How do you become a pastor?

[CaritateDei]

Very good, more examples where the Bible shows us that the pastors of the church from its beginning were taught by the Apostles. Further these men then taught others, and so on. The pastors of the church were never just anyone who claimed to have inspiration or knowledge. They were appointed and taught by the church fathers before them. We see the Apostles laying on of hands to appoint such men. Can your pastor trace his/her teaching back to the Apostles. Is there any other formula prescribed by the Bible. All other methods are traditions of men.

thats why Im a believer of seminary schools.

Paul was trying to organize, preach, and teach the good news.

He did this without a bible, on foot under a time constraint.

If he would of lived another 200 years he may be would of opened one.... 3xR0c|<stAr

How does an institution become a seminary school. Who are the teachers. Would not those same teachers also need to be able to trace their teaching back to the Apostles. Who taught the teachers?

If the seminary school does not have its roots in the progression described from the Bible would this not be a tradition established by man?

I think it would be important to know a little about the seminary. What is its history?

No, the teachers would need to be able to demonstrate that they know the word of God which was handed down to us thru the Apostles directly from God himself

Show me scripture that tells us this or demonstrates this..Otherwise it is just your opinion, and a tradition created by man. I would rather follow a tradition started by the Apostles who were indwelled by the Holy Spirit. You can follow whatever example you want, I will choose to follow the example given to us by the Apostles through scripture.

God Bless,

K.D.

So, do you choose your overseers by lot then?

Being that Kansasdad does not claim to be an apostle, he does not.

You seem to be letting on that the only thing the apostles did was cast lots to see which apostle would be chosen. Barsabbas and Matthias were the top two candidates, and after much prayer, the Apostles asked for a sign. They threw the lots to find the sign on which person would be given the Apostolic seal of approval from the almighty. I'm sure we do not do this anymore, but it sounds like you are criticizing the Apostles method of asking God for a sign. I do not believe that lots was the important thing here, but the fact that these Apostles of God were getting together in prayer and devotion in order to ask God above which should be the proper choice.

If they used lots, a spinner, a witchdoctor's watering stick...it is safe to believe that these Apostles were the ones to choose this man...and were the only ones guided by the spirit enough to appoint that overseer.

You don't seem to have grasped the point here.

Those who argue for a requirement of apostilic succession, do so on the basis of historical descriptions of what the Apostles did in the Acts narrative. They can provide no prescriptive texts that list this as a requirement. If they are using historical texts that are descriptive to develop a doctrine of who can lead, they must be consistent in this approach. The passage in Acts that describes the way the Apostles chose Judas' successor list several considerations and a methodology. If one is going to be consistent, they cannot pick and choose through which they will accept as normative. So, it one is going to use the choosing of Judas successor as a model (and normative for the church today) of how one selects leadership, they must include the casting of lots as part of the requirement, or state a good reason for not doing so from the text.

The guiding principle in good hermeneutics for discovering what is normative is only develop doctrine from historical texts, when one can find a supporting command from hortatory documents.

No one is criticizing what the apostles did. We are questioning if it was intended to be normative for the church for all time. So, still waiting for a passage that lists apostolic succession as an ongoing requirement for leadership.

Again, though...you miss the point. Paul, an apostle, is the one who has the prescriptive text of the overseers. No one but him, and obviously, through the descriptions of the process by which the apostles chose, could really make those same conclusions of those qualifications. Matthew 18: 18 also tells us that it is the Apostles who truly have that authority to do so, given them by God.

There is no stretching here.

You really have not made any argument of substance here. I agree that Paul (an apostle) was the one who laid out the prescriptive text). Matthew 18:18 simply describes a role for the 12 apostles. There is no discussion of that role being handed down in a chain.

The bottom line is that the only prescriptive texts we have do not indicate apostolic succession as being a requirement. We haver no texts that indicate that any special role the apostles had, was to be handed down to others.

So, we are wtill waiting for definitve prescriptive texts that support your contentions

No discussion of it being handed down? No discussion? Paul referring to his position in the church as an office that must have a successor? An office does not die with the officer. Someone must fulfill that office...and Paul hands that office down, handpicking the new overseer. No discussion?

So the apostles were only to be leaders, and their power died with them? Matthew 18:18 was only for the Apostles, and not the new people to hold that office? Is that what you are telling us? That Jesus Christ , in the Gospel of Matthew only wanted leaders of his church to hold things bound on heaven and on earth, and then after that, the church need no leadership? The church need no new overseers to hold office?

