If there apostolic succession why is it not mentioned in the scriptures?

[justasking4]

Wasn’t that Romulus and Remus?

i meant the church in Rome.

 

[Erich]

if the catholic church is going to claim that there is such a thing as apostolic succession then the first place to look would have to be the scriptures. Since we know its not “written” there, then we are going to need to look at “written” historical sources for support. I would think even catholics who care about their faith would want to see written evidence for it.

I recommend reading Dialog on Sacred Tradition and Church Authority. Note carefully the following:

1. The Church came into existence at Pentecost (lets say 30 AD, to use round numbers)
2. There was obviously a period of inscripturation, while the New Testament was being written and oral revelation was still being given, which ended with the death of St. John (lets say 90 AD, again using round numbers)
3. All of St. Paul’s epistles were written before he was martyred (obviously), sometime before 66-67 AD. Let’s say 70 AD to be generous. That still leaves 20 years between the deaths of Sts. Paul and John.
4. Not just St. Paul’s epistles, but all of the New Testament was written prior to 90 AD. So either a) all the passages in the New Testament commanded Christians to practice something they could not practice for several more decades, b) all of the passages in the New Testament meant one thing in 50-70 AD, but changed their meaning with the passage of time into 90 AD, or c) no passage in the New Testament teaches Sola Scriptura, because no passage of Scripture changes its meaning with the passage of time.

 

[justasking4]

andzy;2710448]The Scripture does not say ANYWHERE that we should look for Christian teachings in the Bible first (just like it does not say that what’s not in the Scripture couldn’t be fully trusted).

Is it not true that in the NT we see the beginnings of Christianty and the church?

On the contrary!

But to follow your logic:

• if the abc church is going to claim that there is such a thing as Sola Scriptura, then the first place to look would have to be the Scriptures (good luck trying to find that one)
• if the xyz church is going to claim that there is such a thing as Trinity, then the first place to look would have to be the Scriptures (which was not the case neither for Catholics/Orthodox nor for Protestants)
  You seem to be applying double standard again. :tsktsk:

Huh? Were not discussing sola scriptura here but the origin of apostolic succession.

P.S. Just because some Protestants don’t (want to) see apostolic succession in the Bible, doesn’t mean it’s not there (not that it even had to be).

Its not what i don’t want to see but what do the scriptures teach. Please bring forth your passages that you think teach apostolic succession so we can see if they work for you.

 

[justasking4]

I recommend reading Dialog on Sacred Tradition and Church Authority. Note carefully the following:

1. The Church came into existence at Pentecost (lets say 30 AD, to use round numbers)
2. There was obviously a period of inscripturation, while the New Testament was being written and oral revelation was still being given, which ended with the death of St. John (lets say 90 AD, again using round numbers)
3. All of St. Paul’s epistles were written before he was martyred (obviously), sometime before 66-67 AD. Let’s say 70 AD to be generous. That still leaves 20 years between the deaths of Sts. Paul and John.
4. Not just St. Paul’s epistles, but all of the New Testament was written prior to 90 AD. So either a) all the passages in the New Testament commanded Christians to practice something they could not practice for several more decades, b) all of the passages in the New Testament meant one thing in 50-70 AD, but changed their meaning with the passage of time into 90 AD, or c) no passage in the New Testament teaches Sola Scriptura, because no passage of Scripture changes its meaning with the passage of time.

i’m confused. What does this have to do with apostolic succession?

 

[Paisius]

Jesus is commanding His disciples to make disciples of all the nations by teaching them His teachings and baptizing them. No mention of apostolic succession here.

Paul is exhorting Timothy to train other faithful men to teach.

I just have. What these passages in context do not teach is some kind of apostolic succession.

There are no biblical passages that explicitly use the word Trinity and others. Just because we don’t use the same terms doesn’t mean that the concept isn’t taught in the bible.

 

[Newbie2]

The original question is essentially a formulaic “Sola Scriptura” question; “If_______________, then why is it not mentioned in scripture?”

Essentially, when something is not explicitly spelled out in scripture, such a question will be asked.

And the answer is, as has been eluded to in earlier posts, that either one accepts Tradtition or rejects it and that it is mentioned in scripture, just not explicitly spelled out.

