How can I add to that which does not exist. The word does not institute apostolic succession; it does not authorize anyone else to create it. I am simply pointing out that fact. You apparently think that since God did not specifically, verbally forbid it, means it was acceptable to Him. That, sir, is the very definition of adding to. Someone in Catholicism's history went above and beyond God's word.
You conveniently neglected where the apostles replaced Judas, where Paul was commissioned to his work, and where Paul called Timothy to choose bishops as successors to the apostles. Succession is real, Biblical, practical, and necessary. But ponder this, and give a reasoned reply: Where are the Keys to the Kingdom that Jesus gave to Peter and the other apostles? Who has those now? Or are they lost?
You are the one who advocates that God's written word is insufficient. I have always proclaimed it to be totally and perfectly suited for it's purpose.
It is either insufficient, or else in many places obscure. Peter tells us that Paul's writings are obscure. The Ethiopian Eunuch asked Philip for assistance in interpreting the Scriptures. The witness of thousands of denominations attest that Scripture isn't enough, for if it were there is no way there would be that many denominations.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
"Thoroughly furnished" is how He puts it.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Great. But the Scripture Paul is referring to here is the Greek Septuagent Old Testament. If that thoroughly furnishes believers, then the New Testament is superfluous. Not what you want to be claiming.
The authority of the church is important, His church, the "catholic" church is not it. It does not look like the church Christ died for. It does not sound like the church Christ died for. It does not act like the church Christ died to establish. The bride of Christ has no earthly potentate(s), His bride looks only to the scriptures and the inspired epistles; she accepts His admonition to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. The church didn't preach man's thoughts, pseudo intellect, as doctrine. All we need is God's word and catholicism is unable to create it.
There you go attacking the Church again. You like doing that. But you still haven't told me what the name of your group is so someone could see how it's teaching holds up to scrutiny. Is it Lutheran, Methodist, Nazarene, Oneness, Pentecostal, Quaker, Reformed, Swedenborgian, or what? So far all you say, ever so emphatically, is that you aren't Catholic.
Hardly, I simply pointed out the fact He does not authorize such.
It was authorized by Jesus when he gave the keys to Peter. The Keys are handed on, intended to be handed on, intended until Jesus returns.
Christ most certainly did not establish catholicism, man did. Jesus said that grievous wolves would enter the flock and later Paul foretold of the falling away.
The falling away was not fortold as an annihilation, since creation there has always been at least a remnant of people who desires to do His will. The church in which my membership exist is in Christ's. God placed my membership in it when I obeyed the gospel of Jesus Christ, along with all others who submit to Him. That very church began on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem; we were first called by our new name in Antioch. It has no earthly headquarter, yet another distinction of His bride. Christ is the founder of it, it is built upon Him and His church receives it's sustenance from God's word alone.
So your group does not have a headquarters, you won't name it, you haven't indicated where it meets, Haven't mentioned if it has more than twenty members or not, and you think the Catholic Church is a bunch of wolves. Somehow you think your unnamed group is the continuation of the Church Jesus Christ founded. The Mormons think that. The Jehovah's Witnesses think that. The Seventh Day Adventists think that. Doesn't make it so.
Singular churches independent of each other; Christ being the only head and mediator.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1 Timothy 2:5
No. One singular Church. The one Jesus prayed for in John 17. Jesus has ONE bride, not a different girl in each town.
I agree totally but would add this, advocating tradition of man as doctrine and trusting any man for righteous living results in death....without first repenting.
Yup. That's a terrible thing. What traditional doctrines of man can you not even admit to having?
You said it yourself right there, multiple churches in multiple locations, each having their own overseers and they were to be united in what they preach and practice. No pope, no councils, no other meadiators other than Christ Himself. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. God's word tells us how to do EVERYTHING relating to Godly living and humility. We need nothing catholicism has added to His plan/church.
No. I said ONE Church in multiple locations under bishops in those locations. You twisted what I said. How can I trust you not to twist what the Scriptures say? By the way, who is your overseer? You admit that there were overseers in the early Church. So who is yours? Mine has a name. His name is Bernard Hebda. What is the name of yours? Or do you not have one?
