Authority to Teach

[Trump Gurl]

Authority to Teach
source
(site gives permission to post content)

. . . . . .Has the interpretation of Scripture always been an issue? Was it a problem in the earliest days of Christianity? In fact, even during the apostolic era there was concern about misguided interpretations of Scripture. Peter wrote, “There are some things in them [Paul’s letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16). He went on to warn Christians, “You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability” (2 Pet. 3:17).

How were early Christians to know who was teaching the truth? Was there a way to discern who was teaching Christ’s truth and who was not? There was.

Sent by Christ​

Jesus gave certain followers the authority to teach. The early Christians knew they could trust Peter’s teaching because he was one of Jesus’ apostles. The word apostle comes from the Greek word apostolos, which denotes one who is sent as a messenger. Early Christians recognized that the apostles were sent by Christ and endowed with the authority to teach in his name.

At the Last Supper, Jesus promised the apostles that the Father “will give you another Counselor, to be with you forever . . . the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. . . . He will guide you into all the truth” (John 14:16, 26; 16:13).
Before his ascension, Jesus instructed the apostles, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Matt. 28:19–20).

False Teachers among You​

Peter taught that “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:20–21) and went on to warn about those who taught without authority: “There will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Pet. 2:1).

Paul instructed, “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15), and “If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not look on him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother” (2 Thess. 3:14–15).

The letter to the Hebrews states, “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited their adherents” (Heb. 13:7–9). It goes on, “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you” (Heb. 13:17).

The apostles had authority to teach, and they warned Christians to follow only those teachings and to beware of those without it. Scripture even provides evidence that the early Christians recognized the apostles’ authority. Paul wrote, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

But what happened after the apostles were gone? To whom did the authority to teach pass? Was it open to anyone who knew Scripture or had a teaching credential or a theology degree? How were later Christians to determine who was teaching the fullness of the truth?

The Laying On of Hands​

Scripture indicates that the apostles endowed bishops and elders with their special authority to teach. We see the earliest evidence of the apostles conferring authority in the account of the appointing of Judas’s replacement:

“For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office let another take.’ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:20–26)

In his first letter to Timothy, a bishop—in which Paul calls the Church “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15)—he instructs him, “Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you. Practice these duties, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress. Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim. 4:13–16).

It is obvious to Catholics that Paul was speaking of Timothy’s ordination, through which he received the sacrament of holy orders. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

No one can give himself the mandate and the mission to proclaim the gospel. The one sent by the Lord does not speak and act on his own authority but by virtue of Christ’s authority; not as a member of the community but speaking to it in the name of Christ. No one can bestow grace on himself; it must be given and offered. This fact presupposes ministers of grace, authorized and empowered by Christ. From him, bishops and priests receive the mission and faculty (“the sacred power”) to act in persona Christi Capitis; deacons receive the strength to serve the people of God in the diaconia of liturgy, word, and charity, in communion with the bishop and his presbyterate. The ministry in which Christ’s emissaries do and give by God’s grace what they cannot do and give by their own powers is called a “sacrament” by the Church’s tradition. Indeed, the ministry of the Church is conferred by a special sacrament. (CCC 875)

After this the apostles went on to appoint others: “And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed” (Acts 14:23).

Paul’s writings provide early evidence that at least some of those appointed by the apostles had authority to go on and appoint still others. To Timothy he wrote, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). And to Titus, “This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you” (Ti. 1:5).

The Successors to the Apostles​

Not all teachers are worthy of our confidence. Only the successors of the apostles, through the sacrament of holy orders, can be trusted in their teaching authority and interpretation of Scripture. The Church Fathers were mostly bishops, and every pope’s succession can be traced back to Peter. Quoting the Second Vatican Council, the Catechism speaks to the importance of apostolic authority in Catholic teaching:

“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome. (CCC 85; cf. Dei Verbum 10)

How reassuring it is to know that even today our teachers are successors of the apostles, with God-given authority! How much easier this makes it to let go of misguided Scripture interpretations and to embrace the truth that Jesus wanted all of us to know: the fullness of the Catholic faith.

