• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Apostolic succession

Scott1

Well-Known Member
NetDoc said:
The scriptures don't give any "mechanism" for apostolic sucsession.

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.


Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric") is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."

Acts 1:22 - literally, "one must be ordained" to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ's authority.

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.

Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.

2 Cor. 1:21-22 - Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.

Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it's not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.

1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word "episcopoi" (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul's use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.

1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.

2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.

2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul's life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.

2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God's intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 - the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ's work. 1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

Right...... the Bible barely mentions it.....:D
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
NetDoc said:
This passage refers to the ELDERS of the church. Not apostles, not priests, not even the Pope!

If you wish to discuss apostolic sucession than maybe a new thread is in order. :D

I don't think you understand where the term "priest" came from ;).

The Greek word for "elder" is prebuterov, which is pronounced presviteros. It was transliterated into Latin as presbyterus. It was then shortened in slang to prester. Next, it was ported over to English. The declinable ending was dropped, and the first vowel subsequently lengthened, so that we get "priest."

Anywhere the New Testament refers to elders it refers to priests. This can be the bishop/priest format it had early on, or in other places where priests are separate from bishops. Nonetheless, the English word "priest" is the exact same as the Greek word.

The changing of the word to "elder" wasn't to clarify the meaning of Scripture, but to support a doctrine. Very few people advocate changing "baptize," "apostle," "Christ," "deacon," and the like back to their literal English meanings. "Priest," though was quite adventageous doctrinally for Protestant translators.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Ok Pete.... started a new thread for us..... :D
NetDoc said:
Hey Scott,

While I can't speak for the "protestants" I would like to clear up a few things about the scriptures you used:

John 20: 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. 21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Jesus was speaking to the DISCIPLES and not just the apostles. This is for ANYONE with the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 9:5 Which is easier: to say, `Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, `Get up and walk'? 6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. . . ." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." 7 And the man got up and went home. 8 When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

The crowd mistakenly thinks Jesus is "merely" a man. Nothing about priests here.

James 5:14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

This passage refers to the ELDERS of the church. Not apostles, not priests, not even the Pope!
NetDoc said:
Jesus was speaking to the DISCIPLES and not just the apostles. This is for ANYONE with the Holy Spirit.
errrrr..... not quite....... read verse 2:So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said,
Context NetDoc...... read the entire chapter...... in this case every instance refers to the 12.
The crowd mistakenly thinks Jesus is "merely" a man. Nothing about priests here.
Granted...... but look closely at the verse you site: John 5:15 If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Only God can forgive sins..... but it seems this power has been passed on..... to the Elders....... and as you point out: "Yes, Bishop is derived from the word translated as "Elder"."(It's Priest, read No*s post... but close enough)

Either this passage is a lie....... or the power to FORGIVE SINS has been passed on..... and since you deny Apostolic succession, do you honestly think your Pastor can FORGIVE SINS? No? Then explain what the verse means.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
NetDoc said:
I did??? Maybe we can discuss this in the thread about apostolic succession???

I got people mixed up. Sorry ND. I just got a rather strong statement directed at me, so I got some wires cross-wise.

I wrote:

me said:
You need tradition to uphold the authority of Scripture, translators to bring it across, and so on...and of course the tradition of Sola Scriptura ;).

Seriously, though, you seem to acknowledge the laying on of hands as essential to ordination. Who, then, ordained your ministers? Eventually they broke away from something, where did these minister's authority come from, or rather, where did they get their ordination?

If the authority of a minister ceases while being corrupt, then they had no valid ordination, and thus, cannot have the ordination prescribed by the New Testament.

However, if it is valid, then we have valid ministers in all denominations, even the extremes like the LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, various minor cults, and so on. Further, ministers regularly convert to another religion, and this indellible grace goes with them, and as such, it lends validity where they go.

In the first case, the authority is invalidated, because it ceased long ago. In the latter case, it validates the various religions of the world, because God continues his ordination down through it...corruption and heresy aren't a problem.

How, then, do you address the problems your approach creates?

While I may have had things cross-wise about you acquiescing to it, Scott has indeed presented many proofs for it in this thread. It is a plain Scriptural teaching, and if you don't, then it poses another problem :).
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
The first Scripture contains:

Acts 1:21 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, 22 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."

This scripture lays out some criteria for being an apostle. They had to SEE Jesus. Does the Pope meet these? Does ANYONE today meet these requirements?

Acts 6:3 Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word." 5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

No titles were given, much less "apostle". These were the first Deacons of the church as can be determined by their function.

Acts 9:10. In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!" "Yes, Lord," he answered. 11 The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying.

The brother who laid hands on Saul, was "merely" a disciple. He was not an Elder, Deacon or Pope.

