Friday, August 13, 2021

Apostolic Succession in the Patristics and Protestant Apologists on there being no Great Apostasy


 

There is a deep silence of four hundred years during which few if any voices are heard lifted up against mechanical and superstitious Christianity. . . . In the thirteenth and fourteen centuries, however, preaching revived through the influence of the two great orders of monks—the Franciscans and Dominicans, founded respectively by St. Francis of Assisium and St. Dominic.  (J.C. Carrick, Wycliffe and the Lollards [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908], 5, 113, emphasis added)

 

It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century. The earlier church fathers placed chief emphasis on good works such as faith, repentance, almsgiving, prayers, submission to baptism, etc., as the basis of salvation. They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel. Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have denied the doctrine of Predestination and perhaps also that of God's absolute Foreknowledge. They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free will. It was hard for man to give up the idea that he could work out his own salvation. But at last, as a result of a long, slow process, he came to the great truth that salvation is a sovereign gift which has been bestowed irrespective of merit; that it was fixed in eternity; and that God is the author in all of its stages. This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians, taught an unconditional election of grace, and restricted the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect. It will not be denied by anyone acquainted with Church History that Augustine was an eminently great and good man, and that his labors and writings contributed more to the promotion of sound doctrine and the revival of true religion than did those of any other man between Paul and Luther. (Boettner, Calvinism in History, emphasis added)

 

The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers . . . From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit. (William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995], 95-96).

 

First of all, it leads to what I think ought to be for most of us [Protestants] a rather unsettling conclusion, which is that there were no Christians prior to the Protestant Reformation. Because, you will not be able to find, except perhaps a statement here or there out of context, you will not be able to find any Christian theologians, teachers, writers, in the first 14/15 centuries of Christianity clearly articulating what we would call "justification by faith alone," or as some people would like to call it, "forensic justification." The idea that justification is, at its core, is a legal act in which God pardons sinners of all their sins, past, present, and future, solely on the basis of Christ's atoning work, created simply by faith . . .(Robert M. Bowman, 44:32 mark, "Episode 46: Hank Hanegraaff Converts to Eastern Orthodoxy")

 

Yesterday, Aaron Shafovaloff (as well as Eric Wendt, who is just plain dumb, unlike Aaron who is both stupid and deceptive) embarrassed himself on the topic of the Great Apostasy. While he does not believe a Great Apostasy took place, when asked where the Proto-Protestants were, he just dismissed the issue. In reality, if one studies the earliest Christian writings (which I have done; I doubt Aaron has beyond quote mines from articles by the likes of William Webster and James White he might have read) one would easily find out that the patristics believed in doctrines antithetical to his theology, such as baptismal regeneration, infused righteousness at justification and a rejection of imputed righteousness (and with that, justification being transformative, not merely declarative), rejection of eternal security, , a much higher ecclesiology than he would allow for, belief in other authoritative sources of doctrine beyond Scripture (e.g., apostolic tradition), an ordained ministerial priesthood, and many other issues, something acknowledged by more honest Protestants, such as those quoted above. On some of these issues (using the Bible as the main source of evidence, it being seen by our Protestant critics as the sole infallible rule of faith and being formally sufficient), see, for e.g.:

 

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

 

Can our works save us? Refuting sola fide

 

Refuting Christina Darlington on the Nature of "Justification" (cf. Christina Darlington, D&C 82:7, and the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant)

 

Dave Bartosiewicz vs. Transformative Justification and Refutation of Dave Bartosiewicz on justification and the atonement being forensic

 

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

 

Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

 

James White (and John Owen) on Hebrews 10:29

Hebrews 6:4-9: Only Hypothetical?

Note on Hebrews 6:4

King David Refutes Reformed Soteriology

 

"Born of Water and of the Spirit": The Biblical Evidence for Baptismal Regeneration

 

After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical an Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood

 

One topic he “poos-poos” is Apostolic Succession. However, for those who have studied early Christian history and texts, this was pretty unanimous from the first Christian century onwards, and was not seen as an optional belief; indeed, it was often seen as essential to the structure of the Church and perpetuation of the gospel. For them, it was a first-tier issue (as was the nature of the Eucharist; baptism and its relationship to salvation; conditional security of the believer; high ecclesiology and with that, the binding authority of the Church, etc).

 

If Aaron wants to continue the myth that he, a Protestant, can reject a Great Apostasy and be consistent in critiquing LDS for belief in such, will have to engage in further mental masturbation (and self-deception) that there is a continuity between the earliest Christians and what they believed the Gospel to be and the central tenets of the faith and what his (blasphemous, Satanical Reformed Protestant) “gospel” is. Of course, no one will ever claim Aaron is an honest actor.

