Apostolic Succession
- Thread starter SueJLove
- Start date
What can we all agree on? Which ones of these?
1. That there should be no hierarchy in the church - no group which considers itself above all others, and thus lords itself over people
2. That no one should add to scripture, saying they are God's voice to the people, and thus we must obey them without question
3. The priesthood of the Believer - that we are all called, all sent, all gifted, all commissioned, and we all have direct access to God
4. That we don't receive authority from God for ministry by way of succession, from one person to another to another, but only by the Holy Spirit gifting us as he chooses and God calling and placing us in the body where he has determined
5. That leaders within the church do not receive their authority by succession, but by divine calling from God
6. That leaders within the church are to be humble servants of God, who lead by example, and who do not lord it over the people
7. That we are all to love one another in Jesus, even if we don't agree with each other on every point
1. That there should be no hierarchy in the church - no group which considers itself above all others, and thus lords itself over people
2. That no one should add to scripture, saying they are God's voice to the people, and thus we must obey them without question
3. The priesthood of the Believer - that we are all called, all sent, all gifted, all commissioned, and we all have direct access to God
4. That we don't receive authority from God for ministry by way of succession, from one person to another to another, but only by the Holy Spirit gifting us as he chooses and God calling and placing us in the body where he has determined
5. That leaders within the church do not receive their authority by succession, but by divine calling from God
6. That leaders within the church are to be humble servants of God, who lead by example, and who do not lord it over the people
7. That we are all to love one another in Jesus, even if we don't agree with each other on every point
Ephesians 2:19-22.........
"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."
Notice please that "Built upon the foundation of the apostles" is in the Greek grammer PAST tense. The apostles served as a foundation for the church which was a mystery. To believe that there are apostles today then would mean that we are expecting to see another group of apostles to come and build a building and lay another foundation. Is that what you are thinking??????
Since Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the church, He is part of that original foundation. Do YOU think that there is going to be another Jesus where a another foundation is going to be laid?
Now, just so that you will realize that I am only quoting Scripture and am in no way adding to it, and that there are other Scriptures which confirm my comments, please consider Luke 24:46-48.............
Apostles were to bear witness to the fact that Jesus had risen from the dead. In order to do this, they had to have seen him after he was resurrected.
"And [Jesus] said unto them, (Them were the 11 gathered for their commission from Jesus)Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day… And ye are witnesses of these things."
Then we see when looking for someone to replace Judas, the one chosen had to be a witness unto the resurrection.
Acts 1:22..............
"Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection."
Jesus told the apostles Acts 1:8..........
"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."
Now according to Acts 4:33, that is exactly what they did.
"And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
Paul when defending his apostleship said in 1 Corinthians 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?"
Then in 1 Corth. 15:7-9........
"After that, he [JESUS] was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me [PAUL] also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."
In order to be an apostle one has to have seen Jesus after he rose from the dead. Paul says that Jesus was seen last of all by him. He is the last one to see Jesus after his resurrection. Since no one since Paul has seen Jesus, no one since Paul can be an apostle. Therefore, there can be no apostles today.
Now you may not agree with me, but as you can see Biblically, my comments and opinions are CONTEXTUALLY accurate with the Scriptures my dear brother. So it is not ME that you are having the problem with but the Bible words themselves.
If there is no such list then please explain the meaning of the verses posted for your consideration.
What did Peter say with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Is Peter wrong or the Holy Spirit?
Matt. 10:1-2..........
"And when he [JESUS] had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these.........
2 Corth. 12:11-12........
"...for in nothing am I [PAUL] behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among YOU in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds."
Can we all agree on this? 1 Co. 3:10-11: "According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
Can we agree that there are no more apostles, in the sense of the apostles of the New Testament, who laid the foundation of our Christian faith down for us, which is Jesus Christ? We build on top of that foundation, but we don't keep adding to the foundation. They spoke the G0d-breathed words of God to us, which are now written down for us to follow, which is scripture, which none of us should add to or take away from. Can we agree on that?
