Apostolic Succession and Protestantism

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church ^ | 05/31/2009

[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.

[Always Right]

I was wondering how we as Protestants reject the doctrine of Apostolic Succession? Obviously, through Church history, this doctrine seems to be strongly affirmed

Even Obama is less obvious when he plants a question.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

“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.

[BlackjackPershing]

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.

[chuckles]

“Apostolic Succession” is a construct of power hungry humans hoping to have power over the Church. We are “free indeed” and each one of us has a PERSONAL relationship with God. The purpose of bishops, priests, deacons, and such is for SERVICE to the church, not power over it. As the Apostles were killed off, there was a power vacuum that was filled by the nearest opportunist to enslave the masses for themselves.

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.

[Yudan]

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.

[epluribus_2]

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.

[blackpacific]

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.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

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.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

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.

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.

[Kolokotronis]

“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.

[trad_anglican]

They were chosen by Christ himself in an immediate way, not through the instrumentality of others.

Tell that to Matthias.

[Yudan]

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.

[tiki]

I really did laugh out loud at that.

[Tao Yin]

Tell that to Matthias

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?

[trad_anglican]

God picked Paul to replace Judas. There is no comparison between Matthias and Paul.

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.

[Kolokotronis]

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.

[Kolokotronis]

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.

[bienvenunet]

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

[GodSaveTheQueen1559]

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.