Testimony

[Dr. Walter]

Now I will attempt to provide a more scholarly approached to debate those that are certain of their position. I may or may not agree with the position I hold but I will support it well. The most attacked group are the Catholics. They are defensless here. However, in truth though I don't agree with many things I consider them to be christian. I am not an elitist and hold that scripture is honest when it says in Acts 2:21 which includes Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterians, Amish, Mennonites, Bretheren, lutheran, etc... and every other denomination which holds an "orthodox" view of God. As for the details those are ultimately left up to God and he will decide for each of us.

When I am accused I will clearly say the person is wrong. And go into no further detail because accusing is just a tactic for lack of ability. I will then proceed to use further evidence to support the contrary position.

Case Closed.

You are guilty of every single item that you are accusing me. Just read your own post above or past post - it is like the kettle calling the pot black!!!

HOWEVER, PLEASE READ AND CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VERY CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING A HASTY RESPONSE:

Let me point out where we are in agreement. I do not doubt or deny that God has an elect in nearly all denominations that have an orthodox view of God, but I will go further and state that even in some unorthodox denominations God is not limited by human errors. He can take the reading of the scriptures wherein the truth of salvation lies and use it to quicken and bring to gospel conversion even those within unorthodox denominations. The Word of God is not bound by human limitations.

All who call upon the Lord as defined by the context of Romans 10:1-17 are truly saved regardless of their denominational tag.

However, not all who call upon the Lord, even out of denominations that have an orthodox view of God are saved. Why? Because it is not their orthodox view of God that validates their calling upon the Lord but their view of the gospel that validates the genuiness of their calling upon the name of the Lord. You can have an orthodox view of "God" and yet embrace "another gospel" (2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:8-9) and go straight to hell calling upon the name of the Lord.

Salvation does not entirely rest in one's view of God but rather on one's view of Christ and His provision for salvation.

Matthew 7:21-23 are "many" who called upon the name of the "Lord, Lord" and professed that all they did was "in thy name" with full expectation to be allowed entrance into heaven but instead were told that Christ "NEVER" knew them. Not that He knew them at one time and then later failed to know them. Obviously, simple foreknowledge is not in view here as Christ knows every single human being just as he knows every star. He is talking about knowing them in the covenant of redemption. They are not those in Romans 8:29-31 "for whom God did FOREKNOW, them He also did...."

Those in Matthew 7:21-23 did not build their lives on the solid rock, the only foundation for salvation (I Cor. 3:11) but upon the sand - the mixture of faith in Christ PLUS their good works as the basis to enter heaven. They were not justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT WORKS. They refused to do the will of the Father as expressed earlier in this same sermon in Matthew 5:20-48. Just like the pharisees, they interpreted the Law of God (Mt. 5:21-47) on a LOWER level of righteousness that permitted them to measure up to its standards and be justified by it.

If you will take careful note in verses 21-47 you will find this contrast repeatedly:

21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time....22 But I say unto you,
27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time......28 But I say unto you,
31 It hath been said.....32 But I say unto you,
33 ¶ Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time.....34 But I say unto you,
38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said....39 But I say unto you,43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said.....44 But I say unto you,

Jesus is countering the oral traditional interpretations of the Law by the famous Jewish sages with the proper interpretation of the Scriptues by the Living Word of God.

Here is the key problem. They reduced the standard of God's righteousness to an external level that religious men could measure up to. Thus produced justification "by the deeds of the law" mentality.

Jesus repudiated this lower level of justification by the deeds of the law in Matthew 5:20 and 5:48 or the two scriptures that encapsulizes, encloses this corrective passage (5:21--47).

In Matthew 5:20 he raises the standard of righteousness above the Scribes and Pharisees interpretative view of the Law's standard by saying:

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

He closes the corrective passage (Mt. 5:21-47) with exactly what that righteousness that must EXCEED the Scribes and Pharisess must EQUAL:

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The Father in heaven has never once sinned in His PAST, never once in the PRESENT and shall never once sin in the FUTURE. In the words of James, the righteousness of the Father has never once violated the Law in a single POINT and so Jesus could say to the rich young ruler "there is NONE GOOD but one and that is God."

Righteousness necessary to justify a sinner before God is a SINLESS righteousness and it is only found in the provision of Christ and obtained exclusively

1. BY GRACE ALONE:

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:


2. THROUGH FAITH ALONE IN THE CHRIST PROVISION

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


3. WITHOUT WORKS

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

This is the only FOUNDATION, the only ROCK to build your life upon and to boast in for entrance into heaven. Not a SAND mixture of "Lord, Lord....have WE not DONE many wonderful works....."

