Would Paul agree with Apostolic Succesion

[ProdigalSeeker]

Reading through Galations, and came across this verse: 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

I was under the impression that apostolic succesion meant the original apostles taught the next generation, which taught the next to maintain purity of scripture.

If this is the case, and he didn't meet with the apostles before he started preaching (going to Jerusalem, probably not where he would be most effective- granted), wouldn't this be out of succession?

[Edial]

Reading through Galations, and came across this verse: 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

I was under the impression that apostolic succesion meant the original apostles taught the next generation, which taught the next to maintain purity of scripture.

If this is the case, and he didn't meet with the apostles before he started preaching (going to Jerusalem, probably not where he would be most effective- granted), wouldn't this be out of succession?
Not in this case.

Paul is called as an Apostle of Jesus Christ.
1CO 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God

More specifically an apostle to the Gentiles.

GAL 2:8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.


He is at par with them in a way that he also has seen Christ ...

1CO 9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?

He also qualified as an Apostle by doing wonders, miracles ...

2CO 12:12 The things that mark an apostle--signs, wonders and miracles--were done among you with great perseverance. ...

Nowadays, we do not have apostles in the real sense of the apostles, since none of them can do signs, miracles and wonders.
And in order to be recognized as an apostle of Jesus Christ, these needed to be done publicly and often.

However, in today's world there is a gift of apostleship.
But it is different from being an Apostle of Jesus Christ, the original Apostles.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[TheCosmicGospel]

I think you are making a good point.

Apostolic Succession begins/stands/falls with Peter. Paul not only worked independently of Peter, but actually confronted him and had to CORRECT him. This is what debunks the whole myth about A.S. for me.

The whole purpose of the Diaspora was to prevent a centralized, Jerusalem church.

Where 2 or 3 are gathered in My name, there I am among them.

A.S. also flies in the face of those early disciples who wanted to sit on the right hand of God. They were only right or wrong as A.S. can be.

Peace,
Cos

[RegularGuy]

Paul was interested in Apostlicity. He claimed the title of "apostle" for himself. He defended himself against those who would deny him the title. He saw himself as, at least, the equal to Peter.

But, I don't think Paul was in any way concerned with Apostolic Succession. In fact, I don't think think Paul believed the Church was going to be around long enough to worry about Apostolic Succession. Apostolic Succession only matters if you think you're going to be around for the long haul.

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I think what is a bigger issue about AS is that it necessitates this "passing of the torch" if I may for the church to still be the church. I would say one could find in scripture hiearchial system within the church, or even Paul "passing" his teachings on to timothy. But apostolic succession (at least in the church today) suggests even more that a minister cannot be a minister, or cannot administer the sacraments without it, that the "laying of the hands" by a bishop essentially makes one qualified. And in that respect, I think Paul and scripture teach otherwise. For if this be true, the church can not be the church without apostolic succession. For no one can be ordained in word and sacrament without it. This is why many lutherans are against the ELCA's communion with the Episcopal church, because we must have the laying on of the hands now at ordination, and many feel that this goes directly against the priesthood of all believers. It makes the order necessity and means that christians must have a mediation between them and God (priests). Now whether you want to debate whether or not this is ultimately an issue of adiaphora is up to you, all I am saying in this insanely over-sized thread is that Paul would agree I think in passing of teachings, but in AS in its entirety...I am not so sure.
Peace be with you,
doulos

[RegularGuy]

Five posts is "insanely over-sized"?

:scratch:

The reason that most Lutherans do not claim Apostolic Succession is that the German Bishops did not join the Lutheran Reformation.

The Church of Sweden (among others) claims to have retained AS, because the Bishops there did swing Lutheran.

As for debate, it seems pretty clear to me that Apostolic Succession is adiophora in Lutheran teaching. The church is not constituted by an episcopacy, but by the people of God gathered around Word and Sacrament.

What Paul would have thought about AS is an interesting speculation, but only that.

[ProdigalSeeker]

But apostolic succession (at least in the church today) suggests even more that a minister cannot be a minister, or cannot administer the sacraments without it, that the "laying of the hands" by a bishop essentially makes one qualified.

One benefit of AS that I find is, by having a bishop "vouch" for the ordained there is an assumption that the one being ordained has been taught "correct" doctrine.