 

[Trump Gurl]

A CONVERSATION:

OBJECTOR: Doesn’t the Catholic Church believe in the idea of apostolic succession? I find no evidence in the Bible for such an idea.

CATHOLIC: Yes, the Catholic Church does believe that the New Testament teaches the concept of apostolic succession, and it is not the only church today that espouses such a doctrine. For example, the Orthodox churches believe in apostolic succession, as do some forms of Episcopalianism and Lutheranism. But tell me first what you understand by this term.

OBJECTOR: Apostolic succession, as I understand it, is the idea that bishops today are successors or descendants of the apostles whom Jesus appointed to go into all the world and preach the gospel. It supposes that the original apostles ordained men as bishops, who in turn ordained others, and that this process continues today.

CATHOLIC: You have the basic idea down correctly, although I would refrain from using the word descendants, because the bishops, who are successors of the apostles, are not physical descendants of the apostles. They are and were men chosen from among the members of the Church to lead the flock as shepherds. These bishops are the primary pastors of the Church.
Priests (presbyters), who are ordained by the bishops, are their assistants in ministry. They have valid orders because they are connected to the original apostles through their bishops’ succession. In a secondary sense, they too have apostolic succession. This implies that the local Church is not the individual parish but the diocese of which the bishop is pastor.
Why is this idea objectionable?

OBJECTOR: The hierarchical structure that you outline is not in the Bible. Jesus gave us his teachings through the apostles. They handed on that teaching to the next generation, but they themselves died off toward the end of the first century. The only “apostolic succession” in the Bible is a handing on of the truth that Jesus taught. For example, Paul says, “I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you” (1 Cor. 11:23). And Jude speaks about “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” in Jude 3. These are the truths contained in the New Testament.

CATHOLIC: We agree that the apostolic ministry handed on the teachings of Christ. Paul as a faithful servant taught the truth of Jesus Christ, but we Catholics contend that what was passed on was not teaching only. He and the other apostles passed on the office of shepherd for the Church. The function of a bishop is to teach Christ’s gospel and shepherd the Church of a local diocese. This was intended by Christ and faithfully transmitted by the original apostles.

OBJECTOR: Unwarranted additions like this crop up from time to time in the Catholic Church, but they are not in Scripture.

CATHOLIC: Let me see if I understand you. You believe that Jesus passed on his teachings to the apostles and then they passed them on to successive generations of Christians? If so, why couldn’t Jesus also have passed on duties or office to the apostles?

OBJECTOR: He appointed the apostles as the foundation of the Church, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:20, but he did not mean for the office of apostle to continue after their deaths. There is simply no evidence in the New Testament to suggest that the office of the apostle was meant to be continued.

CATHOLIC: Apostolic succession means that the authority of the apostles was passed on to the early bishops of the Church. You say this is not biblical? I presume that you mean that the early Church had no bishops that were considered successors of the apostles.

OBJECTOR: That would be one consequence my position. There were pastors in the early Church, of course, but they were not bishops and definitely were not considered as authoritative as the apostles.

CATHOLIC: I have evidence that that isn’t true. One witness to the structure of the early Church is St. Ignatius of Antioch, whose seven authentic letters are dated no later than A.D. 117 or 118, so he must have known some of the apostles themselves, as Antioch was a center of missionary activity frequented by Paul in Acts 11:26–30 and 13:1–3. Ignatius says, “It is fitting in every way . . . that you be knit together in a unified submission, subject to the bishop and presbytery that you may be completely sanctified” (Letter to Ephesians 2:2). Again he says of the Church, “Jesus Christ . . . is the will of the Father, just as the bishops, who are appointed in every land, are the will of Jesus Christ. So it is proper for you to be in harmony with the will of the bishop” (ibid., 3:2–4:1). He also wrote, “It is clear that one should see the bishop as the Lord himself” (ibid., 6:1). These quotes show first that Ignatius considered the bishops of the Church to be the “will of God” (i.e., their office was appointed by God) and second that obedience to the bishop was considered obedience to God himself. In some sense, the bishop represented God in the same way that the apostles did.

