I'm not sure I understand if you mean no scriptural support for succession after Acts? I think it's obvious scripture supports apostolic succession in Acts, but maybe that's what you disagree with?
You assert that it is necessary for their to be one Church but you do not define what that means. You give no scriptural evidence to support whatever your definition of “One Church”.
The scripture I cited before was "pillar and foundation..." and "gates of hell.." I would add: "I will build my 'Church…", "a kingdom divided against itself…", "one flock, one shepherd…" as well as being one with Christ. As we see it, it is obvious in scripture that Jesus instituted His Church and that it be one church.
He says a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, Christ granted teaching authority to the apostles who ordained their successors and Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ's authority. (Acts 1:22).
Whether one believes this about the Catholic Church or not, it is evident the variation in beliefs among non-Catholic Christians is too wide to be considered "one."
All human edifices rely on speculative philosophies which have no basis in GOD SPEAKING which should be the only basis on which to build doctrine.
I'm afraid this logic goes round in circles without some authority. You are left with individual human edifices which differ in all manner as to what God's speaking says even in who God is. They cannot agree on what is Truth enough to function as one church. Jesus did not create a dysfunctional church.
But Romanism is really Thomism. It’s built on speculative philosophies that tries to unite two spheres, a nature sphere and a grace sphere, and to unite those two spheres Aquinas artificially placed all authority in the institutional Church.
You're right and you're wrong. :)
The "one holy and apostolic Church" with teaching authority predates St. Thomas. He did try to apply reason to religion. This is best seen in the context of the West, the East saw no need for it. Thomas did yeoman's work in reason applied to religion; however, even he saw that this approach has its limits.
St. Thomas influenced logic, reason, philosophy and Western approaches using these tools concerning the sphere of religion. However, to describe the Catholic Church as Thomism is, IMHO, neglectful of the other doctors of the Church such as St. John OTC, St. Teresa of Avila, Saint Therese of the Child Jesus. If you were to combine these two approaches, then, I believe, you would come closer to understanding the Church than by studying St. Thomas alone.
Thanks very much for your reply.
Sorry for the confusion on apostolic succession. The Scripture makes clear that witnesses to the events are Apostles. Those who follow the Apostles yet are not actual eye-witnesses to the events can not be considered Apostles. Your Scripture citation of Acts 1:22 prove MY point.
And you have yet to describe where this unity of “oneness” actually exists. I realize it’s a favorite Romanist polemic to claim that there is no “oneness” amongst the variety of Protestant denominations. But the same argument can be used against the Romanists for all their varying sects and since Romanists and Orthodox claim to be essentially the same we could add that as additional evidence that there is not the “oneness” that is claimed.
However, amongst orthodox Protestants their is an essential “oneness”. This “oneness” is based on the power of God and his grace which brings about faith in his Son who we trust as our substitute for the punishment we deserve and the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide us in our pilgrimage.
This is much different than a trust in a succession of bishops. I’m reminded of the OT stories where the old Israelites often thought that these artificial lineages were what saved them but God would often strike down those notions. These sort of notions are the wisdom of men. It is a notion that God is dependent upon some mechanical human invention.
Jesus did not create a dysfunctional church? The Epistles should be enough to dispel you of any notion that the Church was anythin but dysfunctional. That doesn’t mean that Jesus doesn’t rule his Church but only that the ravages of sin have not yet been fully eradicated and despite this the Church still exists. I often hear Romanists and the Orthodox say how the Church is functional despite the malfeasance of it’s Bishops. Your argument turns on itself.
Clearly, Thomism is the default doctrine of the Romanist Church. Whatever spin you might want to perpetuate of Aquinas, his philosophy is the controlling factor in Romanism. When “Reason” is accorded such an elevated level as an entity onto itself than whatever theology comes out of that prolegomena will necessarily be man-centered. Reason can never be considered as a separate entity outside of God. When reason is elevated as it is in Romanism it becomes the actual Universe and God and man are merely actors within that universe.
Finally, of the doctors mentioned I noticed you failed to mention Augustine. I’m not surprised. Since so much of the Reformation was based on Augustine’s doctrine of the visible/invisible Church dichotomy it’s no wonder why you slid by him. Romes emphasis on the visible Church and it’s importance must sideline Augustine as a second rate doctor.
Much Appreciated.