Baptism question that seems unbiblical

[BreadOfLife]

Give God the glory!

I always do.
I'm just an instrument . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

As to the start of the original Church at Rome, that Paul wrote to, no one knows who started it. But what is sure is that there was no Pope over it.

There is nothing in the Scripture to indicate any Papal or Pope authority of Rome. Even if one says (Matt. 16:17-19) pertains to Peter, there is no link to Rome or the Papacy.

The Roman Church's desire of being authoritative over all the Catholic Church grew as a cancer over the Church. This Roman takeover, or hijacking of the Church, took hundreds of years to accomplish. But even then, the people of God resisted in the Eastern Church and then in the West at the Reformation.

Stranger

More anti-historical nonsense.

First of all - there was a fledgling Church at Rome, which Paul and Peter eventually went to solidify because it was the most important venue. Rome was the center of the WORLD at the time.

As for your asinine comment above in RED - I am stupefied by the Scriptural and historical acrobatics you need to perform to arrive at this comically-ignorant claim.
"Hundreds" of years?? Irenaeus wrote about the Primacy of the Bishops of Rome just a few decades after John wrote the Book of Revelation in his Treatise, "Against Heresies".

In the Letter of Clement (AD 95), we see that there was a disturbance at the Church in Corinth. They matter went to CLEMENT, Bishop of Rome to make the final judgement. This was while the Apostle John was STILL ALIVE - yet it was Clement who had the Authority.

Look - instead of regurgitating the same tired anti-Catholic drivel - do your homework so we can have an intelligent conversation . . .

 

[Helen]

I asked you flat-out to tell me which Church today is older than the Catholic Church - and you failed.

Hey BOL
I happen to believe ( not presuming that anyone else has to ) that spiritually The Bride of Christ came out of the side of Jesus on the cross....just as Even came out of the side of Adam.
( "they pierced His side and out of His side came water and blood ")
So I believe The Church, the whole Church became at the cross.
So the 120 who were in the upper room were right there The Church.
That is the first , therefore the oldest beginning of 'The Church.'

Bless you...Helen

 

[Stranger]

More anti-historical nonsense.

First of all - there was a fledgling Church at Rome, which Paul and Peter eventually went to solidify because it was the most important venue. Rome was the center of the WORLD at the time.

As for your asinine comment above in RED - I am stupefied by the Scriptural and historical acrobatics you need to perform to arrive at this comically-ignorant claim.
"Hundreds" of years?? Irenaeus wrote about the Primacy of the Bishops of Rome just a few decades after John wrote the Book of Revelation in his Treatise, "Against Heresies".

In the Letter of Clement (AD 95), we see that there was a disturbance at the Church in Corinth. They matter went to CLEMENT, Bishop of Rome to make the final judgement. This was while the Apostle John was STILL ALIVE - yet it was Clement who had the Authority.

Look - instead of regurgitating the same tired anti-Catholic drivel - do your homework so we can have an intelligent conversation . . .

A fledgling Church? Only in the sense that it needed Pauls Gospel. Not some 'Peter's authority', gag. There is no Peter in Rome in the Scriptures. Only Paul.

You say Irenaeus wrote about the Primacy of the Bishops of Rome in "Against Heresies". Give the quote.

Concerning your letter of Clement, give the exact quote.

Here is a quote from a Romanist historian. "But it is striking that even Ignatius, this defender and ideologue of the monarchical episcopate, did not address a bishop in his letter to the Roman community, any more than Paul did. And there was no mention of a bishop in Rome in any other of the earliest sources, like the Letter of Clement (around 90)....However, the earliest list of bishops, in Irenaeus of Lyons, according to which Peter and Paul transferred the ministry of episkopos to a certain Linus, is a second-century forgery. A monarchical episcopate can be demonstrated for Rome only from around the middle of the second century (Bishop Anicetus)." (The Catholic Church A Short History, Hans Kung, A Modern Library, 2003, p. 22)

And, how do you know that John was still alive when Clement was a bishop in Rome?