Can we agree that technically speaking, the meaning of apostle is "sent out one," which is what all of us are, as the priesthood of believers? Can we agree that there are those within the body of Christ who are specifically sent out to be missionaries, and so technically speaking, they would be correct to use the term "apostle" for their calling, according to the definition of the word "apostle"? But, that to call ourselves apostles of Christ can cause confusion? Because we can't be apostles in the sense of what the apostles were in the New Testament? And, that there are many people today who are calling themselves apostles of Christ, but who are not? And, that they are leading many astray to false gospels?
What I am trying to say here is that I think maybe we are arguing terminology, when maybe we need to look at what it is we are really saying. We, as God's spiritual house, are being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the chief cornerstone of that foundation. We don't add to that foundation, but we build on top of it. So, we can't be apostles in the sense of the apostles of the New Testament, otherwise we would be continually adding to scripture. So, with that, I believe we should be cautious in using the term "apostle" for a sent out one today, especially since the whole body of Christ, as the priesthood of believers, are all sent out ones. We are all to declare the praises of him who called us out of darkness into his wonderful light. We all have the authority of the Word of God with which we can speak, but as revealed to us in scripture, and which we don't add to. Yet, God may gift some of us in the teaching or the preaching of the Word in all practicality as applied to our lives and world today, but we are not adding to scripture, but are teaching what is already revealed, just as applied to today. Can we agree on that?
Can we agree that there are no more apostles, in the sense of the apostles of the New Testament, who laid the foundation of our Christian faith down for us, which is Jesus Christ? We build on top of that foundation, but we don't keep adding to the foundation. They spoke the G0d-breathed words of God to us, which are now written down for us to follow, which is scripture, which none of us should add to or take away from. Can we agree on that?
Can we agree that technically speaking, the meaning of apostle is "sent out one," which is what all of us are, as the priesthood of believers? Can we agree that there are those within the body of Christ who are specifically sent out to be missionaries, and so technically speaking, they would be correct to use the term "apostle" for their calling, according to the definition of the word "apostle"? But, that to call ourselves apostles of Christ can cause confusion? Because we can't be apostles in the sense of what the apostles were in the New Testament? And, that there are many people today who are calling themselves apostles of Christ, but who are not? And, that they are leading many astray to false gospels?
What I am trying to say here is that I think maybe we are arguing terminology, when maybe we need to look at what it is we are really saying. We, as God's spiritual house, are being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the chief cornerstone of that foundation. We don't add to that foundation, but we build on top of it. So, we can't be apostles in the sense of the apostles of the New Testament, otherwise we would be continually adding to scripture. So, with that, I believe we should be cautious in using the term "apostle" for a sent out one today, especially since the whole body of Christ, as the priesthood of believers, are all sent out ones. We are all to declare the praises of him who called us out of darkness into his wonderful light. We all have the authority of the Word of God with which we can speak, but as revealed to us in scripture, and which we don't add to. Yet, God may gift some of us in the teaching or the preaching of the Word in all practicality as applied to our lives and world today, but we are not adding to scripture, but are teaching what is already revealed, just as applied to today. Can we agree on that?
That same power is given to all of us by the Holy Spirit. However the first apostles laid the foundation that we continually build upon.
We, as apostles of Christ in general, sent out ones for Him, carry all the power and authority of Jesus Christ in us. Now, that said, there is a special gifting or calling of apostle for the Church, and not everyone has that. But it, like all the other gifts and callings, has not ceased.
Thanks, @Euphemia, for everything you've contributed to this thread, and thank you to everyone else as well, you've all given me a lot of food for thought on a variety of subjects. I don't agree with everything that's been said, but I certainly appreciate the spirit with which it's been said. The brethren have been longsuffering with one another, and it's lovely to see. Euphemia, I'd like to ask you more about what you've posted, but I don't want to draw the thread off-topic. Would you prefer that I PM you, or do you think I should post here?
Feel free to PM me anytime!
