Apostolic succession

[cupotea]

[quote:3f0ddf0660][i:3f0ddf0660]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:3f0ddf0660]
In the case of the gospel stories, he was just receiving tradition after he got struck with the revelation that Jesus was Lord.
Paul [/quote:3f0ddf0660]

Can you provide us with examples from Paul's letters of such "gospel stories" as you call it?

[quote:3f0ddf0660][i:3f0ddf0660]after he got struck with the revelation[/i:3f0ddf0660][/quote:3f0ddf0660]

That sounds rather flippant to me.

Paul, I know I am sounding rather harsh, I just want you to realize the deceitfulness of Rome and how they are trying to blind your eyes to the truth that you once received through God's grace. You are a very dear brother and we would hate to see you fall away from that grace that was once delivered unto you unto another gospel.

 

[DanielC]

Hahn's general argument went like this:

1. Peter is the Rock, not Jesus
2. Peter alone was given the keys
3. The keys carry the idea of succession with them:
i. Keys are mentioned in Isaiah regarding the kingdom of David.
ii. David had a royal line.
iii. Therefore those who have keys (Davidic or otherwise) have a ruling office that is passed down.
4. Therefore, Peter was the Pope, and the Papal line that follows him is valid.

- But -

Its clear from Peter'S OWN WORDS in Acts 4 and in I Peter 2 that Jesus is the Rock on which the Church is built - and that all believers are little stones.

Where does Peter claim authority over the other apostles? Nowhere. What he did claim, in fact, was that he was an apostle and a fellow elder. Why is there no mention of Peter tossing the almighty keys over to Linus (the 2nd Pope)? In fact, by the time John died, there had already been four or five popes. Why no biblical doctrine of succession mentioned? Are we to gather it all from a verse in Isaiah that mentions keys?

In addition, it seems obvious to me that James was the moderator of the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, not Peter.

Jesus still has the keys - that quote from Isaiah that Hahn used is also quoted in Revelation 3:7 by Jesus, about Himself.

Plus, Hahn twisted Acts around to support Peter's supremacy - like where Hahn adds to Scripture by putting words in Ananias' mouth that he didn't say, all in an effort to more closely link Peter with God.

More holes: who appoints the Apostles? Its Jesus. But who appoints the Popes? Not Jesus. If you hold to apostolic succession, well where and who are the other 11 today? You'll have to answer the claims of the Eastern Orthodox now, and the four apostles to whom they lay claim. Otherwise the only apostlic succession is the Petrine.

The claim that the keys imply succession is incredibly weak and a model of how not to do exegesis, despite the fact that Hahn spends an inordinately long time talking about how ingenious and irrefutable it is. Is Jesus alive? Yes. So He reigns on David's throne, today. Why would someone still living pass down those keys? He hasn't. Thus the keys that Hahn claims belonged to Peter and now to the current Pope, cannot be David's keys (also, the current Pope isn't from the Davidic line - or Peter's, for that matter).

But Hahn describes the keys as "Prime Minister" keys - not the Davidic keys, but they still have the same quality of succession, since its the same word, anyway.

When Hahn "refutes" the argument that Peter is not the Rock, he does so from mere speculation - that Jesus probably wasn't speaking Greek, and thus we cannot draw exegetical conclusions from the uncertain Greek biblical text. Well lets just not trust anything Jesus says, since He might have been speaking a different language than that in which the Holy Spirit had Matthew write! This is completely absurd.

Then Hahn acts like keys imply kingship, or at least an office as Prime Minister that cannot be shared. This too is ridiculous. In Matthew 16 Peter is told he will be given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and that he'll be able to bind and loose things regarding that kingdom. Now, in Matthew 18, Jesus tells all the apostles that they can bind and loose. But, as Hahn's argument goes, Jesus didn't actually use the word "keys." So, obviously, they don't have the same authority! Right? But wait a second. I have keys. They open up my truck and my house. The apostles can bind and loose, but they don't have keys? Well then what do they have? With what do they bind and loose? Slim Jims? But since Jesus didn't say "keys" when talking to the apostles, only Peter has a line that holds authority. And so the entire doctrine of papal authority hangs on the lack of one (obviously implied) word, which carries with it ultimate power. Come on. The apostles died. Apostles aren't lords, they are sent ones. Elders (including the apostles) led the church after Jesus ascension. The elders have keys to the Masters house. They open the door through the gospel to those whom the Master allows, they shut it through excommunication to those whom the Master commands them. That's what the keys are about. Opening and closing things. Not successive, ultimate and sole authority over the church. Honestly, I don't think Hahn could exegete his way out of a paper bag.

