apostolic succession

[HankD]

Matthias, was he an apostle?

After Matthias was voted into office, and before Saul became Paul in Acts 6:2 Luke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit writes :

Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

Granted, it doesn't say "apostles" but what then?
This phrase "the twelve" was often used of the 12 apostles.

HankD

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Chrift:
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...

Very good point. In fact, Pope Gregory the Great referred to three "sees of Peter" in his letters--Rome, Antioch (from Peter and Paul through Evodius and then Ignatius), and Alexander (the latter was from Peter through Mark). Seems like all but the first has been conveniently "forgotten".

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by HankD:
Matthias, was he an apostle?

After Matthias was voted into office, and before Saul became Paul in Acts 6:2 Luke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit writes :

Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

Granted, it doesn't say "apostles" but what then?
This phrase "the twelve" was often used of the 12 apostles.

HankD

Agreed - apostolic succession of Judas seemed to be in full swing.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Meercat]

DHK-

Can you prove that the churches mentioned in the book of Acts were all seperate and completely autonomous as you claim? Where does it say that in the Bible?


BobRyan-

While you may disagree with the doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church, is there any reason why you have to be so snotty and highly uncharitable in your remarks? - Meercat

 

[Link]

DHK wrote,

**From the above verse one can see that in each church established he remained long enough to disciple one that was ordained or appointed as pastor. So you have about 100 churches all started by Paul, all having their own pastor, their own congregations, each independent of each other, each one totally autonomous.**

The examples in scripture show that the apostles appointed 'elders' plural, rather than one individual pastor in the churches.

**In Ephesus there was Timothy.
In Crete there was Titus.
In Corinth there was Apollos.**

All of these were itinerant ministers. Titus ministered to several churches, and was to appoint the local elders, plural, in every city, who would pastor those churches.

Timothy was also an itinerant minister along with Paul. In Ephesus, he was to _appoint_ the local overseers. He probably moved on after that.

**In Jerusalem there was James. (not Peter)**

James clearly had a prominent role. But Paul seems to indicate that he is an apostle. He ministered along with the elders in Jerusalem, but no scripture says that he was the ruler over the elders of the church there, or the 'pastor' there. (No doubt he did 'pastor' in the Biblical sense of caring for and leading people, though.)

**There is no indication of any Apostolic succession anywhere.**

The elders we see appointed in the New Testament were appointed under apostoli cdirection. But Paul's ministry is a big argument against the RCC understanding of apostolic succession.

The Lord, apparently without going through the 12, appointed paul to be an apostle. Then Paul had authority to appoint elders. This doesn't fit with the idea that all elders of the church have to have succession from the 12 apostles.

 

[Link]

Where does the Bible say that being a local church overseer is a matter of 'calling.' We can infer this, but no scripture teaches it.

Paul was called to be an apostle. We are all called to be conformed to the image of Christ.

When it comes to church overseers, there are a lit of qualifications. The scripture speaks of _desiring_ to be a bishop, so some might consider a God-given desire to be the same thing as a call.

But what the Bible does give, explicitely, are lifestyle and character qualifications laid down in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. How many churches ignore these just because a man claims to be called? How many churches ignore these passages based on the fact that we use the term 'pastor' nowadays instead of the more commonly used Biblical terms of 'elder' and 'bishop?'

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Link:
Where does the Bible say that being a local church overseer is a matter of 'calling.' We can infer this, but no scripture teaches it.

Acts 20:28

 

[Link]

Good point.

I think we need to define terms. I tend to see 'calling' as something God does. A lot of people use the term 'calling' to refer to an experience when they were knocked off their proverbial horse on they way to a proverbial Damascus. (I doubt Paul even was riding a horse, btw.)

Let's talk about 'calling.' What does it mean? If someone claims to be called to be an elder, but doesn't live up to the Biblical qualifications? What would you say?

 

[John Gilmore]

Let's talk about 'calling.' What does it mean?

There are two elements in the call to the ministry. First, there is the inner conviction urging the individual to enter the ministry. Second, the call itself: the invitation from God issued through a church to a specific ministry.

If someone claims to be called to be an elder, but doesn't live up to the Biblical qualifications? What would you say?

The individual should resign his call. Or, failing that, the calling body should remove him.

 

[John Gilmore]

the calling body should remove him.

God rescinds the call through the church calling body.

 

[Link]

My general answer to my own question is to tell the person in question to work at becoming the kind of person who meets those qualifications. We all should.

The Bible says the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Honestly, I'm not too familiar with the 'calling body' terminology you are using here. I assume you are talking about a church or denominational organization that consider someone to be called (offer papers or whatever, is that what it means?)

To John Gilmore on the meaning of call.
**First, there is the inner conviction urging the individual to enter the ministry. Second, the call itself: the invitation from God issued through a church to a specific ministry.**

Can you provide clear chapter and verse references to back up your definition of 'called.' I don't know if Acts 20:28 necessarily proves this definiton. Maybe some of the elders of Ephesus weren't clear on what they were supposed to do until Paul appointed them as elders.

It seems like there are a lot of people who aren't clear what they are called to. In the Bible, we see taht Christians are called to be conformed to the image of the Son. But it seems like a lot of Christians don't have a clear idea of this until they are taught it clearly. But if they are the Lord's sheep, then they are called to this, whether they realize it or not.

One of my concerns is the priestly caste that has been made out of ministers. A lot of people think of pastoring as a professional ministry that a certain few are called to, and that is their life-long occupation. They see a sharp distinction between the small percentage of 'called' Christians who devote secular pursuits and pay money and attend to keep the church machine going, and the holy 'men of the cloth' who they consider to be called.

In the Bible, however, the men appointed to pastor were regular men, who had probably worked all kinds of regular jobs. The elders were chosen from within the congregations. They were taught and trained, as 'regular believers, within the congregations, and by travelling ministers, some of whom may have helped plant the church. Out of these brethren, elders were appointed to pastor the flock of God. They were men from among the brethren, not a special caste of specially trained 'men of the cloth.'

I believe churches should be preparing new leaders, and that church leaders should generally be trained from within the church. Men in the church who work regular jobs, and have families, can have the aspiration to one day mature into the type of men suitable to be Biblical elders. I see this as much more in line with scripture than the seminary system and the professional ministry system of today.

 

[John Gilmore]

Can you provide clear chapter and verse references to back up your definition of 'called.' I don't know if Acts 20:28 necessarily proves this definiton.

I was trying to express the call in a general manner because how the call is to be given is not specifically dealt with in scripture. It is matter of Christian liberty. The term "calling body" is deliberately vague but I think it should be associated with a church. And wherever two or more are gathered, the church is there along with the right of calling. Eph. 4:10-12. Some say that it must be issued by a local congregation; others that it must be done by bishops. But scripture does not say that; however, it should be done decently and in order.

It seems like there are a lot of people who aren't clear what they are called to.

Ministers are called to be stewards of the mysteries. 1 Cor. 4:1. The mysteries are God are preaching, baptism, and communion and the power to remit sins (Absolution) and retain sins (Excommunication) in the stead and by the command of Christ. John 20: 23, Matt. 18:18 As Paul say, "If I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ. 2 Cor. 2:10 and "Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." 1 Tim. 1:20.