This is the confession that Paul refers to that must originate in the heart and then profess with the mouth in Romans 10:

3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.....8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 ¶ For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

This is the true gospel of salvation. Those who call upon the Lord to save them on this BASIS alone, with this belief about Christ from the heart shall be saved.

Those who come with any other MIXTURE of "Lord, Lord....have WE not DONE many wonderful works" as a basis for justification before God, to call upon the Lord for salvation, for entrance into heaven will hear the same words those in Matthew 7:21-23 heard:

"Depart from me ye WORKERS of iniquity for I never knew you"

That is exactly what your works are before God (Isa. 64:6) when it comes to justification before God as only a righteousness that EXCEEDS the best of men (Mt. 5:20) and EQUALS the best of God (Mt. 5:48) serves to justify sinners before God.

For anyone to be saved they MUST first turn from such works "repentance from dead works" and believe solely in the gospel promise based upon the gospel provision found completely and entirely in the Person and work of Jesus Christ alone.

 

[Zenas]

Strange??? This is a Messanic context and it is quoted at least six times in the New Testament and several times by Christ. Isaiah 8:18 is explicitly applied to the apostles in Hebrews 2:3-4,12. What is strange, is your view as it has absolutely no basis whatsoever. Isaiah 8:20 applies to SCRIPTURE, then, during the apostolic period and now. The "testimony" is Messanic in context and is precisely what Jesus told the early church in Acts 1:8 - "ye shall be witnesses unto me" and it is precisely the finalization of scripture canon sealed and delivered by Christ to the last living apostle "the testimony of Jesus" (Rev. 1:3) completed and sealed (Rev. 22:18-19).

Strange?? No, it is the Roman whore that is the stranger to Scripture and proves it by her vulger abominations.

Baloney! Isaiah 8:20 has nothing to do with the canon of scripture and the Messianic verses preceding it do nothing to bootstrap it into that position. However, “the testimony” does provide a pretty good foundation for relying on sacred Tradition.

 

[Zenas]

The theory is self-contradictive. First you say "the office of apostle was not continuative" and you have to say because the Biblical qualifications restrict it to eyewitnesses (Acts 1:22-23) and Paul says he was the "last" (eschatos) (I Cor. 15:8) and that term "eschatos" is used three times in this chapter and it refers in each case to the "last" with none to follow.

Second, you contradict the first admission by saying it is continuative by "ordination" and "laying on of hands"!!! Hence, you invalidate the Biblical qualifications in Acts 1:22-23 and repudiate Paul as the "last" in I Cor. 15:8. Pastor's and deacons are ordained and yet they are not apostles in succession!!! The old Whore simply perverts the scriptures and twists them to please her abominations.

Obviously you don’t understand apostolic succession. The apostles were first hand recipients of divine revelation. No one I know believes we had any apostles after the death of John. However, the apostles ordained other men as “bishops”, “elders”, “presbyters” and “pastors”. The most prominent examples of these “second generation” leaders would Timothy, Titus, and Mark. 2 Timothy 2:2 shows apostolic succession in action. So the term apostolic succession refers to men who were ordained by men, who were ordained by men, who were ordained by men . . . who were ordained by one of the original apostles.

 

[Zenas]

I stand corrected - you can't read or understand what you read:

1 Jn. 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Eph 4:21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:

1 John 2:27 is the only one of these verses that on its face implies that the Holy Spirit teaches us. However, when you read it in context, you see that John was warning his readers not to listen to the antichrists who were contending for their ear. If you take this verse literally, we have no need for pastors, Sunday School teachers, seminary professors, etc. Missionaries, perhaps yes, but no other teachers because they're not needed once a person receives the Holy Spirit. While we’re at let’s just throw out scripture. We have no need of that either as long as we have the Holy Spirit to teach us everything we need to know.

 

[DHK]

Baloney! Isaiah 8:20 has nothing to do with the canon of scripture and the Messianic verses preceding it do nothing to bootstrap it into that position. However, “the testimony” does provide a pretty good foundation for relying on sacred Tradition.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

This is what one would call a timeless truth. It is true no matter what age or generation one lives in: the age of Isaiah, Christ, 2nd and 3rd generation Christians, or 20th and 21st generation Christians.
Furthermore it expresses the first and most important distinctive of all Baptists--that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. There it is in black and white written 700 years before the birth of Christ.

If one does not speak according to the Word of God there is no truth in them. In matters of our faith and our doctrine if it is not according to the revelation that God has given us there is no light in that person who is giving forth those words. Pay no attention to him.

 

[Zenas]

Oh, but Peter would because he got called in on the red carpet for his action by just ordinary church members (Acts 11:1-2) and felt he had to give a defense for himself. Oh, Paul would too, because it was the church that determined he should go to Jerusalem in Acts 15:2-3.

