Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
To me that's all optional and not in any way of the importance of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, the Priesthood of all believers, etc. But it is what the Amish and Mennonites and Puritans wanted--i.e. nothing that was even reminiscent of the pre-Reformation church. That's reforming too far IMO.
I understand your point brother.
There's nothing magic about it, but it makes the ordination official, like getting the diploma upon your graduation. We could say "What does that prove; it's just a piece of paper?" but of course both of these do prove something--that it was official and it actually happened and by whom it was done.
It guarantees that a valid bishop intended to ordain another one--and did so. The whole idea here is that there is a real lineage. Imagine if no one could point to his credentials and all we had was his word for it ("Trust me. Bishop Jones wanted me to be his successor...." or "Trust me. Bishop Smith thought I was qualified.")
You must be thinking that a bishop is chosen because he's an expert at handling bread and wine instead of being a man who has been duly chosen for a position of leadership in the church.
There's nothing magic about it, but it makes the ordination official, like getting the diploma upon your graduation. We could say "What does that prove; it's just a piece of paper?" but of course both of these do prove something--that it was official and it actually happened and by whom it was done.
It guarantees that a valid bishop intended to ordain another one--and did so. The whole idea here is that there is a real lineage. Imagine if no one could point to his credentials and all we had was his word for it ("Trust me. Bishop Jones wanted me to be his successor...." or "Trust me. Bishop Smith thought I was qualified.")
You wouldn't choose a doctor that way, so....?
You must be thinking that a bishop is chosen because he's an expert at handling bread and wine instead of being a man who has been duly chosen for a position of leadership in the church.
By the way, what makes a man a valid minister in the typical Evangelical church (if you don't care for a physical lineage that can be traced back to the Apostles)? Many of them simply rent a meeting room and start calling themselves "Rev."
"
It's exactly so that this is NOT the case--a mere claim--that such a ceremony is conducted. The fact is that it is possible to check to see if a bishop did indeed lay hands on the person claiming to be one himself. It is evidence. There are many witnesses. It's not like Obama's "birth certificate."
"By the way, what makes a man a valid minister in the typical Evangelical church (if you don't care for a physical lineage that can be traced back to the Apostles)? Many of them simply rent a meeting room and start calling themselves "Rev."
I'm not Evangelical, but I don't see what succession has to do with anything.
I'd rather receive truth from a "layman" than receive a wheelbarrow filled with skulls from an "expert".
I'd rather a student give the right answer, than a professor give the wrong answer.
Not to the members of that church, no, but do you prefer a self-appointed pastor to one with credentials that include the approval of a line of duly and properly chosen men who were vouched for by others all the way back to the Apostles. Most of us don't."By the way, what makes a man a valid minister in the typical Evangelical church (if you don't care for a physical lineage that can be traced back to the Apostles)? Many of them simply rent a meeting room and start calling themselves "Rev."
I'm not Evangelical, but I don't see what succession has to do with anything.
Well, you missed that point entirely, didn't you? But the fact of the matter is that we'd all rather receive the truth than falsity, but how do you have any idea of whether the man knows what he's talking about in the first place? Don't you want at least some assurance that he's read a Bible before he starts telling you what to think of the contents?
Forget the diploma example, then. That was just my analogy. The answer is that, for most of history, there were no diplomas; people went by what they believed had happened, and they took as credentials who it was who had taught you and vouched for you. Laying on of hands is visible evidence of having been such a person and there are witnesses. Not so with just a man's say-so.
I didn't miss it. Laying on of hands does not guaranteed that he knows what he's talking about. No one said it does.
