Truth Unites - Is Apostolic Succession of Divine Appointment?

Episode Date: May 19, 2022

Gavin Ortlund (Baptist) and Jonathan Sheffield (Anglican) have a formal dialogue concerning whether apostolic succession is of divine origin.  Thanks to Stephen Boyce for hosting. Check out his YouTube channel here:  https://www.youtube.com/c/ExplainApologetics Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai. SUPPORT: Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

Hey everyone, this video is a dialogue that I had with Jonathan Sheffield on Apostolic Succession. It was a structured dialogue, so he gave an opening statement, then I gave an opening statement, and then we just did questions back and forth. It was a really great discussion, and I know this is an important issue in terms of where the divisions within Christendom happen, and so there's a lot of interest in this topic, so I hope this will be helpful for people. Thanks to Jonathan, and also thanks to Stephen Boyce for moderating this discussion. I'll put a link to his YouTube channel in the video description so you can check that out as well. All right with that, let's dive right in.

Now in chapter 6 of Paul's letter to the Hebrews, we find the following biblical injunctions. Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God, of the doctrine of baptisms and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permit. Within this excerpt, Paul clearly lays out some of the basic doctrines of the Christian church. Upon examining Paul's words, a particular doctrine stands out,

the act of laying on of hands, which abundantly testifies that this right had its beginning from the apostles. This naturally begs the following question. Where is the basic doctrine of laying on of hands in the visible church? if not in apostolic succession. For the record, Paul is not speaking of an informal laying on hands with respect to prayer as a foundational doctrine, for he enjoys Timothy to lay hands suddenly on no man. Yet the empirical observation witnesses that the laying of hands is systemically used as a physical act designed to represent God himself setting a person apart for holy use to lead his people. We see this in the case of Joshua, the son of Nun, who was full of the spirit of wisdom,

that Moses had laid his hands upon him, and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses, in order to provide oversight for the continuation and succession of the Jewish Church. In like manner, the Apostle Paul took immense care in setting up the apostolic polity in order to accomplish a core feat, to ensure the preparation of the Holyoke of the Apostle of the Apostle of God's feet, to ensure the preparation of the Christian churches. To that end, Paul conferred Episcopal oversight authority to Timothy and Titus, men who are historically documented as the first bishops of Ephesus and Crete, according to our court historian Eusebius. Scripture confirms that I'm rallying for this cause, Paul left Titus in Crete to set in order the things that are

wanting, and ordain elders in every city as he had appointed him to do. Notwithstanding, Paul did not leave the College of Elders at Ephesus to their own vocation upon his departure, but appointed Timothy in his place as an overseer of that jurisdiction for the elders. The pastoral epistles clearly document the function of Timothy's office at Ephesus that was not common to the elders, which included the ordination of ministers, judicial hearings, the proportion and maintenance of the elder's workload, and to keep doctrine uniform. Considering Titus and Timothy were not apostles, according to Acts 122, what historical office did they occupy other than bishop?

As noted by the Anglican divine Richard Hooker, the ancients put forth a set of empirical observations regarding the line of Episcopal Church governance. He affirms that in the process of time, the apostles gave Episcopal authority to others, like Timothy and Titus, and that this line of succession should continue from those who were granted such ascendancy. Hooker cites a number of testimonies that support this claim.

One of such historical records is derived from the Greek bishop, Iranius. We are able to number them up, says Iranians, who by the apostles were made bishops. In Rome, he affirms that the apostles themselves made Linus, the first bishop. Again, of Polycarp, he likewise said that the apostles made him bishop of the Church of Smyrna. Of Antioch, they made Avodius bishop, as Ignatius bears witness, exhorting the church to tread in his holy steps and to follow his virtuous example. There are several key observations from the apostolic churches in Syria and Western Asian Minor to be noted. Firstly, it witnesses early on to this episcopal form of governance.

Secondly, Antioch is the first sea of Peter, and it's where the disciples were first called Christian. which certainly gives it precedence over Rome. Thirdly, the writings of Ignatius reflect the Episcopal form of governance. Last, Western Asian Minor represented the foster churches of St. John. As Hooker rightly points out, St. John in Revelation is directing his speech to one person at each of those churches, even at Ephesus where many such elders had been. Surely St. John in naming but only one of them as an angel did behold in that

one somewhat above the rest. Additionally, this Episcopal form of church government alliance precisely with the typology of the Jewish Church in its legal service to God. It accordingly consists of sundry orders of men consecrated unto the service of the Lord with the hierarchical division to the divine

order. This is equally and indisputedly mirrored in church history. Does not Moses tell us in the Torah that Elizer, the son of Aaron, the priests shall be chief over the chief of the Levites and have the oversight of them that keep the charge of the sanctuary. Do we not learn in Second Chronicles 1911 that the descendant of Aaron, Aramaya, the chief priest, was over them in all that pertains to the Lord. Moses elsewhere tells us that the proportion of his son's workload in the service of God was at the appointment of Aaron and his sons to decide, which all circles back to the authority Timothy exercise, the elders at Ephesus. Hooker cites that Jerome likewise thought this is a sufficient argument to ground the authority of bishops upon.

For Jerome states, we may understand apostolic traditions to have been taken from the Old Testament. That which Aaron and his sons and the Levites were in the temple, bishops, prespers, and deacons in the church may lawfully challenge to themselves. Therefore, the laying of on of hands that St. Paul speaks of as a basic doctrine in Hebrews is consistent with apostolic succession. The laying of hands has always been part of the liturgical right common to the consecration process of bishops, presbyers, and deacons, which is the empirical observation that has descended from well-documented histories to include such works as Hippolytus' apostolic tradition. Remember, the acts of laying on of hands is objective. It is seen before the congregation, a congregation who had the authority in the ancient churches, to proclaim if the candidate was worthy or not.

This is unlike many of the mysterious cults who conducted their ordinations in secret, like the Osirish cult and the Elysian Mysteries. When Dr. Carrier asked how Christianity is different from these cults, our answer lies in the existence of the historic Episcopate. The doctrine of laying on of hands is also based upon a foundational religious framework, that our faith is anchored in a real historical person, rather than a Gnostic or inner experience like that of the Buddha under the Bodai tree. Paul clearly testifies before Fessus and King Agripper that he is persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him,

for this thing was not done in a corner, but was carried out in broad daylight and cemented in the historical record to object. effectively verify. Apostolic succession is the mechanism of the historic episcopate that establishes the legal chain of custody through the unbroken succession of bishops to the historical apostles, conclusively leading to a historical Jesus of Nazareth. The tangible and verifiable framework of apostolic succession essentially falsifies Dr. Carrier's narrative that Jesus is a conceptual being from outer space. Moreover, the objective framework of the historic Episcopate is successful in that it establishes independent attestation over a wide geographical network to testify to the revelation of God and His Word through his earthly creation. As he tells us in the first six verses of Psalm 19, given that the official writings of the apostles were anchored in history, what is the earthly means by which God, witnesses to those writings and establishes the transfer control and safeguards to preserve his word if not through the framework of apostolic succession. Are we like the Mormons who defend the Book of Mormon with the internal subjective warm feeling of the heart?

Or do we follow scripture that affirms that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established? Iranius certainly understood that God testifies of his written word objectively through his visible churches, which he appeals to as the witnesses and guardians of the official writings of the apostles against the textual claims of the Gnostics. Hence his statement that the textual tradition of the apostles can be seen in every church by those who wish to behold the truth, which the historic episcopate independently confirms. Titulian was of like mind with Iranius in his appeal to the historic episcopate in affirming God's written word, for he argues, we have St. John's foster churches. And although Marcyon rejects his apocalypse, the order of bishops thereof, when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as their author. St. Augustine further supported this line of argumentation in his discourse with the Manichaean luminary Faustus, who, like Dr. Bardell,

asserted the Gospels were not written by the Apostles, but by some pretender under his name. In retort, Augustine cited the unbroken chain of evidence through the historic episcopate as confirmation of apostolic authorship. Furthermore, Hooker notes that Augustine lays out a general principle. He states that if a positive order is observed by the church worldwide, it necessarily follows that this system must have been received and handed down from the very apostles themselves. unless perhaps the unlikely truth is that some general counsel authored this in reality. Yet as Hooker notes, Augustine saw that the historic episcopate was a thing universally established, not by the force of any council.

Therefore, following Arkham's razor, the simplest explanation is that it does go back to the apostles, as documented in the histories of Eusebius, Titullian, Hegesipius, Iranius, Augustine, and, as the apostolic churches says it did. In conclusion, we must deal with the question as to why some of the reformers abandoned apostolic succession. First, let's state what the Roman doctrine is. They interpret John 6 that if you don't eat to his body and blood, then you won't have eternal life. the only ones who can turn the bread and wine into the body and blood is an altar Christus who has been made such by a bishop with apostolic succession, putting his magic hands on him.

