Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[AnticipateHisComing]

I KNOW what the Catholic Church teaches. Don't know any "RCC". I believe, as my church teaches, that the Church is the collection of all (Trinitarian) baptized believers. I believe the Catholic Church is the only Church which has the full teachings of Christ, that all Protestant denominations have a subset of the full teachings of Christ, or a skewed understanding of said teachings.

If you know that your church teaches that the Church is the collection of baptized believers, then why do you repeatedly misquote scripture with your interpretation that scripture is referencing your religious institution when it says the church?

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I don't need you to interpret Scripture for me. Thanks, though.

Understand this is a forum where a diversity of points are argued. If you wish to just stand on a soap box and present your interpretation without listening to another interpretation than you should really just stand at a pulpit and preach. If you desire to post in my thread, then you need to be able to argue and defend your statements.

I guess that your response means you don't have arguments against my points against apostolic succession.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

It was the Holy Spirit which guided the council to a consensus, just as the Holy Spirit guided the apostles to chose Mattias to succeed Judas.

Acts 1:24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.​

Read scripture and see that the Holy Spirit did not guide the apostles to choose Matthias. They cast lots, which put the decision in God's hand. This further refutes the ability of the apostles to choose successors.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Actually,not. The Holy Spirit inspired the Church in the councils to adhere to the Truth.

So how is this an indication of any special authority, let alone guarantee of perpetual Truth in one particular religious institution? It certainly does not exhibit your "Traditions" or Papal inerrancy.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I disagree. Satan believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and he is not part of the Church.

You know, on this point I have pondered strictly as a theolougoumemnon the extent to which Satan in his corruption may have acquired a grossly distorted idea of who God is, or lost an understanding of theology altogether.

Since theology is prayer, and Satan is anti-prayer, it seems to me quite possible that he has forgotten the knowledge he originally had about God and degenerated to the point where he has no knowledge or understanding of God whatosever, to the point where he might be an atheist.

This would explain his completely futile attempts to tempt our Lord Jesus Christ; either he did not know that in His assumed humanity Jesus was hypostatically united with the divine uncreated Son of God, the Logos, or he assumed that he could somehow divide the human will possessed by our Lord in His humanity from His divine will, which might suggest that he had forgotten or had come to reject the fundamental theological fact of divine perfection.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

So how is this an indication of any special authority, let alone guarantee of perpetual Truth in one particular religious institution? It certainly does not exhibit your "Traditions" or Papal inerrancy.

The fact that the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Lutherans and Calvinists accept some of these councils demonstrates their broad applicability.

For example, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 is the Statement of Faith for this website. That creed was the fruit of the Second Ecumenical Council, which was opened by Emperor St. Theodosius and Patriarch St. Gregory the Theologian, Archbishop of Constantinople.

As usual, the Roman archbishop was absent and represented by his legates. Off the top of my head I cannot think of any major church council from the first millennium that was not a local council specific to the Roman church where the Roman Pope was personally present, but there was a valid reason for this: the other autocephalous churches were inconveniently to the East of Rome, Rome was under continual threat of Barbarian attacks, the Pope was needed to provide secular as well as ecclesiastical leadership as the Western Empire fell to pieces, and what is more, the councils were held in Greek, which most Popes could probably speak, but few of them would have had the eloquence in speaking or writing Byzantine Greek one associates with Pope St. Gregory Diologos, who was the Papal Legate (in modern times, the office held by Papal Nuncios) to Constantinople before becoming Pope.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The fact that the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Lutherans and Calvinists accept some of these councils demonstrates their broad applicability.

For example, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 is the Statement of Faith for this website. That creed was the fruit of the Second Ecumenical Council, which was opened by Emperor St. Theodosius and Patriarch St. Gregory the Theologian, Archbishop of Constantinople.

If you hadn't mentioned that, I would've had to. Agreement with that Creed is a pre-requisite for posting.

 

[Berean777]

Acts 1:24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.​

Read scripture and see that the Holy Spirit did not guide the apostles to choose Matthias. They cast lots, which put the decision in God's hand. This further refutes the ability of the apostles to choose successors.

