What are the biblical arguments against the papacy and papal succession?

score:11

This is a huge question. I am going to attempt to summarize this as succinctly as possible--distilled to a potent brew.

Sola Scriptura

According to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, there is no higher authority than the Bible--not tradition, not other people's opinion or beliefs. Therefore, the pope, as simply a human, cannot stand up against the authority of the Bible, as God-breathed

Sola Scriptura is supported by 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Cor. 2:13, Romans 3:2 (among others), which shows that the Bible was divinely inspired. Because of this, we can trust the Bible to be the absolute truth (above all human knowledge).

Side note: Martin Luther wrote a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it
Priesthood of All Believers

The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers states that we are all priests and do not need to go to a human mediator in order to reach God.

1 Timothy 2:5 shows that there is only one mediator between God and man. This shows us that we don't need priests (or bishops, archbishops, or popes) to intercede for us.

Furthermore, Hebrews 4:14 (among others) shows that Jesus is our high priest. As such, we need no one else to offer prayers on behalf of the nation. The pope, by comparison, is attempting to act as High Priest, like the High Priest in Judaism--to go before God on behalf of all Christians.

Those are the two big ones I can think off of the top of my head. Obviously, each one of those goes much deeper than what I gave here. Also, there are probably more big ticket items and a bunch of smaller ones. But each of these has more support and many more arguments that can be used to dispute the papacy.

Richard 24177

Upvote:-3

In simple English, the belief of papal succession includes with it the power of appointing all ‘true officers’ of the ‘true church’. In other words, in practice it is simply the Roman Catholic means of doctrinally excluding all other Christian churches. More to the point it makes any persons personal salvation outside her physical ordained network- 'doubtful to none'. 'Doubtful' if they are not properly introduced to Catholic authority, 'none' if they are and yet adamantly reject it, like most Protestant teachers and pastors.

Note: To post an answer that respects current Roman Catholic beliefs, I actually had to have something critical clarified in my own mind. I raised this post to really understand the ultimate impact of belief in papal succession: Do Catholics officially recognize Protestants as Christians?

I have not encountered ‘the’ biblical argument against papal succession but I have run across several versions. The points of argument that have made the biggest impact for me as a Protestant are:

There is no biblical argument for papal succession anywhere to be found in the Bible. Any attempts that Catholicism tries to make for an argument seems to be blatant dishonest use of the scripture.
The implication of papal succession is that by it, it denies faith in 'Christ alone' as sufficient for salvation. This is actually a rejection of Christ and his only catholic church invisible.

Often the biggest argument against something is that there is no supporting argument for it. The scripture gives tradition no real respect, for it affirms that it was by the tradition of the church that the Jews found reason to reject Christ. This argument, absence of teaching denies its truth, is only reasonable when the subject has significant impact on church life and would essentially imply God was irresponsible not to inform his children of such an essential matter through scripture. Scripture is what confirms if any tradition should be upheld or condemned. As papal succession is such an important doctrine, which the actual salvation of souls does depend, and which is possibly the most central teaching of Catholicism, has absolutely no mention of in the scripture, immediately points to its obvious and most critical error. It is from this ground that many Protestant theologians think of the Catholic external organization as a systematic form of an anti-Christ, if not the anti- Christ for its chief aim is at replacing Christ with a visible church and transferring the authority of Christ to the Pope.

This one point for most Protestants actually ends the investigation and is sufficient for its full dismissal with full prejudice. However, there are some further points that may be considered from the biblical context.

Leaving the obvious error of this teaching we turn to God's word for what is a Christian:

The single definition within the scripture that determines if a visible person should be considered part of the invisible church, is their sincere confession of faith in 'Christ alone' for the forgiveness of their sins. There visible membership to a church organization counts is merely dust on the scales.

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. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:9-13, ESV)

Under the error of papal succession the scripture is grossly and blasphemously perverted into saying, 'whoever believes in Christ...and [put your idol here]. The idol in this case is respect of the physical organization of the papacy. With the second idol, post initiation, as possibly the worship of Mary.

