Posted on 07/07/2009 10:31:26 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Question:
I was wondering how we as Protestants reject the doctrine of Apostolic Succession? Obviously, through Church history, this doctrine seems to be strongly affirmed, but when the Reformation took place, this doctrine was not continued along with other doctrines. Why not? I guess I am wondering what are the biblical mandates supporting Apostolic Succession and what are the biblical mandates and logic that reject Apostolic Succession? Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.
Answer:
When you say "through Church history, this doctrine [apostolic succession] seems to be strongly affirmed" you are correct because it certainly has been accepted and defended for a long time by the Roman Catholic Church. You are also correct in saying that "when the Reformation took place, this doctrine was not continued along with other doctrines." And your question is basically "Why is this so?"
The answer is that the Reformation recovered the pure teaching of the original apostles themselves. And they never taught any such doctrine. If you read your New Testament carefully, you will see that the apostles were marked by several distinctive features. Let me list a few of them.
(1) They were chosen by Christ himself in an immediate way, not through the instrumentality of others.
(2) They were able to truthfully say that they had seen Jesus after he rose from the dead (Paul said: "Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time" [1 Cor. 15:8]). The fact that Paul was the last one who could say such a thing in the history of the world shows clearly that there can be no genuine apostolic succession.)
(3) They were endowed with supernatural powers that other men did not (and do not) have. They even raised phyically dead people to life. (Paul said: "The signs of a true apostle were perfomed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works" [2 Cor. 12:12]).
(4) They were qualified to speak with absolute and infallible authority. Paul could say in truth "If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord." No other individuals, other than the inspired prophets and apostles, could make statements like that. That is why the things they said were by the plan and will of God preserved for us in the New Testament.
The theory behind apostolic succession is that God's authority, to be meaningful and effective, must be embodied in men today who have the same kind of authority. But if you will read carefully the following passage, you will see that this is not true at all.
In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul - who was not physically present in Corinth - wrote to them to tell them what to do with respect to a discipline case. He said (in 5:4-5) "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." So you see, Paul did not pass on his authority to another man so that he could be there in Corinth. No, Paul said, in effect, if you will do what I as an apostle now instruct you to do then I will be with you in spirit, and you will also have the power of our Lord Jesus with you, to deliver that man to Satan etc.
So, to put it simply, the Reformers realized that there was no need for apostolic successors. No, the need was simply to have the apostles themselves with us through their inspired and inerrant teaching. And that is what we have in the New Testament.
The apostles never wrote anything that ever has needed or ever will need correction because they were inspired by God. Surely a person of average intelligence should be able to see that this has never been true of other men in history no matter how strongly they may have believed themselves to be apostolic successors!
I hope this gets you to study this further. The more church history you get to know the more obvious the conclusion of the Reformers will appear.
Even Obama is less obvious when he plants a question.
“Apostolic succession” is a completely and utterly moot point. It does not exist. It is merely an Irenaean error introduced in the 2nd century, but has no relevancy to actual Christian doctrine. Any local church which stands on the Bible is as legitimately a “church” as was the one established by Christ Himself in Jerusalem. Any local church pastor, who stands on God’s Word and teaches it to his flock faithfully, is as legitimate a pastor as any of the Apostles themselves.
The goal should be the restoration, not reformation, of the Church to a non-denominational Church with no manmade doctrines or creeds. No book but the Bible, no creed but Christ.
The Apostle's job consisted of starting churches and teaching the members until they could stand on there own. They moved on to the next location after that.
Oy gevalt.
Perhaps it’s utterly futile to do so, but care to weigh in on this?
I’m still trying to decide if it’s worth the time and effort.
To some it just means remembering and believing all of the important things about Christ that the apostles and early church carried forward that did not make it into the many texts that would be assembled at various times into our modern bible, of none of which we have the originals. Those traditions may be truer than the written word for all we know.
Apostolic succession is accomplished through the laying on of hands in the sacrament of Holy Orders. That is, each bishop is a successor of the Apostles. The bishop of Rome happens to occupy the seat of Peter, but his apostolic succession can be from any of the original apostles. A priest is one who has not received the full set of Holy Orders. As St. Francis de Sales puts it, to preach the Gospel with authority, you have to receive the commission, which is done through the laying on of hands. Pastors who preach from the Bible without first receiving the commission are going about things backwards.
Catholics, themselves, rejected the doctrine as John was the last living Apostle and held the keys of the kingdom. The Roman church never gathered to John.
Sorry, but no. The Bible doesn't say anything like this, so I'm really not concerned about what a self-serving hierarchy decided to arrogate to itself centuries after the fact.
“Perhaps it’s utterly futile to do so, but care to weigh in on this?
I’m still trying to decide if it’s worth the time and effort.”
Sure. The bible these people thump and proof text to justify their heterodox beliefs was assembled and canonized by bishops of The Church who believed in and taught the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. They believed the EXACT SAME THINGS you and I and all members of The Church believe, not what those outside The Church, in their ecclesial assemblies, believe.
Tell that to Matthias.
Thank you for that comment. I almost remained silent on this.
To Orthodox Christians, Apostolic Succession has NOTHING to do with power to control individuals. It represents a notary’s stamp on our birth certificate in that we can trace the lineage of our Bishop’s seats, uninterrupted, back to the time of the Apostles. Which means that the Orthodox Church has heeded St. Paul’s admonishment to the Church at Thessalonica in his 2nd Epistle to the Thessalonians, at chapter 2, verse 15. So that we can say, with absolute honesty and conviction, in answer to the question: “Who founded the Orthodox Church?” “Jesus Christ did. Not Martin Luther. Not Ulrich Zwingli. Not John Calvin, or the Wesley Brothers. Or Rick Warren. Jesus Christ did.”
