Succession of Bishops

  • Thread starter Thread starter JDHallKY
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
While the Pope and Bishops (Catholic & Eastern Orthodox) are successors to the Apostles, they are not technically apostles. “Apostle” is not, to my knowledge, an official title of the Pope or Bishops.
Click to expand...
The Pope and college of Bishops succeed to Peter and the college of Apostles, and this is “apostolic succession”, meaning in line from the apostles. But not technically “apostles” in the way Peter, Paul and the others were.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying, and I agree that if the term “Apostolic Succession” is a legitimate term, It would only loosely apply in the manner that you have laid forth.

In light of CCC#863 and #869, this is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches… not that there have been many Apostles, but only 12 (by which is the foundation of our doctrine).

But I disagree that these teachings should be exclusively entrusted to a “few” who have been elected. We are all exhorted to understand the Word of God…
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit:** for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. **
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; **that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. **1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
Click to expand...
We have been given the Spirit of God, so that we can understand the things of God… which the Apostles (the foundation) spoke also by the Spirit of God.

To only trust another man to teach doctrine is to neglect the gift of God (the Holy Spirit). Especially if that person(s) teaches extra-biblically.

The written canon of scripture was given to us as a buffer to protect us against false teaching… it is the foundation, which was the Apostles purpose.
1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].
Click to expand...
Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Click to expand...
John
www.gideonsword.net
 
bibleapologist said:
We have been given the Spirit of God, so that we can understand the things of God… which the Apostles (the foundation) spoke also by the Spirit of God.

To only trust another man to teach doctrine is to neglect the gift of God (the Holy Spirit). Especially if that person(s) teaches extra-biblically.
Click to expand...
No one said only Bishops and priests can teach. Of course, it would also be a good idea to say where the bible says we can ONLY teach what was given to us in the Bible.
bibleapologist said:
The written canon of scripture was given to us as a buffer to protect us against false teaching… it is the foundation, which was the Apostles purpose.
Click to expand...
The Apostles purpose was to give us the written word?!? Where does it say that?

And in regards to your quotes from Timothy and Titus - they look to me like you are PROMOTING the idea of a teaching authority given to bishops and priests, for that is what Paul passed on to Timithy, didn’t he?

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
bibleapologist said:
But I disagree that these teachings should be exclusively entrusted to a “few” who have been elected. We are all exhorted to understand the Word of God…
Click to expand...
Catholics do not prevent anyone from reading Scriptures on their own. Catholics are encouraged to read Scriptures and pray about it, and no less than 4 Scriptural passages are read every Sunday at Mass. A Catholic, however, understands that he is not the first person to ever read the Bible or hear the Holy Spirit speak to him. Therefore, he wisely keeps in mind the insights of others as he reads the Scriptures.
bibleapologist said:
The written canon of scripture was given to us as a buffer to protect us against false teaching… it is the foundation, which was the Apostles purpose.
Click to expand...
The purpose of the Apostles was not to write the Bible, or write anything for that matter. Think about Matthew’s gospel where he records Christ’s Commission to the Apostles. He did not emphasize them writing down his teachings. He told them to go out and start the Church, to spread the Good News to the ends of the earth, and to baptize.
If the purpose of the Apostles was to write the Scriptures, then why did so few of them write?
 
Not Worthy you said,
No one said only Bishops and priests can teach. Of course, it would also be a good idea to say where the bible says we can ONLY teach what was given to us in the Bible.
Click to expand...
2Ti 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
Click to expand...
Paul did not authorize Timothy to teach ANYTHING other than that which he learned from Paul in this verse.

Paul also exhorted Timothy to study the Old Testament…
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Click to expand...
Which would of course help Timothy to understand the gospel, so he could effectively teach others.
The Apostles purpose was to give us the written word?!? Where does it say that?
Click to expand...
It wasn’t the Apostles will that caused the written word of the New Testament to be inspired through them, it was God’s will; and not even necessarily by the Apostles knowledge.
The Apostles were the one’s sent to preach the gospel, they were ordained by Jesus for that purpose, and they were sent by Him personally…
Luk 6:13 And when it was day, he called [unto him] his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
Click to expand...
You can read more about my arguments on this subject on another thread here.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
bibleapologist said:
Paul did not authorize Timothy to teach ANYTHING other than that which he learned from Paul in this verse.