Acts 13:1 In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

No sign of a Bishop, much less a "Catholic Bishop". Prophets and reachers, yes... but no Elders yet. No titles inferred, though I would call them "missionaries".

Let me end this evening's posting with this:

I Corinthians 9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?

Paul proclaims his fitness as an apostle how??? By pointing out that HE HAS SEEN JESUS. There are at least 16 apostles listed in the NT, but all of them were held to the very first standard... they knew Jesus in the flesh.

Tomorrow, I will post about Elders, Deacons, Prophets and Preachers.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Acts 1.21ff. doesn't apply directly to the succession of bishops, and you don't recognize the trustworthiness of testimony of those who did know the Apostles on this, so I'll leave it be there.

Acts 6.3 actually has a good deal to do with the laying on of hands. It was a part of these men's ordination. We do know what they were appointed to, as you acknowledge. We know what they did: they deaconed. We know that they were appointed to the job, which if it isn't an office, it comes so close as to be negligible.

Acts 9.10. Do you suppose that "disciple" contradicts the concept of bishop? I do not see a distinction in the New Testament on the word, and if you can't demonstrate one, the objection is kind of moot. St. Paul was appointed by the laying on of hands. In fact, if we are to assume anything, why should we not assume that Christ chose him because of an authority to lay hands? Why not some other fellow?

We do know that St. Paul commanded "not to lay hands hastily" in I Tim. 5.22. It seems, then, that Paul, inspired by the Spirit, considered it a delicate thing. I see no reason to think that Ananias was just some average joe, but rather, to assume the opposite: that God selected him by several criteria. We haven't a single instance of a layman laying on hands to ordain someone, not in the Fathers and not in the NT. The assumption would need to be validated wouldn't it?

Acts 13.1ff. It does demonstrate a very clear laying on of hands. The absence of mentioning titles doesn't mean that they weren't conferred. Since you're a Sola Scriptura guy, can you find a single instance in the New Testament where someone had hands laid on them and wasn't ordained to an office in the Church or received the Spirit? If not, then why do you assume it here?

I close with Paul's weighty advice on laying on hands:

"I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality. Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people's sins; keep yourself pure. -- I Timothy 5.21-22"

Paul clearly thought this was a weighty matter, and he spent a sizeable portion of the letter explaining what the qualifications of bishops, priests, and deacons should be, as well as the behavior of members of the Church. Timothy is also the bishop here, because he is ordaining the elders (we see this three-fold structure in the Church universally just a short while later). Paul's command here is to Timothy, and he doesn't command Timothy to restrain others in doing it.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Where did he EVER talk about priests??? Trot it out and then let's look at the requirements for Bishops and Deacons.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
NetDoc said:
Where did he EVER talk about priests??? Trot it out and then let's look at the requirements for Bishops and Deacons.

Every time you mention "elders." The word "priest" is the same as the Greek word that is translated "elder." See post 3 in this thread.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Here are the criteria for becoming a bishop:

I Timothy 3:1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

Now correct me here if I have misread it, but aren't your Bishops celibate? How can they be Bishops/Elders/Overseers if they aren't a husband, or don't have a family?
 

Joannicius

Active Member
Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.
Apostolic succession is not only by the sacrament of ordination.......it also is tested by the consistancy of the faith and worship.

I was a protestant for 30 years and in the past few years have been to a few Catholic churches and schools......I haven't seen much difference in practice from the Protestant Churches I was involved with.

this portion of an article says it better than I ever could:

WHY I BECAME AN ORTHODOX
CHRISTIAN
By Athanasius Yoo, M.D., B.D.


As a result, I began to look for more conservative Protestant teachings in order to find consolation . . . but I could not find any. With deep unrest and despair, I began reading some Roman Catholic theological books and my interest in the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the Virginity of the Virgin Mary, the Apostolic Succession, and Transubstantiation, was greatly aroused. However, because of the lack of books, my reading in Roman Catholic doctrine was limited. In the meantime, I continued my theological studies at the Presbyterian seminary and after my graduation from there was advised to be ordained. But I refused ordination because I now felt that the ministry of the Protestant Church lacked Apostolic Succession and was therefore null and void. After much thought and hesitation, I finally became a Roman Catholic in 1950. Up until this time I had no contact whatsoever with the Orthodox Church.

Upon studying Roman Catholic doctrine, however, I found many false teachings in it also. Those that bothered me especially were the following:

1. The withdrawal of the cup from the laity during Communion.
2. The Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope.
3. The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
4. The Doctrine of Purgatory.
5. The Doctrine of Indulgences.
6. The universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.
7. The exclusive Latinity in the Mass and in other services.

If I refused to accept the above doctrines, I would be under anathema. And so I remained in a state of confusion. In order to resolve the problems I had about the Roman doctrine, I began studying the writings of the Church Fathers. These along with scholastic theology, I read for a long time. My conclusion from all these studies was that the Roman Catholic Church, too, had gone astray as had the Protestant. In doubt, despair, and agony, I decided to go to the United States in order to escape my doctrinal troubles. I arrived in the United States in 1955.

