Who "Sent" Protestant Church Pastors

[Prodigal_Son1]

No. They do disagree in doctrine. Apostolic succession may help in being more similiar than different but it did not create anymore doctrinal unity than we have with the Baptists or non-denom churches in my view going off of scripture alone if you will. It just is not very convincing. People may or may not be aware that thousands of groups claim apostolic succession. So do I evaluate each of their claims? I suppose I could. I have looked into it but they run the gamut of the Traditional Catholics to the Gnostics claim it. They have websites with their lineages and such.
I have said that Paul was called by God. I have said that Christ told his apostles to go out and make disciples and to baptize them. I do not see anything in scripture that says that bishops, presbyters, and elders are only chosen by people who were chosen by the apostles. ON the other hand, absolutely the apostles and elders and so forth started churches and in that process laid hands on people.

God gave us a brain and we have to use it at times. You almost remind me of the Mormon discussion I’m in. They say the validity of the priesthood was lost with the death of the last Apostle’s death because no one was left to impose hands.

If you wish to affliate yourself with Gnostic beliefs, that’s your choice. Or are you only bringing up their claims to invalidate the Catholic Church?

Christ had all authority and He appointed the 12. He built His Church upon Peter and gave men of His Church authority. They had authority to impose hands and those they appointed had authority to impose hands. And they did this in Churches they started.

When you say you don’t see anything in scriptures that says that bishops, presbyters, and elders are only chosen by people who were chosen by the apostles, you don’t say you see anything that says bishops, presbyters and elders can choose themselves or be appointed by those without an authority. But what does scriptures tell us? Pauls letter to Titus tells us he left him in Crete that he should appoint people. Verse 7 specifically states ‘bishops’. Titus was appointed by Paul and he was left to appoint others.

**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:
Tit 1:6 If any be without crime, the husband of one wife. having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruly.
Tit 1:7 For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, nor given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre: **

That is scriptural. Assuming others can appoint, is not. The teachings of the Bible are an example for us and the example shows appointed men apointing others. There are no examples of anyone else appointing others, or themselves.

 

[Dokimas]

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?

Who sent the following?
Mark 9:
38 Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.”
39 But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me.
40 "For he who is not against us is on our side.

 

[gretahope]

Interesting thread…
I grew up Lutheran, then joined charismatic movement/third wave (whatever that is), now catholic, let me say I’ve been around the block and eased up a whole lot on some of this.

BUT the most exciting thing I have experienced (besides the peace I finally feel in the CC) is that as I go to mass on my own, then to my family’s church w/ them the same day, MANY, MANY TIMES THEY’RE USING THE EXACT SAME SCRIPTURES AND preaching the same thing! That has happened so much, that it has worked to change my rigid, categorical thinking more than anything else. God is working (trying to!) everywhere they’re open to HIM. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sound Catholic enough, or fundamental enought or whatever enough…but it makes so much more sense to me than all this wall-building between people/churches.

As for the “I go to a church that follows the Bible”----I used to try to say that too…but then when there are tens of thousands of denominations who quote that same thing…you have to stop and think. Hmmm, I hear this over and over. Plus, it’s been 2000 years of that also, that people have tried and tried to “go back to the original church model”/reinvent the wheel thousands of time—but the church is a living thing (a body, as scripture says) and started out and grew and grew…how can it go back to the starting point? Like an oak tree going back to a nut.

The Catholic church though can be so rigid in its views (not doctrines but living it out) that “outsiders” may look at it and go, Wow, there’s no room for me there! (That’s how I felt for a long time). But I found a couple of people and such a wonderful priest that you can’t believe it, that it wooed me, and all the while I studied my brains out for 6 yrs before making the move. I now feel like I’m on a foundation that is absolutely rock solid, not prone to this and that focus of the day/year/month or pastor’s personality/worship style…etc.

I’m not trying to divide here…that’s wrong…all i want to say is that God will work wherever He’s wanted and welcome with contrite hearts.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Prodigal Son1;6247383]God gave us a brain and we have to use it at times. You almost remind me of the Mormon discussion I’m in. They say the validity of the priesthood was lost with the death of the last Apostle’s death because no one was left to impose hands.

This is not the route I am going to go. Yes, God gave us a brain. I also agree that we should use it. I do not believe in the priesthood in that sense. But lets move on to content.

If you wish to affliate yourself with Gnostic beliefs, that’s your choice. Or are you only bringing up their claims to invalidate the Catholic Church?

