What is the standard against which you measure your understanding of Scripture?

[Philthy]

michaelp:

But Matt says that the keys were given to Peter, it says nothing about anyone else. You would think that if there were to be infallibly successors, this would have been said or at least implied. Read the passage again and see if you would really be able to read, “To you (and your successors) I give the keys to the kingdom of heaven).”

Michael

I will again point out that the standard of “if we can’t derive this from Scripture it can’t be true” is not Scriptural. Rather, the burden of proof lies with you to prove that succession is contradicting Scripture - and you haven’t done that.
It is expressly implied - successorship is the rule, not the exception. It is an OFFICE, like it was in Isaiah, and the office passed from one person to another. Keys always work for the lock, and whoever holds them opens and closes the door. Again, this is the rule, not the exception. If you want to give someone something that ends with them, you give them the “right” to do it. A right is not necessarily transferable, but “keys”, from Scripture and from history, are.
I thought of you while reading this passage from David Currie’s Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic:

“One common misconception is that this promise was fulfilled when Peter opened the gates of the Church first to the Jews and then to the Samaritans and the Gentiles. but if we accept this explanationm we ignore a very important rule for interpreting the Bible. The best metnod for interpreting the Bible is by using the Bible. There are only two OT uses of the word “key”. One of these is in Isaiah 22:22…Jesus was borrowing the words of Isaiah to give meaning to his words to Peter…What did Isaiah mean by these words?..the key existed prior to being given to Eliakem and it would exist after Eliakem passed on.The key, the power to rule, passes from mortal to mortal…The fact that Jesus gives Peter the keys of the Kingdom symbolizes Peter’s power to rule, just as it did in Isaiah. This is the authority of peter’s office. His authority will be passed down, just as athe authority of the other apostles will be passed down as they die.”

Phil

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

Hey Phil, hope that you had a Merry Christmas. It was nice here at my parents. I am taking a week vaction!!.

I have highlighted the part that interests me in bold. My question is: Where is this recorded that when an Apostle died another person filled his office? Matthias cannot be used since that was in fullfillment of a prophecy that speak accurately and restrictively about the replacement of the office of Judas, the one who betrayed Christ. Also, and more importantly for me, Peter said with certianty that the one who filled his place must have seen the resurrected Christ. This is reasonable since the Apostles (in the strick since of the word) were those who were sent out with a message of the risen Savior and it is reasonable that this requirement would be made clear.

You may be referring to other Scriptures though.

Hope you are having a good day.

Hi Michael - Merry Christmas to you also!

Offices exist for people to fill them - succession to an office is the rule. I reiterate that the burden is on you - when did the office of apostle become unecessary? You might better question whether the Apostles actually held an “office”. That is, however, how the position is described when Judas is replaced - that his “office” be filled by another, in Acts2:20 (from Psalm 109:8). So my logic is as follows:

Offices are positions successively filled by different people: and
The position of Apostle is described as an office in Scripture
Therefore we expect that when the apostles died, another person should fill their office.

And this is exactly what happens in Scripture. As an aside, it would seem appropriate that there was a question regarding the need to fill Judas’ office since some may have viewed it as corrupt and therefore best left empty. But certainly if his office required filling, I would think the others did also.

Phil

 

[michaelp]

I will again point out that the standard of “if we can’t derive this from Scripture it can’t be true” is not Scriptural. Rather, the burden of proof lies with you to prove that succession is contradicting Scripture - and you haven’t done that.

Phil, I have never said that Apostolic succession as you have defined it is contridictory to Scripture, just that it is not found in Scripture, either by precept or example. You never see these keys being passed on to anyone.

It is expressly implied - successorship is the rule, not the exception. It is an OFFICE, like it was in Isaiah, and the office passed from one person to another. Keys always work for the lock, and whoever holds them opens and closes the door.

I am not saying that I know exactly what these verses mean, but it seems very reasonable to suggest that Peter did use these keys when he opened the door to the three people groups. At least this would be an illustrated use of the keys. There is no illustrated passing on of these key. You must at least admit that this is just as valid an interpretation as yours.

But yours carries such a burden. Essentially you are saying that the legitimacy of the entire power structure of the Catholic church which is said to be the vicar of Christ that speaks infallibly for him is taught in this verse (Matt 16). This is much more load than it can bear. But the option that I have given that is illustrated in Acts is not too much to bear. Expecially since we after Peter uses these keys, he virtually disapears from the scene of the book that presents the early history of Christianity. I am trying to see things your way, but I have to say that the exegesis and historical example is not in its favor. But I do certianly respect your view.