 

[justasking4]

There are no biblical passages that explicitly use the word Trinity and others. Just because we don’t use the same terms doesn’t mean that the concept isn’t taught in the bible.

That may be. Now go back to the passages metioned in I Timothy and see if Paul is passing on some kind of apostleship to Timothy. Look for also in the scriptures if Timothy is referred to as a apostle. If the answer is that Timothy is being “groomed” to be an apostle then you might have something. But if not, then this is not an example to be used in support of apostolic succession.

 

[Subrosa]

I don’t lack faith but if the catholic church is going to claim that there is such a thing as apostolic succession then the first place to look would have to be the scriptures. Since we know its not “written” there, then we are going to need to look at “written” historical sources for support. I would think even catholics who care about their faith would want to see written evidence for it.

It is written in the bible. It just doesn’t say “apostolic succession”

The actual word used in the Greek is Episkopos and it’s variations. The word literally means “overseer”. The word is translated into English as “Bishop.”

Acts 2:16-26 tells of the first “apostolic successor,” Matthias, replacing Judas in his office. The word “episkopos” is used.

Acts 20:28 “Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.”

The verse uses the same word, here translated “overseers”, Read this passage and see that the overseers were chosen by the holy Spirit. Again, “episkopos.”

Phillipians 1:1 is addressed to “Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the holy ones in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the overseers (episkopos) and ministers”

1 Timothy 3:1-2 states, “This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episkopos) desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop (episkopos) must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach…” Episkopos here is translated “bishop.”

Titus 1:5-7 “For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious. For a bishop as God’s steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain,”

Here is the Greek… cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1985&Version=kjv

Apostolic succession is without doubt a biblical occurance. If you would like more, here it is…

Ignatius of Antioch 109 ad

• Epistle to the Ephesians
• Epistle to the Magnesians
• Epistle to the Trallians
• Epistle to the Romans
• Epistle to the Philadelphians
• Epistle to the Smyraeans
• Epistle to Polycarp
• The Martyrdom of Ignatius

The Didache written ca. 70 ad - 100 ad
ivanlewis.com/Didache/didache.html

See chapter 15.

I noticed that the links don’t work in some cases. If you do a web search you’ll find them easily,

Sub

 

[Erich]

i’m confused. What does this have to do with apostolic succession?

The essay is a “back-and-forth” exchange, written in the “conversational style,” on the subject of Sacred Tradition, as opposed to “sola scriptura.” It also touches upon the issues of apostolic authority, apostolic succession, the Canon of Scripture, etc.

For example, in the same essay:

*The apostles were infallible when they wrote Scripture, but … infallible all the time?

*As teachers and guardians of the Deposit of Faith, absolutely. Their infallibility was not limited to their writings alone. So intent was Our Lord upon giving them His inspiration, His God-breathed-ness, that He could say to them, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

You see, this all stems from the Divine Pattern, and the unity that Jesus gave to His apostles. Read St. John’s Gospel, and a certain pattern appears: what the Father does, the Son mimics, and the Son does nothing apart from what He sees the Father doing. The Son is not an improviser - He sees, He repeats:
… the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise. (John 5:19)Likewise, the Spirit is not an improviser, but only mimics what He observes in the Son:
… he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (John 16:13)Finally, the apostles themselves are not improvisers, but mimics. Jesus prays:
As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. (John 17:18-19)This phrase is repeated, you know, the idea of “just as the Father has sent me, so likewise I am sending you.” The Son sends out the apostles because He is mimicking what He saw the Father do: He sent the Son. So there is this established pattern of the subordinate merely mimicking the superior: The Son does what He sees the Father doing; the Spirit only speaks what He hears the Son saying; the apostles are delegates of the Son who speak, not on their own authority, but with His authority (he who hears you is really hearing me).

In an earlier post, you stated, “I would think even catholics who care about their faith would want to see written evidence for it.” The same holds true, of course, for Protestants… especially Protestant pastors! For this reason I also recommend reading (and sharing with your pastor) By What Authority? A Challenge to Protestant Pastors. This essay shows the Scriptural requirements for claiming to be a “pastor,” and asks the honest Protestant to see if he measures up. BTW, it has lots to do with apostolic succession.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The chrisitan church has been around about 2,000 years. What is their model of its longevity? do they really expect the apostles to live that long? “laying on of hands” or other ordination ceremonies like in Acts 13 and signs of church growth indicate passing down the torch from one generation to the next. The very presevation of the sciptures depends on the torch being passed down to others to copy, use and safeguard the scrolls.