A man's own personal faith directly in Christ and not directly Christ’s ministers or institutions, is the basis of all genuine faith in God. Therefore faith in Christ has the implication of putting all believers under a duty of condemning anyone who preaches a different faith, that is 'faith AND' [put your idol here]. Even if it if an apostle, Pope, or even an angel of God:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9, ESV)

Therefore the authority of the Apostles was not physically held by them so that they could pass it on, rather their authority was in proclaiming Christ AND NOTHING. If they, Peter, Paul, or whoever no longer preached this, they were to be absolutely condemned.

The result with respect to papal succession was the reformation largely lead by Martin Luther. This is how the invisible church was restored to the authority of Christ under his word.

It is on the foundational doctrine of Christ, that he will build his church upon himself as the rock, not upon the pope and his pretenders, which Peter’s confession is to be understood. Peter's faith in Christ alone, just as any believers was a 'little rock' upon which all believers are built into the temple of God. This temple is built on this precise gospel teaching that was laid by the Apostles. It here that Protestants and Catholics divide as far as the east of from the west. Papal succession seizes on the potential confusion that the English translation of this Greek sentence and tries to create an idol out of Peter which will an anchor and protect all their pretended authority over every other Christian body of believers.

Mike 31640

Upvote:-3

Matthew 23:9: "And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."

Clearly that doesn't leave much room for a pope, which of course comes from the Italian word for father. Since the role of pope is thus ruled out, the question of succession of popes is not to be found in the Bible.

It is strange that the phrase is apostolic succession, when what is really meant is papal succession. Apostolic succession should simply mean that christian leaders raise leaders to replace them, with the numbers growing as the flock increases.

jcohen79 324

Upvote:-1

The argument against Papal Authority is found in the first evidence for Papal Authority: Matthew 16:13-18. The Catholic interpretation of this verse, as previously mentioned, states that Peter is the rock upon which the Christ will build His Church because "Peter" means rock. However, in the Greek, the words "Peter" and "rock" used in the passage are different words. Peter was translated from the word, "Petros," while "rock" was translated from the word, "Petra." Therefore, the Petra that Christ refers to is Petros's confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Now one could say that Peter was special because he got the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and because he was in Christ's inner circle with James and John (Matt. 17). However, this does not mean that he could pass his specialness from himself to another person, namely Clement of Rome. While there is historical evidence according to the Catholic faith that this took place, there is no scriptural evidence for it. Additionally, it does not seem that Peter functioned as Catholic popes function today, for he was not infallible and above reproach, as I understand Catholic popes are thought to be according to Catholicism. This is based on the event when Paul confronted Peter in Galatians 2:11-13 for not being consistent with his view on circumcision. In this instance, Paul exercised authority over Peter.

BAYOAN WARE 9

Upvote:0

OP: what are the biblical arguments (Protestant or Orthodox) against the papacy and papal succession?

The papacy is the idea of "the ecclesiastical system in which the pope as successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ governs the Catholic Church as its supreme head." -New Advent-

There are at least two biblical arguments against this idea that have yet to be mentioned in this thread, but let me summarize the two main arguments already mentioned.

The "on this rock I will build my church" in Matthew 16 must refer to Peter's confession, not to Peter himself. I will detail the reason for this shortly, but suffice to say here that Christ says Christ Himself will build His church, not Peter and certainly not his so-called successors.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Mat. 16:18

The "priesthood of all believers" is also a strong argument against the papacy. To look further into this would require developing the finality of Christ's one sacrifice once.

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; Heb. 10:12

But back to the two other arguments.

ELDERS

If Christ had actually conferred to Peter some so-called succession rights, then one would think Peter would know this. To a degree, he does. As Tertullian noted, Peter did exercise the keys by opening the kingdom doors to Jew and Gentile alike. As Christ said, the gates of hell will not prevail. It won't be because of men that this is true. Again as Christ said, Christ will build His church.