Christ’s Church existed before the Bible. Indeed, the Bible was assembled by the Fathers of the early Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit at and around the earliest Ecumenical Councils (in fact the first known instance of the New Testament in its current form was listed in a letter by St. Athanasius shortly prior to the first Council of Constantinople).
As for those who knock Creeds - you mean THIS Creed? With all these references to and bases in Scripture?
I believe in (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)
One God (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)
The Father (Matthew 6: 9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)
Creator of heaven and earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible; (Colossians 1: 15-16)
And I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)
the Son of God (Matthew 14: 33; 16: 16)
the only-begotten (John 1: 18; 3: 16)
begotten of the Father before all worlds; (John 1: 2)
Light of Light (Psalm 27: I; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
very God of very God, (John 17: 1-5)
of one essence with the Father, (John 10: 30)
through Whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (I Timothy 2: 4-5)
came down from heaven ((John 6: 33,35)
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1: 35)
and became man. (John 1: 14)
Who was crucified also for us (Mark 15: 25; I Corinthians 15: 3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 1: 14)
and suffered, (Mark 8: 31)
and was buried; (Luke 23: 53; I Corinthians 15: 4)
On the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 1; 1 Cor. 15: 4)
And ascended into heaven, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)
And is seated at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7: 55)
And He will come again in glory (Matthew 24: 27)
to judge the living and dead, (Acts 10: 42; 2 I Timothy 4: 1)
Whose kingodom shall have no end; (2 Peter 1: 11)
And I believe in the holy Spirit, (John 14: 26)
The Lord (Acts 5: 3-4)
and Giver of life, (Genesis 1: 2)
Who proceeds from the Father, (John 15: 26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, (Matthew 3: 16-17)
Who spoke through prophets; (I Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5, 13)
And I believe in one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (I Peter 2: 5, 9)
catholic (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church; (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; (Ephesians 4: 5)
I look for the resurrection of the dead; (John 11: 24; I Cor. 15: 12-49)
And the life of the world to come. (Mark 10: 29-30)
Amen. (Psalm 106:48)
Forgive me, all of you, my Protestant friends and brothers, if I fail to see what’s wrong with these things.
I really did laugh out loud at that.
Interesting you should mention Matthias. The Apostles picked him to replace Judas. After he was picked, he was never mentioned again. God picked Paul to replace Judas. There is no comparison between Matthias and Paul.
Only God picked apostles. Men do not pick Apostles.
So how does Matthias prove succession?
Pure speculation and opinion.
So how does Matthias prove succession?
I never said it did. I only said Matthias refutes the point about apostles not being selected through the instrumentality of others.
Its sort of sad, and very parochial, that you wouldn’t know that +Matthias went off to Ethiopia to preach the Gospel. He won a martyr’s crown there. He is greatly venerated down there to this very day. In other words, TY, one of the oldest Christian countries on earth know all about him and honor him every day. It is worth noting that the modern day devotees of a particular interpretation of +Paul’s writings worship in a manner so utterly different from that preserved by The Church since the first liturgies at Jerusalem, while those Ethiopians who are members of The Church as planted there by +Matthias are completely Orthodox in their praise of God.
Its sort of sad, and very parochial, that you wouldn’t know that +Matthias went off to Ethiopia to preach the Gospel. He won a martyr’s crown there. He is greatly venerated down there to this very day. In other words, TY, one of the oldest Christian countries on earth know all about him and honor him every day. It is worth noting that the modern day devotees of a particular interpretation of +Paul’s writings worship in a manner so utterly different from that preserved by The Church since the first liturgies at Jerusalem, while those Ethiopians who are members of The Church as planted there by +Matthias are completely Orthodox in their praise of God.
Your argument basically boils down to this: “This is a Catholic doctrine. As Protestants, we reject Catholic doctrines. Here’s a Bible verse as justification.” But if existence of a single supporting verse in the Bible is justification, then apostolic succession IS in the bible. In 2 Timothy 2:2, Paul tells Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” Paul tells Timothy, who he has trained as a successor to himself, to likewise train others so that the succession may continue. The verse from 1 Corinthians that the author purports to reject apostolic succession clearly does not even address the issue, much less refute 2 Timothy 2:2.
As the question notes, the doctrine is strongly affirmed in Church history. In fact, it is affirmed before the Bible that Protestants use today is itself affirmed. Apostolic succession was in fact very necessary for the early Church because heretics simply put their own interpretations on Scripture. Only by demonstrating a line of succession could one verify that a speaker was speaking the truth as taught by the apostles.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp
Yours was a beautiful acknowledgement of the Scriptural basis of the ecumenical Creeds.
But please remember that not all Protestants reject Apostolic Succession, or claim a specific figure as the ‘founder’ of their temporal denomination. The Anglican Communion, of which I am a quasi-member (confirmed PC-USA, but slightly unhappy with my denomination), claims an historical lineage dating back to A.D. 597, rather than the 16thC. The Reformation was crucial in solidifying its unique via-media Protestant identity, to be sure, but the Anglican knows that visible, temporal unity is necessary for the transmission of the Gospel across generations. It is both protestant and catholic, reformed and traditional. A splendid mix.
Read your Bible and think about what you just said. If Jesus did anything, it was to confront HIS Church about the traditions of men. Jesus had very little use for man made traditions.