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

A fledgling Church? Only in the sense that it needed Pauls Gospel. Not some 'Peter's authority', gag. There is no Peter in Rome in the Scriptures. Only Paul.
You say Irenaeus wrote about the Primacy of the Bishops of Rome in "Against Heresies". Give the quote.
Concerning your letter of Clement, give the exact quote.
Here is a quote from a Romanist historian. "But it is striking that even Ignatius, this defender and ideologue of the monarchical episcopate, did not address a bishop in his letter to the Roman community, any more than Paul did. And there was no mention of a bishop in Rome in any other of the earliest sources, like the Letter of Clement (around 90)....However, the earliest list of bishops, in Irenaeus of Lyons, according to which Peter and Paul transferred the ministry of episkopos to a certain Linus, is a second-century forgery. A monarchical episcopate can be demonstrated for Rome only from around the middle of the second century (Bishop Anicetus)." (The Catholic Church A Short History, Hans Kung, A Modern Library, 2003, p. 22)
And, how do you know that John was still alive when Clement was a bishop in Rome?

Stranger

You can call Hans Kung anything you'd like - but he is a dissident, modernist Catholic and he doesn't speak for the Church.
Funny how you have to go to an anti-Catholic of one degree or another to glean your anti-Catholic information . . .

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] THROUGH US, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the SUCCESSIONS OF THE BISHOPS OF THE GREATEST AND MOST ANCIENT CHURCH KNOWN TO ALL, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. PETER AND PAUL, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Finally - as to John being alive when Clement was Bishop of Rome - MOST historians - Protestant AND Catholic agree that he write the Book of Revelation at around the SAME time that Clement wrote his letter.

 

[Stranger]

You can call Hans Kung anything you'd like - but he is a dissident, modernist Catholic and he doesn't speak for the Church.
Funny how you have to go to an anti-Catholic of one degree or another to glean your anti-Catholic information . . .

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] THROUGH US, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the SUCCESSIONS OF THE BISHOPS OF THE GREATEST AND MOST ANCIENT CHURCH KNOWN TO ALL, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. PETER AND PAUL, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Finally - as to John being alive when Clement was Bishop of Rome - MOST historians - Protestant AND Catholic agree that he write the Book of Revelation at around the SAME time that Clement wrote his letter.

I don't call Hans Kung anything I like. I call him what he is. He is a theologian in the Roman Church. In his book, 'The Catholic Church' he gives his own credentials. They are:

"As the author of the Catholic Church: A Short History, I want to say quite openly, right at the beginning, that despite all my experiences of how merciless the Roman system can be, the Catholic Church, this fellowship of believers, has remained my spiritual home to the present day." p. xvii

"To be quite specific and quite personal, I write as one who was born into a Catholic family, in the little Swiss Catholic town of Lucerne. I then lived for seven whole years in Rome in the elite papal Collegium Germanicum et Hungaricum and studied philosophy and theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University. When I was ordained priest I celebrated the Eucharist for the first time in St. Peter's and gave my first sermon to a congregation of Swiss Guards. After gaining my doctorate in theology at the Institute Catholique in Paris, I worked for two years as a pastor in Lucerne. Then, in 1960, at the age of thirty-two, I became Professor of Catholic theology at the University of Tubingen." p. xvii-xviii

"I took part in the Second Vatican Council, between 1962 and 1965, as an expert nominated by John XXIII, taught in Tubingen for two decades, and founded the Institute for Ecumenical Research, of which I was director. In 1979 I then had personal experience of the Inquistion under another pope. My permission to teach was withdrawn by the church, but nevertheless I retained my chair and my institute (which was separated from the Catholic faculty). For two further decades I remained unswervingly faithful to my church in critical loyalty, and to the present day I have remained professor of ecuminical theology and a Catholic priest in good standing. I affirm the papacy for the Catholic Church, but at the same time indefatigably call for a radical reform of it in accordance with the criterion of the gospel." p. xviii

"With a history and a Catholic past like this, should I not be capable of writing a history of the Catholic Church which is both committed and objective?" p. xviii


Concerning your quote of Clement, there is nothing to suggest any apostolic succession or succession of Peter.

Concerning your quote of Ignatius of Antioch, you added [the See of Rome]. Why?

Concerning your quote of Irenaeus, 'Against Heresies', this supposed succession is based on a forgery as Kuhn pointed out.

