>Paul was clearly celibate and was an Apostle! ,
If you read what i referred to as clergy, you would see that it was Bishop/Elders, which formal office Paul ordained others to, but which he does not claim for himself (unlike Peter), but that he was “ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.” (1 Tim 2:7)
Regardless of the celibate state of Paul and Barnabas, I was not arguing that a bishop/elder cannot be single, but that requiring an entire class of clergy to have the gift of celibacy is Biblically unwarranted, and if anything, is contrary to what is explicitly stated on the ordination of bishops/elders.
Nor does what the church later practiced necessarily determine what the Bible taught, as deviations and disagreements were often seen, while celibate marriages are also abnormal, presuming ability and normal drives. (Gn. 2:24; 1 Cor. 7:2)
As for your regarding the use of Scripture alone as a guide in this issue to be silly, while aspects such as cultural context have their place, nothing exists that can justify mandating celibacy for an entire class of clergy (though Eastern O priestly converts are mercifully allowed to keep their wives). hat is worse than silly, and the office of Bishops/elders is nowhere shown to be reserved to such. Moreover, if there is any historical data that might modify teaching in this regard, it would be that Paul was preparing his flock for the traumatic times that occurred during and after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D, in which families could add extra travail.
>Your understanding of 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 is likelwise faulty>
No, your understanding of the believers judgement is faulty.
1 Corinthians 3:11-15 is about gaining or losing rewards, NOT about purification. All must appear before Christ, (Acts 17:31; 2Cor. 5:10; Rom_14:10-12), and some evidence suggests tow different judgments, (Rev. 11:8; 20:4-6,12-15) but while the Bible very explicitly warns about the kind of post-death judgment the lost will receive, when it speaks specifically about the judgment of saved believers in the afterlife, it nowhere speaks about purification, but about rewards or loss of them. (1 Cor. 4:5; Eph. 6:8; Col. 3:24)
The chastisement of believers in this life is what is purposed to bring repentance, (1 Cor. 5:1-15; 11:31,32), and purify them, that they “might be partakers of his holiness.”
(Heb. 12)
The lack of any clear description of post-death purification of believers, and that the only description of their post-death experience of believers is positive, and and fact that all those who are raptured will be forever with the Lord, is far more substantial than the doctrine of purgatory, which is based upon ambiguous texts
While praying for deceased idolaters may be compassionate, if problematic, as Rome excludes there is hope for those who die in mortal sin, and I would not see this as necessarily damning those who may ignorantly engage in such, in no place will you find this being sanctioned inany other book of the Bible. Not among the multitudinous precepts of the comprehensive sacrificial system, nor under the New Testament.
As far as the Jewish canon is concerned, which is not the only reason for its rejection, that a canon had to exist is internally evidenced in the N.T., as referring to the Scriptures presumes they knew what it consisted of, even before Jamnia, and Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha. Nor does their rejection of the Christian texts invalidate their weight in this matter, because unto them were committed the oracles of God (Rm. 3:2; an explicit testimony Rome can only wish it said of them.)
Meanwhile, rather 1100 years of canonization as you would seem to infer, the full R.C. canon was itself not infallibly defined until over 1400 after its last book was written, and early lists were not uniform, while internal R.C. dissent continued later on . The premier scholar Jerome rejected the apocrypha, and specifically mentioned that Wisdom, the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd “are not in the canon”. (though later on they were added to his vulgate) John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado and others also doubted the canonicity of the apocryphal books.
However, the Bible did not become the worlds best seller because of ecclesiastical decree, though it helped gain the right to print it when Rome controlled such, but because, like any classic, they possess unique qualities which placed them on the saints “best seller list”. Rome’s recognition of them does not establish their canonicity, any more than her sanction of praying to Mary or other unwarranted practices validates them. Conversely, her unBiblical Crusades and Inquisitions (the church is not established to rule over those without, or use carnal force in chastising its members) and later facilitation of liberalism impugns the credibility of the Bible.
>Finally, you speak of a “revived church.”<
Indeed i do, but you could saved yourself some effort if you had not assumed I meant resurrected rather than “revived”. True believers always existed, but always as a remnant, and the church exists, as did the faith of Abraham and the Israel of God, even when one organic form of it becomes corrupt.
And while God tolerated Rome, and used it to a degree, it was duly reproved and the church moved forward after the Reformation, spiritually and with structurelly, though the Reformation must yet continue.
Israel was not preserved by an infallible magisterium, which even the Orthodox do not hold they were, but because God raised up men whom they rejected, to call them back to repentance, or the flock would be scattered. Luther, despite some faults, was your prophet, and his compelled (by Scripture and conscience) break actually helped to bring about needed reformation within Rome, while resulting in far more souls being added to the kingdom, and indeed a more glorious America (though liberals deny the effects of the Great Awakenings).
Rome is in need of more Luther, and I dare say that until it gets its own house in order it has no business even seeking to convert Bible believing evangelicals into it, and preaching faith in a church. And until it gets the gospel right then it is not even a true church, regardless of its advertised size and troublesome historicity. “to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.” (Eccl 9:4)
>The heart of the matter of our dispute rests in this question: Did Christ mean what He said in Matthew 28 and does the Holy Spirit preserve the Truth through all time since Pentecost? If God intended these things, then He accomplished them through the agency of the Church He established for those ends.<
The answer is yes to all, the truth is preserved even though Rome persecuted men who preached the gospel which results in evident regeneration. The issue is your last sentence presumes that Rome must be that church, but while it is based upon and preaches basic truths, it makes them of no salvific effect by fostering confidence in the church and one own merit for salvation. The former is effectually conveyed, as evidenced by what Catholics typically express is their hope of salvation, while the later is based upon Trent: “nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life.” (Trent, 1547, The Sixth Session Decree on justification, chapter XVI)
Of course, we need someone to interpret Trent, and someone to interpret the interpreters, but rather than admitting the solution of Rome is not one, it is easier to attack those who hold to Sola Scriptura, whose confidence come from searching the Scripture, not trusting in Rome or similarly, the Watchtower society or the “living Prophet” of the LDS. Etc.
