To: aMorePerfectUnion
Apostolic sounds great on the surface, but Scripture never requires any line of descent from an Apostle It makes no sense to cite the silence of the Bible as proof when the topic being debated is the sufficiency of that very same Bible.
Furthermore, corruption in the papacy does not delegitimize the office just as Saul did not delegitimize the throne of Israel.
717 posted on
02/02/2018 2:43:31 PM PST by
papertyger
(Bulverism: it's not just for liberals anymore.)
To: papertyger
It makes no sense to cite the silence of the Bible as proof when the topic being debated is the sufficiency of that very same Bible. All church offices are listed in Scripture. Pope doesn't make the cut - for hundreds of years.
Furthermore, corruption in the papacy does not delegitimize the office just as Saul did not delegitimize the throne of Israel.
Orthodox Churches, which are equally Apostolic, deny the office of a Papacy and always have since the time of the Apostles. It is illegitimate and didn't develop until it followed the path of Rome to have a Caesar.
718 posted on
02/02/2018 3:01:50 PM PST by
aMorePerfectUnion
(Q is Baron Trump, time-traveling back from the future, to help his dad fight the deep state.)
To: papertyger
It makes no sense to cite the silence of the Bible as proof when the topic being debated is the sufficiency of that very same Bible. It makes no sense to cite the wordiness of Rome as proof when the topic being debated is the higher authority of that very same power structure.
727 posted on
02/03/2018 4:23:38 AM PST by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson