Apostolic Succession - A Reasoned Defense

[Randy_Carson]

The argument for Apostolic Succession can be made directly from scripture, from the pages of history and indirectly from scripture using logic.

Biblical Basis for Apostolic Succession

Acts 1:15-26
In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus—he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.” (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, " ‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, " ‘May another take his place of leadership.’ Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

The eleven replaced Judas with Matthias who filled the twelfth seat.

Acts 14:13-15
The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them. But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: "Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you.”

Paul and Barnabas are also Apostles. This makes fourteen.

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.

Andronicus & Junius are Apostles according to the Apostle Paul – and possibly were Apostles before him. That makes 16 men named Apostle in Scripture. Other candidates include Apollos, Epaphroditus, Timothy and Titus.

2 Timothy 2:1-2

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach.

Titus 1:5

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

Apostolic Succession is illustrated here as Paul had appointed Titus and left him in charge of appointing elders in the Cretan church.

2 Peter 1:12-15
So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.

What effort could Peter make to ensure his message would be remembered after his departure? With the knowledge that he would follow Christ in martyrdom (cf. John 21:18-19), Peter alludes to his plans for naming a successor.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

HISTORICAL BASIS FOR APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

One document produced by one of the Early Church Fathers is so exceedingly clear on the subject of Apostolic Succession that appealing to any other historical source is unnecessary. Writing around the end of the first century (and probably before the death of the Apostle John), Clement of Rome, the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome expanded upon Peter’s veiled thought contained in 2 Peter 1:12-15 in his “Letter to the Corinthians”:

CHAPTER 42
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labors, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. **Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”

CHAPTER 44
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behavior from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honor.

From these two chapters we see that the Apostles tested and approved their earliest converts to be Bishops and Deacons. Additionally, the Apostles gave instructions that when these Bishops and Deacons should “fall asleep’ either due to natural causes or martyrdom that they should be succeeded by other men in the ministry. Note that Clement also exercises his primacy as Bishop of Rome by correcting the Corinthian church for improperly removing some of the “presbyters” from office. The acceptance of Clement’s intervention by the Corinthians is evidence of the authority of the Bishop of Rome, or Pope, even at this early date.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

LOGICAL BASIS FOR APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

Matthew 28:18-19
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

First, notice in the passage known as the “Great Commission”, that the Apostles were commanded to make disciples of “all nations”. How would it have been possible for these Eleven men to travel to every country on earth at a time when travel was slow and difficult? Given that the last of the Apostles died no more than 60 years or so after the Ascension of Jesus, would there have been time for them to physically visit every nation on earth to fulfill His command? No! Clearly, the instruction of Jesus only makes sense if it was given to the Apostles and those who would take the place of the Apostles after their deaths. Those who took the place of the Apostles would have to have the same Apostolic Authority given to the Apostles handed down to them. Thus, the “Great Commission” would be fulfilled over time through the missionary efforts of a greatly expanded Church.

Second, how could Jesus fulfill this promise if the Apostles themselves did not live until the end of the age? Clearly, Jesus intended that the Apostles would be succeeded by other men who are still with us and will live until the end of the age. Jesus can be with the Apostles through their successors who also have the same Apostolic Authority by means of Apostolic Succession.

Third, if the authority of the Apostles was intended to die out with the death of the last Apostle, why bother to elect Matthias to the office of Apostle after the suicide of Jesus’ betrayer, Judas Iscariot? (cf. Acts 1) Instead, we can understand that Peter had initiated the replacement of one Apostle (Judas), had known the beheading of another (James), and was conscious of Jesus’ prophecy concerning his own impending martyrdom. Wisely, Peter planned for his own replacement as Bishop of Rome.

John 14:16-17
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

Does it make sense for Jesus to say “forever” if He anticipated that the Holy Spirit would depart from the church with the death of the last Apostle? No! The Spirit would remain with the Apostles and, through those who succeeded them, with the Church forever.

 

[conan025]

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, ch. 3:

1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles…

To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html

Eusebius, of course, documents the apostolic succession through the time of Constantine.

 

[BrianH]

=Randy Carson;1930053]HISTORICAL BASIS FOR APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

One document produced by one of the Early Church Fathers is so exceedingly clear on the subject of Apostolic Succession that appealing to any other historical source is unnecessary.

CHAPTER 42
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labors, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. **

Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”
Please show me in this section where only bishops can lay hands on someone. It does not exist, there is no distinction between bishop and deacon in that sense. The leadership of the churches were in the hands of the bishops, deacons, and presbyters according to Clement.

CHAPTER 44
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry

. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, .

