Replies

“Both men of God and writings of God were essentially established as being of God due to their enduring Heavenly qualities and effects...”

Very true. However, this does not solve the problem of disunity on what those holy books were, and this leads to error and heresy, leading to the critical Arian heresy. This is not small stuff, but gets to the central tenets of what Christianity is and what Christians believe.

“...ask yourself how 1st century souls knew that Jesus was the Christ, or that Isaiah etc. was inspired. Don’t forgot to answer it.”

Both in Biblical evidence and in historic evidence of the Early Church we see both of those give fairly compelling evidence to support the Catholic Church. There is nearly unanimous consent to the episcopal, hierarchical and visible nature of the Church which Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail against.

‘St. Clement, bishop of Rome, teaches apostolic succession, around 80 A.D. (Epistle to Corinthians, 42:4-5, 44:1-3), and St. Irenaeus is a very strong witness to, and advocate of this tradition in the last two decades of the 2nd century (Against Heresies, 3:3:1,4, 4:26:2, 5:20:1,
Eusebius, the first historian of the Church, in his History of the Church, begins by saying that one of the “chief matters” to be dealt with in his work is “the lines of succession from the holy apostles’

There is obviously development of the Church, but it looks much like the Catholic Church in hierarchy and in doctrine. With respect, and I say this in a loving respect to you as a Christian brother, it definitely doesn’t look like the Protestant Churches of modern day. There is little unity in structure and constant division. There is split after split in doctrine. As a former Protestant, I’ve been there and seen the division, the splitting of churches into 2 or even 3.

Traveling on the road...”...Love the Lord Thy God, with all of your heart, mind and strength...and love your neighbor as you would want to be loved...”

Loving God and our neighbor is our path. In the spirit of unity, as we have differences, let’s remember that in the end, that we do have much we agree on. Our Salvation is only through Jesus, The Holy Trinity, The Resurrection and the coming unimaginable Mercy that we truly don’t deserve.

“Both men of God and writings of God were essentially established as being of God due to their enduring Heavenly qualities and effects...

Very true.

Very true is not what RCs argue, but that the RCC only is what can determine and establish what is and what is not of God. You disagree?

But the issue is not that of the need for the place of the magisterium, but that of the need for the infallible authoritative magisterium of Rome, and its basis for determining Truth, which is what you must argue for. And thus my unanswered questions. p> Scripture upholds the need for magisterial oversight, and which as such statements as that of Westminster affirms,

It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..

But the veracity of such teachings are dependent upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation, but which is not the case for Rome, as she can decree something as infallible Truth even if it is not taught in Scripture - as long as it does not contradict Scripture. But which Rome is the judge of. Thus in reality the veracity of Rome's doctrine is based upon the premise that she is possesses assured veracity, when speaking in such as manner that means she is, having claimed such for herself.

“...ask yourself how 1st century souls knew that Jesus was the Christ, or that Isaiah etc. was inspired. Don’t forgot to answer it.”

This gets to the point of Tradition and Apostolic Succession. After those who were fortunate and blessed enough to actually see Jesus Christ teach and fulfill his crucifixion and resurrection, we had the Apostles.Both in Biblical evidence and in historic evidence of the Early Church we see both of those give fairly compelling evidence to support the Catholic Church...‘St. Clement,...Eusebius

Not essentially the Roman Catholic so, and I already said this is contested by historical evidence (and Eusebius is dubious), but you continue to fail to answer clearly my questions, perhaps so you can argue you did not say what it seems you are saying.

Thus i ask you again, do you hold that a (conditionally) infallible head and magisterium is necessary to determine what and who is of God, writings and men, so that what it rejects must be rejected, whereby you have assurance? And that on the basis of historical descent Rome is that incontestable authority. This is what i see you arguing, but need to know if it is.

There is obviously development of the Church, I will say that, Development of Doctrine became downward, parly due to a lack of “unanimous consent ” of the fathers , even making use of forgeries for a time.

. With respect, and I say this in a loving respect to you as a Christian brother,

That is kind, but this testifies to the lack of unity in Rome, as others even here disallow such a former RC as myself can be a Christian, based on their understanding of Rome.

, it definitely doesn’t look like the Protestant Churches of modern day.

You mean you see the NT in Scripture the churches being presided over by a pope the whole church looked to as it supreme infallible head in Rome, and being taught that he was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18?

Or even a successor for the martyred apostle James (Acts 12:1,2) being chosen like Matthias was and after that manner (Acts 1, in order to keep the original number of apostles)?

And a separate sacerdotal class of believers titled "priests ," as they uniquely changed bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the masses to receive life in them and eternal life (RCs keep quoting Jn. 6:53,54 to us)?

And a hierarchical order of priests, bishops, Cardinals, etc., with ostentatious religious dress and titles, including "Most Reverend?"

And required (with rare exceptions) clerical celibacy, which presumes all such have that gift.

And incognizant (usually) souls being formally justified by interior holiness via sprinkling of water in recognition of proxy faith, and (usually) ending up becoming good enough to enter Heaven in purgatory ?

And a separate class of believers called “saints,

And praying to the departed, or angels, and before images?

And the apostles teaching Mary was born and kept sinless?

And a church that conformed to this world in using papal sanctioned physical oppression torture, burning and death to deal with theological dissent

Or who, having lost that power, treats even notorious manifestly impenitent public sinners as members in life and in death, in contrast to the NT means of disfellowship and spiritual discipline.

And which members overall come in near last in things such as evangelism, commitment, and personal Bible reading, the latter which it hindered for a long time, and later sanctions teaching millions such things as that OT miraculous stories are fables or folktales, etc.

And teaches that the deity Muslims worship (not as unknown) is the same as theirs.

And which boasts of unity while being discouraged from objectively searching the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of RC doctrine, while (on the other hand) lacking certainty about all the things they must hold as certain, and seeing varying degrees of interpretation by the magisterium, as well in the great liberty they have to interpret Scripture in order to support Rome.

This will suffice for now, and while i do not see any body of apostles today, esp in Catholicism, with the degree of power, purity, piety and performance like that of the early church, and that could effectually function as a universal magisterium, (which Rome is not even a form of), and the church overall as in negative contrast with the early church, yet among churches that hold Scripture as supreme as the wholly inspired and basically literal word of God,

i see men ordained according to the Biblical requirements, (1Tim. 3:1-7)

with with simple titles of pastor as elders/bishops, that being one office, (Titus 1:5-7)

and clothed with humility as well the clothes of common men, (Mt. 23:5-12)

and taking part in the communal Lord's supper as the memorial that it is, showing the Lord's death till He comes, (1Cor. 11 ) and praying not to the departed or images,

and preaching the gospel of repentant faith in the Lord Jesus to save contrite damned + destitute sinners on His expense and credit, (Eph. 2:8,9) that being counted for righteousness, (Rm. 3 - 4:7ff)

which heart faith confesses the Lord Jesus, (Rm. 10:9,10) justifying them as souls having saving faith, (Heb. 6:9,10). and thus baptizing them as believers who can fulfill the stated requirements of repentance and wholehearted faith, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37)

and thus overall on the practical level they foster the most unified and committed group of born again believers in core Christian truths,

realizing a basic unity of the Spirit as a result of a common personal conversion of heart faith in Christ, and resultant Scripture-based relationship with Him, which transcends external tribalism,

thus being treated by both Rome and liberals alike as their greatest threat to their rule.

But who, as predicted in the latter days, have been and increasingly are a remnant. To God be the glory.

Traveling on the road...

May you have a good trip.