Posted on 01/02/2012 9:00:25 PM PST by RnMomof7
T he doctrine of apostolic succession is the belief that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed that apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing on throughout the centuries, even to today. Whilst this might be a fascinating and intriguing concept, is it truly biblical?
The great thing about the New Testament is that it clearly establishes the major doctrines of the Church. One may find vital doctrines such as the atonement, resurrection and justification by faith alone, clearly outlined with many scriptural references (one may wish to check out this page). One is left in no doubt on the pivotal doctrines of the Church, neither is one left in any doubt regarding the specific content of the Gospel message (Acts 16: 30-31; Acts 26:1-23; Romans 4: 24-25; Romans 10: 9-10; 1 Corinthians 2: 1-2; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). In the face of such clarity, it might seem amazing how so many have managed to successfully teach extraneous, non-biblical messages but this they have certainly done.
One has to say that 'apostolic succession' is conspicuous by it's absence within the New Testament. The basic idea is that Peter the Apostle was the first pope, or chief leader (based on Matthew 16:18), and that this somewhat grandiose conception of 'chief church leader' should then be passed on through the entirely biblical principle of the 'laying on of hands,' and this certainly does seem to be a New Testament principle of conferring authority. Roman Catholicism believes that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed him were accepted by the early church as overall leaders. However, there are huge problems with this belief. Here are some of them:
1. Apart from the principle of governing elders, the New Testament is pretty much silent on any required church governing schema, or office. For sure, a range of possible church offices are listed in 1 Cor. 12:28 and Eph. 4:11 and one might expect to find some Christians having the necessary gifts to fulfill certain such offices (but not all), possibly depending on the size and scope of the area of responsibility, but the only required office appears to be that of Elder. See Titus 1:5. Also, one might note that neither 1 Cor. 12:28 nor Eph. 4:11 suggest any system or principle of 'apostolic succession' - but wouldn't these have been the ideal places to mention it?? After all, both Eph. 4:11 and 1 Cor. 12:28 do refer to the office of 'apostle,' however, that does not imply, of course, that that particular office would be continually repeated throughout the church age. 'Bishops' are pretty much essential to the concept of apostolic succession, but even Bishop Lightfoot, one of the greatest New Testament scholars of all time, freely admitted that 'bishop' (the office which he himself eventually inherited within Anglicanism), was not truly a New Testament office. The word is based on 'overseer,' but biblically, it appears that it was certain of the elders who were to be overseers, but with no indications of a separate 'overseer' office. The fact that the office of 'bishop' has no New Testament authority or precedent already seriously weakens the 'apostolic succession' argument.
2. Peter might well have been, in a somewhat loose sense, overall apostolic leader in the New Testament, but if he was, it was a very, very loose sense. For example, on one occasion, Paul the Apostle quite strongly challenges and disagrees with him in public (Galatians 2:11-14). Peter's New Testament epistles are not, perhaps, major epistles, as the Pauline ones are, indeed, they are somewhat short and not high on doctrinal content. Later, he appears to disappear altogether from any New Testament consideration with scarcely a mention anywhere. Peter may well have been the overall leader for taking the gospel to the Jews (as Paul was with respect to the Gentiles), yet the epistle of James (James almost certainly being the Senior Elder at Jerusalem), does not even mention him once! Moreover, there is no evidence that Peter ever became 'bishop' of Rome as Roman Catholicism - even now - continues to (erroneously, in my opinion) teach.
Surely all of this would be utterly inconceivable if Peter had understood Jesus' comment to him in Matthew 16:18 to mean that he should adopt a grandiose and pope-like style of leadership! If he was a leader at all (which seems quite debatable), it was possibly only with regard to the work among the Jewish people.
3. In the New Testament, no 'bishop' (overseer) had jurisdiction over the bishops or presbyters of other churches (carefully check out Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to Polycarp); rather, that function was reserved for the apostles, which was obviously a foundational office of the Church (Eph. 2:20; 4:11; 1 Cor. 12:28; 2 Cor. 11:28). But today the office of Apostle is obviously closed.
4. The Roman Catholic Church itself has not maintained it's own concept of apostolic succession through the laying on of hands upon holy men. In fact, 'Simony' (that is, the buying of the office of 'pope' or 'bishop' for money, or favours) was an absolute disgrace when the Church of Rome was at it's peak, which it no longer is. Unless I am misunderstanding something here, appointing a corrupt bishop or pope just once would destroy the whole structure and principle of 'apostolic succession' for all time. Frankly, I think that most studied RCs know this which could be why they tend to play down the teaching on 'apostolic succession.'
MORE AT
The last direct mention of Christ is in Acts 1:10, his Ascension.
All the references to Christ in the Epistles refer back to the Gospels, or as in the case of Revelations, to events that are yet to come.
Does this mean that Christ is shuffled off to the back? Hardly. As John warns you, “there were many things that Christ did that were not written down in this book”.
The same is true, even moreso, of the Apostles and the Early Church. Just because it doesn’t appear in scripture does not mean that it did not happen.
