Apostolic Succession

Grace Sermons ^ | 2/17/2015 | Timothy G. Enloe

[RnMomof7]

Are There Still Apostles Today?

by Nathan Busenitz

Are there apostles in the church today?

Just ask your average fan of TBN, many of whom consider popular televangelists like Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley, and Joel Osteen to be apostles. (Here’s one such example [see page 22].)

Or, you could ask folks like Ron, Dennis, Gerald, Arsenio, Oscar, or Joanne. They not only believe in modern-day apostleship, they assert themselves to be apostles.

A quick Google search reveals that self-proclaimed apostles abound online. Armed with a charismatic pneumatology and often an air of spiritual ambition, they put themselves on par with the earliest leaders of the church.

So what are Bible-believing Christians to think about all of this?

Well, that brings us back to the title of our post:

Are there still apostles in the church today?

At the outset, we should note that by “apostles” we do not simply mean “sent ones” in the general sense. Rather, we are speaking of those select individuals directly appointed and authorized by Jesus Christ to be His immediate representatives on earth. In this sense, we are speaking of “capital A” apostles – such as the Twelve and the apostle Paul.

It is these type of “apostles” that Paul speaks of in Ephesians 2:20; 3:5; 4:11 and in 1 Corinthians 12:29–30. This is important because, especially in Ephesians 4 and in 1 Corinthians 12–14, Paul references apostleship within the context of the charismatic gifts. If “apostleship” has ceased, it gives us grounds to consider the possibility that other offices/gifts have ceased as well. If the apostles were unique, and the period in which they ministered was unique, then it follows that the gifts that characterized the apostolic age were also unique.

The question then is an important one, underscoring the basic principle of the cessationist paradigm – namely, the uniqueness of the apostolic age and the subsequent cessation of certain aspects of that age.

There are at least five reasons why we believe there are no longer any apostles in the church today (and in fact have not been since the death of the apostle John).

* * *

1. The Qualifications Necessary for Apostleship

First, and perhaps most basically, the qualifications necessary for apostleship preclude contemporary Christians from filling the apostolic office.

In order to be an apostle, one had to meet at least three necessary qualifications: (1) an apostle had to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22; 10:39–41; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:7–8); (2) an apostle had to be directly appointed by Jesus Christ (Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:2, 24; 10:41; Gal. 1:1); and (3) an apostle had to be able to confirm his mission and message with miraculous signs (Matt. 10:1–2; Acts 1:5–8; 2:43; 4:33; 5:12; 8:14; 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3–4). We might also note that, in choosing Matthias as a replacement for Judas, the eleven also looked for someone who had accompanied Jesus throughout His entire earthly ministry (Acts 1:21–22; 10:39–41).

Based on these qualifications alone, many continuationists agree that there are no apostles in the church today. Thus, Wayne Grudem (a continuationist) notes in his Systematic Theology, “It seems that no apostles were appointed after Paul, and certainly, since no one today can meet the qualification of having seen the risen Christ with his own eyes, there are no apostles today” (p. 911).

* * *

2. The Uniqueness of Paul’s Apostleship

But what about the apostle Paul?

Some have contended that, in the same way that Paul was an apostle, there might still be apostles in the church today. But this ignores the uniqueness with which Paul viewed his own apostleship. Paul’s situation was not the norm, as he himself explains in 1 Corinthians 15:8-9. He saw himself as a one-of-a-kind anomaly, openly calling himself “the last” and “the least” of the apostles. To cite from Grudem again:

It seems quite certain that there were none appointed after Paul. When Paul lists the resurrection appearances of Christ, he emphasizes the unusual way in which Christ appeared to him, and connects that with the statement that this was the “last” appearance of all, and that he himself is indeed “the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 910).

He later adds:

Someone may object that Christ could appear to someone today and appoint that person as an apostle. But the foundational nature of the office of apostle (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14) and the fact that Paul views himself as the last one whom Christ appeared to and appointed as an apostle (“last of all, as to one untimely born,” 1 Cor. 15:8), indicate that this will not happen (Systematic Theology, 911, n. 9)

Because Paul’s apostleship was unique, it is not a pattern that we should expect to see replicated in the church today.