There are only two OT uses of the word “key”. One of these is in Isaiah 22:22…Jesus was borrowing the words of Isaiah to give meaning to his words to Peter…What did Isaiah mean by these words?..the key existed prior to being given to Eliakem and it would exist after Eliakem passed on.The key, the power to rule, passes from mortal to mortal…The fact that Jesus gives Peter the keys of the Kingdom symbolizes Peter’s power to rule, just as it did in Isaiah. This is the authority of peter’s office. His authority will be passed down, just as athe authority of the other apostles will be passed down as they die."

Not only does this commit the word search fallacy (searching for a word that occurs somewhere in the Bible and then equating its interpretation for an earlier occurance), it does not bear the load. “Keys” can be used to fulfill their purpose and then no longer be needed. Keys were meant to sybolize authority. Read and study this Isa passage–it was authority that was the key (!) and this never necessarily implies an office that was to be passed on. It could be, but the sybolic nature of keys does not speak in any way to succession. Also all agree that Peter had authority, and that this passage teaches this, but God is going to have to give us more either by precept or example if we are to bear the load of the Catholic institution.

Here is an example of the word search fallacy that would relate directly to what we are talking about. If I were to search for the word “door” and the phrase “opening and closing.”

Rev. 3:8
“I know your deeds, behold I have put before you a door that no man can shut . . .”

Does this mean that Christ has the “keys” back since no “man” (including an apostle) can shut it? I would not make this arguement. Christ is just using a common metaphor that does not necessarily have connection to either Matt. or Isa.

Learning much as usual,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Offices exist for people to fill them - succession to an office is the rule. I reiterate that the burden is on you - when did the office of apostle become unecessary?

The office of apostle was for the proclaimation of the Gospel by those who had seen Christ risen from the dead. Peter puts the criteria upon an Apostle (in the strict sense) that he had to be a witness of the resurrection (Acts 1). Paul puts the critera down that he has to produce signs and wonders (2 Cor 12:12). This necessarily implies its cessation if these two criteria are not met.

Offices are only descriptions of a type of job that one is performing for a purpose. If that purpose is fulfilled, it is no longer needed. The apostles proclaimed the risen savior with great authority and established the Church and wrote the NT. It is reasonable to assume that their purpose has been fulfilled. That is why there are none today who meet the criteria of an Apostle.

And this is exactly what happens in Scripture. As an aside, it would seem appropriate that there was a question regarding the need to fill Judas’ office since some may have viewed it as corrupt and therefore best left empty. But certainly if his office required filling, I would think the others did also.

But Matthias carried the credintials in that he had seen the risen Christ.

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

Phil, I have never said that Apostolic succession as you have defined it is contridictory to Scripture, just that it is not found in Scripture, either by precept or example. You never see these keys being passed on to anyone.

I am not saying that I know exactly what these verses mean, but it seems very reasonable to suggest that Peter did use these keys when he opened the door to the three people groups. At least this would be an illustrated use of the keys. There is no illustrated passing on of these key. You must at least admit that this is just as valid an interpretation as yours.

But yours carries such a burden. Essentially you are saying that the legitimacy of the entire power structure of the Catholic church which is said to be the vicar of Christ that speaks infallibly for him is taught in this verse (Matt 16). This is much more load than it can bear. But the option that I have given that is illustrated in Acts is not too much to bear. Expecially since we after Peter uses these keys, he virtually disapears from the scene of the book that presents the early history of Christianity. I am trying to see things your way, but I have to say that the exegesis and historical example is not in its favor. But I do certianly respect your view.

Not only does this commit the word search fallacy (searching for a word that occurs somewhere in the Bible and then equating its interpretation for an earlier occurance), it does not bear the load. “Keys” can be used to fulfill their purpose and then no longer be needed. Keys were meant to sybolize authority. Read and study this Isa passage–it was authority that was the key (!) and this never necessarily implies an office that was to be passed on. It could be, but the sybolic nature of keys does not speak in any way to succession. Also all agree that Peter had authority, and that this passage teaches this, but God is going to have to give us more either by precept or example if we are to bear the load of the Catholic institution.