Scripture has a very specific purpose, to express the truths necessary for salvation.
There is much about the early church that was not written down into scripture. We cannot assume that Scripture gives us the exhaustive account because so many things are missing.
That didn't answer his question which was......
post 104 While I have much to disagree with you prior to this statement you’ll forgive me if I just stopped reading and ask for an explanation of this: “So does Christ... There’s no direct mention of him (Christ?) after the Gospels.” In parenthesis is my question basically. JB
Said to a former Catholic.....
“In all this discussion about Peter’s successor, the only thing Catholics appeal to is the decision of peter to draw lots for God to validate the man HE already chose.”
No, again, the decision was made between two men, where the lots cast chose Mattias.
“No seeking God in prayer on the matter mentioned at all.”
It’s right there in acts, which I did refer to. I should be admonishing protestants for omitting all references to acts, in this ‘scholarly article’
“Peter’s, on choosing a successor for him.”
Well couple things here.
1, Scripture doesn’t record Peter’s death. If it doesn’t record Peter’s death, why would it record anything from his successor?
2. Peter was martyred. I’m not really sure how he could choose his successor, being dead. The Church selected his replacement in the same manner, with the remaining apostles deciding and casting lots to choose Peter’s successor.
“If it was that critical to the church, I would love to have some Catholic give an explanation for such a serious oversight.”
What oversight? Scripture doesn’t say anything about Peter’s death. Did that not happen? Did Peter not die? Was he not crucified in Rome? What?
Yes, you are right that it is important to the church, which is why St. Clement records Linus as the second bishop and himself as the third. After Peter.
“Peter wrote a couple epistles and yet didn’t mention something so important as to procedure for replacing him when he died?”
The procedure is in Acts 1.
“The silence in the NT surrounding this issue is deafening.”
What silence? It’s right there in Acts. That’s the procedure for replacing the Apostles.
“So just where does the Catholic church get this teaching and how do they justify it?”
Gee, I seem to be repeating myself. Acts 1. Again.
It certainly is a curious thing that so much of what they believe is, according to them, from something only the higher ups know. That should be a point of caution for anyone.
Modernists seek man for Truth. It is possible you were exposed to a heretical facsimile of Catholicism, but certainly not the real thing.
Funny, isn’t it? Their witchcraft is working as they try to decipher who ‘really’ knows the CC or doesn’t.
Open a Catechism sometime.
Very interesting take on that.
Thank you.
Unless you don't believe Paul.
There isn’t, metmom. The last thing that Christ does which is recorded in scripture is in Acts 1, at his ascension.
After that, it’s references back to the Gospels and Revelation, which refers to events that haven’t happened yet.
That is what I meant by a ‘direct reference’, ie, something that Christ was doing. That’s what the Gospels are for, telling us what Christ did in his ministry here on earth.
i would think a “former” Catholic would demonstrate just a little knowledge of what the Church teaches.
just saying......
It is also clear that there must be additional esoteric knowledge not published in the Bible, yet practiced in the early church and continued in the Catholic tradition, no?
I had just done a keyword search about Christ in reply to another poster on a different thread just before I read Ben’s post.
Here’s a link to all the times of occurrence of the word *Christ* in the Epistles only; that’s Romans through Jude. Not counting Acts and anything following Jude.
SEVENTEEN pages of occurrences.
I did - but catholics deny it. That’s their ‘works’ - deny anything that exposes the CC for what it is.
“Wrong. Have you not read Acts 9, where Christ speaks to Saul (Acts 9:4,5)? ANd Ananias (Acts 9:15,16) Not to mention the DIRECT REVELATIONS given to Paul from the risen Christ.:
You missed the part where I said ‘here on earth?’
“Not to mention Paul being caught up to the third heaven, where he saw and heard things that were unlawful for a man to utter?”
Cool. That’s not a reference to Christ’s earthly ministry.
“Paul received visions and revelations from Christ.”
According to Paul, yes he did.
“Which he gave to the Church the Body of Christ. Romans through Philemon are a continual revelation from Christ to Paul to believers.”
Again, as I said the Epistles refer back to what Christ did in the Gospels.
“Unless you don’t believe Paul.”
I’m a historian. What I mean by a ‘direct reference’, is how the term is used by historians. That means that events that were independently witnessed, etc.
That doesn’t include revelations from God.
Now, I believe what Paul is saying about receiving direct revelation from God. That’s a different standard of evidence then for things that were independently witnessed.
I hope my point’s somewhat clearer.
Sorry for not including this in my previous post. The message got out before the messenger. Hopefully this will correct it.
tough day at work today, so i appreciate the laugh!!
you are a funny guy.
“I had just done a keyword search about Christ”
Direct reference refers to events that have been independently witnessed. The last one of these is Christ’s ascension which is referred to in Acts 1. That’s the end of Christ’s earthly ministry.
Again, everything after refers back to the events of the Gospel. The things that he did back then, the Apostles explaining the significance thereof.
“SEVENTEEN pages of occurrences.”
How many direct references, and not citations?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.