Dangers of joining churches that lack apostolic succession?

The same applies to each of us who are 'sent by Christ to the world'. We 'believers' are key to what God is doing on earth. That is why we are told to pray that God's will be done on earth as it already always is in heaven.

Not only pray that God's will be done, but also to see that it IS done in our 'believing' hearts and wills. That's what makes us worthy of our daily bread, that's why we should forgive those who trespass against us and why God does not lead anyone into temptation but delivers them from evil. Because the kingdom is HIS.

All that seems far removed from worries about whether your priest can trace his succession back to one of the apostles. I would venture to surmise that not a single individual anywhere on earth can trace his or her succession to an apostle, with any degree of certainty. The assumption is that the Bishop who presides over the ordination can, but not one of them could trace his family tree back that far, so it is all a matter of pious 'faith'.
.

 

Well, you raised the question not only about succession but the Visible Church as a whole. The easiest way of demonstrating that it is essentual is by going to the apostles; if they are, then so is the Visible church. And succession simply means doing what they were doing, by people whom the apostles themselves appointed.

 

You are surely not suggesting that the apostles 'appointed' every follower of The Way and elected every bishop of every local church. That would be a ridiculous suggestion not worthy of consideration.

Not only that but there were disputes within the apostles themselves about who was legit and many so called 'believers' regarded Paul as unqualified as a legit apostle. At least that's what we read in scripture.
.

 

Ultimately, Paul was accepted by the other apostles, as his fellow-apostle Luke recorded in the Acts of the Apostles.

I am a bit confused by the use of the term apostolic succession to mean the historic episcopate, since the office of apostle is gone from this earth.

But the scriptures do make it clear that men were to be ordained by the laying on of hands, and from very early on the church Fathers believed episcopal succession in ordination to be necessary for a legitimate episcopate. Not only that, but the early canonical requirements show how how the process worked. I don't see any reason to assume that bishops today haven't had hands laid on them in a line of succession back to the apostles; unless all of our information dating back to the New Testament is wrong.

None of the Christians I've met from non-episcopal denominations believe in sacraments, or even in divine grace in the full sense of the word, so it seems like a moot point. But if any do, I assume God deals with them according to the measure of their faith. For example, given Luther's situation -surrounded by heretic bishops- I can hardly blame him for his conclusions about the episcopate. Thankfully, there are orthodox bishops in my country so there is no need to face such a choice.

 

I'd be interested in reading your definition of grace, if you would kindly include what you mean by "in the full sense of the word."

 

"But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." 2 Cor.11:12-15.

There is no evidence that the issues around valid apostleship and Paul's acceptance by 'false' apostles were ever cleared up. Even Paul's acceptance by all apostles is not provable through scripture though at least we have Peter's word on the fact that some of what Paul wrote, though not wrong, was difficult to understand by the simple minded.

"our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."

May we have chapter and verse on your actual scripture referring to the legitimate episcopate please. Also, considering the fact that when the New Testament was written, inclusive language concerning 'men' and 'women' was a very new idea which had not caught on at all well yet, otherwise Paul would not have had to stress the point and raise the issue concerning the gender catholicity of salvation, it is not good exegetical practice to imply that scripture states :

. Just because we have no scriptural instance of women receiving the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, it does not prevent girls from going forward for Confirmation and receiving The Holy Spirit in the laying on of hands. Why not ordination?

I have quite a few non Anglican friends and aquaintances but I have none who deny God's graciousness, or define 'grace' in such a way as to limit it concerning how God operates. Could you elucidate what you are trying to explain here?
.

 

As quoted, Peter called Paul a beloved brother rather than denouncing him as a false apostle. And in Acts 15 Paul participated in the Council of Jerusalem with his fellow apostles.

