Oldbear83 said:

---

Circular argument. 'Our team says we are right'

Matthew 16:23 still needs to be addressed. By your logic, if Peter the man is the Church meant by Jesus in verses 18-19, then Satan is somehow in charge of the Church moments later in verse 23.

The only sound interpretation is that Jesus was talking about faith in both places.

---

I have to agree with Sam here. Peter was NOT literally Satan.

It is your interpretation that Peter was literally Satan?

Jesus rebuked Peter, essentially saying, "Dummy, stay in your lane."

It's clear later that Peter was the leader from many passages that Peter was the leader.

I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult for some protestant to accept or acknowledge.

So I guess that I'll ask you,

• How and when did the nebulous group of believers come together to form the Catholic Church?
• How did they seem to all believe the same things?
• When did the Catholic Church start and who was the first leader in your opinion?

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem is your claim to Papal infallibility.

You have, to your credit, admitted that Popes, like all men, are human and make mistakes. There have even been evil Popes, just as there are evil ministers and priests and deacons and so on. This does not, of course, condemn the congregations for human fallibility, but we also cannot take on someone's word that a Pope is infallible just because he holds the office.

---

We are not just taking "someone's word that the Pope is fallible ..." We are taking Jesus by his promise in Matt 16:18-19, John 14:16-17 and John 16:13 promising to send the Holy Spirit, "the Spirit of Truth", to guide the apostles to all truth.

Just because these men were bad popes doesn't mean that they didn't have the charism of infallibility. While they never did proclaim anything infallible during their reign, the never taught any heretical doctrines. That is the "negative protection" of infallibility. The are protected from teaching error.

They were still sinful jerks that did NOT act in accordance with their office, but nonetheless, they never taught errors.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Scripture can rightly be weighed by basic rules:

2. Jesus' rule - if it were so, He would have told you

---

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. We have MANY concepts in Christianity that Jesus didn't tell us, but were settled by Church councils led by the Holy Spirit.

Council of Jerusalem (c. 50 AD) - No Circumcision
First Council of Nicaea (325) - Jesus is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father
First Council of Constantinople (381) - the divinity of the Holy Spirit
Council of Rome (382) - affirmed the canon of scripture
Council of Ephesus (431) - condemned Nestorianism, which taught that Christ was two separate persons
Council of Chalcedon (451) - Defined that Christ has two distinct natures (divine and human) in one person without confusion or division


3. Scripture is a trustworthy way to test a man. The opposite is not so.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- "the infallibility of the church's teaching authority is based on Jesus's promise to his apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13)". His apostles. Not perpetually in the church in the form of an infallible teaching office. In the Bible, the church always had to be corrected from error, and therefore must always go back to Scripture, the word of the apostles. You are making the argument for sola scriptura.

---

First, as we all know, sola scriptura is NOT biblical. Second, the Church came BEOFRE scripture. For instance, the Council of Jerusalem took please before there were ANY NT scriptures to reference. The apostles decided the matter not the scriptures.

I have already discussed passages in Acts 15, 2 Tim 2:2, Titus 1:5 and 1 Tim 4:14 how the apostles passed on their authority to their successors. Also, infallibility isn't a charism that is given to just ONE successor (save the Bishop of Rome). It can only be exercised by the entire Magisterium collectively. Not just individual successors whenever they spoke.

Finally, if the infallibility wasn't passed down to the successors of the apostles (collectively), then anyone could believe what they wanted to about scriptures when they were finally canonized (by the Church). This has what lead to the way array of protestant denominations today.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- the doctrine of papal infallibility is completely useless. Popes have made erroneous statements in their official decrees. If you say "well, they weren't speaking ex cathedra", then you're picking and choosing, demonstrating its uselessness.

---

No, the Church isn't "picking and choosing". It is very selective and takes it very seriously. Only two times have the Popes spoken ex cathedra. The Church doesn't claim that EVERYTHING that comes out of the Vatican is infallibility declared.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- it's already been proven that your ecumenical councils were in error, with regard to both the canon and icon veneration.

---

Proven by whom, you? What is your authority? The canon existed LONG (over a millennia) before protestant RIPPED out 7 books of the bible, but have you come to correct the Church as to what's canon? Why should anyone here listen to your infallible opinion on these topics?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- both Paul and Jesus had to severely rebuke the churches for their failings. If you don't know this already, you just don't know Scripture. In each of those situations, it was either an original apostle or Jesus himself giving the correction, NOT some church teaching office. No teaching office exists in Jesus' letters to the seven churches of Revelation. Jesus gave his direct word through a prophet (John) to each of the churches himself. Notice there was absolutely no pope also.

---

In the beginning of the Church age, there was no "Pope". There was a Bishop of Rome. His name was Peter. When Revelation was written, Clement I was the Bishop of Rome. The Church in Corinth wrote to him seeking guidance on issues of church order and authority and NOT John (when HE was still alive) when matters needed to be settled. If John was the Beloved apostle, why didn't they write him for assistance?

