Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

[highrigger1]

And they also do not deny or reject him as bishop-do they? Do they mention it? Eusebius was quoting other sources which had no knowledge one way or another? You have documentation supporting your position clearly showing Eusebius was quoting unreliable sources? Reputable historian? Why do I need to provide a historian who lives 2,000 years separated from Peter to confirm it? And I notice you provided NO early church father: rejecting Peter’s residence in Rome, his primacy as heretical,schismatic or a usurpation of Christ.

nicea,

His sources were very far from the time. They did not history books in those days. He was quoting mythology. All historians today recognize that. You should too.

Much what I assert is mythology? Do you need read anything one provides? How can you call this 3rd century mythology?
Look at the year: 180 AD. St Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, 3,1,1, 180 A.D., J208 “…in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” St Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, chapter III, “…the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.”

Kindly show me where you get 3rd century when someone said it more 100 years earlier? Show us your historical proof St. Irenaeus is basing it off MYTHOLOGY?

I provide numerous historians. Their sources and methods is provided in their books.
You have no one to support you. I have all the historians and even Catholic experts. They all know what I told you is true. The Catholic church does not even teach that mythology anymore.

Peace, JohnR

 

[Nicea325]

nicea, His sources were very far from the time. They did not history books in those days. He was quoting mythology. All historians today recognize that. You should too. I provide numerous historians. Their sources and methods is provided in their books. You have no one to support you. I have all the historians and even Catholic experts. They all know what I told you is true. The Catholic church does not even teach that mythology anymore. Peace, JohnR

There you again: MYTHOLOGY. Tell me how on earth do you get mythology from THIRD CENTURY when an early church father quoted it in 180 AD? Do not you not comprehend? Please explain that mindless contradiction?

I beg your pardon? Come again?

“His sources were very far from the time”

And your reputable historians live how many centuries away from Peter and then Eusebius with his “sources were very far from the time.” The CC does not teach that MYTHOLOGY…ANYMORE? Where are you getting such absurd information? I want you to provide me ONE Catholic document stating it taught the MYTHOLOGY of Peter? Apparently you know more than cradle Catholics and the Catholic Church itself.

I have no one to support me? LOL! Yeah…sure. At least I know you never taught any of my classes on how to conduct research.

BTW: I want you to provide historical proof St. Irenaeus is basing it off MYTHOLOGY?

 

[highrigger1]

There you again: MYTHOLOGY. Tell me how on earth do you get mythology from THIRD CENTURY when an early church father quoted it in 180 AD? Do not you not comprehend? Please explain that mindless contradiction?

I beg your pardon? Come again?

“His sources were very far from the time”

And your reputable historians live how many centuries away from Peter and then Eusebius with his “sources were very far from the time.” The CC does not teach that MYTHOLOGY…ANYMORE? Where are you getting such absurd information? I want you to provide me ONE Catholic document stating it taught the MYTHOLOGY of Peter? Apparently you know more than cradle Catholics and the Catholic Church itself.

I have no one to support me? LOL! Yeah…sure. At least I know you never taught any of my classes on how to conduct research.

BTW: I want you to provide historical proof St. Irenaeus is basing it off MYTHOLOGY?

nicea,

170 is almost 200 is third century. Irenaeus did not actually make a claim about Peter. We could modify the explanation to ALMOST THIRD CENTURY if you like. Still it was 100 years after the time in question. Irenaeus did not know one way or the other.

I gave you some historians but OK I will give you some reasoning too besides what I have already given.

Raymond E. Brown and John Meier
Antioc and Rome, Nihil Obstat
p. 162-162

"If Clement was not a noble consul of Rome, what eccesiastical
position enabled him to write to Corinth on behalf of the church
of Rome? Irenaeus lists Clement as having been alotted the Roman
bishopric “in the third place from the apostles,” Peter and Paul,
after Linus and Anacletus. An older generation of Roman Catholic
scholors assumed that the single-bishop practice was already in
place in Rome in the 90s or earlier, and they opined that as
fourth pope (third from Peter), Clement was exercising the primacy
of the bishop of Rome in giving directions to the church of
Corinth. The failure of Clement to use his own name or speak
personally should have called that theory into question from the
start, were there not other decisive evidence against it. As the
ecumenical book, Peter in the New Testament,(Done by Roman Catholics
and protestants together) affirmed, the connection between a Petrine
function in the first century and a fully developed Roman papacy
required several centuries of development, so that it is anachron-
istic as the early Roman church leaders functioning as later popes…

The single bishop structure did not come to Rome till 140-150…

To return to Clement of Rome, he may have been one of the presbyter-
bishops who had the specified tasks of writing letters to other
churches in the name of the Roman presbyter-bishops."