I always get in trouble when I start on this subject, but here goes again,.......MOST denominations that wear robes and collars, have repetitive prayers and readings, and follow the traditions of men rather than follow the Holy Spirit. Now I know there are dedicated servants of Christ out there that wear robes and collars, but as a rule, their worship goes 180 deg against the teachings of the Word of God.
If you don't believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, breathed by the Holy Spirit through the pen of men, then I guess traditions of men with fine gold and silver vestments make more sense than what Jesus taught in His normal period clothes. The Spirit of the Bible says different, and in fact Jesus was pretty mean to the leaders of the Temple with their fine vestments and their dead souls. Jesus came to Earth for the main reason of dying for our sins, but He also taught us Spiritual things, and also confronted the Church leaders with their hypocrisies. Much of what we do in church is habit and tradition. What would church be like if we walked in and there wasn't a list of songs and activities thrust in our hand? Real worship might accidentally break out and an encounter with the real loving Lord might fill the building and change lives. We could always discuss the women's meeting with the local clubs and the men fixing the leaking roof and of course asking for money to do whatever, at a later date. Where is it written that we have 3 songs, a sermon, and an alter call every Sunday before we watch the football game? I think Jesus has another idea of what His day is supposed to be for. As long as the regimented worship services( and that is most all denominations), are prescripted, I doubt how much worship actually gets done.
Apostolic succession, as explained by the CAtholic Church, has some difficulties. I posted an article about a year ago that covered them, and they were significant.
That, however, does not rid us of the church structure revealed in the Acts of the Apostles. Paul instructed Titus (and probably Timothy, too) on ordaining elders. The pattern was for elders to ordain elders.
The logic of that says that today’s churches should be connected to the earliest churches. Elders ordaining elders ordaining elders throughout church history.
The weakness of that, of course, is that the church has a spiritual legacy as well. “Those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.”
Likewise, Jesus was clear to his apostles when they complained of others not with them baptizing in Jesus’ name, that those not against Him were for Him.
At the same time, Paul insisted on the re-baptism of those who’d been baptized under the baptism of John. I suggest that Paul’s intent was to bring them into the one spiritual sheepfold.
My take on this is that the spiritual legacy is paramount, but that there is no shame in connecting oneself to the earliest church by way of a lineage of churches or ordained elders. To have both would be a blessing, in my view. I do not believe, though, that the Lord will permit the Church to fail. “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail.”
But, to have an ordination lineage and yet be steeped in spiritual unfaithfulness would mean nothing. Revelation 2, I believe, clearly indicates that the Lord will remove a church’s candlestick (light) for unfaithfulness.
I can’t claim that for my own.
Well, all I can say is thank the Eternal Holy Trinity I never have to stand in front of YOUR dread throne of judgement, Chuck. Me, personally, my own sins are far too great to stand in judgement of anyone.
We Orthodox know for certain where the Lord is worshipped and glorified (and has been for 2,000 years - whether YOU like it or not) and we don’t make judgements about where the Lord isn’t. We do know where He IS.
How ‘bout YOU return the favor?
“The answer is that the Reformation recovered the pure teaching of the original apostles themselves.”
Now thats a great one.
They cannot even agree on what it was that was recovered which is why they have so many splits.
***God picked Paul to replace Judas. There is no comparison between Matthias and Paul. ***
Read Acts 1 again. The Apostles were in one accord in prayer, and cast lots for Judas’ seat. The requirement to be one of the 12 was the person chosen had to have been with the Apostles from the baptism by John to the ascention.
Paul did not meet these requirements. He was specificly chosen later to be a separate Apostle to the Gentiles.
I believe that the Bible is the word of God. But we do not have the original bible. And I do not accept that it is complete and no knowledge of God and Christ exists outside of it. That knowledge is said to have been passed on from Christ to His Church through those he directly sent. This is what I believe, although I understand others have not come to this belief in their training and traditions.
Exactly. Just another fairy tale from Rome.
Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
John 20:23
“If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”
“Man-made” laws and rules given by the Catholic Church, such as apostolic succession are not man-made - the power to make these rules was given by Jesus himself. If the Vatican were to declare “ex-Cathedra” tomorrow that we needed to wear pink hats on Mondays or else it would be a mortal sin, then that would be a mortal sin. Of course that example is silly, but the power does lie in the Vatican to decide what is sinful.
To attack me is bizarre. If your denomination varies from the Scripture, does the denomination win or God? The traditions of men have been around for more than 2000 years and Jesus spoke of them. He wasn't happy.
One thing is for certain. If you study the letters to the churches in Revelation, everyone likes to think they are from Philadelphia.
I was going to make this short, but alas, I just can't. I have many examples, but I will choose just one to make my point. My mother attends a United Methodist church. She was diagnosed with colon cancer and received a visit from her pastor who visited with her and at the end of the visit, my wife and I prayed with him and my mother. It was the most bland, non specific, "I hope you get better, but if God wants you dead, so be it" , prayer I've ever heard. Outside the room, I asked if he had ever seen a prayer answered. He, of course said yes. I asked if he had ever witnessed a healing, he nervously said no. I told him of my mother in law that had been diagnosed with aplastic anemia and was told it was terminal. To make a long story short, my wife prayed to Jesus for what we needed to pray for, for our prayers had gone unanswered for months. She had a voice tell her to pray for her specific need and she knew immediately what to pray for. The next day, she was going to have a hip replacement and I couldn't see how she could survive that with no platelets. My wife said she prayed for one stem of Jesus' bone marrow for her mother. They did the hip replacement and my mother in law was cured, right then, that day, that moment. She went in the operating room with a platelet number of 20k and left the operating room with over 70k. She received NO platelets in the OR from the doctors. She was healed of her aplastic anemia and she left the hospital and NEVER received another bag of blood, or blood products. The doctor couldn't explain it and said he had never seen anything like it in his whole practice and he was an expert in aplastic anemia and wrote several books on the subject.