But did Peter confer something to Linus, the second Pope so-called? There is no record of this. Even the letter of Clement only mentions that he believes Peter died in Rome. There is no mention of something that supposedly is so important about some lineage of Popes. Besides, what we do have is Peter actually conferring Jesus' instructions to the elders of Asia Minor, not to the bishops in Rome.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, … 1 Peter 1:1

After addressing his letter to all, Peter then narrows the focus.

The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 1 Peter 5:1

And then Peter gives the elders (plural, not just one, but many) the same instructions.

Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 1 Peter 5:2

He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. John 21:17

So, did Jesus give Peter a papal lineage? No, it was Peter's confession of faith, but even if you think Jesus did, Peter then gives it to the unknown elders in Asia Minor.

PREEMINENCE

The first and last apostles to die were James and John, sons of Zebedee, sons of thunder. John writes a letter to Gaius called 3 John. In it he mentions a person, although some say it is a metaphor, a warning, called Diotrephes.

I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 3 John 1:9

This is written circa 100ad. The word "preeminence" is just as it is translated.

Strong's Concordance philopróteuó: to strive to be first Original Word: φιλοπρωτεύω Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: philopróteuó Phonetic Spelling: (fil-op-rote-yoo'-o) Definition: to strive to be first Usage: I love the chief place, desire preeminence.

This is a person in the church who wants to be first, to be in charge, to lead all the others even to the point of rejecting apostolic authority. This, of course, is another argument already mentioned (scripture as the rule of faith; wherein the New Testament is written between the sons of thunder as the valid apostolic testimony).

Paul uses a similar word when describing Christ as having the preeminence.

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. Col 1:18

SUMMARY

The idea of a single individual or a lineage type of group having the preeminence is a very old idea, but one that is reserved for Christ alone who builds His church, not some one who loves to be first. John warns against a Diotrephes. Tertullian later picks up the same idea, rejecting it likewise, as usurping what belongs to Christ alone.

Moreover Peter, if he was given some authority with the keys, opened the kingdom to Jew and Gentile. The gates of hell will not prevail. Peter then gave that instruction to the elders in Asia Minor. Feed His sheep.

SLM 12802

Upvote:1

Biblical Argument against Papacy

Roman Catholicism teaches that Simon's role as 'Peter' was an office with successors.

It is totally impossible for Simon to have successors on his Peter-hood because his office as Peter is about the "building of the church" based on Matthew 16:18. If Simon has successors in his Peter-ship then it means that the church wasn't yet in existence. That's absurd.

This is a strong Biblical argument against papacy.

Biblical Argument Against Papal Succession

Roman Catholicism teaches that the bishop of Rome is the High Priest in the New Testament church.

There is no High Priest in the New Testament with successors. Jesus alone is the High Priest in the N.T. who does not need successors according to Hebrews 7:23-25:

Hebrews 7:23-28The Message (MSG)

23-25 Earlier there were a lot of priests, for they died and had to be replaced. But Jesus’ priesthood is permanent. He’s there from now to eternity to save everyone who comes to God through him, always on the job to speak up for them. 26-28 So now we have a high priest who perfectly fits our needs: completely holy, uncompromised by sin, with authority extending as high as God’s presence in heaven itself. Unlike the other high priests, he doesn’t have to offer sacrifices for his own sins every day before he can get around to us and our sins. He’s done it, once and for all: offered up himself as the sacrifice. The law appoints as high priests men who are never able to get the job done right. But this intervening command of God, which came later, appoints the Son, who is absolutely, eternally perfect.

This is a very strong Biblical argument against papal succession.

R. Brown 6413

Upvote:2

When the first recorded controversy emerged in the early Church (i.e. circumcision) Peter was wrong. He was corrected by the Council of Jerusalem then. So we clearly see, that Pope cannot be infallible.

You can read about it in Acts 15 1-31 and it is also mentioned in Galatians 2, 11-14.