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
Jesus didn't *elect* anyone. He spent the night in prayer before selecting them.
Would that be sufficient scriptural evidence?
Mention of it by Jesus or Peter about the specific office and/or specific instructions on how to fill that office upon Peter's demise.
IN the seven letters to the churches in Revelation, there's certainly no mention of a central authority to which they all answered.
Jesus addressed the local congregations individually.
“Mention of it by Jesus or Peter about the specific office and/or specific instructions on how to fill that office upon Peter’s demise.”
Mention of the office, that’s back in Matthew 18. “I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.”
Specific instructions, did you read Isaiah 22:10? It explains that when Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, that the office was to be passed down to his successors.
How it gets passed down: Acts 1.
Seems to me multiple issues here, the first being the office of the pope. That needs to get settled first.
God breathed inspired Scripture is inerrant and infallible, even according to the Catholic church.
I’ll have to take your questions as rhetorical since I can’t really say for certain. Besides I’m sure explanations are on the way.
????
"Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not SEEN JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD? are not ye my work in the Lord?" 1 Cor. 9:1.
"After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all HE WAS SEEN OF ME ALSO, as of one born out of due time." 1 Cor. 1:7,8.
DIRECT EVIDENCE of Paul's apostleship.
Another thing:
"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ ACCORDING TO MY GOSPEL." Rom. 2:16.
Perhaps you should take Paul's EVIDENCE a bit more seriously. As you WILL be judged ACCORDING TO THE GOSPEL COMMITTED TO HIM. And THAT'S DIRECT EVIDENCE of his apostleship and calling from the Glorified Christ.
I’m sure. Sorry about that.
I realize that you are in no position to answer them. It would require a Catholic to answer, but I’m sure there will be no takers.
I’m sure. Sorry about that.
I realize that you are in no position to answer them. It would require a Catholic to answer, but I’m sure there will be no takers.
“I cannot believe you said that.”
That the fact that we have witnesses to Christ’s death on a cross, resurrection and ascension into heaven? That’s really important and is a core part of what Paul argues in Corinthians. He does not ask us to believe him because of what he says, but to believe those who did see the risen Lord, for what they did see.
He encourages us to ask them and listen to them.
“And please don’t say ‘we’ when you are in mixed company.”
We’re all Christians here, so deal with it. If you are offended that I am affirming this, then tough.
“You are obviously not Holy Spirit filled”
You can make that assessment over the internet to someone you’ve never met?
“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Where did I say anything about rejecting what was revealed to Paul? I only said that we can be more sure of what occurred because of the multiple witnesses.
There’s a difference between being more sure that Jesus died on the cross, was buried, and resurrected after the third day, than his appearance to St. Paul on the Damascus road.
I thought protestants believed that affirming Christ’s resurrection made you a Christian. Is this not true?
There are many with your background and even priests who do not know real Catholicism because they were misled by the widespread Modernist heresy (roughly equivalent to the Liberalism adopted by many Protestants). The popes had long warned against such an underground heresy, but Modernism burst forth in many schools and parishes in the Sixties.
Do you know why Church doctrine is said to come from the Paraclete and not from man? How does this understanding differ from the way Protestants seek inspiration from the Holy Spirit?
“DIRECT EVIDENCE of Paul’s apostleship.”
Yes, direct evidence of Paul’s apostleship.
Direct evidence of Christ? No. Indirect evidence of Christ, yes.
“Perhaps you should take Paul’s EVIDENCE a bit more seriously.”
Do you believe that it’s important that there were multiple witnesses to Christ’s death and resurrection and his ascension into heaven? I do. And that’s why these are the basis of our faith.
“And THAT’S DIRECT EVIDENCE of his apostleship and calling from the Glorified Christ.”
Absolutely. It is indirect evidence of Christ.
“God breathed inspired Scripture is inerrant and infallible, even according to the Catholic church.”
And your point being? This is a non-sequitor.
Sacred scripture is valid. Not all of it is a direct reference to Christ.
****Meanwhile, God supposedly set Peter above all others based on one very ambiguous verse.****
Hardly one ambiguous verse and disputed only after more than 1500 years of the clergy and papal succession.
Scripture is quite clear on how successors were chosen as the NT speaks of those who were called to lead the church in each of the communities converted after the Apostle had moved on.
It is there.
****since the Apostle chosen by men never did anything else that anyone knows.****
Again, I ask, what did the other Apostles, namely, Thomas, Jude/Thaddeus, Bartholomew, Simon, Andrew and James the Lesser do? What actions of them are recorded in the NT beyond Acts? Does that mean they were not legitimate Apostles.
Oh, that’s right. One must look to the Church’s tradition to know what happened to them. That would mean that one would have to read the early writings of the second and third generation Christians. But, then to do that, one would see the very things one hates in the Church.
Did or did not Mary bear to the world Jesus? And by her fiat and through His sacrifice do we not obtain every hope, grace and salvation? It seems to me that God did indeed entrust all of that to Mary and it is fact through her that Jesus came to us.
Heresy? No, beautiful theology on Jesus and His mother and how God delivered His promise of salvation.
Make up your mind, will you?
If it's all valid then it doesn't need the verification of men.
People left out of the prideful belief that they and they alone could interpret and know the Word of God.
I accuse the Holy Spirit of nothing more than fulfilling the promise of Jesus to be with us always and to send Him to lead us to all truth.
Any belief to the contrary is merely one individual’s opinion and pride.
St. Paul taught that Jesus is the high priest in the order of Melchizedek in Hebrews. If an order has a high priest, then it must also have lower priests, otherwise there would be only one priest without the designation of high or low. It was the priestly order of Aaron that ended, not the order of Melchizedek.
Do you know or care what the Early Fathers believed about priesthood? Were they wrong?
****I might note that it’s easy to cherry pick from the fathers to twist their meanings without taking them in the fullness of their writings where they also appeal to ecclesiastical tradition in defense of their scriptural interpretations.*****
The same can be said of Scripture itself.
“Hardly one ambiguous verse and disputed only after more than 1500 years of the clergy and papal succession.”
No. One verse, and that is ambiguous. Other sections (Acts 15 & Galatians 2, for example, indicate otherwise.)
And there was NO tradition of papal supremacy. Or have you forgotten the Orthodox have refused to accept the Pope as head?
As for Matthias, what did he go on to do? What did Paul? If 11 plus one are the foundation of the city of God, was that additional one Matthias or Paul?
What constitutes Sacred scripture. It’s all fine and well to say that it is inerrant, etc.
Which books?
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.