“Such belies a fundamental difference in ecclesiology. You believe the Body of Christ is institutionally defined by the affirmation of a succession of men, whereas we believe the Body of Christ is institutionally defined by the affirmation of Biblical teaching.”
F, it was just such “company men” who defined what you read as scripture. Christian Scripture, unlike the Koran, was not dictated by God and God did not dictate the canon. The Bible is a product of, was defined by, The Church, F, not the other way around. Now this theology of course cannot be acceptable to Protestants because it necessarily means that the one of the foundations of Protestantism, the “invisible church” cannot possibly exist. It doesn’t do much for the 16th century notion of sola scriptura either.
I have to disagree, K. To us protestants, Jesus defined what constituted scripture. The church simply collected the writings of the apostolic eyewitnessed and verified their authenticity.
Prior to that Jesus clearly placed His mark of approval on the message those apostles would bring. (For example: “I pray not for them alone, but also for ALL who will believe in me through their word.”)
In any case, the church had those authoritative writings, and when the church agreed to their authenticity, the church was bound to be in subjection to them.
Would it be great to learn of a church that has been faithful to the Bible AND has a lineage to prove their connection to the apostles. Sure. That would be nice.
But, check out the highlighted section of the article that leads this thread. It demonstrates tremendous historical problems with any claims to human lineage.
having trouble finding where Scripture clearly and explicitly states that individual apostolic succession is a primary and essential mark of the one true church....
Christian Scripture, unlike the Koran, was not dictated by God and God did not dictate the canon. The Bible is a product of, was defined by, The Church, F, not the other way around.
FALSE. Scripture was recognized as such LONG BEFORE it was formally canonized by the church. The church simply formally recognized and acknowledged what was already accepted.
Now this theology of course cannot be acceptable to Protestants because it necessarily means that the one of the foundations of Protestantism, the “invisible church” cannot possibly exist.
Oh, that's not a Protestant doctrine...not anymore anyway. The Roman Catholic Church affirms the very same...they just don't CALL it that. True believers outside the institutional Roman Catholic Church are considered in union (albeit imperfectly) with the One True Church. IOW, "they're in union with the Church....but not visibly....but there's no invisible body of believers!" :)
It doesn’t do much for the 16th century notion of sola scriptura either.
Every argument about the nature of the church and the nature of Scripture itself ultimately comes back around to Scripture. The debate stalls out once the issue reaches its true core: who or what do you put your trust in?
It is not only "we" who defines that, but the Scriptures. One CANNOT separate the cross of Christ from the Church, a VISIBLE body of believers. Christ became flesh, and so is His Church. The blood of Christ brought the Church into existence, the New Israel. This is clearly seen in Acts 20:28, Titus 2:14, Eph 2:14-16, Eph 5:25, and so forth...
Regards
NOTE: I no longer post to Frumanchu, so this explains absence of his name in this reply.
Actually, the Jews (and Protestants) hold that the Torah was dictated to Moses by God just as Mohammad claimed the Koran was.
The Reformed further hold that all scripture was written by God by some mind-control mechanism (divine tractor beam of sorts), where God took over the minds of biblcal authors and used their hands to write the rest of the Bible (their view on inspiration), especially when ti comes to St. Paul.
Furthermore, many Protestants confuse the Word (Logos), with the "word of God" (bible), treating them as one and the same.