What is the one true Church?

[Grailhunter]

50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy

Reply To Critique Of "50 NT Proofs For The Papacy" (vs. Jason Engwer)

Anti-Catholic Jason Engwer replied to my paper on "50 NT Proofs for the Papacy" with a failed satirical "Pauline Papacy" argument. This is my counter-reply.

www.patheos.com

Primacy Of St. Peter Verified By Protestant Scholars

Protestant scholars on Catholic claims regarding the primacy of St. Peter ("Rock", Keys, Binding & loosing, strengthening brethren, feeding sheep, etc.).

www.patheos.com

III. Catholic Apostolic Development vs. Protestant Subjectivity and Circularity

Anybody who knows much about church history knows why Catholic apologists appeal so often to development of doctrine.

We appeal to it because it is an undeniable historical fact. If Protestants accept development of trinitarianism or the canon of the New Testament, then it is not improper for us to accept development of the papacy, or Marian doctrines, etc. Mr. White locates the difference of principle in alleged lack vs. abundance of biblical support. We assert that we have biblical (as well as patristic) support for our views.
The Protestant disagrees.

But the criterion for the Protestant — when their view is closely scrutinized — reduces to mere subjectivism according to Protestant preconceived notions (depending on denominational tradition, of course), whereas for the Catholic it is historically demonstrable unbroken apostolic Tradition, developed over 2000 years.

In any event, the controversy cannot be settled by a disdain for the very concept of development (which seems implied above), as if it were improper to utilize it at all in the discussion of historical theology.

Dialogue On Development Of Doctrine (Esp. The Papacy)

Substantive dialogue with Protestant apologist Jason Engwer, on the definition and application of development of doctrine: especially regarding the papacy.

www.patheos.com

If you keep it simple it is not hard to understand. Either it is there or it is not there. Trying to make it there is where it get difficult. Some things are scriptural and some things are historical.

Here while back I got on topic of wine and the Church. There are some Protestants that think the church was not big on wine. Well that is an easy topic....You got the Bible, history, and some of the physical evidence still exists.

 

[Grailhunter]

This is a flat-out LIE, as I have already PROVEN this to be false by presenting actual historical documentatioon from the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
You LOSE this argument . . .

No it is all well documented history.....if you want to live in a fantasy world that is fine with me. And I do not argue reality....so have fun.

You ignorantly conflate tradition with mere “folklore” because you don’t have any REAL answers.

No answer will make you happy unless it is fantasy.

Filling in the “blanks” with your opinions doesn’t mean that your opinions are valid. It simply means that because YOU can’t figure out the past because of laziness or whatever – it must not be so.

What I presented was not my opinion and I was not the source.....you have a whole world full of history to fight.....but not me.

This is a flat-out LIE, as I have already PROVEN this to be false by presenting actual historical documentatioon from the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
You LOSE this argument . . .

You ignorantly conflate tradition with mere “folklore” because you don’t have any REAL answers.

Filling in the “blanks” with your opinions doesn’t mean that your opinions are valid. It simply means that because YOU can’t figure out the past because of laziness or whatever – it must not be so.

Paul tells us in 2 Thessalonians:
2 Thess. 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

Notice he doesn’t say – “Only go by what you READ in the Bible.” There wasn’t even a compiled NT Canon until the Catholic Church declared it in the 4th century – so ORAL Tradition was as important in the Early Church as it was for the Jews in the OT.

Oral Tradition is TAUFHT in the in the NT:
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the Apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exod. 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with Satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Over and over again, the Early Church Father appeal to the traditions handed down to them by the Apostles.

Irenaeus
For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal [Catholic] Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the Apostles (Against Heresies 2:9 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
For wherever both the true Christian rule and faith shall be shown to be, there will be the true Scriptures, and the true expositions, of all the true Christian traditions (The Prescription of Heretics 19 [A.D. 200]).

Origen
Seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the Apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition (On First Principles Bk. 1 Preface 2 [circa A.D. 225]).

