Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian 72 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  a Christian

  Nark,

  Wow, that was a real stretch. Is that really the best that believers in the doctrine of Apostolic Succession have to offer in the way of scriptural support for their teaching?

  They actually attempt to support the teaching that the Apostles intended to pass their authority to successors by maintaining that some of what the scriptures clearly say was written by the Apostles was actually written by someone else in attempt to support this doctrine? If those having such an "agenda" were willing to actually corrupt Paul's writings to promote it, as you seem to say they were, why I wonder did they not do so more clearly. For the passages you quote only contain Paul's instructions to appoint elders who were qualified to hold that position. They do not say that any of these elders would ever possess the authority of Christ's twelve Apostles.

  I don't believe these portions of Paul's letters are "pseudepigraphical." However, if I did that would be all the more reason to reject this teaching as having originated with the Apostles and to believe it was the creation of dishonest men..

  I wrote in this thread's opening post: "The concept of apostolic succession is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures. (Except by some very far-fetched and self serving interpretation.)

  I can't see how any interpretation could be any more "far-fetched" than the one you just suggested.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I don't believe these portions of Paul's letters are "pseudepigraphical."

  Then "read those texts at face value". The pseudepigraphical attribution is not necessary for this, they stand on their own.

  BTS
• 

  Narkissos

  Scriptural it is, regardless of your (un)informed decision as to Pauline authenticity. If you take those statements at face value, Paul conferred an authority to Timothy / Titus so that they would appoint bishops with doctrinal and disciplinary authority and they would transmit it to yet others. You have the principle.

  Btw, it's either that or a fixation of "apostolic authority" in writing -- which made little sense down to Gutenberg, and hardly more since then (as shown by the proliferation of sectarian interpretations since the invention of sola scriptura). And it is very disingenuous to resort to 2 Timothy 3:14ff to support the latter (Protestant) model, since the "holy writings" known to Timothy from childhood were hardly "Christian," let alone the entire N.T.

  I mentioned pseudepigraphy to make clear where I stand. In contemporary Christianity and Judaism, pseudepigraphy was not considered a "forgery" but an accepted writing artifice. Dozens of books, including those referred to in "Scripture," (cf. "Jannes and Jambres" in the same context, v. 8, or the formal quotation of 1 Enoch in Jude) attest that practice.

  I do not take "apostolic succession" at face value, of course: which means that I don't believe it historically happened. I'm only reacting to your statement that it is unscriptural. It is definitely not.
• 

  a Christian

  Burn,

  You asked: Why does every pre-Reformation Church teach Apostolic Succession? ... All the ancient ones.

  I think you know what my answer to that will be. It is because false teachers were "already at work" in the Christian church even during the days of the Apostles. Then, immediately following the deaths of the Apostles, with no one then having the power to authoritatively correct and remove these false teachers from their teaching positions in the church which they had attained, their false teachings were able to quickly and widely spread throughout the ancient church.

  As Paul wrote in his second letter to the Thessalonians (2:3-7), " Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [the Day of the Lord] will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now [the authority of the Apostles], so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains it will do so until he is taken out of the way.

  Of course, the false teaching of Apostolic Succession is partly what necessitated the Reformation.
• 

  Narkissos

  The "great apostasy" is an even bigger fallacy. Resorting to a difficult eschatological text such as 2 Thessalonians 2 (where nothing indicates that the "current" and "future" events are happening in the church) is explaining obscura per obscuriora.

  Back to the clear(er) texts: do you think that the authoritarian policy of the Pastorals against "false teachers" was designed to fail? "Paul" didn't seem to think so...

  You must understand this, that in the last days distressing times will come. For people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid them! (i.e. "the last days" are "now"). For among them are those who make their way into households and captivate silly women, overwhelmed by their sins and swayed by all kinds of desires, who are always being instructed and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these people, of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith, also oppose the truth. But they will not make much progress, because, as in the case of those two men, their folly will become plain to everyone.

  If they did take over the "church," they made a lot more progress than "Paul" thought...

  It is also amusing that you previously referred to the parable of Matthew 13 in support of this statement, since the very point of this parable is about not trying to separate the weeds from the wheat (a more peaceful approach than the Pastorals, btw). Did "reaping time" come up in the 16th century?

