Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian 72 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

JosephMalik

NanaR,
Apostleship is not required to satisfy any of your questions. The goal of the Faith was not to make more Apostles but to make more followers which were called disciples and this would propagate the faith to the end of the world. Notice what our Lord taught: 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Ruth said: If Apostolic Succession did not happen, what was the purpose of the "laying on of the hands"?
The laying on of hands was a means of passing authority or responsibility to another and it did not require an Apostle. I have already shown how the Church of Antioch passed their authority to Paul and Barnabas to speak in their behalf. This is not a smoking gun but a primary doctrine of the faith. In the case of Timothy who had authority to appoint Bishops and deacons: 1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
Ruth said: Where was the Christian Church for the time between the death of the 12 original apostles and the beginning of whatever you believe to be the Christian Church now? In what group did the Holy Spirit abide for all that time, since Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to be the Helper of Christians?
In was in the hands of disciples as our Lord taught. It is still in the hands of disciples today. For some reason you think it started and stopped. You may also think that it is dependent upon membership to some denomination. But that is not what our Lord said as each disciple that was taught to: "observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" individually and/or collectively is the Church and a member of the body of Christ.
Joseph
NanaR

In was in the hands of disciples as our Lord taught. It is still in the hands of disciples today. For some reason you think it started and stopped. You may also think that it is dependent upon membership to some denomination. But that is not what our Lord said as each disciple that was taught to: "observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" individually and/or collectively is the Church and a member of the body of Christ.
Joseph:
You misunderstood me. I did not allege that the Church started and stopped. Since you seem to dismiss the Early Church Fathers out of hand (as in your previous post), I thought that was what you were saying.
I made no comment about membership in any denomination, so I am not sure exactly how you derived that from my post.
I am on my way out right now, but I will reply to the remainder of your post and that of Christian at a later time.
Pax,
Ruth
M.J.

Just a side note: The WTS denies the concept when applied to the apostles, but affirms it (implicitly) when applied to themselves. ?? How many 1919 "brothers" are still around?
Narkissos

Apostleship is not required to satisfy any of your questions. The goal of the Faith was not to make more Apostles but to make more followers which were called disciples and this would propagate the faith to the end of the world.
(etc.)
Either you don't know what you are talking about or you are purposefully building a convenient strawman. Apostolic succession in historical churches was never about a succession of apostles. As far as I know the Catholic church is not ruled by twelve apostles, and not even the pope claims apostleship in that strict sense. In Catholic dogma there is no more than twelve apostles (in that strict sense again), and they are not supposed to be on earth today.
Apostolic succession claims no more (and no less) than continuation of apostolic authority through a line of bishops (not apostles). And this is exactly what the Pastorals were already about.
a Christian

Narksisis wrote: Apostolic succession claims no more (and no less) than continuation of apostolic authority through a line of bishops (not apostles).
This is merely a matter of semantics.
Catholics claim that Christ gave Peter greater authority than He gave to His other Apostles. Peter, they say, was the chief Apostle with authority over all the others. And they tell us that Peter's authority was later somehow inherited by someone else. And on and on this process supposedly went all the way down to the present day. Though how exactly this process supposedly took place at the time of Peter remains unclear.
Ruth refers to the laying on of hands by the apostles. By doing so does she mean to say that she believes that Peter gave his own authority to another by laying his hands on a chosen successor prior to his death? I don't belief that is what is said by the Catholic Church to have occurred. Popes certainly do not choose their own successors today. Rather, following a Pope's death, a gathering of Bishops elect a new Pope by popular vote.
How do Catholics explain this? If indeed Peter had the power to give his own Christ given authority to another man, which the Scriptures do not indicate is the case, how is it that after Peter's death a group of men, whom Christ had never directly given any authority, had the power to give the authority which Christ gave to Peter to another man?
JosephMalik

Since you seem to dismiss the Early Church Fathers out of hand (as in your previous post), I thought that was what you were saying.
Ruth,
Why should I do otherwise? Look at what has resulted to the Faith as a consequence of their doctrinal views. There is no need to follow such early Fathers as we have scripture that has its roots in the Apostles directly. Would you consider the disciples in Corinth even better informed than such early Church Fathers? They were after all right there in Jesus day and personally involved with the disciples. Well the Apostle Paul spent most of 1 Corinthians correcting their false doctrinal views and procedures when he answered the letter they sent him. If the writings of such Corinthians cannot be trusted then how is it that the writings of such early Church Fathers can? And why do such writings deviate from what our Lord and the Apostles taught?
Narkissos said: Apostolic succession claims no more (and no less) than continuation of apostolic authority through a line of bishops (not apostles). And this is exactly what the Pastorals were already about.
And this means what? That Apostolic authority can be passed on by someone that is not an Apostle? Or that such bishops appointed by ordinary men have apostolic authority over that of a disciple? Are we to believe and teach their false doctrines? This is why Paul made such appointments in the first place. To put a stop to such men teaching falsely in his day. This is also why our Lord knowing that His Apostles would die off said: Mt 24:45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Yes, He knew that conditions would be like this and warned his disciples about them. We can either be on our own if that is our circumstance or more like the Bereans who did not take someone Else's word for what we should believe and teach. This is how one gets to be a faithful and wise servant and not entrapped in apostasy the way many are today. We are not free to say anything we want. We should not teach every whim and doctrine expressed by others as we already have: Jude 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; And: Mt 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Joseph
justhuman

