No more use for the Apostles

[mdcpensive1]

It seems like the non-Catholic bible believing churches have no more use for the Apostles if they believe that all they need is in the bible. They have their source of truth in their scriptures and it seems like that has replaced the Apostles and their preaching as the defined truth. This would also mean that they don’t need any understanding of early Church Fathers writings to corroborate any doctrine or issue in the faith. It also means there is no magisterium or continuing liturgical priesthood and the seat of Moses has ended. Any thoughts ??

 

[otrrl]

Catholics assert that doctrine rests on the Bible, sacred tradition, and the magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

When closely examined, every corner church asserts that same thing, but with different emphasis. They have traditions, whether they admit to it or not. Those traditions are not just customs like using incense or not, but the biggest tradition is the interpretation of the Bible. There’s almost always someone hired or designated as the most educated and/or commissioned to be the leader of the group.

In the Catholic tradition, “apostle” has come down to mean someone who was a personal witness to the ministry of Jesus.

 

[mdcpensive1]

I agree with your assessment but their traditions are more than the way they have their services. It has a lot to do with the education of their pastor and what bible school he want to. Some bible schools teach dispensationalism and others OSAS. Some pastors believe you have to be re-baptized in their church and some with full immersion. Etc, etc. The other trick question is whether you include Mathias and St. Paul in the total of Apostles mentioned in the NT for a total of 14.

 

[ZMystiCat]

It seems like the non-Catholic bible believing churches have no more use for the Apostles if they believe that all they need is in the bible. They have their source of truth in their scriptures and it seems like that has replaced the Apostles and their preaching as the defined truth.

Protestants also don’t have apostolic succession the same way that we do. Some denominations still practice something resembling it, but none are considered valid by the Catholic Church as far as I’m aware.

With that said, traditional Protestantism does at least recognize “apostolic teaching”, that being the teachings found in Scripture. To them, the “apostolic church”, as mentioned in the Nicene Creed, would be whatever carries on this teaching. Sure this may not be the historical way of viewing it, but it’s out there as a way of staying “apostolic”, as the Nicene Creed demands, while not demanding an authority like that of the Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox.

This would also mean that they don’t need any understanding of early Church Fathers writings to corroborate any doctrine or issue in the faith.

Traditionally, Protestants still respected Tradition, even if they felt that it was theirs to pick and choose as they saw fit (to paraphrase John Calvin). It’s why most Protestants, particularly the more traditionally-minded ones, will still revere the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, etc.

When I was a Presbyterian, we understood tradition as being an interpretation of Scripture that had the benefit of coming from someone very close to the time of the Apostles and therefore likely to better understand the context and meaning. They were fallible but valuable, some without error as we understood it.

That said, many Protestants are OK submitting to fallible authorities without question, but that’s a whole other discussion.

It also means there is no magisterium or continuing liturgical priesthood and the seat of Moses has ended.

Yes, and Protestants don’t care.

They have traditions, whether they admit to it or not.

When I was a Presbyterian, us and Lutherans would sometimes joke that “No creed but the Bible” is itself a creed and therefore impossible to hold to.

 

[Reuben_J]

Actually they have and do. They have their own magisteriums and they are their own popes.

 

[ATraveller]

This would also mean that they don’t need any understanding of early Church Fathers writings to corroborate any doctrine or issue in the faith.

I share your concerns too and it is a problem but many Baptist and ‘non-denominational’ pastors (but not all) have gone to a proper seminary so they would have had exposure to them. They may not be explicitly referenced but the early Church Fathers’ wisdom and knowledge are still passed onto congregants in churches with these pastors.
The top sources for New Calvinist millennials often cite the works of a number of early Church Fathers.

 

[mdcpensive1]

otrrl, I don’t think I explained my post too well. When I said they think the seat of Moses has ended I am referring to Matt 23:2 when Jesus was asked if the seat of Moses still existed. He said it did. But now the Apostles are the new seat which is called the Magisterium. That was my point which was originally badly put

 

[phil19034]

It seems like the non-Catholic bible believing churches have no more use for the Apostles if they believe that all they need is in the bible. They have their source of truth in their scriptures and it seems like that has replaced the Apostles and their preaching as the defined truth. This would also mean that they don’t need any understanding of early Church Fathers writings to corroborate any doctrine or issue in the faith. It also means there is no magisterium or continuing liturgical priesthood and the seat of Moses has ended. Any thoughts ??

LOL - reminds me of something I once heard. A Catholic asks a fundamentalist Protestant “if St. Peter was here with us right now and told you something, would you believe him?” The Protestant replies with, “well, it would depend if it was in the Bible.”

 

[MichaelP3]

It seems you have some other “point to make”. Rather just post that instead of this or what you tried to accomplish!

 

[JohnR77]

This would also mean that they don’t need any understanding of early Church Fathers writings to corroborate any doctrine or issue in the faith. It also means there is no magisterium or continuing liturgical priesthood and the seat of Moses has ended. Any thoughts ??

