Why does the Bible have authority?

[koshergrl]

The

The Bible was the justification for LIMITING the absolute authority of the monarchy, and the eventual establishment of democracy.

Really?

Let's see your "credible source".

"After King John of England violated a number of ancient laws and customs, the country’s barons forced him to sign the Magna Carta (Great Charter) in 1215 at the small picturesque village of Runnymeade alongside the River Thames west of London.
"The document enumerates the church’s right to appoint its own clergy, bishops and archbishops following a bitter church-state row about who should be archbishop of Canterbury — the man appointed by King John or Pope Innocent III’s appointee, Stephen Langton."

British churches to celebrate Magna Carta s 800th birthday by reasserting its Christian heritage - Religion News Service

The Anglican Church is separated from apostolic succession and therefore cannot legitimately be part of Christ's original church. Only the Catholic and Orthodox synods can trace their line of succession to the original apostles.

Succession does not determine Christian authority.
Besides which, I have no idea what relevance your comment has to anything we're discussing.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The authority of the Bible comes from what we voluntarily choose to give it.

The Bible never endorsed any form of government or political philosophy over another.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The

The Bible was the justification for LIMITING the absolute authority of the monarchy, and the eventual establishment of democracy.

Really?

Let's see your "credible source".

"After King John of England violated a number of ancient laws and customs, the country’s barons forced him to sign the Magna Carta (Great Charter) in 1215 at the small picturesque village of Runnymeade alongside the River Thames west of London.
"The document enumerates the church’s right to appoint its own clergy, bishops and archbishops following a bitter church-state row about who should be archbishop of Canterbury — the man appointed by King John or Pope Innocent III’s appointee, Stephen Langton."

British churches to celebrate Magna Carta s 800th birthday by reasserting its Christian heritage - Religion News Service

The Anglican Church is separated from apostolic succession and therefore cannot legitimately be part of Christ's original church. Only the Catholic and Orthodox synods can trace their line of succession to the original apostles.

Succession does not determine Christian authority.
Besides which, I have no idea what relevance your comment has to anything we're discussing.

The first act of succession was recorded in the book of acts. The reason you don't think authority is a matter of apostolic succession is because you don't believe the Church has authority. Most Protestants would agree with you. But all biblical evidence contradicts the idea that Jesus invested his authority in a canon of books and affirms that Jesus commissioned the apostles, saying "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Along with teaching the nations and baptizing, Jesus empowered the apostles to forgive or retain sins, to bind and to loose, and gave them the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth.

It's the most important thing to understand about how authority was bequeathed when Jesus ascended. The Bible wouldn't even exist as an official canon for 3 centuries after the apostolic age. Authority given directly to the apostles was transferred to the bishops they appointed to replace them, and the presbyters, (priests) appointed by the bishops. The appointment of Matthias to replace Judas was the first act of apostolic succession, though there have been in the history of the Church only 13 apostles including Paul, by way of the criteria that they be directly commissioned by Jesus Christ. Their successors were all bishops who themselves appointed bishops to replace them and so on.

The unease Protestants seem to have with this is that human authority is fallible. People are corrupt, greedy, liars, and perverters of true religion. The history of the Church has well borne out this concern as legitimate. But Jesus, who said, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it," understood all this too, but also knew the Church would accomplish its mission even with imperfect people leading it because he gave the Holy Spirit to guide it always. Jesus built a church, not a book, and even the Bible itself was a product of authority, made official in 393 AD at the Council of Hippo. Even the books decided to be part of the canon point to the Church as the font of divine revelation, the chosen vessel, the Bride of Christ with the authority of Christ.

 

[koshergrl]

The

The Bible was the justification for LIMITING the absolute authority of the monarchy, and the eventual establishment of democracy.

Really?

Let's see your "credible source".

"After King John of England violated a number of ancient laws and customs, the country’s barons forced him to sign the Magna Carta (Great Charter) in 1215 at the small picturesque village of Runnymeade alongside the River Thames west of London.
"The document enumerates the church’s right to appoint its own clergy, bishops and archbishops following a bitter church-state row about who should be archbishop of Canterbury — the man appointed by King John or Pope Innocent III’s appointee, Stephen Langton."

British churches to celebrate Magna Carta s 800th birthday by reasserting its Christian heritage - Religion News Service

The Anglican Church is separated from apostolic succession and therefore cannot legitimately be part of Christ's original church. Only the Catholic and Orthodox synods can trace their line of succession to the original apostles.

