been set by the apostles and prophets. In other words, multiple lines of discipleship with the gospel and the Spirit can rest and arise from the universal foundation that has already been set in place before all of us.

It would be like a city. The foundation to the whole is in place and multiple high-rise buildings can then be built upon the city's structural foundation. Or look at it like this: the Lord set up the cornerstone to the 7,000 acre piece of land (the earth as a symbol). Then the prophets and apostles laid the foundation upon the entire 7,000 acre piece of land. Thousands upon that portion of land (the Christian soil) received the gospel. Each then has distinct gifts among the thousands. They come together in covenant to build. Some build with speaking gifts and teaching gifts. Others build with serving gifts and work under the supervision of the more mature. They all build various structures and rooms and buildings on the 7,000 acre portion of land. Each building or structure is on the same foundation in line with the cornerstone but there are some differences in the various buildings. Some are built better than others. Some are taller than others. Some house more people than others but all are on the same foundation though certainly some entities are stronger than others (various degrees of maturity among the whole), yet they all stand on the same foundation and line up with the cornerstone. If at any point a person or a whole rejects the cornerstone (Jesus who is God in the flesh), and the apostolic and prophetic revelation (the 66 books of the Bible) they then no longer are on the foundation but have moved elsewhere and are enemies of the Lord and his gospel.

My readings and studies in the Reformation heritage lead me to believe this was the thinking they had. So long as the organism embraces the main foundational doctrines they then are building with the gospel upon Christ and his Word. And if they follow the three points made by the Reformers that wherever the gospel is taught correctly, wherever the ordinances are applied correctly, and wherever discipline is applied there in that organism is the lampstand of Christ burning bright as the flame of the Spirit.

How would their theological stance play into your position when that was the teachings from the original Reformers?

Secondly, examine this article. viewtopic.php?f=57&t=2360

I'd like to get your feedback on the minature church concept that came from one of the chief Puritans and one of the most brilliant theologians we had in the history of America as well as of all time, Dr. Jonathan Edwards, who was too another strong Reformed/Calvinist theologian.

KR

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

If the lines can just start with any person any time and there are more than one line.

then ....

No need for an apostolic line, because anyone can start without an apostolic predecessor

Therefor John Calvin, Martin Luther, etc. are no more necessary than John Wayne and Polly Anna, etc.

Because anyone can get saved without a person before them in the line and start their own "Church" and we can have lots of "Churches of one."

but that does not negate any Biblical commands for teaching and training in righteousness. (I am mentioning this preemptively before someone has the opportunity to claim I am claiming such a thing.)

By the way this would completely dismantle tithing to gentile pastors because anyone could claim to be on the top of the line if a metaphoric argument is used in which Pastors replace the OT Israelite tithe receivers and if it is not used then gentile pastors do not get the tithe because it literally goes to specific Israelites.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

This little disclaimer right up front. I never have claimed the Roman Catholic Church was the only true denomination before the Reformation. I have only claimed they were one of them, despite the fact that they tried to claim they were the only one and the "Church" itself. Neither do I claim to have the only passed torch that allows the setup of a new denomination. That torch may be held by many, and may have been used in some cases. I do not claim that the holders of such authorizations or "sendings" come only from the RCC.

What would your thoughts be that the Reformers did not believe what you yourself now believe?"

That Luther once proclaimed or speculated that James was a "straw letter," that he was "iffy" at best on polygyny and had a low view of the Jews from some people's perspectives. We are to be always reforming. I count what they did. Luther FIRST went to the Roman Catholic Church and tried to reform it. That's key. We are to be "always reforming." Their very views of the justification for the Reformation are as diverse as the Reformers were. Those views are up to be "Reformed" just as any other. Scripture first. I base my views in large part on the early church as recorded in scripture.

To me their own teachings reveal that the original apostles set the foundation to which anyone called today can go back to and build upon with them (Christ and the apostles) being the foundation and Christ being the cornerstone."

Yet still, these words ring out:

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"

All said in the context of mentioning Moses name first, and saving. I also point to the behavior of the Apostles, and the churches they planted. They all appointed those churches, their leadership and all the leadership and those churches, submitted to them. To get where you and others seem to be going, we go into a period devoid of inspired writing, and then a new thing occurs. We just self actualize and self authorize.

For me it is NOT about new revelation nor is it about charismatic doctrine or ideology but it is about the Great Commission of making disciples. So in part wherever discipleship in the gospel takes place the kingdom is passed along through that line."

