Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Apostolic Succession; A Biblical Doctrine?
UK apologetics ^ | February, 2009 | Robin A. Brace

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

Link


TOPICS: Apologetics; General Discusssion; Theology
KEYWORDS: calvinismisdead; history; papacy; priesthood; scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 281-292 next last
To: Jvette; presently no screen name

This is all the theology we need about Mary.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:22-23 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).

221 posted on 01/03/2012 5:18:42 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

“Or have you forgotten the Orthodox have refused to accept the Pope as head?”

Are you Orthodox, sir?


222 posted on 01/03/2012 5:19:00 PM PST by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: bonfire

I gladly admit that I ask for her intercession with her Son.

She is with Him in heaven and God hears the prayers of the righteous.

Any blessings I receive from such prayers, however are those of God, as He is the creator and sustainer of life.


223 posted on 01/03/2012 5:19:55 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: metmom

You might want to quote some of Luke.


224 posted on 01/03/2012 5:21:01 PM PST by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi; metmom
Then your first pope, Peter, and James, and John were in a world of hurt.

"(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the GRACE that was given UNTO ME, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." Gal. 2:8,9.

With this single act, the 12 loosed themselves from their commission to go into ALL THE WORLD to preach the gospel, and gave Paul the right hand of fellowship, to carry the gospel of the uncircumcision, the gospel of the grace of God, to the Gentiles, while they remained in Jerusalem, preaching the kingdom gospel. Unless you missed it, what was bound on earth was bound in heaven, and what was loosed on earth was loosed in heaven. Peter and the 11 loosed themselves from carrying out the "great commission" to its completion and remained in Jerusalem. Either they were out of Christ's command to them, or they recognized that Christ had given a NEW command apart from Israel, and to a NEW person, Paul.

225 posted on 01/03/2012 5:22:52 PM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing is for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: metmom

In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”

38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.


226 posted on 01/03/2012 5:23:15 PM PST by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor

“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.”

Fascinating. Who were the Melchizedelian low priests? Who are they today?

But what does scripture say?

“15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life.”

Sorry, but the Catholic Priests are not Melchizedekian Low Priests. That is silly.

“23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. 28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.”


227 posted on 01/03/2012 5:24:14 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Jvette

No one wants to answer what objectively makes the Arminian interpretation of scripture wrong and the Calvinist one right.

Nor the Lutheran interpretation of scripture, which I am amazed doesn’t get treated like the Mormon interpretation of the Bible because of its proximity to Catholicism.


228 posted on 01/03/2012 5:29:06 PM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

“And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the GRACE that was given UNTO ME, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision”

So Paul, managed to convince Peter that the time had come to preach to the Gentiles. Peter then blesses Paul and Barnbas and they go on their mission.

Peter perceived the will of God acting through Paul, and blessed him and approved of his mission. Where’s the beef?


229 posted on 01/03/2012 5:29:45 PM PST by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: metmom

All Marian theology begins and ends with Christ.

She is who she is because Jesus, her son, is who He is.

Accept or not accept it as you wish, but that doesn’t mean that what Catholics believe about her is untrue. That it is is merely one individual’s opinion which is contrary to thousands of years of Christian belief.

In the spirit of protestantism, I declare that what I believe the Holy Spirit guides me to believe is true and what anyone else believes contrary to that must then be untrue. See, anyone can do it.


230 posted on 01/03/2012 5:34:59 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Papal primacy was universally accepted, but the immediate, ordinary jurisdiction found in modern Catholic canon law didn’t exist.

The Eastern patriarchs, nor bishops, were appointed by the Pope. The acts of the ecumenical councils, however, strongly affirm the primacy of the Roman Pope.

As a son of the Patriarchate of Antioch, I have a sense of pride that St. Peter was in Antioch first.


231 posted on 01/03/2012 5:36:37 PM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

****No. One verse, and that is ambiguous. Other sections (Acts 15 & Galatians 2, for example, indicate otherwise.)****

One individual’s opinion, contrary to hundreds of theologians and historians. I think I will continue to accept what I believe Scripture says which is in communion with all those hundreds of theologians and historians.


