Why I Gave Up on Apostolic Succession - David Bercot 

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.

Though I don't remember the quotes he offered, you may find Bercot's longer conversation where this excerpt comes from to be helpful. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DvablCCiDS4.htmlsi=jyCjZv-miDQWXN69

"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.

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.

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