 

[justasking4]

It is written in the bible. It just doesn’t say “apostolic succession”

The actual word used in the Greek is Episkopos and it’s variations. The word literally means “overseer”. The word is translated into English as “Bishop.”

Acts 2:16-26 tells of the first “apostolic successor,” Matthias, replacing Judas in his office. The word “episkopos” is used.

Acts 20:28 “Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.”

The verse uses the same word, here translated “overseers”, Read this passage and see that the overseers were chosen by the holy Spirit. Again, “episkopos.”

Phillipians 1:1 is addressed to “Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the holy ones in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the overseers (episkopos) and ministers”

1 Timothy 3:1-2 states, “This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episkopos) desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop (episkopos) must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach…” Episkopos here is translated “bishop.”

Titus 1:5-7 “For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious. For a bishop as God’s steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain,”

Here is the Greek… cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1985&Version=kjv

Apostolic succession is without doubt a biblical occurance. If you would like more, here it is…

Ignatius of Antioch 109 ad

• Epistle to the Ephesians
• Epistle to the Magnesians
• Epistle to the Trallians
• Epistle to the Romans
• Epistle to the Philadelphians
• Epistle to the Smyraeans
• Epistle to Polycarp
• The Martyrdom of Ignatius

The Didache written ca. 70 ad - 100 ad
ivanlewis.com/Didache/didache.html

See chapter 15.

I noticed that the links don’t work in some cases. If you do a web search you’ll find them easily,

Sub

I think there might be some confusion with the word “succession” and “apostle” on these posts. We do see offices in the church and the qualifications speciifcally for them. Offices such as bishop and deacons. We don’t see any such office for an apostle though. An apostle was a one time and unique postition in the NT church that had requirements that are no longer possible to fulfill for example. We can see this in Acts 1:21-22. These are conditions that cannot be fulfilled today. If you want to use the term for bishop or deacon succession i don’t think there is much of a problem with that since the qualifications can be fulfilled in certain men. For an apostle though they cannot be.

 

[Paisius]

That may be. Now go back to the passages metioned in I Timothy and see if Paul is passing on some kind of apostleship to Timothy. Look for also in the scriptures if Timothy is referred to as a apostle. If the answer is that Timothy is being “groomed” to be an apostle then you might have something. But if not, then this is not an example to be used in support of apostolic succession.

I think the term Apostolic Succession can at times be a bit confusing. The office of Apostle was limited to a set number of people chosen by Christ to “go and teach all nations”. Attached to that office was a number of charismatic gifts that were given especially for the preaching and spreading of the faith. And to some extent the plenitude of those gifts did die with the Apostles. Not to say that the charismatic gifts died out completely but they never occurred again with the same frequency that they occurred with the original Apostles. The office of bishop, elder, presbyter is an office distinct from Apostleship. When an Apostle laid his hands on a person (ordained them) they didn’t confer on that person the grace of Apostleship but rather a different sacramental grace, one with the purpose and the power to organize, maintain, lead, and teach individual sacramental communities.

This is what we mean by Apostolic Succession. Not that modern bishops are “Apostles” themselves, but rather that they are direct successors to the original communities founded by the Apostles in their travels, maintaining not only the physical connection to the Apostles but also preserving forever unchanged the faith taught by the Apostles.

 

[Stillkickin]

There are explicit and implicit truths in scripture. The following are just a few of the many that support apostolic succession. I did not go into the Primacy of Peter here but just remember in almost every instance Peter is listed first among the Apostles and is mentioned 195 where James is next with only 29 times. I

Remember these are just a few of the many that could be quoted here.

Acts 1:23-25 Having nominated two candidates, Joseph known as Barsabbas, whose surname was Justus, and Matthias, they prayed, ‘Lord, you can read everyone’s heart; show us therefore which of these two you have chosen to take over this ministry and apostolate, which Judas abandoned to go to his proper place.’ - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained to replace Judas.

Acts 6:6 - They presented these to the apostles, and after prayer they laid their hands on them. - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands. This is still a part of ordination today.