232 posted on 01/03/2012 5:38:39 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: metmom; presently no screen name

This was in my post to “Presently No Screen Name,”

“That you contend you were so taught means either you never were Catholic or you were so poorly taught that you honestly were lead to believe such nonsense.”

I can tell you former Catholic or not, PNSN was never instructed in the faith properly by anyone who had even a gnat’s ass grasp of the subject.


233 posted on 01/03/2012 6:04:59 PM PST by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Jvette

Some people better not ever look at certain legal documents, cause phrases such as “I pray your worthy...” would send them tail over tea kettle.


234 posted on 01/03/2012 6:07:17 PM PST by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

The “beef” is that your man decided to remain in Jerusalem and preach to the circumcision. NOT to preach the gospel to every creature...which was the commission Christ gave to the 12, was it not?


235 posted on 01/03/2012 6:10:20 PM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing is for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Apostleship is a gift of God the Holy Spirit, not a lottery by those failing to act through faith in Christ and what He provides.


236 posted on 01/03/2012 6:17:39 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6

The story of the disciples casting lots to choose Matthias from among 2 men they selected is like a New Testament Golden Calf story.

They were too impatient for God to provide what He gives by His grace, so instead they decide they will help Him out when He was silent to them on the subject.

They cast lots on men they had decided upon, not God.

They made an idol out of their own constructs, then claimed whichever way the decision was made, it was from God,...using His name in vain.

God had other plans.

He made Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles, specifically the Romans.


237 posted on 01/03/2012 6:46:17 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

At least by quoting Heb 7:27, you retract your previous position that:

“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:”

I never said that scripture spoke directly of “low priests,” but that they are implied by the repeated references to Christ as the NEW high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

Nether OT nor NT scripture was ever meant to stand alone without the guidance of divinely ordained interpreters. Even the OT prophesies could never be properly understood until Jesus gave inspired interpretations of these to the Apostles. Do you think the Apostles misunderstood their own NT scripture? Did they not pass along correct interpretation to their successors? (If you say no, prove it.)

Why the continued evasion? Do you know or care what the Early Christian Fathers taught about the priesthood? Were they wrong?


238 posted on 01/03/2012 6:51:11 PM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

If the Pope is supreme over the Orthodox, why do they reject his authority and infallibility?


239 posted on 01/03/2012 6:58:43 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor

I have evaded nothing. I have pointed out that the New Testament knows nothing of Priests offering sacrifices for sin. Instead, it rejects it.

You also fail to understand what the author of Hebrews wrote:

“15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life...

...22 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.

23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.”

This does NOT mean there are a bunch of lower Melchizedekian priests, serving as priests in the Catholic Church. Indeed, the writer of Hebrews further explains:

“11-16 Every human priest stands day by day performing his religious duties and offering time after time the same sacrifices—which can never actually remove sins. But this man, after offering one sacrifice for sins for ever, took his seat at God’s right hand, from that time offering no more sacrifice, but waiting until “his enemies be made his footstool”. For by virtue of that one offering he has perfected for all time every one whom he makes holy. The Holy Spirit himself endorses this truth for us, when he says, first: ‘This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them’.

17 And then, he adds, ‘Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more’.

18 Where God grants remission of sin there can be no question of making further atonement.”

As for papal supremacy, consider this:

“But when the Fathers speak of a Petrine primacy and succession and the primacy of Rome they mean something quite different. They are not silent on the issue. They never denied that Rome had a primacy, but it was interpreted as a primacy of honor since the Church was located in the capital of the Empire and was the site of the martrydom of Peter and Paul. It was not a primacy of universal jurisdiction. They never denied that the Church of Rome had a right to exercise authority. But that authority was limited in its jurisdiction. But when the meaning of primacy and rule is couched in the language of Vatican I we find a vigorous opposition to such claims by the Church Fathers. There is not silence. The Fathers do speak, and they make it clear what they mean by the terms they use. They also speak by repudiating the unlawful claims of Rome as they began to be expressed in the third century and in all the subsequent centuries of the Church.”

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/windsorandaugustine.html


240 posted on 01/03/2012 7:10:50 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 281-292 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson