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
Where was “God’s church” in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries?
can you name any members of this church at all from these centuries? if yes, mind naming just one from each century?
“Peter says it is necessary to chose a replacement as was prophesied”
So, Peter made the decision then.
“who the two candidates were was not his decision but probably of all the apostles present”
Probably!= not in scripture.
“it was by lot the replacement was chosen.”
Again, we see Peter starting the whole ball rolling and the Apostles following him.
You are still roaming about asking questions? Is that your ‘works’?
God’s Word is The Final Authority.
1. The apostles, with Peter as their chief, had been given authority to act officially in Christ's absence. (Matt. 16:19, 18: 18,19.
2.It was stated in Psalms that another should be appointed to Judas' place (Psa. 109:8, Acts 1:20).
3. The twelfth apostle HAD to be chosen BEFORE the kingdom could be offered at Pentecost.(Matt.19:28). Note how Peter stands up with the eleven in Acts 2:14.
4. The apostle's actions were bathed in prayer. They did not proceed until after MANY DAYS OF UNITED PRAYER (Luke 24:49, cf. Acts 1:12-15), and when the two candidates, Matthias and Barsabas were found they AGAIN PRAYED and left the final choice to God. (Acts 1:24-26).
5. The only ones who could qualify for the position of the twelfth apostle were those who had followed with Christ all during His earthly ministry, "beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that He was taken up.." (Acts 1:21,22,.cf. Matt. 19:28.
6. For this reason alone Paul would not have been eligible. He did not even see Christ until after His ascension.
7. Paul was not even saved at the time of the choosing of the 12th apostle. The Bible even states that "AFTER THAT" (after the day of Pentecost) he "persecuted the church of God and laid it waste" (Gal. 1:13).
8. The final and conclusive proof that the eleven acted in the WILL OF GOD in choosing Matthias is found in the fact that the Scripture clearly states that Matthias "was NUMBERED WITH THE ELEVEN APOSTLES" (Acts 1:26), and that "They were ALL FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST" (Acts 2:4). This would INCLUDE Matthias.
If the apostles had been out of the will of God in so important a matter they would NOT have been filled with the Holy Spirit. Nor would Matthias have been filled with the Holy Spirit if he had NOT BEEN DIVINELY CHOSEN FOR THAT PARTICULAR POSITION. A man out of the will of God is NEVER filled with the Holy Spirit.
This is the whole point of the naming of the 12th Apostle prior to the day of Pentecost. They will sit upon 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel when Christ returns and sets upon His throne.
Paul cannot be considered as one with the twelve, for just as eleven apostles would have been too few for God's kingdom plans, so thirteen would have been too many. Paul's apostleship was separate and distinct from that of the twelve. There will be 12 thrones (besides Christ's) in the kingdom, not 13. It's pretty obvious from this that Paul belonged to ANOTHER PROGRAM and was sent forth to proclaim ANOTHER MESSAGE. Otherwise, he would have been the 12th apostle.
It is also significant that Paul also speaks of the twelve as a SEPARATE BODY OF APOSTLES when he says that the resurrected Christ was "seen...of the twelve" (1 Cor. 15:5). This reference to TWELVE APOSTLES between the resurrection and ascension, is further proof that Matthias was, by God, considered one of the twelve from the beginning. He was apparently with the apostles when the risen Christ appeared to them (Acts 1:21-23).
Peter and the 11, including Matthias, were the Apostles of the Kingdom and will be seated on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, when Christ returns and sets up the Kingdom.
Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, forming the Church the BOdy of Christ, during this age of the grace of God, until the fulness of the Gentiles be brought in. And God once again turns His attention to the Nation of Israel in particular.
A church without apostolic succession is NOT a church.
And by appealing to the trail of blood theory, Baptists have all but admitted they are Gnostics and not Christians.
Yes, His truth, is there another? His truth is the truth proclaimed and protected by the Church.
The doctrines are not man made, but inspired by the Holy Spirit in light of Scripture and Tradition.
God’s Word is The Final Authority.
>>If God’s word is the final authority, then explain the doctrinal anarchy on matters of church dogma among those who believe as you do.
Isn’t the individual’s conscience really your final authority?
