Apostolic Succession

You are correct. Biblically speaking, only those who saw Jesus Christ personally and was commissioned by Him are able to be Apostles. Since John was the last Apostle to die, there has not been an Apostle since him. There has been lots who have claimed that they are but it is Biblically impossible so them to be so.

One of the Biblical requirements for one to be rightly regarded as an apostle were those following Jesus from the time of John’s baptism. They also were to have seen the risen Lord be witnesses of his resurrection. When the closed group of twelve became eleven, they sought another to take Judas' office:
Acts 1:21-22...............
Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time the Lord Jesus went in and among us beginning from the baptism of John to that day he was taken up from us One of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.' “

Others claim it by showing their signs, wonders and miracles. This so-called signs and wonders movement is part of an effort to restore what they understood to be the five-fold ministry described in Ephesians 4:11. The proliferators of the movement claim that these dynamics are what is necessary for the church to have power. In actuality, those who lay claim to this ministry today are operating under a misunderstanding of apostles and prophets of the Bible.

The Lord confirmed His signs to the apostles' words to show a transition of authority from Israel and its priesthood to the apostles who were laying down the foundation for the church, a new entity. This unique anointing testified to Israel and to the gentiles a new order of leadership, the demonstration of spiritual authority was transferred to the church Christ body.

Validated by signs and miracles, the apostles deemed the faith for the whole Church and established the written word by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Once the scriptures were completed, the Church had all that was necessary in the area of revelational truth. The apostles' instructions were in words, then put to paper for all succeeding generations on how to live in obedience to the faith.

Once a foundation is laid down and a house is built, we don't rebuild the foundation.(Eph.2:20) Neither should we rip apart the house that the Lord has built.

Now, what happens when a church denomination accepts someone as an Apostle, these impostor’s claim to be exclusively without error in their interpretations and teachings on all church matters. They are to be questioned by no one.

But in reading the letter of Jude, we find him exhorting the believers to contend for their faith among apostates in the church. More specifically, verse 17 reminds the church of the apostles' warnings of mockers coming in the last days that are natural men not having the Spirit. Today we find those who claim to have more of it than others. Nowhere do we find the apostles preaching they are anointed and certainly did not imply they were more so than others. The danger of these mislead leaders is that they will cause divisions without realizing the harm they do, nor the judgment that they will eventually incur upon themselves.

I hope this answers your question and I apologize for such a long response.

Were the Lord's brother the Apostle James or the apostle Barnabas ever commissioned by Jesus?
 
Were the Lord's brother the Apostle James or the apostle Barnabas ever commissioned by Jesus?

IMO, yes. Check out Acts 13:2 .........
"While they were worshipping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.'"

And, later in Acts 14:14, it says......
"But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out,..."

There were two James in the original 12 listed in Mark 3:19-23. James the Elder and James the Younger are included. The "Younger" is said to be the brother of Jude and half brother of Jesus and wrote the book of James
 
Who says?

Paul himself tells another story. There is no cessation of what God provides for His Church.

1 Corinthians 12:28
Here are some of the parts God has appointed for the church:
first are apostles,
second are prophets,
third are teachers,
then those who do miracles,
those who have the gift of healing,
those who can help others,
those who have the gift of leadership,
those who speak in unknown languages.

We have had this conversation before. You certainly do not have to accept my words so I will post the Bible words for all to see and then you can debate the Word of God.

The fact is that Paul never claimed to be included among the original twelve, believers have recognized that Jesus appointed him as His special apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 9:1; Acts 26:16–18).

Acts 1:21, 22 ............
"Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."

There it is! Clear and precise. Now you can chew it up and tear it up but it is still there. So only faithful men who had been with Jesus (necessitating that they be Jews at that time) from His water baptism by John, witnesses of the Resurrected Christ, and present at His ascension.

We can debate this all you want but the fact is No biblical evidence exists to indicate that these thirteen apostles were replaced when they died. See Acts 12:1–2, for example.
 
We have had this conversation before. You certainly do not have to accept my words so I will post the Bible words for all to see and then you can debate the Word of God.

The fact is that Paul never claimed to be included among the original twelve, believers have recognized that Jesus appointed him as His special apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 9:1; Acts 26:16–18).

Acts 1:21, 22 ............
"Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."

There it is! Clear and precise. Now you can chew it up and tear it up but it is still there. So only faithful men who had been with Jesus (necessitating that they be Jews at that time) from His water baptism by John, witnesses of the Resurrected Christ, and present at His ascension.

We can debate this all you want but the fact is No biblical evidence exists to indicate that these thirteen apostles were replaced when they died. See Acts 12:1–2, for example.

There is absolutely NOT ANY criterion such as having walked with Jesus to become an apostle. Apostle is a gift or calling from God alone by His Spirit.

There has been no mandate to REPLACE anyone except for Judas. Holy Spirit does the choosing and the equipping and the anointing---all for the functioning of the Church.