Of course you know that we do not agree on that and it will have to remain that way.
There is absolutely no record of the succession on apostles beyond John the Revelator. We can think it, want it and demand it but there is NONE.
Last edited:
What you have asked us to agree on is pretty much what I have said from the beginning. Just go back and read the posts and you will be able to see that.
Here then is the rub. Today we have many people who argue that there are Apostles because then that would validate their belief in that ALL of Christians who have received the 2nd blessing will have the same gifts as the Apostles.
That is just not what the Scriptures teach at all. The ORIGINAL 12 were given "Sign Gifts" that validated who they were and they were able to heal the sick, speak in tongue, raise the dead, handle poisonous snakes and speak in tongues. When they died those gifts ended because there was no need to keep them. By the time John had died the Bible was completed.
The group out there today who are demanding that they have those gifts and they hang that on their belief that there are apostles today and since there are, WE have those apostolic gifts.
IF anyone wants to believe that, you do not have an argument with me. I DO NOT CARE.
The argument should be with Peter, Matthew, Paul and Luke and of Course Jesus and not me.
All I have said from the very beginning is that it is not Biblical and I have posted the Biblical requirements for an Apostle about 10 times. IF there are those who do not want to accept those Scriptures as printed then Halleluiah for them!!!!
Last edited:
There is absolutely no biblical record that the gift and calling of apostle has ceased. None. In fact, the bible states clearly that the Church has need of all gifts and callings as long as Jesus is building it.
What you have been taught concerning requirements are not requirements at all.
The marks of a believer:
Mark 16:17-18
These miraculous signs will accompany those who believe: They will cast out demons in my name, and they will speak in new languages. 18 They will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won’t hurt them. They will be able to place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed.”
Mark 16:17-18
These miraculous signs will accompany those who believe: They will cast out demons in my name, and they will speak in new languages. 18 They will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won’t hurt them. They will be able to place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed.”
Not so my sister. As I said, you can wish it and want it all you want to but that will not make it so. So then, Please post the apostle AFTER John the Revelator!!!!! He died in around 96 AD. Who was the next recorded Apostle?
It is not a matter of being taught anything Euphemia. It is about reading what is written in the Bible.
You are not going to like this because I know what you think about the Catholic Church, BUT all over the world, all Catholic bishops are said to be a part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations as there is NO record of such a thing.
So in part, you would be correct but you will have to acknowledge the Catholics for its continuation. The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the leader of the apostles, with the greatest authority, and therefore his successors carry on the greatest authority, according to Catholic tradition and dogma. The Roman Catholic Church combines this belief with the concept that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed Peter were accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. Apostolic succession, combined with Peter’s supremacy among the apostles, results in the Roman bishop being the supreme authority of the Catholic Church – the Pope who in their mind an Apostle.
However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles.
Does it have to be recorded that Holy Spirit now continues the work of Christ in the world by gifting and anointing people to do these things? Paul didn't write that apostles are part of the Church of Jesus Christ for nothing.
You read into it, Major, because of teaching.
The RCC has aberrant beliefs, not related to this discussion, really.
Right. There is no such thing as succession. Just Holy Ghost anointing and appointing.
That is not a proper understanding of the perspective of the RCC at ALL (if in fact, you include them in your thesis)! They aren't supporting or teaching a Doctrine of full and complete Apostolic power to the extent of the first Apostles. If you ARE including them in that sweeping generalization, it is a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the RCC. (I say that, because there is a lot of anti-RCC rhetoric being thrown about in this Thread).
I would AGREE that there are some Protestant groups (Independent's mostly) that have some beliefs in that direction, as foolish and dangerous as that may be.
Would that there WERE those whom God had granted the ability to raise the dead! Well........wait a minute now.......there are a FEW folks out there that I WOULDN'T want to see resurrected!
