Hello,

I do not think that the practice of “apostolic succession” has successfully combated wrong doctrines in the history of the Church given the fact that it gave rise to the Roman Catholic Church where tradition had an equal say in the matters of faith as the Scriptures. Just observe the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, and tell me how successful was “apostolic succession” in combating wrong practices such as the cult of saints? And given this fact that there is something wrong with their “apostolic succession,” why should we insist on having such lineage if it must go through the Catholic or Orthodox channels?

Besides, how can we be so sure that the “Church fathers” and early bishops were true teachers? I do not say that they had everything wrong, but the very concept of bishop, as advocated and practiced in the Catholic Church, was from the start being corrupted seen from various Brethren traditions. From a Brethren perspective, any elder was a bishop, and you could have more than one bishop in a city or a town. Persons who had a church in their home were certainly elders/bishops. A city or town could have hundreds of such house churches.

I believe that the practice of “apostolic succession” gave rise to elitism and the difference between laity and priests, a distinction not taught in the NT, cf. 1 Pet 2:9. Rev 1:6.

Kind regards,
Aleksandar

Thanks for the replies to my post Wm, I will try to do my best in answering each statement. First off, I hope I did not come across as negative or pessimistic in my post. My questions were not fully thought out, but they were not intended to offend or scare anyone.

Brian, thank you for your very detailed replies — I apologize that I haven’t given them the time they deserved, but I felt bad about giving them a low-quality reply.

Now I realize that ANY reply is better than none, so here goes .

But rather than reply in detail, I’ll just note my remaining disagreement, and then tie this back to the topic of CMP’s post.

I’m glad to note that many of my worries were just wrong; your reply has made it clear that I had nothing to worry about in many cases. (I’m still puzzled about what you say about old law versus new law, and about “God is not to blame for man requiring laws”… But that’s all a side point, and your main point, that man’s created laws choked out the spirit of the law, is totally valid.)

So back to the main topic.

As long as each Christian church teaches from the Bible under the authority and guidance of the Holy Spirit, they should be healthy and remain so.

I agree and I think CMP would. But I think CMP might answer, “but how do you tell?” Every church will claim to be under the authority of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will know, but how do I know? I can be fooled.

He seems to be saying that consistent doctrine equals apostolic succession. This means that a pastor should be able to explain how what he claims to be important is no mere innovation, but is found in earlier authors back to the dawn of the Church.

-Wm

“Again, as a layman, I do not have a burning desire to see a genealogy chart of each line of successive apostles from John in the New Testament all the way to John Piper of Desiring God ministries. HOWEVER, I do believe that God will call out men to record ALL of church history good and bad, and God will preserve his Church and its varied history. It is just up to each individual Christian to take the time to research (ESPECIALLY in the internet age!) and seek out good, solid biblical teachers (Matt 7:7).”

Well said. For us Evangelicals to even think that we would be any better than the Catholics or the charismatics in deciding the issue of apostolic succession, given our own poor track record in obeying God, is totally preposterous to me. Yes, let us record and by by all means listen to all the arguments, and carefully preserve church history and compare all the theological opinions with the pure, unadulterated word of God and THEN let folks make up their minds individually. After all, that is way we will be judged by God, not on whether we are Evangelicals or Catholics, or for or against apostolic succession.

Better for pastors and the rest of us to get back to the business of concentrating on being messengers of the true gospel, not merely historians or apologists of it. Both serve an important purpose in the real church of Christ, but neither takes the place of it.

Having said ALL that in the above posts, I do want to add a few things.

One way to have a sort of non-official ‘apostolic succession’ for Christianity as a whole is what Michael Patton is doing with the Credo House. The Credo House is physical repository of Church history (and much more!).

The Credo House is one way for evangelical churches who, according to certain denominations, may not have a DIRECT line of apostolic successors, to have a sense of lineage and history. Michael, please correct me if I am wrong, I do not want mis-represent you.

Continuing on from the last post:

You: “You’ve now crossed the line from a simple strawman and into outright dishonesty: this is NOT what CMP is proposing.”

I realize this! I was making a point that some churches value fame and outward appearance when deciding on ‘apostolic succession.’

