Heretical apostolic succession

This will consist of a two-part reply to Jnorm888. In the first part I’ll reply to what he said to me. In the second part I’ll relate that to some comments of his which Jason Engwer posted.

JNORM888 SAID:

“In order for your argument to be correct, everyone who sat at the Apostles feet had to get them wrong.”

That’s’ scarcely necessary for my argument to be correct. To the contrary, you’re the one who’s backing down from your original argument. So the real question is what it would take for your argument to be incorrect—not what it would take for my argument to be correct. Remember, I was merely responding to you on your own grounds.

You originally made sweeping, unqualified claims like the following:

“Those who came from John never held to your view of the Trinity.”

“You may claim to only use scripture, but that claim is false when your interpretation goes against the Christian interpretation of those that came from the Churches planted by the Apostles.”

“If the people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong.”

“To say that it's wrong is to say that the Apostles were in error.”

“So there are no ‘basic exegetical errors’ when the very people that came from Saint John held to that view.”

“They never sat of Saint John's feet. They never heard him speak. They never were part of the Ancient church. They don't know what was passed down. “

“So your reading of the Gospel of John is false. The Christians of the first 4 hundred years didn't hold to your interpretation of the Gospel of John in regards to these matters.”

Now, however, you’re scaling back the scope of your original claim in light of my counterexamples. Your original argument amounted to this:

Version A:

i) Steve is in error because his view of the Trinity is at odds with the early church.
ii) Due to apostolic succession, the view of the early church is traceable to the view of the apostles.
iii) If an apostle was right, then his successor is right.
iv) Conversely, if his successor is wrong, then an apostle was wrong.

(Defining “successor” as someone who knew an apostle, heard him preach and teach.)

This version of the argument is predicated on a *one-to-one* correspondence between the views an apostle and the views of his successors, from his immediate successors to distant successors—extending out hundreds of years after his death.

By this logic, if *any* successor is wrong, then the apostle he succeeded (directly or indirectly) is wrong.

By this logic, if any successor is wrong, then the appeal to apostolic succession is fallacious.

And this argument isn’t predicated on the apostles generally, but the apostles individually—for you could hear one apostle, but not another. The fact that you sat at the feet of John doesn’t mean you sat at the feet of Paul, or vice versa.

But one of the problems with Jnorm888’s argument is that he overlooked some obvious counterexamples in NT church history itself. There were false teachers who, at one time, did belong to Apostolic churches. False teachers who, at one time, did sit at the feet of one or more Apostles. Knew them, heard them. But that association didn’t prevent them from subsequently inculcating false doctrine.

So now Jnorm888 proposes a radically different argument:

Version B:

i) Steve is in error because his view of the Trinity is at odds with the early church.
ii) Due to apostolic succession, the view of the early church is *sometimes* traceable to the view of the apostles.
iii) If an apostle was right, then his successor might or might *not* be right.
iv) Conversely, even if his *successor* is wrong, an *apostle* could still be right.

This version of the argument is predicated on a *partial* correspondence between the views of the apostles and the views of their successors.

By this logic, if *every* successor is wrong, then, and only then, is the appeal to apostolic succession fallacious.

Jnorm888 has actually conceded my original argument. If succeeding an apostle doesn’t guarantee, or even presume, that a successor’s teaching is apostolic, then Jnorm888 can’t invoke apostolic succession to shoot down my position.

“The Apostles spoke to groups, so anyone who said something different.....like ‘Hymenaeus and Philetus’, would automatically stick out like a sore thumb.”

i) Even if that’s the case, you’re retreating from your original argument, viz. “If the people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong.”

Now you’ve gone from “the very people” who sat an Apostle’s feat to *some* of the people who sat at his feet.

ii) And your revised argument overlooks another fact: False teachers in the NT church did have a following. Even though they were speaking to churches planted by apostles, even though the members had heard one or more Apostles teach and preach, some of them were still succumbing to false doctrine.

So, unfortunately, the false teachers didn’t “stick out like a sore thumb.” They were winning converts to their false doctrine from churches planted by the Apostles. From church members who sat at the feet of one or more Apostles.

This is a problem when guys like Jnorm888 begin with their preconception of what the church is supposed to be like, instead of actually studying the NT church.

“You don't know what I read. Unlike many calvinists on this blog, I actually read the primary accounts.”

And how do you interpret the primary sources? Do you interpret the church fathers allegorically, or you do use the grammatico-historical method? Why not apply the same method to Scripture which you apply to the church fathers?

“I 100%ly affirm the council of Chalcedon.”

As you understand it. But Robinson operates at a more academic level than you do, and when Robinson gets into an argument with Protestants over Chalcedonian Christology, he refers us to the latest technical monograph on the subject.

Have you read everything he’s read? And even if you have, what about the average Orthodox layman? What level of historical understanding does it take to “profess” the Chalcedonian creed? Short of being a patrologist (and there are disputes between one patrologist and another), how do you know that your profession corresponds to the original intent of the framers?

For example, are you a Greek scholar? Do you read the primary sources in the original language? Even if you have a smattering of Greek, is your command of Patristic Greek right up there with G. W. H. Lampe?

“I'm admitting that your view of ‘scripture alone’ is wrong.”

So you deny that scripture alone teaches a high Christology. Is Scripture neutral on the difference between Arian Christology and Orthodox Christology?

Does this mean that Orthodox Christology is extrabiblical? That it goes beyond what God has actually revealed?

“For it is easy to have a false interpretation of scripture.”

Why is that easy? Is it easy (according to you) because Scripture alone doesn’t teach a high Christology?

Or do you admit that Scripture alone does teach a high Christology? In so, then how would a misinterpretation invalidate sola Scriptura? The correct Christology would still have to come from Scripture.

