Free Will vs Election

[Thursday]

Evidently you don't read so well.

What did I say?



And one other point.

Please show me in scripture the Greek word "katholikos" (universal, general)

God Bless

Till all are one.

Jesus started a single Church. It doesn't really matter what you call it. It came to be called Catholic very early on, but you can call it the Church if you like.

Jesus started his Church, gave his Church leaders, gave these leaders his authority to forgive sins and to teach the truth.

Which Church do you think Ignatius, as disciple of John, was referring to here?

In his epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius writes the following in about 107 AD:

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. (The Ante Nicene Fathers, vol. I, p. 90, chap. VIII, entitled "LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP")

 

[TaylorSexton]

The Church existed from the day Jesus started it.

Yes, the Church, not Rome. What you are doing is equating the Roman Catholic denomination (which it is just that: a denomination) with the Church—the universal gathering of the elect across time, not some man-made, gospel-anathematizing world power.

All of the apostles and scripture writers belonged to the Church.

Yes, the Church, not Rome.

How many Churches do you think Jesus started?

He started only one, of course. But, again, you err sorely by equating the Church with Rome without warrant, argument, or evidence.

Again, you are going to have to provide more than just regurgitated, force-fed and blindly-accepted tradition.

 

[TaylorSexton]

It came to be called Catholic very early on...

Yes, because "catholic" (you capitalized the word without warrant) meant nothing other than "universal"; it had nothing to do with Rome. In fact, Roman "catholicism" is a total oxymoron, since delimitation conflicts with the very meaning of "catholic." Therefore, you wrongly transfer the gloss when you equate "catholic" of old with "Roman Catholic," but I understand why you do it. Deceit and delusion are necessary to protect error.

 

[Thursday]

Yes, the Church, not Rome. What you are doing is equating the Roman Catholic denomination (which it is just that: a denomination) with the Church—the universal gathering of the elect across time, not some man-made, gospel-anathematizing world power.



Yes, the Church, not Rome.



He started only one, of course. But, again, you err sorely by equating the Church with Rome without warrant, argument, or evidence.

Again, you are going to have to provide more than just regurgitated, force-fed and blindly-accepted tradition.

Jesus only started one Church. The fact that it eventually settled in Rome is irrelevant.

Which Church do you think Jesus started? Who leads this Church?

 

[Thursday]

Yes, because "catholic" (you capitalized the word without warrant) meant nothing other than "universal"; it had nothing to do with Rome. In fact, Roman "catholicism" is a total oxymoron, since delimitation conflicts with the very meaning of "catholic." Therefore, you wrongly transfer the gloss when you equate "catholic" of old with "Roman Catholic," but I understand why you do it. Deceit and delusion are necessary to protect error.

Yes, it actually means "on the whole". The point is that it is a single, unified, Holy and Apostolic Church. The term "Roman Catholic" was actually coined by protestants as an insult, but no one was insulted. The Church is Catholic, it is 2000 years old, and most Christians belong to it.

It is not a collection competing doctrines and contradictory interpretations of scripture.

Jesus started a single Church he told you to listen to it. Why don't you?


You didn't answer my previous question: Which Church do you think Jesus started?

 

[TaylorSexton]

The fact that it eventually settled in Rome is irrelevant.

Then why do you keep stating such as if it is relevant? Do you this frequently engage in so much double-talk? Your inconsistency is only weakening your position.

Who leads this Church?

Christ, and no one else, pope or otherwise.

The term "Roman Catholic" was actually coined by protestants as an insult

Citations?

The Church is Catholic, it is 2000 years old, and most Christians belong to it.

Absolutely. You still have not demonstrated how this church is somehow what we now call the "Roman Catholic Church."

It is not a collection competing doctrines and contradictory interpretations of scripture.

Of course it's not, because the Church is a gathering of people, not doctrines.

...he told you to listen to it.

Where?

You didn't answer my previous question: Which Church do you think Jesus started?

He started his Church.

 

[DeaconDean]

Which Church do you think Jesus started?

If you want to get purely technical, then He didn't start any church.

He provided the cornerstone.

"Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste." -Isa. 28:16 (KJV)

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" -Eph. 2:20 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

gave these leaders his authority to forgive sins

Lets look at this.

