I got this e-mail discussion going in one of those strange ways
God has of putting things together. I’d been friends at Bob
Jones University with this guy called Doug. After school we’d
gone our separate ways. I ended up in England and he wound up as
an English professor in the mid-West. After twenty years we got
back in touch in a strange way. I posted a note on an internet religious
chat room asking if any Bob Jones graduates were out there wanting
to talk. Some complete stranger saw the note, took my address into
work and gave it to Doug. Doug e-mails me out of the blue and we
start discussing religion. Now three or four years later the debate
is still going on.
We’re both from this very fundamentalist background, but we’ve
both got a pretty good dose of education since then. I became an
Anglican and finally took the step to become a Catholic about five
years ago. As a friend of Doug’s said, ‘The trajectory
from South Carolina through Canterbury was far more likely to end
up in Rome than in Missouri.’ The nice thing about debating
with Doug is that he is actually fair, intelligent and well read.
He’s not a Catholic but he has taken the trouble to read Catholic
writings. He doesn’t agree with the Catholic Church, but at
least he knows what he doesn’t agree with. A lot of the people
I’ve discussed the church with only disagree with what they
think Catholics believe. Not Doug. He knows his stuff and now that
he’s an Episcopalian he has become pretty Catholic himself
in his ways of thinking and worshipping. He uses the Catholic daily
readings, appreciates the solemn liturgy of Holy Week, observes
Lent and wishes his evangelical Episcopal Church was maybe a little
more Catholic in the way they do things.
Over the years we’ve covered all the bases. I mean we’ve
discussed everything about the Catholic Church. One day we end up
tapping away at our computers about how the Church is apostolic.
Both of us agree that our Christian faith comes to us from the apostles,
but I hadn’t really looked hard at just what that means. We
did some Bible digging and came up with some pretty interesting
stuff. It all has to do with spiritual authority on earth, where
the authority comes from and how we know something is true.
The Foundations
The Gospels make an amazing claim. They give Jesus universal divine
authority. Matthew says ‘all authority has been given to him
on heaven and earth.’ (Mt.28.18) The Father has placed everything
into his hands. (Jn.3.35) He has authority over all people, (Jn.17.2)
and his authority has been given to him by his Father in heaven.
(Lk. 10.22) In his epistles Saint Paul also affirms the divine authority
which Jesus claimed. (I Cor 15.27; Eph.1.20-22; Php.2.9-10)
Jesus knew he couldn’t stay on the earth forever, and the
gospels show how Jesus intended his ministry to be continued on
earth. He called twelve men to lead his followers. So they could
lead the church with power and authority Jesus gave the apostles
a share in his own divine authority. So Jesus says the apostles
are sent just as the Father sent him. (Jn 20.21) Jesus had the authority
to cast out demons and teach the Truth. In Luke 9.1-3 he gives his
apostles the authority to do the same. They are to speak the Truth
with the same kind of authority Jesus had because Jesus says whoever
listens to them listens to Him (Lk 10.16). At the end of all four
gospels Jesus gives the apostles special authority to continue his
work. In Matthew 28.18-20 and Mark 16.15 he tells them to preach
the Truth and baptise. In Luke 24.45-48 he commands them to understand
the Scriptures and preach repentance for the forgiveness of sins,
and in John 20.23 he specifically gives them his authority to forgive
sins. Jesus must have intended this ministry to continue because
in Matthew 28.20 he promises to be with the apostles until the end
of time. Then in John’s gospel he promises the Holy Spirit
to help with the work of understanding the truth, (Jn.16.13) and
says the Holy Spirit will remain with the apostles forever. (Jn.14.16)
The Acts of the Apostles tells how the apostles followed the Lord’s
command and went into the whole world to preach the truth, admonish
evil and forgive sins. As the foremost apostles, Peter and Paul
take the responsibility for proclaiming the Truth of God. Both of
them claim their message comes directly from God. The authority
to preach God’s Truth is given to the apostles, but the apostles
also claim the authority to interpret the Word of God. Paul, for
example, takes the authority to forge a new interpretation of the
Old Testament which unlocks Jesus’ true identity as eternal
son of God. Peter also claims the authority to interpret Scripture
the correct way. In his second epistle he says, ‘No prophecy
of Scripture is of any private interpretation.’ If we are
not to interpret the Scripture on our own who is to interpret it
for us? Jesus says the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth,
so the Holy Spirit plays a part. But Peter himself answers the question
in the same epistle. In verse 16-18 of chapter one, Peter claims
teaching authority because he was an eyewitness of Jesus' life and
glory. Peter has the authority to interpret Scripture because he
received the truth direct from Jesus. He then says in verse two
of chapter three that the truth was spoken in the past by the holy
prophets, but that the commands are now given by Jesus Christ through
the apostles.
