The tradition of Apostolic Authority

[DiscussingTheTopic]

All scriptural examples of worship leadership or churches or temples or synagogues have leadership passed down by human authorities who can trace their lineage back to an appointment by God. After Sinai, that is.

Do you mean after Sinai is one of the many examples of appointments by God that different denominations/lines, etc. trace back to or that they all trace back to Sinai?

What about before Sinai?

If it traces all the way back to Seth to Noah..... what would this mean about the lines since the whole world spread throughout a single..... of course maybe Canaan would be disqualified.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

All scriptural examples of worship leadership or churches or temples or synagogues have leadership passed down by human authorities who can trace their lineage back to an appointment by God. After Sinai, that is."

Do you mean after Sinai is one of the many examples of appointments by God that different denominations/lines, etc. trace back to or that they all trace back to Sinai?"

Legitimate ones? Yes.

What about before Sinai?"

I'm not sure it matters. If I am claiming "after Sinai," then what happened before Sinai is of interest, but not ultimately germane. Here are the key passages for using Sinai as a "bookmark." Exodus 20:

All the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was."

And in Deuteronomy 5:

When ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders; And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth. Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any more, then we shall die. For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it. And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken."

After this, you can show that even Jesus Christ submits to the Levitical priesthood (John the Baptist) that was established in Sinai, and which God said that the people "spoke well" when they asked that the role be created. From this point onward I contend, you see no Biblical example of "self authorizing" or "self actualization." In fact nothing of that sort ever occurs but God did speak with men directly not using a human institution in worship. Before Sinai there is no Tabernacle. I cannot recall offhand any of the Patriarchs going to a building or tent to worship.

God later seems to utter a lament in Deuteronomy 5 regarding the people and their request not to see him face to face, but it stands that he said they "spoke well" in all that they asked. The people later enter Canaan and much later ask for a King which is discouraged. This too is a "bookmark" in history, a place of no going back. God does not like that the people ask him for a King, stating that they have rejected HIM (the LORD) from ruling over them. This was a unique and distinguishing feature of the People of Israel. They were cohesive. They survived. They beat back enemies. They had no King. Other nations eventually asked "What's up with that" and the answer was "The LORD rules over them." This served as a witness to the power and unique qualities of the LORD.

After both events, there is no going back. In worship office, we see even Christ going down into the water to begin his ministry about which he says to John: "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." (Matthew 5)

In short form, the Apostles are sent by Christ, but witness and worship in the Temple, submitting where possible to the rules there, and they are eventually marginalized to the Portico of Solomon and then expelled altogether. Paul submits to Peter and James in Jerusalem. Paul plants the churches he plants and the church in Jerusalem exercises power over them all.

I see no other examples and none here (or elsewhere) have brought me any.

I have noted in my own blog, that the sins of Jeroboam, with which he made Israel to sin, included setting up people in authority in worship that should not have been there. These are sins of severity and notoriety that are then repeated as an epithet by God and the writers of Kings and Chronicles. "The Sins of Jeroboam, with which he made Israel to Sin."

God said it was a good thing or a thing "asked well" that the people did in requesting a human institution of worship and a line of authority vested in human beings. Nothing has ever changed since then with regard to that authority being passed down. This is what I contend. It's been a while since I first spoke about this here, and elsewhere. No one can show me how it works differently than I have described.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

So before Sinai?

What line did Melchizedek come from?

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I am editing this post to expand a bit. Previously I had said Melchisedec did not matter, that being for the purposes of this discussion. From Hebrews 7:

This Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: but he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him."

This would be at least in part why Reformation denominations do not refer to their leaders as Priests. Christ is Priest after the order of Melchisedec. Some say Melchisedec is Christ. Whatever Melchisedec is (essentially I am trying to avoid that discussion, it is best treated in another thread), he is unbegun and undying. There are few persons that fit that bill. Only three that I know of. Melchisedec blesses Abraham, and in Abraham Levi is blessed. Levi in the person of John the Baptist baptizes (blesses, anoints) Jesus and marks the beginning of Christ's active public ministry. Melchisedec comes before Sinai, and it is clear here that the eventual authority of the Levitical Priesthood arises from the blessing of Melchisedec and from the bowing of Abraham before Melchisedec in the form of tithing.

Tithing by the way is a mark of the Priesthood. This would be a supporting argument made by some as to why we do not tithe. There is no priesthood.

Melchisedec marks the beginning of the investment of Godly authority to be used by men in worship in human beings. Melchisedec-Abraham-Levi. Sinai marks the formal beginning of men in worship as authorities as a specific group. From Sinai onward, such authority is passed man to man.

So to continue, it goes Melchisedec-Abraham-Levi-John the Baptist-Jesus Christ-The Apostles.