OBJECTOR: But Ignatius may be expressing only his own view, not one widely shared among the early leaders of the Church. And further, Ignatius is not Scripture.

CATHOLIC: The idea that Ignatius expressed only his own views is common among modern readers. Today, people tend to read these ancient views atomistically and individualistically. But that is not how ancient Church leaders functioned. They almost always sought to express the faith held in common rather than their own views. You see the importance of this continuity in St. Irenaeus of Lyons (second century): “We can enumerate those who were appointed by the apostles as bishops in the churches as their successors even to our time” (Against Heresies 3.1). And in the next section, Irenaeus begins to list the successors of Peter at Rome with these words: “But since it would be too long, in a work like this, to list the successions in all the churches, we shall take only one of them, the church that is greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and set up by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul at Rome while showing that the tradition and the faith it proclaims to men comes down through the successions of the bishops even to us” (ibid., 3.2).

OBJECTOR: These early leaders, while venerable, are not the same as Scripture.

CATHOLIC: But they are expressing a tradition that we see in Scripture. In Paul’s teaching, we hear him saying, “what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). Paul envisions four generations of succession here: (1) Paul, (2) Timothy, (3) others taught by Timothy, and (4) others taught by Timothy’s hearers.

OBJECTOR: But that verse just confirms my point. Paul is telling Timothy to teach what he heard, not to ordain others.

CATHOLIC: You’re placing an either/or where there should be a both/and. Yes, Paul is telling Timothy to transmit the teaching he has given to him, but he also is saying that this teaching should be committed to faithful men. Both the teaching and the men are important. And it is clear from Titus 1:5 that Paul wanted Timothy and Titus to ordain other men as presbyters (priests) and bishops.

OBJECTOR: But this does not mean that these men were going to have the same authority as Paul the apostle.

CATHOLIC: In 2 Timothy 2:2, Paul teaches that there is continuity between himself and successive generations. This was envisioned by Jesus himself when he told his original apostles, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21). That same authority is expressed in Matthew 10:1: “He called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity.” These texts suggest that Jesus gave his authority to the apostles—the same authority that he had from the Father. What good would that authority be for the successive generations of the Church if it was not passed on, as 2 Timothy 2:2 seems to suggest?

OBJECTOR: We agree that Jesus gave his authority to the apostles, but we disagree that it was passed on to others. Or, maybe I should say that the authority lies in the teaching, not in the office.

CATHOLIC: I find that contradicts Acts 1:15–26. There we read about the election of Matthias as Judas’s successor. If you read this passage carefully, you will see that it shows that there was an apostolic college that had to be passed on through ordination. The whole point of the election is that there was a position (or office) vacated by Judas. In verse 16, Peter considers Judas’s betrayal as a fulfillment of Old Testament prediction. And he also quotes from the Greek Septuagint translation of Psalm 109:8 (Psalm 108:8 in the Septuagint numbering) to show that filling the office was foreseen in Scripture. Verse 20 reads, “His office let another take.” The word translated “office” is episkope, which in New Testament language means “episcopal office” (see 1 Tim. 3:1).

OBJECTOR: This is all very interesting, but all it shows is that Judas’s office had to be filled, not that the apostolic office was passed on after the original apostles died. If you look at Acts 1:21–22, you will see that the man to be chosen had to be an eyewitness to Jesus’ Resurrection. That can’t be said of “the successors of apostles.”

CATHOLIC: Obviously! That requirement could not last forever, but the passage shows that the office of overseer had to be filled. If we didn’t have other indicators in the New Testament about the office of bishop, your point would be valid. But when we put Acts 1:15–26 in conjunction with the instructions in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus about ordaining men to the office of bishop (i.e., episkope), we must conclude that the office of bishop was intended to continue after the apostles’ deaths.

