Quote:

---

There has to be an authority to settle these issues to prevent (as best as possible) splintering.

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Little Rock Ag said:

---

While I appreciate the effort to marshal biblical evidence in favor of Peter being the first pope, I think there is a large amount of backward-looking speculation needed to come to a definitive conclusion in favor of the proposition. For one thing, if something as important as the establishment of a universal human head of the church were to be ordained by God, I believe Acts would've have made this obvious. Instead, when we look at the New Testament church, we don't see any such office established. To be sure, Peter was especially close to the Lord on earth, and he clearly exercised prominent apostolic authority. But, let's not forget the fact that the other apostles were also entrusted with authority that was uniquely given for a specific time and place.

My belief is that the papacy grew as a parallel office to the Roman emperorship. It possesses a strong resemblance to Roman imperialism, and in my opinion, the entire structure of the papacy and its trappings do not align with the nature of the early church as we see it in the Scriptures. As always, if I am wrong, may the Lord convict me otherwise.

---

If the Church and its governance pre-dates the writings of the New Testament, then why do you expect to find prescriptive statements in it for the establishment of church governance? Where will I find protestant orders of Church governance in the Acts of the Apostles, and why is there so much disagreement among them on that?

There must have been a first Pope. Who do you say it was if not Peter?

---

The Banned said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Quote:

---

There has to be an authority to settle these issues to prevent (as best as possible) splintering.

---

Why?

What if the authority is wrong in its settlement of the issues? Your statement begs the question as to whether the authority is infallible.

And does the RCC model actually work? Isn't there actually lots of "splintering" within the RCC? I have known lots of Catholics, including individuals in prominent positions within the Church, that disagree with parts of the RCC teachings.

---

Exactly. They disagree with Catholic teaching, but they don't start their own church. I struggle with some church teachings. The only requirement is to not publicly or obstinately disagree with it. Because of that, we stay one Church, despite our disagreements.

In the various strands of Protestantism, we see the exact opposite. Disagreements are grounds for a split, and we've seen that happen an incredible amount of times since the reformation.

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Little Rock Ag said:

---

While I appreciate the effort to marshal biblical evidence in favor of Peter being the first pope, I think there is a large amount of backward-looking speculation needed to come to a definitive conclusion in favor of the proposition. For one thing, if something as important as the establishment of a universal human head of the church were to be ordained by God, I believe Acts would've have made this obvious. Instead, when we look at the New Testament church, we don't see any such office established. To be sure, Peter was especially close to the Lord on earth, and he clearly exercised prominent apostolic authority. But, let's not forget the fact that the other apostles were also entrusted with authority that was uniquely given for a specific time and place.

My belief is that the papacy grew as a parallel office to the Roman emperorship. It possesses a strong resemblance to Roman imperialism, and in my opinion, the entire structure of the papacy and its trappings do not align with the nature of the early church as we see it in the Scriptures. As always, if I am wrong, may the Lord convict me otherwise.

---

If the Church and its governance pre-dates the writings of the New Testament, then why do you expect to find prescriptive statements in it for the establishment of church governance? Where will I find protestant orders of Church governance in the Acts of the Apostles, and why is there so much disagreement among them on that?

There must have been a first Pope. Who do you say it was if not Peter?

---

Or Christians practiced what they already had but in a fulfilled form (altar, liturgy, etc.) which is why traditions of apostolic succession are relatively similar from the outside, though much separates us theologically. There were bishops that met and held councils. This isn't some super hard question. Saying there must have been a first pope is more like the Israelites saying they needed a king than anything else.

Romans can only read history anachronistically because your form of government requires it; if the papacy isn't a legitimate orthodox catholic Christian practice, you have a lot of councils and laws that make you schismatic instead of everyone else. It can't support its own weight. I don't say that to be mean or rude, but is pretty simple and obvious.

---

Little Rock Ag said:

---

While I appreciate the effort to marshal biblical evidence in favor of Peter being the first pope, I think there is a large amount of backward-looking speculation needed to come to a definitive conclusion in favor of the proposition. For one thing, if something as important as the establishment of a universal human head of the church were to be ordained by God, I believe Acts would've have made this obvious. Instead, when we look at the New Testament church, we don't see any such office established. To be sure, Peter was especially close to the Lord on earth, and he clearly exercised prominent apostolic authority. But, let's not forget the fact that the other apostles were also entrusted with authority that was uniquely given for a specific time and place.

My belief is that the papacy grew as a parallel office to the Roman emperorship. It possesses a strong resemblance to Roman imperialism, and in my opinion, the entire structure of the papacy and its trappings do not align with the nature of the early church as we see it in the Scriptures. As always, if I am wrong, may the Lord convict me otherwise.

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Little Rock Ag said:

---

While I appreciate the effort to marshal biblical evidence in favor of Peter being the first pope, I think there is a large amount of backward-looking speculation needed to come to a definitive conclusion in favor of the proposition. For one thing, if something as important as the establishment of a universal human head of the church were to be ordained by God, I believe Acts would've have made this obvious. Instead, when we look at the New Testament church, we don't see any such office established. To be sure, Peter was especially close to the Lord on earth, and he clearly exercised prominent apostolic authority. But, let's not forget the fact that the other apostles were also entrusted with authority that was uniquely given for a specific time and place.

