ANYBODY CAN JUST READ THIS PILOT MANUAL!!!
Posted on 01/02/2012 9:00:25 PM PST by RnMomof7
T he doctrine of apostolic succession is the belief that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed that apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing on throughout the centuries, even to today. Whilst this might be a fascinating and intriguing concept, is it truly biblical?
The great thing about the New Testament is that it clearly establishes the major doctrines of the Church. One may find vital doctrines such as the atonement, resurrection and justification by faith alone, clearly outlined with many scriptural references (one may wish to check out this page). One is left in no doubt on the pivotal doctrines of the Church, neither is one left in any doubt regarding the specific content of the Gospel message (Acts 16: 30-31; Acts 26:1-23; Romans 4: 24-25; Romans 10: 9-10; 1 Corinthians 2: 1-2; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). In the face of such clarity, it might seem amazing how so many have managed to successfully teach extraneous, non-biblical messages but this they have certainly done.
One has to say that 'apostolic succession' is conspicuous by it's absence within the New Testament. The basic idea is that Peter the Apostle was the first pope, or chief leader (based on Matthew 16:18), and that this somewhat grandiose conception of 'chief church leader' should then be passed on through the entirely biblical principle of the 'laying on of hands,' and this certainly does seem to be a New Testament principle of conferring authority. Roman Catholicism believes that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed him were accepted by the early church as overall leaders. However, there are huge problems with this belief. Here are some of them:
1. Apart from the principle of governing elders, the New Testament is pretty much silent on any required church governing schema, or office. For sure, a range of possible church offices are listed in 1 Cor. 12:28 and Eph. 4:11 and one might expect to find some Christians having the necessary gifts to fulfill certain such offices (but not all), possibly depending on the size and scope of the area of responsibility, but the only required office appears to be that of Elder. See Titus 1:5. Also, one might note that neither 1 Cor. 12:28 nor Eph. 4:11 suggest any system or principle of 'apostolic succession' - but wouldn't these have been the ideal places to mention it?? After all, both Eph. 4:11 and 1 Cor. 12:28 do refer to the office of 'apostle,' however, that does not imply, of course, that that particular office would be continually repeated throughout the church age. 'Bishops' are pretty much essential to the concept of apostolic succession, but even Bishop Lightfoot, one of the greatest New Testament scholars of all time, freely admitted that 'bishop' (the office which he himself eventually inherited within Anglicanism), was not truly a New Testament office. The word is based on 'overseer,' but biblically, it appears that it was certain of the elders who were to be overseers, but with no indications of a separate 'overseer' office. The fact that the office of 'bishop' has no New Testament authority or precedent already seriously weakens the 'apostolic succession' argument.
2. Peter might well have been, in a somewhat loose sense, overall apostolic leader in the New Testament, but if he was, it was a very, very loose sense. For example, on one occasion, Paul the Apostle quite strongly challenges and disagrees with him in public (Galatians 2:11-14). Peter's New Testament epistles are not, perhaps, major epistles, as the Pauline ones are, indeed, they are somewhat short and not high on doctrinal content. Later, he appears to disappear altogether from any New Testament consideration with scarcely a mention anywhere. Peter may well have been the overall leader for taking the gospel to the Jews (as Paul was with respect to the Gentiles), yet the epistle of James (James almost certainly being the Senior Elder at Jerusalem), does not even mention him once! Moreover, there is no evidence that Peter ever became 'bishop' of Rome as Roman Catholicism - even now - continues to (erroneously, in my opinion) teach.
Surely all of this would be utterly inconceivable if Peter had understood Jesus' comment to him in Matthew 16:18 to mean that he should adopt a grandiose and pope-like style of leadership! If he was a leader at all (which seems quite debatable), it was possibly only with regard to the work among the Jewish people.
3. In the New Testament, no 'bishop' (overseer) had jurisdiction over the bishops or presbyters of other churches (carefully check out Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to Polycarp); rather, that function was reserved for the apostles, which was obviously a foundational office of the Church (Eph. 2:20; 4:11; 1 Cor. 12:28; 2 Cor. 11:28). But today the office of Apostle is obviously closed.
4. The Roman Catholic Church itself has not maintained it's own concept of apostolic succession through the laying on of hands upon holy men. In fact, 'Simony' (that is, the buying of the office of 'pope' or 'bishop' for money, or favours) was an absolute disgrace when the Church of Rome was at it's peak, which it no longer is. Unless I am misunderstanding something here, appointing a corrupt bishop or pope just once would destroy the whole structure and principle of 'apostolic succession' for all time. Frankly, I think that most studied RCs know this which could be why they tend to play down the teaching on 'apostolic succession.'
MORE AT
I have no problem as I am blessed blessed blessed!
I don’t want to grasp anything that is not of The Lord. I renewed my mind for that specific reason - It’s ALL about JESUS, The Word, and never man and their man made doctrine/teachings!
No sarcasm here. I am glad that you are Blessed.
i do believe that the apostles is part of the five fold ministry of gifts that God gives to His body. These ministering gifts are given by God for the edification of the body and they are given not because of who we are but by the grace of God.
Paul only got to Rome towards the end of his missionary career; he was at a lot other places in the empire before he got to Rome. As for your other comments, I see no support for or against your opinion on the choosing of Matthias...the Bible merely records the episode without comment. As for the “true twelve’, I guess we’ll ultimately find out what names Christ wrote on the “foundation” stone...it’s an interesting topic but ultimately this discussion reminds me of the chiding Jesus gave his disciples when they got into an arguement as to who would sit at Christ’s right hand when they all “got up there”.
ANYBODY CAN JUST READ THIS PILOT MANUAL!!!
