Refuting Apostolic Succession: Unraveling the Threads of Early Christianity

Refuting Apostolic Succession: Unraveling the Threads of Early Christianity

 

 

Christians often defend theological doctrines such as the Trinity and the Incarnation through the idea of apostolic succession. This notion, claiming an unbroken line of authority of true teachings passed down from Jesus to the apostles to the early church and thus reaching us today even, has long been held as a cornerstone of many Christian denominations. However, delving into the annals of early Christian thought with a microscope, will this notion stand? Contrary to the commonly held notion of a universally accepted apostolic succession, we will highlight the diversity of thought within early Christianity that clearly paints those considered saints as unorthodox. This blog post will examine the writings of eminent church fathers such as Justin Martyr (c. 100–165 CE), Irenaeus (c. 130–202 CE), Tertullian (c. 155–220 CE), and Origen (c. 185–253 CE). In doing so, we will challenge the modern perception of a monolithic Church history as clearly there was a development in theology. All the works quoted by the Church fathers and the Catholic encyclopedia can be found on Newadvent.org.

The doctrine of the Trinity affirms that God exists as three divine persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three persons are coequal, coeternal, and homoousion or of the same substance/essence yet there is only one God not three. Despite the unclear metaphysics, has this doctrine been upheld by the church ever since Christ? Justin Martyr, an influential early Christian saint who lived in the second century made significant contributions to the development of Christian theology. He engaged in a notable dialogue with a Jew named Trypho in his work titled, “Dialogue with Trypho” where he defended Christian beliefs and explained the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. Justin, in his writings, like the, “First Apology” filled the gap between Christianity and Greek philosophy. His works not only provided valuable insights into early Christian worship practices and beliefs but also laid the foundation for the integration of philosophical ideas into Christian theology. Justin Martyr, in chapter 56 of, “Dialogue with Trypho” declares Jesus to be “another God” that is subject to the Father,

“I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things above whom there is no other God wishes to announce to them.”

According to the secondary source, John Behr, British Eastern Orthodox priest and theologian, in his, “Formation of Christian Theology Volume One: The Way to Nicaea, he states,

“As it is not God himself who thus appeared and spoke with man, the Word of God who did all of these things is, for Justin, “another God and Lord besides the Maker of all,” who is also called his “Angel,” as he brings messages from the Maker of all, “above whom there is no other God” (Dial. 56.4)…The divinity of Jesus Christ, an “other God,” is no longer that of the Father himself, but subordinate to it, a lesser divinity...”

The idea of the Son being subordinate to the Father as expressed in the works of Justin Martyr would be called heresy and on grounds for excommunication today. Furthermore, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia,

“…He is the monogenes, the unigenitus (Dialogue with Trypho 105). Elsewhere, however, Justin, like St. Paul, calls Him the eldest Son, prototokos (I Apol., xxxili; xlvi; lxili; Dialogue with Trypho 84, 85 and 125). The Word is God (I Apol., Ixiii; Dialogue with Trypho 34, 36, 37, 56, 63, 76, 86,87, 113, 115, 125, 126 and 128). His Divinity, however, seems subordinate, as does the worship which is rendered to Him…”

In the same chapter 56 of his dialogue, Justin Martyr elaborates on the relationship between the Son and the Father by claiming that Jesus is numerically distinct from him,

“I shall endeavor to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things numerically, I mean, not (distinct] in will.”

In chapter 13 of his First Apology, Justin claims the Son is second place to the Father,

“Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontus Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove.”

Justin view of God was highly influenced by Platonism and this shows in his Dialogue chapter 60 as well. According to him, the purpose for the Son’s existence is to interact with the world through the incarnation as the true and only God, the Father, is too powerful and mocks those who disagree,

“He who has but the smallest intelligence will not venture to assert that the Maker and Father of all things, having left all supercelestial matters, was visible on a little portion of the earth.”

John Behr in his same work mentioned earlier agrees with this interpretation,

“Although Justin speaks in the traditional manner of Jesus Christ, as the Word, revealing God, he shares the common philosophical presupposition of his day that as God is so totally transcendent to created reality he needs an intermediary, his Word, to act for him and to mediate between himself and creation.”

