Do Not let that "Cult" slow you down. LOL!!
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
Who’s squabbling? We are merely setting out the facts.
“Which 12 names will be there? Will Matthias be one? Will Paul?”
Paul was never one of the 12. He himself says that he was the least of the Apostles (of those who had seen the Lord). I know you want to add him, but the truth is clear. Paul wasn’t one of the 12, for a reason.
“If there were to be 12 Apostles, not 13, then either Matthias or Paul was an Apostle.”
Um, Paul wasn’t one of them. Sorry.
“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.”
Why do protestants insist on giving Paul a status that he himself rejected? Mattias was chosen. Remember, at the time PAUL WASN’T EVEN AN APOSTLE!
Paul only BECAME a Christian after Christ’s death and resurrection. Mattias was chosen before Paul even entered the picture. This, again, you would know if you had read Acts.
Robin A. Brace, February, 2009.
“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. “
Which is exactly how it works. :)
Pope Benedict was ordained by another Bishop. That bishop was ordained by a different one, anAfter the original
“Apostles died the Popes of the CC have been appointed by others not in that line.d so and so forth.”
That’s not what happened. All of those who came later, were ordained by the 12. Clement himself, (while the apostles were still living), argues that his authority comes from the Apostles. So yes, the earliest sources we do have confirms the teaching.
“Peter explained that it was prophecy that Judas’ place be filled by another so it wasn’t Peter’s decision.”
Yes it is. Peter made this argument. Why not one of the other 11? Why did the rest of them accept Peter’s decision to appoint another?
“Lots were cast to choose from those who had been acquainted with Christ”
No, that’s not what Acts 1 says. Peter selected two men. Then the decision was made to select one of the two that Peter selected.
“When that group died off no one else could meet the requirements to be an apostle and those requirements were not rescinded.”
Then why is it that Clement of Rome argues that he was ordained by St. Peter and that he has apostolic authority as appointed as a successor to Peter?
Why didn’t the Church die out with the last Apostle?
“No replacement was chosen when a few years later the apostle James was killed leaving only eleven apostles.”
Where does scripture say this? You are arguing that ‘because scripture says nothing about it it didn’t happen’. Argument from silence.
Scripture doesn’t tell us who was appointed to replace James. That doesn’t mean they didn’t appoint one. Look, even the martyrdom of St Peter and Paul is not recorded in scripture. Does this mean that they didn’t die in Rome?
“No, that’s not what Acts 1 says. Peter selected two men. Then the decision was made to select one of the two that Peter selected”
Yes by lots, from among those who had been with the disciples from the time of “John’s Baptism until Christ was taken up” Acts 1:20 -27
Paul most certainly DID claim to be an Apostle.
Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
1Cr 1:1 Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes,
1Cr 9:1-5 Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—
Tts 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness,
“4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. 5 Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles...
...12 And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ...
But whatever anyone else dares to boast of—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast of that. 22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they offspring of Abraham? So am I. 23 Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one—I am talking like a madman—with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. 24 Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 28 And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?
30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas was guarding the city of Damascus in order to seize me, 33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his hands.
1 I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. 5 On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses— 6 though if I should wish to boast, I would not be a fool, for I would be speaking the truth; but I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me. 7 So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
11 I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing. 12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works. 13 For in what were you less favored than the rest of the churches, except that I myself did not burden you? Forgive me this wrong!
2 Cor 11-12
Anyone claiming Paul was not an Apostle denies the scripture. If our belief rests on the work and witness of Twelve Apostles, then I’m pretty certain Paul will be one of them.
Yeah, I’m sure they have convinced you. Me not so much.
>>You should go to a Catholic Church if you want to declare you know what's wrong with it.<<
I don’t have to go there to know what’s wrong. Catholics like this “if they just knew” line. I’ve heard that line from cult members often.
“Anyone claiming Paul was not an Apostle denies the scripture. If our belief rests on the work and witness of Twelve Apostles, then I’m pretty certain Paul will be one of them.”
I did not claim he was not an Apostle. All I said is that he wasn’t one of the 12. Mattias was appointed before Paul had converted.
1 Cor 15:9
“For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God”
But the point is that Peter narrowed it down to two candidates.
I understand that, but the argument given by the Reformers is that the early Church went off the rails and therefore lost its legitimacy not withstanding Apostolic Succession. So even if the Church retained one sign it was founded by Christ her adoption (in their eyes) of extra Biblical doctrines overrode that.
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed." - 1 Cor 15
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed." - 1 Cor 15
Do Not let that "Cult" slow you down. LOL!!
Again, Paul was not one of the 12, nor did he consider himself to be one.
Asserting that he was contradicts direct scriptural evidence.
Which is why the solution is to go to leadership that has no connection to the Apostles?
See, this is the problem. Even if the reformers are correct, that’s not enough to get you to the answer “I must join with you”.
If they say that Apostolic succession is unnecessary, then they have to explain where their authority comes form.
You an ex-Catholic too?
What’s your opinion on contraception?
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.