I mentioned the extreme ends of apostolic succession. That was my intent. I do not wish to place myself with Gnostic beliefs.

Christ had all authority and He appointed the 12. He built His Church upon Peter and gave men of His Church authority. They had authority to impose hands and those they appointed had authority to impose hands. And they did this in Churches they started.

But more than the twelve imposed hands…correct?

When you say you don’t see anything in scriptures that says that bishops, presbyters, and elders are only chosen by people who were chosen by the apostles, you don’t say you see anything that says bishops, presbyters and elders can choose themselves or be appointed by those without an authority. But what does scriptures tell us? Pauls letter to Titus tells us he left him in Crete that he should appoint people. Verse 7 specifically states ‘bishops’. Titus was appointed by Paul and he was left to appoint others.

**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:
Tit 1:6 If any be without crime, the husband of one wife. having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruly.
Tit 1:7 For a bishop **must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, nor given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre:

That is scriptural. Assuming others can appoint, is not. The teachings of the Bible are an example for us and the example shows appointed men apointing others. There are no examples of anyone else appointing others, or themselves.

So in your view, is Timothy only written FOR Timothy? That is the only way that makes sense. Are there letters in the Bible not applicable? We do believe that Paul’s letter is applicable to us.

 

[Dokimas]

This is not the route I am going to go. Yes, God gave us a brain. I also agree that we should use it. I do not believe in the priesthood in that sense. But lets move on to content.

I mentioned the extreme ends of apostolic succession. That was my intent. I do not wish to place myself with Gnostic beliefs.

But more than the twelve imposed hands…correct?

So in your view, is Timothy only written FOR Timothy? That is the only way that makes sense. Are there letters in the Bible not applicable? We do believe that Paul’s letter is applicable to us.

I’m sure there’s an interesting question that could be asked with the following verse:

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

 

[Erich]

So in your view, is Timothy only written FOR Timothy?

Still haven’t read By What Authority, I see… as a matter of fact,

…these words were written to St. Timothy specifically, not to the congregation in general. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 shows the relationship between the legitimate ambassador and Scripture:

“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

There is the relationship: the Scriptures are a tool for “teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” but who is to use this tool for these purposes? That is, who has the authority to teach, reproof, correct, and train others in righteousness? The “man of God” has this authority.

But, who is the “man of God?” You may wish to claim this title for yourself as well, but a short survey of Scripture’s use of the title will reveal that this, too, is a privileged title that cannot be simply taken upon oneself

 

[Erich]

I’m sure there’s an interesting question that could be asked with the following verse:

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

From Celibacy and the Priesthood (emphases mine):

Another Fundamentalist argument, related to the last, is that marriage is mandatory for Church leaders. For Paul says a bishop must be “the husband of one wife,” and “must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5). This means, they argue, that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God’s Church; an unmarried man, it is implied, is somehow untried or unproven.

This interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if “the husband of one wife” really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic “keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way” would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.

In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry! Clearly such excessive literalism must be rejected.

The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!

The suggestion that the unmarried man is somehow untried or unproven is equally absurd. Each vocation has its own proper challenges: the celibate man must exercise “self-control” (1 Cor. 7:9); the husband must love and care for his wife selflessly (Eph. 5:25); and the father must raise his children well (1 Tim. 3:4). Every man must meet Paul’s standard of “managing his household well,” even if his “household” is only himself. If anything, the chaste celibate man meets a higher standard than the respectable family man.

Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be “the husband of one wife” is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).

The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely “concerned about the affairs of the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to “renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom” (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have “left everything” to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).

Thus Paul warned Timothy, a young bishop, that those called to be “soldiers” of Christ must avoid “civilian pursuits”: “Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him” (2 Tim. 2:3–4). In light of Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 7 about the advantages of celibacy, marriage and family clearly stand out in connection with these “civilian pursuits.”

An example of ministerial celibacy can also be seen in the Old Testament. The prophet Jeremiah, as part of his prophetic ministry, was forbidden to take a wife: “The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place’” (Jer. 16:1–2). Of course, this is different from Catholic priestly celibacy, which is not divinely ordained; yet the divine precedent still supports the legitimacy of the human institution.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But more than the twelve imposed hands…correct?

