I'm talking about having the "apostolic" authority continueing century after century.
And that's what I'm talking about too, Mike. You see, the Bible doesn't record what happened after the first century. So, when looking at the Bible, we have to recognize that it only records the events that occurred in that time. In that time, we see an Apostolic office being left empty and then being replaced by another. The next question is whether this continued, and we know that it did through that little thing we call
history. Really, go back and read a history of the early Church. You'll find apostolic succession
everywhere. It's biblically based and it's a historical event. The Biblical basis is Matthias replacing Judas Iscariot, and the historical events are seen throughout early Church history.
Here's a quick example for ya:
""Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: 'And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.'" (Hegesippus, Memoirs, in Eusebius'
Ecclesiatical History 4:22; A.D. 180)
I appreciate your efforts, but all of that...although interesting...is 100% irrelavent, and is to be completly ignored.
For you, it is 100% irrelevant and is to be completely ignored. Why? Because if you were to consider this historical evidence, you would recognize that you're wrong and that your denial of apostolic succession leaves you in your comfort zone. What if you were to acknowledge that each apostle ordained bishops to succeed him in his ministry? That would be a rough scenario for a non-denominational like yourself. To recognize a human authority would mean that you would have to change. And, we don't like change, do we?
I'm not going to go through point by point on these
In other words, you're not going to go through point-by-point and explain away the clear import of Scripture. You're not going to jump through hoops in showing that the text doesn't say what it says. You're going, instead, to completely ignore what God's Word says.
You act like Scripture really isn't your authority, Mike. At least, that's my perception.
Jesus Christ died for all of our sins, past present and future, repented of and un-repented of, willful and accidental. His sacrifice was 100% effectual and 100% complete.
Yes, it is 100% effectual and complete. But, you're leaving out one little key point, and that is that there is a huge difference between objective and subjective redemption. While Jesus' one-time act of objective redemption
merits infinitely our salvation, the actual application of that salvation must occur through subjective redemption.
And, the subjective application of the redemption requires us being holy and having sin rooted out of our lives by the grace merited by Christ.
Our salvation is completly secure
And, as I've shown you, this is a falsity - that is, not what the Bible teaches, Mike.
To believe that you can indicates that you are trusting in your ability to "stay good enough", and that is called a gospel of works, a "false gospel"...one that God curses..in Galaciens
No, actually Mike, it is the grace of Jesus Christ that roots sin out of my life. It isn't I, but grace. When I trust in myself to save myself, I can't become holy. I can only be holy by trusting in Jesus Christ, whose Spirit makes me holy. That's the Gospel, brother.
I am using "faith alone" in regard to the explicit exclusion of works from what is necesary for our justification.
In other words, charity isn't a part of your Gospel? In other words, it doesn't matter if your faith expresses itself in love? You can have an intellectual faith apart from the volitional (of the will) aspect and still be saved? Your Gospel seems to be Gnostic: "What I know saves me".
Wow. You personally, have the ability to know and recall the thoughts and intents and convictions of the hearts of every chritian who lived for 1600 years?
No, I do not. I do have at my fingertips the recorded interpretations of this verse throughout the centuries. And, no Christian has left us evidence that John 3:5 was interpreted as speaking of anything other than baptism.
I can say that the testimony of Gods word indicts the CC of adding man made traditions to His truth, rendering it a completly distorted, contradictory mess.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of even the fundamentals of Catholic doctrine, Mike. Take that for what it's worth.
We now have the completed word of God
Where does the Bible say that the verses commanding us to hold fast to Tradition no longer apply? Or, is this a tradition of men that you're using to nullify the Word of God?
Because, Mike, that's what I see you doing. You're nullifying these verses out of hand.
How do we know its you guys? How do we know its not the Jehovahs Witnesses?
Because the Catholic Church can be traced back to the apostles historically.
" At first the Christians were terribly persecuted, but gradually they spread the Christ’s radian spirit and teachings until they united many races, classes, and religious beliefs into a brotherhood which extended from Persia to the Atlantic Ocean. Later, this brotherhood spread to American, and Christianity became the prevailing religion of the Western Hemisphere. It has now ben taught in all countries.For nearly a thousand years the Christians remained practically one great community. Then the Greek Catholics broke away from the Roman Catholics." (The World Book Encyclopedia ©1940, Page 1413 Volume 3)
How do we know its not the Mormons? They say that they are the "teaching office of the church"?
Because the Mormons teach that Christianity was restored in 1823 and thereafter through Joseph Smith. They teach that the early Church went apostate.
I havent read it yet, but I probably will. It wont be anything I havent read before. I'll let you know when I do.
Please do. I highly encourage you.
