There’s an interesting discussion going on in the comments to the Paradigm article. Thanks to all who are participating there. The idea that is surfacing is that Protestants make up doctrine according to what they claim, “Scripture does not say”.
One of the discussions there has drifted to Apostolic Succession. That is the Catholic Doctrine that the Apostles sat in perpetual offices which would be filled by the Bishops in due time and until the end of time.
One of the Protestants quoted a verse and said, “Jesus does not say, apostolic succession”. Well, that’s true. The fact is that the term, “apostolic succession” will not be found anywhere in Scripture. So, we can also say that, “Scripture does not say, “no apostolic succession”. The question is, then, the idea that there is apostolic succession? Or the idea that there is not apostolic succession?
If we’re going by that which Scripture does not say, well, Scripture doesn’t say, “Scripture alone is inspired”, nor that Scripture alone is the source of doctrine“, nor that, “we are once saved always saved.”
But, apparently, Protestants are willing to believe those doctrines, regardless of the fact they are not mentioned in Scripture.
But, I’ll leave it to you to tell me what Scripture says and what Scripture does not say.
According to Protestants, Scripture does not say, “Apostolic Succession” so they don’t believe that the Church has an ongoing authoritative body.
According to the Catholic Church, Scripture says that Jesus Christ established the Church as an ongoing concern for perpetuity, appointed officers, essentially establishing His Corporation (i.e. body), proclaimed that He would remain with her until the end of time. Further, Scripture says that St. Peter replaced Judas Iscariots’ office saying, “his bishopric let another take.”
What do you think, which is more in line with Scripture? a denial of Apostolic Succession? Or a belief in Apostolic Succession?
Ok, let’s do another one that came up in those comments. According to Protestants, Scripture does not say that Simon is the Rock upon which Jesus built His Church. That sounds to me like a pretty blatant contradiction of that which Scripture says, but, let’s look at the words.
Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
“thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”
Some things you need to know here.
The original is in Greek and “thou” is singular. Thou can be singular or plural in English. That is determined by the context. But, in Greek, the word which is translated “thou” is a singular form.
Peter means “rock”. So, Jesus is really saying, “you are rock and upon this rock I will build my church”.
So, which is more in line with Scripture? The idea that Scripture does not say that Jesus built His Church on the Rock of Peter? Or that Jesus built His Church on the Rock of Peter?
So, you tell me, is it reasonable for Protestants to make doctrine according to that which they claim that Scripture does not say?