In 2 Timothy 2:2, Paul instructs Timothy to entrust what he has learned from Paul to trustworthy men who will, in turn, be able to teach others. One of the key teachings from Paul to Timothy is this very process of entrusting reliable individuals with Paul’s message. If this sounds like an infinite loop, it is intentionally so; the principle of apostolic succession was designed to be an ongoing, continuous process.
@@AnabaptistPerspectives My pleasure. Here's a bit more input: The Jews who lived prior to Jesus accepted the authority of 1) the books of the Tanakh (OT), 2) the prophets who taught orally (before their words were inscripturated), and 3) the religious leaders (such as the Pharisees and the Sadducees). The paradigm established by God was scripture, oral tradition, and the teaching authority of the leaders of the community. In the Apostolic age, the early Church acknowledged three sources of authority: 1) Sacred Scripture, comprising the Old Testament as well as those letters and gospels which were available; 2) the oral teachings, or Tradition, passed down by Paul and the other Apostles; and 3) the Divinely instituted teaching authority of the Church, or Magisterium, demonstrated notably in the Council of Jerusalem's decisions regarding Gentile converts. The paradigm established by God in the Apostolic Church was scripture, the oral tradition delivered by the Apostles, and the teaching authority of the leaders of the Church. Nowhere in Scripture is there an indication that this paradigm of authority should be abandoned with the death of the last Apostle or at some point in the future. Jesus did make prophecies about the future, but He never said anything suggesting that the Church should embrace sola scriptura after the death of the last apostle. The first century Christians never envisioned that Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church would be jettisoned 1,500 years later. No Apostle practiced or alluded to any other paradigm; no Apostolic Father or Early Church Father practiced or alluded to another paradigm. Therefore, the Catholic Church continues to uphold these three pillars of authority: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. Scripture and Tradition together constitute God's word, while the Magisterium serves as the authoritative interpreter of that Word.
Every fallacy has the characteristic of "It does not follow". What you pointed out from scripture is good instruction and applies if Apostolic Succession is true OR false. Your argument is invalid.
@@randycarson9812 Yes, the Jews at the time Jesus held those authorities including the traditions of the Talmud. Jesus called those people a perverse generation. Here is some of the Talmud on the topic of "it's OK to have sex with children": Niddah 45a The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, just as there is a tanna who says that one day in a year is considered equivalent to a year, so too, there is a tanna who says that thirty days in a year are considered equivalent to a year.The baraita states that according to Rabbi Meir, a girl two years and one day old is considered like a three-year-old, following the opinion that one day in a year is equivalent to a full year. Similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that there is a second tanna who says that thirty days in a year are considered equivalent to a full year, and therefore a girl can be betrothed by intercourse from the age of two years and thirty days. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yannai, that Rabbi Meir requires a full three years, this baraita is difficult, as it explicitly states that in Rabbi Meir’s opinion even a girl aged two years and one day can be betrothed by intercourse. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this baraita is difficult according to the opinion of Rabbi Yannai.
0:30 No, it was what that the Early Christians taught: Clement (Who is actually mentioned in the Bible: Philippians 4:3 ) “Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]). Hegesippus “When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]). Irenaeus “It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
Irenaeus clearly talks about ordination when he says the list from this apostle has come to this person he gives specific apostolic succession and if you can't figure that out I'll pray for you.
You did not disprove the claims of David Bercot. He only said that there were early examples of large gaps in time, and that some of the earliest references of succession were of in the context of who held leadership before whom, and where teachings came from. If you have found a single source of one example that fits your model, you haven't done anything to refute David. As an addition, I recommend that you add a citation for those who interested in researching your claims. But you really didn't present anything here other than a passive aggressive prayer insult.
@@Anastasis1.4 Not only that but “early examples of large gaps in time” can only prove that in those gaps, history failed to record this activity. It does not negate a reality.
Additionally, the significant Early Church Father: Clement of Rome (Pope Clement I (Disciple and Contemporary of Saints Peter and Paul, mentioned in Philippians 4:3)): “Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . *Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop.* *For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry”* (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).
Bercot is clearly reading his own presuppositions into the ECFs. The ideas that bishops held their office until death and that they selected the men who would proceed them are not mutually exclusive. He is fallaciously and without merit asserting that they are, directly in contradition to the Paul's epistles to Timothy no less. There's no provision in scripture for ordination of ministers outside of one that originates from the apostles. Full stop and no getting around it.
It seems his argument is that the succession wasn't about authority, but having the correct teachings. However, that is what we would call Apostolic Tradition, and yes, the Church Fathers attest to it, as a different category than Apostolic Authority, which they also attest to.
It's literally in the Bible, explicitly in the Book of Acts. You can't just "give up" on it without also giving up on the Bible. It's precisely how things worked in the Old Testament too; the importance of succession from Moses to Joshua is clear.
@@kranthiraj667 he's talking about the message not his office in the church. He was ordained in Acts 13,2-5 and was given a Deacon called John as helper.
"Anabaptist" means rebaptiser, what the Roman Catholics, Lutheran's, and Reformed called the Swiss Brethren who baptized those who had repented and sought to follow Jesus as a disciple in life. In other words, it is another term for those who believe in believers baptism. How is this the same as insisting that pastors must be ordained by a succession of bishops back to the apostles?
