There is one holy catholic apostolic church. The church of Rome has existed since the first Century. There is an unbroken chain of succession by the laying on of hands from that time until now. The apostles chose the succession and it was repeated in every century.
You could try arguing that you belong to one of the other original churches rather than an offshoot sect that devolved from, but may not even acknowledge its origin in, the Sixteenth Century. Any movement forming so late has to account for a lack of apostolic authority, a lack of divine origin, and restarts the clock fifteen centuries later, and then restarts the clock every century, and sometimes decade, unto this day.
On the other hand we see one holy catholic apostolic church that has a visible historical witness in every century since the Messiah, with scriptural evidence of both its formation, as well as its apostolic succession. I could not find any save the Orthodox that have that. Baptist Bride congregations claim it but other Baptists avoid those historical succession claims.
Are you serious? The church of Rome is neither one, except in an organizational sense and with a paper unity, and it certainly has not existed in that sense since the first century, as both Scripture and historical research attest. Or do I need to post documentation?
Thus the recourse to claiming that both sources only mean what Rome says they do in any conflict. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares
The church of Rome in its distinctives stands in such contrast to the NT church that it is basically invisible in Scripture. .
There is an unbroken chain of succession by the laying on of hands from that time until now.
That also is absurd. Or do I need to post documentation? But like the stipulated “unanimous consent” of the fathers, "unbroken" means whatever Rome means.
You could try arguing that you belong to one of the other original churches rather than an offshoot sect that devolved from, but may not even acknowledge its origin in, the Sixteenth Century. Any movement forming so late has to account for a lack of apostolic authority, a lack of divine origin...,
Nonsense. So your argument is that unless one cannot show formal descent from the historical magisterium but dissents from it, then such necessarily cannot have validity? And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?
On the other hand we see one holy catholic apostolic church that has a visible historical witness in every century since the Messiah, with scriptural evidence of both its formation, as well as its apostolic succession.
That is mere whistling in the dark. For the fact is that the church of Rome simply does not a visible historical witness in every century since the Messiah, with scriptural evidence of both its formation, as well as its apostolic succession. Or do i need to post the abundant documentation that testifies against that propaganda, even from Catholics?