He does not say the righteousness - δικαιοσύνην, but the justification - δικαίωμα, 173 of Christ, in order to remind us that he was not as an individual just for himself, but that the righteousness with which he was endued reached farther, in order that, by conferring this gift, he might enrich the faithful. He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; [for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him.] -John Calvin, Commentary on Romans, Romans 5:18
Amen, Christian Unity is important, but Ecumenism is very dangerous as well, we Lutherans should avoid heretics, as St. Paul says in 2 Conrinthians For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Discerning what kind of unity is important even with fellow Christians.
its only the fine details that differentiate protestants, as long as we still believe the important parts we are brothers and sisters in christ@@junkim5853
“l will not quarrel with you about my opinion only see that your heart is right toward God; that you know and love the Lord Jesus Christ, that you love your neighbour and walk as your master walked and I desire no more. I am sick of opinions; am weary to bear them; my soul loathes this frothy food. Give me a solid and substantial religion; give me a humble, gentle lover of God and man; and men full of mercy in good faith, without partiality and without hypocrisy; a man laying himself out in the work of faith, the patience of hope, the labour of love. Let my soul be with these Christians wheresoever they are, and whatsoever opinion they are of!” - John Wesley
@@joshuas.986 Catholic is the biggest Church in every time in history. Lutheran is for like minded heretics who live close to the heretic, like all other protestant churches.
@@joshuas.986 Catholic is the biggest Church in every time in history. Lutheran is for like minded heretics who live close to the heretic, like all other protestant churches.
Dr. Cooper at 3:17-24: Yes, there are sectarians ... I see this in Rome, too. You've got your Taylor Marshall types that are ready to anathematize." Response: To the best of my understanding, Taylor Marshall left communion with the Bishop of Rome several years ago and presently attends a chapel of the Society of Pope Pius X (SSPX). The last three popes have declared the SSPX as schismatic, while Pope Francis did authorize certain faculties like hearing confessions for pastoral reasons during the pandemic. Attending Mass at an SSPX chapel does not fulfill the Sunday obligation for Catholics. Perhaps someday the SSPX will be in union with Rome, but they would have to accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council for that to happen.
Anyone who is SSPX is committing schism and therefore not “Catholic” in the sense that they are in union with the Bishop of Rome. The unifying principle of Catholicism is that schism formally separates one from the Church. So, there is no sectarianism that would allow for one to be in schism and in communion with the Church, except for powerful ignorance.
Hello Jordan! Im a swedish lutheran thinking about becoming a priest. I dont know how familiar you are wtih the lutheran COS (Church of Sweden), but its in disarray. It wouldnt be an exaggeration to call it the most lost lutheran church on earth. They do however hold a lot of institutional power and influence among swedish christians. My question to you is: Is it worth joining an organisation like that to change it from the inside or would you leave it for a smaller free lutheran church? You might not be able to answer my situation specifically but do you have a general stance on the issue of reforming/seperating from the major european lutheran churches?
Jag är själv medlem i Svenska Kyrkan och har hopp för förändringar inom den, tycker det är viktigt att inse att den universala kyrkan har funnit sig i totalt fördärv vid många tillfällen och har sedan återhämtat sig. Det är lätt att romantisera det förflutna och tänka att våra vedermödor är något nytt, men det är långt ifrån det. Att ta kampen i Svenska Kyrkan eller att bygga på ett sant bibeltroget förbund är dock verkligen inte ett självklart val i mina ögon!
Another vote for the reconquista movement from me. Also, imo reforming the existing church body is the more lutheran thing to do over running away from it.
I am interested in the added wrinkle that elections add to the Swedish Church. Seems like confessional movements are extra stunted there because the non-partisan and theologically oriented groups are always swamped by standard political parties.
There is also a unity which works by defining anyone who does not take the dominant party view, as being 'outside' of the group. There is also a unity which contrasts a particular institution vs anything outside of that institution, eg., a particular Presbyterian group vs everyrhing else. In that case, there are 33,000 groups distinct from this Presbyterian group and Catholicism is just one of those groups --- come home to unity, come home to my particular Presbyterian group. The irony of Protestantism is that in a real sense, it makes sense to lump them all together despite their differences. They are not as oil to water. On the other hand, Catholicism stands out as distinct, and self-professedly separate from other Christian bodies. Comparing institution against institution, does the Catholic Church exemplify greater institutional unity than does the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, or the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod? I am not sure that it does. When considering Christian unity in the broadest sense, can we say that Catholicism represents greater catholicity and collegiality than Protestantism, such as exhibited in this very video? I think it obviously does not. The question of unity should be rephrased -- how does my particular institutional body understand and relate itself to Christians outside of her? When we think of unity in those terms, Protestantism IMHO does better.