Eusebius
While [Ignatius of Antioch] was making the journey through Asia under the strictest military guard, he strengthened the diocese in each city where he stayed by spoken sermons and exhortations, and he especially exhorted them above all to be on their guard against the heresies which then for the first time were prevalent and he urged them to hold fast to the tradition of the Apostles to which he thought it necessary, for securities sake, to give form by written testimony (Ecclesiastical History, 3:36 [A.D. 325]).

This isn’t about “folklore” or “idolizing” Peter.
It’s about the Word of God being passed doesn through the SAME Oral Tradition that sustains the People of God from the very beginning – YOUR lack of faith, notwithstanding . . .

And still no Pope in the scriptures just traditions out of thin air. Making it up as you go is easy....you do not have to look for the truth.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No it is all well documented history.....if you want to live in a fantasy world that is fine with me. And I do not argue reality....so have fun.

No answer will make you happy unless it is fantasy.

What I presented was not my opinion and I was not the source.....you have a whole world full of history to fight.....but not me.

And still no Pope in the scriptures just traditions out of thin air. Making it up as you go is easy....you do not have to look for the truth.

All you’ve presented were the arguments of an obstinate child,
The only “evidence” you brought to the table was the phrase “tons of history books”.

By contrast, I quoted Irenaeus’s 2nd century document, Against Heresies, which lists ALL of the Popes from Irenaeus’s own time all the way back to Peter.
Additionally, I referenced Pope Victor I’s ruling on the celebration of Easter in the 2nd century.

I also quoted Tertullian’s 3rd century document, Di Pudicitia, in which he references Pope Callistus, calling him, “Pontifex Maximus”.

You live in a bizarre world where history is completely disregarded and where everybody has been wrong for thousands of years - because YOU’VE decided that’s the way it should be.

You are completely OUT of your league here, as this is a serious debate - not a childish standoff . . .

 

[Grailhunter]

All you’ve presented were the arguments of an obstinate child,
The only “evidence” you brought to the table was the phrase “tons of history books”.

By contrast, I quoted Irenaeus’s 2nd century document, Against Heresies, which lists ALL of the Popes from Irenaeus’s own time all the way back to Peter.
Additionally, I referenced Pope Victor I’s ruling on the celebration of Easter in the 2nd century.

I also quoted Tertullian’s 3rd century document, Di Pudicitia, in which he references Pope Callistus, calling him, “Pontifex Maximus”.

You live in a bizarre world where history is completely disregarded and where everybody has been wrong for thousands of years - because YOU’VE decided that’s the way it should be.

You are completely OUT of your league here, as this is a serious debate - not a childish standoff . . .

No I have brought you all the proof.
I cannot copy history books into the forum and for sure it would not matter if I did......you want to live a fantasy about Peter.
As I said it is either there or it is not and it is not there. No Pope for Peter in the Bible.....Great guy great contribution to Christianity but no Pope. Not the leader of the Apostles or Christianity during the biblical period and then he died and never held an official religious office.
All you have is folklore about a beloved Apostle...... and historical figures being retro fitted with a title. I like King David maybe I will start calling him Pope David......it not in the Bible but heck that does not stop you neither is Pope Peter.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No I have brought you all the proof.
I cannot copy history books into the forum and for sure it would not matter if I did......you want to live a fantasy about Peter.
As I said it is either there or it is not and it is not there. No Pope for Peter in the Bible.....Great guy great contribution to Christianity but no Pope. Not the leader of the Apostles or Christianity during the biblical period and then he died and never held an official religious office.
All you have is folklore about a beloved Apostle...... and historical figures being retro fitted with a title. I like King David maybe I will start calling him Pope David......it not in the Bible but heck that does not stop you neither is Pope Peter.

“Folklore”, huh?

And yet, in post #448 – I laid out a rock-solid (pardon the pun) BIBLICAL argument for Peter’s Primacy that went completely UNANSWERED by you.
If it’s not true – it should be relatively EASY to offer an equally-solid, Biblical refutation.

And, as I have repeatedly pointed out – the term, “Pope” is not only NOT an official title that one would find in Scripture – it is merely a term of endearment (“Papa”) that developed ober time.

Among his official titles includes, “Servant of the Servants of God” (Matt. 20:26-28).
“But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Face it - you got taken to the Biblical and Historical Woodshed by a Catholic . . .

