The following scriptures give biblical support (I believe) for that succession.
Numbers 16:40 - shows God's intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth. Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority.
Read and study the Book of Hebrews. We are no longer under the Levitical priesthood. Christ is our Great High Priest coming from Melchizedek. The Levitical priesthood has been done away with. Every believer is a priest before God and need not to be appointed. He is directly called of God.
Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).
It wasn't transferred. It was recognized. Read the context. "The Holy Spirit said separate unto me Saul and Barnabas..."
They recognized the call of God upon their lives and therefore laid hands upon them. There was no succession. It was a symbolic gesture that God had called them, and they were sending them forth from that church, the church at Antioch.
Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.
No it isn't. Even Paul denies this himself. Paul says that he was an apostle as "one born out of due time." He never refers to this incident as his "ordination." Rather he gives his testimony several times in the Book of Acts, and each time he definitively says that God appeared to him, and God called him to be a minister (servant) to the Gentiles. There was no laying on of the hands. God called him directly. When God called him, what did he do. He prayed, saying, "Lord what would you have me to do?" He answered his calling right there and then.
After this he was told to go and meet Ananias. Ananias was reluctant at first. But the Lord reassured him, telling hm,
Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for
he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.
--He was ordained of God, not of men.
2 Cor. 1:21-22 - Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.
He does no such thing.
2 Corinthians 1:21 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us,
is God;
22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
--God has established us in Christ. How? By giving us the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That indwelling; anointing; sealing of the Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance. There is much more to come. This has nothing to do with succession.
2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God's intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.
Again you are way out of line. It has to do with the principle of "spiritual reproduction," or simply carrying out the Great Commission (Mat.28:19,20). What was Paul saying here.
Timothy, take those things that I have taught you, and gather faithful men around you and teach those faithful men. Teach them well so that they in turn may also teach other faithful men. Then the result will be other faithful men teaching other faithful men. This is what discipleship is all about. This is what missions is all about. It says nothing about any transfer of authority--absolutely nothing!!
Exodus 40:15 - the physical anointing shows that God intended a perpetual priesthood with an identifiable unbroken succession.
Which tribe of Israel are you from?
We are not under Levitical law!
Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.
No it isn't. These were 7 men chosen to serve tables. Do you lay hands on those whom you choose to be janitors in your church? :laugh:
I don't think that is a requirement, but that is what they were to do. Read your Bible! Then look at the requirements that the church at Jerusalem set forth. Even those servants were to have high expectations for the church.
Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.
The word "ordained" means "chose." They chose, according to God's leading, men fit to be leaders in every church they went to, or every church they established. That is what Paul did. He established churches. He was a missionary. He went on three missionary journeys and established about 100 independent churches. It was impossible for them to have any succession whatsoever.
Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric") is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."
The Apostolic Age died out when the apostles died out, at the end of the first century. That is also when the Canon of Scripture was complete. No honest Christian believes that the RCC formulated the canon of Scripture. No honest and objective Christian believes that the Apostles, before they died, were stupid and naive enough not to know what books were Scripture and what were not, and that they did not pass this information off to the first century Christians. The RCC never was "the keeper of the Scriptures" nor did they "invent" the canon. That is ludicrous. By the end of the first century, when John finished the Book of Revelation, the canon was completed.
And certainly these very early writings, although not scripture, what is written here was not disputed and seem to indicate that Apostolic Succession was understood by the Early Church as a necessity:
Fairy tales. RCC propaganda. Try reading real history.
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.
Nothing about succession there. You have to read into it to get succession out of it.
Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
Succeeding means to follow after. I followed after the pastor before me. That is not apostolic succession. The quote proves nothing. You are simply reading into it what you want to.
