Apostolic* Succession: Presbyterian-Style

The Roman Catholic Church bases its claim to be the most authentic Christian communion on its assertion that they are the beneficiaries of and recipients of a continuous succession of bishops reaching all the way back to the Apostle Peter himself.

I have no objection to the Roman church's insistence on the necessity of apostolic succession. On this point, as well as on many others, they are 100% correct. Nonetheless, there is an error in their understanding of, and nature of this succession.

Apostolic succession *does* exist, and it *has* been handed-down, in the church, in every age, all the way from the Messiah, to Peter, and subsequently to all of Christ's specially-called ministers (pastors). (Some of these may well have been bishops of Rome.)

But this succession is *not* mechanical; instead, it is spiritual. No one who is not truly called by God to preach the gospel of grace in the Lord Jesus Christ, is in *any* form (or way) part of this "succession." Therefore, if my position is true, then some of the worst of the popes, who had no regard for the fact that Christ's atoning death and perfect life is the only basis for a sinner's justification, (which is to be received by faith alone, by grace alone)--are in any way a link in the apostolic succession.

Actually, the Roman church's premise of its primacy is flawed in a number of ways: one of them (ironically) is that it (the Roman church) is *not* old enough. Presbyterians who follow their Puritan fathers realize that we run our succession all the way back to Abraham (the father of our faith), and even to eras before him, all the way back to the Garden of Eden. (Indeed, as we take comfort in God's eternal decrees, we trace it all the way back to eternity [before the advent of time].)

* By "Apostolic," we do not mean "in the person of the apostle." Instead, we mean, as per the Nicene Creed, "in the teaching of the apostle[s]."

The patriarch's dilemma

One of the big "selling points" of the patriarchalists' religion, is the idea that the world out there is just far too dangerous to entrust one's loved ones to God, or a school teacher, or a magistrate, or a minister, (or a neighbor, or a friend, etc., etc., etc.).

The theory is that the father alone is to be trusted with the child, and with the family. Patriarchalists will sometimes say things like this: "If the minister teaches you to trust in anyone other than Christ for your salvation, do not listen to him." He is right in his counsel; but he is wrong in his failure to be consistent in its application. The minister can, and should turn around and say to the child of the church: "If your father teaches you to trust in anyone other than Christ for your salvation, do not listen to him."

The fact of the matter, (and we take no pleasure in this), is that patriarchalists are just as guilty of the awful and horrendous crimes against children (and others) as are those in the world as a whole.

The problem with the patriarchaist, however, is that he will not submit to discipline: neither that of the church, nor of the state.

At least in a true churchman, there is some real, tangible, and objective force and guide, that both hinders wrongdoing, and encourages the doing of good.