Does Christ's Church Have Apostolic Succession?

Apostolic succession is the idea that Catholic bishops today are successors of the apostles Jesus appointed to go into all the world and preach the gospel.

www.catholic.com

 

[Trump Gurl]

 

[Right Divider]

You're very well indoctrinated into false RCC doctrine.

Believe the Bible instead.

The body of Christ is NOT the nation of Israel.

Peter and the ELEVEN will sit on TWELEVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of Israel. The body of Christ has no part in that. Paul is the ONE apostle for the ONE body.

Paul was NOT under the authority of Peter and the ELEVEN. Paul was given his own authority from the RISEN and ASCENDED Lord Jesus Christ. Paul was given a dispensation of the gospel and it was NOT the gospel of the kingdom of Israel.

These are simple, clear and irrefutable Bible facts.

The RCC tries so hard to steal Israel's program, but the Bible tells a different story.

 

[Right Divider]

Mat 15:24 KJV But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Joh 20:21 KJV Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

Jesus was sent by His Father only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Jesus sent the twelve AS HIS FATHER HAD SENT HIM.

 

[Trump Gurl]

You're very well indoctrinated into false RCC doctrine.

I know the truth. All you ever do is speak lies and hate. Your garbage interpretations of the Bible are a joke.

 

[Right Divider]

I know the truth. All you ever do is speak lies and hate. Your garbage interpretations of the Bible are a joke.

More false and unsupported claims.

 

[Trump Gurl]

More false and unsupported claims.

I post what almost all Christians believe. You post the rantings of the extremist minority.

You just cannot come to grips with the fact that between the Eastern Orthodox, Traditional Anglicans, Coptics and Catholics, we represent almost all of the worlds Christians, and this is what we believe.

As I said before,. you are a Biblical illiterate and when it comes to Christian history your brain is a void.

 

[Trump Gurl]

Successors of the Apostles​

JIMMY AKIN • 7/1/2001

Successors of the Apostles

The doctrine of apostolic succession means there is an unbroken line of bishops from the beginning of Christian history to the present. Learn more here.

www.catholic.com

. . . . . The chain of apostolic succession, of course, started with the apostles themselves. But apostles stopped being commissioned in the first century, and so apostolic succession continues with the bishops, the successors of the apostles.
At times there has been confusion regarding the precise relationship between bishops and apostles, as well as the historical origin of the office of bishop, so it’s useful to the apologist to further explore these subjects.

Apostolic Succession Begins​

Christ conferred upon his apostles the original task of shepherding the earthly Church in his absence. As the Church grew, the apostles themselves appointed different kinds of ministers to assist them.

Among the apostles there were two groups. The first consisted of the Twelve, who witnessed the whole of Christ’s earthly ministry from his baptism to his Ascension (Acts 1:21-26). The second group of apostles, including Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14), was not bound by this condition. Thus Paul had seen and been commissioned as an apostle by the risen Christ (1 Cor. 9:1, Gal. 1:1), though he had not been a disciple of Jesus during his earthly ministry (Acts 9, 1 Cor. 15:8).

Christ could have continued to appear to individuals and appoint them as apostles throughout the Church age. However, he chose not to do so, and so the apostles passed from the scene.

The fact that this group has not continued is a Christian teaching, though not found in the New Testament, that is universally honored among Christians, including Protestants (except for certain radical Pentecostals). Thus it can be used as a counterexample with those advocating sola scriptura.

As the apostles died, the task of shepherding the Church fell by default upon the highest-ranking ministers appointed by them. This group is known today as the bishops, who are the successors of the apostles as the highest shepherds of the earthly Church.
Due to bishops’ role as the successors of the apostles, possession of a valid episcopacy is necessary for a church to claim apostolic succession. Apostolic succession thus involves in the bishops serving as successors to the apostles, not serving as apostles. The bishops are not simply a continuation of the office of apostle; they received the governance of the Church when that office ceased.