Here is an example of the word search fallacy that would relate directly to what we are talking about. If I were to search for the word “door” and the phrase “opening and closing.”

Rev. 3:8
“I know your deeds, behold I have put before you a door that no man can shut . . .”

Does this mean that Christ has the “keys” back since no “man” (including an apostle) can shut it? I would not make this arguement. Christ is just using a common metaphor that does not necessarily have connection to either Matt. or Isa.

Learning much as usual,

Michael

I hate to interject here Michael,but, if the succession of the apostles and the authority of Peter was to stop,why would Judas have to be replaced?God Bless

 

[michaelp]

Lisa4Catholics:

I hate to interject here Michael,but, if the succession of the apostles and the authority of Peter was to stop,why would Judas have to be replaced?God Bless

Let me ask you to read the requirements for Judas’ replacement and ask you what, from reading that passage, would you say that the purpose was? And, can anyone fulfill those requirements today?

 

[dcdurel]

michaelp:

The apostles proclaimed the risen savior with great authority and established the Church and wrote the NT. It is reasonable to assume that their purpose has been fulfilled. That is why there are none today who meet the criteria of an Apostle.

Michael

But we know it is a historical fact that the apostles appointed successors. If their purpose has been fulfilled, the apostles appointed successors for nothing.

And how can you reason that their purpose has been fulfilled. For there are thousands of different Gospels taught by thousands of different Protestant denominations, who can’t even agree on the basics such as what is necessary for salvation, what did Jesus mean when He said “this is My body” and the importance of Baptism.

It seems to me, more than ever we need a teaching authority. After all, Jesus did say that we must listen to the Church that He founded, and I have searched and searched and I can find no where that He says this is only temporary, and later we can reject the authority of this Church and each person and make up his own Gospel based on his private interpretation of scripture.

And since ALL the early Christians learned from the apostles the Sacred Tradition baptism was regenerational, but obviously the bible is certainly not clear on that, since Evangelicals and Fundamentalists believe the opposite, then how in the world can you say we no longer need an infallible teaching authority. Are we to have a Church which rejects the clear apostolic Tradition that ALL Christians said came from the apostles in regards to baptism? Were all these Christians taught wrong by the apostles or their successors? Unlike their private interpretation of various points, which had not been clarified, the all agreed that this was the apostolic Tradition.

Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, “From the beginning baptism was the universally accepted rite of admission to the Church. . . . As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins . . . we descend into the water ‘dead’ and come out again ‘alive’; we receive a white robe which symbolizes the Spirit . . .the Spirit is God himself dwelling in the believer, and the resulting life is a re-creation. Prior to baptism . . . our heart was the abode of demons . . . [but] baptism supplies us with the weapons for our spiritual warfare” (Early Christian Doctrines, 193–4).

 

[michaelp]

dcdurel:

But we know it is a historical fact that the apostles appointed successors. If their purpose has been fulfilled, the apostles appointed successors for nothing.

And how can you reason that their purpose has been fulfilled. For there are thousands of different Gospels taught by thousands of different Protestant denominations, who can’t even agree on the basics such as what is necessary for salvation, what did Jesus mean when He said “this is My body” and the importance of Baptism.

It seems to me, more than ever we need a teaching authority. After all, Jesus did say that we must listen to the Church that He founded, and I have searched and searched and I can find no where that He says this is only temporary, and later we can reject the authority of this Church and each person and make up his own Gospel based on his private interpretation of scripture.

And since ALL the early Christians learned from the apostles the Sacred Tradition baptism was regenerational, but obviously the bible is certainly not clear on that, since Evangelicals and Fundamentalists believe the opposite, then how in the world can you say we no longer need an infallible teaching authority. Are we to have a Church which rejects the clear apostolic Tradition that ALL Christians said came from the apostles in regards to baptism? Were all these Christians taught wrong by the apostles or their successors? Unlike their private interpretation of various points, which had not been clarified, the all agreed that this was the apostolic Tradition.

Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, “From the beginning baptism was the universally accepted rite of admission to the Church. . . . As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins . . . we descend into the water ‘dead’ and come out again ‘alive’; we receive a white robe which symbolizes the Spirit . . .the Spirit is God himself dwelling in the believer, and the resulting life is a re-creation. Prior to baptism . . . our heart was the abode of demons . . . [but] baptism supplies us with the weapons for our spiritual warfare” (Early Christian Doctrines, 193–4).

dcdurel,

Welcome. We are discussing the legitimacy of infallible apostolic succession, not simply whether it is pragmatic or not. Neither is baptism the issue here. I agree that it might have been nice for the office of infallible apostolic succession to have been established. But pragmatics cannot prove much.

