Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian 72 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  JosephMalik

  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.

  Narkissos,

  There was no need to do this in Acts since our Lord did this personally and even informed Ananias of His selection. But to this point Paul shows how he was included with the 12 in a discussion of the 12 as if born out of time. 1 Cor. 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

  Joseph
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I really don't know how to say this kindly. But I have little interest in discussing the scriptures with someone who does not believe in their authenticity. Why you spend so much time discussing the contents of a book that you have so little respect for I don't know.

  I really want my response to sound kind: The reasoning stands independent of his own inclination. Would you please engage that rather than spinning wheels in an ad hominem response?

  BTS
• 

  Kenneson

  The Apostles did not appoint other apostles; they appointed other officers. And that's how apostolic power was preserved.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  The Reformation began as an attempt to rid the Catholic Church of several false teachings and corrupt practices. Those who sometime later chose to leave the Catholic Church did so only after its leadership refused to abandon those false teachings and corrupt practices.

  The Church addressed and repaired the ecclesiatical abuses presented by Luther in his theses, if this is what you refer to, 20 years after his death.

  Their then choosing to leave the Catholic Church in no way then constituted a "reaping time." They did not then kill Catholic Church leaders or set fire to its church building. They simply followed the Bible's instructions to Christians such as those found in 2 Cor. 6:16,17.

  Yes, and we know that the Reformers were entirely peaceful folk that merely withdrew from the Church to practice "pure" Christianity. Their motives were entirely pure. They sacked no Churches. They killed no one that sincerely disagreed with them.

  BTS
• 

  Narkissos

  But I have little interest in discussing the scriptures with someone who does not believe in their authenticity. Why you spend so much time discussing the contents of a book that you have so little respect for I don't know.

  a-Christian,

  How convenient. This spares you the task of pondering about the scriptures I brought up, especially from the Pastorals -- implying that the author, whoever he was, (1) did not trust a mere commitment to writing but relied on a line of appointed "officers" (as kenneson put it) for the future of the church -- this being the gist of "apostolic succession" in all historical churches, not the bogeyman of a succession of countless apostles, as you and JosephMalik persist in claiming -- and (2) did not envision that the church itself would be "lost" to any kind of apostasy. (His "false teachers" were mostly Gnostics, and they were effectively put out of the "great church" in the 2nd century.)

  "Respect" can be construed in a number of ways I guess. People paying lip service to the "authority/authenticity/inerrancy of scripture" but (for this very reason perhaps) having to assume, time after time, that the texts do not mean what they say do not strike me as particularly respectful.

  That 2 Corinthians 6:16f runs against the spirit of Matthew 13 (or the other way around) is just another textual fact that you have to deal with. Giving the priority to one over the other (or explaining the other away so that they "agree") is your choice and responsibility.

  As to the peaceful attitude of Protestantism toward Catholicism, you should read about the history of Ireland, for instance...

  JosephMalik

  There was no need to do this in Acts since our Lord did this personally and even informed Ananias of His selection. But to this point Paul shows how he was included with the 12 in a discussion of the 12 as if born out of time. 1 Cor. 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

  The Lord doesn't introduce Saul to Ananias as an "apostle" but as "an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel". Saul is then introduced to the "apostles" by Barnabas (9:27), who had already paid allegiance to the "apostles" (4:36f); after that Saul remains second to Barnabas (11:30 etc.; the shift first occurs in 13:42, but the order Barnabas/Paul resurges in chapter 15); Paul is only called an "apostle" in chapter 14, along with Barnabas (who was not one of the Twelve). So, yes, the idea of Paul as the twelfth apostle instead of Judas/Matthias is entirely foreign to the book of Acts.

  It's too bad you don't read the context of 1 Corinthians 15: first, in this passage "the apostles" are distinct from "the twelve" (v. 5, 7; apparently including James as in Galatians 1:19), second, in that passage "Paul" compares himself not just to the above groups, but also to the "500"....

  M.J.

  IF exegetically there appears to be a plurality of viewpoints in the scriptures on a particular issue, then you either must"
  
  a) accept this and leave the issue open-ended
  b) choose one and call the other one pseudepigraphical
  c) insist that there can be only one possible viewpoint and eisegesically interpret all 'contrary' passages to be in conformance to it.

  The issue of pseudepigraphy is actually distinct from the rest. Whether you take it into account or not, you still have to deal with the "plurality of viewpoints" in either the (a) or the (c) way. Only a decision on the canon of scripture would yield a third option -- restricting your "Bible" to what is not suspect of pseudepigraphy, for instance (and that would leave very little), or simply to the texts you agree with. This is definitely not the option of most confessional scholars who take pseudepigraphy into account.
• 

  JosephMalik

  The Lord doesn't introduce Saul to Ananias as an "apostle" but as "an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel".

  Narkissos,

  And that meant what? Apostle! It is the definition for Apostle spelled out and chosen by Chirst Himself.

  Narkissos said: Paul is only called an "apostle" in chapter 14, along with Barnabas (who was not one of the Twelve). So, yes, the idea of Paul as the twelfth apostle instead of Judas/Matthias is entirely foreign to the book of Acts.

  On the contrary, it is imbedded in the book of acts and miraculously at that. This does not mean that Paul, Barnabas or anyone else cannot also be made apostles for some other special function by the Church of Antioch which they were.

  Narkissos said: It's too bad you don't read the context of 1 Corinthians 15: first, in this passage "the apostles" are distinct from "the twelve" (v. 5, 7; apparently including James as in Galatians 1:19), second, in that passage "Paul" compares himself not just to the above groups, but also to the "500"....