What is interesting here is that Peter compares the role of the
New Testament apostles to the Old Testament prophets. As a practising
Jew Peter understood that the prophets were directly inspired by
God. Their preaching was considered to be a direct word from God
to the people of God. We have already seen that Peter considered
his preaching to be 'the Word of God which stands forever.' As such
the apostles are the prophets--the God-inspired teachers of the
New Testament people of God. When Peter says, ‘No prophecy
of Scripture is of any private interpretation’ he also means
that only the prophet--that is the apostle-- is entitled and empowered
by the Holy Spirit to give the right interpretation.
Paul agrees with Peter. In Ephesians 3.5 he says the mystery of
God has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and
prophets. It is the same Spirit-led group of men who are the foundation
of the church. Paul says in Ephesians 2.20 that his hearers are
members of the church, ‘the household of God which is built
on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus
as the chief corner stone.’ Jesus is the corner stone of this
church, but it is the apostles and the prophets--inspired by God's
Holy Spirit--who provide the foundation. When Saint Paul says the
‘church is built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles’,
what is interesting is that he does not say the church is built
on the foundation of the teachings of the prophets and apostles.
He says the church is built on them. In other words, the person
and his teaching are a unity. In both the prophets and the apostles,
their teaching cannot be separated from the authority by which they
teach.
The Apostolic Church
We can agree on this. Doug and I both believe the church is built
on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. The Bible says that
clearly. But now Doug and I start to differ. Doug says his church
is also founded on the apostles and prophets because they hold to
the faith which was taught by the apostles. I’m not totally
happy about this, but on the other hand I can see that a Protestant
Church that holds to the Biblical, unchanging apostolic faith is
more true than some liberal church that has sold their birthright
for a mess of pottage.
I’m holding out for bishops. Catholics believe that the bishops
are the successors of the apostles. We think you the bishops give
us a firm basis for authority. The bishops are our link with the
apostles. Loyalty to them produces unity in the church. From the
very earliest days in the church this has been true. So I cut and
paste some chunks about the early church to Doug. I remind him about
a guy called Clement. Clement was a leader of the Roman church just
sixty years or so after the crucifixion. Around the year 150 a French
church leader called Irenaeus said about Clement, ‘He not
only had seen the blessed Apostles, but had also conferred with
them, and had their preaching still ringing in his ears, and their
tradition still before his eyes.’ I mean, this is really early
in church history. It’s even possible that this is the same
Clement who Paul calls his ‘fellow worker.’ (Phil. 4.3)
Around the year 95 Clement wrote a letter to the Church at Corinth
pleading with them to maintain unity with the properly appointed
leaders. In his letter he explains clearly from what source those
leaders had received their authority. He writes, ‘The Apostles
received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ...and they
went out full of confidence in the Holy Spirit...and appointed their
first fruits...to be bishops and deacons. Our apostles knew there
would be strife on the question of the bishop's office, Therefore,
they appointed these people already mentioned and later made further
provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should
succeed to their ministry.’
