In my left column is a little box that says "by 139 readers" right now.
That is an "IntenseDebate – Site Stats" widget. IntenseDebate is the program that runs my comment section.
Anyway, I’m sure that widget with the "by 139 readers" written on it is trying to tell us something. What that something is, I have no idea.
Do you?
Today’s post is a sister post to yesterday’s.
1 Corinthians 1:10:
Now I beseech you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
So Paul commands this. That command is strong enough for me to ask, "Are we doing this? Shouldn’t we be looking at this?"
But in the case of this command—or I should say, this plea, for he says he’s beseeching us—Paul even tells us why he’s begging for this:
I’ve been told, by Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you says, "I am of Paul"; and "I am of Apollos"; and "I am of Cephas"; and "I am of Christ." (1:13)
Sound familiar?
Is there really any difference between "I am of Paul" and "I’m a Baptist"? (I’m picking on the Baptists because they’re the biggest Protestant denomination.)
But let’s not just fire at Protestants. Let’s assume the Roman Catholic Church has the best claim to being the correct denomination because of apostolic succession, even though that’s not’s historical. Given that they’re the correct denomination, is there any difference between the "I am of Christ" that Paul adresses here and "I am Roman Catholic"?
One last verse, since Paul didn’t only say this once:
You are still carnal, for while there is envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and walking like men? For while one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not carnal?
So let me ask, while there is envy, strife, and denominations among you, are you not carnal and walking like fleshly men? (See my post on denominations as a work of the flesh from yesterday.) While one of you says, "I’m a Pentecostal," and another, "I’m Russian Orthodox," are you not walking in the flesh?
Sorry for the purposely shocking title. You can decide for yourself whether it’s accurate.
I’m always surprised that no one ever talks about the fact that Galatians 5:19-21 says that those who "practice" denominations will not inherit the kingdom of God.
I’m assuming that the huge majority of Christians don’t know that. You’d think, however, that the few that do would bring it up and at least ask whether we ought to talk about it.
One of the "deeds of the flesh" listed in Galatians 5 is translated by the KJV as "heresies," but I think most modern translations use "factions." I’ve heard people say that a good translation is "a party spirit."
Here’s what they’re translating.
The Greek word hairesis is used 9 times in the New Testament. 6 of those occurrences are in Acts:
I don’t think you have to be a Greek scholar to conclude that this word hairesis could accurately be translated "denomination." The KJV translates it "sect" 5 of those times in Acts. As I said, modern translations tend to use "factions" in Galatians 5:20, where it’s plural.
So here we are. Most Protestant denominations claim to be following the Bible. Many say that it is divinely inspired down to every word.
Yet, the Bible says that those who practice haireseis—which, as you can see, is probably best translated "denominations"—will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
So, now you know. I’ll let you decide what to do about it.
It seems like it would be a good thing for your hairesis to talk about. Don’t you?
I said yesterday that Protestant denominations are not any different than the apostolic succession Rome is trying to enforce on us.
Unity is not agreement upon doctrines held by an organization and enforced upon its members.
Jesus said that our unity would let the world know that the Father sent him (Jn. 17:20-23). But he also said that our love for one another would let the world know that he sent us (Jn. 13:34-35).
Unity is only unity when it is manifested by love. Unity is not unity when it based on a doctrinal statement.
Every time someone drives by two churches with two different names and two different pastors sitting next door to one another or on the same intersection, they know that Christians aren’t united and can’t unite. It is a pronouncement to the world that this Jesus stuff is a bunch of bunk.
But, yeah, I understand. You’re busy. You’ve got your own life to live. Who cares if Christ’s name is being blasphemed among the gentiles because of us?
It’s not your fault, anyway. What can you do about it? Why should it be your responsibility? You’re just doing what your parents did before you. Who can blame you?
What can you do about it?
I like the idea of opening our windows and shouting, "I’m as mad as heaven, and I’m not going to take it anymore."
At least figuratively.
I got two more emails, one yesterday and one today, from men who think that the only route to unity is joining the Roman Catholic Church. (I have to assume that they wouldn’t have a problem with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, either, since every one of their arguments would apply to them as well … only better.)
http://rosecreekvillage.com/shammah/wp-admin/post-new.php
It’s apparently impossible for me to communicate the importance of the local church to people like that, and so I keep trying to find different words with which to do that.
What I’m about to say is as important for Protestants to consider as for those seeking unity by apostolic succession because so many of them seek unity by denomination, which is no different.
