This post was originally titled, “Apostolic Succession – Biblical or Not?”. I am attaching this post to the front page because I have expanded on it and added the answer to the question of whether apostolic succession is scriptural or not. Go to the Conclusion of the article to read the bulk of the answer to why apostolic succession is not scriptural although there are scriptural arguments against apostolic succession throughout the article.
First, here is a statement about the doctrine of apostolic succession.
“The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.”[1]
So starts a pro-Catholic article on catholic.com. The principle of Apostolic Succession says that the original apostles ordained bishops and authorized them and them only to ordain succeeding bishops. A primary benefit of this succession is the guarantee that this process ensures that the apostolic truth continues from generation to generation.
The article continues by citing the scriptural basis for this doctrine.
The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).
That verse does not say what apostolic successionists say it does. The verse does charge Timothy to find faithful men who will be able to teach others and teach them what he had learned from the apostles. But, in the first place, the verse is not just referring to bishops. There are a lot of faithful people who are not bishops (Col 1:2). Secondly, there are no guarantees given in this verse that every person taught will be faithful to teach the apostles’ doctrine to new disciples. It’s just not in there. We will discuss that more in the conclusion of this article. Thirdly, there is no way to know who will be faithful in the future. People can be faithful for a while, and then something happens, and they’re no longer faithful.
So, it is scriptural that the original apostles charged the disciples to pass on what the apostles taught from faithful person to faithful person. And, if that was able to be done perfectly, then there might be some basis to expect that it was able to pass things perfectly from generation to generation. But, even in the context of 2Timothy 2:2, we read that certain disciples had already abandoned what they had been taught.
About seven verses before second Timothy 2:2, we read:
Hold the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed to you, guard through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. This you know, that all who are in Asia turned away from me; of whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.
(2Ti 1:13-15 WEB)
So, we read in the context of second Timothy 2:2, that there were important disciples, Phygelus and Hermogenes, who were abandoning Paul. In fact, all of Asia turned away from him. Well, that certainly squashes the apostolic succession argument that says that 2Timothy 2:2 provides a guarantee that the truth of the apostles continues throughout the generations. The very context of that verse teaches the opposite. In the context of Second Timothy 2:2 is proof that there are no guarantees that just because one disciple teaches another the new disciple will be faithful in continuing to teach the apostles’ doctrine. Phygelus and Hermogenes were disciples who were taught and who abandoned sound doctrine.
Part of the problem is that Paul wrote the epistle from his prison cell after he ignored the warning of the spirit to not go to Jerusalem and wound up bound in chains and eventually in a prison cell. Apparently, people lost their faith in Paul as an apostle. Whatever the reason, we have significant people who were taught and walked away.
Just because some people are taught what the apostles taught and are faithful to it today doesn’t mean that they’ll continue to do so. It’s sad, but true.
I mean, if it were true, then Paul wouldn’t have needed to write, “Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful” (1 Cor 4:2).
Throughout Scripture, and certainly in the epistles, are regular exhortations to remain steadfast, to remain faithful.
Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the Lord’s work, because you know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. (1Co 15:58 WEB)
But, while apostolic succession is not in the apostles’ epistles, it is seen written about in the first writings of the church fathers. Here is Clement (C. 90AD):
“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of oversight. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those already mentioned. Afterwards, they gave instructions, then when those men should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of the opinion, therefore, that those appointed by the apostles, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed a good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.”[2]
Here Clement of Rome is testifying that apostolic succession is a practice ordained by the apostles themselves. He is using it as an argument against removing bishops who have apostolic succession.
Irenaeus (C. 180 AD) had some interesting things to say about apostolic succession.
“Therefore, it is within the power of all in every church who may wish to see the truth to clearly examine the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the world. And we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and the succession of these men to our own times…. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries,… They would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men.”[3]
Here we see a reference to knowing the truth in apostolic succession used to propagate this doctrine. “It is within the power of all in every church who may wish to see the truth to clearly examine the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the world” says just that. The way you know that is the truth is if it is something that has been handed down from generation of bishops to generation of bishops back to the Apostles.