I said all this and more in front of the Methodist preacher and he just said "It must have been something else". I asked him why he bothered to pray if he didn't believe God was able to heal? If God wasn't able to heal my mother in law of a terminal disease, could He raise me from the dead? He had no answer, but my impression was that was that he was expected pray, so he did. I had been to my mothers church before and they read some passages in the back of their hymnal, they sang some hymns, they had a sermon that had a few humorous stories in it, and we went home. If you wanted to be saved, you had to sign a card. This is a dead church!
I don't want to pick on this denomination, or even this church. My daughter was a gospel singer for a few years before college and we attended hundreds of churches of all denominations. My observations come from years of looking at churches and for the most part, the ones with collars and robes were pretty much dead. One church even offered communion with leavened bread. This is where abortion is accepted, evolution is justified, and sodomites are accepted and baptized without repentance. If your church follows the teachings of God, then God bless you. God and evil are at war. If your church disagrees with God in favor of traditions of men, who's side are you on? Repetitive prayers, gold, jewels, and fine robes have NOTHING to do with worshiping God. God is looking for broken hearts, not fine surroundings. Fine buildings and beautiful vestments won't save souls.
Many of the preachers and priests today seem to consider it a job instead of a calling. I don't believe you can get appointed by some board in another state and sent to a job and change peoples lives. There is too much politics involved and even nepotism.
P.S. My mother made it fine and is cancer free for more than 17 years. Was it his prayer,.... my family's prayers,.... the doctors skill,.... luck? No one can know, but I think she was healed by faith from a believer that had a personal relationship with Jesus. We all die, but God works through those that believe and testify of Him.
There is no original written Bible. My faith in God tells me the Bible we have was carefully assembled with the knowledge we need to know Jesus and be saved by Holy Spirit led people .
The Bible tells us that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Later it says the Word became flesh. It also tells us that Scripture is to be used for teaching and correction, so why use something inaccurate to teach and correct with? The Bible is close enough to prophesy Jesus, His birth, Death, and Resurrection, and even the future Revelation of His return. Faith is what saves you. Be careful what you say you believe and what you don't. I choose to believe God. How can I do that unless He gives me His Word and promises? Do I get my religion from the Discovery Channel? Let's just all take a vote to see what we think God said.
This is the oldest bugaboo in the world where you could say we REALLY don't know this or that because the Bible was written by men, so we can abort babies, commit sodomy, or even eat from a forbidden tree.
Pretty old huh? Nothing new under the sun.
I attacked no one, Chuck. How you got to that conclusion I haven’t the foggiest of notions - however, if you choose to view my words as a personal attack, that’s your concern and yours alone.
As an Orthodox Christian, I have no problem with scripture whatsoever. Again, how you got there I haven’t a clue. We recognize it for exactly what it is, where it came from, and how it got here.
The Bible is a gift from The Eternal One through the vehicle of His Church, of whose tradition it is a very important part. It contains the Word of God and the Wisdom of Men of God. It is a creation of the Holy Eternal One, just like you and me.
I was a protestant for 30+ years (Southern Baptist and then United Methodist) under the shepherding of some who were pious, some who were outright apostate, but mostly those who were indifferent. Attended a Baptist college for 2 years. So I do possess some understanding of the evangelical mindset.
Chuck, it’s fairly clear to me from your comments that you have little understanding of the Holy Orthodox faith. I respectfully request that you set about learning something about Christ’s Ancient Church, its history, doctrines and traditions, before you continue to criticize it.
Good day to you, now.
No need to bother...Joseph Smith solved all that and the apostles are currently residing in Temple Square, Salt Lake City. /s
LOL!!!!
That’s a GORGEOUS photo on your namepage.
I grew up down south, and have been back here for 5 years now. But Colorado stole my heart when we lived there and I consider it my adopted home.
LOVE the hills of CO and NM!
Thank you, my friend. Just seeing that photo brightened my day.
I grew up in southern CO, and moved to NM in the sixties. I’ve lived in various other states, but this whole area is home to me. Glad you like the photo.
The requirement is to be called by Jesus and follow Him. Paul was personally called by Jesus. Matthias was not.
Matthias did not take the Heavenly office of Judas, but the Earthy.
There are 2 verses to contemplate. Matthew 19:28 "you who have followed me". There is an important prerequisite: the personal calling must be first. Judas was called, but did not follow. This does not exclude Paul, but specifically includes Paul. Paul was called by Jesus and he did follow.
Luke 22: 28-30. Here Jesus is talking to the 11 who stayed with Him. Judas is excluded from this promise. Matthias couldn't take Judas' throne because Judas never had a throne.
The seat on the thrones are Jesus' to give. He who sits on the throne must be personally called by Jesus and that person must follow Jesus. Jesus called 13, but only 12 followed. Jesus never called Matthias to follow. Jesus did call Paul.
The Acts does follow a little bit of what the Apostles did.
And there is some History.
But what you do not take into account is the various churches started the Apostles that have withstood the test of time.
