Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian 72 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  a Christian

  I wrote: Popes certainly do not choose their own successors today. Rather, following a Pope's death, a gathering of Bishops elect a new Pope by popular vote.
  

  Burn responded: Matthias was elected by the remaining apostles as a replacement for the fallen Judas.

  First of all, I agree with Joseph that Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ to serve as His apostle, replaced Judas as His twelfth Apostle, not Matthias. I believe that the actions of the remaining apostles, in requiring that Christ choose one of only two men which they had selected as candidates to replace Judas, and then determining Christ's selection by casting lots, were improper. This clearly amounted to the eleven Apostles choosing Christ's twelfth Apostle, not Christ choosing His twelfth Apostle.

  But this was not possible for them to do. An apostle is one who is appointed for a mission. The twelve Apostles, who were appointed by Christ for the mission of establishing His Church, could appoint their own apostles (missionaries) to help them do so. And this they did. But any and all men appointed to serve as apostles by the Apostles would be the Apostles' apostles, not Christ's Apostles.

  But, for the sake of argument, let's say Burn is right. Let's say the remaining eleven Apostles appointed by Christ had the ability and the authority to appoint a replacement for Judas. How does that show that a group of men, following the death of Peter, had the ability and authority to select by popular vote a successor for him?
• 

  BurnTheShips

  First of all, I agree with Joseph that Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ to serve as His apostle, replaced Judas as His twelfth Apostle, not Matthias. I believe that the actions of the remaining apostles, in requiring that Christ choose one of only two men which they had selected as candidates to replace Judas, and then determining Christ's selection by casting lots, were improper. This clearly amounted to the eleven Apostles choosing Christ's twelfth Apostle, not Christ choosing His twelfth Apostle.

  If the action was improper, I know of no Scriptural or other record making this impropriety plain. It is apparent that the arrangement was blessed.

  But this was not possible for them to do. An apostle is one who is appointed for a mission. The twelve Apostles, who were appointed by Christ for the mission of establishing His Church, could appoint their own apostles (missionaries) to help them do so. And this they did. But any and all men appointed to serve as apostles by the Apostles would be the Apostles' apostles, not Christ's Apostles.

  Indeed they did:

  Acts 14:14
  But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting....

  Romans 16:7
  Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

  1 Thessalonians 1:1,6
  Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you.....We were not looking for praise from men, not from you or anyone else. As apostles of Christ we could have been a burden to you...

  (1 Thessalonians is from Paul, Silas, and Timothy. The letter talks about how as apostles of Christ they could have used their authority and asked for the support, but instead were gentle and did not impose a burden. The word apostles was used, and in a plural form, referring to the three. Therefore Silas and Timothy were apostles also, and not of the Twelve.)

  But, for the sake of argument, let's say Burn is right. Let's say the remaining eleven Apostles appointed by Christ had the ability and the authority to appoint a replacement for Judas. How does that show that a group of men, following the death of Peter, had the ability and authority to select by popular vote a successor for him?

  This is simple, the group of men inherited the office as successors, they have the same authority as their forbears. Bishops seats, including the seat of Peter, were elective positions even in very early times.

  BTS
• 

  BurnTheShips

  And, in very short order, it was. That being the case, it makes perfect sense that very shortly after the deaths of the apostles presumptuous men, seeking power and glory for themselves, would falsely claim to have inherited the apostles' authority. And they did. And they still do.

  That wicked men have been in the line of succession is undeniable. That their claims are false is not. In the OT we see that wicked men sat on David's throne, and that wicked men occupied the office of High Priest. The men were wicked, but their office was sacred and valid. The kings were valid kings, and the priests were valid priests. Eli was High Priest in 1 Samuel, and he was adversly judged by God for tolerating the wickedness of his sons,but he was still the High Priest. Even the High Priest that plotted to kill Jesus was a valid High Priest, and as High Priest his prophecy was true:

  John 11:49-52

  Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.

  To use your argument as a Jew in the OT times would mean to reject the priesthood and the Davidic kingship, to abandon the support of the Temple worship (and thereby violate the Law), and form a separate and oppositional sect. Even the Prophets that God called up to admonish Israel for it's wickedness never taught such a thing.

  BTS
• 

  Narkissos

  I'll try to make my point more clearly fwiw: the principle of "apostolic succession" which I discern in some parts of the N.T. (mostly the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, Ephesians, 1 Peter and the Pastorals) is essentially distinct from (1) the "replacement" of Judas in Acts 1, restoring the finite number of the 12 apostles for the foundation of the Church at Pentecost (James, brother of John, is not "replaced" at his death in chapter 12) and (2) the particular Roman Catholic issue of papacy, which is about primacy (i.e., of the bishop -- not "apostle" -- of Rome) within the general setting of apostolic succession as acknowledged by practically all segments of historical Christianity, both Roman or anti-Roman, down to the Reformers.