@veritas399 Bercot himself has stated that one of the things that attracted him to the Anabaptists is the fact that they've been around for five hundred plus years. It may be a rare case, but I don't know of any group that has started up completely unaffiliated with Anabaptists yet still claiming that name. My point is that the name "Anabaptist" today does NOT have the same meaning it did during the reformation. We should not be fooling ourselves. The first Anabaptists didn't give themselves that name. Therefore, you can not escape the fact that the name, as it gets used today, has strings attached. 33¶They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?” 34¶Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35“And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36“Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.37¶“I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.
@@veritas399 come on now. Let's be real. Nobody uses the word Anabaptist to mean rebaptiser anymore. It's used as a denomination, sect, movement or more accurately it's just a cult. Anabaptist is just a descriptive word used to describe a type of "Christian" and differentiate them from other "Christians". We all know what the word Anabaptist technically means, but let's be real it's just a cult.
@@Neil_85Yes, you are right that the opponents of the Swiss Brethren (Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Swiss Reformed) called the Swiss Brethren "Anabaptists" meaning rebaptizers. And yes, the name "anabaptist" may bring up a different image today than one who practices believers' baptism. You object to the term "anabaptist" without mentioning the strings attached, or a better term. Do anabaptists you know claim to be Abraham's seed? It is easy to find faults with terms and groups, without suggesting a better term or more faithful group.
@@Neil_85 you are very correct, the this group is not an anabaptist group but has usurped the name. Bercot, raised a JW, teaches many JW doctrines. A self ordained Anglican, uses their methods up to the Nicene council because that's where it all went wrong for the JW's forefathers. The Anabaptists of course are not the only reformers who reject infant baptism, apostolic succession and use of extra biblical books.
Succession meant who is following whom into office??!!! How exactly do you think this happened??? Yes…through ordination!!! It is a waaaaaay too important office to just hand it over to the next guy!!! Because it is not just about doctrine, it is even more so about charism, the charism(s) of the Holy Spirit, which empowers the successors and gives him therefor the necessary Divine authority for his office! And this happened and still happens to this day by the „laying on of hands“, which IS ordination!
4:23 - I don't understand the argument. It seems the two are tied together. To be tied to the apostles validly is a leg in the argument about having more valid lineage in doctrine than the gnostics?
Read the fathers for yourself folks, Apostolic succession was clearly believed by earliest Christians. You see traces of it even in the earliest writings of the fathers. The early church was not Anabaptist at all. Irenaeus very clearly talks about the authority of the Bishops, not only in succession, but also in union with Rome and Apostolic Tradition. “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul-that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2)
The elephant is in the room that the kingdom of God is primarily a spiritual kingdom. Hence, succession without the right teaching and fruit is worthless. Since the Pope teaches "all religions are ways to God", thereby identifying himself as an arch-heretic, any appeal to succession has become irrelevant.
St. Irenaeus - Against Heresies (175-185 AD) Chap. XXVI - THE TREASURE HID IN THE SCRIPTURES IS CHRIST; THE TRUE EXPOSITION OF THE SCRIPTURES IS TO BE FOUND IN THE CHURCH ALONE. "Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the priests who are in the Church, - those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who together with the episcopate, have received the certain gift of Truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But it is also incumbent to hold in suspicion, others who depart from the original succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, looking upon them either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the Truth. And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God - namely strange doctrines - shall be burned up by the fire from Heaven, as were Nadab and Abiud. But such as rise up in opposition to the Truth, and exhort others against the Church of God, shall remain among those in hell."
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian I categorically disagree with Bercot, but it's so refreshing to hear a Protestant finally define and describe Apostolic Succession correctly on a UA-cam video in which the Protestant describing it is presenting himself as an expert (or at least accurately informed).
Ignorance masquerading as intelligence! Yes, the power to ordain and the power to consecrate comes to us from Jesus through the Apostles, not the 'early Christians' as this man says. Obviously, there must be a legitimate succession or the Church would have ended after one generation. The Church Fathers give us great insight into this matter, but they are not the ones who pass power and legitimacy on to succeeding generations. This man talks about 'records' as if written documents exist from Christ's time, a time when there was no printing press, when 95% of the population was illiterate, a time when 'history' was transmitted orally. Of course no 'records' exist! At least not records as we know them today. In the Catholic Church its referred to as 'Sacred Tradition'.
@@Dirty-D Or ... just ignoring the facts. We should build on what we know to be true and not spin a tale to fit what we want to believe. And, if you sping a tale, there are hundreds of other alternatives out there as well. Why not just stick with the truth?
@ what exactly did he say that was untrue? There’s absolutely nothing in the Bible anywhere that says that the successor of the original apostles were to inherit the same Holy Spirit and abilities as Jesus bestowed onto them. Catholics can’t convince anyone without implying something.
He is definitely talking about the Anglican Catholics because from a historical perspective you can trace, eastern , oriental, ACE, Roman & Old Catholics back to the time of the apostles.