Finally, in other words, most historians don't know when exactly John died and to infer that he was alive at the time of Clement is nothing but hoping in the wind. Makes hay though.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't call Hans Kung anything I like. I call him what he is. He is a theologian in the Roman Church. In his book, 'The Catholic Church' he gives his own credentials. They are:

"As the author of the Catholic Church: A Short History, I want to say quite openly, right at the beginning, that despite all my experiences of how merciless the Roman system can be, the Catholic Church, this fellowship of believers, has remained my spiritual home to the present day." p. xvii

"To be quite specific and quite personal, I write as one who was born into a Catholic family, in the little Swiss Catholic town of Lucerne. I then lived for seven whole years in Rome in the elite papal Collegium Germanicum et Hungaricum and studied philosophy and theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University. When I was ordained priest I celebrated the Eucharist for the first time in St. Peter's and gave my first sermon to a congregation of Swiss Guards. After gaining my doctorate in theology at the Institute Catholique in Paris, I worked for two years as a pastor in Lucerne. Then, in 1960, at the age of thirty-two, I became Professor of Catholic theology at the University of Tubingen." p. xvii-xviii

"I took part in the Second Vatican Council, between 1962 and 1965, as an expert nominated by John XXIII, taught in Tubingen for two decades, and founded the Institute for Ecumenical Research, of which I was director. In 1979 I then had personal experience of the Inquistion under another pope. My permission to teach was withdrawn by the church, but nevertheless I retained my chair and my institute (which was separated from the Catholic faculty). For two further decades I remained unswervingly faithful to my church in critical loyalty, and to the present day I have remained professor of ecuminical theology and a Catholic priest in good standing. I affirm the papacy for the Catholic Church, but at the same time indefatigably call for a radical reform of it in accordance with the criterion of the gospel." p. xviii

"With a history and a Catholic past like this, should I not be capable of writing a history of the Catholic Church which is both committed and objective?" p. xviii

Concerning your quote of Clement, there is nothing to suggest any apostolic succession or succession of Peter.
Concerning your quote of Ignatius of Antioch, you added [the See of Rome]. Why?
Concerning your quote of Irenaeus, 'Against Heresies', this supposed succession is based on a forgery as Kuhn pointed out.

Finally, in other words, most historians don't know when exactly John died and to infer that he was alive at the time of Clement is nothing but hoping in the wind. Makes hay though.

Stranger

First of all - Kung's statement above in RED illustrates a man who is trying to defend his anti-Catholicism by presenting his would-be "pedigree" for dissenting against the Church. The above underlined text in BLUE is evidence of the Church's realization that Kung was a dissident Catholic - not a faithful on.

Secondly, Clement's letter shows the Primacy of the Church in Rome. They were making judgments and decisions for the Church is Corinth and beyond.

As to Ignatius's Letter to the Romans - he is writing to the Church AT ROME, Einstein:
"... the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the San of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments;"

THIS is why I inserted (the See of Rome) because Ignatius continues with:
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

As to Irenaus's Against Heresies - the consensus of historical scholarship is that it is authentic. BOTH Catholic and Protestants recognize it as a historical work. Only dissidents and anti-Catholics like Kung would call it a "forgery."

Finally - according to your beloved wikipedia - the Book of Revelation was written at the END of Domitions's reign (AD 96).
Clement's letter was written in AD 95. This would put John's death sometime AFTER that.

 

[Stranger]

First of all - Kung's statement above in RED illustrates a man who is trying to defend his anti-Catholicism by presenting his would-be "pedigree" for dissenting against the Church. The above underlined text in BLUE is evidence of the Church's realization that Kung was a dissident Catholic - not a faithful on.

Secondly, Clement's letter shows the Primacy of the Church in Rome. They were making judgments and decisions for the Church is Corinth and beyond.

As to Ignatius's Letter to the Romans - he is writing to the Church AT ROME, Einstein:
"... the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the San of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments;"

THIS is why I inserted (the See of Rome) because Ignatius continues with:
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

As to Irenaus's Against Heresies - the consensus of historical scholarship is that it is authentic. BOTH Catholic and Protestants recognize it as a historical work. Only dissidents and anti-Catholics like Kung would call it a "forgery."


Finally - according to your beloved wikipedia - the Book of Revelation was written at the END of Domitions's reign (AD 96).
Clement's letter was written in AD 95. This would put John's death sometime AFTER that.

