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

[justasking4]

scottm;2712212]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.

Why don’t you give me a specific example of an apostle passing on his authority and office to another in the NT so i can see if it is an “adequate” answer?

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?

Context in the scripture would be one objective criteria.

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?

Another topic for another time.

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?

Another topic for another time.

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.

We can study the texts, the contexts and terms used for specific offices in the NT church. Next we can look at history and see for example if the church in the second century considered the bishop of Rome to be the supreme leader of the entire church. Since catholics are making the claim for apostolic succession in their church then we should see this here.

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?

 

[scottm]

Why don’t you give me a specific example of an apostle passing on his authority and office to another in the NT so i can see if it is an “adequate” answer?

Why didn’t the people who got fed in the feedings of the 4,000 and the the 5,000 write something down for their descendants, like, “Dear children – I was there. That preacher actually did it. Let me tell you about it.” ? Hey, if I was in the crowd, I’d be sending emails to EVERYONE! And why didn’t Jesus write anything himself, instead of relying on other people? The God of the OT wrote stuff on rock. Can Jesus even write??? And why did those who wrote wait several decades before writing anything at all? What’s up with the long delay? Things get lost in time, dude! And why didn’t Jesus come right out and say, “I’m a triune God. Let me explain the trinity to you,” instead of burying it in obtuse passages? And why didn’t Jesus or any writer set forth exactly whom to baptize and how – it’s babies or it’s not babies. Come on. This vague stuff in the NT is crazy. And we immerse or we don’t. Come on, Matthew and Paul, give us a straight answer. And why is Revelation so whacky? Am I really to believe that the best Jesus can do at giving visions is that?

Why didn’t why didn’t why didn’t?!

Rather than ponder imponderables or complain that the NT isn’t the way it should be, I would rather tell you what actually was written, and let that be sufficient. Something was written. If we’re going to be “sola scriptura,” we have to read what was written and be content with that, even if it’s not as long or not as detailed as we would have been if we had been the author. I wish that God had made me the author of part of the NT, but he didn’t.

Context in the scripture would be one objective criteria.

So, who in this list adhered best to context: St Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, or John Wesley? Or for recent people, how about Billy Graham (Southern Baptist), Chuck Smith (Foursquare, Calvary Chapel), or RC Sproul (Presbyterian)? And how do you measure this?

We can study the texts, the contexts and terms used for specific offices in the NT church. Next we can look at history and see for example if the church in the second century considered the bishop of Rome to be the supreme leader of the entire church. Since catholics are making the claim for apostolic succession in their church then we should see this here.

Aye, this is good. I’d expand the search, though, to encompasse the first several centuries. And we should also add to the list the task of trying to find out what the phrase in the Nicene Creed “one holy and apostolic church” meant back in the day when the Creed was written. Have you done any of this yet? I’m still working on it myself. Not done yet.

 

[po18guy]

Why didn’t why didn’t why didn’t?!
Rather than ponder imponderables I would rather tell you what actually was written, and let that be sufficient…Not done yet.

What kind of “faith” can this be that demands proof of nearly everything? Isn’t the demand for proof the opposite of faith? According to to the most vocal of the Protestors, much of what Jesus said has no set meaning.

Christ’s peace.

 

[justasking4]

scottm;2712564]Why didn’t the people who got fed in the feedings of the 4,000 and the the 5,000 write something down for their descendants, like, “Dear children – I was there. That preacher actually did it. Let me tell you about it.” ? Hey, if I was in the crowd, I’d be sending emails to EVERYONE! And why didn’t Jesus write anything himself, instead of relying on other people? The God of the OT wrote stuff on rock. Can Jesus even write??? And why did those who wrote wait several decades before writing anything at all? What’s up with the long delay? Things get lost in time, dude!

Don’t assume that people were not writing things down. Also this was a culture that relied on memory and it was not unusual to remember much of what Jesus said and did. In fact a case could be made that His miracles helped people to remember. Take 911 that just passed. i’m sure many people can remember even today where they were when they first heard of it even though it was years ago. Powerful events helps us to remember and certainly the miracles of Christ would have remembered these events for years. Also read Luke 1:1-4 where he sets out to investigate the the life of Christ. in verse 4 he writes why he wrote his gospel:
so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

And why didn’t Jesus come right out and say, "I’m a triune God.

He did in a number of ways. By claiming to forgive sins was one such claim and the leaders knew when He was making claims to be God. That’s why they wanted to stone Him for making these claims.

