The need for historical apostolic succession comes in, paradoxically, from the point you raised.
You’re absolutely right that the true church of Christ must resemble the first century church (or as you call it the “New Testament church). No one (reasonably) disagrees with that. Everyone claims that is the case about the church they attend.
Thus the real question is, as verga implied, how do we determine which one is in line with the early church?
You suggest one method, checking and comparing the Scriptures (a record of the early church) with a present contender. This is certainly one method. It’s certainly an indespensible method. Harmony with what is recorded in Scripture is *required*.
But this begs an even more basic question: how do we decide what is in line with Scripture and what is not? This is really why I clicked on this thread. It touches on a very important point: why did Luther feel he had a better way of reading Scripture than the Church he came from.
It’s still not clear after reading the OP where he (Luther) got his idea for his hermeneutical approach. It certainly *sounds* reasonable, this notion of just reading Scripture in the “grammatical-historical sense”. Who wouldn’t want to do that? Just because something *sounds* reasonable though doesn’t mean it is, and/or doesn’t mean it’s the safe thing to do!
Also, and more germane, I’m still left wondering who decides what this sense means (because it’s not fully defined in the OP) and how it’s applied verse by verse.
Thus, herein lies the root of the problem with sola scriptura:
1. By what reasoning did Luther engage this hermeneutic? That is, by what source, valid historical (or even otherwise) source did he find this disused hermeneutic, and recover it from the mists of time? It’s not clear from the OP.
2. Also, how (on it’s face) is this hermeneutic different than what the Catholic Church uses? That is, is the author (of the OP) seriously arguing the Church doesn’t use the grammatical sense in interpreting Scripture at all? Or the historical? The Church never uses these hermeneutical approaches when interpreting Scripture, at all, is that what the author is claiming? Because if so, then this article surely is based on a strawman.
Inherent in #1 is a need for an authority based not only in history but also the supernatural. However this means that this source of authority must not only have a supernatural link, but an historical one too. This can’t be escaped.
This need is recognized (partially) in sola scriptura, by recognizing the historical and supernatural source of Scripture. As pointed out before however, Scripture in isolation is not the full solution, as everyone claims they read it correctly. This points to the need for an additional historical and supernatural source. Which is where apostolic succession comes in.
You present an interesting point. The fallacy is to consider mere sinful men to be that "supernatural source". If there are men worthy of the task, then why would we need Christ? Why not just strive to be so worthy? But, alas, Jesus made it very clear that no man could be sinless, thus no man can act as that "supernatural source".
Why is it so difficult to believe that god provided the entire "way, and the truth and the light" in Jesus Christ..... It's that simple. And if the bible is the living Word of God, then it is god speaking to us, and the Holy Spirit interpreting. Some of us put our entire faith in the Words of the scriptures and know that we do not need priests and man-designated special saints to intercede for us, and we do not need a Pope to act as a supreme entity or spokesperson for God. We accept the simple truth that Jesus Christ is all that we need.
You mentioned that each religion thinks they are like the early church. No, that is not true. Some of us are, however striving as best we can to be as close to that benchmark as we can get..... Knowing in humility, that we fall short, but praying for God's guidance and knowing we have His forgiveness.
Please forgive me for being so blunt..... But it is the height of arrogance to say that your particular religious sect holds the keys to apostolic succession and that you always will. And to believe that no one else can possibly be "Christian" unless they bow to your Pope's man-made rules.
I will say again, the "CHURCH" as described in scripture, is the body of believers and followers in Jesus Christ, whether they attend worship service at a Protestant or RC building. Although I must say that personally I would have trouble worshipping where there are visible satanic symbols ..... Example, the pagan Egyptian Obelisk in saint peters square at the vatican. There are many more examples, but I'm sure you are not blind.
No, it isn’t. Oh it’s what the Catholic Church has duped people into believing but no where in scripture is there such a thing as “apostolic succession”. True Christians are guided by the Holy Spirit.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
True Christians are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and it is He who will reveal what we need to know. No “magesterium” is taught or condoned in scripture. In fact, it is blasphemous against the Holy Sprit to replace Him with some man made office.