We have already discussed much of this in earlier posts. Please forgive me if I do not readdress these issues in full.

Hope you are having a good night,

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

Let me ask you to read the requirements for Judas’ replacement and ask you what, from reading that passage, would you say that the purpose was? And, can anyone fulfill those requirements today?

Saint Padre Pio did these things and he submitted to the authority of the bishops and the pope(of course God did it Saint Padre Pio was merely an instrument.)There have been many saints throughout history that God had worked miracles through.Michael there are things all over the world that happen,but you would have to see to believe.My friend that lives accross the street had a nephew that drowned he was dead, the ambulance worked on him, the hospital worked on him for 20 minutes and they called him and gave up,their priest got to the hospital and gave him the last rites and as he was annointing him chris(the child)Gasped,he started breathing heart started,and my Methodist neighbor enrolled in RCIA.God Bless

 

[dcdurel]

michaelp:

dcdurel,

Welcome. We are discussing the legitimacy of infallible apostolic succession, not simply whether it is pragmatic or not. Neither is baptism the issue here. I agree that it might have been nice for the office of infallible apostolic succession to have been established. But pragmatics cannot prove much.

We have already discussed much of this in earlier posts. Please forgive me if I do not readdress these issues in full.

Hope you are having a good night,

Michael

I think pragmatics is only part of the issue. To know the truth, the Church must be infallible. Otherwise no one can know the truth, and only the truth can set us free. Therefore Jesus had to make the Church infallible and He did so. When the bible records His words, He said, “he who hears you, hears Me”, it is simply giving witness to the constant teaching of the Church from apostolic times that the Church is infallible and will always be infallible. Notice, I did not say the Church teaching comes from this verse. But, this verse is evidence of the Church teaching. The Church does not derive the basic teachings from scripture, because the Church came before scripture. Scripture is a witness to these basic teachings.

     We have **no teaching of the word of God that the Church is not infallible**. We have clear apostolic Tradition (God's word) and the witness of scripture, in the verse above and a few others which others quoted, that the Church is infallible.

Thus, if the word of God handed down by the apostolic Tradition says the Church is infallible, If the teaching authority appointed by Jesus Himself says the Church is infallible, if the witness of scripture is evidence of the same teaching, and if for over 2000 years the enemies of the Church have tried and tried to pin some error on Church teaching, and this effort has been a complete failure, then the Church is infallible based on faith and the witness of history.

You start out from a different foundation. You start out with the bible in general and pick verses which you think supports the teaching of Martin Luther, “sola scriptura”, and reject the verses which contradict his teaching. In other words, your foundation is not “what did Jesus say”, but what can I find that supports Martin Luther’s doctrine of "scripture alone"

Thus your foundation is a doctrine of men, “scripture alone”

The Catholic Church does not start out with man-made traditions such as “scripture alone”.

The Church starts with Jesus Christ as the foundation. Jesus Christ said over and over and over that we must listen to Him, and if we reject Him we are rejecting the Father. ** He ALSO SAID, we must listen to the authorities He appointed.** If we reject the teachings of the leaders of His Church, the bible says we are rejecting Him, we are no longer Christians and we will be condemned. There is no expiration date on those verses.
He did not say, “for a time”, or “for a while”, or “until salvation history is written”, then “make up your own Gospel as Luther said”. He did not say, but** “you can reject the successors they appoint”.**

The historical fact is that the apostles, the authorities that Jesus appointed, also appointed successors. And they carry on the teachings they learned from the apostles. And that is the only reason we have the New Testament scriptures today. That is the only reason we know what the teachings of the Gospel are. If the apostles had chosed not to appoint successors, with teaching authority, the Church would have died off, and there would be no scriptures, because the criteria for knowing what was inspired was handed down to their successors. Thus, no Church, no bible.

And all these sucessors were the bishops of the Catholic Church. If you can find any sucessor of any apostle that was Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran etc. then I might think of joining that Church. But you won’t.

Michael, I would love to accept your foundation of “scripture alone” if it came from God. But, it clearly contradicts the words of Jesus.