The only unity that matters is one that can express itself in visible love. Thus, the primary unity that matters is local unity.
God wants a unity that is real, not one that can be justified with words.
If Jesus wanted a unity that was based on agreement among all ecclesiastical leaders that is mandated to all members, without regard to whether that unity produces holiness among those who adhere to it, then why bother with Christianity? Why bother dying? The Pharisees already had that unity.
The unity desired by those who want it through apostolic succession and through all of us joining an organization that already has well over a billion members is what I just described. I’m sure they wish that unity produced holiness, but since it has a long history of mostly members whose religion only barely affected their daily lives, they have to hold to that unity even when it doesn’t produce holiness (which is always).
So, two issues:
It seems bizarre to me that anyone would suggest in order to have unity, the Christians in Selmer, Tennessee—or any other place, of course—should officially become members of the church in Rome, Italy. Or, if the issue is the Eastern Orthodox apostolic succession, that they should members of the church in Istanbul, Turkey; Antioch, Greece; or Moscow, Russia.
Where’s that in Scripture? Where’s that in any apostolic tradition found in the early Christian writings?
Apostolic succession, according to those who wrote about it in the 2nd and 3rd century, was a way to preserve the truth unchanged. That works for a while, but as we all can see, after 2,000 years it’s pretty ineffective.
Those early churches consulted one another to help stick with what the apostles handed down. Thus, it would have been typical to consult important apostolic churches like Rome, Ephesus, and Philippi. Fortunately, we live in the information age. We can consult what the church in Rome handed down, and we can compare it to earlier writings of the church, and help sort what’s true and what’s been added or taken away over the last 2,000 years.
I recommend doing that. But I don’t recommend joining a church that’s 5,000 miles away. That’s certainly not apostolic.
The other fortunate thing is that unity by apostolic succession, agreed upon by everyone, has been tried by an entire continent for hundreds of years. The continent is Europe, the church it submitted to was the church in Rome, and the time period is known as "The Dark Ages."
According to Christ, bad fruit only comes from bad trees.
So, you tell me. Is this a good idea?
I’ve probably mentioned before that dishonesty in research really bugs me.
In preparing a book on the Council of Nicea that I’m working on—and progressing well!—I decided to hunt down a Jehovah’s Witness booklet called Should You Believe in the Trinity. I wanted to point out that because we don’t really know what the Council of Nicea was about, nor what the early Christians believed about the Father and his Son—or, more precisely, about God and his Logos—we leave a wide open door for the Jehovah’s Witnesses to accurately quote the early church fathers, but twist their meaning into Jehovah’s Witness/Arian doctrine.
My mistake.
Not content with twisting their meaning, the Jehovah’s Witnesses do violence to their very words. I have to suppose they didn’t think they’d be exposed by anyone who actually understood the beliefs of the early Christians because so few do.
You see, right now if you confront a Jehovah’s Witness about their misquoting, they could take you to the section that they’re misquoting, and most Christians would be bewildered by what they read. Unprepared, the Jehovah’s Witness would tear them apart or get them to accuse the early church fathers of heresy.
I guess the fortunate part is that the Watchtower doesn’t acknowledge where they get these quotes, so the average Witness would never be able to find them anyway.
I can find the quotes, or something similar, so let me take a moment to expose their open, rampant dishonesty. These quotes might as well be completely made up because the words of the original authors are twisted so far from what they say, not only in meaning, but even in the actual wording.
Just one more proof that the Watchtower is a corrupt, dishonest organization.
Like most religious organizations that aren’t allowed to be questioned.
Egregious means "conspicuously bad or offensive."
I’m putting a picture of the offending portion of their page below so you can see what they’ve done.
Note the quote box in the picture. (I’m sorry that my blog’s column is only 400 pixels wide. That’s the biggest I can make it for you! Just follow the link above to their page if you want to see it larger.)
First note that the quote in the text box is attributed to "The Triune God."
I thought they didn’t think the Triune God existed! I am certainly surprised they have some direct quotes from him!
I suspect they must be referring to a publication (of theirs?) called The Triune God.
Anyway, the quote says that there is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a Trinity within the Godhead.
Really?
Note that their text box is right next to a quote from Origen. I’m pretty certain that, in context, Origen and everyone else on that page constitute the "sacred writers" to whom they’re referring.
So let’s address both the quote from Origen, and, while we’re there, the assertion of the Triune God that no one had ever even imagined the Trinity back then.