 

[Illuminator]

All you’ve presented were the arguments of an obstinate child,
The only “evidence” you brought to the table was the phrase “tons of history books”.

By contrast, I quoted Irenaeus’s 2nd century document, Against Heresies, which lists ALL of the Popes from Irenaeus’s own time all the way back to Peter.
Additionally, I referenced Pope Victor I’s ruling on the celebration of Easter in the 2nd century.

I also quoted Tertullian’s 3rd century document, Di Pudicitia, in which he references Pope Callistus, calling him, “Pontifex Maximus”.

You live in a bizarre world where history is completely disregarded and where everybody has been wrong for thousands of years - because YOU’VE decided that’s the way it should be.

You are completely OUT of your league here, as this is a serious debate - not a childish standoff . . .

That's my observation as well. His answer to primary source documentation as posted repeatedly is the same. Denial. He gets really evasive by bulldozing with 15 historical events in headline form; National Enquirer history, for the sole purpose of painting the historic Church in the darkest light possible.
Fundies, JW's, SDA, and similar made-in-America bible clubs resort to the same dishonest tactics. Not only that, one can copy and paste long lists from the nefarious CARM forum, owned by Calvinoid professional liar Matt Slick. He stopped debating with Catholic apologists years ago, because he got tired of being embarrassed. Years ago, I explained on the CARM forum the proper way to cite the catechism, and he deleted my post. But that's not why I left. I left when Matt's wife (I forget her name) asserted that the mother of Jesus was just a re-usable incubater. But I digress.

No it is all well documented history.....if you want to live in a fantasy world that is fine with me. And I do not argue reality....so have fun.​

​

No answer will make you happy unless it is fantasy."​

This summarizes Grailhunter's attitude toward the Early Church Fathers, from denial to fantasy, from the sublime to the ridiculous. It's intellectual suicide. It's as if he enjoys making a fool of himself. Then he resorts to stupid flaming zingers. Like his last line is a repeated flaming zinger, also known as trolling.


A slave to useless argumentation. 2 TIMOTHY 2:23

Now I remember why I had him on ignore for so long.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● John 6:53 . . Truly, Truly, I say to you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son
of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

The kind of life about which Jesus spoke is not of this world.

● John 6:54 . . He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

Eternal life is far and away superior to human life. Eternal life is immune to
death: it never gets old, it never wears out, nor does it wear off because it's
supernatural.

● 1John 1:2-3 . .The life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness
and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was
manifested to us

Note the grammatical tense of John 6:54; it's present tense rather than
future; indicating that when people correctly dine upon Jesus flesh, and
correctly imbibe his blood, they obtain eternal life immediately: no delay and
no waiting period.

People lacking eternal life, are also lacking God's son.

● 1John 5:11-12 . . God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son.
He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does
not have the life.

That is a potentially very serious situation.

● Rom 8:9 . . And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not
belong to Christ.

NOTE: Eternal life and Immortality are not synonymous, viz: they are not
two ways to say the same thing. The two are juxtaposed in 2Tim 1:10;
where the terms are connected with a conjunction. They aren't connected
with a verb, so that you can't say eternal life is immortality; no, eternal life
and immortality are two distinctly different subjects.

Jesus had eternal life when he was here (John 5:26) but he didn't obtain
immortality till after his resurrection. (Rom 6:9, Rev 1:18)

And according to John 6:54, the apostles had eternal life too; but it didn't
prevent their deaths; they're all gone.

So eternal life has no effect upon one's health: it's not like that.
_

 

[Grailhunter]

And yet, in post #448 – I laid out a rock-solid (pardon the pun) BIBLICAL argument for Peter’s Primacy that went completely UNANSWERED by you.
If it’s not true – it should be relatively EASY to offer an equally-solid, Biblical refutation.

And, as I have repeatedly pointed out – the term, “Pope” is not only NOT an official title that one would find in Scripture – it is merely a term of endearment (“Papa”) that developed ober time.

You and I have both understand the term of endearment. Call him what you what....call him SuperPeter.
But supremacy. Paul has supremacy after writing most to the New Testament.

