Good questions by Timothy Kauffman

See here in the comboxes.  A very good article on the early history of relics in the early church.
    1. Sure do: “a continuity in doctrinal teaching from the time of the apostles to the present.” That’s why I refuse to join Roman Catholicism in her protest against the apostolicity of the Church that Jesus built upon the Rock.

      Thanks,

      Tim

        1. Yep. Sure can. Just like Rome can name all the ex cathedra statements the “continuous” line of popes have ever made. And just like Rome can name the continuous line of successors of Peter. Was Clement the successor to Peter in Rome? (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 32). Or Was Linus? (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3, paragraph 3). Was Ignatius Peter’s successor in Antioch? (John of Chrysostom, Homily on St. Ignatius, chapter IV). Or was it Evodius (Eusebius, Church History, Book III, chapter 22). Was Annanias the first to preside over the church of Alexandria? (Eusebius, Church History, Book III, chapter 21). Or was it Peter’s disciple, Mark? (Council of Rome, III.3).

          There you have it: a succession so “continuous” from Peter that the church lost track of it within one generation. It must have been very important to them. Could it be that apostolic succession had to do with the purity of apostolic doctrines rather than the personalities of men?

Advertisements

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in apostolic succession, early church history, Roman Catholic false practices, Roman Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Good questions by Timothy Kauffman

  1. BOB says:

    Nice and slick end around for a response. But you did not answer the question: Can you name all of those churches in the unbroken line of that succession?
    And your answer was: “Yep. Sure can.”
    And?

  2. Ken Temple says:

    That was Tim’s answer. His point seems to be that Roman Catholicism cannot really trace things back like they claim for their definition of Apostolic Succession, as his questions demonstrate. It demonstrates that the apostle’s never intended it to mean what the RCC claims. Rather it means purity of apostolic (Biblical) doctrines. Just like the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 does not mean Peter the man or his office, but the rock of the content of the doctrine that he spoke – “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God”.

    “Just like Rome can name all the ex cathedra statements the “continuous” line of popes have ever made. And just like Rome can name the continuous line of successors of Peter. Was Clement the successor to Peter in Rome? (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 32). Or Was Linus? (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3, paragraph 3). Was Ignatius Peter’s successor in Antioch? (John of Chrysostom, Homily on St. Ignatius, chapter IV). Or was it Evodius (Eusebius, Church History, Book III, chapter 22). Was Annanias the first to preside over the church of Alexandria? (Eusebius, Church History, Book III, chapter 21). Or was it Peter’s disciple, Mark? (Council of Rome, III.3).

    There you have it: a succession so “continuous” from Peter that the church lost track of it within one generation. It must have been very important to them. Could it be that apostolic succession had to do with the purity of apostolic doctrines rather than the personalities of men?”

    • In his book, THAT YOU MAY PROSPER – Dominion by Covenant, the Reformed writer Ray Sutton gives five principles of a covenant. One of them is succession, that is, that the covenant continues from generation to generation. It is this principle which is important in understanding the claims of apostolic succession.

      While there may have been confusion regarding which of the men filled the office, the fact of the matter is that the office did continue This is a covenant principle. The failure of men to properly use or define the office does not change the structure of the office at all.

      • θ says:

        What Catholics succeeded is just some later inventions, such as calling Mary Lady, Mediatrix, Theotokos, et cetera which Catholics never dared to do directly when she was still around and alive. Catholic Succession is unbiblically one-sided, as it doesn’t have a mechanism to impeach, only to elect, even though Judas, house of Eli, and others showed how the chosen leaders can be wrong, even evil.

  3. BOB says:

    Oh well. It’s the same ol’ dodging of the hard question I have come to expect from Tim. He can’t give me evidence of the Church that preserved that purity, he can only tell me it’s not Rome.

  4. Ken Temple says:

    Your question is assuming specifics that history cannot tell us.

  5. BOB says:

    See, that’s what I thought, too. But Tim claims it’s the Vaudois, but has yet to give any verifiable proof.

  6. Ken Temple says:

    By Vaudois, you mean the Waldensians? Where does Tim say/write that exactly? I have not had time to read everything there, but his series on Baptismal Regeneration was very good; and “Digging up Bones” also very good.

    • BOB says:

      It would be hard for me to find our exchange on that subject. It is in one of those blogs in the reply section. I cannot remember which one. And I must say it has been great reading all of his stuff.

  7. Ken Temple says:

    Also, the definition and understanding that Roman Catholicism made of apostolic succession is not a Biblical definition or understanding. Rather, the proper view is the passing down of correct doctrine, and that doctrine can be unclear for a time if the people in teaching positions don’t hold faithfully to the Bible. By “unclear”, I don’t mean, non-existent, but I mean the failure of teachers to teach according to the Scriptures, so it was “eclipsed” by the emphasis of the addition of false teachings and man made traditions. There is no guarantee of teachers being perfect or infallible. Correct doctrine is always available when the Scriptures are read and taught properly.