Really? No discussion?

Paul, an Apostle, gives Titus the right to appoint Presbyters - AND ONLY Titus the right to appoint Presbyters...but there is no discussion to be had?

[EricH]

No discussion of it being handed down? No discussion? Paul referring to his position in the church as an office that must have a successor? An office does not die with the officer. Someone must fulfill that office...and Paul hands that office down, handpicking the new overseer. No discussion?

So the apostles were only to be leaders, and their power died with them? Matthew 18:18 was only for the Apostles, and not the new people to hold that office? Is that what you are telling us? That Jesus Christ , in the Gospel of Matthew only wanted leaders of his church to hold things bound on heaven and on earth, and then after that, the church need no leadership? The church need no new overseers to hold office?

Really? No discussion?

Paul, an Apostle, gives Titus the right to appoint Presbyters - AND ONLY Titus the right to appoint Presbyters...but there is no discussion to be had?

Where did Paul give only Titus the right to appoint elders? I do not see that stated anywher in the text. He certainly gives Titus instructions and asks him to do it, but it does not say that only he is allowed to do this. Where is that in the text? In 1 Timothy no such statement is made. Only qualifications for elders are listed. You seem to me to be guilty of making an historical logical error. It only makes sense that since the original apostles were alive, that they would have trained and selected leadership. It was in fact an historical neccessity. You have made a logical leap that because the text reports this, it is a requirement for all time. It is a logical fallacy.

Again, you are avoiding the issue. Certainly there was to be leadership in the church. Paul (in 2 places in scripture) lists the requirements for selecting such leadership. In none of the places is the concept of apostolic succession even hinted at. Since Paul lists the requirements for selecting leaders (and does not introduce the concept of apostolic succession) any argument that it is there is an argument from silence. These letters were written to individual church bodies (or leaders in them), and were instruction as to how those bodies were to select leadership.

In termso of Matthew 18:18, here is the whole passage in context:

"If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he won't listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established. he pays no attention to them, tell the church. But if he doesn't pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you. assure you: Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven. Again, I assure you: If two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there among them."

Matthew 18:15-20 HCSB

As I read this passage, I do not see any mention of leadership here. What I see is a discussion on how each of us should deal with a person who has wronged us in some way. Here are the instructions:

1. If we feel a person has wronged us we are to go directly to them.

2. If the person does not listen to us, we arfe to take back 2 or three witnesses and approach him again.

3. If he still will not listen, we are to then take it to the whole gathering of believers of which we are a part.

4. The result of this step is that the person in question is now to be treated as an unbeliever.

Jesus then affirms the fact that whenever you (the same you that was addressed in "if your brother sins against you") complete this type of church discipline, it is backed by the authority of heaven. There is nothing mentioned here about a special office. These instructions are given to all believers, and tell us how we should deal with conflict in the body.

Again, You have not shown me a definitive text that indicates that there is a special apostolic office that will be handed down. One would think if that was important, Paul would have included it in the 2 lists he provided to local churches on how they should select and discipline leadership

Once again, I am wating for a prescriptive text that speaks of apostolic succession and lists this as a requirement

[CaritateDei]

No discussion of it being handed down? No discussion? Paul referring to his position in the church as an office that must have a successor? An office does not die with the officer. Someone must fulfill that office...and Paul hands that office down, handpicking the new overseer. No discussion?

So the apostles were only to be leaders, and their power died with them? Matthew 18:18 was only for the Apostles, and not the new people to hold that office? Is that what you are telling us? That Jesus Christ , in the Gospel of Matthew only wanted leaders of his church to hold things bound on heaven and on earth, and then after that, the church need no leadership? The church need no new overseers to hold office?

Really? No discussion?

Paul, an Apostle, gives Titus the right to appoint Presbyters - AND ONLY Titus the right to appoint Presbyters...but there is no discussion to be had?

Where did Paul give only Titus the right to appoint elders? I do not see that stated anywher in the text. He certainly gives Titus instructions and asks him to do it, but it does not say that only he is allowed to do this. Where is that in the text? In 1 Timothy no such statement is made. Only qualifications for elders are listed. You seem to me to be guilty of making an historical logical error. It only makes sense that since the original apostles were alive, that they would have trained and selected leadership. It was in fact an historical neccessity. You have made a logical leap that because the text reports this, it is a requirement for all time. It is a logical fallacy.