For example -- the doubting one -- Thomas -- started 7 churches in India. They are basically intact today after 2000 years.
That means in a Hindu/Moslem country, they have withstood some pretty severe hardships.
And did Thomas get on board a 747 and fly to India to get this started? He did a lot of walking. He traveled by Caravan, and he had to travel (perhaps) by sea.
Paul, on the other hand, used his Roman citizenship to be tried in Rome. So he got locked up in prison.
The only thing you can do in prison is write. And that is what Paul did. And that does survive to this day.
But the other apostles went about establishing churches everywhere that they could travel to...
Paul was restricted on his traveling...
Man can not give something that is Jesus' to give. To be one of the 12 in Heaven requires a personal calling and a willingness to follow.
The 11 original Apostles who followed were personally called, as was Paul. Matthias was not directly called by a personal invitation from Jesus, but through an indirect calling of prayer and lots.
****The requirement is to be called by Jesus and follow Him. Paul was personally called by Jesus. Matthias was not.
Matthias did not take the Heavenly office of Judas, but the Earthy. ****
Did the Apostles choose the wrong person? If they had they would have been out of the weill of God and the Holy Spirit would not have fallen upon them.
weill=Will
Proofread
proofread
proofread!
Amen Brother!
ICor. 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of APOLLOS; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
I want to be with the last.
All Apostolic Succession does is divide believers and allow those who claim it to claim all types of other justifications for their control of believers and persecution of those who don't adher to it.
Men selected Mathias and he disappeared. Jesus selected Paul and through him God gave us a great deal of the New Testament.
Stuff and nonsense. Let's look at the implications of your claim on the ecclesiology of the 1st-2nd centuries.
The Church Fathers always talk about the heretics claiming to be (in your language) "standing on God's Word"--i.e. deriving their ideas from Scripture. Obviously there were different interpretations out there as there are today. So the ecclesiology you are advocating would have given in the first and second centuries exactly what we have in the Reformed churches since the very beginning--endless fissiparousness and division.
Reformation theology tries to sugarcoat that fact by claiming, well, we differ among ourselves in non-essentials--but really we are all of the same Body. With the Apostolic Succession gone, the Church body becomes some invisible collection of like-minded pilgrims instead of a real, live, organic and visible body of the faithful.
But this is not the Church of the subApostolic Age, TQC. The Church of the sub Apostolic Age was unified in doctrine--and divided itself very cleanly--you are with the universal body, or you are a damnable heretic. Clement, writing to the Corinthians, telling them not to throw aside their appointed presbyters and put up new ones in their place. Ignatius of Antioch, warning the churches of Asia Minor to do nothing without the bishop. If these were operating under your assumptions, Clement would be telling the Corinthians "whatever...just split the congregation if you don't like your local pastor, it doesn't matter anyway." Ignatius would be telling the Magnesians and others, "hey look, if you want to operate outside the authority of your bishop, that's cool, just make sure you hold fast to God's Word."
No such thing. There were indeed "local churches" as you say back then--there still are--*but they were not organizationally independent from each other.* They were set up and appointed by Apostles, and the bishops the Apostles appointed, in continuation down the ages.
The Church Fathers always talk about the heretics claiming to be (in your language) "standing on God's Word"--i.e. deriving their ideas from Scripture. Obviously there were different interpretations out there as there are today. So the ecclesiology you are advocating would have given in the first and second centuries exactly what we have in the Reformed churches since the very beginning--endless fissiparousness and division.
If you think this is the result of local church ecclesiology, then I think you really need to bone up on the history involved. After all, many of these heretic groups, instead of engaging in "endless fissiparousness and division," really did nothing more than set up their own ecclesial structures that mimicked that of the proto-Catholics. The Marcionites, for instance, were definitely not local-church in their ecclesiology, but had a church hierarchy structure that Irenaeus would have been proud of. But they weren't orthodox - THAT was the problem. Hierarchy is no guarantee of orthodoxy - and indeed, hierarchy and universal churchism can actual abet the spread of error throughout the entire structure - such as what happened with the Arians for the roughly half a century that they controlled the Eastern area of Christianity.
Further, we need to understand that when the heresiologists condemned heterodox groups which attempted to support their beliefs with scripture, we're talking about some way out stuff. We're talking about gnostics trying to twist the Creation account in Genesis to have the serpent being a good guy who led Adam and Eve in obtaining gnosis despite the Demiurge's best efforts. We're talking about twisting passages from Paul to support the existence of the Ogdoad.
It's one thing to have honest difference of opinion on Scripture as the text is approached honestly, fairly, contextually, and plainly based upon what the text simply says. It's quite another to take verses as justification, but use them in a way which is so far out of context or accord with the plain meaning that it should be "obvious" to any honest person that this isn't what the text *really* says. I believe in the perspicuity of Scripture. I do not believe God gave us His Word, but only so that we'd have to search for mystical, hidden esoteric meanings in it. While there may be room for honest (though relatively minor) differences of opinion about what a passage means, I also think it's relatively "obvious" when something "isn't right", and this obviousness is based upon the plain meaning of the text IN CONTEXT with the rest of Scripture (i.e. Scripture interpets Scripture), not upon either mysticism (as with the gnostics) or hierarchical authority (as with the Catholics).
Reformation theology tries to sugarcoat that fact by claiming, well, we differ among ourselves in non-essentials--but really we are all of the same Body. With the Apostolic Succession gone, the Church body becomes some invisible collection of like-minded pilgrims instead of a real, live, organic and visible body of the faithful.