  The replacement of Judas (probably a late addition into the texts of Acts, btw) is certainly not presented as a "mistake" in the book of Acts itself. Nor are Peter, James and Barnabas portrayed as "erring" in any occasion in this book. The narrative strategy of Acts implies that the entire development of early Christianity derives from the Twelve. Never, in this book (and contrary to Galatians), is Paul depicted as an "independent" apostle, let alone integrated to the Twelve in replacement of Judas/Mathias; both his missionary action and his theology (which Acts put on Peter's lips, in chapter 15) are presented as a (direct and indirect) commission from the Twelve. We may of course prefer the Pauline version, but we cannot read it into Acts.

  Btw, reading "Paul" into the 12 apostles of Revelation is equally ludicrous, since this book is way closer to the theology of Acts than to Paul's (cf. the issue of food sacrificed to idols).
• 

  a Christian

  Just Human asked:

  1.Is the Holy Bible the only basis for the Christian faith?

  No. A Christian's witnessing aided by God's Holy Spirit has often been sufficient to bring someone to Christ without a Bible anywhere to be found.

  2. Can you indicate a verse in the Bible that claims our basis for Christian Faith is only the Bible?

  No.

  3. Who set the Biblical Canon?

  See my earlier post, number 363.

  4.What is the Protestand basis to accept the 66 books of the Bible instead of 77 that Orthodox and Catholic Church accepts?

  It is the canon that was most widely accepted by the First Century Church.

  5. Were in the Bible is telling us the Books that we should accept as the Biblical Canon are part of the Holy Scriptures?

  Nowhere.

  6. Can you indicate a verse in the Bible that claims to be infalible?

  The books in the Bible were inspired by God. However, they were written, copied, and translated by fallible men. True Christians worship the God who inspired the Bible. They do not worship the Bible. Neither do they worship the Christian church, Christ's entire worldwide body of believers. Neither do they worship a particular organized portion of Christ's church, even if that particular Church organization presumptuously claims to be the only true Christian church organization.

  7. Were in the Bible is telling us that the faith of the Church is being set according to the Bible and not the opposite?

  Nowhere.

  8. In the Early Christian Church we had the Apostoles and the Prophets and they were appointed by the Holy Spirit Elders (Episkopoi in Greek)and this succesion is being carried for over 2000 years in the Apostolic Church, starting from James the first Bishop of Jerusalim.Do JW's or any Protestand has any Apostolic Succesion?

  I know that Mormons claim a form of Apostolic Succession.

  9. Has the Apostolic Church ever Apostasized?

  Christ's church, His entire worldwide body of believers, has never become apostate. For it has always contained many true Christians. However, many individuals within that body have often taught false doctrines, as the Apostles themselves prophesied would happen on a large scale. (Acts 20:29,30; 2 Thess. 2:1-3; 1 Tim. 4:1-3)

  10.Why do Protestands accept a Bible that was set by the Apostolic Church with Saint Athanasius(Greek Orthodox) at the 3th century who defined the Biblical canon and accepted the Revelation of John as the last book?Is it correct on their behalf to accept a Bible that came out from the "apostate" Christians?

  The collection of books which make up our Bibles was not determined centuries after Christ, as some would like us to believe. Again, see my earlier post on this subject.

  11. What do the writtings of the first 2 centuries of Christianity indicate to us regarding the Christian faith since we have letters from the immediate succesors of the Apostles like The letter to the Church of Magnisis from Saint Ignatios the Bishop of Antioch? It was written between 97 AD - 107AD.

  The Apostles had no official "successors." If you mean to say that we have letters written by Christian leaders who lived shortly after the deaths of the Apostles, I fail to see how that fact is relevant. Ignatiuswas an early leader in the Christian church. That does not make his writings any less fallible than those of modern day church leaders, especially when we know that false teachers were "already at work" in the Christian church even before the deaths of the Apostles. (2 Thes. 2:7)

  12. Would Jesus allow Satan to turn the Church that He set with His Blood an "apostate"Church, and Satan would truimph over Jesus Church for hundreds of years?

  Jesus Himself prophesied that Satan would actively corrupt the Christian church shortly after it was founded. (Matt. 13:24-29;36-43)
• 

  a Christian

  Burn wrote: To use your argument [that after the deaths of the apostles presumptuous men, seeking power and glory for themselves, falsely claimed to have inherited the apostles' authority] as a Jew in the OT times would mean to reject the priesthood and the Davidic kingship.

