Posted on 02/12/2019 9:41:27 AM PST by NRx
Below is a presentation I recently gave on the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. It is a sketch of the doctrine and I do not discuss or handle everything. The structure of the presentation generally follows Cirlot’s work Apostolic Succession: Is it True? I have posted a copy of that book in a PDF here–> Cirlot_OnTheApostolicSucession. I believe the book is now outside of copyright. A friend of mine also made a video of the presentation which I have linked here. Comments are also open.
Two other posts that were written here by a past contributor are linked below. They follow Cirlot’s line of argumentation as well. In my view, Cirlot’s work remains the most comprehensive and best argued work on the subject.
I. Introduction– “How will they preach unless they are sent?” Romans 10:15
Apostolic Succession is a thesis about ecclesiastical polity and so might strike some as dry or boring and perhaps irrelevant. But Apostolic Succession is not a thesis just about polity. Like many Christian doctrines it entails a number of interconnecting theses, some as subsidiaries and others in relation to other Christian doctrines. What is presented here is merely a sketch of the doctrine, its supporting evidence and some of the more popular objections.
II. What Apostolic Succession Is Not
To clear the floor I note popular glosses on apostolic succession or its constitutive theses that constitute a straw man or are not part of the doctrine or essential to it.
A. Apostolic succession is part of the papal theory or it is the thesis that all bishops are to be successors of the Pope going back to St. Peter.
B. Apostolic Succession is the idea that a tactual succession alone makes one a valid minister.
C. Apostolic Succession is an appeal to antiquity, pedigree, lineage or ancestry.
D. The existence of one bishop in a given locale over multiple congregations (sometimes called the Monarchial Episcopate)
E. Apostolic Succession is a claim that there are present day apostles.
III. The Doctrine of Apostolic Succession
Apostolic Succession is roughly the thesis that Christ, being sent by God the Father, directly commissions the Apostles equipping them with divine power/authority to perpetuate the ministry of Christ. And in turn that the Apostles ordained by the laying on of hands ministers to be their successors which were codified into three orders: bishops, presbyters and deacons with only bishops having the power to ordain.
The doctrine of Apostolic succession is constituted by four distinct theses.
A. Theocratic Principle-possession of supernatural/divine power/authority is ultimately derived from God alone.
B. Hierarchical Principle-Transmission of divine power/authority can be conveyed in greater or lesser degrees.
C. Appointment Principle- Appointment to office was ordinarily accomplished by (1) ordination and ordination was sacramental, i.e. ordination conveyed a real supernatural power/authority.
D. Monarchial Principle- Not all powers of the highest office were transmitted to all orders of the hierarchy, i.e. the power to ordain.
III. Principles of Apostolic Succession Exemplified
A. Old Testament Data
Theocratic Principle–
Numbers 16:1ff Korah’s Rebellion exemplifies the Theocratic principle that divine power/authority is ultimately from God alone. vv. 3, 10, 13, 21, 28, 40
Heb 5:4 “And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was.”
Hierarchical Principle-
Numbers 16
Heb 9:6 “Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle performing the divine worship, but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance.”
Appointment Principle-
Num 27:15 “Then Moses spoke to the LORD, saying, “May the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation, who will go out and come in before them, and who will lead them out and bring them in, so that the congregation of the LORD will not be like sheep which have no shepherd.” So the LORD said to Moses, “Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him; and have him stand before Eleazar the priest and before all the congregation, and commission him in their sight.“ You shall put some of your authority [majesty/glory] on him, in order that all the congregation of the sons of Israel may obey him.”
Deut 34:9 “Now Joshua the son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands on him; and the sons of Israel listened to him and did as the LORD had commanded Moses.”
Monarchial Principle-
Numbers 16, Heb 9:6, etc.
B. New Testament Data
Theocratic Principle-
Matt 21 Parable of the Landowner
Mat 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
John 15:16 “You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.
Mat 10:40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.”
Heb 7:7 “But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.”
Rom 13:1 “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.”
See also, Gal 2:7-8, Acts 1, Acts 6, Acts 20:28
Hierarchical Principle
Acts 6-The Seven are of a lower rank than the apostles and could not perform all the tasks of the Apostles
Eph 4:11 “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ”
3 John 1:9 “I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.”
Appointment Principle
Acts 6, Acts 20:28
1Ti 4:14 “Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.”
2 Tim 1:6 “For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.”
1 Tim 5:22 “Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.”
Tit 1:5 “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you.”
