Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassidy
"How can you say "Apostolic succession is a heresy?"
Are you making the case that apostolic succession is not a heresy?
That seems to be your stand.
Is that your view?
|
That is a novel way to recast Ohio's question. Or are you really that dense?
Ohio has not stated that there is or is not apostolic succession. He has carefully noted that the teachings of Lee clearly set out a kind of apostolic succession that end with himself. They may have avoided the term "apostle" in the process, but the intent is identical.
So, whether your call it "apostle" or "minister of the age," it is a teaching of your group. Therefore to suggest that it is heresy is to declare your supreme leader to be heretical and to claim a heretical title.
If your only purpose is to hide the truth by insisting on your lexicon, then you should understand the title of this thread to alternately read "Does LSM Hold to Minister of the Age Succession?"
Your incredulity is a form of equivocation. Your group supports a position of authority that is in every way identical to that of an apostle, and even more special than any seen in the NT. Your "apostle" is the only one. Paul was never the only one. And despite Paul's account of putting Peter down on one occasion, he remained somewhat in submission to the others as seen in his return to Jerusalem.
So you say po-ta-to, I say po-tah-to. You say MOTA, I say apostle. It is equivocation to declare apostolic succession heretical when the MOTA is simply a renamed apostle and there is a special succession.