apostolic succession

[HisMercy]

Doubting Thomas,

Because the Lord Himself chose Paul as Juda's replacement. The Lord hasn't changed. He chose those in the OT who would speak on his behalf. He chose the disciples and he chose Paul. He chose before his manifesting in flesh. He chose while in flesh and continues to choose after his resurrection. Jesus told the disciples to wait for the promise of the Father while in Jerusalem. He didn't tell them they would decide who was going to replace Judas.

 

[qwerty]

There is only ONE Who can appoint Apostles:
The Lord Jesus Christ.

HEB 3:1 Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess.

What do we see in Acts 1?
Jesus gave instructions for the group to return to Jerusalem and WAIT "for the gift my Father promised". They were to wait for the Holy Spirit.

Peter didn't wait. He was known as the implusive one. Peter decided that he could set in motion the appointing of an apostle. So he stood up in the midst, gave his reasons and criteria that he thought was reasonable, pulled in some O.T. scripture that seemed to support him.

Then they prayed and asked for the Lord to show them who was the replacement apostle.

Then they did an interesting thing. They didn't wait to hear from God. They reverted to what they thought they knew. They cast lots. They reverted to an Old Testament model. And they got a result. An apostle was chosen. And today, people go to this scripture to show how an apostle was chosen. They ignore that only Jesus can appoint apostles, then, and now.

Later, Jesus chose an apostle who would obey, and change the world. His name was Paul.

The Lord Jesus chose apostles in the first century. And the Lord Jesus still chooses apostles in our century. His choices, both then and now, are treated much the same way.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by HisMercy:
Doubting Thomas,

Because the Lord Himself chose Paul as Juda's replacement. The Lord hasn't changed. He chose those in the OT who would speak on his behalf. He chose the disciples and he chose Paul. He chose before his manifesting in flesh. He chose while in flesh and continues to choose after his resurrection. Jesus told the disciples to wait for the promise of the Father while in Jerusalem. He didn't tell them they would decide who was going to replace Judas.

Where does it say in the Scriptures that God chose Paul instead of Matthias? Where does it say the Apostles did not have the authority to choose Judas' replacement? OTOH, the Apostles were given the power from Christ to "bind and loose" (Matt 18:18) and there's no reason to think this authority does not include appointing "successors". While God did indeed directly choose Paul, there is no reason to suggest that God did not choose Matthias through the decision of the other Apostles.

 

[qwerty]

Thom,
I love your line of reasoning.
It's called arguing from silence.
It allows you, me, or anybody to invent a scenario and call it valid.

Why, any number of things could have happened. Where does it NOT say that the Apostles traveled to the Americas and preached here? Where does it NOT say that the Apostles zipped around in helium cars? It can be fun an informative to invent anything we want. What else does the book NOT say?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I love your line of reasoning.
It's called arguing from silence.
It allows you, me, or anybody to invent a scenario and call it valid.

QWERTY,

Pot. Kettle.

Where does it say that Peter was being impulsive in deciding to replace Judas? That is an "argument from silence". Did not Christ give Peter and the other apostles the authority to "bind and loose" in the Church? That is NOT an argument from silence.

 

[qwerty]

Thom,
Jesus told the disciples to go to Jerusalem and wait. Peter didn't. He appointed an apostle.
If you want to call that arguing from silence, so be it.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

But they were not waiting for the announcement of the twelfth apostle. They were waiting for the coming of the spirit. And even as they voted they were still waiting, by definition, because they could only wait until He came.

In other words, it is still an argument from silence.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by qwerty:
Thom,
Jesus told the disciples to go to Jerusalem and wait. Peter didn't. He appointed an apostle.
If you want to call that arguing from silence, so be it.

But you are assuming that the "waiting" precludes the apostles from picking (from those who have taken part in the ministry of Christ from His Baptism to His Resurrection) Judas' replacement in the apostolic ministry. The waiting was in reference to the Holy Spirit falling upon them before they go out and evangelize. However, in John 20:22-23 Christ had already breathed on the Apostles telling them to receive the Holy Spirit and empowering them to forgive and retain sins. And He had earlier given them the authority to "bind and loose" (Matt 18:18). The Apostles were using their Christ ordained authority to have another in place for the apostolic ministry of evangelism they were about to undertake.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
But they were not waiting for the announcement of the twelfth apostle. They were waiting for the coming of the spirit. And even as they voted they were still waiting, by definition, because they could only wait until He came.

In other words, it is still an argument from silence.

Exactly.