Differences between Offices​

Though modern bishops succeed the apostles as the highest shepherds of the Church, and though they belong to unbroken lines of ordination going back to the hands of the apostles themselves, the office of bishop is not identical to the office of apostle. If it were, Christ would not have allowed the apostles to disappear from the scene but would have continued to appear to and commission new apostles for the Church. There are differences between the offices of bishop and apostle:

1) The Gift of Miracles. Each apostle was endowed with the gift of miracles to enable him to perform signs validating his ministry as an apostle (2 Cor. 12:12). These manifestations provided motives of credibility showing the divine authority of the apostles and, by extension, those they appointed as successors. Bishops do not typically receive the gift of miracles.

2) Universal vs. particular jurisdiction. Apostles were not limited territorially in the way bishops are. The mission of an apostle was to cultivate and shepherd the Church of Christ wherever he might be, giving him a universal jurisdiction (cf. Matt. 28:19-20, Mark 16:14-15).
The New Testament shows apostles engaging in missionary and church-planting work in overlapping territories around the Roman world. When the apostles entrusted non-apostles with the task of organizing and governing churches, they placed limitations —commonly territorial ones—that gave lower ministers (bishops, priests, deacons) particular jurisdictions for ministry (cf. Acts 14:23; 20:17; Titus 1:5).

3) Personal vs. collegial infallibility. Christ promised the apostles special assistance by the Holy Spirit in remembering and understanding the teachings of Christ (John 14:26). This allowed the individual apostles to exercise the infallible teaching authority of the Church, and any apostle who chose to do so could define an issue.

Nevertheless, it was expedient to emphasize the settled character of a teaching that on some occasions definitions not be made by the authority of one, but by the joint authority of all the apostles, gathered in council (cf. Acts 15).
Except for the pope acting as the successor of Peter, bishops today do not have the ability individually to exercise the Church’s infallible teaching office. They can do so only as a body, either in their ordinary teaching or when gathered in an ecumenical council (Lumen Gentium 25, Catechism of the Catholic Church 891-892).

Historical Origin​

A second issue the apologist will encounter when discussing the office of bishop concerns its historical origin with respect to the office of priest. The New Testament appears to use the terms bishop(episkopos) and priest (presbuteros) interchangeably (Acts 20:17 with 20:28, Tit. 1:5-7). It also speaks of there being more than one bishop in a given church (Phil. 1:1). From the end of the first century onward there appears to have been only one bishop (see the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, A.D. 107) or one main bishop plus assistant/auxiliary bishops, such as the chorepisopus.

There is more than one way to account for the transition from one state of affairs to the other. However, it seems most likely that the individuals referred to in the New Testament as bishops or presbyters did not possess the fullness of holy orders but were equivalent to modern priests. As the apostles began to pass from the scene, they appointed certain non-apostles-e.g., Timothy, Titus, Mark, Philip, and Apollos-to oversee multiple local congregations and to appoint (Tit. 1:5) and discipline (1 Tim. 5:19-20) individual presbyters within them.

At the time, these individuals were called evangelists (Acts 21:8, Eph. 4:11, 2 Tim 4:5). By the end of the first century the term overseer (bishop) may have gravitated to them because they oversaw the individual congregations and presbyters. The term bishop, on this hypothesis, thus supplanted the earlier term evangelist.

To understand why this happened, one should note that in the apostolic age, all of the terms now attached to Catholic ministry-episkopos (overseer, bishop), presbuteros (elder, priest), diakonos (servant, minister, deacon)-were fluid in meaning and could apply to different offices. Anyone who had an oversight role could be called a bishop, anyone who was an elder in the community could be called a presbyter, and anyone in the community who served or ministered could be called a deacon.