This is a good line of reasoning, except it endorses Caiaphus as being among the saved. The word of God does not return void. Paul rejoices that the gospel is preached, even if it is out of spite or jealousy. It gets preached and does what it was to do. In context, both passages Paul writes must be taken together. The word is not the preacher, and obviously some pass along the word without being preachers or even being saved. This refutes the idea of effect being due only to one cause, namely that if we see saving as a result of the word being passed along, that it is of necessity, preached. The word does not return void. God's preachers are from someplace.

(T)he gospel is transmitted directly through multiple lines because there were multiple strands of people who received the gospel from the beginning and not just one solitary line."

I acknowledge multiple lines regularly. I am just telling you about mine. I can only have one father as it were.

Evangelists will go out and start a distinct line yet still built upon the universal foundation that has been set by the apostles and prophets. In other words, multiple lines of discipleship with the gospel and the Spirit can rest and arise from the universal foundation that has already been set in place before all of us."

I am sure you remember our conversation about Billy Graham not being "sent" by a church. If he really was, all the better, but the point is the same. To start a church, Mr. Graham must be sent, to be sent those who sent him, must have been sent. Positing a miracle in some place we cannot see, is a leap of faith and existential in the worst sense of the word.

I'd like to get your feedback on the minature church concept that came from one of the chief Puritans and one of the most brilliant theologians we had in the history of America as well as of all time, Dr. Jonathan Edwards, who was too another strong Reformed/Calvinist theologian."

They're all wrong, just like me. It's just a matter of where they are wrong, and how often. I don't think (obviously) that I am wrong on this topic. Just like my views on marriage, it took a while to develop clearly enough to be worth trotting out into public.

At this point I am sure enough of it, that I open myself to challenges, to see if I am wrong, before going further, and to strengthen my position, if I am in accordance with God.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

I think your whole case is settled with your admission of multiple lines. I agree people must be sent and that they come forth from others. That is what the "ordination" process is all about to a degree. I say to a degree because the particulars from one group to another varies I how they are sent forth and ordained. Some processes are formal and some more informal.

I don't see a difference of substance here in that I too affirm those who go need to be endorsed, sent, recognized, or authorized by a prior set of more mature believers who have the gospel. The keys pass not in the Roman Catholic Church Popes but in the gospel itself by those who have come together prior.

But, as we can see, what so often happens, is that those who are sent later embrace something the senders did not originally believe and thus they no longer support the one sent or who was originally endorsed. It may have even happened to Paul when he and Barnabas split.

To me the whole issue though is a deeper issue. Accountability and humility. A man who seeks to go out to do a work who will not humble himself to be examined or tested first (or trained), which is what Paul taught in regard to leadership qualifications in Timothy's letter and in Titus' letter, is a sinful man and is one who is not to be followed. Paul's point was one of a principle. To go and lead one must first be willing to be led. Someone who just claims they are a minister and runs and jumps out trying to lead without being first trained and discipled almost always is someone who is prideful and thus not a true leader as Christ defines a godly leader.

Yet I think where the confusion comes into the play here in this topic is trying to define who is a true leader and who is able to send forth another leader. Yet you do recognize there are multiple lines.

I would present the case that it is not just the line that went into Rome and then came back out of Rome. I think you may be presenting that view that the succession went into Rome then into the Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians where the multiple lines now exist and so on and so forth from those branches on down. I would agree those are indeed some of the lines where the true gospel thrived and thus those being sent and trained by those before them of those groups can indeed be sent out by true godly leaders, or in the case of Rome they were sent by default by being booted out for their stand on the Bible that they received from their leaders who had just corrupted its teachings.

But, there is also evidence to of free churches that existed in various places that never succumb to Rome or joined with Rome. As the sword came down on them many of them went underground or were more low key in history. Yet with good historians we have ideas of what some of these smaller free groups believed. Have you ever studied the Waldensians? They were a free group of the 1100's. Others like these existed since the time of the original apostles. Throughout history there have been those free churches who did retain the apostolic witness of the gospel, some to a greater degree and others to a lesser degree, and passed that baton of faith on to others in discipleship. The Lord has never been without a witness somewhere as he has always had a remnant as it so seems to me.