 

[qwerty]

 

[John Gilmore]

Here's a quote from the Reformation apologist Martin Chemnitz on the benefits of ordination:

For through laying on of hands the person called is set before God, as it were, so that there might be a public and outward testimony that the call is not only a human matter, but that God Himself calls, sends, and appoints that person for the ministry, though by regular and legitimate means. Moreover, by this solemn act he that is to be ordained is obligated and, as it were, consecrated to Christ for the ministry. Besides, by that rite, as in the sight of God, the church is entrusted to the minister and, on the other hand, the minister to the church, through whose ministry, namely, God wants to teach, exhort, administer the Sacraments and work efficaciously in us. But the laying on of hands is observed chiefly because of the common prayers of the church, that they may be made with greater diligence and warmer desire. For it is, as it were, a public reminder of the difficulty of the ministry, which cannot be made able except by God. Therefore that minister is presented to the Lord of the harvest through the laying on of hands, and the church, reminded of the institution of the ministry and of the divine promises attached to it, reminds God of His promises and asks that by their power He would graciously be with the present minister with His Spirit, grace, blessing, efficacy, working, governance, and direction. And Paul and Moses testify that these prayers of the church are not in vain. And thus the act of ordination publicly shows forth the whole doctrine of the call of ministers and sets it, as it were, before one's eyes. Enchiridion, par. 30

 

[HisMercy]

Doubting Thomas,

The LORD changeth not. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever. He chose in the OT those who he wanted as his mouthpiece. He chose the 12 disciples and he chose Paul. He is the one who has the authority to choose who will be his mouthpiece. That hasn't changed because he does not change.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by HisMercy:
Doubting Thomas,

The LORD changeth not. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever. He chose in the OT those who he wanted as his mouthpiece. He chose the 12 disciples and he chose Paul. He is the one who has the authority to choose who will be his mouthpiece. That hasn't changed because he does not change.

Nice syllogism, but Christ did entrust His apostles with the power to "bind and loose". It is not always either God or man who does the choosing, but God can "choose" through the agency of others to whom He has entrusted such authority.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by HisMercy:
Doubting Thomas,

Because the Lord Himself chose Paul as Juda's replacement. The Lord hasn't changed. He chose those in the OT who would speak on his behalf. He chose the disciples and he chose Paul. He chose before his manifesting in flesh. He chose while in flesh and continues to choose after his resurrection. Jesus told the disciples to wait for the promise of the Father while in Jerusalem. He didn't tell them they would decide who was going to replace Judas.

The NT text only mentions one place where the statementis made "explicitly" that an Apostle is chosen "among those who were with us the entire time" to succeed another Apostle. And it is in Acts chapter 1.

1. Apostolic succession ONLY given for Judas.

2. There was ANOTHER group that was "with us the entire time" according to the Apostles so all the "for-Apostles-only" texts that the RCC has tried to come up with - were in fact for a much wider group.

3. The book of Acts was written and published long after the events it describes. And it INCLUDES the death of James and of Judas. It does not describe Apostolic succession for James - only for Judas.

4. Though Paul is included as an Apostle - he is not said to "succeed" anybody in the text of God's Word. His is not "apostolic succession".

5. In the OT the "process" for succession of the High Priest is identified. Nothing at all is said of apostolic successors in the NT - apart from Judas.

Therefore - if anything we should be noting -- Judas' successors.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[HisMercy]

Doubting Thomas,

You are correct. It isn't always God who chooses because man has put himself in the seat of God and has made decisions he doesn't belong making. As Christ said, You didn't choose me, I chose you. That hasn't changed.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by HisMercy:
Doubting Thomas,

You are correct. It isn't always God who chooses because man has put himself in the seat of God and has made decisions he doesn't belong making. As Christ said, You didn't choose me, I chose you. That hasn't changed.

That's cute, but that's not what I meant. God can and does use people as secondary agents to further His Kingdom. The Apostles were given authority from Christ to make binding decisions in regards to the Church (Matt 16:17-19, 18:18; John 20:22-23) so it's not surprising to see the Apostles using this God-given authority in the Church (Acts 1:15-26, 15:6-29). Again, Christ said: "Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matt 18:18). Of course, none would have that authority if God did not choose to bestow that power. However, it's not a matter of a man putting himself in the seat of God, but it's an example of people exercising their authority given to them by God.

 

[HisMercy]

It wasn't meant to be cute. It seems to me you don't really believe God personally chooses people today as he did in the OT and when He was in flesh. And as he chose Paul.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by HisMercy:
It wasn't meant to be cute. It seems to me you don't really believe God personally chooses people today as he did in the OT and when He was in flesh. And as he chose Paul.

I absolutely believe God personally chooses people and He often times uses the agency of others as His means of "choosing". You seem to think that God can't work through the authority He invests in others to make such choices.

 

[Chrift]

It is a doctrine of the RCC. They have tried to explain the lineage of the pope back to the apostle Peter thereby giving the current pope the same authority as Peter

I wonder... if this is true, why is the Roman bishop the only one with St. Peter's authority when the bishop of Antioch traces his succession back to St. Peter as well?

Did his benefits package get lost in the mail? Someone really should let him know what he is missing out on...

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:

That's cute, but that's not what I meant. God can and does use people as secondary agents to further His Kingdom. The Apostles were given authority from Christ to make binding decisions in regards to the Church (Matt 16:17-19, 18:18; John 20:22-23) so it's not surprising to see the Apostles using this God-given authority in the Church (Acts 1:15-26, 15:6-29). Again, Christ said: "Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matt 18:18). Of course, none would have that authority if God did not choose to bestow that power. However, it's not a matter of a man putting himself in the seat of God, but it's an example of people exercising their authority given to them by God.

Indeed "people". Christ said this to all of his followers - not just 12. In Acts 1 we are told that the Judas' successor (the only case of apostolic succession in the Bible) was selected from among "those who have been with us since the beginning".

The crowd was there.

In Christ,

Bob