Again, you are avoiding the issue. Certainly there was to be leadership in the church. Paul (in 2 places in scripture) lists the requirements for selecting such leadership. In none of the places is the concept of apostolic succession even hinted at. Since Paul lists the requirements for selecting leaders (and does not introduce the concept of apostolic succession) any argument that it is there is an argument from silence. These letters were written to individual church bodies (or leaders in them), and were instruction as to how those bodies were to select leadership.

In termso of Matthew 18:18, here is the whole passage in context:

"If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he won't listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established. he pays no attention to them, tell the church. But if he doesn't pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you. assure you: Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven. Again, I assure you: If two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there among them."

Matthew 18:15-20 HCSB

As I read this passage, I do not see any mention of leadership here. What I see is a discussion on how each of us should deal with a person who has wronged us in some way. Here are the instructions:

1. If we feel a person has wronged us we are to go directly to them.

2. If the person does not listen to us, we arfe to take back 2 or three witnesses and approach him again.

3. If he still will not listen, we are to then take it to the whole gathering of believers of which we are a part.

4. The result of this step is that the person in question is now to be treated as an unbeliever.

Jesus then affirms the fact that whenever you (the same you that was addressed in "if your brother sins against you") complete this type of church discipline, it is backed by the authority of heaven. There is nothing mentioned here about a special office. These instructions are given to all believers, and tell us how we should deal with conflict in the body.

Again, You have not shown me a definitive text that indicates that there is a special apostolic office that will be handed down. One would think if that was important, Paul would have included it in the 2 lists he provided to local churches on how they should select and discipline leadership

Once again, I am wating for a prescriptive text that speaks of apostolic succession and lists this as a requirement

Titus 1:5

For this reason I left YOU in Crete so that YOU might set what remains to be done and APPOINT PRESBYTERS in every town as I directed YOU

Paul appoints Titus the one who appoints presbyters. Now, why couldn't a whole bunch of folks just get together, study, and set up their own pastorship? Why could not anyone who fit the bill call themselves an overseer? Because Paul knew that it was IMPORTANT to set aside the one HE APPOINTED to do the APPOINTING. I do not know what more kind of definitive answer you want here.

[EricH]

No discussion of it being handed down? No discussion? Paul referring to his position in the church as an office that must have a successor? An office does not die with the officer. Someone must fulfill that office...and Paul hands that office down, handpicking the new overseer. No discussion?

So the apostles were only to be leaders, and their power died with them? Matthew 18:18 was only for the Apostles, and not the new people to hold that office? Is that what you are telling us? That Jesus Christ , in the Gospel of Matthew only wanted leaders of his church to hold things bound on heaven and on earth, and then after that, the church need no leadership? The church need no new overseers to hold office?

Really? No discussion?

Paul, an Apostle, gives Titus the right to appoint Presbyters - AND ONLY Titus the right to appoint Presbyters...but there is no discussion to be had?

Where did Paul give only Titus the right to appoint elders? I do not see that stated anywher in the text. He certainly gives Titus instructions and asks him to do it, but it does not say that only he is allowed to do this. Where is that in the text? In 1 Timothy no such statement is made. Only qualifications for elders are listed. You seem to me to be guilty of making an historical logical error. It only makes sense that since the original apostles were alive, that they would have trained and selected leadership. It was in fact an historical neccessity. You have made a logical leap that because the text reports this, it is a requirement for all time. It is a logical fallacy.

Again, you are avoiding the issue. Certainly there was to be leadership in the church. Paul (in 2 places in scripture) lists the requirements for selecting such leadership. In none of the places is the concept of apostolic succession even hinted at. Since Paul lists the requirements for selecting leaders (and does not introduce the concept of apostolic succession) any argument that it is there is an argument from silence. These letters were written to individual church bodies (or leaders in them), and were instruction as to how those bodies were to select leadership.

In termso of Matthew 18:18, here is the whole passage in context:

"If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he won't listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established. he pays no attention to them, tell the church. But if he doesn't pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you. assure you: Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven. Again, I assure you: If two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there among them."

