Apostolic Succession, Real?

[Colabomb]

I am a seeker interested in Lutheranism. I am not here to attack, but to search.

Is Apostolic Succession, first of all, Scriptural?

And Secondly, how does it affect the Sacrament? Is the Sacrament bound to a succession of Bishops?

I wonder, because I am now convicted that in the Earliest Church, Bishop and Presbyter were the same thing. But that in itself does not do away with AS.

I am attempting to place Scripture over tradition, so I have to look at these doctrines in light of Scripture to see if they are of God. And to be honest I am a bit confused.

How would you interpret this verse?
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

(1Ti 4:14)



and this?

For which cause I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee through the laying on of my hands.

(2Ti 1:6)

[MORTANIUS]

Apostolic succession does have some merit regarding scripture. However, such appointment of succession was more diverse than it is given credit for by Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

What became of Apostolic Succession is that it became rigid and political as opposed to spiritual.

This does not disqualify it, but when it is used to disqualify others or to justify ones own faith against others considered "heretical" it deteriorates into something less than Apostolic!

[Colabomb]

Apostolic succession does have some merit regarding scripture. However, such appointment of succession was more diverse than it is given credit for by Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

What became of Apostolic Succession is that it became rigid and political as opposed to spiritual.

This does not disqualify it, but when it is used to disqualify others or to justify ones own faith against others considered "heretical" it deteriorates into something less than Apostolic!
Any other thoughts on this? As a former Anglo-Catholic I struggle with this issue a lot. And if it is a false doctrine I don't want it to keep me from the Sacrament that I love, and if it is True, I want to seek a Church that has it.

In Christ the Living King!
Your Brother!
John ><>

[filosofer]

Those who require apostolic succession try to find some support from Matt. 16 and especially Matt. 18 (Office of the Keys). However, we believe that the "rock" on which Christ founded the Church was the confession of the faith which Peter made (the feminine form PETRA), not on Peter himself (which would have required the masculine form, but the text does not have it). Thus, the "succession of faith" is critical rather than the person. And that is why we as Lutherans consider vital to be "confessing Christians" in line with Matt. 18.

[C.F.W. Walther]

LCMS's current stance on apostolic succession:

Apostolic Succession
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/blank.gif http://www.lcms.org/graphics/blank.gifQ. Recently we heard from our Vicar in his Sunday morning message speak about Apostolic Succession. Does this apply to the pastors in the LCMS? If so, please explain.

A. "Apostolic Succession" is the claim that an ecclesiatical leader's authority derives from episcopal consecration of bishop to bishop in an unbroken chain from the apostles. Although some churches historically have ordered their ministry according to this theory, The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod does not now nor has it ever recognized this practice as divinely mandated, or required for the well-being of the church's ministry. For a fuller discussion of this subject, see the article on "Apostolic Succession" in the Christian Cyclopedia (http://www.lcms.org/cyclopedia/).

[ByzantineDixie]

The Confessions do indicate a preference for this but also list the practical reasons for having to have abandoned it at the time. I'll post the excerpt from the Apology which speaks to this below.

One question that nags at me is that it was clear apostolic succession and the old ecclessiatical order was abandoned when the bishops were killing off the Lutheran priests but I think that killing has stopped now. I wonder why Lutherans haven't returned to what the Confessions say is their preference?


Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.
24] The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. 25] But the bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved. Let them see to it how they will give an account to God for dispersing 26] the Church. In this matter our consciences are not in danger, because since we know that our Confession is true, godly, and catholic, we ought not to approve the cruelty of those who persecute this doctrine. 27] And we know that the Church is among those who teach the Word of God aright, and administer the Sacraments aright, and not with those who not only by their edicts endeavor to efface God's Word, but also put to death those who teach what is right and true; 28] towards whom, even though they do something contrary to the canons, yet the very canons are milder. Furthermore, we wish here again to testify that we will gladly maintain ecclesiastical and canonical government, provided the bishops only cease to rage against our Churches. This our desire will clear us both before God and among all nations to all posterity from the imputation against us that the authority of the bishops is being undermined, when men read and hear that, although protesting against the unrighteous cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain justice.