It’s fascinating even the council of Nicaea derides those who had once put off their military belts for church membership and then later went back to it “as a dog returns to its own vomit”
Bercot is getting called out because his description isn't nuanced enough; it needs to be fleshed out historically. Not sure if the average plain Anabaptist parishioner would be capable of following.
Yep! It's clearly impossible to know who laid hands on who, when, where, and in every congregation while the Apostles lived, and after death. Impossible. This is only a way to limit The Holy Spirit to save to the four-corners of the world. It like drinking from a fire hose.
No one who believes in Apostolic Succession believes that the LITERAL bishop who you succeed has to lay his hands on you to make you his successor. That wouldn't even be possible since you need other three bishops to ordains someone as a bishop anyway so at least TWO would have to not be the bishop you are succeeding even if he was somehow alive when he passed on his succession to you. The point is you have to have a physical link of succession back to the Apostles. And of course that physical link is necessary but not sufficient to make you the true church. You can have a physical link and not be the True Church, but you also can't be the True Church and not have a physical link. And while you can certainly try to make the case that Rome, EO, OO, and the Church of the East have all fell into error and are not the True Church, that would leave no way for you to really function as a Church or administer sacraments since you wouldn't have a valid bishop or presbyters. Which I imagine is the real reason Bercot rejects it. He wants to continue to be a paleo-orthodox Mennonite and he can't do that if it's impossible to BE the Church without Apostolic Succession.
Though I don't remember the quotes he offered, you may find Bercot's longer conversation where this excerpt comes from to be helpful. ua-cam.com/video/DvablCCiDS4/v-deo.htmlsi=jyCjZv-miDQWXN69
I don't think you should of been discouraged the line is "invalid" it is still a process of trying to follow the bible and do the best we can with where we are at on the timeline.
That may not be a bad thing for discerning people, considering Popes have kissed the Quran in the past and the current pope has claimed that all religions lead to God, which is a direct contradiction to what Jesus said.
That was a weird 6 minutes and 43 seconds. You can easily see the teaching of apostolic succession when the Pope of Rome passes away. The other bishops in the church vote for someone to take that position. That is what the early church taught, it's what the bible teaches, and it is what the Catholic and Orthodox believe.
@@AnabaptistPerspectives The first Christians had no doubts as to how to determine what was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ: simply trace the apostolic succession of the claimants. Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. Catholic bishops worldwide are part of that lineage, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations, most of which do not even claim to have bishops. To make sure the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after their deaths, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession: his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach. Hebrews 6:1-3 presents insight into the doctrine of apostolic succession: Therefore, let us leave the elementary doctrines of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of [1] repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, with [2] instruction about ablutions [i.e., baptisms], [3] the laying on of hands, [4] the resurrection of the dead, and [5] eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits. What does the Bible say? In the New Testament, we find “the laying on of hands” refers in the plainest of terms to holy orders. St. Paul lays out some essential criteria for candidates for holy orders, followed by stern warnings concerning the grave responsibility that accompanies this august sacrament: “Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim. 4:16). Then Paul warns against “be[ing] hasty in the laying on of hands” (5:22), meaning don’t ordain just anyone-you must be sure the ordinandi are truly prepared for ministry. Notice the use of the terms “laying on of hands.” St. Paul had a special interest in Timothy because he had ordained him personally to the priesthood (probably to the bishopric). Notice again the language Paul uses in reminding young Timothy of the ongoing challenge of his office: “Rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands” (2 Tim. 1:6). Thus, there can be no reasonable doubt that “the laying on of hands” refers to holy orders in the New Testament. But the question now is: how does this relate to apostolic succession?
Sent in the name of Jesus To understand apostolic succession, we must understand the biblical concept of being sent. The Catechism uses John 20:21 as an example of this: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (CCC 858). The Greek word here for send is a form of apostello-a familiar-sounding term. Apostolos is the noun form of the same word. Its connotation is not sending in the sense of sending a letter. It has a specific meaning of “one sent with the authority of the one who sent him.” Thus, according to Jesus, his New Covenant ministers were not just “sent” in a generic sense; rather, they were “sent” by and with the authority of Christ. Understanding this idea has ramifications regarding the infallibility of the Church, its juridical authority, and more. Think about it: if Christ’s ministers are “sent” with the authority of Christ, infallibility necessarily follows. Jesus did not teach mere opinions of what he thought Scripture might mean. He spoke the infallible word of God, and so must his ministers! Jesus limited this infallible authority he gave to the apostles in both Matthew 16:18-19, when he communicated it to St. Peter and his successors, and in Matthew 18:15-18, when he communicated a similar authority to all the apostles and their successors in union with Peter and his successors. He limited it to “whatever you bind” or “loose” (singular) when speaking to Peter and his successors. And he limited it to “whatever you bind” or “loose” (plural) when speaking to all the apostles. And mind you, this apostolic authority Jesus communicated to his ministers is so radical, Jesus would say of those he “sent”: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16, Matt. 10:40). To claim there could be thousands of differing sects, or “denominations” as they are called today, speaking different teachings after having been “sent” by Christ, would have been utterly foreign to the inspired authors of the New Testament. According to Scripture, the apostles ordained others to succeed them in their ministry. And this is more than implied to continue in the Church perennially. This is the undergirding principle of these famous words: If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. . . . Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 18:15-18). Just as Jesus “sent” the apostles, the apostles would send men as well. And those men would send men, and those men would send men-until the end of time. And they alone possess the fullness of the authority of Jesus Christ on Earth. Again, that is the definition of apostolic succession. And this is made clear in the New Testament not only by the above-cited text, which is incoherent apart from a proper understanding of apostolic succession, but also by the idea of the necessity of being “sent” by proper authority in the Church beyond the apostles. More about that below. Apostolic succession has as one of its central purposes infallible certitude regarding Christ’s promise to remain with the Church until the end of time: “Lo, I will be with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20). This promise was given in the context of the sending of the apostles to the ends of the Earth, the implication being that the apostolic gift would continue until the end in their successors, the bishops. Apostolic authority is also seen to succeed in the Church in the choosing of the replacement (successor) of Judas. St. Peter declared, in Acts 1:15-22: In those days Peter stood up . . . and said, “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas. . . . For it is written in the book of Psalms, “Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it”; and “His office let another take.” The Greek word here for “office” is a form of episcope, or “bishopric.” Thus, the office of apostle in succession is referred to as tein episkopein, or “the episcopacy.” According to I Timothy 3:1ff, that office continues in the Church beyond the original apostles. Being “sent” by an apostle or by someone sent by an apostle is just as necessary if one is going to be an official representative of Jesus in the Church after the apostles as it was for the apostles themselves to be sent by Jesus. But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent (Romans 10:14-15)? The Greek word for “sent” here is apostalosin. There’s that word again! What does it mean? It means that, for St. Paul, unless you are sent with apostolic authority, you have no authority in the Church. You speak in your own name, rather than the name of Jesus Christ. So, who are these “sent ones” that Paul talks about? Timothy certainly qualifies, as we saw above from 2 Tim. 1:6. But most important for us now: this succession does not stop with Timothy and those ordained by apostles: “You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:1-2). And remember, Paul is not just talking about “teachers” such as a Sunday school teacher. First and second Timothy are both pastoral epistles that focus on the pastoral ministry of the ordained. Titus 1:5 is another example: ”This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you.” In Acts 15, we discover the first major heresy in the Church as well as first-century instructions for dealing with grave error in the Church in general. The details of the controversy are for another article. But for now, take note how the early Church functioned during this controversy about which a Church council had been called and the matter discussed and settled (Acts 15:1-12). Afterward, the apostles wrote an epistle and sent it to the troubled churches: Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions (Greek, diasteila’metha, meaning “commandment” or “mandate”): it has seemed good to us in assembly to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul. . . . For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things (Acts 15:24-28). Notice a crucial addition to what we have seen before: not only does one have to be “sent” with apostolic authority by way of ordination, as we’ve seen, but one has to maintain union with the apostles or their successors, the bishops, by way of an apostolic mandate as well. And finally, in Acts 16:4-5, we see how unity was and is maintained in the Church: As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily. The message seems clear. The true Church speaks with the authority of Christ. If you reject the Church, you reject Jesus. This is true whether you are a layman or a clergyman-and whether you lived in the first century or live in the twenty-first century. That is at the core of the truth of apostolic succession. SOURCE: Tim Staples | The Biblical Evidence for Apostolic Succession
Just conflate bishop with presbyter with pastor and wahlah, the reformers could produce more presbyters and anyone can claim succession. Oh but wait, the Roman Catholic Church has been neither Roman nor Catholic even prior to the Reformation. It’s not Roman, because the empire had been gone. It’s also not Catholic because they departed from the one faith and one Catholic and Apostolic Church in 1054 A.D. The mother of all heresies, papal supremacy, lead to all kinds of new heresies and innovations. They are nothing more then a religious group that is not Roman nor Catholic nor a Church. The same follows for Protestants.
The succession is passed on through the laying on of hands during the rite of ordination, where a bishop consecrates another bishop.
This is how Timothy was ordained as shown in the NT.
3 Bishops.
In 2 Timothy 2:2, Paul instructs Timothy to entrust what he has learned from Paul to trustworthy men who will, in turn, be able to teach others. One of the key teachings from Paul to Timothy is this very process of entrusting reliable individuals with Paul’s message.
If this sounds like an infinite loop, it is intentionally so; the principle of apostolic succession was designed to be an ongoing, continuous process.
Thank you for this input.
@@AnabaptistPerspectives My pleasure. Here's a bit more input:
The Jews who lived prior to Jesus accepted the authority of 1) the books of the Tanakh (OT), 2) the prophets who taught orally (before their words were inscripturated), and 3) the religious leaders (such as the Pharisees and the Sadducees). The paradigm established by God was scripture, oral tradition, and the teaching authority of the leaders of the community.
In the Apostolic age, the early Church acknowledged three sources of authority: 1) Sacred Scripture, comprising the Old Testament as well as those letters and gospels which were available; 2) the oral teachings, or Tradition, passed down by Paul and the other Apostles; and 3) the Divinely instituted teaching authority of the Church, or Magisterium, demonstrated notably in the Council of Jerusalem's decisions regarding Gentile converts. The paradigm established by God in the Apostolic Church was scripture, the oral tradition delivered by the Apostles, and the teaching authority of the leaders of the Church.