Acts 9:17-19 Then Ananias went. He entered the house, and laid his hands on Saul and said, ‘Brother Saul, I have been sent by the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, so that you may recover your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’ - Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop.

1 Tim. 4:14 You have in you a spiritual gift which was given to you when the prophets spoke and the body of elders laid their hands on you; do not neglect it. - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’ And In truth I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Then the Early Church Fathers:
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 fore-knowledge 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…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." ***Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98). ***

“Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all … And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.’” ***Hegesippus, Memoirs, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History, 4:22 (A.D. 180). ***

"True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, " ***Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33:8 (A.D. 180). ***

"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,–a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 33 (A.D. 200).

 

[Sinke]

There is no need to do this. Do you know where apostolic succession is either mentioned? Do you know what apostolic succession is?

Where is the Bible mentioned? Where in the Bible is it written that a book will become the only source of truth 1600 years after Ressurection?

 

[po18guy]

I don’t lack faith but if the catholic church is going to claim that there is such a thing as apostolic succession then the first place to look would have to be the scriptures. Since we know its not “written” there, then we are going to need to look at “written” historical sources for support. I would think even catholics who care about their faith would want to see written evidence for it.

Look at the context in Matthew where this saying occurs. I think you might be suprised it doesn’t support apostolic succession in the least.

As a bible Christian, ALL you have of Jesus is the bible. This is a relatively new invention of man.

This thinking makes a car’s owner’s manual more important than the car it is written about!

Please bear with us as understanding comes to you. The bible is a great place to start your faith journey, a wonderful assistant and a nice daily stop. But, it is not everythng. :bigyikes:

Christ never authorized a “bible”, not even in the bible! He neither used, wrote, taught from, nor commanded the writing of a bible. He did read from sacred scrolls, but those remained in the temple.

God has a plan for you. We are trying to help as He works you through your doubts. An awful lot of us have had to work through the same doubts, but we persevered and here we are. We seek a deeper understanding of the fullness of truth. You don’t get there overnight.

If you still have both eyes, both hands and both feet, do you really follow the bible? (Matthew 5:29-30; Matthew 18:8; Mark 9:43). I didn’t think so!

There is more than you have been told.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Sinke]

The original question is essentially a formulaic “Sola Scriptura” question; “If_______________, then why is it not mentioned in scripture?”

Essentially, when something is not explicitly spelled out in scripture, such a question will be asked.

And the answer is, as has been eluded to in earlier posts, that either one accepts Tradtition or rejects it and that it is mentioned in scripture, just not explicitly spelled out.

An important thing to remember is that Protestants also accept traditions- “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Fide” are nothing but teachings mouth-to-mouth.

 

[po18guy]

There is no need to do this. Do you know where apostolic succession is either mentioned? Do you know what apostolic succession is?

I just did an online lexis/nexis search of all known versions and translations of the bible. I did not find any reference to " justasking4" anywhere. Therefore, he does not exist.

 

[scottm]

For all the Protestants in this thread (and elsewhere for that matter), I have something for you to consider. I’m coming at you as a lifelong Baptist and Lutheran (alternating over time) who took six Master of Divinity classes at a Protestant seminary, so hear me out as a friend.

The Catholics have given an adequate biblical answer, with chapter and verse even. Any disagreement you have now is identical in kind to the disagreement Baptists and Lutherans have over water baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Both sides read and rely on the same verses for their respective positions. They just interpret the passages differently. Query, is a Baptist really unbiblical and non-“sola scriptura” for disagreeing with a Lutheran? Or vice versa? If so, what is your objective criteria for the judgment?

Or how about Pentecostals versus everybody else regarding speaking in tongues. The same Bible verses yield different opinions depending on who is doing the reading. Is one side objectively wrong? If so, by what standard?

Or how about Calvinists versus Methodists on the “TULIP” question? They argue from the same Bible verses yet they have different conclusions. Why? Is one side not “sola scriptura”? Is one side not biblical? Does one side not know their Hebrew and Greek as well as the other side? If you say yes, what is your measuring rod?

