Refuting Apostolic Succession

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Claudiu

Puritan Board Junior
What are some basic things that could be pointed out to refute the "apostolic succession" concept that the RCC and EOC hold to? They hold to being "the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic established by Jesus Christ and his Apostles almost 2,000 years ago, respectively. In other words, the Faith and practices of the Church have continued to this day virtually unchanged since apostolic times." From what I have encountered, the reason they say this is because of apostolic succession, and then they talk about the Church coming first, and then the Bible came from the Church, and mention the sacraments and liturgy, and so on. What do you guys have to say?

Verses used to justify their positions:
2 Timothy 2:2 "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."

Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." - To show that the Church was a visible thing that could be pointed to on earth since it will always be around on earth.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." - They use this to show that not everything for the church is found in the bible, that there are some things which were passed down orally and that can only be found in the church (RCC or EOC, whoever is making the claim).

Also, the Early Church Fathers, don't know how many of them, are said to have held to Apostolic Succession.
 
Sorry, I saw this thread and thought it was ironically funny: Refuting Apostolic Succession, started by Augustine :lol:
 
Augustine said:
What are some basic things that could be pointed out to refute the "apostolic succession" concept that the RCC and EOC hold to? They hold to being "the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic established by Jesus Christ and his Apostles almost 2,000 years ago, respectively. In other words, the Faith and practices of the Church have continued to this day virtually unchanged since apostolic times." From what I have encountered, the reason they say this is because of apostolic succession, and then they talk about the Church coming first, and then the Bible came from the Church, and mention the sacraments and liturgy, and so on.
Click to expand...

Is this *precisely* how they define what they mean by "apostolic succession," or is it your own description and/or attempt to explain what they assume by the term? Your understanding could be close and yet miss the target. The reason I ask is that Romanists and EOs often throw out the term without precisely defining what they mean by it. To be sure, they often toss out the term itself, and express their beliefs based upon a particular assumption which they never really define - and often the ambiguity with which they speak of it is intentionally based upon their own ignorance of their communion's position. When dealing with a Romanist, ask him to provide you with official authoritative documentation from his communion to support what he's contending. With the EO, ask for an official understanding of the term based upon some conciliar statement which they recognize as ecumenical. It's always best to understand what it is that you're addressing before you attempt to address it. This way it will save you a lot of wasted time in the vain effort to nail jello to the wall, while the non-Protestant takes pleasure in his superficial mock victory at your expense.
 
DTK said:
Augustine said:
What are some basic things that could be pointed out to refute the "apostolic succession" concept that the RCC and EOC hold to? They hold to being "the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic established by Jesus Christ and his Apostles almost 2,000 years ago, respectively. In other words, the Faith and practices of the Church have continued to this day virtually unchanged since apostolic times." From what I have encountered, the reason they say this is because of apostolic succession, and then they talk about the Church coming first, and then the Bible came from the Church, and mention the sacraments and liturgy, and so on.
Click to expand...

Is this *precisely* how they define what they mean by "apostolic succession," or is it your own description and/or attempt to explain what they assume by the term? Your understanding could be close and yet miss the target. The reason I ask is that Romanists and EOs often throw out the term without precisely defining what they mean by it. To be sure, they often toss out the term itself, and express their beliefs based upon a particular assumption which they never really define - and often the ambiguity with which they speak of it is intentionally based upon their own ignorance of their communion's position. When dealing with a Romanist, ask him to provide you with official authoritative documentation from his communion to support what he's contending. With the EO, ask for an official understanding of the term based upon some conciliar statement which they recognize as ecumenical. It's always best to understand what it is that you're addressing before you attempt to address it. This way it will save you a lot of wasted time in the vain effort to nail jello to the wall, while the non-Protestant takes pleasure in his superficial mock victory at your expense.
Click to expand...