When you don't have AS (as well as when you do i guess) you run a real risk of what I consider to be invalid doctrine. Take for example the pentacostal view that if you don't speak in tongues you are only 1/2 baptised. The flip side of this is the RC doctrine of purgatory (Admittedly I just shot my own argument full of holes).

Just seems that with a valid line of teacher/students the beliefs that are getting passed on have my authority. Please keep in mind this is just my belief and what works for me.

[FaithfulRemnant]

I think Apostolic Succession is quite logical. However, I don't think it's a guarantee that correct doctrine will always be preserved. At this point I guess I part company with the Roman Catholics, since I think they see Apostolic Succession as more a guarantee of preserving correct doctrine. Apostolic Succession may be true, but opinions among bishops will vary.

[BigNorsk]

The distinction between Bishops and Ministers is solely of human invention. If Apostolic succession was important, we would have seen it divinely appointed.

Notice for instance the word Apostolic. Does it say Bishophric succession? No, it doesn't. Either many have valid apostolic succession with no heavenly distinction between Bishops and Ministers, or no one has Apostolic Succession for I don't know of a single continuum where the person supposedly sitting in the Apostolic chair has always passed on the succession.

If the Bishops are equal in the office to the Apostles, then the Ministers are also.

I'd also be interested if you can show any indication that perfect doctrine was passed on. For instance the early rise of gnosticism pretty well destroys the idea for many of them had great credentials to be perfectly orthodox church fathers yet they were clearly heretical. If it is to be expected that perfect complete doctrine would be passed on from one to the next, why all the instances where that clearly didn't happen?

Marv

[ProdigalSeeker]

I'd also be interested if you can show any indication that perfect doctrine was passed on.

Were you asking me? As I posted, I am unable to show indication of perfect doctrine being passed on, however it's quality control that helps limit the amount of "what the <censored> are you thinking?" doctrines that get passed on. Admittedly not so as in the case of longer held views such as purgatory and other "romish" beliefs or even not so long lasting (the predominant German Lutheran attitude during WW2).

[BigNorsk]

Well it's just that we have the example of Luther. Clearly in the Roman Catholic Church proper doctrine wasn't being passed on. It didn't take Luther to be ordained as a Bishop for him to be recognized as having right doctrine, indeed his recognition of right doctrine brought him the condemnation of the Bishops.

So I was just kind of wondering how you constructed what you were saying? Especially when in Lutheranism there seems to me to be such a strong indication and belief in general that such wasn't the case.

Marv

[ProdigalSeeker]

It didn't take Luther to be ordained as a Bishop for him to be recognized as having right doctrine, indeed his recognition of right doctrine brought him the condemnation of the Bishops.

Luther himself was wrong on MANY things on MANY occasions. Jews, the book of James. If he wasn't the head of the movement, higher ups would have been able to act as a sort of doctrinal "filter" about these things.

[BigNorsk]

What were Luther's errors in doctrine?

Marv

[ProdigalSeeker]

lessee, "The Jews and Their Lies"? "Pope as Anti-Christ"? Luther is just another example of how mortals can't be infallible.

[BigNorsk]

What church doctrine did Luther teach in the Jews and Their Lies that was in error?

Note that I am not saying he was right in what he did, just asking where is the doctrinal error?

Same for the Pope as Antichrist. I guess one could argue if the office of Pope is THE Antichrist, but I can hardly see where there could be any argument about it having worked as AN Antichrist. What else can it be to destroy the gospel and insert oneself in the place of Christ?

Marv

[ProdigalSeeker]

The jews being liars is a doctrinal error, so is the pope being an anti-christ.

As far as the Pope being the anti-christ, I don't agree with their view (Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven), but don't consider it against the gospel as they see it (which I think is wrong, but hey).

[BigNorsk]

So you are saying the Jews were not lying? Are you agreeing with them that the Virgin Mary was a whore who had Jesus through an illegitimate affair with the village blacksmith?

Marv

[ProdigalSeeker]

Are you calling all Jews liars?
---------------Edit-----------------
Put it another way... Some children believe in the tooth fairy (as we all know Santa in real). Would you call them liars or would you say their belief is wrong. There is a major difference between believing something incorrectly and lying.

If someone was on trial, I thought they were innocent and you thought they were guilty, would one of us be lying?

Blacksmith??