I believe it has been made clear that Justin Martyr, an early church father and a saint, held positions that are now considered unorthodox and heretical and this undermines the idea of apostolic succession.

         Moving onto Irenaeus, he was an influential early Christian theologian, saint, and bishop of Lyon in the 2nd and 3rd century. He played a significant role in shaping early Christian theology. Irenaeus is best known for his work, “Against Heresies”. In this work, in chapter 28 of book 2 claims that the Father has more knowledge than the Son. This would be considered heretical as the Son is all-knowing as he is also God.

“The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge; for this reason, that we, too, as long as we are connected with the scheme of things in this world, should leave perfect knowledge. and such questions (as have been mentioned], to God, and should not by any chance, while we seek to investigate the sublime nature of the Father, fall into the danger of starting the question whether there is another God above God.”

This is made clear as the Son does not know when the hour, or day of judgement will occur as stated in the same chapter,

“But, beyond reason inflated [with your own wisdom], you presumptuously maintain that you are acquainted with the unspeakable mysteries of God; while even the Lord, the very Son of God, allowed that the Father alone knows the very day and hour of judgment, when He plainly declares, But of that day and that hour knows no man, neither the Son, but the Father only. If, then, the Son was not ashamed to ascribe the knowledge of that day to the Father only, but declared what was true regarding the matter, neither let us be ashamed to reserve for God those greater questions which may occur to us. For no man is superior to his master...”

He further believes that the Son is a created being as shown in book 4 chapter 20 while orthodoxy holds that the Son was begotten not made and therefore eternally begotten as if he was created in time he would be less than the Father rather than coequal,

“And again [in Proverbs 8:22-5]: ‘The Lord created me at the beginning of His ways in His work: He set me up from everlasting, in the beginning, before He made the earth... he brought me forth.’ And again [in Proverbs 8:27-31: ‘When He prepared the heaven, I was with Him…I was He in whom He rejoiced, and throughout all time I was daily glad before His face, when He rejoiced at the completion of the world, and was delighted in the sons of men.’ There is therefore one God, who by the Word and Wisdom created and arranged all things...”

Furthermore, Irenaeus makes it clear that the Father is the only true God in book 3 chapters 6 and 9 respectively,

“Wherefore I do also call upon you, Lord God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob and Israel, who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who, through the abundance of Your mercy, has had a favor towards us, that we should know You, who has made heaven and earth, who rule over all, who is the only and the true God, above whom there is none other God; grant, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the governing power of the Holy Spirit; give to every reader of this book to know You, that You are God alone, to be strengthened in You, and to avoid every heretical, and godless, and impious doctrine.”

“This, therefore, having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the apostles confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect... here is therefore one and the same God, the Father of our Lord…”

I believe it has been made clear that Irenaeus, an early church father, and a saint, held positions that are now considered unorthodox and heretical and this undermines the idea of apostolic succession.

         Moving onto Tertullian, he was an influential Christian theologian who lived during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. He played a key role in shaping early Christian doctrine, particularly in areas related to the Trinity and the nature of Christ making him a crucial figure in the history of Christianity. Beginning with a secondary source, Dale Tuggy, Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia and authored the Stanford Encyclopedia page on the Trinity, states in his work, “What Is the Trinity? Thinking about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”,

“Tertullian explicitly asserts that the Father is older, nobler, stronger, more powerful, and ‘much more elevated in rank’ than the Son. Quoting Proverbs 8, he insists that, ‘…the very Wisdom of God [i.e. the pre-human Jesus] is declared to be born and created, for the especial reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone [i.e. the Father] who is unbegotten and uncreated. For if that which from its being inherent in the Lord was of Him and in Him, was yet not without a beginning, - I mean His wisdom, which was then born and created, when in the thoughts of God It began to assume motion for the arrangement of His creative works…’”

Moving onto the primary sources of Tertullian, in his work, “Against Hermogenes” in chapter 3, he claims that the Son is not eternal,

“Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him.”

In his other work, “Against Praxeus” Chapter 7, he further supports this heretical claim that the Son was created,

“Then, therefore, does the Word also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, Let there be light. Genesis 1:3 This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God - formed by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom - The Lord created or formed me as the beginning of His ways; Proverbs 8:22 then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect - When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him.”