I never debate the bible. Only people.
 
There is absolutely NOT ANY criterion such as having walked with Jesus to become an apostle. Apostle is a gift or calling from God alone by His Spirit.

There has been no mandate to REPLACE anyone except for Judas. Holy Spirit does the choosing and the equipping and the anointing---all for the functioning of the Church.

I never debate the bible. Only people.

I am not debating but instead posting Bible facts. Did you read the verse I posted??? When the apostles met to choose the replacement for Judas the following qualifications were stated. There are actually 3 qualifications!

Acts 1:21, 22 ............
"Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,(1)---beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us,
(2) one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.(3)"

Lets do another one.

Consider Luke 6:13.........
And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles.”

It is very clear that Jesus assigned them the office of apostle. That means they had to have been with Him.
It certainly was not a self-designation seeing how Jesus also said in John 15:16........
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit” .

Here's another one.......

1 Cor. 9:1...........
"Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not SEEN Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?"

Now then, having said that, can you post any biblical evidence that exists to indicate that the thirteen apostles were replaced when they died. Any Scriptures at all?????

Do not spend time debating me my sister, I am not the enemy. Focus on the Scriptures!!!
 
You are correct. Biblically speaking, only those who saw Jesus Christ personally and was commissioned by Him are able to be Apostles. Since John was the last Apostle to die, there has not been an Apostle since him. There has been lots who have claimed that they are but it is Biblically impossible so them to be so.

One of the Biblical requirements for one to be rightly regarded as an apostle were those following Jesus from the time of John’s baptism. They also were to have seen the risen Lord be witnesses of his resurrection. When the closed group of twelve became eleven, they sought another to take Judas' office:
Acts 1:21-22...............
Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time the Lord Jesus went in and among us beginning from the baptism of John to that day he was taken up from us One of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.' “

Others claim it by showing their signs, wonders and miracles. This so-called signs and wonders movement is part of an effort to restore what they understood to be the five-fold ministry described in Ephesians 4:11. The proliferators of the movement claim that these dynamics are what is necessary for the church to have power. In actuality, those who lay claim to this ministry today are operating under a misunderstanding of apostles and prophets of the Bible.

The Lord confirmed His signs to the apostles' words to show a transition of authority from Israel and its priesthood to the apostles who were laying down the foundation for the church, a new entity. This unique anointing testified to Israel and to the gentiles a new order of leadership, the demonstration of spiritual authority was transferred to the church Christ body.

Validated by signs and miracles, the apostles deemed the faith for the whole Church and established the written word by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Once the scriptures were completed, the Church had all that was necessary in the area of revelational truth. The apostles' instructions were in words, then put to paper for all succeeding generations on how to live in obedience to the faith.

Once a foundation is laid down and a house is built, we don't rebuild the foundation.(Eph.2:20) Neither should we rip apart the house that the Lord has built.

Now, what happens when a church denomination accepts someone as an Apostle, these impostor’s claim to be exclusively without error in their interpretations and teachings on all church matters. They are to be questioned by no one.

But in reading the letter of Jude, we find him exhorting the believers to contend for their faith among apostates in the church. More specifically, verse 17 reminds the church of the apostles' warnings of mockers coming in the last days that are natural men not having the Spirit. Today we find those who claim to have more of it than others. Nowhere do we find the apostles preaching they are anointed and certainly did not imply they were more so than others. The danger of these mislead leaders is that they will cause divisions without realizing the harm they do, nor the judgment that they will eventually incur upon themselves.

I hope this answers your question and I apologize for such a long response.
Thank you Major. It was nice hearing from you again. I appreciate your feedback, and I don't mind long responses at all. Everyone's comments have been most helpful. The Lord is teaching me much on this subject, and I am beginning to see much of the deception in this doctrine. For one, we don't inherit our salvation or our calling from God from other people. It is not passed down to us from other individuals. Secondly, this whole doctrine in man-based, and raises men who say they are in this line of succession above others. They are a hierarchy unto themselves, and are not humble servants of God in the body of Christ, with Christ as the head, and God assigning their portions instead of them inheriting them from other humans. They are very focused on this whole authority thing and with everyone bowing to their authority, but even Paul hesitated to exercise strong authority unless it was necessary. He often appealed to the people to get things right so he would not have to exercise his authority. He admitted he was no better than anyone else, and he made himself available to be questioned and tested. And, so much more...

The Lord has the song going through my head, "Worthy is the Lamb," sung by Hillsong, I believe. The words standing out to me are "high and lifted up, Jesus Lamb of God..." Jesus is the one to be high and lifted up, not humans who think they have some special line of authority passed down to them from generation to generation.
 