People in churches did fail (and still do). The PEOPLE in individual churches needed rebuking, not the Church itself.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Scripture says Jesus' church is the "pillar and foundation" of truth".

---

CORRECT!!! Jesus' Church, the ONLY one that he started, is the Catholic Church. We totally agree here!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This does NOT mean that it is infallible in its ways and never needs correction. Scripture is clear on that. Protestantism is that correction. And there is nothing in Scripture that supports the infallibility of the apostles' word being passed in succession to successors to the apostles, who then can create new truths that aren't in Scripture. Yet another in a long, long list of your non sequiturs.

---

Scripture isn't clear on that (correction). Actually, it's clear that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from error in passages like Matt 16:18-19.

Protestantism is NOT the correction, it the error itself that needs correction. If the church the pillar and foundation of truth, the Protestantism CANNOT be the church because one can't find two protestant churches that believe the same things. There is ONLY one truth. This is easy to see. Look at several concepts that protestants argue about among themselves:

• Believer's baptism vs. infant baptism
• Baptismal regeneration
• Real presence vs. memorial of the Lord's Supper
• Predestination vs. free will
• Church governance bishops vs. board of elders vs. congregational autonomy

Not all of these can be TRUE at the same time. These important concepts are contradictory. In the law of non-contradiction, these theological concepts cannot not both be true.

How can Protestantism be the "correction" with so many contradictions? It is illogical.

I stand by Scripture. Coke, you can stand on tradition.


I know which Jesus quoted.

"

• Believer's baptism vs. infant baptism
• Baptismal regeneration
• Real presence vs. memorial of the Lord's Supper
• Predestination vs. free will
• Church governance bishops vs. board of elders vs. congregational autonomy"

You do know you are making a false case there. It's very false to pretend Protestants are as you depicted, and false witness is still a sin, even when a Roman Catholic does it.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- "the infallibility of the church's teaching authority is based on Jesus's promise to his apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13)". His apostles. Not perpetually in the church in the form of an infallible teaching office. In the Bible, the church always had to be corrected from error, and therefore must always go back to Scripture, the word of the apostles. You are making the argument for sola scriptura.

---

First, as we all know, sola scriptura is NOT biblical. Second, the Church came BEOFRE scripture. For instance, the Council of Jerusalem took please before there were ANY NT scriptures to reference. The apostles decided the matter not the scriptures.

I have already discussed passages in Acts 15, 2 Tim 2:2, Titus 1:5 and 1 Tim 4:14 how the apostles passed on their authority to their successors. Also, infallibility isn't a charism that is given to just ONE successor (save the Bishop of Rome). It can only be exercised by the entire Magisterium collectively. Not just individual successors whenever they spoke.

Finally, if the infallibility wasn't passed down to the successors of the apostles (collectively), then anyone could believe what they wanted to about scriptures when they were finally canonized (by the Church). This has what lead to the way array of protestant denominations today.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- the doctrine of papal infallibility is completely useless. Popes have made erroneous statements in their official decrees. If you say "well, they weren't speaking ex cathedra", then you're picking and choosing, demonstrating its uselessness.

---

No, the Church isn't "picking and choosing". It is very selective and takes it very seriously. Only two times have the Popes spoken ex cathedra. The Church doesn't claim that EVERYTHING that comes out of the Vatican is infallibility declared.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- it's already been proven that your ecumenical councils were in error, with regard to both the canon and icon veneration.

---

Proven by whom, you? What is your authority? The canon existed LONG (over a millennia) before protestant RIPPED out 7 books of the bible, but have you come to correct the Church as to what's canon? Why should anyone here listen to your infallible opinion on these topics?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- both Paul and Jesus had to severely rebuke the churches for their failings. If you don't know this already, you just don't know Scripture. In each of those situations, it was either an original apostle or Jesus himself giving the correction, NOT some church teaching office. No teaching office exists in Jesus' letters to the seven churches of Revelation. Jesus gave his direct word through a prophet (John) to each of the churches himself. Notice there was absolutely no pope also.

---

In the beginning of the Church age, there was no "Pope". There was a Bishop of Rome. His name was Peter. When Revelation was written, Clement I was the Bishop of Rome. The Church in Corinth wrote to him seeking guidance on issues of church order and authority and NOT John (when HE was still alive) when matters needed to be settled. If John was the Beloved apostle, why didn't they write him for assistance?

People in churches did fail (and still do). The PEOPLE in individual churches needed rebuking, not the Church itself.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Scripture says Jesus' church is the "pillar and foundation" of truth".

---

CORRECT!!! Jesus' Church, the ONLY one that he started, is the Catholic Church. We totally agree here!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This does NOT mean that it is infallible in its ways and never needs correction. Scripture is clear on that. Protestantism is that correction. And there is nothing in Scripture that supports the infallibility of the apostles' word being passed in succession to successors to the apostles, who then can create new truths that aren't in Scripture. Yet another in a long, long list of your non sequiturs.

