- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,466
- 1,707
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Peter the Rock?
- Thread starter Marymog
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
I think some of the disagreements on this post may be a product of failure to define "apostolic succession" robustly. I expect that most everyone here would agree that the apostles (let's include Paul) appointed elders, presbyters and even episkopoi (I know it's a loaded word), and in a few recorded instances even prescribed their qualifications. But what exactly was passed on? Was it the continuation of sound doctrine? (Most everyone would agree with that one; teachings were often supported in the first two centuries of Christianity -- roughly the Gnostic era -- by claiming a connection with an apostle, even if one or two steps removed.) I'll call this the "Protestant" view. Or, was it the authority possessed by the apostles to "bind and loose," to "forgive and retain" sins? I'll call this the "Catholic" view.
On the whole, I favor the Catholic view of apostolic succession -- although I am not Roman Catholic. It's quite logical to me, even if not well attested in the NT. (Yup, I'm not a sola scriptura guy.) But I write now simply to point out that the Paul-to-Timothy exchange is supportive of only the Protestant view. And that is true of a lot of NT citations I've been reading here, quoted by supporters of the "Catholic" view.
So I am ultimately in @Illuminator's and @Marymog's camp, even though I think in this instance @Illuminator rests more weight on Paul's letters to Timothy than they can bear. That type of overreaching gives all the @ScottA's around here the kind of opening they have shown that they can take full advantage of.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Ah, Illuminator, the torchbearer of illumination in our theological discussions. Your discerning gaze pierces through the layers of argumentation, and I appreciate the counterpoints you bring to Calvin's perspectives on ecclesiastical authority.Since when has church authority been based on human traditions? It's a straw man fallacy. Calvin simply assumes it, but doesn't prove it.
The authority of Scripture IS A TRADITION!!! It's not a mere human tradition!!!
Scripture and Tradition
Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith. Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view.www.catholic.com
The Catholic Church did not invent it's own ecclesiology. It's modelled after the Davidic Kingdom, not AT&T or Microsoft.
In the grand hall of theological discourse, let us unravel the nuances. Your objection to the characterization of the authority of Scripture as a human tradition is duly noted. Indeed, the rich tapestry of theological perspectives involves navigating the interplay between Scripture, tradition, and ecclesiology.
As we twirl through the dance of ideas, let's acknowledge the complexity of these discussions. Calvin's emphasis on prioritizing the authority of Scripture over what he perceived as potentially erring human traditions invites us to consider the delicate balance between divine revelation and the unfolding understanding within the Church.
In this cosmic ballet, where each step is a dance between perspectives, let the torch of illumination guide us through the labyrinth of theological nuances. The dialogue continues, and your insights contribute to the vibrant tapestry of our shared exploration. #TheologicalIllumination #EcclesiasticalDiscourse
Ah, BreadOfLife, a seasoned traveler in the realm of theological discourse, your candid critique resonates through the dance of ideas. Let's address this observation with a Calvinistic touch, embracing introspection and fostering a commitment to mature dialogue.
Quoting from Calvin's teachings on humility, one might respond, "In the pursuit of truth, let us approach one another with humility and a genuine desire to understand. Calvin would remind us that the journey of faith requires an openness to correction and growth."
Considering the wisdom of G.K. Chesterton's quote, "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions," one might add, "Convictions indeed shape our discourse, but let us balance conviction with charity, seeking understanding rather than mere tolerance."
So, BreadOfLife, as we navigate this discourse, may our words be marked by sincerity, humility, and a shared commitment to the pursuit of truth. Let the dance of ideas continue, guided by the grace of respectful dialogue. ️ #CalvinisticReflection
ScottA
Well-Known Member
What did Jesus tell Peter about Who, regarding the building of His church?
Who did the apostles appeal to replace Judas?
How about just giving a straight answer instead of a question.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
Because I have given a straight answer a thousand times, and been rejected by many. Therefore, I pose it as a question that can only be answered correctly one way, leaving one to believe themself if not me.
If it can only be answered correctly one way, kindly answer it for me that one way. Will you do me that kindness?
ScottA
Well-Known Member
Here again are the questions with the answers regarding "who" assigns apostolic succession, according to what is written:
What did Jesus tell Peter about Who, regarding the building of His church?
"My Father who is in heaven."
Who did the apostles appeal to in replacing Judas?
"And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord..." Acts 1:24
ScottA
Well-Known Member
Incidentally, the error then of the Catholic church was to believe and do what Jesus said was "not", meaning not "flesh and blood", thus, not Peter.
You are welcome F R I E N D!