Kung is not anti-Catholic, as he stated. He sought reform in the Roman Church and papacy.

There was no judgement passed by Clement that the Corinthian Church had to obey. The letter itself isn't even said to be from Clement but from the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth. A Church giving advice to another Church shows no Roman primacy.

In Ignatius writing to the Romans, he is writing to the Church. He is not addressing any 'See' of Rome. The addition is yours.

'Against Heresies' is a forgery. Irenaus was Greek and wrote in Greek. The only complete form of it is written in Latin, not Greek and dated about 380 A.D. It makes an error in attributing the founding of the Roman Church to Peter and Paul. It's purpose is most definitely to enhance Romes power.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Kung is not anti-Catholic, as he stated. He sought reform in the Roman Church and papacy.

There was no judgement passed by Clement that the Corinthian Church had to obey. The letter itself isn't even said to be from Clement but from the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth. A Church giving advice to another Church shows no Roman primacy.

In Ignatius writing to the Romans, he is writing to the Church. He is not addressing any 'See' of Rome. The addition is yours.

'Against Heresies' is a forgery. Irenaus was Greek and wrote in Greek. The only complete form of it is written in Latin, not Greek and dated about 380 A.D. It makes an error in attributing the founding of the Roman Church to Peter and Paul. It's purpose is most definitely to enhance Romes power.

Stranger

Ummmm, first of all - the term "See" simply refers to a Diocese or a Bishopric.
Ignatius was writing to the Diocese (See) of Rome.

As for Clement, tell me - why was he even involved in the disputes of the Church at Corinth if he had no Authority??
Answer: He got involved because He was in charge.

Finally - to refer to Against Heresies by Irenaeus as a "forgery" is just a pathetic last ditch ploy to mask a lost argument.

This is what happens when you reject and ignore history because it just doesn't fit your little anti-Catholic views . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

your little anti-Catholic views

lol.
you know another name for instrument is "tool," BoL...

 

[BreadOfLife]

lol.
you know another name for instrument is "tool," BoL...

Uh huh - and another word for "denial" is "Lie" . . .

 

[Stranger]

BreadOfLife

"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the church that has found mercy in the transcendent Majesty of the Most High Father and of Jesus Christ...." Ignatius is writing to the church. Not to any 'See' or bishop.

I didn't say Clement didn't have any authority. He just didn't have the authority that the Roman Church wants to give him. As I said, the letter is from the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth. No Roman primacy here.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

BreadOfLife

"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the church that has found mercy in the transcendent Majesty of the Most High Father and of Jesus Christ...." Ignatius is writing to the church. Not to any 'See' or bishop.

Pay attention.

As I already explained to you - the "See" is the Diocese.
If Cardinal Dolan of New York sent a letter to the Diocese of Los Angeles, he would be sending it to the "SEE" of Los Angeles.

Ignatius of Antioch sent his letter to the "SEE" of Rome.

I didn't say Clement didn't have any authority. He just didn't have the authority that the Roman Church wants to give him. As I said, the letter is from the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth. No Roman primacy here.

Stranger

WRONG.

Clement commanded the Church at Corinth to return the priests that they had ejected from their midst
If he had no Authority - he never would have been involved in the problems of another diocese (See).

 

[Stranger]

Pay attention.

As I already explained to you - the "See" is the Diocese.
If Cardinal Dolan of New York sent a letter to the Diocese of Los Angeles, he would be sending it to the "SEE" of Los Angeles.

Ignatius of Antioch sent his letter to the "SEE" of Rome.

WRONG.

Clement commanded the Church at Corinth to return the priests that they had ejected from their midst
If he had no Authority - he never would have been involved in the problems of another diocese (See).

You can explain all you want. But your explanation is null and void. We are not talking about the Roman church today. There is no 'See' at this time. There is no 'Pope' at this time. Rome certainly wants to build on this to prove their so called 'authority'. Thus Rome must declare this letter was to the 'See'. Just goes to show you the acrobatics Rome has done to get authority over the whole Church of Christ.

Ignatius is clear. "...to the church that has found mercy...." No Roman 'See'

Clements name is nowhere mentioned in the letterto the Corinthians. Clement didn't command anything. The Roman Church today loves to 'command'. Loves to be 'in charge'. So they must read into the early writings, command and in charge.