Let me explain the trinity to you," instead of burying it in obtuse passages? And why didn’t Jesus or any writer set forth exactly whom to baptize and how – it’s babies or it’s not babies. Come on. This vague stuff in the NT is crazy. And we immerse or we don’t. Come on, Matthew and Paul, give us a straight answer. And why is Revelation so whacky? Am I really to believe that the best Jesus can do at giving visions is that?

There is enough clarity in the scriptures for us to know the essentials. On the matters you bring up we must study and even if we don’t have completely satisfactory answers we must live with it.

Why didn’t why didn’t why didn’t?!

Rather than ponder imponderables or complain that the NT isn’t the way it should be, I would rather tell you what actually was written, and let that be sufficient. Something was written. If we’re going to be “sola scriptura,” we have to read what was written and be content with that, even if it’s not as long or not as detailed as we would have been if we had been the author. I wish that God had made me the author of part of the NT, but he didn’t.

The NT itself is sheer genius when you think how well intact its teachings have been for the past 2000 years. For God to get His message of salvation and how to live for Christ over hundreds of cultures over the centuries is absolutely amazing. Its power to change lives grows daily in peoples lives. I can’t think of any work at any time in history that comes even close to this.

So, who in this list adhered best to context: St Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, or John Wesley? Or for recent people, how about Billy Graham (Southern Baptist), Chuck Smith (Foursquare, Calvary Chapel), or RC Sproul (Presbyterian)? And how do you measure this?

We would have to study each.

Aye, this is good. I’d expand the search, though, to encompasse the first several centuries. And we should also add to the list the task of trying to find out what the phrase in the Nicene Creed “one holy and apostolic church” meant back in the day when the Creed was written. Have you done any of this yet? I’m still working on it myself. Not done yet.

i’m still learning and studying these things also.

 

[justasking4]

po18guy;2712118]As a bible Christian, ALL you have of Jesus is the bible. This is a relatively new invention of man.

By sticking with the scriptures i have the advantage. Only the scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant. Why do think the catholic church wants to say it grounds its doctrines on the scriptures?

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:

Since only the scriptures are inspired-inerrant, what other source do you have that is also inspired-inerrant?

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.

Is the scripture inspired-inerrant? If it is, where do they derive its inspiration-inerrancy from?

God has a plan for you. We are trying to help as He works you through your doubts.

What doubts are you referring to? If its about apostolic succession i have no doubts about it. Its not in the scriptures and there is no doubt on my part about that.

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!

I’m confused here. What do these passages have to do with this topic?

There is more than you have been told.

Like what?

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

He did in a number of ways. By claiming to forgive sins was one such claim and the leaders knew when He was making claims to be God. That’s why they wanted to stone Him for making these claims.

There is enough clarity in the scriptures for us to know the essentials. On the matters you bring up we must study and even if we don’t have completely satisfactory answers we must live with it.

The NT itself is sheer genius when you think how well intact its teachings have been for the past 2000 years. For God to get His message of salvation and how to live for Christ over hundreds of cultures over the centuries is absolutely amazing. Its power to change lives grows daily in peoples lives. I can’t think of any work at any time in history that comes even close to this.

We would have to study each.

i’m still learning and studying these things also.

See? There’s still hope for us all! Such is the nature of God’s grace.

Christ’s peace.

 

[NotWorthy]

I haven’t read all the posts, so I hope I’m not repeating what’s already been said.

Sure we do, but are you willing to accept the Word of God has final arbiter?

I hope and pray so, justasking4.

Start with St Matthew in Chapter 28, verse 18: “…All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Despite JA4’s objections, you’ve hit the nail on the head.

Did the Apostles teach to all the nations? NO! Jesus knew they wouldn’t be able to. The only way to teach all the nations everything that Jesus commanded is to give them authority to teach others how to teach to all the nations. This necessitates Apostolic Succession. This is what St. Paul demonstrates through Timothy.

 

[Erich]

Only the scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant.

Yes, Scripture is inspired … and yes, Scripture is inerrant.

But… how do you know that Scripture is inspired-inerrant? Can you prove it? Without using circular reasoning?

Catholics can accept that Scripture contains or implies all that is needed for salvation. But for Catholics to accept that “only the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant” you will have to prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it.

 

[Erich]

There is enough clarity in the scriptures for us to know the essentials.