Matthew 18:15-20 HCSB

As I read this passage, I do not see any mention of leadership here. What I see is a discussion on how each of us should deal with a person who has wronged us in some way. Here are the instructions:

1. If we feel a person has wronged us we are to go directly to them.

2. If the person does not listen to us, we arfe to take back 2 or three witnesses and approach him again.

3. If he still will not listen, we are to then take it to the whole gathering of believers of which we are a part.

4. The result of this step is that the person in question is now to be treated as an unbeliever.

Jesus then affirms the fact that whenever you (the same you that was addressed in "if your brother sins against you") complete this type of church discipline, it is backed by the authority of heaven. There is nothing mentioned here about a special office. These instructions are given to all believers, and tell us how we should deal with conflict in the body.

Again, You have not shown me a definitive text that indicates that there is a special apostolic office that will be handed down. One would think if that was important, Paul would have included it in the 2 lists he provided to local churches on how they should select and discipline leadership

Once again, I am wating for a prescriptive text that speaks of apostolic succession and lists this as a requirement

Titus 1:5

For this reason I left YOU in Crete so that YOU might set what remains to be done and APPOINT PRESBYTERS in every town as I directed YOU

Paul appoints Titus the one who appoints presbyters. Now, why couldn't a whole bunch of folks just get together, study, and set up their own pastorship? Why could not anyone who fit the bill call themselves an overseer? Because Paul knew that it was IMPORTANT to set aside the one HE APPOINTED to do the APPOINTING. I do not know what more kind of definitive answer you want here.

All you have provided here is a passage that says Paul left Titus behind to select leaders (A historical statement). You have added to this that Titus is the only one who could do this, and that there is succession implied. Again, you are guilty of commiting a historical fallacy. We would expect early on in the church for those who were selecting leadership to be limited in number, because the church was young, and there were no many so qualified. That is just as plausible an explanation as your for the historical events. You still have not provided a passage that spells this out as a command. The only commands we have are the qualifications Paul spells out in 2 places.

[CaritateDei]

No discussion of it being handed down? No discussion? Paul referring to his position in the church as an office that must have a successor? An office does not die with the officer. Someone must fulfill that office...and Paul hands that office down, handpicking the new overseer. No discussion?

So the apostles were only to be leaders, and their power died with them? Matthew 18:18 was only for the Apostles, and not the new people to hold that office? Is that what you are telling us? That Jesus Christ , in the Gospel of Matthew only wanted leaders of his church to hold things bound on heaven and on earth, and then after that, the church need no leadership? The church need no new overseers to hold office?

Really? No discussion?

Paul, an Apostle, gives Titus the right to appoint Presbyters - AND ONLY Titus the right to appoint Presbyters...but there is no discussion to be had?

Where did Paul give only Titus the right to appoint elders? I do not see that stated anywher in the text. He certainly gives Titus instructions and asks him to do it, but it does not say that only he is allowed to do this. Where is that in the text? In 1 Timothy no such statement is made. Only qualifications for elders are listed. You seem to me to be guilty of making an historical logical error. It only makes sense that since the original apostles were alive, that they would have trained and selected leadership. It was in fact an historical neccessity. You have made a logical leap that because the text reports this, it is a requirement for all time. It is a logical fallacy.

Again, you are avoiding the issue. Certainly there was to be leadership in the church. Paul (in 2 places in scripture) lists the requirements for selecting such leadership. In none of the places is the concept of apostolic succession even hinted at. Since Paul lists the requirements for selecting leaders (and does not introduce the concept of apostolic succession) any argument that it is there is an argument from silence. These letters were written to individual church bodies (or leaders in them), and were instruction as to how those bodies were to select leadership.

In termso of Matthew 18:18, here is the whole passage in context:

"If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he won't listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established. he pays no attention to them, tell the church. But if he doesn't pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you. assure you: Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven. Again, I assure you: If two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there among them."

Matthew 18:15-20 HCSB

As I read this passage, I do not see any mention of leadership here. What I see is a discussion on how each of us should deal with a person who has wronged us in some way. Here are the instructions:

1. If we feel a person has wronged us we are to go directly to them.

2. If the person does not listen to us, we arfe to take back 2 or three witnesses and approach him again.

3. If he still will not listen, we are to then take it to the whole gathering of believers of which we are a part.

4. The result of this step is that the person in question is now to be treated as an unbeliever.

Jesus then affirms the fact that whenever you (the same you that was addressed in "if your brother sins against you") complete this type of church discipline, it is backed by the authority of heaven. There is nothing mentioned here about a special office. These instructions are given to all believers, and tell us how we should deal with conflict in the body.

