Posted on 06/13/2013 10:02:02 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
....Protestants have reacted strongly against the doctrine of apostolic succession. They have done so in a number of ways, historical and theological. One of these ways is by affirming the apostolicity of the church. Apostolicity may be defined as receiving and obeying apostolic doctrine as it is set forth in the New Testament. In matters of doctrine and life, Protestants permit no ultimate appeal to traditions that are distinct from canonical Scripture...Absolutely no provision is made for an authoritative, unwritten tradition. In fact, it is to the touchstone of Scripture that all traditions, including those of Roman Catholicism, must be brought. Protestants have correctly observed that it is the appeal to Tradition that has made possible many doctrines and practices of Roman Catholicism that have no basis in Scripture. These include (to name only a handful) the papacy, papal infallibility, purgatory, the mass, the immaculate conception, and the assumption of Mary. Even if it were historically provable that there was an unbroken succession of bishops from the first century to the present day Roman Catholic bishops (and it is not), Protestants would still demur to claims of Roman authority based upon apostolic succession. It is the apostolicity of the church that counts. And it is precisely by the standard of apostolicity that the Roman Catholic Church is measured and found wanting....
....While the differences between the Roman Catholic Church and historic Protestantism are many, let me focus on the one difference that must always be kept in mind, namely, the issue of authority. In every debate between Roman Catholics and historic Protestants, whether it be over the nature of the papacy, the place of tradition, justification, the role of Mary, the sacraments, or any other disputed matter, the question of authority will always surface. By what standard are matters of religious controversy judged? Historic Protestants will appeal to the Bible as the final authority in all matters of Christian faith and practice. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, appeal to Scripture and Tradition as authoritatively interpreted by the papacy and its courts....
....As long as Protestants and Catholics appeal to two different authorities, an unbridgeable gulf separates them...The source of the irreconcilable differences between the Roman Catholic Church and historic Protestantism rests here. Reconciliation between historic Protestants and Roman Catholics would require either that Catholics abandon the papacy and its traditions, or that Protestants surrender their bedrock conviction that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. The issue of authority leaves no room for compromise.
From the bottom of the webpage:
"Questions and Answers" is a weekly feature of the OPC website. At least one new question is posted each week, so there should always be something new here for you to read. (For those who would like to look at previous questions and answers, they will continue to be available as well.)The questions come from individuals like yourself. If you have questions about biblical and theological matters, you are invited to send them by e-mail by using the "Pose a Question" link on the OPC home page or by clicking here.
The purpose of the OPC website's "Questions and Answers" is to respond to biblical and theological questions. Matters of church discipline, disputes, or debates go beyond the scope of our work. We recommend that you present your concerns in these areas to the appropriate judicatory. In most cases this will be to a local pastor, elder, or session. We do not want the website to replace personal involvement in, or commitment to, the local, visible church.
While we will respond to every serious questioner, we are not bound to give a substantive answer to every question, should we deem the question to be beyond the scope of our purpose or our own ability to answer.
You will receive an answer by email. Please be patient as many of our respondents are busy pastors. The response to your question may take up to two weeks. Some of the questions submitted will be chosen to be posted here, along with the corresponding answers.
The answers come from individual ministers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church expressing their own convictions and do not necessarily represent an "official" position of the Church, especially in areas where the Standards of the Church (the Scriptures and the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms) are silent.
“Even if it were historically provable that there was an unbroken succession of bishops from the first century to the present day Roman Catholic bishops (and it is not), Protestants would still demur to claims of Roman authority based upon apostolic succession. It is the apostolicity of the church that counts. And it is precisely by the standard of apostolicity that the Roman Catholic Church is measured and found wanting.”
Where does your definition of ‘apostolicity’ first appear?
Very interesting article expressing a profound doctrinal position. I accept what the article states as the Protestant position on the issue.
OPn Apostolic succession.
Acts
21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.
This is what the Apostles required. Whom today fulfills these requirements ?
Which brand of Protestant?
Fixed
Kind'a limits it, IMO.
There is another element besides your observations. The position that the priest or minister must be free from sin before he can administer sacrament.( I’m aware that the Donatist position was condemned.)However the question arises what if serious sins are prevalent among the priest and bishops FOR CENTURIES? In short an apostasy of the Church leadership. God can withdraw from such a people.