This was true even if the person in question had the highest office of all: that of apostle. The apostles Judas and his successor Matthias could be described as having a “bishopric” (Acts 1:20). The apostle Peter could describe himself as a “fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1); and the apostle Paul could describe himself as a “servant” or “minister” (diakonos, 1 Cor. 3:5, 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23, Eph. 3:7, Col. 1:23, 25). The terms had not acquired the technical senses they did over the course of the first century.

The evidence would seem to indicate that the functions of overseeing, serving as elders, and ministering to the Christian community were all exercised by the apostles. As the Church grew, they began to discharge these functions, beginning with the lowest (which is the typical pattern with any corporation-the founders delegate the lowest functions to others first, the highest functions last). Thus the apostles appointed first deacons (Acts 6:1-6), then elders (14:23), and lastly evangelists (cf. Acts 21:8).

As the terms for these offices began to acquire their technical meanings, the servile term servant (diakonos) naturally attached itself to the lowest of these three ranks, as the more senior term elder (presbuteros) did to the second office. The high term overseer (episkopos) at first attached itself to the office of presbyter when these men were the highest ministers in local churches. Later overseer became attached to the office of evangelist when the apostles began to appoint men with the higher authority to appoint and discipline presbyters.

The understanding is further supported by the strong tradition of the Church Fathers that the three offices date from the time of the apostles, to whom early Church writers who attribute the ordination of specific, individual bishops (e.g., Ignatius [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:36], Symeon [ibid. 3:11]). The understanding is also supported by later writers’ recognition as bishops of those known in the New Testament as evangelists (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:4).

Whichever account of the origin of the office is correct, bishop was a distinct office by the late first century, the end of the apostolic age. This is evident because at the beginning of the second century, Ignatius of Antioch wrote a series of letters (A.D. 107) to local churches as he journeyed to Rome for his execution. In these letters, he repeatedly attests that each local church he passes has the three-fold hierarchy of a bishop, several priests, and several deacons.

He is so confident of this usage that he can say that without these three offices a local body cannot be called a church (Trallians 3:1-2). These facts show that the usage was already widespread at the dawn of the second century, so it must have first been established in the late first century, at the close of the apostolic age.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I post what almost all Christians believe. You post the rantings of the extremist minority.

You just cannot come to grips with the fact that between the Eastern Orthodox, Traditional Anglicans, Coptics and Catholics, we represent almost all of the worlds Christians, and this is what we believe.

As I said before,. you are a Biblical illiterate and when it comes to Christian history your brain is a void.

Appeal to majority is a fallacy. So is appeal to tradition.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Successors of the Apostles​

JIMMY AKIN • 7/1/2001

Successors of the Apostles

The doctrine of apostolic succession means there is an unbroken line of bishops from the beginning of Christian history to the present. Learn more here.

www.catholic.com

. . . . . The chain of apostolic succession, of course, started with the apostles themselves. But apostles stopped being commissioned in the first century, and so apostolic succession continues with the bishops, the successors of the apostles.
At times there has been confusion regarding the precise relationship between bishops and apostles, as well as the historical origin of the office of bishop, so it’s useful to the apologist to further explore these subjects.

Apostolic Succession Begins​

Christ conferred upon his apostles the original task of shepherding the earthly Church in his absence. As the Church grew, the apostles themselves appointed different kinds of ministers to assist them.

Among the apostles there were two groups. The first consisted of the Twelve, who witnessed the whole of Christ’s earthly ministry from his baptism to his Ascension (Acts 1:21-26). The second group of apostles, including Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14), was not bound by this condition. Thus Paul had seen and been commissioned as an apostle by the risen Christ (1 Cor. 9:1, Gal. 1:1), though he had not been a disciple of Jesus during his earthly ministry (Acts 9, 1 Cor. 15:8).

Christ could have continued to appear to individuals and appoint them as apostles throughout the Church age. However, he chose not to do so, and so the apostles passed from the scene.

The fact that this group has not continued is a Christian teaching, though not found in the New Testament, that is universally honored among Christians, including Protestants (except for certain radical Pentecostals). Thus it can be used as a counterexample with those advocating sola scriptura.