By and large, this is from my encounters with the EO and how they have come to define it. I have tried to restate, as best as possible, what they've told me. They claim that Sola Scriptura is not valid, or even unbiblical they say, because the Church came first, not the bible. With this, the EO I've talked with say that Jesus didn't write anything to guide the Church, but rather chose apostles to establish and carry out the Church. Thus, Apostolic Succession is the Apostles passing down the Oral tradition to others, and in turn, those pass it down to others. It is true that the Apostles wrote, but using 2 Thessalonians 2:15 the EO say that there are oral teachings that have been passed down (then they obviously say that those are only found in their Church). From my talks with them, they appeal to Apostolic Succession primarily for showing the historical side of the EO. When I bring up the Oriental Orthodox churches, they say they aren't "the One" because they split from the EO after the Council of Chalcedon. Similarly, when I bring up the Great Schism the EO say that the West, RCC, split from them, not the other way around. The EO say it was in the making, particularly with the West attributing more authority to the Pope and the filoque clause added in the Nicean Creed. Thus the EO see the RCC as valid in regards to Apostolic Succession, but is nullified since they haven't held to the correct teachings (they've have added doctrine such as purgatory and penance, etc.). The main thing I get from my encounters with the EO over Apostolic Succession and how they define it is to show that it set up their tradition (that they got it from the Apostles themselves), is what makes the Church infallible, and that it gives authority to their church to be the "interpreters of the Bible" (they stress this because of Sola Scriptura). Because the Bible is the "product" of the Church, it is duty of the Church (EO) to interpret it, I've been told. They stress the liturgy as the worship of the Church passed down from the Apostles, again they use this to show how far we Protestants have gone off from their "apostolic teaching." This seems what most of them have said, regardless of who it was, in the EOC. Thus, I'm going by how the EO I've encountered have told me.

You correctly stated that we need to see exactly what "Apostolic Succession" is. They can claim it, but if true succession is the Bible (since that is what the Apostles have passed down), then what the RCC and EOC are holding to is their own version of Apostolic Succession. This is important to define. Do we show that the way they are defining it is wrong, that true succession is not passed down by man but is the Bible, or do we show that they haven't truly held to even the man passed one which they hold to?
 
It is helpful to distinguish between "apostolic succession" and "apostolicity." By the doctrine of apostolic succession the Roman Catholic Church asserts its claim of an uninterrupted and continuous line of succession extending from the twelve apostles through the bishops they ordained right up to the bishops of the present day.

Apostolicity is the mark by which the Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. It is of great importance because it is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ, it is most easily examined, and it virtually contains the other three marks, namely, Unity, Sanctity, and Catholicity.

Apostolicity of mission is a guarantee of Apostolicity of doctrine. Much Roman catholic doctrine is not able to be identified as Apostolicity by standards of scripture.

Protestants have reacted strongly against the doctrine of apostolic succession. They have done so in a number of ways, historical and theological. One of these ways is by affirming the apostolicity of the church.

Apostolicity may be defined as receiving and obeying apostolic doctrine as it is set forth in the New Testament. In matters of doctrine and life, Protestants permit no ultimate appeal to traditions that are distinct from canonical Scripture.

For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.10 says this:
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

Absolutely no provision is made for an authoritative, unwritten tradition. In fact, it is to the touchstone of Scripture that all traditions, including those of Roman Catholicism, must be brought.

Protestants have correctly observed that it is the appeal to Tradition that has made possible many doctrines and practices of Roman Catholicism that have no basis in Scripture. These include (to name only a handful) the papacy, papal infallibility, purgatory, the mass, the immaculate conception, and the assumption of Mary.

"Renouncing the Pope and the teachings of the Catholic church is an anti-Catholic stance. That's what it means…to be against their teachings." I am anti Roman Catholicism as were all the reformers. I renounce and protest all her false teachings as all Protestants should. We protest the heresies and proclaim the true Gospel of Christ.

Calvin passionately sought for the restoration of the Church Catholic of the Apostles and the Fathers, I wish more Presbyterians laid hold of this. That Reformed Protestantism is the restoration of and old religion not the innovation of a new religion. Our greatest fault is that we are not connected with the ancient faith as he was.

Regarding Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Roman Catholics incorrectly use this passage to verify the scriptural basis of Apostolic succession.

The biblically correct and whole meaning of the passage is this: "I will make you the honored instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and I will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church."

This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honored; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles." This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbors, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honor of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles; and this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Galatians 2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not that of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed - a thing which could not have happened if Christ (as the Roman Catholics say) meant that Peter was absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of the church.
 
dudley said:
Protestants have correctly observed that it is the appeal to Tradition that has made possible many doctrines and practices of Roman Catholicism that have no basis in Scripture. These include (to name only a handful) the papacy, papal infallibility, purgatory, the mass, the immaculate conception, and the assumption of Mary.

