.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

.

---

That time of the month?

It happens that I spent the last three days being ill, and that gave me some time to think on certain matters of importance.

Reading through this thread, I find myself compelled to address what I see as three critical points: The Salvation of the Soul, the Split between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants, and the promise to us offered by Christ.

There have been a lot of posts arguing points regarding whether and how our souls are saved, but few seem to focus on what the soul is, in that respect. I mention this because I see a lot of posts about our minds and our arguments, but pretty much no posts addressing the spiritual character of the soul. This is, to me, an essential consideration of the matter. Our intellect and physical attributes change over time for everyone, but some people are essentially the same moral person their whole lives, while others change as they mature and grow as people. This matters because as God is omniscient, He knows what we will choose in regard to our souls' destiny.

I base my opinion on God and His Judgment according to Scripture. This is because human opinion is so inconstant and arbitrary, while Scripture can be trusted. Throughout Scripture, God reveals His earnest desire that we should be reconciled to Him as a wayward child returning home. The messages we see over and over are plain:

• We make choices which have permanent and serious consequences. Hell is real and to be greatly feared;
• God offers a way to avoid this destruction, but warns that only a few find it;
• Nonetheless, God continues to provide opportunity for us to turn back from calamity;
• Even after we are saved, Satan attacks believers relentlessly, using any means possible including temptation, persecution and death;
• Believers should regularly search their heart and confess sin, and redouble efforts to follow Christ's example in our own lives

Therefore, the way of Christ is one of great joy and hope, but also great danger and an awareness that we will be in battle to our last breath.

Next is the matter of the Schism between Roman Catholics (and to a lesser degree, the Orthodox Church) and the Protestant Reformation. A bit of that comes from strident claims that brook no doubt or consideration of 'the other side'.

I suppose I differ a bit from other Protestants, in that I accept and respect the contributions of the early Church leaders and believe that there are many Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians who serve Christ as faithful believers, and whose understanding of the Gospel is well worth consideration and discussion.

I differ from our Roman Catholic and Orthodox brothers in their presumption that the earlier sects are somehow right with Christ, while the Protestants are heretical and offensive to Christ. Some of this comes from the refusal by Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians to accept the sins of their Popes and Patriarchs.

Certainly the Protestant denominations have their own share of false leaders, but this does not make any of the denominations heretical; only that the leaders of any of these groups are fallible and flawed. In my opinion, each denomination should learn from each others, with respect and in alignment with Scripture. I would also observe that if long tradition and history were the signs of primacy, the Jewish tradition would have prevailed against Christ's new teachings, even though those were consistent with Scripture. Scripture is the essence, not Tradition.

I might also argue that I disagree somewhat with the notion of Sola Scriptura. I would prefer the term Scriptura Suprema, because Scripture itself teaches lessons from human examples, or else we should not have so many dozens of books in Scripture. That said, Jesus' rebuke of human tradition makes plain that God wants us to focus on His words more than the variance of men.


Finally, I come back to the title of this thread. Certainly we all hope to go to Heaven after we finish this life, but I see blessings offered to anyone who accepts Christ which are immediate. It's great to dream of Heaven, but commitment to Christ means we have access to a direct relationship with our Lord. The command to 'pray without ceasing' is not meant to coerce us into reporting to God, but instead provides us an unbreakable link to our Lord, with promise of a friendship greater than anything offered by any human.

Stop for a moment and consider that Jesus Christ wants to know how you are doing, what you are thinking, what you need. He wants you to tell Him, for the same reason your best friend hopes you will open up to him about your hopes, fears and plans.

He's just waiting for you to reach out to Him.

I am sure many will find fault with my thoughts here. But I felt they might be worth discussion, and if nothing else they illustrate my heart and hopes.

Thank you for reading.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I might also argue that I disagree somewhat with the notion of Sola Scriptura. I would prefer the term Scriptura Suprema, because Scripture itself teaches lessons from human examples, or else we should not have so many dozens of books in Scripture. That said, Jesus' rebuke of human tradition makes plain that God wants us to focus on His words more than the variance of men.