---

Scripture isn't clear on that (correction). Actually, it's clear that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from error in passages like Matt 16:18-19.

Protestantism is NOT the correction, it the error itself that needs correction. If the church the pillar and foundation of truth, the Protestantism CANNOT be the church because one can't find two protestant churches that believe the same things. There is ONLY one truth. This is easy to see. Look at several concepts that protestants argue about among themselves:

• Believer's baptism vs. infant baptism
• Baptismal regeneration
• Real presence vs. memorial of the Lord's Supper
• Predestination vs. free will
• Church governance bishops vs. board of elders vs. congregational autonomy

Not all of these can be TRUE at the same time. These important concepts are contradictory. In the law of non-contradiction, these theological concepts cannot not both be true.

How can Protestantism be the "correction" with so many contradictions? It is illogical.

---

- Sola scriptura is for TODAY, not during the time of the council of Jerusalem. During those times, the apostles were alive and Christians could hear directly from them. Today, the only thing we know that is from the apostles is in Scripture, and nowhere else. This is the fact that you though you try, you can never escape from.

- The successors to the apostles were charged ONLY with continuing what they the apostles had preached. And the record of what they preached is found ONLY in Scripture. Hence, sola scriptura. There is absolutely NO support ANYWHERE that the successors to the apostles were given the same authority or infallibility as the original apostles.

- NOTHING that Clement of Rome wrote indicated he was the supreme ruler of Christianity. You're conflating "bishop of Rome" with "pope" as Roman Catholicism defines it today. And it's a consensus among historians that there was no singular bishop of Rome until the middle of the second century. Before that time, the church in Rome was ruled by a council of elders.

- Leaders of a church in one town OFTEN wrote to other churches in other towns. Clement did nothing new. Doing so did NOT mean that he was the supreme leader of Christianity. He never even addressed himself as such. If you were to go back and tell Clement that he was the supreme leader, he wouldn't have any idea what you're talking about.

- You're question about why the churches didn't write to John for guidance is nonsensical. The churches didn't write to anyone for guidance. John was writing JESUS' words of guidance and warnings to the church. And you're running away from the fact that there was NO POPE involved here.

- If popes have only spoken "ex cathedra" TWICE throughout the history of the church, then it's much more useless than anyone's imagined. That means that EVERYTHING ELSE they have uttered, organized, or approved is NOT infallible. You're only heightening my point!

- It's already been proven by historical fact that the early church universally denounced icon veneration, a belief and practice sanctioned by a Roman Catholic ecumenical church council as originating from the apostles themselves, a complete falsehood. It's also been proven that the council of Trent anathematized its own previous councils that approved different canons of Scripture. You are denial of facts and history.

- Protestantism is the correction because it makes Scripture the only infallible authority for the church, which is the correct view. The question of how Scripture gets interpreted is a completely different one. The divisions over believer's baptism vs infant baptism, predestination vs free will, etc only demonstrates the freedom of Christians to follow their conscience, instead of it having to be ruled over by a corrupt central authority that has abused its authority and has corrupted the gospel.

- If you believe that the bread and wine are the literal body and blood of Jesus, then why did the apostles forbid Gentile Christians from consuming blood? If John 6 was literal, then clearly the Eucharist is an absolute requirement for salvation, meaning one can be a true believer, but still go to Hell because they didn't eat bread and drink wine. Is that truly the Gospel? Why would Jesus lie to us and say that if we believe in him, we are saved? Why didn't Peter tell the house of Cornelius they weren't saved until they had the Eucharist? Why didn't Paul tell us that? Do you truly not see the problem here?

Romans 10:9, 10-13 is what we do for Salvation..

Paul's writings prove that anything added to Grace through faith in Christ and his death burial and Resurrection as the sacrifice for our sins, not only are those other things not required but they nullify Grace if you try to add them. Let me know about your salvation. The reason is because you are relying on those things rather than the finished work of Christ.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I stand by Scripture. Coke, you can stand on tradition.


I know which Jesus quoted.

---

I, too, stand on scripture of Matt 16:18-20. Jesus told Peter that He would build his Church upon him and give him the "keys to the kingdom - a reference to the key mentioned in Isaiah 22 - and gave Peter the ability to bind and loose.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"

• Believer's baptism vs. infant baptism
• Baptismal regeneration
• Real presence vs. memorial of the Lord's Supper
• Predestination vs. free will
• Church governance bishops vs. board of elders vs. congregational autonomy"

You do know you are making a false case there. It's very false to pretend Protestants are as you depicted, and false witness is still a sin, even when a Roman Catholic does it.

---

I sincerely ask where I gave false witness here. Are these not tenants of the Christian faith that protestants discuss amongst themselves?

If I have misrepresented (one of) these, please let me know where.