Interesting. We have many structures. Many bishops. Many autocepalous bodies. But we still have unity in doctrine, praxis, and the bond of fellowship. We have sacramental unity and continuity back to Christ and the Apostles. ☦️ But I see what you're saying. If you have unity in fellowship with one another, you don't need unity in doctrine, praxis, or the fundamentals like salvation, baptism, polity, worship, etc. As long as you agree that the Bible has Supreme authority, there is no need to agree on what it says or how to apply it to life.
It is important to know that christians that hold to the ancient Creeds and Solas are one church. We don't have to be a part of the same governing church body to be one.
Words have the meanings the author meant. So when one recites the Creeds and says “Apostolic” they must be in agreement with the authors of the Creed - that the Church is identified by the kind of Apostolic Succession that is valid bishops laying hands on bishops. The issue with Lutheranism and Protestantism is that when they say the creeds, they import their own meaning onto words.
@@lifematterspodcast So protestants reject the Apostles Creed? And Rome is not the only church who has the succession of bishops with the laying on of hands. Which is why what ties evangelicals together is the gospel, not a church governing body. Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbytarians, baptists etc.. may have a differing ecclesiology, but we embrace the creeds and Solas. I mean no disrespect, but I believe we have a consistent ground to stand on. You can have the final word.
@@TheTheologyZone The Protestants unknowingly reject the creed by importing their own meaning onto the words of the creed. There are other Churches, like the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox who have maintained Apostolic Succession through the laying on of hands. Unfortunately, they are not in union with the Successor of St. Peter, so our hope is that they come back into Union. No protestant denominations have maintained the validity of laying on of hands. The Early Church and the Church up until the Reformation did not believe that the merely the Gospel could identify them, but the visible Church. As St. Ignatius says “Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God…” The Gospel is what the Church preaches. Ecclesiology is built into the word of “Apostolic” in the Creed. The meaning of the word always meant Apostolic Succession from the Bishop. The Solas were never believed up until the Reformation. All the Church Fathers consistently taught to read Scripture & follow Tradition as well as be visibly united to the valid Bishops with Apostolic Authority.
@@lifematterspodcast Do you really think Peter would approve of Pope Francis? Obviously this has been broken for a while. The Bible creates the church, not the other way around.
@@Procopius464 The Church preceded the Bible by many years. Without the Church the Bible wouldn’t have existed. The Church wrote and transmitted much of the Bible orally before it was ever codified
He does not say the righteousness - δικαιοσύνην, but the justification - δικαίωμα, 173 of Christ, in order to remind us that he was not as an individual just for himself, but that the righteousness with which he was endued reached farther, in order that, by conferring this gift, he might enrich the faithful. He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; [for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him.] -John Calvin, Commentary on Romans, Romans 5:18
With regards to felicitous inconsistency in that people's faith may not line up with the doctrines they profess this only applies where people are ignorant of the truth on secondary doctrines but are open to being instructed in this. Those who oppose true doctrines from a position of being knowledgeable about them aren't true Christians, as the Holy Spirit doesn't permit Christians to believe false doctrines and reject the truth.
At the tower of Babel, they had one language, think Latin, and God divided them into many languages. Acts 2:8“And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?”
Falicitus inconsistentcy - how long has the Lutheran church held to this? I find the topic of Baptism very interesting... 3 separate interpretations and the Lutheran interpretation is a Salvation issue? I watched a debate between RC Sproul & John McArthur on infint Vs Adult Baptism and I think if you (a Lutheran) where in that debate it would bring the debate to a whole other level of importance. Would you be interested in a baptism debate like this or have you already had a debate like this? John 17 How would you view unity in the small c catholic church? Also would you count Catholic and Orthodox believers in the church because they have faith but faith with works? Some Protestants would others would not. I would love to hear back with comments on my questions. If we can't be united in our head (instead devided or confused) can we be united in heart (Charity & love) however how far can charity take us before we are funrible to Heresy and in the end do we not come to our own private judgement with the questions of faith & practice because that is the conclusion of Sola Scriptura? The right to Private judgement needing grace with each other but the problem is that our private interpretations have falability to them...(influenced by our own denominations doctrines & creeds) . I'd love guidance here... I'm ecumenical myself which leaves me with a big heart & a Confused head.
