Posted on 06/13/2013 10:02:02 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
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. "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. "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. "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.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=876&var3=authorbio&var4=AutRes&var5=1. 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.
Probably so. I wasn’t there.
Ok. Thanks. :)
This is a well written article, and clearly states a particular point of view.
However, as has been written greatly on this forum previously, the practice of relying solely on Scripture is found wanting, as the canon of Scripture can’t reference itself.
The cannon of Scripture was defined by the Roman Catholic Church, there is no dispute in that. It can’t reference itself, as only individual books existed (except the Pentatuch). There was no defined cannon to reference, prior to the 400s.
While I appreciate learning different points of view, it is worth noting that without Apostolic Succession, there is a lack of authentic Authority with which to settle disputes.
Recall the first major dispute was settled by Peter, in Rome, and not by the canon of Scripture.
Just my $.02
You did not read my post closely. I stated I was aware that the Donatist position was rejected. I did not state I accepted the doctrine they promulgated. I merely brought up the question of apostasy through wide spread sin in the church leadership. When one finds out that ones individual priest is engaging in anal intercourse with a twelve year old boy one is horrified but agrees the church survives. If one finds out it is widespread and the leadership participates and covers up the wrongdoing over an extended period of time; that I submit is quite a different set of facts. Apostasy can happen, indeed Christian apostasy is predicted. Of course, apostasy applies to Protestant ministers. I would not join many “mainstream” Protestant branches that have accepted Sodomite “marriage.” Indeed, St. Paul advised us to “come out from among them.” Which the early Protestants in fact did by reason of widespread church sin.
====Ok, and what happened when the last of these people died? Did the church die with them?
No The Church continued on as it had before with the Head of the Church - Chirst and the Elders (Bishops) and Decons Continuing to do the task as given them by the Apostles.
====Or did the Apostle appoint others to carry on their mission the way that Christ appointed them?
No Record of Apostles appointing any others to be Apostles save Mathias in the New Testament.
====The Apostles have the authority to select their successors. And so on and so forth.
And the only recorded time they did they used requirements as stated in Acts 1 21-22
====We look at Irenaeus, and one of the things he talks about is having a list of bishops - and how the continuity from one bishop to another is important.
Bishops - Elders are not Apostles the means by which a Elder - Bishop - Overseer is chosen does not have the requirements of an Apostle.
====What we don’t see is the argument that Alex is making here. This is significant. If it were so, we would see it then. But we do not.
====We’re supposed to believe that a Church that has no existence whatsoever before John Knox has it right, while the Church that was in existence prior to Knox has it wrong.
Mr Knox opinion on the matter is not relevant really, as the New Testament quite clearly states when Christ’s Church was begun. As well as laying out the positions and their requirements.
====Does that make much sense to you?
“I merely brought up the question of apostasy through wide spread sin in the church leadership.”
And I am answering your point. You are wrong. The sacraments are efficacious, even if the priest sins. If it were that the sacraments were dependent upon the priest, none of the sacraments would work.
Look at my example of Vicky Gene Robinson. He’s not Catholic. He’s an episcopalian.
You state that someone who is in a Church that has gone so far as to teach that homosexuality is not only not a sin, but is virtuous behaviour should leave, correct?
“Apostasy can happen, indeed Christian apostasy is predicted.”
I agree - look at Vicky Gene Robinson as exhibit A of Apostasy.
“Which the early Protestants in fact did by reason of widespread church sin.”
So what you are saying is that Protestants today who remain in the ECUSA, PCUSA, UMC, the ELCA should leave and join the Catholic church.
See, what you are confusing is sinful behaviour with Apostasy. Apostasy has to do with doctrine, not behaviour. If the Church were to stop being the Church because of sinful behaviour, it never would have lasted long at all.
You speak of the Great Apostasy, and we are in it today - when Protestant churches of all stripes have chosen to bless homosexuality.
You are very right sir - Protestants should leave these churches and become Catholic.
again...wrong questions...and BTW twisting what I stated.
“No The Church continued on as it had before”
So the Apostles selected Bishops, Bishops selected other Bishops. There is historical continuity from the time of the Apostles to now, correct?
“And the only recorded time they did they used requirements as stated in Acts 1 21-22”
Yet, you just said yourself. The Church continued on after the Apostles. The Apostles appointing their successors the Bishops, who had the authority to select their own bishops. Correct?
“Bishops - Elders are not Apostles the means by which a Elder - Bishop - Overseer is chosen does not have the requirements of an Apostle.”
Then the Church died with St. John.
“Mr Knox opinion on the matter is not relevant really”
Alex’s position is that Knox’s definition is the correct definition of apostolicity. Ergo, his position *is* relevent to this argument.
If Knox is wrong about this claim - then we have to go back to the core question here - what is apostolicity? Who has it? Why does the Church dating back to the first century has it when the church dating to the 16th does not?
“as the New Testament quite clearly states when Christ’s Church was begun.”
Which was in the first century. Which church today is this church?
Answer the question please.
Are you or are you not in unity with fellow protestan Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson?
You are factually incorrect. While the numbers vary by sources, there are anywhere from 16 to 30,000 different Protestant denominations, individually led. They also espouse differing theology and are not unified.
The Roman Catholic Church consists of a total of 23 Rites, often called Churches. The are all in communion with the Holy See, at Rome. There is no division, merely variations developed through time and location. A person can be fully Syrio-Malabar and fully Catholic, as that is an accepted Rite of the Roman Catholic Church. The 22 Eastern Rites were called by Bl. John Paul II as the “Other Lung” of the Catholic Church.
Roman Catholicism is focused on Christ. The remainder of your sentence is incorrect.
No, he didn't.
Ok, so all protestants aren’t in union with one another.
How does one determine which protestants are in union with one another?
Do I need a flowchart?
Those may be good questions, but IMO you've mistaken me for the author of the article. It's not my definition as I'm not the author, therefore I can't answer them for you. I would direct those questions to the OPC website (I gave a link in post #1), and let the author speak for himself.
Ok, thank you.
Sure it does since they all believe differently.
The Catholic denomination(sic)
The Catholic Church isn't a denomination.
there are also many branches within the catholic denomination just as with Protestants.
Incorrect. Different Rites not different denominations.
Your post exposes your deficient acumen on the topic which comes as no surprise.
There are believers in the catholic denominations as well as the Protestant....the unity comes entirely thru their relationship in and with Christ Jesus...not the membership of any denomination...not the church affiliation...these are simply “the gathering” places and among.
I am not in the business of validating or not your comments or questions. However, it is a wonderful thing to know Christ and who we are accountable to...splitting hairs is senseless when in reality it all boils down to the person Of Christ.
I am always amazed in these arguments that no one recognizes Mark’s work in Africa and the antiquity of both the Coptic and the Ethiopian churches. In fact both the Eithopean and the Coptic churches may predate Rome.
And then there was Thomas in India ...
We argue from a unique Western perspective.
Thank you Catherine of Arogon....you are paying attention....but then we do know the tactics so often played and can name those tunes in one note...”there’s nothing new under the sun”.
“the unity comes entirely thru their relationship in and with Christ Jesus”
So how does one determine this? Do you hand out candy to your favourite Christians?
You need to make sure you quote folks correctly.
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.