Nowhere in Scripture is there an indication that this paradigm of authority should be abandoned with the death of the last Apostle or at some point in the future. Jesus did make prophecies about the future, but He never said anything suggesting that the Church should embrace sola scriptura after the death of the last apostle. The first century Christians never envisioned that Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church would be jettisoned 1,500 years later.
No Apostle practiced or alluded to any other paradigm; no Apostolic Father or Early Church Father practiced or alluded to another paradigm.
Therefore, the Catholic Church continues to uphold these three pillars of authority: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. Scripture and Tradition together constitute God's word, while the Magisterium serves as the authoritative interpreter of that Word.
@@randycarson9812 perfect brother!
Every fallacy has the characteristic of "It does not follow". What you pointed out from scripture is good instruction and applies if Apostolic Succession is true OR false. Your argument is invalid.
@@randycarson9812 Yes, the Jews at the time Jesus held those authorities including the traditions of the Talmud. Jesus called those people a perverse generation. Here is some of the Talmud on the topic of "it's OK to have sex with children": Niddah 45a The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, just as there is a tanna who says that one day in a year is considered equivalent to a year, so too, there is a tanna who says that thirty days in a year are considered equivalent to a year.The baraita states that according to Rabbi Meir, a girl two years and one day old is considered like a three-year-old, following the opinion that one day in a year is equivalent to a full year. Similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that there is a second tanna who says that thirty days in a year are considered equivalent to a full year, and therefore a girl can be betrothed by intercourse from the age of two years and thirty days. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yannai, that Rabbi Meir requires a full three years, this baraita is difficult, as it explicitly states that in Rabbi Meir’s opinion even a girl aged two years and one day can be betrothed by intercourse. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this baraita is difficult according to the opinion of Rabbi Yannai.
0:30 No, it was what that the Early Christians taught:
Clement (Who is actually mentioned in the Bible: Philippians 4:3 )
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).
Hegesippus
“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).
Irenaeus
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
Irenaeus clearly talks about ordination when he says the list from this apostle has come to this person he gives specific apostolic succession and if you can't figure that out I'll pray for you.
You did not disprove the claims of David Bercot. He only said that there were early examples of large gaps in time, and that some of the earliest references of succession were of in the context of who held leadership before whom, and where teachings came from. If you have found a single source of one example that fits your model, you haven't done anything to refute David. As an addition, I recommend that you add a citation for those who interested in researching your claims. But you really didn't present anything here other than a passive aggressive prayer insult.
Define "clearly". If he clearly talks about ordination, then you have your own definition of "clear".
@@Anastasis1.4 Not only that but “early examples of large gaps in time” can only prove that in those gaps, history failed to record this activity. It does not negate a reality.
Additionally, the significant Early Church Father:
Clement of Rome (Pope Clement I (Disciple and Contemporary of Saints Peter and Paul, mentioned in Philippians 4:3)):
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . *Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop.* *For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry”* (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).
Bercot is clearly reading his own presuppositions into the ECFs. The ideas that bishops held their office until death and that they selected the men who would proceed them are not mutually exclusive. He is fallaciously and without merit asserting that they are, directly in contradition to the Paul's epistles to Timothy no less.
There's no provision in scripture for ordination of ministers outside of one that originates from the apostles. Full stop and no getting around it.
It seems his argument is that the succession wasn't about authority, but having the correct teachings. However, that is what we would call Apostolic Tradition, and yes, the Church Fathers attest to it, as a different category than Apostolic Authority, which they also attest to.
Thanks for naming the distinction. That helps clarify the point of difference.
A logic problem... if the Bishops have the teaching authority... well they taught Sacramental authority.
It's literally in the Bible, explicitly in the Book of Acts. You can't just "give up" on it without also giving up on the Bible. It's precisely how things worked in the Old Testament too; the importance of succession from Moses to Joshua is clear.
And implicitly in the Levite priesthood which were also ordained in a mountain just like the apostles
@@kena3234 who ordained paul? as perr galatians 1-2
@@kranthiraj667 he's talking about the message not his office in the church. He was ordained in Acts 13,2-5 and was given a Deacon called John as helper.
@@kranthiraj667 The same Person who ordained every other Apostle. Our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ.
@@alpinefool8814council of Nicene no Pope showed up and worked out issue all Christian agree . 50 yrs later the scism begins with AS bishops
Calling yourself Anabaptist is much the same as claiming "apostolic succession."
"Anabaptist" means rebaptiser, what the Roman Catholics, Lutheran's, and Reformed called the Swiss Brethren who baptized those who had repented and sought to follow Jesus as a disciple in life. In other words, it is another term for those who believe in believers baptism. How is this the same as insisting that pastors must be ordained by a succession of bishops back to the apostles?
@veritas399 Bercot himself has stated that one of the things that attracted him to the Anabaptists is the fact that they've been around for five hundred plus years.
It may be a rare case, but I don't know of any group that has started up completely unaffiliated with Anabaptists yet still claiming that name. My point is that the name "Anabaptist" today does NOT have the same meaning it did during the reformation. We should not be fooling ourselves. The first Anabaptists didn't give themselves that name. Therefore, you can not escape the fact that the name, as it gets used today, has strings attached.