The Apostles RULE over the churches. All of them. There is no other example that any have brought me. Apostles appoint local body authorities. Those authorities in that local body select from among themselves those that fit the qualifications. Why ELSE would you give the locals those qualifications found in Timothy?

Why? Because your DESIGNATED authorities will now choose FUTURE authorities.

Break the chain and you've broken the chain. That's all there is to it.

Melchisedec was and was not important to this discussion. I answered first that he did not matter because I didn't have the time to deal with the whole issue, but now I do, sitting here in Laredo with no load and nothing to do.

Melchisedec didn't matter for comparison purposes because he was before Sinai. He does matter because he is one of those ultimate authorities. The King of Peace (Salem) who is also Priest of Salem gives our High Priest and our King authority by placing it in Abraham, who passes it to Levi (with God's blessing) and later to David (Kings were not desired by God, but he did establish them). Jesus is King (the son of David) and Jesus is High Priest, after the Order of Melchisedec. He recovers this role from the human beings he vested that authority in years ago. Jesus, as King and High Priest appoints through his Apostles, lesser apostles, those that rule the churches and then bestows on them in Timothy the direction to choose their own. When did this change?

How WOULD you know that your "apostle" had been chosen properly unless he was chosen by one chosen properly and so forth back to Christ?

The answer is, if you don't know, you'd better find out.

If you can't point to that line, then it doesn't exist.

 

[NeoPatriarch]

The answer is, if you don't know, you'd better find out.

Why is that?
Is there a special place in Heaven for people who have pastors with such credentials?
If my pastor hasn't been tagged, will that come up at the judgement?

Seriously what is the purpose?

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I would think it is only because it is important to do what the LORD wishes. He did say, "If you love me, keep my commandments."

I re-emphasize this:

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."

We are all familiar with this passage having had it flung at us as a proof of the need for monogamy only. We've forgotten what it is as a result.

Right under our collective noses is the instruction to pick elders (bishops) based on certain qualfications and character traits.

Paul and the other Apostles appointed the elders and bishops that ran the churches initially.

He gives instructions on how to pick the new ones.

Why would he give instructions on how to pick them if they can pick themselves?

Who picks the elders if it is not other elders?

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Break the chain and you've broken the chain. That's all there is to it.

:lol: Well Hugh you are not so Reformed now after all are you :lol:

Brother, as all good Reformed theologians know, you cannot BREAK THE CHAIN because the chain is the golden thread of redemption and thus the gospel cannot ever be broken in the sense that it fails. When some non-elect person is in that line he may pass off the gospel or may not. If he does not God will use others to get the gospel to him or her.

This is why I see your error being one of focus and emphasis. It is not a heresy type of error or even a major or serious error but nonetheless it is an error because the chain or line rests in God's sovereign will not in man's will. I believe you have committed something we call in theological circles as the Semi-Pelagian or Erasmian error. You have in one sentence said that the chain is passed along through people but then you have to say that apostate people can appoint people to go and do the work of the gospel even if they do not have the right view of the gospel.

If we go back to the beginning of the early churches we see that the churches were defined by where the gospel was and where the Spirit rested. Anyone today who has the gospel can either be endorsed by a predecessor who has the gospel right or they can go back to the original gospel itself, if they have the gospel, and go forth from that point under discipleship as they disciple others. In other words, the line as you so call it is wherever the gospel is rightly believed and taught. Can apostates pass off the gospel to others? Sure for example they might simply give someone a bible and thus by that bible the person receives the gospel and Christ. But then the line came more so through those who translated the Bible than the line immediately before the person.

That is why I see in Scripture the emphasis as being on the gospel more so than human lines. Endorsement is more about someone coming to agree to the gospel and then going on the journey to obey the Great Commission. As soon as someone receives the gospel they are of the line, the line of Christ and his Spirit and they are under mandate to go and make disciples with the gifts they have been given. They will disciple others and be discipled by others who are more mature as they disciple the less mature.

Who did Luther get his endorsement from? I like his ole saying of "one plow boy who rightly understands the Scriptures is more powerful than all of the priests, bishops, cardinals, and Popes put together." The key is the gospel not per se a mere physical line.

If someone has a historical line that embraces the gospel then great. If they do not but they get the gospel and then receive discipleship and grow then they are rightly endorsed.

The practical result is the gospel, not a traditional line as I read Scripture. I'd rather be of the gospel line than of a traditional line that had so-called historical roots but did not possess the gospel.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Who did Luther get his endorsement from?"

