Baptism question that seems unbiblical

[BreadOfLife]

There is nothing to indicate any need for the Corinthian Church to be obedient to Clement. Clement is nowhere mentioned in the Letter. The Church at Rome is who is writing the Letter. 'The Church of God which resides as a stranger at Rome to the Church of god which is a stranger at Corinth....' 'We' and 'us'. Remember?

There is nothing to indicate the Roman Church had to be dragged into this affair. They are simply writing as one Christian Church to another having heard of the removal of certain leaders in the Church.

A Christian warning of sin does not place a group of believers over another group of believers. The Church at Rome was not dishing out penalties for neglect of their advice. The warning was that to continue in this sin, more sin would result. No primacy for the Roman Church here.

"...if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy." Nice quote. Sounds so 'authoritative'. So Popish. But, 'if' what? If you don't you will be excommunicated by the Church at Rome? If you don't the Church at Rome will bring punishments upon the guilty?

Not hardly. Instead the full quote is this. "You certainly will give us the keenest pleasure if you prove obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit, and extirpate the lawless passion of your jealousy in accordance with the pleas we have made in this letter for peace and concord."

That has a different ring to it. In other words we will have great pleasure if you are obedient to our plea. No primacy of Pope or Rome here. Just a Christian Church writing in concern over dealings in another Church.

Stranger

More anti-Historical manure.

Show me ANY other example of ANY other Bishop or Diocese telling another diocese what to do in ALL of Church history - except for the Bishop or Church at Rome. The fact is that it never happens because each See is independently run as long as it remains in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

I can't WAIT to read yor findings . . .

 

[Stranger]

More anti-Historical manure.

Show me ANY other example of ANY other Bishop or Diocese telling another diocese what to do in ALL of Church history - except for the Bishop or Church at Rome. The fact is that it never happens because each See is independently run as long as it remains in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

I can't WAIT to read yor findings . . .

What is anti-historical? Easy to say. When in fact it was you, the Roman wordsmith, who tried to twist the quotes to your liking, twist them to Rome's advancement.

This wasn't any 'diocese' telling another 'diocese'. It was a local church giving advice to another local church. No Pope here. No Roman primacy here. The Corinthian Church was not in 'communion' with the Pope of Rome. As there was no Pope at this time.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

What is anti-historical? Easy to say. When in fact it was you, the Roman wordsmith, who tried to twist the quotes to your liking, twist them to Rome's advancement.

This wasn't any 'diocese' telling another 'diocese'. It was a local church giving advice to another local church. No Pope here. No Roman primacy here. The Corinthian Church was not in 'communion' with the Pope of Rome. As there was no Pope at this time.

Stranger

And I asked you to show me ANY other example of ANY other Bishop or Diocese telling another diocese what to do in ALL of Church history - except for the Bishop or Church at Rome.

CAN you do that??
I didn't think so . . .

 

[Stranger]

And I asked you to show me ANY other example of ANY other Bishop or Diocese telling another diocese what to do in ALL of Church history - except for the Bishop or Church at Rome.

CAN you do that??
I didn't think so . . .

Your question is null and void. There was no diocese of Rome or of Corinth. And Rome wasn't telling them what to do. They were advising them what they should do. Pleading with them, not ordering them. No Roman primacy here.

This is a good example of how the Roman hierarchy, the papacy, began. Over a period of time, slowly twisting and distorting things in Church history to enhance the power of Rome. To give Rome the primacy over the Church.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your question is null and void. There was no diocese of Rome or of Corinth. And Rome wasn't telling them what to do. They were advising them what they should do. Pleading with them, not ordering them. No Roman primacy here.

This is a good example of how the Roman hierarchy, the papacy, began. Over a period of time, slowly twisting and distorting things in Church history to enhance the power of Rome. To give Rome the primacy over the Church.

Stranger

Okay - let me rephrase my question:
Can you show me ANY other example of ANY other Bishop or Diocese getting involved in the problems of another diocese in ALL of Church history - except for the Bishop or Church at Rome.

 

[Stranger]

Okay - let me rephrase my question:
Can you show me ANY other example of ANY other Bishop or Diocese getting involved in the problems of another diocese in ALL of Church history - except for the Bishop or Church at Rome.

Your question is null and void. There was no Roman diocese or Corinthian diocese. And, the letter to the Corinthian Church was not from the 'bishop'. It was from the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your question is null and void. There was no Roman diocese or Corinthian diocese. And, the letter to the Corinthian Church was not from the 'bishop'. It was from the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth.

Stranger

Then, I'll rephrase again:
Can you show me ANY other example of ANY Church in another REGION getting involved in the problems of another Church in ALL of Church history - except for the Bishop or Church at Rome.

You're running out of excuses here . . .

 

[Stranger]

Then, I'll rephrase again:
Can you show me ANY other example of ANY Church in another REGION getting involved in the problems of another Church in ALL of Church history - except for the Bishop or Church at Rome.

You're running out of excuses here . . .

Your question remains null and void. The 'bishop' of Rome is not the author of the letter. The Church at Rome was. 'We' and 'us'. Remember?

So, rephrase your question again, till you get it right.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your question remains null and void. The 'bishop' of Rome is not the author of the letter. The Church at Rome was. 'We' and 'us'. Remember?

So, rephrase your question again, till you get it right.

Stranger

No - the question is correct as written.
However - I'll rephrase again. It's entertaining watching you try to wiggle your way out of answering it . . .