Succession does not determine Christian authority.
Besides which, I have no idea what relevance your comment has to anything we're discussing.

The first act of succession was recorded in the book of acts. The reason you don't think authority is a matter of apostolic succession is because you don't believe the Church has authority. Most Protestants would agree with you. But all biblical evidence contradicts the idea that Jesus invested his authority in a canon of books and affirms that Jesus commissioned the apostles, saying "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Along with teaching the nations and baptizing, Jesus empowered the apostles to forgive or retain sins, to bind and to loose, and gave them the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth.

It's the most important thing to understand about how authority was bequeathed when Jesus ascended. The Bible wouldn't even exist as an official canon for 3 centuries after the apostolic age. Authority given directly to the apostles was transferred to the bishops they appointed to replace them, and the presbyters, (priests) appointed by the bishops. The appointment of Matthias to replace Judas was the first act of apostolic succession, though there have been in the history of the Church only 13 apostles including Paul, by way of the criteria that they be directly commissioned by Jesus Christ. Their successors were all bishops who themselves appointed bishops to replace them and so on.

The unease Protestants seem to have with this is that human authority is fallible. People are corrupt, greedy, liars, and perverters of true religion. The history of the Church has well borne out this concern as legitimate. But Jesus, who said, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it," understood all this too, but also knew the Church would accomplish its mission even with imperfect people leading it because he gave the Holy Spirit to guide it always. Jesus built a church, not a book, and even the Bible itself was a product of authority, made official in 393 AD at the Council of Hippo. Even the books decided to be part of the canon point to the Church as the font of divine revelation, the chosen vessel, the Bride of Christ with the authority of Christ.

Yeah anyway my point was that it's irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Avatar4321]

The

The Bible was the justification for LIMITING the absolute authority of the monarchy, and the eventual establishment of democracy.

Really?

Let's see your "credible source".

"After King John of England violated a number of ancient laws and customs, the country’s barons forced him to sign the Magna Carta (Great Charter) in 1215 at the small picturesque village of Runnymeade alongside the River Thames west of London.
"The document enumerates the church’s right to appoint its own clergy, bishops and archbishops following a bitter church-state row about who should be archbishop of Canterbury — the man appointed by King John or Pope Innocent III’s appointee, Stephen Langton."

British churches to celebrate Magna Carta s 800th birthday by reasserting its Christian heritage - Religion News Service

The Anglican Church is separated from apostolic succession and therefore cannot legitimately be part of Christ's original church. Only the Catholic and Orthodox synods can trace their line of succession to the original apostles.

I disagree. Bishops can't succeed apostles. Only apostles succeed apostles.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The authority of the Bible comes from what we voluntarily choose to give it.

The Bible never endorsed any form of government or political philosophy over another.

Your Bible was written when governments were monarchies or dictatorships. Your Bible endorsed the divine right of kings because to do otherwise would have been sedition. The only "government" it opposed were those where the former rulers became gods upon their deaths because conflicted with the concept of monotheism.

 

[Avatar4321]

. Rome was a lot of things but not liberal.

dear, a powerful central govt( whether Roman or communist) is the essence of liberalism. thats why our founders made them all illegal in America. THe only thing thats legal here is a very very limited govt.

Now do you understand your ABC's??

Learn what Liberalism is, that isn't it, and Rome wasn't liberal.

dear, here are some quotes from our Founders to help you understand why they opposed big govt liberal communists liberal Romans and liberal monarchs:

17)A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- 18)this is the sum of good government.

-19)Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

-20)History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.

-21)I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

-22)I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

-23)My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.

now do you understand your your ABC's???

I know the Founders well, my kind of people, liberals. They and I are much the same, only I'm 230 years smarter.

you are seriously claiming to be smarter than some of the most brilliant men to have ever lived?

 

[Avatar4321]

The authority of the Bible comes from what we voluntarily choose to give it.

The Bible never endorsed any form of government or political philosophy over another.

Your Bible was written when governments were monarchies or dictatorships. Your Bible endorsed the divine right of kings because to do otherwise would have been sedition. The only "government" it opposed were those where the former rulers became gods upon their deaths because conflicted with the concept of monotheism.

you really should read the bible sometime. Or do you think the fact that the Lord spoke against having a king creates a divine right of kings?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Rome was a lot of things but not liberal.

dear, a powerful central govt( whether Roman or communist) is the essence of liberalism. thats why our founders made them all illegal in America. THe only thing thats legal here is a very very limited govt.

Now do you understand your ABC's??