I would suggest that the majority of the "apostolic succession" discussion is really just a "which church is the TRUE church?" war, not very different from the argument between the disciples in Luke 9:46, and Jesus' response to them (up to v.50) seems just as fitting here. Many groups assert to have evidence of apostolic succession to throw their claim into the mix that they alone are the true church, and authority rests with them alone.

They make their claims, but in the meantime, we simply observe that God gives authority to whomever He pleases for the benefit of His kingdom.

After being badgered by one particular organization that raised such a claim, I feel pretty satisfied to ignore any claim to "apostolic succession," and simply look for evidence where God is using His church to build His kingdom. If we observe that the Spirit has given someone authority to do powerful work in His name, even if it breaches the boundaries of what we think the "rules" are, who are we to argue? Peter set this example for us in Acts 10 when he allowed the Spirit to challenge his preconceptions about what he thought the "rules" were and who God can or can't choose.
 
One thing I think we need to be careful of is not getting tangled up... There are "The Apostles" and then there are apostles - literally, the word just means people sent with official authority...

And - so the modern day equivalent of the word "apostle" is simply a church planter or missionary... They are "Sent" with official authority to go out and start a new church some place....

It's interesting that the answer to who sends and authorizes them seems to go two separate ways in The Scripture....
One way is "The Church" officially appointing somebody to go out and start a church....
The other way is God appointing somebody to go start a church...
Both are clearly demonstrated in Acts...

Case #1 - Jesus clearly appointed, trained, and prepared "The 12" before his death and resurrection.. He physically appointed them after his resurrection.... Scripture records that Jesus physically laid his hands upon these men and "Breathed upon" them.. They followed the tradition of "Laying on of hands" - Them physically selecting, training, preparing, discipling, and equipping the next round of people to go out and start a new church.... With these - there was clearly a succession....

Case #2 - With Paul on the other hand - there was no direct call from the church initially and no physical training or preparation from Jesus before his Crucifixion... Jesus called him "From Heaven" in visions... Jesus personally taught him by revelation of the Holy Spirit in the wilderness - it was only later after Paul had been starting churches in various places that Paul returned to confirm Jesus message and teachings with the Apostles... Then - we see Paul follow on with HIS own tradition of selecting, training, preparing, discipling, and equipping the next round....

Now... If you want to argue about whether there were more of "The Apostles" after the 1st round died - sure, you are going to have a tough case... but I think it's foolish to insist that God no longer allows the church authorities to prepare, equip, and appoint people for the official duty of starting Churches - AKA being sent with official authority....

Thanks
 
I am not debating but instead posting Bible facts. Did you read the verse I posted??? When the apostles met to choose the replacement for Judas the following qualifications were stated. There are actually 3 qualifications!

Acts 1:21, 22 ............
"Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,(1)---beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us,
(2) one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.(3)"

Lets do another one.

Consider Luke 6:13.........
And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles.”

It is very clear that Jesus assigned them the office of apostle. That means they had to have been with Him.
It certainly was not a self-designation seeing how Jesus also said in John 15:16........
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit” .

Here's another one.......

1 Cor. 9:1...........
"Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not SEEN Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?"

Now then, having said that, can you post any biblical evidence that exists to indicate that the thirteen apostles were replaced when they died. Any Scriptures at all?????

Do not spend time debating me my sister, I am not the enemy. Focus on the Scriptures!!!

There are no qualifications in scripture for one to hold the calling of apostle. What you perceive is imaginary, not to mention denominational teaching. God chooses, and Holy Spirit anoints. You need to focus on that aspect, rather than come against the Lord's ways concerning how He has established His Church. God has never ordained replacement at any time with the one exception of Judas...and when the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, He alone does the anointing and equipping for such a job in His Church.
 
Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some. Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness.” ~ 2 Timothy 2:14-19​

In the past couple of days I have been made aware of the doctrine of “apostolic succession.” I was unfamiliar with this doctrine prior to a few days ago. Since it is being taught in Christian circles as truth, I felt the Lord would have me investigate it, and learn what it was about, and test it against the word of God to see if it was truth. So, I set out to do that a few days ago, and I will now share what I believe the Lord has taught me so far, because I believe this falls into this category of “worldly and empty chatter,” which is spreading like gangrene, or has the potential to do so, and is, or could possibly be a teaching that would upset the faith of some and lead them astray to a false gospel and a false belief.

Definition of Apostolic Succession: "The doctrine maintaining that present-day successors to Jesus's apostles, i.e. the bishops, have the same spiritual authority, power, and responsibility conferred upon them as did the original apostles" - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apostolic+succession

From what I can ascertain about this belief, it appears that the thought is that there are those who have received the gift of apostleship by way of succession, much like a prince might receive the crown from his father who was the king, after the father dies. The thought is that Jesus passed his authority down to his apostles who then passed their authority down to other apostles, and so on and so forth, and that these who have received apostleship by way of succession are in a class all to themselves above others (a hierarchy), again much like royalty, as compared to or in contrast to the common person who is not royalty. A hierarchy is “government by an elite group; government by ecclesiastical rulers;” and/or “the power or dominion of a hierarch,” which is “a person who rules or has authority in sacred matters; high priest” - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hierarchy.

I believe the Lord is saying this is a false doctrine, based in the lies of human beings, who have cooked this up out of their own minds. The foundation for this belief is not Jesus Christ, but it is man (human flesh), and this human flesh, from which this doctrine is coming, is at some of the highest levels in the land. Yet, there are those who are embracing this doctrine, and are holding on to it tenaciously, with their minds. Yet, the power through which this belief comes is not the Holy Spirit of God, but the flesh of man. These who are holding to the belief of “apostolic succession” have, thus, separated themselves from the body of believers in that they see themselves as superior, a class unto themselves, and there seems to be a desire among them, as well, to lord it over the people, rather than to humbly see themselves as one of us, i.e. as fellow-servants of Christ and of his gospel.

So, what is an apostle? “Apóstolos (from apostéllō, ‘to commission, send forth’) – properly, someone sent (commissioned), focusing back on the authority (commissioning) of the sender (note the prefix, apo); apostle; a messenger, one sent on a mission,” etc. - http://biblehub.com/greek/652.htm.​

So, to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, we need to be commissioned by Jesus Christ himself, to be sent on a mission, to be his messenger, and to represent him. This is not something someone can inherit from another human being, like in a blood-line, of sorts, but we must be called of God, empowered by the Spirit of God, and commissioned by God himself to do whatever it is he has called us to do. The Holy Spirit gives gifts as he chooses, and God assigns roles within the body of Christ as he determines, not as man determines, and not through some succession from one man to another to another. Let’s compare this to:

“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9).

So, what is this saying? Under the old order of things, i.e. under the Old Covenant, there was an order of priests who served as mediators between God and man. They were the ones who would make sacrifices for people’s sins, once a year, and they were the only ones, I believe, who could enter into the Holy of Holies, where the Ark of the Covenant was housed, and in which was God’s presence. Yet, when Jesus Christ died, the veil that separated us from the Holy of Holies was torn in two. In other words, through Jesus’ death for our sins, the barrier that stood between humans and God’s presence was destroyed, and a way was opened up for us to be able to come into God’s presence, through the blood of the Lamb, Jesus Christ. “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.” “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever” (Rev. 5:12, 13b). He is the one who is to be high and lifted up, not man. He is our only high priest!

When we believe in Jesus Christ to be Lord and Savior of our lives, we are indwelt with his Holy Spirit. We, thus, become the body of Christ, his church, the temple of God. The Holy of Holies now dwells within us. We no longer need human priests to mediate between us and God, for we can go directly into God’s presence. Jesus Christ is our hierarchy, not man. Since we are now the body of Christ, we are a holy and a royal priesthood, and we have been commissioned by God for his service, to proclaim him who has called us out of darkness into his wonderful light. We are all his servants and messengers. As his body, we are his representatives. We have the Word of God dwelling within us, so we no longer need prophets or apostles, in the sense of those who speak God’s God-breathed words to us. God can speak directly to each and every one of us. We have the written word of God, as well, in which we can be taught God’s words to us. And, the Holy Spirit is our primary teacher.

Now, within the body of Christ, the Holy Spirit gives gifts to all followers of Christ, as he chooses, and God assigns us the parts in the body, which he determines. But, we are all parts of one body, fellow servants together, chosen by God for his service, and not one of us is to be placed above another. One plants, another waters, but it is God who makes all things grow. We are all merely servants of God through whom he works for his purposes and for his glory. We do have teachers, but what they teach is the Word of God. We have those who prophesy, but what they do is proclaim the Word of God in very practical ways as is applied to our world and our lives today. We have appointed leaders, but they are to lead by example, and to not lord it over the people. Their purpose is to help nurture us in our walks of faith to maturity, to give guidance and direction, to keep order and discipline, and to direct the affairs of the church with love, justice and mercy. But, we are all fellow workers together in God’s kingdom, and all answerable to Christ, who is our only head.

So, if someone comes to you with this teaching of “apostolic succession,” reject it, because it is not of God. Jesus Christ is our only King and Lord, and He alone is to be High and Lifted Up! We are ALL his servants and messengers, commissioned by him for his service.

Your Servant Witness / An Original Work / March 13, 2012

Humbly I bow, Lord, before You,
Bringing my requests to You.
May I listen; hear You speaking.
May I follow You in truth.
Gently lead me in Your service.
Guide my steps and strengthen me.
Fill me with Your love and mercy.
May I live for Thee!

Let me be Your servant witness,
Telling others of Your grace.
May I always share the gospel
With those I meet face to face.
May I show the love of Jesus,
Caring for the needs of men;
Be Your servant witness always
For my Lord, Amen!