My belief is that the papacy grew as a parallel office to the Roman emperorship. It possesses a strong resemblance to Roman imperialism, and in my opinion, the entire structure of the papacy and its trappings do not align with the nature of the early church as we see it in the Scriptures. As always, if I am wrong, may the Lord convict me otherwise.

---

If the Church and its governance pre-dates the writings of the New Testament, then why do you expect to find prescriptive statements in it for the establishment of church governance? Where will I find protestant orders of Church governance in the Acts of the Apostles, and why is there so much disagreement among them on that?

There must have been a first Pope. Who do you say it was if not Peter?

---

Or Christians practiced what they already had but in a fulfilled form (altar, liturgy, etc.) which is why traditions of apostolic succession are relatively similar from the outside, though much separates us theologically. There were bishops that met and held councils. This isn't some super hard question. Saying there must have been a first pope is more like the Israelites saying they needed a king than anything else.

Romans can only read history anachronistically because your form of government requires it; if the papacy isn't a legitimate orthodox catholic Christian practice, you have a lot of councils and laws that make you schismatic instead of everyone else. It can't support its own weight. I don't say that to be mean or rude, but is pretty simple and obvious.

---

I'm not saying there must have been a first Pope in the way you're reading it. I'm saying there's unquestionably a Pope now. There was a Pope before him, so there must have been a first of them in the same way that there was a first king just as a matter of fact. If it wasn't Peter then it was someone else.

It's interesting though that as soon as claims about the monoepiscopacy surface in the mid second century, it seems like if there wasn't a Pope before 30 years ago at that time, it would have made the news. How can it be that there's this revolutionary change it the hierarchical structure, and there's no dispute I can read about in any of the writings of the early church?

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Quote:

---

There has to be an authority to settle these issues to prevent (as best as possible) splintering.

---

Why?

What if the authority is wrong in its settlement of the issues? Your statement begs the question as to whether the authority is infallible.

And does the RCC model actually work? Isn't there actually lots of "splintering" within the RCC? I have known lots of Catholics, including individuals in prominent positions within the Church, that disagree with parts of the RCC teachings.

---

Exactly. They disagree with Catholic teaching, but they don't start their own church. I struggle with some church teachings. The only requirement is to not publicly or obstinately disagree with it. Because of that, we stay one Church, despite our disagreements.

In the various strands of Protestantism, we see the exact opposite. Disagreements are grounds for a split, and we've seen that happen an incredible amount of times since the reformation.

---

My friend, Latin mass, novus ordo, the ordinariate, old Catholics, etc. Unity in the roman church is looser than implied and all these groups have different opinions.

Reminds me of my Mexican friends who will cheat their siblings but rally together when someone outside the family does it.

---

I clearly state there are disagreements and difference of opinion in the church. But we are one Church. What do we all have in common? We submit to the magisterium of the church, headed by the pope, even when we don't feel like it. Sure, there is plenty of pushback on church leadership, and there always has been. But the metric on whether you are catholic or not is ultimately a question of submitting your own pride to that of the church Christ established.

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Little Rock Ag said:

---

While I appreciate the effort to marshal biblical evidence in favor of Peter being the first pope, I think there is a large amount of backward-looking speculation needed to come to a definitive conclusion in favor of the proposition. For one thing, if something as important as the establishment of a universal human head of the church were to be ordained by God, I believe Acts would've have made this obvious. Instead, when we look at the New Testament church, we don't see any such office established. To be sure, Peter was especially close to the Lord on earth, and he clearly exercised prominent apostolic authority. But, let's not forget the fact that the other apostles were also entrusted with authority that was uniquely given for a specific time and place.

My belief is that the papacy grew as a parallel office to the Roman emperorship. It possesses a strong resemblance to Roman imperialism, and in my opinion, the entire structure of the papacy and its trappings do not align with the nature of the early church as we see it in the Scriptures. As always, if I am wrong, may the Lord convict me otherwise.

---

If the Church and its governance pre-dates the writings of the New Testament, then why do you expect to find prescriptive statements in it for the establishment of church governance? Where will I find protestant orders of Church governance in the Acts of the Apostles, and why is there so much disagreement among them on that?

There must have been a first Pope. Who do you say it was if not Peter?

---

Or Christians practiced what they already had but in a fulfilled form (altar, liturgy, etc.) which is why traditions of apostolic succession are relatively similar from the outside, though much separates us theologically. There were bishops that met and held councils. This isn't some super hard question. Saying there must have been a first pope is more like the Israelites saying they needed a king than anything else.

Romans can only read history anachronistically because your form of government requires it; if the papacy isn't a legitimate orthodox catholic Christian practice, you have a lot of councils and laws that make you schismatic instead of everyone else. It can't support its own weight. I don't say that to be mean or rude, but is pretty simple and obvious.

---

I'm not saying there must have been a first Pope in the way you're reading it. I'm saying there's unquestionably a Pope now. There was a Pope before him, so there must have been a first of them in the same way that there was a first king just as a matter of fact. If it wasn't Peter then it was someone else.

It's interesting though that as soon as claims about the monoepiscopacy surface in the mid second century, it seems like if there wasn't a Pope before 30 years ago at that time, it would have made the news. How can it be that there's this revolutionary change it the hierarchical structure, and there's no dispute I can read about in any of the writings of the early church?

---

Again, it's anachronistic roman reading that reads a pope that far back. There was an eastern and western see but the powers the modern pontiff has are not the same. The office at this point is the church in a way it never was before the papal revolution. The Roman bishop didn't call councils and much of western doctrine as it exists in your church wasn't decided until after the revolution.

Edit: We had multiple councils we all accept before the revolution. The papacy isn't a necessity for church structure outside of Rome. That's why all these, "but who decides if there's no pope," posts are so flat.

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Little Rock Ag said:

---

While I appreciate the effort to marshal biblical evidence in favor of Peter being the first pope, I think there is a large amount of backward-looking speculation needed to come to a definitive conclusion in favor of the proposition. For one thing, if something as important as the establishment of a universal human head of the church were to be ordained by God, I believe Acts would've have made this obvious. Instead, when we look at the New Testament church, we don't see any such office established. To be sure, Peter was especially close to the Lord on earth, and he clearly exercised prominent apostolic authority. But, let's not forget the fact that the other apostles were also entrusted with authority that was uniquely given for a specific time and place.

My belief is that the papacy grew as a parallel office to the Roman emperorship. It possesses a strong resemblance to Roman imperialism, and in my opinion, the entire structure of the papacy and its trappings do not align with the nature of the early church as we see it in the Scriptures. As always, if I am wrong, may the Lord convict me otherwise.

---

If the Church and its governance pre-dates the writings of the New Testament, then why do you expect to find prescriptive statements in it for the establishment of church governance? Where will I find protestant orders of Church governance in the Acts of the Apostles, and why is there so much disagreement among them on that?

There must have been a first Pope. Who do you say it was if not Peter?

---

Or Christians practiced what they already had but in a fulfilled form (altar, liturgy, etc.) which is why traditions of apostolic succession are relatively similar from the outside, though much separates us theologically. There were bishops that met and held councils. This isn't some super hard question. Saying there must have been a first pope is more like the Israelites saying they needed a king than anything else.

Romans can only read history anachronistically because your form of government requires it; if the papacy isn't a legitimate orthodox catholic Christian practice, you have a lot of councils and laws that make you schismatic instead of everyone else. It can't support its own weight. I don't say that to be mean or rude, but is pretty simple and obvious.

---

I'm not saying there must have been a first Pope in the way you're reading it. I'm saying there's unquestionably a Pope now. There was a Pope before him, so there must have been a first of them in the same way that there was a first king just as a matter of fact. If it wasn't Peter then it was someone else.

It's interesting though that as soon as claims about the monoepiscopacy surface in the mid second century, it seems like if there wasn't a Pope before 30 years ago at that time, it would have made the news. How can it be that there's this revolutionary change it the hierarchical structure, and there's no dispute I can read about in any of the writings of the early church?

---

Again, it's anachronistic roman reading that reads a pope that far back. There was an eastern and western see but the powers the modern pontiff has are not the same. The office at this point is the church in a way it never was before the papal revolution. The Roman bishop didn't call councils and much of western doctrine as it exists in your church wasn't decided until after the revolution.

Edit: We had multiple councils we all accept before the revolution. The papacy isn't a necessity for church structure outside of Rome. That's why all these, "but who decides if there's no pope," posts are so flat.

---

It's not anachronistic if the claims of Vatican I re: the papacy are true, and that's how the early church viewed the authority of the bishop in Rome. From our perspective your view of the authority of Rome is the anachronism.

---

That's kind of my point though: you're so far downstream from the early church that you have no paradigm for it outside of your own mode of operation. You're pot committed! What happens if Vatican I says, there's no office of pope? What happens to the immaculate conception? Transubstantiation? Canon law? Aquinas? What do you do and how do you live? You can't do anything but find a pope all the way back through history.

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Little Rock Ag said:

---

While I appreciate the effort to marshal biblical evidence in favor of Peter being the first pope, I think there is a large amount of backward-looking speculation needed to come to a definitive conclusion in favor of the proposition. For one thing, if something as important as the establishment of a universal human head of the church were to be ordained by God, I believe Acts would've have made this obvious. Instead, when we look at the New Testament church, we don't see any such office established. To be sure, Peter was especially close to the Lord on earth, and he clearly exercised prominent apostolic authority. But, let's not forget the fact that the other apostles were also entrusted with authority that was uniquely given for a specific time and place.

My belief is that the papacy grew as a parallel office to the Roman emperorship. It possesses a strong resemblance to Roman imperialism, and in my opinion, the entire structure of the papacy and its trappings do not align with the nature of the early church as we see it in the Scriptures. As always, if I am wrong, may the Lord convict me otherwise.

---

If the Church and its governance pre-dates the writings of the New Testament, then why do you expect to find prescriptive statements in it for the establishment of church governance? Where will I find protestant orders of Church governance in the Acts of the Apostles, and why is there so much disagreement among them on that?

There must have been a first Pope. Who do you say it was if not Peter?

---

Or Christians practiced what they already had but in a fulfilled form (altar, liturgy, etc.) which is why traditions of apostolic succession are relatively similar from the outside, though much separates us theologically. There were bishops that met and held councils. This isn't some super hard question. Saying there must have been a first pope is more like the Israelites saying they needed a king than anything else.

Romans can only read history anachronistically because your form of government requires it; if the papacy isn't a legitimate orthodox catholic Christian practice, you have a lot of councils and laws that make you schismatic instead of everyone else. It can't support its own weight. I don't say that to be mean or rude, but is pretty simple and obvious.

---

I'm not saying there must have been a first Pope in the way you're reading it. I'm saying there's unquestionably a Pope now. There was a Pope before him, so there must have been a first of them in the same way that there was a first king just as a matter of fact. If it wasn't Peter then it was someone else.

It's interesting though that as soon as claims about the monoepiscopacy surface in the mid second century, it seems like if there wasn't a Pope before 30 years ago at that time, it would have made the news. How can it be that there's this revolutionary change it the hierarchical structure, and there's no dispute I can read about in any of the writings of the early church?

---

Again, it's anachronistic roman reading that reads a pope that far back. There was an eastern and western see but the powers the modern pontiff has are not the same. The office at this point is the church in a way it never was before the papal revolution. The Roman bishop didn't call councils and much of western doctrine as it exists in your church wasn't decided until after the revolution.

Edit: We had multiple councils we all accept before the revolution. The papacy isn't a necessity for church structure outside of Rome. That's why all these, "but who decides if there's no pope," posts are so flat.

---

It's not anachronistic if the claims of Vatican I re: the papacy are true, and that's how the early church viewed the authority of the bishop in Rome. From our perspective your view of the authority of Rome is the anachronism.

---

That's kind of my point though: you're so far downstream from the early church that you have no paradigm for it outside of your own mode of operation. You're pot committed! What happens if Vatican I says, there's no office of pope? What happens to the immaculate conception? Transubstantiation? Canon law? Aquinas? What do you do and how do you live? You can't do anything but find a pope all the way back through history.

---

Even if those things necessitate the doctrine of the papacy it's not evidence in itself that the doctrine of the papacy isn't true. It's tautological isn't it? If the claims of the Church aren't true, then the claims of the Church aren't true.

The fact that all of Christianity hinges on the claims of the incarnation isn't good evidence that Christianity isn't true.

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Little Rock Ag said:

---

While I appreciate the effort to marshal biblical evidence in favor of Peter being the first pope, I think there is a large amount of backward-looking speculation needed to come to a definitive conclusion in favor of the proposition. For one thing, if something as important as the establishment of a universal human head of the church were to be ordained by God, I believe Acts would've have made this obvious. Instead, when we look at the New Testament church, we don't see any such office established. To be sure, Peter was especially close to the Lord on earth, and he clearly exercised prominent apostolic authority. But, let's not forget the fact that the other apostles were also entrusted with authority that was uniquely given for a specific time and place.

My belief is that the papacy grew as a parallel office to the Roman emperorship. It possesses a strong resemblance to Roman imperialism, and in my opinion, the entire structure of the papacy and its trappings do not align with the nature of the early church as we see it in the Scriptures. As always, if I am wrong, may the Lord convict me otherwise.

---

If the Church and its governance pre-dates the writings of the New Testament, then why do you expect to find prescriptive statements in it for the establishment of church governance? Where will I find protestant orders of Church governance in the Acts of the Apostles, and why is there so much disagreement among them on that?

There must have been a first Pope. Who do you say it was if not Peter?

---

Or Christians practiced what they already had but in a fulfilled form (altar, liturgy, etc.) which is why traditions of apostolic succession are relatively similar from the outside, though much separates us theologically. There were bishops that met and held councils. This isn't some super hard question. Saying there must have been a first pope is more like the Israelites saying they needed a king than anything else.

Romans can only read history anachronistically because your form of government requires it; if the papacy isn't a legitimate orthodox catholic Christian practice, you have a lot of councils and laws that make you schismatic instead of everyone else. It can't support its own weight. I don't say that to be mean or rude, but is pretty simple and obvious.

---

I'm not saying there must have been a first Pope in the way you're reading it. I'm saying there's unquestionably a Pope now. There was a Pope before him, so there must have been a first of them in the same way that there was a first king just as a matter of fact. If it wasn't Peter then it was someone else.

It's interesting though that as soon as claims about the monoepiscopacy surface in the mid second century, it seems like if there wasn't a Pope before 30 years ago at that time, it would have made the news. How can it be that there's this revolutionary change it the hierarchical structure, and there's no dispute I can read about in any of the writings of the early church?

---

Again, it's anachronistic roman reading that reads a pope that far back. There was an eastern and western see but the powers the modern pontiff has are not the same. The office at this point is the church in a way it never was before the papal revolution. The Roman bishop didn't call councils and much of western doctrine as it exists in your church wasn't decided until after the revolution.

Edit: We had multiple councils we all accept before the revolution. The papacy isn't a necessity for church structure outside of Rome. That's why all these, "but who decides if there's no pope," posts are so flat.

---

It's not anachronistic if the claims of Vatican I re: the papacy are true, and that's how the early church viewed the authority of the bishop in Rome. From our perspective your view of the authority of Rome is the anachronism.

---

That's kind of my point though: you're so far downstream from the early church that you have no paradigm for it outside of your own mode of operation. You're pot committed! What happens if Vatican I says, there's no office of pope? What happens to the immaculate conception? Transubstantiation? Canon law? Aquinas? What do you do and how do you live? You can't do anything but find a pope all the way back through history.

---

Even if those things necessitate the doctrine of the papacy it's not evidence in itself that the doctrine of the papacy isn't true. It's tautological isn't it? If the claims of the Church aren't true, then the claims of the Church aren't true.