Already debunked, that.

Interesting to see you keep going back to that, shows there's really nothing else but you want Peter to be Top Disciple.

Despite most of the New Testament.

Here's a hint: Binary arguments are rarely honest representations of the matter.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Here's a hint: Binary arguments are rarely honest representations of the matter.

---

It's amazing the lengths we human beings will go to in order to give ourselves wiggle room. God, on the other hand, doesn't wiggle.

canoso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Here's a hint: Binary arguments are rarely honest representations of the matter.

---

It's amazing the lengths we human beings will go to in order to give ourselves wiggle room. God, on the other hand, doesn't wiggle.

---

Agreed. It's sad how many human beings come up with an opinion and decide that's what God wants.

Scripture is not just cool stories. It had the law and the wisdom. And there are no Popes in Scripture, nor palaces for important people who happen to lead congregations, whether RC Protestant or what-have-you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Sola scriptura is for TODAY, not during the time of the council of Jerusalem. During those times, the apostles were alive and Christians could hear directly from them. Today, the only thing we know that is from the apostles is in Scripture, and nowhere else. This is the fact that you though you try, you can never escape from.

---

Where do you find that belief in the bible? Where does the bible say that public revelation has ended?

Also, how could "sola scriptura" exist when the apostles died? There was no canon until the 4th century. The Church debated books for hundreds of years. Sola scriptura could not have existed then.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- The successors to the apostles were charged ONLY with continuing what they the apostles had preached. And the record of what they preached is found ONLY in Scripture. Hence, sola scriptura. There is absolutely NO support ANYWHERE that the successors to the apostles were given the same authority or infallibility as the original apostles.

---

Sure, it started with Matthew 16:18-20 when Peter got the ability to bind and loose, and then Jesus gave it to his apostles in Matthew 18:18 and it was passed to the other replacements in Act 1, 2 Tim 2:2, Titus 1:5, etc. Where does the bible say that they did NOT receive that authority. You are trying to prove your point with a negative argument.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- NOTHING that Clement of Rome wrote indicated he was the supreme ruler of Christianity. You're conflating "bishop of Rome" with "pope" as Roman Catholicism defines it today. And it's a consensus among historians that there was no singular bishop of Rome until the middle of the second century. Before that time, the church in Rome was ruled by a council of elders.

---

Clement never claimed to the "supreme ruler of Christianity." The Papacy, like the Church, grew like the mustard seed. The term, Pope, wasn't used until the 4th century. It makes no difference. The leader of the Church has been the Bishop of Rome, starting with Peter, the undisputed leader of the Church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Leaders of a church in one town OFTEN wrote to other churches in other towns. Clement did nothing new. Doing so did NOT mean that he was the supreme leader of Christianity. He never even addressed himself as such. If you were to go back and tell Clement that he was the supreme leader, he wouldn't have any idea what you're talking about.

---

You are creating another one of your strawman arguments that using a term like "supreme leader."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- You're question about why the churches didn't write to John for guidance is nonsensical. The churches didn't write to anyone for guidance. John was writing JESUS' words of guidance and warnings to the church. And you're running away from the fact that there was NO POPE involved here.

---

Of course there was no "Pope" during that time. It was just the Bishop of Rome, Clement. While letters between churches may have been written, the Corinthians needed help settling an issue. Clement serving as the Bishop of Rome and exercising authority over another community, wrote to the church in Corinth, instructing them to reinstate the unjustly deposed older presbyters (leaders) and called them to repentance and order.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- If popes have only spoken "ex cathedra" TWICE throughout the history of the church, then it's much more useless than anyone's imagined. That means that EVERYTHING ELSE they have uttered, organized, or approved is NOT infallible. You're only heightening my point!

---

No, as I mentioned in another post, infallibility offers a negative protection by the fact that the Holy Spirit keeps the Pope from proclaiming heresy when speaking ex cathedra.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- It's already been proven by historical fact that the early church universally denounced icon veneration, a belief and practice sanctioned by a Roman Catholic ecumenical church council as originating from the apostles themselves, a complete falsehood. It's also been proven that the council of Trent anathematized its own previous councils that approved different canons of Scripture. You are denial of facts and history.

---

Proven by whom, you? What is your authority? You have consistently misconstrued quotes from Church fathers to your view. I've demonstrated your errors and mischaracterizations several times. You refuse to accept this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Protestantism is the correction because it makes Scripture the only infallible authority for the church, which is the correct view. The question of how Scripture gets interpreted is a completely different one. The divisions over believer's baptism vs infant baptism, predestination vs free will, etc only demonstrates the freedom of Christians to follow their conscience, instead of it having to be ruled over by a corrupt central authority that has abused its authority and has corrupted the gospel.

---

Now you're using another ad hominem attack on the Church again.

