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

[Steve40]

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***.”

You bet there is. But I don’t think many Protestants believe that Jesus has the power to pass down His authority inspite of the sinfulness and sometimes abuse of authority of men. They lack the faith and without faith even proof may not help.

 

[po18guy]

Yes, Scripture is inspired … and yes, Scripture is inerrant. (editor: even that which Luther shredded)

But… how do you know that Scripture is inspired-inerrant? Can you prove it? Without using circular reasoning? (editor: Luther said so?)

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.

Amen. With all of the individual interpretation going on, it is simply amazing that only 33,000+ denominations have sprouted.

I would rather be wrong but obedient, than wrong AND disobedient.

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

You bet there is. But I don’t think many Protestants believe that Jesus has the power to pass down His authority inspite of the sinfulness and sometimes abuse of authority of men. They lack the faith and without faith even proof may not help.

Steve40, you are descended from carpenters, because you just nailed that one!

 

[NotWorthy]

You bet there is. But I don’t think many Protestants believe that Jesus has the power to pass down His authority inspite of the sinfulness and sometimes abuse of authority of men. They lack the faith and without faith even proof may not help.

You mean God can’t use sinful men to further His Will? Wow, good thing nobody told that to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Gideon, David, Solomon, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Erich]

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.

It’s even better than that… in John 20:22 Jesus breathes on them (i.e. the Eleven – minus Thomas) and says to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” The only other time in all of Scripture that God breathes on anyone is when he breathes life into Adam.

 

[justasking4]

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

Can you show me anywhere in the NT where Timothy is referred to as an apostle or apostle in training? If there is such a specific reference then you might have something. If there is no such reference then what you are doing is speculating and speculation is not proof.

 

[justasking4]

andzy;2714632]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.

(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.

How can you not look first to the scriptures for apostolic succession? These are the only records we have of the apostles. It is only there will we see if they did teach such a thing.

The Church lived for decades without the Scriptures (as Erich pointed that out), and for centuries without the Canon of the Scriptures.

They did have the OT canon and the oral teachings of the apostles which later came to be written down. In this sense the church has never been without 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.)

Why don’t you give me a couple of examples from my posts that shows they are: “logically and historically flawed, and non-scriptural”?

There have been plenty of passages brought forth to you, but you have ignored or rejected them.

It is possible to miss posts. However the ones i have rejected are those that don’t say what people think they say when you look at the context in which they are found. Secondly, in many cases words of the scriptures are being twisted to say things it does not.

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.

It is true people have presented verses for apostolic succession but as i said above they fail for the reasons given.

 

[mercygate]

Were these men addressed as apostles

The Church in respect of the “eyewitnesses” reserves the title “Apostle” to the biblical generation. The Apostolic function is handed down (beginning from the addition of Matthias to complete the 12). The bishops are the successors of the Apostles.

First time i have seen Peter associated with Antioch. What’ odd about Rome is that Paul in that epistle never mentions Peter but he does for many others.

That has nothing to do with Apostolic succession. I

If look at James in the Acts 15 where he has the final say at the first council, we don’t see any reference to him being the bishop of this church.

If history is accurate, Peter had already been in Rome for 3 years and would have returned to Jerusalem (where nobody was surprised to see him!) for that council. James was the hed “elder” there – the bishop. He would have been the “manager” of the council.

Did the all the churches believe that the men you mention above have the same authority as an apostle?

See Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107) and Irenaeus of Lyons (d. ca 200). They certainly put a lot of stock in what a Bishop is. And bishops had the same authority in their churches as the Apostles had in the churches they founded. They were ALL of one mind on the faith. They were not isolated silos. Lots of communication all the time. Lots of affirmation (see 3 John): Who are you? Who sent you? Even Paul goes up to Jerusalem to get a reality check that he is, in fact, preaching the same gospel as the eyewitnesses. Even Paul does not go out with the Gospel before receiving approbation and the laying on of hands from the Church.

This was a tight little community.

 

[mercygate]

Lets address Peter as the founder of Rome. Would you happen to know the year?

Eusebius of Caesarea tells us that it was in 42 A.D. Now, this is not Scripture, it is history: the first comprehensive history of the Christian Church ever written – shortly after the Act of Toleration. There might be some diddling with the date but it would not be off by much.

 

[mercygate]

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.

Apostolic succession is the means of preserving the teaching – of handing it down accurately. Oops! The Greek word for “handing down” is tradition. That probably won’t fly very well with you.

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

Bingo! Timothy was well taught by Paul. Paul ordained (laid hands on) Timothy. Laying on of hands is how the Charism of Apostolic teaching and ministry is passed on. Physical touch signifying the literally “handing on” of the faith. Our Bishops go right back to those first “handings on”.