* * *

3. Apostolic Authority and the Closing of the Canon

It is our belief that, if we hold to a closed canon, we must also hold to the cessation of the apostolic office.

We turn again to Dr. Grudem for an explanation of the close connection between the apostles and the writing of Scripture:

The New Testament apostles had a unique kind of authority in the early church: authority to speak and write words which were “words of God” in an absolute sense. To disbelieve or disobey them was to disbelieve or disobey God. The apostles, therefore, had the authority to write words which became words of Scripture. This fact in itself should suggest to us that there was something unique about the office of apostle, and that we would not expect it to continue today, for no one today can add words to the Bible and have them be counted as God’s very words or as part of Scripture. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 905–906)

Hebrews 1:1–2 indicates that what God first revealed through the Old Testament, He later and more fully revealed through His Son. The New Testament, then, is Christ’s revelation to His church. It begins with His earthly ministry (in the four gospels), and continues through the epistles – letters that were written by His authorized representatives.

Thus, in John 14:26, Christ authorized His apostles to lead the church, promising them that the Helper would come and bring to their remembrance all that Jesus had taught them. The instruction they gave the church, then, was really an extension of Jesus’ ministry, as enabled by the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph. 3:5–6; 2 Pet. 1:20–21). Those in the early church generally understood apostolic instruction as authoritative and as being on par with the OT Scriptures (cf. 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Cor. 14:37; Gal. 1:9; 2 Pet. 3:16).

To cite from Grudem again, “In place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the New Testament. Those New Testament Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolutely authoritative teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled by the apostles themselves during the early years of the church” (Ibid., 911).

The doctrine of a closed canon is, therefore, largely predicated on the fact that the apostles were unique and are no longer here. After all, if there were still apostles in the church today, with the same authority as the New Testament apostles, how could we definitively claim that the canon is closed?

But since there are no longer apostles in the church today, and since new inscripurated revelation must be accompanied by apostolic authority and approval, it is not possible to have new inscripturated revelation today.

The closing of the canon and the non-continuation of apostles are two concepts that necessarily go hand-in-hand.

* * *

4. The Foundational Role of the Apostles

Closely related to the above is the fact that the apostles were part of the foundation period of the church (Eph. 2:20). Since (following the construction metaphor) the foundation stage precedes the superstructure, it is appropriate to infer that the apostles were given to the church for its beginning stages. As Grudem writes, “God’s purpose in the history of redemption seems to have been to give apostles only at the beginning of the church age (see Eph. 2:20)” (Ibid., 911, n. 9).

Our interpretation of “foundation” (as a reference to past period within the church’s history) is strengthened by the evidence from the earliest church fathers. The foundation stage was something the fathers referred to in the past tense, indicating that they understood it as past.

Thus, Ignatius (c. 35–115) in his Epistle to the Magnesians, wrote (speaking in the past tense):

“The people shall be called by a new name, which the Lord shall name them, and shall be a holy people.” This was first fulfilled in Syria; for “the disciples were called Christians at Antioch,” when Paul and Peter were laying the foundations of the Church.

Irenaeus (c. 130–202) in Against Heresies, echoes the past tense understanding that Peter and Paul laid the foundations of the Church (in 3.1.1) and later refers to the twelve apostles as “the twelve-pillared foundation of the church” (in 4.21.3).

Tertullian (c. 155–230), in The Five Books Against Marcion (chapter 21), notes the importance of holding to apostolic doctrine, even in a post-apostolic age:

No doubt, after the time of the apostles, the truth respecting the belief of God suffered corruption, but it is equally certain that during the life of the apostles their teaching on this great article did not suffer at all; so that no other teaching will have the right of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation.

Lactantius (c. 240–320), also, in The Divine Institutes (4.21) refers to a past time in which the foundations of the church were laid:

But the disciples, being dispersed through the provinces, everywhere laid the foundations of the Church, themselves also in the name of their divine Master doing many and almost incredible miracles; for at His departure He had endowed them with power and strength, by which the system of their new announcement might be founded and confirmed.