The same thing is going on here with regard to apostolic succession. The Catholics have given us chapter and verse for their position. They’re playing by our rules. This is no longer now a Catholic versus Protestant debate. It’s a Protestant Team A vs. Protestant Team B debate with Catholics merely filling in for one of those teams. To win the debate we need an objective measuring rod by which we can say, objectively, that the other side is interpretting the Bible incorrectly. Otherwise we’re no more correct than the other team is, for we are equal to them in hermeneutical prowess.

And while we’re at it we should come up with a way to say that Baptists alone have all the correct answers – or is it the Lutherans who have the correct answers? Or John Wesley?

 

[Paisius]

For all the Protestants in this thread (and elsewhere for that matter), I have something for you to consider. I’m coming at you as a lifelong Baptist and Lutheran (alternating over time) who took six Master of Divinity classes at a Protestant seminary, so hear me out as a friend.

The Catholics have given an adequate biblical answer, with chapter and verse even. Any disagreement you have now is identical in kind to the disagreement Baptists and Lutherans have over water baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Both sides read and rely on the same verses for their respective positions. They just interpret the passages differently. Query, is a Baptist really unbiblical and non-“sola scriptura” for disagreeing with a Lutheran? Or vice versa? If so, what is your objective criteria for the judgment?

Or how about Pentecostals versus everybody else regarding speaking in tongues. The same Bible verses yield different opinions depending on who is doing the reading. Is one side objectively wrong? If so, by what standard?

Or how about Calvinists versus Methodists on the “TULIP” question? They argue from the same Bible verses yet they have different conclusions. Why? Is one side not “sola scriptura”? Is one side not biblical? Does one side not know their Hebrew and Greek as well as the other side? If you say yes, what is your measuring rod?

The same thing is going on here with regard to apostolic succession. The Catholics have given us chapter and verse for their position. They’re playing by our rules. This is no longer now a Catholic versus Protestant debate. It’s a Protestant Team A vs. Protestant Team B debate with Catholics merely filling in for one of those teams. To win the debate we need an objective measuring rod by which we can say, objectively, that the other side is interpretting the Bible incorrectly. Otherwise we’re no more correct than the other team is, for we are equal to them in hermeneutical prowess.

And while we’re at it we should come up with a way to say that Baptists alone have all the correct answers – or is it the Lutherans who have the correct answers? Or John Wesley?

That is really, really good point and one I’ve never heard a suffecient answer to.:bowdown:

 

[po18guy]

For all the Protestants in this thread (and elsewhere for that matter), I have something for you to consider. I’m coming at you as a lifelong Baptist and Lutheran (alternating over time) who took six Master of Divinity classes at a Protestant seminary, so hear me out as a friend.

The Catholics have given an adequate biblical answer, with chapter and verse even. Any disagreement you have now is identical in kind to the disagreement Baptists and Lutherans have over water baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Both sides read and rely on the same verses for their respective positions. They just interpret the passages differently. Query, is a Baptist really unbiblical and non-“sola scriptura” for disagreeing with a Lutheran? Or vice versa? If so, what is your objective criteria for the judgment?

Or how about Pentecostals versus everybody else regarding speaking in tongues. The same Bible verses yield different opinions depending on who is doing the reading. Is one side objectively wrong? If so, by what standard?

Or how about Calvinists versus Methodists on the “TULIP” question? They argue from the same Bible verses yet they have different conclusions. Why? Is one side not “sola scriptura”? Is one side not biblical? Does one side not know their Hebrew and Greek as well as the other side? If you say yes, what is your measuring rod?

The same thing is going on here with regard to apostolic succession. The Catholics have given us chapter and verse for their position. They’re playing by our rules. This is no longer now a Catholic versus Protestant debate. It’s a Protestant Team A vs. Protestant Team B debate with Catholics merely filling in for one of those teams. To win the debate we need an objective measuring rod by which we can say, objectively, that the other side is interpretting the Bible incorrectly. Otherwise we’re no more correct than the other team is, for we are equal to them in hermeneutical prowess.

And while we’re at it we should come up with a way to say that Baptists alone have all the correct answers – or is it the Lutherans who have the correct answers? Or John Wesley?

Amen. Well said. Scott, if I was anywhere close to Redondo Beach, I would offer to take you to mass TODAY. You have a wonderful, seeking heart. Bear with us and, through bits and pieces, we will lead you to the fullness of faith (which we ourselves pray for deeper understanding of).

Christ’s peace be with all.