Evangelicals reject apostolic
succession—the idea that Popes and Catholic Bishops are in a direct line of
succession to Peter and the Apostles. As with many of their objections to the
Catholic Church, this one is fraught with problems and self-contradictions. The
truth can be explained by countering their objections.
Mike Gendron states the case this way:
“The apostles had only two successors—Matthias who was chosen by the apostles
and Paul who was chosen by Christ. Catholic bishops do not meet the
qualifications for apostleship given in Acts 1:21-26.”
The passage he refers to reads as
follows, in which Peter is discussing an election to choose a successor to
Judas Iscariot:
“’Therefore,
of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in
and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was
taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His
resurrection.’
“And they
proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
And they prayed and said, ‘You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which
of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from
which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.’ And they
cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the
eleven apostles.”
Here’s the first
problem. The “qualifications for apostleship” listed in Acts 1:21-26 were spoken
by Peter, not by Jesus. Furthermore, they are listed in a book which Scripture never
declared to be Scripture. The Acts of the Apostles (as well as its predecessor,
the Gospel of Luke, and many other books) was declared to be Scripture by men,
not by the Scriptures themselves.
So either Peter’s words here are invalid, the teaching of a mere man recorded by mere men, which would nullify the election of Matthias, or Jesus truly spoke through Peter as His inspired instrument, and also through the men who declared Acts to be Scripture, which would discredit the “Scripture as the sole authority” argument.
There’s a second problem. In Matthew
28:20, after Jesus commanded the “eleven” (at that point) to teach and to
baptize and to make disciples of all nations, he said: “I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Mark
16:20 adds: “They went out
and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying
signs.”
Here’s the problem. If the promise “I
am with you always, even to the end of the age” was made only to that specific group
of men, and did not extend to any successors, then the end of the age occurred
with the death of the last of the original apostles—for Jesus promised only to
be with them “to the end of the age.” If the Lord hasn’t worked with anyone
else that came after the first apostles, then it’s all over. The end of the age
is long past, Jesus no longer “works with” anyone.
There’s a third problem. Gendron says
that Matthias “was chosen by the apostles” and Paul “was chosen by Christ.” He
makes a deliberate distinction. He says that Paul was chosen by Christ and
Matthias was not. But that’s not what it Acts 1:24 says. It says the Apostles
prayed: “You, O Lord, who
know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen.”
So Gendron’s statement does one of two
things. It either refutes Acts 1:24 by saying only Paul was chosen by Jesus and
Matthias was chosen by mere men. Or it acknowledges the Apostles as inspired
instruments apart from Scripture through whom Jesus acts, with the authority to
name successors under his direction. And if he rejects the idea noted above
that the end of the age occurred with the death of the last of the original
apostles, then he acknowledges true apostolic succession beyond that point.
In any event, interpreting the
requirements of Acts 1:21-26 to apply beyond that one, specific election of
Judas’ immediate successor is quite a stretch, especially given the numerous problems
explained above.
Furthermore, that evangelicals make an
issue out of this in the first place negates their doctrine of Sola Scriptura. To
acknowledge that there were even two apostolic successors is to acknowledge
that the apostles did have true authority, which Paul and Matthias shared,
which acknowledges there is an authority outside of Scripture.