As for the Perpetuated Petrine papacy, upon which every aberrant teaching of Rome is based, this is dependent upon faith in Rome’s self declared infallibility, not persuading souls by Scripture, as that is problematic for Rome.
As for history, while many religions can boast of their historicity, the authenticity of the one true church is not based upon formal organic ecclesiastical linkage, any more that of a true Jews is based upon physical lineage back to Abraham. (Rm. 2:28,29) But in both cases it is based upon Abrahamic type faith, in the gospel of grace, which Rome officially, and effectually does not preach. Yet it is close enough that some seen through its trappings and do trust Christ and His blood alone to save them, not trusting in part upon their merit or the power of their church for salvation, and which brings forth evident fruits of salvation. And that is what i share, despite my short-comings, not faith in a religious system.
>Many of your teachings appear out of nowhere in the 16th Century or later. “Sola Scriptura” is but one of them.,
That is simply another of your errors. I do not implicitly trust in any man or teacher, while the longevity of Rome’s errors do not validate them, which is your major premise, and it is praying to saints and such like that appear without Biblical warrant.
You simply do not know what you are talking about when it comes to St. Paul's office. He was an Apostle, which by definition also places him squarely among the bishops. The witness to that aspect of the Apostles' ministry is universal in the Early Church. And, in several places, St. Paul makes reference to his ordaining various people via the "laying on of hands." That's what bishops did, and still do. This laying on of hands transmitted power and authority, an effect not to be trifled with or otherwise disposed of in a trivial manner, as St. Paul admonishes St. Timothy to remember in 1 Timothy 5:22. The basis of "apostolic succession, " shared by Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches down to this day (but by no Protestant bodies, as they, or they early-Reformation ancestors, explicitly denied and rejected in their break from Catholicism), rests on the concepts St. Paul makes plain about the laying on of hands.
Your historical assertions are based on not much of anything. Show me, for example, the continuous trail of existence for this "remnant" you speak of. In order to do this, you must be able to span the entire 2000 year Christian Era, with a demonstrably coherent doctrine that can be said to preserve the Deposit of Faith left to us by the Apostles. Be specific as to groups. If you can only point to a few individual believers in any given lifespan of time, I would suggest that that utterly fails to confirm Christ's promise to be with His Church all days, or His promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide it.
You also don't connect the dots for logic very well. One example will have to suffice, since it is clear you're not getting my points very well anyway. You say that the Catholic canon was not finally codified until 1400 years after the last book was written. This is at best a half-truth. It is true that no ecumenical council defined the canon until Trent. But several regional councils of the 4th and 5th Centuries had in fact confirmed the canon with papal approbation. These certainly settled the matter to everyone's general satisfaction until the "Reformation" began shredding settled doctrine in the middle of the 16th Century. Trent only confirmed the canon as an official reference standard and rebuke against the "Reformers," who had already, via various of its early leaders, begun to remove books from both Testaments, or declare them "apocrypha" fit for use as an appendix at the end of their Bibles. The canon itself had been long since settled. Trent only declared it dogmatically closed in response to revolution that threatened to make the matter of what books constituted the Bible an "open question" on a level not seen since the 2nd Century.
Your statement on Jamnia is pretty garbled. It's hard to get a good read on what you're trying to say.
You make a reference to "mortal sin," and say it does not necessarily damn anyone. This is just displaying ignorance of the basic definition. It is precisely the type of sin that damns someone, insofar as the "mortal" part refers to spiritual death, which is nothing less than damnation.
Your understanding of Catholic beliefs and practices, as manifested in your posts, at any rate, is nothing more than a shadowy caricature of their true nature. It's hard to properly respond to a set of straw-man arguments. What coherency you do muster is based pretty much on the assumption that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept, though, not being found in Scripture anywhere explicitly, it is certainly self-refuted. You object, on sola scriptura grounds, to many Catholic beliefs and practices, saying the Bible alone does not authorize them.
This is mostly not true, but, to the extent that some things, such as priestly and episcopal celibacy are not explicitly mandated by Scripture, our response is "so what?" We have never elevated the practice to a doctrine; it is merely a discipline, which could, in theory, change tomorrow. Nevertheless, 1 Corinthians 7 makes a powerful witness to the soundness of the practice, even if there is nothing there that absolutely mandates it.
But there are some things that the Catholic Church does hold to doctrinally that do not find much in Scripture to explicitly back them up - though nearly every example can show a trail of Biblical inference. Again, we say "so what?" We recognize Sacred Tradition, as do all of the ancient Churches that predate Protestantism. You would do well to explore what authority existed in the "reformers" to throw Tradition out, and why all of the Apostolic Churches have retained it from the beginning. Has it ever occurred to you that people first making an appearance on the Christian scene 1500 years after Acts 2 and radically altering many things tracing back into the mists of the Era just might be lacking in authority to make those changes? Sola Scriptura, as a concept, is biblically bankrupt and internally self-refuting. Everything flowing from it, including the utter rejection of Sacred Tradition, is of similar pedigree.