Apostles in The Church: Yesterday and Today

[Drake]

Igzy>"Also, I think the results of such unconfirmed succession speak for themselves. "

Ephesians 4 does not describe succession. ... that is a Catholic concept.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy>"Also, I think the results of such unconfirmed succession speak for themselves. "

Ephesians 4 does not describe succession. ... that is a Catholic concept.

Drake

Drake it's hard to respect your ideas when you can't even provide proper quotation for Igzy's words.

If "succession" is a Catholic concept, how do you explain Lee succeeding Nee and the Blendeds succeeding Lee?

This kind of blasts LSM's MOTA genealogy and mythology out of the water.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake it's hard to respect your ideas when you can't even provide proper quotation for Igzy's words..

Well ok.

Igzy, what did you mean by succession?

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake it's hard to respect your ideas when you can't even provide proper quotation for Igzy's words.

If "succession" is a Catholic concept, how do you explain Lee succeeding Nee and the Blendeds succeeding Lee?

This kind of blasts LSM's MOTA genealogy and mythology out of the water.

Perhaps Drake is saying that LSM is wrong in this concept of Blendeds succeeding from WL and have adopted an unscriptural Catholic concept.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy>"Also, I think the results of such unconfirmed succession speak for themselves. "

Ephesians 4 does not describe succession. ... that is a Catholic concept.

Drake

The word succession can be used for something other than a Catholic concept. It's pretty clear that in the first century to be an Apostle you had to know and be confirmed by another Apostle. There are no free-lancers or Johnny-Come-Latelys.

Why would the Lord not give the Church a way to easily confirm Apostles?

The answer is, either he did and Lee does not measure up, or he didn't.

I believe he did, and Lee does not measure up.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The word succession can be used for something other than a Catholic concept. It's pretty clear that in the first century to be an Apostle you had to know and be confirmed by another Apostle. There are no free-lancers or Johnny-Come-Latelys.

Why would the Lord not give the Church a way to easily confirm Apostles?

The answer is, either he did and Lee does not measure up, or he didn't.

I believe he did, and Lee does not measure up.

Are you basing this on Galatians? Is this based on Paul's word about "laying on of hands"? What are you basing this on?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Why would the Lord not give the Church a way to easily confirm Apostles?
The answer is, either he did and Lee does not measure up, or he didn't.
I believe he did, and Lee does not measure up.

So then, are you saying the way to easily confirm an Apostle is if he knew and was confirmed by another apostle?

What is this easy way you are referring to?