It's not the person speaking the word of God to the people of God, but the altar Christus, who has the power to bring down Christ, changing the elements to the body and blood of Christ. So the reformers obviously attacked this doctrine as ambiblical and witchcraft. and proposed various theories to refute it. While these theories did in many break the power of the Dark Age superstitions, it also had the effect of taking the church and scripture off the anchor of real history. I think the easy solution is to accept a bishop and apostolic succession as a good anchor to the historical scriptures and historical Jesus Christ, but not a magical process. with that I end and thank you Dr. Gavin and voice for listening to my thesis and I turn it over to you.

All right. Thank you for sharing that, Jonathan. And you were just under 13 minutes if I did my calculation, right? So I will give Dr. Gavin an extra minute if he needs it as well. That way we're fair. All right, Dr. Gavin, whenever you're ready. I think you may be on mute. Yes, you are mute. That was my best argument and you guys didn't hear. The argument from silence. It was all downhill from there. Sorry. I was just saying, thanks, Jonathan.

Great opening presentation. And let me start with three clarifications in the spirit of sort of framing our discussion. When I situate myself against apostolic succession as of divine origin, I'm not arguing that an Episcopal form of church government is necessarily wrong or contrary to God's will. Secondly, I'm of course not denying. that God was providentially overseeing his church during the period of time that this structure developed. And thirdly, I'm not denying that various apostles appointed individuals two positions of leadership in the church. I think you can see that in First Epistle of Clement, Chapter 44, and other places. So there's a certainly apostolic succession in the broad sense that

the apostolic ministry continues. What I am denying as of divine origin is the formal meaning of apostolic succession, that it is the bishops as distinct from presbyters who are the successors of the apostles and have regional jurisdiction and a kind of hierarchical unity, and that this system is to continue indefinitely forward into the church, into future church history by the laying on of hands from one bishop to another, and as many would maintain as an exclusive mark of the church such that without it, you do not have valid ministry and you do not have efficacious sacraments. So let me begin by noting that my position is in accordance with the mainstream scholarly

position. Back in the 19th century, J.B. Lightfoot, who was an Anglican and himself a bishop, said, quote, it is a fact now generally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion that in the language of the New Testament, the same office in the church is called indifferently, bishopos, and elder or presbyter. Presbyteros. This view that the terms bishop and presbyter are synonymous has remained, the mainstream scholarly position up to the present day. Of course, it is challenged at times, but even those who affirm apostolic succession usually acknowledge that the distinction between bishop and presbyter is a development

after the apostles had all died. For example, the Roman Roman. Catholic scholar Francis Sullivan in his excellent book from apostles to bishops. Opens the book acknowledging there's consensus, broad consensus among scholars, including Catholic scholars, that the Episcopit is a development after all the apostles died. And he basically says the question that now we have to decide is not whether it's a development, but whether as a development, it's a divinely ordained feature of the church. There's many other scholars that could be quoted to that effect. Even the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says something very similar to that. Moreover, even those who argue against the mainstream scholarly view generally admit that the

office of bishop functioned far differently than is understood by the notion of apostolic succession in the early church. For example, Alistair Stewart has this fascinating book, the original bishops, and he's arguing that bishops were always distinct from presbyterers back to the beginning, but he maintains that the bishops were not the successors of the apostles. They did not oversee presbyters. They did not have regional jurisdiction, but rather a congregational jurisdiction, and that we have no knowledge of how they were appointed or ordained. So let me just pose this question.

Why is it that so many scholars, including among traditions that affirm apostolic succession, come to this view? And here I'll just try to canvas a little bit of the evidence, which I think is very, very strong in favor of this notion that the episcopate is a later development. First, in the New Testament, we don't have any examples of a single bishop over a church, and we have an abundance of examples of plurality of leadership in local churches. Throughout the Book of Acts, the Apostles appoint elders to preside over local churches in Acts 11, Acts 14, Acts 15, Acts 21, throughout the epistles of the New Testament, there's frequent references to plural leaders in local churches.

Hebrews 13, James 5, Philippians 1, 1st, Thessonians 5. Honestly, there's too many passages there to cite them all. Similarly, we see the terms Episcopas and Presbyteros used interchangeably in many New Testament passages. Acts 20, 1st Peter 5, and Titus 1, for example. Titus 1 is interesting because here we have, along with 1 Timothy 3, a qualifications list for these two different offices, bishop and presbyter, and the qualifications are unmistakably parallel. Moreover, as you read through Titus 1, you see both terms used back and forth for the same office for which the qualifications are being specified. but appoint elders who are above reproach, Titus 1, 5, and 6, 4, a bishop must be above reproach, verse 7. Now, the greater office can include the lesser, but not vice versa. It appears as though

the apostles are not using these two different terms for two distinct offices. Looking outside the New Testament at the extra-biblical first century literature, we find the same picture. In the didache 15.1, we have an instruction for churches to appoint two offices, bishops and deacons. Similarly, in the first epistle of Clement, dating to the late first century, in chapter 42, it teaches that there are two offices in the church, bishops and deacons. In chapter 44, it seems to use the term bishop and presbyter interchangeably. And in chapter 57, it indicates that the church in Corinth is led by a group of presbyters. Here's how Eamonduffy, who's a Roman Catholic scholar, who's written a history of the papacy, summarizes it. Quote, Clement made no claim to write as bishop. His letter

was sent in the name of the whole Roman community. He never identifies himself or writes in his own person. The letter itself makes no distinction between presbyters and bishops, about which it always speaks in the plural, suggesting that at Corinth, as at Rome, the church at this time was organized under a group of bishops or presbyters rather than a single ruling bishop, end quote. So Clement and the didache seem to fit with what we see in the New Testament, two offices, one of which is variously referred to as bishop or presbyter. Moving into the early second century literature, we have much that furthers this picture. In the Shepherd of Hermes, we have multiple references to presbyters,

presiding over the church in Rome, and in Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians, chapters five and six, we have qualifications for two offices, deacons and presbyters. We also have Ignatius, who strongly advocates for bishops. However, Ignatius doesn't appear to believe in apostolic succession. He sees the presbyters as standing in the place of the apostles, not the bishops. He also sees bishops not as having a diocesan jurisdiction. but a congregational one. So he has a different definition of the word bishop than what you'll get later with someone like Cyprian, for example. So Ignatius fits in with this picture of development as a witness perhaps to its earliest stage, that of the office of bishops as distinct. It's only later when you push into the late second century with Christians like Ironaeus and Tritullian that you start to see the pieces falling into place with respect to apostolic succession proper. Even here, there's lots of surprises like Ironaeus, frequently using the term presbyter

to describe those who are the successors of the apostles, and against heresies, for example. Iranaeus and Turtullian are also writing in a highly polemical context. They're trying to protect orthodoxy over and against these various Gnostic and other heretical groups that have developed. It's not surprising that in that context they would make that appeal, and that once this structure has developed, as it had by that point, you will have people arguing that it goes back to the beginning. That makes a lot of sense to do in that context. But there's a number of reasons why historians typically don't take the late second century claims of lineal succession back to the apostles at face value. For one thing, the bishop lists that Ironaeus and Turtullian provide for the church in Rome.

And Arturtellian, of course, doesn't give a whole list, but he gives the beginning. These contradict each other. Ironaeus doesn't think that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. He appears to think of Peter and Paul together founding the church as apostles. And then they initiate the office of the episcopate with Linus. He's the first bishop. Tertullian, by contrast, thinks Clement is the first bishop, and he inherits it from Peter. It's also clear that Tertullian and Ionaeus conceived of succession of office as a penultimate thing,

serving the larger end of protecting sound doctrine. For example, right after the famous passage where Tertullian appeals to the succession of bishops to distinguish the true church from heresy, and he says, you know, let the heretics unroll their bishop list and so forth. He goes on to say, but even if they had a succession of bishops, it wouldn't matter because everybody can see that their doctrine is wrong. Right after that, he proceeds to say that there's many legitimate apostolic churches that don't have a succession of bishops back to the apostles because they were founded subsequent to the

apostles and you can tell that they're legitimate because of their doctrine. So from what Iranas and Tertullian say, it in no way follows that they conceived of apostolic succession as a necessary and perennial feature of the church to roll forward and indefinitely into the future. For them in their context, it was a means of maintaining their deepest concern, the succession of true doctrine. The emergence of the episcopate is best understood as a development in the early church, particularly in the stormy second century, where you've got the triple threat of heresy, division, and persecution, and the church is struggling to maintain orthodoxy and order in that context. Though it was retained going forward from that time, later Christians remembered that it

was a development. For example, Jerome wrote the following, quote, the presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had arisen in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the Presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself, those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the Presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. It is fitting that the bishops do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition and not by the fact of a particular institution of the Lord. Have a few other quotes from Jerome to that effect, but just to summarize, some people do find it difficult to envision the church would make a change like this so early on, but actually it makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

every institution tends to go through rapid institutionalization after the founders are out of the picture. Picture yourself what it would be like in the second century. You can imagine why they felt a need for a more centralized and hierarchical organization. And you see further developments as the church goes forward. Many people struggle to see that the episcopate could be a development and yet become so widespread. But think how many other developments there are in the early church that don't have, Ura divino, that is there not by divine law, and yet they become hugely formative for the church. The biggest of these would be the role of the emperor. And I'll come back and say more about that some other time when I have more time.