Well, I tend to think that Catholics greatly exaggerate the "division" among non-Catholics, while simultaneously downplaying the very real divisions *within* Catholicism.
This is because, so I've observed, when Catholics speak of "unity," they (like yourself) primarily and implicitly mean "political unity." I.e. unity that comes through the giving of homage to the pope. All Catholics the world over are "united" by their common fealty to the pope and to Mother Church, even if their unity is not in doctrine. I can talk with twenty different Catholics about any number of theological or practical application questions, and get twenty different responses about what the Church teaches, how to apply it, what's right, etc. Some Catholics are against birth control (as the pope is), some use it themselves. Some Catholics are Vatican II, some still think all Prods will burn in hell and so will the liberals who don't go to Latin mass. Some Catholics think the church teaches Liberation theology, some think the church teaches capitalism, and some think it teaches distributionalism - and you can find all three in the clergy who advocate for each. Some Catholics call themselves evangelical and try to mimic evangelical theology, most don't. Some Catholics some speak in tongues and reject cessationism, most don't. But they're all "good Catholics" in the eyes of the Church, since they're all loyal to the pope and the magisterium (even if a lot of Catholic FReepers don't agree).
Meanwhile, despite the doctrinal differences, I'd say there's a lot more similarity, even in order of worship and even in most doctrines beside the particular group "distinctives", between, say, Reformed churches and Methodists, or between both of these and Baptists. Despite the local church ecclesiology, I would be hard pressed to think of any significant differences between my church and any of the dozens of other Independent Baptist churches all across the country and the world that I know of personally, other than on one issue, the use of the KJV verses the use of new versions. And even then, that's a matter of practice, not deep theology.
Both Catholics and Protestants err in their use of universal ecclesiology. The former errs in assuming a purely political unity, the latter in assuming a purely spiritual unity. The church, as the New Testament itself indicates, is to have both. There should be spiritual unity of doctrine and fellowship, but there is also to be unity around the leadership of the pastor. This is only practically feasible within a local body of believers. Further, if we assume an universal church ecclesiology, than Christians are condemned to unfaithfulness with respect to, for instance, the interpersonal injunctions given in Ephesians 4. There is no way I can demonstrate true, agape love for my fellow church members in China or India or Africa or Brazil except in the most superficial and meaningless of manners - manners which are totally at odds with the plain, intended meaning of the passage, yet we are to do these things "in the church."
But this is not the Church of the subApostolic Age, TQC. The Church of the sub Apostolic Age was unified in doctrine--and divided itself very cleanly--you are with the universal body, or you are a damnable heretic. Clement, writing to the Corinthians, telling them not to throw aside their appointed presbyters and put up new ones in their place. Ignatius of Antioch, warning the churches of Asia Minor to do nothing without the bishop. If these were operating under your assumptions, Clement would be telling the Corinthians "whatever...just split the congregation if you don't like your local pastor, it doesn't matter anyway." Ignatius would be telling the Magnesians and others, "hey look, if you want to operate outside the authority of your bishop, that's cool, just make sure you hold fast to God's Word."
You seem to be confusing "local church" ecclesiology with "NO church" ecclesiology. Under local church ecclesiology, there would be no "throwing aside" of appointed presbyters (a phrase which Catholics tend to take out of context from Clement anywise), there is no "doing anything without your bishop", etc. The bishop (i.e., the pastor, as the names all refer to the same office) is there over the local church, and members of the body of a local church are still commanded to obey them that have the rule over them (Hebrews 13:17). Clement, Ignatius, they're talking about local churches and local church pastors.
Indeed, I've always been surprised how un-Catholic the earliest patristics really are. Clement of Rome, in particular, seems to be local church especially. the problem with the Catholic approach to the patristics is that Catholics tend to "read in" their theology into the Church Fathers and anachronise a lot of stuff that rightly dates from the 5-7th centuries back onto the 1st-2nd century men, even when a plain reading doesn't support it.
No such thing. There were indeed "local churches" as you say back then--there still are--*but they were not organizationally independent from each other.* They were set up and appointed by Apostles, and the bishops the Apostles appointed, in continuation down the ages.
There's no actual independent evidence to suggest any of this, however. Even the church at Rome was founded by somebody who's name we don't even know - it wasn't founded and headed by Peter or any other apostle, since Paul would surely have said something about that. Peter wasn't the pastor of the church at Rome, since Peter himself clearly says he was pastoring in Babylon, and that he was the apostle to the Jews (of whom a large colony existed in Babylon at that time). The Roman church that Paul addresses in his epistle was probably started by one of the converts to Christ from Pentecost in Acts 2. The traditions about Peter's apostolic see, etc., are later accretions designed to give Rome the "edge" in its competition with Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria for the position of "head church" in the 4th century. It's funny, if Alexandria had thought of the idea of claiming Peter first (and they'd have had a credible case, being that they had a tradition of being founded by John Mark, who was Peter's amanuensis, and whose gospel likely received early prominence due to Peter's star power), we might be talking about the "Alexandrian Catholic Church" today, and I'd bet the history of the Middle East would be a lot different.
Nevertheless, a plain reading of the New Testament shows that churches were local, that they didn't need an apostle to start them, and that an apostolic origin or support was no guarantee of orthodoxy.
