1:00 You would have to go back to Moses passing on authority to Joshua. The way he did it is the way the apostles did it. This was before the bishop of Rome declared himself a man god. That act of heresy is what caused the first church split.
You are conflating apostolic succession with apostles. Nobody says they are the new apostles. Succession is taught all the way starting with Moses passing to Joshua. This continues to today. 1 Timothy 4:14 explicitly talks about the laying on of hands. Also, you seem to be saying that succession was clearly taught but nothing says it will continue. But that is the wrong approach. If it was the precedent that was set the assumption would be that it continues unless explicitly stopped - and it wasn’t.
@@KevinDykeman I did not say that Catholics or Eastern Orthodox believe that the bishops are the new “apostles” but that they believe they are the true successors to them. You are right that the idea of “succession” is seen very early in Scripture, but that’s not what I’m arguing about. The question is did the bishops succeed the apostles in their authority, etc.? The answer is no. As I’ve mentioned in the video, I acknowledged that the practice of laying on of hands was common in the early church, but that’s it. There is no specific mandate that one must do this in order for his ministry to be effective or real or valid. Also, 1 Timothy 4:14 tell us nothing other than Paul advised Timothy to not forget the gift that was passed down to him when the council of elders laid hands on him. Paul is not telling Timothy that this should be done to every bishop that he ordains or else they are invalid. Lastly, I specifically said that succession from bishop to bishop is present not that the bishops succeeded the apostles which is Rome’s and the Eastern Orthodox’s claim. The fact that the apostles set in place a system of one person replacing another bishop once he dies or steps down is not what apostolic succession proper teaches. What I’m saying is that this is what they actually taught and apostolic succession proper is a man made tradition that was added on later. Hopefully that clarifies some things for you.
@ if you say the succession from bishop to bishop is present what does that matter if it is just from any random person to the next. That only makes sense if there is some official standing. You cannot just deem yourself an arbiter of scripture. It has never worked that way. You again are saying that succession is present but nothing says the authority of the apostles is passed on. But nobody is claiming that. Apostolic succession just means you were chosen by someone with link to the apostles to look or the apostolic deposit if faith. They are not equal in authority to the apostles - that is not the claim. (Well maybe the pope says it is I don’t know ). The point is someone was always out in charge to look after the kingdom. Same as Moses didn’t make a tablet then take off. The apostles did not preach some stuff then just abandon everyone. Someone was put in charge. And as you admitted this is always how it has worked.
What Paul is concerned about is not about preserving the lineage of a bishops office but the gospel. That’s the point. How do you think others have been able to come to the faith. Do you think the Bible just fell out of the sky and they read it and believed? No, there were missionaries - like Paul and Barnabas - who went out and evangelized and made disciples. The great commission was not relegated to the bishops: it was a call for all believers. Yes the apostles gave us a model for how to establish church leadership but they did not say if you depart from this specific church government then you are out. Rather they said if you depart from the gospel then you are out. Lastly, I think you should probably ask your bishop what is the doctrine of apostolic succession. Orrr you can google it. Here is the definition that I’ve found: Apostolic succession, in simple terms, is the belief that the authority Jesus gave to the apostles has been passed down through an unbroken line of church leaders, starting with the apostles and continuing to bishops today. According to this view, these leaders inherit the same authority to teach, lead, and oversee the church as the apostles had.
@@jaynijackson Respectfully brother I think you have it wrong but I suggest going to either Jay Dyer if you're looking for a debate or Transfigured Life RUclips channel with Luther and the Fr. On that channel. Because yeah, Respectfully, you are not understanding the Orthodox argument clearly. Transfigured Life is very open to conversations but if you're more antagonistic go to Jay Dyer who is always open to debates.