"Shortly before His ascension, Jesus said to his apostles:

“Whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” (Jn. 20:23).

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Christ was actually granting to the apostles the authority to forgive sins, and that the apostles passed on to their successors (supposedly the Roman priesthood) the same license to pardon sin.

This position is false. Consider the following points.

First, no interpretation is to be placed upon a difficult and obscure passage (such as this one) that would place it in direct conflict with numerous other clear texts.

The fact is, though all Christians are to forgive one another, i.e., have a forgiving disposition (Eph. 4:32), ultimately, only God can bestow absolute pardon (cf. Psa. 130:4; Isa. 43:25; Dan. 9:9; Mic. 7:18; Acts 8:22). The Lord did not grant that right to the apostles or anyone else.

Second, there is a biblical idiom whereby one sometimes is said to actually do what he is merely authorized to declare.

For example, Pharaoh’s butler said regarding Joseph,

“me he [Joseph] restored unto mine office, and him [the baker] he hanged” (Gen. 41:13).

Joseph did not actually restore the butler to his office, nor did he personally hang the baker. He merely announced, by prophetic insight, what the fate of these men would be.

Another example is found in Jeremiah.

“Then Jehovah put forth his hand, and touched my mouth; and Jehovah said unto me, ’Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth: see, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant (Jer. 1:10; emphasis added).

Notice the active verbs. Did God appoint the prophet to actually destroy and overthrow kingdoms (Jer. 1:10) or merely to declare their destiny? The answer should be obvious. See also Ezekiel 43:3.

The Greek tenses of John 20:23 make it clear that the apostles were authorized only to announce the terms of forgiveness on the basis of God’s previous appointment.

Literally, the text suggests:

“Those whose sins you forgive, have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive, have not already been forgiven.”

The first verbs in the two clauses are aorist tense forms, while the second verbs are in the perfect tense. The perfect tense verbs imply an abiding state which commenced before the action of the aorists.

In other words, the apostles (and others since that time) were only authorized to declare forgiveness consistent with what the Lord had already determined.

In a comprehensive treatment of this passage, noted Greek scholar J. R. Mantey pointed out that the Greek “fathers” never quoted this passage in support of the concept of absolution (243-249). (For further comment, see: Blackwelder, 80-81.)

References

• Blackwelder, Boyce W. Light from the Greek New Testament. Anderson, IN: Warner.
• Mantey, J. R. 1939, Sept. “The Mistranslation of the Perfect Tense in John 20:23, Mt. 16:19, Mt. 18:18.” Journal of Biblical Literature. Vol. LVIII.

Source

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Thursday]

Then why do you keep stating such as if it is relevant? Do you this frequently engage in so much double-talk? Your inconsistency is only weakening your position.



Christ, and no one else, pope or otherwise.



Citations?



Absolutely. You still have not demonstrated how this church is somehow what we now call the "Roman Catholic Church."



Of course it's not, because the Church is a gathering of people, not doctrines.



Where?



He started his Church.

That's a very evasive post, but I guess you have no choice.

Jesus started a single Church. He appointed leaders for his Church and gave these leaders the authority to bind and loose, forgive sins, make rules, and teach. That's what they did. They also appointed successors to carry on their ministry after they were gone.

Which Church is led by successors of the apostles, makes binding rules for Christians, forgives sins, and teaches the gospel as it was taught 2000 years ago?

Which Church is this?

Matt 18:17
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.



And who is this?

1 John 2
19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

Acts 15
24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

 

[Thursday]

Lets look at this.

"Shortly before His ascension, Jesus said to his apostles:

“Whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” (Jn. 20:23).

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Christ was actually granting to the apostles the authority to forgive sins, and that the apostles passed on to their successors (supposedly the Roman priesthood) the same license to pardon sin.

This position is false. Consider the following points.

First, no interpretation is to be placed upon a difficult and obscure passage (such as this one) that would place it in direct conflict with numerous other clear texts.

The fact is, though all Christians are to forgive one another, i.e., have a forgiving disposition (Eph. 4:32), ultimately, only God can bestow absolute pardon (cf. Psa. 130:4; Isa. 43:25; Dan. 9:9; Mic. 7:18; Acts 8:22). The Lord did not grant that right to the apostles or anyone else.

Second, there is a biblical idiom whereby one sometimes is said to actually do what he is merely authorized to declare.