The fact that all of Christianity hinges on the claims of the incarnation isn't good evidence that Christianity isn't true.

---

The pope and the incarnation are not remotely close when it comes to early Christianity and foundational truth. One was projected backward through time to justify the present with little basis for its current structure. A motte and bailey of sorts, unfortunately.

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Little Rock Ag said:

---

While I appreciate the effort to marshal biblical evidence in favor of Peter being the first pope, I think there is a large amount of backward-looking speculation needed to come to a definitive conclusion in favor of the proposition. For one thing, if something as important as the establishment of a universal human head of the church were to be ordained by God, I believe Acts would've have made this obvious. Instead, when we look at the New Testament church, we don't see any such office established. To be sure, Peter was especially close to the Lord on earth, and he clearly exercised prominent apostolic authority. But, let's not forget the fact that the other apostles were also entrusted with authority that was uniquely given for a specific time and place.

My belief is that the papacy grew as a parallel office to the Roman emperorship. It possesses a strong resemblance to Roman imperialism, and in my opinion, the entire structure of the papacy and its trappings do not align with the nature of the early church as we see it in the Scriptures. As always, if I am wrong, may the Lord convict me otherwise.

---

If the Church and its governance pre-dates the writings of the New Testament, then why do you expect to find prescriptive statements in it for the establishment of church governance? Where will I find protestant orders of Church governance in the Acts of the Apostles, and why is there so much disagreement among them on that?

There must have been a first Pope. Who do you say it was if not Peter?

---

Or Christians practiced what they already had but in a fulfilled form (altar, liturgy, etc.) which is why traditions of apostolic succession are relatively similar from the outside, though much separates us theologically. There were bishops that met and held councils. This isn't some super hard question. Saying there must have been a first pope is more like the Israelites saying they needed a king than anything else.

Romans can only read history anachronistically because your form of government requires it; if the papacy isn't a legitimate orthodox catholic Christian practice, you have a lot of councils and laws that make you schismatic instead of everyone else. It can't support its own weight. I don't say that to be mean or rude, but is pretty simple and obvious.

---

I'm not saying there must have been a first Pope in the way you're reading it. I'm saying there's unquestionably a Pope now. There was a Pope before him, so there must have been a first of them in the same way that there was a first king just as a matter of fact. If it wasn't Peter then it was someone else.

It's interesting though that as soon as claims about the monoepiscopacy surface in the mid second century, it seems like if there wasn't a Pope before 30 years ago at that time, it would have made the news. How can it be that there's this revolutionary change it the hierarchical structure, and there's no dispute I can read about in any of the writings of the early church?

---

Again, it's anachronistic roman reading that reads a pope that far back. There was an eastern and western see but the powers the modern pontiff has are not the same. The office at this point is the church in a way it never was before the papal revolution. The Roman bishop didn't call councils and much of western doctrine as it exists in your church wasn't decided until after the revolution.

Edit: We had multiple councils we all accept before the revolution. The papacy isn't a necessity for church structure outside of Rome. That's why all these, "but who decides if there's no pope," posts are so flat.

---

It's not anachronistic if the claims of Vatican I re: the papacy are true, and that's how the early church viewed the authority of the bishop in Rome. From our perspective your view of the authority of Rome is the anachronism.

---

That's kind of my point though: you're so far downstream from the early church that you have no paradigm for it outside of your own mode of operation. You're pot committed! What happens if Vatican I says, there's no office of pope? What happens to the immaculate conception? Transubstantiation? Canon law? Aquinas? What do you do and how do you live? You can't do anything but find a pope all the way back through history.

---

Even if those things necessitate the doctrine of the papacy it's not evidence in itself that the doctrine of the papacy isn't true. It's tautological isn't it? If the claims of the Church aren't true, then the claims of the Church aren't true.

The fact that all of Christianity hinges on the claims of the incarnation isn't good evidence that Christianity isn't true.

---

The pope and the incarnation are not remotely close when it comes to early Christianity and foundational truth. One was projected backward through time to justify the present with little basis for its current structure. A motte and bailey of sorts, unfortunately.

---

You're doing what you're accusing the western see of doing. Imposing your view of the papacy onto the early church. You're just granting yourself the whole argument.

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Little Rock Ag said:

---

While I appreciate the effort to marshal biblical evidence in favor of Peter being the first pope, I think there is a large amount of backward-looking speculation needed to come to a definitive conclusion in favor of the proposition. For one thing, if something as important as the establishment of a universal human head of the church were to be ordained by God, I believe Acts would've have made this obvious. Instead, when we look at the New Testament church, we don't see any such office established. To be sure, Peter was especially close to the Lord on earth, and he clearly exercised prominent apostolic authority. But, let's not forget the fact that the other apostles were also entrusted with authority that was uniquely given for a specific time and place.

My belief is that the papacy grew as a parallel office to the Roman emperorship. It possesses a strong resemblance to Roman imperialism, and in my opinion, the entire structure of the papacy and its trappings do not align with the nature of the early church as we see it in the Scriptures. As always, if I am wrong, may the Lord convict me otherwise.

---

If the Church and its governance pre-dates the writings of the New Testament, then why do you expect to find prescriptive statements in it for the establishment of church governance? Where will I find protestant orders of Church governance in the Acts of the Apostles, and why is there so much disagreement among them on that?

There must have been a first Pope. Who do you say it was if not Peter?

