Concepts of succession become more prominent in second-century Christianity. But we can't assume that what one source wrote on the subject represents what every other Christian believed or even what most others believed. Robert Lee Williams comments:
"It is the particular nature of the ecclesiastical struggle in each case that shapes the content of the doctrine of apostolic succession at that point. The content of apostolic succession, linchpin though it is in defense of orthodoxy, changes in content and emphasis from writer to writer...The bishops in apostolic succession are the legitimate leaders of the churches not in every way, with a carte blanche of authority, but in specific ways that emerge at the particular historical junctures at which bishop lists are cited. Political needs changed theological emphases." (Bishop Lists [Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2005], pp. 8-9)
I've already discussed two early patristic sources, Clement of Rome and Papias.
Regarding another, Williams writes, "Ignatius says nothing of apostolic succession." (p. 68) Ignatius does say a lot about church government, and he sometimes tells his audience to obey church leaders as they would obey the apostles. But he also compares church leaders to the Father and Christ, for example. Such language is commonly used without any sort of succession or infallibility in view (Ephesians 6:5, Philemon 17). Allen Brent, a scholar who has specialized in the study of Ignatius, similarly concludes that there's no relevant concept of apostolic succession in Ignatius (Ignatius Of Antioch [New York, New York: T & T Clark International, 2009], pp. 86-87, 122-129). As Brent notes, Ignatius mostly parallels presbyters, not bishops, with the apostles, and he never refers to himself as a successor of the apostles or as having the authority of Peter or the other apostles. (Ignatius' church, the church of Antioch, was apostolic.) He may have not referred to a monarchical bishop when writing to Rome because that form of church government hadn't developed in Rome yet, as other sources from the same time period also suggest. It should be kept in mind that Ignatius puts a lot of emphasis on issues of church government, so the absence of Dave's concept of apostolic succession in Ignatius' writings (as well as the absence of a papacy) is accordingly significant.
Justin Martyr, like other early patristic sources, makes many explicit references to the authority of the Father, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and scripture, and he appeals to many extra-Biblical sources (government records, written or oral traditions about Jesus, etc.). But he says nothing of apostolic succession (or an infallible church), and his Jewish and Gentile opponents raise no objections to Christianity that assume Christian belief in such concepts.
Much the same can be said of Celsus, who wrote against Christianity late in the second century. However, we do begin to see some concepts of apostolic succession that are closer to Dave's view around the time when Celsus wrote. The first relevant source is Hegesippus, and I'll discuss him in my next post.
However, before I move on to Hegesippus, it should be noted that many other Christian sources from the late second century onward continue to write at length, including in many contexts relevant to apostolic succession as Dave defines it, without mentioning the concept. We shouldn't assume that the concept was universally accepted, or even accepted by a majority, once a Christian somewhere advocates it. The appearance of concepts of apostolic succession in Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and other sources is significant evidence of the popularity of such ideas. But the earlier absence of those ideas and their ongoing absence or lesser emphasis in other sources is significant as well. Both lines of evidence have to be addressed.
The appearance of concepts of apostolic succession in Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and other sources is significant evidence of the popularity of such ideas. But the earlier absence of those ideas and their ongoing absence or lesser emphasis in other sources is significant as well.
ReplyDeleteAre there any ECFs that said that there was no apostolic succession (as defined by the RCC)? What I mean, is that rather than silence from a few of the earliest ECFs is there any concrete rejection of apostolic succession?
The problem with this approach, I think, is that there are many manifold doctrines that the Reformed hold which are also not addressed by the same ECF who didn't have much to say about apostolic succession one way or another.
Raymond,
ReplyDeleteI don't know what you mean by "this approach". This is a fifteen-part series. Even in the four parts posted so far, I've explained how succession is and isn't described by the relevant sources and in what contexts something like a Roman Catholic concept of succession could have been mentioned. If you want us to conclude that one of my beliefs as an Evangelical is comparable, then you would have to offer a comparable argument. And though you mention "a few of the earliest ECFs", I've been discussing the New Testament authors, all of the patristic Christians up to and including Justin Martyr, many after his time, and the earliest critics of Christianity. I haven't just cited "a few of the earliest ECFs". Your assessment is also wrong in that you aren't distinguishing between the different historical claims made by "the Reformed" (I'm not Reformed) and Catholics, particularly Dave Armstrong (the person this series is responding to). Whether and to what extent we should expect a person's beliefs to be reflected in the patristic sources varies from person to person. Different individuals and groups make different claims about church history. A Catholic who claims that the church fathers were members of his denomination, that his church has passed down all apostolic teaching in unbroken succession throughout church history, etc. is claiming something significantly different than what a Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian would say about early church history and the background of his beliefs.
You asked about "concrete rejection of apostolic succession". I don't know why you would ask for something concrete, and I don't know why you would ask for a rejection. Absence of evidence would be sufficient reason to not believe in apostolic succession, and patristic contradictions of the concept wouldn't have to be concrete in order to be probable.
Yes, there are patristic contradictions of a Roman Catholic notion of apostolic succession like Dave Armstrong's. Since the papacy is not only part of a Catholic view of apostolic succession, but even foundational to it, what I've already written on that subject in previous replies to Dave (and elsewhere) is relevant. I'll be giving more examples as this series goes on.
Absence of evidence would be sufficient reason to not believe in apostolic succession
ReplyDeleteWon't the Catholic just point to absence of evidence in the same earliest church fathers that you are quoting about sola fide or sola scriptura or our canon and then say, 'Hey, this is sufficient reason not to believe in sola fide, sola scriptura and the Protestant canon.'
I suppose my point is that there are ECFs that in certain terms taught that ordination is in succession and sacramental, like Augustine. Some were not explicit about it but none denied that criteria outright.
ReplyDeleteI am in the PCA and we believe in 'apostolic succession' as well in a certain sense. My pastor was ordained by other PCA ministers. He didn't just show up one day and start preaching.
Jason, just wondering if you knew of any one that expands or concentrates on the one man episcopate and its development especially in the church of Rome.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Here's a survey and summary of some of the historical literature on the early church at Rome and the early papacy:
ReplyDeletehttp://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/historical-literature-on-the-earliest-papacy/
Raymond wrote:
ReplyDelete"Won't the Catholic just point to absence of evidence in the same earliest church fathers that you are quoting about sola fide or sola scriptura or our canon and then say, 'Hey, this is sufficient reason not to believe in sola fide, sola scriptura and the Protestant canon.'...I suppose my point is that there are ECFs that in certain terms taught that ordination is in succession and sacramental, like Augustine. Some were not explicit about it but none denied that criteria outright. I am in the PCA and we believe in 'apostolic succession' as well in a certain sense. My pastor was ordained by other PCA ministers. He didn't just show up one day and start preaching."
There's a large gray area between a Catholic concept of succession and having a pastor "show up one day and start preaching". The church fathers themselves often discuss some of the qualifying factors involved, as I mentioned in earlier segments of this series and will be discussing further in later segments.
You're making a lot of claims that you aren't arguing for, and you're ignoring much of what I said in my last response to you. I've argued for my conclusions about apostolic succession, as well as my conclusions on issues like justification through faith alone, sola scriptura, and the canon. If you want us to believe that your historical claims are true, and you want us to think they have the implications you suggest, then you should argue for them rather than just asserting them. You'll need to address more than "the same earliest church fathers that I'm quoting", for reasons like the ones I explained in my last response to you. You'll also have to explain how ordination in an Evangelical organization like the Presbyterian Church in America is equivalent to apostolic succession in a relevant sense, why you're ignoring the additional claims made about succession by Catholics, and what significance there is in what some church fathers taught or what "none denied".