But what does the letter really say? At the close it says 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." Did you note the 'we'? "this letter we have written" No primacy for any pope here. See? No command from one 'in charge'. Advice and a plea from one Christian Church to another.

Rome will twist what is there, and if not there they will create a forgery to support their 'authority' as with Ignatius 'Against Heresies'.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

You can explain all you want. But your explanation is null and void. We are not talking about the Roman church today. There is no 'See' at this time. There is no 'Pope' at this time. Rome certainly wants to build on this to prove their so called 'authority'. Thus Rome must declare this letter was to the 'See'. Just goes to show you the acrobatics Rome has done to get authority over the whole Church of Christ.

Ignatius is clear. "...to the church that has found mercy...." No Roman 'See'

And this is as impotent as saying that just because the word "Trinity" isn't in Scripture - that the Trinity is a farce.
Ignatius was writing to the See - the Diocese of Rome.

Clements name is nowhere mentioned in the letterto the Corinthians. Clement didn't command anything. The Roman Church today loves to 'command'. Loves to be 'in charge'. So they must read into the early writings, command and in charge.

But what does the letter really say? At the close it says 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." Did you note the 'we'? "this letter we have written" No primacy for any pope here. See? No command from one 'in charge'. Advice and a plea from one Christian Church to another.

Rome will twist what is there, and if not there they will create a forgery to support their 'authority' as with Ignatius 'Against Heresies'.

Stranger

As you can see in RED - The Letter of Clement states that the Church at Corinth would prove to be "OBEDIENT" if they did what was being demanded of them. Obedience requires an Authority. - otherwisse there is nothing to be "obedient" to.
Game.
Set.
MATCH.

PS - IRENAEUS wrote "Against Heresies" - not Ignatius . . .

 

[Stranger]

And this is as impotent as saying that just because the word "Trinity" isn't in Scripture - that the Trinity is a farce.
Ignatius was writing to the See - the Diocese of Rome.

As you can see in RED - The Letter of Clement states that the Church at Corinth would prove to be "OBEDIENT" if they did what was being demanded of them. Obedience requires an Authority. - otherwisse there is nothing to be "obedient" to.
Game.
Set.
MATCH.

PS - IRENAEUS wrote "Against Heresies" - not Ignatius . . .

No, because Ignatius is clear as to who he was writing to. The Church at Rome.

No, the writers were 'we'. Remember? The Church at Rome was writing to the Church at Corinth. No papal primacy here. And, there was no 'demanding' as you say, for their obedience. There was a pleading for their obedience.

Yes, my error. It is Irenaeus I was addressing and not Ignatius.

The obedience pleaded for was not due to the authority of Rome. It was obedience to God. "For it is Thou, O Master, O heavenly King of all ages, that conferest upon the sons of men glory and honor and authority over the things which are upon the earth. Do Thou, O Lord, direct their counsels in accord with what is good and pleasing in Thy sight, so that they may piously exercise in peace and gentleness the authority Thou hast granted them, and thus experience Thy graciousness."

The writers of this letter were pleading on the authority of God, for the Corinthians obedience. It was not on the authority of Rome or any Roman bishop.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, because Ignatius is clear as to who he was writing to. The Church at Rome.

And the Church at Rome is the SEE of Rome.
You've lost this point because all you have is denial . . .

No, the writers were 'we'. Remember? The Church at Rome was writing to the Church at Corinth. No papal primacy here. And, there was no 'demanding' as you say, for their obedience. There was a pleading for their obedience.

This is a transparently asinine statement.
"Obedience" means to submit to an authority.

The obedience pleaded for was not due to the authority of Rome. It was obedience to God. "For it is Thou, O Master, O heavenly King of all ages, that conferest upon the sons of men glory and honor and authority over the things which are upon the earth. Do Thou, O Lord, direct their counsels in accord with what is good and pleasing in Thy sight, so that they may piously exercise in peace and gentleness the authority Thou hast granted them, and thus experience Thy graciousness."

The writers of this letter were pleading on the authority of God, for the Corinthians obedience. It was not on the authority of Rome or any Roman bishop.

Stranger

WRONG again.