“He only changed his mind when other protestants fought him on the issue. It wasn't scripture that changed his mind. It was other protestants that changed his mind.”

That’s a false dichotomy. They challenged his interpretation with better exegesis.

Anyway, did I ever deny the value of Bible teachers? Of Bible scholars and commentators? God has gifted some Christian to teach the Bible.

That isn’t at odds with Protestant ecclesiology. But a Bible teacher can’t simply invoke tradition to defend his interpretation. He must defend his interpretation through responsible, transparent exegesis.

“My point was that Scripture is one source that the Church has in her Possesion.”

Yet you apparently think it’s an inadequate source for Orthodox Christology. So is Scripture noncommittal on Arian Christology? Is Arian Christology compatible with Scripture? Must an extrascriptural source take up the slack?

Thus far Jnorm888’s response to me. However, in his comments on premillennialism, he’s mooted his response to me. Here is what he said:

"Only the christians from Ashia Minor were mostly PM [premillennial]. Ashia minor is where Saint John mostly lived and died, and so the Apostolic Tradition that came from his region mostly held on to 'Chilism'. Justin Martyre and some others who were from that region but moved to Rome later in life spread that teaching to other parts of Christiandom....You also mentioned Justin, but like I said before. HE was from the same region, and he later moved west, and spread that form of eschatology to other parts of the christian world. the same is true with Saint Irenaeus....Most christians rejected the book of Revelations, So most christians never had a pre-mill view to begin with....If you are going to mention Historic PM then you are going to have to use the Church as being the final authority. It was the Church at a euceminical council that took a stand on the issue....You have to use the standard of the time. And at that time, the Apostolic tradition of Saint John (on this issue) was trumped by the Apostolic traditions of Mark, Andrew, Peter, and Paul.”

“So yeah, it's a heresy, but it's not a bad bad heresy. There are different levels of heresies/sins/error.....ect....What we don't see in scripture is error from followers of the Apostles who miss heard what they said. The Apostles spoke to the masses, so in order for their followers to get them wrong is for everyone to miss understand them"

Compare this, once more, with Jnorm888’s original reply to me:

“Those who came from John never held to your view of the Trinity.”

“You may claim to only use scripture, but that claim is false when your interpretation goes against the Christian interpretation of those that came from the Churches planted by the Apostles.”

“If the people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong.”

“To say that it's wrong is to say that the Apostles were in error.”

“So there are no ‘basic exegetical errors’ when the very people that came from Saint John held to that view.”

“They never sat of Saint John's feet. They never heard him speak. They never were part of the Ancient church. They don't know what was passed down. “

“So your reading of the Gospel of John is false. The Christians of the first 4 hundred years didn't hold to your interpretation of the Gospel of John in regards to these matters.”

His original argument took the form that early church tradition was true because it went back to various apostles via their successors.

After I challenged him, he then amended his argument to claim that apostolic succession was reliable as long as *every *successor* wasn’t mistaken.

Now, however, we have yet another argument—or two:

Version C: Apostolic succession is reliable as long as *every apostle* wasn’t mistaken.

Or:

Version D: Apostles could be wrong, but ecumenical councils trump apostles.

This represents a complete reversal of his initial position. Now he takes the position that even Apostolic doctrine could be wrong.

Not just wrong, but heretical. Apostolic succession can be heretical. An apostle may be a heresiarch.

But that’s okay because an apostle is not the final authority. An ecumenical council is the final authority.

This raises several issues:

i) Jnorm888 has given us a multiple-choice argument. So which one of his arguments is the operative argument?

ii) Why can one apostle be wrong, but two apostles can’t be wrong? Or does it take three or four apostles? What’s the numerical threshold for inerrancy to kick in?

Why would an apostle teach heresy? Because he’s uninspired? But in that event, why assume that one apostle is uninspired while two apostles are inspired? Or three or four?

iii) If an ecumenical council can trump an apostle, does this mean that bishops enjoy a higher claim to inspiration than apostles? Could every apostle be wrong, but every bishop could not be wrong?

If an ecumenical council can trump an apostle, does this mean that every apostle could be wrong, but that’s okay because the episcopate is the safety-net?

iv) What does apostolic succession amount to when bishops can trump apostles? Isn’t the standard view of apostolic succession that bishops *preserve* apostolic tradition rather than opposing and supplanting apostolic tradition? Isn’t apostolic succession defined by *continuity* between apostolic doctrine and episcopal or ecclesial doctrine?

v) On this view, my interpretation of Johannine or Pauline theology could be flawless, yet my theology could still be heretical because Johannine or Pauline theology could be heretical. An inerrant interpretation of an errant teaching is still errant.

“I don't see a problem with it. The Circumcision group were trumped at the very first Church council. And they were fighting for the customs of Moses.”

Several problems:

i) Even if this were a correct interpretation of Acts 15, it still destroys any appeal to apostolic succession. You’ve gone from an appeal to isometric continuity to an allowance for a high degree of discontinuity.

ii) Why assume that Acts 15 is a reliable record of the proceedings? After all, if an apostle can be a heretic, why assume that Luke is reliable? After all, Luke is a partisan of Paul.

iii) Were some of the apostles Judaizers?

iv) Did Judaizers participate in the Council of Jerusalem?

The councilmen were debating the position of the Judaizers. But what evidence is there that any of the councilmen were Judaizers?

Acts 15 records four speakers (Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James). Not one of them is a spokesman for the Judaizers.

iv) What was the point under dispute? Were the councilmen debating the validity of sola fide? Or were the debating the best way to promulgate sola fide without giving unnecessary offense to the Jews? Cf. Acts 15:21.