Monarchial Principle
Acts 6, 3 John 1:9,
Acts 8:12ff “But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike. Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed…. Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”
C. Early Church Data
Theocratic Principle
“For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the [manifested] will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds [of the earth], are so by the will of Jesus Christ.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Ephesians 3, 107 A.D.
“In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Trallians 3, 107 A.D.
Hierarchical Principle
When one ordains a deacon, he is chosen according to what has been said above, with only the bishop laying on his hand in the same manner. In the ordination of a deacon, only the bishop lays on his hand, because the deacon is not ordained to the priesthood, but to the service of the bishop, to do that which he commands. For he is not part of the council of the clergy, but acts as a manager, and reports to the bishop what is necessary. He does not receive the spirit common to the elders, which the elders share, but that which is entrusted to him under the bishop’s authority. This is why only the bishop makes a deacon. Upon the elders, the other elders place their hands because of a common spirit and similar duty. Indeed, the elder has only the authority to receive this, but he has no authority to give it. Therefore he does not ordain to the clergy. Upon the ordination of the elder he seals; the bishop ordains.”
Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, sec. 8, 200 A.D.
Appointment Principle
Hippolytus
“…yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another. Wherefore, brother, if you consider God’s majesty who ordains priests, if you will for once have respect to Christ, who by His decree and word, and by His presence, both rules prelates themselves, and rules the Church by prelates”
Cyprian, Letter 68, sec. 8-9 250 A.D.
Monarchial Principle-
Hippolytus
“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them. Furthermore, let not the deacons sit among the presbyters, for that is contrary to canon and order. And if, after this decree, any one shall refuse to obey, let him be deposed from the diaconate.” Council of Nicea Canon 18, 325 A.D.
IV. Objections Considered
The first most significant objection to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is that bishops in the traditional sense of the term are a later development and that the episcopate as later came to be known grew out of the lower order of the presbyterate. This claim first rests on the argument that the term episcopus and presbyterous are identical in meaning since they are used interchangeably in numerous instances in the NT. (e.g. Titus 1:5-7)
Working backwards, the interchangeability of the two terms is not contested but the inference to an identical meaning and office is. First if the two terms have identical meaning, then other terms which are used interchangeably in the same way (denoting the same group) must also imply identity of meaning and office. So for example Apostles are also called presbyters in the NT (1 Pet 5:1) and so by the same reasoning we would have to conclude that presbyters were apostles and vice versa, but this is not consistent with the NT data nor the principles exemplified above.
Second, that the episcopate as we know it in the second and third centuries came later is not lethal to the theory since it is a question of how much later. I will return to this in a moment. The idea that the episcopate grew out of the presbyterate runs contrary to the principles exemplified above, namely men taking an office to themselves and the lesser blessing the greater and so on. What is more, we have no clear case of presbyters qua office ever having the power to ordain. The earliest cases are in the fifth century and were incidental and roundly condemned.
Returning to the thesis that the episcopate as we know it developed later, this depends. By the time of Ignatius (107 A.D.) and probably Clement of Rome (95 A.D.) we have a clear-cut episcopate which is right on the heals of the Apostles. (Many other bishops from different cities come to offer aid to Ignatius on his road to martyrdom to Rome.) What is more, Paul seems to distinguish between Apostles made by God and Apostles made by men (Gal 1:1). The latter would not be of the Twelve or of direct commissioning by God but would be second order apostles (deutero-Apostles) such as James, Barnabas, Timothy and Silvanus (1 Thess 1:1. 2 Thess 1:1 cf w. 2 Thess 2:6) As the Twelve & Paul died, the burden of leadership and ordination would have fallen on these second order apostles to ordain and oversee the churches. What is more we know that they had the power to ordain per Timothy and they were sent to specific regions as heads of churches in an area, such as James in Antioch. The primitive use of bishop denoting a function of overseeing at the local level would have been eclipsed by these second order apostles and so by the time of Ignatius the title of bishop is transferred to them. This is why in the NT the only two orders mentioned by name are bishops and deacons, but not presbyters, with Apostle being the third. Once the function of oversight of congregations had shifted to second order apostles, those who previously had it would simply be called presbyters. This is why the title of presbyter as a distinct office doesn’t appear until this transition has already begun to take place in the 90’s of the first century. Consequently, it is not that the episcopate grew out of the presbyterate but rather that the presbyterate qua office grew out of a shift in oversight (and terminology) that could only take place once the Apostles made by God had died. It is also why the language of a three order ministry from the OT was employed as early the Didache and Clement so that by the time of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian (180-250 A.D), presbyters are commonly called priests, with bishops called high priests, although both in a Melchizekian sense.