Learn what Liberalism is, that isn't it, and Rome wasn't liberal.

dear, here are some quotes from our Founders to help you understand why they opposed big govt liberal communists liberal Romans and liberal monarchs:

17)A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- 18)this is the sum of good government.

-19)Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

-20)History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.

-21)I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

-22)I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

-23)My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.

now do you understand your your ABC's???

I know the Founders well, my kind of people, liberals. They and I are much the same, only I'm 230 years smarter.

you are seriously claiming to be smarter than some of the most brilliant men to have ever lived?

he's obviously smarter! He claims they were liberal when they wanted very very tiny government!!

 

[Derideo_Te]

The authority of the Bible comes from what we voluntarily choose to give it.

The Bible never endorsed any form of government or political philosophy over another.

Your Bible was written when governments were monarchies or dictatorships. Your Bible endorsed the divine right of kings because to do otherwise would have been sedition. The only "government" it opposed were those where the former rulers became gods upon their deaths because conflicted with the concept of monotheism.

you really should read the bible sometime. Or do you think the fact that the Lord spoke against having a king creates a divine right of kings?

Romans 13:1 NIV

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The authority of the Bible comes from what we voluntarily choose to give it.

The Bible never endorsed any form of government or political philosophy over another.

Your Bible was written when governments were monarchies or dictatorships. Your Bible endorsed the divine right of kings because to do otherwise would have been sedition. The only "government" it opposed were those where the former rulers became gods upon their deaths because conflicted with the concept of monotheism.

too stupid!! Jesus stood up as king of the Jews and was executed for treasonous challenge to Caesar. He did not endorse monarchy!!! He said give to Caesar what is his and to God what is his. That immediately set up a power to compete with Caesar and began Western Civilization on a trajectory toward more and more individual freedom and the US Constitution.

.

 

[Hollie]

The authority of the Bible comes from what we voluntarily choose to give it.

The Bible never endorsed any form of government or political philosophy over another.

Your Bible was written when governments were monarchies or dictatorships. Your Bible endorsed the divine right of kings because to do otherwise would have been sedition. The only "government" it opposed were those where the former rulers became gods upon their deaths because conflicted with the concept of monotheism.

you really should read the bible sometime. Or do you think the fact that the Lord spoke against having a king creates a divine right of kings?

Who took the lord's dictation?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The authority of the Bible comes from what we voluntarily choose to give it.

The Bible never endorsed any form of government or political philosophy over another.

Your Bible was written when governments were monarchies or dictatorships. Your Bible endorsed the divine right of kings because to do otherwise would have been sedition. The only "government" it opposed were those where the former rulers became gods upon their deaths because conflicted with the concept of monotheism.

you really should read the bible sometime. Or do you think the fact that the Lord spoke against having a king creates a divine right of kings?

Romans 13:1 NIV

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God

dear, really? one quote from the Bible? when a child knows you can find anything you want in the Bible

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The

Really?

Let's see your "credible source".

"After King John of England violated a number of ancient laws and customs, the country’s barons forced him to sign the Magna Carta (Great Charter) in 1215 at the small picturesque village of Runnymeade alongside the River Thames west of London.
"The document enumerates the church’s right to appoint its own clergy, bishops and archbishops following a bitter church-state row about who should be archbishop of Canterbury — the man appointed by King John or Pope Innocent III’s appointee, Stephen Langton."

British churches to celebrate Magna Carta s 800th birthday by reasserting its Christian heritage - Religion News Service

The Anglican Church is separated from apostolic succession and therefore cannot legitimately be part of Christ's original church. Only the Catholic and Orthodox synods can trace their line of succession to the original apostles.

Succession does not determine Christian authority.
Besides which, I have no idea what relevance your comment has to anything we're discussing.

The first act of succession was recorded in the book of acts. The reason you don't think authority is a matter of apostolic succession is because you don't believe the Church has authority. Most Protestants would agree with you. But all biblical evidence contradicts the idea that Jesus invested his authority in a canon of books and affirms that Jesus commissioned the apostles, saying "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Along with teaching the nations and baptizing, Jesus empowered the apostles to forgive or retain sins, to bind and to loose, and gave them the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth.

It's the most important thing to understand about how authority was bequeathed when Jesus ascended. The Bible wouldn't even exist as an official canon for 3 centuries after the apostolic age. Authority given directly to the apostles was transferred to the bishops they appointed to replace them, and the presbyters, (priests) appointed by the bishops. The appointment of Matthias to replace Judas was the first act of apostolic succession, though there have been in the history of the Church only 13 apostles including Paul, by way of the criteria that they be directly commissioned by Jesus Christ. Their successors were all bishops who themselves appointed bishops to replace them and so on.