"Renouncing the Pope and the teachings of the Catholic church is an anti-Catholic stance. That's what it means…to be against their teachings." I am anti Roman Catholicism as were all the reformers. I renounce and protest all her false teachings as all Protestants should. We protest the heresies and proclaim the true Gospel of Christ.
Click to expand...

Besides the Assumption of Mary, I think the EO would agree with this too (in the sense that they are anti-Catholic). From my talks with them, they have told me that the RCC added many things that aren't correct, which we can easily point out. However, I think the EO fail to see that they're guilty of their tradition making possible the doctrines of Icon "veneration," prayer to the Saints, and other extra biblical doctrine.

---------- Post added at 07:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:23 PM ----------

Dudley, as you mentioned, I think the distinction between Apostolic Succession and Apostolicity is important.
 
Augustine, I agree with you here and also your position regarding the EOC. I also affirm with you and I am glad you reaffirm my statement that the distinction between Apostolic Succession and Apostolicity is important.

Matthew 16:18 is the basic argument Roman Catholics use to support their argument supporting the papacy. I think my argument above is one that is good for we who are Reformed Protestants to use when both evangelizing and trying to help Roman Catholics understand the errors of Rome regarding this matter and also in helping modern day Protestants understand why we are and should still be anti papist as were the Reformers.
 
Dudley, what about the EO specifically (who are anti-papist and disagree with much of the RCC practices), in evangelizing and trying to help them understand their errors too?
 
Augustine said:
By and large, this is from my encounters with the EO and how they have come to define it. I have tried to restate, as best as possible, what they've told me. They claim that Sola Scriptura is not valid, or even unbiblical they say, because the Church came first, not the bible. With this, the EO I've talked with say that Jesus didn't write anything to guide the Church, but rather chose apostles to establish and carry out the Church. Thus, Apostolic Succession is the Apostles passing down the Oral tradition to others, and in turn, those pass it down to others. It is true that the Apostles wrote, but using 2 Thessalonians 2:15 the EO say that there are oral teachings that have been passed down (then they obviously say that those are only found in their Church). From my talks with them, they appeal to Apostolic Succession primarily for showing the historical side of the EO. When I bring up the Oriental Orthodox churches, they say they aren't "the One" because they split from the EO after the Council of Chalcedon. Similarly, when I bring up the Great Schism the EO say that the West, RCC, split from them, not the other way around. The EO say it was in the making, particularly with the West attributing more authority to the Pope and the filoque clause added in the Nicean Creed. Thus the EO see the RCC as valid in regards to Apostolic Succession, but is nullified since they haven't held to the correct teachings (they've have added doctrine such as purgatory and penance, etc.). The main thing I get from my encounters with the EO over Apostolic Succession and how they define it is to show that it set up their tradition (that they got it from the Apostles themselves), is what makes the Church infallible, and that it gives authority to their church to be the "interpreters of the Bible" (they stress this because of Sola Scriptura). Because the Bible is the "product" of the Church, it is duty of the Church (EO) to interpret it, I've been told.
Click to expand...

I think there's more to the EO claim than what I'm seeing here. To be honest, I do not have a lot of time to invest on the board. I think Wayne has already recommended to you an excellent book by Thomas Smyth which you can download for free. I'll offer a few pointers...

1) The apostolic church itself was never (and this is important to stress) without a functioning canon of Holy Scripture. I would encourage you not to speak of the Bible per se because in the early apostolic church there were no codices, i.e., any book form of Holy Scripture. Nonetheless, the apostolic church itself was never without a functioning canon of Holy Scripture (Acts 17:2, 11; 18:24, 28; Rom 1:2; 15:4; 16:26; 1 Cor 15:3-4; 2 Tim 3:15-16). Acts 17:2 speak of Paul's "custom" in the planting of churches was to reason with Jews and Greeks from the Scriptures.

2) According to Irenaeus, their claim to extrabiblical tradition is no different from the Gnostics...
Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200): When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, Book 3:2:1.
Click to expand...
Theodoret testified to the same...
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) commenting on 1 Tim. 6:20-21: Give a wide berth to those hollow profanities and contradictions in what is falsely called knowledge; by professing it some have strayed from the faith (vv.20-21). Those who followed in the steps of Simon called themselves Gnostics; what the divine Scripture is silent on (they claim) God revealed to them, but they are full of impiety and licentiousness. He was right to call this knowledge what is falsely called knowledge: the darkness of ignorance is what they have, not the light of the knowledge of God. Robert Charles Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 230.
Click to expand...