---

Explain why this is a "somewhat" disagreement with sola scriptura. You seem to be disagreeing with something else, NOT sola scriptura.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I might also argue that I disagree somewhat with the notion of Sola Scriptura. I would prefer the term Scriptura Suprema, because Scripture itself teaches lessons from human examples, or else we should not have so many dozens of books in Scripture. That said, Jesus' rebuke of human tradition makes plain that God wants us to focus on His words more than the variance of men.

---

Explain why this is a "somewhat" disagreement with sola scriptura. You seem to be disagreeing with something else, NOT sola scriptura.

---

It's an attempt to get the discussion moving. And I submit that the Sola part causes our Roman Catholic friends to stall on that point.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I might also argue that I disagree somewhat with the notion of Sola Scriptura. I would prefer the term Scriptura Suprema, because Scripture itself teaches lessons from human examples, or else we should not have so many dozens of books in Scripture. That said, Jesus' rebuke of human tradition makes plain that God wants us to focus on His words more than the variance of men.

---

Explain why this is a "somewhat" disagreement with sola scriptura. You seem to be disagreeing with something else, NOT sola scriptura.

---

It's an attempt to get the discussion moving. And I submit that the Sola part causes our Roman Catholic friends to stall on that point.

---

But what is YOUR specific disagreement with sola scriptura? How is it different from your concept of "sola suprema"?

I covered that in my post.

There are dozens of books in Scripture, considering hundreds of people and their words/actions. We learn a lot from their stories, which demonstrate that there is value in observing how people around us behave and speak, which tells us that traditions have value, provided they are consistent with Scripture.

Hence Suprema is more accurate than Sola.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I covered that in my post.

There are dozens of books in Scripture, considering hundreds of people and their words/actions. We learn a lot from their stories, which demonstrate that there is value in observing how people around us behave and speak, which tells us that traditions have value, provided they are consistent with Scripture.

Hence Suprema is more accurate than Sola.

---

You are arguing against your false conception of sola scriptura, not against what sola scriptura actually is. You are making the same mistake as the Roman Catholics and Orthodox here. Sola scriptura is not about Scripture being the only thing that has "value" or which can be learned from.

It's amazing how much this simple concept keeps tripping people up, after all the times it's been explained and re-explained.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I covered that in my post.

There are dozens of books in Scripture, considering hundreds of people and their words/actions. We learn a lot from their stories, which demonstrate that there is value in observing how people around us behave and speak, which tells us that traditions have value, provided they are consistent with Scripture.

Hence Suprema is more accurate than Sola.

---

You are arguing against your false conception of sola scriptura, not against what sola scriptura actually is. You are making the same mistake as the Roman Catholics and Orthodox here. Sola scriptura is not about Scripture being the only thing that has "value" or which can be learned from.

It's amazing how much this simple concept keeps tripping people up, after all the times it's been explained and re-explained.

---

You keep ignoring what I told you.

The purpose of these threads is to discuss the topics, as in move forward. I have told you already that I am trying to get our RC friends to move forward on this topic.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I covered that in my post.

There are dozens of books in Scripture, considering hundreds of people and their words/actions. We learn a lot from their stories, which demonstrate that there is value in observing how people around us behave and speak, which tells us that traditions have value, provided they are consistent with Scripture.

Hence Suprema is more accurate than Sola.

---

You are arguing against your false conception of sola scriptura, not against what sola scriptura actually is. You are making the same mistake as the Roman Catholics and Orthodox here. Sola scriptura is not about Scripture being the only thing that has "value" or which can be learned from.

It's amazing how much this simple concept keeps tripping people up, after all the times it's been explained and re-explained.

---

You keep ignoring what I told you.

The purpose of these threads is to discuss the topics, as in move forward. I have told you already that I am trying to get our RC friends to move forward on this topic.