Can you show me ANY other example of ANY Church in another REGION getting involved in the problems of another Church in ALL of Church history - except for instances where the Pope got involved in later centuries??

Remember that Pope Victor had to intervene in the 2nd century with Churches in many regions to answer the Quartodecimen controversy.

 

[Stranger]

No - the question is correct as written.
However - I'll rephrase again. It's entertaining watching you try to wiggle your way out of answering it . . .

Can you show me ANY other example of ANY Church in another REGION getting involved in the problems of another Church in ALL of Church history - except for instances where the Pope got involved in later centuries??

Remember that Pope Victor had to intervene in the 2nd century with Churches in many regions to answer the Quartodecimen controversy.

Well, that is quite an admission. No other church got involved in any other churches business except the Roman Church. That is not an example of 'primacy'. That is an example of sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

The Roman church loves to intervene, so it can support its claim of 'primacy'. Here begin the seeds of 'papacy'.

Even if a church writes to another church over concerns it has, does not give any primacy of that church over the other.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well, that is quite an admission. No other church got involved in any other churches business except the Roman Church. That is not an example of 'primacy'. That is an example of sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

The Roman church loves to intervene, so it can support its claim of 'primacy'. Here begin the seeds of 'papacy'.

Even if a church writes to another church over concerns it has, does not give any primacy of that church over the other.

Stranger

So - YOUR claims that is was just one church "offering advice" to another is statistically moronic.
In 2000 years - you can't show me ONE example of ANY Catholic Church is ANY region in the entire world that intervened in another Church's problems - EXCEPT for the Pope and the Church in Rome.

Game.
Set.
MATCH.

 

[Stranger]

So - YOUR claims that is was just one church "offering advice" to another is statistically moronic.
In 2000 years - you can't show me ONE example of ANY Catholic Church is ANY region in the entire world that intervened in another Church's problems - EXCEPT for the Pope and the Church in Rome.

Game.
Set.
MATCH.

Advice is all the church of Rome was giving. They had no authority to do anything else. They 'pleaded'. They did not demand. They spoke as an equal, not as one 'in charge'.

There was no pope. It was simply a letter from the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth.

Whether a church in any region got involved in another churches business is immaterial. That doesn't prove any 'primacy' of Rome or the 'Pope' of Rome. It does prove that Rome was adamant about furthering its primacy over other churches.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Advice is all the church of Rome was giving. They had no authority to do anything else. They 'pleaded'. They did not demand. They spoke as an equal, not as one 'in charge'.

There was no pope. It was simply a letter from the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth.

Whether a church in any region got involved in another churches business is immaterial. That doesn't prove any 'primacy' of Rome or the 'Pope' of Rome. It does prove that Rome was adamant about furthering its primacy over other churches.

Stranger

Sooooo, you can't show me ONE example from history where the Church in another region got involved in another Churches matter.

Since you can't do that - you lose the argument because I can show an historical pattern of the Pope and the Church in Rome getting involved MANY times in other Churches matters.

Nice try . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

More anti-Historical manure.

When one is buried in "crap" its very hard to smell teh roses.

 

[Stranger]

Sooooo, you can't show me ONE example from history where the Church in another region got involved in another Churches matter.

Since you can't do that - you lose the argument because I can show an historical pattern of the Pope and the Church in Rome getting involved MANY times in other Churches matters.

Nice try . . .

Your attempt at an example is a mute point. Just because a church writes a letter and advises another church proves no superiority of the church. No primacy.

Sorry, but you are merely setting rules for arguing with yourself. And your imagining I am agreeing with you. You haven't proved anything with the letter of Clement which is really the letter of the Church at Rome. Your didn't prove anything with your other quotes from Ireneaus, or Ignatius either. Only in your mind. And in Romes mind.

Oh yes, I'm sure there is a pattern of the Roman Pope and the Roman church sticking their nose in other churches business in hopes of advancing their superiority over the Church. Therein lies the problem.

What you can't show however is that Scripture gives any primacy to Rome or the bishop of Rome.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your attempt at an example is a mute point. Just because a church writes a letter and advises another church proves no superiority of the church. No primacy.

Sorry, but you are merely setting rules for arguing with yourself. And your imagining I am agreeing with you. You haven't proved anything with the letter of Clement which is really the letter of the Church at Rome. Your didn't prove anything with your other quotes from Ireneaus, or Ignatius either. Only in your mind. And in Romes mind.

Oh yes, I'm sure there is a pattern of the Roman Pope and the Roman church sticking their nose in other churches business in hopes of advancing their superiority over the Church. Therein lies the problem.

What you can't show however is that Scripture gives any primacy to Rome or the bishop of Rome.

Stranger

So, you STILL can't find a historical example of the Church in other regions getting involved in the problems of another Church.
That's what I thought . . .

Game.
Set.
MATCH.

 

[Stranger]

So, you STILL can't find a historical example of the Church in other regions getting involved in the problems of another Church.
That's what I thought . . .

Game.
Set.
MATCH.

It's a mute point. It proves nothing.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

actually it demonstrates quite a bit tho, whenever you hear a human "summing up" imo

seems innocent enough tho, huh

 

[BreadOfLife]

actually it demonstrates quite a bit tho, whenever you hear a human "summing up" imo

seems innocent enough tho, huh

Actually - the above text in RED pretty much says it all . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

It's a mute point. It proves nothing.

Stranger

Sure it does - because you're trying to show a precedent for something that never occurred again in history.
If you were in court - the judge would throw out your sase out for lack of evidence.

PS - It's "moot", not "mute".