Apostleship vs. Apostolic Succession
A question was presented to me concerning the Apostleship...my Apostleship in particular.
"Regarding you being an Apostle, can you trace your apostleship back to the original 12 Apostles? If you can please start a new blog, listing all the men in your spiritual genealogy back to one of the 12.
Of what significance is it if the authority behind the hands laid on you, cannot be traced by, man to man to man, through the centuries to the original 12? Black people probably can't trace their spiritual genealogy back past slavery. Then you get into Protestant Europe, then back to the Roman Catholic church.
If you cannot list your spiritual lineage, I suggest that you refrain from using the term "Apostle".
The doctrine/idea this individual has set before me and us all to see is one called Apostolic Succession. This comes from a thought on the Papacy/Bishopric being able to trace its origins all the way back to the original twelve Apostles as a lineage/family tree.
There are several problems with such a doctrine, but for the sake of this conversation, I am going to approach it from the office of the Apostle. We Apostles do not trace our line all the way back from person to person, Apostolic fathers ordaining us along the line as time passes and people die. The Apostleship is not gained by such. Such an idea derives from the thought of a "monarchy", and not from the origin of the office. A king chooses his successor after him to fill the place of rulership.
Contrary to such, the Apostles do not choose who will be the next Apostle down the line. It is the LORD GOD the FATHER, the LORD JESUS, and GOD the HOLY SPIRIT who decide the next Apostle. Only in the case of the 12 did the LORD choose one to replace a fallen Apostle. This Apostle was Matthias (Acts 1). By definition, Judas has to be the Apostolic father of Matthias. This is heresy because Judas was dead already, so there was no "succession", but a replacement. Each Apostle is elected and ordained directly by the LORD JESUS Himself. Man cannot ordain an Apostle, only "affirm" his Apostleship. Paul was not ordained by any man on Earth. James, Peter, and John gave him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, thus affirming their Apostleship (Galatians 2:7-10). If Paul was to trace his Apostleship back to the 12, then he wouldn't have said what he said in Galatians 1, or 1st Corinthians 9:1-2.
It was the Papacy and the "Episcopal Monarchy" that brought about the heresy of Apostolic Succession.
"Regarding you being an Apostle, can you trace your apostleship back to the original 12 Apostles? If you can please start a new blog, listing all the men in your spiritual genealogy back to one of the 12.
Of what significance is it if the authority behind the hands laid on you, cannot be traced by, man to man to man, through the centuries to the original 12? Black people probably can't trace their spiritual genealogy back past slavery. Then you get into Protestant Europe, then back to the Roman Catholic church.
If you cannot list your spiritual lineage, I suggest that you refrain from using the term "Apostle".
The doctrine/idea this individual has set before me and us all to see is one called Apostolic Succession. This comes from a thought on the Papacy/Bishopric being able to trace its origins all the way back to the original twelve Apostles as a lineage/family tree.
There are several problems with such a doctrine, but for the sake of this conversation, I am going to approach it from the office of the Apostle. We Apostles do not trace our line all the way back from person to person, Apostolic fathers ordaining us along the line as time passes and people die. The Apostleship is not gained by such. Such an idea derives from the thought of a "monarchy", and not from the origin of the office. A king chooses his successor after him to fill the place of rulership.
Contrary to such, the Apostles do not choose who will be the next Apostle down the line. It is the LORD GOD the FATHER, the LORD JESUS, and GOD the HOLY SPIRIT who decide the next Apostle. Only in the case of the 12 did the LORD choose one to replace a fallen Apostle. This Apostle was Matthias (Acts 1). By definition, Judas has to be the Apostolic father of Matthias. This is heresy because Judas was dead already, so there was no "succession", but a replacement. Each Apostle is elected and ordained directly by the LORD JESUS Himself. Man cannot ordain an Apostle, only "affirm" his Apostleship. Paul was not ordained by any man on Earth. James, Peter, and John gave him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, thus affirming their Apostleship (Galatians 2:7-10). If Paul was to trace his Apostleship back to the 12, then he wouldn't have said what he said in Galatians 1, or 1st Corinthians 9:1-2.
It was the Papacy and the "Episcopal Monarchy" that brought about the heresy of Apostolic Succession.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene on
-
For starters, you don't even know a thing about my dietary habits! You wouldn't know if I eat meat or if I was a pure vegetarian! How stupid is this point of yours!! If you really must know my eating habits:
-I eat salads with almost all my meals
-I don't eat any shell fish (I'm allergic to all crustaceans)
-I don't eat swine any more.
-I barely ever eat candy
-I'm a health nut and promote healthy eating habits, for I used to lift weights daily.
Being healthy helps you move better and is a better witness in ministry because in my line of work, you need the energy and its a sign of self control. However, I do not promote eating habits for religious observance because FOOD DON'T MAKE YOU ANY HOLIER!
GOD bless the Ethiopic (Coptic) Church. I have done a great deal of studies on their church and their ways of worship. I am fascinated with their particular Church in that they have the largest canon for their Bible, including books that Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant churches have excluded (one of them being my personal favorite, The Book of Enoch). Are they the ONLY real Christians because they do so?? Interestingly enough, they are the ONLY church that practices these ways. They are also a church that states within their doctrine that they must do the practices of the Levitical priesthood, even to the point of possessing the Ark of the Covenant (allegedly) and having their Patriarch go into its presence once a year. They also say within their doctrine that any Church that they open up is not a valid church unless they have a replica of the Ark within it. The ONLY thing that Are you saying they are the ONLY right church?
Since you used the Ethiopic Church as an example of true Christians, are you saying that we are to also regard the Ark of the Covenant (the OLD COVENANT, mind you) as well? Are we to be Christians or practice Judaism? Again, I ask this both from Biblical standpoints, and from your personal standpoints, because we STILL don't know anything about you other than the arguments you bring on blogs. As far as I can tell, I'm not even sure as to who you regard the LORD JESUS as, so there's an issue we can bring up!
As for Sabbaths, thats how the Ethiopic Church worships. How about seeing some authentic documents from the Apostles and disciples of the Apostles themselves? This is a direct quote from the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians:
Chapter X.
Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be. Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savour ye shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God.
Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be. For "if Thou, Lord, shalt mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?" Let us therefore prove ourselves worthy of that name which we have received. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, he is not of God; for he has not received the prophecy which speaks thus concerning us: "The people shall be called by a new name, which the Lord shall name them, and shall be a holy people." This was first fulfilled in Syria; for "the disciples were called Christians at Antioch," when Paul and Peter were laying the foundations of the Church. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the corrupt leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven of grace. Abide in Christ, that the stranger may not have dominion over you. It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism. For Christ is one, in whom every nation that believes, and every tongue that confesses, is gathered unto God. And those that were of a stony heart have become the children of Abraham, the friend of God; and in his seed all those have been blessed who were ordained to eternal life in Christ.
Ignatius was the 3rd Bishop of Antioch, a direct Disciple of Apostle John. More substantial evidence is given by Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, in letters he wrote dated c. 115. He warned Christians to reject those who “preach the Jewish law.” Similarly, “If we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace.... It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize.”
More specifically about the Sabbath, Ignatius praised some who were “no longer observing the Sabbath.” Clearly, Ignatius did not observe the Sabbath. It is debated, however, whom he is praising. In the previous section, he was talking about the Old Testament prophets, but it does not seem likely that he would accuse them of abandoning the Sabbath, even though some patristic writers cited the prophets' criticisms of Sabbath-keeping (e.g., Isa 1:13). More likely, he is praising Jewish Christians who had given up the Sabbath — “those who were brought up in the ancient order of things.” This does not mean that all Jewish Christians had abandoned the Sabbath, but some had, and Ignatius was praising them to the Magnesian Christians. The lack of extensive argumentation indicates that the Magnesians, like Ignatius, did not observe the Sabbath, but that Judaizers existed who advocated the Sabbath.
Furthermore, Ignatius praised some people for “living in the observance of the Lord's Day.”
-
-
As far as Feast days, where have I ever stated that I preach and teach to observe Christmas? You cannot find one place ANYWHERE where I stated that I observe Christmas as a feast day, or that I even use the term "Easter". These are false allegations. You are false for constantly saying that someone observes something before ever even ASKING!
I do not regard Christmas as a holy day at all. I haven't since I did background studies on it. Rome declared that, as all should know. But it was not Roman Catholic Bishops that stated that we are to uphold Sunday instead of the Sabbath first, they just made an Apostolic decree. The FIRST person to even mention the term "the Lord's Day" was Apostle John (Revelation 1), the Apostles themselves taught it, Ignatius, Apostle John's disciple taught it and so on. This doctrine is far older than the existence of Popes.
-
Permalink Reply by Anna on
-
Well, Trevor, do you teach the disciples of Messiah NOT to keep those pagan holidays of Christmas and Easter?
Regerding the term "the Lord's Day", please define it from the Bible please, now what antinomian men suppose it to mean.
To help you out it means "Day of the Lord" a period of time at the end of days. This term has nothing to do with any day of the week.