Other examples could also be added from the later Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Chrysostom, for instance, would be another such source (from his Homilies on Ephesians).

The earliest church fathers, from just after the apostolic era, understood the work of the apostles to constitute a unique, “foundational” stage of the church. The fact that they reference this in the past tense, as something distinct from their own ministries, indicates that they understood that the apostolic age had passed, and thus the foundation stage was over.

While the cessation of the apostolic gift/office does not ultimately prove the cessationist case, it does strengthen the overall position – especially in passages like 1 Corinthians 12:28–30, Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11, where apostleship is listed in direct connection with the other charismatic gifts and offices.

* * *

5. The Historical Testimony of Those Following the Apostles

In our previous point, we contended that the apostles were given for the foundation stage of the church (Eph. 2:20), and that the early church recognized this foundation stage as a specific time-period that did not continue past the first century.

But it is important to go one step further, and note that the earliest church fathers saw the apostles as a unique group of men, distinct from all who would follow after them.

(A) Those who came after the apostles did not view themselves or their contemporaries as apostles.

According to their own self-testimony, the Christian leaders who followed the apostles were not apostles themselves, but were the “disciples of the apostles” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, 11; Fragments of Papias, 5; cf. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, 6; Ignatius, Against Heresies, 1.10), the elders and deacons of the churches.

Thus, Clement (late first century) in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, 42, notes that:

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.

Ignatius, for instance, purposely avoided equating himself with the apostles. Thus, he wrote, “I do not issue commands on these points as if I were an apostle; but, as your fellow-servant, I put you in mind of them” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, 11).

(B) Those who followed the apostles viewed apostolic writings as both unique and authoritative.

Moreover, in keeping with our third point (above), it was “the doctrine of the apostles” (cf. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 13; The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, 1) that was to be guarded, taught, and heeded. Thus, the “memoirs of the apostles” were held as canonical and authoritative within the early church (cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.2.5; Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 10.9).

Along these lines, Justin writes:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things (The First Apology of Justin, 67).

The doctrine and writing of the apostles was unique, having been written by the authoritative representatives of Christ Himself.

(C) Those who followed the apostles saw the apostolic age as a unique and unrepeated period of church history.

The fathers saw the “times of the apostles” as a distinct, non-repeateable period of church history (cf. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.36.54; Reply to Faustus, 32.13; On Baptism, 14.16; et al). Thus, Chrysostom wrote on the uniqueness of fellowship during the apostolic age:

I wish to give you an example of friendship. Friends, that is, friends according to Christ, surpass fathers and sons. For tell me not of friends of the present day, since this good thing also has past away with others. But consider, in the time of the Apostles, I speak not of the chief men, but of the believers themselves generally; “all,” he says, “were of one heart and soul. and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own… and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need.” (Acts 4:32, 35.) There were then no such words as “mine” and “thine.” This is friendship, that a man should not consider his goods his own, but his neighbor’s, that his possessions belong to another; that he should be as careful of his friend’s soul, as of his own; and the friend likewise. (Homily on 1 Thess. 1:8-10)

Chrysostom looked back to the deep affection that characterized the apostolic era to provide a contrast to the relative lovelessness of the church in his day. In so doing, he underscores the fact that he understood the apostolic age to be long past. One additional passage might be cited in this regard:

I know that ye open wide your mouths and are amazed, at being to hear that it is in your power to have a greater gift than raising the dead, and giving eyes to the blind, doing the same things which were done in the time of the Apostles. And it seems to you past belief. What then is this gift? charity. (Homily on Heb. 1:6-8)

Many more examples from church history could be given. Eusebius’s whole history is based on the progression of church history from the “times of the apostles” (Ecclesiastical History, Book 8, introduction). Basil, in his work On the Spirit, points to previous leaders from church history (specifically Irenaeus) as those “who lived near the times of the Apostles” (29.72). Tertullian spoke of events that occurred “after the times of the apostles” (The Five Books Against Marcion, 21).

