Is the Pope Really the Successor to Peter? (Apostolic Succession Explained)

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

Apostolic Authority, Not Apostolic Succession

• The question posed: both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church claim that their authority can be traced in an unbroken historical line back to the twelve apostles — a Roman Catholic website states explicitly that all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something most Protestant denominations cannot claim. The Orthodox church makes similar claims about their own leadership. If they can prove that unbroken line back to Jesus and the apostles, they say, that gives their church an authority that no other church has. Is there any actual historical proof of this unbroken line going back to the apostles — and if there is, does it matter?
• You know, it's very interesting, their claim, because they're talking about apostolic succession. We as apostolics would say — we treasure, we use the term apostolic quite a bit — but we would say apostolic authority. And the difference is: they claim an unbroken succession, historically. Well, first of all, that is both theologically and historically false, as I'll prove. We claim apostolic authority, because we believe we go back to the doctrine of the apostles. So they claim an unbroken historical chain, called tradition; we claim restoration. So nobody has an unbroken historical claim. What we say is: every generation, every church, every local group of believers should go back to the first century church, to the apostles, as we see in the New Testament. And that's how we have apostolic authority: through restorationism, not through historical claims.
• And to make this clear for everybody: both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church claim that the Bible and tradition are equal in authority. Now, where that comes to play — let's say the doctrine of the Trinity. When we talk to many Protestants, they try to prove the doctrine of the Trinity is in the Bible, because they know if they can't prove that, they're sunk, because they say sola scriptura — everything in scripture. And of course, they struggle to find the full doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible, because it's not really there: building blocks, or allusions, or references that could possibly be interpreted, but not the actual teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity. But Catholics and Orthodox don't have that problem: many of their church historians and theologians freely admit the doctrine of the Trinity, as we know it today, is not in the Bible. No problem — because God revealed it through a historical process: the ancient creeds, the ancient councils, and in the case of the Catholic Church, the popes; in the case of Eastern Orthodoxy, they don't have one person, but they have the five patriarchs that they consider to be collectively authoritative. They freely say: we can get doctrine from the councils, creeds, and spiritual leaders, just as much as from the Bible — which is a very shocking claim, if you go back to the Bible, which really establishes itself as the authority. That's why the Catholics can justify their various doctrines: veneration of Mary; the Immaculate Conception, that Mary herself was conceived without sin; the assumption, that Mary herself was caught up into heaven — that was announced by a pope in 1950. They have new doctrines as late as 1950 — but that's no problem with them, because they say tradition is equal in authority to scripture.
• So obviously, we reject that — that's its own subject. We believe the Bible is our sole authority. 2 Timothy 3:16 says: 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.' So we believe the Bible contains everything we need to be saved. If you go from 3:15-17: verse 15 says the Bible gives us everything we need for salvation; verse 16, which I quoted, everything we need for Christian life; and verse 17, everything we need for Christian ministry. I have a whole book that addresses that subject, God's Infallible Word, which talks about the authority of scripture. So we would, first of all, say: no, tradition is not our authority; it's not equal in authority to the Bible. It can have some instructive value — but only the Bible is our authority for doctrine.

Scriptures: 2 Timothy 3:15-17

The First Leap: Peter Is Not the Rock

• As a historical matter, that claim is false. So in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, here's how they try to build it: in Matthew 16, Peter made the confession that Jesus is the Son of God, and Jesus commended him, and said: you received this revelation from God. And then he said: 'On this rock I will build my church.' Well, we believe the rock is the revelation that Peter just gave. But the Catholics point out that Peter means a rock, or a stone — it's actually two different words, a small rock — and they say: no, the church is built on Peter. So that's the first leap of logic: that Jesus is saying, because of this confession, 'I'm going to build my whole church on Peter.' That doesn't seem very likely: the church is built on Jesus Christ. The context more obviously: it's the confession that Peter made. And then Jesus goes on to say: 'I'll give you the keys to the kingdom; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'
• We see that Peter was the first one to preach the first gospel message — to preach the death, burial, and resurrection, and apply it to repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost — on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2. He was the first to bring the message to the Gentiles, Acts 10. So we do believe he was a spokesman that God used, to open the door to the New Testament church. But we don't believe he was the only one who had that authority — because if you go to Matthew 18, Jesus gave all the apostles the same authority to bind and loose. So we believe all the apostles are used to found the church, not just Peter. So there's the first leap of logic: it's a mistake to say Peter is the rock, upon which the whole church is founded.