Thus, with multiple lines existing it is apparently something that goes back to the gospel, which is and was my point. Wherever believers have been birthed by the power of the gospel and wherever those believers in that line have been called and sent forth with that gospel then from those places true leaders can be and have been sent. The key is thus to look for the gospel and for the willingness of those claiming to have been sent to see if they have truly been discipled and trained and then sent forth to do the work of the gospel.

It is indeed astoundingly insane as to how many today wan to go lead before they are ever humble enough to be led. As Jesus said, if you want to be first you must become the least. If you want to be over much you must first be faithful over the few things. The way up is first by the way down. To be a leader one should be willing to be led and trained and taught by another. And then the one trained can have his character developed and those who see him can also witness as to what type of character those who trained him had as they decide if they want to follow that leader. It is all very practical.

The precise formulas for that sending though would seem to be different though I think we find a stronger and more common ground to stand upon theologically when we see the passing of the keys through multiple lines by places where the gospel has spread. Of course someone might say then Rome did not have the gospel and how did Luther and Calvin and those have the right to go forward. That is why the Trail of the Blood people have never seen the Reformation line as a true line and thus those two spheres have battled it out historically as to who was the true line. The Landmarkers said the Reformers were not establishing true churches. The Reformers said the free churches were not true because they did not come from the original one true church as they defined it.

For me after years of seeing this debate back and forth I think both sides had a point they needed to embrace from one another. One side wanted to place the line of succession in a people, but the Landmarkers (free church; Trail of the Blood theorists) wanted to place it in the gospel and in the word alone. One side said it could be passed along only in the purity of the gospel where churches were set up correctly and thus Rome and all those coming out of her could not set up a godly church or a true church. They missed it though in that the gospel is contained by the faithful preservation of the Bible in the apostolic writings and thus to a degree even as corrupt as Rome was the gospel was retained by the preserved Word and they retained enough of the seeds of the gospel that those coming out of her could indeed go forth with the gospel. The Roman apostolic succession theorists claim that the laying on the hands by the Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, etc is where the true line can only come from and thus those who were of the free church and outside of their sphere could not and cannot be truly sent and true leaders. Their error was that they too placed the power in the hands and not in the gospel. Multiple lines could exist outside of them and they wrongly assumed that all were under them when free churches existed throughout various places and portions of history. Those free churches retained the gospel and sent forth their people just as did Rome and just as did Luther and Calvin and Beza and those leaders of the mainline protestant groups.

The point? When we admit multiple lines exist we then have to look to what makes the line a good line or a bad line. we also have to recognize that not all lines went under Rome's authority when Constantine established the one government led church for all. Not all went with that and some remained outside of that system, though heavily persecuted.

Thus in light of those multiple lines the best way to find out who is godly or not is to look at the existing people or church to see if they retain the gospel. If they do and they send someone forth from their fellowship then that is a strong indicator that the gospel is at work among that group. The problems come up when we lose historical records. Thus, we ought to go back as far as we can but as we lose historical documents we must place more weight on the character of the person being sent and the character of those who trained the person as well as looking to see if the gospel was believed and passed along to the one being sent.

When we do this we find that some groups will not qualify at all. Is it not odd that the three most key traits of a cult and false world religion are those who mess up on who is Christ, those who make salvation by works, and those who add more books to the Bible than the 66 books? That tells us much about where to find a true line of Christ's people and where to look and not to look. Those who do not believe in fundamentals of the faith could not train someone to send forth to the work of the gospel when they do not believe the gospel. As for Luther and Calvin they did receive the gospel in the actual writings passed down to them by the Popes and Cardinals and Bishops though it was corrupted and thus they began a restoration process.

But in any case, the recognition that multiple lines exist would also include those lines that were free churches that never submitted to Rome and thus remained free and passing along the faith in their way as well. Of course they too had errors. The ana-baptists were rightfully at times charged with heresy because they denied the Tri-unity of God which included a corruption of Christ's divinity at times. But they like Rome had problems yet they too passed along leaders and sent them forth just as did Rome.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I think your whole case is settled with your admission of multiple lines."

I don't think I'm "admitting" anything, I've been saying this all along. The existence of "multiple lines" still says, "find the line."

I agree people must be sent and that they come forth from others."

This also says that whoever sent you or I or Billy Graham must also have been sent. This cannot be assumed either.

I don't see a difference of substance here in that I too affirm those who go need to be endorsed, sent, recognized, or authorized by a prior set of more mature believers who have the gospel."

Mature or no, they too must have been "sent."

