Well, I might not have a doctorate in church history, but I know enough to turn you inside out - as is evident from your anger here. Ohhh Yeeeahhhhh!
Well then... quote some that go back further than that who make your case and you might have a point. You cannot so you do not. Ka - Ching!
I don't need to prove it from scripture because I have presented you with history that proves it. Yet, all you can do is whine about how ... ohhhhh all you can do is quote Church Fathers from the late second century and later... which in an itellectually honest world means absolutely nothing. You know, if I put my ear to my computer screen I can actually hear a breeze blowing - and it's your gums flapping.
I'll tell you what brother, if you've got a PhD in theology or history, then you would know better than to stand up here an act all puffy when we all recognize that as nothing more than a weak tactic in an attempt to hide the fact that you cannot refute the history that I provided, so that you can change the subject and then start crying about scripture.
And only an intellectual coward must resort to name calling (I.e. Romanist). Brother, you got nothin'.
WM
I got all I need to dust your rear; it's called scripture and NT scholarship.
BTW, "Romanist" is not name calling; it's an apt moniker to describe the church which is based there and claims it is the only true church, the only one established by Christ, a claim which is a lie on its face.
I suggest you need to broaden your narrow, cultic horizon and read more. You might start here with my previous postings and the postings of others who have presented scripture, scholarship, and church history which destroys Romanist claims and debunks any theory of an apostolic succession of monarchial bishops which can be traced back to Jesus and the apostles.
It's funny how Romanists such as you, when challenged to defend your wild and baseless assertions, can only resort to trotting out uninspired writings of men 200 and more years removed from the NT and the earliest churches. Of course the reason you HAVE to do that is because you cannot appeal to scripture, as it utterly destroys your position. It is an incontrovertible scholarly-established FACT, which no Romanist can deny, that the scriptures know of only two orders of ministry, that of pastor and deacon, the words bishop/elder/overseer/presbyter/pastor being synonymous for one and the same office and thus used interchangeably. You cannot get around that fact, no matter how much post-scriptural writing that you pull out. I know these facts makes you writhe in the most violent way and twist your guts into a contorted mess, but scriptural truth is hard to swallow and digest for someone who puts his trust in uninspired men and hierarchies rather than the Word of God. May I suggest a few tablespoonfuls of Milk of Magnesia? It will help you digest the truth, even though it will destroy your man-made idols and systems on its way through you.
Do some studying, if you have the guts and integrity, and let's see if you can admit that what I have said about the two orders of ministry in the NT is true.
John Wesley, an Anglican priest who believed in apostolic succession early on, totally changed his mind after he read Lord King's account of the primitive church and thereafter called apostolic succession a fable.
I am so glad that we have scripture to refute all the man-made bull that came after. At least the Anglicans are honest enough to admit that apostolic succession was a historical development and therefore view it as for the benefit of the church and not of the essence of the church.
So, the vaunted apostolic succession upon which Romanism, and you, make such unsubstantiated claims stops dead in its tracks in the second century. It does not go back to NT times nor to the NT; the NT totally disproves it. And all you've got to support your foolishness are quotes from post-apostolic, uninspired writers. Scripture, being the writings of the apostles and thus the foundation document of the Christian faith, trumps your post-apostolic writings and destroys your argument.
I know you had to swallow a bunch of man-made tripe to convert to Romanism, but perhaps a good dose of a strong purgative would help you to keep it down and digest it while you deny historical facts and scholarship and scriptural truth, all the while sacrificing your integrity to do so.
Okay, I will stop and allow you time for a bathroom break. May I suggest that cherry-flavored Milk of Magnesia might be more palatable.
