Re: Apostolic Succession: Is it Scriptural and is it necessary? Wasn't that what Hislop was saying in his book? Back when I was still in that mode was trying to go through his book online. 2, 3 years ago... I totally didn't understand what he was trying to say about the Trinity. I'm glad to be back home, still feel like a foreigner but I'm sure that will pass.
--- ...Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless them and do not curse them.
Amen
Re: Apostolic Succession: Is it Scriptural and is it necessary?
quote:
My understanding is that you see ‘Apostolic’ as an office, held by the Bishops, which when held makes one a successor to the Apostles, and Peter in particular. The holders of this office are given the full authority of Christ on earth, and the holy spirit guides is and keeps it from becoming corrupted and un-apostolic.
We Reformed Protestants do believe in Apostolic succession, but in a different way, and using different language. . When we recite the Nicene creed, we say “We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church”.
We believe that a church, or an individual, is ‘apostolic’ when it does a couple things:
1) When it places itself under the authority of the apostles, as they expressed themselves in the holy scripture.
2) When the church or the believer acts like the apostles did: when it carry’s out Christ’s commandments to the Apostles, which Portia already referenced for us: going out, preaching the gospel, baptising (administering the sacrements), healing, helping the poor and sick and victims of violence and oppression, etc....
I think this is one of the great big disconnects due to the reformation, and (as I see it) a definition lessened somewhat to appease many who desired to leave, but didnt want to totally strip down their upbringing in the church. After all, it had to sound the part and be palpable to get a following...
The history of the Church was abundantly clear, and to make great changes or deviate from that was a nono for centuries. It is a scriptural idea, albeit, it is not totally explicit, but you can see the apostles councilling and bringing in members as they loose people in the ranks. Then they also made deacons to ease their workload and pass on to those who desired to help, duties they could perform as higher ranking church members. Only to those apostles, was allowed the ability to forgive sins.... when they died, who would do it then?
Moved by the Spirit, they passed on what they themselves had been taught.
When the Protestant Church broke ranks, they distanced themselves from many things in the Church, based predominately on a dislike for what man was doing. In turn, based on what I believe was a lack of fundamental understandings of the truest nature of God in the Church, they stripped it down to only those things they could prove were in the Bible
1. It makes for an easier argument to win.
and
2. It is more difficult to prove anything else... that would require intelligence on the part of the lower class who were uneducated. How on earth would they know what to argue...
Apostolic Succession is one of those things.
Now the point #2
quote:
2) When the church or the believer acts like the apostles did: when it carry’s out Christ’s commandments to the Apostles, which Portia already referenced for us: going out, preaching the gospel, baptising (administering the sacrements), healing, helping the poor and sick and victims of violence and oppression, etc....
The Church itself does the same, but this point shows the disconnect I was speaking of. It removes the ability to pass on the tradition of the Church, and lays the burden on the collective. While in the Name of Christ, any of these can be done without a priest, the Sacraments require a form of priesthood. Why? Only those gifts were given to the apostles (to hear confession for example) and only to those certain others who were brought in under their line of succession.
In this understanding, the churches outside the apostolic succession miss out on these particular gifts...
Re: Apostolic Succession: Is it Scriptural and is it necessary? Very good explanation Story.
"Why do Catholics see Apostolic Succession as being Scriptural?"
Here is one piece of evidence. I'd be interested in hearing the Protestant take on this passage:
Acts 1:12-26 (RSV) 12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day's journey away; 13 and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. 14 All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
15 In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. 18 (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel'dama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and 'His office let another take.' 21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us--one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab'bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi'as. 24 And they prayed and said, "Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place." 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi'as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.
In that passage I see apostleship described as an office (v. 20), the apostles pray as a group, then use lots to determine the Lord's will, and the winner is "enrolled" (or added to) the apostles. From this passage we see that an apostle who has died can be replaced by another.
Just one piece of "evidence" showing the idea that another man (chosen by God, but revealed to the other apostles by lot) can take the place of an apostle (chosen directly by Jesus) after his death. I hope this shows one reason why we consider Apostolic Succession to be Scriptural. Not complete by any means, but I'll post other passages with our view of them later. That is, unless other Catholics want to post them. Feel welcome to.
Re: Apostolic Succession: Is it Scriptural and is it necessary? Hello everyone! Been absent for a long time. Just been busy with my work here in Qatar.
quote:
Apostolic Succession: Is it Scriptural and is it necessary?
IMHO. Apostolic succession is both scriptural and necessary for two reasons based on what I understand about scripture and a little logic.
First, Christ our Lord started his public ministry by choosing the twelve and told them specially Peter that they will be fishers of men as scripture tells us and then he begin to preach in the company of the chosen twelve. If apostolic succession is not necessary the question is why would Christ occupied himself in gathering twelve men to be his core companion and not tell the entire people that he encounter to be fishers of men and spread what he taught and preached? And the very fact that during his last days he celebrated the passover meal with the twelve and instructed them to do what he does when he said "This is my body, this is my blood" do this in remembrance of me implicitly he stated that only the twelve will given the special function to perform the memorial events he does and that is the Eucharistic celebration. And from the very lesson of Church history after the apostles where different interpretation of the message of our Lord threatens the unity of the Church apostolic succession is necessary to defend the orthodoxy of Christ message . And after Christ ascended to heaven why would the apostles worry themselves to replace the place of Judas Escariot if it is not necessary.
