Posted on 09/18/2008 9:36:29 AM PDT by Gamecock
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.
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. Apostolic Succession
"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. The Gifts of the Spirit
"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. The Roman Catholic Church
"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.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID597662|CIID1415596,00.html.
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.
You win. Your church is right and all the other churches and non-Christian religions are wrong.
a. I am not a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
b. I never contended that "all other churches" are wrong. I am certain that there will be all manner of Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, etc in Paradise.
c. Do you think that "non-Christian religions" are right? Muslims? Buddhists? Wiccans? Pagans?
Wow...that was easy! ;)
No doubt, since they broke from the one Church of Christ to begin with. Theologically, Protestantism is a new religion, not one taught by the Apostles.
Korah (Numbers 16) also had some "theological" reasons for breaking with "Church" heirarchy, as well... To a "democratically-inclined person who thinks everyone should come to God their own way", it seems to make sense. Apparently, God didn't seem to agree.
This presumes you believe the Bible is the Word of God, of course...
Regards
Scripture must be the rule. Apostolicity must be the standard. However, the “presbyterian” part says that this group is a “reformation” church. When one “reforms” a church, one is suggesting that there is a previous time in the church to be “reformed” in which that church was just fine. When did the church go so astray that it began needing reform? Martin Luther is evidence that certainly in his day the church was far astray. That was why reformation was needed. Had it needed reformation for 50 years, a hundred, 2 hundred, etc.?
One is also suggesting by the word “reformation,” that the good of the church hadn’t entirely disappeared. Martin Luther would himself be evidence of that. If he could find the gospel even in that time, then the gospel was findable in that church so desperately in need of reformation.
All of this also suggests that this entire group, both the reformers and the non-reformers, owed their existence to a long line of predecessors who stretched back to the time of Jesus and his apostles.
In short, aligning with the teaching of the Apostles is commendable. Simply descending from the Apostles is of not great value if a group does not align with the Apostles. To descend from them AND to teach their teaching is best.
This calls into question the ordination of those groups that are founded by a person who simply hangs out his own shingle proclaiming himself to be a Christian leader. Paul said to Titus, “5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.”
I don't know. I would be guessing and my view would be prejudiced by the accident of what country I was born in. If I was born in India, I would have about a fifty to one chance against "choosing" Christianity as a religion and more than 100 t0 1 chance against being a Protestant.
***I would be guessing and my view would be prejudiced by the accident of what country I was born in. **&
Accident? With God there are no accidents.
Then how can God punish someone for doing what can not be avoided? There can be no free will in your religious system.
***Then how can God punish someone for doing what can not be avoided?***
Original sin. Something the church fathers taught.
They are not being punished for not knowing Christ. They are being punished for their rebellion.
How can I be guilty of something that happened long before I was born? If true the man's justice is greater than God's. How can that be?
Your point is valid and the Eastern Orthodox deals with the dillema you are discussing there very nicely.
i may be wrong, but I believe that ‘hstorical Protestantism’ as discussed in the source does not include the Anglican Church.
Feed the fetish.
You are VERY wrong. Aglicanism is the Church of England and one of the first of the historically protestant churches.
The Church is ALWAYS in need of reform, since we, the Church, continue to need reform. Anyone reading the NT epistles can readily see problems the writers were addressing. There is no perfect Church in this world, only in the next. But where is the reform when one leaves the Church? How does that reform the Church? Perhaps a large exodus wakes up the heirarchy to act, but it appears that reform is better undertaken from within then from mass revolt.
Regards
bump
....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.
Double bump!
Do you REALLY think that the Presbyterian Church, orthodox or not, understands CAtholicism and is an expert on Catholicism?
NOT!
Half the Presbyterians I know were born and raised Roman Catholic. I married one. Most of those Roman Catholics understood that church very well.
By the grace of God they learned a better testament.
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.