If you can show me were Jesus said to reject His Church and follow scripture alone, I will be glad to convert to Martin Luther’s doctrine and follow that instead of His Church.

Of course, since you believe the bible is supposed to be clear, written for the ordinary man, explicit and direct, I certainly want to find clear, explicit, the direct words of Jesus to reject His Church and follow “scripture alone.”
You will have your first convert !!!
Remember, no interpretion, only clear, explicit teachings.
You are the one who says everything must be clear and explicit.
I want the chapter and verse where Jesus says to “reject the authority of the Church, and follow scripture alone**”**

 

[Pax]

Michael,

The idea of succession is fulfilled in Matthias. You are correct in pointing out that Peter indicates that they should select someone from those that were eye witnesses to Jesus and his preaching. This makes perfect sense and would be the logical thing to do. It may not have been mandatory. Personally, I don’t think it matters one way or the other as Paul was not an eye witness, but received revelation.

Please note that in Acts 1:26 it states that Matthias “was enrolled with the eleven apostles.” Likewise Paul was an apostle but not of the original twelve. There are no other apostles recorded in scripture or in historical accounts. Succession does not go to additional apostles but is instead granted to bishops.

Bishops while successors are not identicle to apostles. Timothy succeeds Paul but Timothy is a bishop. Timothy has never been thought of as an apostle. Nevertheless, the authority of Timothy is spoken of by Paul. If all of the earliest Christians could recognize this authority, and if the evidence shows that the Churches looked to the bishop of Rome to settle disputes, it would seem rather tenuous to suggest that we lack sufficient evidence to connect all the dots. History itself is a witness to the biblical statements of Church authority and the authority of bishops. History also attests to the authority of the bishop of Rome.

Your theory about Peter and the Keys as metaphorically pertaining to his opening the gates to the gentiles etc. does not coincide with the Jewish understanding of the keys and in no way finds a counterpart in the reference to the keys in Isaiah. Look at the data objectively. While you may not yet feel comfortable with the church and papal authority, you are unable to provide an meaningful competing theory that coincides with the biblical and historical data.

 

[michaelp]

dcdurel:

I think pragmatics is only part of the issue. To know the truth, the Church must be infallible. Otherwise no one can know the truth, and only the truth can set us free. Therefore Jesus had to make the Church infallible and He did so. When the bible records His words, He said, “he who hears you, hears Me”, it is simply giving witness to the constant teaching of the Church from apostolic times that the Church is infallible and will always be infallible. Notice, I did not say the Church teaching comes from this verse. But, this verse is evidence of the Church teaching. The Church does not derive the basic teachings from scripture, because the Church came before scripture. Scripture is a witness to these basic teachings.

We have no teaching of the word of God that the Church is not infallible. We have clear apostolic Tradition (God’s word) and the witness of scripture, in the verse above and a few others which others quoted, that the Church is infallible.

Thus, if the word of God handed down by the apostolic Tradition says the Church is infallible, If the teaching authority appointed by Jesus Himself says the Church is infallible, if the witness of scripture is evidence of the same teaching, and if for over 2000 years the enemies of the Church have tried and tried to pin some error on Church teaching, and this effort has been a complete failure, then the Church is infallible based on faith and the witness of history.

You start out from a different foundation. You start out with the bible in general and pick verses which you think supports the teaching of Martin Luther, “sola scriptura”, and reject the verses which contradict his teaching. In other words, your foundation is not “what did Jesus say”, but what can I find that supports Martin Luther’s doctrine of "scripture alone"

Thus your foundation is a doctrine of men, “scripture alone”

The Catholic Church does not start out with man-made traditions such as “scripture alone”.

The Church starts with Jesus Christ as the foundation. Jesus Christ said over and over and over that we must listen to Him, and if we reject Him we are rejecting the Father. He ALSO SAID, we must listen to the authorities He appointed. If we reject the teachings of the leaders of His Church, the bible says we are rejecting Him, we are no longer Christians and we will be condemned. There is no expiration date on those verses.
He did not say, “for a time”, or “for a while”, or “until salvation history is written”, then “make up your own Gospel as Luther said”. He did not say, but** “you can reject the successors they appoint”.**

The historical fact is that the apostles, the authorities that Jesus appointed, also appointed successors. And they carry on the teachings they learned from the apostles. And that is the only reason we have the New Testament scriptures today. That is the only reason we know what the teachings of the Gospel are. If the apostles had chosed not to appoint successors, with teaching authority, the Church would have died off, and there would be no scriptures, because the criteria for knowing what was inspired was handed down to their successors. Thus, no Church, no bible.