What actually should a JW or anyone coming from the Protestand movement it is to examine the Christian history from the Early Church until now. Doing this there are many questions that coming up and need to be examine:
1.Is the Holy Bible the only basis for the Christian faith?
2. Can you indicate a verse in the Bible that claims our basis for Christian Faith is only the Bible?
3. Who set the Biblical Canon?
4.What is the Protestand basis to accept the 66 books of the Bible instead of 77 that Orthodox and Catholic Church accepts?
5. Were in the Bible is telling us the Books that we should accept as the Biblical Canon are part of the Holy Scriptures?
6. Can you indicate a verse in the Bible that claims to be infalible?
7. Were in the Bible is telling us that the faith of the Church is being set according to the Bible and not the opposite?
8. In the Early Christian Church we had the Apostoles and the Prophets and they were appointed by the Holy Spirit Elders (Episkopoi in Greek)and this succesion is being carried for over 2000 years in the Apostolic Church, starting from James the first Bishop of Jerusalim.Do JW's or any Protestand has any Apostolic Succesion?
9. Has the Apostolic Church ever Apostasized?
10.Why do Protestands accept a Bible that was set by the Apostolic Church with Saint Athanasius(Greek Orthodox) at the 3th century who defined the Biblical canon and accepted the Revelation of John as the last book?Is it correct on their behalf to accept a Bible that came out from the "apostate" Christians?
11. What do the writtings of the first 2 centuries of Christianity indicate to us regarding the Christian faith since we have letters from the immediate succesors of the Apostles like The letter to the Church of Magnisis from Saint Ignatios the Bishop of Antioch? It was written between 97 AD - 107AD.
12. Would Jesus allow Satan to turn the Church that He set with His Blood an "apostate"Church, and Satan would truimph over Jesus Church for hundreds of years?
The function of the Orthodox Church can be traced for 2000 years. The reason the Apotolic Church added and the definition Orthodox-Correct dogma, teaching, is due to the schisma withthe Catholic Church.
In the Apostolic Church we had the teachings from the Apostles kept for 2000 years. The Church is synodic and the reason we had Synodos in the history of the Church was to guard the Christian faith from heretic ideas. So we had the definition for Trinity due to the fact that Arius a bishop came with this heretic idea.
Again the first Synodos is in Jerusalim for circumcision. The Bishops, and the Apostoles came with this decision after discussing the matter and with the power of the Holy Spirit. Local congregations enjoy freedom, and this is what is still going on in the Apostolic Church. since we have Orthodox Episkopi in Russia, Ucraine, Romania, Greece, Cyprus, Serbia, Montenegro, Georgia, Jerusalim, Syria, Australia, UK, USA, just to maintion a few. All are in union with the Ecoumanical Patriarch in Constantinoupolis. The Patriach has no possition like the Pope. He is an Episkopos(Overseer)and he is equal with the rest Episkops, and in no way he can change a doctrine without any Synodic meeting. And if he is out of line the rest Episkopoi will correct him.Besides this is not neccecary to be done, because in the Apostolic Church our faith is defined for 2000 years... While each one have their specific country customs and traditions, they all accept and follow the same Dogma as it was set by the Apostolic Church and the all accept the same Symbol of faith:
"I believe in one Father, Creator of heavens and earth, visible and invisible things, and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God that was born from the Father but not created, and everything was created by Him. For our salvation, He came from Heavens and took flesh by the Holy Spirit and He became human through Mary the Virgin
Crusified by Pontius Pilate, burried and resurrected at the third day according to the Scriptures, and accending to heavens sitting in the right side of the Father. And He will come with Glory to Judge the living and the dead, in His Kindom that will be no end
And in one Holy Spirit, the Life giving, that proceeds from the Father, having the same worship and glory with the Father and Son, that was spoken by the Prophets, In one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, I confess one baptizim for forgiveness of sins, I'm waiting for the resurrection of the dead, and in eternal future life."
toreador

AChristian,
Responding to post 365. EXCELLENT questions!
I dont think JameC knows about your post or you can bet he would be in here. If you want to engage him, I would send JimW a PM and he could alert him.
Tor
BurnTheShips

There is no need to follow such early Fathers as we have scripture that has its roots in the Apostles directly.
Was Mark an Apostle? Or Luke? Yet you accept their writings as Scripture.
You trust Apostolic writings, however you do not trust the Apostolic appointment of successors. Don't you think that is contradictory?
And this means what? That Apostolic authority can be passed on by someone that is not an Apostle? Or that such bishops appointed by ordinary men have apostolic authority over that of a disciple? Are we to believe and teach their false doctrines? This is why Paul made such appointments in the first place. To put a stop to such men teaching falsely in his day. This is also why our Lord knowing that His Apostles would die off said: Mt 24:45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Yes, He knew that conditions would be like this and warned his disciples about them. We can either be on our own if that is our circumstance or more like the Bereans who did not take someone Else's word for what we should believe and teach. This is how one gets to be a faithful and wise servant and not entrapped in apostasy the way many are today. We are not free to say anything we want. We should not teach every whim and doctrine expressed by others as we already have: Jude 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; And: Mt 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Massive, massive eisegesis. Apparently you think that only Paul's appointments are valid.
BTS
BurnTheShips

Popes certainly do not choose their own successors today. Rather, following a Pope's death, a gathering of Bishops elect a new Pope by popular vote.
Matthias was elected by the remaining apostles as a replacement for the fallen Judas.
So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Acts 1:23-26
BTS

Apostolic Succession ?

Share this