-Soupy
Steve, what I am saying and did in fact say, is only the recorded facts and not any thesis whatsoever. I do not speak opinions or conjecture because I am just not that smart and only post what exists to be tested and proven. I respect your thoughts but I must disagree with you and here are the recorded facts on the early Catholic church and their teaching succession of the office of Apostle:
Irenaeus, (Against Heresies 3:3:1 (A.D. 180-199-ibid 4:26:2)................
"It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father.
Tertullian, (The Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:1 (A.D. 200).
"Therefore, they will be challenged to meet this test even by those Churches which are of much later date – for they are being established daily – and whose founder is not from among the Apostles nor from among the apostolic men; for those which agree in the same faith are reckoned as apostolic on account of the blood ties in their doctrine.
Firmilion of Caesarea (Letter to Cyprian 75:16 (A.D. 255-256).
"Therefore, the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place."
So, as you can see I am including nothing on my own but simply what is recorded from past teachings and comments about Apostolic succession which is easily found on the web.
I respect that. However, what I'm trying to point out, is that there is a tendency to say that the current RCC (and over time as well) has had the perspective that they were fully endowed with all the characteristics of that of the original Apostles; which as you and we all know, included some things that were a tad "out of the ordinary" (to say the least). That is not implied or explicitly stated in their Code of Cannon Law or any other document they have produced thru the years.
Are there flaws in the RCC and its Doctrine? Absolutely. There are flaws in (dare I say it) ALL organized religious groups.
God will straighten all this mess out. I'm counting on it!! "For me to live is Christ," is a perspective worth adopting. It takes us beyond the realm of organized religion, (not avoiding the gathering together of course; wisely choosing who we "gather" with) and moves us more steadily toward that one-on-one that God makes available to us, by His Grace.
In the bigger picture of things, I say to God, "Lord, whatever You desire for me; that do I ask for. Whatever you do NOT desire for me; I am willing to let go of. Only help me to do my part to be open and willing to allow your Spirit to work in me that which you Ordain, and rest in the Peace that only YOU can give, with regard to those things you have NOT required of me, or gifted me with to use.
Do I want my judgements of who to follow to be Spirit-Guided? Absolutely!! So should we all. Do I seek to find the commonality of faith among those of many different perspectives? Yes.
Why do that? Because what we perceive as "Gods Ways," are not necessarily the end-all of the question. Who are we to presume that we have the full picture? (Rhetorical). To assume that I have the understanding of Gods Ways all wrapped up in my thinking, is a dangerous and fool-hearty position to stand on. (I'm NOT suggesting that YOU are doing that, mind you).
If I "stand" on ecumenical ground, it is because I do so based on a non-sectarian, non-denominational approach to "Heaven," based on what Scripture and most religious leadership has maintained throughout its pages, and throughout history (respectively). To stand otherwise, is peril.
"Less time denouncing what should not be, allows more time for uplifting that which SHOULD be; to the benefit of those who are lost, and to the glory of those who are obedient." -SDC
-Soupy
Are there flaws in the RCC and its Doctrine? Absolutely. There are flaws in (dare I say it) ALL organized religious groups.
God will straighten all this mess out. I'm counting on it!! "For me to live is Christ," is a perspective worth adopting. It takes us beyond the realm of organized religion, (not avoiding the gathering together of course; wisely choosing who we "gather" with) and moves us more steadily toward that one-on-one that God makes available to us, by His Grace.
In the bigger picture of things, I say to God, "Lord, whatever You desire for me; that do I ask for. Whatever you do NOT desire for me; I am willing to let go of. Only help me to do my part to be open and willing to allow your Spirit to work in me that which you Ordain, and rest in the Peace that only YOU can give, with regard to those things you have NOT required of me, or gifted me with to use.
Do I want my judgements of who to follow to be Spirit-Guided? Absolutely!! So should we all. Do I seek to find the commonality of faith among those of many different perspectives? Yes.
Why do that? Because what we perceive as "Gods Ways," are not necessarily the end-all of the question. Who are we to presume that we have the full picture? (Rhetorical). To assume that I have the understanding of Gods Ways all wrapped up in my thinking, is a dangerous and fool-hearty position to stand on. (I'm NOT suggesting that YOU are doing that, mind you).