---

Yes, that's what I'm doing. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm discussing the topic that you specifically brought up, by noting that you have a false conception of sola scriptura. You can't move forward a discussion based on a false notion. In fact, you'd only be affirming the false notion that the Roman Catholics have. And like the Roman Catholics here, you aren't demonstrating any willingness to learn from your mistake.

The expected response.

Well, some seeds don't land on fertile soil, even in discussion among believers.

Have a good one.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The expected response.

Well, some seeds don't land on fertile soil, even in discussion among believers.

Have a good one.

---

I wouldn't consider false items to be "seeds".

You really do act like a child on these threads. Why not just either own up to your mistake, or discuss why you think it's not one?

Sir, your post just there is an ad hominem. It is also a false accusation.

I, for my part, remain focused on the topic.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sir, your post just there is an ad hominem. It is also a false accusation.

I, for my part, remain focused on the topic.

---

Then explain why it's false. Go ahead, the forum is waiting for the discussion that you wanted.

You're not focused on the topic which you yourself brought up if you're running away from it.

Another ad hominem from you.

Hmm

Colossians 2:9-10 KJV
[9] For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. [10] And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Galatians 5:2-4 KJV
[2] Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. [3] For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. [4] Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

I hope you all had a great Sunday as we start the new week.

Isaiah 53:5 KJV
[5] But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Oldbear83 said:

---

It's an attempt to get the discussion moving. And I submit that the Sola part causes our Roman Catholic friends to stall on that point.

---

I think the other half of that is whether scripture is a list of positive liberties or a list of negative liberties.

You may recall I noted it's important to look at the whole chapter to understand a passage. Context is important.

Quote:

---

while the Protestants are heretical and offensive to Christ

---

As an Orthodox Christian, it is difficult to speak of "Protestants" as a group because there is such a wide variation in what the different denominations believe.

This is why we refer to Protestants as heterodox, not heretical.

While this Protestant reformation undoubtedly began with good intentions it very quickly became a process of continual innovation. Under that label there are groups that are much closer to the faith once delivered to the Saints such as confessional Lutherans and others such as oneness and prosperity preaching Pentecostals, liberal Methodists, etc who are inhabiting a space in a galaxy far, far away.

I do not believe that confessional Lutherans are offensive to Christ. I cannot say the same about the other two groups.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

while the Protestants are heretical and offensive to Christ

---

As an Orthodox Christian, it is difficult to speak of "Protestants" as a group because there is such a wide variation in what the different denominations believe.

This is why we refer to Protestants as heterodox, not heretical.

While this Protestant reformation undoubtedly began with good intentions it very quickly became a process of continual innovation. Under that label there are groups that are much closer to the faith once delivered to the Saints such as confessional Lutherans and others such as oneness and prosperity preaching Pentecostals, liberal Methodists, etc who are inhabiting a space in a galaxy far, far away.

I do not believe that confessional Lutherans are offensive to Christ. I cannot say the same about the other two groups.

---

I agree that throwing all 'Protestants' into one box is a mistake, Southern Baptists are very different from Episcopalians and United Methodists (how far has the UMC strayed!), as obvious examples, and that's not touching all the non-denominational churches which seem to me to be Christian only in advertising.

I also agree with you, RealityBites, that we should all consider whether a certain person's preaching and teaching is in line with what Jesus did and taught. No one should imagine that the Gospel was about money and comfort in this life, especially knowing the poverty of the prophets and the Saints in Scripture. No one should read that we are to 'take up our cross and follow Christ', and take that to mean we should expect an easy life with no trouble. And no one should forget that Satan hates all believers and will persecute and attack believers throughout their lives. Just one reason we are constantly warned to persevere to the end.

I do wish there was more clear affirmation among various denominations on the common ground we share.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You may recall I noted it's important to look at the whole chapter to understand a passage. Context is important.

---

Yes context is very important

Chris Thomlin

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.

---

Hmmm

Don't go to clown church this Sunday.

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

I hope you all had a great weekend

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

So what happens to all the Asians, Indians, Arabs, Jews, Americans and European non believers?