Many times in Paul's epistles, he deals with the topic of ordination. For example, 2 Tim 1:6-7, 1 Tim 5:22, 2 Tim 2:2, and Titus 1:5. In these we see the precedent established: men were ordained by the laying on of hands, and this was done by someone appointed by the apostles. This continued, and any potential irregularities introduced by ministers ordained in some unmentioned manner would have been ironed out by the early practice of requiring at least three bishops to ordain another.

This was such a strongly established norm from ancient times that the Anglican ordinal goes so far as to say that it is evident to all men diligently reading the scriptures and ancient authors. If you'd like some patristic references, I can dig them up, or you might like E.J. Bicknell's treatment in A Theological Introduction to the Thirty Nine Articles and Metropolitan John Zizioulas' Eucharist, Bishop, Church.

As to my exegetical practice in assuming that the Biblical instructions for ordaining men referred to ordaining men, there is another thread for discussing that and I am happy to do it there if you are interested in my comments. But I'm already nearing a liturgyworks length essay here.

They limit their definition of grace to God's favor in overlooking our sin (Ps. 32:1), whereas in my own Church the term refers to God's power working in us (Eph. 3:7). Quite possibly the Christians you encounter most in England have little in common with the ones in the deep South.

To use a relevant example, when a priest is ordained in the Orthodox Church, God gives him grace to carry out his work. But for most most Christians I know (unless they're Roman Catholic), that statement is a non sequitor. After all, how would a priest be more forgiven after ordination if he was before? That's assuming they're willing to believe that a priest could even be forgiven before renouncing the sacraments, written liturgies, lectionaries, etc. Since they do not seek grace in ordination, and think the concept is heretical anyway, I see no reason to assume God forces it on them.

If a denomination were to believe in grace, and the sacraments, but lack the historic episcopate, I assume God would not punish them for this by depriving them of the grace they seek, simply because their ancestors lost the succession at some point. To borrow an example from the Old Testament Church, when the hereditary succession of the high priesthood was lost, many Jews began to boycott the temple sacrifices presided over by the new, illegitimate high priests. But by Jesus' time, everyone simply did the best they could with what they had, and even the scriptures treat Caiaphas as the high priest. Regarding those trying to follow Christ, outside of the established structure, I think we should heed Christ's response in Mark 9:38-41.

 

I am not a theologian like many of you here, but must disagree with this post. Apostolic succession is important to preserve the Church. But the "Church" is not based solely on the ministry. I am reminded of the discussion between Paul and the other disciples on circumcision. The Jews were determined that any gentiles must be circumcised to join "The church". Paul stood his ground and in the end it was agreed that circumcision should not be an obstacle to the gentiles to believing in Christ and being saved.

That leads to my major point. When we get to heaven with Jesus, we are all going to see our errors, including errors in doctrine or religious practice. Saying that Romans or Baptists have no ministry on earth is flat incorrect, in my humble opinion. See:

Romans 10:9
Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

This lesson may be learned in the many denominations. As one raised in the Baptist Church, I can say that every sermon and every bible study has emphasis on personal salvation by grace thru faith in our Risen savior. It doesn't take a minister of apostolic succession to lead the lost to Christ. Even you and I can do that!

 

No objection. And the Roman apologist will say that in every mass he received valid sacraments from ‘actually’ ordained clergy who were ordained by those, who were ordained by those, who were ordained by the Apostles. Baptists are self-appointed folk who are lacking all of that. On the other hand the Romans are (basically) lacking the entire gospel.

We can give partial credit to both communions, sure, or we can just find the entire whole in the Anglican tradition.

 

Very well said, Thank You. I agree that Rome and many denominations are lacking. My objection was to the statement that they have NO ministry on earth. The Lord works his will in spite of our constructs sometimes, not because of them.

 

Sometimes we state absolutes, when in reality they may be 'general rules' with (a few, rare?) exceptions. Any time we state an absolute, we can pretty well count on someone catching it and hitting us over the head with it.

 

The LORD hath made all things for himself:
yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. Prov.16:4.