Replies

Claud,

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.
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 merit
Why don’t you start there and demonstrate an unbroken chain from the Apostles to Rome today.

“And I'm going to continue pound this question into the ground that none of you will answer:

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.
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).

Where is Sola Scriptura?

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.
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?

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.

Having studies church history and the history of doctrine, all I can tell you is that you believe a falsehood.