Scriptures: Matthew 16; Acts 2; Acts 10; Matthew 18

The Second Leap: Peter Was Not the First Pope in Rome

• So then the Catholics say: okay, Peter became the first bishop of Rome — so they have to put him in Rome as the first bishop, to make him the first pope. Well, there's a second leap of logic, which is false historically, which we can easily prove. They regard the pope as infallible, when he makes official doctrinal pronouncements, and the unquestioned leader of the universal church, because allegedly Jesus gave him that authority. Only problem: that is not evident in the New Testament. Peter wasn't even in Rome. It's obvious: when Paul wrote the book of Romans — he wrote a letter of instruction to the church at Rome — in Romans 16, he greeted various leaders, and he greeted the leaders of five house churches. If Peter was the first pope, he was pastoring in Rome, and he was regarded as the pope of the church, there's no way Paul would have written a letter to the church at Rome, to teach them, and not at least mention your founding pastor, and bishop, and pope — and subject all of my teachings to whatever he says, or at least greet him in Jesus' name, as a fellow brother, and as my superior in Christ. He wasn't even mentioned. Obviously, he wasn't even there. So he wasn't the first pastor in Rome; therefore, he couldn't have been the first pope.
• In Galatians 2, you find that yes, Paul did submit to the leadership of the apostles. But when he found even Peter had kind of compromised with those who were saying you have to follow the law of Moses — Galatians 2 — Paul says: 'I rebuked him to his face, because he was not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel' — and I rebuked him for his hypocrisy. And of course, later, Acts 15, the council of the church did agree with what Paul said: that the Christians don't have to keep the law to be saved. But it's inconceivable, if Peter was the first pope, had supreme authority, all tradition resided in him, for Paul to rebuke him to his face, and say: you're in hypocrisy. And then in Acts 15, which was the first general council of the church, they decided that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised, or keep the law of Moses, in order to be saved, to be part of the church. Peter wasn't the chairman: James was the chairman. Peter did speak, but he spoke on one side; Paul and Barnabas likewise spoke on that side. So if Peter was the first pope: he wasn't even at Rome when Paul wrote there; Paul didn't recognize his authority, Galatians 2; and he didn't have leadership of the first general council, in Acts 15. So historically and theologically, that just wipes out the claim.
• The third problem is the historical claim: we don't know who the next pastors or bishops were, for sure. We have traditions, but there is no authoritative proof that Peter handed off to one person, and that person handed it off to the next, and so on. Yes, the Catholic Church has reconstructed names — but there's no proof that Peter gave it to some guy. And I think it's impossible, because Peter didn't have that authority to start with. So on historical grounds, that is proven false. And likewise, on the theological grounds I've outlined, the Orthodox face the same problem, only worse. They say the five ancient patriarchies that preserve truth are: Constantinople — because that was the capital of the Roman Empire, but it was established some 300 years after the apostles, so that church had no authority for 300 years; then Rome, as an ancient church, which is mentioned in the Bible, but it's not mentioned as an authoritative church in the Bible; Alexandria, which did exist as a city, but it's not really mentioned in the Bible; Antioch, which is a biblical church; Jerusalem, which was destroyed in AD 70, and then later was rebuilt as a Roman city. So their ancient churches, with the exception of Antioch — or, I guess, Rome as well — would not even have roots in the Bible; they're centuries after the Bible. So they can't really make that claim.