Don't let him mislead you.

 

[yeutter]

Let me interject a historical observation cornering apostolic succession and the office of Bishop as distinct from that of Presbyter.
Richard Hooker an early Anglican High Churchman and enemy of the early Puritans wrote The Laws of Ecclesiatical Polity.
He argues that the Church should not reject the Episcopacy because it was a very ancient and desireable form of Church Polity. He contends that it was historically varified by being universally uncontested, everywhere and always in the Church from 150 AD to 1500 AD.
Hooker made this arguement yet never went on to argue those European Churches which lacked and Episcopacy were not Churches. He never to my knowledge questioned the validity of the Lutheran sacraments.

Let us set aside the question of apostolic succession for a moment. Do the Dutch Reformed Churches who have pastors who they ordain, and elders who they do not ordain fundamentally make the same distiction between bishops and presbyters that the Episcopal Churches do? Are they right to not ordain their elders?.

 

[rembrandt]

Before I respond to anybody above...

I have come to the following conclusions today after giving this much thought...

The Roman interpretation (save later implications) of Matt. 16 is correct and I believe cannot be refuted. However, ironically, I don't see this as being in Rome's favor, due to the fact that they cannot [i:33457f8d05]prove[/i:33457f8d05] their conclusions from this passage.

My arguments against Papal authority (as they claim it):
X could mean a number of things here:
Apostles had X
Peter had X
there is no more apostles with X, therefore there is no more "peters" with X

Apostle's authority is dispersed since their de@th
There is no more apostles, therefore there is no more "peters"
Peter's authority is [i:33457f8d05]also[/i:33457f8d05] dispersed since his de@th


Why should we insist on the apostolic authority of one person, but not the rest of the apostles? If Peter's office has to be literally fulfilled by exactly one person, then why don't the other 11 apostle's offices have to be fulfilled by literally 11 people?

Is. 22; The Davidic Kingship is fulfilled in Christ, therefore there is no more kings that rule in types and shadows of Christ. The ruling of the Kingdom on earth is given to the apostles and the successors, but it does not follow that there will be a king. Therefore the monarchial church government doesn't make sence.

Obviously when Christ was quoting Is. 22 the people were well familiar with this passage. It is interesting because the "keys" were affiliated with a teaching office. This office, the seat of Moses, Christ comments on. The seat of Moses had a broad meaning (pharisees), and the keys must have been applied broadly as well (pharisees who taught). If the seat of Moses can be dispersed to many, then so can the keys. And analogous to the "keys" must have been "binding and loosing," though it does appear that the keys have special prominence. But if there is no one king, then these must be dispersed to the people. This is their successors (elders/bishops) ruling in their (the apostle's) authority.

And infallibility is just plain unacounted for; that is, unless the fellow in Is. 22 and the Pharisees were infallible... which is ridiculous.

So... his conclusions do not follow from his premises. The correct interpretation of Matt. 16 can be upheld without Protestants fearing that if they admit that the Rock was Peter then they have to admit the present Pope.

Paul

[Edited on 6-12-2004 by rembrandt]

[Edited on 6-12-2004 by rembrandt]

[Edited on 6-12-2004 by rembrandt]

 

[rembrandt]

DanielC, I came up with my arguments earlier this evening, but looking back at your post it appears that some of my arguments are very similar to yours. I mentioned about the 11 apostles that are unaccounted for and binding and loosing with the keys.

I don't think you need to hold to that interpretation of Matt. 16 though.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

[quote:c766c75666][i:c766c75666]Originally posted by yeutter[/i:c766c75666]
Let me interject a historical observation cornering apostolic succession and the office of Bishop as distinct from that of Presbyter.
Richard Hooker an early Anglican High Churchman and enemy of the early Puritans wrote The Laws of Ecclesiatical Polity.
He argues that the Church should not reject the Episcopacy because it was a very ancient and desireable form of Church Polity. He contends that it was historically varified by being universally uncontested, everywhere and always in the Church from 150 AD to 1500 AD.
Hooker made this arguement yet never went on to argue those European Churches which lacked and Episcopacy were not Churches. He never to my knowledge questioned the validity of the Lutheran sacraments.

