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
“9 Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed— 13 on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” - Rev 21
Which 12 names will be there? Will Matthias be one? Will Paul?
If there were to be 12 Apostles, not 13, then either Matthias or Paul was an Apostle. I’m betting on Paul, which would mean choosing Matthias was an error - Peter’s error, in trying to choose an Apostle, rather than waiting for God to do it in His time & way.
“28 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” - Matt 19
No. there is more in the prerequisites:
(1) The above is required, but is not enough. More than 500 had seen the risen Lord. Too general.
(2) If you search the Scripture, you will see that a chief apostle had to be one who was called out and chosen by the Lord himself and by the determined will (thelayma) of God. Matthias was not. Paul was. There are no other. Paul is Christ's choice to fill the place of Judas Iscariot.
(3) An apostle is not chosen by other men. Matthias was chosen by men, most particularly by the prodding of the ever-erroring Peter after his conversion but before his spiritual regeneration. Peter dreamed up this scheme, probably to try to assert leadership. But he did not appear to do it under control by the Holy Spirit. It was Peter's will, not God's. Matthias was numbered with the eleven apostles. He was never denominated as an apostle. Matthias, for a while, was counted with "the twelve" but note that the specific title there was not supplied for him by the Holy Scripture. In contrast, Paul was called "apostle" not of (apo) men or by (dia)(a) man, but by Jesus Christ and God The Father. You can not say that any apostle since Christ's ascension other than Paul meets this requirement.
(4) An apostle must also have manifested God working through him by signs, wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Cor. 12:12) Those are not accomplished today by anyone claiming to fill the apostleship.
(5) If there is an apostle today, where are the other eleven?
Don't be buffaloed by those who hold shaky opinions and try to back it up with reliance on "tradition" and poor hermeneutics, but neglect the unarguable sense of The Word. But you must do your work in the Word to exercise spiritual discernment, otherwise they will overcome you with the natural mind, the "how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin" kind of logic.
As I thought. Thanks.
Well, maybe some who are neither Catholics nor Protestants might like to contribute. Baptist-types are not Protestants. Plymouth-type brethren are not Protestants. But they have been around in one horribly persecuted form or another since the Pentecost that the Holy Ghost descended upon and in the first Christian assembly.
Your post is a good start, and it ought to drum up a lot of back-and-forth. Look up the church polity generally followed by the Darbyites?
With sincere regards --
Paul's mission was separate from the 12. As is apparent when Romans through Philemon is read. He constantly refers to "my gospel", "in me FIRST", the "gospel of the grace of God that was committed to ME", etc.
Choosing Matthias was all about the day of Pentecost and what Peter and the 10, soon to be 11 with Matthias, was expecting on that day. Hint: It was all about Israel and the eminent return of Christ to set up His Kingdom, and the twelve thrones being complete in order to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.
No. there is more in the prerequisites:
(1) The above is required, but is not enough. More than 500 had seen the risen Lord. Too general.
(2) If you search the Scripture, you will see that a chief apostle had to be one who was called out and chosen by the Lord himself and by the determined will (thelayma) of God. Matthias was not. Paul was. There are no other. Paul is Christ's choice to fill the place of Judas Iscariot.
(3) An apostle is not chosen by other men. Matthias was chosen by men, most particularly by the prodding of the ever-erroring Peter after his conversion but before his spiritual regeneration. Peter dreamed up this scheme, probably to try to assert leadership. But he did not appear to do it under control by the Holy Spirit. It was Peter's will, not God's. Matthias was numbered with the eleven apostles. He was never denominated as an apostle. Matthias, for a while, was counted with "the twelve" but note that the specific title there was not supplied for him by the Holy Scripture. In contrast, Paul was called "apostle" not of (apo) men or by (dia)(a) man, but by Jesus Christ and God The Father. You can not say that any apostle since Christ's ascension other than Paul meets this requirement.
(4) An apostle must also have manifested God working through him by signs, wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Cor. 12:12) Those are not accomplished today by anyone claiming to fill the apostleship.
(5) If there is an apostle today, where are the other eleven?
Don't be buffaloed by those who hold shaky opinions and try to back it up with reliance on "tradition" and poor hermeneutics, but neglect the unarguable sense of The Word. But you must do your work in the Word to exercise spiritual discernment, otherwise they will overcome you with the natural mind, the "how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin" kind of logic.
I made a mistake and double posted. I’m sorry —
It goes on to state that Matthias was numbered with the eleven apostles. If that prayer to the Lord was not enough, and He did not like the choice of Matthias, please show by scripture this belief. It was a nomination prayer, and Matthias was chosen to be numbered with the 11.
