Is Apostolic Succession an Accretion?

Gavin Ortlund and Austin Suggs of @GospelSimplicity discuss Protestant perspectives on apostolic succession.

Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville.

SUPPORT:

FOLLOW:

MY ACADEMIC WORK:

PODCAST:

DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM

CHECK OUT SOME BOOKS:

00:00 - Defining Apostolic Succession
02:53 - Ignatius and Early Development
05:28 - Valid vs. Necessary Offices
08:04 - Scholarship
10:26 - The Restriction of Valid Sacraments
12:04 - Clement and Other Early Testimonies
17:06 - Divine Guidance in Church History

[benfinlay]

Surely, this video will not spark controversy in the comments section!

[KYWingfold]

Looking forward to the super-positive comments and response videos!

[KevinDay]

Assuming Irenaeus was not just making things up, how would he have had a line of apostolic succession ready to cite if it had not been recorded (orally or written) from the beginning? And if it was recorded from the beginning, and considered so important for distinguishing the Church from heretical sects by the time of Irenaeus, how could it not be of Apostolic origin?

[joshuareeves]

Gavin Ortlund is an accretion ;) just kidding. Loved this interview. Everyone should go listen to the whole thing on Gospel Simplicity. Also, his book is great! Definitely worth reading.

[gardengirlmary]

Great video. Totally going to check out the full video!

[AmericanwrCymraeg]

14:40 St Ignatius makes that exact claim, that a bishop is needed for Eucharistic validity. That's not a later accretion.

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains."

[andrewbird]

I remember studying Irenaeus after discussing things with a Catholic friend, and it seemed clear to me that Irenaeus' model of apostolic succession was not the same as Rome's today, nor does it hold up to church reality as it played out in the centuries after him.

Basically, he was countering a heresy outside the church that claimed to have a special understanding passed down orally from the apostles. His whole point was that it would be insane to think the apostles would hide this special knowledge from the churches they labored to establish and shepherd. He then states that all churches were in agreement with each other and always have been since the time of the apostles. And the sign/seal of this agreement is apostolic succession. This was meant to be a comfort and a guarantee for all members in any local church.

The only problem with this model is fast-forward in church history and there's the split where both east and west rightly claim apostolic succession, yet are not in agreement. So either update the model or recognize that Irenaeus' idea of apostolic succession (being the guarantee of truth) isn't actually apostolic in origin. Hence why scripture always speaks of the Holy Spirit being the guarantor. Irenaeus was a bright guy, but he didn't have the luxury of seeing how 2, 000+ years of church history played out.

Anyway, thanks for the presentation Gavin and giving the full picture of things. I hope to have time to acquire and read your book soon!

[henrytucker]

I think you miss the whole point of "succession." The reason Ignatius et al made such a big deal about it was because Apostolic Succession was the only way new believers could even know they were in a legitimate church-- not, for example, a gnostic counterfeit. There were a lot of false teachers already planting their own churches. Not every guy with a Bible can appoint himself an elder or deacon-- nor appoint others. Any real "catholicity" would be completely impossible-- as we have daily proof. A unified succession plan provides important continuity and identity for catholicity to occur-- and the "Apostolic" part ensures that it will not fail (because it carries Christ's promise-- not because the men are anything special).

[GeorgeLucas]

I love that you have A Series Of Unfortunate Events on your bookshelf shout out to it

[DrBob-grru]

"Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders (πρεσβυτέρους)of the church...Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (ἐπισκόπους) to shepherd [ποιμαίνειν, (i.e. "pastor")] the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."--Acts 20:17, 28. As Schaff stated, "bishop" connotes the title of the office, "elder" connotes the dignity of the offive, and "pastor" the function of the office.

[CPATuttle]

I don't understand how you can say Ireneaus, 2nd century, didn't believe in apostolic succession when he elaborated on this numerous times in great detail in his writings. And he does say 'bishops' is what the succession is through, 'priests' possess it. And then all the lists, are tracted, and kept have singular succession

[stevenjames]

The idea that because bishops and priests had somewhat interchangeable duties that therefore apostolic succession as we know it is false is absolutely nonsensical to me… in the New Testament itself we find the apostles, appointing successors, and then in writing shortly after the new testament, we find pretty powerful statements about the successes of the apostles.. it doesn’t really matter if there was a college of bishops and priests rather than one bishop of priest, they were still ordained in succession with the apostles, and their institutions were authoritative over Those that were not.. this is what is meant by apostolic succession.