---

The same thing that happens to all white non believers
God doesn't favor one race over another as it pertains to Salvation.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I believe every word said by our Lord Jesus Christ,

Claims from Paul, various Popes and Ministers, and our friend Frodo, not without corroborating it with what Christ said.

---

Christ directly gave Paul his message and Peter endorsed Paul's writings as Scripture. You can't pick and choose which of Jesus's Doctrine you want to believe. It is ALL His Word and came from.Him.



Galatians 1:12

New International Version (NIV)
Bible Book List
Font Size
Galatians 1:12
KJ21
for I neither received it from man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
ASV
For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.
AMP
For indeed I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a [direct] revelation of Jesus Christ.
AMPC
For indeed I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but [it came to me] through a [direct] revelation [given] by Jesus Christ (the Messiah).
BRG
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
CSB
For I did not receive it from a human source and I was not taught it, but it came by a revelation of Jesus Christ.
CSBA
For I did not receive it from a human source and I was not taught it, but it came by a revelation of Jesus Christ.
CEB
I didn't receive it or learn it from a human. It came through a revelation from Jesus Christ.
CJB
because neither did I receive it from someone else nor was I taught it it came through a direct revelation from Yeshua the Messiah.
CEV
It wasn't given or taught to me by some mere human. My message came directly from Jesus Christ when he appeared to me.
DARBY
For neither did I receive them from man, neither was I taught [them], but by revelation of Jesus Christ.
DLNT
For I neither received it from a human, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
DRA
For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
ERV
I did not get my message from any other human. The Good News is not something I learned from other people. Jesus Christ himself gave it to me. He showed me the Good News that I should tell people.
EASY
Nobody on earth gave it to me. Nobody taught it to me. No, it was Jesus Christ himself who showed it to me clearly.
EHV
For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation from Jesus Christ.
ESV
For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
ESVUK
For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
EXB
I did not get it from humans [a human source; man], nor did anyone teach it to me, but Jesus Christ showed it to me [Lby a revelation of/from/about Jesus Christ; Acts 9].
GNV
For neither received I it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
GW
I didn't receive it from any person. I wasn't taught it, but Jesus Christ revealed it to me.
GNT
I did not receive it from any human being, nor did anyone teach it to me. It was Jesus Christ himself who revealed it to me.
HCSB
For I did not receive it from a human source and I was not taught it, but it came by a revelation from Jesus Christ.
ICB
I did not get it from men, nor did any man teach it to me. Jesus Christ showed it to me.
ISV
For I did not receive it from a man, nor was I taught it, but it was revealed to me by Jesus the Messiah.
PHILLIPS
The Gospel I preach to you is no human invention. No man gave it to me, no man taught it to me; it came to me as a direct revelation from Jesus Christ.
JUB
For I did not receive it nor learn it from man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
KJV
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
AKJV
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
LSB
For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
LEB
For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
TLB
For my message comes from no less a person than Jesus Christ himself, who told me what to say. No one else has taught me.
MSG
Do you think I speak this strongly in order to manipulate crowds? Or court favor with God? Or get popular applause? If my goal was popularity, I wouldn't bother being Christ's slave. Know thisI am most emphatic here, friendsthis great Message I delivered to you is not mere human optimism. I didn't receive it through the traditions, and I wasn't taught it in some school. I got it straight from God, received the Message directly from Jesus Christ.
MEV
For I neither received it from man, neither was I taught it, except by a revelation of Jesus Christ.
MOUNCE
For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it; instead I received it by a revelation from Jesus Christ.
NOG
I didn't receive it from any person. I wasn't taught it, but Yeshua Christ revealed it to me.
NABRE
For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
NASB
For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
NASB1995
For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
NCB
I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it. Rather, I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
NCV
I did not get it from humans, nor did anyone teach it to me, but Jesus Christ showed it to me.
NET
For I did not receive it or learn it from any human source; instead I received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ.
NIRV
No one gave it to me. No one taught it to me. Instead, I received it from Jesus Christ. He showed it to me.
NIV
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
NIVUK
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
NKJV
For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
NLV
I did not receive it from man. No one taught it to me. I received it from Jesus Christ as He showed it to me.
NLT
I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ.
NMB
nor was I taught it, but I received it by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
NRSVA
for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
NRSVACE
for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
NRSVCE
for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
NRSVUE
for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
NTFE
I didn't receive it from human beings, nor was I taught it; it came through an unveiling of Jesus the Messiah.
OJB
For neither did I receive it from Bnei Adam nor was I taught it, but no, it was through a chazon (revelation) of Moshiach Yehoshua.
RGT
Neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
RSV
For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
RSVCE
For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
TLV
I did not receive it from any human, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Yeshua the Messiah.
VOICE
It is not a legend I learned or one that has been passed down from person to person, ear to ear. I was gifted with this message as Jesus the Anointed revealed Himself miraculously to me.
WEB
For I didn't receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.
WE
No man told it to me. No man taught it to me. But it was Jesus Christ who showed it to me.
WYC
nor I took it of man, nor learned [neither I took it of man, neither learned], but by [the] revelation of Jesus Christ.
YLT

