Who "Sent" Protestant Church Pastors

[ConfusedTim]

From what i can see, all the biblical passages relating to the Apostles, Bishops, Presbyters and deacons say that they were “sent” or were “ordained” by someone who was sent. The only people who were not “sent” or ordained seem to be the ones who were spreading false teaching. So what i want to know is if you do not have Apostolic succession who “sent” you and therefore how can you be a pastor?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Your church or congregation. Ordination, a term that many use (it is not a biblical term), so to speak is almost always a corporate action of the church involved.

 

[ConfusedTim]

What scripture is that and how does it work in practice for new protestant Churches?

 

[ChadS]

Obviously many Protestant churches do not believe in a literal apostolic succession similar to what Catholics and the Orthodox believe. I, however, do believe it would be erroneous to think that all Protestants practice some sort of willy-nilly-do-what-you-like ordination process. Some churches are more formalized than others, but many require some sort of discernment and that their pastors be licensed.

This licensing can be either done by their home congregation or the local district and this might only happen after that person has shown sufficient maturity and attended an approved college for Biblical or pastoral studies. There are congregations that have committees that meet and pray over candidates or seek God’s help in approaching some that would be good.

The kind of places you are thinking of where somebody comes and just sets up shop may be renegades from larger churches where they didn’t fit in or perhaps they are licensed preachers from their denominations establishing a new church elsewhere under their auspices, like a mission church.

To categorically say they are all spreading false teachings is a bit unfair and uncharitable. Sure they don’t have the fullness of the Catholic faith, but many do have solid, Biblical understandings and preaching that are part of the Catholic faith. A lot of their pastors go through years of study and training under other pastors before getting a church of their own, sort of like serving an apprenticeship. I know in the UMC the vast majority of their ministers, and even just the licensed preachers (a step down from minister, which has more to do with the hierarchy and advancement rather than a difference in responsibilities) all have Masters-level degrees in theology, Bible studies etc.

ChadS

 

[Lapey]

Your church or congregation. Ordination, a term that many use (it is not a biblical term), so to speak is almost always a corporate action of the church involved.

The word ordination may not be in New Testament scripture but the act is undeniably there. Acts 6:1-7 is clearly an ordination, very similar to the diaconate ordination still practiced within the Latin Rite Catholic Church today.

I agree it is a corporate act by the Church, the whole Church which is lead by the magisterium. A person is ordained by a licitly ordained and consecrated bishop who is the current day apostle for the local church, or diocese. A person is not ordained priest or deacon by the congregation, but by the episcopate or bishop.

 

[ConfusedTim]

I am not being uncharitable - I think its a key question that needs to be answered and it does not relate to university type qualifications. I am asking on what basis baptist ministers, evangelical preachers, etc were “sent” or ordained. Many people do not partake in Jesus’s church and the eucharist because they attend protestant church services and have been erroneously taught that all they need is the bible.

I think there must be some scripture that gives baptists, evangelicals etc, comfort to think thaye have the authority and want to know what it is.

 

[ChadS]

I am not being uncharitable - I think its a key question that needs to be answered and it does not relate to university type qualifications. I am asking on what basis baptist ministers, evangelical preachers, etc were “sent” or ordained. Many people do not partake in Jesus’s church and the eucharist because they attend protestant church services and have been erroneously taught that all they need is the bible.

I think there must be some scripture that gives baptists, evangelicals etc, comfort to think thaye have the authority and want to know what it is.

As a former Methodist let me reply in a way that may be typical of many Protestants.

I would’ve said that Apostolic Succession as you describe simply does not exist. As far as many Protestants are concerned Apostolic Succession is simply continuing on in an unbroken tradition, started by Jesus in the Great Commission, to go out and make disciples of all nations. It isn’t something literally handed on from one person to another, but something Christians partake in by virtue of being a Christian.

I never claimed that the pastors of Protestant churches sole qualification was being university educated, but many also are discerned by their congregations and serve as assistants before having a church of their own. It’s not so simple to decry Protestants as heretics or accuse them of spreading heresy, but we should remember that the Pope as even said that we can’t deny that the Holy Spirit is often times at work in their congregations and that they often times do share much in the way of teaching and beliefs with Catholics.

ChadS

 

[Rightlydivide]

This is a complex topic and your presuppositions need to be examined. First, we have the reality that the Apostles started churches and this is a reality. On the other hand, I do not see any evidence that all churches in order to be started, and realize I am using church in the sense of a gathering of believers, had to have the approval of a bishop, presbyter, or elder. Of course this could stretch off into the three fold ministery real quick.