The unease Protestants seem to have with this is that human authority is fallible. People are corrupt, greedy, liars, and perverters of true religion. The history of the Church has well borne out this concern as legitimate. But Jesus, who said, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it," understood all this too, but also knew the Church would accomplish its mission even with imperfect people leading it because he gave the Holy Spirit to guide it always. Jesus built a church, not a book, and even the Bible itself was a product of authority, made official in 393 AD at the Council of Hippo. Even the books decided to be part of the canon point to the Church as the font of divine revelation, the chosen vessel, the Bride of Christ with the authority of Christ.

Yeah anyway my point was that it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Not really. The world has picked up on Christian fundamentalism and the undyinge belief that the Bible is a source of authority. Seventh Day Adventists illustrate this perfectly. They have decided that because the Bible makes Saturday the Sabbath, Christians are wrong to go to church service on Sunday. The Bible itself records the change from Saturday worship to Sunday, a decision made by the Apostles. As a side note, the Bible also records the Church doing away with circumcision. This is all very important because it proves beyond all dispute that the Christian Church didn't consider itself bound by ancient texts of Scripture, by rather by Jesus and the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Seventh Day Adventists are wrong, the Bible doesn't have authority, the Church does. And that right from the start.

But the world got the message loud and clear that many Christians believe that their authority lies in a book, a belief central to this thread's discussion.

The

The Bible was the justification for LIMITING the absolute authority of the monarchy, and the eventual establishment of democracy.

Really?

Let's see your "credible source".

"After King John of England violated a number of ancient laws and customs, the country’s barons forced him to sign the Magna Carta (Great Charter) in 1215 at the small picturesque village of Runnymeade alongside the River Thames west of London.
"The document enumerates the church’s right to appoint its own clergy, bishops and archbishops following a bitter church-state row about who should be archbishop of Canterbury — the man appointed by King John or Pope Innocent III’s appointee, Stephen Langton."

British churches to celebrate Magna Carta s 800th birthday by reasserting its Christian heritage - Religion News Service

The Anglican Church is separated from apostolic succession and therefore cannot legitimately be part of Christ's original church. Only the Catholic and Orthodox synods can trace their line of succession to the original apostles.

I disagree. Bishops can't succeed apostles. Only apostles succeed apostles.

Disagree all you want, but you're wrong. Apostles have to be directly appointed by Jesus Christ himself, something that was emphasized repeatedly by the Apostle Paul to distinguish his authority as equal to the other eleven. This is an interesting read that can give you more detail on this: Marks of a True Apostle Appointed by Jesus

It is in fact a sign of error whenever anyone calls themselves an apostle or a prophet. Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS church, called himself both. But the age of both prophets is at an end, the prophets having been fulfilled in Christ, and the apostles having died and passed their authority to the bishops they appointed. Though we all aspire to be disciples of Christ, as Jesus said call no man on earth your teacher for you have only one teacher, we are not apostles. That distinct honor belongs to a guild of men who are now in heaven.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The authority of the Bible comes from what we voluntarily choose to give it.

The Bible never endorsed any form of government or political philosophy over another.

Your Bible was written when governments were monarchies or dictatorships. Your Bible endorsed the divine right of kings because to do otherwise would have been sedition. The only "government" it opposed were those where the former rulers became gods upon their deaths because conflicted with the concept of monotheism.

you really should read the bible sometime. Or do you think the fact that the Lord spoke against having a king creates a divine right of kings?

Romans 13:1 NIV

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God

dear, really? one quote from the Bible? when a child knows you can find anything you want in the Bible

This is the problem from thinking that one's doctrinal and ecclesial authority comes from a book that can neither breath nor speak. Christ's authority was invested directly in a living, breathing Church.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Christ's authority was invested directly in a living, breathing Church.

this is true!! It's why the Pope commissioned Raphael to do the School of Athens fresco( featuring Plato and Aristotle and all the other great thinkers.) in the Vatican where it remains to this day in testimony to the Church's role as the purveyor of all wisdom.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Christ's authority was invested directly in a living, breathing Church.

this is true!! It's why the Pope commissioned Raphael to do the School of Athens fresco( featuring Plato and Aristotle and all the other great thinkers.) in the Vatican where it remains to this day in testimony to the Church's role as the purveyor of all wisdom.