We don’t need one bishop or dating another bishop to have apostolic succession. We just need bishops ordaing bishops regardless if there are many at the same time. There is also
Evidence from the New Testament itself such as the council of Jerusalem where James oversaw a college of priests as the bishop … this looks a lot like the monepiscopacy that would come about later.

[williamnathanael]

Gavin Ortlund is an accretion - through faith succession from the apostles. From Abraham in fact.

[SheepDog]

Why is there an assumption that because there is a different way of explaining the priest/bishop distinction between Clement and Irenaeus that they mean substantially different things? They are so close to the apostles by time and succession that it would be crazy to think that there is *that* significant of a development for it to be really considered an alien accretion. And if you maintain this attitude about everything in the church then nearly everything can and will be deconstructed: american mega church lowest common denominator Christianity. We should instead assume that the church has faithfully passed down the divine traditions set in place by the apostles. Especially that early.

[thirdparsonage]

Granted, there was some development on this (and nearly every other doctrine in the church). But to accept Gavin's view, how can anything whatsoever in the church be authoritative? Are any of the councils authoritative? Can we be sure we're correct about any of the Christological controversies? Did the church act with definitive authority when spelling out the Trinity? There has to be some actual and definitive locus of authority for any of the theological decisions to be considered authoritative .

To accept the Protestant view, pretty nearly every doctine is just up to each Christian (or individual church body) to decide. The church has no definitive authority. There is no definitive Christian theology. The finished canon of scripture has almost nothing to do with the church. We're left to guess whether the current NT canon is truly definitive.

To accept the Protestant view is ultimately a house of cards. Where is the locus of any conclusive authority if 10 (or 50, or 100, including) different denominations (including a group like the Unitarians) can each have equal claim to getting the teaching of scripture correct?

It's no surprise that this doctrine developed in the first couple centuries. Just because it didn't look exactly as it does today does not mean there was no transmission of authority from the apostles to the leaders in the church. What they were called at any given point is much less important then whether there were individuals who had hands laid on them who received any actual authority.

If they did not, the countless Protestant denominations aren't just a bug, they're a feature.

(To be sure, I say this with much love toward Protestants. I do think they get most of the big questions right. But it's in spite of their view of the church, not because of it)

[aericabison]

Imo the Apostles didn’t really appoint successors to their office; they appointed elders to rule over the churches they founded. They wanted each church to be autonomous, but have the same doctrine and practice of faith.

[stephenbailey]

The role of the bishop (overseers) as separate from presbyters grew for two reasons: the increasing numbers of the Christian congregations and need for coordination, the need to oversee the struggle against heretical teaching.
But it was when the Church leaders began to collude with the Roman imperium, becoming a state religion, that servanthood developed into hierarchy and the Church became a tool for social conformity.

[joaohm.]

Irenaeus not only gives testimony of apostolic succession, but also of the primacy of the Church of Rome. Irenaeus himself was part of the succession through Polycarp, disciple of John the apostle.

[bencook]

I don't see how history could possibly bear out the idea that Apostolic Succession is an accretion. The very earliest fathers use apostolic succession explicitly as defense against the heresies of the day.

There is an easy and obvious defeater here. The first person who recorded the names of the four gospels, as scripture, Irenaeus, also used apostolic succession of bishops (not presbyters) as an explicit argument against gnostics. To be consistent then, you're stuck. One cannot be an accretion while the other isn't. The original source we know that defined the four gospels as we know them also appeals to apostolic succession of bishops.

I really think that shouldn't be ignored in this discussion because Irenaeus is very clear that it is succession of bishops in Rome, not presbyters, that acts as a defeater to the gnostic case.

[TheUnknownLegend]

Oh boy, I can't wait to read later comments. 😂