And all these sucessors were the bishops of the Catholic Church. If you can find any sucessor of any apostle that was Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran etc. then I might think of joining that Church. But you won’t.

Michael, I would love to accept your foundation of “scripture alone” if it came from God. But, it clearly contradicts the words of Jesus.

If you can show me were Jesus said to reject His Church and follow scripture alone, I will be glad to convert to Martin Luther’s doctrine and follow that instead of His Church.

Of course, since you believe the bible is supposed to be clear, written for the ordinary man, explicit and direct, I certainly want to find clear, explicit, the direct words of Jesus to reject His Church and follow “scripture alone.”
You will have your first convert !!!
Remember, no interpretion, only clear, explicit teachings.
You are the one who says everything must be clear and explicit.
I want the chapter and verse where Jesus says to “reject the authority of the Church, and follow scripture alone**”**

Thanks again. But again, this post is over 500 posts long. Many of the issues that you have brought up have already been dealt with. I do not wish to start over. If you read through the thread (and I know that this is a bit unreasonable to ask and I don’t expect you to), you will find out how these issues have been covered. If you disagree, fine. We can just disagree. But please do not expect me to cover these issues again. Others have articulated your arguments previously.

I am more than willing to entertain and discuss anything new that you have to offer.

I pray that you have a good day.

Michael

 

[Benadam]

Originally Posted by michaelp
*

The apostles proclaimed the risen savior with great authority and established the Church and wrote the NT. It is reasonable to assume that their purpose has been fulfilled. That is why there are none today who meet the criteria of an Apostle.

Michael*
Hi Michael,
they wrote, but you can’t really credit them for giving us the New Testament unless you admit apostolic succession.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

michaelp:

Let me ask you to read the requirements for Judas’ replacement and ask you what, from reading that passage, would you say that the purpose was? And, can anyone fulfill those requirements today?

Hi.Michael, Interesting read. Why did they have to cast lots to fill this position?.Was Christ not sure whom He wanted to fill this position. They prayed and this is how they made this decision. Maybe Christ wanted this position to be filled by us?Maybe it was to be left vacant. God Bless.

 

[michaelp]

Benadam:

Originally Posted by michaelp

The apostles proclaimed the risen savior with great authority and established the Church and wrote the NT. It is reasonable to assume that their purpose has been fulfilled. That is why there are none today who meet the criteria of an Apostle.

Michael
Hi Michael,
they wrote, but you can’t really credit them for giving us the New Testament unless you admit apostolic succession.

Well, I really don’t credit anyone but God for giving us the NT. Just like I don’t credit anyone but God for giving us the OT. God used man to write the Scriptures, and man recognized them to be the true Scriptures.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi.Michael, Interesting read. Why did they have to cast lots to fill this position?.Was Christ not sure whom He wanted to fill this position. They prayed and this is how they made this decision. Maybe Christ wanted this position to be filled by us?Maybe it was to be left vacant. God Bless.

I have often stuggled with the possibility that Peter “jumped the gun” in appointing a new apostle. But I do not think that this was the case since it was a fulfillment of a prophecy according to Peter and Luke seems to admit the legitimacy of Matthius’ appointment. It may be that God wanted 12 apostles to be representative of the 12 tribes. It is difficult to tell since there is no commentary on why God chose 12. Then you have the Paul factor.

Michael

 

[SPOKENWORD]

michaelp:

I have often stuggled with the possibility that Peter “jumped the gun” in appointing a new apostle. But I do not think that this was the case since it was a fulfillment of a prophecy according to Peter and Luke seems to admit the legitimacy of Matthius’ appointment. It may be that God wanted 12 apostles to be representative of the 12 tribes. It is difficult to tell since there is no commentary on why God chose 12. Then you have the Paul factor.

Michael

Hi Michael,Fullfillment of prophecy? Or thier interpretation of it. God Bless.

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

Michael,

The idea of succession is fulfilled in Matthias. You are correct in pointing out that Peter indicates that they should select someone from those that were eye witnesses to Jesus and his preaching. This makes perfect sense and would be the logical thing to do. It may not have been mandatory. Personally, I don’t think it matters one way or the other as Paul was not an eye witness, but received revelation.