Furthermore, Tertullian claims that the Son was learning i.e. is not all-knowing in chapter 16 of the same book which was the case with Irenaeus mentioned earlier,

“For He it was who at all times came down to hold converse with men, from Adam on to the patriarchs and the prophets, in vision, in dream, in mirror, in dark saying; ever from the beginning laying the foundation of the course of His dispensations, which He meant to follow out to the very last. Thus, was He ever learning even as God to converse with men upon earth, being no other than the Word which was to be made flesh. But He was thus learning (or rehearsing), in order to level for us the way of faith, that we might the more readily believe that the Son of God had come down into the world, if we knew that in times past also something similar had been done…”

He makes it explicitly clear that the Father is greater than the Son in chapter 9 of the same book,

“For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: My Father is greater than I. John 14:28 In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being a little lower than the angels. Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another: He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.”

Again, to a secondary source, the Catholic Encyclopedia, they support the claims that Tertullian did not hold to orthodoxy,

“His Trinitarian teaching is inconsistent, being an amalgamation of the Roman doctrine with that of St. Justin Martyr. Tertullian has the true formula for the Holy Trinity, tres Personae, una Substantia. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are numerically distinct, and each is God; they are of one substance, one state, and one power. So far the doctrine is accurately Nicene. But by the side of this appears the Greek view which was one day to develop into Arianism: that the unity is to be sought not in the Essence but in the origin of the Persons. He says that from all eternity there was reason (ratio) in God, and in reason the Word (Sermo), not distinct from God, but in vulva cordis. For the purpose of creation the Word received a perfect birth as Son. There was a time when there was no Son and no sin, when God was neither Father nor Judge.”

I believe it has been made clear that Tertullian, early church father and a saint, held positions that are now considered unorthodox and heretical and this undermines the idea of apostolic succession.

         Moving onto Origen of Alexandria, he was an early 2nd and 3rd century Christian theologian and scholar. He played a significant role in the development of Christian doctrine and biblical emphasizing the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. Starting with the secondary source, Dale Tuggy, in his same work quoted previously, explains Origen’s metaphysics regarding the Trinity,

“The person who changed the emerging catholic mainstream from two- to one-stage logos theory was the massively influential Origen. He holds the divine logos and spirit to exist eternally, but because of God. In eternity, God (the God, in Greek ho theos), aka the Father, causes (“begets”) his logos (Word), a second god (deuteros theos). In so doing he imparts a degree of divinity to the logos. The logos in turn eternally gives a degree of divinity to the Holy Spirit. But for Origen, the Son and Spirit are not divine in the same way as the Father, so as to make them the Father’s equal in power, knowledge, goodness, and so on. Only the Father is divine independently of any other being and to the highest degree. In second place is the logos, who gets his second greatest degree of divinity from God. In third place is the Spirit, who gets his yet lesser divinity from the Son.”

Origen himself holds to the heretical doctrine of subordinationism in his work, “Against Celsus” in book 8 chapter 14,

“And it is He whom we call Son of God Son of that God, namely, whom, to quote the words of Celsus, we most highly reverence; and He is the Son who has been most highly exalted by the Father. Grant that there may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that the Savior is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them. but rather believe Him when He says, The Father who sent Me is greater than I.”

Furthermore, in his commentary on the Gospel of John in book 2 section 2, he provides a lengthy explanation of the relationship between the Father and the Son according to the use of the definite article,

“We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so the Logos is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, John 17:3 That they may know You the only true God; but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth. It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is The God, and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”

 

Let's break down Origen's quote sentence by sentence:

 

“We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences.”

Origen begins by discussing the specific use of articles (definite articles: “the”) in the sentences from the Gospel of John.

 

“He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue.”

Origen claims that the author of John is intentional in his use of the Greek language and is aware of its nuances and complexity.

 

“In some cases, he uses the article, and in some, he omits it.”

John's usage of the article is not consistent; yet this under the context that he is aware of the nuances of the Greek language, this selectivity is purposeful.

 

“He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God, he adds it sometimes only.”

John uses the definite article with “the Logos” but does not always use it when referring to God. There is a distinction between the Logos who is the Son and God who is the Father.

 

“He uses the article when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God.”