If I "stand" on ecumenical ground, it is because I do so based on a non-sectarian, non-denominational approach to "Heaven," based on what Scripture and most religious leadership has maintained throughout its pages, and throughout history (respectively). To stand otherwise, is peril.
"Less time denouncing what should not be, allows more time for uplifting that which SHOULD be; to the benefit of those who are lost, and to the glory of those who are obedient." -SDC
-Soupy
Major, all the way through this thread you have evaded the question that Sue asked here. You also manipulate the discussion to avoid answering it.
Here is the question again from post No77.-
And from your own post No25
Paul most certainly did not accompany the other disciples all the time that Jesus went in and out among them. He was not with them from the baptism of John. Indeed as a Pharisee, he would have been offended at what John was doing in the Jordan.
Thus Paul does not match your criteria as one of the twelve, yet he was certainly an apostle.
If God was dead or has some how gone on a long journey or as Gideon wondered where was the God of old,then I would suppose you might consider some apostolic succession. From man to man as the world counts kings.
But the making of an Apostle as also of a prophet is not of man's doing. But they are made by God.
Peter presumed that they and he would by lot choose a replacement for Judas. And others have followed his example. But GOD'S ways are not man's ways. He had already chosen the replacement of his choosing. It was Saul of TARSUS,who did not yet know it,or indeed
PETER.
Might I also suggest that the most 'perfect 'pattern given to us of an Apostle was Paul rather than Peter. To which all who claim to be Apostles or are a claimed to be so must in some measure follow to be counted as one.
Last edited:
I want to say this in as nice a way as I can to you Francis. The way you state you question portrays me as being less than honest and deceitful purposefully. I am assuming you are not aware of that so I will forgive you for such a slant. To be frank with you I never evade anyone or anything my brother. It is just not in my DNA. In fact our dear moderators have to regularly remind me to not be so direct and I am glad that they do.
2nd.......YOU may think that I manipulated the conversation so as to avoid something BUT YOU would be the only one to say that.
Again, that is YOUR perception because it certainly is not my style. I am just not that smart Francis neither do I have the ability to think that way. If YOU think that then it is all YOU.
Now once again to answer you. You said you have read all the posts in this thread and if that is the case you saw in #78 that I did answer the question Sues asked and she since then has asked nothing of me that I am aware of. That being the case it was my understanding that she was happy with my response to her.
I am pretty sure you will reject what I am about to say but it is my understanding of the Bible that Paul was personally chosen by the risen and glorified Christ to be His apostle to the Gentiles. He makes it clear in the book of Galatians that his special calling was "not from men nor through man" in Galatians 1:1.
And you are correct when you say that Paul the Apostle had not accompanied Jesus during his earthly ministry, he did not meet the apostolic criteria of Acts 1:21-22 of that one particular requirement. However, it is clear, that he considered himself to be an apostle and that is not desputed by the other New Test. authors anywhwere that I know of. Even though the only place in the Book of Acts where Paul is called an apostle is in reference to the apostles of the church in Antioch in 14:4, 14.
Dr. Luke's portrayal of Paul's ministry for the church gives implicit support to his apostolic claims. Not only does Acts depict Paul as manifesting the signs of an apostle, but in its three accounts of the Damascus Road encounter, his apostolic task is presented as the direct action of the risen Christ.
Paul's own claim to apostleship is likewise based on the divine call of Christ and that is the key IMO.
He is an apostle, "not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead" as seen in Gal. 1:1. His encounter with the resurrected Jesus served as the basis for his unique claim to be an "apostle to the Gentiles" as we see in Rom. 11:13.
It seems to me that Paul bases his apostleship on the grace of God, not on ecstatic gifts or the signs of an apostle and he does that because he was divinely appointed by the risen Christ for that purpose and since it is Christ who did this, it seems to me He has the authority to do so.