Besides the NT, there are precisely two works of Christian literature from the first century. The Didache and the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. I already cited the latter as evidence of papal authority, which you conveniently ignored. I can cite the Didache for evidence of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist....but you will ignore that too.
And I'm going to continue pound this question into the ground that none of you will answer:
Where are your doctrines in the Church Fathers? Where is Sola Scriptura? Where is once-saved, always saved?
You like to sit here and snipe about every tiny little doctrine we hold, from the Assumption on, but you won't even flipping admit what denomination or even ideological stream you inhabit so we can pick apart all the distinctively doofus ideas that you hold, and that some of which even your fellow Protestants will find ridiculous.
You relentlessly pick apart our theory of Apostolic Succession but conveniently shield your own ecclesiastical origins from view so no one can know that in 1835 Obadiah Satterthwaite broke away from Cornelius Sludgewick and the Eighth Independent Apostolic Church of Lower Pinkleton. Now you've carved yourselves into so many contradictory denominations you've even rejected the denomination idea entirely. Instead you claim this high and mighty NT Restorationism (We're pure Christianity!) as if you somehow managed to float outside time and history and theological legacy, all while refusing to confirm historically whether your ideas even line up with what we positively know about the early Church.
Whether you admit it or not, your theological ideas can be traced to this guy, who broke away from that guy, who disagreed with that other guy, who split a church led by another guy, and on and on for 500 years. You utterly fail to realize that practically every denomination from Luther on claimed to restore primitive worship, and the fact that they came up with a hundred different supposed "restorations" ought to be a clue that the whole thing was based on nothing more than conjectural fantasy from the start.
HMMMmmm...
Uh; in the Book that Rome so meticulously assembled so long ago?
Why do CATHOLICS ignore them?
And neither are considered Canon by anyone. Rome could have made these Canon at Trent but chose not to. There's a reason....they weren't received by the churches.
The only ones claiming papal authority for Clement are Roman Catholics who've retroactively promoted him to Pope. He was not recognized as pope at that time.
The Didache is rejected for a number of reasons not the least among are the contradictory teachings of the Didache as compared to the NT.
Concerning Baptism: But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
41So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. Acts 2:41 NASB
Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets: But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet.
And he settled there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. Acts 18:11 NASB
Then Paul went into the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. Acts 19:8 NASB
And I'm going to continue pound this question into the ground that none of you will answer:
Where are your doctrines in the Church Fathers? Where is Sola Scriptura? Where is once-saved, always saved?
Actually, as Christianity does not rely upon the ECF and "Sacred Tradition" like Roman Catholicism does we don't look to the ECFs for doctrines. So pound away all you want.
Sola Scriptura, and let's get the definition clear, means that the Scriptures alone are authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.
You do not find the words Sola Scriptura in the Bible. But if the Roman Catholic wants to play that word game they will quickly lose the argument as so much of Roman Catholicism is not in the Bible.
The Scriptures are the only inspired writings we have (2 Tim 3:15-16). That cannot be said of the ECFs and their conflicting opinions on various issues near and dear to Roman Catholicism.
Any "tradition" has to be compared to revealed Scripture. If it contradicts it it is to be rejected.
This is what happens when Roman Catholic teachings are compared to Scripture....many are rejected as there is no support for them.
When Christ was tempted by Satan to what did He appeal to? Tradition? Nope. Scripture.
When Philip was witnessing to the Ethiopian to what did he turn to? Tradition? Nope. Scripture...specifically Isaiah.
Where is once-saved, always saved?
13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. Ephesians 1:13-14 NASB
The burden is upon the Roman Catholic to show where we are ever unsealed. I'll save you some time....you won't find it in the Bible.
Jesus, in discussion with unbelieving Jews had this to say.... 24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. John 5:24 NASB
The verb "has" in this passage is a present, indicative, active.
In Greek, the indicative is the mood of assertion, or presentation of certainty (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p.448).
Jesus is making what we believe to be a true assertion...that the one believing "has" life eternal.
The verb "has passed" is a perfect, indicative, active. Wallace notes: the perfect tense is used for "indicating not the past action as such but the present 'state of affairs' resulting from the past action.
The verb, μεταβέβηκεν (μεταβαίνω), conveys the meaning of changing my place, leave, depart, remove.
This statement of Jesus as recorded by John surely gives the indication of a permanent state of affairs for the one believing in Christ.
I'm taking Him at His word....do you?