Paul also exhorted Timothy to study the Old Testament…

Which would of course help Timothy to understand the gospel, so he could effectively teach others.
Click to expand...
But the point of this is Apostolic Succession. Your verse that you cited:
*** And what you heard from me** through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well*. (2 Tim 2:2) is a clear case of the Teaching Authority of the Church being passed on.
bibleapologist said:
It wasn’t the Apostles will that caused the written word of the New Testament to be inspired through them, it was God’s will; and not even necessarily by the Apostles knowledge.
The Apostles were the one’s sent to preach the gospel, they were ordained by Jesus for that purpose, and they were sent by Him personally…
Click to expand...
Was that ALL that the Apostles were ordained to do? No, they were tasked to:a) make disciples of all nations, b) baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, c) teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."

Through the example of Paul with Timothy, we see this “teaching to observe all that I have commanded you” authority passed down through the ages all the way to today!
 
Through the example of Paul with Timothy, we see this “teaching to observe all that I have commanded you” authority passed down through the ages all the way to today!
Click to expand...
I am not disagreeing with you there. The subjects we were discussing though was the validity of New Testament epistles, and Apostolic authority.

Paul did not pass to Timothy any of his Apostolic Authority… that was given to the Apostles by Jesus Himself. Paul only exhorted Timothy to teach what he had learned.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
bibleapologist said:
Paul did not pass to Timothy any of his Apostolic Authority… that was given to the Apostles by Jesus Himself. Paul only exhorted Timothy to teach what he had learned.
Click to expand...
You’re stopping short there. Paul is exhorting Tim to teach others. Why? So that THEY could teach others.

And yet Jesus told the Apostles to “teach them to observe all that I have commanded you”.

Hmmmmm, To-may-toe, To-mah-toe…

Still sounds like Apostolic Succesion to me…
 
You’re stopping short there. Paul is exhorting Tim to teach others. Why? So that THEY could teach others.
Click to expand...
And yet Jesus told the Apostles to “teach them to observe all that I have commanded you”.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmm, To-may-toe, To-mah-toe…
Click to expand...
Still sounds like Apostolic Succesion to me…
Click to expand...
Normally I would leave a discussion ending like this alone, and accept your comments above as “the best you could come up with”, and let the other readers of this thread decide for themselves if Apostolic succession is valid.

But I refuse to believe that 1600 years of the Catholic Church ruling over the heritage of God through “apostolic succession” could be founded on principles like the one you just stated. I find it hard to believe that all those people throughout the generations would have accepted such a shallow excuse for domination.

It saddens me that no-one can present a better argument that what has been presented here.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
bibleapologist said:
I find it hard to believe that all those people throughout the generations would have accepted such a shallow excuse for domination.

It saddens me that no-one can present a better argument that what has been presented here.
Click to expand...
Yes, we Catholics love to be subjected and dominated. It comes from almost 2000 years of indoctrination, you know. It’s kind of a hard habit to break.

What I fail to understand is that you can’t see four generations of teaching authority in one verse. Oh well…
 
NotWorthy,
Rule and domination? Or the Power to Bind and Loose? This is something that the Jewish leaders had during Jesus’ time, and this is somethig that Jesus gave to the Apostles and their Successors.
Click to expand...
Are you basing your belief in Apostolic Succession on the passing on of truth (as from Paul to Timothy), or the actual transfer of Apostolic office and the power that goes with that?

You seem to be arguing from two sides of the fence.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
bibleapologist said:
NotWorthy,

Are you basing your belief in Apostolic Succession on the passing on of truth (as from Paul to Timothy), or the actual transfer of Apostolic office and the power that goes with that?

You seem to be arguing from two sides of the fence.

John
www.gideonsword.net
Click to expand...
No, I appear to be chasing after a red herring, in the form of your accusation that the Catholic Church “rules and dominates” me and all it’s followers.
 
John,
I am sorry, you do not deserve comment here but for the sake of my fellow Catholics I have to finally comment.

