Biblical Arguments for Apostolic Succession

I think most non-denominational Christians would take your first argument and say that all Christians are supposed to do both: All Christians are supposed to go forth and preach and baptize and all Christians are supposed to forth and bind and loose. They would argue that the Bible teaches all disciples of Christ to do the work of Christ, and not an “elite” few, such as bishops and priests. How would you counter that argument?

Good question. I think it would be the exception for the average evangelical to say that all Christians are to bind and loose. To them it makes no sense for one Christian to offer forgiveness to another, for a sin not done against them (as St. Paul did in 2 Cor 2:6-11), and also to bind by imposing a penance (as he did in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5, and later relaxed in the previous passage).

So they either restrict it to the apostles, or if they try to apply it in the present, what I have heard some of them say, and what I probably would have said myself in the 80s, if asked, is that “loosing” is only forgiving what God has forgiven already. But then how do they account for binding and imposing a penance?: because they don’t accept penance (far less so than “transactional” forgiveness). Penance doesn’t fit into the categories of Protestant theology, except for traditional Anglicans (C. S. Lewis believed in purgatory) and perhaps a few other strains.

But generally speaking, I would argue that certain functions are consigned to the clergy, or leaders, in the NT. By and large, Protestants agree with us that clergy baptize, while in theory all layman have a responsibility to evangelize. They do the same with marriage, and (pretty much) presiding over the Eucharist. They recognize “pastoral” functions and general duties of all Christians.

Once they accept a clergy / laity distinction, then, it can be applied to binding and loosing. I think it is shown to be a more exclusive duty also by the fact that Jesus gave the power to Peter individually. Historically, it was a rabbinic function.

Some pentecostals apply “binding and loosing” to the practice of “freeing from demonic oppression”, but I think this is a distortion of the original NT meaning, incorporating the rabbinic background.

In the NT, the forgiveness of sins is often “contractual.” When John the Baptist baptized (Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3), it involved repentance and remission of sins. The person repented, and demonstrated repentance by undergoing the rite, presided over by an authoritative figure. Post-Pentecost baptism had the same elements (Acts 2:38, 22:16). Likewise, confession of sins involves a rite with a priest, by which he can impose a penance and pronounce absolution. Binding and loosing (Matt 16:19 and 18:18) is expressly tied in with forgiveness of sins and penance (Jn 20:23).

Deliverance from a demon is not the same thing at all. That is not a matter (at least not always) or forgiving a sin. So I think the pentecostal “deliverance” use of these passages is very loose and an example of eisegesis (reading into Scripture one’s prior opinions).