[filosofer]

Rose you forgot to bold the section immediately following. ;)


even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]

[Qoheleth]

Rose you forgot to bold the section immediately following

To get a handle on how the Confessions treat the topic, one should read the Treatise on the Primacy and Power of the Pope. The major contention of the Confessions was that the post-apostolic distinction between bishop and presbyter (priest) is of human origin; note, this does not call into question that both bishop and priest are divinely ordained in the church, but that the way their duties are assigned is reckoned to be of human origin. The major contention of the Treatise is that the ordination which is performed by a pastor (meaning, the head priest in a larger parish, rather like Rome uses the term "pastor" today) is valid by divine right.

Note that the Lutherans had their backs against the wall on this. They WANTED to keep the ancient canonical order (see Apology XIV), but when the Roman bishops flat out refused to ordain them priests, they turned to an argument made by Jerome that asserted that bishops and priests shared the same competence in regards to ordination and that assigned ordination to the bishops was primarily an act of good order, not an act of divine necessity.

Q

[BigNorsk]

I am a seeker interested in Lutheranism. I am not here to attack, but to search.

Is Apostolic Succession, first of all, Scriptural?

And Secondly, how does it affect the Sacrament? Is the Sacrament bound to a succession of Bishops?

I wonder, because I am now convicted that in the Earliest Church, Bishop and Presbyter were the same thing. But that in itself does not do away with AS.

I am attempting to place Scripture over tradition, so I have to look at these doctrines in light of Scripture to see if they are of God. And to be honest I am a bit confused.

How would you interpret this verse?
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

(1Ti 4:14)



and this?

For which cause I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee through the laying on of my hands.

(2Ti 1:6)




Some comments,

First if you want to consider that the church has been passed on through the laying on of hands, such as we see in Acts when the Samaritans and then the Gentiles along with some smaller groups, then it really wouldn't matter which church you went into. I believe all christians have an unbroken line of the laying on of hands back to the first church members.

Getting a bit more specific, does the office of the Apostles move from person to person in succession? We see in the bible only that Judas' office is filled. Why is it filled? Because he apostacized, he left the faith, his office was open. In Revelation we see where the names of the 12 will be inscribed on the foundation stones, who would be the twelve if the office was not filled as was prophecied in scripture. Now which of the 12 have apostacized and left their office open? None. They have been tested and found worthy (as worthy as a human can be). The foundation is layed and there is no need to keep chiseling off one name to be replaced by another. There is no succession of the office of apostle.

It should also be noted that the apostles picked out those best qualified, but left the final choice to God. Any ordination we do here on earth is really just a recognition of God's ordination. Among those churches that hold so strongly to apostolic succession, when was the last time they let God do any of the choosing?

Isn't it interesting that the churches that stress the most that the "dead" saints are still with us are the ones that stress replacing them?

I believe the misunderstanding was that Judas' office was open because he died. I would say that isn't true, it was open because he left the church entirely, and the office that needed to be filled wasn't an earthly office, but a heavenly one.

Now to the succession of bishop's. I must ask is the church a church of grace or a church of law? Is the church composed of the bishops or is it all believers? Are we to claim one is of Peter and another of Paul, this one is from Thomas and that one from Judas (not the betrayer), or are we of Christ? Does Jesus tell us he will be wherever two or three bishops or is it believers are gathered in his name?

There is quite a parallel to what some churches are teaching about apostolic succession spoken about in the New Testament. The Jews put their faith in the fact that they decended, in the flesh, from Abraham. They put their faith in the law. We are taught how the true children of Abraham are those who have his faith, not his genes. Similarly we must ask, who is it who succeeds the apostles, those who hold to the teachings that God gave us throught the apostles, or those who have substituted their own teachings for those of the apostles? Is a true bishop one who is mature in the true faith or one who has performed a prescribed set of rituals?