In my mind, ‘apostolic succession’ is kind of like a large tree (still growing I might add!): at first, the first seeds are sown (the 12 apostles), then it continues to bud, flower, and grow. Some branches of the same tree will produce fruit (some large fruit, some small: Luther, Calvin, etc.), while others will shrivel, die, or produce nothing (heresies, backsliders, etc.).

Because it is 2000 years after Messiah came and left, the tree continues to grow and grow with God doing the pruning, etc. Now, to me, the tree is the body of Christ, the Church, with its various members: laymen, clergy, etc, etc. The body of Christ is also much like a house too, with the first apostles being the foundation (the corner stone being Christ) on which further Church history will be built upon. Any loose boards (heresies, etc.) must be cut away or hammered back into place (hammered gently!). The house must be swept clean and maintained as well.

But the Body of Christ will always have some sort of ‘Apostolic Succession!’ As long as the Word is handed down and taught properly from one generation to the next, then there will be ‘Apostolic Succession.’ Whether or not we decide to record each Apostle who succeeds in the manner and teaching of a past apostle right back to the original 12, to me, may have something to do with two emotions: fear or/and pride.

Pride because one church can claim to have the TRUE essence of Christianity (therefore, they could claim to be the ONLY church you can go to and learn from), and fear because one church does not want to lose its heritage from the ravages done by time and worldly elements (satanic elements, I might add). But, it could be because we cherish good teachers too!

For me, as a layman, I enjoy reading about the early 1st generation apostles and the early church leaders. As long as they follow the Bible and Christ, they are each worthy apostles to follow and learn from regardless of genealogy or church history. If they err or fall prey to false doctrine, I mentally and spiritually toss them out (as my faith grows, my discernment gets better and better). Even if that apostle that erred was a successor to Polycarp, I still must spit their teachings out.

Again, as a layman, I do not have a burning desire to see a genealogy chart of each line of successive apostles from John in the New Testament all the way to John Piper of Desiring God ministries. HOWEVER, I do believe that God will call out men to record ALL of church history good and bad, and God will preserve his Church and its varied history. It is just up to each individual Christian to take the time to research (ESPECIALLY in the internet age!) and seek out good, solid biblical teachers (Matt 7:7).

Thanks for the replies to my post Wm, I will try to do my best in answering each statement. First off, I hope I did not come across as negative or pessimistic in my post. My questions were not fully thought out, but they were not intended to offend or scare anyone.

You: “Each of them is in danger. You, however, seem to imply that all of them have completely fallen. Why?”

No, I am not implying that they all have fallen. As long as each Christian church teaches from the Bible under the authority and guidance of the Holy Spirit, they should be healthy and remain so. The center must ALWAYS be Christ, in the church and in each believer.

You: So you don’t see any laws there that Adam broke?

That was not my point. My point was to show how mankind, as opposed to God, seeks to increase the amount of Laws over time. The first man (and woman) were just given a simple ‘law,’ do not eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. Of course they sinned against God, therefore triggering mankind’s fallen nature. But because Laws are really ineffectual at getting to the root of the problem, God Himself had to intervene and offer Himself as a fulfillment of the ‘Law.’ We Christians should still respect the Ten Commandments, but once saved we are now under a HIGHER LAW which is Love-which the rest of the commandments hang under. This dovetails into your next question:

“Do you believe that God disapproved of the laws He dictated to Moses and inscribed on the tablets?”

Not at all! They were only Ten simple rules to obey, yet unregenerate man decides that it just isn’t enough to love and obey God, so they add much more to the Law over the course of history. Then God sends the Messiah so that believers can worship in Spirit and in Truth free from boring routines and outward ‘religious’ affections. The Messiah came to fulfill the Law so that we who believe can have it written in our hearts not just our brains and tongues. God is NOT to blame for us requiring some kind of rule-set to live our lives by, whether by the Ten Commandments of Old Testament times or by believing on the Messiah for the Holy Spirit.

I was just trying to point out that even after God gave just a simple list of Ten Commandments to obey, mankind feels a need to add more and more laws to it to where it chokes the spirit of the Law.