Now, they don’t give a reference for this supposed quote from Origen in which he supposedly says that the Son is a very small Light compared to the Father. However, since Origen has a huge section right at the beginning of De Principiis that is singularly focused on what it means that the Son of God is the Light, that seems a good place to look for the quote the Watchtower references.
There, rather than reading that the Son is a "very small light," we read:
The only-begotten Son, therefore, is the glory of this light, proceeding inseparably from [God] Himself, as brightness does from light, and illuminating the whole of creation. (De Principiis I:2:7)
What a strange small light this is that can illumine the whole of creation!
What a strange small light this is that proceeds "inseparably" from God himself!
I can only think that the Watchtower was purposely twisting Origen’s explanation that in being "the express image of the invisible Father" the Son presented himself "gently and softly to the frail and weak eyes of mortals," so that as they got used to it, he would "render them capable of enduring the splendor of the light" (ibid.).
What’s of note is that if they’d just read a little further, to see what Origen might have to say about the Holy Spirit when he got done talking about the Son, they might have read:
From all [the Scriptures Origen had just quoted] we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity that saving baptism was not complete except BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE MOST EXCELLENT TRINITY OF THEM ALL, i.e., BY THE NAMING OF THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father and to his only-begotten Son the name also of the Holy Spirit. (ibid. I:3:2)
Now I may not be the most insightful person there ever was, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Origen suspected there was a Trinity in the Godhead.
Don’t you?
Even if he had not specifically mentioned the Trinity, called the Holy Spirit a person, and named the 3 persons of the Trinity, I think we could have proved that he at least suspected there was a Trinity in another way.
Notice the places I got the quotes from.
I got the quotes about the Son from I:2:7 of De Principiis. Those first two numbers mean Book one and Chapter two. I got the second quote from I:3:2, which is Book one and Chapter 3. (The third number is the paragraph.)
The reason they are numbered like that is because chapter one is about God, chapter two is about the Son, and chapter three is about the Holy Spirit. These are in Book one of his multiple-volume treatise, De Principiis, which means "Concerning Beginning Principles."
Thus, what does he consider the very first beginning principle?
The Trinity!
Chapter 4 of the first book of De Principiis is about falling away. In the second paragraph of that very short chapter, he explains why he’s covering falling away so early:
In our desire to show the divine benefits bestowed upon us by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Trinity that is the fountain of all holiness, we have fallen … into a digression, having considered the subject of the soul, which accidentally came before us.
So, just in case the Watchtower, or anyone else, couldn’t figure out that Origen started De Principiis with a chapter each on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he states it explicitly. He wanted to begin his work by addressing the Trinity that is the fountain of all holiness.
I guess if I was going to be as dishonest as the Watchtower, I wouldn’t reference my sources, either.
Yesterday I talked about when doctrine and history don’t matter; when they are just issues to create dissension and divide us.
Today I want to talk about when they do matter:
The other day, I got a really awesome letter from someone I think is outside the U.S. Here’s some excerpts:
I’m a Bible Study teacher at my college and as such, I am expected to at least know a good outline or so of what Christianity is about. I won’t lie, your website has taught me much more than any Bible Study or message I’ve actually heard in real life, and its answered a lot of questions I’ve always had.
Your explanation of the Trinity helped me to figure out the question I have had for a while: Why in the world does John call Jesus the Word? …
Not to mention, you helped me understand whether salvation is by faith alone or we need more (the answer: Both!). …
More importantly than anything else though, you have made me realize the importance of fruit in our life. I can teach Bible Studies and even be a good person, but when Jesus says he wants! us to surpass the righteousness of the Pharisees, well, he actually means it! … And now that I have finally accepted it in my life, God has really been working through me, it is an amazing and beautiful life to live.
You can probably imagine how exciting it was for me to get a letter like that.
Locally, as I talked about yesterday, we are in desperate need of unity.
Until that unity exists, it is worse than pointless, it’s counterproductive, to talk about things like the Trinity and works versus faith.
Only later, when the unity of the Spirit is defended, when the openness that comes with love, trust, and harmony are established, and when we’ve learned to resolve conflicts between one another, then we can discuss such potentially divisive issues and find God’s mind on the matter.
Until then, there’s just too much danger that we’ll produce only the conflict of our human minds the division that our flesh longs for.
Worldwide, there can be no such unity. If you have never met me, and if you live hundreds or thousands of miles away from me, then we cannot be joined to each other as a hand is to a wrist. You don’t need and can’t have my input, and I don’t need and cannot have your input.