  The great irony of the "great apostasy" can be summed up as follows: the "prophecies" originally meant to justify the institutional rejection of "heretics" were eventually used by another generation of "heretics" against the institution itself. From a historical perspective, this may sound "fair," but from an exegetical one, it is not really tenable.
• 

  a Christian

  Burn,

  You wrote: The pseudepigraphical attribution is not necessary for this, they stand on their own.

  Yes, they do. And they say nothing to indicate that any of the church elders Paul was speaking of appointing would either inherit or otherwise possess the same authority that Christ gave to His Apostles.
• 

  a Christian

  Nark,

  You wrote: Scriptural it is, regardless of your (un)informed decision as to Pauline authenticity ...

  I really don't know how to say this kindly. But I have little interest in discussing the scriptures with someone who does not believe in their authenticity. Why you spend so much time discussing the contents of a book that you have so little respect for I don't know.
• 

  M.J.

  IF exegetically there appears to be a plurality of viewpoints in the scriptures on a particular issue, then you either must"
  
  a) accept this and leave the issue open-ended
  b) choose one and call the other one pseudepigraphical
  c) insist that there can be only one possible viewpoint and eisegesically interpret all 'contrary' passages to be in conformance to it.
• 

  a Christian

  Nark,

  You condescendingly wrote: It is also amusing that you previously referred to the parable of Matthew 13 in support of this statement, since the very point of this parable is about not trying to separate the weeds from the wheat (a more peaceful approach than the Pastorals, btw). Did "reaping time" come up in the 16th century?

  The Reformation began as an attempt to rid the Catholic Church of several false teachings and corrupt practices. Those who sometime later chose to leave the Catholic Church did so only after its leadership refused to abandon those false teachings and corrupt practices. Their then choosing to leave the Catholic Church in no way then constituted a "reaping time." They did not then kill Catholic Church leaders or set fire to its church building. They simply followed the Bible's instructions to Christians such as those found in 2 Cor. 6:16,17.

  "What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: 'I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.' Therefore come out from them and be separate,' says the Lord. 'Touch no unclean thing,and I will receive you.' "
• 

  JosephMalik

  Wow, you all have been busy while I was away. And the best that anyone can do is insist on it or show that everybody does it as they have no scriptural proof. Well the matter was already answered. There is no Apostolic succession because there are only 12 of them. It is that simple. Using the term Apostle in that context limits this number to 12 period. The only thing that can be done is take verses that use the word Apostle in other contexts and try and force them to be something else more significant like an Apostle of Christ. But where are any of the others called an Apostle of Christ? Nowhere! Of course the Churches do it to gain power over their flocks and to control them. The WT does this with it’s GB doctrine. JosephMalik can appoint an Apostle to represent Joseph Malik and speak for him but you cannot. The Apostles could not. And they tried to do this before the special and visible holy spirit was poured out on them. The scriptures did not say that they made an error but the scriptures did show how Christ corrected their selection. Paul was chosen by Christ and is called an Apostle of Christ. Errors are documented in other places in Acts as well regarding other matters. If this was not the case then we would all be shaving our heads and taking vows in the temple to show we obey the Law. Luke was Paul’s associate and received his authority to write from this Apostle.

  Burn the ships said: Was Mark an Apostle? Or Luke? Yet you accept their writings as Scripture.

  Of course. Everyone who wrote any of the NT texts can be traced directly to one of the 12 and would receive their authority from them. They used them as their secretaries in fact to write in their behalf. The book of Hebrews does not give its author’s name but it supported Paul’s doctrinal views and not the views of most of the other Apostles. It did however correct the matter for them once and for all. Even James had to change his views as a result and reveal that in his letter. So who among them would have authorized it?

  Burn the ships said: You trust Apostolic writings, however you do not trust the Apostolic appointment of successors. Don't you think that is contradictory?

  No! Apostles (in context one of the 12) could not appoint more of themselves. And the authority that such appointees made from such an Apostle could not be passed along any further. This came to an end when the Apostles died. Personal or physical contact was a strict requirement.

  Burn the ships said: Massive, massive eisegesis. Apparently you think that only Paul's appointments are valid.

  Valid? Yes, and temporary as well. Only Paul made such appointments to put a stop to the false doctrine he was facing in his territories. And Paul also trained his appointments personally and/or by letters as to who to appoint. Such appointments that had Apostolic authority over others teaching false doctrine ended when Paul died. The anointments made by others was to care for other functions in the Faith. So there were many Apostles floating around but there was no Apostolic succession as claimed here by some posters.

  Joseph