Let us set aside the question of apostolic succession for a moment. Do the Dutch Reformed Churches who have pastors who they ordain, and elders who they do not ordain fundamentally make the same distiction between bishops and presbyters that the Episcopal Churches do? Are they right to not ordain their elders?. [/quote:c766c75666]
I'm not familiar with this. the Dutch Reformed church I was in ordained it's elders as well as it's deacons. And so does the OPC church I'm a membe of now. There is a difference in terminology I think. I believe ministers are called "ordained", but the ruliing elders and deacons are "installed." But I don't think it's anything like the episcopal system. For one, there is no heirarchial "chain of command" or succession. The ruling bodies of prebytery and GA are presided by temporary elected Moderators, and this is the same for the Dutch church I was in too. I don't think we should confuse the "3 office" view with the episcopal system.

 

[pastorway]

[quote:546967809a][i:546967809a]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:546967809a]
I have come to the following conclusions today after giving this much thought...

The Roman interpretation (save later implications) of Matt. 16 is correct and I believe cannot be refuted.

Paul

[/quote:546967809a]

[b:546967809a]WRONG ANSWER![/b:546967809a] Rome's interpretation is DEAD WRONG and steals glory from Christ.

It is apparent by now that you did not read or listen to any of the resources that I had earlier posted for you in a thread that was headed this same direction. If you had you would have seen these old false ideas soundly refuted.

Do yourself a favor and look into the resources that have already been provided that prove by sound exegesis that Rome is making things up as they go!!! Check out the LAST post in this thread: (and then CLICK THE LINKS)

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=4667

This is not intended to be harsh, but it is a rebuke, Paul:

Your posts of late reflect a serious compromise of the truth. I do not know all of what you are reading but you are getting ahold of some bad sources...Hahn is one of them. He's an apostate who has denied the faith. You need to get off the internet and out of the books and get into your Bible. And if you won't do that and insist on reading Roman sources, pray for discernment, because you are not handling what you are reading very well at all. It is leading you into serious error regarding the Bible, the Church, the Apostles, and even the Keys of the Kingdom. You are being actively deceived and need to fight for your life instead of embracing this spiritual poison as if it were nourishment and truth.

Phillip

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:65512d6c64][i:65512d6c64]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:65512d6c64]
[quote:65512d6c64][i:65512d6c64]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:65512d6c64]
I have come to the following conclusions today after giving this much thought...

The Roman interpretation (save later implications) of Matt. 16 is correct and I believe cannot be refuted.

Paul

[/quote:65512d6c64]

[b:65512d6c64]WRONG ANSWER![/b:65512d6c64] Rome's interpretation is DEAD WRONG and steals glory from Christ.

It is apparent by now that you did not read or listen to any of the resources that I had earlier posted for you in a thread that was headed this same direction. If you had you would have seen these old false ideas soundly refuted.

Do yourself a favor and look into the resources that have already been provided that prove by sound exegesis that Rome is making things up as they go!!! Check out the LAST post in this thread: (and then CLICK THE LINKS)

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=4667

This is not intended to be harsh, but it is a rebuke, Paul:

Your posts of late reflect a serious compromise of the truth. I do not know all of what you are reading but you are getting ahold of some bad sources...Hahn is one of them. He's an apostate who has denied the faith. You need to get off the internet and out of the books and get into your Bible. And if you won't do that and insist on reading Roman sources, pray for discernment, because you are not handling what you are reading very well at all. It is leading you into serious error regarding the Bible, the Church, the Apostles, and even the Keys of the Kingdom. You are being actively deceived and need to fight for your life instead of embracing this spiritual poison as if it were nourishment and truth.

Phillip [/quote:65512d6c64]

Dear Phillip Way, I have read those sources but do not agree with every last conclusion. Would you rebuke D.A. Carson in this manner because he holds to this interpretation?

In regard to my misunderstanding of the use of the keys, lets here what some of the people have to say who [i:65512d6c64]actually[/i:65512d6c64] hold to the WCF. This is not directed at you, but should a baptist be rebuked because he doesn't think he has the power to bind or loose, like the rest of the Reformed?

WCF 30: [quote:65512d6c64]To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof they have power respectively to retain and remit sins, to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel, and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.

Church censures are necessary for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren; for deterring of others from the like offences; for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump; for vindicating the honour of Christ, and the holy profession of the gospel; and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the church, if they should suffer his covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.[/quote:65512d6c64]

Paul

 

[pastorway]

Paul,

For the LAST time, my views of the WCF have NOTHING to do with my ability to answer you on this forum.

Fred addressed you directly in the previous thread and he does hold to the WCF, but you did not listen to him either.

So the issue is not the WCF but your failure to recognise the counsel offered you by elders in the church.

Once again, this thread is done.

Phillip