Paul routinely talks of churches as if they were local. throughout Paul's epistles, as well as the rest of the "post-Jesus" New Testament, the assumption is that churches are local and confined to a specific city. When speaking of regions like Macedonia, Achaia, and Galatia, there are said to be multiple churchES. This is consistent with the actual meaning of the word itself - an ekklesia is a called-out assembly, and is always used to denote a smaller group taken out apart from a larger body, both in religious and secular usage. The only places in the New Testament where "church" and "all of Christendom" are synonymous are very early in Acts (when believers were still grouped together in Jerusalem) and in Hebrews 12:23 (which speaks of the general assembly of believers in heaven, once all is said and done).
The churches in Ethiopia were founded by the eunuch who was converted through the preaching of Philip. We should note that the Philip in question was NOT the apostle, but the deacon from Acts 7. He was not ordained a bishop, which would make him not part of the "apostolic succession", yet he was preaching the Gospel, baptising people, and his convert started a church which eventually played a rather prominent role in African history. This same Philip also preached throughout Samaria, and say many converts, presumably organised into the local churches of Samaria we see mentioned in Acts 9:31.
Paul himself warned the assembly of bishops from Ephesus in Acts 20:30 that even from "among themselves" - i.e. from among this body of bishops who were in the "apostolic succession" - there would be those who would fall into error and lead many astray. Even in churches started by Paul personally, error crept in. At one point, Paul marvels that the Galatian church was moving so quickly away from his teachings (Gal. 1:6) and has to ask his converts if they had so many things in vain (3:4). The Corinthian church, also started by Paul, is well-known for the many errors, both moral and doctrinal, which it had fallen into, even though its pastors were presumably appointed by Paul the apostle.
The local church ecclesiology has the advantage of serving also limit the spread of error - both moral and doctrinal - throughout the family of God. With a hierarchy, when the head goes bad, the whole body will be infected. With a local church approach, when one local church or pastor goes bad, it can be "cut off", so to speak, since no other church is yoked with it.
Likewise, local church ecclesiology is advantageous from a fellowship perspective. In Catholicism, for instance, every Catholic is technically in fellowship with every other Catholic who hasn't be excommunicated, the world over. Sounds good and spiritual, right? Well, this means that all the good Catholic FReepers on here are in fellowship with, among others, liberal Catholic abortion doctors in the Northeast (since they haven't been excommunicated yet), with paedophile priests who get shuffled from one diocese to another instead of being punished, with murdering mafia members, etc.
Now, with independent baptistic churches (and note, not all Baptists are baptistic in regard to ecclesiology, and not all baptistic groups are Baptist by name), if you have a pastor who diddles with a little girl, he can't just be shuffled off to some other parish half a continent away. Instead, he gets removed from his position by the local church body, and turned over to the police. If you have a member of a local church who was a murderer or a thief or whatnot, they'd (hopefully) be disciplined out via church discipline and the NT commands to disassociate ourselves from those "walking disorderly." The church body can readily deal with such things, and fellowship can be withheld, and even if one local church body tolerated a paedophile pastor or murdering member, no other independent baptistic church body would be yoked with it in fellowship.
Balderdash. Flat out wrong. These traditions were already firmly in place--and more importantly not questioned--by the second century, more than 100 years before Constantinople was even founded.
Ignatius wrote to the Roman Church in 110: "Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you". Dionysius of Corinth in 170 says flat out that Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome. Irenaeus relates it again in the 160s-170s. Gaius mentions the Tropaion of the Apostles at the Vatican in around 200--can that refer to anyone else but Peter? This tropaion, as part of a "red wall complex" under the Vatican, was excavated a few decades ago and the bricks in it dating to the Caesarship of Marcus Aurelius between 147-161.
As for the "Babylon" connection, let's look at what the Assyrian Church of the East has to say--because unlike Germanic johnny-come-latelies to this issue, these are the folks who are lineal descendants from the original Christians in Babylon. There is actually a belief among them that the Petrine epistle was in fact written from their homeland in Babylon proper. And yet, whaddya know...the Syriac liturgy in multiple places nevertheless asserts that Peter and Paul founded the Church in Rome. If anyone had a reason to refute the Peter-Rome connection, they did. And yet they did no such thing--even after 1500 years of schism with the Church of Rome.
I'll return to your other larger points if and when I have a chance.
Utter nonsense. Irenaeus' imagination notwithstanding, the fact remains that the matter of Roman supremacy was not firmly settled until the papcy of Leo the Great (440-461 AD).
Ignatius wrote to the Roman Church in 110: "Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you". Dionysius of Corinth in 170 says flat out that Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome. Irenaeus relates it again in the 160s-170s.
It's entirely unclear that Ignatius was suggesting that Peter had been in Rome preaching. Indeed, the passage you reference begins with "I write to all the Churches, and declare to all men, that I willingly die for the sake of God, if so be that ye hinder me not....", followed by Ignatius' request that the Romans pray for him to have constancy in martyrdom, and then the statement that you cite. However, Ignatius is not saying that Peter and Paul had both been in Rome, commanding them. Rather, he simply and only references the fact of their apostolic authority, contrasting it with his own position as one condemned. Contextually, there's nothing here that suggests what you're saying. At best, it could imply that - as was the case with Ignatius himself - Peter was brought to Rome for martyrdom (though that is also by no means settled on evidentiary grounds). The reference is about authority, not geography. Indeed, from what Ignatius writes, it would seem that Peter and Paul were also commanding the "other churches" that Ignatius alludes to - which again suggests their apostolic authority is in view, likely due to both their positions as "primary apostles" and that they were the two major vessels used by the Holy Spirit to write the New Testament.