For example, I don't know of any historian or patristic scholar who argues that any of the ante-Nicene fathers denied the assumption of Mary. But the early absence of the concept is considered significant in evaluating its historicity. And when some later patristic sources assert that Mary was assumed, we should ask whether those assertions, along with the other relevant data, suggest the historicity of the event. It's not enough to say that some fathers advocated the concept. You have to evaluate what their advocating of the concept suggests about its historicity, along with evaluating the other relevant information.
Reform,
ReplyDeleteBooks like the ones by Williams and Brent cited above address the one-man episcopate to some extent. Books on the papacy, like Robert Eno's The Rise Of The Papacy (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990), often address the episcopate in Rome in particular and specifically as it relates to the papacy. For more about the earliest history of the episcopate in general and its Jewish background in particular, see Roger Beckwith's Elders In Every City (Waynesboro, Georgia: Paternoster Press, 2003). Philip Schaff's church history, though dated, is available for free online and gives an outline of a lot of the relevant information. See here, especially the sections that discuss church government.
You're making a lot of claims that you aren't arguing for, and you're ignoring much of what I said in my last response to you.
ReplyDeleteI sense an eagerness on your part to get defensive here. Please don't. I am just trying to understand how my tradition came to believe what it believes about the church.
As I understand it, your argument so far is, "Apostolic succession can mean different things and some church fathers didn't mean what Dave Armstrong means when he uses the term." And, "Some of these early church fathers don't say anything about apostolic succession at all."
And thus you conclude: Absence of evidence would be sufficient reason to not believe in apostolic succession
My question is, what happens when we take this same approach to evaluating, say our belief about the numbering of the sacraments and examine the ECFs?
Is there a divergence of opinions on the numbering of the sacraments in the ECFs? Yes. Are some ECFs silent on the numbering of the sacraments? Yes. Does this make our Christian belief in the limiting of the sacraments to only Baptism and the Lord's Supper a corruption of the faith? No.
So, if this is the case, than why can't a Catholic read your arguments and answer your argument about apostolic succession in the same why?
For example you said, "For example, I don't know of any historian or patristic scholar who argues that any of the ante-Nicene fathers denied the assumption of Mary." And then you say, again, "But the early absence of the concept is considered significant in evaluating its historicity.
So why can't a Catholic say, "For example, I don't know if any historian or patristic scholar who argues that any of the ante-Nicene fathers denied that baptism was regenerational" and then conclude, "But the early absence of the concept is considered significant in evaluating its historicity.
Raymond wrote:
ReplyDelete"As I understand it, your argument so far is, 'Apostolic succession can mean different things and some church fathers didn't mean what Dave Armstrong means when he uses the term.' And, 'Some of these early church fathers don't say anything about apostolic succession at all.' And thus you conclude: Absence of evidence would be sufficient reason to not believe in apostolic succession My question is, what happens when we take this same approach to evaluating, say our belief about the numbering of the sacraments and examine the ECFs?"
You refer to "this same approach" while continuing to ignore and misrepresent what I've told you about my approach. Initially, you suggested that my approach involved "a few of the earliest ECFs", and both the term "a few" and the term "earliest" were misleading. Now you're using broader terms, like "the ECFs". But you're still ignoring other sources involved, namely the New Testament authors, Christian sources of the patristic era other than the church fathers, and non-Christian sources. Not only does it not make sense in principle to ignore such sources, but it's even more unreasonable to do so when Dave Armstrong's articles mention more than the fathers, the second post in this series is titled "Succession In The Ancient World", and the third post is titled "Succession In The New Testament", for example.
Earlier, you mentioned sola fide, sola scriptura, and the canon as alleged examples of how my approach would refute my own position. Now you're citing the numbering of the sacraments and baptismal regeneration. You still aren't arguing for any of your claims about those subjects, but instead are just making assertions.