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

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

nothing you're arguing is proving Roman bishop supremacy over the church;
there is NOTHING in Scripture that describes anything close to there being a single, human ruler over the church; it's nowhere in Acts, and in fact if anything it was James who ruled over the council of Jerusalem; Paul makes NO mention of that office anywhere in all of his letters; even Peter doesn't even address himself as such - rather he refers to himself as a "fellow elder"; there is NO POPE anywhere in Jesus' letters to the seven churches of Revelation. It really should end here.

---

Except for the fact that Jesus put Peter in charge in Matthew 16, re-affirmed it at the Last Supper in Luke 22:31-32, and once more on the shore of the Sea of Galilee in John 21:15-17.
Please note that Peter made the deciding opinion in Acts at the Council of Rome. James, as the bishop of Jerusalem, affirmed his decision.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

historians agree that the church in Rome was not ruled by a single bishop until the middle of the second century, but rather it was ruled by a council of elders or presbyters;
Ignatius of Antioch doesn't even mention a bishop of Rome;
Clement himself doesn't even claim to write as bishop, let alone as the supreme ruler over the church;
Ignatius, like Clement, also wrote letters to other churches and was listened to;

---

Clement wrote to correct behaviors and actions in the Corinth that was led by a group of elders (presbyters). They had their leaders, yet Clement wrote to correct their behaviors and actions.
Ignatius was rebuking heresy. Ignatius never claimed to be bishop.
Clement didn't have to claim to be the Bishop of Rome.

Tertullian confirms his office in his Prescription Against Heretics(chapter 32) AD 200 - when states that Peter ordained him.
Eusebius, in his Church History, calls Clement the third bishop of Rome and as the "co-laborer" with Paul.

He spoke with authority when correcting the Corinthians when he said, "You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts."

He goes onto say, "If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; . . ."

No other letter during this time spoke with this authority to a church that already had its own leaders.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

if your letters being listened to made you head of the church, then the apostle Paul by far has that distinction, having started nine churches and possibly more; and Paul's letters, unlike Clement's, ARE scripture. So why doesn't this make Paul the head of the church?

---

This is another strawman argument. Paul was never the bishop of Rome.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Shepherd of Hermas even writes of "presbyters (plural) who preside over the church";

---

Even though the early Christian community in Rome was comprised of various house churches, the Church still recognized the importance of have a central figure to maintain doctrinal integrity and unity among these varied groups.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

NONE of the ecumenical church councils were convoked by the bishop of Rome, they were all convoked by the Roman Emperor, and the pope wasn't even allowed to preside over all of them;
In one ecumenical council, the pope wasn't even invited;
the ecumenical councils gave the bishops of Constantinople and Antioch equal authority over their regions as the bishop of Rome had over his. The ecumenical councils did NOT see the Roman bishop as having any kind of supremacy over the entire church;

---

Constantinople I was called for and only attended by Eastern bishops to resolve Eastern problems.

