Go out in Jesus Name

[Cathode]

One thing that disproves Catholicism as apostolic is that there were no monarchial bishops in the apostolic church. A bishop in the NT and early church was simply a pastor of a local church, as 'bishop' and 'pastor' were synonymous terms for one and the same office. There were not two separate offices with a bishop over a pastor in the early church.

Not so. Look at what this disciple of John says, who incidentally is Bishop of Antioch.

“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ of God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).

This is Catholicism here. Note Ignatius names 3 bishops of Rome.

In case it isn’t clear, this is Ignatius again.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

 

[easternstar]

Not so. Look at what this disciple of John says, who incidentally is Bishop of Antioch.

“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ of God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).

This is Catholicism here. Note Ignatius names 3 bishops of Rome.

In case it isn’t clear, this is Ignatius again.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

Fiction.
In the New Testament, the words for bishop, pastor, elder, overseer were used interchangeably -- all synonyms for one and the same office. Monarchial bishops were at the earliest a mid-second century development. That is factual church history, and it destroys the Catholic notion of apostolic succession.
Ignatius's idea of a bishop is equivalent to a senior pastor. No monarchial bishops existed in his time. The idea that monarchial bishops can be traced back to Peter in an unbroken succession is a myth. The NT usage of the word bishop proves the case as I have stated. I'll base my belief on the NT, and you can have Catholic 'tradition', which is scripturally and historically untenable, and untrue.

 

[Cathode]

Notice Ignatius is writing to different Churches as well.

Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch writing to the Smyrneans telling them that….

“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

The bishop of Smyrna was Polycarp, the “ Catholic Church “ was a universal union of bishops not a meaning a general “ small c catholic “ church at all.

 

[Walter]

The ONLY oral traditions that are valid are the ones in the Bible

Fiction.
In the New Testament, the words for bishop, pastor, elder, overseer were used interchangeably -- all synonyms for one and the same office. Monarchial bishops were at the earliest a mid-second century development. That is factual church history, and it destroys the Catholic notion of apostolic succession.
Ignatius's idea of a bishop is equivalent to a senior pastor. No monarchial bishops existed in his time. The idea that monarchial bishops can be traced back to Peter in an unbroken succession is a myth. The NT usage of the word bishop proves the case as I have stated. I'll base my belief on the NT, and you can have Catholic 'tradition', which is scripturally and historically untenable, and untrue.

While the roles were fluid in the Apostolic age, by A.D. 110, Ignatius of Antioch (Disciple of St. John) established that bishops, priests, and deacons were distinct and essential to the Church's structure. The Church grew and evolved.

There are many things in Baptist churches that you don't find anywhere in the New Testament. Do you have sound systems, hymnals, pews, baptismal tanks, pulpits, choir robes, altar calls, Sunday school, etc, etc? Does that 'disprove' Baptist churches?

 

[Cathode]

Fiction.
In the New Testament, the words for bishop, pastor, elder, overseer were used interchangeably -- all synonyms for one and the same office. Monarchial bishops were at the earliest a mid-second century development. That is factual church history, and it destroys the Catholic notion of apostolic succession.
Ignatius's idea of a bishop is equivalent to a senior pastor. No monarchial bishops existed in his time. The idea that monarchial bishops can be traced back to Peter in an unbroken succession is a myth. The NT usage of the word bishop proves the case as I have stated. I'll base my belief on the NT, and you can have Catholic 'tradition', which is scripturally and historically untenable, and untrue.

Well you know better than the disciples and successors of the Apostles.

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

Clement mentioned in Philippians 4:3 as “fellow labourer” of Paul, ordained by Peter.
Gives a clear outline of Apostolic succession.

Yours is the fiction, I’m giving contemporaneous evidence from history and all you have is prejudiced narrative with no evidence from history.

Do you know better than these men who knew, worked with and learned from Peter, Paul and John ?

 

[Charlie24]

Well you know better than the disciples and successors of the Apostles.