Surely God’s Plan to communicate to believers for their financial welfare is by believers going out and buying Lottery tickets for Divine Guidance. Of coarse if one thinks Matthias’ selection was Divinely inspired, that would be the natural consequence. Wow, just wow.
He provides more than enough guidance on how we can have fellowship with Him via Christ and the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union.
Peter specifically says that the Scripture must be fulfilled, IOW, Peter said that God had spoken. Unless of course one thinks that Peter did not know that Scripture is the Word of God.
15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters,[d] the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”
18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:
“‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’[e]
and,
“‘May another take his place of leadership.’[f]
21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
As for what Jesus might or might not have told them before He left, we know that not everything Jesus did is recorded in Scripture. We know this from Scripture itself. We also know that not all the things Jesus said is recorded. For example, when He meets the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, He tells them about the Scriptures that foretold of Him, but we do not read what all He said to them.
What evidence from Scripture do we have that Matthias was not God’s choice? Scripture certainly never says that. Matthias is not the only Apostle that is rarely mentioned in the NT and the others were chosen by Jesus.
And, let’s not forget, that Matthias was in fact, chosen by Jesus because Scripture tells us that he had walked with Jesus and the others and was a witness to the Resurrection. Matthias was not just some schmo that came around when Jesus blew through town. He was a disciple, one who walked with Jesus. So, Jesus had called him already.
I only believe what I read in Scripture.
You do know Matthias is Matthew.
WOW!!you wouldn't have believed anything for the first 300 or so in church history. The Catholic church took about that much time to compile what we now recognize as the bible. Word of mouth (tradition) is pretty much how the church grew for a long long time. For example, if 300 years is about right for the early church to organize, we would still have another 65 years to get this country organized since 1776. You can thank the Catholic church for protecting and hand copying the bible for all those years. Without the church, you wouldn't have a bible at all.
Actually we believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the good news of salvation. What in your opinion is the Gospel? Do you even know what that means?
I don’t know if you had seen the earlier posts regarding the issue of Peter and the others choosing Matthias by first praying and then casting lots.
I am Catholic and believe that Peter was chosen by God to lead His Church.
The comment was a play on Sola Scriptura.
Read the passage again.
Peter clearly says that he had been with them the whole time.
“Must become a witness with us” means that he will be called to do what Jesus sent the Apostles to do. He will be “with us.”
As for Paul....
He is the first example of Apostolic Succession. He was called after the life, passion and ascension of Jesus. He was given the revelation that the others had been given and most importantly, he and his message were vetted and approved by the others, especially Peter.
That is exactly what Apostolic Succession is all about.
As in the tax collector and writer of a gospel?
No, I have never made that connection.
Learn something knew every day:)
Your assessment is Paul is woefully wrong. As Scripture clearly states: "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is NOT AFTER MAN. For I NEITHER received it of man, neither was I TAUGHT IT, but by the REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST." Gal. 1:11,12.
Peter and the 11 had nothing to do with the gospel that was preached of Paul. He came to Jerusalem, they ADDED NOTHING to Paul (Gal.2:6). When they heard the gospel that had been given to him by revelation of Jesus Christ, they PERCEIVED THE GRACE that had been GIVEN TO HIM. And gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. Gal. 2:9. Paul did NOT go to Jerusalem when he was saved, to receive instruction by the 12. He was ALREADY preaching the gospel of the uncircumcision when he went there. (Gal. 2:7). They added NOTHING to Paul's ministry. Gal. 2:6. Other than to agree that THEY would remain in Jerusalem, preaching the gospel of the CIRCUMCISION, while Paul would CONTINUE preaching the gospel of the UNCIRCUMCISION to the Gentiles. They didn't change HIS PLANS. He changed THEIR PLANS. Weren't they told to go into all the WORLD, proclaiming the gospel to every creature? Yet they agree to confine their message to the Jews only.
Paul's conversion, mission, and gospel, given to him by direct revelation of the risen Christ, NOT by Peter and the 11, is not at ALL what Apostolic Succession is about.
I have read old original texts in English that do not match up to modern language versions but do look similar by a few letters.
Also I read somewhere that the English language of 700 A.D. Is very different to our modern English. So how much more for other languages. Like for instance do you notice how slang names of 20 or 30 years in our language became normal in today's language. Just listen to the younger talk.
Good Grif! I meant original on originally. Also countries on counties. Lol!!!
SAINT MATTHIAS
Apostle
(†63)
After our Blessed Lord’s Ascension His disciples came together, with Mary His mother and the eleven Apostles, in an upper room at Jerusalem. The little company numbered no more than one hundred and twenty souls. They were waiting for the promised coming of the Holy Ghost, and they persevered in prayer. Meanwhile there was a solemn act to be performed on the part of the Church, which could not be postponed. The place of the fallen Judas had to be filled, that the number of the Apostles might be complete. Saint Peter, therefore, as Vicar of Christ, arose to announce the divine decree. What the Holy Ghost had spoken by the mouth of David concerning Judas, he said, must be fulfilled. Of him it had been written, “His bishopric let another take.” A choice, therefore, was needed of one among those who had been their companions from the beginning, who could bear witness to the Resurrection of Jesus.
Two were named of equal merit, Joseph called Barsabas, and Matthias. After praying to God, who knows the hearts of all men, to show which of these He had chosen, they cast lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, who was thereby numbered with the Apostles. It is recorded of the Saint, wonderfully elected to so high a vocation, that he was remarkable for his mortification of the flesh. It was thus that he made his election sure.
He preached in Judea where he was persecuted by both Jews and Gentiles, and died by stoning, a victim of their pursuits, in the year 63. His body was taken to Rome by Saint Helena, mother of Constantine, some 250 years later. A church there bears his name.
Good points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.