"demonstrates the freedom of Christians to follow their conscience"

Do you not see the dangers of this error? If everyone can follow scripture by their own conscience, HOW can you accuse Catholics of misinterpreting scripture? Or anyone else for that matter. You have also fallen into the modern trap of "Relativism." Essentially, everyone has their own truth. This is why you have churches that allow same-sex (so-called) marriage, promote abortion, and allow for divorce. This position is so dangerous for Christianity.

Finally, scripture NEVER makes the claim that it is ONLY infallible authority.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- If you believe that the bread and wine are the literal body and blood of Jesus, then why did the apostles forbid Gentile Christians from consuming blood?

---

Consuming blood from sacrificed animals. Jesus' blood is transubstantiated, while the accidents of wine remain.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- If John 6 was literal, then clearly the Eucharist is an absolute requirement for salvation meaning one can be a true believer but still go to Hell because they didn't eat bread and drink wine. Is that truly the Gospel?

---

Wow! Two strawman arguments in one sentence. You are using words and phrases like "Absolute" and "go to Hell if they don't …". You are creating a binary view of salvation that God doesn't hold.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Why would Jesus lie to us and say that if we believe in him, we are saved?

---

Another strawman … Jesus NEVER claimed that we couldn't lose or give away that free gift of salvation. You are creating your own soteriology here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Why didn't Peter tell the house of Cornelius they weren't saved until they had the Eucharist? Why didn't Paul tell us that? Do you truly not see the problem here?

---

The Bible never says the house of Cornelius didn't take or refrained from the Eucharist. This is another failed attempt at an argument from silence. The Eucharist wasn't an essential point of this passage. The pivotal point is the Holy Spirit is poured out on the Gentiles and Peter sharing the kerygma with them. He baptized the ENTIRE household (including any babies and toddlers that would have been there.)

Paul does tell us how important the Eucharist is in 1 Cor. 10:16, as well as 1 Cor. 11:27-30.

Holy Cow! You sure do love your Gish Gallop!

Oldbear83 said:

---

Already debunked, that.

Interesting to see you keep going back to that, shows there's really nothing else but you want Peter to be Top Disciple.

Despite most of the New Testament.

---

Debunked it how? In your own mind? Even protestant scholars claim that Peter was the leader of the apostles.

I've demonstrated in several passages how Peter is the leader of the apostles. I've also used the Old Testament in Isiah 22 what the keys meant when Jesus gave them to Peter.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Here's a hint: Binary arguments are rarely honest representations of the matter.

---

You have done it again. You post a random comment with no context nor any explanation as to my alleged "binary" comment.

This often happens when you cannot prove your point.

Oldbear83 said:

---

canoso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Here's a hint: Binary arguments are rarely honest representations of the matter.

---

It's amazing the lengths we human beings will go to in order to give ourselves wiggle room. God, on the other hand, doesn't wiggle.

---

Agreed. It's sad how many human beings come up with an opinion and decide that's what God wants.

Scripture is not just cool stories. It had the law and the wisdom. And there are no Popes in Scripture, nor palaces for important people who happen to lead congregations, whether RC Protestant or what-have-you.

---

Another strawman/ad hominem argument.

Please point to scripture and verse of the Hypostatic Union and the dual natures of Christ.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Here's a hint: Binary arguments are rarely honest representations of the matter.

---

You have done it again. You post a random comment with no context nor any explanation as to my alleged "binary" comment.

This often happens when you cannot prove your point.

---

Ironic you would claim that, since it is YOUR points which flop around like fish out of water.

Try coming back when you calm down

Coke Bear: " Debunked it how? In your own mind? Even protestant scholars claim that Peter was the leader of the apostles."

You are being very rude. And a thing is either true or not, it never depends on human popularity.

I recall a verse or two to the effect that, when something was in dispute, Scriptures were consulted to settle the matter.

NEVER was it up to a human vote.




"I've demonstrated in several passages how Peter is the leader of the apostles. "

No, you have applied a subjective interpretation to cherry-picked verse taken out of context.

You would lose a high school debate with that level of 'evidence'.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Sola scriptura is for TODAY, not during the time of the council of Jerusalem. During those times, the apostles were alive and Christians could hear directly from them. Today, the only thing we know that is from the apostles is in Scripture, and nowhere else. This is the fact that you though you try, you can never escape from.

---

Where do you find that belief in the bible? Where does the bible say that public revelation has ended?

Also, how could "sola scriptura" exist when the apostles died? There was no canon until the 4th century. The Church debated books for hundreds of years. Sola scriptura could not have existed then.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- The successors to the apostles were charged ONLY with continuing what they the apostles had preached. And the record of what they preached is found ONLY in Scripture. Hence, sola scriptura. There is absolutely NO support ANYWHERE that the successors to the apostles were given the same authority or infallibility as the original apostles.