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

Clement mentioned in Philippians 4:3 as “fellow labourer” of Paul, ordained by Peter.
Gives a clear outline of Apostolic succession.

Yours is the fiction, I’m giving contemporaneous evidence from history and all you have is prejudiced narrative with no evidence from history.

Do you know better than these men who knew, worked with and learned from Peter, Paul and John ?

If they learned from Peter, Paul and John something went bad wrong from the 1st century to the 3rd.

 

[Cathode]

Fiction.
In the New Testament, the words for bishop, pastor, elder, overseer were used interchangeably -- all synonyms for one and the same office. Monarchial bishops were at the earliest a mid-second century development. That is factual church history, and it destroys the Catholic notion of apostolic succession.

You haven’t given any facts or quoted any contemporaries of early church history

You just have prejudiced narrative with nothing behind it. Zero calorie.
Yours is the Fiction.

I quoted you actual historical evidence from Apostolic Fathers.

 

[Cathode]

If they learned from Peter, Paul and John something went bad wrong from the 1st century to the 3rd.

Something went bad wrong in the 1500s more like it.
This is when packs of wolves showed up. Each interpreting their own human doctrines from scripture.
It was the explosive specification of error, each in conflict with the other.

The early church looked nothing like any of them.

 

[Charlie24]

Something went bad wrong in the 1500s more like it.
This is when packs of wolves showed up. Each interpreting their own human doctrines from scripture.
It was the explosive specification of error, each in conflict with the other.

The early church looked nothing like any of them.

Hello Cathode.

I would have to say the 1500's was the major correction of what went bad wrong leading up to the Lord convicting the heart of Martin Luther.

 

[Charlie24]

Hello Cathode.

I would have to say the 1500's was the major correction of what went bad wrong leading up to the Lord convicting the heart of Martin Luther.

Cathode, I'm to lazy to look it up but I know you know the name of those stairs that Christ supposedly walked and left drops of blood.

History says Luther was on the stairs on his knees I believe is how they tread those steps, kissing the drops of blood.

Then for some reason the words "the just shall live by faith" came to his mind and left those stairs and began his 95 thesis.

Do you believe any of that from history?

 

[Cathode]

Hello Cathode.

I would have to say the 1500's was the major correction of what went bad wrong leading up to the Lord convicting the heart of Martin Luther.

Luther was not a godly man. The more one reads of him the more you realise that there is no way he was guided by God.

He was about as guided by God as Muhammad was.

 

[Walter]

You haven’t given any facts or quoted any contemporaries of early church history

You just have prejudiced narrative with nothing behind it. Zero calorie.
Yours is the Fiction.

I quoted you actual historical evidence from Apostolic Fathers.

That's because there's NO writings of anyone in the Early Church that supports the claim that there were Baptistic type churches anywhere. Even Waldensians were Catholic to the core.

 

[Charlie24]

Luther was not a godly man. The more one reads of him the more you realise that there is no way he was guided by God.

He was about as guided by God as Muhammad was.

I don't get that impression when I read his commentary.

Maybe you haven't read it?

 

[Cathode]

Cathode, I'm to lazy to look it up but I know you know the name of those stairs that Christ supposedly walked and left drops of blood.

History says Luther was on the stairs on his knees I believe is how they tread those steps, kissing the drops of blood.

Then for some reason the words "the just shall live by faith" came to his mind and left those stairs and began his 95 thesis.

Do you believe any of that from history?

If you think Luther was inspired, why aren’t you Lutheran.
If his new idea of sola scriptura was inspired and true and Luther was right, everyone would be Lutheran on reading the bible, despite human weakness.

The idea being that all you need is the Bible and The Holy Spirit will interpret it for you, giving you true doctrine.

Where is that idea in Scripture? Each man made into inspired textual critics, nowhere. It’s a dumb idea that has been proven manifestly wrong.

Any Bible aloner who isn’t Lutheran, proves Luther wrong.

If everyone was inspired to believe Luthers inspired doctrines and interpretations on reading the bible, then it would be powerfully evident of God’s hand.