You mention the sacraments, those who teach apostolic succession, teach that men can make God's Sacraments either valid or invalid, but that isn't correct. It is the difference between teaching that the priest changes the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood or understanding that no earthly priest can do so, only our high priest, Jesus. Now if it is Jesus, does Jesus become incapable of doing so because the person administering the sacrament is sinful, or has or hasn't had certain other people lay their hands on him? Those who teach apostolic succession start out saying they agree that it is Christ, but then they teach that Christ is dependant on them to do things in just such a way or his is impotent. So they ultimately teach that the power is not Christ's but theirs.

You list a verse in 1 Timothy 4:14, the question is, who was in control of the gift? Did the elders decide what the gift was?

Again in 2 Timothy 1:6 who actually gave the gift?

If you look at it, there is a case to be made that the Christian faith is passed from person to person by the laying on of hands, but like I said at the beginning, there is a succession of that in whatever church you may go to. To restrict that to a few certain people really isn't what the Bible is teaching. For instance in Acts we see again where certain groups first received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of the apostles, what we don't see after that is that the apostle had to keep going around laying his hands on every convert, there's just no evidence of that.

Just some things for you to think about in reaching your decision.

Marv

[Colabomb]

The Confessions do indicate a preference for this but also list the practical reasons for having to have abandoned it at the time. I'll post the excerpt from the Apology which speaks to this below.

One question that nags at me is that it was clear apostolic succession and the old ecclessiatical order was abandoned when the bishops were killing off the Lutheran priests but I think that killing has stopped now. I wonder why Lutherans haven't returned to what the Confessions say is their preference?


Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.
24] The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. 25] But the bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved. Let them see to it how they will give an account to God for dispersing 26] the Church. In this matter our consciences are not in danger, because since we know that our Confession is true, godly, and catholic, we ought not to approve the cruelty of those who persecute this doctrine. 27] And we know that the Church is among those who teach the Word of God aright, and administer the Sacraments aright, and not with those who not only by their edicts endeavor to efface God's Word, but also put to death those who teach what is right and true; 28] towards whom, even though they do something contrary to the canons, yet the very canons are milder. Furthermore, we wish here again to testify that we will gladly maintain ecclesiastical and canonical government, provided the bishops only cease to rage against our Churches. This our desire will clear us both before God and among all nations to all posterity from the imputation against us that the authority of the bishops is being undermined, when men read and hear that, although protesting against the unrighteous cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain justice.


Good Point.

[Colabomb]

Some comments,

First if you want to consider that the church has been passed on through the laying on of hands, such as we see in Acts when the Samaritans and then the Gentiles along with some smaller groups, then it really wouldn't matter which church you went into. I believe all christians have an unbroken line of the laying on of hands back to the first church members.

Getting a bit more specific, does the office of the Apostles move from person to person in succession? We see in the bible only that Judas' office is filled. Why is it filled? Because he apostacized, he left the faith, his office was open. In Revelation we see where the names of the 12 will be inscribed on the foundation stones, who would be the twelve if the office was not filled as was prophecied in scripture. Now which of the 12 have apostacized and left their office open? None. They have been tested and found worthy (as worthy as a human can be). The foundation is layed and there is no need to keep chiseling off one name to be replaced by another. There is no succession of the office of apostle.

It should also be noted that the apostles picked out those best qualified, but left the final choice to God. Any ordination we do here on earth is really just a recognition of God's ordination. Among those churches that hold so strongly to apostolic succession, when was the last time they let God do any of the choosing?

Isn't it interesting that the churches that stress the most that the "dead" saints are still with us are the ones that stress replacing them?

I believe the misunderstanding was that Judas' office was open because he died. I would say that isn't true, it was open because he left the church entirely, and the office that needed to be filled wasn't an earthly office, but a heavenly one.