But basically, to sum up since I'm out of time, I'll just say, I propose that we can think of the episcopate like this, a legitimate development, but one that lacks a commandment of the Lord. And I'll put it the way Jerome puts it. the result of tradition and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord. All right. Really good. All right.

I think we have a lot of material that can be discussed here. And so what we're going to do is we're going to go into similar to a cross-examination, but not so severe. And it's going to start with basically we'll rotate this. And I'm going to try to mark this around 30 minutes to do all of this. And then we allow questions. There's plenty of questions coming in the chat. both on some I've gotten on Facebook and then some that are coming in just from YouTube.

So what we'll do is I'm actually going to let Dr. Gavin ask first since Jonathan got to go first in the intro. So this is kind of the way I want this to go if we can. And I said you guys a little bit of this format earlier. Ask a question in regard to Jonathan's position. And Jonathan, your response of that, try to keep it relatively short if you can because Dr. Gavin's able to come right behind that with kind of a follow-up or press harder if he wants to on that second one, and then you can get the final word, and then we'll swap, and then Jonathan, you'll be able to do that. We'll do that a few times.

You guys good with that? Sounds good. All right. All right, Dr. Gavin, you're up first. Great. Okay. Yeah, thanks again, Jonathan. Hope I'm not on.

Yeah, I'm not on mute. Okay. So my first question is sort of softball. It's not really a point where we would differ, but I just wanted to give you the chance to explain, because I thought this could be helpful. Where specifically does the Anglican view, and you've touched on this a little bit already, the Anglican view of apostolic succession differ from other views of apostolic succession in non- Anglican traditions, and then I'll have a follow-up about Richard Hooker specifically.

Okay. Well, well, thank you for the question on that, and kind of keep it kind of short into the point, especially as we compare the differences with the Church of Rome, who turned it into almost a magical process, or there's some power that's being conferred over in the Episcopate. Now, what the Anglicans will differ on that is it's a point of divine order. We leverage the historic Episcopate as our anchor back to the scriptures, and to a historical apostle and to Jesus Christ.

It's what makes Christianity different than these other cults, as I've addressed. The Osiris Coe, the Illusian Mysteries, they all had these secret ordinations. Where Christianity is different is the historical. Episcopate, we are a historical faith, and we can trace back to a historical apostle that conclusively leads to the historical Jesus. So with the Roman Catholics, all orders that are performed from those outside of apostolic succession are not valid. The Anglican Church will differ on that and basically say that regardless of who's performing the sacraments, while it is valid, it's just not in good order.

So that would be our take, Dr. Garron. Yeah, thank you. Okay, that's helpful. So the follow-up would be kind of in consideration of those differences. As I read Richard Hooker, he seems to me to maintain that basically apostolic succession has divine approval, but it's not of divine law. He seems to me to say basically it's a good practice on historical and pragmatic grounds, but it's not strictly necessary.

For example, on my reading, if I understand him correctly, granted, I'm not an expert on Richard Hooker, but he seems to deny the absolute necessity of Episcopal ordination. So the question would be, in light of these differences, because those are pretty big differences, from an Anglican conception to a different Catholic or even some of the other non-Protestant traditions, views of apostolic succession. So would it be fair to say that both you and I are outside of the boundaries of valid ministry according to most conceptions of apostolic succession? Well, yeah, I would say from the Roman Catholic perspective, definitely, on how we treat it.

Now, I would say there's a little context that we do need to give to Richard Hooker, because elsewhere in the treaties, he says, either the apostles developed it before or in response to a situation that they saw possibly for schism. But one of the things that I think we got to take into consideration is the fact that, you know, Hooker was different. He didn't want to see, he didn't want the Puritan succeeding from the Church of England, hence his debate with Walter Travers to really help bring him into the fold. and not to saying that Hooker was making a polemical argument, but he had that at his context as well, that he didn't want all these people to leave the church.

So there is a sense from some of the language in his piece that he didn't want to force the issue because he really didn't want the Puritans to succeed from the Church of England. And as a result, he does take a softer tone in his language to ensure that we're really not present. this kind of archaic stern view that may push people off because after Hooker, we see what happened to the Church of England under William Laude when appoint any Puritans

all of a sudden the Church of England breaks up. So that is a major concern under consideration and why, what helps explain some of the softer language and maybe some of the concessions that Dr. Richard Hooker is making in his treaties. Thank you. All right, that's good. And so with that, you know, if you want to keep asking more on that, just Dr. Gavin just put a pen in it because we're going to have, it looks like we're moving pretty quick on these. So you can come back and ask that. But we'll switch this over and now we'll take it to Jonathan.

You can ask Dr. Gavin and then we'll do that same process. Okay. Well, I think one of my first questions, Dr. Carriers around. typology that we find in the New Testament. In particular with Paul in Romans 512, 1 Corinthians, which seems to demonstrate a kind of prophetic prefiguring of what is to come from the Old Testament to the New Testament. So with that in line, does the Old Testament provide the images for how we should order the New Testament Church? Considering that Moses' appointed judges to have oversight of the tribes.

And as Richard Hooker quoted Jerome, certainly understood that that which Aaron and his sons and the Levites were in the temple, bishops, presbyers, and deacons in the church may lawfully challenge for themselves. So is what we have in the New Testament in this threefold division of divine order prefigured from the Old Testament, therefore leading to a divine order? Okay. I do think that generally speaking, there's this connection between the church and Israel and the Old Testament and the New Testament, where the church is the fulfillment of Israel. There's all kinds of connections that we see in the New Testament that are made. You know, in Romans 9 through 11, there's one olive tree. There's not two different trees, and we've branches crafted in and out.

but so I would understand there to be kind of one fundamental people of God. So that implies lots of points of continuity. But I also think there's lots of points of discontinuity such that it's always a bit precarious to think, you know, this particular office or practice or whatever it might be was in the Old Testament, therefore it will have some kind of analog in the New Testament. I think we just need to be careful with each particular case. look, what is the textual warrant we have for different connections? And the reason I think that's kind of a reasonable caution is there's so many points of difference as well.

And I would say that, to the best of my ability to tell, the functioning and structure of the Old Testament offices of Israel doesn't support apostolic succession. There's just so many points of difference in terms of the function. So sometimes people try to correlate the office of high priest with. with bishop, but there's so many differences in terms of the nature of their jurisdiction, the nature of their function, you know. And then with deacons, you know, you think, well, who are the precursors to deacons? And then you think of all the other ways that Israel was structured that don't carry over. So I'm very comfortable with thinking of general fulfillment and continuity.

I think it's in Ignatius. He'll talk about, you know, the church is the Sanhedron and things like. this and using that language, certainly where we're, you know, thinking of like Romans 5, you know, Adam and Christ. But I don't see a sort of one-to-one correlation. And even if we did have a one-to-one correlation to the best of my ability to look at it, I don't think that would support apostolic succession per se. Okay. No, thank you, Dr. Kevin, for that. Just a quick follow. I apologize for that. No problem. Just to follow up on there, how do you see God transferring over from Moses to Joshua in this process to continue to provide oversight and continuation for the Jewish church as kind of that representative of the overseer for the continuation of the Jewish church?

trying to parallel to that what we see with the bishop in apostolic succession. Okay, so in with Joshua and Moses, we have a clear and explicit teaching that this is now the guy. You know, it was Moses, now it's Joshua, and you have, you know, over and over in Joshua chapter one, God is saying to Joshua, just like I was with Moses, now I am with you and so forth. And it seems to me that this would be a point that's disanalogous with the New Testament offices where they're kind of different. Like the office of deacon, you know, people often think of it as starting in some form, maybe even a proto-deacon type form with Acts chapter 6 in response to a specific circumstance where there's these needs. I think what is lacking in the New Testament as corresponding to the Moses-Joshua transfer is any textual warrant for the Apostle Bishop transfer because when I look at the documents I've looked at in terms of biblical,

extra biblical first century, and then early second century, I just don't see anything. I don't see anything that is indicating that it goes from apostle to bishop. And then even when you get later on with Ironaeus, you still find a lot of puzzling vocabulary in terms of he's talking about the presbyters as the successors of the bishops. So I would just see a point of disanalogy there in terms of whether this transfer is

warranted textually. I hope that touches on the question. Good. Good content so far and there's some good engagement going on with that. So now we're going to swing back around to Dr. Gavin. You get to start the question again and then we'll keep the same format.

Okay. Let me say parenthetically too. I've done enough of these dialogues so far that when I go back and watch them and I realize oh, I totally missed the point in the moment. So if I ever do that, feel free to, you know, circle it back and let me know. I'm never trying to divert something, but sometimes that happens in the moment, you know. So, okay, here's another question, just kind of a general question in terms of the overall historical interpretation I've offered.

