Posted on 06/13/2013 10:02:02 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
I have a few questions for you about the "OPC." First, do you teach apostolic succession, and, if so, do you believe ministers outside of the OPC are not really ministers? Second, do you believe that the "gifts of the Holy Spirit" are for today, i.e., are healing, tongues, prophetic revelation, and miracles as led by the Holy Spirit actively manifest in our modern churches? Finally, how are you different from the Roman Catholic Church?
Thank you for your questions. Let me take them one at a time.
1. "Do you teach apostolic succession, and, if so, do you believe ministers outside of the OPC are not really ministers?"
It is helpful to distinguish between "apostolic succession" and "apostolicity." By the doctrine of apostolic succession the Roman Catholic Church asserts its claim of an uninterrupted and continuous line of succession extending from the twelve apostles through the bishops they ordained right up to the bishops of the present day. According to this doctrine, the apostles appointed the first bishops as their successors, granting to them their own teaching authority, which continues until the end of the age (see paragraph 77 of Catechism of the Catholic Church).
Let me direct you to other relevant passages of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The significance of the Roman Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession is immediately apparent in its definition of a "particular church." A particular church "refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession" (paragraph 833). "[I]t is for bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the 'gift of the Spirit,' the 'apostolic line'" (paragraph 1576). Without apostolic succession there is no church.
In close connection with the idea of apostolic succession is the transmission from generation to generation of the "Tradition." By Tradition, Catholics refer to that part of the church's "doctrine, life, and worship" that is distinct from Scripture (paragraph 78). This Tradition, Catholics argue, does not contradict Scripture, and maintains faithfully the unwritten but authoritative teachings and traditions of the apostles and early church fathers. Tradition is to be believed by the members of the church. It is the apostolic succession of bishops that perpetuates and guarantees both the faithful teaching of Scripture and Tradition.
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. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.10 says this:
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the 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.
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church recognizes as ministers those men ordained to that office by true churches, which are identified by the attribute of apostolicity.
2. "Do you believe that the 'gifts of the Holy Spirit' are for today, i.e., are healing, tongues, prophetic revelation, and miracles as led by the Holy Spirit actively manifest in our modern churches?"
Orthodox Presbyterian are cessationists with regard to the word gifts. For a very careful exposition of scriptural teaching regarding the word gifts and healing, I refer you to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's "Report of the Committee on the Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit," which may be retrieved at http://opc.org/GA/giftsHS.html.
3. "How is the Orthodox Presbyterian Church different from the Roman Catholic Church?"
Thousands of books and articles have been written that carefully distinguish between Roman Catholicism and churches, like the OPC, which belong to the historic Protestant tradition. Please permit me to point you to two articles that will assist you in your studies.
I recommend "Resolutions for Roman Catholic & Evangelical Dialogue," which may be retrieved at http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=876&var3=authorbio&var4=AutRes&var5=1. This statement is quite short, but points to a number of crucial differences between historic Protestants and Catholics.
Michael Horton has written an excellent article pointing to the differences between historic Protestants and Catholics on the doctrine of justification. "Justification, Vital Now & Always" may be retrieved at
http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID597662|CIID1415598,00.html.
Let me also suggest a brief survey of the history and beliefs of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which may be retrieved at http://opc.org/what_is/the_opc.html.
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. The >i>Catechism of the Catholic Church claims this:
The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope. The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered' (paragraphs 881-882).
People often express surprise at the broad differences between Roman Catholics and historic Protestants. The differences are not only understandable, but also necessary, when examined from the standpoint of authority. As long as Protestants and Catholics appeal to two different authorities, an unbridgeable gulf separates them.
The Westminster Confession of Faith states clearly the historic Protestant position on the question of authority:
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.6).
The additions to which the authors of the Confession refer include not only the traditions of the papacy, but also the papal institution itself. 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.
Resorting to snarky again?
Excellent! You nailed it and I appreciate that post. Thank you.