As for Dionysius, the problem with the fragments we have left is that they're not a trustworthy source. The last fragment includes a complaint that his own letters were being tampered with by "apostles of the devil" who would add to and take away. This puts us into sort of a logical quandary, since how do we know that anything in them (including, ironically, the complaint itself) is genuine? Nevertheless, shaky evidence which may very well have been adulterated to include fabricated support for the growing move to attribute a primacy to Rome.
As for Irenaeus, well, what can we say about him? True, he does on several occasions mention that Peter and Paul "laid the foundations" of the Roman church, etc. But that's just the problem - it's scripturally impossible. Paul's epistle to the Romans is dated at around 57-58 AD. We know from the chronology of Acts that Paul had not been to Rome prior to this date. When Paul writes to the Romans, he indicates that he had not seen them, but was writing to them out of reputation (similar to what we see with the Colossians church) - Romans 1:10,15. Paul writes to this as-yet unmet group of Christians who were already assembled as a church. Without him. Not started by him, nor even built up yet by him. Further, Catholic tradition says that Peter was pope in Rome between 41-66 AD. Are we to presume that Paul would write an epistle to the church where the First Pope of all Christianity was pastor, and not greet this fellow apostle, or even mention his presence? Ridiculous. Clearly, Irenaeus is wrong on this count. This being so, it seems that Irenaeus is writing what he did more for the purpose of bolstering some claim on Rome's part to special apostolic position - and this could very well apply to Peter as well. Irenaeus is not a trustworthy witness in this regard, and in fact, has his problems throughout. He is, after all, the same guy who thought Jesus died when he was 50, despite the obvious Scriptural impossibility of this assertion.
Gaius mentions the Tropaion of the Apostles at the Vatican in around 200--can that refer to anyone else but Peter? This tropaion, as part of a "red wall complex" under the Vatican, was excavated a few decades ago and the bricks in it dating to the Caesarship of Marcus Aurelius between 147-161.
Of course it can refer to somebody else besides Peter - there were a dozen other apostles besides him, after all. Further, Gaius says that the trophies of the Apostles are at both the Vatican and the Ostian Road. Later tradition associates these with Peter and Paul, but this is a century and a half after the fact. Gaius may be relating a developing tradition (or, likewise, he may have had not the least idea of Peter or Paul specifically in his mind when he wrote this - we'll never know since his works exist only as fragments, which limits our ability to delve context), but as with Irenaeus, the problem with the tradition is that it doesn't accord with Scriptural facts.
As for the "Babylon" connection, let's look at what the Assyrian Church of the East has to say--because unlike Germanic johnny-come-latelies to this issue, these are the folks who are lineal descendants from the original Christians in Babylon. There is actually a belief among them that the Petrine epistle was in fact written from their homeland in Babylon proper. And yet, whaddya know...the Syriac liturgy in multiple places nevertheless asserts that Peter and Paul founded the Church in Rome. If anyone had a reason to refute the Peter-Rome connection, they did. And yet they did no such thing--even after 1500 years of schism with the Church of Rome.
Once again, there are Scriptural deficiencies with this assertion of tradition. Tradition cannot overturn Scripture, so the Syriac traditions and liturgies are wrong. Further, archaeology would seem to agree with Scripture. There's a solid case to be made that Peter's ossuary was discovered in Jerusalem in 1953. Also, what are we to make of the fact that when Venerando Correnti, an Italian anthropologist, examined in 1956 the bones that had been certified by Pius XII as belonging to Peter, he found out that they were really an assortment of bones from a number of individuals, some of them female, and some not even homo sapiens. These were the bones of the "Red Wall", that had been certified as "Peter's Tomb." Clearly, these were not the bones of Peter, despite Pius XII's wishful thinking.
So we take the single most important piece of evidence of Roman primacy from the second century, and we dismiss it with a wave of the hand as Irenaeus's personal "imagination". You have no historical warrant to do that TQC. Particularly since his comments are supported by other events of the second century. The fact that the Corinthians are writing to Clement at all to solve their dispute (no Apostle he). Ignatius' epistles, which are written as a man of authority, until he writes to the Romans where all of a sudden he takes a deferential tone. Victor's response to the Quartodeciman controversy--which shows that he thought (at least) he had the right to excommunicate Churches in Asia for their Easter date.
that's just the problem - it's scripturally impossible..
No. It's not Scripturally impossible. You're making an assumption. There are any number of reasons why Paul doesn't address or mention Peter. Tradition gives Peter a stay in Rome of 25 years, but that's very uncertain, and there's no reason to assume he was in Rome the whole time, particularly as we know that Claudius expelled the Jews probably around 49. Peter may have been in Corinth at one point.
Of course it can refer to somebody else besides Peter.
Like who? Which Apostle was martyred on the Vatican Hill?
Tradition cannot overturn Scripture, so the Syriac traditions and liturgies are wrong.
You simply assume Paul's not mentioning Peter in Romans means the latter *cannot* have founded the Church there. You simply assume Babylon does not mean Rome as it does in all the rest of Christian literature. And then you dismiss every single historical reference as mistaken or invalid because they are "contradicting" Scripture. They are not. Scripture says nowhere *plainly*--Peter was at X place until he died. We have to make inferences, and supplement with historical data.
Clearly, these were not the bones of Peter, despite Pius XII's wishful thinking.
Margherita Guarducci has done some detective work on this. It was not the bones you mention but a set discovered in a loculus that may have been the bones of St. Peter. They are of a 60-ish year old man, and the loculus bears traces of gold and murex fragments as befitting a burial of importance.
In any case, I am not resting this case on the validity of the bones but of the historical record.
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.