Books Outside the Bible

[BobRyan]

-- Williams, Henry Smith, The Historian’s History of the World, vol. 8, p. 259.


In 1492, persecution was begun against the Jews, of whom 500,000 were expelled from Spain and their wealth confiscated. In seventy years the population of Spain was reduced from 10,000,000 to 6,000,000 by the banishment of Jews, Moors and Morescoes ("Christianized" Moors), the most wealthy and intelligent of the inhabitants of that country.

-- Cushing B. Hassell, History of the Church of God, Chapter XV.



"These forced baptisms, and the consequent claims which the pope set up over "his slaves," caused the death of one million five hundred thousand Moors, and on the most moderate calculation, that of two millions of Jews! See Dr. M. Geddes’s Tracts on Popery, vol. i."


-- W. C. Brownlee, Popery the Enemy of Civil and Religious Liberty, J. S. Taylor, New York, 1836, p. 88.


Number of Protestants Killed By Catholic Pope

 

[BobRyan]

Enoch111 said: ↑
If Mary was sinless she would not have needed a Savior. But Her own words tell us that she did need the Savior.
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. (Luke 1:46,47)
The concept of the Immaculate Conception is another Catholic fiction.

The "immaculate conception" is a story about the birth of Mary - not the birth of Christ and as you point out Mary needed no savior if she had no sin.

I agree, but don't you know that you can't win this debate using the Bible alone?

Protesting Catholics were doing that very thing "all day long" during the reformation and were so successful the RCC created the Jesuit order and the counter reformation to try and stem the tide of enlightenment.

The Catholic Church has a carefully crafted argument for every Bible doctrine they reject as the truth.

Just as they did for opposing Luther and Wycliffe and Huss and Jerome etc.

It did not work -- we have more Protestants today than they had back then. And a great many of them as Catholic "converts".

 

[BobRyan]

I bout Peter being the Rock from TWENTY FOUR Protestant scholars.

Christ is "the Rock" according to the Bible -- see 1 Cor 10:2-5

 

[Prayer Warrior]

The "immaculate conception" is a story about the birth of Mary - not the birth of Christ and as you point out Mary needed no savior if she had no sin.

Protesting Catholics were doing that very thing "all day long" during the reformation and were so successful the RCC created the Jesuit order and the counter reformation to try and stem the tide of enlightenment.

Just as they did for opposing Luther and Wycliffe and Huss and Jerome etc.

It did not work -- we have more Protestants today than they had back then. And a great many of them as Catholic "converts".

My comment about debating Catholics was tongue-in-cheek. Of course, we can debate them on the Bible alone, and we should.

However, there are some issues that Protestants need to understand when debating Catholics, or we'll end up going round and round with them in their circular reasoning. These issues are foundational to Catholic doctrine--papal authority and infallibility.

-As long as anyone really believes in the infallibility of his Church, that premise immunizes him against any argument you can ply him with.

-We may point out instance after instance in which papal authority has been given to decisions known to be erroneous, and in each case some ingenious attempt may be made to show that the attribute of infallibility did not attach to the erroneous decision; but sooner or later men must awake to see that the result of all this special pleading is that, whereas they expected to find a guide who would always lead them right, they have got instead a guide who can find some plausible excuse to make every time he leads them wrong.

(Both of these quotes are from George Salmon's The Infallibility of the Church.)​

 

[CoreIssue]

Pontification is easy, research is hard. I maintain that no Protestant church taught Mary a sinner before the false philosophies of the Enlightenment Era infected Protestant liberals with the heresy of Modernism. because so many early reformers never taught that. Rebellion and protesting against cherry picked reformist teachings is your nature. You are defending a fad theology made popular in the last 50 years.

Scripture doesn't always say "all" means "every single one" and I have proven it. You haven't proven anything except a near sighted definition, and you support a false man made tradition based on one abused word.


"Grace is God's saving and sustaining power. All Christians are saved by grace and sustained in our Christian walks by grace."
But not Mary???
You appear to accept Romans 6:14 and Ephesians 2:8-10 as it applies to all Christians but down-play it as it applies to Jesus' mother. That's reading OUT of Scripture.

Citing Protestant scholars doesn't mean anything to rebellious Protestants because they are so accustomed to protesting Protestants. The individual is the sole rule of faith. To you, reformist teaching means nothing, scholarly analysis means nothing, and you have no case beyond your personal, private opinions.

Try the Mennonites and Baptist among others.

You even have a problem with (Catholic) church fathers on this issue.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So, has Nancy Pelosi been denied the "Eucharist"?

I know that she HAD. I don't know if it is an ongoing thing.
It'a not my call.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You have a couple major problems here.
First of all that is not the word used in verse. I already posted the actual Greek words used.