---

Or Christians practiced what they already had but in a fulfilled form (altar, liturgy, etc.) which is why traditions of apostolic succession are relatively similar from the outside, though much separates us theologically. There were bishops that met and held councils. This isn't some super hard question. Saying there must have been a first pope is more like the Israelites saying they needed a king than anything else.

Romans can only read history anachronistically because your form of government requires it; if the papacy isn't a legitimate orthodox catholic Christian practice, you have a lot of councils and laws that make you schismatic instead of everyone else. It can't support its own weight. I don't say that to be mean or rude, but is pretty simple and obvious.

---

I'm not saying there must have been a first Pope in the way you're reading it. I'm saying there's unquestionably a Pope now. There was a Pope before him, so there must have been a first of them in the same way that there was a first king just as a matter of fact. If it wasn't Peter then it was someone else.

It's interesting though that as soon as claims about the monoepiscopacy surface in the mid second century, it seems like if there wasn't a Pope before 30 years ago at that time, it would have made the news. How can it be that there's this revolutionary change it the hierarchical structure, and there's no dispute I can read about in any of the writings of the early church?

---

Again, it's anachronistic roman reading that reads a pope that far back. There was an eastern and western see but the powers the modern pontiff has are not the same. The office at this point is the church in a way it never was before the papal revolution. The Roman bishop didn't call councils and much of western doctrine as it exists in your church wasn't decided until after the revolution.

Edit: We had multiple councils we all accept before the revolution. The papacy isn't a necessity for church structure outside of Rome. That's why all these, "but who decides if there's no pope," posts are so flat.

---

It's not anachronistic if the claims of Vatican I re: the papacy are true, and that's how the early church viewed the authority of the bishop in Rome. From our perspective your view of the authority of Rome is the anachronism.

---

That's kind of my point though: you're so far downstream from the early church that you have no paradigm for it outside of your own mode of operation. You're pot committed! What happens if Vatican I says, there's no office of pope? What happens to the immaculate conception? Transubstantiation? Canon law? Aquinas? What do you do and how do you live? You can't do anything but find a pope all the way back through history.

---

Even if those things necessitate the doctrine of the papacy it's not evidence in itself that the doctrine of the papacy isn't true. It's tautological isn't it? If the claims of the Church aren't true, then the claims of the Church aren't true.

The fact that all of Christianity hinges on the claims of the incarnation isn't good evidence that Christianity isn't true.

---

The pope and the incarnation are not remotely close when it comes to early Christianity and foundational truth. One was projected backward through time to justify the present with little basis for its current structure. A motte and bailey of sorts, unfortunately.

---

You're doing what you're accusing the western see of doing. Imposing your view of the papacy onto the early church. You're just granting yourself the whole argument.

---

The episcopal structure of the early church isn't complicated or hidden in scripture or actuality. Nor is the incarnation, for that matter. There's nothing to grant that hasn't emerged a thousand years or more later, such as Rome claims.

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Little Rock Ag said:

---

While I appreciate the effort to marshal biblical evidence in favor of Peter being the first pope, I think there is a large amount of backward-looking speculation needed to come to a definitive conclusion in favor of the proposition. For one thing, if something as important as the establishment of a universal human head of the church were to be ordained by God, I believe Acts would've have made this obvious. Instead, when we look at the New Testament church, we don't see any such office established. To be sure, Peter was especially close to the Lord on earth, and he clearly exercised prominent apostolic authority. But, let's not forget the fact that the other apostles were also entrusted with authority that was uniquely given for a specific time and place.

My belief is that the papacy grew as a parallel office to the Roman emperorship. It possesses a strong resemblance to Roman imperialism, and in my opinion, the entire structure of the papacy and its trappings do not align with the nature of the early church as we see it in the Scriptures. As always, if I am wrong, may the Lord convict me otherwise.

---

If the Church and its governance pre-dates the writings of the New Testament, then why do you expect to find prescriptive statements in it for the establishment of church governance? Where will I find protestant orders of Church governance in the Acts of the Apostles, and why is there so much disagreement among them on that?

There must have been a first Pope. Who do you say it was if not Peter?

---

Or Christians practiced what they already had but in a fulfilled form (altar, liturgy, etc.) which is why traditions of apostolic succession are relatively similar from the outside, though much separates us theologically. There were bishops that met and held councils. This isn't some super hard question. Saying there must have been a first pope is more like the Israelites saying they needed a king than anything else.

Romans can only read history anachronistically because your form of government requires it; if the papacy isn't a legitimate orthodox catholic Christian practice, you have a lot of councils and laws that make you schismatic instead of everyone else. It can't support its own weight. I don't say that to be mean or rude, but is pretty simple and obvious.

---

I'm not saying there must have been a first Pope in the way you're reading it. I'm saying there's unquestionably a Pope now. There was a Pope before him, so there must have been a first of them in the same way that there was a first king just as a matter of fact. If it wasn't Peter then it was someone else.

It's interesting though that as soon as claims about the monoepiscopacy surface in the mid second century, it seems like if there wasn't a Pope before 30 years ago at that time, it would have made the news. How can it be that there's this revolutionary change it the hierarchical structure, and there's no dispute I can read about in any of the writings of the early church?

---

Again, it's anachronistic roman reading that reads a pope that far back. There was an eastern and western see but the powers the modern pontiff has are not the same. The office at this point is the church in a way it never was before the papal revolution. The Roman bishop didn't call councils and much of western doctrine as it exists in your church wasn't decided until after the revolution.