The Catholic Church has never claimed to be the purveyor of all wisdom. In fact the Catechism teaches specifically that wisdom can be found in all world religions.

 

[Avatar4321]

The
"After King John of England violated a number of ancient laws and customs, the country’s barons forced him to sign the Magna Carta (Great Charter) in 1215 at the small picturesque village of Runnymeade alongside the River Thames west of London.
"The document enumerates the church’s right to appoint its own clergy, bishops and archbishops following a bitter church-state row about who should be archbishop of Canterbury — the man appointed by King John or Pope Innocent III’s appointee, Stephen Langton."

British churches to celebrate Magna Carta s 800th birthday by reasserting its Christian heritage - Religion News Service

The Anglican Church is separated from apostolic succession and therefore cannot legitimately be part of Christ's original church. Only the Catholic and Orthodox synods can trace their line of succession to the original apostles.

Succession does not determine Christian authority.
Besides which, I have no idea what relevance your comment has to anything we're discussing.

The first act of succession was recorded in the book of acts. The reason you don't think authority is a matter of apostolic succession is because you don't believe the Church has authority. Most Protestants would agree with you. But all biblical evidence contradicts the idea that Jesus invested his authority in a canon of books and affirms that Jesus commissioned the apostles, saying "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Along with teaching the nations and baptizing, Jesus empowered the apostles to forgive or retain sins, to bind and to loose, and gave them the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth.

It's the most important thing to understand about how authority was bequeathed when Jesus ascended. The Bible wouldn't even exist as an official canon for 3 centuries after the apostolic age. Authority given directly to the apostles was transferred to the bishops they appointed to replace them, and the presbyters, (priests) appointed by the bishops. The appointment of Matthias to replace Judas was the first act of apostolic succession, though there have been in the history of the Church only 13 apostles including Paul, by way of the criteria that they be directly commissioned by Jesus Christ. Their successors were all bishops who themselves appointed bishops to replace them and so on.

The unease Protestants seem to have with this is that human authority is fallible. People are corrupt, greedy, liars, and perverters of true religion. The history of the Church has well borne out this concern as legitimate. But Jesus, who said, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it," understood all this too, but also knew the Church would accomplish its mission even with imperfect people leading it because he gave the Holy Spirit to guide it always. Jesus built a church, not a book, and even the Bible itself was a product of authority, made official in 393 AD at the Council of Hippo. Even the books decided to be part of the canon point to the Church as the font of divine revelation, the chosen vessel, the Bride of Christ with the authority of Christ.

Yeah anyway my point was that it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Not really. The world has picked up on Christian fundamentalism and the undyinge belief that the Bible is a source of authority. Seventh Day Adventists illustrate this perfectly. They have decided that because the Bible makes Saturday the Sabbath, Christians are wrong to go to church service on Sunday. The Bible itself records the change from Saturday worship to Sunday, a decision made by the Apostles. As a side note, the Bible also records the Church doing away with circumcision. This is all very important because it proves beyond all dispute that the Christian Church didn't consider itself bound by ancient texts of Scripture, by rather by Jesus and the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Seventh Day Adventists are wrong, the Bible doesn't have authority, the Church does. And that right from the start.

But the world got the message loud and clear that many Christians believe that their authority lies in a book, a belief central to this thread's discussion.

The

The Bible was the justification for LIMITING the absolute authority of the monarchy, and the eventual establishment of democracy.

Really?

Let's see your "credible source".

"After King John of England violated a number of ancient laws and customs, the country’s barons forced him to sign the Magna Carta (Great Charter) in 1215 at the small picturesque village of Runnymeade alongside the River Thames west of London.
"The document enumerates the church’s right to appoint its own clergy, bishops and archbishops following a bitter church-state row about who should be archbishop of Canterbury — the man appointed by King John or Pope Innocent III’s appointee, Stephen Langton."

British churches to celebrate Magna Carta s 800th birthday by reasserting its Christian heritage - Religion News Service

The Anglican Church is separated from apostolic succession and therefore cannot legitimately be part of Christ's original church. Only the Catholic and Orthodox synods can trace their line of succession to the original apostles.

I disagree. Bishops can't succeed apostles. Only apostles succeed apostles.