Yes. Christ gave authority to the Apostles. With that authority, the Apostles appointed others with authority. Those used their authority to appoint others. I have posted specific instructions on the appointments and imposition of hands in this thread if you wish me to post them again, I will.

So in your view, is Timothy only written FOR Timothy? That is the only way that makes sense. Are there letters in the Bible not applicable? We do believe that Paul’s letter is applicable to us.

A letter to Timothy is a letter to Timothy. That does not mean we cannot learn from that letter. It gives us great insight in understanding Church doctrines and teachings. This was also applicable for Timothy’s Church. This was not personal instructions for all to assume authority upon themselves or appoint others to authority.

 

[Dokimas]

Posted by Erich: Doki’s response in drk red

Another Fundamentalist argument, related to the last, is that marriage is mandatory for Church leaders. I know of no mandate; you are incorrect. For Paul says a bishop must be “the husband of one wife,” and “must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5). This means, they argue, that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God’s Church; an unmarried man, it is implied, **only to you **is somehow untried or unproven.

This interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. Only in the minds of those who think bishops should For one, if “the husband of one wife” really meant that a bishop had to be married, of course it doesn’t mean they have to; it just means it’s wrong to forbid it then by the same logic “keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way” would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.

In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry! **Will the silliness ever stop? ** Clearly such excessive literalism must be rejected. Yes it should be.

The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. But was he ever married? Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement it was not a requirement, silly person on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry! An you take this idea to it’s absurd end and say bishops can’t be married and serve as pastors.

The suggestion that the unmarried man is somehow untried or unproven is equally absurd. Agreed; finally a non-silly statement. Each vocation has its own proper challenges: the celibate man must exercise “self-control” How well have they done over the years? BTW, does that include a leader should not ‘self -gratify’? (1 Cor. 7:9); the husband must love and care for his wife selflessly (Eph. 5:25); and the father must raise his children well (1 Tim. 3:4). Every man must meet Paul’s standard of “managing his household well,” even if his “household” is only himself. If anything, the chaste celibate man meets a higher standard than the respectable family man.

Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be “the husband of one wife” is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. **Another point of agreement. ** Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).

The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely “concerned about the affairs of the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to “renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom” (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have “left everything” to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).

Thus Paul warned Timothy, a young bishop, that those called to be “soldiers” of Christ must avoid “civilian pursuits”: “Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him” (2 Tim. 2:3–4). In light of Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 7 about the advantages of celibacy, marriage and family clearly stand out in connection with these “civilian pursuits.”

An example of ministerial celibacy can also be seen in the Old Testament. The prophet Jeremiah, as part of his prophetic ministry, was forbidden to take a wife: “The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place’” (Jer. 16:1–2). Of course, this is different from Catholic priestly celibacy, which is not divinely ordained; yet the divine precedent still supports the legitimacy of the human institution.

 

[Erich]

Posted by Erich: Doki’s response in drk red

Actually, I was just quoting the referenced article. I won’t take the “silly person” comments personally.

The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. But was he ever married?

Paul’s statement to the unmarried and widows in the Corinthian church gives evidence that he was not married at the time of his writing the letter: “Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9). Clearly, he was not married at that time, but whether he married afterward is a matter of speculation; the Bible does not say.

In fact, from the Bible we only know of the marriage of Peter (since it is customary that wives and mothers-in-law go together). But in neither Gospel account of Jesus curing Peter’s mother-in-law of her fever is there any mention of Peter’s wife – which seems odd, unless perhaps she had already died.

 

[ChadS]

I have a couple of questions?
Does the protestant faith believe:
1: in the real presence?
2: in queen mother Mary?
3: in purgatory?
4: in Papal Authority?
5: in Peter as first pope?
6: in Reconciliation (confession to a priest)?
etc…

The answer to all of these are NO. So yes they are spreading false teaching if they teach against these doctrines of the church. If they had as you say “many do have solid, Biblical understandings and preaching that are part of the Catholic faith.” then they would not teach against these truths we know so well as Catholics.

Obviously the answer to all your questions is no and I wasn’t trying to suggest that everything they teach is true and I didn’t even imply that.

However what I was saying is perfectly in line with the Catechism, paragraph 819:

“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

ChadS

 

[Dokimas]

Actually, I was just quoting the referenced article. I won’t take the “silly person” comments personally.

Paul’s statement to the unmarried and widows in the Corinthian church gives evidence that he was not married at the time of his writing the letter: “Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9). Clearly, he was not married at that time, but whether he married afterward is a matter of speculation; the Bible does not say.