Those appointed by them OR AFTERWARDS by other eminent men with the consent of the church. Lord have mercy!! Each individual church, by consent elects their own bishops and deacons. Unless you think that “consent of the whole church” does not really mean “consent of the whole church”. It is nothing like the notion of rubber stamping a bishops appointment like the supposed early Catholic model, each person must have consent of their church and absolutely nothing to support the current system of Catholicism.
When did this notion that only a bishop counts toward
Apostolic succession begin again? Not at the time of Clement!

From these two chapters we see that the Apostles tested and approved their earliest converts to be Bishops and Deacons. Additionally, the Apostles gave instructions that when these Bishops and Deacons should “fall asleep’ either due to natural causes or martyrdom that they should be succeeded by other men in the ministry.

Well you said it again. Even if one felt like Clement supports a notion that the only people who can be bishops are those who have had their hands laid on by another bishop(s), this clearly argues againt that notion. Bishops AND
Deacons and nothing about some linear laying on of hands.
Which, by the way, Paul never had hands laid on him by an Apostle or a Bishop, a simple disciple did the trick.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Paul never had hands laid on him by an Apostle or a Bishop, a simple disciple did the trick.

"1In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called *****, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off. (Acts 13:1-3)

Hard to say who was in the crowd that day, but somebody prayed over Saul and Barnabas ordaining them for this “work” of the Holy Spirit. By the way, notice in the scripture that it is the next passage that Saul is first called Paul.

Coincidence? Hardly.

Notice, too, that Paul was VERY precise in all of his instructions to Timothy concerning the “laying on of hands”. Paul took this ceremony VERY seriously so it must have been VERY important and not symbolic.

 

[SolaScriptura]

The argument for Apostolic Succession can be made directly from scripture, from the pages of history and indirectly from scripture using logic.

Biblical Basis for Apostolic Succession

Acts 1:15-26
In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus—he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.” (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, " ‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, " ‘May another take his place of leadership.’ Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

The eleven replaced Judas with Matthias who filled the twelfth seat.

Acts 14:13-15
The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them. But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: "Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you.”

Paul and Barnabas are also Apostles. This makes fourteen.

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.

Andronicus & Junius are Apostles according to the Apostle Paul – and possibly were Apostles before him. That makes 16 men named Apostle in Scripture. Other candidates include Apollos, Epaphroditus, Timothy and Titus.

2 Timothy 2:1-2

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach.

Titus 1:5

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

Apostolic Succession is illustrated here as Paul had appointed Titus and left him in charge of appointing elders in the Cretan church.

2 Peter 1:12-15
So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.

What effort could Peter make to ensure his message would be remembered after his departure? With the knowledge that he would follow Christ in martyrdom (cf. John 21:18-19), Peter alludes to his plans for naming a successor.

(cont.)

Same ole arguments that have been shown to be fallacious reused again. You act as if there is no distinction between the 12 Apostles and anyone else that is called an apostle. This is basic stuff. :tsktsk:

 

[BrianH]

"1In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called *****, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off. (Acts 13:1-3)

Hard to say who was in the crowd that day, but somebody prayed over Saul and Barnabas ordaining them for this “work” of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Same ole arguments that have been shown to be fallacious reused again. You act as if there is no distinction between the 12 Apostles and anyone else that is called an apostle. This is basic stuff.

Succession as a principle was understood and carefully maintained within the early Church. The original Apostles were also thought of as “overseers” or “bishops”. Eusebius writes the following:“All that time most of the apostles and disciples, including James himself, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, known as the Lord’s brother, were still alive…” (History of the Church, 7:19, tr. G.A. Williamson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965, p. 118)James is called an Apostle by St. Paul in Gal 1:19 and 1 Cor 15:7. That James was the sole, “monarchical” bishop of Jerusalem is fairly apparent from Scripture also (Acts 12:17, 15:13,19, 21:18, Galatians 1:19, 2:12).

The Twelve(+) were unique in that they had “seen the Lord”. They functioned as the senior leaders in the early church and as such would have also held the role of overseer (Bishop). As the Church expanded, the Apostles named helpers; first the deacons and later elders (presbyters/priests).

Due to the growth of the Church and the deaths of the Twelve(+) Apostles, the senior leadership of the early Church passed to the Overseers (Bishops) who were next in line as the senior leaders in the Church.

By the laying on of hands in a process known as Apostolic Succession, these men received the Apostolic Authority of the Apostles. The promises of the Lord to remain with them “forever” continues in the valid line of Bishops to this very day.

Infallibility is found in numerous passages of scripture including:

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.”

The Original Twelve did not receive ALL that Jesus wanted to teach them - it was more than they could bear. However, their successors the Bishops of the Catholic Church have been lead “into all truth” and protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

830 The word “catholic” means “universal,” in the sense of “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” The Church is catholic in a double sense:
First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.” In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness of the means of salvation” which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have never seen a person have hands laid upon them except with upmost seriousness and I have never heard the word symbolic used. Perhaps you can share who does this “symbolically” as you state. The question is where in these “precise” instructions do you find the need for only bishops to be able to do this and that is transfers the power to consencrate the Eucharist into the real body and blood of Christ?