The important verse I believe that you are referring to is found in this context

Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord ove ch unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

This passage is written to the church at Rome and I believe based upon the context applicable to ALL believers. Not just a bishop, presbyter, or elder. Lets start with that.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The word ordination may not be in New Testament scripture but the act is undeniably there. Acts 6:1-7 is clearly an ordination, very similar to the diaconate ordination still practiced within the Latin Rite Catholic Church today.

I agree it is a corporate act by the Church, the whole Church which is lead by the magisterium. A person is ordained by a licitly ordained and consecrated bishop who is the current day apostle for the local church, or diocese. A person is not ordained priest or deacon by the congregation, but by the episcopate or bishop.

But that is not the way it was originally done. Originally the congregation did ordain and choose.
In the Didache, the earliest writing not included in the NT I believe

15:1 Appoint bishops for yourselves, as well as deacons, worthy of the Lord, of meek disposition, unattached to money, truthful and proven; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers.

Clement also speaks about the whole church,

“Our Apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be contention over the bishop’s office. So, for this cause, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned men, and afterwards gave them a permanent character, so that, as they died, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. Those, therefore, who were appointed by the Apostles or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who ministered blamelessly to the flock of Christ in humility, peaceably and nobly, being commended for many years by all – these men we consider are not justly deposed from their ministry.”

 

[Rightlydivide]

In the early days of the Church a man was often chosen by the local community of clergy and laity because of his great piety or learning or qualities of leadership. Today the pope appoints bishops.

buffalodiocese.org/bishop/WhatisaBishop/ChoosingaBishop.aspx

americancatholic.org/Messenger/Sep2007/Books.asp

The first 130 pages are, therefore, an excellent and thorough history of the way bishops were chosen—from the time Matthias was selected by the apostles to replace Judas to the present time. At the beginning of the Church, the faithful elected their bishops. As the Church grew, though, and became entangled with the Roman emperors, elections gradually gave way to appointments.

 

[Lapey]

But that is not the way it was originally done. Originally the congregation did ordain and choose.
In the Didache, the earliest writing not included in the NT I believe

Clement also speaks about the whole church,

“Our Apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be contention over the bishop’s office. So, for this cause, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned men (apostles/bishops), and afterwards gave them a permanent character, so that, as they(apostles/bishops), died, other approved men (apostles/bishops), should succeed to their ministry. Those ,(apostles/bishops), therefore, who were appointed by the Apostles or afterwards by other eminent men (apostles/bishops), with the consent of the whole Church, and who ministered blamelessly to the flock of Christ in humility, peaceably and nobly, being commended for many years by all – these men we consider are not justly deposed from their ministry.”

The Didache is not earlier than Acts. The congregation never “ordained” anyone. Jesus chose the original 12, and then they chose their successors as illustrated by replacing Judas with Matthias.

There are some key words you completely overlook in St Clements’s writing. In fact the whole snippet you included backs up what I wrote.

 

[Lapey]

"In the early days of the Church a man was often chosen by the local community of clergy and laity because of his great piety or learning or qualities of leadership. Today the pope appoints bishops.

buffalodiocese.org/bishop…ngaBishop.aspx

americancatholic.org/Mess…2007/Books.asp

Quote:
The first 130 pages are, therefore, an excellent and thorough history of the way bishops were chosen—from the time Matthias was selected by the apostles to replace Judas to the present time. At the beginning of the Church, the faithful elected their bishops. As the Church grew, though, and became entangled with the Roman emperors, elections gradually gave way to appointments."

Lapey -
I think you are getting confused between choosing and the actual ordination, “laying on of hands”. The latter has never been done by the congregation, or by election. The ordination is the sending, this has always been performed by the bishops. The laying on of hands by which I will be ordained a deacon later this year can be traced through time and written and oral tradition back to the original apostles.

Admittedly there are documents missing, but I know and believe in this tradition of succession within the Church.

 

[Publisher]

Any more the practice of “recording” ministers among Friends has not been utilized of late except among the “Conservative Friends” and the “Evangelical Friends”.

Among these Friends, if a person exhibits a willingness to serve and displays a “gift of ministry”, the Monthly Meeting may recongnize that gift of ministry and “record” it. Friends do not “ordain” as Friends believe ordination comes directly from the hand of the Living Christ in our midst. We an only “record” that ordination as having taken place based on the Inward Witness of Spirit and Light.

Each Yearly Meeting has it’s own requirement for continuing education to those who are recorded or who have been presented for recording.

 

[Rightlydivide]

"In the early days of the Church a man was often chosen by the local community of clergy and laity because of his great piety or learning or qualities of leadership. Today the pope appoints bishops.

buffalodiocese.org/bishop…ngaBishop.aspx

americancatholic.org/Mess…2007/Books.asp

Quote:
The first 130 pages are, therefore, an excellent and thorough history of the way bishops were chosen—from the time Matthias was selected by the apostles to replace Judas to the present time. At the beginning of the Church, the faithful elected their bishops. As the Church grew, though, and became entangled with the Roman emperors, elections gradually gave way to appointments."