---

Sure, it started with Matthew 16:18-20 when Peter got the ability to bind and loose, and then Jesus gave it to his apostles in Matthew 18:18 and it was passed to the other replacements in Act 1, 2 Tim 2:2, Titus 1:5, etc. Where does the bible say that they did NOT receive that authority. You are trying to prove your point with a negative argument.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- NOTHING that Clement of Rome wrote indicated he was the supreme ruler of Christianity. You're conflating "bishop of Rome" with "pope" as Roman Catholicism defines it today. And it's a consensus among historians that there was no singular bishop of Rome until the middle of the second century. Before that time, the church in Rome was ruled by a council of elders.

---

Clement never claimed to the "supreme ruler of Christianity." The Papacy, like the Church, grew like the mustard seed. The term, Pope, wasn't used until the 4th century. It makes no difference. The leader of the Church has been the Bishop of Rome, starting with Peter, the undisputed leader of the Church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Leaders of a church in one town OFTEN wrote to other churches in other towns. Clement did nothing new. Doing so did NOT mean that he was the supreme leader of Christianity. He never even addressed himself as such. If you were to go back and tell Clement that he was the supreme leader, he wouldn't have any idea what you're talking about.

---

You are creating another one of your strawman arguments that using a term like "supreme leader."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- You're question about why the churches didn't write to John for guidance is nonsensical. The churches didn't write to anyone for guidance. John was writing JESUS' words of guidance and warnings to the church. And you're running away from the fact that there was NO POPE involved here.

---

Of course there was no "Pope" during that time. It was just the Bishop of Rome, Clement. While letters between churches may have been written, the Corinthians needed help settling an issue. Clement serving as the Bishop of Rome and exercising authority over another community, wrote to the church in Corinth, instructing them to reinstate the unjustly deposed older presbyters (leaders) and called them to repentance and order.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- If popes have only spoken "ex cathedra" TWICE throughout the history of the church, then it's much more useless than anyone's imagined. That means that EVERYTHING ELSE they have uttered, organized, or approved is NOT infallible. You're only heightening my point!

---

No, as I mentioned in another post, infallibility offers a negative protection by the fact that the Holy Spirit keeps the Pope from proclaiming heresy when speaking ex cathedra.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- It's already been proven by historical fact that the early church universally denounced icon veneration, a belief and practice sanctioned by a Roman Catholic ecumenical church council as originating from the apostles themselves, a complete falsehood. It's also been proven that the council of Trent anathematized its own previous councils that approved different canons of Scripture. You are denial of facts and history.

---

Proven by whom, you? What is your authority? You have consistently misconstrued quotes from Church fathers to your view. I've demonstrated your errors and mischaracterizations several times. You refuse to accept this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Protestantism is the correction because it makes Scripture the only infallible authority for the church, which is the correct view. The question of how Scripture gets interpreted is a completely different one. The divisions over believer's baptism vs infant baptism, predestination vs free will, etc only demonstrates the freedom of Christians to follow their conscience, instead of it having to be ruled over by a corrupt central authority that has abused its authority and has corrupted the gospel.

---

Now you're using another ad hominem attack on the Church again.

"demonstrates the freedom of Christians to follow their conscience"

Do you not see the dangers of this error? If everyone can follow scripture by their own conscience, HOW can you accuse Catholics of misinterpreting scripture? Or anyone else for that matter. You have also fallen into the modern trap of "Relativism." Essentially, everyone has their own truth. This is why you have churches that allow same-sex (so-called) marriage, promote abortion, and allow for divorce. This position is so dangerous for Christianity.

Finally, scripture NEVER makes the claim that it is ONLY infallible authority.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- If you believe that the bread and wine are the literal body and blood of Jesus, then why did the apostles forbid Gentile Christians from consuming blood?

---

Consuming blood from sacrificed animals. Jesus' blood is transubstantiated, while the accidents of wine remain.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- If John 6 was literal, then clearly the Eucharist is an absolute requirement for salvation meaning one can be a true believer but still go to Hell because they didn't eat bread and drink wine. Is that truly the Gospel?

---

Wow! Two strawman arguments in one sentence. You are using words and phrases like "Absolute" and "go to Hell if they don't …". You are creating a binary view of salvation that God doesn't hold.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Why would Jesus lie to us and say that if we believe in him, we are saved?

---

Another strawman … Jesus NEVER claimed that we couldn't lose or give away that free gift of salvation. You are creating your own soteriology here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Why didn't Peter tell the house of Cornelius they weren't saved until they had the Eucharist? Why didn't Paul tell us that? Do you truly not see the problem here?

---

The Bible never says the house of Cornelius didn't take or refrained from the Eucharist. This is another failed attempt at an argument from silence. The Eucharist wasn't an essential point of this passage. The pivotal point is the Holy Spirit is poured out on the Gentiles and Peter sharing the kerygma with them. He baptized the ENTIRE household (including any babies and toddlers that would have been there.)

Paul does tell us how important the Eucharist is in 1 Cor. 10:16, as well as 1 Cor. 11:27-30.