For example, Pharaoh’s butler said regarding Joseph,

“me he [Joseph] restored unto mine office, and him [the baker] he hanged” (Gen. 41:13).

Joseph did not actually restore the butler to his office, nor did he personally hang the baker. He merely announced, by prophetic insight, what the fate of these men would be.

Another example is found in Jeremiah.

“Then Jehovah put forth his hand, and touched my mouth; and Jehovah said unto me, ’Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth: see, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant (Jer. 1:10; emphasis added).

Notice the active verbs. Did God appoint the prophet to actually destroy and overthrow kingdoms (Jer. 1:10) or merely to declare their destiny? The answer should be obvious. See also Ezekiel 43:3.

The Greek tenses of John 20:23 make it clear that the apostles were authorized only to announce the terms of forgiveness on the basis of God’s previous appointment.

Literally, the text suggests:

“Those whose sins you forgive, have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive, have not already been forgiven.”

The first verbs in the two clauses are aorist tense forms, while the second verbs are in the perfect tense. The perfect tense verbs imply an abiding state which commenced before the action of the aorists.

In other words, the apostles (and others since that time) were only authorized to declare forgiveness consistent with what the Lord had already determined.

In a comprehensive treatment of this passage, noted Greek scholar J. R. Mantey pointed out that the Greek “fathers” never quoted this passage in support of the concept of absolution (243-249). (For further comment, see: Blackwelder, 80-81.)

References

• Blackwelder, Boyce W. Light from the Greek New Testament. Anderson, IN: Warner.
• Mantey, J. R. 1939, Sept. “The Mistranslation of the Perfect Tense in John 20:23, Mt. 16:19, Mt. 18:18.” Journal of Biblical Literature. Vol. LVIII.

Source

God Bless

Till all are one.

Protestant revisionism.

You left out key parts of scripture that disprove your propaganda.

1) John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”

2) Matt 18:18
"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Here's what the early Church taught:


Hippolytus

"[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command" (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).


The Didache

"Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure" (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).


Origen

"[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, "To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity"’" (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage

"The apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: ‘ . . . Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to [the Lord’s] body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him" (The Lapsed 15:1–3 (A.D. 251]).


John Chrysostom

"Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven" (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).

St. Augustine

In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance" (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16 [A.D. 395]).

 

[Thursday]

If you want to get purely technical, then He didn't start any church.

He provided the cornerstone.

"Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste." -Isa. 28:16 (KJV)

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" -Eph. 2:20 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

No, you are mistaken:

Matt 16
18And I tell you that you are Peter,b and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Matt 18
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Acts 15
4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them....24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

 

[TaylorSexton]

That's a very evasive post...

Asking you to argue your point with substance instead of air is evasive? Please.

Jesus started a single Church. He appointed leaders for his Church and gave these leaders the authority to bind and loose, forgive sins, make rules, and teach. That's what they did. They also appointed successors to carry on their ministry after they were gone.

Which Church is led by successors of the apostles, makes binding rules for Christians, forgives sins, and teaches the gospel as it was taught 2000 years ago?

Which Church is this?

Matt 18:17
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.



And who is this?

1 John 2
19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

Acts 15
24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

Of course, all this is true. What you have yet to show, however, is how the Roman denomination is the Church. You have not devoted even a shred of argumentation to support your thesis; you have just pointed to Scripture passages and said, "Look! Rome!" That is hardly enough, let alone ridiculous. You are arguing in circles—just assuming what you are defending to be true. If you expect to be taken seriously, friend, you are going to have to provide more substance. In other words, prove that which you so far have merely taken to be a priori fact.

 

[Thursday]

Asking you to argue your point with substance instead of air is evasive? Please.



Of course, all this is true. What you have yet to show, however, is how the Roman denomination is the Church. You have not devoted even a shred of argumentation to support your thesis; you have just pointed to Scripture passages and said, "Look! Rome!" That is hardly enough, let alone ridiculous. You are arguing in circles—just assuming what you are defending to be true. If you expect to be taken seriously, friend, you are going to have to provide more substance. In other words, prove that which you so far have merely taken to be a priori fact.

The Catholic Church is led by successors of the apostles. Every priest has been ordained by a bishop, who was ordained by a bishop, who was ordained by a bishop, etc. all the way back to the apostles.