Very important scriptural evidence to consider, that is if the disciples had a religious structure, like the Pharisical one, then they would have voted and chosen and not left it to the casting of lots.

From this act and within the act of the apostles, one can therefore conclude that no such hierarchical religious structure existed amongst themselves. In fact what can be noted is that the casting of votes was an appeal to the patruarchal office of Jesus. They asked the patriarch to shown them which one he has chosen..

This is further proof that within the disciples church, there was no Peter the patriarch to ask to choose which of the two is to become the disciple. This means that Peter was not considered by the disciples as a patriarch figure and so they didn't go to him, but rather they went to Jesus through prayer and then the casting of lots.

Having established that no such man made transferable patriarchal office existed and no such hierarchy that would enable the disciples as say bishops to make decisions on who to choose out of the two.

Why then would anyone assume that the disciples would establish a hierarchical structure with a patriarch figure in place of Jesus Christ ?

We see no evidence of the claim of succession from Peter and neither evidence that would identify Peter as a patriarchal figure.

 

[Bible2+]

AnticipateHisComing said in post 1443:

This further refutes the ability of the apostles to choose successors.

Also, Jesus himself is the highest apostle (Hebrews 3:1). And he can ordain people directly, without any other apostles having to be involved (e.g. Acts 26:13-20).

Also, Acts 14:14 shows that eventually there were at least 14 apostles, including Paul and Barnabas, and the 12 apostles of Acts 1:26.

Also, if the pope today were the successor of Peter, then who today would be the successors of the at least 13 other apostles besides Peter?

Did all the other lines of apostolic succession peter out? And if so, how could this be? How could the church today need only one apostolic successor while the early church needed at least 14 apostles?

What has happened?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

It was logical that, when Peter died, someone would step up to take his place. This is what we call, today, the Pope.

Which conclusion is just the problem.

1. It is not logical to make a fundamental doctrine simply based on what seems logical, but what Scripture does not testify to, and it is absurd to presume the Holy Spirit would not make it manifest that Peter was going to have successors, which would be consistent with His characteristic providence for basic doctrines.

We see clear instructions to choose elders/overseers, and their qualifications, and of Paul personally disciplining men like pastor (not an apostle) Timothy to carry on his ministry, that "the things that thou hast heard of me [once again not mentioning Peter] among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also, (2 Timothy 2:2) but nothing on choosing a successor to Peter (though i am sure some RCs will try to pull one out of a hat). Meanwhile scholars find a plurality of elders ruling in the early post-apostolic church.

2. Under the new covenant, immoral men are disqualified from even being members, let alone being pastors, and much less head of the church, unlike with civil leaders or an aristocracy of blood. And Rome's sppsd successors to Peter included immoral men, as well as absences of any for years, besides competing popes, while the only successor to an apostle was by the non-political OT method of casting lots, which Rome has never used. Thus Romes "unbroken succession" is neither.

3. The premise that " someone would step up to take the place of Peter" does not translate into the Roman pontiffs in their doctrinal unhindered autocratic presumption, ruling over the church as their infallible supreme head in Rome. The fundamental contrasts btwn the Peter of Scripture and his sppsd successors and of the nature of the office itself invalidates the pope from being supreme head of the church.

But I wish that God would raise up a man like Peter and Paul and Stephen etc. today, and that I were more like them in purity, passion and power for Christ.

What you admit to is that your denial of adding to the word of God is based upon adding to the word of God.

Where ha ve we ADDED TO the Word of God. PROVE it.

Where?! Even by the very example at hand. Declaring the Assumption to be the word of God which one is cursed for not believing is adding to the word of God, as this specific past event is not taught nor prophesied of Mary, but it contrary to it, for the bodily resurrection of believers and their receiving crowns awaits the Lords return, as conclusively shown you!

There simply is NO laying on of hands in Gal. 2! Unlike in Acts 9:17; 13:3 where the Spirit distinctly says believers laid hands on Paul, and in the 2nd case in commissioning him, thus showing the Spirit knows how to express such, yet Gal. 2:9 says (in the KJV; DRB, they gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hands of [cf. Mt. 6:3; 20:21; 22:24; 26:64; 27:29; Acts 3:7) fellowship

Refer to verse 9.