My desire to be like Jesus,
Living for Him ev’ry day.
May I obey all His teachings
Given me, so I’ll not stray.
Love You, Jesus, Lord, my master.
You are the King of my heart;
Follow You where’er You lead me;
Not from You depart!

 
I would suggest that the majority of the "apostolic succession" discussion is really just a "which church is the TRUE church?" war, not very different from the argument between the disciples in Luke 9:46, and Jesus' response to them (up to v.50) seems just as fitting here. Many groups assert to have evidence of apostolic succession to throw their claim into the mix that they alone are the true church, and authority rests with them alone.

They make their claims, but in the meantime, we simply observe that God gives authority to whomever He pleases for the benefit of His kingdom.

After being badgered by one particular organization that raised such a claim, I feel pretty satisfied to ignore any claim to "apostolic succession," and simply look for evidence where God is using His church to build His kingdom. If we observe that the Spirit has given someone authority to do powerful work in His name, even if it breaches the boundaries of what we think the "rules" are, who are we to argue? Peter set this example for us in Acts 10 when he allowed the Spirit to challenge his preconceptions about what he thought the "rules" were and who God can or can't choose.
Amen.
Just as with Moses and Eldad and Medad.
25Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him; and He took of the Spirit who was upon him and placed Him upon the seventy elders. And when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied. But they did not do it again. 26But two men had remained in the camp; the name of one was Eldad and the name of the other Medad. And the Spirit rested upon them (now they were among those who had been registered, but had not gone out to the tent), and they prophesied in the camp.27So a young man ran and told Moses and said, "Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp." 28Then Joshua the son of Nun, the attendant of Moses from his youth, said, "Moses, my lord, restrain them."29But Moses said to him, "Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD'S people were prophets, that the LORD would put His Spirit upon them!"…

Would that all God's people would humble themselves start walking in the spirit instead of arguing about who, or whose church is of greater authority.
Carnally minded christians will always boost their leader/bishop/priest/minister to the highest possible status, because in their mind, it also places them higher up the pecking order. I know this is true because about 40 years ago, as a novice believer I also got dragged into it before I came to my senses.

We see this even within smaller churches where those close to the leader vehemently defend him against all possible criticism, even when evidence of abuse or criminal activity is overwhelming. His position must be kept safe because should he be brought down, his circle of acolytes also get brought down.
Even the disciples of Jesus acted the same way.

Luke9v49John answered and said, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us."50But Jesus said to him, "Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you."

So, what does Jesus think about those who chase status and power over others? Here we have James and John asking Jesus for thrones alongside his.
Matthew20v24When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. 25Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.
26 Not so with you.
(Do we all read that, could Jesus be clearer?)
Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

I personally prefer the company of those who have no interest in status and leadership, the ones whose only interest is listening and following Jesus.
 
As I read thru this, I see the net being cast much farther than the meat of the question. Let's narrow this down a tad...........

If the text in Matthew, where Jesus says to Peter, "You are Peter (Rock) and upon this "rock" I will build my Church, is meant to say that Peter is to be some sort of "head" of the Church, then the questions are:

A. For how long?
B. Would he be told to appoint a successor?
C. How long would this line of leadership be required?
D. Did Peter consider himself as "head of the earthly
Church; or did the other Apostles consider him as such
thru Scriptural evidence?
E. Does oral transmission of the history of the Church
count for anything?

Some assumptions are:

A. Whomever was the appointed "head" of the earthly Church, they would answer to Christ.
B. It was Gods intent to have an earthly leader.
C. It would continue this way til Christs return.
D. The history of the earthly Church is not Sola Scriptura
(by Scripture alone) but is also understood from
the transmission from one generation to the next of
oral or written documentation, and has merit for
contextual understanding and belief.
E. Any earthly Church Leadership, would be exclusive
and not handed out willy-nilly to just anyone.

We're obviously (we all see this) discussing Catholic Doctrine -vs- Protestant here, and there are books galore that cover this topic (I'd venture to guess that I've read most of them at this point).

Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea that Christ wanted Peter to lead his Church, based on Gods track record with mankind, (as documented in Scripture) when you see all the key people that God puts in place throughout time (Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Joshua, etc.) to lead His people.

I couldn't (again, "personally") point to anyone in the Protestant ranks that would be someone who I would have believed was in direct Apostolic succession to Peter, either by claim or by fact, but there IS a lineage of Papacy that I have in a huge chart on my wall, that seems to go back all the way to Peter, (if accurate), among the Catholic ranks.

To be sure, God has appointed various prophets throughout history, (OT and New) from early days even til now (you can name the contemporary ones in your mind if you wish), who would function in a different role other than Leadership.

What I found interesting, in my years as a RC, was the faithful turning to Christ as the "ultimate Authority." They would not deny His place, with their own (that is not to say that the Catholic leadership did not have its problem children, or sins as a Church, because it did, and it does), but they would seemingly ADD to that Authority with other Doctrines that muddy the water.