Edit: We had multiple councils we all accept before the revolution. The papacy isn't a necessity for church structure outside of Rome. That's why all these, "but who decides if there's no pope," posts are so flat.

---

It's not anachronistic if the claims of Vatican I re: the papacy are true, and that's how the early church viewed the authority of the bishop in Rome. From our perspective your view of the authority of Rome is the anachronism.

---

That's kind of my point though: you're so far downstream from the early church that you have no paradigm for it outside of your own mode of operation. You're pot committed! What happens if Vatican I says, there's no office of pope? What happens to the immaculate conception? Transubstantiation? Canon law? Aquinas? What do you do and how do you live? You can't do anything but find a pope all the way back through history.

---

Even if those things necessitate the doctrine of the papacy it's not evidence in itself that the doctrine of the papacy isn't true. It's tautological isn't it? If the claims of the Church aren't true, then the claims of the Church aren't true.

The fact that all of Christianity hinges on the claims of the incarnation isn't good evidence that Christianity isn't true.

---

The pope and the incarnation are not remotely close when it comes to early Christianity and foundational truth. One was projected backward through time to justify the present with little basis for its current structure. A motte and bailey of sorts, unfortunately.

---

You're doing what you're accusing the western see of doing. Imposing your view of the papacy onto the early church. You're just granting yourself the whole argument.

---

The episcopal structure of the early church isn't complicated or hidden in scripture or actuality. Nor is the incarnation, for that matter. There's nothing to grant that hasn't emerged a thousand years or more later, such as Rome claims.

---

So in your mind the whole body of evidence for papal doctrine comes in the 11th century or later?

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Little Rock Ag said:

---

While I appreciate the effort to marshal biblical evidence in favor of Peter being the first pope, I think there is a large amount of backward-looking speculation needed to come to a definitive conclusion in favor of the proposition. For one thing, if something as important as the establishment of a universal human head of the church were to be ordained by God, I believe Acts would've have made this obvious. Instead, when we look at the New Testament church, we don't see any such office established. To be sure, Peter was especially close to the Lord on earth, and he clearly exercised prominent apostolic authority. But, let's not forget the fact that the other apostles were also entrusted with authority that was uniquely given for a specific time and place.

My belief is that the papacy grew as a parallel office to the Roman emperorship. It possesses a strong resemblance to Roman imperialism, and in my opinion, the entire structure of the papacy and its trappings do not align with the nature of the early church as we see it in the Scriptures. As always, if I am wrong, may the Lord convict me otherwise.

---

If the Church and its governance pre-dates the writings of the New Testament, then why do you expect to find prescriptive statements in it for the establishment of church governance? Where will I find protestant orders of Church governance in the Acts of the Apostles, and why is there so much disagreement among them on that?

There must have been a first Pope. Who do you say it was if not Peter?

---

Or Christians practiced what they already had but in a fulfilled form (altar, liturgy, etc.) which is why traditions of apostolic succession are relatively similar from the outside, though much separates us theologically. There were bishops that met and held councils. This isn't some super hard question. Saying there must have been a first pope is more like the Israelites saying they needed a king than anything else.

Romans can only read history anachronistically because your form of government requires it; if the papacy isn't a legitimate orthodox catholic Christian practice, you have a lot of councils and laws that make you schismatic instead of everyone else. It can't support its own weight. I don't say that to be mean or rude, but is pretty simple and obvious.

---

I'm not saying there must have been a first Pope in the way you're reading it. I'm saying there's unquestionably a Pope now. There was a Pope before him, so there must have been a first of them in the same way that there was a first king just as a matter of fact. If it wasn't Peter then it was someone else.

It's interesting though that as soon as claims about the monoepiscopacy surface in the mid second century, it seems like if there wasn't a Pope before 30 years ago at that time, it would have made the news. How can it be that there's this revolutionary change it the hierarchical structure, and there's no dispute I can read about in any of the writings of the early church?

---

Again, it's anachronistic roman reading that reads a pope that far back. There was an eastern and western see but the powers the modern pontiff has are not the same. The office at this point is the church in a way it never was before the papal revolution. The Roman bishop didn't call councils and much of western doctrine as it exists in your church wasn't decided until after the revolution.

Edit: We had multiple councils we all accept before the revolution. The papacy isn't a necessity for church structure outside of Rome. That's why all these, "but who decides if there's no pope," posts are so flat.

---

It's not anachronistic if the claims of Vatican I re: the papacy are true, and that's how the early church viewed the authority of the bishop in Rome. From our perspective your view of the authority of Rome is the anachronism.

---

That's kind of my point though: you're so far downstream from the early church that you have no paradigm for it outside of your own mode of operation. You're pot committed! What happens if Vatican I says, there's no office of pope? What happens to the immaculate conception? Transubstantiation? Canon law? Aquinas? What do you do and how do you live? You can't do anything but find a pope all the way back through history.

---

Even if those things necessitate the doctrine of the papacy it's not evidence in itself that the doctrine of the papacy isn't true. It's tautological isn't it? If the claims of the Church aren't true, then the claims of the Church aren't true.

The fact that all of Christianity hinges on the claims of the incarnation isn't good evidence that Christianity isn't true.