Church History Vol 1 p52
Everett Ferguson
“First Clement is the name given to the letter from “the church of God
that sojourns in Rome to the church of God that sojourns in Corinth.”
The letter is attributed to Clement in the manuscripts and also by
Dionysius of Corinth about 170 (Eusebius, Church History). Hermas
mentions a Clement in Rome whose task was to correspond with other
churches (Visions 2.4.3). However Clement does not write in his own
name. Instead as a presbyter-bishop, he wrote as a spokesman of the
Roman church. The letter therefore carried communal (rather than
apostolic or episcopal) authority.
According to Irenaeus, Clement was the third successor of Peter as
bishop of Romel, following Linus and anacletus (Against Heresies
3.3.3 Eusebius) A rival tradition made him the successor to Peter
(Pseudo Clement, Epistle to James 2: Turtullian). Epiphanius later
tried to harmonize the reports saying Peter consecrated Clement, but
he stepped aside until later (Panarion 27.6).
As many protestant and some Roman Catholic historians have observed,
the difficulty arises because there was a plurality of presbyter-
bishops at this time in the church at Rome, and Irenaeus and others
read back into this time the later organization of only one bishop
in a church.”

Andrew Louth, translator of Esubius’ History of the Church
in his introduction P xxii regarding the bishop list for the Roman Church.

“The problem for the first century or so is what it is a list of: for evidence
that there was a single bishop leading the Roman Church is lacking for that
period; indeed what evidence there is suggests a rather different picture.
When Clement wrote to the Corinthian Church, he wrote not as a bishop in the
later sense but as one of the presbyters of the Roman Church entrusted with
the task of writing on behalf of the whole Roman Church to the erring Church
of Corinth, similarly, Ignatius writing perhaps a decade later to the Roman
Church, does not seem to envisage a ‘bishop of Rome’, despite his enthusiasm
for monepiscopacy.”

“The other odd thing about Eusebius’ use of the succession list for Rome is more
venial; that for the last half of the third century he has clearly misread it,
reading years for months and months for years, so that, overlooking the
martydom of Xystus II, he has him reigning for another ten years, which upsests
the chronology of the bishops of Rome for the rest of the century.”

Obviously the historians question the history of Irenaeus who refers to myths he has heard and Eusebius who merely quotes lists he has found. They provide some of their logic. Peter was never a bishop of Rome.

Peace, JohnR

 

[CopticChristian]

nicea,

170 is almost 200 is third century. Irenaeus did not actually make a claim about Peter. We could modify the explanation to ALMOST THIRD CENTURY if you like. Still it was 100 years after the time in question. Irenaeus did not know one way or the other.

I gave you some historians but OK I will give you some reasoning too besides what I have already given.

Raymond E. Brown and John Meier
Antioc and Rome, Nihil Obstat
p. 162-162

"If Clement was not a noble consul of Rome, what eccesiastical
position enabled him to write to Corinth on behalf of the church
of Rome? Irenaeus lists Clement as having been alotted the Roman
bishopric “in the third place from the apostles,” Peter and Paul,
after Linus and Anacletus. An older generation of Roman Catholic
scholors assumed that the single-bishop practice was already in
place in Rome in the 90s or earlier, and they opined that as
fourth pope (third from Peter), Clement was exercising the primacy
of the bishop of Rome in giving directions to the church of
Corinth. The failure of Clement to use his own name or speak
personally should have called that theory into question from the
start, were there not other decisive evidence against it. As the
ecumenical book, Peter in the New Testament,(Done by Roman Catholics
and protestants together) affirmed, the connection between a Petrine
function in the first century and a fully developed Roman papacy
required several centuries of development, so that it is anachron-
istic as the early Roman church leaders functioning as later popes…

The single bishop structure did not come to Rome till 140-150…

To return to Clement of Rome, he may have been one of the presbyter-
bishops who had the specified tasks of writing letters to other
churches in the name of the Roman presbyter-bishops."