Just as the Apostles wrote at the Council of Jerusalem when rendering their judgement - "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements" (Acts 15:28) - the Letter of Clement says - Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become OBEDIENT to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy."

It ALSO says:
If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through US, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger;

AND:
"Let us consider those who serve under our generals, with what order, obedience, and SUBMISSIVENESS they perform the things which are COMMANDED them."

Oh, and you STILL haven't explained WHY Clement was brought into this mess in Corinth . . .

 

[Stranger]

And the Church at Rome is the SEE of Rome.
You've lost this point because all you have is denial . . .

This is a transparently asinine statement.
"Obedience" means to submit to an authority.

WRONG again.

Just as the Apostles wrote at the Council of Jerusalem when rendering their judgement - "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements" (Acts 15:28) - the Letter of Clement says - Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become OBEDIENT to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy."

It ALSO says:
If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through US, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger;

AND:
"Let us consider those who serve under our generals, with what order, obedience, and SUBMISSIVENESS they perform the things which are COMMANDED them."

Oh, and you STILL haven't explained WHY Clement was brought into this mess in Corinth . . .

You and the Roman Church want the 'church at Rome' in this letter to be the 'see' of Rome of today. But it is not. It is simply the church at Rome. I don't mind the river Nile when what I am denying is a false statement.

The obedience was pleaded for, as the apostle Paul would have done. Not demanded as the Roman Church would have it. Not 'in charge' as the Roman Church would have it, but as 'a servant of'. A plea. Not a demand.

Yes, the letter of supposed Clement is written in the same spirit as (Acts 15). But that is not the spirit of Rome which is a demand for obedience and a recognition that they are 'in charge'.

The warning given is that if the Corinthian Church does not obey their advice, then they will get entangled in greater sin. Such a warning does not promote any Roman primacy. It is just good Christian advice.

"those who serve under our generals" is not speaking to the Roman generals. It is the leadership in the Corinthian church that were expelled. The Church at Rome is exhorting the Corinthian Church to be obedient to its leaders.

I never said Clement was brought into this mess. I said the Church at Rome was responding to this situation. 'We' and 'us', remember?

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

You and the Roman Church want the 'church at Rome' in this letter to be the 'see' of Rome of today. But it is not. It is simply the church at Rome. I don't mind the river Nile when what I am denying is a false statement.

The obedience was pleaded for, as the apostle Paul would have done. Not demanded as the Roman Church would have it. Not 'in charge' as the Roman Church would have it, but as 'a servant of'. A plea. Not a demand.

Yes, the letter of supposed Clement is written in the same spirit as (Acts 15). But that is not the spirit of Rome which is a demand for obedience and a recognition that they are 'in charge'.

The warning given is that if the Corinthian Church does not obey their advice, then they will get entangled in greater sin. Such a warning does not promote any Roman primacy. It is just good Christian advice.

"those who serve under our generals" is not speaking to the Roman generals. It is the leadership in the Corinthian church that were expelled. The Church at Rome is exhorting the Corinthian Church to be obedient to its leaders.

I never said Clement was brought into this mess. I said the Church at Rome was responding to this situation. 'We' and 'us', remember?

Stranger

Your entire response is Hogwash because:
a. You are completely ignoring the fact that the Letter states that the Corinthians need to be obedient to Clement or whomever you believe wrote the Letter.

b. You didn't explain why Clement or whomever you believe wrote the Letter had to be dragged into this affair if he had NO Authority.

Finally - the writer's admonishment to the Church at Corinth that their sin will be compounded if they are not obedient to the Church at Rome is proof of the Authority of the Church at Rome.
". . . if you become OBEDIENT to the words WRITTEN BY US AND THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy."

You can't just "wish" these words away . . .

 

[Stranger]

Your entire response is Hogwash because:
a. You are completely ignoring the fact that the Letter states that the Corinthians need to be obedient to Clement or whomever you believe wrote the Letter.

b. You didn't explain why Clement or whomever you believe wrote the Letter had to be dragged into this affair if he had NO Authority.

Finally - the writer's admonishment to the Church at Corinth that their sin will be compounded if they are not obedient to the Church at Rome is proof of the Authority of the Church at Rome.
". . . if you become OBEDIENT to the words WRITTEN BY US AND THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy."

You can't just "wish" these words away . . .

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