Another friend of mine thought Clement was just trying to boost
his own authority, but there are writings from all over the ancient
world which show that all the Christian leaders believed the same
thing. They thought they were the successors of the apostles. Ignatius
of Antioch was martyred in the year 115. He was probably instructed
by Peter and Paul during their time in Antioch. In writing to the
Trallian church he equates the church elders with apostles. ‘When
you obey the bishop as if he were Christ Jesus, you are living not
in a merely human fashion, but in Jesus Christ‘s way…It
is essential therefore, to act in no way without the bishop, just
as you are doing. Rather submit even to the presbytery (the body
of elders) as to the apostles of Jesus Christ.’ To the Christians
at Smyrna Ignatius writes, ‘You should follow the bishops
as Jesus Christ did the Father. Follow too the presbytery as you
would the apostles …You should regard that Eucharist as valid
which is celebrated either by the bishop or by someone he authorises.’
By the middle of the second century—less than a hundred years
after the death of the last apostle, the whole church had recognised
the apostolic authority of properly recognised and appointed bishops.
The evidence comes from North Africa, Syria, France and Italy, and
they all recognise that the proper authority in the church must
be descended historically from the apostles. I reminded Doug about
Irenaeus. He was a theologian and bishop who wrote around the year
180. Irenaeus actually knew Polycarp, who was a disciple of the
apostle John, so in Irenaeus we are just one generation removed
from the apostles themselves. According to Irenaeus it is because
the church leaders have inherited the apostolic authority that they
can interpret Scripture properly. So he writes, ‘By knowledge
of the truth we mean the teaching of the Apostles; the order of
the Church as established from earliest times throughout the world...preserved
through the episcopal succession: for to the bishops the apostles
committed the care of the church in each place which has come down
to our own time safeguarded by ...the most complete exposition...the
reading of the Scriptures without falsification and careful and
consistent exposition of them--avoiding both rashness and blasphemy.’
Elsewhere he says that the bishops of the church not only received
the apostolic teaching, but the apostolic authority to define and
defend that teaching. ‘We can enumerate those who were appointed
bishops in the churches by the apostles and their successors down
to our own day…they [the apostles] were handing over to them
their own office of doctrinal authority.’
So I come back to Doug insisting that part of the apostolic faith
he wants to hold on to actually includes having bishops . Its clear
isn’t it? For the first generation of Christians the apostolic
faith meant being part of a church which not only taught the apostolic
faith, but had leaders whose authority descended historically from
the apostles. According to the early evidence, the church was organised
with a chief elder (bishop) in each city, and with elders (priests)
to oversee the local congregations. The priests and bishops were
assisted by deacons who also exercised a teaching and ministry role.
Even in those early days there were some groups who broke off from
the established apostolic authority to do their own thing. Ignatius
called them to return to the unified church led by the apostolically
appointed leaders. Irenaeus insisted that the fullest expression
of Christianity was to be found in the churches which traced their
authority right back to the apostles themselves. He says of those
who broke away from the apostolic church, ‘we challenge them
by an appeal to that tradition which derives from the Apostles,
and which is preserved in the churches by the succession of presbyters…Those
who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition
of the Apostles…It is our duty to obey those bishops who are
in the church, who have their succession from the Apostles, as we
have shown, who with their succession in the episcopate have received
the sure spiritual gift of truth according to the pleasure of the
Father.’
Bishop’s Move
We debate back and forth—the computers are hot with our discussion
on the issue. I think Doug is finally agreeing that bishops are
a good thing. Finally we come up with a kind of synthesis. Maybe
a church can be apostolic in four different ways. These four different
ways sort of accumulate so you might have one or two apostolic traits,
but its best to have as many as possible. After all, why have mere
Christianity when you can have more Christianity?
The first and most basic level of apostolicity is faithfulness to
essentials of the apostolic teaching. In other words, if a non-Catholic
Christian believes the simple gospel, and accepts the ‘old
time religion’ it can be said that he shares to a certain
degree in the apostolic faith. Inasmuch as any Christian repents
of his sin and trusts Jesus Christ as his saviour he participates
to some extent in the apostolic faith. Both Doug and I are happy
about this. Its inclusive. Nobody is left out.