@@jaynijacksonso I don’t have a bishop. I just read the bible. I picked it up a year ago and read. Honestly I’m reading the “apostolic” and reformed perspective and trying to come to which is true both with the bible and with history. What I mean is when I see a difference in biblical interpretation I see which is more historically accurate. So for me apostolic succession is clearly taught in scripture. And when you say Paul was concerned with preserving the gospel but I say you are exactly right which is why all apostolic churches teach the same thing on all fundamental doctrines and reformed churches have a wide array of opinions. You are right the bible did not fall from the sky (funny you think I have a yep but then also think I think the Bible fell from the sky which is usually a reformed perspective not the perspective of someone with a bishop) which is why apostolic succession is important because it ensures you are teaches what was handed down. Without apostolic succession whose gospel are you preserving? And just for clarity you say Timothy had hands laid on him and in chapter 5 (I believe) Paul tells him to lay hands and others but you don’t think this is in the bible ? What is your take on when Paul tells Timothy to lay his hands on others? Also yes I believe bishops have authority like what was given to the apostles as far as forgiving or sins and chrismation and making decisions for the church I just don’t think they think they are equal to the apostles in authority - maybe a subtle difference. Oh and yes the great commission told everyone to evangelise all nations but when that happened they all were pointed to churches that had apostolic succession. They did not tell everyone to go out and start their own church. Also back to the point of the bible falling from the sky - god did not just Abandon the kingdom he of course wound leave people to oversee it and maintain the gospel. Without the bible how does one do that? You pass on what was taught by the apostles. But I think we agree with that I think you are more saying that authority is not passed on? I think that I notice that the reformed really have a hard time believing in anything spiritual. Like they don’t believe that power can be handed down. I even saw a guy making fun of apostolic succession saying “not like you put your hands on a person and zap power into them” But I think that is what happens. same with the eucharist. there seems to be an inability to believe that it could actually be the body and blood of christ. back to apostolic succession - without apostolic succession you are saying that anyone can perform the mass and give the body and blood of christ. by the way the role of priest was also an office held only by some in the old testament. so you are saying now that anyone can do it just by their own authority. this does not line up with scripture. I would recommend a recent episode of symbolic world podcast with Stephen de young as the guest. They gave some interesting insight into this and also have insight into how the culture around the time of the reformation shaped their beliefs because of how the people were fighting the monarchy and so rejected any sort of heiarchy in their beliefs. So coming to this with no preconceived notions I think that the reformed positions are generally the man made ones
1:30 If he doesn't block or delete this message, I will save you 1 hr and 20 minutes of time. The laying on hands and passing on authority is as old as Moses and Joshua. Jesus and the apostles did not invent it. God commands Moses to do this and he did just so. This passing on authority is a sons of Israel and Hebrew tradition but until Moses there was no passing on of Elohiym or power. If you did not have a laying on hands and breath from the apostles line, you do not have authority. This is one of the reasons why the bishop of Rome is viewed as an apostate.
@@Asmindiana I wouldn’t block or delete your message as long as you are being respectful. No one is saying that the apostles “invented” the practice of laying on of hands. What I am saying if you watched the video is that they did not mandate this to be done or else someone’s ordination or office was invalid. You would have to read that into the text to come away with that. What invalidates a bishop or presbyter or overseer or elder is not whether or not he has had hands laid on him but if he fits the qualifications of a overseer or elder listed in places like 2 Timothy and Titus.
@@jaynijackson Telling the truth is only half. Calling out the lie is the other half. The church made the writings not the other way around. The church existed for 50 years since Jesus' death before the first book was written. And i think it was Mark. Then another 70 before the second book was written. Passing on authority is OLD Hebrew tradition and judgements. Very old. If you had no books outside the law penned by Moses for 50 years, how did people know who had authority and who didnt? Why do the other bishops of the east and west call the bishop of Rome an apostate? Anything that is Roman is false. Rome speaks against The Law.
@ Nope. Unless you discount everything the apostles said, did and wrote down. The Christ passed on authority to them remember. They were filled with the holy spirit and began speaking in tongues and performing wonders.
1:00 You would have to go back to Moses passing on authority to Joshua. The way he did it is the way the apostles did it.