---

The pope and the incarnation are not remotely close when it comes to early Christianity and foundational truth. One was projected backward through time to justify the present with little basis for its current structure. A motte and bailey of sorts, unfortunately.

---

You're doing what you're accusing the western see of doing. Imposing your view of the papacy onto the early church. You're just granting yourself the whole argument.

---

The episcopal structure of the early church isn't complicated or hidden in scripture or actuality. Nor is the incarnation, for that matter. There's nothing to grant that hasn't emerged a thousand years or more later, such as Rome claims.

---

So in your mind the whole body of evidence for papal doctrine comes in the 11th century or later?

---

As you conceive of it, with structure, authority, doctrine, etc.? Yes. Do I want to rehash 'first among equals' name changes, etc. that aren't agreed upon or formalized at all prior to that? No.

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Little Rock Ag said:

---

While I appreciate the effort to marshal biblical evidence in favor of Peter being the first pope, I think there is a large amount of backward-looking speculation needed to come to a definitive conclusion in favor of the proposition. For one thing, if something as important as the establishment of a universal human head of the church were to be ordained by God, I believe Acts would've have made this obvious. Instead, when we look at the New Testament church, we don't see any such office established. To be sure, Peter was especially close to the Lord on earth, and he clearly exercised prominent apostolic authority. But, let's not forget the fact that the other apostles were also entrusted with authority that was uniquely given for a specific time and place.

My belief is that the papacy grew as a parallel office to the Roman emperorship. It possesses a strong resemblance to Roman imperialism, and in my opinion, the entire structure of the papacy and its trappings do not align with the nature of the early church as we see it in the Scriptures. As always, if I am wrong, may the Lord convict me otherwise.

---

If the Church and its governance pre-dates the writings of the New Testament, then why do you expect to find prescriptive statements in it for the establishment of church governance? Where will I find protestant orders of Church governance in the Acts of the Apostles, and why is there so much disagreement among them on that?

There must have been a first Pope. Who do you say it was if not Peter?

---

Or Christians practiced what they already had but in a fulfilled form (altar, liturgy, etc.) which is why traditions of apostolic succession are relatively similar from the outside, though much separates us theologically. There were bishops that met and held councils. This isn't some super hard question. Saying there must have been a first pope is more like the Israelites saying they needed a king than anything else.

Romans can only read history anachronistically because your form of government requires it; if the papacy isn't a legitimate orthodox catholic Christian practice, you have a lot of councils and laws that make you schismatic instead of everyone else. It can't support its own weight. I don't say that to be mean or rude, but is pretty simple and obvious.

---

I'm not saying there must have been a first Pope in the way you're reading it. I'm saying there's unquestionably a Pope now. There was a Pope before him, so there must have been a first of them in the same way that there was a first king just as a matter of fact. If it wasn't Peter then it was someone else.

It's interesting though that as soon as claims about the monoepiscopacy surface in the mid second century, it seems like if there wasn't a Pope before 30 years ago at that time, it would have made the news. How can it be that there's this revolutionary change it the hierarchical structure, and there's no dispute I can read about in any of the writings of the early church?

---

Again, it's anachronistic roman reading that reads a pope that far back. There was an eastern and western see but the powers the modern pontiff has are not the same. The office at this point is the church in a way it never was before the papal revolution. The Roman bishop didn't call councils and much of western doctrine as it exists in your church wasn't decided until after the revolution.

Edit: We had multiple councils we all accept before the revolution. The papacy isn't a necessity for church structure outside of Rome. That's why all these, "but who decides if there's no pope," posts are so flat.

---

It's not anachronistic if the claims of Vatican I re: the papacy are true, and that's how the early church viewed the authority of the bishop in Rome. From our perspective your view of the authority of Rome is the anachronism.

---

That's kind of my point though: you're so far downstream from the early church that you have no paradigm for it outside of your own mode of operation. You're pot committed! What happens if Vatican I says, there's no office of pope? What happens to the immaculate conception? Transubstantiation? Canon law? Aquinas? What do you do and how do you live? You can't do anything but find a pope all the way back through history.

---

Even if those things necessitate the doctrine of the papacy it's not evidence in itself that the doctrine of the papacy isn't true. It's tautological isn't it? If the claims of the Church aren't true, then the claims of the Church aren't true.

The fact that all of Christianity hinges on the claims of the incarnation isn't good evidence that Christianity isn't true.

---

The pope and the incarnation are not remotely close when it comes to early Christianity and foundational truth. One was projected backward through time to justify the present with little basis for its current structure. A motte and bailey of sorts, unfortunately.

---

You're doing what you're accusing the western see of doing. Imposing your view of the papacy onto the early church. You're just granting yourself the whole argument.

---

The episcopal structure of the early church isn't complicated or hidden in scripture or actuality. Nor is the incarnation, for that matter. There's nothing to grant that hasn't emerged a thousand years or more later, such as Rome claims.

---

So in your mind the whole body of evidence for papal doctrine comes in the 11th century or later?

---

As you conceive of it, with structure, authority, doctrine, etc.? Yes. Do I want to rehash 'first among equals' name changes, etc. that aren't agreed upon or formalized at all prior to that? No.

---

Quote:

---

In The Protestant s Dilemma, Rose examines over thirty of those conclusions, showing with solid evidence, compelling reason, and gentle humor how the major tenets of Protestantism - if honestly pursued to their furthest extent - wind up in dead ends.

---