  It is good to see that you have psychic powers and know what I have failed to read in the text. But James and the 500 were not part of the 12 Apostles. The context was simple and directly given to us like this: 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. So this is a direct reference to the office of the 12 apostles (not James or the others) as you try to imply. This also shows up in Galatians. James was an influential leader in Jerusalem but James was not identified as an Apostle of any sort. He was simply identified as being in Jerusalem. 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. Did you notice? "But other of the apostles saw I none?" And this goes for James who was there but was not included with such apostles.

  Joseph
• 

  NanaR

  a Christian wrote:

  Ruth refers to the laying on of hands by the apostles. By doing so does she mean to say that she believes that Peter gave his own authority to another by laying his hands on a chosen successor prior to his death? I don't belief that is what is said by the Catholic Church to have occurred. 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.

  How do Catholics explain this? If indeed Peter had the power to give his own Christ given authority to another man, which the Scriptures do not indicate is the case, how is it that after Peter's death a group of men, whom Christ had never directly given any authority, had the power to give the authority which Christ gave to Peter to another man?

  Jesus changed the Apostle Simon's name to Peter, gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom, gave him the authority to bind and to loose, and instructed him (three times in succession) to "feed my sheep". As the Lord would have sheep on this earth long after the Apostle Peter had died, someone coming after him would have to assume responsibility for feeding the Lord's sheep.

  Laying on of hands is a vital part of the ordination of a minister -- whether deacon, priest, or Bishop. The means by which a Bishop is selected is not relevant; that a Bishop, priest, or deacon is ordained by someone who is themselves validly ordained is what is vital in terms of the doctrine of apostolic succession.

  This particular discussion did not begin specifically about the Catholic Church. As justhuman has pointed out, the Orthodox Churches also hold the doctrine of apostolic succession. James C's point was that the doctrine of apostolic succession was not challenged for the first 1500 years of Christianity. That point has not been disproven by any of the posts here. That the doctrine was challenged by the Reformers is clear, but I do not happen to agree with them. You may choose to believe them, of course, or to hold whatever opinion you feel is valid. But the ancient record is clear. One cannot deny the ancient record unless one chooses, as our Mr. Malik apparently does, to discard the words of 1500 years of Saints and Martyrs.

  In order to find out how apostolic succession, the appointing of shepherds over the Sheep of God, occured, one has to read the writings of the Early Church fathers. The New Testament presents us with Christianity in its infancy. It is impossible for the New Testament to provide a complete picture of how the early Church operated after the death of the apostles.

  A wonderful nonCatholic resource for reading the Fathers online is:

  http://www.ccel.org/

  Membership is free and allows one to download various *.pdf documents so that they can be read, printed, or searched electronically.

  For a discussion of the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession, there is an article here:

  http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

  I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I work in a college, and have been struggling with the never-never land of closing out the Spring Semester and the fiscal year while simultaneously starting up the Summer Semester.

  Yours in Christ,

  Ruth

  http://nanaruthann.blogspot.com
• 

  NanaR

  Mr. Malik:

  You said:

  Why should I do otherwise? Look at what has resulted to the Faith as a consequence of their doctrinal views.

  The splintering of Christianity must be laid at the feet of the Reformers. What the Fathers of the Church established and preserved for 1500 years has now been divided into thousands of sects in 500 years.

  You have a right to your opinions, but I disagree with your conclusions.

  Pax,

  Ruth
• 

  Narkissos

  JM,

  Repeated assertions do not make an argument. No need to insist on that.

  Just a couple of additional details on Acts though.

  I quoted 9:15 from the NRSV, "he is an instrument whom I have chosen" (a free but basically correct rendering, at least for readers interested in getting the general sense of the text rather than reading between the lines). But the text actually says, skeuos eklogès estin moi houtos, "this one is an instrument/vessel of choice to me". A pretty impersonal wording, stressing the quality of the "instrument" in view of a certain task ("bearing my name...") rather than the idea of personal choice by Jesus. So you will need to stretch your point yet a little more, but I'm sure you can do it.

  Btw, considering oneself as chosen (or elect) by God/Jesus was a rather widespread self-understanding in early Christianity...

  As to the "replacement" of Judas by Matthias (which, again, has little to do with the notion of apostolic succession), the passage is worth quoting in its entirety:

  So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us--one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection." So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. Then they prayed and said, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place." And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

  The highlighted parts imply (1) that the criteria for admission into the Twelve included being in the group of disciples during Jesus' earthly ministry (a criterium that both Joseph Barsabbas and Matthias did meet, not Paul); (2) that the mode of appointment (lots, i.e. divination Urim-Thummim style, not human "election") was understood as God's (or possibly Jesus'?) own choice (here the Greek wording is very personal, hon exelexô, whom you have chosen, 2nd person singular).

  Now if the whole process was a mistake, the author of Acts doesn't give his readers a clue to know it was. Until the real insightful interpreters come up, that is...
• 

  Rapunzel

  Hi Narkissos! I just want to say that I agree with you; your scholarship and intelligence are flawless. I am sincere in my words, no irony at all! I learn so much from reading your posts.

  I do want to point out one tiny matter, though, which only proves how attentively I read your posts. In your last post, you write: "(a criterium that both Joseph Barsabbas and Matthias did meet, not Paul)." The -um endling would make it a Latin singular noun. I believe that the Greek singular noun for which you are looking is criterion, from the Greek kriterion, itself derived from the Greek verb krinein ["to judge," "to decide"].

  Interestingly enough, there exists the Latiin word criterium. However, this word refers to a very short bicycle race [less than 5 km.].

  I really hope that you take no offense in my pointing this out. Again, this only proves how attentively I read your posts. I sincerely put great stock in your opinions and ideas.