This is my body.

[bbbbbbb]

St Peter, the Apostles, and all their successors.

Details, details, details.

 

[Dan Perez]

St Peter, the Apostles, and all their successors.

And where is there a verse that says that Peter had SUCCESSORS , and would like to study that verse ?

dan p

 

[bbbbbbb]

And where is there a verse that says that Peter had SUCCESSORS , and would like to study that verse ?

dan p

In a real sense, the Apostles had all sorts of successors. Every believer in this world has a spiritual genealogy going back to one of the apostles, so I am and you are successors of the Apostles, even as we both are descendants of Adam.

I think what was meant, however, that there was a formal office of Apostle and that office was passed along throughout Christian history. One of the myriad problems with that understanding is the absence of any indication of such a practice in the early centuries of Christian history. Another problem is that of the number 12. In theory, there would be only twelve Apostles holding that office today and they would have an undisputed genealogy. Such is hardly the case, however, even though many have made claims to Apostleship. Probably one of the more interesting ones was Edward Irving who founded the Catholic Apostolic Church. You can read about it here - Catholic Apostolic Church - Wikipedia

 

[Dan Perez]

In a real sense, the Apostles had all sorts of successors. Every believer in this world has a spiritual genealogy going back to one of the apostles, so I am and you are successors of the Apostles, even as we both are descendants of Adam.

I think what was meant, however, that there was a formal office of Apostle and that office was passed along throughout Christian history. One of the myriad problems with that understanding is the absence of any indication of such a practice in the early centuries of Christian history. Another problem is that of the number 12. In theory, there would be only twelve Apostles holding that office today and they would have an undisputed genealogy. Such is hardly the case, however, even though many have made claims to Apostleship. Probably one of the more interesting ones was Edward Irving who founded the Catholic Apostolic Church. You can read about it here - Catholic Apostolic Church - Wikipedia

And I also do believe that their where ONLY 12 apostles chosen and these 12 will sit on 12 thrones ruling Israel .

But in Eph 4:11 Christ gave , INDEED the APOSTLES , and the PROPHETS ,,and the EVANGELISTS , and the PASTOR , and TEACHERS and verse 12 , are for the building up the BODY of CHRIST .

APOSTLES , just means a messenger , period .

dan p

 

[bbbbbbb]

And I also do believe that their where ONLY 12 apostles chosen and these 12 will sit on 12 thrones ruling Israel .

But in Eph 4:11 Christ gave , INDEED the APOSTLES , and the PROPHETS ,,and the EVANGELISTS , and the PASTOR , and TEACHERS and verse 12 , are for the building up the BODY of CHRIST .

APOSTLES , just means a messenger , period .

dan p

I agree completely. Thank you.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And where is there a verse that says that Peter had SUCCESSORS , and would like to study that verse ?

dan p

It's in the same verse that says that only verses in the Bible are acceptable when it comes to knowing historical information.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[rturner76]

APOSTLES , just means a messenger , period

I was under the impression that the term "Apostle" referred to someone that founds new churches. For example, a non-denominational Pastor who is the brother in law of a good friend of mine, after he founded his third church from scratch, is now being referred to a "APostle" and is no longer called by the term "Pastor."

I have to admit that at first when I was told of his new moniker was a bit confused thinking to myself "I thought there has only been 12 Apostles, all appointed by Jesus the Christ himself." Then something came to mind like "Well I guess the first 12 were named that because they were sent out to grow the church by founding new churches everywhere they went so maybe that is what an 'Apostle' actually is in practice." What does the Bible say about it?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I was under the impression that the term "Apostle" referred to someone that founds new churches. For example, a non-denominational Pastor who is the brother in law of a good friend of mine, after he founded his third church from scratch, is now being referred to a "APostle" and is no longer called by the term "Pastor."

I have to admit that at first when I was told of his new moniker was a bit confused thinking to myself "I thought there has only been 12 Apostles, all appointed by Jesus the Christ himself." Then something came to mind like "Well I guess the first 12 were named that because they were sent out to grow the church by founding new churches everywhere they went so maybe that is what an 'Apostle' actually is in practice." What does the Bible say about it?

Well, the most strict--arguably at least--definition and translation of apostolos is "emissary", it is literally "sent-out-one". It seems rather clear, in Scripture anyway, that apostles were involved in deeply important work: they went out and founded communities of Christians through their apostolic charge as Christ's ambassadors to the nations. So important, it seems, was their unique work that as the apostles began to die off (often as martyrs) the Church felt no compulsion to talk about new apostles. So by the time of St. Ignatius, writing around 107 AD he addresses the churches by telling them to stick close to what the bishop and presbyters are saying.