Instead we see division and conflict of every kind on the same Bible.

Even Lutherans today don’t believe Luther’s doctrines, they are divided and scattered. Let alone every other Bible aloner sect.

Luther’s doctrine doesn’t survive the Gamaliel test.

“After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.”

Scattering is the proof of Protestantism’s error.

 

[Charlie24]

If you think Luther was inspired, why aren’t you Lutheran.
If his new idea of sola scriptura was inspired and true and Luther was right, everyone would be Lutheran on reading the bible, despite human weakness.

The idea being that all you need is the Bible and The Holy Spirit will interpret it for you, giving you true doctrine.

Where is that idea in Scripture? Each man made into inspired textual critics, nowhere. It’s a dumb idea that has been proven manifestly wrong.

Any Bible aloner who isn’t Lutheran, proves Luther wrong.

If everyone was inspired to believe Luthers inspired doctrines and interpretations on reading the bible, then it would be powerfully evident of God’s hand.

Instead we see division and conflict of every kind on the same Bible.

Even Lutherans today don’t believe Luther’s doctrines, they are divided and scattered. Let alone every other Bible aloner sect.

Luther’s doctrine doesn’t survive the Gamaliel test.

“After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.”

Scattering is the proof of Protestantism’s error.

Luther wasn't right about everything just as we aren't right about everything. If someone believes they are they are deceiving themselves.

What was special about Luther is that he obeyed God in seeing the error of the Church and correcting what he seen as wrong, but for the most part, even in error himself, he turned us in the right direction.

I have the responsibility, all of us have the responsibility, to "study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Luther was doing the best he could with the knowledge he had, considering the Church had drifted so far away from the truth.

 

[Cathode]

If they learned from Peter, Paul and John something went bad wrong from the 1st century to the 3rd.

The Apostolic Fathers aren’t wrong, they knew the Apostles personally working with them and learning from them.

Who would know more about correct doctrine and interpretation than men who learned directly from the Apostles?

These were trained and appointed Bishops by the Apostles to head the Churches.

You think self appointed radical men 1500 years later know better than the Apostolic Fathers who learned directly from the Apostles?

No way.

 

[Charlie24]

The Apostolic Fathers aren’t wrong, they knew the Apostles personally working with them and learning from them.

Who would know more about correct doctrine and interpretation than men who learned directly from the Apostles?

These were trained and appointed Bishops by the Apostles to head the Churches.

You think self appointed radical men 1500 years later know better than the Apostolic Fathers who learned directly from the Apostles?

No way.

I'm sorry, Cathode, the State Church that laid the groundwork for the RCC beginning around 300 ad went off the rails concealing the Word of God from the people and ushered in the Dark Ages. A period of time when God's wrath was on this earth in anger.

 

[Cathode]

I'm sorry, Cathode, the State Church that laid the groundwork for the RCC beginning around 300 ad went off the rails concealing the Word of God from the people and ushered in the Dark Ages. A period of time when God's wrath was on this earth in anger.

You have this airy story, but where is your historical evidence mate?

Every Bible aloner has this kind of flimsy narrative about the early church, it may sell well to Sunday schoolers, but not to people who have studied patristics and Church history.

Ever stopped to think the Apostolic Fathers taught by the Apostles might be right. Just idiots are they?
But somehow the ignorant and unstable men in 1500’s saw the light 1400 years later.?

 

[Charlie24]

You have this airy story, but where is your historical evidence mate?

Every Bible aloner has this kind of flimsy narrative about the early church, it may sell well to Sunday schoolers, but not to people who have studied patristics and Church history.

Ever stopped to think the Apostolic Fathers taught by the Apostles might be right. Just idiots are they?
But somehow the ignorant and unstable men in 1500’s saw the light 1400 years later.?

My evidence is in the same place as your claim the RCC began in the New Testament Scripture.

 

[Charlie24]

My evidence is in the same place as your claim the RCC began in the New Testament Scripture.

You see Cathode, if the RCC can't man-up with when they really began then they can't be traced in history and the whole thing is a shame.