Quote:
Originally Posted by
dwashbur
Acts 1:21-22
"Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
So, apostolic succession requires 1. Someone who was with them the whole time, 2. Someone who was there for John's ministry, 3. Someone who actually saw the Lord after he rose, and 4. Someone who can personally testify as a witness to the resurrection. How many of your successors through church history meet these guidelines?
Furthermore, if we read on in the book of Acts, we notice several things. For one, Matthias is never mentioned again. For another, we never actually see the Lord sanctioning this move. Why? Because he had his own replacement: Paul. And none of the apostles or Paul are ever called anything resembling bishops, so this passage has nothing to do with it anyway
Your requirements for Apostolic succession are misconstrued. The scene in these verses is the continuance of the Apostolic Tradition established by Christ in building His Church. What's being suggested is that Christ came, pronounced that He would build His Church on Peter, the rock, and then promptly abandon His Church ascending to heaven? Nor is does reason allowing us to accept that Christ would allow His Church to die out as the original Twelve died one by one. What is seen in these verses is the president for establishing the episcopate. Keeping this tradition alive is in part the purpose of the author.
We see in Acts 20:28 the episcopate is to "take heed to . . . the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops . . . which he hath purchased with his own blood." These are the episkopos or curators, guardians, of the faith. Their role is to 'feed' His sheep and to maintain the 'true' Gospel. This is a living Church from the beginning from her consecration, when there was no Scripture, a Kingdom not 'stuck' in a BOOK but journeying through the real world with the power of a real faith.
Quote:
I'll treat the most obvious one first. 1 Timothy 1:6 says "Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk." I suppose I could ask if that's a Freudian slip, but I'll try to be nice ;-) Anyway, I think either you're a little confused or your source is.
The confusion is suggesting 1 Timothy 1:6 as if it added anything to an empty argument.
Quote:
1 Tim 4:14 never mentions the word "bishop" or any of its cognates. The laying-on of hands in this passage refers to his spiritual giftedness, and has nothing at all to do with any kind of office.
Timothy, a Bishop, is receiving instructions in chapter 4. St. Paul warns him about heretics such as the Gnostics, the Marcionites prominate doing the devil's work just years after the passion. Furthermore, Timothy is to be a pious godliness in all things. As such, this verse has everything to do with the episcopate.
Quote:
I Timothy 3:1, 2 and Titus 1:7 all use the same word, "episkopos." It means "overseer." When we take the commands to Timothy and Titus that surround this word into account, it's obvious what this "office" is: pastor. Shepherd of the local congregation. That's all. No wider scope, no special authority, just the church's primary teacher/preacher.
The monarchical episcopate originates in the New Testament as the ruling class of the faithful in Christ's Kingdom. It can be found in place with the same roles it holds today by the middle of the second century. That becomes obvious in the example of the See of Rome. To ignore the "episkopos" we need to ignore the first four Bishops of Rome: St. Peter (32-67), St. Linus (67-76), St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88), St. Clement I (88-97)
Quote:
And I'm amazed that you included 1 Peter 2:25, since that is obviously talking about Jesus, the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls. This is a good example of how not to use a concordance.
I shouldn't be so amazed since you've rewritten the meaning of Scripture to suite your own predilection. The obviousness you see is a misreading. This verse is not of Christ the Shepherd, by the shepherd Bishops He left for our guardianship.
The exhortation again is derived from the example of his Master, and what he means is this; as He had done, so ought ye to do, for for this cause He “witnessed” (1P 2,21), that we might tread in His steps. (Chrysostom 1 Tm 1801)
Quote:
The first verses of Timothy and Titus tell us what those men's jobs were: they were special emissaries from Paul, sent to specific places to deal with specific problems.
No he doesn’t, in 1 Timothy the first Chapter is salutations, blessings, and reminder of His role as Bishop. In the second chapter St. Paul that prayers should be said for all men, that God's plan is for the salvation of all. In the third chapter we see St. Paul giving instruction for selecting clergy. In this chapter we hear that the Church is the living pillar of truth.
Quote:
They did not hold any "office" in any church, nor where they in any way "successors" to Paul. They were trouble-shooters sent in to deal with specific occasions. There is no biblical office of "bishop." In reality, "Bishop" is a much later, artificial construct that got applied to this word so some people could justify their desire for power. But again, it is not a biblical term, and the office as practiced by the Catholic church has nothing to do with the word's use in the New Testament. Let's face it: they made up the whole hierarchy thing out of whole cloth. There is nothing anywhere in the Bible to justify it.
The office of the Bishop was well established in Scripture with the independence and duties of a unified office by 150 AD. As we hear from St. Irenaeus, St. Ignatius of Antioch and Pope Clement I who was said to have been appointed by St. Peter.
Without an established episcopate before St. Peter is crucified you cannot explain the See of Rome; that is unless one ignores truth..
Joet.