    These questions are good:
    “Was Clement the successor to Peter in Rome? (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 32). Or Was Linus? (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3, paragraph 3). Was Ignatius Peter’s successor in Antioch? (John of Chrysostom, Homily on St. Ignatius, chapter IV). Or was it Evodius (Eusebius, Church History, Book III, chapter 22). Was Annanias the first to preside over the church of Alexandria? (Eusebius, Church History, Book III, chapter 21). Or was it Peter’s disciple, Mark? (Council of Rome, III.3).

    And Tim’s conclusion is correct:
    There you have it: a succession so “continuous” from Peter that the church lost track of it within one generation. It must have been very important to them. Could it be that apostolic succession had to do with the purity of apostolic doctrines rather than the personalities of men?”

    See here: Historical developments that led to the eclipsing of the doctrine of justification by faith alone:
    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/08/historical-developments-that-led-to.html

    • BOB says:

      Ken said: “Correct doctrine is always available when the Scriptures are read and taught properly.”
      AMEN! The key words here are “taught properly”. Now the question is “By who?” Tertullian? Irenaeus? John of Chrysostom? Eusebius? Martin Luther? John Calvin? John Wesley? John Hagee? Jack Van Impe? Oral Roberts? Billie Graham? Pope Francis? C.S. Lewis? Jim Jones? David Koresch? Tim Kauffman? Ken Temple?

      Aye, there’s the rub!

  8. Ken Temple says:

    Tertullian?
    On some things, good; but not infallible.
    Irenaeus?
    On some things very good, but not infallible.
    John of Chrysostom?
    On some things very good, but not infallible.
    Eusebius?
    ok as a historian, as far as we know; but not infallible.
    Martin Luther?
    good on Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, but not infallible.
    John Calvin?
    Correct on God’s sovereignty, but not infallible. Wrong on infant baptism and church and state combined.
    John Wesley?
    Good man; good heart, but wrong on some things.
    John Hagee?
    heretic and nut.
    Jack Van Impe?
    focus too much on Pre-tribulational rapture and Israel 1948 as fulfillment of prophesy. Imbalanced.
    Oral Roberts?
    Heretical and goofy on his positive confession and seed faith teachings and healing.
    Billie Graham?
    ok, but not infallible. As he got older, said some things that are wrong and seemed contradictory to earlier convictions.
    Pope Francis?
    heretical teachings of RCC and liberal political leanings (Climate Change), and trying to seemingly say things to be more likeable.
    C.S. Lewis?
    Pretty good, but not infallible; and had some definite wrong teachings.
    Jim Jones?
    heretic, cultist, and nut and murderer.
    David Koresch?
    heretic and nut and cultist.
    Tim Kauffman?
    pretty good stuff on baptismal regeneration, etc.
    Ken Temple?
    just a sinner saved by grace; nobody special.

    • BOB says:

      So, if it’s taught properly, it could be wrong. How comforting.

      • BOB says:

        KEN–
        You said: “John Wesley? Good man; good heart, but wrong on some things.”

        In your fallible (meaning you could be wrong) teaching, what things was he wrong about?

  9. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says:On some things, good; but not infallible.”

    Jesus is a fallible man whose prophesy on succession “gates of hell can’t prevail upon” can’t be fulfilled.

  10. Ken Temple says:

    Jesus is perfect and keeps His promises and His prophesies always come true.

    “the gates of hades” was an expression which mean “death”. The Greek word is Hades ‘αδης / ‘αδου , not Gehennan / ge’ennan γεενναν (Hell).

    Jesus did not promise / prophesy about a “succession”, especially the way the Roman Catholics teach about their own doctrine of apostolic succession. (infallible Popes with infallible councils and decisions – 1870 dogma read back into history) The promise is that there will always the church – true believers in history.

    There is always “the Church” – believers in Christ throughout history = “spiritual death will not overcome true believers” – because the Church was bought by the blood of Christ (Ephesians 5:25; Acts 20:28 – purchased by the blood of God”; Revelation 5:9 – purchased by the blood of the lamb – but some churches apostatized and / or went liberal or died out and many were conquered and (unjustly) destroyed by the Islamic Jihads and conquerings and pressure of Dhimmitude.

  11. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: There is always “the Church” – believers in Christ throughout history”

    The promise failed. A bunch of fallible believers just made one erroneous church.
    If the words still have meanings, being protected from gates of hell means being infallible. Error comes from sins, hence from the gates of hell.

    Moreover, it is said God sets a hierarchy of the “church”, hence it does refer to the real structure of church where succession should be maintained to prove that the gates of hell can’t prevail upon it.
    1Cor 12:28
    And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

    Now, the question is, which one the promised church (altogether with its hierarchy and succession) from 1st to 15th century? Otherwise, the promise is failed, none of church can be protected from fallibility of hell, hence Jesus is a fallible man.

  12. Ken Temple says:

    the promise did not fail, since there are true believers in Christ and Biblical churches still today. What counts is that the content of doctrine has always been available, when people read and study the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit works in hearts to convert people. Acts 16:14

  13. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: the promise did not fail, since there are true believers in Christ and Biblical churches still today.”

    Every sect believes that it is only the “true” church, and other sects are evil.
    That’s why a heavenly set of infallible succession by God is the only valid mechanism to verify whatever sect’s claim.
    True believers are fallible still, hence they can’t be that promised “church”.

Comments are closed.