 

[BrianH]

By contrast, my dad, a Methodist, doesn’t think ordination of Methodist ministers is any big deal. They’ve studied and earned a degree from seminary but that’s about it as far as he’s concerned. So, ordination to him is not much more than a pilot earning his “wings”.

In this sense, ordination is just as symbolic as baptism which is just an outward ceremony to symbolize the inward change in a public way.

There is a symbolic component of laying on of hands in the Book of Discipline. Having said that, to characterize it simply as a symbolic act in and of itself is not an accurate description based upon the Book of Worship or the Book of Discipline. I am not sure Randy’s Dad is any more of an official represenative of Methodism than Brian’s brother is the official representative of Catholicism. To suggest it is “not a big deal” flies in the face of historic and contemporary Wesleyan thought and practice.
Not too mention the importance of the practice as utilized in historically African-American congregations with a Pentecostal background. While it differs from your understanding as it relates to Apostolic succession, do not unintentionally(which I am assuming) mischaracterize its import to other Christians for the sake of making a point on a discussion board.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is a symbolic component of laying on of hands in the Book of Discipline. Having said that, to characterize it simply as a symbolic act in and of itself is not an accurate description based upon the Book of Worship or the Book of Discipline. I am not sure Randy’s Dad is any more of an official represenative of Methodism than Brian’s brother is the official representative of Catholicism. To suggest it is “not a big deal” flies in the face of historic and contemporary Wesleyan thought and practice.
Not too mention the importance of the practice as utilized in historically African-American congregations with a Pentecostal background. While it differs from your understanding as it relates to Apostolic succession, do not unintentionally(which I am assuming) mischaracterize its import to other Christians for the sake of making a point on a discussion board.

Brian-

How many sacraments do you recognize and what are they?

 

[BrianH]

Brian-

How many sacraments do you recognize and what are they?

I BELIEVE the United Methodist church recognizes two. baptism and Communion.
Understanding I am by no means a United Methodist apologists…although it is coming across that way

 

[Randy_Carson]

I BELIEVE the United Methodist church recognizes two. baptism and Communion.
Understanding I am by no means a United Methodist apologists…although it is coming across that way

Two follow up questions:

Communion is viewed as a symbol and not the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, correct?

Is baptism regenerative or symbolic of one’s inner faith? Also, who can perform a valid baptism - anyone or ordained ministers only?

Thanks in advance.

 

[levi86]

John 14:16-17
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

Does it make sense for Jesus to say “forever” if He anticipated that the Holy Spirit would depart from the church with the death of the last Apostle? No! The Spirit would remain with the Apostles and, through those who succeeded them, with the Church forever.

Jesus specifically stated that this promise would extend to the successors of the Apostles

**John 17 **
11And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are….

22: "I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 23: so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.

 

[BrianH]

Two follow up questions:

Communion is viewed as a symbol and not the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, correct?

No. How long were you a Methodist Randy??? The Holy Mystery must ring a bell? What did you guys refer to it as?

The Christian church has struggled through the centuries to understand just how Christ is present in the Eucharist. Arguments and divisions have occurred over the matter. The Wesleyan tradition affirms the reality of Christ’s presence, although it does not claim to be able to explain it fully. John and Charles Wesley’s 166 Hymns on the Lord’s Supper are our richest resource for study in order to appreciate the Wesleyan understanding of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. One of these hymns expresses well both the reality and the mystery: “O the Depth of Love Divine,” stanzas 1 and 4 (The United Methodist Hymnal, 627):

Article XVIII describes the Lord’s Supper as “a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ” (Book of Discipline, page 64).

Is baptism regenerative or symbolic of one’s inner faith?

How about C?

Baptism is a crucial threshold that we cross on our journey in faith. But there are many others, including the final transition from death to life eternal. Through baptism we are incorporated into the ongoing history of Christ’s mission, and we are identified and made participants in God’s new history in Jesus Christ and the new age that Christ is bringing.
Baptism is grounded in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; the grace which baptism makes available is that of the atonement of Christ which makes possible our reconciliation with God. Baptism involves dying to sin, newness of life, union with Christ, receiving the Holy Spirit, and incorporation into Christ’s Church…
In the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God fulfilled the prophecy of a new covenant and called forth the Church as a servant community (Jeremiah 31:31-34, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26). The baptism of infants and adults, both male and female, is the sign of this covenant…
In baptism God offers and we accept the forgiveness of our sin (Acts 2:38)…
Baptism is the sacramental sign of new life through and in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit…
There is one baptism as there is one source of salvation – the gracious love of God. The baptizing of a person, whether as an infant or an adult, is a sign of God’s saving grace…
Since baptism is primarily an act of God in the Church, the sacrament is to be received by an individual only once.
The sacraments do not convey grace either magically or irrevocably, but they are powerful channels through which God has chosen to make grace available to us. Wesley identified baptism as the initiatory sacrament by which we enter into the covenant with God and are admitted as members of Christ’s Church.