Second, it is scriptural on the basis of the three fold commissioning of Christ to Peter in the Gospel of John to tend and feed his flock and follow him. And also on the basis of the great Commissioning of preaching and baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This he addresses firstly to the twelve and not to the entire crowd who followed him during his ministry. And Paul lay his hands on Timothy and exhorted him to fight the good fight and to fulfill the prophetic words pronounced over him and to conduct properly in the Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth.
Re: Apostolic Succession: Is it Scriptural and is it necessary?
quote:
Praying4Patience said:
Question though.There are some passages in scripture that we see as explicityly stated(we may even agree that they are)and yet you will run into traditions that don't see those things as explicitly stated-and there are denominations that don't even accept that the Trinity is explictly stated.So do you think there is chance some will see it as explicitly stated and some will not?
Yes, that does happen. In most cases there is agreement, but in a some areas there is disagreement. Example: moving the Sabbath to Sunday.
quote:
Praying4Patience said:
Also,why would most non Catholics denominations see it as explicitly stated when they reject apostolic succesion to begin with?Do you get what i'm asking or should i try again?
I’m not sure I understand your question. Could you rephrase?
quote:
Andy said:
I might also add that we see "apostolic" as describing something the church has to do, including each lay person. For example, work that I've seen Protestants call "ministries", I've seen Catholics call "apostolates," as in a "lay apostolate." That is, unless I'm misunderstanding what an "apostolate" is.
I didn’t know that-
quote:
Andy said:
Even though we can all do "apostolic" things like preach the Gospel, we're not all apostles, as St. Paul said (1 Cor 12:27-31). Catholics believe that there is authority and power that Christ gave to the apostles that He didn't intend to give to all Christians. That's the reason we see formal and visible apostolic succession as being so important.
After thinking about it a little: we also restrict certain things, which you might call ‘apostolic’, to a small selected group. Only ordained ministers can administer the sacraments of baptism and communion, or can perform a marriage. And, they get the ‘power’ to do these things (at least in Presbyterian world) through the denomination (or, in the case of Congregationalists, through the congregation). Just thinking about this off the top of my heard: So, you might say that we do recognize the authority of apostolic succession, but differ on what ‘power’ this succession gives you and how you get it. I’ll have to think about it more.
Re: Apostolic Succession: Is it Scriptural and is it necessary?
quote:
Portia said:
Okay, thanks. That's what I was getting at. I know unless some Protestants see the exact words, they would reject the concept altogether. Some even say that the Trinity is a Catholic invention.
Okay, thanks. That's what I was getting at. I know unless some Protestants see the exact words, they would reject the concept altogether.
Well, I’d say they are trying to prove a point the easy way Of course there are lots of things that fundamentalists do that aren’t explicitly found in scripture. They just find they have to be selective when they apply the rule. You’ve identified one. Example I’ve asked them to find the phrase ‘personal relationship with Jesus’ anywhere in the scriptures. IMO that’s a foundational problem with the fundamentalist perspective (whether it be Protestant or Catholic).
quote:
Portia Said:
Some even say that the Trinity is a Catholic invention.
I’ve never head that one. I’m not aware of any Protestants that reject the trinity because its unbibilical. (the Unitarians do, but not because they can’t find it in the bible).
quote:
Storytellerangel said:
The Church itself does the same, but this point shows the disconnect I was speaking of. It removes the ability to pass on the tradition of the Church, and lays the burden on the collective. While in the Name of Christ, any of these can be done without a priest, the Sacraments require a form of priesthood. Why? Only those gifts were given to the apostles (to hear confession for example) and only to those certain others who were brought in under their line of succession.
I think you’re getting at the same thing that Andy was earlier, and I responed to a little ways back. I’d just say: the burden really ultimately lies on the holy spirit: whether you say he’s guiding the collective, or the one man (Bishop of Rome).
Andy and Augustine (By the way: good to see you Augustine!)
I was hoping to be able to look the Acts passage,and some of the passages you allude to Augustine, up in a good commentary to get a better understanding of them. I’ll try to do that and get back. Let me ask you though: if the 'great commissioning' and the command to feed the flock, the poor, and heal the sick are commands given only to the apostles, does that mean they don't apply to the rest of us? Wouldn't that end up implicitly giving the rest of us a 'free pass' on any of that?
Re: Apostolic Succession: Is it Scriptural and is it necessary? Good post, Augustine! Nice to see you back at P and F.
quote:
Portia said: Okay, thanks. That's what I was getting at. I know unless some Protestants see the exact words, they would reject the concept altogether. Some even say that the Trinity is a Catholic invention.