From Disunity on Essentials:

Protestant apologists commonly respond that, although Protestants may disagree among themselves on “non-essential” matters, they are united in the “essentials” of the faith.

One problem with this argument is that Protestant churches have no effective method of determining which beliefs constitute essentials and which do not. The absence of a functional magisterium leaves each group of Protestants to decide for itself what beliefs are essential. If one group decides that a particular doctrine is essential or non-essential, then other groups have no effective way of refuting it. They could, of course, appeal to Scripture, but presumably the interpretation of the relevant passages is under dispute, and Scripture does not tell us which of its teachings are essential and which are not.

Good tests of practical unity in Protestant churches are: Whom do they let join? Whom do they let preach? Whom do they let pastor? If a particular congregation, as a matter of policy, will not let an individual with a particular belief join its fellowship, preach from its pulpits, or serve as a pastor in one of its churches, then this belief is considered an essential for unity. When these tests are applied, one can see that there is a great deal of practical disunity among Protestant churches—a disunity that goes far beyond the “essentials” named by Protestant apologists.
…
Perhaps the most fundamental problem for users of the “unity in essentials” argument is the fact that they disagree on the meaning of the distinctively Protestant essentials on which they claim to be united: the slogans “faith alone” and “Scripture alone” (sola fide and sola scriptura).
…

 

[Erich]

Is the scripture inspired-inerrant? If it is, where do they derive its inspiration-inerrancy from?

I can tell you, but you won’t like the answer

From Proving Inspiration:

(T)he anonymous author of How Can I Understand the Bible?, a booklet distributed by the Evangelical organization “Radio Bible Class,” lists twelve rules for Bible study. The first is, “Seek the help of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit has been given to illumine the scriptures and make them alive to you as you study them. Yield to his enlightenment.”

If one takes this to mean that anyone asking for a proper interpretation will receive one from God—and that is exactly how most Fundamentalists understand the assistance of the Holy Spirit to work—then the multiplicity of interpretations, even among Fundamentalists, should give people a gnawing suspicion that the Holy Spirit has not been doing his job very well.
…
The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.
…
Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
…
We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

 

[justasking4]

[Erich;2713140]Yes, Scripture is inspired … and yes, Scripture is inerrant.

But… how do you know that Scripture is inspired-inerrant? Can you prove it? Without using circular reasoning?

Big topic. Take the NT. Written either directly by an apostle. An apostle was one who was directly commissioned by Christ and did miracles by the power of Christ. Other tests would be things like prophecy, power to transform lives, does it tell the truth about God. These are just some of the things that we could study that would help to answer your question.

Catholics can accept that Scripture contains or implies all that is needed for salvation. But for Catholics to accept that “only the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant” you will have to prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it.

Even the catholic church accepts that the scriptures are inspired-inerrant. Since the catholic church claims other sources of authority alongside of the inspired-inerrant scriptures, its up to them to show these other sources as being at the same level as scripture.

 

[justasking4]

I can tell you, but you won’t like the answer

From Proving Inspiration:

Can you summarize what you posted? I want to know clearly what you think it said.

 

[justasking4]

From Disunity on Essentials:

All protestant churches i’m aware of agree on these things:

1. Christ is God in the flesh
2. Christ died for our sins and rose again
3. The Scriptures are the inspired Word of God.

There are probably a few others that could be mentioned but there is as far as i know a universal acceptence on these things.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This post was taken from another thread where it was off topic.

For the same reason no one gives a baby car keys - it doesn’t need them, because it is too young to need them. So was the Apostolic Church, for most of the the time covered by the NT texts. The closest approach to it in the NT can be found in the Pastorals, where the “laying on of hands” on presbuteroi/episkopoi is mentioned.​

 

[scottm]

Don’t assume that people were not writing things down. Also this was a culture that relied on memory and it was not unusual to remember much of what Jesus said and did.

Ahhh, but now we’re not “sola scriptura” anymore. Now we’re tradition + scripture.

It wasn’t until I discovered that people actually did write things down and discussed things on paper and elaborated on the scriptures in non-canonical writings, that I gave serious consideration to Roman Catholicism.

We would have to study each.

I have. Systematic theology is my hobby. Try as I will, I cannot come up with an objective way to declare that one is necessarily superior to another without appealing to an extra-biblical authority such as “1500 years of unbroken tradition” or “my grandma was a Lutheran and she couldn’t possibly be wrong.” Sure, I have my preferences when it comes to particular interpretations and beliefs, but a preference doesn’t cut it. I’ve asked other educated and insightful people for an objective measuring rod. I’ve yet to learn of one. Even Hank Hannegraaf, the very Protestant “Bible Answer Man” on syndicated radio, cannot make the assertion that Protestant denomination XYZ alone is correct in all matters of doctrine.