Again, You have not shown me a definitive text that indicates that there is a special apostolic office that will be handed down. One would think if that was important, Paul would have included it in the 2 lists he provided to local churches on how they should select and discipline leadership

Once again, I am wating for a prescriptive text that speaks of apostolic succession and lists this as a requirement

Titus 1:5

For this reason I left YOU in Crete so that YOU might set what remains to be done and APPOINT PRESBYTERS in every town as I directed YOU

Paul appoints Titus the one who appoints presbyters. Now, why couldn't a whole bunch of folks just get together, study, and set up their own pastorship? Why could not anyone who fit the bill call themselves an overseer? Because Paul knew that it was IMPORTANT to set aside the one HE APPOINTED to do the APPOINTING. I do not know what more kind of definitive answer you want here.

All you have provided here is a passage that says Paul left Titus behind to select leaders (A historical statement). You have added to this that Titus is the only one who could do this, and that there is succession implied. Again, you are guilty of commiting a historical fallacy. We would expect early on in the church for those who were selecting leadership to be limited in number, because the church was young, and there were no many so qualified. That is just as plausible an explanation as your for the historical events. You still have not provided a passage that spells this out as a command. The only commands we have are the qualifications Paul spells out in 2 places.

I guilty of no such thing. Why would he say it the way he said it, if there were other folks besides Titus???

Where you believe that I am guilty of historical fallacy, you are guilty of not following the example of the apostles.

Edited April 12, 2007 by CaritateDei

[EricH]

Titus 1:5

For this reason I left YOU in Crete so that YOU might set what remains to be done and APPOINT PRESBYTERS in every town as I directed YOU

Paul appoints Titus the one who appoints presbyters. Now, why couldn't a whole bunch of folks just get together, study, and set up their own pastorship? Why could not anyone who fit the bill call themselves an overseer? Because Paul knew that it was IMPORTANT to set aside the one HE APPOINTED to do the APPOINTING. I do not know what more kind of definitive answer you want here.

All you have provided here is a passage that says Paul left Titus behind to select leaders (A historical statement). You have added to this that Titus is the only one who could do this, and that there is succession implied. Again, you are guilty of commiting a historical fallacy. We would expect early on in the church for those who were selecting leadership to be limited in number, because the church was young, and there were no many so qualified. That is just as plausible an explanation as your for the historical events. You still have not provided a passage that spells this out as a command. The only commands we have are the qualifications Paul spells out in 2 places.

In Titus 1:5 the word "appoint" does not occur in the greek. The word "apelipon" actually means "left behind". Paul actually tells us the reason ("for this reason" he gives Titus this task. Titus is his child in the faith. Paul trained him. No one here is arguing thatg a "bunch of folks" get together and select leadership. We are suggesting that those who have been trained select leadership based on the criteria Paul left us.

Still waiting for a prescriptive passage

[EricH]

No discussion of it being handed down? No discussion? Paul referring to his position in the church as an office that must have a successor? An office does not die with the officer. Someone must fulfill that office...and Paul hands that office down, handpicking the new overseer. No discussion?

So the apostles were only to be leaders, and their power died with them? Matthew 18:18 was only for the Apostles, and not the new people to hold that office? Is that what you are telling us? That Jesus Christ , in the Gospel of Matthew only wanted leaders of his church to hold things bound on heaven and on earth, and then after that, the church need no leadership? The church need no new overseers to hold office?

Really? No discussion?

Paul, an Apostle, gives Titus the right to appoint Presbyters - AND ONLY Titus the right to appoint Presbyters...but there is no discussion to be had?

Where did Paul give only Titus the right to appoint elders? I do not see that stated anywher in the text. He certainly gives Titus instructions and asks him to do it, but it does not say that only he is allowed to do this. Where is that in the text? In 1 Timothy no such statement is made. Only qualifications for elders are listed. You seem to me to be guilty of making an historical logical error. It only makes sense that since the original apostles were alive, that they would have trained and selected leadership. It was in fact an historical neccessity. You have made a logical leap that because the text reports this, it is a requirement for all time. It is a logical fallacy.

Again, you are avoiding the issue. Certainly there was to be leadership in the church. Paul (in 2 places in scripture) lists the requirements for selecting such leadership. In none of the places is the concept of apostolic succession even hinted at. Since Paul lists the requirements for selecting leaders (and does not introduce the concept of apostolic succession) any argument that it is there is an argument from silence. These letters were written to individual church bodies (or leaders in them), and were instruction as to how those bodies were to select leadership.