Whether you admit it or not, your theological ideas can be traced to this guy, who broke away from that guy, who disagreed with that other guy, who split a church led by another guy, and on and on for 500 years. You utterly fail to realize that practically every denomination from Luther on claimed to restore primitive worship, and the fact that they came up with a hundred different supposed "restorations" ought to be a clue that the whole thing was based on nothing more than conjectural fantasy from the start.
And as is done with Roman Catholicism, any group claiming this belief or that belief, will be compared to the Scriptures to determine if they're correct or not.
This has been done with Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Scientology, Heaven's Gate, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Joel Osteen, etc.
False teachings are not something new the ekklesia has had to contend with. Indeed, Paul and John both wrote against the false doctrines making inroads in the early church.
We have to be ever vigilant to guard against false teaching.
This is one of the reasons God has given us the written Word.
Here is a response to your long post:
Nothing before 100 ad that is an unbroken chain for half or more of what Rome teaches.
My point from an earlier post.Besides the NT, there are precisely two works of Christian literature from the first century. The Didache ...
The Didache, it’s origins as a Jewish baptismal document and alterations throughout the centuries has been addressed on FR a number of times. As such, it shows no “unbroken chain for half or more of what Rome teaches.” Search, if interested. Not a valid place to hang your hat.and the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.
The I Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is an interesting document and certainly from an early date. We do not know if it was altered in any way. Let’s give it the benefit of the doubt.“And I'm going to continue pound this question into the ground that none of you will answer:Please show me these core Roman teachings from the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (hat-tip daniel1212).
You will need to do this to show an unbroken chain of things not found in Scripture that Rome claims were Apostolic Tradition - even though one of your most respected Popes disputes…
Fortunately, the I Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians contains chapters and verses., so you should be able to easily point them out, if you find them, which you will not. Meaning Clement is not evidence of an unbroken chain of teaching.
Please show these false teachings of Rome:
...ensured magisterial infallibility;
...church looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme over the church;
...Lord's supper that is administered by priests changing bread and wine into "real" flesh and blood, which is offered as a sacrifice for sin, and consumed in order to obtain spiritual life, as the central supreme sacrament.
...purgatory as the next experience for believers, commencing at death, whereby they become good enough to enter Heaven;
...example of baptizing souls contrary to the stated requirements of repentant, wholehearted faith; (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37)
...distinctive class of sacerdotal clergy/priests;
...clergy which is normatively celibate;
...regular confession to clergy in order to obtain forgiveness (neither Mt. 18 or Ja. 5 teaches this), or restriction to clergy of the power of spiritual binding/loosing, even as regards obtaining deliverance due to sin. The only exhortation to confess sins other than to God is to other believers in general, which may also be able to bind and loose as Elijah did, (Ja, 5:15-20) as being of holy fervent prayer (not that I claim this level of holy faith, sadly);
...praying to created beings in Heaven;
...distinction btwn "saints" and believers, nor btwn elder and bishops; etc.
...reconciliation, in which all the believers normally need to come to "priests" to ask for and obtain forgiveness.
...sacramental system that bestows meritWhy don’t you start there and demonstrate an unbroken chain from the Apostles to Rome today.
Here is where you go off the road, instead of actually providing facts and evidence about the main point - that what you've been taught and what Rome claims is a myth, a fairy-tale, a wonderful story that doesn't exist in history - as your Pope stated. But, you've decided to try to deride others instead of objectively looking at the foundation of your own beliefs. OK.Where are your doctrines in the Church Fathers?
Quoted on FR all the time.Where is Sola Scriptura?But since you brought up Clement of Rome: “And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen” (1 Clement, 32).
Answered on FR all the time - just this week.
Where is once-saved, always saved?
Only in the pages of Scripture, but most recently answered in July on FR.You like to sit here and snipe about every tiny little doctrine we hold, from the Assumption on, but you won't even flipping admit what denomination or even ideological stream you inhabit so we can pick apart all the distinctively doofus ideas that you hold, and that some of which even your fellow Protestants will find ridiculous.
Histrionic attacks do nothing to further your cause or prove the myth you prefer.Whether you admit it or not, your theological ideas can be traced to this guy, who broke away from that guy, who disagreed with that other guy, who split a church led by another guy, and on and on for 500 years.I’ve been clear over more than 15 years on FR as to what the name of my church is and its precise identification. Others have as well. This however, is simply a "look over there" argument to distract from the simple truth that it is uncomfortable to examine one's own beliefs - particularly when their foundations cannot be proven - in the case of Rome.
Why don’t you begin a thread about what faith everyone belongs to and I’ll repost?
Having studies church history and the history of doctrine, all I can tell you is that you believe a falsehood.