This is fine as far as it goes, but there is more on offer than
that. There are some other questions to ask too. The individual
who repents of his sins and trusts Jesus Christ as his saviour is
taking part in the apostolic faith, but where does he turn for his
answers and his doctrine? Without another authority he’s on
his own. Also, if there is nothing else but personal experience,
that single individual is cut off from a large measure of the apostolic
faith. It is a bit like a person looking through a keyhole into
a ballroom. They certainly see part of the ballroom, and what they
see is true enough; but there is far more to be seen than that.
According to the New Testament, individual believers have to be
baptised into the body of Christ, and the body of Christ has recognised
leaders. In other words, the person looking through the keyhole
has to come into the ballroom and join the party. A second level
of the apostolic faith means an individual joins a church and so
participates in some sort of recognised ordained ministry. If an
individual joins a church with an ordained ministry, or if he or
she is ordained, then by virtue of that fact they are sharing in
the second degree of apostolicity. Almost all Christians belong
to a church with some sort of ordained ministry, and that ministry
is usually patterned on the guidelines in the New Testament. Because
they belong to a church with an ordained ministry, most Christians
also share in this second degree of apostolicity. That’s fine.
Doug’s happy. I’m happy. We’re still including
people rather than excluding. This means any Christian who goes
to church probably shares in a little bit more of the apostolic
faith than just the lonely wandering Christian.
Two levels is better than one, but there’s more. I keep reminding
Doug that the New Testament and the documents of the early church
show that the apostles established a recognised historical succession
for the church leadership. The historical succession is important
because through it a particular church claims a living link with
the apostles, and therefore claims that their teaching and authority
structure is part of that church founded two thousand years ago.
This is a kind of pedigree. What’s more likely to be true?
A Church founded two thousand years ago or one founded two hundred
years ago? The third level of the apostolic faith means a denomination
or individual shares in some way in apostolic succession. In other
words, those churches that have bishops who claim historical succession
from the apostles may share in this third level of apostolicity.
The Orthodox, the different Anglican groups, and some other Catholic-minded
Christian denominations would all claim to share in this third level
of apostolic authority. Even if their claims to apostolic succession
are spurious, their desire to be a part of this higher level of
apostolicity shows an awareness and a sharing in something greater.
This is good. Doug and I are still happy about including everyone.
The stress is not on who is out, but on who is most completely in.
Christians can share in one level of apostolicity by believing the
simple gospel message. They go ‘further up and further in’
when they join a church with an ordained ministry. They penetrate
further into the mystery of the apostolic Church once they have
entered a denomination which claims to share the historic connection
with the apostles through the ministry of bishops. But I suggested
that there are four levels of apostolicity. Now I’m pushing
things. I want a fourth level because this is where the rubber meets
the road. The fourth level is being a part of the historic Catholic
Church. The Anglicans claim apostolic succession. Eastern Orthodox
enjoy a high degree of apostolicity, but only the Catholic Church
expresses historic apostolic authority in a universal way. This
is a whole ‘nother ball game, but it is enough to say that
in the Catholic Church there is a fullness of the apostolic faith
which is not present elsewhere. In the Catholic Church there is
a universal authority connected right back to the apostles Peter
and Paul which is recognisable and dynamic in the world today.
This universal authority is both faithful to the apostolic faith,
and yet able to apply that faith to the needs of the present day.
I cut and paste a snippet from John Henry Newman over to Doug. It
comes from Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian
Doctrine. Like most of Newman’s stuff it is not exactly pithy
and punchy. Long sentences and big words. But its worth wading through.
Here it is:
If Christianity is both social and dogmatic, and intended for all
ages, it must, humanly speaking, have an infallible expounder, else
you will secure unity of form at the loss of unity of doctrine,
or unity of doctrine at the loss of unity of form; you will have
to choose between a comprehension of opinions and a resolution into
parties; between latidudinarian and sectarian error. You must accept
the whole oir reject the whole… it is trifling to receive
all but something which is as integral as any other portion. Thus
it would be trifling indeed to accept everything Catholic except
the head of the body of Christ here on earth.