As I said earlier, I don't make the same claims about church history that Dave Armstrong and other Catholics make. Different claims have different implications. If an Eastern Orthodox were to claim that fathers X and Y were members of his communion, while a Roman Catholic were to claim that fathers X, Y, and Z were members of his, it wouldn't make sense to expect both sides to carry the same burden of proof. The Eastern Orthodox's disagreements with father Z don't carry the same significance as the Roman Catholic's disagreements with that father. If you want us to believe that it's sufficient for a Catholic concept of succession to be found in some of the later fathers, then you ought to explain why you think the Catholic view only implies that level of patristic support for the concept.
I've argued that ideas of succession were well developed and widely known in the world in which Christianity originated, which suggests that many relevant concepts and terminology were in place that the early Christians could have utilized. I've cited Roman Catholicism's claim that all of its teachings have been passed down in unbroken succession throughout church history. I've cited the claims Dave Armstrong has made about apostolic succession, such as his claim that succession is "explicit" in Papias and his claim that "there was little disagreement among the fathers" on the subject. If you want us to believe that it would be sufficient for a Catholic, like Dave, to point to what some of the later fathers believed, then explain why. Even if Catholics had never made claims like the ones I just referred to, why, in principle, would the citation of some later fathers be sufficient reason to accept something?
Your example of the numbering of the sacraments doesn't make sense. We have more than the church fathers to go by, and even the scenario you describe with the fathers isn't parallel to what we have with apostolic succession in the fathers.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou have to know who the fathers are, such as when they lived, where they lived, and what level of interest they had in the subject under consideration. You have to differentiate between the qualifications of different historical witnesses. A historian studying the resurrection, for example, wouldn't place a first-century Jew and a fifth-century Roman who never lived in Israel in the same category, just because both are ancient sources. Just asserting that "some" fathers believed one thing and "some" believed another isn't enough. I and the sources I've cited on apostolic succession have named specific sources, placed them in specific timeframes, discussed specific contexts in which they could have attained and discussed relevant information, etc. For you to respond with a brief reference to sola scriptura or the canon that's less than one sentence long, or a short paragraph of assertions about the numbering of the sacraments, for example, isn't much of a parallel.
You write:
"So why can't a Catholic say, 'For example, I don't know if any historian or patristic scholar who argues that any of the ante-Nicene fathers denied that baptism was regenerational' and then conclude, 'But the early absence of the concept is considered significant in evaluating its historicity."
I've never suggested that the absence of an Evangelical belief wouldn't be significant. Here's what I said about the early popularity of baptismal justification in a discussion on the subject last year:
"The view that justification is normatively attained at the time of baptism was popular, and I consider that popularity the best argument for the doctrine." (comment 24)
As I explain elsewhere in that same discussion, however, my view of justification is supported by pre-patristic sources and some sources of the patristic era. And I cite some relevant scholarship, such as New Testament and patristic scholars, agreeing with my conclusions. If the "early absence" your hypothetical Catholic refers to is predated by affirmation of my view and accompanied by affirmation of my view in other sources at the time when my view supposedly was absent, then you aren't offering a parallel to what we see with apostolic succession.
You're a Presbyterian who belongs to a conservative Evangelical denomination. Presumably, you believe in concepts like the traditional Evangelical canon of scripture and justification through faith alone. Presumably, you don't believe in apostolic succession as defined by Roman Catholicism. If you don't think there's any historical reason for accepting the former while rejecting the latter, then why do you accept the former while rejecting the latter? On the other hand, if you do think there's historical reason for doing so, then why are you paralleling the two?
If you think my approach is wrong, then why don't you tell us what your approach is? You've been spending a lot of your time on this blog, on the occasions when you've posted, criticizing other Evangelicals. Why don't you offer something more constructive?
Thank you Jason and all for this information.
ReplyDeleteRaymond writes:
ReplyDeleteI sense an eagerness on your part to get defensive here.
Jason strikes me as the last kind of person to get defensive. I wouldn't confuse setting the record straight with defensiveness.
At the risk of stating the obvious, since Jason's rule of faith is quite different from the Catholic rule of faith, Raymond's attempt to create a parallel problem for Jason is vitiated by a fundamental equivocation. Raymond's comparing the incomparable.
ReplyDelete