In termso of Matthew 18:18, here is the whole passage in context:

"If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he won't listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established. he pays no attention to them, tell the church. But if he doesn't pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you. assure you: Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven. Again, I assure you: If two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there among them."

Matthew 18:15-20 HCSB

As I read this passage, I do not see any mention of leadership here. What I see is a discussion on how each of us should deal with a person who has wronged us in some way. Here are the instructions:

1. If we feel a person has wronged us we are to go directly to them.

2. If the person does not listen to us, we arfe to take back 2 or three witnesses and approach him again.

3. If he still will not listen, we are to then take it to the whole gathering of believers of which we are a part.

4. The result of this step is that the person in question is now to be treated as an unbeliever.

Jesus then affirms the fact that whenever you (the same you that was addressed in "if your brother sins against you") complete this type of church discipline, it is backed by the authority of heaven. There is nothing mentioned here about a special office. These instructions are given to all believers, and tell us how we should deal with conflict in the body.

Again, You have not shown me a definitive text that indicates that there is a special apostolic office that will be handed down. One would think if that was important, Paul would have included it in the 2 lists he provided to local churches on how they should select and discipline leadership

Once again, I am wating for a prescriptive text that speaks of apostolic succession and lists this as a requirement

Titus 1:5

For this reason I left YOU in Crete so that YOU might set what remains to be done and APPOINT PRESBYTERS in every town as I directed YOU

Paul appoints Titus the one who appoints presbyters. Now, why couldn't a whole bunch of folks just get together, study, and set up their own pastorship? Why could not anyone who fit the bill call themselves an overseer? Because Paul knew that it was IMPORTANT to set aside the one HE APPOINTED to do the APPOINTING. I do not know what more kind of definitive answer you want here.

All you have provided here is a passage that says Paul left Titus behind to select leaders (A historical statement). You have added to this that Titus is the only one who could do this, and that there is succession implied. Again, you are guilty of commiting a historical fallacy. We would expect early on in the church for those who were selecting leadership to be limited in number, because the church was young, and there were no many so qualified. That is just as plausible an explanation as your for the historical events. You still have not provided a passage that spells this out as a command. The only commands we have are the qualifications Paul spells out in 2 places.

I guilty of no such thing. Why would he say it the way he said it, if there were other folks besides Titus???

Where you believe that I am guilty of historical fallacy, you are guilty of not following the example of the apostles.

Again, still waiting for a prescriptive passage. I will gladly obey any passage that commands me to do as you are suggesting. However, there are many things that people did that are described by the bible, that we were never intended to copy. I am still curious as to how you decide which historical events are to be copied and which are not. Your method seems inconsistent to me

[CaritateDei]

No discussion of it being handed down? No discussion? Paul referring to his position in the church as an office that must have a successor? An office does not die with the officer. Someone must fulfill that office...and Paul hands that office down, handpicking the new overseer. No discussion?

So the apostles were only to be leaders, and their power died with them? Matthew 18:18 was only for the Apostles, and not the new people to hold that office? Is that what you are telling us? That Jesus Christ , in the Gospel of Matthew only wanted leaders of his church to hold things bound on heaven and on earth, and then after that, the church need no leadership? The church need no new overseers to hold office?

Really? No discussion?

Paul, an Apostle, gives Titus the right to appoint Presbyters - AND ONLY Titus the right to appoint Presbyters...but there is no discussion to be had?

Where did Paul give only Titus the right to appoint elders? I do not see that stated anywher in the text. He certainly gives Titus instructions and asks him to do it, but it does not say that only he is allowed to do this. Where is that in the text? In 1 Timothy no such statement is made. Only qualifications for elders are listed. You seem to me to be guilty of making an historical logical error. It only makes sense that since the original apostles were alive, that they would have trained and selected leadership. It was in fact an historical neccessity. You have made a logical leap that because the text reports this, it is a requirement for all time. It is a logical fallacy.

Again, you are avoiding the issue. Certainly there was to be leadership in the church. Paul (in 2 places in scripture) lists the requirements for selecting such leadership. In none of the places is the concept of apostolic succession even hinted at. Since Paul lists the requirements for selecting leaders (and does not introduce the concept of apostolic succession) any argument that it is there is an argument from silence. These letters were written to individual church bodies (or leaders in them), and were instruction as to how those bodies were to select leadership.

