Really cool that the Called to Communion folks allowed a full article by an Evangelical Reformed Protestant, on the historical issues of the mono-episocate, apostolic succession, and the early church in Rome and how they relate to the Papacy claims. (article by Brandon Addison)
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/03/the-quest-for-the-historical-church-a-protestant-assessment/
John Bugay comments on this also.
Thanks for the mention Ken. I think Brandon has done a fabulous job here. What I think he has done is to force these ultra-traditionalists RCs to accept what the current state of the history is, and further onto the ground of "development" to insist upon their positions. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the "official" CTC response becomes.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome. I have not had time to read the whole article - it is very long. I read though a lot of it, without getting bogged down in the details.
ReplyDeleteLast I checked Paul Owen and David Waltz were agreeing with each other on "the soil" that would eventually grow the plants of mono-episcapacy . They are amazed that the "same soil" of the discovery and agreement of the NT canon and the doctrine of the Trinity is accepted by us, but the mono-episcopacy is not. How do we know "the soil" of 2nd century history and writings is even a valid analogy? If and when (maybe already ?) the Roman Catholics enter into discussion and claim, they will say "the soil" of mono episcopacy would eventually produce the Papal claims and structure and doctrine and eventually becoming dogma in 1870. Amazing. It's the same acorn to oak tree argument. I am sure that even using "soil" or "acorn to oak tree" analogies is not even valid for the history of ideas/beliefs/doctrines, in the way that the RCC argues for it. They claim the infallible right to grow whatever they want in the soil and whatever kind of genetically modified cells into the plants, etc.
Hi Ken -- I've responded to Owen and Waltz, asking, in effect, “which correct definition of the Trinity” are we talking about?
ReplyDeleteHi Ken -- I've responded to Owen and Waltz, asking, in effect, “which correct definition of the Trinity” are we talking about?
ReplyDelete