So really, the question for me to ask myself today, is..........what voices do I listen to for ultimate Authority? Certainly Scripture, for starters..........which tells us that we are to expect the Comforter (the Holy Spirit) to come and "lead us into all truth."

There's a problem with that however, in that some will say that we don't need any other leadership other than our Bible and our Holy Spirit. There is Truth there, and then there is falsehood; for we are told NOT to forsake the gathering together as a body (for we are indeed supposed to be "one" with Him as a collective, and we ARE indeed going to spend eternity with Him as a collective), so therefore there must be God-Appointed leadership out there, that are trustworthy for revealing the Truth of Scripture to the Body of Christ.

How we discern the Godly voices (talking heads, if you will) out there, from the ungodly ones, is a whole other discussion.

Suffice to say, it becomes our lot to be "wise as serpents" when it comes to who or what we listen to, and we rely heavily on the filter of the Holy Spirit and Scripture, to choose wisely, lest we be led astray.

In "Pilgrims Progress" there are many pathways and people that come along, to attempt to entice "Christian" (the main character) to follow a variety of pathways that will lead him to destruction, and not to the proper goal. He nearly blows it but is constantly guided out of his troubles by a God-sent guide.

I can only hope..........in my own life..........that I am constantly placing myself in a position of humility and surrender to the Spirit of God and His Word, so that I am not led away from the right pathway, and the final "Heaven" He has gone to prepare for His Creation (even lil ole cruddy messed up "me").

-Soupy
 
As I read thru this, I see the net being cast much farther than the meat of the question. Let's narrow this down a tad...........

If the text in Matthew, where Jesus says to Peter, "You are Peter (Rock) and upon this "rock" I will build my Church, is meant to say that Peter is to be some sort of "head" of the Church, then the questions are:

A. For how long?
B. Would he be told to appoint a successor?
C. How long would this line of leadership be required?
D. Did Peter consider himself as "head of the earthly
Church; or did the other Apostles consider him as such
thru Scriptural evidence?
E. Does oral transmission of the history of the Church
count for anything?

Some assumptions are:

A. Whomever was the appointed "head" of the earthly Church, they would answer to Christ.
B. It was Gods intent to have an earthly leader.
C. It would continue this way til Christs return.
D. The history of the earthly Church is not Sola Scriptura
(by Scripture alone) but is also understood from
the transmission from one generation to the next of
oral or written documentation, and has merit for
contextual understanding and belief.
E. Any earthly Church Leadership, would be exclusive
and not handed out willy-nilly to just anyone.

We're obviously (we all see this) discussing Catholic Doctrine -vs- Protestant here, and there are books galore that cover this topic (I'd venture to guess that I've read most of them at this point).

Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea that Christ wanted Peter to lead his Church, based on Gods track record with mankind, (as documented in Scripture) when you see all the key people that God puts in place throughout time (Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Joshua, etc.) to lead His people.

I couldn't (again, "personally") point to anyone in the Protestant ranks that would be someone who I would have believed was in direct Apostolic succession to Peter, either by claim or by fact, but there IS a lineage of Papacy that I have in a huge chart on my wall, that seems to go back all the way to Peter, (if accurate), among the Catholic ranks.

To be sure, God has appointed various prophets throughout history, (OT and New) from early days even til now (you can name the contemporary ones in your mind if you wish), who would function in a different role other than Leadership.

What I found interesting, in my years as a RC, was the faithful turning to Christ as the "ultimate Authority." They would not deny His place, with their own (that is not to say that the Catholic leadership did not have its problem children, or sins as a Church, because it did, and it does), but they would seemingly ADD to that Authority with other Doctrines that muddy the water.

So really, the question for me to ask myself today, is..........what voices do I listen to for ultimate Authority? Certainly Scripture, for starters..........which tells us that we are to expect the Comforter (the Holy Spirit) to come and "lead us into all truth."

There's a problem with that however, in that some will say that we don't need any other leadership other than our Bible and our Holy Spirit. There is Truth there, and then there is falsehood; for we are told NOT to forsake the gathering together as a body (for we are indeed supposed to be "one" with Him as a collective, and we ARE indeed going to spend eternity with Him as a collective), so therefore there must be God-Appointed leadership out there, that are trustworthy for revealing the Truth of Scripture to the Body of Christ.

How we discern the Godly voices (talking heads, if you will) out there, from the ungodly ones, is a whole other discussion.

Suffice to say, it becomes our lot to be "wise as serpents" when it comes to who or what we listen to, and we rely heavily on the filter of the Holy Spirit and Scripture, to choose wisely, lest we be led astray.

In "Pilgrims Progress" there are many pathways and people that come along, to attempt to entice "Christian" (the main character) to follow a variety of pathways that will lead him to destruction, and not to the proper goal. He nearly blows it but is constantly guided out of his troubles by a God-sent guide.