Face it - you got taken to the Biblical and Historical Woodshed by a Catholic . . .

LOL

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

I don't see a lot of people who call themselves Christians, as being the true disciples of Jesus Christ. When I look at the history of these religious organizations, they are filled with bloodshed of people saying they're Christians, but who are instead friends of this wicked world we're living in. The scriptures are very clear that persons who make themselves friends of this wicked world we're living in have made themselves enemies of God.

One of the things that Jesus taught as to how you would know that people were his true disciples is that they would have love among themselves. Throughout history people saying they're Christians or nations saying they're Christian nations, have fought each other in wars. That just isn't going to convince me that such nations are truly Christian Nations, they may convince themselves they are. In the last 100 years or so maybe a little more mankind has experienced two major world wars. Some of these nations that were fighting one another in these two world wars were said to be Christian nations. They said they prayed to the same God. These nations when they prayed to the same God asked this same God to help them win the war.
How are people or nations of people who are saying they're Christian nations, having love among themselves, if they're killing one another. Is that the only kind of love among themselves they can understand?

Right now today there are people in Russia and Ukraine who are Christians who refuse to take part in that war and help these two nations kill their spiritual brothers who live in both Russia and Ukraine. These people are considered criminals because they choose to love their spiritual brothers and sisters who live in both Russia and Ukraine and not help their respective nations they live in to not only kill their spiritual brothers and sisters but not to kill their neighbors as well. People who show this type of love will always be looked at as criminals in this wicked world we're living in. Basically, even though the scriptures say their is no law against this type of love, the human governments have made it against the law to exercise this type of love. This they believe is the Christian way, when they lock people up because they won't blow one another up, won't put a bullet in another person's head. I find it strange that a people who say they're Christian nations that people who love one another so much they won't fight and kill one another should be considered criminals. If we all truly believed in this type love which is the love Jesus taught there would be no more wars. But too many people calling themselves Christians will always be against people practicing this type of love that Jesus taught.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You and I have both understand the term of endearment. Call him what you what....call him SuperPeter.
But supremacy. Paul has supremacy after writing most to the New Testament.


LOL

And Paul would be the FIRST one to tell you that he doesn't.
Why do you think he made such a big deal about opposing Peter "to his face" in Gal 2:11??

If Peter had been a subordinate - it wouldn't have been worth mentioning.

 

[Grailhunter]

And Paul would be the FIRST one to tell you that he doesn't.
Why do you think he made such a big deal about opposing Peter "to his face" in Gal 2:11??

If Peter had been a subordinate - it wouldn't have been worth mentioning.

And Paul would be the FIRST one to tell you that he doesn't.

Paul didn't....explain.
Galatians 2:11-21 But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him in public, because he was clearly wrong. 12 Before some men who had been sent by James arrived there, Peter had been eating with the Gentile believers. But after these men arrived, he drew back and would not eat with the Gentiles, because he was afraid of those who were in favor of circumcising them. 13 The other Jewish believers also started acting like cowards along with Peter; and even Barnabas was swept along by their cowardly action. 14 When I saw that they were not walking a straight path in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you have been living like a Gentile, not like a Jew. How, then, can you try to force Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Although I would say that the ministry to the Gentiles was Paul's, and I would say that Paul and Peter had some disagreements, but what are few disagreements among friends? I also believe that people of today have more interest in apostolic supremacy than the Apostles.

 

[Illuminator]

Paul didn't....explain.
Galatians 2:11-21 But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him in public, because he was clearly wrong. 12 Before some men who had been sent by James arrived there, Peter had been eating with the Gentile believers. But after these men arrived, he drew back and would not eat with the Gentiles, because he was afraid of those who were in favor of circumcising them. 13 The other Jewish believers also started acting like cowards along with Peter; and even Barnabas was swept along by their cowardly action. 14 When I saw that they were not walking a straight path in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you have been living like a Gentile, not like a Jew. How, then, can you try to force Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Although I would say that the ministry to the Gentiles was Paul's, and I would say that Paul and Peter had some disagreements, but what are few disagreements among friends? I also believe that people of today have more interest in apostolic supremacy than the Apostles.