This was before the bishop of Rome declared himself a man god. That act of heresy is what caused the first church split.
You are conflating apostolic succession with apostles. Nobody says they are the new apostles.
Succession is taught all the way starting with Moses passing to Joshua. This continues to today.
1 Timothy 4:14 explicitly talks about the laying on of hands.
Also, you seem to be saying that succession was clearly taught but nothing says it will continue. But that is the wrong approach. If it was the precedent that was set the assumption would be that it continues unless explicitly stopped - and it wasn’t.
@@KevinDykeman I did not say that Catholics or Eastern Orthodox believe that the bishops are the new “apostles” but that they believe they are the true successors to them.
You are right that the idea of “succession” is seen very early in Scripture, but that’s not what I’m arguing about. The question is did the bishops succeed the apostles in their authority, etc.? The answer is no.
As I’ve mentioned in the video, I acknowledged that the practice of laying on of hands was common in the early church, but that’s it. There is no specific mandate that one must do this in order for his ministry to be effective or real or valid. Also, 1 Timothy 4:14 tell us nothing other than Paul advised Timothy to not forget the gift that was passed down to him when the council of elders laid hands on him. Paul is not telling Timothy that this should be done to every bishop that he ordains or else they are invalid.
Lastly, I specifically said that succession from bishop to bishop is present not that the bishops succeeded the apostles which is Rome’s and the Eastern Orthodox’s claim. The fact that the apostles set in place a system of one person replacing another bishop once he dies or steps down is not what apostolic succession proper teaches. What I’m saying is that this is what they actually taught and apostolic succession proper is a man made tradition that was added on later.
Hopefully that clarifies some things for you.
@ if you say the succession from bishop to bishop is present what does that matter if it is just from any random person to the next. That only makes sense if there is some official standing. You cannot just deem yourself an arbiter of scripture. It has never worked that way.
You again are saying that succession is present but nothing says the authority of the apostles is passed on. But nobody is claiming that. Apostolic succession just means you were chosen by someone with link to the apostles to look or the apostolic deposit if faith. They are not equal in authority to the apostles - that is not the claim. (Well maybe the pope says it is I don’t know ). The point is someone was always out in charge to look after the kingdom. Same as Moses didn’t make a tablet then take off. The apostles did not preach some stuff then just abandon everyone. Someone was put in charge. And as you admitted this is always how it has worked.
What Paul is concerned about is not about preserving the lineage of a bishops office but the gospel. That’s the point. How do you think others have been able to come to the faith. Do you think the Bible just fell out of the sky and they read it and believed? No, there were missionaries - like Paul and Barnabas - who went out and evangelized and made disciples. The great commission was not relegated to the bishops: it was a call for all believers. Yes the apostles gave us a model for how to establish church leadership but they did not say if you depart from this specific church government then you are out. Rather they said if you depart from the gospel then you are out.
Lastly, I think you should probably ask your bishop what is the doctrine of apostolic succession. Orrr you can google it. Here is the definition that I’ve found: Apostolic succession, in simple terms, is the belief that the authority Jesus gave to the apostles has been passed down through an unbroken line of church leaders, starting with the apostles and continuing to bishops today. According to this view, these leaders inherit the same authority to teach, lead, and oversee the church as the apostles had.
@@jaynijackson Respectfully brother I think you have it wrong but I suggest going to either Jay Dyer if you're looking for a debate or Transfigured Life RUclips channel with Luther and the Fr. On that channel.
Because yeah, Respectfully, you are not understanding the Orthodox argument clearly. Transfigured Life is very open to conversations but if you're more antagonistic go to Jay Dyer who is always open to debates.
@@jaynijacksonso I don’t have a bishop. I just read the bible. I picked it up a year ago and read. Honestly I’m reading the “apostolic” and reformed perspective and trying to come to which is true both with the bible and with history. What I mean is when I see a difference in biblical interpretation I see which is more historically accurate.