And basic question is, can you point to any examples early on of a single bishop ruling over a church? And with Ignatius, you know, the eccentricities of his understanding of the presbyters being the successors of the apostles, of the apostles, not the bishops, and the bishops merely being congregational, not over a region. In the absence of any testimony of bishops, single bishops ruling over a church or a region early on, why shouldn't we accept that? these mainstream majority scholarly view that the Episcopit is a development. Okay, thank you, Dr. Gavin. And let me know if I go a little off pace with your question there. So when we look at the development,

and to answer the question on why should we not accept mainscreen scholarship, I guess the one thing that I would point out, and I know Hooker makes this observation from August, is for development to occur, we would expect something as transformational as that as a group of a college of elders succeeding their power to a monarchical bishop, we would expect to see, or what we'd hope to expect to see is some sort of dispute where they are challenging that change in leadership. And one of the things that's kind of hard to point to is any council, local, provincial,

ecumenical, that documents where such a change occurred from any record that we have since the time of the Apostles. So that's the first point that is probably a little difficult to. Square, why don't we see this development actually in history? Why isn't there a dispute? Who would want to give up

the council of elders, if we think about almost like the Roman Republic? Who would want to give that up? So why don't we see any dispute about it? And why is there no letter from any bishop, any council, local, provincial

that we have this? and then in the case, and let me know if I'm going off course, is I also have to look at, you know, how do I identify the roles of Timothy and Titus? Obviously, there was a college of elders at Ephesus that if I look at Acts 20, seems to indicate that they were under the oversight of Paul, and then when he departed, now I have an office that Paul is appointing for Timothy to oversee that congregation of elders with specific passages and pastoral's that gives them specific functions that I don't see with the elders of the church. And I guess lastly, you know, when I look at Ignatius, I think one of the things,

that I see that I'm looking at is obviously, you know, he's being let away. Pears that Trajan is making an example of him. He's going throughout, he's addressing local bishops in Asia, throughout Asia Minor, as an office that are in place with churches that go back to the apostles. Those are the foster churches of John. And, you know, when I look at that, I'm trying to explain in the midst of all those letters in that conversation, that's how he understands the order of the bishops. And he's coming out to speak at a particular time when, obviously, he's marching over to Rome to be come out, and he's addressing this subject to the, the churches. Okay. I'm trying to decide between two different follow-ups here.

You can say both of them if you want to. Go ahead and do both. That's fine. Okay. I'll make them both super short. In terms of not seeing any disputes about this transfer from College of Presbyters to single bishop, do we see any disputes about later developments like bishops who have Metropolitan or Arch or Authority or Archbishops. Most scholars see Archbishops as coming in in the 5th century, archbishops proper. Do you see any disputes about that transfer? And you're correct on that. And I don't know of any particular dispute in that,

but we do see that development when it does come in. So the diocesan, and obviously it makes sense for the Middle Ages, is we do see that. And, you know, the one thing I would expect to see is when, you know, and it doesn't have to be to this degree, but, you know, when the Roman Republic was threatened with losing their power of the republic with Julius Caesar, obviously there was a vast conspiracy against Julius Caesar in 44 BC, to basically assassinate him

because they felt this is what needed to be done to prevent the takeover of a dictatorship while not saying this is the course of action that would happen in the Christian churches, but we do see a number of disputes and with the Senate of Rome who kind of represent that power that they didn't want to give up to a dictatorship they saw in Julius Caesar,

why don't we see any of this occurring within the church? So why at Ephesus were they willing to give up that power to a monarchical office? So that's my concern right there, is while we can document the development of the diocese sin or the expansion of it, which obviously made sense. for the middle ages and as congregations got larger, it almost ties back to why Moses has got advice from Jethro on, hey, you have all these people coming to you. Let's go ahead and set up judges so we can go ahead and make things easier on the service.

So that's my concern there is we can see some of those developments occur giving up the power of the Senate for the Roman Republic was huge and we saw the consequences of that action. What would all these people who were given their lives, especially like Ignatius, people of that in the College of Elders, why would they succumb to a monarchal bishop in the dispute of all these fights where they did not want to make ground even on a simple, issues such as when we observe, you know, the date of Easter. Okay, thanks. The other thing I was going to give a follow-up on, and the points you're making there, maybe we'll come back to with a subsequent question.

But the other just brief follow-up was on Timothy and Titus. You mentioned them, and they sometimes come up in this context. I just wanted to ask about that. I am not convinced that this sort of fits the bill for the evidential burden at hand because they're never called bishops and because they didn't have a permanent residential ministry. They were appointed by Paul to serve a function. They were sort of apostolic delegates. So in my mind, Timothy and Titus don't rise to the level of actually establishing the point at hand that needs to be established about bishops. I'm curious kind of how you'd respond to that concern.

Yeah, you know, for me, I'm trying to understand their office as well, you know, within the scriptures. because, you know, we see Paul's departure. You know, he goes to Crete. He obviously leaves Titus there for a specific function to set up and organize the church. And we do see our church historian, you know, Sevious, you know, identify, you know, both Titus and Timothy as the first bishops over these parishes in Ephesus and in Crete. So, you know, for me, I'm trying to, how do I resolve that they're not apostles? And I think maybe we have agreement on there that they don't fit the X, you know, 122 designation of an apostle.

But they are giving oversight of elder. They are given oversight responsibility to Ephesus and in Crete. and then, you know, shortly after, you know, in, if we look at Ignatius's letter, he is addressing that church and identifying the bishop over in that jurisdiction. So does it naturally follow that, okay, well, this goes back to the order, because we're seeing that the same progression and that same system. Now just a little later on, in the, the letters of our in Ignatius. Now we can, what we can do here is Gavin, actually, I'd like for you

to respond to that. And then I'll let Jonathan get the last word since that's the setup on this round. But I would like you to respond to that, Gavin, if you would. Okay. The main two thoughts, trying to collect from all of the particulars here, would be first, I just don't find Eusebius's testimony coming as it does in the fourth century to be compelling. I mean, what we're always after here in terms of historical evidence is the closer to the time in question, the more compelling it will be. And it's just very curious to me that they're never thought of as bishops or they're never identified as bishops in the New Testament. And their ministry doesn't, it seems to be more of it, like a transient ministry like Paul will have. You know, Paul will be, have authority over churches,

but he doesn't reside in a particular church. And I don't see Timothy and Titus functioning like that. I guess the worry there. And then in terms of the, well, the other comments you were unfolding a moment ago would dovetail really nicely into the next question I'm going to ask in terms of, you know, why don't we see a power struggle or documentation of presbyters giving up their authority or something like that? So I'll just wait on that and ask on that in my next question. Sure. Yeah, no, that's good. And Jonathan, you can get the last word. take about 30 seconds on that one and then you can jump right into your question to Dr. Gavin.

Okay. Yeah. And, you know, one of the points that I'm looking at is, you know, we have Timothy and Titus being set over elders in a particular jurisdiction, which then ties back to, you know, John's reference to speaking in the direction of one that he entitles an angel, which Richard Hooker thought understood. as the bishop, which ties back to the documentary evidence that we see in Ignatius' epistles, which is very early on in the sense that he's addressing bishops in that locale, which seems consistently to fit what we see in the office of a bishop. Excellent. All right.

Jonathan, go ahead with your question to Dr. Gavin, and then we'll go through that process. Okay. No, thank you. Now, and this is going to touch on because you're bringing up, this is making some really good conversation. So help me understand, Dr. Gavin. Why do we see definitive statements like we do in Ignatius' epistles regarding this monarchical type of governments,

the monarchical bishop? And even though we have language in, you know, Clement, the Didicate, even some of Polycarp, and some other documentation, why don't we find anything definitive in the documentation, whether late first century, second century, that actually speaks of a definitive on record that says, you know, the choice. churches or the congregation was ruled by a council of elders, not a bishop. And why don't we really see that type of language? I mean, we have it in Ignatius. Why don't we see the other side of that equation? And this is not trying to make an argument from silence, but just to help understand, why don't we see the other side of this equation with definitive statements regarding this

form of government? Okay. Well, I don't see why we would think of Ignatius's claims as definitive, but the claims of the other Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament claims is not definitive. I mean, I see them as basically equal, and I'd say everything but Ignatius up through the early second centuries on one side, and then Ignatius is on the other. But just to draw that out a little bit, I see the didache as definitive. It's saying, here's what churches should do, appoint two offices. That's didocay 15.1. The qualifications lists in Polycarp and in the New Testament are for these two offices, and in the New Testament, all the qualifications look unmistakably parallel for these two offices, which makes it really hard to deny that those two offices were understood as the same, those two terms are referring to the same office. The first epistle of Clement I see is definitive.

In chapter 42, it says the apostles appointed two offices in the church, bishops and deacons. So I don't see Ignatius as more definitive. Now, it's true that Ignatius puts the pedal down in terms of emphasizing the role of the bishop. And some people have argued that it's precisely because it's in this initial phase as the church evolves in this way that he's arguing that strenuously for the authority of that office. And it's interesting that, you know, not all of the churches he writes to does he reference a bishop there in Rome? is the great example of that. But my basic approach to this would be to say, let's just look at all of the evidence.