33¶They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?”
34¶Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.
35“And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever.
36“Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.37¶“I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.
@@veritas399 come on now. Let's be real. Nobody uses the word Anabaptist to mean rebaptiser anymore. It's used as a denomination, sect, movement or more accurately it's just a cult. Anabaptist is just a descriptive word used to describe a type of "Christian" and differentiate them from other "Christians". We all know what the word Anabaptist technically means, but let's be real it's just a cult.
@@Neil_85Yes, you are right that the opponents of the Swiss Brethren (Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Swiss Reformed) called the Swiss Brethren "Anabaptists" meaning rebaptizers. And yes, the name "anabaptist" may bring up a different image today than one who practices believers' baptism. You object to the term "anabaptist" without mentioning the strings attached, or a better term. Do anabaptists you know claim to be Abraham's seed? It is easy to find faults with terms and groups, without suggesting a better term or more faithful group.
@@Neil_85 you are very correct, the this group is not an anabaptist group but has usurped the name. Bercot, raised a JW, teaches many JW doctrines. A self ordained Anglican, uses their methods up to the Nicene council because that's where it all went wrong for the JW's forefathers. The Anabaptists of course are not the only reformers who reject infant baptism, apostolic succession and use of extra biblical books.
Guys I think what he is trying to say is no one was saved till the reformation in the 1500s
Not quite right.
He is doing his best to justify his faith.
@@AnabaptistPerspectives not quite wrong either
Succession meant who is following whom into office??!!! How exactly do you think this happened??? Yes…through ordination!!! It is a waaaaaay too important office to just hand it over to the next guy!!! Because it is not just about doctrine, it is even more so about charism, the charism(s) of the Holy Spirit, which empowers the successors and gives him therefor the necessary Divine authority for his office! And this happened and still happens to this day by the „laying on of hands“, which IS ordination!
4:23 - I don't understand the argument. It seems the two are tied together. To be tied to the apostles validly is a leg in the argument about having more valid lineage in doctrine than the gnostics?
Catholic doctrine developed over time to what it always was going to be. It didn't change. A little boy developes into a man.
Read the fathers for yourself folks, Apostolic succession was clearly believed by earliest Christians. You see traces of it even in the earliest writings of the fathers. The early church was not Anabaptist at all. Irenaeus very clearly talks about the authority of the Bishops, not only in succession, but also in union with Rome and Apostolic Tradition.
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul-that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2)
The elephant is in the room that the kingdom of God is primarily a spiritual kingdom. Hence, succession without the right teaching and fruit is worthless. Since the Pope teaches "all religions are ways to God", thereby identifying himself as an arch-heretic, any appeal to succession has become irrelevant.
St. Irenaeus - Against Heresies (175-185 AD) Chap. XXVI - THE TREASURE HID IN THE SCRIPTURES IS CHRIST; THE TRUE EXPOSITION OF THE SCRIPTURES IS TO BE FOUND IN THE CHURCH ALONE.
"Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the priests who are in the Church, - those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who together with the episcopate, have received the certain gift of Truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But it is also incumbent to hold in suspicion, others who depart from the original succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, looking upon them either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the Truth. And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God - namely strange doctrines - shall be burned up by the fire from Heaven, as were Nadab and Abiud. But such as rise up in opposition to the Truth, and exhort others against the Church of God, shall remain among those in hell."
Avoid those who deny Christ with his people.
He totally misconstures what Apostolic tradition is.
Argument from silence… not convincing.
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian I categorically disagree with Bercot, but it's so refreshing to hear a Protestant finally define and describe Apostolic Succession correctly on a UA-cam video in which the Protestant describing it is presenting himself as an expert (or at least accurately informed).
Thank you for the feedback, Jeff.
Anabaptists are not Protestants as they don’t believe in sola fida.
This is the sad side of ignorance.
Ignorance masquerading as intelligence! Yes, the power to ordain and the power to consecrate comes to us from Jesus through the Apostles, not the 'early Christians' as this man says. Obviously, there must be a legitimate succession or the Church would have ended after one generation. The Church Fathers give us great insight into this matter, but they are not the ones who pass power and legitimacy on to succeeding generations. This man talks about 'records' as if written documents exist from Christ's time, a time when there was no printing press, when 95% of the population was illiterate, a time when 'history' was transmitted orally. Of course no 'records' exist! At least not records as we know them today. In the Catholic Church its referred to as 'Sacred Tradition'.
Nope just facts
@@Dirty-D Or ... just ignoring the facts. We should build on what we know to be true and not spin a tale to fit what we want to believe. And, if you sping a tale, there are hundreds of other alternatives out there as well. Why not just stick with the truth?
@ what exactly did he say that was untrue? There’s absolutely nothing in the Bible anywhere that says that the successor of the original apostles were to inherit the same Holy Spirit and abilities as Jesus bestowed onto them. Catholics can’t convince anyone without implying something.
@@Dirty-D Ever read in the Bible of the Laying on of Hands?