If you’ve got a way of deciding which interpretation among many is correct, please share it.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

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.

Well, duh, jusasking4!

You wanted ‘scriptural proof’ and when confronted with the cold, hard evidence, you act like there are other verses which change the obvious meanings!

Timothy trains others (laying on of hands after extensive prayer, discernment and teaching) who then train others who then train others…apostolic succession!

Their job is to witness to the early Church (no BIBLE yet) what the Good News and God’s economy of salvation is all about.

They were to teach and tell of the same things. No room for justasking4-type personal interpretations.

Really, I am beginning to think that with you off the wall interpretations and refusing to answer direct questions, you are here to hit and run the threads!

Say it ain’t so joe

Robert

 

[Erich]

Even the catholic church accepts that the scriptures are inspired-inerrant.

The Catholic Church has always accepted that Scripture is inspired-inerrant.

Since the catholic church claims other sources of authority alongside of the inspired-inerrant scriptures, its up to them to show these other sources as being at the same level as scripture.

The Catholic Church (i.e. the Church Jesus founded, that has the authority to teach in His name, and that infallibly tells us the Bible is inspired) is the authority which assembled the New Testament to begin with. Even Martin Luther wrote, “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists; that with them is the word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing about it.”

On the contrary, it’s up to those who claim that Scripture is the only inspired-inerrant authority to prove their claim … using only Scripture, of course!

BTW, regarding “essentials” … I would strongly encourage you to read By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition by Mark Shea. In this book he enumerates five crucial but weakly attested non-negotiables of Christian theology and ethics which are not written (or weakly written) in the Bible, namely:

1. the canon of Scripture itself
2. the sanctity of human life
3. monogamy
4. the Trinity
5. public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

Chapter 6 of his book is excerpted here.

 

[Steve40]

You know what I like about apostolic succession, is the fact that the Church is the oldest human institution in existence and someone placed their hands on someone else’s head going all the way back to Jesus. The Bible is one thing but touching the Hem of the Almighty is something else. Here it wasn’t just the Hem it is the Hand of our Lord upon them.

If you don’t believe the Physical touch of Jesus has the Power to come down through the ages in the passing of His Authority than even proof in the Bible won’t convince you that Jesus does it and He Wills it.

 

[NotWorthy]

You know what I like about apostolic succession, is the fact that the Church is the oldest human institution in existence and someone placed their hands on someone else’s head going all the way back to Jesus. The Bible is one thing but touching the Hem of the Almighty is something else. Here it wasn’t just the Hem it is the Hand of our Lord upon them.

If you don’t believe the Physical touch of Jesus has the Power to come down through the ages in the passing of His Authority than even proof in the Bible won’t convince you that Jesus does it and He Wills it.

But there is! There is proof!!!
*** “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations… And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age*.**”

 

[andzy]

andzy;2710448:

justasking4;2711507:

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.

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?

Huh? Of course, it’s true, but what does it have to do about searching Christian truths in the Bible first? Christianity started and flourished under Apostles and those to whom the Apostles passed their authority (what we call the Apostolic succession), to preserve, teach and proclaim the Good News.

andzy;2710448:

justasking4;2711507:

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.

You seem to be applying double standard again. :tsktsk:
Huh? Were not discussing sola scriptura here but the origin of apostolic succession.

(How can we ignore Sola Scriptura, if both, your original question and arguments require it?)
I was answering your question: the Catholic Church does not necessary have to look in the Scriptures first, to prove the Apostolic succession. The Church lived for decades without the Scriptures (as Erich pointed that out), and for centuries without the Canon of the Scriptures. Your argument is logically and historically flawed, and non-scriptural. Besides, I was also pointing out, that Protestants themselves apply such argument to some teachings, but not to others. (I had noticed the same pattern in some of your posts; hence my comment about it.)

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.

There have been plenty of passages brought forth to you, but you have ignored or rejected them. If you disagree and if YOU interpret those passages differently, just say so, and end of the story. I can understand that how YOU interpret the Bible differs from how the Church has always interpreted it. I can accept that, but don’t say that you haven been given Bible verses showing the Apostolic succession.