In the United States, I studied advanced medical science and also continued my theological studies. For the first time I was given the opportunity to read into Eastern Orthodox theology. Up until this time I had had no contact with Orthodox Christians or with any Orthodox Church. Thanks be to God, however, for He led me by His Holy Spirit to the primitive, conservative, and most pure and virgin faith of Christianity! For I discovered that in the Orthodox Church, Christianity with all its richness and essence was to be found. In the bosom of the Orthodox Church, my despaired soul found a resting place, a heavenly harbor! With great joy and hope, I decided to become an Orthodox Christian about a year ago. At first I hesitated to make a hasty decision for fear of disgracing myself by frequent changes of denominations. But gradually I became convinced of the validity of Orthodoxy.

By the Grace of God, I was convinced that I must serve Him through the priesthood of the Orthodox Church. And so I began following the way of the Cross, willing to sacrifice anything. Through the kindness of His Eminence, Archbishop Michael and His Grace, Bishop Athenagoras of Elaia, I was given permission to study Orthodox theology at the Holy Cross Orthodox Theological School in Brookline, Massachusetts, in preparation for the priesthood. My desire is to return to Korea as a medical-priest missionary after my ordination into the Orthodox Church, and join the Orthodox mission which already exists in Seoul, Korea.
http://www.antiochian.org/Orthodox_Church_Who_What_Where_Why/Why_I_Became_An_Orthodox_Christian.htm
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Great,

lets throw out all scripture and rely on someone's opinion instead. Sounds reasonable enough for me. NOT! :D

While it's great that this saint-to-be seems to have impacted your life, I would be more moved by scriptural insights.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
NetDoc said:
Here are the criteria for becoming a bishop:

I Timothy 3:1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

Now correct me here if I have misread it, but aren't your Bishops celibate? How can they be Bishops/Elders/Overseers if they aren't a husband, or don't have a family?

You forget, we don't practice Sola Scriptura ;).

Things gradually change, and it's not in conflict with this verse. After all, why do we assume that "a bishop must be the husband of one wife" means that he must be married as opposed to he must not be a polygamist. If we apply your hermaneutic, a man who has no children, and is happily married could not be bishop, and a man with one child couldn't be bishop: "children" is plural.

Further, if we take the approach seriously, then the same bishop, who when his children died in an accident, must immediately give up the office, because he is no longer the father of two or more children. If his wife dies, the same thing is true.

There is no reason to assume it isn't a command against polygamy, remarriage, and how he addresses his household. At one time, there were married bishops, but that changed as the Churh grew and the needs on them changed. As the Church matured, so too her approach to her offices grow organically. Originally, there was one office. Then we got the deaconate. This addition wasn't given by Scripture, but as the need arose. Then there came a division between the priest (elder) and bishop (overseer), again as the need arose. All of this took place over time and can be seen in the NT, so there is solid precedent for this.

Now, when the Church moved from persecuted to triumphant, there were many more people, and the bishops didn't have to undergo the same trials as before. Monasticism, by the will of God, had arisen to give the same trials, and so, bishops increasingly came from monastic ranks, and it eventually became the norm.

The laying on of hands, though, didn't change. It is still practiced, and there can't be the same kinds of needs to change it. If you can supply a reason, then I would like to hear it.

Be careful, though, how much you insist to take legalistically, it might contradict your political views.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
If we apply your hermaneutic
Does this translate to "If we apply the scriptures"??? If so then I also agree with
a man who has no children, and is happily married could not be bishop, and a man with one child couldn't be bishop: "children" is plural.
More importantly, the scriptures agree with this.

This addition wasn't given by Scripture,
No? Well how about this scripture?

I Timothy 3:8 Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. 11 In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. 12 A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13 Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus. 14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

But I haven't seen your qualifications for the priesthood from the scriptures yet.

As for marriage...

I Timothy 4:1. The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
NetDoc said:
Does this translate to "If we apply the scriptures"??? If so then I also agree with More importantly, the scriptures agree with this.

It means your interpretation of Scripture, not just Scripture. Hermeneutics is the art of interpretation.

NetDoc said:
More importantly, the scriptures agree with this.

It's saying quite a bit to declare what a Scripture says when there is more than one interpretation in the passage without giving more than a "the Scriptures agree with this." I could, in fact, give the exact same answer to you with my interpretation. It fits just as well, unless you can explain why it doesn't.

Further, are you willing to subject yourself to the same standard of interpretation on other, less comfortable, passages in the New Testament? If not, why do you demand of us something you will not practice yourself?