To my Catholic Answers brethern…

As John (Bible Apologist) has endeavored to convince us of his interpretation, he has committed a grievous act against all of us here. In the spirit of seeking truth and understanding, CA has allowed him to post his views without censorship. Try going to his site and posting a well researched comment to his blog…I can tell you what will happen…he will cowardly remove it. I replied to his blog about our very dear Father Serpa…which he could not even address him as Father or Reverend…he called him Mr. Serpa. Anyway, to the meat of the matter… I pointed out to John that casting lots was used back in the OT days and God didn’t find it objectionable then so why would he (John) acertain that by casting lots the apostles were actually doing their own will and not God’s. John stated that the true replacement for Judas was actually Paul and not Matthias. I pointed out the error of this thought on a few planes:
  1. Matthias and Justus were selected because they were the only ones that had been with Jesus since his baptism, which was why they were the only two canidates.
  2. Judas died between the Last Supper and Pentecost…that is a 40 day span of time. We know that it was soon after the crucifixion though. Acts chapter one starts out just after the Crucifixion and during the first 40 days afterour Lord died for us. Matthias is named successor to Judas in Acts 1:26.
  3. Saul, (or Paul) witnesses the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7. He is still persecuting the followers of Christ at this time. In fact Paul’s famous trip to Damascus is chronicled in Acts 9:4. In Acts 9:26 the apostles still haven’t accepted or learned to trust Paul yet.
  4. After this event, we don’t hear anything about Paul until Acts 11:25…How is it possible that Paul could be the successor of Judas from Chapter 1 when he didn’t “get saved” until chapter 9 and after Chapter 9:26 we don’t hear of him until 11:25? It just doesn’t make sense!
  5. John (bibleapologist) also says that it was God’s will that Paul is the replacement of Judas, and man (the apostles) named Matthias in error. To prove this he mentions a verse from psalms but doesn’t quote or expound upon it.
  6. He also backs his claim by using 1 Cor 15:7 to claim that Matthias was not an apostle since he is not named here. That is because Paul is stating events in retrospect…he is talking about the time between the death of Judas and the selection of Matthias. TO further back this up he tells his readers to look at the next verse…where Paul says he is the least of the apostles since he persecuted the church. This is to give us reference to his humility. He is now speaking in the present tense.
  7. All of these things he uses to dispute the idea of apostolic succession. He even goes so far as to say not only is it false teaching, but it is a perversion of the will of God! John seems to forget that the Holy Spirit had descended upon the apostles and was guiding them. So who is he to say that the apostles were wrong and thus the Catholic Church is wrong to use this as a directive of apostolic succession?
  8. I also mentioned the key to the kingdom of heaven given to Peter gave him the authority of Gods Church on earth. The actual expression “giving the keys” is actually from the OT, it refered not only to passing on the responsibility, but the authority as well. Peter had the authority and responsibility to call for the casting of lots to replace Judas.
I say this now: John (Bible apologist) in light of the historical and chronological evidence, can you still believe that Paul was the replacement of Judas? Can you accept that while Paul was an apostle, he was not the replacement for Judas, nor would our Lord allow the wrong person to be named by man? These were men of God, they prayed before they cast lots, your arguement that God chose neither Matthias nor Justus does not hold water. Your personal interpretation of 1 Cor 15:10 But by the grace of God, I am what I am; and his grace in me hath not been void, but I have laboured more abundantly than all they: yet not I, but the grace of God with me. does not mean that Paul was not selected by the casing of Lots, it means that because Paul was open to God’s grace, God was able to accomplish many great things through him.

On a personal note John, if a lowly servant of our Lord with no biblical or apologetic training can see the error of your interpretation, just think of the great things God could accomplish by you, if you stopped rebelling and started submitting to the authority Jesus himself established in his Church.
 
BlestOne,
Try going to his site and posting a well researched comment to his blog…I can tell you what will happen…he will cowardly remove it. I replied to his blog about our very dear Father Serpa…
Click to expand...
You apparently posted to that blog yesterday at about 1pm. Your comment is there. Those comments are moderated though, as I get about 10 comments a day from “gaming” websites promoting gambling, and I won’t allow those links to be shown. You can see your comment here.
  1. Matthias and Justus were selected because they were the only ones that had been with Jesus since his baptism, which was why they were the only two canidates.
Click to expand...
Where do you find in the Bible that a requirement to be an Apostle is that the person in question had to be with Jesus from the time of His baptism? And if that were true, how does that prove any future Apostolic succession?
  1. Judas died between the Last Supper and Pentecost…that is a 40 day span of time. We know that it was soon after the crucifixion though. Acts chapter one starts out just after the Crucifixion and during the first 40 days afterour Lord died for us. Matthias is named successor to Judas in Acts 1:26.
Click to expand...
Here you are placing a time limit on God to fulfil His promise to replace the office of Judas. Where do you find that this promise by God was promised to be fulfilled during that 40 day span of time?
  1. Saul, (or Paul) witnesses the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7. He is still persecuting the followers of Christ at this time. In fact Paul’s famous trip to Damascus is chronicled in Acts 9:4. In Acts 9:26 the apostles still haven’t accepted or learned to trust Paul yet.
Click to expand...
Well, this definitley explains why the Apostles did not chose Saul in Acts chapter 1, but it does not prove that Saul couldn’t have been chosen by God. God could have known (and did), that Saul was going to be saved. What the Apostles did (under the leadership of Peter), was prove their unbelief in God to fulfil His promise concerning the Apostolic office. Because they did not believe God would fulfil His promise… they took the vacant office of Judas into their own hands, and thereby circumvented God’s agenda.