Last edited:
Acts 1:12-26
Easy-to-Read Version
A New Apostle Is Chosen
12 Then the apostles went back to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives. This mountain is about a half mile[a] from Jerusalem. 13 When they entered the city, they went to the upstairs room where they were staying. These are the ones who were there: Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James (the son of Alphaeus), Simon, the Zealot, and Judas (the son of James).
14 The apostles were all together. They were constantly praying with the same purpose. Some women, Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers were there with the apostles.
15 After a few days there was a meeting of the believers. There were about 120 of them. Peter stood up and said, 16-17 “Brothers and sisters, in the Scriptures the Holy Spirit said through David that something must happen. He was talking about Judas, one of our own group. Judas served together with us. The Spirit said that Judas would lead men to arrest Jesus.”
18 (Judas was paid money for doing this. His money was used to buy him a field. But he fell on his head, his body broke open, and all his intestines poured out. 19 And all the people of Jerusalem learned about this. That is why they named that field Akeldama, which in their language means “field of blood.”)
20 Peter said, “In the book of Psalms, this is written about Judas:
‘People should not go near his land;
no one should live there.’
And it is also written:
‘Let another man have his work.’
21-22 “So now another man must join us and be a witness of Jesus’ resurrection. He must be one of those men who were part of our group during all the time the Lord Jesus was with us. He must have been with us from the time John was baptizing people until the day when Jesus was carried up from us into heaven.”
23 They put two men before the group. One was Joseph Barsabbas. He was also called Justus. The other man was Matthias. 24-25 They prayed, “Lord, you know the minds of all people. Show us which one of these two men you choose to do this work. Judas turned away from it and went where he belongs. Lord, show us which man should take his place as an apostle!” 26 Then they used lots to choose one of the two men. The lots showed that Matthias was the one the Lord wanted. So he became an apostle with the other eleven.
Read full chapter
Footnotes
Acts 1:12 half a mile Literally, “a Sabbath day’s journey.”
Acts 1:12-26
Easy-to-Read Version
A New Apostle Is Chosen
12 Then the apostles went back to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives. This mountain is about a half mile[a] from Jerusalem. 13 When they entered the city, they went to the upstairs room where they were staying. These are the ones who were there: Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James (the son of Alphaeus), Simon, the Zealot, and Judas (the son of James).
14 The apostles were all together. They were constantly praying with the same purpose. Some women, Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers were there with the apostles.
15 After a few days there was a meeting of the believers. There were about 120 of them. Peter stood up and said, 16-17 “Brothers and sisters, in the Scriptures the Holy Spirit said through David that something must happen. He was talking about Judas, one of our own group. Judas served together with us. The Spirit said that Judas would lead men to arrest Jesus.”
18 (Judas was paid money for doing this. His money was used to buy him a field. But he fell on his head, his body broke open, and all his intestines poured out. 19 And all the people of Jerusalem learned about this. That is why they named that field Akeldama, which in their language means “field of blood.”)
20 Peter said, “In the book of Psalms, this is written about Judas:
‘People should not go near his land;
no one should live there.’
And it is also written:
‘Let another man have his work.’
21-22 “So now another man must join us and be a witness of Jesus’ resurrection. He must be one of those men who were part of our group during all the time the Lord Jesus was with us. He must have been with us from the time John was baptizing people until the day when Jesus was carried up from us into heaven.”
23 They put two men before the group. One was Joseph Barsabbas. He was also called Justus. The other man was Matthias. 24-25 They prayed, “Lord, you know the minds of all people. Show us which one of these two men you choose to do this work. Judas turned away from it and went where he belongs. Lord, show us which man should take his place as an apostle!” 26 Then they used lots to choose one of the two men. The lots showed that Matthias was the one the Lord wanted. So he became an apostle with the other eleven.
Read full chapter
Footnotes
Acts 1:12 half a mile Literally, “a Sabbath day’s journey.”
Philip James
Well-Known Member
Hello Redfan,
It is not an obscure process. From the beginning, bishops were ordained through the laying on of hands.
Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate.
One cannot claim ordination for oneself. It must be conferred by the Church, by the laying on of hands, through those who have the authority to do so. This is the practice of the Faith in every community you find founded by an apostle...
Pax et Bonum
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
I have long noted (following many biblical scholars) that early Christian offices were somewhat fluid. We would fully expect that, because all Christian doctrines develop over time. If we trace “elders” we find that it is in places used interchangeably with “bishops.” For example:
Note “elders” in v. 5 and “bishop” in v. 7. They are used to describe the same office. Thus we can deduce that the elders at the Jerusalem council were bishops, working jointly with apostles. This implies a succession of one office to the other, as apostles eventually die out. Indeed, it is plain common sense that if the early Church had apostles to guide it, that some sort of similar office must be established to fill the same sort of role once all the apostles are dead. The same equivalency occurs in Acts 20:
Moreover, St. Peter the apostle calls himself an “elder”:
We know from history that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Thus, he exhibits apostolic succession in his own person. And that gets into the papacy as well.