Here's an early list of popes from Irenaeus written in about 180 AD. It is part of his treatise titled Against Heresies, and it was meant to help battle the threat of gnosticism which was an issue during his lifetime.

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times;

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally knownChurch founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithfulmen] who exist everywhere.

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)

 

[TaylorSexton]

The Catholic Church is led by successors of the apostles. Every priest has been ordained by a bishop, who was ordained by a bishop, who was ordained by a bishop, etc. all the way back to the apostles.

Here's an early list of popes from Irenaeus written in about 180 AD. It is part of his treatise titled Against Heresies, and it was meant to help battle the threat of gnosticism which was an issue during his lifetime.

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times;

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally knownChurch founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithfulmen] who exist everywhere.

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)

There are several problems with this. First, you are citing a Church Father, and only one out of many. This is hardly good history, and is actually quite deceptive, as Irenaeus was one of the strongest supporters of Roman privilege (which is, of course, very different from what Rome turned out to be). However, he is not the only Church Father; why are you only choosing him? What about those bishops in Alexandria who directly opposed Pope Stephen (such as Cyprian) and his claim to Roman primacy? You quote Irenaeus as if he were in the majority; he most certainly was not. Even so, his views were nowhere close to the Roman view of her own primacy as it developed leading up to the Schism. Your history is nauseatingly selective.

Second, I ask you to defend your position, and you quote a Church Father. This is really good, because the Church Fathers have authority, as every Protestant who recognizes their roots acknowledges. Calvin himself held the Fathers in high esteem. However, you do not cite any Scripture, which leads me back to my initial accusation: you value tradition over the Word of God. The problem is that you haven't a shred of evidence from Scripture, which, if it is indeed God's Word, has primacy over every institution and authority. You stop at Irenaeus; why not go farther back?

Third, granted that Matthew 16:18 is biblical evidence for an apostolic succession of bishops (I do not grant this, but for the sake of argument let it be so), notice that Irenaeus nowhere places Peter as the first bishop of Rome. He merely asserts that it was founded upon his doctrine (and Paul's). However, there is no historical evidence that Peter 1) started the church in Rome or 2) was ever a bishop in Rome. Tertullian claims Clement as the first bishop of Rome, as Irenaeus seems to do here. So, again, apostolic authority as Rome teaches falls on its face.

Fourth, you are neglecting to distinguish the difference between Roman preference and Roman primacy. There is a massive difference. Of course, Rome was held in high esteem in the early Church because of her doctrine, perseverance, and political position. However, that is hardly to say that Rome had primacy over the Church, and it is most certainly not to say that the core of Christianity resides in Rome. That is an assertion that is nowhere found in the early Church, and I would challenge you to find such a statement. There is a huge difference between deference to Rome and bowing to Rome. Irenaeus is arguing for the former, not the latter. In fact, you surely know what happened when Rome did try to assert her authority over the rest of the Church. You see, then, that you would therefore be mercilessly suppressing history in order to somehow make it seem as if Roman primacy, if it even existed as an idea, was hardly the consensus of the actually catholic body of believers. Besides, even if you could find such a statement or idea, the fact that you would bow to man before the Word of God is itself a telling sign of your ultimate loyalties—a betrayal that speaks loudly enough for itself.

 

[Thursday]

There are several problems with this. First, you are citing a Church Father, and only one out of many. This is hardly good history, and is actually quite deceptive, as Irenaeus was one of the strongest supporters of Roman privilege (which is, of course, very different from what Rome turned out to be). However, he is not the only Church Father; why are you only choosing him? What about those bishops in Alexandria who directly opposed Pope Stephen (such as Cyprian) and his claim to Roman primacy? You quote Irenaeus as if he were in the majority; he most certainly was not. Even so, his views were nowhere close to the Roman view of her own primacy as it developed leading up to the Schism. Your history is nauseatingly selective.

Second, I ask you to defend your position, and you quote a Church Father. This is really good, because the Church Fathers have authority, as every Protestant who recognizes their roots acknowledges. Calvin himself held the Fathers in high esteem. However, you do not cite any Scripture, which leads me back to my initial accusation: you value tradition over the Word of God. The problem is that you haven't a shred of evidence from Scripture, which, if it is indeed God's Word, has primacy over every institution and authority. You stop at Irenaeus; why not go farther back?