This cannot be emphasized enough. The Catholics and others who rely on this doctrine say that apostolic succession is a guarantee of truth. When a Catholic bishop is ordained that ensures that they will be “very perfect and blameless in all things”. The process of apostolic succession is the transference of the apostles’ authority and power from generation to generation. Considering the other side, a bishop without apostolic succession does not have the truth, or authority of the apostles.
One place where you can see this in action is in the General Councils. The bishops in the General councils believed that they received the power to rule on these matters because of apostolic succession. That gave them the right to proclaim what was apostolic doctrine. who was speaking apostolic truth and who was a heretic.[4] According to the doctrine of apostolic succession, all of the decrees of the General Councils have apostolic authority. That means every one of them is the same as if the apostles had written them.
Now, something else that is very interesting is in Irenaeus’ quote in the sentence “For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries,… They would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves.” This sentence possibly allows for the possibility that some things were handed down orally. Possibly this phrase allows for things not found in the bible to be called truth. That would be very similar to the claim of the Jewish elders who claimed that after Moses revealed the Law, there were other sayings not written down that were verbally communicated from generation to generation which became the Jewish Talmud. However, it might also be a rejection of Gnostic teaching that there was secret knowledge. In any case, apostolic succession says that the bishops ordained by apostolic succession would know because they would know what was handed down.
Irenaeus also said:
“In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same life-giving the faith, which has been preserved in the church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”[5]
There it is again, the true faith of the apostles is continued exclusively through apostolic succession.
Other church fathers including Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian as well as church councils and the apostolic constitutions document affirm this teaching that goes back to just after the time of the apostles and has continued until the present.
So, you can see that this has been a long-standing doctrine of the Catholic Church. Some Protestant denominations also make the claim of apostolic succession including Anglican and some Lutheran churches.
Calvinist International presents some of the counter-arguments in an article by Ian Mosley.[6] Basically, the argument starts with that there is little if any scriptural support for apostolic succession. Not one of the church fathers discussing apostolic succession is considered a writer of Scripture. And none of the church fathers’ statements about apostolic succession correspond to statements in scripture.
Additionally, in these writings of the church fathers on apostolic succession, there appears to be mud in the water over the terms “bishop” and “presbyter”. They are not clearly and distinctly used. And as the terms bishop and presbyter are key terms in these church fathers’ statements that affirm this principle of apostolic succession then that also challenges the basis for claiming the validity of apostolic succession.
We opened with 1st Clement 44, but the version on the CalvinistInternational site has some subtle differences, namely the use of these words; bishop and presbyter (shown below in italics).
“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those presbyters already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters…(1 Clement 44)
Clement begins by referring to the episcopate, but then seems to refer to the same ministers as “presbyters.” He alternates between the terms throughout, never clearly intending any kind of transition to discussing a separate ministry.”[7]
Clement apparently uses the words bishop and presbyters interchangeably while these terms are used more precisely in the other quotes of the church fathers. Also notice the inclusion of “the consent of the whole church” as part of the process, another divergence from traditionally stated apostolic succession doctrine.
Mosley also points out the statements in Hippolytus’s writings and the Apostolic Constitution that both set the process of selecting a bishop as an election by the people. Hippolytus (c. 215 AD) wrote:
“Let the bishop be ordained after he has been chosen by all the people”[8]
Williston Walker notes in his A History of the Christian Church that the development of church government and hierarchy is obscure in the New Testament epistles whereas it suddenly is very clear in the epistles of Ignatius. Walker says that in contrast to the New Testament Ignatius “exalts in every way the authority of the local monarchial bishop…”[9] He further adds Clement of Rome “traces the existence of church officers to apostolic succession” which he believes Clement bases on an apparent misunderstanding of 1 Cor 16: 15-16.[10]
Now I urge you, brothers—you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints— be subject to such as these, and to every fellow worker and laborer. (1Co 16:15-16 ESV)
These verses show that converts in Achaia became servants to the ministry, but it does not say that Paul ordained them to be overseers giving them his same authority and power, and then charged them to transfer the same to prospective leaders in their care. Thus this is not biblical support for apostolic succession.
The Protestant position is that since there are no real supporting scriptures this is not a valid doctrine. Furthermore, there is no basis for saying that any decree of the General councils or practice of the Catholic Church is true based on apostolic succession.