.
Good question.
WHY IS APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION NECESSARY ?? -

To define what is the Bible and what it means.

The Books of the Bible were not put into one collection until late 4th century.

Without any succession there is no infallible authority to define which books belong in the Bible. The earliest list we have of the 27 Books in the New Testament is dated about 370 AD.

Read more below.

Apostolic Succession in the Bible

John

 

[MichaelP3]

if St. Peter was here with us right now and told you something, would you believe him?”

I am sure Catholics would blush just at much at St Peters HORROR’S at what is happening!

 

[ZMystiCat]

Just to be clear - I wasn’t arguing against you, just offering more (name removed by moderator)ut and delving into some of the nuances of traditional Protestantism that prevent them from fitting nicely into the stereotypical Evangelical Protestant who just loudly yells out Scripture verses and calls it a day.

 

[Hodos]

It seems like the non-Catholic bible believing churches have no more use for the Apostles if they believe that all they need is in the bible. They have their source of truth in their scriptures and it seems like that has replaced the Apostles and their preaching as the defined truth. This would also mean that they don’t need any understanding of early Church Fathers writings to corroborate any doctrine or issue in the faith. It also means there is no magisterium or continuing liturgical priesthood and the seat of Moses has ended. Any thoughts ??

On the contrary, one could argue that not holding to Sola Scriptura causes one to elevate other sources of authority over the scriptures which provide the record of apostolic teaching. And again, the idea that one who holds to Sola Scriptura must not believe in the writings of the Church Fathers or that we don’t believe in the teaching authority of the Church is a farce. We believe in both, and frequently cite the Church fathers in our confessions. The difference is that we evaluate the faithfulness of the work of the Church’s teaching authority and the writings of the Church Fathers by comparing them to the scriptures to see if they are in line with one another.

 

[Dlee]

My Baptist college professor made the statement that second only to Christ, Augustine has had the most influence on religion as we know it today. Sola Scriptura does not support no use for the apostles. What is lacked is the authority provided by the magisterium. Each protestant denomination has its own particular understanding and teaching of scripture.

 

[yankeesouth]

Their Guardian Angels are very lonely also.

 

[mdcpensive1]

MichaelP3
My attempt was to raise the issue of holding the bible as the supreme authority which precludes all other teachings and traditions of the Apostles. I am not sure what other “point” you are referring to.

 

[ZMystiCat]

On the contrary, one could argue that not holding to Sola Scriptura causes one to elevate other sources of authority over the scriptures which provide the record of apostolic teaching.

Can happen. It hasn’t happened, though, and the Catholic Church has made it very clear that it is not above Scripture (CCC 86).

The difference is that we evaluate the faithfulness of the work of the Church’s teaching authority and the writings of the Church Fathers by comparing them to the scriptures to see if they are in line with one another.

Which of course means that you’re putting your personal interpretation of Scripture above those of the Church Fathers. That’s part of the criticism.

 

[Hodos]

Which of course means that you’re putting your personal interpretation of Scripture above those of the Church Fathers. That’s part of the criticism.

Not true at all. In fact if you read the Church Fathers they frequently disagree with one another on points of doctrine, and discuss it in letters with one another. The idea that one should evaluate the theological writings of another through the lens of scripture has always been the practice of the Church. Labeling the return to scripture to evaluate doctrine as “private interpretation” makes absolutely no sense since the scripture is in possession of the entire Church and can be evaluated as a community, which Protestants do. In other words, you are offering a cop out rather than actually looking to what the scriptures say. It is a convenient way of avoiding the argument.

 

[ZMystiCat]

To rephrase, the Protestant view ultimately places one’s personal interpretation of Scripture above all else. A Church Father or Creed will only be accepted insofar as one comes to the same Scriptural conclusion, mangling of definitions notwithstanding. Sure, a Protestant would accept the Nicene Creed, albeit with a few mangled definitions, but that is contingent on it agreeing with one’s personal interpretation of Scripture, even if that interpretation is very standard.

What makes many Catholics, and even myself when I was Protestant, is that final interpretive authority is left in the hands of oneself. Sure, Protestants don’t like putting it that way, preferring too dress it up with platitudes like “guidance of the Holy Spirit”, but at the core of it, it’s really the individual that has final say, even if it appears as “Now I think Luther was more right than Calvin.” It’s a very self-centered, prideful system.

And again, I get how Protestants present it, but honestly, I don’t feel like ignoring the core problem that, in my experience, Protestants spend more time trying to hide than address.

 

[Hodos]

To rephrase, the Protestant view ultimately places one’s personal interpretation of Scripture above all else. A Church Father or Creed will only be accepted insofar as one comes to the same Scriptural conclusion, mangling of definitions notwithstanding.

This also is untrue. We hold to the creeds because they are true expositions of scripture and as such are authoritative. Obviously if we hold to the Creeds as definitional of Christian doctrine because they are correct expositions of scripture, this places one outside the realm of relying on “personal interpretation.” You keep erecting a straw man argument.