A question about scripture and the foundation of the Church

[Morgan McPherson]

Hello Everyone,

Thank you so much for checking out this post. A friend of mine and I were discussing Orthodoxy and we have come to a point in the conversation where we could use a little outside help on a question he posed. Here is his question:

Does the bible give any indication that we must be under the spiritual leadership of ONLY those leaders who can be traced back to the Apostles?


Please try and answer it the best you can. Please use as much Scripture as you can because it is important to this debate. Thanks~

[Paul Cowan]

Dear Morgan:
I forsee many offshoots to any answer you will be given to this question. Many of which have already been fully discussed within other threads on Monachos. Have you done a search yet?

I am not fully versed as most others here, but a short answer to your question is, Yes.

Those that have not followed the apostolic succession are outside the Church and are schismatics. They have broken away from the original teachings and followed or created their own paths.

God sees the heart and He will judge each according to His own standards. What makes a spiritual father? Who will be saved? What if I believe and am Baptised, isn't that enough? Who says what is right and why should I listen to that person? You see any answer you are given will immediatley create many more.

If scripture is so important to this debate I dare say your friend and/or you are following sola scriptura which has it's own falicies. Good luck on your debate.

Paul

[Kosta]

I guess in the bible we can find pros and cons for such a question. Also depends what specifically you mean by spiritual guidance. In the early church all leaders were appointed by apostles (thru the laying on of hands; ordination). See 1 Tim4.12-16, 5.19-22. 2 Tim2.2. Acts 6.2-6

Some scripture suggest that only the spiritual leadership of those with apostolic succession :

"Then those who gladly recieved his word were baptised; and that day about 3000 souls were added to them. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and the fellowship in the breaking of bread (holy communion), and in prayers" (Acts 2.41-42)

"I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we , or an angel of heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you , let him be anathema. As we have said before so now i say again , if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have recieved let him be accursed." (Gal 1.6-9)

"For we are God's fellow workers (Paul and Apollos); you are God's field, you are God's building, According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which Jesus Christ." (1Cor 3.9-11 see also Eph 2.20)

"For i long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, so that you maybe established". (Rom 1.12) Church of rome had yet to recieve an apostolic succession.

"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you." (Titus 1.5)



"And i went up by revelation and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means, I might run or had run, in vain" (Gal 2.2). This ties in with Gal 1.6-9. Paul by divine revelation was instructed to present his preaching with those of the apostles to make sure it conformed.



On the other hand Scripture says:

"Now John answered him, saying Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us. But Jesus said Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in my Name can soon afterward speak evil of me. For he who is not against us is on our side". (Mark 9.38-40)


Hope this helps

[Rick H.]

Dear Morgan,

Welcome to Monachos. I am a new member too, having just signed on about three months ago. May your experience be as profitable as mine has been.

And, I would like to suggest that when you write:




A question about scripture and the foundation of the Church

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does the bible give any indication that we must be under the spiritual leadership of ONLY those leaders who can be traced back to the Apostles?




. . . you are really raising one question here--"the question of authority." I also notice that you have given emphasis to the word "ONLY" in the above directing our attention to an exclusiveness as we consider the subject of spiritual leaders/leadership. And, this really is at the heart of most questions and discussions here at Monachos based on what I have observed in my short run here. Whether we are talking about the Bible or the Church or the Pope or Patristic and Monastic studies, there is either an overt or a covert stream running through these discussions dealing the question of authority. Different layers, but same stream. But, I say all of that to share with you that the two other threads in this same area of monachos (An American Orthodoxy? and The Heart of Salvation!) are both sitting on the starting line of the drag strip with their tachs "red lining" and engines screaming just ready for the drivers to let the clutch fly and take off. I'm not sure which thread is going to go first now, but for what it's worth I will share with you that these two areas are where I will be addressing your question directly. If I start here, now, then we will have three threads going on the same thing and that may be too much. But, then again this site does seem to have a Life of its own which has proven so many times to be a very good thing. So, I guess we will see :) But, if you have time to monitor these other two threads over the next two weeks, I think that you will find a more than satisfactory discussion about the Bible and the foundation of the Church together in relation to the inclusiveness and the exclusiveness of "spiritual leadership." Because these things need to be in agreement don't they?

In Christ,

Rick

In the End, the Beginning

[Morgan McPherson]

Thanks everyone for your input. I think what each one of you makes sense to varying degrees. But, I agree that the underlying question here is really one of authority. And I think that is the problem with many of these questions because there is a lot the Scriptures not only assume but work under the assumption of. So I am not really where to turn from here, but if anyone has anything more to share that would be great. Thanks again.

[Herman Blaydoe]

We are saved, individually and as a community. Forsake not the gathering of the brethren says the Holy Apostle Paul.

When you go to see a doctor, do you go to just anybody who offers advice, particularly for serious matters? Or do you seek some sort of sign that this person meets specific requirements? If you were to go to court, would you seek out a lawyer who is a member of the bar or would you simply ask a friend?