Jesus would certainly agree with me as well as when he was talking to his disciples which included the apostles he told them that the final tribunal in the use of the keys was not apostles or elders or a pope or some governing body but "tell it to the church" (Mt. 18:17-18).

Not only is the antichrist pope a usurper of Christ but Rome is a usurper of Christ's authority given to his churches.

“These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” Titus 2:15.

“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account.” Hebrews 13:17.

It sure doesn't look like the bishops are answerable to their congregations. In fact it is just the opposite.

 

[Zenas]

There is not on scrap of history to prove there was any kind of a pope between first and sixth century. Several churches within the apostate group later called Roman Catholic churches had bishops who all claimed the title of papa before the sixth century.

Newt Gingrich is not the final authority for truth - the scriptures are (Isa. 8:20).

The truth is that Rome is the predicted apostasy by the apostles (1 Tim. 4:1-5) and the pope is "A" antichrist. There is nothing in the first two centuries that identifies with much of anything that characterizes Roman Catholicism.

The truth is that the true churches of Christ were called "anabaptists" by the old whore and became the objects of distortion, false charges, and hatred by Rome.

So, Iranaeus writing in the 3rd century made this up?

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as
this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to
confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil
self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion,
assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating
that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very
ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by
the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing
out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means
of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity
that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its
pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful every- where,
inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously
by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

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

Oh, I forgot. Silly me. Iranaeus was an ante-Nicene father and that makes him a liar and a heretic.

 

[Zenas]

John 16:13...



Just one verse among many of course.

You...



Oh, my word.

You are deluded, my friend.

We have already covered John 16:13. It was a promise given to the apostles, not to anyone else.

 

[Zenas]

Can you back your view up?
Did the Crusades liberate people? How about the Inquisitions? Have you read "Foxes Book of Martyr's" lately? You should. Rome liberates souls? How do you come to that conclusion?

Down through the centuries there has been a lot of killing and cruelty in the name of God. We see it in the ancient kingdom of Judah. 2 Chronicles 15:12-13. We even saw some of it in colonial America. The Catholics have done more of it than anyone else but only because they have been the most powerful group in most times and places during the Christian Era. When they were in the minority, e.g., Elizabethan England, they were persecuted and killed. I have to disagree about the Crusades against the Islamic people. Apparently death and violence is the only thing these people understand and unless we realize that, our grandchridren will be praying to Allah.

When the Bible distinctly says that the Holy Spirit is our teacher, how do you say he isn't?

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
--The verse is speaking of the Holy Spirit.

See Post No. 184.

"Fantasize over Scripture"? Is this a euphemism that indicates that you just don't read your Bible?

No, I was accusing Dr. Walter of fantasizing over scripture--a practice in which he engages often.

 

[Jedi Knight]

We have already covered John 16:13. It was a promise given to the apostles, not to anyone else.

Baloney, try 1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit-just as it has taught you, remain in him. So you wanna be one of the "it's not real" crowd?

 

[Dr. Walter]

“These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” Titus 2:15.

“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account.” Hebrews 13:17.

It sure doesn't look like the bishops are answerable to their congregations. In fact it is just the opposite.

The leaders, lead by example and by presenting the word of God. There is no coersion authority. Believers follow them as they follow Christ and they obey their word as long as it is the Word of God. Hence, there is no authority to dominate or coerce or to follow them blindly.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Obviously you don’t understand apostolic succession. The apostles were first hand recipients of divine revelation. No one I know believes we had any apostles after the death of John. However, the apostles ordained other men as “bishops”, “elders”, “presbyters” and “pastors”. The most prominent examples of these “second generation” leaders would Timothy, Titus, and Mark. 2 Timothy 2:2 shows apostolic succession in action. So the term apostolic succession refers to men who were ordained by men, who were ordained by men, who were ordained by men . . . who were ordained by one of the original apostles.

862.....the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the Apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.

There is no Biblical teaching that bishops have "taken the place of the Apostles" as Bishops are distinct from the office of apostle and the qualifications for the apostolic office (Acts 1:21-22) is distinctly different than the qualifications for the office of Bishop (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Tit. 1:7-11). The authority and signs of the apostolic office have not been transferred to anyone (2 Cor. 12:12).

 

[Dr. Walter]

1 John 2:27 is the only one of these verses that on its face implies that the Holy Spirit teaches us. However, when you read it in context, you see that John was warning his readers not to listen to the antichrists who were contending for their ear. If you take this verse literally, we have no need for pastors, Sunday School teachers, seminary professors, etc. Missionaries, perhaps yes, but no other teachers because they're not needed once a person receives the Holy Spirit. While we’re at let’s just throw out scripture. We have no need of that either as long as we have the Holy Spirit to teach us everything we need to know.