Please read Gal. 1:11-24. It will answer the question of Paul's ministry and why he was NEVER to be counted among Peter and the 11. Not even by Christ Himself. Paul's ministry was not the same as the 12.
Lol! I have to tell you a story now. I went to help a friend and his wife move from their upstate NY rental to back to Long Island home. I hope I can get to the point properly.
His wife is into the occult. I prayed to the Lord about it. I believe I got a yes from our Lord to help even though she is deep into this spiritual deceit( remember do not be equally yoked which was why I prayed. )So while I was moving I came across this bookcase to put in boxes. She had real beautiful Christian and Catholic books of faith but also mixed with spell casting and goddess books. She was a mess spiritual. As I was putting these books in boxes the Lord spoke to my heart to strongly tell her how dangerous.
Well the time came. She started to tell me she was a Christian. Well I looked at her straight in the eyes and declared your not a Christian. I am being lead by the Holy Spirit( always pray for Holy Boldness especially when dealing with the occult) She declares how can you tell me this?
I will prove to you that you are not a Christian. I told her to declare in the personal pronoun that she declares Christ came in the Flesh/human(1 John 4) - do not do this without heavy prayers in Christ[dangerous]. Well to cut to the chase she could not declare it as the Apostles Creed or Nicene creed( which is all about 1 John 4 confession). She was convolusing at the words where it comes to Divinity comes flesh. Just amazing! It was like you could see the unseen forces holding her back. She could only say after wanting to say it one phrase only that " there are many Gods."
Well! That is why God after showed that anyone who can declare 1 John 4 is my brother or sister. No matter what denomination or Indy church. Praise be to Jesus who came in the Flesh! Amen!!!
That my friend is the main reason of many why I post my tagline. Peace of Jesus to You this Year! Amen=so be it!!
How do RCs deal with voodoo in their membership? Because there are a LOT of voodoo participants who are also Catholics. Haitians, African, South American. Even one very famous voodoo priestess: Marie LeVeau (?) of New Orleans. Who was also a devout Catholic.
You should go to a Catholic Church if you want to declare you know what's wrong with it. Just reading about it will not help. I mean as a fully mature adult not if you were once a Catholic kid who was daydreaming while something was going on.
I am sorry, I am not going to wrangle with you. You are wrong on every point. You are reading something into the Galatians passage that is not there. When you read Gal. 2:7-9 you will see they intended not to duplicate efforts to the target audiences. The Gospel was the same for both, and their preaching did comprise both Jews and Gentile audiences. If I were you, I would look up every passage with the words 'apostle,' 'apostles,' and 'twelve' in the NT and see if you get a little depth.
I am sorry but Galatians 2:7-10 proves my point. If I were you I would study 2 Tim. 2:15 for the right way to study God’s Word of Truth. You are trying to force something to fit into your views that, if plainly read, would help in your understanding of this dispensation of the grace of God. Paul was not an afterthought. Nor was Matthias an accident. Unless you believe that God did not know what His Plan was for man.
They are lying to them selves. They have nothing to do with Christ unless they repent. The devil has many fooled. Also actually in Church that person or persons does not talk about it. I did not believe in the "devout statement" on this person did you see him or I in Church. Remember we are going by second or third hand sources. The devil can turn and make a person deceitful too.
When I do alot of praying I can be very keen in the Spirit. I can sense if someone is into the occult especially a spellcaster. It depends if that is the real moment God wants us to talk to that person too.
Remember this(of Course in my humble opinion) the Peace of Mind that guards you is in the action of Prayer.
Philippians 4:6-7
"Do not be anxious about anything, but IN EVERYTHING, BY PRAYER AND PETITION, with thanksgiving, PRESENT your REQUESTS to GOD. And the PEACE of GOD, which transcends all understanding, WILL GUARD your HEARTS and your MINDS IN CHRIST JESUS."
Also if you talk to God thats prayer too.
But when you have peace of Christ in you. When you come across a spirit of the enemy. You can sense the disturbance in there spirit because we know there is no real peace in these types.
Prayers for your misunderstandings.
Simony is named after Simon the Magician. (Yes, a biblical account of it.)
No bishop pays to become a bishop, believe me, it is a big responsibility.
Again, prayers for you. May you come to the truth.
First of four parts.
Shouldn't they be more concerned about what Jesus said and taught then to squabble over a line of succession?
The Bible doesn’t record what happened in Act’s chapter 1 as an error, you’re just stating your own opinion. Read also what Peter said about the man they would choose.
“Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
So apparently there a few that hung about the apostles that were with them from the time when Jesus began his ministry until the time he went back to heaven.
Perhaps the terms of what an apostle was verses what the “twelve apostles of the Lamb” are need to be further defined.
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.