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
Acts 9:1-6 1 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
3 Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. 4 And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said,“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”
Acts 10:9-16 9 The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth.
12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”
4 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.
Dream on.
I was baptized, confirmed, made my first communion, went to church every Sunday for YEARS, went to catechism classes, and had relatives who were priests and a nun.
Your contention that I wasn’t exposed to real Catholicism falls like a sack of nickels.
“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?”
Bible is pretty clear on this, that not everything which occurred is written inside it. Everything that is needed for salvation is there, but if you want to know more about the history of the early church, what the church fathers wrote, you are going to have to go elsewhere.
However, there are plenty of other things that were not written in the bible that are considered to be authoritative. Things like the Didache, etc, the list goes on. The reason they didn’t make the bible is not because they were wrong, but because they didn’t fit with the primary goal, explaining everything that was necessary for salvation.
Tradition is what the church calls this body of evidence that has built up over 20 centuries, and tradition helps the church to interpret and understand scripture. Tradition is also required to fit with scripture and cannot contradict scripture. Fill in the gaps so to speak.
All my days are blessed and glad to hear you were able to laugh. Catholics need a break from their misery of bondage once in a while.
Yeah, we all did because I went back through your posts and couldn't find it. Could you direct us to where you used those words?
Were there any other witnesses save Paul? Is it independently verifiable?
“Mr Rogers also knows better than all the Fathers and Doctors who believed in Apostolic succession.”
Mr Rogers is quoting scripture, which seems to have forgotten to explain apostolic succession.
Consider: God spent chapters describing the start of the Jewish priesthood - Numbers 3 & 4. He gave explicit direction on how this priesthood was to work.
In contrast, God seems to have forgotten the whole Catholic priesthood. There is no mention in the New Testament of priests, except for Jewish ones, Jesus, and the universal priesthood of the believer.
Meanwhile, God supposedly set Peter above all others based on one very ambiguous verse. There is no description of Apostolic Succession, and the one example chosen to show it is problematic, since the Apostle chosen by men never did anything else that anyone knows. But supposedly Matthias will be one of the Twelve whose ministry is a foundation to the city of God, while Paul is just an afterthought.
Whatever.
Ok, then why don’t you understand what the church teaches on Apostolic succession?
Did they not teach you?
“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.”
Post 171.
Here on earth, right there.
Luke lied? Really?
Also, Acts 9:10-17 10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.”
11 And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, 12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.”
13 But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem. 14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on your name.”
15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. 16 For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”
17 So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
I do understand it.
The issue isn't understanding it, it's believing it as taught by the RCC.
I simply don't believe the legitimacy of the claim because of lack of Scriptural support for it.
Good informative post. Thanks.
"Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in ME FIRST Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a PATTERN TO THEM which should HEREAFTER BELIEVE ON HIM TO LIFE EVERLASTING." 1 Tim. 1:16. He is the pattern for the Church the Body of Christ to follow as he followed and received revelations from the Risen Christ. And just like Moses spoke face to face and mouth to mouth with God, Paul spoke face to face and mouth to mouth with the risen Christ.
He is no afterthought. He is the man who was chosen by Christ to proclaim the dispensation of the grace of God to all men. The grace that was planned before the foundation of the world.
We don't need to make apologies for Paul. Or cower when others accuse us of following Paul, and not Christ. We follow Paul as he followed Christ. Just as Scripture tells us.
"For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I MAGNIFY MINE OFFICE." (Rom. 11:13). It was not his personality or self-importance that inspired him to write this. It was divine revelation and a God-given position to form the Church the Body of Christ, bringing Jew and Gentile together through the finished work of Christ. Tearing down the middle wall of partition that had divided Jews from Gentiles by the shed blood of Christ. And the ministry of reconciliation between God and Man that Paul was commissioned to preach.
The very fact that Peter and the 11 will be sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel during the Kingdom reign of Christ tells us that Paul's calling was different from the 12. And our position is in the heavenlies, not on this earth, as is Israel.
“You mean like Thomas needing to witness?”
Witnesses are important. Paul in Corinthians refers to the 500 who witnessed the risen Lord. We can corroborate things from them. We ask one person, they say that Christ was like this. We ask another person and they say the same thing. We can be much more sure that what is being said is true than we can with divine revelation.
This is the difference between Christianity. Christ really did live and die, he really was crucified on the cross, that he was buried and rose again on the third day. He really did exist as a historical person, just like Caesar. We have witnesses. We do not have one person going out there and coming back and saying they saw something. No. We need to be able to explain that to people. We have witnesses. Let’s not forget them.
As for Thomas, Christ says to him, blessed is he who believes without seeing. But what does he do first, he tells Thomas to put his fingers in his wound.
“I do understand it.”
Ok, then why aren’t you familiar with the Acts 1 argument?
“it’s believing it as taught by the RCC.”
It’s a core teaching. This isn’t something that would be off to the side.
“I simply don’t believe the legitimacy of the claim because of lack of Scriptural support for it.”
What do you want, an account for how St. Peter and the popes were elected?
Would that be sufficient scriptural evidence?
“Luke lied? Really?”
There’s a difference between direct and indirect evidence. Divine revelation that isn’t witnessed by more than one person is indirect evidence.
We have an intermediary here, Paul, that is between us and Christ. Whereas the other events in the Gospel, we can go to all the witnesses and get the information from them.
There’s nothing wrong with indirect evidence. It’s just not direct evidence. Which is what I was referring to in the first place, and am now clarifying.
You contend that since the OT priesthood received a detailed scriptural description, and since there is no description of equal length of an NT priesthood, they the NT priesthood must not exist.
Why is God bound in this way? We have skeletal scripture references to the NT priesthood combined with Christ’s spoken instructions to His Apostles. Secular historians have no problem acknowledging the existence of the Christian priesthood from the very beginning. It seems you are biased against the facts backed by empirical evidence that unbiased scholars consider irrefutable.
Protestants study the heroes of Old Testament history. Why are they so afraid to study the New? Do you know or care about the opinions of the Early Fathers on Apostolic succession?
You seek to defend Paul against Matthias but Paul was never in competition with Matthias. While there were only twelve original Apostles, there is no such numerical limit on Apostolic successors (bishops). Matthias was a bishop, not an additional Apostle like Paul. All public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
There is NO discussion of a priesthood offering a sacrifice for sin in the New Testament. On the contrary, it is specifically and explicitly REJECTED:
8 When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”
17 then he adds,
“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. - Heb 10
Apostles, teachers and shepherds are given by God, not chosen by men. Man can only acknowledge God’s choice.
“7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore it says,
“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.”
...11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God...” - Ephesians 4
“27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts.” - 1 Cor 12
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.