Peter was a hypocrite in that instance, and so Paul rebuked him. They had no differences theologically. Popes have been rebuked throughout history (e.g., by St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Francis). It doesn’t follow that they have no authority. Jesus rebuked and excoriated the Pharisees, but He told His followers to follow their teaching, even though they acted like hypocrites ((Matt 23:2 ff.).

You’re trying to set the Bible against the Church, which is typical Protestant methodology, and ultra-unbiblical. The Bible never does that. The example of the Jerusalem Council plainly shows the infallibility of the Church.

The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible; therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection.

What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15).

Dialogue With A Calvinist: Was Paul A "Lone Ranger"?

Paul went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem, to be confirmed in his calling (Gal 1:18), & later was commissioned by Peter, James, & John (Gal 2:1-2, 9).

www.patheos.com

 

[Grailhunter]

You’re trying to set the Bible against the Church, which is typical Protestant methodology, and ultra-unbiblical.

Ha Ha as Tweedy bird said.....He don't know me real well...do he.

The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible;

Just for the fun of it, show me were the scriptures say that "the Church" is indefectible.

Before you go to far down this road keep in mind we are disagreeing on Peter being a Pope....We Probably agree on a lot of other matters.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Paul didn't....explain.
Galatians 2:11-21 But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him in public, because he was clearly wrong. 12 Before some men who had been sent by James arrived there, Peter had been eating with the Gentile believers. But after these men arrived, he drew back and would not eat with the Gentiles, because he was afraid of those who were in favor of circumcising them. 13 The other Jewish believers also started acting like cowards along with Peter; and even Barnabas was swept along by their cowardly action. 14 When I saw that they were not walking a straight path in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you have been living like a Gentile, not like a Jew. How, then, can you try to force Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Although I would say that the ministry to the Gentiles was Paul's, and I would say that Paul and Peter had some disagreements, but what are few disagreements among friends? I also believe that people of today have more interest in apostolic supremacy than the Apostles.

And as I stated in my last post – Paul wouldn’t even have mentioned standing up tp Peter had it NOT been for the fact that Peter was in charge of the Church. There would have been NO point in mentioning it.

Another proof of the Papacy in the Early Church is the Letter of Clement of Rome, successor to Linus, who succeeded Peter, wherein he was making decisions and rulings about issues in the Church at Corinth – even though they already had a Bishop.

So far, I’ve given you the following examples:
1. Letter of Clement of Rome ruling on the Church at Corinth (1st century)
2. List of Popes from Irenaeus’s Against Heresies (2nd Century)
3. Pope Victor I’s ruling on the celebration of Easter (2md Century)
4. Tertullian’s Di Pudicitia in which he refeerences the “Pontifex Maximus” (Callistus I)

Up to now – YOU’VE offered nothing mu pathetic denials and revisionist opinions.
In short – you brought a pea-shooter to a Gun Fight . . .

 

[Illuminator]

Ha Ha as Tweedy bird said.....He don't know me real well...do he.

Just for the fun of it, show me were the scriptures say that "the Church" is indefectible.

Show me in the scriptures that says the historic Church would be overcome with evil. It's not there because anti-Catholics have invented a new doctrine that is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 – this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)

Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 – the early Church is identified as the “Way” prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.

Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 – Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

Matt. 16:19 – for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matt. 18:17-18 – the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Matt. 28:20 – Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus’ presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

Mark 8:33 – non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter’s authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.

Luke 10:16 – whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me.
Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ’s infallible authority.

Luke 22:32 – Jesus prays for Peter, that his faith may not fail. Jesus’ prayer for Peter’s faith is perfectly efficacious, and this allows Peter to teach the faith without error (which means infallibly).

John 11:51-52 – some non-Catholics argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus’ death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.

1 & 2 Peter – for example, Peter denied Christ, he was rebuked by his greatest bishop (Paul), and yet he wrote two infallible encyclicals. Further, if Peter could teach infallibly by writing, why could he not also teach infallibly by preaching? And why couldn’t his successors so teach as well?