Church History Vol 1 p52
Everett Ferguson
“First Clement is the name given to the letter from “the church of God
that sojourns in Rome to the church of God that sojourns in Corinth.”
The letter is attributed to Clement in the manuscripts and also by
Dionysius of Corinth about 170 (Eusebius, Church History). Hermas
mentions a Clement in Rome whose task was to correspond with other
churches (Visions 2.4.3). However Clement does not write in his own
name. Instead as a presbyter-bishop, he wrote as a spokesman of the
Roman church. The letter therefore carried communal (rather than
apostolic or episcopal) authority.
According to Irenaeus, Clement was the third successor of Peter as
bishop of Romel, following Linus and anacletus (Against Heresies
3.3.3 Eusebius) A rival tradition made him the successor to Peter
(Pseudo Clement, Epistle to James 2: Turtullian). Epiphanius later
tried to harmonize the reports saying Peter consecrated Clement, but
he stepped aside until later (Panarion 27.6).
As many protestant and some Roman Catholic historians have observed,
the difficulty arises because there was a plurality of presbyter-
bishops at this time in the church at Rome, and Irenaeus and others
read back into this time the later organization of only one bishop
in a church.”

Andrew Louth, translator of Esubius’ History of the Church
in his introduction P xxii regarding the bishop list for the Roman Church.

“The problem for the first century or so is what it is a list of: for evidence
that there was a single bishop leading the Roman Church is lacking for that
period; indeed what evidence there is suggests a rather different picture.
When Clement wrote to the Corinthian Church, he wrote not as a bishop in the
later sense but as one of the presbyters of the Roman Church entrusted with
the task of writing on behalf of the whole Roman Church to the erring Church
of Corinth, similarly, Ignatius writing perhaps a decade later to the Roman
Church, does not seem to envisage a ‘bishop of Rome’, despite his enthusiasm
for monepiscopacy.”

“The other odd thing about Eusebius’ use of the succession list for Rome is more
venial; that for the last half of the third century he has clearly misread it,
reading years for months and months for years, so that, overlooking the
martydom of Xystus II, he has him reigning for another ten years, which upsests
the chronology of the bishops of Rome for the rest of the century.”

Obviously the historians question the history of Irenaeus who refers to myths he has heard and Eusebius who merely quotes lists he has found. They provide some of their logic. Peter was never a bishop of Rome.

Peace, JohnR

Jon,

How many translations of Eusebius are there?

Is Louth a Protestant?

If there are more than one translation of Eusebius where in the timeline does Louth fit in?

 

[pablope]

pablope,

Yes I could and just as valid since that list you mention is fabricated. Do you want to know what historians say about it. Here is an example.

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

Part 2

=aul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the two passages above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and submits himself to Peter. Gal 2: 2 states his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

Never does it say he submits to Peter. You made that up. He wanted agreement from the pillars of the Jerusalem church on thegospel he preached. The leader of that church was James and not Peter but that is another discussion.

Huh……made it up? The Bible says it…Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.

He calls Simon by the name given him…Cephas…which is an acknowledgement of authority. In that culture and time, when someone’s name is changed…in this case, Simon to Cephas?peter…it means a change in stature and authority. Calling him Cephas and visiting with him privately for 15 days shows acknowledgement of authority.

This passage in Gal 2 shows a second visit:

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Actually, if you read futher…he meets with Peter, James and John. James was the bishop of jerusalem…but Peter was knows as the head of the Church.

And agreement? Look at Gal 2 again…he went there on a revelation. The revelation did not say to establish your own religion…go about doing what you want…the revelation to him said go to Jerusalem…this means he had to submit himself to the Apostles…and present his gospel…in Paul’s own words…I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain

=:Let me ask you then…by which authority stemming from the Apostolic lineage did the founder of Methodists submit himself, following the example of St. Paul?

There is no apostolic lineage. That is mythology.

Then it looks like I cannot be sure Methodists are from God…because you now do not meet two criterias in Scripture:

Romans 10:…15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent?

So no one sent Wesley.

