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
Me dumb.
Count ‘em again.
The 12 includes Judas. 13 at the last supper, including Christ.
No, it's not another way of saying anything. Acts chapter shows the disciple James, not Peter, acting as spokesman and leader of the church in Jerusalem rendering a decision about new converts.
When Paul and Barnabas are sent to Antioch it is the “apostles and older men” who come one accord, not just Peter, in the decision.
While there Paul decides to revisit cities where he had preached. Does he consult with Peter? Seek his leadership? No.
In fact as Paul said to the Galatians (chap.’s 1,2) that after his conversion he went off into Arabia and only years later went up to Jerusalem to spend some time with Peter and James (Jesus’ brother).
So Peter as a leader in the church? Sure. Pater as the leader of the church? Scripture doesn't bear that out.
The Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians, which was included in the New Testament canons of several Church Fathers and councils explicitly states the doctrine of apostolic succession in 95 A.D.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Clement#Canonical_rank
According to Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, St. Clement was the first to preside over the See of Rome.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm
Eusebius states in detail whom the apostles appointed and where.
1Clem 44:1
And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office.
1Clem 44:2
For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge,they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.
1Clem 44:3
For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop’s office unblamably and holily.
1Clem 44:4
Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place.
1Clem 44:5
For we see that ye have displaced certain persons, though they were living honorably, from the ministration which had been respected by them blamelessly.
“No, it’s not another way of saying anything. Acts chapter shows the disciple James, not Peter, acting as spokesman and leader of the church in Jerusalem rendering a decision about new converts.”
Perhaps that’s because he’s Bishop of Jerusalem?
“When Paul and Barnabas are sent to Antioch it is the “apostles and older men” who come one accord, not just Peter, in the decision.”
Yet, in Acts 1, before Pentecost, it comes down to Peter. Why is this? When it comes to appointing replacements to the 12, it’s Peter who decides.
“While there Paul decides to revisit cities where he had preached. Does he consult with Peter? Seek his leadership?”
So you’re telling me he didn’t keep Peter appraised as to where he was going? He already had permission to travel.
“Peter as the leader of the church? Scripture doesn’t bear that out.”
If it wasn’t him, who was it?
***I would note that actually God had chosen a replacement for Judas.. permission for the apostles to replace him is not found anywhere in scripture... God had already chosen Paul.. A major author of the NT and teacher in the New testament church ...where as the selection of the apostles is never heard of in the scriptures again****
Where exactly in Scripture does it say that God had chosen Paul as a replacement for Judas?
As for the fact that Matthias is not heard from again, there were twelve Apostles and of those twelve, only Matthew, Peter, James, John and Jude wrote anything included in the NT. Two of the Gospels were not written by Apostles, but by close associates of them. There were gospels written by other Apostles that were not included in the canon of Scripture.
What do we hear of the others in the NT?
Andrew, never mentioned after Acts.
James, Son of Alphaeus, mentioned only four times in the NT and then only in the lists of the Apostles.
Philip, never mentioned after Acts.
Bartholomew, never mentioned after Acts.
Thomas, never mentioned after Acts.
Jude/Thaddeus, rarely mentioned in NT. Some believe he may have written the Epistle of Jude, some disagree with that finding.
Simon, the Zealot, only mentioned in lists of Apostles, not in any other way.
Mr Rogers knows better than St. Peter. If Mr Rogers would have been there, this mistake never would have happened. Mr Rogers also knows better than all the Fathers and Doctors who believed in Apostolic succession.
I wrote nothing about your life, I was stating that what you wrote was evidence that you had not been exposed to Catholic teaching. Since I do not believe you would tell a deliberate lie.
Catholicism has never, ever taught that one is to look to man for Salvation. That you contend you were so taught means either you never were Catholic or you were so poorly taught that you honestly were lead to believe such nonsense.
But show me in any Catholic document that man saves and not Christ alone.
We do not claim Sola Scriptura, never have never will.
Peter quotes from the book of Psalms as reason for why a replacement was chosen. That is why they felt the need to choose someone. In his mind, God had spoken in the verse he quoted.
It may seem wrong to some as to how Matthias was chosen, but that does not make it so.
Scripture never says that God was displeased with the choice, nor does it say that God had already chosen Paul as Judas’ replacement.
All Scripture says is that after prayer, the lot lead to Matthias being chosen and that Paul was later called by Christ.
****They took the vote before they were filled with the Spirit.****
Pentecost was not the first time the Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit.
John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
****even though I know Catholicism says seek man for Truth.****
Really, exactly where does is the official teaching of the Church which says that?
And....
Jesus had no problem teaching men His truth and then sending them out to proclaim it to others. That is the claim of the church and what she has been doing for 2,000 years.
My apologies you wrote look to man for Truth and for some reason I mistakenly wrote you stated look for man for Salvation. Sometimes I read to hurriedly.
The Catholic Church does not teach that man has the Truth she claims that because of the promise of Jesus Christ the Catholic Church is without error on speaking of matters of faith and morals. It is the Holy Spirit that guards and gives voice to this, not any man acting on his own merit.
I believe very strongly that Jesus is the Truth by which all other truths must be measured, whether secular or religious in nature. He alone is the complete revelation of what is True.
Why do you repeat the same misconception about the Council in Jerusalem?
They meet to discuss the revelation that PETER had and James does not render a decision, he AGREES with Peter and the others after the discussion. He is a spokesman only for the others, Peter already had made the call after the revelation that was given only to him.
It is amazing to me how much protestants read into Scripture things it does not say and then whine about Catholicism and “extra biblical” teachings.
Hubris to the extreme.
Paul and Barnabas were sent with Judas and Silas to Anitoch with the decision made by the apostles and older men in Jerusalem concerning what was binding also upon the Christians in Antioch. (Acts, chapter 15)
“Perhaps that’s because he’s Bishop of Jerusalem?”
He's not given any title like Bishop nor is the extent of his authority named. He attributes his decision to holy spirit and the apostles and older men as to these necessary things for the Antioch Christians.
If James presided only over the Christians in Jerusalem then decisions for the entire church are being made a group consisting of the apostles and older men.
“Yet, in Acts 1, before Pentecost, it comes down to Peter. Why is this? When it comes to appointing replacements to the 12, it’s Peter who decides.”
Well...No. Peter says it is necessary to chose a replacement as was prophesied but who the two candidates were was not his decision but probably of all the apostles present and it was by lot the replacement was chosen. (Acts chap., 1)
So it clearly is not Peter who decides.
let me see if i can boil this down for everyone:
The Church that has Apostolic Succession teaches it as a true doctrine and has 2,000 years of Christian history to support the words Jesus spoke about being with us always and the gates of hell can not prevail against the Church, as true.
the “churches” that do not have Apostolic Succession and can NOT have Apostolic Succession, say the doctrine is not Biblical.
What else are they going to teach? If Apostolic Succession is true, their “church” is false by definition.
Does this suprise anyone?
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.