NetDoc said:
No*s said:
This addition wasn't given by Scripture,
No? Well how about this scripture?

I edited myself into a fix while typing it. What I had intended there, is that the "addition" was the split of bishop/priest one into the other (or elder/overseer for Protestant-talk).

NetDoc said:
I Timothy 3:8 Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. 11 In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. 12 A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13 Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus. 14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

But I haven't seen your qualifications for the priesthood from the scriptures yet.

You believe in elders, don't you? They are mentioned and taught in the New Testament. An elder is a priest. Presbyteros is the word "priest," as I explained in post #3 in this thread. Every time the NT talks about "elder" distinct from "bishop," then it is talking about a priest. As such, our mutual acknowledgment of the term "elder" and the office is sufficient, unless "priest" is not the word presbyteros. Ever dictionary I have ever consulted, though, either says that is the etymology, or it says that there's a strong possibility.

As such, how about this verse.

Let the priests that rule well, be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine: For the scripture saith: Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn: and, The labourer is worthy of his reward. Against a priest receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses. Them that sin reprove before all: that the rest also may have fear. -- I Timothy 5.17ff. Douay-Rheims

NetDoc said:
As for marriage...

I Timothy 4:1. The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

Nobody forces anyone to be celebate. Nobody has to be a bishop, and he can leave and marry. He can never return to the bishopric.

Now, will you respond to the laying on of hands theme?

Have you ever seen an ordination in the New Testament where it says that the person ordaining is a layman? If not, how do you reconcile this with Paul's explicit instructions to Timothy about the laying on of hands? Paul himself considers it a pretty basic doctrine.
 

Pah

Uber all member
Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.
I beleive I can show that I am part of the apostolic sucession. My confirmation as an Episcopalian included a laying on of hands that originated from Peter. It would have been more appropiate to say catholic church than Catholic Church since the Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion are both apostolic.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
You forget, we don't practice Sola Scriptura
No, I don't forget that. However, it appears you practice "No Scriptura" whenever it disagrees with your practices.

So HOW DO YOU twist, er hermaneuticize I Timothy 3??? I would love to hear your take on it.

BTW, the Greek for priest is hiereus.

As for a lay person laying on hands... you have yet to prove Ananias was anything MORE than a disciple when he laid hands on Paul.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
NetDoc said:
No, I don't forget that. However, it appears you practice "No Scriptura" whenever it disagrees with your practices.

So HOW DO YOU twist, er hermaneuticize I Timothy 3??? I would love to hear your take on it.

You've reached up, pulled a statement meant as a joke, knocked off the ;) that indicated that and thus changing the statement. All this to set up a whole new argument. I'll post this to another thread.

NetDoc said:
BTW, the Greek for priest is hiereus.

Then my etymology is false? The word presbyteros was translated into Latin as presbyterus, wherein it was shortened to prester. It was then brought across to England, where the ending was dropped, and the "e" sound lengthened, making it "priest."

I am arguing they are the same word, not just that "priest" is a viable translation. This is confirmed by Webster's Dictionary, dictionary.com, and many others. This is the standard etymology for the word. If you do not agree with this, please demonstrate my factual errors instead of ignoring them and telling me I am wrong.

NetDoc said:
As for a lay person laying on hands... you have yet to prove Ananias was anything MORE than a disciple when he laid hands on Paul.

Actually, I did. Your entire argument presupposes that laymen can ordain through the laying on of hands. The second is that "disciple" somehow means that he cannot be a member of the clergy. This seems to contradict the use of the term. Were Peter and John not disciples, then? If they were, then you can't seize on the term "disciple" to prooftext your argument.

That breaks it down to the first sentance, you have presuppose that you are right for this to be true. I can honestly say, that there are unambiguous passages where clergy (bishops and priests) ordain people. There is not one similarly unambiguous passage for laymen ordaining. I'm sure even you concede that Ananias' role is not mentioned here.

So, this brings us to what we should assume. You're a good Sola Scriptura guy. If 100% of passages on ordination that state the roles of the ordainers place them in the role of clergy, and there are passages that do not make a statement, do you assume that the view which is completely absent from Scripture (and completely absent from the Fathers) is what you should hold, or do you assert that it is the one testified in Scripture?

It's easy to "prove" things from ambiguous statements. People do it all the time with baptism. "See! He just believed. It didn't mention baptism," and you would rightly point out that baptism is treated as normative in the NT and can usually be assumed in a passage. The exact same principle I have seen you use there applies here.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
pah said:
I beleive I can show that I am part of the apostolic sucession. My confirmation as an Episcopalian included a laying on of hands that originated from Peter. It would have been more appropiate to say catholic church than Catholic Church since the Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion are both apostolic.

That only works if one believes that the chrism of ordination is permanent. If, however, it ceases in schism or the like, then it would not work that way.
 
Top