Lazerlike42:
I dont have the time to dig through all of this right now - does anybody have a quick answer to some of the objections?
ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/top/aposucc.htm
Lazerlike,
II.A.1.a. The idea that the body needs only the Head (Christ) and the members (Christians) is an unsupported assertion. There has always been a hierarchy within the Church, starting with the Apostles themselves.
II.A.1.b. The passage cited authorizes nothing; it cites an Apostolic Church practice of having bishops overseeing local congregations. If anything it contradicts II.A.1.a. I will admit that it does not explicitly state that there should be a head over the universal Church, but that was not its goal.
II.A.1.d. The Book of Acts does not mention a successor to James; this does not mean that there was none. If the Apostolic Succession meant that each Apostle was to be succeeded personally, then we would have only twelve bishops in the present-day Church. Obviously it does not mean that.
II.A.2. Possibly it was not appealed to before the late second century because the question of authority was not an issue until then. And the earliest lists were written down then; this does not mean that there were no earlier lists. Finally, the question of “appealing to the Word of God” is a red herring because the Bible had not been settled on at the end of the second century.
I would also ask which churches use “succession lists” to establish their validity. Certainly no Protestant churches do; they don’t have valid “succession lists” and they know it.
III.A. They would not know what was in the “indestructible Word of God” had the Catholic Church not told them.
III.B. Without sound teachers teaching sound doctrine, the individual Christians are like sheep without a shepherd. The other respondent’s note about the cacaphony of
Sola Scriptura Evangelical and Protestant voices is relevant here.
I hope this helps a little.
