Join us in person Sunday School (9:30am) and Worship Service (10:30am). You can view old livestreams HERE.
Handout #7 10/26/14
1. Introduction
a. Are the Roman Catholic (RC) and Eastern Orthodox (EO) churches like evangelical churches that you might join if you like?
b. We have already looked at their failure to recognize the substitutionary atonement of Christ and the fact that salvation is a free gift received by faith alone.
c. Today we’re going to talk about how they both think about themselves as THE apostolic church.
2. Unity of the church
a. Both RC/EO churches hold very dear the concept of the unity of the church.
i. And, of course, the unity of the church is very important in the NT.
(1) John 17:11 “I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.”
(2) Ephesians 4:4–6 “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”
b. One of the main arguments used by RC/EO against evangelical Christianity is the many denominations and independent churches that exist. And many of them think that each denomination believes it is the one true church like they do, and that salvation belongs to that church, again as they do.
i. But of course this is not at all what evangelical churches believe.
ii. We make a important distinction between the visible church and the invisible church.
iii. Take the PCA, for example.
(1) We believe very strongly in the importance of the visible church. It is the manifestation of Christ’s kingdom on earth.
(2) However, we believe that the invisible church is even more primary, for it is the spiritual and eternal manifestation of Christ’s kingdom.
c. Protestants believe this unity primarily refers to the invisible church. RC/EO believe it refers to the visible church.
i. You see, for Reformation Christians, the primary idea of the church is the invisible church. For RC/EO, the primary idea of the church is the visible church. The visible church is created for the sake of the invisible church, not vice versa.
ii. Mohler: (Symbolism, or Exposition of the Doctrinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants) “The Catholics teach: the visible Church is first, — then comes the invisible; the former gives birth to the latter. On the other hand, the Lutherans say the reverse: from the invisible emerges the visible church, and the former is the groundwork of the latter.”
iii. We believe that though we should strive for unity in the visible church, the real unity of the church is in the invisible church, because we believe that all those who are inseparably bonded to Christ are also inseparably bonded to each other.
3. The one true church
a. Partly because of this view of outward, institutional unity, RC/EO believe that there must be one and only one true church. And, of course, they believe it’s them. Both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches claim to be the one true church.
b. This means that to join one of these churches isn’t at all like transferring to another evangelical church. They expect you to repudiate evangelical Christianity. They don’t believe evangelical churches are true churches.
i. “When a person decides to become Orthodox, it is because he/she has come to the belief that the Orthodox Church is the original and continuous Church which Jesus founded on the Apostles and Prophets, and has, by the Spirit of Truth, faithfully held to the Apostolic Doctrine and ministry as it is revealed in the Scriptures and the life of the Church.” (Father Patrick)
c. The only true church. Do you know how many churches claim to be the only true church?
i. There is a very human spirit, a spirit of ‘us versus them,’ a spirit of ‘we’re good, they’re bad’ which is so common in human affairs: nationalism, parochialism, school spirit. And it often enters into Christian groups and their relationships with other Christian groups.
ii. This spirit existed even among the disciples and was rebuked by Jesus. e.g. Luke 9:49–50 John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.” (cf. Mark 9:38-41)
iii. It seems to me that there is a dangerous road from “We believe this is what the Bible says” to “We are the one true church.”
4. Another problem with this misplaced emphasis on the visible church is apostolic succession or institutional continuity.
a. The RC/EO churches emphasize their institutional continuity with the apostolic church through apostolic succession (church leadership passed on through the laying on of hands from the apostles down).
i. It is claimed by these churches that the validity of church leadership is based on a series of bishops, each consecrated by other consecrated bishops in a succession going back to the apostles.
ii. (You can understand why both churches have a doctrine of infallibility, because if the church is fallible, then no matter how much institutional continuity it has doesn’t protect it from going astray.)
b. A number of other churches also claim to enjoy this direct institutional continuity with the apostles: the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Church of the East, the Anglican Communion, the Moravian Church, the Old Catholic Church and the Scandinavian Lutheran Church.
i. Many of these groups do not consider those groups who cannot prove apostolic succession to be churches.
c. We believe the church is apostolic because it believes and preaches the apostolic gospel and fulfills the apostolic mission, not because of apostolic succession.
i. Michael Horton: “It is by embracing the apostolic message, not tracing one’s ministerial ancestry to the apostles, that a person or church is approved by God.” (Three Views, p.135)
5. Arguments against apostolic succession
a. The fact that so many churches who are not in communion with one another, most of whom deny the validity of each other, make this claim must be taken into consideration when evaluating the legitimacy and helpfulness of this whole framework of thinking.
b. There is nothing in the New Testament that teaches apostolic succession. The apostles did sometimes appoint/lay-hands-on elders in various churches, but nowhere does the NT tell us how elders/leaders should be chosen or ordained after the time of the apostles.
c. But there is something in the NT itself which I think argues against apostolic succession.
i. First, look at Christ’s words to the scribes and Pharisees in Mark 7:1–13 Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “ ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” 9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban” ’ (that is, given to God)— 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
ii. Now let’s look at Matthew 23, where Jesus seems to have addressed this kind of thinking in Matthew 23:2-36, a passage where He lambasts the Pharisees and scribes in no uncertain terms.
(1) 13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. 16 “Woe to you, blind guides! 17 You blind fools! 23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! 25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! 27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
(2) And yet in 2-3 He acknowledges that the scribes and Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses before going on to giving them this divine tongue-lashing.
(3) Matthew 23:2-3 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.”
(4) The scribes and pharisees had institutional connection to Moses. They were his successors.
(5) But that doesn’t mean they speak with the same infallibility as Moses. Their connection to Moses certainly did not guarantee them faithfulness in their teaching role or protect them from veering away from the truth. He often criticizes their teaching as we saw in Mark 7:1-13.
(6) Does any group want to claim that their institutional connection to the apostles gives them institutional credibility similar to the Pharisees?
(7) The important thing was not to sit in the seat of Moses, but to accurately teach the law of Moses.
(8) It is true that in Matthew 23:3 Jesus went on to instruct His hearers to listen to what the Pharisees said because of the fact that they sat in the seat of Moses. However, He is clearly not suggesting that what they teach is necessarily correct. Remember that what they said about the most important subject of all — the messiahship of Jesus — was dead wrong.
d. We believe the root of the authority of church leaders resides in Christ present among His people. So, the church leads itself through its elected leaders.