We are not in danger of division. If you don’t like what I say, you can simply write me off, and it will not do me, you, or the body of Christ any harm.
But I could do some good. The above letter is from a person outside my country that was helped.
They were not helped by my accurate doctrine. They were helped by an explanation that helped Scripture make sense to them. They were less confused and more comfortable.
In some cases, my explanations can’t produce that. Don’t take my doctrinal explanations, no matter how good they are, and created division in your local fellowship. It would be much better for you to be doctrinally inaccurate and united than doctrinally correct and divided.
One’s ignorance unlikely to do much harm. The other is sin that always does harm and immense harm at that.
The one exception is the matter of obedience to Christ. If you are not devoting yourself to following our King in obedience then you are not a Christian and unity is not the issue (2 Tim. 2:19).
By the way, I’m not going to be humble to the point of falsehood. I have plenty of true reasons to be humble. My doctrinal explanations are very good. I limit myself to teaching on what I know is historical and what I know fits all the verses on a subject. I don’t pit one verse against another, and I have devoted long years to admitting ignorance until I could speak things that fit all of Scripture. The things I teach are settle the soul scripturally, are historical, and have been held by most of those who have been powerfully successful in living in unity and righteousness.
Theology and history can also be of benefit to mature Christians where they need to be dodged by new Christians.
Mature Christians have learned the importance of unity, obedience, and mercy. They know what the weightier matters of the law are. They are more able to examine difficult, potentially divisive issues without actually dividing.
As the writer of Hebrews puts it, "Solid food belongs to those who are mature, who by reason of training have their senses exercised to distinguish between good and evil."
I mentioned yesterday that I’ve studied theology and history for 28 years, devoting a large amount of time to it. But are they really helpful for anything?
When you’re trying to build the church, whether that’s by making new Christians or by bringing Christians into the unity that they need to grow (Eph. 4:11-16), theology and history are not helpful. They are just things for Christians—who ought to be focusing on maintaining the unity that is created only by the Spirit of God (Eph. 4:3)—to argue, fight, and divide over.
When you’re building the church, there is one thing that matters. Although what I am about to write is going to sound like two or more things, it’s really just one: Christ.
Christ, the Gospel, and obeying the Gospel. That’s what matters. That’s what will create born-again people who have the Spirit of God and who, thus, can have unity and be the family of God.
2 Tim. 2:19, which to me is one of the most important verses in the Bible in the light of our modern problems with division and proper focus, says, "For the foundation of God stands firm: The Lord knows those who are his, and let those who name the name of Christ depart from iniquity."
On that foundation we can build.
That verse is part of a letter to Timothy about what he should be doing to establish the church in Ephesus while Paul is gone. Don’t lose focus, he’s telling Timothy. Theologians are always finding unimportant things to argue about (profane and vain babblings, 2 Tim. 2:16) in order to fulfill their lust for glory, money, and division (1 Tim. 6:3-5).
Yes, we lust for division. Don’t fool yourself. Not only is division a natural product of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21), but it’s a convenient way to dodge the emotionally painful task of working things out and getting along.
Doctrine is important.
The problem is, we don’t know what doctrine is important.
When we think of doctrine, we think of all those things modern Christians divide over: real presence in the Eucharist, dunking vs. sprinkling, speaking in tongues, eternal security.
Paul exhorts Timothy and Titus to fight over doctrine, but he makes it clear that there is one doctrine he is concerned about: the doctrine according to godliness.
Both Timothy and Titus are exhorted to teach good works to the saints. Paul specifically tells Titus to teach the church to "be careful to maintain good works" (Tit. 3:8). A little earlier he told him that Jesus died to produce a people that are zealous for good works (Tit. 2:14).
In fact, in Titus 2, Paul does us a favor and defines sound doctrine.
Read it. (That link gives you 4 versions to choose from.) It verifies everything I’m saying.
We can’t come to good doctrine on our own, anyway!
Ephesians 4:3 tells us to diligently maintain the unity of the Spirit. That’s first and foremost.
If we can do that, speaking the truth to one another in love, then together we can come to "the unity of the faith" and avoid being tossed around by every doctrine that blows through (Eph. 4:13-14).
Spiritual unity first; doctrinal unity after.
John addresses this, too. He talks about people who are trying to seduce the church (1 Jn. 2:26). Then he says what to do about it.
What to do about it is not study the Bible and come to our own individual conclusions. What to do about it is together to be led by the anointing.