And that kind of makes sense, in St. Paul's letters to St. Timothy, Paul (an apostle) is telling Timothy about his ministry as a pastor. We aren't seeing anything about a new generation of apostles, but rather we are seeing guidance on pastoral ministry. In fact if we take all the Pastoral Epistles we see talk about the importance of who should be a candidate for pastoral ministry--bishops, presbyters, deacons--but we don't see anything about apostles. There aren't new apostles, but there are pastors, there are bishops, presbyters, and deacons. There are those who have been entrusted with safeguarding, preserving, the faith which the apostles have bestowed and the instruction given is "hold to this" "keep this". In Galatians Paul says "if anyone preaches any other gospel than what we preached" and in 2 Thessalonians says "hold to the teachings/traditions which you have received from us by word of mouth or by letter". St. Jude's epistle says, emphatically, "earnestly contend for the faith once and for all delivered". So there is this very real sense that the apostles were sent to light the fire, and they handed that torch over to pastors to keep that fire lit.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[rturner76]

they went out and founded communities of Christians through their apostolic charge as Christ's ambassadors to the nations.

So would that indicate that the "Apostiloc Succession" is valid and should be followed?

We aren't seeing anything about a new generation of apostles, but rather we are seeing guidance on pastoral ministry.

This would indicate that there will be no Apostles after the 12. Should these modern day "Apostles" only be identified as Bishops, Presbyters, Evangelists, Deacons, and Pastors?

We aren't seeing anything about a new generation of apostles, but rather we are seeing guidance on pastoral ministry.

Repetetive question but does that mean there have only been 12 Apostles?

and the instruction given is "hold to this" "keep this".

Does this validate the Apostolic Succession?

I look forwrd to your response as I have seen yout posts to be instructive and connected very closely to the original revelation to the 12. God blees you and thank you for your response.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I was under the impression that the term "Apostle" referred to someone that founds new churches. For example, a non-denominational Pastor who is the brother in law of a good friend of mine, after he founded his third church from scratch, is now being referred to a "APostle" and is no longer called by the term "Pastor."

I have to admit that at first when I was told of his new moniker was a bit confused thinking to myself "I thought there has only been 12 Apostles, all appointed by Jesus the Christ himself." Then something came to mind like "Well I guess the first 12 were named that because they were sent out to grow the church by founding new churches everywhere they went so maybe that is what an 'Apostle' actually is in practice." What does the Bible say about it?

There are multiple uses of the Greek word which is commonly transliterated as "apostle" in the New Testament. In Romans 16 Paul mention Andronicus and Junia as being outstanding apostles. The word is probably best translated as "one sent out (for a purpose)". Thus, in Hebrews Jesus Christ is given the title of Chief Apostle. He was sent from God, the Father, with a specific purpose in mind - reconciliation of mankind to a just and holy God.

In the New Testament it seems that what we would term "missionary" (a word not found at all in the New Testament) probably closely aligns with "apostle".

 

[prodromos]

I think what was meant, however, that there was a formal office of Apostle and that office was passed along throughout Christian history.

Perhaps you shouldn't pretend to know what I meant. There are 12 Apostles and many others who are described as "equal to the Apostles", however there is no formal office of "Apostle" that is passed down.

One of the myriad problems with that understanding is the absence of any indication of such a practice in the early centuries of Christian history.

This is a strawman, since no one has argued for a continuation of the office of Apostle. There is, however, abundant evidence that the Apostles ordained "overseers" in the local Churches through the laying on of hands and that those "overseers" also ordained others as "overseers", it being established very early on that nothing was to be done in the Church without the "overseer".

"Overseer" being a translation of "episkopos" which is also translated as "bishop".

 

[rturner76]

There are multiple uses of the Greek word which is commonly transliterated as "apostle" in the New Testament. In Romans 16 Paul mention Andronicus and Junia as being outstanding apostles. The word is probably best translated as "one sent out (for a purpose)". Thus, in Hebrews Jesus Christ is given the title of Chief Apostle. He was sent from God, the Father, with a specific purpose in mind - reconciliation of mankind to a just and holy God.

In the New Testament it seems that what we would term "missionary" (a word not found at all in the New Testament) probably closely aligns with "apostle".

How would you say that relates to Apostolic "Succession?" Did the Apostles choose who would be the next Apostles and so on through time?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Perhaps you shouldn't pretend to know what I meant. There are 12 Apostles and many others who are described as "equal to the Apostles", however there is no formal office of "Apostle" that is passed down.

This is a strawman, since no one has argued for a continuation of the office of Apostle. There is, however, abundant evidence that the Apostles ordained "overseers" in the local Churches through the laying on of hands and that those "overseers" also ordained others as "overseers", it being established very early on that nothing was to be done in the Church without the "overseer".

"Overseer" being a translation of "episkopos" which is also translated as "bishop".

επίσκοπος is hardly the same word as απόστολος. It is apples and ham sandwiches. The RCC does, indeed, claim apostolic succession in its office of the Papacy, which is mirrored within the Anglican communion by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

[bbbbbbb]

How would you say that relates to Apostolic "Succession?" Did the Apostles choose who would be the next Apostles and so on through time?