This act of unbelief by casting lots is no different than what Gideon did when God told him that Israel would be saved by Gideon’s hand. In Judges 6: 36, 37 we find that Gideon placed the fleece on the ground, if dew was on the fleece on not on the earth Gideon would know that God would do what He said He would do.

The truth is, God was going to save Israel by Gideon’s hand whether he believed it or not, and God was going to appoint a man to take the office of Judas whether the Apostles believed it or not.
  1. After this event, we don’t hear anything about Paul until Acts 11:25…How is it possible that Paul could be the successor of Judas from Chapter 1 when he didn’t “get saved” until chapter 9 and after Chapter 9:26 we don’t hear of him until 11:25? It just doesn’t make sense!
Click to expand...
Who are we to question God’s timing?

(continued on next post…)

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
  1. John (bibleapologist) also says that it was God’s will that Paul is the replacement of Judas, and man (the apostles) named Matthias in error. To prove this he mentions a verse from psalms but doesn’t quote or expound upon it.
Click to expand...
I did quote and expound on it, in the very first paragraph of the article I referenced… that I wrote.
  1. He also backs his claim by using 1 Cor 15:7 to claim that Matthias was not an apostle since he is not named here.
Click to expand...
I never said that 1 Cor. 15:7 disproved Matthias’ apostleship. I used those verses to prove Paul was an apostle. I simply used that portion of scripture to prove that one of the qualifications of an Apostle was to have “seen” Jesus.
  1. All of these things he uses to dispute the idea of apostolic succession. He even goes so far as to say not only is it false teaching, but it is a perversion of the will of God! John seems to forget that the Holy Spirit had descended upon the apostles and was guiding them.
Click to expand...
To claim that because the Apostles had the Holy Spirit they were infallible, or incapable of making bad decisions is erroneous to say the least. Remember, it is this same Peter who made a grave mistake by his actions that directly affected Barnabas, and the other Jews that were with them. This account can be found in… Galatians 2:11-21
  1. I also mentioned the key to the kingdom of heaven given to Peter gave him the authority of Gods Church on earth. The actual expression “giving the keys” is actually from the OT, it refered not only to passing on the responsibility, but the authority as well. Peter had the authority and responsibility to call for the casting of lots to replace Judas.
Click to expand...
Peter had the liberty to command lots to be cast… but he did not have license to act on God’s behalf. The giving of the keys to heaven was symbolic of the charge to evangelism, and the confirmation that whatever they bound or loosed on earth would be bound or loosed in heaven. Since the charge by Christ to evangelize did not end with the apostles… and was not exclusive to the apostles, we can deduce that the “keys” were not given exclusively to Peter.
On a personal note John, if a lowly servant of our Lord with no biblical or apologetic training can see the error of your interpretation, just think of the great things God could accomplish by you, if you stopped rebelling and started submitting to the authority Jesus himself established in his Church.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that compliment. I would never guess that you havn’t had any Apologetics or biblical training… you have very good arguments, but I think I have proven them to be in error.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
What do you do when you have a church that is less than 400 years old and can only trace its origins back to 17th century Amsterdam? Deny apostolic succession.

Here is an outline of Baptist history:

Apostolic succession not essential.

It is not essential, however, to the life and progress of the denomination that Baptists establish a claim to Apostolic succession, but rather that Baptist churches are Apostolic in character. Prof. Vedder is responsible for the following concise statement on this point:“To Baptists, indeed, of all people, the question of tracing their history to remote antiquity should appear nothing more than an interesting study. Our theory of the church as deduced from the Scriptures requires no outward and visible succession from the apostles. If every church of Christ were to-day to become apostate, it would be possible and right for any true believers to organize to-morrow another church on the apostolic model of faith and practice, and that church would have the only apostolic succession worth having-a succession of faith in the Lord Christ and obedience to him. Baptists have not the slightest interest therefore in wresting the facts of history from their true significance; our reliance is on the New Testament, and not on antiquity; on present conformance to Christ’s teachings, not on an ecclesiastical pedigree, or the validity of our church organizations, our ordinances and our ministry. By some writers who have failed to grasp this principle, there has been a distressful effort to show a succession of Baptist churches from the apostolic age until now. It is certain, as impartial historians and critics allow, that the early churches, including the first century after the New Testament period, were organized as Baptist churches are now organized, and professed the faith that Baptist churches now profess.”

reformedreader.org/history/pius/chapter01.htm

Sometimes its just so painful to watch the contortions that Protestant churches have to go through to explain why they do not have apostolic succession and are not 2,000 years old and were not founded by Jesus Christ Himself.