That’s what he says! We may not like it, and I assure you, Protestants don’t like it. Most of them, while telling me that they are going to trust in the Bible instead, reject the Bible’s answer for doctrinal error!
Both Ephesians 4 and 1 John 2 tell us to learn together by the guidance that comes from God from heaven. One talks about people as a gift from Jesus Christ speaking the truth to one another in love, and the other talks about the Anointing that comes from God and that leads us—together because all those yous in 1 Jn. 2:27 are plural—into what is "true and not a lie."
700 words. This is plenty long and plenty to chew on.
Tomorrow, when doctrine and history do matter.
I came out to Auburn, California with another family to help get "real" church started.
By "real church," what I mean is Christians that are really family to one another. They take care of one another financially, emotionally, and spiritually; they seek the will of God together; and they plan to keep track of one another for the rest of their lives.
That’s what family does, and no family should do it better than the family of God.
The lonely who come to Christ should never be lonely again, and that should not mean that they only have spiritual fellowship with the invisible Christ, the head, in the heavens. It should mean that they have real fellowship with the visible Christ, the body, on the earth. The Scriptures don’t only say that the hand needs the head. The hand needs the whole rest of the body (1 Cor. 12:12-27).
One more Scripture reference: We grow as we speak the truth in love to one another, each part doing its share, not just as we learn the truth from the Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:11-16). In fact, the Bible teaches that if we only learn the truth from the Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we’re likely to be deceived by our own sinfulness (Heb. 3:13).
I guess that was two Scripture references.
In the spirit of keeping my posts shorter and more regular, let me quit there. If you consider not just the accuracy of what I just taught, but also what it means as far as carrying that teaching out, then this post is a lot to chew on.
I titled this post "Do Doctrine and History Matter" because theology and history are subjects to which I have devoted immense amounts of time over the last 28 years. Thus, it would be natural for me to want to correct the doctrine and history of others in order to accomplish the building of the church that I’ve described above.
I do think there’s a role for doctrine and history, but is it in building the church?
That’s tomorrow’s subject.
I have a friend that I’m certain thinks I talk about apostolic succession and other Catholic issues too much. On the other hand, I get regular emails about the subject, and "When Protestants Become Catholic" remains my most read post.
So here’s one more. This is an answer to an email I received. It addresses not only apostolic succession but results and unity, and it introduces a subject I want to talk about tomorrow: How do we build the church in 21st century America?
Or, maybe, more pertinently, the subject could be called "America Needs More Missionaries."
Also, there’s enough links is this post to make a fair history lesson if you follow them.
Anyway, here’s the email:
I guess we’re both looking for something. What I’m looking for will not be provided by submitting to elders with apostolic succession. In fact, it will almost certainly be prevented.
I’m looking for fruit. Christians are to be known by their love. If even an apostle preaches a false gospel, he is to be anathematized. We are to fellowship with those that meditate on God’s Word and separate from the world.
Those sorts of things matter to me.
I was a Roman Catholic. I was raised in it. For 18 years I faithfully attended mass, CCD, and even a couple short youth retreats.
In 18 years, I may have met one Christian in the Roman Catholic Church. Every single one of the others I met in 18 years, 3 countries, and 3 states were not even trying. I’ve met more Roman Catholic Christians since leaving the RCC than when I was in it.
Yesterday I was reading The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience
That’s pretty much what I would have figured. Roman Catholics, in general, know almost nothing about the Bible’s teaching on following God. (Most of my relatives are Roman Catholic, by the way, because my dad is from Hawaii and is Portuguese by descent.)
On top of that, the RCC’s unscriptural and unhistorical teaching on celibacy in leaders has led to vast amounts of sexual immorality. Both the Council of Nicea and the Council of Arles—in 325 and 268 respectively, before celibacy was even common—said that live-in females were a problem for "many" bishops and elders.
I was an altar boy. Lack of kindness, a bad temper, and sipping the leftover Eucharistic sherry among priests was a given, accepted and talked about by altar boys and parish members alike.
Now, let me ask you. If my goal is to teach Christians to follow Christ together, in holiness, as one people, why in the world would I ask them to submit to mostly unsaved leaders in a mostly unsaved church and why would I do so myself? That would be completely contrary to my purposes?
And as for yours [i.e., his purpose, which was to be "in unity"], do you really believe that because you’re submitting to elders with apostolic succession, that you are somehow now living in unity? With whom?