3) If you are going to engage these people seriously, you're going to have to invest in some good, apologetic reading materials. Again, Wayne has recommended to you one excellent work. Moreover, if you want to engage them on their own ground intelligently, then you're going to have to become extensively familiar with patristic literature. I do not really recommend this for the average layman because it requires years of reading, study and research. This requires years of study, which is a far cry from what one can possibly gain from a forum like the Puritan Board.

4) Given their misrepresentation of even apostolic history, I would question their sincerity with respect to truth. When one sees how Romanism and Eastern Orthodoxy belittles the importance of the corpus of Holy Scripture, one can scarcely take them seriously when they begin to make claims about the early church, because the early church did not share their shameful view of the same.

5) When they say (according to you) that "Apostolic Succession is the Apostles passing down the Oral tradition to others, and in turn, those pass it down to others," they are making a claim for what "apostolic succession" does, and that does not define what "apostolic succession" is according to whatever the presupposition is upon which they're basing their claim for what it does. Claiming that "apostolic succession" gives them this tradition is still no definition of what it is. So, I'm not sure you understand what they mean by "apostolic succession."

I am sorry I do not have more time to invest with you, but I do not think you have articulated clearly what "apostolic succession" means in the way they are using it, at least not in what I have seen of your posts here.
 
D. T. King, thank you for your input, especially the first two points. As far as engaging them, I used to, but not anymore since I've moved.

---------- Post added at 08:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------
DTK said:
5) When they say (according to you) that "Apostolic Succession is the Apostles passing down the Oral tradition to others, and in turn, those pass it down to others," they are making a claim for what "apostolic succession" does, and that does not define what "apostolic succession" is according to whatever the presupposition is upon which they're basing their claim for what it does. Claiming that "apostolic succession" gives them this tradition is still no definition of what it is. So, I'm not sure you understand what they mean by "apostolic succession." .
Click to expand...

How would you define it, if I'm not understanding it correctly?
 
 
Augustine, I come from EOC background and I think I am well acquainted with EOC claims and their differences with RCC. The major problem with claims of apostolic succession is that both Catholics and Orthodox believe that their bishops are vested with the same authority as the apostles had, both ecclesiastical and doctrinal. Their claims are simply not true and can be easily refuted by early church fathers. I dedicated a lot of time in earlier years to the writings of the early Church and they convinced me the opposite of what Rome and Constantinople taught. For example, both traditions use icons and statues in their worship to 'assist them' in communication with God. Such practice was UNIVERSALLY AND UNANIMOUSLY rejected by all fathers of the first 6 centuries and both churches have great pains to explain that away. On the other hand, the EOC still sticks to some 'unwritten traditions' like singing/chanting unaccompanied by musical instruments. But there are many other unwritten traditions that Tertulian, Basil the great and others wrote about that neither Catholics not Orthodox observe so most things that you will hear from your EOC friends are simply without ground and unsubstantiated.

All the best
 
Augustine said:
Dudley, what about the EO specifically (who are anti-papist and disagree with much of the RCC practices), in evangelizing and trying to help them understand their errors too?
Click to expand...

Augustine I think Jovo ( Bengibor answered the question well on the EO) My thinking and position and expertise on the subject stems from the position I have and from the studies I made when converting from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism and the Reformed theology and Presbyterianism.

My thinking is very much like John Calvin and the Protestant Reformers who moved from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism and in so doing refuted the RCC ‘s arguments on papal apostolic succession and renounced the pope of Rome and Roman Catholicism as they did.

I think again as I said with you in an earlier post that the important distinction is between Apostolic succession and Apostolicity. I think our brother Jovo , Bengibor would agree with us here. I think his expertise on the subject comes from his former EO background as he said as my perspective stems from one who was at one time a Roman catholic and like the Protestant Reformers now a Protestant and a Presbyterian.

Also it is important to remember the Reformation was among the European nationals and against the Roman church and the corruptions of the Gospel and practices she had instilled after one thousand years of papist control of the Christian church in the West; not the Eastern Orthodox Church.
 