1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood

He did not submit himself to any apostle…or to any apostle’s successor.

Wesleys lineage is no less valid than any Catholic pope.

Is that because Wesley has no lineage at all…so he cannot validly claim what he taught is from God.

Your bishops lists were fabricated. Wesley submitted himself to noo man just as Paul did not. You are making things up about Paul. Read his letters again.

Read Gal 1…and Gal 2…again here it is…Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

There was a revelation to Paul…and it was to go to Jerusalem to meet with the leaders there…the revelation did not say to go establish your own religion.

So…it looks like Wesley just decided for himself…in contrast with Paul.

Laying on of hands in the NT does not indicate ordination. It implied only a special mission from those who sent him.

Laying of hands is the method of ordination…and done to this day and age in the CC. So let me ask you…who ordained WEsley?

Ordination…laying of hands…has its roots from the OT…Numbers 27… 18 So the LORD said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit of leadership,[a] and lay your hand on him.… 22 Moses did as the LORD commanded him. He took Joshua and had him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly. 23 Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the LORD instructed through Moses.

So, I would say, throwing out ordination is going against the Bible…which you seem to have done in this case.

Notice also…in Acts 13…the Holy Spirit does not tell Paul and Barnabas to go out and start your mission…he tells the others to lay hands on Paul and Barnabas…so Paul and Barnabas are “sent”…through the elders at Antioch. So let me ask again…following the example in Acts 13…who “SENT” WEsley?

Well, you admitted nobody…so Wesley then does not follow a Biblical model exemplified by Paul.

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

He followed the example of St. Paul. No one sent Paul (Gal 1:1) and no one had to send Wesley except Christ Jesus himself. Paul never submitted to anyone and neither was he ordained.

I have just shown you…Wesley does not.

Let me repeat Gal 2… Gal 2…again here it is…Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Where is your proof Christ sent Wesley? If Wesley did indeed was sent by Christ…it looks like Christ just contradicted what was revealed to Paul in Gal 2.

And this passage too…1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood

So, do you think Christ would not remember the very instructions to Paul and contradict them?

You are making up things that did not happen.

I just showed you passages from the Bible that say otherwise.

I have given short answers but they are based on my research of the historical facts provided by internationally accepted historians and even by Catholic scholars some with the Imprimatur. I think the Catholic church no longer teaches the mythologies you assert. You need to come up to speed.

Peace, JohnR

I think you are the one who needs to come up to speed

 

[CopticChristian]

Fabricated?Really? Where is your evidence it is fabricated? This list has been maintaided for 2000 yrs…and it is fabricated?

 

[pablope]

onemangang,

Yes here is Gary Wills a Catholic historian. He is not the only one who tells this history.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Wills

However, Wills has also been a critic of many aspects of church history and church teaching since at least the early 1960s. He has been particularly critical of the doctrine of papal infallibility, the social teaching of the church as regards homosexuality, abortion, and contraception, and the church’s reaction to the sex abuse scandal.[9][10][11][12]

Looks like your source has a gripe against the CC.

 

[highrigger1]

highrigger1;9213796:

onemangang,

1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

Let me ask you…who do you think is the founder of the Church at Antioch? .

Laying on of hands was not some kind of ordination but rathe the selection of one of their number for a special task. No onoe knows who founded the Antioch church. Experts say it was hellenistic Jews but nothing beyond that.

St. Paul told St. Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2)

So what? That is not ordination to trust others.

Following this passage…

Clement of Rome writes this in his Epistle to Corinth…

42:4 Preaching, therefore, through the countries and cities, they appointed their firstfruits to be bishops and deacons over such as should believe, after they had proved them in the Spirit.
42:5 And this they did in no new way, for in truth it had in long past time been written concerning bishops and deacons; for the scripture, in a certain place, saith in this wise: I will establish their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.
44:1 Our Apostles, too, by the instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ, knew that strife would arise concerning the dignity of a bishop;
44:2 and on this account, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned as bishops and deacons: and then gave a rule of succession, in order that, when they had fallen asleep, other men, who had been approved, might succeed to their ministry.

He did not mention a “rule of succession”
He simply said when one person died another should be appointed. Notice no mention of bishops and deacons. Notice no ordination mentioned. Here is the proper paragraph.