In termso of Matthew 18:18, here is the whole passage in context:

"If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he won't listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established. he pays no attention to them, tell the church. But if he doesn't pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you. assure you: Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven. Again, I assure you: If two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there among them."

Matthew 18:15-20 HCSB

As I read this passage, I do not see any mention of leadership here. What I see is a discussion on how each of us should deal with a person who has wronged us in some way. Here are the instructions:

1. If we feel a person has wronged us we are to go directly to them.

2. If the person does not listen to us, we arfe to take back 2 or three witnesses and approach him again.

3. If he still will not listen, we are to then take it to the whole gathering of believers of which we are a part.

4. The result of this step is that the person in question is now to be treated as an unbeliever.

Jesus then affirms the fact that whenever you (the same you that was addressed in "if your brother sins against you") complete this type of church discipline, it is backed by the authority of heaven. There is nothing mentioned here about a special office. These instructions are given to all believers, and tell us how we should deal with conflict in the body.

Again, You have not shown me a definitive text that indicates that there is a special apostolic office that will be handed down. One would think if that was important, Paul would have included it in the 2 lists he provided to local churches on how they should select and discipline leadership

Once again, I am wating for a prescriptive text that speaks of apostolic succession and lists this as a requirement

Titus 1:5

For this reason I left YOU in Crete so that YOU might set what remains to be done and APPOINT PRESBYTERS in every town as I directed YOU

Paul appoints Titus the one who appoints presbyters. Now, why couldn't a whole bunch of folks just get together, study, and set up their own pastorship? Why could not anyone who fit the bill call themselves an overseer? Because Paul knew that it was IMPORTANT to set aside the one HE APPOINTED to do the APPOINTING. I do not know what more kind of definitive answer you want here.

All you have provided here is a passage that says Paul left Titus behind to select leaders (A historical statement). You have added to this that Titus is the only one who could do this, and that there is succession implied. Again, you are guilty of commiting a historical fallacy. We would expect early on in the church for those who were selecting leadership to be limited in number, because the church was young, and there were no many so qualified. That is just as plausible an explanation as your for the historical events. You still have not provided a passage that spells this out as a command. The only commands we have are the qualifications Paul spells out in 2 places.

I guilty of no such thing. Why would he say it the way he said it, if there were other folks besides Titus???

Where you believe that I am guilty of historical fallacy, you are guilty of not following the example of the apostles.

Again, still waiting for a prescriptive passage. I will gladly obey any passage that commands me to do as you are suggesting. However, there are many things that people did that are described by the bible, that we were never intended to copy. I am still curious as to how you decide which historical events are to be copied and which are not. Your method seems inconsistent to me

Then, let's have a fair trade, shall we? You show me a prescriptive place where it says we should not follow the lead of the chosen ones of Christ Himself, and I will show you a verbatim place where it says, "You must appoint others." Otherwise, my church will continue following the lead of the Apostles, and you can go on believing that we need not follow their lead.

[EricH]

No discussion of it being handed down? No discussion? Paul referring to his position in the church as an office that must have a successor? An office does not die with the officer. Someone must fulfill that office...and Paul hands that office down, handpicking the new overseer. No discussion?

So the apostles were only to be leaders, and their power died with them? Matthew 18:18 was only for the Apostles, and not the new people to hold that office? Is that what you are telling us? That Jesus Christ , in the Gospel of Matthew only wanted leaders of his church to hold things bound on heaven and on earth, and then after that, the church need no leadership? The church need no new overseers to hold office?

Really? No discussion?

Paul, an Apostle, gives Titus the right to appoint Presbyters - AND ONLY Titus the right to appoint Presbyters...but there is no discussion to be had?

Where did Paul give only Titus the right to appoint elders? I do not see that stated anywher in the text. He certainly gives Titus instructions and asks him to do it, but it does not say that only he is allowed to do this. Where is that in the text? In 1 Timothy no such statement is made. Only qualifications for elders are listed. You seem to me to be guilty of making an historical logical error. It only makes sense that since the original apostles were alive, that they would have trained and selected leadership. It was in fact an historical neccessity. You have made a logical leap that because the text reports this, it is a requirement for all time. It is a logical fallacy.

Again, you are avoiding the issue. Certainly there was to be leadership in the church. Paul (in 2 places in scripture) lists the requirements for selecting such leadership. In none of the places is the concept of apostolic succession even hinted at. Since Paul lists the requirements for selecting leaders (and does not introduce the concept of apostolic succession) any argument that it is there is an argument from silence. These letters were written to individual church bodies (or leaders in them), and were instruction as to how those bodies were to select leadership.