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

There must be intimate continuity for the preservation of the unity of the Church and the integrity of her teaching.

 

[mercygate]

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?

Thanks, Scott. Nothin’ like “been there; done that” to put things in perspective.

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;2717035]The Church in respect of the “eyewitnesses” reserves the title “Apostle” to the biblical generation. The Apostolic function is handed down (beginning from the addition of Matthias to complete the 12). The bishops are the successors of the Apostles.

A bishop and an apostle are 2 different things. Is there any specific mention of an apostle also said to be a bishop in the NT?

That has nothing to do with Apostolic succession. I

I mention this because its been said that Peter founded the church in Rome and was its bishop. Paul never mentions this in the book of Romans.

If history is accurate, Peter had already been in Rome for 3 years and would have returned to Jerusalem (where nobody was surprised to see him!) for that council. James was the hed “elder” there – the bishop. He would have been the “manager” of the council.

Is not true that the historical accounts for this are not that good?

See Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107) and Irenaeus of Lyons (d. ca 200). They certainly put a lot of stock in what a Bishop is. And bishops had the same authority in their churches as the Apostles had in the churches they founded. They were ALL of one mind on the faith. They were not isolated silos. Lots of communication all the time. Lots of affirmation (see 3 John): Who are you? Who sent you? Even Paul goes up to Jerusalem to get a reality check that he is, in fact, preaching the same gospel as the eyewitnesses. Even Paul does not go out with the Gospel before receiving approbation and the laying on of hands from the Church.

My point is that an apostle is a unique office in the church that was for a limited time. It also had qualifications that cannot be fulfilled by anyone after the 1st century. This is why there is no such thing as an apostle unless you want to change the meaning and qualifications of the word.

This was a tight little community.

 

[mercygate]

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.

Off topic but related: My confessor places his hand on my head when he pronounces the absolution. And you KNOW that the bishop who ordained him was touched by HIS bishop, and so on all the way back to the locked room where Jesus breathed on all of the Apostles and gave them the power to forgive sins . . . Blows me away every time!

 

[mercygate]

A bishop and an apostle are 2 different things. Is there any specific mention of an apostle also said to be a bishop in the NT?

All of 'em. The word “overseer” is used. The language got refined. Originally each church was established by one guy: an Apostle. He ordained “elders” to follow in his footsteps and to serve the local church. As the Churches grew, you needed more elders in one place, and more to send out. One guy was the “overseer.”

I mention this because its been said that Peter founded the church in Rome and was its bishop. Paul never mentions this in the book of Romans.

There are explanations for that not related to apostolic succession.

Is not true that the historical accounts for this are not that good?

There are 30 plus independent historical references to Peter’s tenure in Rome in the early history of the Church. Of course, the fact that they found his bones in the necropolis under St. Peter’s kind of clinches it.

My point is that an apostle is a unique office in the church that was for a limited time. It also had qualifications that cannot be fulfilled by anyone after the 1st century. This is why there is no such thing as an apostle unless you want to change the meaning and qualifications of the word.

That is (partly) why the Church reserves the title “Apostle” to the original NT eyewitnesses. But certain features of Apostolic ministry MUST remain in place: Teaching, baptizing, ordaining, forgiving sins (I KNOW, only God forgives sins, but HE gave the Holy Spirit to the Church to carry on THAT ministry) . . . The Church is to continue until the end of time. The CHURCH – not a book that hardly two people can agree on. The CHURCH.

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;2717088]Apostolic succession is the means of preserving the teaching – of handing it down accurately. Oops! The Greek word for “handing down” is tradition. That probably won’t fly very well with you.

i thought apostolic sucession was also about the office itself. If its about handing down the “teaching” of the apostles then you are going to have say that much of the marian doctrines are not apostolic since the apostles never taught such things about her.

Bingo! Timothy was well taught by Paul. Paul ordained (laid hands on) Timothy. Laying on of hands is how the Charism of Apostolic teaching and ministry is passed on. Physical touch signifying the literally “handing on” of the faith. Our Bishops go right back to those first “handings on”.

Do we agree though that Timothy was not an apostle?

There must be intimate continuity for the preservation of the unity of the Church and the integrity of her teaching.

 

[Erich]

Do we agree though that Timothy was not an apostle?

Did you read the essay By What Authority? A Challenge to Protestant Pastors (which shows the Scriptural requirements for claiming to be a “pastor,” and asks the honest Protestant to see if he measures up) I recommended back in post #29?

…
Scripture shows that only the Apostles are “entrusted” with the care of the Gospel message:

• St. Paul
• “…they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised.”(Gal. 2:7)
• “…in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” (2 Cor. 5:19)
• “…in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.” (1 Tim. 1:11)

• St. Timothy
• “Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel.” (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:4)
• “O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.” (1 Tim. 6:20)
• “…guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” (2 Tim. 1:14)

You may object at this point that St. Timothy was not an apostle. I will concede that he was not an “Apostle,” with a capital “A,” but you must concede that Scripture clearly calls St. Timothy an apostle, thereby attesting to his apostolic authority:“Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… nor did we seek glory from men, whether from you or from others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ.” (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:6) It is not only St. Timothy who is called an apostle by Sacred Scripture, but also St. Barnabus, Apollos, and St. Titus:St. Barnabus

“But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out among the multitude…” (Acts 14:14)

Apollos

“I planted, Apollos watered… He who plants and he who waters are equal.” (1 Cor. 3:6, 8)

“I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren… For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death.” (1 Cor. 4:6,9) The objection will be raised: Titus is nowhere in Scripture explicitly called an apostle. I reply, it is implicit in what kind of authority is accorded to the apostles. Scripture testifies that only apostles are given full authority. Compare what is said of St. Paul and St. Timothy (both of whom are called “apostles”) with what is said of St. Titus:St. Paul

“…nor did we seek glory from men, whether from you or from others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ.” (1 Thess. 2:6)

St. Timothy

“As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine…” (1 Tim. 1:3)

“Command and teach these things.” (1 Tim. 4:11)

“Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.” (2 Tim. 2:14)

St. Titus

“This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you.” (Tit.1:5)

“Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” (Tit. 2:15)

“…our boasting before Titus has proved true. And his heart goes out all the more to you, as he remembers the obedience of you all, and the fear and trembling with which you received him.” (2 Cor. 7:14-15) …
There can be no other reason why St. Paul would leave his two spiritual “sons” (Ss. Titus and Timothy) explicit instructions about the qualifications for overseers, elders, bishops, etc. (c.f. 1 Tim 3:1-7, Tit. 1:5-9), than that he expects them to confer apostolic authority on new men who meet those requirements.

 

[justasking4]

Did you read the essay By What Authority? A Challenge to Protestant Pastors (which shows the Scriptural requirements for claiming to be a “pastor,” and asks the honest Protestant to see if he measures up) I recommended back in post #29?

What exactly is “apostolic authority”? Can you give me a couple of examples of it?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What I don’t understand about the no apostolioc succession crowd is this: Why would Jesus want to leave His church with no one in authority?

How could Jesus be that dumb?

 

[Erich]

What exactly is “apostolic authority”?

Guess you still didn’t read the essay…

Can you give me a couple of examples of it?

From the same essay (immediately prior to the above quoted section – bold face emphasis mine, to answer your question),

What is the Scriptural pattern for such things? This we can ascertain by observing the mission of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. It is a pattern of Divine Succession:

• God the Father (the superior authority) sends Jesus Christ
• “…these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me.” (John 5:36)

• Jesus, in turn, sends the Apostles
• “…As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” (John 20:21)

• Jesus sends these Apostles “as the Father has sent me,” that is, in the same manner, with the same authority: “all authority.”
• “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18)

The Apostles, then, did not take their office and authority upon themselves, but were appointed by a Superior Authority, Jesus Christ.

 

[scottm]

i thought apostolic sucession was also about the office itself. If its about handing down the “teaching” of the apostles then you are going to have say that much of the marian doctrines are not apostolic since the apostles never taught such things about her.

Do we agree though that Timothy was not an apostle?

Ahhh, then you’re (understandably so) misunderstanding the term. There are no apostles today. They all died in the first century. There are bishops today. The bishops today are in “apostolic succession” with the original apostles. What that means is that there is an unbroken chain from one or more of the original apostles of the Bible, directly to the bishops walking around today. The biblical apostles all ordained bishops. Those bishops ordained successors. That started the chain. Bishops will ordain priests to work under them (all priests work under the authority of a bishop), so the connection extends to priests as well but the authority is really in the bishops, not the priests.

Timothy was not an apostle. I’ve never read of Catholics recognizing more than the 14 apostles you’d expect: the 12 chosen by Jesus in the gospels, plus the replacement for Judas, plus Paul.

Whether the apostles never taught anything about Mary is a question that can only be answered by studying non-canonical church writings. A month or so ago I checked out two books on this from my local public library. I was astonished at how quickly in time Marian history began. You should look for books in your library. The Dewey decimal section for religion is 220.