Scriptures: Romans 16; Galatians 2; Acts 15

Succession Doesn't Preserve Doctrine

• And then, they're saying that just because there's a historical succession, it has to be true. Well, let's just say they could prove that historical link — which, as I've said, they can't. Look at churches that we know existed in the first century: Revelation 2 and 3, the seven churches of Asia. Ephesus had lost their first love; Pergamus was in false doctrine; Thyrera recognized a false prophet; Sardis was just considered dead; Leodysia was lukewarm. So five of the seven churches had fatal flaws. So if we're going by the tradition of first century churches — which first century church? Five of the seven were clearly not to be followed.
• I'll just give you the 20th century: we can look at churches in the 20th century, and the Protestant movement, and we can identify their successors. You can get the list of pastors for the last hundred years, and you could see how the mainline Protestant churches have changed doctrinally: to supporting immorality, supporting living together without marriage, supporting homosexuals, supporting transgenders, putting them into leadership roles. So you can see, before your eyes, how a succession of bishops doesn't guarantee preserving of doctrine. So that whole premise is false as well.
• I give this example: let's say, as a carpenter, you want to cut 20 boards of the same length. So you measure the first board, you cut it: it's exactly right. You use that to measure the second board; use the second board to measure the third board, and so on, until you get 20 boards. What are the chances that board number 20 is going to be exactly the same as board number one? Pretty much zero — because slight differences along the way will be magnified. Or the little game that's sometimes played at parties, called by various names — gossip: one person thinks of a sentence; you whisper it in the ear of the next person; the next person whispers it; you go around the room, each person fills in the blanks of what would make sense to them, of what they heard; and the last person gets up and says the sentence, and then the first person reveals the original sentence. Invariably, there's almost no connection — because tiny differences in transmission end up being multiplied. What's the likelihood that 20 centuries, with multiple bishops in each century — even if you could identify an unbroken succession, which you absolutely can't; even if the first ones were valid, which, as we've seen, even in the New Testament, many churches are already off track — what is the likelihood that a hundred bishops, over 20 centuries, would end up with the same thing? Well, there's an easy way to test: go read the Bible. Read what the apostles in the first century actually wrote, and compare it with what the 21st century alleged successors are saying. If there's a difference, who do you trust? The originals. In a nutshell, that's restorationism.

Scriptures: Revelation 2-3

The Way Jesus Established It: Through Their Word

• Jesus did not establish an unbroken succession; but Jesus established the original apostles, and under his leadership the New Testament was written by the apostles, and the associates of apostles, such as Mark and Luke — and that's where we find the words of Jesus. So this is the way Jesus established the church. And you can see this in the great commission, Matthew 28:20: after he said, go make converts, baptize those converts, then he said, in Matthew 28:20: 'Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.' So Jesus said: I'm appointing you apostles; you are to teach the converts. So I do appreciate that the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are saying, 'Well, the apostolic teaching has to be our authority' — where they're fatally flawed is thinking that's handed down in an unbroken chain. As I've already stated: theologically, it's not correct; historically, it's not provable; and practically, that's not the way you have an unbroken message. But the right way is to go back: Jesus commissioned them to teach and preach; as part of that commission, they wrote the New Testament; they were fulfilling the words of Jesus; and we believe they were inspired by Jesus when they did that. So that's where you go for apostolic authority. And so apostolic succession is not based on some historical narrative: it's based on the doctrinal teachings that we can identify in the first century church, that we try to follow in the church today.
• And I think, in John 17, Jesus was praying for his disciples, and he prayed, in chapter 17 verse 20: 'I pray not only for these, but all those who will believe on me through their word.' So we believe on Jesus through the words of the apostles. Is it because of what a pope told us, or a patriarch told us? No — it's what we read in the Bible. So that's how we have the words of the apostles. And then in verse 21, he prayed that they all might be one. And some people say: well, that's a reason why Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox, and Pentecostals, all join in one organization. That's not what he's saying: he's praying that all those subsequent people, who would believe on him through their word, be joined with the original apostles, who believed in his word. So it's not an unbroken succession: as the believers — as future believers believe the words of the apostles — they're joined with the apostles. So the unity is based on apostolic doctrine. And that's what we teach today.

Scriptures: Matthew 28:20; John 17:20; John 17:21

Scripture index: 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 16; Acts 2; Acts 10; Matthew 18; Romans 16; Galatians 2; Acts 15; Revelation 2-3; Matthew 28:20; John 17:20; John 17:21.