Paul had seen the resurrected Christ (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Acts 26:16). Therefore, he meets the requirements. Notice that he appeals to this requirement of seeing the Lord to prove that he is a genuine apostle.

Please note that in Acts 1:26 it states that Matthias “was enrolled with the eleven apostles.” Likewise Paul was an apostle but not of the original twelve. There are no other apostles recorded in scripture or in historical accounts. Succession does not go to additional apostles but is instead granted to bishops.

Succession in teaching? This was granted to many. I have no problem with this. But succession as a person(s) who can infallibly speak for God? I cannot find it. This is a big difference. It is the difference between a teacher (which is what I am) and an apostle (which I am not). I am a successor to the apostles as well since I carried on the apostolic message as revealed in scripture.

Bishops while successors are not identicle to apostles. Timothy succeeds Paul but Timothy is a bishop. Timothy has never been thought of as an apostle. Nevertheless, the authority of Timothy is spoken of by Paul. If all of the earliest Christians could recognize this authority, and if the evidence shows that the Churches looked to the bishop of Rome to settle disputes, it would seem rather tenuous to suggest that we lack sufficient evidence to connect all the dots. History itself is a witness to the biblical statements of Church authority and the authority of bishops. History also attests to the authority of the bishop of Rome.

Bishop, presbyter, pastor . . . they are all used interchangebly. I am also a bishop in this sense. I am not saying that there should not be and was not authority in the Chuch. Heb 13:17 attests to this. The problem is not authority, but infallible authority.

Your theory about Peter and the Keys as metaphorically pertaining to his opening the gates to the gentiles etc. does not coincide with the Jewish understanding of the keys and in no way finds a counterpart in the reference to the keys in Isaiah. Look at the data objectively. While you may not yet feel comfortable with the church and papal authority, you are unable to provide an meaningful competing theory that coincides with the biblical and historical data.

I gave you my theory and interpretation. What is wrong with it. I am somewhat objective since I don’t have any traditions to which I am bound. If the Bible taught that there was supposed to be infallible apostolic succession in which the successors spoke for God and that Peter’s successor was the primary authority, believe me, I would submit to it. I have no problem with this idea. I just don’t see your understanding of apostolic succession in Scripture or history.

Michael

 

[Benadam]

michaelp:

I have often stuggled with the possibility that Peter “jumped the gun” in appointing a new apostle. But I do not think that this was the case since it was a fulfillment of a prophecy according to Peter and Luke seems to admit the legitimacy of Matthius’ appointment. It may be that God wanted 12 apostles to be representative of the 12 tribes. It is difficult to tell since there is no commentary on why God chose 12. Then you have the Paul factor.

Michael

wouldn’t you say that the apostles role was to enterpret the meaning of what was already believed in the light of their unique and exclusive witness to Jesus? If so, wouldn’t what they can give and pass to others in the form of a teaching, in order to confirm others in that truth be more concrete in passing down the truth than writing scriptures ? After all only four of them wrote scriptures and without the teaching from that unique vantage point that only the apostles can offer, even their own scriptures would become ambiguous. Why is it that all were magisterial, all were a traditions focal point, yet only four wrote scripture and 3 outside of the twelve?

 

[michaelp]

wouldn’t you say that the apostles role was to enterpret the meaning of what was already believed in the light of their unique and exclusive witness to Jesus?

I think that this is exactly why the authority of apostleship was given to them.

If so, wouldn’t what they can give and pass to others in the form of a teaching, in order to confirm others in that truth be more concrete in passing down the truth than writing scriptures ?

Writing things down is always more reliable than traditions. Look at us now. We fight over what was legitimate tradition and what was not. To the point that there had to be an infallible magisterium appointed so that they could descern what was true tradition and what was not. It cannot really be tested if it is not written since there is no paper trail. That is why unwritten tradition seems to be much more unreliable than written tradition (Scripture).

After all only four of them wrote scriptures and without the teaching from that unique vantage point that only the apostles can offer, even their own scriptures would become ambiguous. Why is it that all were magisterial, all were a traditions focal point, yet only four wrote scripture and 3 outside of the twelve?

Their sole purpose was obviously not to write Scripture, but to proclaim the risen Christ by their testimony, and death. I, for one, am glad that most of them seem to have died a martyrs dead. I gives me great comfort since it says to me that Christ really did rise from the grave. What an ironic gift their death and suffering is.

Michael