And aren’t your feelings about what scripture says over and above the text?
What an odd verse to post with that question.
Here’s a little tidbit for those who may not know.
The Catholic Church does not force/compel anyone to pray the Rosary or to pray to Mary.
Those are practices and devotions seen by the Church as helpful to Christians in their spiritual journey.
But, no Catholic is bound by the Church to do them.
Just another example of wrongness regarding the Church.
“So, Peter made the decision then.”
If that’s how you see it then that’s how you see it. But as I read I don’t get the sense of Peter being the head of the church and being deferred to as THE leader.
Respect? Yes! He’s an apostle and older man. A “pillar” as Paul called him as well as James and John? Quite so!
Well, FINALLY! a catholic that admits to praying “TO” Mary!
Thank you for your honesty.
Sola Scriptura is a man made doctrine invented for the sole purpose of fomenting dissension against Christ’s Church.
St. Paul says that all scripture is useful for reproof and correction, but he never says “scripture alone” anywhere.
There is no doubt that he believed in the primacy of scripture, but he never says that it alone is the only authority.
Nothing approaching the Protestant dogma Sola Scriptura was even considered by ancient Jews or Christians until the rise of the Karaites in the 7th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism
So Protestants can try in the vanity of their minds to make the Bible say scripture alone, but their dogma would have been foreign to the earliest Christians.
I might note that it’s easy to cherry pick from the fathers to twist their meanings without taking them in the fullness of their writings where they also appeal to ecclesiastical tradition in defense of their scriptural interpretations.
No, only those who wish to be saved.
"God has committed to her (Mary) the treasury of ALL good things, in order that everyone may KNOW that THROUGH HER are OBTAINED EVERY HOPE, EVERY GRACE, and ALL SALVATION. For this is his will, that we obtain EVERYTHING THROUGH MARY." -Pope Pius IX, Ubi Primum.
Your talk doesn't match the "truths" coming from your church.
Wrong. People would not have left the CC if that were so and there would have been no need of a reformation.
Don’t accuse The HOLY SPIRIT of giving false doctrine. “May God’s Word be true and every man a liar.”
BK: So does Christ... There’s no direct mention of him after the Gospels. Does that mean that Paul replaces Christ? Nonsense.
No direct mention of Christ after the gospels?????
Please tell me that you're not really saying that and meant something else.
ping to post 155
Joseph Smith and Mormons will be glad that other people believe that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church in the 2nd century as well.
too bad that’s not what God’s Word says, that you claim is the “final authority”
let’s test how “final” you think the authority is. Jesus at the Last Supper took bread, blessed it and said “This is My Body”
That’s what God’s Word says.
now, since God’s Word is the final authority, did the Apostles receive the Body of Christ at the Last Supper?
let’s see if God’s Word is the final authority or the man in mirror is the final authority.
In all fairness, I think only those Baptists who are ignorant of the heresies of such gnostic groups dare to claim a connection with them. Those who know what those sects truly taught distanced themselves and claim a remnant not relative to such.
There is a month full of Scriptures that say otherwise. Perhaps you do not read past Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There is a whole age that is happening right now, before your very eyes, that would transform your life and your opinion of Christ, God's Word of truth, and the past, present, and future of mankind. ALL of which centers on Jesus Christ. ALL of which glorifies God and explains what is happening while Christ is seated on the right hand of God, patiently waiting for the last member of the Body of Christ to be saved.
In all this discussion about Peter’s successor, the only thing Catholics appeal to is the decision of peter to draw lots for God to validate the man HE already chose.
No seeking God in prayer on the matter mentioned at all.
Also not mentioned is ANY instructions on anyone’s part, particularly Peter’s, on choosing a successor for him. If it was that critical to the church, I would love to have some Catholic give an explanation for such a serious oversight.
Peter wrote a couple epistles and yet didn’t mention something so important as to procedure for replacing him when he died?
John wrote Revelation as an old man and all that Jesus had to say to the churches did not include any kind of instruction on appointing a successor to Peter to guide His church.
The silence in the NT surrounding this issue is deafening.
So just where does the Catholic church get this teaching and how do they justify it?
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.