Ok, and what happened when the last of these people died? Did the church die with them?
Or did the Apostle appoint others to carry on their mission the way that Christ appointed them?
That’s what we see in Acts - the Apostles selected another. The Apostles have the authority to select their successors. And so on and so forth.
We look at Irenaeus, and one of the things he talks about is having a list of bishops - and how the continuity from one bishop to another is important.
What we don’t see is the argument that Alex is making here. This is significant. If it were so, we would see it then. But we do not.
We’re supposed to believe that a Church that has no existence whatsoever before John Knox has it right, while the Church that was in existence prior to Knox has it wrong.
Does that make much sense to you?
But they'll accept scripture as canonical based on ... what authority? The authority of the Church. The authority of the Apostles.
The same tradition or traditions - in fact - that they pretend not to appeal to.
Why do Protestants not recognize - for instance - the Gnostic gospels? The Church at the time of the founding fathers recognized the true Gospels as being true - and the Gnostic Gospels as being false. If Protestants reject that 'tradition' then upon what basis do they reject the Gnostic gospels? It's all 'scripture' after all?
For those who haven't investigated them - the stuff in some of those Gnostic gospels is pretty whacked out.
Protestants must either accept that the Church indeed has authority to declare what is canonical and what is not - or they must admit that they have no consistent basis for ruling out those weird 'Gospels' that depict Christ baking his friends in an oven, turning bread into birds or being suspended over Jerusalem by his hair.
Any and all Protestants. I imagine one can find a sect that rejects the doctrine that all traditions, teachings etc. must square with the bible as God’s word; if so, I’m not aware of them. Tradition, history, philosophy, theology etc. are not God’s direct word, but the interpretations of men. If they square with scripture fine, if not, too bad. The doctrine is not a matter of debate, discussion different points of view, in short, an axiom.
“The position that the priest or minister must be free from sin before he can administer sacrament.”
This is false. The sacraments are efficacious even if the priest is sinner. Every priest is a sinner. Every person within the church is a filthy sinner in need of Christ and redemption.
“However the question arises what if serious sins are prevalent among the priest and bishops FOR CENTURIES?”
Better question - has there ever been a time when sins were not prevelent among the priests and bishops
“God can withdraw from such a people.”
Then what do you make of this?
I see what you are saying - however, I don’t see it that pastors are immune from sin and that this argument would apply only to the Catholic church. What do you think Jesus would think of today, the folks who, in his name, claim that homosexual actions are laudable acts? Who encourage young women to abort their children?
Would you stand back and say that these churches have lost their way and that any sincere Christian has an obligation to leave these churches?
Doesn’t matter which one...
The Unity most Protestants have is in the person of Jesus Christ...
The Catholic denomination ‘centers’ on their church ‘membership’, ‘rites’, ‘icons’ and the leadership their ‘pope’....with ‘Mary’ thrown in as close to upsurping Christ Himself.... there are also many branches within the catholic denomination just as with Protestants.
Is it possible God had a Hand in preservation in His Word? If so, then mans part is insignificant in comparison. What happened to "Give God the Glory"? Was it replaced by "Look! Look! at Me! Look! Look! at my church!"? All things work to the glory of God but they do not replace/diminish Him.
You posts claims that I'm making "this argument", that I'm making it "here", and that you "don't see it". Maybe the reason no one can see it is that I haven't made it.
“You posts claims that I’m making “this argument”, that I’m making it “here”, and that you “don’t see it”. Maybe the reason no one can see it is that I haven’t made it.”
You have a definition of apostolicity that is contrary to what Ireneaus and Tertullian claimed. Hence the question.
When did this definition that you are advocating here first appear? Who was the first person to make this argument?
“The Unity most Protestants have is in the person of Jesus Christ.”
Are you saying that you are in unity at present with Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson?
Wrong question.
So then you do acknowledge that the Canon was put together by the Catholic church?
Yes or no, Caww?
You said that all protestants are in union with one another.
Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson is a protestant
You are a protestant.
Therefore, I can only conclude that you are in unity with him.
IF you are not in unity with him - how does one determine which protestants are in unity with one another since you are saying that not all of you are in union with one another despite both of you calling the other, ‘protestant’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.