Well, I’d say they are trying to prove a point the easy way
I agree, Onslow. But since OrderofMelchizedek stated somewhere that apostolic succession is not biblical and many fundamentalists need to read the actual words before accepting that the concept is indeed scriptural, I just wanted clarification for the purposes of our discussion.
quote:
Of course there are lots of things that fundamentalists do that aren’t explicitly found in scripture. They just find they have to be selective when they apply the rule. You’ve identified one. Example I’ve asked them to find the phrase ‘personal relationship with Jesus’ anywhere in the scriptures.
I'm curious. What kind of responses do you receive? I've asked and witnessed others asking where the sinner's prayer that results in salvation is found and that's a question that is usually ignored.
quote:
Portia Said:
Some even say that the Trinity is a Catholic invention.
I’ve never head that one. I’m not aware of any Protestants that reject the trinity because its unbibilical. (the Unitarians do, but not because they can’t find it in the bible).
I need to clarify that some. The Biblical Godhead is different from the Catholic Trinity (what they purport is an invention of the Church) is what they claim. It's something I've heard from Fundamentalists, and while they have their differences with mainstream Protestants, they are still within the realm of Protestantism, following the solas. They believe there are three persons, but they claim that the Catholic understanding is different from what the Bible actually teaches.
Re: Apostolic Succession: Is it Scriptural and is it necessary?
quote:
Portia01 wrote:
quote:
Of course there are lots of things that fundamentalists do that aren’t explicitly found in scripture. They just find they have to be selective when they apply the rule. You’ve identified one. Example I’ve asked them to find the phrase ‘personal relationship with Jesus’ anywhere in the scriptures.
I'm curious. What kind of responses do you receive? I've asked and witnessed others asking where the sinner's prayer that results in salvation is found and that's a question that is usually ignored.
Of course what they have to do is liberalize their standard: "the position I'm trying to support is stated clearly or presented or obvious (or some such language) in scriptures, although maybe (cough cough) using 'slighly different words' ". This is progress, if they would only admit it to themselves. To me, the most dangerous interpreters of scripture are the ones who refuse to acknowledge that they are in fact interpreting scripture (which any reader does), but live in the fantasy that they are only following the 'explicit meaning' and everyone else is interpreting.
Its much easier to play "Proof Text Poker" (as some call it) by rapidly tossing out one or two verses that, taken literally seem relevant, than it is to build up a thorough case using longer texts, multiple sources, or broad themes and stories, much less incorporating context.
quote:
Portia Said:
quote:
Some even say that the Trinity is a Catholic invention.
I need to clarify that some. The Biblical Godhead is different from the Catholic Trinity (what they purport is an invention of the Church) is what they claim. It's something I've heard from Fundamentalists, and while they have their differences with mainstream Protestants, they are still within the realm of Protestantism, following the solas. They believe there are three persons, but they claim that the Catholic understanding is different from what the Bible actually teaches.
I can't really address that, as I haven't ever heard of what you relate. I am guessing you have run into someone in a very small fringe group, as fundamentalists I have run across (Southern Baptists, conservative Lutherans) would be 100% in line with the historical understanding of the Trinity.
Haven't had a chance to look at your verses yet Andy - may be a little while.
Re: Apostolic Succession: Is it Scriptural and is it necessary?
quote:
To me, the most dangerous interpreters of scripture are the ones who refuse to acknowledge that they are in fact interpreting scripture (which any reader does), but live in the fantasy that they are only following the 'explicit meaning' and everyone else is interpreting.
Amen to that, Onslow! I could not agree more.
quote:
I am guessing you have run into someone in a very small fringe group,
Yes. They have some peculiar beliefs. Another one is that God did not die on the cross, only Jesus the man. I believe they would consider themselves Independent Baptists.
Re: Apostolic Succession: Is it Scriptural and is it necessary? Hey Jeff,
Take your time, I'm a bit swamped myself.
You said:
quote:
I was hoping to be able to look the Acts passage,and some of the passages you allude to Augustine, up in a good commentary to get a better understanding of them. I’ll try to do that and get back. Let me ask you though: if the 'great commissioning' and the command to feed the flock, the poor, and heal the sick are commands given only to the apostles, does that mean they don't apply to the rest of us? Wouldn't that end up implicitly giving the rest of us a 'free pass' on any of that?
Good question!
If I depended on my own interpretation of the Bible alone, I might come to that conclusion. I could look at passages where Jesus talked to the apostles alone (such as the "Great Commission", "if you forgive men's sins, they are fogiven", and Jesus' commands to Peter, for example) and either apply them to all disciples or only apostolic successors consistently.
Or I could look at other discriminators to help me determine whether it pertains to all disciples, just the apostles, or just Peter. And many truth-seeking believers of good will would disagree with me and have valid points on any passage's interpretation.
But I know I don't get a "pass" on the "Great Commission" (for example) because of other passages as well as the common and historical understanding of that passage maintained in the teaching of the church.
I don't get a "pass" on studying Scripture and seeking to understand it, but I do have many tools given by God to aid me in correct understanding of it.