I've been talking to a wall.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

It's now been 3 months, and no one really has an answer. If elders appoint elders (the only example we have from scripture, and the only directive), where does YOUR elder come from? To say "He came from another elder" only begs the question until you get to the ultimate sender of all. At some point, it's God. Then it's a man, then it's a man appointing a man, then it's that man appointing other man, until it gets to your elder.

Scripture has no precedent whatsoever for "self appointing" elders.

So who is your church led by?

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

I guess it would be hard to appoint people to Mia status?

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I guess it would be hard to appoint people to Mia status?"

"Mia Status?" It's not about whether or not it is hard, it's about who should lead a church, and if there is a church at all, if it is leaderless. Leadership is by appointment of other leaders, not by self election.

 

[Anonymous]

Excuse me Hugh,, I just don't find the line of apostles in 1 Tim. 3 There is a bunch of prerequisites, but I don't see "the line of elders" to the " original ones" It's kind of saying " what do the original, original manuscripts say?
I'm sorry to butt in, but I couldn't help myself. I'm sure you all will tell
me if I am not understanding the thread.. in all humbleness dd

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Except that those being directed to choose Mo, were appointed by Apostles. Those being chosen are then chosen by those who were....chosen.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

I guess it would be hard to appoint people to Mia status?"

"Mia Status?" It's not about whether or not it is hard, it's about who should lead a church, and if there is a church at all, if it is leaderless. Leadership is by appointment of other leaders, not by self election.

So if it is leaderless and the "Mia verses" in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 only apply to specific leaders. Then the "Mia" verses would apply to no one today since there are no such of those leaders appointed.

Does everyone know what I mean by "Mia?" I am talking about the "Mia" controversy and too lazy (time efficient) to cut and paste all the verses (every time I bring this up when I thought it was understood on Biblical Families) so I am just writing Mia shorthand when I can get away with it as a convention as a shortcut.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Personally did he ever say to continue to appoint them until Christ comes back or just to appoint them that one time?

Show the book chapters and verses that refer to this appointment.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I wouldn't want the "Mia" discussion in this thread. I don't think it place here, I have little respect for the argument on top of that. This is assuming you mean the "Mia" interpretation of the passage in Timothy regarding husband of "mia" wife. People who advance that argument in Theological circles are frankly laughed out of the room.

With regard to chapter and verse, you're not going to get it from me. I'm asking YOU and ANYONE else where it is they can show me an authority in a church in scripture that WAS NOT appointed by someone possessing some degree of apostolic authority. No one has been able to do that. Apostles of Christ appointed authorities in the churches and then asked THEM to appoint men in those churches based on certain criteria. Thus no one in legitimate authority in any of the churches in the New Testament simply decided to make themselves that authority. Their authority was derivative.

Apostles appointed leaders and directed them to appoint future leaders in the churches. If your church does not have authority in it that can show they were appointed through a history of such appointments, in succession, you don't have a church.

I would think a group of people who desire the position and authority of men as given by God to warm to the idea that God has an order of worship and leadership in his churches. An AUTHORITARIAN order.

But we don't warm to it, I think we only want to be the boss of women and stop there.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Hugh wrote:

Apostles appointed leaders and directed them to appoint future leaders in the churches. If your church does not have authority in it that can show they were appointed through a history of such appointments, in succession, you don't have a church.

How complete does that history of appointment need to be? If one can trace it back, say, 300 years, but then can not find any such appointment prior to that (in other words, the history of successive appointments is broken, either apparently or in actual fact) does that invalidate all leaders in that particular local assembly?

If so, then only a very few churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church, plus maybe a very few others, might be legitimate churches! And even the RCC and GOC are in doubt because Peter was NOT the first Pope as the RCC claims.

And if the RCC really is legitimate, then that makes all Protestant churches false, because who appointed Martin Luther and his fellow reformers? They were excommunicated from the "only legitimate" church, not appointed by their predecessors. Based on your premise of successive appointment, they were self-appointed, which makes them false leaders/elders and invalidates all Protestant churches.

Further, if the RCC can not truly trace their leaders back to Peter or one of the apostles (and they can't without manufacturing the line of succession and revising history), then ALL churches are false.

Hugh, I think that the idea of apostolic succession and appointment needs to be re-examined, unless someone can find a proven-true and authoritative list of such appointments. I do agree that the congregational model, where the members of the local assembly elect their leaders, is not right, nor is it right to have the same on a larger scale, where the national or international leaders are selected by a vote of either the people in general or the leaders that they or their predecessors appoint, and then they appoint local leaders. But how do we really return to the New Testament model and how can we be sure that we have leaders appointed by God rather than man?

IMHO, God accepts us where we are (either part of the congregational model or some other flawed system) and will lead us to where He wants us to be, if we listen to His voice.