As much as you dont like presuposicional apologetics, i do believe the defeater arguments for "the one true church" argument are in fact presupositional.
@@koppite9600 The Word "Church" used in the New Testament is "Ekklesia", which means "an assembly of people brought together for a purpose" (you can consult an ancient Greek dictionary). When Jesus and the Apostles use the word Church in your translated Bible, they are using that word and with that meaning. That is, they are referring to the assembly of people who profess Christ as Lord. The Church is never defined as a sigle institution in the Bible and Jesus said that "where two or three come together in his name, there is his Church (Matthew 18:20). So the Church is a people. The term Catholic means "universal", referring to the church is made up of believers who, regardless of region or time, professed faith in Christ Jesus. In relation to the term "Holy" and "Apostolic" they refer to the holiness of the Church, in the sense that whoever professes the true faith is sanctified and separated from the world and sin, and that the Church must be based on the teaching of the Apostles (which is the new testament btw). Having clarified this, the term "Only" refers to the invisible Church and the unity it has, even though the visible church is separated into different institutions, exactly as it was during the Apostolic Era and during the Primitive Church, before institutional unification with the Roman Empire. Ironically, by professing that there is only one church, in the sense of one institution, you go against the exact sense in which the word "one" was used. In other words, the way you use this phrase is completely detached from its original meaning and it is the protestants who have the right idea of the Church.
Great video! I think it's also really important that people understand the grossly inaccurate way the "33,000 denominations" number is used and thrown around. While there is still devision and sectarianism, there really is A LOT more unity than that number gets used to imply. It's not 33,000 protestants in America. Here's a great video that describes the issue very well! It's only got 40k views and every Christian should know this. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7Vw1KFwETbo.html
If the reader happens to live in the City of Westminster, then I would recommend attendance at the church where Cardinal Vincent Nichols is parish priest. There is no Buridan’s Ass issue with this.
Dr. Cooper, I like that you generally argue in good faith, but I have to say, I'm disappointed in this answer. With all due respect, it sounds like you make a straw-man of the Catholic position against Sola Scriptura which I hear from Protestants quite often (like Gavin Ortlund, who I also generally like). To be fair, this is probably an impossible question for a Protestant to convincingly answer... Perhaps Protestants are often excessively caricatured with the sheer number of sects they've split off into, but the fundamental point in bringing that up isn't simply the fact that many Protestants disagree with each other (as we both know, many Catholics disagree with each other as well). The fundamental point is on the nature of Christian authority: who gets to decide what is and isn't Christianity? And rather than simply following the Bible, who gets to interpret what it's actually saying? Many Protestants like to bring up the idea that Catholics are similar to Protestants when it comes to disunity. As you put it, Catholics are divided "on nearly every single issue". But this is simply not true, if you're talking about the actual doctrine. There's a Catechism of the Catholic Church, after all. There is such as a thing as a right and wrong answer in Catholicism. Not so in Protestantism. The only infallible authority for Protestants is the Bible; Martin Luther relinquished unity with the truth in order to democratize the faith, so that he could disagree with the Church in "good conscience". But in so doing, it has become impossible for Protestants to declare with any certainty what the Bible even says in the first place. They can't maintain doctrinal unity because no one knows for sure what doctrine God even intends in the first place. The Bible can be reasoned with, obviously (reason through General Revelation and faith through Special Revelation both point to the same Truth). But man's ability to reason is weakened, and you can see this clearly in the important disagreements between varying sects who are supposedly united under Sola Scriptura. So, you say that Catholics like Taylor Marshall and others will disagree, therefore they're similar to Protestants. But no - if someone disagrees with the Catholic Church, they're automatically wrong, by default. That's the whole point of the authority of the Church. And if a group cuts ties with the Pope, they're automatically wrong and in schism. That's the whole point of Christ basing His Church on St. Peter. But if a Protestant leaves a