So, we have the Catholics including some Orthodox churches, some Lutherans, and the Anglicans promoting Apostolic Succession while the bulk of churches in the protestant tradition do not. However, as the Roman Catholic Church teaches apostolic succession and alone has slightly over half of people claiming to be Christian, that means most Christians attend churches that teach apostolic succession. People attending churches that reject apostolic succession are in the minority.
Conclusion And Answer to the Question
In Paul Warned That There Are Other Gospels That are Distortions of the True Gospel we show that Paul, writing by revelation says that anyone that teaches things contrary to what he and the other apostles taught is anathema (cursed), and their gospel is a distortion of the true gospel.
Apostolic Succession, being because someone can trace their ordination back to the original apostles, guarantees that whenever they teach is the truth is clearly a different gospel than the one that Paul preached. We have only to look at Acts chapter 20 to see that.
Notice in the verses below that Paul is talking to overseers, i.e., “the Holy Spirit has made you overseers”.
Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the assembly of the Lord and God which he purchased with his own blood. For I know that after my departure, vicious wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Men will arise from among your own selves, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. (Act 20:28-30 WEB)
Overseers in the Bible is just another term for bishops. This verse says that “men will arise from among your own selves, speaking perverse (twisted) things”. Right here Paul is prophesying that there will be some overseers (bishops) who will twist Scripture, and teach the wrong doctrine. This is a direct contradiction to the doctrine of apostolic succession. There will be cases where people have been appointed as bishops who will teach false doctrine.
Apostolic succession is another example of man’s tradition making the word of God void. In T 0.1 Introduction to Tradition in the Church we show how our Lord Jesus taught this concept himself. The Pharisees and scribes emphasized their tradition over what was actually said in the Law. Jesus taught here that this elevation of tradition over what was actually said in Scripture “made void the word of God”. Look for that in the verses below.
Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” (Mat 15:1-9 ESV)
Apostolic succession is a tradition that started right after the passing of the apostles. And we can see that it makes void scriptures like Acts 20:28 – 30 which say that there will be bishops teaching twisted, distorted versions of the truth after Paul is gone.
Apostolic succession is a false doctrine because it gives carte blanche to any group that has bishops that can trace their lineage back to the apostles like the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, and some others. These churches use apostolic succession to ratify their doctrinal decisions as having the same authority as that of the apostles.
And we just read in Acts chapter 20 that Paul prophesied that after the apostles passing there will be bishops who will teach twisted doctrines.
To maintain that apostolic succession is a true doctrine, then when bishops from all of these different groups teach different things you have to allow for things like the “In Essentials Unity” doctrine, another false doctrine, that allows for all of these different churches teach in all of these different things with all of them being acceptable. See T 19.1 Modern Christian Traditions – The In Essentials Unity Doctrine for more on that.
All of these different churches teaching all of these different things is not acceptable. God didn’t tell one group to baptize infants in water, another to baptize only adults, and another to baptize in the spirit. God didn’t tell some believers to abhor alcohol and others that it’s okay to drink it in moderation. God didn’t tell some believers to pursue the manifestations of the spirit like speaking in tongues, prophecy, and others while telling a lot of other churches that those things ceased.
It’s time to reject the doctrine of apostolic succession once and for all. It is a false doctrine.
[1] What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Succession, https://www.catholic.com/tract/apostolic-succession, the quote is from 1 Clement 44
[2] A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, David W Bercot, Hendrickson publishers, Peabody, Mass., 1998, P. 70
[3] ibid., P. 31
[4] https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepursuitofholiness/2020/09/1198-apostolicsuccession/
[5] A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. P. 31
[6] The Historical Untenability of Apostolic Succession, https://calvinistinternational.com/2020/02/05/the-historical-untenability-of-apostolic-succession/
[7] ibid
[8] https://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/st-hippolytus-of-rome-170-236-ad.html, also The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, William A Jurgens, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville MN, 1970, p. 105
[9] A History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker, Scribner, New York, 1958, p. 41
[10] Ibid, p.42
© copyright 2021-24 Mark W Smith, All rights reserved. Last edited 1/31/24