Lapey -
I think you are getting confused between choosing and the actual ordination, “laying on of hands”. The latter has never been done by the congregation, or by election. The ordination is the sending, this has always been performed by the bishops. The laying on of hands by which I will be ordained a deacon later this year can be traced through time and written and oral tradition back to the original apostles.

Admittedly there are documents missing, but I know and believe in this tradition of succession within the Church.

The documents support that the ministry was chosen by the congregation. I never meant to indicate that a group of elders, understanding the fluid nature of this office early on, were not involved in the laying on of hands.
I said the Didache was the earliest document NOT included. I stand by that statement as certainly Acts is in the NT.
Clement does support what I said. How does it not?

 

[spn82756]

The kind of places you are thinking of where somebody comes and just sets up shop may be renegades from larger churches where they didn’t fit in or perhaps they are licensed preachers from their denominations establishing a new church elsewhere under their auspices, like a mission church.

I agree with what you have said…absolutely. Now for the quoted text above…I think Appalachia in some cases may fit that bill.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Christ chose the 12, they did not choose Him. Christ ‘appointed’ them. Ordained is derived from the definition of the Greek to English translation of ‘tithēmi’, appoint.

Joh 15:16 You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

**1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

1Ti 5:22 Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins. Keep thyself chaste.

Act 14:23 (14:22) And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

2Ti 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.

Tit 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:**

While a congregation may have put forth a man for a position, it was clearly through the imposition of hands, according to Apostolic succession, that one received the office/position. Congregations did not, themselves, ordain leaders of the Church.

That is an evolved idea, from the Protestant reformation. So easy today, one can simply apply for a ‘license’ and open a Church, without bothering a congregation but start their own congregation.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Clement also speaks about the whole church,

“Our Apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be contention over the bishop’s office. So, for this cause, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned men, and afterwards gave them a permanent character, so that, as they died, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. Those, therefore, who were appointed by the Apostles or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who ministered blamelessly to the flock of Christ in humility, peaceably and nobly, being commended for many years by all – these men we consider are not justly deposed from their ministry.”

Consent of the whole Church and not a single Church in a single location.

**Clement of Rome
Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1 [A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 180-199]).
It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion (ibid 4:26:2).**

 

[ChadS]

I think Appalachia in some cases may fit that bill.

My mind immediately goes to the snake handling churches. While the broadly fit into the Holiness/Pentecostal/Chraismatic movement they have virtually nothing to do with any larger movement of churches let alone similar churches just down the road. I think they are primarily family-based groups where the members are related or well known to each other. In that sense they are distrustful of outsiders or strangers for the most part.

If you haven’t you should read “Salvation on Sand Mountain.” It’s about a journalist that lived among members of snake handling church and eventually began to handle snakes himself at their services.

ChadS

 

[Rightlydivide]

The first problem is the use of the word priest. There is a Greek word for priest. It does not refer to any of the three fold ministry. There is a word for presbyter as well. They are not the same word.
Priest and presbyter. Two seperate words. What you will find is an attempt to say that priest comes from presbyter but that never occured in the Bible itself.

Take a concordance and look up Acts 14:13 or any of the verses that it appears, although it is usually high priest that is especially found in Hebrews.
The apostles absolutely appointed people. Everyone knows that. But they did not appoint everyone. If it stated that only apostles or bishops can appoint, the Catholics would have provided that verse a long time ago. It does not exist. Paul had hands laid on him but his apostleship came from God. We have no evidence for a linear laying on of hands being necessary. Its completely absent from the New Testament and early church history as well. Clement does not teach that. The Didache does not teach that. It just aint there…

 

[Erich]

As far as many Protestants are concerned Apostolic Succession is simply continuing on in an unbroken tradition, started by Jesus in the Great Commission, to go out and make disciples of all nations.

The mission and the message can only be passed on by someone who first possessed it.

Jesus chose the original 12, and then they chose their successors as illustrated by replacing Judas with Matthias.

Christ chose the 12, they did not choose Him.

Biblically, there is only one way to become a legitimate ambassador of Christ, or “pastor”: by appointment from a superior. This can be done in two ways: being commissioned by a legitimate ambassador (apostolic succession), or being called directly by God.

Your church or congregation.

Only a superior can do this, and not an inferior, since an inferior cannot pass on what he does not already possess.

Scripture teaches that this supernatural, extraordinary calling by God directly is the exception, not the rule. In the exceptional, extraordinary case, Scripture requires the proof of miracles, signs, and wonders for authenticity.

The article “By What Authority?” is one of my favorites.