Unity is not agreement about which organization to belong to. Unity comes from the Spirit first, and it is destroyed by members who don’t even know that they are not supposed to have premarital sex! 26% don’t even know among Evangelicals, and it’s worse among Catholics!
Jesus said there would always be few who will find the path; I want to be in unity with those few. It doesn’t matter to me that there’s a carnal, fleshly counterfeit organization out there claiming to be the church and claiming a succession that isn’t scriptural, isn’t historical, and that didn’t really happen. (There was no bishop in Rome for nearly a century. Several men in France claimed to be the bishop, while never even seeing Rome, and then there were 2 or 3 competing men for another 50 years. Succession in Rome is long broken by this and by successions that happened by imperial appointment or assassination of the previous bishop.)
Cyprian said that a church leader who lives in sin should be rejected by the people or they will be contaminated by his sin (To the Clergy and People Abiding in Spain, Epistle of Cyprian 67 in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. V). How much more true is that of a prelate who preaches a false gospel of sacraments, confession to a priest, and attendance at mass because he’s never heard the true one of Christ’s call to lay down our lives, hate our families, leave our possessions and follow him?
I’m sorry but Roman Catholic leaders with a pretended succession are not a route to unity; they’re in the way of it. Unity is only going to happen by the Spirit of God and among disciples (Eph. 4:3).
That’s the only unity that matters. All other unity is just words.
One final word. What’s worse? The divisions of Protestantism or the complete corruption, both politically and spiritually, that was Roman Catholicism in the late medieval period?
Keep in mind that Luther and Calvin did not leave Roman Catholicism. They were put out of it for speaking things that were undeniably true. For Martin Luther, the purpose was to save poverty-stricken Germans from being milked of the nothing they had by evil salesmen threatening cruelty from God, then selling release from it. It was literally extortion!
These were sent by Pope Leo X in order to build the luxurious St. Peter’s Basilica.
Don’t think the division between the Lutherans and the Catholics had anything to do with theology. It had exclusively to do with money that the pope and his henchmen were wringing out of emaciated people to build a cathedral.
So, should Martin Luther—possibly mentally ill, but at least caring about the extortion he was witnessing—have just submitted to the minions from Rome? His local elders were on his side!
Things get very complicated when we reduce things to carnal, earthly ideas like a succession that involves fleshly men. The succession of the early church fathers involved men who preserved the truth in holiness, and it was the truth that was on their mind, not the men.
The Roman Catholic Church has lost the truth, so they’ve lost the succession.
The proof is not in arguments about transubstantiation and infant baptism. The proof is in the pudding. The RCC rarely produces Christians [as a percentage; among their 2 billion members, there are many devoted to Christ], and most of the Christians it produces in the 21st century are influenced by Protestantism. Protestantism is corrupt as an organization, but it has produced most of the Christians in the world, even if they have gone to the RCC and Orthodox over ecclesiastical ideas.
I make such sweeping generalizations for the same reason Gallup and Barna make sweeping generalizations. Once you have a certain sampling size, your poll becomes reliable to a certain margin of error. My sampling size for what I said in the paragraph above is significantly larger than most Gallup or Barna polls.
Further, we’ve tried asking an entire continent to submit to the elders and bishops who had the apostolic succession we’re talking about. That experiment went on for centuries. It’s known as The Dark Ages.
Anyway, the point of this is that I’m after results. I’m certainly not chasing an organization. Where’s there any Scripture for that? Let us go after Christ with a whole heart and preach the Gospel Jesus preached, and let us serve alongside all who name the name of Christ.
There is one foundation, according to Paul, and that is Christ. On that foundation is one inscription. It says, "The Lord knows those who are his, and let those who name the name of Christ depart from iniquity."
Listen, I’ve probably sounded real forceful, perhaps rude, in this email. If you can submit to elders with apostolic succession, and then, as a result, show me a people gathered in the power of the Spirit, obeying Christ together, and each of those who are a part knowing what Christ calls them to, then I’ll acknowledge we may need to do that, too.
Of course, we already have that situation in Selmer, Tn, and I’m devoting efforts to making that happen in Auburn, CA, so I guess even if you succeed by submitting to such elders, I can’t say that it’s mandatory to do the same. But at least, having seen it, I would be more open!
Author of books on early Christianity, apostolic faith, and church history. Official site: 
https://christian-history.org
Genesis 1 is teaching theology, not creation science.
Meaningful Dialogue across Christian Traditions
Motivate | Inspire | Uplift
The Rest of the Old, Old Story 