God preserved His written Word over several thousands of years because it is important for His children to have. It would have been just as easy for Him to have preserved a list of successive appointments from the original apostles approximately 2,000 years ago right down to the elders in every legitimate church today if it were important for His children to have that information.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

How complete does that history of appointment need to be? If one can trace it back, say, 300 years, but then can not find any such appointment prior to that (in other words, the history of successive appointments is broken, either apparently or in actual fact) does that invalidate all leaders in that particular local assembly?"

I maintain it needs to be complete. If legitimate elders are appointed by authority, and that authority flows from one elder to another, then it simply has to be one after the other. I contend that authority does flow from the RCC through the Reformation to the Presbyterian Church to what is now called the PCUSA, to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as one example. I have often been wrongly characterized as saying this is the only path, I am quite confident there are others. I'm just not intimately aware of them. If the successive appointments break, I would say it is like the broken genealogies of the Book of Ezra.

If so, then only a very few churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church, plus maybe a very few others, might be legitimate churches! And even the RCC and GOC are in doubt because Peter was NOT the first Pope as the RCC claims."

I contend Paul appointed their first "Bishop" or Elder, and that the RCC has wrongly asserted it was Peter. The RCC did so for the purposes of claiming "the Keys to the Kingdom" and rule over all of the churches. I think they are wrong.

And if the RCC really is legitimate, then that makes all Protestant churches false, because who appointed Martin Luther and his fellow reformers? They were excommunicated from the 'only legitimate' church, not appointed by their predecessors. Based on your premise of successive appointment, they were self-appointed, which makes them false leaders/elders and invalidates all Protestant churches."

When we met Doc, I thought we discussed this. If not I'll cover it again. Being cast out per 1st Corinthians, removes headship of the elders who cast you out from over you, according to scripture then, God is your judge. Casting out for illegitimate reason validates, it does not invalidate, or the condemnation of Christ is real and he cannot save us.

Further, if the RCC can not truly trace their leaders back to Peter or one of the apostles (and they can't without manufacturing the line of succession and revising history), then ALL churches are false."

I'm not good at this portion of church history, but if you research it I think you will find originally there were several "seas" of the earthly church, the "Coptics" being one of them for instance. Thus authority can flow through the Greek Orthodox for instance, or the RCC or the Coptics or perhaps another group of churches. Again I emphasize that there could be quite a few legitimate churches and the creation of another legitimate one by a legitimate church expelling a member wrongly, doesn't invalidate the expelling church. A thumbnail sketch of course, I gave above. RCC to Luther (and/or Calvin) to the Puritans to the early Pilgirms to the Presbyterian church in the United States which through succession becomes the Northern Presbyterian Church (which casts out Gresham Machen) and the Southern Presbyterian Church, both of whom later re-unite as the PCUSA.

I think that the idea of apostolic succession and appointment needs to be re-examined, unless someone can find a proven-true and authoritative list of such appointments."

I think the list of Bishops of Rome is real. I don't think the later "revisionism" of the RCC which names Peter as appointing the second Bishop of Rome is true. All indications of Scripture are that Paul appointed their first Bishop.

I do agree that the congregational model, where the members of the local assembly elect their leaders, is not right, nor is it right to have the same on a larger scale, where the national or international leaders are selected by a vote of either the people in general or the leaders that they or their predecessors appoint, and then they appoint local leaders. But how do we really return to the New Testament model and how can we be sure that we have leaders appointed by God rather than man?"

I don't think congregations electing is ideal, but essentially if the prior leadership accepts the newly elected leadership that it really matters. I also don't like the congregational model, but that doesn't prevent a congregational church from being planted by others. Thus they could be legitimate, but I'd need to see why they think they are legitimate, namely, see their history.

IMHO, God accepts us where we are (either part of the congregational model or some other flawed system) and will lead us to where He wants us to be, if we listen to His voice."

So what if we listen to him and hes saying I have it approximately correct? You seem to use this to exclude apostolic succession when listening to his voice may affirm it.

God preserved His written Word over several thousands of years because it is important for His children to have. It would have been just as easy for Him to have preserved a list of successive appointments from the original apostles approximately 2,000 years ago right down to the elders in every legitimate church today if it were important for His children to have that information."

I'm thinking I can name my lineage right back to Christ.

 

[steve]

hugh,
i believe that your assumption is wrong, but you are welcome to it.

the idea that authority MUST come from a succession of men pretty much invalidates YHWH's right to give authority as He desires. no thanks.

have a nice day,
steve the unauthorized

 

[steve]

I am trying to start a denomination.

if you only knew what an abomination they are.
Yeshua desires a "church" in which he ONLY is the head and there are no other go-betweens. you are trying to create a system that usurps his position between YHWH and man.