1Clem 44:2
For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge,
they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a
continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men
should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were
appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the
consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the
flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all
modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these
men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration

Clement was not a bishop himself. I dont know where you got that quote but I am finding that the Catholic websites add words and phrases to fool Catholics.

I think you need to be careful where you get your quotes from the Fathers. I have check them and find misquotes all the time.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

Fabricated?Really? Where is your evidence it is fabricated? This list has been maintaided for 2000 yrs…and it is fabricated?

 

[pablope]

Laying on of hands was not some kind of ordination but rathe the selection of one of their number for a special task. No onoe knows who founded the Antioch church. Experts say it was hellenistic Jews but nothing beyond that.

Well, then you better let your expert tell the Patriarch of Antioch…who enjoys succession from the that Apostle.

The Church of Antioch is the continuation of the Christian community founded in Antioch by the Apostles Peter (who served as its first bishop) and Paul, who are its patron saints. In terms of hierarchical order of precedence, it currently ranks third among the world’s Orthodox churches, behind Constantinople and Alexandria.

orthodoxwiki.org/Church_of_Antioch

St. Peter the Apostle (c.45-c.53)​

St. Euodios (c.53-c.68)​

St. Ignatius I (c.68-100)​

Eros I (100-c.127)​

Cornelius (c.127-c.151) …# Theodosius VI (Abourjaily) (1958-1970)​

Elias IV (Muawad) (1970-1979)​

Ignatius IV (Hazim) (1979-presen​

Laying of hands is the method of ordination…since the time of Moses…to the time of the Apostles…as evidenced by Paul…to today in the CC.

St. Paul told St. Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2)

So what? That is not ordination to trust others.

Paul was ordained at Antioch before going on his first missionary journey…Paul says “entrust to faithful men”…so do you think Paul would not pass on how to entrust those faithful men? And how to choose them…by ordination?

He did not mention a “rule of succession”
He simply said when one person died another should be appointed. Notice no mention of bishops and deacons. Notice no ordination mentioned.

42:4 Preaching, therefore, through the countries and cities, they appointed their firstfruits to be bishops and deacons over such as should believe, after they had proved them in the Spirit. *

Looks like you missed 42.4…“they appointed” …why does ordination have to be mentioned? The apostles ordained…and they passed on this to their successors…on to today in the CC.

Here is the proper paragraph.

1Clem 44:2
For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge,
they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a
continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men
should succeed to their ministration.

Those therefore who were
appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the
consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the
flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all
modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these
men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration

Clement was not a bishop himself. I dont know where you got that quote but I am finding that the Catholic websites add words and phrases to fool Catholics.

I think you need to be careful where you get your quotes from the Fathers. I have check them and find misquotes all the time.

Peace, JohnR

Who say Clement was not a bishop? Seems you are lacking in history…you should read other sources…those objective ones who do not have a gripe against the CC.

The source of my translation is a neutral site.

earlychristianwritings.com/

Looks like your translation is by an anti-catholic site.

 

[highrigger1]

Part 2

Huh……made it up? The Bible says it…Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.

He calls Simon by the name given him…Cephas…which is an acknowledgement of authority. In that culture and time, when someone’s name is changed…in this case, Simon to Cephas?peter…it means a change in stature and authority. Calling him Cephas and visiting with him privately for 15 days shows acknowledgement of authority.

This passage in Gal 2 shows a second visit:

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Actually, if you read futher…he meets with Peter, James and John. James was the bishop of jerusalem…but Peter was knows as the head of the Church.

And agreement? Look at Gal 2 again…he went there on a revelation. The revelation did not say to establish your own religion…go about doing what you want…the revelation to him said go to Jerusalem…this means he had to submit himself to the Apostles…and present his gospel…in Paul’s own words…I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

pablope,

Nowhere does any of that say Paul submitted to Peter or anyone. Paul simply wanted agreement with the Jerusalem church because they did exercise authority over certain areas like Antioc. It does not imply submission. Gal 1.1 says it all. “Not by human commission” explains his attitude and you are trying to change that with poor logic.

So no one sent Wesley

He did not submit himself to any apostle…or to any apostle’s successor.

.