I can only hope..........in my own life..........that I am constantly placing myself in a position of humility and surrender to the Spirit of God and His Word, so that I am not led away from the right pathway, and the final "Heaven" He has gone to prepare for His Creation (even lil ole cruddy messed up "me").

-Soupy
The whole discussion effectively revolves around one passage of scripture.
Matthew16v18And I say also unto you, That you are Peter (a stone), and upon this rock (Petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.

We can see from the Greek words that Jesus is making a specific point.
"You are Peter", which simply means a pebble or rock.
Then,-
"....and on this rock (Petra)..." which means a cliff face or mountain.
Jesus is making a clear distinction between Peter and himself, Peter a little pebble compared to Jesus the mountain.

I therefore reject the Catholic viewpoint, that Peter is the rock, and also reject the general protestant view that the rock is Peter's revelation that Jesus is the Christ.

Throughout scripture, there has only been one Rock, and that is the Rock of Salvation, God himself, who was manifest in the flesh as Jesus. The very person of Jesus himself is the Rock, and the only Rock. There is scriptural reference to no other possible rock.

1Cor10v1For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
(Here we see clearly Paul's confirmation that Christ alone was the rock of salvation for the Patriarchs of Israel, and that Rock was neither Peter the apostle, nor a biblical revelation)


Psalm95v1O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation.



Psalm62v1
Truly my soul waits upon God: from him comes my salvation.
2He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defense; I shall not be greatly moved.
........
......
5My soul, wait you only upon God; for my expectation is from him.
6He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defense; I shall not be moved.
7In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God.
.........

(How can anyone claim there is another rock when David makes it plain that God is the one and only rock?)

Isaiah17v10For you have forgotten the God of your salvation And have not remembered the rock of your refuge.

Deuteronomy32v15"But Jeshurun grew fat and kicked-- You are grown fat, thick, and sleek-- Then he forsook God who made him, And scorned the Rock of his salvation.


Genesis49v24But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,

Psalm61v2Hear my cry, O God; Give heed to my prayer. 2From the end of the earth I call to You when my heart is faint; Lead me to the rock that is higher than I.3For You have been a refuge for me, A tower of strength against the enemy.…

Psalm31v2Incline Your ear to me, rescue me quickly; Be to me a rock of strength, A stronghold to save me.


1Peter2v"THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone," 8and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.
(Rather strange here is it not, if Peter thought that he himself was the foundation of the church, why does he make it clear that position belongs solely to Christ?)

Romans9v33just as it is written, "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."

(Again we see that Paul certainly didn't perceive Peter as the man who the church was built on!)

I guess you can see the picture cut and pasted from all over scripture. There is only one rock, and he is neither a revelation, nor a mere fallible man.
The ekklesia of God is not built on any man, but on God/Creator/Logos/Christ himself, and has been so from creation onwards.
Do we seriously think that Peter ever considered that the church was being built on himself rather than Christ?
 
Last edited:
We're obviously (we all see this) discussing Catholic Doctrine -vs- Protestant here, and there are books galore that cover this topic (I'd venture to guess that I've read most of them at this point).

I can easily see why someone would think that. My own personal experience, though, with groups that aggressively defend their sole authority has actually been with protestant groups (or, at least groups that have eventuated through protestant channels). The last time I checked through Catholic documents on this matter, I did notice that some of their official statements seem to accept (however begrudgingly) that the true church exists beyond their own organisation. Don't ask me to quote from them directly, though, I've long forgotten where I found that info:) Anyway, for me, it's not a Catholic vs Protestant thing.

You have a lot of wisdom in your post, and I sort of get the idea a lot of it is hard-earned through experience, but this in particular really stood out to me,:

So really, the question for me to ask myself today, is..........what voices do I listen to for ultimate Authority? Certainly Scripture, for starters..........which tells us that we are to expect the Comforter (the Holy Spirit) to come and "lead us into all truth."

There's a problem with that however, in that some will say that we don't need any other leadership other than our Bible and our Holy Spirit. There is Truth there, and then there is falsehood; for we are told NOT to forsake the gathering together as a body (for we are indeed supposed to be "one" with Him as a collective, and we ARE indeed going to spend eternity with Him as a collective), so therefore there must be God-Appointed leadership out there, that are trustworthy for revealing the Truth of Scripture to the Body of Christ.

The idea that we can make it on our own -- just us and God -- is probably equally dangerous to that temptation to insist on sole authority. We're not meant to be able to make it without being part of the whole body -- and in that body, we do need to recognize that some have been specifically tasked with various aspects of leadership.

Very balanced post with lots of thought-provoking things, thank you for sharing.
 
