“…do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham” - Matthew 3:9
“I know your deeds
and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles,
and they are not, and you found them to be false…” –Revelation 2:2
Argument:
“Roman Catholics believe that there is an unbroken line of papal succession from Peter to the present. They argue that since the idea of apostolic succession can be found in the writings of the early church fathers, and they themselves claim to be able to trace successors all the way back to Peter, apostolic succession must therefore have been taught by the apostles.” - Eric Svendsen, Evangelical Answers (Lindenhurst, New York: Reformation Press, 1999), p.59.
Response:
1. Many of the church fathers did believe in ‘apostolic succession’. However, this is an
anachronistic equivocation of the modern meaning of the phrase and reading it back into the meaning during the early Christian era. In fact, the meaning of apostolic succession was that of doctrine, not that of ecclesiastical office. Gregory of Nazianzus, a church father, explains this:
“Thus, and for these reasons, by the vote of the whole people, not in the evil fashion which has since prevailed, nor by means of bloodshed and oppression, but in an apostolic and spiritual manner, he is led up to the throne of Saint Mark, to succeed him in piety, no less than in office; in the latter indeed at a great distance from him, in the former, which is the genuine right of succession, following him closely. For unity in doctrine deserves unity in office; and a rival teacher sets up a rival throne; the one is a successor in reality, the other but in name. For it is not the intruder, but he whose rights are intruded upon, who is the successor, not the lawbreaker, but the lawfully appointed, not the man of contrary opinions, but the man of the same faith; if this is not what we mean by successor, he succeeds in the same sense as disease to health, darkness to light, storm to calm, and frenzy to sound sense.” –Gregory Nazianzus, Oration 21.8
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/Npnf2-07-40.htm#P4015_1195110
2. The Scriptures themselves teach that the test of apostolicity is that of doctrine:
“I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate
evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false…” –Revelation
2:2
3. A great test to the claims of
‘Arian Resurgence’. A few years
after the Council of Nicea, Arius, the heresiarch, who taught that Christ was not fully divine, started promulgating his teachings
throughout the empire. As a result, the bishops of the church started subscribing wholesale to his teaching, and soon enough,
nearly all the Bishoprics of Christendom were Arian (including
“The victory of the council
of Nicaea over the views of the majority of the bishops was a victory only in appearance…But some of the bishops had subscribed the
homoousion with reluctance, or from regard to the emperor, or at best with the reservation of a broad interpretation; and with a change
of circumstances they would readily turn in opposition. The controversy now for the first time fairly broke loose, and Arianism entered
the stage of its political development and power. An intermediate period of great excitement ensued, during which council was held
against council, creed was set forth against creed, and anathema against anathema was hurled…Thus Arianism gained the ascendency in
the whole Roman empire…Even the papal chair was desecrated by heresy during this Arian interregnum…The Nicene orthodoxy was thus apparently
put down.” –Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, ch.9, part 121: http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch09.htm
Martin Luther writes:
“Look at the time of the Arians, when scarcely five catholic bishops were preserved in the whole world,
and they were driven from their sees, while the Arians reigned everywhere, taking to themselves the public name and office of the
church. Yet under these heretics Christ preserved His church; though in such a way that it was not for a moment thought or held
to be the church.” –Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Fleming
H. Revell Company, 1957), p.121.
At that time, the Arians ran the Catholic Church. If we are to believe the modern contention
that apostolic succession is of ecclesial office, then during the time of the Arian ascendancy, one would have been forced to believe
in a damnable heresy. Martin Luther rightly notes:
“Under Elijah the prophet, all the people and every public institution
among them had gone astray into idolatry, so that he thought he was the only one left; yet, while the kings and princes, priests and
prophets, and all that could be called the people and church of God, were going to ruin, God had reserved seven thousand to Himself
(1 Kings 19:18). But who saw them, or knew them to be the people of God? And who will dare to deny that in our day, under
these principal men of yours (for you only mention persons of public office and of great name), God has kept to Himself a church among
the common people, while allowing all whom you mention to perish like the
All Scripture quotes are from the NASB.
Also, some helpful audio on this topic can be found at:
http://www.straitgate.com/aom/dl/98.htm
Some helpful reading can be found here:
http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/lineage.htm
Suggested
reading:
- Eric Svendsen, Evangelical Answers (Lindenhurst, New York: Reformation Press, 1999).
- David King and William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar
of Our Faith, Vol. I-III (
Apostolic Succession