Also, who can perform a valid baptism - anyone or ordained ministers only?

In a Methodist church, I have only ever seen the pastor do it. Understanding the defintion of “ordained” in the United Methodist church would take awhile to explain local pastors, elders, deacons and so forth. Anyone with a valid Trinitarian baptism from another denomination is accepted however.

 

[Tomster]

Same ole arguments that have been shown to be fallacious reused again. You act as if there is no distinction between the 12 Apostles and anyone else that is called an apostle. This is basic stuff. :tsktsk:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=135313

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Holy Mystery must ring a bell? What did you guys refer to it as?

Yes, and I’m holding a copy of a booklet entitled, “This Holy Mystery - A United Methodis Understanding of Holy Communion”. This document is available online at:

gbod.org/worship/thm-bygc.pdf

Now, by all means I believe that the bread and wine are far more than symbols (though they are that, too!!!), and I encourage Methodists and others to move in the direction of a literal interpretation of the Bible’s many verses on this doctrine.

However, to be clear, the Methodist Church falls short of proclaiming the communion to be other than symbolic. Here are some excerpts:

“Over the centuries, various understandings and practices of Holy Communion have developed. Roman Catholicism teaches that the substance of bread and wine are changed (although not visibly) into the actual body and blood of Christ (sometimes called transubstantiation). Protestant Reformers in the sixteenth century rejected this teaching but had diverse ideas among themselves. Lutherans maintain that Christ’s body and blood are truly present in and with the elements of bread and wine in the celebration (sometimes erroneously called corporeal presence or consubstantiation). Ulrich Zwingli, a Swiss reformer, taught that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial or reminder of Christ’s sacrifice, an affirmation of faith, and a sign of Christian fellowship. Although his name may be unfamiliar, Zwingli’s views are widely shared today, especially within evangelical churches.Denominations in the Reformed tradition, following John Calvin, maintain that although Christ’s body is in heaven, when Holy Communion is received with true faith, the power of the Holy Spirit nourishes those who partake. The Church of England affirmed a somewhat similar view in its Catechism and Articles of Religion. These understandings (stated here very simplistically) suggest the range of ideas that were available to John and Charles Wesley and the early Methodists.”

So, the Wesleys just picked an interpretation that was agreeable to them? Catholics would argue that there is no biblical or historical basis for a meaning other than the literal interpretation that Rome teaches."Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and many Protestant denominations have always used wine in the Eucharist. During the movement against beverage alcohol in the late nineteenth century, the predecessor bodies of The United Methodist Church turned to the use of unfermented grape juice. This continues to be the position of the denomination (BOR; page 838)."The use of an element (juice v wine) that Christ Himself did not use would be one basis for invalidating the consecration. A Catholic priest cannot decide to celebrate mass using Ritz Crackers and Diet Pepsi, for example.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

"As Article XVIII of The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church makes clear, United Methodism rejects any suggestion that the bread and wine used in Communion are transformed or transubstantiated into other substances:

"Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. (BOD; page 64)​

(The United Methodist Church notes that the anti-Roman Catholic tone of Article XVIII reflects the “bitterly polemical” relationships of past centuries and “rejoice in the positive contemporary relationships that are being developed . . . at levels both official and unofficial” BOR; pages 237-238].)
I share the joy that there are less polemics today; however, the passage provides the clear language that communion is purely symbolic for the Methodist.

In a Methodist church, I have only ever seen the pastor do it. Understanding the defintion of “ordained” in the United Methodist church would take awhile to explain local pastors, elders, deacons and so forth. Anyone with a valid Trinitarian baptism from another denomination is accepted however.

Catholics acknowledge that baptism by a priest is the norm; in cases of emergency, anyone may perform a valid baptism using the trinitarian formula.

The reason for my question concerning the sacraments of the Methodist Church is this: You have only two sacraments and these are seen as largely symbolic. Anyone can baptize and anyone can distribute bread and non-fermented grape juice.

There is no need for an ordained clergy whatsoever, and Apostolic Succession is a concept that has no relevance.

 

[BrianH]

Randy.
The United Methodist position is the one I quoted about the Real Presence. You quote the articles of Religion which is not the official position of the United Methodist church, which I would think you would know since this is your background.

This is the United Methodist position:

The Wesleyan tradition affirms the reality of Christ’s presence, although it does not claim to be able to explain it fully.