Disagree all you want, but you're wrong. Apostles have to be directly appointed by Jesus Christ himself, something that was emphasized repeatedly by the Apostle Paul to distinguish his authority as equal to the other eleven. This is an interesting read that can give you more detail on this: Marks of a True Apostle Appointed by Jesus

It is in fact a sign of error whenever anyone calls themselves an apostle or a prophet. Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS church, called himself both. But the age of both prophets is at an end, the prophets having been fulfilled in Christ, and the apostles having died and passed their authority to the bishops they appointed. Though we all aspire to be disciples of Christ, as Jesus said call no man on earth your teacher for you have only one teacher, we are not apostles. That distinct honor belongs to a guild of men who are now in heaven.

If the prophets ended with Christ, why did He give us the key to know between false and real ones? He could have simply told us there would be no more.

Why were there prophets throughout the new testament? Why did Paul state that prophets and apostles are the foundation of the church and that the Lord had given them to us until we come to a unity of faith? Which last time I checked, we had no reached.

Until the apostles were killed off we saw ordination to replace their numbers. Paul and Matthias being two. Both called to replace members who had fallen in transgression or death.

Bishops are not apostles. They never have been and never will be. They cannot stand in the place of apostles. The very fact that the bishops stepped up and grabbed power were not given to them is evidence of apostasy. Bishops were never mentioned as the foundation of the church. The apostles and prophets were.

Your argument for the end of prophets is even more problematic. The scriptures say that the Spirit of prophecy is a testimony of Jesus Christ. How can one claim authority from God when they deny the Spirit of prophecy?

Thankfully the Lord has restored His authority. He has called apostles and given them power to lead His Church.

 

[Avatar4321]

The
"After King John of England violated a number of ancient laws and customs, the country’s barons forced him to sign the Magna Carta (Great Charter) in 1215 at the small picturesque village of Runnymeade alongside the River Thames west of London.
"The document enumerates the church’s right to appoint its own clergy, bishops and archbishops following a bitter church-state row about who should be archbishop of Canterbury — the man appointed by King John or Pope Innocent III’s appointee, Stephen Langton."

British churches to celebrate Magna Carta s 800th birthday by reasserting its Christian heritage - Religion News Service

The Anglican Church is separated from apostolic succession and therefore cannot legitimately be part of Christ's original church. Only the Catholic and Orthodox synods can trace their line of succession to the original apostles.

Succession does not determine Christian authority.
Besides which, I have no idea what relevance your comment has to anything we're discussing.

The first act of succession was recorded in the book of acts. The reason you don't think authority is a matter of apostolic succession is because you don't believe the Church has authority. Most Protestants would agree with you. But all biblical evidence contradicts the idea that Jesus invested his authority in a canon of books and affirms that Jesus commissioned the apostles, saying "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Along with teaching the nations and baptizing, Jesus empowered the apostles to forgive or retain sins, to bind and to loose, and gave them the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth.

It's the most important thing to understand about how authority was bequeathed when Jesus ascended. The Bible wouldn't even exist as an official canon for 3 centuries after the apostolic age. Authority given directly to the apostles was transferred to the bishops they appointed to replace them, and the presbyters, (priests) appointed by the bishops. The appointment of Matthias to replace Judas was the first act of apostolic succession, though there have been in the history of the Church only 13 apostles including Paul, by way of the criteria that they be directly commissioned by Jesus Christ. Their successors were all bishops who themselves appointed bishops to replace them and so on.

The unease Protestants seem to have with this is that human authority is fallible. People are corrupt, greedy, liars, and perverters of true religion. The history of the Church has well borne out this concern as legitimate. But Jesus, who said, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it," understood all this too, but also knew the Church would accomplish its mission even with imperfect people leading it because he gave the Holy Spirit to guide it always. Jesus built a church, not a book, and even the Bible itself was a product of authority, made official in 393 AD at the Council of Hippo. Even the books decided to be part of the canon point to the Church as the font of divine revelation, the chosen vessel, the Bride of Christ with the authority of Christ.

Yeah anyway my point was that it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Not really. The world has picked up on Christian fundamentalism and the undyinge belief that the Bible is a source of authority. Seventh Day Adventists illustrate this perfectly. They have decided that because the Bible makes Saturday the Sabbath, Christians are wrong to go to church service on Sunday. The Bible itself records the change from Saturday worship to Sunday, a decision made by the Apostles. As a side note, the Bible also records the Church doing away with circumcision. This is all very important because it proves beyond all dispute that the Christian Church didn't consider itself bound by ancient texts of Scripture, by rather by Jesus and the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Seventh Day Adventists are wrong, the Bible doesn't have authority, the Church does. And that right from the start.

But the world got the message loud and clear that many Christians believe that their authority lies in a book, a belief central to this thread's discussion.