Holy Cow! You sure do love your Gish Gallop!

---

Seriously, you are either very dishonest or you're just not that bright. These responses you gave are just so ridiculous that I really think at this point you're just putting stuff out there just to answer, without realizing that your answers aren't even logically coherent.

- you're arguing that public revelation and infallible apostolic authority exists because the bible DOESN'T say that they don't exist. This is such an obvious, pathetic fallacy. Are you really this dense? I don't know why I even continue arguing with you.

- why would the papacy have to "grow like a mustard seed" if Peter was already the leader of the church? If Peter was the leader, and Clement succeeded him, then Clement should have been the leader. But there is absolutely NO evidence of this. Writing to other churches is what ALL church leaders did. It wasn't a sign of their supreme authority. And you're just ignoring the fact that there wasn't even a singular bishop of Rome until the middle of the 2nd century. Your argument for the papacy is just full of holes and completely falls apart.

- in Revelation, there was no "pope", OR anyone even resembling a singular head over the church. You're dancing around this inconvenient fact.

- you're dancing around the fact that speaking "ex cathedra" ONLY TWO TIMES in the entire history of the Catholic church makes it a completely useless doctrine. It means that ALL THE OTHER TIMES the pope had spoken, he was fallible and should not be trusted. And that makes the papacy a completely useless position.

- The incontrovertible fact is that the early church condemned icon veneration. You only make yourself look like a total idiot if you deny this. That's your choice.

- Jesus DID say that true believers would NOT lose their salvation, when he said: "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day." - John 6:39. You just don't know your Bible.

- The apostles in the Jerusalem council in Acts said NOTHING about forbidding only animal blood. You are adding to their words in Scripture. Pure dishonesty.

- Obviously, you're just not honest or intelligent enough to understand that if you take John 6 literally, then Jesus' literal words that you "MUST eat his flesh or you have no life in you" means absolutely that if you don't eat his flesh (i.e. the Eucharist) then you are not saved. Period. If you say otherwise, then you're calling Jesus a liar. This would necessarily mean that the house of Cornelius was NOT saved even after believing the gospel, receiving the Holy Spirit, and being water baptized. It would mean that anyone who truly believes in Jesus but dies before taking the Eucharist is not saved and goes to Hell. And since this is completely ridiculous and nonsensical, it means that Jesus' words were NOT literal. If you're too dumb to understand this, then I can't help you here.

Will just remind everyone here that according to the Father, as clearly expressed by the Son, there is one and only one Vicar of Christ, who is the Holy Spirit, permanently indwelling every person who has been born of Him.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Here's a hint: Binary arguments are rarely honest representations of the matter.

---

You have done it again. You post a random comment with no context nor any explanation as to my alleged "binary" comment.

This often happens when you cannot prove your point.

---

Ironic you would claim that, since it is YOUR points which flop around like fish out of water.

Try coming back when you calm down

---

I'm completely calm and rested, yet you still failed to provide clarification as to my "binary" comment.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: " Debunked it how? In your own mind? Even protestant scholars claim that Peter was the leader of the apostles."

You are being very rude. And a thing is either true or not, it never depends on human popularity.

I recall a verse or two to the effect that, when something was in dispute, Scriptures were consulted to settle the matter.

NEVER was it up to a human vote.




"I've demonstrated in several passages how Peter is the leader of the apostles. "

No, you have applied a subjective interpretation to cherry-picked verse taken out of context.

You would lose a high school debate with that level of 'evidence'.

---

Who specifically is the determining arbiter of these passages?

The Church has existed and functioned for nearly 2000 years as Peter functioning as the leader of the apostles and the Church.

One can read the Church fathers, who provide the same confirmation.

Yet you ignore all that for a "reformed" belief that didn't exist until a few hundred years ago.

You have provided no proof other than YOUR opinion. Why should I take YOUR opinion with is contradictory to history?

Finally, I asked you in a few posts ago to state when you believed the Catholic Church first started and who you think was the first Pope/Bishop of Rome.

I'll eagerly await your reply.

PS. I'm still calm. I'm just looking for facts.

canoso said:

---

Will just remind everyone here that according to the Father, as clearly expressed by the Son, there is one and only one Vicar of Christ, who is the Holy Spirit, permanently indwelling every person who has been born of Him.

---

You are confusing "Vicar" with "Advocate". The former refers to His "representative." While the later refers to "someone who will provide council."

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

Have a great weekend everyone

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- you're arguing that public revelation and infallible apostolic authority exists because the bible DOESN'T say that they don't exist. This is such an obvious, pathetic fallacy. Are you really this dense? I don't know why I even continue arguing with you.

---

Did you take a class in creating strawman arguments? I'm saying that sola scriptura is false because you believe in concepts that are not found in the bible like the end of public revelation and accepting books of the Bible like Mark and Hebrews.

