Jesus said He was building a "A" Church, not a multiplicity of churches, Yeah it does matter.
The ability to trace one's church back to the “first church” through apostolic succession is an argument used by a number of different churches to assert that their church is the “one true church.” The Roman Catholic Church makes this claim. The Greek Orthodox Church makes this claim. Some Protestant denominations make this claim. Some of the “Christian” cults make this claim. How do we know which church is correct? The biblical answer is – it does not matter!
The first church, its growth, doctrine, and practices, were recorded for us in the New Testament. Jesus, as well as His apostles, foretold that false teachers would arise, and indeed it is apparent from some of the New Testament epistles that these apostles had to fight against false teachers early on. Having a pedigree of apostolic succession or being able to trace a church's roots back to the "first church" is nowhere in Scripture given as a test for being the true church. What is given is repeated comparisons between what false teachers teach and what the first church taught, as recorded in Scripture. Whether a church is the "true church" or not is determined by comparing its teachings and practices to that of the New Testament church, as recorded in Scripture.
For instance, in Acts 20:17-38, the Apostle Paul talks to the church leaders in Ephesus. In that passage, he tells them that false teachers will not only come among them but will come FROM them (vv. 29-30). Paul does not set forth the teaching that they were to follow the "first" organized church as a safeguard for the truth. Rather, he commits them to the safekeeping of "God and to the word of His grace" (v. 32). Thus, truth could be determined by depending upon God and "the word of His grace" (i.e., Scripture, see John 10:35).
No, it really does matter. Yours is a man-made answer to deal with your man-made church.
Look at Scripture - How do you make sense of the following?
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Mat 81:15-18
So where is the church? Where do you take your concerns? This makes no sense whatsoever without the visible Church Christ established with teaching authority, and the power to loose and bind.
Think about it. Would Christ establish his Church – to teach the way, the truth – and allow thousands of interpretation as to what is the truth? If the Church doesn’t teach the Truth, Christ is a liar. If He would allow multiple versions of Truth, he’d be an idiot. I don’t believe He is either.
Jesus said He was building a "A" Church, not a multiplicity of churches, Yeah it does matter.
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.