Your very interpretation denies your denial. What this passage teaches is that the Holy Spirit is the immediate and ultimate teacher rather than the only teacher. No one but the Holy Spirit can open the mind and prepare the heart to receive the truth. No man can teach anyone as no man is able to open the mind and prepare the heart to receive the truth but the Spirit of God. It is the Holy Spirit that directly and immedately teaches every child of God as well as leads every child of God (Rom. 8:14,16). Man may teach till he is blue in the face, but only the child of God must be taught by they Holy Spirit or all other teaching is in vain. Ultimately, the only teacher the child of God has is the Holy Spirit and therefore he is without the need of any man to ultimately teach the believer anything.

 

[DHK]

1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Ephesians 4:11-13 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 

[Dr. Walter]

So, Iranaeus writing in the 3rd century made this up?
Oh, I forgot. Silly me. Iranaeus was an ante-Nicene father and that makes him a liar and a heretic.

I have read the overall context of Ireneus. He is dealing with those who are heretics who have rejected the scriptures as final authority on the pretense that the scriptures are too ambiguous and not sufficient to establish doctrine and practice on scriptures alone. He provides two ways to establish a church as apostolic in faith and order. The first way is by conformation to the scriptures as final authority. For those who reject the scriptures as final authority (like Rome) the second way is to suppliment the scriptural authority by demonstrating that many of the churches have been directy established by the Apostles and bishops appointed by the Apostles and the teachings have been handed down from one Bishop to the next. Howeve, in context, this argument is simply meant to reinforce the first line of defense which is the scriptures.

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, HANDED DOWN TO US IN THE SCRIPTURES, to be the pillar and ground of the truth....Matthew lso issued a WRITTEN gospel.....after their departure, Mark, the disicple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us IN WRITING what had been preached by Peter. Luke also...recorded in a BOOK...." - Book III, chapter 1

"When, however, they are confuted from THE SCRIPTURES, they turn round and accuse these same SCRIPTURES, as if they are not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of WRITTEN DOCUMENTS, but vidid voice....." Ibid., chater 2, section 1.

Tertullian used the same line of argument to those who opposed the scriptures as final authority in his time. However, Tertullian added a third aspect. He taught that a church does not necessarily have to prove their historical succession from apostolic churches but was a true church nevertheless if they believed and practice the doctrine and order the apostles provided in the scriptures.

"To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine" - Tertullian, On Prescriptions Against Heresies, ch 32

So both Irenaeus and Tertullian do not agree with Rome as both regarded conformation to the scriptures as final authority for apostolic faith and order with the historical aspect as only a secondary support but not a necessary support.

 

[Zenas]

I have read the overall context of Ireneus. He is dealing with those who are heretics who have rejected the scriptures as final authority on the pretense that the scriptures are too ambiguous and not sufficient to establish doctrine and practice on scriptures alone.
. . . .
So both Irenaeus and Tertullian do not agree with Rome as both regarded conformation to the scriptures as final authority for apostolic faith and order with the historical aspect as only a secondary support but not a necessary support.

Iranaeus was big on scripture, no doubt about it. However, you conveniently ignored the purpose of my post, which was to show the deference he showed to the Bishop of Rome as the mesne successor to St. Peter.

1. Peter and Paul
2. Linus
3. Anacletus
4. Clement
5. Evaristus
6. Alexander
7. Sixtus
8. Telephorus
9. Hyginus
10. Pius
11. Anacetus
12. Sorer
13. Eleutherius

What other church could show you this line of succession even as early as the 3rd Century? What other church can show a line of succession extending back for 2,000 years? What other church did any of the ECF's say held this kind of authority? I think this is what impressed Gingrich about the RCC and frankly it is pretty impressive, unless of course, your reason for living is to denigrate them.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Iranaeus was big on scripture, no doubt about it. However, you conveniently ignored the purpose of my post, which was to show the deference he showed to the Bishop of Rome as the mesne successor to St. Peter.

1. Peter and Paul
2. Linus
3. Anacletus
4. Clement
5. Evaristus
6. Alexander
7. Sixtus
8. Telephorus
9. Hyginus
10. Pius
11. Anacetus
12. Sorer
13. Eleutherius

What other church could show you this line of succession even as early as the 3rd Century? What other church can show a line of succession extending back for 2,000 years? What other church did any of the ECF's say held this kind of authority? I think this is what impressed Gingrich about the RCC and frankly it is pretty impressive, unless of course, your reason for living is to denigrate them.

The trouble with this scenario is that at the time of Irenaeus the church at Rome had not yet completely apostatized. So, Rome failed the test of Tertullian when it went into apostasy. Succession does not help an apostate church.