In termso of Matthew 18:18, here is the whole passage in context:

"If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he won't listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established. he pays no attention to them, tell the church. But if he doesn't pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you. assure you: Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven. Again, I assure you: If two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there among them."

Matthew 18:15-20 HCSB

As I read this passage, I do not see any mention of leadership here. What I see is a discussion on how each of us should deal with a person who has wronged us in some way. Here are the instructions:

1. If we feel a person has wronged us we are to go directly to them.

2. If the person does not listen to us, we arfe to take back 2 or three witnesses and approach him again.

3. If he still will not listen, we are to then take it to the whole gathering of believers of which we are a part.

4. The result of this step is that the person in question is now to be treated as an unbeliever.

Jesus then affirms the fact that whenever you (the same you that was addressed in "if your brother sins against you") complete this type of church discipline, it is backed by the authority of heaven. There is nothing mentioned here about a special office. These instructions are given to all believers, and tell us how we should deal with conflict in the body.

Again, You have not shown me a definitive text that indicates that there is a special apostolic office that will be handed down. One would think if that was important, Paul would have included it in the 2 lists he provided to local churches on how they should select and discipline leadership

Once again, I am wating for a prescriptive text that speaks of apostolic succession and lists this as a requirement

Titus 1:5

For this reason I left YOU in Crete so that YOU might set what remains to be done and APPOINT PRESBYTERS in every town as I directed YOU

Paul appoints Titus the one who appoints presbyters. Now, why couldn't a whole bunch of folks just get together, study, and set up their own pastorship? Why could not anyone who fit the bill call themselves an overseer? Because Paul knew that it was IMPORTANT to set aside the one HE APPOINTED to do the APPOINTING. I do not know what more kind of definitive answer you want here.

All you have provided here is a passage that says Paul left Titus behind to select leaders (A historical statement). You have added to this that Titus is the only one who could do this, and that there is succession implied. Again, you are guilty of commiting a historical fallacy. We would expect early on in the church for those who were selecting leadership to be limited in number, because the church was young, and there were no many so qualified. That is just as plausible an explanation as your for the historical events. You still have not provided a passage that spells this out as a command. The only commands we have are the qualifications Paul spells out in 2 places.

I guilty of no such thing. Why would he say it the way he said it, if there were other folks besides Titus???

Where you believe that I am guilty of historical fallacy, you are guilty of not following the example of the apostles.

Again, still waiting for a prescriptive passage. I will gladly obey any passage that commands me to do as you are suggesting. However, there are many things that people did that are described by the bible, that we were never intended to copy. I am still curious as to how you decide which historical events are to be copied and which are not. Your method seems inconsistent to me

Then, let's have a fair trade, shall we? You show me a prescriptive place where it says we should not follow the lead of the chosen ones of Christ Himself, and I will show you a verbatim place where it says, "You must appoint others." Otherwise, my church will continue following the lead of the Apostles, and you can go on believing that we need not follow their lead.

That is not a fair trade. Essentially you are attempting to argue from silence. Your logic is because the text does not tell me I can't, its OK.

The logic you have presented is this:

1. The apostles did certain things

2. Unless we find a prohibition from doing what the apostles did, we should in all cases proceed as if their actions were commands.

You you see the problem here? You are making a jump from action, to command. Do you apply this consistently (do everything the apostles did?)

[Floatingaxe]

This is a truly ridiculous belief, CD. It is Catholic alone, and not of the Church of Jesus Christ. Typical, literal misinterpretations which are absolutely devoid of any spiritual discernment.

Do you for one minute think that Jesus Christ would leave this planet without giving us the Comforter? No. Do you think He would leave us without the ability to become teachers and preachers and prophets and pastors and overseers of churches (apostles)?

We are a family that has a rich ancestry of faith and mighty work in God, and we are the result of 2000 years of anointed workers in the Body of Christ handing down anointings to the next generation of believers. This is how it is done and always has been. By the Holy Spirit's direction and blessing, we anoint new leaders continually.

To believe that any office of the Church of Jesus Christ has died out with them is absurd. Paul set the standards and taught the churches how to do it and they have done it to this day. ( I am not talking about Catholic tradition--I am talking about furthering the Church of Jesus Christ as it started with the disciples and has continued to this day.)