Refer to verse 9?! That is just what i did, and which simply confirms what i said, that There simply is NO laying on of hands in Gal. 2, and of Paul being made an apostle, but which he already was called, as shown.

Stop trying to read into Scripture what you can only wish was there!
There is no conferring with James in Gal. 1:18

"Verse 19."

You referenced Gal. 1:18 as Paul conferring with James, and v. 19 only says he saw James, and what i said about v. 18 remains.

Why would Christ need a key? He can walk through walls.

Well then since the Holy Spirit says that the Lord Jesus has "the keys of hell and of death" (Revelation 1:18) and "hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth," (Revelation 3:7) then once again we have a Catholic be correcting Him.

He gave Peter the key and told him what he shuts no one will open. Christ is the King, Peter is the prime minister.

No He did not tell Peter that, or that he was his prime minister, for once again you are reading into the text what you want to see, which even Rome does not infallibly interpret it as saying. Again, there is nothing said in Scripture of this having any other fulfillment besides that of Eliakim, and while that itself does not negate its use, Peter fails of fulfilling it in its totality ("a glorious throne...all the glory of his father's house," etc.) except in RC imagination, but which only Christ can be said to have done.

Just as in the Church today.

Rather, the NT church is that which is Casting down [such] imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; (2 Corinthians 10:5)

What? That is the offering up of prayer in memorial before the judgments of the end times, not a postal service, and does not even show or teach that the church or any believer in Scripture ever prayed to created beings in Heaven, which is what the charge was, nor that they even heard these prayers!

"Do you not know that we are currently before the judgements of the end times? But the point is that they aren't dead, they're alive, and bring our prayers to Christ. "

No, the point you were sppsd to be refuting was that the NT church did not "practice praying to created beings in Heaven," which Catholicism has them doing from day One, but which only pagans are shown doing in Scripture.

4. offered rote prayers to obtain early release from Purgatory

"Wrong again. Rote-Memorization by repetition (WordWeb)"
Where is there a Biblical ordinace against memorization or repetition?

Once again you are engaging in obscurantism. The charge was that the NT church in Scripture did not offer rote prayers to obtain early release from Purgatory, which is true, but which you denied Catholicism as doing ("no such thing.")

the rosary is recited

So what?

So what? It confirms that rote prayers are offered to obtain early release from Purgatory, that's what.

5. required clerical celibacy as the norm,

It is not contrary to the NT. In fact, Paul said it was better to remain celebate.

Once again you are engaging in sophistry, for the charge is not the contextual validity of being celibate, but that of this being anything even close the norm, and consistent with the requirements for pastors. (1Tim. 3:1-7)

Paul qualifies his counsel by stating that "I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that." (1 Corinthians 7:7) To presume that virtually all who are called to be pastors have that gift is an unwarranted and even dangerous presumption, which Paul did not make.

And actually called for marital relations btwn those who were married, (1Co. 7:5) contrary to some so-called church fathers as concerns clergy.

meaning that neither Scripture nor history supports the pre-Constatian papacy, nor what came after it, but the latter defines the former, and enjoines docile submission to it. At least on paper.

You know, I'm about done with you. When you point fingers at people, remember that you have several pointed back at yourself.

Actually you are done, as the fingers that are pointing at you are those of Scripture for trying to defend what it does not manifestly teach.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Not another vain attempt to invoke 1Cor. 3 as supporting purgatory, which it nor any other texts teach. This has already been refuted on this thread, and to save me more typing see here and here and here and interact with these.

If you wanted to save typing, should have stopped typing..

A vain unreasonable retort, but fitting since what is linked clearly refuted your absurd attempt to make 1Cor. 3 describe purgatory.

.How can you ever say that the people who died because they protected the true faith would ever allow paganism in the Church???

A fallacious argument against the fact that they did, for souls will not only die to protect what they see as a threat from foreigners to what they love, but will also incorporate things from foreigners which they see helping their faith.