Now these Roman cults. I would expect them to be the opposite of Jesus. Jesus never prosecuted anybody, appeared to eschew earthly riches or political power, and he never build some grand buildings to his glory.
So if I was looking for a Roman based cult, i would look for things like a fabulously wealthy organization, in grand buildings, and they would have a pack of vestal virgins maybe. And a basement full of rifles. They might have a few jail cells just in case. And they would also have the form of a political power and would always be involved in government.
There must be -one- like that. It should stand out in stark contrast to Jesus. This is a real brain teaser...
“Without Apostolic Succession, the Church would of been consumed by heretics and Gnostics running wild all over the Roman Empire “
And how are you assured you are not “consumed by heretics” when they are powerful members of a hierarchy that interacts heavily with an empire based in Rome?
Your ignorance of the “pre-Constantine” Church isn't that sharp from what you have posted. Even after Constantine, the Bishop of Rome took centuries to get to the point you are wailing at.
Are you saying some human man, who puts his pants on just like me, is somehow specially endowed by god to discern the wolves just because he chose the career of being a priest... and that we peons should just trust THEIR judgement over our own?
The problem is that we mere humans can clearly see who the wolves are that wanna put the big britches on us. Tricks that worked on the masses in 600 AD are a lot harder to pull off in the information age.
2 TIMOTHY 2:15 would answer the question.
“...the sheep must verify the shepherds?”
Do you have an alternative in mind? What sheep doesn’t have to verify the shepherds?
“BEWARE the leaven of the Pharisees.” “YOU shall tell the tree by its fruit.” (paraphrasing)
In response to #21, look up the definition of cult concerning that time and get back to me.
You think everything pre-codification of the Bible just magically happened without any work of humans who sometimes had to shake Roman authorities (While dealing/correcting all kinds of heretics) until the certain emperors died and were replaced by another emperor who could care less about followers of Christ.
Only if you think the sheep are also, simultaneously, shepherds.
Tell you what, was cheap written paper (As we know it now and where the Chinese just started that process of inventing that decades before Christ died) accessible between the years of say 42AD to 312 AD? Was the Bible formulated? Who had discernment then? Who knew the information to separate the wolves from the sheep at that time?
“How about, rather, that God has chosen for us to need man in our relationship with Himself.”
Nope. We approach God through Jesus, not through some other man who has better standing with God. That’s not to say a christian more experienced than you may not lead you, but It does mean every man approaches god as an equal. A man in the pew of some small baptist church is not any less before god than some Bishop or Cardinal or Pope.
Works really well unless your goal is gaining control of people.
Constantine...
:: How do you think the Word was spread and the integrity protected? ::
Not inclusive of each other but to answer each individually, the Holy Spirit.
Is man tasked with verifying the work of the Holy Spirit?
Do we now say that the sheep must verify the shepherds?
Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. — They even double-checked Paul.
One of the threads throughout the New Testament is “Be sure you can discern the true Gospel.” If the sheep know the Shepherd’s voice, they will be able to avoid being led astray. This is especially important today when there are hundreds of varieties of Christian churches, some of which have great variations in doctrine.
Matt 7:22,23 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evil-doers!’
The sheep are all of mankind under the great shepherd Christ. Priests are part of mankind. Apostolic succession is simply a manmade POLITICAL ruse to provide priests some perception of elitism.
Unless, of course, you think that God WANTED a hierarchical political structure for his church.
Then, to paraphrase Geo. Orwell, “Some priests are more equal than others.”
How does a notion of Apostolic Succession square with the New Testament Covenant with Jesus?
Jesus saith unto him,
I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
“Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”
Saint John chapter 20, verse 23
So, what if the sinners’ sins are retained in this context? Was that not an avenue, established by Jesus our Lord, for a man to reach Himself, whereby had the sins BEEN forgiven then in heaven the sins would be forgiven and the sinner forgiven and gained entrance into heaven?
The constituents do in a Constitutional democratic republic. And in the one I live in, the representatives are re-validated and/or replaced on a regular free-will basis.
Think that out as regarding its advantages in a world of fallen humans.
Respectfully submitted.
If Peter was the first pope, why did the church start picking non Jewish successors as popes?
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.