Historical Conclusions

Consistently, the fathers (from the earliest times) mark the apostolic age (and the apostles themselves) as unique. Their writings were regarded as unique and authoritative. Those that followed them were not considered to be apostles. Nor were the times that followed seen as equivalent to the times of the apostles.

Thus we conclude, once again, with Grudem:

It is noteworthy that no major leader in the history of the church – not Athanasius or Augustine, not Luther or Calvin, not Wesley or Whitefield – has taken to himself the title of “apostle” or let himself be called an apostle. If any in modern times want to take the title “apostle” to themselves, the immediately raise the suspicion that they may be motivated by inappropriate pride and desires for self-exaltation, along with excessive ambition and a desire for much more authority in the church than any one person should rightfully have. (Systematic Theology, 911)

* * *

A Final Note

Throughout today’s post we have leaned heavily on the work of Wayne Grudem (specifically, his Systematic Theology). This has been intentional for two reasons: (1) he makes excellent, biblically-sound arguments (and we appreciate everything he writes, even if we don’t always agree with his conclusions); and (2) he is a well-known and respected continuationist.

It is significant, in our opinion, that (as a continuationist) he argues so convincingly for the cessation of the apostolic office and the uniqueness of the apostolic age – since this is the very premise upon which the cessationist paradigm is built.

While the cessation of the apostolic gift/office does not ultimately prove the cessationist case, it does strengthen the overall position – especially in passages like 1 Corinthians 12:28–30, Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11, where apostleship is listed in direct connection with the other charismatic gifts and offices.

[terycarl]

Paul also said a bishop must be the husband of one wife and keep his children under control.

Interpreted properly, that means that he must be the husband of only 1 wife and not divorced and remarried like so many protestant leaders...that's adultry!

[CynicalBear]

>>Interpreted properly, that means that he must be the husband of only 1 wife<<

And have children who he has raised well. No celibate priests allowed.

[edwinland]

I don’t care whether they are Catholic or Protestant.

Thanks for your comment.

It was big of you to admit that your claim that apostolic succession exists "Only in the Catholic Church fantasies and made up history" was false.

By the way, if you're interested in discussing why most Catholics, Orthodox and many Protestants still believe in apostolic succession, write up your point about Linus and how that calls apostolic succession into question and I'll be happy to discuss.

[CynicalBear]

>>write up your point about Linus and how that calls apostolic succession into question and I'll be happy to discuss.<<

I already did. You can't even show from historical documentation that Linus was even a Bishop. Paul surely didn't place him in that capacity. Any mention of it a hundred years later is based on undocumented hearsay at best.

Very little is known about Linus. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 200) and the historian Eusebius of Caesarea (d. ca. 339) identified him with the companion of Paul who sent greetings from Rome to Timothy in Ephesus (2 Timothy 4:21), but Scripture Scholars are generally hesistant to do so...It should be remembered that contrary to pious Catholic belief--that monoarchical episcopal structure of church governance (also known as the monarchical episcopate, in which each diocese was headed by a single bishop) still did not exist in Rome at this time (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 33-34).

Richard Peter McBrien info found here.

We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in II Timothy 4:21, goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name (Kirsch J.P. Transcribed by Gerard Haffner. Pope St. Linus. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX. Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York).

In fact Tertullian maintains that Cletus and not Linus was the successor to St. Peter (Lopes A. The Popes: The lives of the pontiffs through 2000 years of history. Futura Edizoni, Roma, 1997, p. 1).