Those who burned incense to an instrument of Divine deliverance, and turned high places in the OT into places of Jehovistic worship (cf. 2Kg. 12:3; 18:4) were likely well-meaning souls, as were Catholics who adopted the pagan practice of bowing/kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods).

You can search the Hebrew Scriptures and NT from beginning and you will never find prayer being made to any created beings in Heaven, or for the dead, except by pagans.

" And I don't care who you say Le Goff is. He's not authoritative."

Yes, i believe that you don't care, as evidenced, what even Catholic scholars say that do not support the fantasy you support.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

They cast lots, which put the decision in God's hand. This further refutes the ability of the apostles to choose successors.

As meaning a perpetual infallible ability to choose, esp. generations of only Italians.

 

[Albion]

Also, Acts 14:14 shows that eventually there were at least 14 apostles, including Paul and Barnabas, and the 12 apostles of Acts 1:26.

Also, if the pope today were the successor of Peter, then who today would be the successors of the at least 13 other apostles besides Peter?

They are to be found all around the globe and in various churches that have retained bishops.

Did all the other lines of apostolic succession peter out?

Some of them are untraceable, it's true, but there are many lines. Some of them are like tracing your family tree.

BTW, this has nothing to do with the topic here.

Read scripture and see that the Holy Spirit did not guide the apostles to choose Matthias. They cast lots, which put the decision in God's hand. This further refutes the ability of the apostles to choose successors.

No. Apostolic Succession refers to the fact of chosen successors. The precise way in which they are chosen doesn't define the principle..

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why then would anyone assume that the disciples would establish a hierarchical structure with a patriarch figure in place of Jesus Christ ?

People did not assume it. The false teachers and false prophets that Y'SHUA and the APOSTLES warned against
tricked the people and taught them that.
Apparently it wasn't too difficult to deceive so many;
Y'SHUA said most would be deceived (i.e. it is in line perfectly with YHWH'S PLAN, YHWH'S WORD, and YHWH'S PURPOSE).

We see no evidence of the claim of succession from Peter and neither evidence that would identify Peter as a patriarchal figure.

All the APOSTLES refuted this so-called type chain,
so anyone following Y'SHUA on the foundation of the (TRUE) PROPHETS and (TRUE) APOSTLES
would reject it also.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You know, on this point I have pondered strictly as a theolougoumemnon the extent to which Satan in his corruption may have acquired a grossly distorted idea of who God is, or lost an understanding of theology altogether.

Since theology is prayer, and Satan is anti-prayer, it seems to me quite possible that he has forgotten the knowledge he originally had about God and degenerated to the point where he has no knowledge or understanding of God whatosever, to the point where he might be an atheist.

This would explain his completely futile attempts to tempt our Lord Jesus Christ; either he did not know that in His assumed humanity Jesus was hypostatically united with the divine uncreated Son of God, the Logos, or he assumed that he could somehow divide the human will possessed by our Lord in His humanity from His divine will, which might suggest that he had forgotten or had come to reject the fundamental theological fact of divine perfection.

I think that the original premise of the devil was that God was not singularly worthy of the worship, glory, and uniquely Divine prerogatives, and that one one lifted up in pride, he was.

And thus began the original "Occupy movement," and "share the wealth" demand, of one who despised dominion, and saw it as his right to have what he did not merit, and construed the One who was worthy as the villain, as seen in Act 2, that of the temptation of Eve.

In which the adversary essentially tells Eve that she is being unjustly and malevolently treated by God by being forbidden to eat of a certain Tree, because, serpent said, God knew that eating what He forbade would result in her being as God, having a unique revelation.

The clear intimation was that rebellion against God, and the principal behind it, was needed and justified as obtaining what was rightfully hers. And note that this was not asking for mercy and grace, but that of benefits being a right, and thus a demand of justice - which is very basic and powerful human sense.