Apostolic succession and ordination provide the "accredidation" and some sort of assurance that this individual meets criteria as a right-believing shepherd, because the Holy Apostle also warns us of false prophets and ravening wolves who would mislead the flock of Christ. Does anything in Holy Scripture provide any sort of assurance that spiritual authority exists outside the Church? I think not. We know where the Holy Spirit is, even if we don't always know where the Holy Spirit is not. But as for me, I prefer not to take that chance. FWIW.

DISCLAIMER
The ideas expressed here may or may not reflect the opinion of the poster. Text may contain material some readers may find objectionable, spiritual guidance is advised. The drinking of beverages while reading these posts is strongly discouraged; not responsible for damage, discomfort, or staining caused by spit-takes or "nosers." Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, use of satire, or failure to suit your particular sense of humor (or lack thereof). Some shifting of context may have occurred during shipment. For external use only. Void where prohibited. Not legal in all spiritual states. Consult a licensed and reputable spiritual advisor before applying. For recreational use only. May exceed the maximum recommended daily dose of irony. If a rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use. If condition persists, consult your spiritual physician. This notice applies to all posts by this poster whether or not it is included in the post and supercedes all previous disclaimers.

[John Charmley]

Dear Morgan,

You ask an interesting question. I wonder if I can come at it in the following way?

It is not uncommon in the Protestant Churches for a distinction to be made between tradition and the deposit of the faith in scripture; for Orthodox there is no such distinction.

Traditio is literally 'handing on' or 'handing over' (Judas for example is a traditor who hands over Our Lord. We can see in Mark 1:14, Acts 8:3 and 1 Timothy 1:20 the Apostle 'handing over' to Satan from the care of the Church Hymenaeus and Alexander. In Matthew 25:14 the lord in the parable 'handed over' the talents. Most importantly for our purpose here, Our Lord told us in Matthew 11:27 that all things had been 'handed over' to Him by the Father. St. Paul and Silas 'handed over' the decrees of the Jerusalem Council to the Galatians (Acts 16:4). Likewise St. Paul 'handed over' to the Corinthians various 'traditions' and statements of fact which had been entrusted to himself (1 Corinthians 11:2; 1 Corinthians 11:23; 1 Corinthians 15:3); original eye-witnesses had 'handed over' information to St. Luke (Luke 1:2); and, of course, St. Jude tells us (Jude 3) that the faith was handed over to the Saints once.

When Our Lord condemns the Scribes and the Pharisees it is because they prefer to stick to a tradition which rests on the 'tradition of men' rather than that which rests on Divine authority. It was on the Christian claim to offer a more perfect representation of the fundamental truth of God that the split between the early Christians and Judaism occurred. Christianity is a revealed religion, its truths 'handed over' to the Apostles, and 'handed on' by them. It was not a human discovery, but a Gospel sent from God through His designated ministers.

St. Clement of Alexandria (Stromatae, 6. 5, 38.4) writes of the specific revelation of the Gospel as 'the tradition through the Son', and contrasts it with the theistic foundation of faith in God the Father which Christians shared with educated Greeks. When the Fathers talk about 'tradition' they are, it seems to me, talking about, literally, 'delivering the Goods.

Authority (which is at the heart of this question) is claimed for Christian truths in so far they are 'handed on' from the Apostles. Thus Irenaeus in Against Heresies (3. 3. 2) bases his argument on 'the tradition which the Roman Church possesses from the apostles through its foundation and organisation by Peter and Paul', and commends the Church at Ephesus (Against Heresies 3.3.4) as a 'true witness to the apostles' tradition' owing to its prolonged association with Sts. Paul and John.

Later, Tertullian (De Praescript 28) criticises the idea that the Holy Ghost could ever have permitted different interpretations to be placed upon the faith which He was preaching by the apostles; widespread differences of teaching could never have resulted in a common faith; the unity of belief in the various Churches must be due 'not to error but to tradition'. St. Athanasius sums up this by describing (Ad Serap. 1.28) 'the actual original tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church, which the Lord conferred, the apostles proclaimed, and the fathers guarded.'

Where are the contents and substance of this tradition to be found? The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We believe that this faith, as 'handed on' by Christ to His apostles, and as delivered by them to generations of Christians, is to be found in its fullness in the Orthodox Church. As for the rest, well, we are told in 2 John 1:9-11:


9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him;
11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

I hope that the importance of the question may forgive the length of the answer; and that those with a greater knowledge will forgive my halting examples, and, should I be in error, will correct me. But so I was taught, and so I expound, however poorly I do justice to my own teachers.

In Christ,

John

[John Charmley]

Dear Morgan,

I wonder if I might add the following, which comes from one of the earliest of the Fathers, St. Clement, from his first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 42:


THE ORDER OF MINISTERS IN THE CHURCH
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ;
Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by
God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were
made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore
received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance
of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God
was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they
appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the
Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.
Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written
concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain
place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in
faith.”

In Chapter 44 he adds:


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 foreknowledge of this, they
appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave
instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men
should succeed them in their ministry.

There is some discussion amongst scholars about the exact date of this letter, but it cannot have been later than 97 A.D. Thus, from the earliest times, Apostolic succession was considered vital.

I hope this is helpful.

In Christ,

John