denomination - or starts a new one - there is no framework provided to say who was right and who was wrong. Even the "Perspicuity of Scripture" can't save Protestantism, because like Eli said in the beginning, Protestants can't agree on important issues like Baptism. You said that Protestants have "unity on a lot of important issues". But that's not enough. If there's even ONE important issue that you disagree on, is that not a problem? If one person says that the souls of people who aren't baptized are in danger, and another person says that they're perfectly fine don't worry about it wait until you're ready... isn't that a problem? Surely it is? It sounds like a problem to me. This "felicitous inconsistency" you mentioned, where "true faith has right theology whether your head always lines up with that true theology or not" sounds a lot like saying "as long as you have true faith, nothing you believe necessarily matters". Perhaps this is fitting, because it sounds similar to the defense of Sola Fide often offered in response to St. James saying "faith without works is dead". It sounds to me like an excuse to try to make up for the fact that you have important, irreconcilable differences in doctrine with fellow Protestant Christians. Catholics may emphasize institutional unity, like you say, but that's because institutional unity entails doctrinal unity. You cannot have multiple claimants on the truth. You want to have your cake and eat it too, not too dissimilar to religious relativists who claim multiple ways to God... Finally, you say that "the graciousness of God is that He forgives even our bad theology". I'm not even sure that I really believe you believe this. Bad theology is what led to all of the heresies of the past. Does God forgive someone for believing that God isn't a Trinity, even when the Church condemns that belief? Does God forgive someone for believing that God is merely a force in the universe? Does God forgive someone for believing that God doesn't even exist? St. Paul seemed to go to great lengths to insist that everyone ought to hold fast to the original Gospel, and the early church anathematized heretics. Are you a universalist? Obviously, neither of us would claim that we can determine who will ultimately be forgiven for any particular sin, but you must admit that this is a very "hand-wavey" answer to the question posed to you about Protestant disunity. And the whataboutism involving Catholics doesn't work, because I'm comfortable saying many obstinate and/or ignorant Catholics are simply wrong, and there is Church authority and its interpretation of Tradition and Scripture (guided by the Holy Spirit) I can point to to prove it. All you have is the perfect - yet by Protestant standards, perfectly un-interpratable - authority of scripture. Sola Scriptura is an escape hatch from the necessity to believe anything Christian at all, so the many unorthodox denominations you disavow are actually in line with Sola Scriptura insofar as they genuinely believe their own interpretations. That sounds very different than disagreeing with the Catholic Church's infallible, divine authority. Anyway, just my two cents. I'm never satisfied with Protestant answers on this question, but then again if I was, I'd be defending Protestantism. This is, after all, the most fundamental issue between Protestantism and Catholicism (or any Christians who claim to be the one true Church, I suppose).
I saw him as going fairly light on the Catholics actually, (who, I should state, I tend to side with in probably most social and doctrinal cases, perhaps more so than him,) by only briefly mentioning the disunity in the Roman Church. A thorough answer would have been both disheartening and meaninglessly cruel, and I have seen in other instances where he has the ability to give it. I do not believe that was his desire here, nor point. I think his point here was that the disparate doctrines in protestantism and within Rome (or the East for that matter) do not necessarily overwhelm the saving faith that is a gift of God, and that he sees Rome, despite the differences, as no less brothers than he sees the believing Protestants. (Obviously we both reject the liberal church in most regards.) (I hope that its equally clear I dont mean to be combatative, i know this is difficult to convey in text.)
@@jeremyabrahamson2872Fair enough. I don't know how I feel about the idea that our disagreements "do not necessarily overwhelm the saving faith that is a gift of God". I think remaining in God's grace is conditional on our response to it (which will obviously depend highly on what our denomination teaches us), because I don't believe in Sola Fide. But that's besides the point. Obviously I acknowledge he's a Christian and I don't claim to know what God's relationship with anyone is with certainty. And I admit, I haven't seen many of his videos. I guess what you're saying is that he was mostly trying to be ecumenical here, so I apologize if I went too hard on him.
