Replies

This makes the oldest non-Apostolic "church" about 550 years old, circa 1500 years after the Lord established His. Take your pick.

You seem to be glossing over the fact that, at least in the case of the Reformed Protestant churches, they view themselves as the continuation of Christ's church on Earth in the face of the institutional apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church. They recognize the prior 1500 years of church history as extremely relevant and valuable (unlike groups such as the Restorationists who wanted to discard the previous centuries of Christian history and all its lessons learned). OTOH, the Roman Catholic view of the nature of the visible, institutional church is self-referential and self-reinforcing.

When it comes down to it, the claim to apostolic succession is no more valid or meaningful than that of the Pharisees and Sadducees of "We have Abraham as our father!"

You seem to be glossing over the fact that, at least in the case of the Reformed Protestant churches, they view themselves as the continuation of Christ's church on Earth in the face of the institutional apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church.

yet there is no historical or archaeological evidence to backup this claim. frankly that claim is on par with Mormons beleiving that south americans are the lost israeli tribe.

For me, the meat in this article are the 3 points demonstrating the weakness of the apostolic/human lineage position.

They are:

1. A human lineage argument is itself illegitimate

2. Other churches have the same claim

3. The human lineage presented is itself historically suspect

When it comes down to it, the claim to apostolic succession is no more valid or meaningful than that of the Pharisees and Sadducees of "We have Abraham as our father!"

Excellent point. And what was Jesus' reponse?

(Matthew 3:9 KJV) And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

God has raised up stones in all corners of the earth. There is no "Apostolic Succession". There were 12 apostles. They are the foundation stones. The rest of us are simply building blocks raised up by Christ.

Thanks for the excellent analogy Fru. Sometimes God blesses you with flashes of brilliance.

You seem to be glossing over the fact that, at least in the case of the Reformed Protestant churches, they view themselves as the continuation of Christ's church on Earth in the face of the institutional apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church. They recognize the prior 1500 years of church history as extremely relevant and valuable (unlike groups such as the Restorationists who wanted to discard the previous centuries of Christian history and all its lessons learned). OTOH, the Roman Catholic view of the nature of the visible, institutional church is self-referential and self-reinforcing. This arguments reminds me of last night's story of a woman claiming to be ordained a Roman Catholic priest. She can consider herself so to the end of time, but that will not make her such. Both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have apostolic succession without question. Neither recognizes the succession of Anglicans and no one recognizes the succession of Methodists or most Lutherans. Old Catholics, Polish National Catholics, Lefebverites are separate cases. Apostolic succession was understood by the early fathers as an essential element of the Church. The NT confirms the laying on of hands. To have an apostolic faith is to have a faith rooted in the early church. Succession is an undeniable aspect of the early church teachings. It must be frustrating to continually find what you hope to be true undermined by the facts of history witheld from you by 500 years of deceitful pastoring. I can appreciate that frustration. What I cannot appreciate is the willful advancement of the same deceit to future generations. By their fruits you shall know them. Protestantism rooted in individual interpretation of scripture is the originator of relativism, the chief error of the modern day. Protestantism gave us Bultmann. It gave us liberal denominationalism, it gave us the modern syncretism, unitarianism, the moral relativism, and universalism now rampant in the Episcopal, Methodist, Prebyterian, UCC, Lutheran and other "churches." They themselves prove daily that they are not churches but political movements aimed at the undermining of Christian values and traditional society. To say that the spirit of the gospel is what matters only proves my point. These organizations follow the spirit of the age rather than the spirit of Christ.

You seem to be glossing over the fact that, at least in the case of the Reformed Protestant churches, they view themselves as the continuation of Christ's church on Earth in the face of the institutional apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church

And the LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses consider themsleves "Christians" and a continuation of the original Church...and Airans think of themsleves as "orthodox" Christians...etc. Every heretic in the world believes his "church" is true contnuation of the original Church, but only one Church has aposotlic authority. The rest are born of men in protest and personal preference.

The Orthodox Church prays and teaches the same thing it taught 1,700 years ago and longer; our liturgy hasn't changed' our teology hasn't changed; our Bible hasn't changed. It's the same Greek Church and Greek theology and Greek Bible.

I am tired of people who invented various denominaions in the 16th century and later telling me that my Church is somehow in "apostasy."