And if we read Ignatius, in light of the other points of testimony, it just really looks to me like everything up through the early second century is definitive on a plurality of leaders in local churches. And I just see that over and over in the New Testament and Acts and the epistles. And then I see Ignatius as the sole piece on the other side. and I think it's plausible and reasonable to see Ignatius as a development because of the oddities. He doesn't see the bishops as diocesan, and he doesn't see them as successors of the apostles. So this would fit with like Ironaeus later on, not thinking of Peter as the first bishop in Rome.

From a historiographical standpoint, when you're looking back and you see a missing piece like that, it makes you say, well, why does Ignatius understand bishops in that way? And then we would be asking, is there any evidence from the early second century or from the first century that the bishops were the successors of the apostles? And I would say no. And that, so I guess I'm not convinced that Ignatius is more definitive than the other evidence from early second century, first century. Okay.

Stephen, do you want me a follow-up on that? Yeah, go ahead, Jonathan. Go ahead, it's your follow-up, and Gavin can get the last word in that one. Okay, no, that sounds good. Now, in context of these writings, when we talk about Clement, when we talk about the Dida-K, and then some of this other language that we find in the letters, even with Polycarp and some of his epistles, too.

and then we see obviously a change in the discussion, especially with Titulian and Iranians. Now, do you feel that a lot of what's being conveyed? Now, obviously, boils down to context in the sense that Christianity was not legal at that particular time. and a lot there's a lot we don't see because obviously there's this fear that they are being hunted down. What we see

from Trajan and Pliny is they're being silenced. They're not allowed to openly worship or to congregate within their homes. They're trying to silence Christianity. And even though we look at Ignatius and we look at most of the epistles that he writes

to Asia Minor, he does identify bishop. Does it make sense for him to identify a bishop pointing out when he's going back to Rome that may put that particular person under threat? And this is why we don't see until there's a major threat to Christianity with the Gnostics that Iranians and Chetullian actually open up Christianity's doors and explain this is how the order of the government comes in. Where previous to that point, you know, they're keeping everything under wraps because they are being hunted, they are being looked for. We see this with Justin Martyr that the pro council was searching for them.

So does this help explain why they're not as openly discussing the orders? Because some of the things I find in Clement and the Dicke is there, while they mention bishops and deacons and they discuss elders, what they don't discuss in context is, is there an elder that has oversight over the rest? Yeah, that's a very fair point. And just in agreement with where you're pushing there, I would say it's right that we shouldn't put too much emphasis

upon the lack of a mention of bishop in Rome in Ignatius, because he also doesn't say anything else about leaders there. So it would be a kind of an argument from silence that would be very problematic to put a lot of weight on that. With regard to arguments from silence, a side comment here is I tend to think that they can have some plausibility value where there's silence and you really expect to find something that raises questions. But we should always be careful with arguments from silence. So that particular point I wouldn't emphasize too much. Now, the general picture, though, of, well, is the possibility of persecution and wanting to kind of not specify who the leaders are in this kind of thing compelling for the whole picture? And I would say no, because so many of these points of data are kinds where you would expect, if there's a single bishop somewhere that to be referenced, or it's just not an argument from silence at all.

it's an argument from the positive presence of a reference to the plurality of leaders, and they are identified. So just to give two examples, the Shepherd of Hermes, speaking of the Church of Rome, has four to five passages that I've identified that speak of a plurality of leaders there, and the technical term used as presbyters, and they are spoken of as presiding over the church, and there are details said about them, like that they're having, there's problems with division among them, for example. We also have the positive presence of the first epistle of Clement, Chapter 57.

It does identify the leader. I mean, the whole occasion for that epistle is that these leaders have been deposed, and they're referred to as presbyters in Chapter 57. So I'd say that, you know, it's an important caution that the considerations you mentioned introduce, But I don't think it, you know, it can explain all of the evidence that suggests plurality of leadership in local churches so far as I can see. Those are really good points by both of you, I think. And then actually, many of the people in the audience were really engaged in that session there.

All right, let's go into that third realm of questions. Let's, for the sake of time, let's try to take 30 seconds or so to answer them. I know that's hard. I'm sorry. I mean, if you go over, it's fine, but in your mind, tell yourself 30 seconds. But Gavin, you can go ahead and start first. All right, and I'll, don't worry, I'll take at least three minutes to ask the question. I should have clarified the asking.

Oh, no. No, I'll be brief. I'll be brief. I know we're trying to get through as many questions as possible here. So this touches on a point that came up just a moment, a few moments prior about why don't we see any evidence of the transfer. And I would say we do in Jerome, and I'd like to read this quote from Jerome, and then ask for your response to it. In his commentary on Titus 1, he says, the presbyter is the same as the bishop, before parties had been raised up in religion by the profigations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters, but as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be said over all the others, have the chief supererubstives. revision, et cetera, et cetera. He says it's not a divine

commandment. Why would Jerome say that if that isn't true? Well, and we're talking about the Church of Alexandria where he's bringing this up, correct? Well, he's speaking of the church generally in this passage. I'm going to have to refer. I know there's

several statements from Jerome that Richard Hooker goes over. He brings up the point at Alexandria where we've always seen at least the secession of bishops. I'm not familiar with that particular reference to go into it. Now, once again, what I would say about Jerome is he was very upset that someone like Augustine, who was very

young, did succeed to the bishop, did become a bishop in his locale in Carthage. And unfortunately, Jerome does have a lot of animosity and he made a lot of enemies. So it's not surprising that he was never made bishop. So there is a sense that Jerome was upset about that having ever to succeed to the office of bishop. Okay. Are we still doing a follow-up, Stephen?

Yes, sir. Good to go. Okay. So in another passage in his writings, in his letter to evangelist, Jerome says, quote, when subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism

and to prevent each individual from rending the Church of Christ by drawing it to himself, end quote. It just seems to me kind of conspiratorial to think that Jerome is making up this idea, that there was a transfer to remedy schism. I mean, I'm trying to understand why he would get, where he would get that idea

from if it doesn't have some basis. Well, in that particular, passage, he's actually referring to the Church of Alexandria. And there he's talking, as Richard Hooker puts it, is he's talking about the policy within the elders that they would choose one amongst themselves. So there, Richard Hooker understands Jerome's statement

to actually refer to the policy that they were going to choose a bishop out from their own. And what has happened later is they changed that policy. And that's how Richard Hooker understands that particular reference from Jerome. Thank you. All right, Jonathan, go ahead with your question and we'll do the follow up there as well. Okay. And while Jonathan's pulling that up, I know a lot of you are waiting on your questions.

I've saved as many as I can because there's a ton of comments I have to go through. and Santi screenshot a few of them to me so I don't forget where they were. But go ahead and start bringing your questions in and we'll let the audience ask a few of them in just a few minutes after we finish this last section. Okay. So, Dr. Gavin, how do we, how does a church establish that legal chain of custody, which we find in the writings from tutorial? we find an Iranius and we find also

in Augustine if not in apostolic succession. How do we tie historically these works back to the apostles if not in that process? It seems to me, and I just alluded to this

a little bit more briefly in my opening comments for at the end and I was scrunching them together to try to finish within the 12 or 13 minutes, but it seems to be that Tertullian even acknowledges that the succession of office, that apostolic succession is not strictly necessary because he'll talk about even if the heretics had it. So what? Their doctrine's bad.

Even if this true church doesn't relate back to the apostles by office of succession, by succession of office, excuse me, that's okay. Their doctrine guarantees them. So I would say that Tertullian and Ionaeus, are using apostolic succession. They're using succession of bishops in their polemical, threatened context

as a way to protect what is the answer to your question, and that is the succession of the faith, the succession of doctrine, which is the larger sort of criterion by which we judge that the true church is being transmitted from point A to point B in time or in place.

So I don't really see that there's a need here that apostolic succession itself is the only way to meet. I mean, even those who don't believe in apostolic succession still affirm that there are leaders in the church that can trace their succession one to another. They just wouldn't say that it have to be bishops as distinct from presbyters and it has to be done via the laying on of hands and that these are the successors of the apostles.

So whether you believe in apostolic succession or not, you can still trace your origins and your history back throughout history. I don't accept the idea that apostolic succession is sort of the only way to do that. Do you have a follow up with that, Jonathan? Yeah, just a quick follow up to keep it short on time. But wouldn't this process of laying of the hands that Paul speaks of, which is the empirical observation that we see as part of that process, tie back to that foundational doctrine that the church does provide that oversight in that succession that allows us to anchor our faith back to history? Well, someone who denies apostolic succession could affirm. a visible lineage via the laying on of hands as well.

They would just, again, they wouldn't see it as the bishops distinctly from the presbyters and as the successors of the apostles and as necessary. But I would also want to say that I actually think the laying on of hands, it's not evident that that's thought of as having to do with ordination specifically in the New Testament. If someone does a search of every time laying on of hands occurs in the New Testament, some passages are ambiguous, which is not real clear what it's talking about. The majority of them are about healing, someone lays on hands to heal someone, or imparting

the Holy Spirit and or spiritual gifts. So I actually don't know that laying on of hands had those kinds of associations. All right. Great discussion, guys. I'm getting my phone blown up on the side of here. Like, this is so good. Nobody ever talks about this stuff. So we're getting a lot

It's like well if it's so good Then get in the comments and ask a question But we are getting positive feedback And since it's my show I'm going to be the first one to ask some questions For both of you if you don't mind Because I do have a few And one of the things that we've talked about so far

Is apostolic succession When we're talking about roles of leadership Jonathan you start And then Gavin if you could finish on this what about the areas of apostolic succession where we see that let's just say semantically we like overall we agree semantically we disagree but you do see these churches break out of the apostolic origins and you say okay there is definitely a way to take this lineage back to the apostles

but we would all in this panel agree that not all of the apostolic churches stayed true to orthodoxy and apostolic doctrine so what do we do in a situation where we have an apostolic church with apostolic succession, but apostolic doctrine was deviated from. Jonathan, if you could start with that since you're kind of more defending this position, then Gavin, if you would come in behind that. Yeah, for me, I think it's important because I think if we look at the Anglican Church over the last couple hundred years, obviously the rise of liberal theology, what we're able to do, at least from the standpoint of the historic episcopate is what we've seen happen in the Anglican Communion

with the creation of the ACNA or the Anglican Church of North America. Obviously, with all these new liberal views coming in, with all this kind of bad doctrine infesting the churches, you know, bishops, you know, left out of that part. of the Anglican Communion or the Episcopal Church of America, and formed the ACNA. As a result, they become big and strong and has been able to fight against this line of liberal theology about all these nuances coming into the church, against all this false doctrine, that they've been able to take a stand on.

Now, obviously, a bishop in apostolic succession has those ordination, powers where they can go out and set up churches and still continue in the communion. So what we can see historically taken place in the communion is that they have been able to break up, break off and set up these new churches where they can fight against this liberal element that's affecting within the church. Okay, and before you jump in there, Dr. Gavin, I did get a question that's not in the chat about how do we know the Anglican Church is part of the Apostolic Succession? And that's one thing I maybe could have asked up front. But Jonathan, since you are in the Anglican Church of England type of scenario, what makes that an apostolic succession church? Well, and, you know, unfortunately, there was an original church.

there was the Celtic church in that particular area. Now, obviously, Gregory the Great, sent Augustine the monk, to go ahead and evangelize or organize the Angles and Saxons, who obviously were interested in Christianity. They just didn't want to be part of the Celtic church. So, unfortunately, we don't have any more Celtic church because of what transpired there. But our apostolic succession is obviously through the church of Rome. through that line of succession. We were always independent of Rome,

and Augustine of Canterbury was our first bishop. And B talks about this a lot. It was set in motion by Gregory the Great, and that's where our line of succession comes through. And then here in the United States, as part of the Episcopal Church, we have Samuel Newsberry that was sanctioned to set up the Episcope here in the United States, obviously coming over from England.

So that's where our line of succession comes through, is through the church of Rome, at a time way before Trent. Okay. And Gavin, if you could respond to that first one there about deviating doctrinal, even though you could be a succession church, but you deviate doctrinally. If you could give your thoughts about that and then kind of go from there. Yes. Someone who believes in apostolic succession could defend their view on the grounds that it's a both-hand.

So you need succession of office and succession of doctrine. And that's when I dialogue with Eastern Orthodox friends, that's usually how it is stated. Because I'll bring up quotes from Gregory of Nazianzus and many other church fathers that basically succession of office is nothing if you don't have succession of doctrine. And they say, we agree. It's a both-hand. my perspective on this as someone who doesn't you know because I'm also not one to say succession of office is like meaningless or something like that my perspective is succession of doctrine the succession of the true faith is everything that is what creates the church it's the only sine qua non you know if you have that you're good but I would say that doesn't mean that succession of office is meaningless or without value I would just say it has a penultimate purpose it's there to help you know the succession of doctrine.

And so I would say in one of the Batman movies, there's the line about how, you know, I think it's Robin is saying when the structures become shackles. Okay. There come these points in church history where the structures that are set up by someone like Uranus, they're thinking of it is this going to help us against the Gnostics. It's going to help us preserve true doctrine.

But I would say, fast forward, 1,200 years, and it's the bishops who are oppressing Jan Hus, and it's the bishops who are oppressing the Waldensians. And I'd say the structure can get to a point where it becomes a shackle, where it becomes an opposition to true doctrine. And that's where I would say we just need to remember. It's not ultimate. It's not. And that's where I'd say it's not a divine law.

Would you say Jonathan and then Gavin, you can jump on this too if you'd like, that's where the Puritans were at one point. Like where they kind of what Gavin was just saying, like, all right, these guys have gotten out of hand. They got power hungry. they've ordained themselves positions that are beyond something. Because I mean, let's, I mean, just read Polycarps epistle that we've referenced that. I did my entire doctoral work on First Clement. These guys were really, they weren't power hungry people in their writing. They were very opportunistic.

They were that word they're writing to. They were all about building up the church. And actually, they deviated their power to the apostles. When they, they didn't take power upon themselves, they want so and so. So you should listen. It was like, hey, this is what Paul said to you. So would you say within the Anglican movement, specifically, Jonathan, that's exactly what the Puritans were trying to do in their movement is they saw this kind of go bad, like really bad. And they were like, all right, we want to deal with this.

We want to start from scratch. We want to eliminate this process and go back to a better idea of apostolic succession. Would you say that's what the Puritans were doing? Well, yeah, I think there was a real threat at that period. I mean, I think Dr. Gavin and I would agree. You know, what the Roman Catholic Church brought into, you know, this view is something very magical and superstitious into the doctor. Now, you know, Hooker's point is, do we throw out the baby with the bathwater, you know? While we understand the concerns and there were legitimate concerns that were.

happening at this particular office. Obviously, you know, in Geneva, a lot of the bishops left. You didn't have anymore. So obviously, you needed a council of elders over there. But in England, they didn't. Our bishops stayed. And so why would we, you know, despite the abuses that came in, why not just purify this form instead of change it? And, you know, for me, and I know I spoke with Dr. Gavin about this too, but did we open up the floodgates and starting to deny some of our sacred tradition and have we created our own monsters of what we see with the Enlightenment and, you know, with Strauss and Fraser of Christ's mysticism?

Have we opened this up as a result of denying our sacred traditions? And that's, you know, for me, the big concern here. Have we opened up the floodgates and now this idea of superstition and magical elements have now created what we see in the Enlightenment? To Stephen's question, I think that, yes, this was the Puritan's concern. many of them didn't, like Calvin earlier than the Puritans, didn't think that the Episcopate was wrong. In his institutes, he talks about how this is legitimate, it's not wrong to do this, but the concern was that the very structure the church developed to survive as a persecuted minority in the second and third centuries, in desperate straits, became a system

of abuse in some cases. But I would also want to underscore Jonathan's point, which I think is very fair, that many modern Protestants in the low church traditions may have gone too far in the other direction. And we need to consider, you know, how have we become just this sea of anarchy in terms of how we organize and structure ourselves? And that's a valid concern. All right. And I'll, for the second time, because there's good questions coming in for both of you. When it comes to, Jonathan, you said something early on, and I want to make sure I heard you right. You said that the congregations had the authority of the candidate.

Did I hear you right? You heard me right. Okay. But would you say that the churches stayed consistent with that protocol? No. And that's one of the things about the initial institution was designed for that. is, you know, they would come up against the elders. They didn't have seminaries in the first and second and third centuries.

The purpose was it'd be from someone within there. And when we talk about the church structure itself or the apostolic policy, we're looking at everyone as witnesses. Everyone's part of the continual succession or preservation of the church. So the deacons, the presbyors, the bishop, even the congregation has a role in it. And this is where we see very early on in Hippolyt's apostolic tradition that we see, you know, that the, like in Alexandria and in Rome, you know, this part of the function of the congregation was to say yea or nay, which is very different than what we see in, you know, the Osiris cults and all the Illusian mysteries where everything became, you know, secret and to themselves. this is part of the congregation saying, yes, this person has been found worthy, and he should be accepted to the episcopate. So this is part of the congregation's role in the preservation of the church, is that we put forward, you know, obviously good leaders.

I mean, how valuable would that be today that we just don't put any Joe Schmo into the leadership of the congregation? Yeah, see, and anybody that watches this. program knows that I'm probably somewhere right down the middle. Like I could hold your arm and then hold Gavin's arm. And that's pretty much my like I'm somewhere between where you two are. But to Gavin's point here, and I'll let him speak on this, to me, that kind of like makes the point a little bit on, on his end of it is that the apostolic succession churches deviated from the original

process where it became more high. then inclusive of the whole church, that it became about one individual. And we see guys get into positions that didn't belong. We have great bishops in church history. I don't think Gavin would deny that. Some of these bishops that were in the churches that went out and defended against Aryanism. And I mean, the council of Nicaea and the council of Carthage and HIPAA. I mean, these bishops did tremendous work for orthodoxy.