Christ gives us some advice on this, btw. It’s important to be able to discern truth from falsehood.
Nope. But the only thing all protestants have in common is that they are not Catholics.
“So looks like he has two quotations of scripture, one partial, one in full, and the third one an explanation of what the two verses teach.”
There’s only one there. Dr. E. Mixing scripture with not scripture is generally frowned upon unless you’re protestant.
Good to have you back again.
“Wouldn’t that be like asking if you are in unity with the pedophile Catholic Priests or those that participated in the cover up? Maybe you are in unity with the Catholics who support abortion?”
Well, are you CB? You’re both protestants.
We differ between those who are in good standing, and those who are not. Those who are not are not to recieve because they are at present, divided from the body.
you are trying to argue the logic of scripture against the rationale of institutional “tradition”
“Oh really? PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.”
Just as it doesn’t record St. Thomas going to India or St. Mark going to Ethiopia.
That was the entire point, CB. The argument made is that these two churches were older than the Church in Rome, which seems a rather silly argument.
This is an even worse one. Really? It precludes other apostles ministering to gentiles? There’s no scriptural evidence for this.
“Peter’s commission was to the circumcised not to the Gentiles.”
Of which Rome had both. Hence the letter of Paul which speaks of Jews and Gentiles.
“It was Paul who was commissioned to be the apostle to the Roman Gentiles.”
Not scripture, sadly.
“we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision”
Again, Jews in Rome were a big part of the congregation there. Nothing here is said of Rome.
“Paul established the church in Rome.”
Not scripture.
“I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established”
Not what he’s saying here at all. He’s writing to the church already there. Otherwise he’d not be writing to it if it didn’t exist.
“No one had established a church there before him.”
Not scripture again, sadly.
“Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation”
Yet he travelled with Barnabas. So he clearly didn’t have a problem with collaboration between not just the apostles either. Again, you’re reading into things that are not there.
“Would you argue not only that Peter would go against his commission to the Jews but that Paul lied and actually went into the church in Rome”
Did he preach to the Church in Rome prior to his eventual arrest and execution?
“There’s only one there. Dr. E. Mixing scripture with not scripture is generally frowned upon unless you’re protestant.”
LOL, yeah, because we know it confuses the heck out of people who aren’t even familiar with the scripture.
And I am not Dr. E.
Acts 10 and 15:7
Peace be to you
ROFL! Yeah, we have all witnessed how that works out with the RCC. Hypocrites all.
Whatever you say, Dr. E
It’s generally frowned upon because it’s elevating your own words to the same level as scripture.
That’s how it works CB.
I’m not quite sure how a professed protestant would have anything to say about how the Catholic church runs itself.
Yep! I know. And in all likelihood they will only entrench themselves further in the error. I do however get notes from time to time from those who lurk and read thanking us for exposing their errors.
Peter’s commission by Christ was specifically to the Jews. Paul’s was specifically to the Gentiles. Paul established the church in Rome. You can deny what scripture says all you want but it’s plainly stated.
"And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9).
II Timothy 1:11 "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."
>>Did he preach to the Church in Rome prior to his eventual arrest and execution?<<
Show from scripture where he did or that he was ever in Rome.
You mean other than it’s all online and can be compared to scripture?
The Apostles and the Priesthood ~ Part 3 [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
The Apostles and the Priesthood ~ Part 2 [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
The Apostles and the Priesthood ~ Part I [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
The Twelve Apostles of the Catholic Church: St. Thomas [Catholic Caucus]
The Twelve Apostles of the Catholic Church: St. Simon [Catholic Caucus]
The Twelve Apostles of the Catholic Church: St. Matthew [Catholic Caucus]
The Twelve Apostles of the Catholic Church: St. James [Catholic Caucus]
The Twelve Apostles of the Catholic Church: St. John [Catholic Caucus]
The Twelve Apostles of the Catholic Church: St. Andrew [Catholic Caucus]
The Twelve Apostles of the Catholic Church: St. Peter [Catholic Caucus]
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.