Note also that while Christ was the Divine Son of God/Creator from Heaven, yet He was functionally made Lord of all, sitting with the Father in His throne, due to His chosen obedience to the Father, (Acts 2:32-35; Rv. 3:21) and will reward overcoming believers, who are already spiritually made to sit with Him in Heaven, on His account (Eph. 2:6) by making them to sit in His throne, all by mercy and grace.

Yet the devil still seeks the allegiance of God's creation, and works to create an alternative world in which he is Lord, and does so thru proxy servants. Whose appeal is that of the devil's to eat, seducing souls to see themselves as unjust victims of a system that basically, if imperfectly, rewards benefits due to merit, and punishes those who will not, and to whom the devil presents himself as the savior for, promising to obtain for them what they lust for.

But unlike in the Garden, there is much real oppression and injustice to work with, yet nonetheless, it is the very system of benefits by merit, and punishment indolence and immorality (yet shows mercy to those who are victims) that the devil is at war with.

Instead, what is set forth in the demonic society is a system in which all have the same benefits regardless of merit (or indolence, slothfulness, etc.), and not as an act of mercy, but as a right.

However, unlike true deliverers, the devil does not not sacrificial serve the oppressed, nor do his proxy servants, but uses the powerful victim-entitlement ploy to selfishly obtain power and glory for himself, but in the end he and his elite (but tenuous) servants are the only ones with such benefits, and the rest are compelled to give them homage to obtain what remains, including supporting their ideology.

In contrast, God, who needs nothing, (Acts 17:25) yet calls man to make Him their God, and worship Him, because it is simply right and best for man (who will worship and serve something anyway) to worship the only One who is perfect, almighty, all-knowing, and can never fail, and whom man was designed to know and worship.

And who, instead of simply letting rebellious man go his merry miserable way to Hell, became man, endured our pain, faced every kind of temptation we do, and then became sin of us, paying the price for our forgiveness with His own sinless shed blood, and rose victorious as man's present savior and future judge.

And who in His unique omniscience and omnipotence, makes all things work together for the good of those who choose the Good, that is God. Glory be to Him.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

As usual, the Roman archbishop was absent and represented by his legates. Off the top of my head I cannot think of any major church council from the first millennium that was not a local council specific to the Roman church where the Roman Pope was personally present.

Just read this today which is pertinent:

As of last Thursday, the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church announced that it had reached substantial agreement on the questions of primacy and synodality in the Church....

It should be said at once that the document has accepted a reading of the first Millennium which is more in tune with the way Orthodoxy has tended to see it than that favoured by Catholic apologetics until recent times. Until such confessional readings of history became unfashionable after Vatican II, Catholics would commonly urge Orthodox to return to the unity of the first centuries from which they were alleged to have gone into schism by rejecting the Roman Primacy which they previously accepted. In line with this view, every sign from the early Church of the East accepting a leading role for the bishop of Rome was interpreted as recognising for him the kind of role he came to play in the post-schism West.

The Chieti document unambiguously rejects this simplification of history. It recognises that even in the West the understanding of Roman primacy was the result of a development of doctrine, particularly from the fourth century, and that this development did not occur in the East: “The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles. This understanding was not adopted in the East…” The East, in other words, rather than reneging on a common heritage, simply never accepted a development it had not been part of....

Recent scholarship, led by Catholic scholars who have freed themselves from the shackles of a one-sided apologetic no longer in favour with the Magisterium itself, have concluded that papal authority in the form it has taken in the Second Millennium West, can only be properly understood as a doctrinal development in which the East had no part...

The Chieti document, if it is ratified by the Holy See, becomes the official Catholic position. - http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...nt-is-a-landmark-but-theres-a-long-way-to-go/

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

No. Apostolic Succession refers to the fact of chosen successors. The precise way in which they are chosen doesn't define the principle..

So wrong. There are APOSTLES and there are apostles. Understand the difference between the first 12+1 apostles and all others. What is unique about the 13 is the very way in which they were chosen. They were chosen by God. All the following ones were chosen by man. These first 13 had special authority from Jesus.