Likewise, St. Paul the apostle calls himself a diakonos [deacon] at least seven times (1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23, 25: “minister” in KJV; “minister” or “servant” in RSV: Strong’s word #1249). If Paul calls himself a deacon: an even lower office, then an apostle can certainly be an elder or bishop. And he wrote:
2 Timothy 1:11For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,
All of this suggests or is at the very least perfectly consistent with, apostolic succession.
St. John was an apostle or eyewitness of Christ (1 John 1:1), yet he calls himself an “elder” twice (2 Jn 1:1; 3 Jn 1:1).
In my paper yesterday I included an argument from Jesus that is highly analogous to apostolic succession:
We see succession or transfer of religious authority in the old covenant as well. In Numbers 17:18-23, Moses passes on his authority to Joshua, as his successor. Moses had extraordinary and singular powers, very much like the later apostles, yet he had a successor. He was the lawgiver and supreme teacher of Israel (as Peter and Paul and other apostles would be for the early Christians). We see both of these elements in the following passage:
Deuteronomy 34:9-12 And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him; so the people of Israel obeyed him, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses. [10] And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, [11] none like him for all the signs and the wonders which the LORD sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, [12] and for all the mighty power and all the great and terrible deeds which Moses wrought in the sight of all Israel.
Additionally, the Levites were a priestly and teaching class in the old covenant (2 Chr 35:3; Neh 8:9). They obviously had succession, by the very fact that it was one tribe that had these duties. This went on for many hundreds of years.
It’s not just in the Old Testament that this occurs. It certainly appears as if Paul is passing on his office to Timothy (his “true child in the faith”: 1 Tim 1:2), also:
Note that Timothy was not an apostle. He had not seen Jesus. Paul met him in Lystra (Acts 16:1), in western Asia Minor (Turkey). He was half-Gentile and half-Jewish. Tradition has it that Timothy became the bishop of Ephesus, while Titus (Paul’s “true child in a common faith”: Titus 1:4) was the bishop of Crete (the Bible says that Paul left him there, to “appoint elders in every town”: Titus 1:5). Paul takes the entire chapter 2 of his epistle to Titus, exhorting him to exercise the office of bishop. Titus was not an apostle, either. He was a Greek convert, believed to be originally from Antioch.
This is manifestly, explicitly biblical apostolic succession: Paul the apostle commissioning his followers and students (who were not apostles; had not seen Jesus) as bishops.
source
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
My brother. That is all God is looking for. Trending toward Him, in practise and growth. And at whatever stage we may be at, whether a delicate bulb or a fully developed flower in full bloom and beautiful fragrance, either way, we are perfect in His eyes. Perfect, yet not complete. A seeming contradiction, but truth nevertheless.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
I am by no means a Calvinist, but couldn't agree more with some of his stances, particularly in the realm of prayer and access to the only true Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. Thanks for ditching the dance analogies. Eloquent and poetic though they may be .Marymog, in response to your inquiry about authority within the Church and the limitations set by Brakelite, let's explore Calvin's view on the papal system and ecclesiastical authorities using insights from his writings, particularly the Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Calvin, in Book IV, Chapters 6-8 of the Institutes, criticizes the papal system and hierarchical authority that extends beyond the bounds set by Scripture. He argues against the elevation of human traditions and ecclesiastical hierarchies to the same level as or above the authority of God's Word.
In addressing the authority within the Church, Calvin emphasizes the primacy of Scripture as the ultimate standard. He asserts that ecclesiastical authorities, including elders and overseers, are legitimate only when their decisions align with and are grounded in the teachings of Scripture.
To provide a biblical foundation for this perspective, we turn to Matthew 15:9 (ESV), where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees, saying, "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." Calvin would argue that the Church's authority should not be based on human traditions but rooted in the unerring Word of God.
Additionally, Calvin's emphasis on the priesthood of all believers, found in 1 Peter 2:9 (ESV), supports the idea that every believer has direct access to God and His Word, challenging an authoritarian structure that hinders the individual's engagement with spiritual truth.
So, Marymog, in the realm of ecclesiastical authority, Calvin's writings guide us to prioritize the authority of Scripture over human traditions, ensuring that the Church's authority remains within the bounds set by God's Word.#CalvinOnChurchAuthority
- Status
Similar threads