Amen.
Just as with Moses and Eldad and Medad.
25Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him; and He took of the Spirit who was upon him and placed Him upon the seventy elders. And when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied. But they did not do it again. 26But two men had remained in the camp; the name of one was Eldad and the name of the other Medad. And the Spirit rested upon them (now they were among those who had been registered, but had not gone out to the tent), and they prophesied in the camp.27So a young man ran and told Moses and said, "Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp." 28Then Joshua the son of Nun, the attendant of Moses from his youth, said, "Moses, my lord, restrain them."29But Moses said to him, "Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD'S people were prophets, that the LORD would put His Spirit upon them!"…

Would that all God's people would humble themselves start walking in the spirit instead of arguing about who, or whose church is of greater authority.
Carnally minded christians will always boost their leader/bishop/priest/minister to the highest possible status, because in their mind, it also places them higher up the pecking order. I know this is true because about 40 years ago, as a novice believer I also got dragged into it before I came to my senses.

We see this even within smaller churches where those close to the leader vehemently defend him against all possible criticism, even when evidence of abuse or criminal activity is overwhelming. His position must be kept safe because should he be brought down, his circle of acolytes also get brought down.
Even the disciples of Jesus acted the same way.

Luke9v49John answered and said, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us."50But Jesus said to him, "Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you."

So, what does Jesus think about those who chase status and power over others? Here we have James and John asking Jesus for thrones alongside his.
Matthew20v24When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. 25Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.
26 Not so with you.
(Do we all read that, could Jesus be clearer?)
Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

I personally prefer the company of those who have no interest in status and leadership, the ones whose only interest is listening and following Jesus.
Yes, I see much abuse of authority in today's modern church, across denominations, but, from what I have observed, today's pastors are being taught this, because I hear so many of them all saying the same things, and they are raising themselves above the people, but they need to see themselves as servants, not lords over the people. The reason they do this, I believe, is control over the people. They threaten and they shame the people into blind submission to their leadership, whether or not it is biblical. Well, I could go on and on about this. It breaks my heart that so many are being led astray.
 
There are no qualifications in scripture for one to hold the calling of apostle. What you perceive is imaginary, not to mention denominational teaching. God chooses, and Holy Spirit anoints. You need to focus on that aspect, rather than come against the Lord's ways concerning how He has established His Church. God has never ordained replacement at any time with the one exception of Judas...and when the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, He alone does the anointing and equipping for such a job in His Church.

I do not know for the life of me why you keep saying "denomination teaching". You are wrong!!!

I have explained to you that I was raised in the Penacostal faith, educated in a Presbyterian college and have lived now in the Baptist church. If anyone is NOT denominational it is me. YOU however are entrenched in the Charismatic faith which is fne with me but it is actually your denominational slant that is in view here.

You actually said what I said when you stated...........
" God has never ordained replacement at any time with the one exception of Judas..."!

That is exactly what I said my sister! There is NO Biblical record of the continuation of apostles!! NONE!
 
Thank you Major. It was nice hearing from you again. I appreciate your feedback, and I don't mind long responses at all. Everyone's comments have been most helpful. The Lord is teaching me much on this subject, and I am beginning to see much of the deception in this doctrine. For one, we don't inherit our salvation or our calling from God from other people. It is not passed down to us from other individuals. Secondly, this whole doctrine in man-based, and raises men who say they are in this line of succession above others. They are a hierarchy unto themselves, and are not humble servants of God in the body of Christ, with Christ as the head, and God assigning their portions instead of them inheriting them from other humans. They are very focused on this whole authority thing and with everyone bowing to their authority, but even Paul hesitated to exercise strong authority unless it was necessary. He often appealed to the people to get things right so he would not have to exercise his authority. He admitted he was no better than anyone else, and he made himself available to be questioned and tested. And, so much more...

The Lord has the song going through my head, "Worthy is the Lamb," sung by Hillsong, I believe. The words standing out to me are "high and lifted up, Jesus Lamb of God..." Jesus is the one to be high and lifted up, not humans who think they have some special line of authority passed down to them from generation to generation.

Always good to talk with you Sue. From your words it appears that you have the correct grasp of the situation we see in religion.

The idea of apostleship today brings with it a thought of elitism which is contrary to the Word of God.
 
Yes, I see much abuse of authority in today's modern church, across denominations, but, from what I have observed, today's pastors are being taught this, because I hear so many of them all saying the same things, and they are raising themselves above the people, but they need to see themselves as servants, not lords over the people. The reason they do this, I believe, is control over the people. They threaten and they shame the people into blind submission to their leadership, whether or not it is biblical. Well, I could go on and on about this. It breaks my heart that so many are being led astray.
Been there, got the tee shirt etc! Avoid it like the plague now.
 
My own personal experience, though, with groups that aggressively defend their sole authority has actually been with protestant groups (or, at least groups that have eventuated through protestant channels). .. Anyway, for me, it's not a Catholic vs Protestant thing.

I agree. The protestant churches may not use the Catholic terminology, but many are practicing something very similar.
 
Back
Top