Is the Baptist Church: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic? No.
 
Paul did not be come an apostle at his conversion on the road to Emmas. There is no proof of that at all.

Paul has to seek the approval of Peter and the other apostles and had to recieve the oral tradition of the Church from the Early Church Fathers. It took a couple of years before Paul would be counted among the disciples or allowed to teach. Even then Peter still had to clarifiy Paul teaching so they would make since to the believers of the time within the framework of the Church.

To say otherwise, even to suggest it, misguides the believer to unbiblical teaching.

I’m not trying to step on anyone’s pride. The truth is more important to the believer than the what one individual thinks.
 
John, Please accept my apology for being impatient. I checked it between 9- 11pm last night and it wasn’t there.
Quote:
  1. Matthias and Justus were selected because they were the only ones that had been with Jesus since his baptism, which was why they were the only two canidates.
Where do you find in the Bible that a requirement to be an Apostle is that the person in question had to be with Jesus from the time of His baptism? And if that were true, how does that prove any future Apostolic succession? This is just a reason why not as requirement. I was simply pointing out to you that Justus and Matthias were the only two that had been with Christs ministry from the start. This is why they were selected above the other followers.
Quote:
2. Judas died between the Last Supper and Pentecost…that is a 40 day span of time. We know that it was soon after the crucifixion though. Acts chapter one starts out just after the Crucifixion and during the first 40 days afterour Lord died for us. Matthias is named successor to Judas in Acts 1:26.

Here you are placing a time limit on God to fulfil His promise to replace the office of Judas. Where do you find that this promise by God was promised to be fulfilled during that 40 day span of time? No I am not implying or stating that God’s promise had to be done during the 40 days. I am giving you and the other readers the historical perspective of when this all took place. I do however believe that Peter, with his authority given by Christ, was naming the replacement for Judas at this time. Unlike you, I do believe that this was God working through the apostles.
Quote:
3. Saul, (or Paul) witnesses the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7. He is still persecuting the followers of Christ at this time. In fact Paul’s famous trip to Damascus is chronicled in Acts 9:4. In Acts 9:26 the apostles still haven’t accepted or learned to trust Paul yet.

Well, this definitley explains why the Apostles did not chose Saul in Acts chapter 1, but it does not prove that Saul couldn’t have been chosen by God. God could have known (and did), that Saul was going to be saved. What the Apostles did (under the leadership of Peter), was prove their unbelief in God to fulfil His promise concerning the Apostolic office. Because they did not believe God would fulfil His promise… they took the vacant office of Judas into their own hands, and thereby circumvented God’s agenda. Yes, Saul was chosen by God, but as I said before, not at this time. The apostles in no way showed their disbelief in God by appointing Matthias. Paul’s ministry was a higher ministry, he was chosen to evangelize to the pagans and gentiles. This was all part of God’s wonderous plan for our salvation. Matthias replaced Judas in the ministry to the Jews. There was no circumvention of God’s will going on here.

This act of unbelief by casting lots is no different than what Gideon did when God told him that Israel would be saved by Gideon’s hand. In Judges 6: 36, 37 we find that Gideon placed the fleece on the ground, if dew was on the fleece on not on the earth Gideon would know that God would do what He said He would do. No, I am sorry, I do not believe this. This is no different from prayerfully asking God to show the way. I see absolutely nothing unbelieving about this.

The truth is, God was going to save Israel by Gideon’s hand whether he believed it or not, and God was going to appoint a man to take the office of Judas whether the Apostles believed it or not. Yes, God’s plan of salvation will always triumph over man’s will, but I think you are missing the plan…God wants us to know about his kingdom so we make a choice of our free will. An informed decision if you will. We can look back in retrospect all we want at the decisions of man and say that they were wrong, but it isn’t about that; it is about trusting God and choosing his love and salvation. This requires obedience, true freedom to choose God’s plan. Peter accepted the responsibility of the kingdom; therefore, the decision had to come from God through him.
Quote:
4. After this event, we don’t hear anything about Paul until Acts 11:25…How is it possible that Paul could be the successor of Judas from Chapter 1 when he didn’t “get saved” until chapter 9 and after Chapter 9:26 we don’t hear of him until 11:25? It just doesn’t make sense!

Who are we to question God’s timing? Again, historical perspective…. Look at the ministry of Paul vs the ministry of Matthias, they are distinctly different. Matthias was chosen for the Jews while Paul was chosen to minister to the gentiles…two different ministries.

(continued on next post…)
Mary
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top