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
Very good question.
Isaiah 22 verse 15. Read it and ponder it. :)
"Never said it was. I’m saying that the Apostles had the authority to appoint their successors and that their successors also had the authority to do the same."
Which IS it ?
What is the question? I’m not sure I understand.
There’s two things going on here. 1, Petrine Primacy and 2, apostolic succession.
Petrine primacy comes from the fact that he chose Peter, and that he gave Peter the Keys to the kingdom of Heaven. This is why Peter became the head of the Apostles.
What we see in Acts 1, is when Judas commits suicide, Peter says that his seat must be replaced by another. Rather than the 12 becoming 11, the 12 remain 12.
This is the point that I am trying to drive home. Peter had the authority to appoint a replacement for Judas, and the Apostles had the authority to ordain priests.
Apostolic succession talks about the succession, from Peter and the Apostles, all the way down to today. Each of the sees had their own ministry and Peter was the head of all of them. Peter could appoint men to replace a see, and the bishops could appoint their priests.
Who then, are the present day twelve ?
Well, I don’t mean to frighten you, but just one remains.
The other 11 have been devastated.
From what I understand, now I don’t know enough myself to answer this question properly, is that in the time of Eusebius, there were 5.
Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem.
Jerusalem had been re-established after it’s devastation in Bar-Kochba, and Constantinople, to my understanding was elevated.
So there were just three in existence from the very beginning some 1600 years ago.
Antioch, as you well known, was devastated in the Seige when it fell to the Turks in the 11th century.
Alexandria fell to the Arabs, much earlier. Rome is the only one that remains.
I don’t know enough about the structure of the very early church to know what happened to the other 7. Perhaps someone else here knows. But it is to my understanding that Rome is the only one left.
It would be helpful if you pointed out that the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Churches also believe in Apostolic Succession.
Why would a Protestant sect care about the validity of Apostolic Succession. Does that question have anything to do with the 5 Solas? Does it in any way threaten to obscure the doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants.
We don’t even know with certainty the bishoprics of all the 12.
From what I can see:
Bishop of Rome - St. Peter (+Antioch)
Bishop of Byzantium - St. Andrew
Bishop of Parthia - St. Matthew
Bishop of Jerusalem - St. James the Less
Bishop of Spain - St. James the Greater (Compostela)
Bishop of India - St. Thomas
Bishop of Phyrygea - St. Philip
Bishop of Armenia - St. Bartholemew
Bishop of Ephesus - St. John
Bishop of Alexandria - St. Mark
Bishop of Babylon - St. Simon
Bishop of Persia - St. Jude.
But most of this is speculation. We just don’t have that much information on the apostles.
Except that there is no apostolic succession described nor is any authority given in the Scriptures to pick successors.
If there is then it must asked who replaced the apostles as they died? and who has formed this body over time?
It’s central to the claim that the Catholic church was founded by Christ.
“If there is then it must asked who replaced the apostles as they died? and who has formed this body over time?”
Acts 1 - St. Peter. After that, his successors.
Matthias was chosen by lot, not by Peter and there are no successors named. none.
The choosing of Matthias happened before the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost by casting lots.
There is no other reference to them taking a vote on anything after they where baptized by the Holy Spirit.
This is the same way they choose the Pope, they cast lots. So much for being led by the spirit.
May God lead us to His truth, BVB
Peter, and this is the important point, decided that a replacement must be selected.
Not the other apostles, Peter.
This is why succession is biblical. He could have said, no, the 12 are now 11. Why did Peter insist that another be appointed?
The authority of the Church comes from Christ, not from the Bible.
The Church used that Christ-given authority to write the New Testament and to ratify the works that we now call the Old Testament.
If the Apostles didn’t have the authority even to establish their own heirs then why would we trust the Bible they wrote?
So you don’t see the connection between them selecting the Pope through casting of lots among worthy successors and what’s going on in Acts 1? :)
You don’t think maybe that’s the reason they do things that way?
Peter narrowed down the candidates and insisted that a replacement be appointed. Therefore we can conclude that succession is what is taught as the appropriate method of passing on the authority from one generation to the next.
Great, nay terrific posts from you this thread.
You are the one who doesn’t understand. They took the vote before they were filled with the Spirit.
Are you happy with them choosing your Pope using that as an example.?
May God lead us all to His truth, BVB
Peter wanted a man for the successor of Judas that had been with Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry. That is reasonable, since they had such men at that time. Peter did not set the same conditions for future successors.
The Early Father held themselves to be Apostolic successor-bishops and they in turn ordained successors. Do you know better than the Early Fathers?
There is really no doubt on the question among secular historians. Perhaps you should debate with them.
I’m not quite sure how you arrived at that conclusion.
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.