Paul was “not of human appointment or human commission” Gal 1.1 and neither was Wesley.

Is that because Wesley has no lineage at all…so he cannot validly claim what he taught is from God.

No pope has no better than Wesley. Your bishops lists were fabricated and Peter was never a bishop of Rome as all historians explain.

So…it looks like Wesley just decided for himself…in contrast with Paul.

No contrast. The same as Paul.

Laying of hands is the method of ordination…and done to this day and age in the CC. So let me ask you…who ordained WEsley?

Today perhaps but not then. It was not an ordination at all.

Wesley was an ordained clergyman of the Church of England.

Ordination…laying of hands…has its roots from the OT…Numbers 27… 18 So the LORD said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit of leadership,[a] and lay your hand on him.… 22 Moses did as the LORD commanded him. He took Joshua and had him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly. 23 Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the LORD instructed through Moses.

So, I would say, throwing out ordination is going against the Bible…which you seem to have done in this case.

Then a lot of Catholic experts have done the same. Here is one to explain it to you.

“1. Antioch church sends Barnabas and Saul; Mission to Cyprus and SE Asia monor (Acts 13;1-14:28)
In this context of prayer and fasting, hands are laid on Barnabas and Saul. We should not
anachronistically speak of this as an ordination; it is a commissioning by the church of Antioc
for a mission that is often counted as the first Pauline journey and dated to AD 46-49.”
Raymond Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, P 303, Imprimatur.

Wesley followed the biblical model of Paul. Paul did not wait for anyone to approve his mission and neither did Wesley. The Church of England was class concious. They would never have approved his mission. Wesly was in the model of Paul and the rest of the apostles. No ordination in the NT whatsoever.

Listen to your own Catholic experts whose words are approved by your church with the Imprimatur.

Peace, JohnR

 

[stewstew03]

Amazon review of Fergusson…

I read a good portion of Dr. Ferguson’s book on infant baptism, and listened to a three-part presentation he gave on the same subject (available via iTunes podcast). He’s definitely biased against the Catholic Church.

 

[suzyq_psu]

pablope,

Nowhere does any of that say Paul submitted to Peter or anyone. Paul simply wanted agreement with the Jerusalem church because they did exercise authority over certain areas like Antioc. It does not imply submission. Gal 1.1 says it all. “Not by human commission” explains his attitude and you are trying to change that with poor logic.

.

Paul was “not of human appointment or human commission” Gal 1.1 and neither was Wesley.

No pope has no better than Wesley. Your bishops lists were fabricated and Peter was never a bishop of Rome as all historians explain.

No contrast. The same as Paul.

Today perhaps but not then. It was not an ordination at all.

Wesley was an ordained clergyman of the Church of England.

Then a lot of Catholic experts have done the same. Here is one to explain it to you.

“1. Antioch church sends Barnabas and Saul; Mission to Cyprus and SE Asia monor (Acts 13;1-14:28)
In this context of prayer and fasting, hands are laid on Barnabas and Saul. We should not
anachronistically speak of this as an ordination; it is a commissioning by the church of Antioc
for a mission that is often counted as the first Pauline journey and dated to AD 46-49.”
Raymond Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, P 303, Imprimatur.

Wesley followed the biblical model of Paul. Paul did not wait for anyone to approve his mission and neither did Wesley. The Church of England was class concious. They would never have approved his mission. Wesly was in the model of Paul and the rest of the apostles. No ordination in the NT whatsoever.

Listen to your own Catholic experts whose words are approved by your church with the Imprimatur.

Peace, JohnR

I am seeing you say “a lot” and “numerous” I am getting the impression that it would be easy for you to make your case with all the sources you have, unfortunately all I am seeing is 3 people

Fergusson, Wills, and Brown.

Since I am not versed in history as most are on this website, I think that you might need more than 3 “modern” historians to make your case here.

 

[suzyq_psu]

I’m specifically looking for more than 3 of these “Catholic Experts” you are speaking of.

 

[Nicea325]

pablope;9214841:

pablope,

Yes - fabricated. All historians know that and if you read a history book on the subject you will see that. Here for example is Andrew Louth (EO)

Andrew Louth, translator of Esubius’ History of the Church
in his introduction P xxii regarding the bishop list for the Roman Church.