  The difference here is that everyone agrees that the Davidic kingship and the Aaronic priesthood were both offices that were intended by God to be held by successors. The scriptures are very clear about that. The teaching that either the office or the authority held by any or all of the twelve apostles was intended by God to be held by successors is not a clear teaching of scripture. In fact I do not see that it is even an unclear teaching of scripture. As I said earlier, this teaching appears to be nothing more than the creation of presumptuous men who were seeking power and glory for themselves.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  more than the creation of presumptuous men who were seeking power and glory for themselves.

  Polycarp was taught by John and was burned alive for the faith which he never recanted. Was he a presumptuous man who was seeking power and glory for himself?

  Papias was the bishop of Hierapolis in Asia minor, he too was martyred for the faith. Was he a presumptuous man who was seeking power and glory for himself?

  Ignatius was the third in line as the bishop of Antioch, he died in the arena, devoured by wild beasts. He wrote powerful, beautiful epistles to the churches while en route to his martyrdom in Rome. Was he a presumptuous man who was seeking power and glory for himself?

  Pope Clement of Rome was the 3rd successor to Peter, he was martyred for the faith by drowning. He left epistles for us that are a testament to the faith. Was he a presumptuous man who was seeking power and glory for himself?

  I count at least 14 Bishops of Rome that died as martyrs out of a total of 25 in the first 250 years of the Christian Era.

  All of them received the faith, and handed it down in succession.

  Presumptuous men who saught power and glory for themselves?
• 

  a Christian

  Burn, I did not say that all who have accepted the teaching of "Apostolic Succession" have been "presumptuous men who were seeking power and glory for themselves." I said that the teaching was most likely originally created by such men. I am sure that many sincere Christians have mistakenly accepted this teaching and even mistakenly promoted it. Certainly, even Christian martyrs have not always properly understood all portions of the scriptures.

  I find it quite telling that Catholics cannot produce any passages from the scriptures to support their doctrine of Apostolic Succession. Why? Because none exist.

  When the apostles approached their deaths they did not give successors to take their places. Instead, they left their inspired writings. Peter wrote that, "Even after my death you may often have occasion to call these things to mind." (2 Pet. 1:15). This would have been an excellent opportunity for Peter to tell us that he was leaving a successor through which we could recall the things of Christ, if indeed that was what was going to happen. However, he said "This, beloved, is now the second epistle that I am writing to you wherein I stir up your pure mind to remembrance, that you may be mindful of what I formerly preached of the words of the holy prophets and of your apostles, which are the precepts of the Lord and Savior." (2 Pet. 3:1-2). Thus, Peter plainly indicated that his work and teachings as Christ's Apostle would be recalled through his writings.

  The apostle Paul also demonstrated this fact. He said, "For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come." (2 Tim. 4:6). Again, this would have been a wonderful opportunity for an apostle to teach that unerring guidance was to be handed down through their successors. He was writing to the young man Timothy who had received his spiritual guidance from him. Surely, if successors were to be ordained, he would have mentioned it to him so that he would know where to obtain unerring guidance. Or, if perhaps he had made Timothy his successor, surely he would have instructed him regarding it in order that he and others would know about it. However, there is no hint whatsoever of successors as this apostle approaches death. On the contrary, he points Timothy, as well as all men, to the sacred writings which the inspired men left us: "For from your infancy you have known the Sacred Writings, which are able to instruct you unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:15-17).

  By the way, why is it that in the Bible the successor of a king was a king and the successor of a priest was a priest, but in the Catholic Church the supposed "successor" of one of Christ's Apostles is a Catholic bishop or priest?
• 

  Narkissos

  what you have heard from me through many witnesses (!) entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well. -- 2 Timothy 2:2.

  I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you: someone(note the shift to the singular) who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious. For a bishop, as God's steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or addicted to wine or violent or greedy for gain; but he must be hospitable, a lover of goodness, prudent, upright, devout, and self-controlled. He must have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it. -- Titus 1:5ff.

  You can read those texts at face value. But if you allow for the strong possibility (as the vast majority of both Catholic and Protestant scholars now admit) that those texts are pseudepigraphical, i.e. referred artificially to the name and authority of Paul, their agenda is even clearer -- validating the doctrinal and disciplinary authority of the bishops as derived from the "apostles" (which, in that particular case, includes Paul) even through the mediation of intermediary links (as Timothy and Titus). This would not be possible without a common agreement on "apostolic succession" (again, not as a succession of apostles, but a succession of ordained bishops/presbyters/deacons being in charge of apostolic authority in the absence of apostles).
• 

  BurnTheShips

  a Christian:

  Why does every pre-Reformation Church teach Apostolic Succession?

  Roman Catholic Church
  Greek Orthodox Church
  Russian Orthodox Church
  Assyrian Church of the East
  Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
  Armenian Apostolic Church
  Ethiopian Orthodox Church
  Indian Thomists
  And all the other Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches?

  All of them. All the ancient ones.

  ?