Gen. to Deut.; Psalms; Paul – Moses and maybe Paul were murderers and David was an adulterer and murderer, but they also wrote infallibly. God uses us sinful human beings because when they respond to His grace and change their lives, we give God greater glory and His presence is made more manifest in our sinful world.

 

[Illuminator]

Just for the fun of it, show me were the scriptures say that "the Church" is indefectible.

John 14:16 – Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself who cannot lie.

John 14:26 – Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

John 16:12 – Jesus had many things to say but the apostles couldn’t bear them at that point. This demonstrates that the Church’s infallible doctrine develops over time. All public Revelation was completed with the death of the last apostle, but the doctrine of God’s Revelation develops as our minds and hearts are able to welcome and understand it. God teaches His children only as much as they can bear, for their own good.

John 16:13 – Jesus promises that the Spirit will “guide” the Church into all truth. Our knowledge of the truth develops as the Spirit guides the Church, and this happens over time.

1 Cor. 2:13 – Paul explains that what the ministers teach is taught, not by human wisdom, but by the Spirit. The ministers are led to interpret and understand the spiritual truths God gives them over time.

Eph. 4:13,15 – Paul indicates that attaining to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God to mature manhood is a process. We are to grow up in every way into Christ. Doctrine (which means “teaching”) develops as we understand God’s Revelation.

Acts 15:27-28 – the apostles know that their teaching is being guided by the Holy Spirit. He protects the Church from deception.

Gal. 2:11-14 – non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to diminish Peter’s evident authority over the Church. This is misguided. In this verse, Paul does not oppose Peter’s teaching, but his failure to live by it. Infallibility (teaching without error) does not mean impeccability (living without sinning). Peter was the one who taught infallibly on the Gentile’s salvation in Acts 10,11. With this rebuke, Paul is really saying “Peter, you are our leader, you teach infallibly, and yet your conduct is inconsistent with these facts. You of all people!” The verse really underscores, and not diminishes, the importance of Peter’s leadership in the Church.

Eph. 3:10 – the wisdom of God is known, even to the intellectually superior angels, through the Church (not the Scriptures). This is an incredible verse, for it tells us that God’s infinite wisdom comes to us through the Church. For that to happen, the Church must be protected from teaching error on faith and morals (or she wouldn’t be endowed with the wisdom of God).

Eph. 3:9 – this, in fact, is a mystery hidden for all ages – that God manifests His wisdom through one infallible Church for all people.

Eph. 3:20 – God’s glory is manifested in the Church by the power of the Spirit that works within the Church’s leaders. As a Father, God exalts His children to roles of leadership within the body of Christ.

Eph. 5:23-27, Col. 1:18 – Christ is the head of the Church, His Bride, for which He died to make it Holy and without blemish. There is only one Church, just as Christ only has one Bride.

Eph. 5:32- Paul calls the Church a “mystery.” This means that the significance of the Church as the kingdom of God in our midst cannot be understood by reason alone. Understanding the Church also requires faith. “Church” does not mean a building of believers. That is not a mystery. Non-Catholics often view church as mere community, but not the supernatural mystery of Christ physically present among us.

1 Thess. 5:21 – Paul commands us to test everything. But we must have something against which to test. This requires one infallible guide that is available to us, and this guide is the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have never changed.

1 Tim. 3:15 – Paul says the apostolic Church (not Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of the truth. But for the Church to be the pinnacle and foundation of truth, she must be protected from teaching error, or infallible. She also must be the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have not changed for 2,000 years. God loves us so much that He gave us a Church that infallibly teaches the truth so that we have the fullness of the means of salvation in His only begotten Son.

1 John 4:6 – John writes that whoever knows God “listens to us” (the bishops and successors to the apostles). Then John writes “This is the way we discern truth and error. John does not say “reading the Bible is the way we discern truth and error.” But if listening to mere human beings helps us discern truth and error, God would have had to endow his chosen leaders with the special gift of infallibility, so that they would be prevented from teaching error.

Matt. to Rev. – we must also note that not all Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Non-Catholic Christians should ask themselves why they accept the Church’s teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding church government.

Your turn. Show me in the scriptures the historic Church would never have a pope, or stop with the uncharitable pope-bashing slander.