“The problem for the first century or so is what it is a list of: for evidence
that there was a single bishop leading the Roman Church is lacking for that
period; indeed what evidence there is suggests a rather different picture.
When Clement wrote to the Corinthian Church, he wrote not as a bishop in the
later sense but as one of the presbyters of the Roman Church entrusted with
the task of writing on behalf of the whole Roman Church to the erring Church
of Corinth, similarly, Ignatius writing perhaps a decade later to the Roman
Church, does not seem to envisage a ‘bishop of Rome’, despite his enthusiasm
for monepiscopacy.”

“The other odd thing about Eusebius’ use of the succession list for Rome is more
venial; that for the last half of the third century he has clearly misread it,
reading years for months and months for years, so that, overlooking the
martydom of Xystus II, he has him reigning for another ten years, which upsests
the chronology of the bishops of Rome for the rest of the century.”

Modern historains have access to sources and evidence Ireanaeus and others did not have.
Ireanaus repeats he myths he heard but he has no way to know one way or the other.

More from Ireneus:

.

Yes, I know all about Irenaeus claims. But the apostles were dead before Polycarp was born and Polycarp never mentions such in his letter to the Phillipians. It is true that Irenaeus heard polycarp speak but Irenaeus was a BOY. He had boyhood memories which were muddled. Much of what Irenaeus claimed is called “manifest nonsense” by some historians. I could go on and on why this story by Irenaeus should not be trusted but I get tired of typing. It is true that Polycarp was a martyr as an old man. But it is not true that Polycarp ever knew an apostle or he would have mentioned it.

Of course I have, far more than you.

Actually your church does not teach that anymore. “Every Catholic”? I doubt that. Here is one to explain the facts of history. All Catholic historians I have read agree with him.

Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U.,
Pulitzer Prize Winner
author of WHY I AM A CATHOLIC, wrote the following in his
Best Seller WHAT JESUS MEANT page 81.

“The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be
handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no
successor. The idea that there is an “apostolic succession”
to Peter’s fictional episcopacy did not arise for several
centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively
called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession.Even
so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes.”

You have to trust Irenaeus boyhood memories to conclude that. Polycarp probably was talking about someone named John and Irenaeus confused it. Historians do not trust his history at all. The apostles were dead by 70AD before Polycarp was born.

None of the apostles were bishops. You are making that up.

Peace, JohnR

Highrigger:

I find it amazing how you are STILL ignoring St. Irenaeus quote from 180 AD? WHY? But you have the nerve to state we are making things up? You have the slighest clue about history that much you have proven to me by your constant rhetoric. You are merely parroting the same stuff over and over.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I read a good portion of Dr. Ferguson’s book on infant baptism, and listened to a three-part presentation he gave on the same subject (available via iTunes podcast). He’s definitely biased against the Catholic Church.

I remember reading a debate between RC Sproul (Pro Infant Baptism) and John MacArthur (Against Infant Baptism). They both had to agree that based on Scriptures Alone, Sproul could not explicitly show that infant baptism is mandated and MacArthur could not explicitly show that infant baptism is prohibited.

That’s what happens when you discard tradition…

 

[CopticChristian]

I remember reading a debate between RC Sproul (Pro Infant Baptism) and John MacArthur (Against Infant Baptism). They both had to agree that based on Scriptures Alone, Sproul could not explicitly show that infant baptism is mandated and MacArthur could not explicitly show that infant baptism is prohibited.

That’s what happens when you discard tradition…

Isaiah,

You may or may not know that messages like stand up/sit down that are conflicting are what contribute to Schizophrenia…inability to make up ones mind and decide…

So what is it Infant Baptism or not?

 

[stewstew03]

I remember reading a debate between RC Sproul (Pro Infant Baptism) and John MacArthur (Against Infant Baptism). They both had to agree that based on Scriptures Alone, Sproul could not explicitly show that infant baptism is mandated and MacArthur could not explicitly show that infant baptism is prohibited.

That’s what happens when you discard tradition…

Regarding the Sproul-MacArthur debate - there is a podcast available via iTunes called “A Case for Infant Baptism, by R.C. Sproul.”

You can also access it via the Ligonier Ministries website (ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/infant-baptism/).