Anyhow the heresies are at best novelties, and have no continuity with the teaching of Christ. Perhaps some heretics may claim Apostolic antiquity: we reply: Let them publish the origins of their churches and unroll the catalogue of their bishops till now from the Apostles or from some bishop appointed by the Apostles, as the Smyrnaeans count from Polycarp and John, and the Romans from Clement and Peter; let heretics invent something to match this (Tertullian. Liber de praescriptione haereticorum. Circa 200 A.D. as cited in Chapman J. Transcribed by Lucy Tobin. Tertullian. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

The "Liber Pontificalis" asserts that Linus's home was in Tuscany, and that his father's name was Herculanus; but we cannot discover the origin of this assertion. According to the same work on the popes, Linus is supposed to have issued a decree "in conformity with the ordinance of St. Peter", that women should have their heads covered in church. Without doubt this decree is apocryphal, and copied by the author of the "Liber Pontificalis" from the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (11:5) and arbitrarily attributed to the first successor of the Apostle in Rome. The statement made in the same source, that Linus suffered martyrdom, cannot be proved and is improbable. For between Nero and Domitian there is no mention of any persecution of the Roman Church; and Irenaeus (1. c., III, iv, 3) from among the early Roman bishops designates only Telesphorus as a glorious martyr. Finally this book asserts that Linus after his death, was buried in the Vatican beside St. Peter. We do not know whether the author had any decisive reason for this assertion...There was nothing in the liturgical tradition of the fourth-century Roman Church to prove this, because it was only at the end of the second century that any special feast of martyrs was instituted and consequently Linus does not appear in the fourth-century lists of the feasts of the Roman saints...But from a manuscript of Torrigio's we see that on the sarcophagus in question there were other letters beside the word Linus, so that they rather belonged to some other name (such as Aquilinus, Anullinus). The place of the discovery of the tomb is a proof that it could not be the tomb of Linus (De Rossi, "Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae", II, 23-7) (Kirsch J.P. Transcribed by Gerard Haffner. Pope St. Linus. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX. Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York).

The whole line is based on fallacy.

[Iscool]

Interpreted properly, that means that he must be the husband of only 1 wife and not divorced and remarried like so many protestant leaders...that's adultry!

That would be MISinterpreted...You don't interpret clear, plain speech...You believe it, or NOT...

And in the case of your religion, you don't like what it clearly says so you pervert it and make up your own version...

[edwinland]

Thanks for that explanation. It took me a while to reply because I wanted to digest it first and also because I thought I understood the Chruch’s position to be different from the what you assume it to be but I wanted to be sure.

I’ll provide two links on the subject, one from the Catholic church and one from the Methodists, and though they differ in many key aspects such as the specific roles of bishops, they essentially agree in a way that makes the issue of Titus irrelevant.

To summarize, they believe that apostolic succession is indeed historical (in addition to being spiritual, but it’s the historical aspect I think we’re debating here) but it is not a single line going from one single apostle to one single successor, but from a community of bishops and presbyters who were chosen by by the Twelve or by Paul or by those chosen by them on and on tot he comunity of bishops today.

According to the Vatican:

“Likewise, the ministry of governing should never be separated from the community in such a way as to place itself above it: its role is one of service in and for the community. But when the New Testament communities accept apostolic government, whether from the apostles themselves or their successors, then they obey and relate the authority of the ministry to that of Christ himself.

The absence of documents makes it difficult to say precisely how these transitions came about. By the end of the first century the situation was that the apostles or their closest helpers or eventually their successors directed the local colleges of episkopoi and presbyteroi. By the beginning of the second century the figure of a single bishop who is the head of the communities appears very clearly in the letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, who further claims that this institution is established “unto the ends of the earth” (Ad Epk. 3, 2).

During the second century and after the Letter of Clement this institution is explicitly acknowledged to carry with it the apostolic succession. Ordination with imposition of hands, already witnessed to in the pastoral Epistles, appears in the process of clarification to be an important step in preserving the apostolic Tradition and guaranteeing succession in the ministry. The documents of the third century (Tradition of Hippolytus) show that this conviction was arrived at peacefully and was considered to be a necessary institution.

Clement and Irenaeus develop a doctrine on pastoral government and on the word in which they derive the idea of apostolic succession from the unity of the word, the unity of the mission, and the unity of the ministry of the Church; thus apostolic succession became the permanent ground from which the Catholic Church understood its own nature.”