But to a point, I think they deviated from the apostolic succession a little bit by negating. that point. Would you agree with that, Gavin? Yes, and let me just underscore the point you're making there, Stephen, about, you know, there's something can be used of God, even if it's not of divine law and his, like, the way to do church. So we see many things in the early church where the church develops in a particular way, and it's profoundly influential. The biggest thing would be the conversion of Constantine, and I'm not a fall of the church guy at all. But look at what happens when you get a Roman emperor, you've got canons and all the ecumenical councils about how to make an appeal.

You have many bishops and archbishops and the patriarch of Constantinople who has to be confirmed by the Roman emperor to be in their office. At least five Roman emperors wrote theological edicts for the church without the mediation of a church council. All seven ecumenical councils are called by a Roman emperor. and you know the people called the the emperor the co-ruler with god the protector of the unity of the priesthood and so forth all of that's development that's not binding on the church today it's we don't have a roman emperor because we don't have the roman empire and so it's it makes a lot of sense to me to say look things are developing in the early church they're not necessarily bad

but they're contextual and so when they depart from the gospel if they do you go back to the origins So you go back to the apostolic precedent you have. And that's how I would look at apostolic succession. Yeah, and with that, Jonathan, I know that the Anglican church looks at those on the outside of sectarians. But what do you say about a group of sectarians, so to speak, that from your perspective, you individual, I'm not asking you to speak on behalf of the whole entire Anglican church. I don't want to get you kicked out of your congregation, in the same way. They won't want you to the

literature anymore. What would you say to somebody like Gavin, for example, who you've heard his argument, he's clearly not against many of the things that you stand for. Maybe he doesn't see the necessity of them or that they were, you know, divine origin,

but he practices apostolic doctrine, teaches as a pastor, apostolic realities and truths to his congregation every single week, does the Lord's Supper, baptizes, etc. What is, what is your perspective as somebody who would, you know, I know you won't just come out and just label a sectarians verbally, but in the Anglican mind we are. And like I said, I've kind of got

arms around both camps here. So I, you can cut me down the middle. But for you, how do you view somebody like Jonathan, or excuse me, like Gavin, who's not a part of an apostolic succession church, but teaches apostolic doctrine? Oh, yeah. No, we're of the same. faith. We're Christian brothers. Obviously, we have some differences in, you know, from my standpoint, in high church government. We're probably very consistent on our doctrines. What we support, he's a Christian brother. He is going to heaven. The orders that are performed in his church are valid. The sacraments are administered in the means of grace, a grace that are affected at his church is the same that it's done in mind.

So there's nothing lost from that sense. Now, it matters. I think it probably boils down to maybe how we may do apologetics. Obviously, I see the apologetics of Irenius, Turtullian. And, you know, Augustine is leading to this development, the converting, you know, the Greeks and the Roman, over to the Christianity worldview. And as I said earlier before,

I think there was this fear, and I think Luther recognized it as well at Marburg, you know, on the supper. You know, when we divide this, what type of other interpretations do we come on? And he felt, you know, he needed to divide the Reformation at that particular point because all of a sudden you get this, you know,

he felt. like, okay, they're bringing in this, they're viewing the Eucharist as this magical element. And at what point do we divide and say, you know, we have to stand up for these institutions or these beliefs

even if it's going to result in some division. But obviously he's a Christian brother. I think the orders are valid. We're all going to heaven. But I do think as we engage, with those outside of our congregations,

I think it's important that we have a real anchor in history, like what we see in the ancient church, to regain that intellectual high ground that we saw in the earlier form of the church. I do think, you know, the groups that did broke off, I think this is where I would say either led to stuff that we broke with the sacred tradition on that maybe,

even though we give all great stuff, maybe puts us a little out of disadvantage on. And that's just my thoughts, because I feel like there's this fear that we've created this monster in the carriers and the airmen's of the world by either some of our low church positions. And Gavin,

kind of in response to that, flipping the question around. I mean, I grew up Baptist my whole life. And, you know, the former Baptist I grew up in was more, you know, independent fundamental. So anybody that was Jonathan's position is automatically lost. So, you know, so what's your perspective of somebody, though you disagree on this issue, you know, I've known Jonathan Longer and you have. You know, he depends on Christ alone. In fact, he's reformed.

theology as well and things like that. So what would be your perspective looking at somebody that's not your position? You've kind of hinted at it in this already. And then kind of in response to your view of apologetics historically, because I mean, you got a PhD and historical stuff too. So where do you take your apologetics with your position in the ecclesiastical church? Yes. Okay. Yeah. I certainly see Jonathan as my brother. And I see the Anglic tradition not only as a valid Christian church that has valid sacraments, but a tradition I deeply admire. I look over the fence at and kind of think like, wow, what a cool tradition. You know, I think just I admire it so much. So my perspective is that the other kind of older,

more high church traditions, whether Anglicans, some of the non-prongstant traditions, I see all of them as Christian and as potentially having valid sacraments. Even, you know, I was just learning recently about Charles Spurgeon, who's a Baptist, his interactions with the Assyrian Church of the East, which is this other smaller Eastern tradition and how ecumenically minded he was in that. It was so interesting. But what I would simply say is as a low church Baptist type, I see the tradition I'm a part of as in its best effort and its truest intention, a renewal effort within the church.

Because we would say there have been these frayings, these points of of decadence and kind of falling away from the sharpness of the gospel at various times and in various places. And so similar to like the Waldensians earlier before the Reformation, similar to the Reformation itself, we see ourselves as this is what we're seeking to do as a renewal movement within the church. Good. Excellent, guys. And we'll finish up some audience questions. I've probably kept you both here longer than you wanted to be. But I mean, honestly, the discussion's good. Like I said, my phone's blowing up over here. And I've got. people messaging me on Facebook and then we got our own questions here. So let's jump into some

of these questions on your screen. You should be able to read them. Explain, wouldn't baptismal succession or succession of Apostle churches be historically the same as Bishop lists? Jonathan, do you have any idea on that? What a baptismal succession. Well, we talk about the historic episcopate, we're talking about a legal chain of custody that ensured the transfer control and preservation of what has been handed down from the apostles. Obviously, the main thing, obviously the scriptures. So there, you know, just like in a court of law, this is a very understood principle. It was understood by Augustine in the ancient world.

the unbroken chain of evidence. This was something very common in the ancient world that they understood from a legal aspect. How do we trace back text to their rightful author? And so baptismal, when someone receives baptism, obviously, I'm not sure the associated documents, but the succession or the leadership over that would be different.

The bishop lists, they are empirical documents in the sense that, you know, Eusebius, Socrates, Scholasticus, we see in Iranius, even some in Hegesepius. We see these lists. So if you think about it, these are the church's archives. This is their official records of establishing them back to an apostle. So for them, that meant some. something very important to them. Just like with the Gnostics, they were able to show, okay, well, here's where you come from.

So we can trace back to the official apostles. And that's why here, I would say the succession list would be different. This ties us back to a historical apostle, the baptismal succession. I'm trying to see how they understand it. Maybe Dr. Gavin, you can chime in on this part, what they may be referring to. to. But not to say it's not objective. I would imagine they're saying equal as in like we should take it just as serious. But I could be wrong. Maybe that's just the way I'm reading it. What do you think, Dr. Gavin? I'm not sure what is meant in the question by baptismal succession. My only

brief comment would be that I'd say the bishop list seem to be, as I see things, one necessary ingredient of the succession of apostolic churches as that's in that theology, but not the same thing as it, because you need more than just that. Like someone could affirm bishop lists, but not affirm apostolic succession. They might not think that the bishops are the successors of the apostles. They might not agree to the understanding of how one bishop transfers to their, you know, laying out of hands to another bishop and the way that is understood, the whole theology around that. So I in a way make that distinction. Yeah. Yeah, that's an interesting question. I think they're trying to figure out should we give the equal weights, but maybe I'm misunderstanding that.

Another question is for Born Again, RN, at explain, why should we trust in the claims of the Apostolic Succession when the early example is Irenaeus, who claimed Jesus was in his 50s based on Aposolite Succession slash Tradition, which actually I just did a program the other day that was pre-recorded with Dr. James White on the Reformation that will be released soon. And this is actually something that came up in our discussion as well, is that, you know, well, the church fathers are inaccurate about things. Like Irona said Jesus was 50 years old based on this and that he learned that from the apostles. So therefore, you know, I think that kind of goes back to you, Jonathan, to start and then Dr.

Gavin after, like, obviously you don't believe they're, you know, these guys were inspired or inerrant. So what are your thoughts? All right. So Ironas makes a claim that most people would say is ridiculous. So should we take him serious in other things or just throw out the baby in the bathwater? Yeah. So I think it's important to understand that he's making a statement in the ancient world, but can we corroborate that? And that's the question. You know, one of the things I love about Arian is not only when he was composing his histories of Alexander, but he notices that there was differences even between the eyewitnesses of Ptolemy and Irish Stubulus. So these are two people that were both with Alexander.