He is definitely talking about the Anglican Catholics because from a historical perspective you can trace, eastern , oriental, ACE, Roman & Old Catholics back to the time of the apostles.
It’s fascinating even the council of Nicaea derides those who had once put off their military belts for church membership and then later went back to it “as a dog returns to its own vomit”
Fascinating, indeed.
Мир вам!как можно связаться с Дэвидом Берсо?
Try through Scroll Publishing Company.
Can you give me a link to this company? Or maybe he has a telegram, I could write my number here?
Bercot is getting called out because his description isn't nuanced enough; it needs to be fleshed out historically. Not sure if the average plain Anabaptist parishioner would be capable of following.
This is the reason why I’m not a Catholic, there is no evidence of apostolic succession from Peter to his successor.
👍
Yep! It's clearly impossible to know who laid hands on who, when, where, and in every congregation while the Apostles lived, and after death. Impossible. This is only a way to limit The Holy Spirit to save to the four-corners of the world. It like drinking from a fire hose.
No one who believes in Apostolic Succession believes that the LITERAL bishop who you succeed has to lay his hands on you to make you his successor. That wouldn't even be possible since you need other three bishops to ordains someone as a bishop anyway so at least TWO would have to not be the bishop you are succeeding even if he was somehow alive when he passed on his succession to you. The point is you have to have a physical link of succession back to the Apostles.
And of course that physical link is necessary but not sufficient to make you the true church. You can have a physical link and not be the True Church, but you also can't be the True Church and not have a physical link. And while you can certainly try to make the case that Rome, EO, OO, and the Church of the East have all fell into error and are not the True Church, that would leave no way for you to really function as a Church or administer sacraments since you wouldn't have a valid bishop or presbyters. Which I imagine is the real reason Bercot rejects it. He wants to continue to be a paleo-orthodox Mennonite and he can't do that if it's impossible to BE the Church without Apostolic Succession.
So sad
What's sad?
Interesting! Are there any quotes you can give to support this?
Though I don't remember the quotes he offered, you may find Bercot's longer conversation where this excerpt comes from to be helpful.
ua-cam.com/video/DvablCCiDS4/v-deo.htmlsi=jyCjZv-miDQWXN69
I don't think you should of been discouraged the line is "invalid" it is still a process of trying to follow the bible and do the best we can with where we are at on the timeline.
You gave up on it cause you reject christian tradition and have become your own pope
That may not be a bad thing for discerning people, considering Popes have kissed the Quran in the past and the current pope has claimed that all religions lead to God, which is a direct contradiction to what Jesus said.
Apostolic succession is meaningless if they don't teach the same things.
If Jesus allowed his powers to be sent the line their would be no need for drs.
Apostolic powers are used for authority and truth, they don’t guarantee healing.
That was a weird 6 minutes and 43 seconds. You can easily see the teaching of apostolic succession when the Pope of Rome passes away. The other bishops in the church vote for someone to take that position. That is what the early church taught, it's what the bible teaches, and it is what the Catholic and Orthodox believe.
If you wish to share the passages in the Bible that support the teaching of apostolic succession, you are welcome to post it here.
@@AnabaptistPerspectives The first Christians had no doubts as to how to determine what was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ: simply trace the apostolic succession of the claimants. Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. Catholic bishops worldwide are part of that lineage, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations, most of which do not even claim to have bishops.
To make sure the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after their deaths, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession: his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
Hebrews 6:1-3 presents insight into the doctrine of apostolic succession:
Therefore, let us leave the elementary doctrines of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of [1] repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, with [2] instruction about ablutions [i.e., baptisms], [3] the laying on of hands, [4] the resurrection of the dead, and [5] eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits.
What does the Bible say?
In the New Testament, we find “the laying on of hands” refers in the plainest of terms to holy orders. St. Paul lays out some essential criteria for candidates for holy orders, followed by stern warnings concerning the grave responsibility that accompanies this august sacrament: “Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim. 4:16).
Then Paul warns against “be[ing] hasty in the laying on of hands” (5:22), meaning don’t ordain just anyone-you must be sure the ordinandi are truly prepared for ministry. Notice the use of the terms “laying on of hands.”
St. Paul had a special interest in Timothy because he had ordained him personally to the priesthood (probably to the bishopric). Notice again the language Paul uses in reminding young Timothy of the ongoing challenge of his office: “Rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands” (2 Tim. 1:6).
Thus, there can be no reasonable doubt that “the laying on of hands” refers to holy orders in the New Testament. But the question now is: how does this relate to apostolic succession?
Sent in the name of Jesus
To understand apostolic succession, we must understand the biblical concept of being sent. The Catechism uses John 20:21 as an example of this: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (CCC 858). The Greek word here for send is a form of apostello-a familiar-sounding term. Apostolos is the noun form of the same word. Its connotation is not sending in the sense of sending a letter. It has a specific meaning of “one sent with the authority of the one who sent him.” Thus, according to Jesus, his New Covenant ministers were not just “sent” in a generic sense; rather, they were “sent” by and with the authority of Christ.