The article is added when referring to the uncreated cause of all things (God), but it is omitted when referring to the Logos (Christ).

 

“Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it?”

Origen questions whether the same distinction between “God with the article” and “God without the article” applies to the Logos in the same way.

 

“We must inquire into this.”

Further investigation is needed!

 

“As the God who is over all is God with the article, not without it, so the Logos is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature.”

The uncreated God, the Father, always has the article (“the God”), and similarly, the Logos, Christ, is the source of reason present in every rational being.

 

“The reason which is in each creature is not, like the former, called par excellence The Logos.”

Unlike the Logos, the reason in each creature is not supreme.

 

“Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity.”

Origen notes that many people are troubled by the complexity of theology in the Gospel of John.

 

“They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked.”

People fear that acknowledging both the Father and the Son as God might polytheism.

 

“Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own...”

Two false doctrines that arise from this fear of polytheism: Denial the distinct nature of the Son and thus equating Him with the Father, while others deny the divinity of the Son, considering Him a separate being.

 

“To such persons, we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself)...”

Origen asserts that the uncreated God is God of Himself (Autotheos), emphasizing the supreme nature of the uncreated God over the Logos due to aseity.

 

“...but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article)...”

Origen explains that other divine beings derive their ‘godhood’ from participation in the divine nature but are not on the same level as the uncreated God i.e. subordinationism.

 

“...but rather God (without article).”

Beings can be called God but without the definite article thus indicating a lowert level of divinity.

 

“And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him...”

Origen refers to the Logos as a being of higher rank than other divine beings yet lower than the uncreated God the Father.

 

“...of whom God is the God, as it is written, ‘The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth.’”

Origen supports his argument with a reference to a scripture with proof of a hierarchical relationship between the Logos and other gods.

 

“It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods...”

Origen explains that other gods became divine through the Logos thus establishing a hierarchy of divinity.

 

“...for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty.”

The Logos shared divinity that he received from God with other gods.

 

“The true God, then, is The God, and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype.”

Origen concludes by stating that the uncreated God, the Father, is the true God, and other gods are created in His image perhaps making reference to Genesis.

 

“But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God...”

The ultimate image, the prototype of all other divine beings, is Christ, existing from the beginning and always being God due to His eternal relationship with the Father.

 

“...not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”

The Logos is god not inherently but through His eternal connection with the Father, and He remains god by continuously through the Father.

I believe it has been made clear that Origen of Alexandria, early church father, held positions that are now considered unorthodox and heretical and this undermines the idea of apostolic succession.

In unraveling the threads of early Christianity through the writings of prominent church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, contrary to the commonly held notion of a universally accepted apostolic succession, this blog has uncovered the unorthodox beliefs within early Christianity. To end with a quote from Catholic saint, John Henry Newman,

“Again, the six great Bishops and Saints of the Ante-nicene Church were St. Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, and St. Methodius. Of these, St. Dionysius is accused by St. Basil of having sown the first seeds of Arianism; and St. Gregory is allowed by the same learned Father to have used language concerning our Lord, which he only defends on the plea of an economical object in the writer. St. Hippolytus speaks as if he were ignorant of our Lord's Eternal Sonship; St. Methodius speaks incorrectly at least upon the Incarnation; and St. Cyprian does not treat of theology at all. Such is the incompleteness of the extant teaching of these true saints, and, in their day, faithful witnesses of the Eternal Son. Again, Athenagoras, St. Clement, Tertullian, and the two SS. Dionysii would appear to be the only writers whose language is at any time exact and systematic enough to remind us of the Athanasian Creed. If we limit our view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. Ignatius may be considered as a Patripassian, St. Justin arianizes, and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian. Again, there are three great theological authors of the Ante-nicene centuries, Tertullian, Origen, and, we may add, Eusebius, though he lived some way into the fourth. Tertullian is heterodox on the doctrine of our Lord's divinity [Note 10], and, indeed, ultimately fell altogether into heresy or schism; Origen is, at the very least, suspected, and must be defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy; and Eusebius was a Semi-Arian. Moreover, It may be questioned whether any Ante-nicene father distinctly affirms either the numerical Unity or the Coequality of the Three Persons; except perhaps the heterodox Tertullian, and that chiefly in a work written after he had become a Montanist…”