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
I love what Peter himself wrote:
“Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrises, and envies, and all evil speakings, As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To who coming, as unto a living stone, diallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold I lay in Sion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe He is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner. And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.” (1 Peter 2:1-8)
In 2 Peter 3:18 Peter exorts us to:
“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be glory both now and forever. Amen.”
I like you reference to 1 John chapter 4: It teaches us (believers) about the family(God’s family) and the world.
We as children are warned against false teachers, and
those that confess Jesus Christ; and those that confess not.
Verse 4 says: “Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world.”
Yes 1 John is a great chapter clearly written us who belong to the heavenly Father.
For evidence, just look at the great number of books in the Canon written by Matthias. (Doh!!!!)
Doesn't God make all of His great decisions by drawing lots? /s
Yeah, just like he selected Paul too.
Real loser decision there. Least of the apostles.
He didn’t select Paul by lots.
If he had he would have had a better apostle.
Do they get ranked by the word?
IIRC Acts has a very good example of what happens when men choose who is to take the place of an apostle. I think his name was Mathias. Never heard from again. Pray to God never to be chosen by men!
Even then in the appointment process they couldn’t discern God’s choice so after praying;they “cast lots and the lot fell to Matthias”. In the end they left it to God!(Acts chapter 1)
I find this “casting of lots” story in the discussion of apostolic succession a kind of 800 pound gorilla no one talks about! (like it was some type of evil “gambling” or something)
It might solve a lot of church conflicts if both sides of a situation pray and fast then cast lots over the issue...then abide by the results!
I disagree, when there is no clear consensus and both sides have prayed and fasted, the casting of lots leaves room for God to move; that is where there is strong agreement and faith on all sides to abide with the results of the lots cast.
The doctrine of apostolic succession appears to have begun primarily with Irenaeus in the late second century A.D. It was begun, not as a means of establishing a line of authoritative fellowship, but as illustrating a line of authoritative orthodoxy. It was begun as an argument against Gnosticism in Irenaeus’ classic work Against Heresies. Indeed, it proved to be the fatal blow against Gnosticism. Irenaeus’ argument, which the Gnostics could not counter, went thusly: We know of several congregations that were established by apostles, and we know who the bishops (or elders) of those congregations were from their time until now. None of those men ever taught the doctrines of Gnosticism. Therefore, Gnosticism is not an apostolic doctrine.
This line of thinking was later expanded by others in the third century, particularly Cyprian, to contend that those who were outside of this unbroken line of fellowship from the first century were not to be accepted as Christians even if they were orthodox in belief and practice.
Side notes: Irenaeus refers at times to a succession of bishops, and at other times to a succession of elders (or presbyters). At the time of Irenaeus there was a gradual change taking place in which the twofold offices of the New Testament period—bishops (also known as elders) and deacons—began to transition into the threefold offices of later times: bishops, elders, and deacons.
Cyprian (mid third century), although he argued for restricting fellowship to those within the line of succession, and was a proponent of the elevation of the office of bishop above that of elder, still did not ascribe to the later, more expanded versions of church government in which archbishops exercised authority over bishops beneath them, nor of a “universal bishop”. On one occassion he said:
“For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.” (Cyprian, in the Seventh Council of Carthage)
For a survey of the development of church government in the first and century centuries, see my posts on the following thread, especially post #23:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2827609/posts?page=21
No succession is therefore possible. No on can meet those requirements.
No replacement was chosen when a few years later the apostle James was killed leaving only eleven apostles.
You wrote:
“I’m a Messianic Jew. Do I count?”
Toward what?
“I mean Yashua being Jewish and all.”
Since Jesus released us from the ceremonial law, does it matter?
“Rome took over and look what happened.”
The then known world was converted. Yes, and?
“I’ve read the history of the popes.”
No, you probably just read about a few bad ones. Almost no one has read the history of the popes. If you have noyt read all of Ludwig Pastor, then your claim of having read the history of the popes is false.
“And that church history. But then, there was Luther.”
Just like that? See, you could not have read the history of the Church then!
You have a problem with that scenario. Unless you believe that all priests are in that line of “apostolic succession” your line of succession died off. Each Pope does not appoint his own successor. Each Pope is selected by those who have not been Pope so would not have been in the “line of succession”. After the original Apostles died the Popes of the CC have been appointed by others not in that line.
The idea that the selection of Matthias as the Apostle to replace Judas was somehow out of line, out of order, impermissable, "not what God wanted," etc., is also not found in Scripture. It's a rather bizarre Protestant "tradition of men" which nullifies the Word of God.
Incidentally, 2 Tim 2:2 clearly implies apostolic succession. Who do you think ordained the first generation of episcopoi in the Church? Do you think they ordained themselves? Hardly; in fact, Paul specifically talks about the authority he conferred on Timothy through the laying-on of hands.
A conundrum it seems. No other apostles (according to them) had the authority. They can’t show where Peter gave that authority to another but in any case when a Pope dies he has not appointed his successor so in order for the line to continue they must believe that others have the authority to give that right to another. “o what a tangled web we weave”.
Bishops don't report to archbishops in the Catholic church; bishops report directly to the Pope.
You do know that the pope is the Bishop of Rome, right?
“Apostolic succession” does not mean that bishops are apostles. The office of “apostle” no longer exists in the church militant on earth. What it means is that bishops derive their authority from the apostles through a chain of valid episcopal ordinations.
So you now know who the next Pope will be?
I know he will be a he and have been a priest through the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
This relates to Apostolic Succession, how?
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.