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1973_successione-apostolica_en.html

The comparable Methodist statement on the same subject is more clear in my opinion:

“Apostolic Succession, and its validity, can be addressed in many different ways. The most traditional method is to look at the theory of Apostolic Succession in a mechanical sense. (ie, in Rome St. Paul laid his hand’s on Linus, who laid his hands on Clement, and so on, and so on, and so on . . . .etc.) There are, indeed, various historical problems involved in this scheme, mostly stemming from the simple fact that the early catholic (universal) Church didn’t establish a clear differentiation between Presbyter and Episcopos until around the middle of the second century. It would appear, based upon Scripture and what records we have from that time, that the leaders of every local congregation were called Presbyters, but that the chief leaders — those who represented the congregation in early councils and such (people like Chloe [a woman!!!!] from 1 Corinthians) — would be considered Presbyters and Episcopoi. Hence, from an early period in history the Episcopoi were Presbyters who exercised oversight powers for each congregation. As the years passed, and the Church grew in numbers, not all local congregations had Episcopoi (Bishops) — they, subsequently, were under the local leadership of at least a single Presbyter (Priest), and under the general leadership of an Episcopos (Bishop) at some other church in the area. Hence, Dioceses developed — following, in general, Roman Geopolitical divisions, just as we tend to follow our county and state boundaries in setting up State Conventions and Annual Conferences.

The method for passing on ministry from one generation in the Church to the next was set very early on. Clearly, a well defined ministry was in existence by the time of St. Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus, for he speaks at length about Episcopoi and Presbyters, as well as about the laying on of hands.

St. Paul does make reference to one of the duties of an Episcopos (in this case, Titus) being to appoint the Presbyters in every town ( Titus 1:5-9). He also makes reference to HIS laying hands upon Timothy (2 Tim. 1:6), in which a gift of God was planted in Timothy through the laying on of my hands. He also makes reference to the laying on of hands of the council of Presbyters (1 Timothy 4:14), which — when taken together with St. Paul’s statement that he, himself, had lain hands upon Timothy — leads us to the conclusion that it was the duty of the Episcopoi and Presbyters of a local congregation to lay on hands in the passing on of Grace for ministry. And, since the Episcopoi (Bishops) were the chief overseers of the church (much as were the Apostles before them), it is reasonable to assume that the Episcopoi exercised leadership in this activity. Indeed, Paul’s remark to Timothy (1 Tim. 5:22) that he should not lay on hands on anyone hastily, indicates that, as an Episcopos, Timothy played a key role in not just the act of ordination, but also the selection of who gets ordained.

Nowhere in Scripture do we find it stated, however, that only Episcopoi laid on hands for ordination to ministry. Nor can we find anything which limits the ordinational authority to just the Episcopoi. Such limitations began to appear in the practice of the Church around the middle of the second century and, for the most part, have continued on to this day in those denominations which have maintained the Episcopal form of Church Government.”

http://www.revneal.org/Writings/apostoli.htm

Indeed if you read further in the Methodist statement, you will find an acknowlegdgement of the type of problem you raise with Titus:

“If we look at Apostolic Succession as a mechanical, legalistic theory, then we are presented with a few problems. There are some significant reasons to suspect that there have been at least a few breaks in the order of succession. For example, we know that the church in North Africa had a series of breaks, where the last of a line of Bishops had died without having consecrated his successor. In these cases, the Presbyters (Elders) gathered together and elected one of their own to assume the Episcopal office. In most cases, three of the Presbyters would lay their hands on the head of a fourth and consecrate him to the Episcopacy. These Presbyters would never ordain other Presbyters, however. Their authority to consecrate a Bishop was limited to only those emergency situations. Once a Bishop was selected and ordained, he then continued the practice of ordaining Presbyters, and other Bishops, and the Presbyters never took it upon themselves to do it on their own as a matter of course.

The question that has been asked, throughout the history of the Church, has been how important is it that an Episcopacy (Bishop) be among those who lay on hands at the ordinations of Bishops? The Roman Catholic Church decided that, under normal conditions, it was so important for Bishops to do it that it became part of Cannon Law that a minimum of 3 be required for a valid ordination to the Episcopacy (if three are not available, 2 or 1 may be used). However, it should be noted that the Papacy has always recognized the validity of the North African Episcopal line — even given these known breaks in the order of Succession! Hence, we are left with a simple conclusion: while it may be normal for Bishops, and only Bishops, to exercise the grace of ordination to Christian ministry, it is not absolutely necessary for there to be a Bishop present in the laying on of hands for such an ordination to be valid. What is necessary is that at least ordained Presbyters be the ones who lay on hands.

This conclusion has significant implications for the theory of Apostolic Succession. Essentially, it means that we’re not talking about some mechanical Bishop-to-Bishop, hand-to-head passing on of power, but a stream of continuity within the Council of Presbyters and overseen and administered by the Episcopal office within the Presbyterate. There has been an unending continuity of ministry within the Presbyterial ranks of the Church from the days of the Apostles until now. So, even if a literal line of Bishop-to-Bishop consecrations cannot be absolutely maintained all the way back tot he Apostles, we can maintain a continuity of Apostolic ministry at the Presbyterial level from the days of the Apostles to the present.”

The Vatican statement does not address the issue you raise nearly as directly as the Methodists. I don’t know if they would go as far as to agree with the Methodists on this point but I will do some further research on the issue and post whatever I find.

[CynicalBear]

>>ie, in Rome St. Paul laid his hand’s on Linus<<

Your entire long post was wasted because the entire premise is based on untruth. First off, there is no proof that Peter was actually a Bishop in the Roman church. Second, There is no proof that Linus was even a Bishop anywhere. Let's look at a couple of statements about that from historians.

Very little is known about Linus. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 200) and the historian Eusebius of Caesarea (d. ca. 339) identified him with the companion of Paul who sent greetings from Rome to Timothy in Ephesus (2 Timothy 4:21), but Scripture Scholars are generally hesistant to do so...It should be remembered that contrary to pious Catholic belief--that monoarchical episcopal structure of church governance (also known as the monarchical episcopate, in which each diocese was headed by a single bishop) still did not exist in Rome at this time (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 33-34).

Richard P. McBrien was a priest and editor of the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The "Liber Pontificalis" asserts that Linus's home was in Tuscany, and that his father's name was Herculanus; but we cannot discover the origin of this assertion. According to the same work on the popes, Linus is supposed to have issued a decree "in conformity with the ordinance of St. Peter", that women should have their heads covered in church. Without doubt this decree is apocryphal, and copied by the author of the "Liber Pontificalis" from the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (11:5) and arbitrarily attributed to the first successor of the Apostle in Rome. The statement made in the same source, that Linus suffered martyrdom, cannot be proved and is improbable. For between Nero and Domitian there is no mention of any persecution of the Roman Church; and Irenaeus (1. c., III, iv, 3) from among the early Roman bishops designates only Telesphorus as a glorious martyr. Finally this book asserts that Linus after his death, was buried in the Vatican beside St. Peter. We do not know whether the author had any decisive reason for this assertion...There was nothing in the liturgical tradition of the fourth-century Roman Church to prove this, because it was only at the end of the second century that any special feast of martyrs was instituted and consequently Linus does not appear in the fourth-century lists of the feasts of the Roman saints...But from a manuscript of Torrigio's we see that on the sarcophagus in question there were other letters beside the word Linus, so that they rather belonged to some other name (such as Aquilinus, Anullinus). The place of the discovery of the tomb is a proof that it could not be the tomb of Linus (De Rossi, "Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae", II, 23-7) (Kirsch J.P. Transcribed by Gerard Haffner. Pope St. Linus. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX. Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York).

So you see, the entire pyramid comes crashing down and was based on supposition and apocryphal writings. There is no such thing as apostolic succession. So speculation on how anyone feels about it or believes about it is immaterial.

[D-fendr]

As you see, what we often end up with on these threads is a question of authority. There is the authority of Christ’s Church which we recognize.

Then there is the contrary - evidenced by those we (putting it kindly) debate on these threads.

For them, they are the authority. Rather each is his/her own authority. Authority on what Holy Scripture says, authority on history, authority on what are valid sources, authority even on what Church is.