Would you all say that some of the same problems/issues are also common to Anglicans/Episcopals? It seems as though Anglican claims to apostolic succession, while they exist, are not as strong as RCC and EOC claims.
 
The fact that Rome accepts that they have had antipopes that were accepted to the office of pope and gave influential change would communicate against the thinking of Apostolic Succession.
 
PMBrooks said:
Would you all say that some of the same problems/issues are also common to Anglicans/Episcopals? It seems as though Anglican claims to apostolic succession, while they exist, are not as strong as RCC and EOC claims.
Click to expand...

From what I've read so far in this book: Complete works of Rev. Thomas Smyth, D. D. : Smyth, Thomas, 1808-1873 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive , the author deals mainly with the Anglicans.

---------- Post added at 11:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 AM ----------

Wayne, are the books for reading on this topic or to set up Mr. Kings ethos? I don't question his "standing and authority." The reason I was asking for the definition is simply to get one that we can agree upon so that we can correctly refute the "Apostolic Succession" claim made by the RCC and EOC. If I'm not defining it correctly (that Apostolic succession is the tracing back of Bishops in the RCC and the EOC to the Apostles and the preserving of the Apostolic faith), then there is a problem, which is why I asked him to clear things up.

By the way, I'm 10% into the book so far.
 
Anglicans have somewhat different understanding of the apostolic succession. There are two major views in the Anglican world about apostolic succession. “Are bishops of the esse (essence) of the Church or are they for the bene esse (good of)the Church?”

Whatever belief they pick Anglicans don't believe that bishops possess the same authority and knowledge as the apostles in the NT. On the other hand EOC and RCC believe that their oecumenical councils and their decisions ARE OF THE SAME AUTHORITY and on par with the Scriptures and apostolic teachings. In the Roman case this also refers to Pope speaking 'ex cathedra'.

Now to return to Anglican/Episcopal world. Some Anglican (actually Anglo Catholic wing of Anglican Communion believe that only priests ordained by bishops in the historic succession going back to the original apostles may legitimately celebrate the sacraments Christ gave to the Church. This is a minority opinion (about 5%-10% of the communion) and it belongs to the 'esse' view of the Church.

Other Anglicans believe rather in faithful succession of apostolic teaching which means that ordained priest and consecrated bishop who preaches and teaches Scripture faithfully stands as a successor to apostolic doctrine and practice.

And to quote Rev Matt Kennedy: "Anglicans who take this view do not think a bishop in apostolic succession is necessary in order for the church to be fully present but instead recognize the validity of all other faithful Protestant and non-Protestant churches and denominations and accept them as full participant's in the visible Church so long as they carry on the teaching of the original Apostles as contained in the Bible.

Where do I stand?

I rejoice in the fact that our bishops stand in a historical line that reaches back to the original apostles. This fact stands as a living reminder that the Christian faith is grounded in real history and events that truly took place."

I also agree with Rev. Kennedy :amen:

There's one more thing that I want to mention which shows the fallacy of EOC and RCC reasoning. In the early Church the bishops were elected by faithful people and then consecrated by 2 or 3 bishops at least who were in the historic apostolic line of succession. If you read Cyprian, Didache, Clement of Rome, Tertulian, Gregory Nazianzen, Ignatius, Irenaeus you will see that bishops had to be chosen and approved by the popular consent first and then consecrated by other bishops. RCC and EOC have dispensed with such practice long time ago and only bishops choose other bishops without apostolic tradition and practice of the early church. So in technical terms. neither RCC nor EOC are in apostolic succession anymore. To this adds false doctrines and many heresies and innovations they picked along the way but that's another topic.
 
The following three articles are very good refuting apostolic sucession by William Webster. He was Roman Catholic and is now a convinced evangelical Protestant
- "The Authority of Scripture"
- "The Papacy and the ‘Rock’ of Matthew 16"
- "The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18" this article is an Historical Refutation of the Claims of Roman Catholicism and it Includes a Critique of Jesus, Peter and the Keys

You can visit his website at http://www.christiantruth.com/
 
Augustine:

I was just saying in effect that I think Pastor King knows what he's talking about.
Apparently I didn't, in some measure, in that Smyth's book is more focused on Anglican views. My apologies for that oversight.
 
Wayne, Smyth's book has been a great help. I'm about 20% in and it's shed some light and cleared some things up for me. Thanks for the recommendation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top