No apostle, nor did John, nor did John's disciples teach anyone to keep any such thing as "the Lord's Day", referring to "Sunday" as you have been falsely taught to believe.
Note below:
Vine's Dictionary specifically states that the Lord's Day in Revelation 1:10 refers to the
Day of Judgment :
"The adjective anthropinos, "human, belonging to man" (anthropos), is doubtless set in contrast here to kuriakos, "belonging to the Lord" (kurios, "a lord"), which is used in the phrase "the Day of the Lord," IN REV. 1:10, THE LORD'S DAY," A PERIOD OF DIVINE JUDGMENTS."
(Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words on "Day")
-
-
You are saying that the LORD's Day, as stated in numerous documents and in Revelation 1, was merely the day of Judgment? Thats TOTALLY off! The dictionary can say that all it wants, but it is absolutely HERESY!
-
-
James, you being a person who clings to the Hebraic sense of scripture and rejecting anything Greek, wouldn't know a thing about the Apostolic. In order for you to know it, you must understand Greco-Roman culture and government, which is where the very terms "Apostle" and "Church" come from, NOT Hebraic culture.
-
Permalink Reply by James Pierce on
-
Trevor,
I am very familiar with Greco-Roman culture and government. You want to cling on to paganistic Greek thought, and I will hold on to the language of Yehwah's people. I know something about the Apostolic. You fail to realize what a true Apostle is.
-
-
All you most likely know is that the word Apostle means "sent one", like almost everyone else that rejects Greco-Roman government and culture. Face it, Greek culture and language is in the Bible. Its not pushing Jewish culture aside, it is just showing you that GOD is not just the GOD of Israel, but the GOD of all creation.
-
-
Trevor,
I studied Greek language for a year, and Greek culture. Im very familar, as I said, with Greco-Roman culture. Even in all of that, we are dealing with a HEBREW RELIGION, and NOT a Greek religion. You know this! I agree that even Greco-Roman understanding is essential, but, Paul corrects many of it with his Hebraic thought, and foundation in Torah & Prophets & Yashah.
-
-
Trevor, Trevor, Trevor:
You have so much to learn.
The "office" of the Apostle STARTED in the Synagogue, the Hebrew term being "sheliac":
"Apostle (Greek ἀπόστολοσ, from ἀποστήλλειν, "to send"), a person delegated for a certain purpose; the same as "sheliac" in Hebrew, one invested with representative power. "Apostoloi" was the official name given to the men sent by the rulers of Jerusalem to collect the half-shekel tax for the Temple, the tax itself being called "apostolé." See Theod. Reinach, "Textes Grecs et Romains, etc.," 1895, p. 208, and also Grätz, "Gesch. der Juden," iv. 476, note 21, where Eusebius is quoted as saying: "It is even yet a custom among the Jews to call those who carry about circular letters from their rulers by the name of apostles"; Epiphanius, "Hæreses," i. 128:
"The so-called apostoloi are next in rank to the patriarchs, with whom they sit in the Sanhedrin, deciding questions of the Law with them." The emperor Honorius, in his edict of 399, mentions "the archisynagogues, the elders and those whom the Jews call apostoloi, who are sent forth by the patriarch at a certain season of the year to collect silver and gold from the various synagogues
-
-
The funny thing is, YHWH is not the GOD of the Hebrews alone, but the GOD of all man. Was Noah a Hebrew? Were Adam, Eve, Enoch, Seth, Melchizedek or anyone before Abraham that worshipped YHWH Hebrews? Was King Necho, Pharaoh of Egypt a Hebrew? Were the Magi that met baby JESUS Hebrew? YHWH is not a Hebrew GOD, HE is just GOD. To say that HE is a Hebrew GOD would indicate that 1) only Hebrews worshipped HIM, and/or 2) there were other gods for other people that existed. People may have worshipped other gods, but they didn't exist. Therefore only GOD the FATHER & the LORD JESUS CHRIST stand to be worshipped.
-
-
Trevor,
Its not about "being Hebrew", but about thinking Hebraically. But, if you want to think Greek, then go ahead. Let's see how far that gets you ;).
-
-
Trevor you asked:
"Were the Magi that met baby JESUS Hebrew?"
Who else would be looking for a Jewish/Hebrew Messiah/King if they were not Hebrews, from one of the tribes of Israel who had gone into captivity?
Where would a gentile learn of a Jewish/Messiah/King except from reading the Jewish/Hebrew Scriptures?
Who were the people who had copies of those scriptures???
Look at the nations who came back to Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. You will see how many other countries the Israelites/Hebrews were living in at that time?
© 2024 Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..
Powered by