Before you go to far down this road keep in mind we are disagreeing on Peter being a Pope....We Probably agree on a lot of other matters.

Yes, we probably do, but your repeated denials of the facts don't cut it. You reject any Early Church Father's documented evidence because none of them agree with your 16th century politics.

 

[Marymog]

Uh...infants grow, hear, read, learn and choose...IS that a mystery to you?

It's a simple question based on your theory and the statements YOU made Taken. So I ask you again to back up your statemen/theory:

Since Scripture makes it clear (to you) that one cannot be saved without accepting and confessing Jesus as his Lord and Savior then what happens to those infants, thru whatever arbitrary age you have chosen for a person to be mature enough to accept Him, that are not mature enough to accept Him? Do infants and mentally immature people go to hell?

Can you now see how your men have lied to you Taken?

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Show me in the scriptures that says the historic Church would be overcome with evil. It's not there because anti-Catholics have invented a new doctrine that is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 – this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)

Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 – the early Church is identified as the “Way” prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.

Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 – Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

Matt. 16:19 – for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matt. 18:17-18 – the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Matt. 28:20 – Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus’ presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

Mark 8:33 – non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter’s authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.

Luke 10:16 – whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me.
Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ’s infallible authority.

Luke 22:32 – Jesus prays for Peter, that his faith may not fail. Jesus’ prayer for Peter’s faith is perfectly efficacious, and this allows Peter to teach the faith without error (which means infallibly).

John 11:51-52 – some non-Catholics argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus’ death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.

1 & 2 Peter – for example, Peter denied Christ, he was rebuked by his greatest bishop (Paul), and yet he wrote two infallible encyclicals. Further, if Peter could teach infallibly by writing, why could he not also teach infallibly by preaching? And why couldn’t his successors so teach as well?

Gen. to Deut.; Psalms; Paul – Moses and maybe Paul were murderers and David was an adulterer and murderer, but they also wrote infallibly. God uses us sinful human beings because when they respond to His grace and change their lives, we give God greater glory and His presence is made more manifest in our sinful world.

The Catholic Church isn't the true church. It's not the church that has as it's head and foundation being Jesus Christ. It seems to me that the Catholic Church thinks Peter is the founder of Christianity not Jesus. Does the Catholic Church honestly believe that Peter is the greater rock. The Catholic Church doesn't think Peter is greater than Jesus Christ, do they. Jesus Christ is the founder of Christianity, and Jesus Christ is the head and foundation of the true church. There's no head or foundation greater than Jesus Christ.
We do not know Jesus as a man today, because Jesus Christ sacrificed that human body that human life for mankind. Jesus Christ was resurrected as a immortal, incorruptible life giving spirit. This person who is a immortal incorruptible life giving spirit is the head and foundation of the true church.

 

[Taken]

It's a simple question based on your theory and the statements YOU made Taken. So I ask you again to back up your statemen/theory:

Since Scripture makes it clear (to you) that one cannot be saved without accepting and confessing Jesus as his Lord and Savior then what happens to those infants, thru whatever arbitrary age you have chosen for a person to be mature enough to accept Him, that are not mature enough to accept Him? Do infants and mentally immature people go to hell?

You asked ... what happens to those infants....or immature children....
I answered....they grow, they hear, they learn.

Why, what do you think happens to infants and immature children?
Why, are you wondering if they go to hell? WEIRD.

 

[Grailhunter]

And as I stated in my last post – Paul wouldn’t even have mentioned standing up tp Peter had it NOT been for the fact that Peter was in charge of the Church. There would have been NO point in mentioning it.

Of course I disagree. And I do not think it was a matter of Paul or Peter being in charge. Peter just messed up being a Cephas again.
And all you have presented is folklore. You know what folklore is? It is stories that people like and they talk about it....and in this case it gave them confidence in the Catholic Church.....

Then again what is a Pope.....It is a office....an office that conducts religious business. We would see letters from the Pope with his official signature, seal, and title. He would have a staff and administrative envoys that traveled to deliver different things. His activities and the duties of his office would clearly show up in history.

The fact of the matter is if Peter was actually a Pope and there was a lineage from him, we would not be having this conversation because it would be clearly obvious.