 

Unless otherwise stated, the following comes from the 38-volume Schaff series:

 

1 Clement

 

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 labours], 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 bishops9 in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.” (1 Clement 42)

 

Ye are fond of contention, brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation. Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them. There you will not find that the righteous were cast off by men who themselves were holy. The righteous were indeed persecuted, but only by the wicked. They were cast into prison, but only by the unholy; they were stoned, but only by transgressors; they were slain, but only by the accursed, and such as had conceived an unrighteous envy against them. Exposed to such sufferings, they endured them gloriously. For what shall we say, brethren? Was Daniel cast into the den of lions by such as feared God? Were Ananias, and Azarias, and Mishael shut up in a furnace of fire by those who observed the great and glorious worship of the Most High? Far from us be such a thought! Who, then, were they that did such things? The hateful, and those full of all wickedness, were roused to such a pitch of fury, that they inflicted torture on those who served God with a holy and blameless purpose [of heart], not knowing that the Most High is the Defender and Protector of all such as with a pure conscience venerate His all-excellent name; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. But they who with confidence endured [these things] are now heirs of glory and honour, and have been exalted and made illustrious by God in their memorial for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Clement 44)

 

Ignatius of Antioch

 

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ (followed) the Father. and (follow) the presbytery as the apostles; respect the deacons as the commandment of God. Let no one do anything apart from the bishop that has to do with the church. Let that be regarded as a valid eucharist which is held under the bishop or to whomever he entrusts it. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the whole church. lt is not permissible apart from the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the love-feast; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God, that everything you do may be sure and valid. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, translation taken from William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch [Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985], 238)

 

Irenaeus of Lyons

 

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the churches, and [to demonstrate] the successions of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity. (Against Heresies 3.3.1)

 

Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth. And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God—namely, strange doctrines—shall be burned up by the fire from heaven, as were Nadab and Abiud. But such as rise up in opposition to the truth, and exhort others against the church of God, [shall] remain among those in hell (apud inferos), being swallowed up by an earthquake, even as those who were with Chore, Dathan, and Abiron. But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the church, [shall] receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did. (Against Heresies, 4.26.2)

 

Basil the Great

 

Of the dogmas and kerygmas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals. (The Holy Spirit, 27:66)

 

[A]nyone . . . accepting the Nicene Creed, is to be received without hesitation and difficulty, citing in support of his opinion the unanimous assent of the bishops of Macedonia and Asia. (To Neocaesareans, Epistle 204:6)

 

Athanasius

 

And before you had received the grace of the episcopate, no one know you; but after you became one, the laity expected you to bring them food, namely instruction from the Scriptures . . . For if all were of the same mind as your present advisers, how would you have become a Christian, since there would be no bishops? Or if our successors are to inherit the state of mind, how will the Churches be able to hold together? (To Dracontius, Epistle 49:2, 4)

 

Jerome

 

Far be it from me to censure the successors of the apostles, who with holy words consecrate the body of Christ, and who make us Christians. Having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, they judge men to some extent before the day of judgment, and guard the chastity of the bride of Christ. (To Heliodorus, Epistle 14:8)

 

Gregory of Nazianzus

 

Thus, and for these reasons, by the vote of the whole people, not in evil fashion which has since prevailed, nor by means of bloodshed and oppression, but in an apostolic and spiritual manner, he is led up to the throne of St. Mark, to succeed him in piety, no less than in office; in the latter indeed at a great distance from him, in the former, which is the genuine right of succession, following him closely. For the unity in doctrine deserves unity in office; and a rival teacher sets up a rival throne; the one is a successor in reality, the other but in name. For it is not the intruder, but he whose rights are intruded upon, who is the successor, not the lawbreaker, but the lawfully appointed, not the man of contrary opinions, but the man of the same faith; if this not what we mean by successor, he succeeds in the same sense as disease to health, darkness to light, storm to calm, and frenzy to sound sense. (Orations, 21)

 

Augustine

 

For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: Clement, Anacletus…Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist Bishop is found. (To Fortunatus, Epistle 53:2)

 

If Aaron were to be transported to the earliest centuries of Christianity, he would be condemned as a heretic. Yes, he would claim I would be too, but here is the rub: I believe a Great Apostasy took place, so I can be consistent in my approach to the early Christians, the developments in their theology (such as the development of a high Mariology or the veneration of icons/images). Aaron cannot—he believes there were always “true believers” (Proto-Protestants) since day 1, although there is no evidence whatsoever for such (outside quote mines in pop-level works).


As an aside, among the many deceptive claims Aaron made, he repeated the old canard that Joseph Smith "boasted" he did more than Jesus. On this, including 2 Cor 11:16 (which Joseph Smith quoted from) where Paul himself "boasted," as well as John 14:12 (where Jesus Himself promises his followers will do greater workers than Him), see my response to Dave Bartosiewicz:


Responding to a laughable critic on Joseph Smith's boasting


It was also telling that Aaron and Eric admitted that informed LDS do not think the Apostasy took place at Nicea (or was "finished" at Nicea), but as it is "popular" they discussed that instead of the more plausible/stronger position. This, too, shows they are not honest actors. Those with intellectual honesty try to deal with the best arguments the other side has to offer and try to present "steel man" positions. Imagine if I were to discuss Trinitarianism, present and refute Modalism, and then claim "well, that is true that informed Trinitarians are not Modalists, but many within Trinitarian groups are functionally Modalists, so it is acceptable for me to attack this position!" "Lying, disingenuous hack" would be the appropriate term to use for anyone who would do such. Then again, this is from the same idiot who does not know what "libel" or "slander" is.


Further Reading


Responses to Aaron Shafovaloff