Third, granted that Matthew 16:18 is biblical evidence for an apostolic succession of bishops (I do not grant this, but for the sake of argument let it be so), notice that Irenaeus nowhere places Peter as the first bishop of Rome. He merely asserts that it was founded upon his doctrine (and Paul's). However, there is no historical evidence that Peter 1) started the church in Rome or 2) was ever a bishop in Rome. Tertullian claims Clement as the first bishop of Rome, as Irenaeus seems to do here. So, again, apostolic authority as Rome teaches falls on its face.

Fourth, you are neglecting to distinguish the difference between Roman preference and Roman primacy. There is a massive difference. Of course, Rome was held in high esteem in the early Church because of her doctrine, perseverance, and political position. However, that is hardly to say that Rome had primacy over the Church, and it is most certainly not to say that the core of Christianity resides in Rome. That is an assertion that is nowhere found in the early Church, and I would challenge you to find such a statement. There is a huge difference between deference to Rome and bowing to Rome. Irenaeus is arguing for the former, not the latter. In fact, you surely know what happened when Rome did try to assert her authority over the rest of the Church. You see, then, that you would therefore be mercilessly suppressing history in order to somehow make it seem as if Roman primacy, if it even existed as an idea, was hardly the consensus of the actually catholic body of believers. Besides, even if you could find such a statement or idea, the fact that you would bow to man before the Word of God is itself a telling sign of your ultimate loyalties—a betrayal that speaks loudly enough for itself.

1) Citing early Fathers is good history. We can learn what they believed and learn about the conditions during the time they were writing. You don't like it because the early writings prove the claims of the Catholic Church and disprove your anti Catholic propaganda. The Fathers you cite regarding Pope Steven aren't arguing about the papacy, but about the legitimacy of one person's claim as successor of Peter. The case you are referring to bolsters the position of the Church.

2) I've cited many scripture passages, so this comment of yours is false. Why bother posting a lie when we both know the truth?

3) It doesn't matter where Peter was based. It is likely that he was bishop of Antioch first. That's not relevant. What is relevant is that the successors of Peter have been the Bishops of Rome. The location is not as important as the fact that they sit in the see of Peter.

4) More straw dog arguments. The role of Peter and his successors is to assure Christian unity.
The Church is united by the pope, which is what Jesus intended. He wants us to be one as he and the Father are one. Do you think the Father and Son disagree on matters of the faith? Of course not. Protestantism is a rabble of battling dogmas and interpretations with no unity. That's not what Jesus left us.

 

[TaylorSexton]

1) Citing early Fathers is good history. We can learn what they believed and learn about the conditions during the time they were writing. You don't like it because the early writings prove the claims of the Catholic Church and disprove your anti Catholic propaganda. The Fathers you cite regarding Pope Steven aren't arguing about the papacy, but about the legitimacy of one person's claim as successor of Peter. The case you are referring to bolsters the position of the Church.

Did you not read what I said? I said citing only Irenaeus is not good history. Please read what I have said before responding.

As regards to Cyprian: What historical evidence do you have that shows this was not a challenge to Roman primacy?

2) I've cited many scripture passages, so this comment of yours is false. Why bother posting a lie when we both know the truth?

You cited absolutely none in the post to which I was immediately responding, and the Scripture you've cited before have been pointless because you are arguing in circles. I pointed that out before, and it is plain to all. It is fallacious to use your conclusions as a premise is your argument(s).

3) It doesn't matter where Peter was based. It is likely that he was bishop of Antioch first. That's not relevant. What is relevant is that the successors of Peter have been the Bishops of Rome. The location is not as important as the fact that they sit in the see of Peter.

You sure couldn't gather this sentiment from Roman rhetoric.

The role of Peter and his successors is to assure Christian unity.
The Church is united by the pope, which is what Jesus intended.

Scripture?

Do you think the Father and Son disagree on matters of the faith?

Of course not. They are infallible; nowhere in Scripture (which is my authority) is the Church described as infallible.

Protestantism is a rabble of battling dogmas and interpretations with no unity. That's not what Jesus left us.

You clearly know nothing of Church history. Even a cursory reading of Roman Catholic history shows us that your assertion of Roman unity is utter fantasy.