Understanding this idea has ramifications regarding the infallibility of the Church, its juridical authority, and more. Think about it: if Christ’s ministers are “sent” with the authority of Christ, infallibility necessarily follows. Jesus did not teach mere opinions of what he thought Scripture might mean. He spoke the infallible word of God, and so must his ministers!
Jesus limited this infallible authority he gave to the apostles in both Matthew 16:18-19, when he communicated it to St. Peter and his successors, and in Matthew 18:15-18, when he communicated a similar authority to all the apostles and their successors in union with Peter and his successors. He limited it to “whatever you bind” or “loose” (singular) when speaking to Peter and his successors. And he limited it to “whatever you bind” or “loose” (plural) when speaking to all the apostles.
And mind you, this apostolic authority Jesus communicated to his ministers is so radical, Jesus would say of those he “sent”: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16, Matt. 10:40). To claim there could be thousands of differing sects, or “denominations” as they are called today, speaking different teachings after having been “sent” by Christ, would have been utterly foreign to the inspired authors of the New Testament.
According to Scripture, the apostles ordained others to succeed them in their ministry. And this is more than implied to continue in the Church perennially. This is the undergirding principle of these famous words:
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. . . . Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 18:15-18).
Just as Jesus “sent” the apostles, the apostles would send men as well. And those men would send men, and those men would send men-until the end of time. And they alone possess the fullness of the authority of Jesus Christ on Earth. Again, that is the definition of apostolic succession. And this is made clear in the New Testament not only by the above-cited text, which is incoherent apart from a proper understanding of apostolic succession, but also by the idea of the necessity of being “sent” by proper authority in the Church beyond the apostles. More about that below.
Apostolic succession has as one of its central purposes infallible certitude regarding Christ’s promise to remain with the Church until the end of time: “Lo, I will be with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20). This promise was given in the context of the sending of the apostles to the ends of the Earth, the implication being that the apostolic gift would continue until the end in their successors, the bishops.
Apostolic authority is also seen to succeed in the Church in the choosing of the replacement (successor) of Judas. St. Peter declared, in Acts 1:15-22:
In those days Peter stood up . . . and said, “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas. . . . For it is written in the book of Psalms, “Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it”; and “His office let another take.”
The Greek word here for “office” is a form of episcope, or “bishopric.” Thus, the office of apostle in succession is referred to as tein episkopein, or “the episcopacy.” According to I Timothy 3:1ff, that office continues in the Church beyond the original apostles.
Being “sent” by an apostle or by someone sent by an apostle is just as necessary if one is going to be an official representative of Jesus in the Church after the apostles as it was for the apostles themselves to be sent by Jesus.
But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent (Romans 10:14-15)?
The Greek word for “sent” here is apostalosin. There’s that word again! What does it mean? It means that, for St. Paul, unless you are sent with apostolic authority, you have no authority in the Church. You speak in your own name, rather than the name of Jesus Christ.
So, who are these “sent ones” that Paul talks about? Timothy certainly qualifies, as we saw above from 2 Tim. 1:6. But most important for us now: this succession does not stop with Timothy and those ordained by apostles: “You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:1-2).
And remember, Paul is not just talking about “teachers” such as a Sunday school teacher. First and second Timothy are both pastoral epistles that focus on the pastoral ministry of the ordained.
Titus 1:5 is another example: ”This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you.”
In Acts 15, we discover the first major heresy in the Church as well as first-century instructions for dealing with grave error in the Church in general. The details of the controversy are for another article. But for now, take note how the early Church functioned during this controversy about which a Church council had been called and the matter discussed and settled (Acts 15:1-12). Afterward, the apostles wrote an epistle and sent it to the troubled churches:
Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions (Greek, diasteila’metha, meaning “commandment” or “mandate”): it has seemed good to us in assembly to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul. . . . For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things (Acts 15:24-28).
Notice a crucial addition to what we have seen before: not only does one have to be “sent” with apostolic authority by way of ordination, as we’ve seen, but one has to maintain union with the apostles or their successors, the bishops, by way of an apostolic mandate as well.
And finally, in Acts 16:4-5, we see how unity was and is maintained in the Church:
As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.
The message seems clear. The true Church speaks with the authority of Christ. If you reject the Church, you reject Jesus. This is true whether you are a layman or a clergyman-and whether you lived in the first century or live in the twenty-first century. That is at the core of the truth of apostolic succession.
SOURCE: Tim Staples | The Biblical Evidence for Apostolic Succession
The pope?
Trinity , find the word , bible , find the word 4 rapture , the sinners prayer being performed or mentioned in the bible
SO interesting. This is good.
👍🏻
Probably the least convincing argument I've ever heard
We welcome conversation. If you desire, feel free to be specific with your objections or to recommend resource that you think make a better case.
Just conflate bishop with presbyter with pastor and wahlah, the reformers could produce more presbyters and anyone can claim succession. Oh but wait, the Roman Catholic Church has been neither Roman nor Catholic even prior to the Reformation. It’s not Roman, because the empire had been gone. It’s also not Catholic because they departed from the one faith and one Catholic and Apostolic Church in 1054 A.D. The mother of all heresies, papal supremacy, lead to all kinds of new heresies and innovations. They are nothing more then a religious group that is not Roman nor Catholic nor a Church. The same follows for Protestants.