Now to the succession of bishop's. I must ask is the church a church of grace or a church of law? Is the church composed of the bishops or is it all believers? Are we to claim one is of Peter and another of Paul, this one is from Thomas and that one from Judas (not the betrayer), or are we of Christ? Does Jesus tell us he will be wherever two or three bishops or is it believers are gathered in his name?

There is quite a parallel to what some churches are teaching about apostolic succession spoken about in the New Testament. The Jews put their faith in the fact that they decended, in the flesh, from Abraham. They put their faith in the law. We are taught how the true children of Abraham are those who have his faith, not his genes. Similarly we must ask, who is it who succeeds the apostles, those who hold to the teachings that God gave us throught the apostles, or those who have substituted their own teachings for those of the apostles? Is a true bishop one who is mature in the true faith or one who has performed a prescribed set of rituals?

You mention the sacraments, those who teach apostolic succession, teach that men can make God's Sacraments either valid or invalid, but that isn't correct. It is the difference between teaching that the priest changes the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood or understanding that no earthly priest can do so, only our high priest, Jesus. Now if it is Jesus, does Jesus become incapable of doing so because the person administering the sacrament is sinful, or has or hasn't had certain other people lay their hands on him? Those who teach apostolic succession start out saying they agree that it is Christ, but then they teach that Christ is dependant on them to do things in just such a way or his is impotent. So they ultimately teach that the power is not Christ's but theirs.

You list a verse in 1 Timothy 4:14, the question is, who was in control of the gift? Did the elders decide what the gift was?

Again in 2 Timothy 1:6 who actually gave the gift?

If you look at it, there is a case to be made that the Christian faith is passed from person to person by the laying on of hands, but like I said at the beginning, there is a succession of that in whatever church you may go to. To restrict that to a few certain people really isn't what the Bible is teaching. For instance in Acts we see again where certain groups first received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of the apostles, what we don't see after that is that the apostle had to keep going around laying his hands on every convert, there's just no evidence of that.

Just some things for you to think about in reaching your decision.

Marv
Another Very Very Good point...

Becoming Lutheran....

Resistance is futile ;)

Thanks guys, this is really helping! :)

[Qoheleth]

Any ordination we do here on earth is really just a recognition of God's ordination

Yet the church is still present here in our lifetimes doing the will of the Father through the office ordained by Christ. We still must DO the work guided by the Holy Spirit by grace.

Among those churches that hold so strongly to apostolic succession, when was the last time they let God do any of the choosing?

Are you accusing others of false piety, heresy, even apostacy by this statement? Have you been in the minds and hearts of these churches to judge them so ruthlessly? How ofetn do protestants say: Lord have Mercy... Lord have Mercy... Lord have Mercy... Lord have Mercy, even before and after all meals?

Isn't it interesting that the churches that stress the most that the "dead" saints are still with us are the ones that stress replacing them?

This is a woeful misrepresentation. It is not replacement, but a Continuation of the faith.

Similarly we must ask, who is it who succeeds the apostles, those who hold to the teachings that God gave us throught the apostles, or those who have substituted their own teachings for those of the apostles? Is a true bishop one who is mature in the true faith or one who has performed a prescribed set of rituals?

You ask Marv, Who are you referring to precisely, anyway? the Confessions are clear. They (Lutherans) wanted to maintain succession. This sounds like a possible accusation attempt towards many of purposeful and false teaching, why? (as if you are the judge) Simply due to strict Liturgical order, prayer, meditation, almsgiving, fasting and so forth. This is yet another potentially offensive statement made out of ignorance and possible malice.

You mention the sacraments, those who teach apostolic succession, teach that men can make God's Sacraments either valid or invalid, but that isn't correct.

No magic here, Marv. It is the Holy Spirit working in and through the church in the sacraments instituted by Christ.


So they ultimately teach that the power is not Christ's but theirs.

Colabomb, do not listen to this. It is a perverted representation of the church and the sacraments. Go to the source concerning all of these topics, and that is the early undivided church, not some discontent pretending to be the spokesperson for Lutherans in CF

Q