We have no indication that they did, so it is idle speculation as to what they did or did not do. What we do know is that there were numerous apostles (sent ones) even during the time of the Apostles. The church has never ceased in sending out apostles. The offices of Patriarchs and the RCC Papacy are later developments.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So would that indicate that the "Apostiloc Succession" is valid and should be followed?

From the Lutheran POV the succession of bishops from the apostles is historically true, so it isn't rejected. However, apostolic succession is not treated the same way in Lutheranism as it is in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or even Anglicanism; it is not considered necessary. So, as an example, in the Holy Roman Empire where most of the bishops remained loyal to Rome, the Lutheran churches did not have bishops overseeing them. On the other hand, in the Scandinavian countries, particularly Sweden, there were bishops who embraced the reforms--most importantly the Archbishop of Uppsala, and the Church of Sweden retains apostolic succession, whereas the German Lutherans did not (and this became more muddied and complicated later with the Prussion Union in which there was a forced union between Lutherans and Reformed, leading to Lutherans fleeing for religious freedom in places like America and Canada).

Lutheranism has never mandated a particular ecclesiastical polity, which is to say from the Lutheran POV there is no divinely commanded way on how to organize the Church. In North America most Lutheran bodies follow a basically congregational polity, though the ELCA when it joined with the Episcopal Church in altar and pulpit fellowship adopted a semi-episcopal polity, which is why the ELCA has bishops--though things still broadly follow a congregational model.

Apostolic Succession, then, is historically true--it can be observed historically. It was important, especially in the early years of the Church. It's therefore completely valid. Is it necessary? No. So if it should be followed is less important than being faithful to the apostolic faith itself. Holding firm to the apostolic word in Scripture, confessing and believing God's word, and holding to true faith is far more important to Lutherans than whether our pastors are "validated" through the historical succession of bishops.

This would indicate that there will be no Apostles after the 12. Should these modern day "Apostles" only be identified as Bishops, Presbyters, Evangelists, Deacons, and Pastors?

The apostolical ministry is preserved in the pastorate--bishops and presbyters. So those who call themselves modern-day apostles would be viewed from a Lutheran POV as misguided at best, and grifters at worst.

Repetetive question but does that mean there have only been 12 Apostles?

The existence of Paul as an apostle means that no, there were more than just the Twelve. There were the Twelve Apostles, St. Matthias replacing Judas Iscariot. But there was also Paul, Barnabas, Apollos, and many others--Scripture attests to this. There is no exhaustive list of how many apostles were around in that first generation, but tradition talks about the existence of the 72 apostles.

The Twelve obviously held a special place of importance, at least initially, as it was viewed as important to retain that number of 12 by replacing Judas with Matthias. However, after the election of Matthias to the Twelve no additional mention can be found, in or outside Scripture, for retaining the Twelve. After St. James the Great died around 44 AD, as mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, the number was again reduced to 11, but no attempt is made to replace James with anyone.

And this is generally why the traditional account of St. John's death sometime around 100 AD is viewed as the death of the last apostle and, therefore, the end of the apostolic era; it is followed by the sub-apostolic era, the era of the "apostolic fathers", those early fathers of the Church who knew and learned and were friends of the apostles and who were often appointed by the apostles directly to their episcopal chair.

Does this validate the Apostolic Succession?

I look forwrd to your response as I have seen yout posts to be instructive and connected very closely to the original revelation to the 12. God blees you and thank you for your response.

I view Apostolic Succession as completely valid. I just don't view it as a necessity for the functioning of the Church and the Church's exercising of the Keys and retaining the sacred ministry of Word and Sacrament.

I'd even, speaking personally here, say that Apostolic Succession is ideal. But it isn't what validates other things in the Church; the word of God and the faithful confession of the Church are what validates the Church as the Church: Here is where God's word is, here is where the Sacraments are celebrated, here is where repentance and confession happens, etc. This is what validates the Church as the Church of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[prodromos]

επίσκοπος is hardly the same word as απόστολος.

You are making another strawman argument.

The RCC does, indeed, claim apostolic succession in its office of the Papacy, which is mirrored within the Anglican communion by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Seeing as I am Eastern Orthodox, what Rome does or does not claim has no bearing on what I posted.

 

[Valletta]

How would you say that relates to Apostolic "Succession?" Did the Apostles choose who would be the next Apostles and so on through time?

Read the historical records:
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Pope Clement 1, Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

 

[bbbbbbb]

You are making another strawman argument.

Seeing as I am Eastern Orthodox, what Rome does or does not claim has no bearing on what I posted.

What you posted was a simple linguistic leap, associating one word with another, on the order of associating an apple with a sandwich because they are both forms of human food.

 

[prodromos]

What you posted was a simple linguistic leap, associating one word with another, on the order of associating an apple with a sandwich because they are both forms of human food.

Wrong again.

 

[RileyG]

I'm so grateful I received Christ's true Body and Blood yesterday. Thankful for this wonderful sacrament.