In other words, if you don’t accept the universal apostolic
authority of the successor of Peter, then you only have a partial
apostolic faith. You don’t have what Jesus expected—one
shepherd for the one flock. (Jn. 10.16) Without that single voice
of authority Newman says you will fall into one of two errors. Either
you will sacrifice agreement on doctrine in order to maintain a
semblance of unity (this is what many of the mainstream Protestant
denominations opt for) or you will have agreement on doctrine and
practice, but end up in a little sect. (This is what the independent
Protestant churches choose). The only way to have both agreement
on doctrine and inner unity is to have a central, recognised authority.
In the Catholic Church this authority is historical, Biblical and
apostolic. It is the successor of Peter. When Catholics therefore
say they believe in ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’
it is not just an idea. It is a person who lives and speaks to us.
He is the successor of the one on whom Christ founded the Church;
(Mt.16.18) the one to whom Jesus entrusted his authority as the
Good Shepherd of the Sheep. (Jn.21.15-17)
Not by Faith Alone
This phrase has been batted around by Doug and me a fair bit. But
usually the ‘not by faith alone’ tag is used in reference
to our debates about faith and works. But the ‘not by faith
alone’ tag works here too. It suddenly dawns on me at church
one day while we’re saying the Nicene Creed. We don’t
actually profess to believe in ‘One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic
faith.’ We profess to believe in ‘One Holy Catholic
and Apostolic Church.’ We’d been discussing how somebody
could profess to believe in the apostolic faith, but the early Christians
didn’t use that term. Instead they spoke about believing in
‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.’ The penny
dropped, as we say in England. Bing! The light went on.
My fingers were itching to get back to the computer. I said to Doug,
‘You can’t really have the apostolic faith unless you
are in the apostolic church.’ I was happy to concede that
a single person on a desert island could repent of their sins and
believe and trust in Jesus and therefore hold to the apostolic faith.
Even so, it is necessary for that person, as soon as possible, to
join the church and belong to the body of Christ.
From the very beginning the faith has never been separated from
membership in the family of God. The Jews couldn’t conceive
of following Jehovah for instance, without also being a Jew. Likewise,
it is impossible to really hold to the apostolic faith without belonging
to the apostolic church. To simply hold to the faith without belonging
to the Church is playing head games. Belonging to the church makes
it real. Saying you are a Christian without belonging to the Church
is like saying you love your fiancée, but you never spending
time with her and don’t intend to marry her. Actions speak
louder than words, and they speak a lot louder than thoughts and
ideas.
When we say we believe in ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church.’ We mean that belonging and believing are part of
the same thing. Belonging puts flesh on believing. The Church is
the way we live out the apostolic faith. That’s why a Catholic
bishop once said to me in all modesty, ‘I am not a successor
to the apostles. I am an apostle.’ In other words, in the
fullness of the Catholic Church the church of the apostles is alive
in the world today. Do you want to ‘get back’ to the
New Testament Church? Why not join the church to whom St Paul wrote
the letter of Romans?
To live in this church is not simply a matter of choosing a Church
we happen to like best. In fact, I tell Doug I’m a bit jealous
of his being an Episcopalian. The Episcopalians sure have a nice
liturgy. They also have nice people and nice buildings. I didn’t
join the Catholic Church because it was the church I liked best.
If truth be told, I actually liked the Anglican church best. I also
didn’t join the Catholic Church because I thought it was a
humanly perfect Church. Anybody who takes a glance at church history
can lay that one to rest. I didn’t join the Catholic Church
because I thought it was the perfect Church, but because I discovered
that it was the true Church.
Dwight Longenecker lives in England where he works for The St Barnabas
Society and as a freelance writer and broadcaster. His new book,
Challenging Catholics, is a debate with an Anglican evangelical.
It is published in Autumn 2001.
CHNI has a new Radio Program entitled Deep in Scripture! Come check it out. 