And as part of his criteria, he says, where they agree, I would assume that they're correct. And this is what I'm going with off my history. And we apply the same principle to the apostles. Now, you know, what we know about witness statements is they're not all going to agree, but are the basic facts the same? So when we look at, you know, obviously, Iranius, who is a relevant witness, he's from the official church of Smyrna. He was appointed to the bishopric. He obviously had knowledge of the church of Smyrna. He has knowledge of the conversations of Polycarp from his letter from Florinius. But where we can corroborate, obviously with Tertullian, of this process that the churches had instituted, that they had in place to secure the chain of custody back to the apostles. We see that in North Africa. We obviously see, you know, Iranians talking about it. Obviously, Eusebius, where he agrees with the others, they all have these different statements. But what we do look at is there's really no genuine issues of material fact.

They all speak to this process that these churches testify to and they still have. I mean, the Church of Alexandria is still around and it still observes this process and they have their lists. The Church of Rome, they identify with this process. North Africa, they identified with this process. Antioch, even though it has moved. it still represents, it still has this process. So the question is, is where we can corroborate their statements, independent attestation over different witnesses,

and they'll disagree on different things. But here we see a basic agreement on the witnesses on what's happening in the churches. And Iranians can speak to that which he is a part of. He's part of that office. He saw that in Smyrna. So where we can cooperate their statements, that's where we will agree. Something like that, we can't cooperate with any other ancient witness. So on that statement, we don't know if he's wrong.

We just can't cooperate it. Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, at the end of the day. Dr. Gavin? I think it's a really good question. It is true that Ironaeus insists. He's very strong on this point that Jesus' post-Baptismal ministry. last for 10 or 20 years, and he attributes that to John. He says people heard this directly from John,

and he says other apostles as well confirmed this tradition. This is one in Martin Keminist's examination of the Council of Trent. He lists about 15 different examples where appeals are made to apostolic tradition and they are contradictory. One of them is concerned as the date of Easter, for example. Now, if the response to this is, well, we disregard them when it's a lone voice, but we go with sort of the cumulative, you know, corroborative, corroborative appeals to apostol-tradition. My concern would be that I'reaneus and Tertullian are not in unison. As I mentioned, Tertullian thinks Clement was the first bishop, succeeding Peter. And Iranaus says Peter and Paul together as apostles started the episcopate with Linus.

So I think, you know, it's not like I don't like Irenaeus. I love Araneus, but I just struggle to sort of take all of his claims at face value. No, that's good. Thank you both for answering that. I thought it was a pretty good question as well. So slam our end, Explain International. Doesn't the laying on hands only mean to bless someone and is done in many cases? Gavin, won't you start in this one? I think this is a good question too. I wouldn't reduce it to blessing someone, but I would agree with what I think the question is getting at in that laying on of hands was not a technical apparatus for doing one thing. It has multiple purposes in scripture. Throughout the New Testament, I think I mentioned, the majority of the time it's done to heal someone or impart the Holy Spirit or a spiritual gift. So 1 Timothy 414, Timothy's spiritual gift is in you through the laying on of hands. So I would say that it's a good question, and it shows that this particular act has many different meanings in scripture.

most of them don't seem to be sort of conferring ordination or something like that. Jonathan? Yeah, so obviously my point on here. Oh, am I a meet? Okay, no, I'm no. No, you're good. You're good. Yeah, so my point in obviously using this as one of the foundational passages is, as Dr.

Gavin pointed out, we do see in scripture a point where miracles that happen, they'll lay on the hands, but we don't see it in others. Obviously, you know, in prayer, we don't always see it. It's not something consistently observed. Now, in the ordination, so when we look at the empirical observation, so when we go to churches and we see, so we have a scripture in Paul that talks about laying of the hands. We obviously see its uses in the Old Testament,

and it can refer to a variety of things. Now, in the consecration process, process, at least historically, and we see very early on from Hippolyt's, you know, ordination, is that the laying of hands is always present. It's always part of that process. And if we ask, where do we see that empirically? We see that in the consecration of our, you know, elders, our bishops, our deacons, the physical touch. We always are, what we see from the documents is this particular process, the laying of my hands. And that's where I kind of derived, you know, my understanding, this is where it's consistently followed the laying of the hands, especially when he addresses it to Timothy,

lay hands suddenly on no man in pertaining to ordination. Okay, good, very good. Nick Sayer says, question, isn't the apostolic succession a continuation of the I am of Paul. I am of Apollus is Christ divided. Jonathan, won't you start? I would tell Nick that, you know, in the creed, we see we believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic church.

We don't just believe in, you know, the Church of Antioch or the Church of Rome, but we're looking at the United Faith. So in that regard, apostolic isn't. It anchors us back to the same faith and hopefully the same doctrine and the teachings that we're handed on. And, you know, my point earlier that apostolic succession is, you know, the earthly means that God provided to secure his testimony down through the generations, not having one epicenter, but many. so we can independently and see the witness of God and his words, because you're going to see some division. So I wouldn't separate that. I would look at the framework as a whole, not individually divided.

I mean, I don't say I'm an Anglican. We're just the best in the world. We're all Christian brothers. We all believe basically the same faith. And that's what we appeal to. but it's that independent testimony that we appeal to in the apostolic polity. I just want to say that Jonathan tells me he's the best in the world all the time. He's better than me because he's Anglican, so I don't know what he's talking about right there.

Behind closed doors, it's a little different, Jonathan. Gavin, what do you say to that? I think this is another very interesting and good question. I would say that apostolic succession, to my vantage point, could be defended against this concern, particularly in its expressions like Jonathan's that are more ironic and more cautious. Now, some expressions of apostolic succession are more exclusive and rigid to the point where, you know, no valid orders without laying out of hands, period, no exceptions, and so forth. And the concern behind this question about unity and division is very valid in response to that.

a scenario I often envision is what about when the gospel comes to a place not through a physical person, but through the acquisition of the Internet and the discovery of the New Testament by that means, or through dreams? You know, many Muslims come to Christ through a dream, and a church springs up in response to this. Do you have valid sacraments there, despite the fact that no one had any laying on of hands? Now, a lot of people who affirm apostolic succession could make an allowance for a situation like that. But there are some defenders of very rigid, you know, ecclesiologies, and they appeal to Cyprian, you know, no salvation outside the church. And I think to the extent that apostolic succession goes down that avenue, this concern is very fair.

All right. Good, good, good. We'll take, we got about six minutes. There's one address to you, Jonathan. There's one address to Gavin. So let me see if I can pull those. I think this one's addressed to you, John. Then same, Nick. I always thought the lineage of Christians in England went back to Joseph of Arimathea. Yeah, and I think this is where some of these traditions or later traditions come about.

Obviously, the Celtic Church kind of traced their lineage back to John, or that's what they said. But in terms of lineage, There is lots of, there is documentation out there. I know Hippolytus does on the 70 on where they went out to. And obviously, it provides a lot of historical insight into where the evangelist went out to. Because we do see churches, you know, springing up all over the Mediterranean, the empire.

We're finding it as far down as India. It's springing up. So when they're going out to these locations, it's like, hey, we received this for Matthew. So there's a lot of truth there because we do see churches coming into being in those locales. And when they're visited, they have a similar structure. They have our documents, which does lead to who set up and organized a church that represents the same type of structure we have here. As far as Joseph of Arimathea, I think possibly qualify that with, you know, almost like Andrew and Constantinople, possibly.

There is some data that may possibly suggest, but I think the statements coming out of the Celtic church that ties back them to John. This is where we don't have anything definitively. Rome, Alexandria, some of the other places like Antioch, there's a lot more data to allow us to actually form something a little more concrete. All right. And last one. Explain for Gavin, isn't your baptism a historical succession from the 17th century England, particular baptists doing immersion, question mark. if they reform the church, isn't your succession also from England? I guess he's referring to the 1689 Baptist confession there because they would have naturally branched out and eventually England finally gave them the rights to be what they were in 1689. I'm assuming that's where this question is coming from.

So isn't your baptism a historical succession from the 17th century England, particular Baptist doing immersion question mark? If they reform the church, isn't your succession also from England? I think the answer, so far as I can see, would be yes. You know, as a Baptist, I don't understand succession, the succession of the church in its truest meaning to be institutional. Like, I'm a part of this church that was back there, and I can tell because of these institutional parameters. It's not to say institutional parameters are unimportant, but it's not what makes the church the church. So I look back on not only the Church of England, but the entirety of the Christian churches, I understand her, and say, I'm a successor of this.

I am grateful to this. This is, you know, Augustine speaks of the church as a kind of mother. You know, it's like, so I look back at church history and see myself as in debt and in continuity with the entire stream. Hey everybody, thanks for watching. Don't forget to subscribe and hit the bell button so we can stay in contact. If you want to support the channel, you can click the button to support me on Patreon. There's also more information in the video description about how you can support the channel. See you next time.