If you give very specific definitions to all those terms you used, I'd say you're completely right. Confessional Lutherans tend to, especially these days, see ourselves more as Catholic than Protestant, (i, for instance, have more faith in a church hierarchy than Cooper,) but we dont want to comprise on the definition we meant by Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura when we first used them (if you're not familiar, both of those have multiple definitions in the Protestant world, ours simply mean "faith is the manner by which God saves, regardless of deeds" and "all disagreements in doctrine should be settled by Scripture", whereas there are many that are more literalistic). Obviously if we thought that the Roman Church taught right doctrine wed seek fellowship with them, but we deny the common claim that the RC is apostate. The same is true with our relationship to many Calvinist believers and the like, ironically for many of the same reasons: practice and teaching which can save, but a theology that robs the heart of faith in God's plan and causes denial of His grace when further analyzed. An example of that is where you said " one can reject grace", which we agree on. We dont believe grace can be chosen by free will, but one can set their heart against their Creator and Saviour. Thr Calvinists would differ with us by saying that it is impossible to resist Gods deliverance, and all who have been truely saved remain so. (Some research on our rejection of the Calvinist/Armenian controversy might help there.) All in all we seek the reuniting of the Church under right doctrine first, and treat any political or systematic labels as secondary, which was the purpose of his example of his church body's relationship with the LCMS: they believe the same doctrine, but have different governing philosophys for managing their flocks. We pray for the same from Rome, from Constantinople, and from... I dont know what the right Protestant capital would be. Maybe Paris? XD (sorry, its hard to narrow that one down, but I hope the idea is clear.)
@@jeremyabrahamson2872For what it's worth, I do think that Lutherans tend to be closer to Catholics in doctrine than all other major Protestant groups. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact that they have the same fundamental problem that all Protestantism has. You could say that Martin Luther had some disagreements with the Church that didn't go as far as the later Protestants. But the only way he could reform the Church to his liking was to continue on without it, and the only way to continue on without it "legitimately" was to redefine the "Church" into something more amorphous and abstract. That way he could reject the Church's authority without rejecting God (ostensibly). But I don't think this works, neither in theory, nor in practice. I think it was prescient that Christ established His Church with an un-moving point. Like a ship He built: He anchored it in a stable place, so that everyone would always see the ship in the same place and have access to it. Like a "rock" for a stable foundation. The Eastern Orthodox - who agree that the Church is one institution - would call Jesus Christ that foundation. But Jesus isn't around to speak to us directly, and clearly everyone has their own ideas about what He would have said were He still here. That's why it makes sense that He left a vicar so that we could still find His ship, and not confuse it with another. That's why I said in my original response that Catholic "disunity" is not a problem the way Protestant disunity is. If a Catholic says that Christ's ship is 500 feet long, we can simply point to the ship anchored with the Pope and show them that they're mistaken, it's longer. If someone claims that the ship is on the right side of the dock, we can point to that ship's anchor and say that it isn't the Pope, the ship on the left - with the Pope as its anchor - is the correct ship. Protestants abandoned ship and now they want to claim a whole fleet of competing ships are altogether Christ's ship, somehow. Each ship's captain might have his own planned voyage to Paradise, and each may contradict the others. Some of the voyages go through potentially deadly territory. This isn't a Catholic problem, but it's a problem for all Protestants. The Papacy is an answer to the need for unity, just like Jesus intended it when He nicknamed Simon. The only exception to this is in the case of an Anti-Pope, or some kind of crisis involving a disagreement on who the Pope is. But in practice, I haven't seen this be a lasting issue (barring some hiccups in history, sedevacantists, etc.), whereas things like Protestants claiming contradictory things about the necessity of Baptism for salvation happens all the time, to this day. By the very nature of Sola Scriptura. So, you that "if we thought that the Roman Church taught right doctrine we'd seek fellowship with them". But that's the problem. Christianity has too many necessary beliefs for anyone to be guessing. Using private judgement is necessary for both Catholics and Protestants, but it's a much bigger ask from the latter. Catholics simply need to use private judgement to recognize the Catholic Church as the Church Christ established, and the rest is a matter of being faithful to her. Protestants, meanwhile, need to use private judgement for literally every one of their Christian beliefs. And it's not enough to simply say "but I picked the Lutheran church just like you picked Rome". You only picked the Lutheran church because you personally don't have any strong disagreements with them, not because they have any kind of absolute authority over you. If you decide they're wrong about literally anything, you're free to leave. Leaving the Catholic Church, on the other hand, would require giving up the concept of God leaving divine authority with His church altogether. A much bigger jump, and one that Martin Luther had to make 500 years ago. In other words: being Catholic means recognizing Christ's true ship, accepting the Pope as its anchor, and remaining loyal to this ship and its voyage to Paradise. Being Protestant means using your own flawed intellect to decide which ship and captain and crew seem most likely to make it to Paradise, and switching ships as you see fit. Not that you would do so nonchalantly, but it's still entirely up to you. I don't think Christ intended it that way. Sorry for the wall of text, just felt like explaining myself a little more. Just for your information, I'm not actually Catholic. I'm going to be Catholic this Easter; I grew up as a generic Christian, but in practice most similar to Evangelicals. Overtime I found myself accepting Catholicism more and more, so here I am. Also, I hope I don't come off as condescending or high and mighty, I could be wrong about anything I'm saying...