The keys pass not in the Roman Catholic Church Popes but in the gospel itself by those who have come together prior."

Now Dr. If you keep doing that we're going to have to talk about straw men. The fact that the successive Bishops of Rome developed an inflated view of their own office, doesn't change what their office was or is.

But, as we can see, what so often happens, is that those who are sent later embrace something the senders did not originally believe and thus they no longer support the one sent or who was originally endorsed. It may have even happened to Paul when he and Barnabas split."

And again I point to Caiaphus and Ananias (on whose account Paul was slapped). The lack of support of original principles does not invalidate office or eliminate the need for it.

I think where the confusion comes into the play here in this topic is trying to define who is a true leader and who is able to send forth another leader. Yet you do recognize there are multiple lines."

As long as the "lines" are legitimate. There is not just one "preacher" just as there was not one Levite.

(Y)ou may be presenting that view that the succession went into Rome then into the Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians where the multiple lines now exist and so on and so forth from those branches on down."

Pretty much.

(T)here is also evidence to of free churches that existed in various places that never succumb to Rome or joined with Rome. As the sword came down on them many of them went underground or were more low key in history. Yet with good historians we have ideas of what some of these smaller free groups believed."

If clear evidence was extinguished, then I point to Ezra and Nehemiah who excluded priests at least until their genealogies could be verified.

Have you ever studied the Waldensians? They were a free group of the 1100's. Others like these existed since the time of the original apostles."

If they can establish their legitimacy, well and good. I keep hearing rumors of these groups, and if they can trace their line back to Jerusalem, and if a line can be drawn clearly between them and our time, they are legitimate.

The key is thus to look for the gospel and for the willingness of those claiming to have been sent to see if they have truly been discipled and trained and then sent forth to do the work of the gospel."

Too vague. You would set up men in office in worship that are not to be in that office. This is part and parcel of the Sin of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.

The Landmarkers said the Reformers were not establishing true churches. The Reformers said the free churches were not true because they did not come from the original one true church as they defined it."

The Reformers seem to agree somewhat with me, but I would not say it was the one true church they were called out of.

When we admit multiple lines exist we then have to look to what makes the line a good line or a bad line."

Only one thing makes a line good in my view, that the line was part of a group that was "sent," and that was in some way "sent" themselves. As far as I am concerned, there could be thousands of such lines. They would all be able to show clearly, and historically, that they were sent from somewhere. Mere assertions that a line exist not are not sufficient.

Beyond that, you seem to be saying "look and see" as a way of determining legitimacy. I still point to Caiaphus. You would have looked and said "there is no legitimacy here."

 

[Hugh McBryde]

There are two threads on this topic, one is in the "hidden" forum of "respectful debate." I have posted this there as well.

I don't see a credible counter.

To be clear again, it has never been my position that the Roman Catholic Church is or was the "one True Church." That is an erroneous position that the RCC took.

It is my position that at least at one time, the RCC was a valid denomination or sect of Christianity. I claim to descend in authority from the RCC. One could also claim authority from another source, I simply can't unless I am wrong about my spiritual lineage.

I have never denied "multiple lines." This goes along with understanding that the RCC is not the "One True Church." A line would have to have it's documentation though, merely stating there are or at least could be multiple lines does not automatically validate any one of them.

One of the sins of Jeroboam the Son of Nebat who did make Israel to sin, was the setting up in authority of persons who were not supposed to be in authority.

As yet no one has brought me a scriptural example of a "self authorizing," "self actualizing" church. They have made claims that after a while, if they stick around, a church sorta "authorizes" by default. They have also claimed that results speak for themselves.

All scriptural examples of worship leadership or churches or temples or synagogues have leadership passed down by human authorities who can trace their lineage back to an appointment by God. After Sinai, that is.

Please be more explicit in your reasoning.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

DTT wrote,

If so where did the first apostle come from?

Luke 6:12-16
And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

These were the first that were named Apostles. Each one was first a disciple of John the Baptist and then Jesus and then chosen by Him to be His particular emmissaries or ambassadors in this world. When Judas Iscariot was being replaced a requirement of a candidate was that he had to have been with the disciples of Jesus from the baptism of John.

So the first apostles came from Jesus physical form after he was born of a virgin?

And where did the apostles before Jesus was born of a virgin come from?

So can John Calvin and Martin Luther trace an unbroken line to these people in which they are not excommunicated from the line they trace?