You: “You’d probably really enjoy studying the histories of these groups; it could be beneficial to you as well.”

Yes I would! If you have some time, please email me some resources on those groups (or any other good resources) to my email address: beckes@gmail.com

You: “Do you think the Holy Spirit would have guided Paul to write about legalism, and then have guided us to include that writing in the canon, if there wasn’t some danger?”

I agree. The Holy Spirit indeed guided Paul because of the inherent danger. It is interesting to note that God chose Paul, an expert in Jewish Law and affairs.

Are large Church organizations (Protestant, Anglican, Catholic, etc, etc) in real danger of becoming Legalistic vehicles that christians are riding in?

Yes, of course. And small ones, too; and the individual Christians as well.

Each of them is in danger. You, however, seem to imply that all of them have completely fallen. Why?

It seems to me that, if you look at the Old Testament in a broad time-line viewpoint, God’s word was pure ‘truth in spirit’ in the BEGINNING (pure faith and trust!) with Adam.

So you don’t see any laws there that Adam broke?

Then, as we go further along the time-line, starting with Moses (and as the population of mankind no doubt grew and grew), Legalism and Laws grew and grew as a way to ‘please’ God.

Do you believe that God disapproved of the laws He dictated to Moses and inscribed on the tablets?

Such views spawned the much maligned and hated (especially amongst Christians) Pharisees, Saducees and other Legalistic sects of Judaism.

You’d probably really enjoy studying the histories of these groups; it could be beneficial to you as well.

Ok, so here is my point at the end of the above time-line journey: Has the modern ‘Church,’ the so called Body of Christ become (or at least in grave danger of) Legalistic?

Do you think the Holy Spirit would have guided Paul to write about legalism, and then have guided us to include that writing in the canon, if there wasn’t some danger?

Do you think that God truly cares whether this ordained person (Apostolic Successor?!) wears a certain robe and jewel studded hat? Remember that Legalistic Jews took MUCH pride in their outfits, their phylacteries, and so on.

You’ve now crossed the line from a simple strawman and into outright dishonesty: this is NOT what CMP is proposing.

-Wm

Hopefully, this doesn’t come across as a silly question, but was there apostolic succession in the Old Testament?

Not as such — but there is clearly defined succession in the Old Testament, as God defined the roles of the Levites, of the Aaronic priests, and of their respective descendants.

I don’t think fallen man keeps Christianity alive, it is God, and He is the absolute sovereign decision maker who makes sure that His word endures forever.

Yes, but God works through _means_, and His means for ensuring that His Church survives has always been the obedience of His people, often only expressed through a faithful remnant.

The problem with talking about Apostolic Succession is that it’s so poorly defined. CMP means something very different from what most Catholics mean, and what Catholics mean is so vague that it carries no authority over their opinions (and the opinions of their teachers) whatsoever: in the final analysis, its ONLY impact is to provide a way for the Roman Catholic Church possesses authority NOW without actually having to show how that authority is subject to past authority. (Let me hasten to add that there are other Roman Catholic doctrines, such as the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, which do clearly require a subjection of the current Church to the authority of the past church; so I’m not in any way arguing here that the RCC is illegitimate or legitimate, merely that “apostolic succession” is not a valid argument for its legitimacy.)

What CMP is talking about is not Apostolic Succession, but rather submission to the authorities that God has placed over us. I think using the term Apostolic Succession for this is a poor choice, as it will certainly mislead.

-Wm

You know, this is the first time I’ve realized that the RSS feed reposts old articles. I’ve always wondered why CMP would occasionally criticize people for commenting on old articles; now I know: they ARE old, but he doesn’t know that they were just posted to the RSS feed, so we’re seeing them for the first time.

Having said the above, I will say that I belong to a non-denominational Church (Vintage21 in Raleigh, NC). It is not that I am AGAINST any denomination or anything, it is just that my wife and I enjoyed the worship service and the teaching there was biblical sound (opening my ears to hear and opening my heart so the Holy Spirit can guide me).

Funny thing though, it was the worship service (awesome band!) that really hooked us.

In summary, thank God for the Holy Spirit or else we would all go astray much more than we already do.