If you lump everyone outside of Rome and Constantinople together and call it "Protestantism" then sure, it's going to look like a free-for-all, but for the magisterial Reformers the fact is that there absolutely was a right and wrong answer in Christianity. The Lutheran and Reformed confessions spend just as much time denouncing the heresy of the Anabaptists as they do the abuses of Rome. Luther was furious at Zwingli for denying Real Presence in the Eucharist (in my opinion he may have treated him too harshly). Sola Scriptura, for Luther, was never about "democratizing" the faith. He didn't believe in any kind of "private interpretation:" he didn't think that you can just make up garbage and call it biblical (as he thought Zwingli did). His difference from Rome was that he also didn't think you can just make up garbage and call it tradition.
They do not have the Holy Spirit to guide them. When you start off with one man-made Church and one man-made denomination, someone is bound to notice something wrong, so they correct it with another man-made Church and another man-made denomination and it starts all over again.
The Word "Church" used in the New Testament is "Ekklesia", which means "an assembly of people brought together for a purpose" (you can consult an ancient Greek dictionary). When Jesus and the Apostles use the word Church in your translated Bible, they are using that word and with that meaning. That is, they are referring to the assembly of people who profess Christ as Lord. The Church is never defined as a sigle institution in the Bible and Jesus said that "where two or three come together in his name, there is his Church (Matthew 18:20). So the Church is a people. The term Catholic means "universal", referring to the church is made up of believers who, regardless of region or time, professed faith in Christ Jesus. In relation to the term "Holy" and "Apostolic" they refer to the holiness of the Church, in the sense that whoever professes the true faith is sanctified and separated from the world and sin, and that the Church must be based on the teaching of the Apostles (which is the new testament btw). Having clarified this, the term "Only" refers to the invisible Church and the unity it has, even though the visible church is separated into different institutions, exactly as it was during the Apostolic Era and during the Primitive Church. Ironically, by professing that there is only one church, in the sense of one institution, you go against the exact sense in which the word "one" was used. In other words, the way you guys use the word "church" completely detached from its original meaning and it is the protestants who have the right idea of the Church.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 You missed 'Apostolic' Means in line from the Apostles. Your church was started yesterday, it doesnt meet that characteristic, hence it's a false church.
@@koppite9600 My church has more than 400 years, since i'm Reformed and "being apostolic" does not mean that if you are talking about apostolic sucession. Despite talking extensively about the Church, how it should be administered and how to identify false teachers, apostolic succession was never mentioned by the Apostles as one of the marks of a true church or as one of the conditions for ecclesiastical leadership. Apostolic succession is a doctrine that has developed. The bishops began the first lists at the end of the second century in response to Gnosticism, which claimed to have an oral tradition passed down by the apostles that was not passed down by the bishops and, therefore, it was necessary to demonstrate that this could not be possible through a line of succession that goes back to the apostles. However, it was something that developed very slowly and took centuries before it became a widespread practice in all churches. The complete doctrine of apostolic succession as defended by Catholics and Orthodox was only accepted much later. You hold firmly to the idea that you are part of the "true church," but I tell you that your church has deviated greatly from the teaching of the apostles and you rest in dangerous security. I firmly believe that many who rest in this assurance are not, in fact, saved. My concern for you falls most heavily on those who call themselves Christians and do not read the Bible and trust completely in their leaders to understand it. The wife (Church) needs to hear the words of her Husband (Jesus). In the end, we will all have to account for what has come to us and there will be no point in accusing your Church or its leaders for their omissions.
5 месяцев назад
@@koppite9600btw, you're begging the question by saying "Apostolic" only applies to your church body.