It was later elevated by Pope Gregory the Great as an ecumenical council.

Constantinople tried to take authority as the "New Rome", but that canon was never accepted. As a matter of fact, the Council of Chalcedon (451) in Canon 28, addressed the privileges of Constantinople "next after" Rome.

Many other ecumenical councils were ratified or recognized by the Roman Pontiff, a practice that became a criterion for ecumenical status; the pope's prerogative to convoke, preside over, and confirm councils is affirmed in Catholic teaching and historical accounts.

Several Church Fathers agree too

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus - by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Eamon Duffy, Emeritus Professor of Christian History at Cambridge University and former member of the Pontifical Historical Commission, who wrote on the history of the popes: "Clement made no claim to write as bishop. His letter was sent in the name of the whole Roman community, he never identifies himself or writes in his own person..... The letter itself makes no distinction between presbyters and bishops, about which it always speaks in the plural, suggesting that at Corinth as at Rome, the church at this time was organized under a group of bishops or presbyters, rather than a single ruling bishop. A generation later, this was still so in Rome." (Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, 3rd edition. (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 2006), 10.

---

Eamon Duffy is NO authority on the Church. Why should we trust someone who wrote 1800 years after Irenaeus gave us a list in AD 180? It would be silly to reject actual history in favor of an opinion written almost 2 millennia later.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also Eamon Duffy: "To begin with, indeed, there was no "pope", no bishop as such, for the church in Rome was slow to develop the office of chief presbyter, or bishop. By the end of the first century the loose patter of Christian authority of the first generation of believers was giving way in many places to the more organised rule of a single bishop for each city, supported by a college of elders..... There is no sure way to settle on the date by which the office of ruling had emerged in Rome, and so to name the first Pope, but the process was certainly complete by the time of Anicetus in the mid-150s."

---

Interesting, a few months ago, you (incorrectly) claimed that the Catholic Church didn't start until after Constantine "made it the official religion" of Rome. I corrected you, stating that it was Theodosius in AD 380, and you then doubled-down with 4th century establishment.

With your submission of Duffy's statement, it seems like you are now conceding that the Catholic Church was established sometime in the mid-second century. I'd say that's some good progress for you! Hopefully a few more corrections of your knowledge of Church history, you will accept that Jesus Christ established the Church in AD 33. Keep up the great work!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It's clear to any rational, honest, and intelligent person that the Roman Catholic's church claim regarding the papacy and its primacy over the whole Christian church simply does not line up with Scripture or church history. Your admission that the papacy "grew like a mustard seed" is essentially an admission that the office and authority of the pope as it was declared at Vatican I was purely the result of accretion over time, and thus did NOT originate from the apostles or the early church, and therefore is NOT from God.

---

Another strawman (again). The Bible is clear about Peter's leadership role. To deny this is to argue with the Bible.
Of course, the papacy is going to look different 1900 years after the fact. The Church started with 12 apostles on Pentecost and grew rapidly from there. As the Church grew, so did the roles and responsibilities grow of the bishop of Rome.

Who's the leader of your church and does he have infallible authority to interpret scriptures?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Wait, hold on there, don't run away from my question.

Explain exactly how believing in those concepts you mentioned (end of public revelation, accepting Mark and Hebrews) means that sola scriptura is false.

Show us that you're even capable of having this discussion. Or at least show us some honesty and admit that you're wrong.

---

I'm not running away from your question. I'll explain my answer so that you can better understand it …

Very simply, you claim that the bible is God's only sole source of authority. I've have provided three teachings/beliefs that are agreed upon by protestants that are NOT taught in the bible. Some other authority (NOT the Bible) had to confirm those beliefs. That authority is the Magisterium.

NOW, please present your premise of SS in ONE SENTENCE.

Repeating false claims already addressed is not a way to move the discussion forward. Neither is asking leading questions also already addressed.

Be better.