Jesus gives them that authority in Matt 18:18. They exercised it in Acts.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- why would the papacy have to "grow like a mustard seed" if Peter was already the leader of the church? If Peter was the leader, and Clement succeeded him, then Clement should have been the leader. But there is absolutely NO evidence of this. Writing to other churches is what ALL church leaders did. It wasn't a sign of their supreme authority. And you're just ignoring the fact that there wasn't even a singular bishop of Rome until the middle of the 2nd century. Your argument for the papacy is just full of holes and completely falls apart.

---

Clement didn't succeed Peter immediately. Linus did in AD 67. Anacletus succeeded him in AD 76. And Clement succeeded him in AD 88. Irenaeus of Lyon complied that list around AD 175 190. The rest of his list is Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, and Eleutherius. All of them were martyred for their role as bishop of Rome. The Blood of the Martyrs is the Seed of the Church.

Clement, using his authority, called out their behavior and told them to reinstate the leaders. AND THEY DID. His letter was read there for centuries afterward and it was debated as to whether it was canon or not.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- in Revelation, there was no "pope", OR anyone even resembling a singular head over the church. You're dancing around this inconvenient fact.

---

No, you are hung up on the word "pope." There certainly was a Bishop of Rome during that time, who was Clement I, who IS mentioned in Philippians 4:3.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- you're dancing around the fact that speaking "ex cathedra" ONLY TWO TIMES in the entire history of the Catholic church makes it a completely useless doctrine. It means that ALL THE OTHER TIMES the pope had spoken, he was fallible and should not be trusted. And that makes the papacy a completely useless position.

---

As I mentioned in another post, infallibility provides a negative protection that keeps the Popes from teaching heresy ex cathedra.

Infallibility is always provided to the Magisterium when it teaches doctrine or dogma.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- The incontrovertible fact is that the early church condemned icon veneration. You only make yourself look like a total idiot if you deny this. That's your choice.

---

You are confusing the early church with early church fathers. Only a handful of EARLY church fathers had issues with images, pictures, or statues because they were concerned that the lay faithful may confuse them with idolatry or be tempted to worship as pagan worship. When Rome fell in the 5th century, paganism was still popular, especially with the aristocracy. It didn't fully disappear until the 6th or 7th century. This is why a HANDFUL of EARLY Church fathers were against it. NO Ecumenical Council denounced icon veneration.

One local council, Council of Hieria (754) did reject icon, but it was overruled in the Second Council of Nicaea (787 AD) an ecumenical council.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Jesus DID say that true believers would NOT lose their salvation, when he said: "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day." - John 6:39. You just don't know your Bible.

---

You are reading into the bible. This verse assures us of Christ's fidelity and God's desire for us all to be saved, but it doesn't negate our responsibility to remain faithful to him and keep his commandments.

Interesting that you will hold firm with the literal interpretations of this ONE verse in John 6 but reject ALL of Jesus' words in the rest of the chapter.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- The apostles in the Jerusalem council in Acts said NOTHING about forbidding only animal blood. You are adding to their words in Scripture. Pure dishonesty.

---

Up to that point, the bible NEVER mentions people drinking human blood. It is assumed that the "blood" referred to in Acts 15 was animals. Irrespective, I'll omit the word "animal". My argument still stands with respect to the accidents of wine remain while the substance is changed. Anyone partaking was NOT breaking the temporary dietary restriction delivered in Acts 15.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Obviously, you're just not honest or intelligent enough to understand that if you take John 6 literally, then Jesus' literal words that you "MUST eat his flesh or you have no life in you" means absolutely that if you don't eat his flesh (i.e. the Eucharist) then you are not saved. Period. If you say otherwise, then you're calling Jesus a liar. This would necessarily mean that the house of Cornelius was NOT saved even after believing the gospel, receiving the Holy Spirit, and being water baptized. It would mean that anyone who truly believes in Jesus but dies before taking the Eucharist is not saved and goes to Hell. And since this is completely ridiculous and nonsensical, it means that Jesus' words were NOT literal. If you're too dumb to understand this, then I can't help you here.

---

What is "completely ridiculous and nonsensical" (and I'll add sophomoric) is your argument here. Many Catholics here have stated that God works outside of the Sacraments, we can't. I'm not sure why you DON'T want to understand that.

We are never told if that do or do not receive the Eucharist from the apostles. As I mentioned, that wasn't integral part of this story. It's very possible that they DID received the Eucharist and it's not mentioned.

But let's say they didn't. Jesus isn't going to bind them to something that they weren't aware of. Do you think that any 14th century Native American made it to heaven. What about babies or children that die before they can say the Sinner's prayer? Are they going to hell?

I do find it interesting you continue to use ad hominem attacks on individuals here when they disagree with your fallible opinion. Especially when they conflict with nearly every Church father that says otherwise.

PS. When did your church start again and who is its founder? Please provide historical proof.

2/22/26
Church tomorrow. Find a good Bible believing church and attend
8,9