The

The Bible was the justification for LIMITING the absolute authority of the monarchy, and the eventual establishment of democracy.

Really?

Let's see your "credible source".

"After King John of England violated a number of ancient laws and customs, the country’s barons forced him to sign the Magna Carta (Great Charter) in 1215 at the small picturesque village of Runnymeade alongside the River Thames west of London.
"The document enumerates the church’s right to appoint its own clergy, bishops and archbishops following a bitter church-state row about who should be archbishop of Canterbury — the man appointed by King John or Pope Innocent III’s appointee, Stephen Langton."

British churches to celebrate Magna Carta s 800th birthday by reasserting its Christian heritage - Religion News Service

The Anglican Church is separated from apostolic succession and therefore cannot legitimately be part of Christ's original church. Only the Catholic and Orthodox synods can trace their line of succession to the original apostles.

I disagree. Bishops can't succeed apostles. Only apostles succeed apostles.

Disagree all you want, but you're wrong. Apostles have to be directly appointed by Jesus Christ himself, something that was emphasized repeatedly by the Apostle Paul to distinguish his authority as equal to the other eleven. This is an interesting read that can give you more detail on this: Marks of a True Apostle Appointed by Jesus

It is in fact a sign of error whenever anyone calls themselves an apostle or a prophet. Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS church, called himself both. But the age of both prophets is at an end, the prophets having been fulfilled in Christ, and the apostles having died and passed their authority to the bishops they appointed. Though we all aspire to be disciples of Christ, as Jesus said call no man on earth your teacher for you have only one teacher, we are not apostles. That distinct honor belongs to a guild of men who are now in heaven.

If the prophets ended with Christ, why did He give us the key to know between false and real ones? He could have simply told us there would be no more.

Why were there prophets throughout the new testament? Why did Paul state that prophets and apostles are the foundation of the church and that the Lord had given them to us until we come to a unity of faith? Which last time I checked, we had no reached.

Until the apostles were killed off we saw ordination to replace their numbers. Paul and Matthias being two. Both called to replace members who had fallen in transgression or death.

Bishops are not apostles. They never have been and never will be. They cannot stand in the place of apostles. The very fact that the bishops stepped up and grabbed power were not given to them is evidence of apostasy. Bishops were never mentioned as the foundation of the church. The apostles and prophets were.

Your argument for the end of prophets is even more problematic. The scriptures say that the Spirit of prophecy is a testimony of Jesus Christ. How can one claim authority from God when they deny the Spirit of prophecy?

Thankfully the Lord has restored His authority. He has called apostles and given them power to lead His Church.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The Anglican Church is separated from apostolic succession and therefore cannot legitimately be part of Christ's original church. Only the Catholic and Orthodox synods can trace their line of succession to the original apostles.

Succession does not determine Christian authority.
Besides which, I have no idea what relevance your comment has to anything we're discussing.

The first act of succession was recorded in the book of acts. The reason you don't think authority is a matter of apostolic succession is because you don't believe the Church has authority. Most Protestants would agree with you. But all biblical evidence contradicts the idea that Jesus invested his authority in a canon of books and affirms that Jesus commissioned the apostles, saying "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Along with teaching the nations and baptizing, Jesus empowered the apostles to forgive or retain sins, to bind and to loose, and gave them the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth.

It's the most important thing to understand about how authority was bequeathed when Jesus ascended. The Bible wouldn't even exist as an official canon for 3 centuries after the apostolic age. Authority given directly to the apostles was transferred to the bishops they appointed to replace them, and the presbyters, (priests) appointed by the bishops. The appointment of Matthias to replace Judas was the first act of apostolic succession, though there have been in the history of the Church only 13 apostles including Paul, by way of the criteria that they be directly commissioned by Jesus Christ. Their successors were all bishops who themselves appointed bishops to replace them and so on.

The unease Protestants seem to have with this is that human authority is fallible. People are corrupt, greedy, liars, and perverters of true religion. The history of the Church has well borne out this concern as legitimate. But Jesus, who said, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it," understood all this too, but also knew the Church would accomplish its mission even with imperfect people leading it because he gave the Holy Spirit to guide it always. Jesus built a church, not a book, and even the Bible itself was a product of authority, made official in 393 AD at the Council of Hippo. Even the books decided to be part of the canon point to the Church as the font of divine revelation, the chosen vessel, the Bride of Christ with the authority of Christ.