 

[Thursday]

Did you not read what I said? I said citing only Irenaeus is not good history. Please read what I have said before responding.

As regards to Cyprian: What historical evidence do you have that shows this was not a challenge to Roman primacy?



You cited absolutely none in the post to which I was immediately responding, and the Scripture you've cited before have been pointless because you are arguing in circles. I pointed that out before, and it is plain to all. It is fallacious to use your conclusions as a premise is your argument(s).



You sure couldn't gather this sentiment from Roman rhetoric.



Scripture?



Of course not. They are infallible; nowhere in Scripture (which is my authority) is the Church described as infallible.



You clearly know nothing of Church history. Even a cursory reading of Roman Catholic history shows us that your assertion of Roman unity is utter fantasy.

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).


I once was ignorant of Church history as you are today, and I was once protestant as you are today. To quote John Henry Newman, "to be deep in history is to cease being protestant".


The Church is infallible:

Luke 10:16
"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

1 Tim 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”

1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

 

[TaylorSexton]

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

The 7th Council of Carthage:

"Neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there."

It seems rather clear to me that Roman primacy (not privilege) is what is being combated here.

Another quote distinguishing between Roman privilege and primacy:

"It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles."

—St. Jerome

I once was ignorant of Church history as you are today, and I was once protestant as you are today. To quote John Henry Newman, "to be deep in history is to cease being protestant".

It's difficult to have uniquely Christian conversation with someone who, contrary to the teaching of the Christ and the Apostles, whom he so vociferously asserts he follows, is arrogant and demeaning.

Luke 10:16
"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

1 Tim 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”

1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Interesting, there is nothing about Rome in these Scriptures. Once again, you are arguing in circles. The moment you decide to cease from doing this, that same moment we will begin to have profitable conversation. Up until now, you have seen Rome under every rock and in every crevice of Scripture, all without warrant whatsoever. Where you find Rome in these passages, I find the pure words: the Church is nothing other than the universal gathering of God's elect across time. They have no other authority than the Word of God spoken through the prophets and the Apostles, and no other allegiance than to Christ.

 

[Thursday]

The 7th Council of Carthage:

"Neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there."

It seems rather clear to me that Roman primacy (not privilege) is what is being combated here.

Another quote distinguishing between Roman privilege and primacy:

"It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles."

—St. Jerome



It's difficult to have uniquely Christian conversation with someone who, contrary to the teaching of the Christ and the Apostles, whom he so vociferously asserts he follows, is arrogant and demeaning.



Interesting, there is nothing about Rome in these Scriptures. Once again, you are arguing in circles. The moment you decide to cease from doing this, that same moment we will begin to have profitable conversation. Up until now, you have seen Rome under every rock and in every crevice of Scripture, all without warrant whatsoever. Where you find Rome in these passages, I find the pure words: the Church is nothing other than the universal gathering of God's elect across time. They have no other authority than the Word of God spoken through the prophets and the Apostles, and no other allegiance than to Christ.

Your quote from the Council of Carthage means nothing. That merely speaks for the Bishops on hand. That council was about Baptism for Hertics, not Church organization. It doesn't say what you are claiming it says. Somebody fooled you with a quote mining distortion.

Here's the full document: CHURCH FATHERS: On the Baptism of Heretics (Council of Carthage)

The quote from St. Jerome, another Catholic like Cyprian, doesn't advance your case.

Here's something from St. Jerome that is relevant:

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (ibid., 15:2).

and this:

"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).

If you'll recall, you are the one who accused me of being ignorant of Christian history, when in fact anyone reading this thread can see that it is the other way around.

 

[Thursday]

Interesting, there is nothing about Rome in these Scriptures. Once again, you are arguing in circles. The moment you decide to cease from doing this, that same moment we will begin to have profitable conversation. Up until now, you have seen Rome under every rock and in every crevice of Scripture, all without warrant whatsoever. Where you find Rome in these passages, I find the pure words: the Church is nothing other than the universal gathering of God's elect across time. They have no other authority than the Word of God spoken through the prophets and the Apostles, and no other allegiance than to Christ.

When the New Testament was written the Church was not based in Rome, so that is no surprise. The Church was led by Peter and the apostles, and the Church was appointing successors.

Who should we believe, those chosen as successors of the apostles, or you?