In fact, from the Bible we only know of the marriage of Peter (since it is customary that wives and mothers-in-law go together). But in neither Gospel account of Jesus curing Peter’s mother-in-law of her fever is there any mention of Peter’s wife – which seems odd, unless perhaps she had already died.

I was under the impression pharasees were married. I’ve been wrong many times, I could be wrong now.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Still haven’t read By What Authority, I see… as a matter of fact,

…these words were written to St. Timothy specifically, not to the congregation in general. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 shows the relationship between the legitimate ambassador and Scripture:

“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

There is the relationship: the Scriptures are a tool for “teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” but who is to use this tool for these purposes? That is, who has the authority to teach, reproof, correct, and train others in righteousness? The “man of God” has this authority.

But, who is the “man of God?” You may wish to claim this title for yourself as well, but a short survey of Scripture’s use of the title will reveal that this, too, is a privileged title that cannot be simply taken upon oneself

I did read the article. I believe the Great Commision and other parts of the gospels and Paul’s letters are applicable to the church. I have started based upon this thread a study of what parts of the Bible were only spoken to the apostles or given to the apostles to do. As such, it seems that I could based upon that premise, the majority of things in the gospels would not be applicable to me. In an odd way, it strengthens the mid-Acts dispensational view. However, I find it an interesting criteria to examine your view.
On the other hand, I would be dead because a Catholic never shared the Gospel with me. So, on a personal side it is rather morose.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I can only speak for myself, but I can trace my ordination lineage to the Church of England, who can trace it to Medieval times long before the Reformation (I can’t trace it further than 15 “generations”). And I am appointed by a bishop, not hired by a congregation.

Of course, Catholics and others would say my ordination is invalid because of Edwardian ordinal problems, and Anglicans would say that Thomas Coke’s consecration/ordination as a bishop was invalid.

 

[Lapey]

I can only speak for myself, but I can trace my ordination lineage to the Church of England, who can trace it to Medieval times long before the Reformation (I can’t trace it further than 15 “generations”). And I am appointed by a bishop, not hired by a congregation.

Of course, Catholics and others would say my ordination is invalid because of Edwardian ordinal problems, and Anglicans would say that Thomas Coke’s consecration/ordination as a bishop was invalid.

Thanks for your personal insight O. S.

Main thing is that you are appointed by the bishop, not a congregation or your own choice. You have been sent by someone who had the authority to “send” you. That is most definitely biblical, to not see this is not being honest.

As far as validity or lucidity is concerned that would be a different thread. Your ordination is valid and licit within your denomination, not the Catholic Church of the Latin Rite. But my parish priest would not be considered valid or licit to preside at a Sunday worship service at your church either.

 

[O.S.Luke]

But my parish priest would not be considered valid or licit to preside at a Sunday worship service at your church either.

Actually - he would, as his ordination would be seen as valid in our eyes. I doubt that Catholic Canon Law would allow him to, though.

 

[Lapey]

Actually - he would, as his ordination would be seen as valid in our eyes. I doubt that Catholic Canon Law would allow him to, though.

You are correct on him being prohibited by CL for a priest to preside at a Methodist service, but he could participate in an ecumenical multi-faith service. Or with dispensation from the bishop, he can be present at weddings as a Catholic minister to validate the sacrament for a Catholic person entering an interfaith marriage.

I did not think that the Methodist Church would allow him to preside at your service, I stand corrected. Thanks!

 

[Rightlydivide]

. You have been sent by someone who had the authority to “send” you. That is most definitely biblical, to not see this is not being honest.
.

If someone says you are not being honest, where do you take the conversation from that point?

 

[benidict]

If someone says you are not being honest, where do you take the conversation from that point?

nice dodge rightlydivide. and i dont mean the car. reread the statement. i dont see you bein accused of being dishonest. it was more of a hypothetical. also if what you believe about the bible is YOUR interpretation, how do you know your right? and if its YOUR interpretation, who is your authority? do you have a pastor you are subject to? even when i was a protestant, i understood the value of submitting myself to those God had appointed over me. so who is your authority rightlydivide? yourself? kinda sounds like spiritual anarchy to me. peace

 

[Rightlydivide]

We have elder (s) plural rule with a distinction of the different three fold ministry with congregational polity a factor as well. Its an attempt to blend the three forms of polity seen in the NT.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_polity