Yeah anyway my point was that it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Not really. The world has picked up on Christian fundamentalism and the undyinge belief that the Bible is a source of authority. Seventh Day Adventists illustrate this perfectly. They have decided that because the Bible makes Saturday the Sabbath, Christians are wrong to go to church service on Sunday. The Bible itself records the change from Saturday worship to Sunday, a decision made by the Apostles. As a side note, the Bible also records the Church doing away with circumcision. This is all very important because it proves beyond all dispute that the Christian Church didn't consider itself bound by ancient texts of Scripture, by rather by Jesus and the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Seventh Day Adventists are wrong, the Bible doesn't have authority, the Church does. And that right from the start.

But the world got the message loud and clear that many Christians believe that their authority lies in a book, a belief central to this thread's discussion.

The

Really?

Let's see your "credible source".

"After King John of England violated a number of ancient laws and customs, the country’s barons forced him to sign the Magna Carta (Great Charter) in 1215 at the small picturesque village of Runnymeade alongside the River Thames west of London.
"The document enumerates the church’s right to appoint its own clergy, bishops and archbishops following a bitter church-state row about who should be archbishop of Canterbury — the man appointed by King John or Pope Innocent III’s appointee, Stephen Langton."

British churches to celebrate Magna Carta s 800th birthday by reasserting its Christian heritage - Religion News Service

The Anglican Church is separated from apostolic succession and therefore cannot legitimately be part of Christ's original church. Only the Catholic and Orthodox synods can trace their line of succession to the original apostles.

I disagree. Bishops can't succeed apostles. Only apostles succeed apostles.

Disagree all you want, but you're wrong. Apostles have to be directly appointed by Jesus Christ himself, something that was emphasized repeatedly by the Apostle Paul to distinguish his authority as equal to the other eleven. This is an interesting read that can give you more detail on this: Marks of a True Apostle Appointed by Jesus

It is in fact a sign of error whenever anyone calls themselves an apostle or a prophet. Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS church, called himself both. But the age of both prophets is at an end, the prophets having been fulfilled in Christ, and the apostles having died and passed their authority to the bishops they appointed. Though we all aspire to be disciples of Christ, as Jesus said call no man on earth your teacher for you have only one teacher, we are not apostles. That distinct honor belongs to a guild of men who are now in heaven.

If the prophets ended with Christ, why did He give us the key to know between false and real ones? He could have simply told us there would be no more.

Why were there prophets throughout the new testament? Why did Paul state that prophets and apostles are the foundation of the church and that the Lord had given them to us until we come to a unity of faith? Which last time I checked, we had no reached.

Until the apostles were killed off we saw ordination to replace their numbers. Paul and Matthias being two. Both called to replace members who had fallen in transgression or death.

Bishops are not apostles. They never have been and never will be. They cannot stand in the place of apostles. The very fact that the bishops stepped up and grabbed power were not given to them is evidence of apostasy. Bishops were never mentioned as the foundation of the church. The apostles and prophets were.

Your argument for the end of prophets is even more problematic. The scriptures say that the Spirit of prophecy is a testimony of Jesus Christ. How can one claim authority from God when they deny the Spirit of prophecy?

Thankfully the Lord has restored His authority. He has called apostles and given them power to lead His Church.

On the issue of the prophets, it must be understood that the age of prophets ended with Christ. This was made clear in several places. The Transfiguration was the first strong indicator that both the law (Moses) and the prophets (Elijah) found their fulfillment in Christ. This transition, being fully understood by the Apostles, was recorded in no uncertain terms in the opening verses of Hebrews: "God who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to our fathers through the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things." There's no mistaking the meaning of this passage.

Many confuse the gift of prophesies with the prophets. The first is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, given to all who believe in Christ as a gift for our benefit. The second is an intermediary between God and man, a direct contradiction to the gospel of grace that teaches us that we have no intercessor before the Father except Christ. This is why Jesus told us, "Call no man on earth your father" and "Call no man on earth your teacher". In Christ, we have one father and one teacher, one intercessor, and one high priest according to the order of Melchizadek. There are no prophets because we have Jesus.

And most importantly, the lack of prophets and the ability for Christians to "come boldly to the throne of grace" (Hebrews 4:16) is what God has desired all along. This was made clear in the days of Moses when God wanted to fellowship with his people directly with no prophets. When Moses brought this to the people, they feared such intimacy with God and told Moses, "No, but let God speak to you and you tell us". They rejected God's higher plan for them. Thus began the age of prophets.

And so Christ is a realization of God's greatest desire for us, that we come to know him personally, that nobody speak for him to us or for us to him; that there be no ambassador of God except for Christ.