Certainly the first 13 apostles called on others to be "apostles". They may have even laid their hands on them, like they did to many others. This was done to bring power of the Holy Spirit on them, and the Holy Spirit does bring certain gifts. But, the laying on of hands does not transfer the authority they had received from Jesus to another. No where does scripture teach this. There is nothing like what Elijah did with Elisha when he left this earth where Elisha was so bold to even ask for more power and authority then what his predecessor had. So, the following apostles that the first 13 called did not have the same authority as they had. It is only deception that people use the fact that they are both called apostles to imply them equals.

Please also note this distinction in the OT. While the priesthood went by lineage and one high priest succeeded another; prophets who spoke for God were always chosen by God. Prophets did not chose successors, lay their hands on them and transfer their authority to them.

Now, realize that the Catholics base their right to truth and authority as being succeeded from Peter. Any scripture support for this is purely fabrication. So yes, it is most important how one is chosen; whether from God or from man makes a huge difference in the authority that one has.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Just read this today which is pertinent:

As of last Thursday, the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church announced that it had reached substantial agreement on the questions of primacy and synodality in the Church....

It should be said at once that the document has accepted a reading of the first Millennium which is more in tune with the way Orthodoxy has tended to see it than that favoured by Catholic apologetics until recent times. Until such confessional readings of history became unfashionable after Vatican II, Catholics would commonly urge Orthodox to return to the unity of the first centuries from which they were alleged to have gone into schism by rejecting the Roman Primacy which they previously accepted. In line with this view, every sign from the early Church of the East accepting a leading role for the bishop of Rome was interpreted as recognising for him the kind of role he came to play in the post-schism West.

The Chieti document unambiguously rejects this simplification of history. It recognises that even in the West the understanding of Roman primacy was the result of a development of doctrine, particularly from the fourth century, and that this development did not occur in the East: “The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles. This understanding was not adopted in the East…” The East, in other words, rather than reneging on a common heritage, simply never accepted a development it had not been part of....

Recent scholarship, led by Catholic scholars who have freed themselves from the shackles of a one-sided apologetic no longer in favour with the Magisterium itself, have concluded that papal authority in the form it has taken in the Second Millennium West, can only be properly understood as a doctrinal development in which the East had no part...

The Chieti document, if it is ratified by the Holy See, becomes the official Catholic position. - http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...nt-is-a-landmark-but-theres-a-long-way-to-go/

So much for the Catholics never changing the one true doctrine traced to Peter.

 

[Albion]

So wrong. There are APOSTLES and there are apostles. Understand the difference between the first 12+1 apostles and all others. What is unique about the 13 is the very way in which they were chosen. They were chosen by God. All the following ones were chosen by man. These first 13 had special authority from Jesus.

You can say that, but it doesn't show any understanding of what Apostolic Succession means--whether one agrees with the idea or not.

Now, realize that the Catholics base their right to truth and authority as being succeeded from Peter. Any scripture support for this is purely fabrication. So yes, it is most important how one is chosen; whether from God or from man makes a huge difference in the authority that one has.

Apostolic Succession is not about the Roman Catholic Church in particular, it does require men to act, and it isn't solely about the successors of Peter (in case you have any interest in learning what it's all about).

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

You can say that, but it doesn't show any understanding of what Apostolic Succession means--whether one agrees with the idea or not.

Apostolic Succession is not about the Roman Catholic Church in particular, it does require men to act, and it isn't solely about the successors of Peter (in case you have any interest in learning what it's all about).

This thread begs the question in point 4, for another source of incontrovertible truth. Catholics have argued in this thread that apostolic succession from Peter provides this. My response is to refute this; stating that scripture does not show Peter being inerrant or having the authority to pass his authority on to another.

As to other uses of "apostolic succession" and learning what it is all about, I really don't care. I am not Catholic and it is irrelevant to this thread. The only reason it is being discussed here is because a Catholic brought it up with certain implications and application. If you think that use of "apostolic succession" in error than you can argue with him about it. Don't fault me for refuting another's use of it. Further you have not offered a rebuttal to the scripture and points I used to refute this.

I will again quote my point. If you can argue this point, then feel free to, hopefully with scripture.

Now, realize that the Catholics base their right to truth and authority as being succeeded from Peter.