It seems not to matter whether they disagree with each other, only that they agree the Church has no authority.

It really is impossible to contradict or argue against one for whom he/she is their own authority. Well, not impossible to argue with, but futile.

But it can be entertaining. Enjoy!

{^_^}

[edwinland]

Apostolic Succession, and its validity, can be addressed in many different ways. The most traditional method is to look at the theory of Apostolic Succession in a mechanical sense. (ie, in Rome St. Paul laid his hand’s on Linus, who laid his hands on Clement, and so on, and so on, and so on . . . .etc.) There are, indeed, various historical problems involved in this scheme,

You didn't read it correctly. The Methodist author is criticizing that approach just the same way you are. The author is agreeing that that way of understanding apostolic succession has historical problems. You are also saying that that way of understanding apostolic succession has historical problems.

Please read it again, because I think you missed his further point on the correct way to think about apostolic succession.

[CynicalBear]

I can read it all day long and it still ends up that this whole “apostolic succession” thing is based on falsehoods.

[edwinland]

The Methodist author is saying that apostolic succession is NOT based on Titus.

This conclusion has significant implications for the theory of Apostolic Succession. Essentially, it means that we're not talking about some mechanical Bishop-to-Bishop, hand-to-head passing on of power, but a stream of continuity within the Council of Presbyters and overseen and administered by the Episcopal office within the Presbyterate. There has been an unending continuity of ministry within the Presbyterial ranks of the Church from the days of the Apostles until now. So, even if a literal line of Bishop-to-Bishop consecrations cannot be absolutely maintained all the way back to the Apostles, we can maintain a continuity of Apostolic ministry at the Presbyterial level from the days of the Apostles to the present.

You can still disagree with this author, but even if you prove that Titus never existed it doesn't disprove the author's point that "there has been an unending continuity of ministry within the Presbyterial ranks of the Church from the days of the Apostles until now".

[CynicalBear]

What is it with this focus on some “Presbyterial ranks”? It’s nonsense and has nothing to do with what Jesus taught. It doesn’t take some “Presbyterial ranks” to understand what Jesus and the apostles taught was needed for salvation. Those “Presbyterial ranks” have led more people astray then anything else. The gospel is preached by individuals and the focus on “Presbyterial ranks” is NOT what is taught in scripture.

[edwinland]

May I ask you a question? What do you make of 1 Timothy 4:14?

Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.

In that context, what if anything did the laying on of hands do, if all that is necessary for transmission of the faith is just to hear it with your ears or read it with your eyes?

[CynicalBear]

>>May I ask you a question? What do you make of 1 Timothy 4:14?<<

Acts 15:8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.

>>In that context, what if anything did the laying on of hands do, if all that is necessary for transmission of the faith is just to hear it with your ears or read it with your eyes?<<

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.

[edwinland]

Those are great passages. But what does 1 Timothy 4:14 mean?

Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.

The way I read it, the presbyters or elders (in the plural) laid hands on them and spoke prophetic words and thus transmitted a spiritual gift. It seems to suggest that there is more to the transmission of the faith than words alone. Or at least that the Apostles thought there was. Am I reading it wrong?

[CynicalBear]

The Catholic Church sure does like to take one verse and create some meaning that gives them exclusive power don't they. The first verse I gave you, Acts 15:8 tells us that all true believers are given the Holy Spirit. Not those who had hands laid on them. Acts 10:44 tells us that Paul was simply preaching the word and all who heard the word were given the Holy Spirit.

The "elders" of the ekklesia were to be chosen from among that group and were given specific requirements for that position. Not one of the Catholic Leadership today qualify. So for Catholics to play the game of "how it's done" is ridiculous.

[edwinland]

I agree that the quotes you supplied mean what you say they mean, ie that all believers receive the Holy Spirit.

So what was the point of laying on hands? Let's assume that it has nothing to do with authority. Does it mean anything at all? Or is that passage of Scripture superfluous? If it is, why are there all those passages about Apostles laying on hands?

Acts 8:17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.

Acts 6:6 And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them.

2 Timothy 1:6 For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

Acts 13:3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.