As the apostles died, the task of shepherding the Church fell by default upon the highest-ranking ministers appointed by them. This group is known today as the bishops, who are the successors of the apostles as the highest shepherds of the earthly Church.
Due to bishops’ role as the successors of the apostles, possession of a valid episcopacy is necessary for a church to claim apostolic succession. Apostolic succession thus involves in the bishops serving as successors to the apostles, not serving as apostles. The bishops are not simply a continuation of the office of apostle; they received the governance of the Church when that office ceased.

Differences between Offices​

Though modern bishops succeed the apostles as the highest shepherds of the Church, and though they belong to unbroken lines of ordination going back to the hands of the apostles themselves, the office of bishop is not identical to the office of apostle. If it were, Christ would not have allowed the apostles to disappear from the scene but would have continued to appear to and commission new apostles for the Church. There are differences between the offices of bishop and apostle:

1) The Gift of Miracles. Each apostle was endowed with the gift of miracles to enable him to perform signs validating his ministry as an apostle (2 Cor. 12:12). These manifestations provided motives of credibility showing the divine authority of the apostles and, by extension, those they appointed as successors. Bishops do not typically receive the gift of miracles.

2) Universal vs. particular jurisdiction. Apostles were not limited territorially in the way bishops are. The mission of an apostle was to cultivate and shepherd the Church of Christ wherever he might be, giving him a universal jurisdiction (cf. Matt. 28:19-20, Mark 16:14-15).
The New Testament shows apostles engaging in missionary and church-planting work in overlapping territories around the Roman world. When the apostles entrusted non-apostles with the task of organizing and governing churches, they placed limitations —commonly territorial ones—that gave lower ministers (bishops, priests, deacons) particular jurisdictions for ministry (cf. Acts 14:23; 20:17; Titus 1:5).

3) Personal vs. collegial infallibility. Christ promised the apostles special assistance by the Holy Spirit in remembering and understanding the teachings of Christ (John 14:26). This allowed the individual apostles to exercise the infallible teaching authority of the Church, and any apostle who chose to do so could define an issue.

Nevertheless, it was expedient to emphasize the settled character of a teaching that on some occasions definitions not be made by the authority of one, but by the joint authority of all the apostles, gathered in council (cf. Acts 15).
Except for the pope acting as the successor of Peter, bishops today do not have the ability individually to exercise the Church’s infallible teaching office. They can do so only as a body, either in their ordinary teaching or when gathered in an ecumenical council (Lumen Gentium 25, Catechism of the Catholic Church 891-892).

Historical Origin​

A second issue the apologist will encounter when discussing the office of bishop concerns its historical origin with respect to the office of priest. The New Testament appears to use the terms bishop(episkopos) and priest (presbuteros) interchangeably (Acts 20:17 with 20:28, Tit. 1:5-7). It also speaks of there being more than one bishop in a given church (Phil. 1:1). From the end of the first century onward there appears to have been only one bishop (see the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, A.D. 107) or one main bishop plus assistant/auxiliary bishops, such as the chorepisopus.

There is more than one way to account for the transition from one state of affairs to the other. However, it seems most likely that the individuals referred to in the New Testament as bishops or presbyters did not possess the fullness of holy orders but were equivalent to modern priests. As the apostles began to pass from the scene, they appointed certain non-apostles-e.g., Timothy, Titus, Mark, Philip, and Apollos-to oversee multiple local congregations and to appoint (Tit. 1:5) and discipline (1 Tim. 5:19-20) individual presbyters within them.

At the time, these individuals were called evangelists (Acts 21:8, Eph. 4:11, 2 Tim 4:5). By the end of the first century the term overseer (bishop) may have gravitated to them because they oversaw the individual congregations and presbyters. The term bishop, on this hypothesis, thus supplanted the earlier term evangelist.