So for me apostolic succession is clearly taught in scripture. And when you say Paul was concerned with preserving the gospel but I say you are exactly right which is why all apostolic churches teach the same thing on all fundamental doctrines and reformed churches have a wide array of opinions. You are right the bible did not fall from the sky (funny you think I have a yep but then also think I think the Bible fell from the sky which is usually a reformed perspective not the perspective of someone with a bishop) which is why apostolic succession is important because it ensures you are teaches what was handed down. Without apostolic succession whose gospel are you preserving?
And just for clarity you say Timothy had hands laid on him and in chapter 5 (I believe) Paul tells him to lay hands and others but you don’t think this is in the bible ? What is your take on when Paul tells Timothy to lay his hands on others?
Also yes I believe bishops have authority like what was given to the apostles as far as forgiving or sins and chrismation and making decisions for the church I just don’t think they think they are equal to the apostles in authority - maybe a subtle difference.
Oh and yes the great commission told everyone to evangelise all nations but when that happened they all were pointed to churches that had apostolic succession. They did not tell everyone to go out and start their own church.
Also back to the point of the bible falling from the sky - god did not just Abandon the kingdom he of course wound leave people to oversee it and maintain the gospel. Without the bible how does one do that? You pass on what was taught by the apostles. But I think we agree with that I think you are more saying that authority is not passed on?
I think that I notice that the reformed really have a hard time believing in anything spiritual. Like they don’t believe that power can be handed down. I even saw a guy making fun of apostolic succession saying “not like you put your hands on a person and zap power into them”
But I think that is what happens.
same with the eucharist. there seems to be an inability to believe that it could actually be the body and blood of christ.
back to apostolic succession - without apostolic succession you are saying that anyone can perform the mass and give the body and blood of christ. by the way the role of priest was also an office held only by some in the old testament. so you are saying now that anyone can do it just by their own authority. this does not line up with scripture.
I would recommend a recent episode of symbolic world podcast with Stephen de young as the guest. They gave some interesting insight into this and also have insight into how the culture around the time of the reformation shaped their beliefs because of how the people were fighting the monarchy and so rejected any sort of heiarchy in their beliefs. So coming to this with no preconceived notions I think that the reformed positions are generally the man made ones
1:30 If he doesn't block or delete this message, I will save you 1 hr and 20 minutes of time.
The laying on hands and passing on authority is as old as Moses and Joshua. Jesus and the apostles did not invent it. God commands Moses to do this and he did just so.
This passing on authority is a sons of Israel and Hebrew tradition but until Moses there was no passing on of Elohiym or power.
If you did not have a laying on hands and breath from the apostles line, you do not have authority. This is one of the reasons why the bishop of Rome is viewed as an apostate.
@@Asmindiana I wouldn’t block or delete your message as long as you are being respectful. No one is saying that the apostles “invented” the practice of laying on of hands. What I am saying if you watched the video is that they did not mandate this to be done or else someone’s ordination or office was invalid. You would have to read that into the text to come away with that. What invalidates a bishop or presbyter or overseer or elder is not whether or not he has had hands laid on him but if he fits the qualifications of a overseer or elder listed in places like 2 Timothy and Titus.
@@jaynijackson Telling the truth is only half.
Calling out the lie is the other half.
The church made the writings not the other way around. The church existed for 50 years since Jesus' death before the first book was written. And i think it was Mark. Then another 70 before the second book was written.
Passing on authority is OLD Hebrew tradition and judgements. Very old.
If you had no books outside the law penned by Moses for 50 years, how did people know who had authority and who didnt?
Why do the other bishops of the east and west call the bishop of Rome an apostate?
Anything that is Roman is false.
Rome speaks against The Law.
@@Asmindiana under the old covenant maybe but jesus fullfilled the law so succersorship is not valid
anathema of arianism binding until end of time or not?
if yes how? if not how?
@ Nope.
Unless you discount everything the apostles said, did and wrote down.
The Christ passed on authority to them remember. They were filled with the holy spirit and began speaking in tongues and performing wonders.