To understand why this happened, one should note that in the apostolic age, all of the terms now attached to Catholic ministry-episkopos (overseer, bishop), presbuteros (elder, priest), diakonos (servant, minister, deacon)-were fluid in meaning and could apply to different offices. Anyone who had an oversight role could be called a bishop, anyone who was an elder in the community could be called a presbyter, and anyone in the community who served or ministered could be called a deacon.

This was true even if the person in question had the highest office of all: that of apostle. The apostles Judas and his successor Matthias could be described as having a “bishopric” (Acts 1:20). The apostle Peter could describe himself as a “fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1); and the apostle Paul could describe himself as a “servant” or “minister” (diakonos, 1 Cor. 3:5, 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23, Eph. 3:7, Col. 1:23, 25). The terms had not acquired the technical senses they did over the course of the first century.

The evidence would seem to indicate that the functions of overseeing, serving as elders, and ministering to the Christian community were all exercised by the apostles. As the Church grew, they began to discharge these functions, beginning with the lowest (which is the typical pattern with any corporation-the founders delegate the lowest functions to others first, the highest functions last). Thus the apostles appointed first deacons (Acts 6:1-6), then elders (14:23), and lastly evangelists (cf. Acts 21:8).

As the terms for these offices began to acquire their technical meanings, the servile term servant (diakonos) naturally attached itself to the lowest of these three ranks, as the more senior term elder (presbuteros) did to the second office. The high term overseer (episkopos) at first attached itself to the office of presbyter when these men were the highest ministers in local churches. Later overseer became attached to the office of evangelist when the apostles began to appoint men with the higher authority to appoint and discipline presbyters.

The understanding is further supported by the strong tradition of the Church Fathers that the three offices date from the time of the apostles, to whom early Church writers who attribute the ordination of specific, individual bishops (e.g., Ignatius [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:36], Symeon [ibid. 3:11]). The understanding is also supported by later writers’ recognition as bishops of those known in the New Testament as evangelists (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:4).

Whichever account of the origin of the office is correct, bishop was a distinct office by the late first century, the end of the apostolic age. This is evident because at the beginning of the second century, Ignatius of Antioch wrote a series of letters (A.D. 107) to local churches as he journeyed to Rome for his execution. In these letters, he repeatedly attests that each local church he passes has the three-fold hierarchy of a bishop, several priests, and several deacons.

He is so confident of this usage that he can say that without these three offices a local body cannot be called a church (Trallians 3:1-2). These facts show that the usage was already widespread at the dawn of the second century, so it must have first been established in the late first century, at the close of the apostolic age.

The Tension Between Peter and Paul | KGOV.com

kgov.com

@Bob Enyart

 

[Trump Gurl]

Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “Where in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . an additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).

---

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Link

 

[Right Divider]

I post what almost all Christians believe. You post the rantings of the extremist minority.

Appeal to popularity. Fallacious argument from an arrogant know-nothing.

You just cannot come to grips with the fact that between the Eastern Orthodox, Traditional Anglicans, Coptics and Catholics, we represent almost all of the worlds Christians, and this is what we believe.

False teaching is wide-spread. So what?

As I said before,. you are a Biblical illiterate and when it comes to Christian history your brain is a void.

Continued lies and false claims from you. I show you what the Bible clearly says and you disagree with IT. That's your problem little gurl.

 

[Trump Gurl]

I post what almost all Christians believe. You post the rantings of the extremist minority.

Appeal to popularity. . . . .

As usual you are in error, a normal state of affairs for you. I said what I said because RightDivider always accuses my or posting "RCC Doctrine", and I am demonstrating that my beliefs are not simply Catholic doctrine but they are the beliefs of most Christians. And of course, I am correct. In fact, prior to the so-called Reformation, my beliefs were the beliefs of ALL Christians.

I stand with historic, authentic Christianity.
You promote Neo-Sectarianism and its accompanying false doctrines.

Appeal to popularity. Fallacious argument from an arrogant know-nothing.

Ah, insults in place of reason: How typical of you. Maybe you should try practicing what you preach when it comes to insults.

The opening post of this thread stands as fact.