Second, Mary was not sinless or a virgin after the birth of Christ. She gave birth to more children.

Finally, this is why this issue is being pushed:

Catholic Point: Kecharitomene
To make it more clearer, "kecharitomene" is the perfect passive participle tense of the verb meaning "to fill with grace," Because it is in the perfect participle tense, it means that Mary was already filled with grace and there is no room for sin in her before the Annunciation, the implication being that she was the immaculate!
catholicpoint.blogspot.com/2012/09/kecharitomene.html

Another catholic error and invention.

Nice try - but I won't let you derail this conversation by introducing the topic of Mary's virginity.
Actually - there is FAR more Scriptural evidence regarding he Perpetual Virginity and I would be MORE than happy to trounce your argument on another thread. Unfortunately - YOU never seem to be prepared to respond, so it would be just another one-sided beating . . .

As for Luke 1:28 - the Greek word used here is in fact, "Kecharitomene".
I even copied and pasted the proof from YOUR link from Strong's.

Look - if you wanna be a poor loser, then go ahead. But don't embarrass yourself by claiming things that I have already PROVEN you wrong about . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

If Mary was sinless she would not have needed a Savior. But Her own words tell us that she did need the Savior.

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. (Luke 1:46,47)
The concept of the Immaculate Conception is another Catholic fiction.

HOGWASH.

If Mary is sinless - do you actually believe that she achieved this state on her OWN??
She needed a Savior -= and it was GOD who created her in a saved state.

NOT that difficult to grasp . . .

 

[CoreIssue]

Nice try - but I won't let you derail this conversation by introducing the topic of Mary's virginity.
Actually - there is FAR more Scriptural evidence regarding he Perpetual Virginity and I would be MORE than happy to trounce your argument on another thread. Unfortunately - YOU never seem to be prepared to respond, so it would be just another one-sided beating . . .

As for Luke 1:28 - the Greek word used here is in fact, "Kecharitomene".
I even copied and pasted the proof from YOUR link from Strong's.

Look - if you wanna be a poor loser, then go ahead. But don't embarrass yourself by claiming things that I have already PROVEN you wrong about . . .

I already proven that is that is not the word used. Nor does anyone are Catholics translate the verse the way you do.

Did Mary have any children other than Jesus? If so, how can she be the eternal virgin?

 

[BreadOfLife]

1. As I have already shown you - your own Catholic sources (starting with the Jesuit - Fordham source) render it "exterminate" in English. (hint: you cannot blame protestants for what Jesuits publish)

As I have already shown you - your own Catholic Digest shows how this "extermination" wiped out whole people groups, cities etc. By killing them. Burning them, massacre etc. ( you cannot blame Protestants for what your own Catholic Digest claims to be the case)

As I have already asked you - how is it that falling on your sword over "expel" - as if "that would be a good thing to do" as if "telling protestants in America they have to leave the nation or be Catholic" is even remotely acceptable to Protestants, as though that would be a "good thing"?

Just not in real life.
In real life - NOTHING in Matthew 18 or 1 Cor 5 includes exterminating someone OR EVEN EXPELLING them from the country. NOTHING in those texts appeals to stealing their lands their homes their property and giving it to Catholics or anyone else for that matter.

And we all know it.

were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

The Latin word "exterminare" was formed from the prefix "ex-" ("out of" or "outside") and "terminus" ("boundary"). Not much more than a century after its introduction to English, "exterminate" came to denote destroying or utterly putting an end to something. And that's the use with which the word is usually employed today.

Word of the Day: Exterminate

Origin
late Middle English (in the sense 'drive out'): from Latin exterminat- 'driven out', from the verb exterminare, from ex- 'out' + terminus 'boundary'. The sense 'destroy' (mid 16th century) comes from the Latin of the Vulgate.

exterminate | Definition of exterminate in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Which church is the best? - WND

Posted: August 9, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

"I'm also encouraged by Benedict XVI, who seems to have inherited John Paul II's humility as well as his loyalty to foundational doctrines.

On Jan. 22, 1998, when he was still a cardinal and the grand Inquisitor (yes!) of the Roman Catholic Church, he declared that their archives (4,500 large volumes) indicate a death toll of 25 million killed by the Catholic Church for being "heretics." And likely two-thirds of the original volumes are lost."

Alexander Campbell, well known religions leader of the nineteenth century, stated in debate with John B. Purcell, Bishop of Cincinnati, in 1837 that the records of historians and martyrologists show that it may be reasonable to estimate that from fifty to sixty-eight millions of human beings died, suffered torture, lost their possessions, or were otherwise devoured by the Roman Catholic Church during the awful years of the Inquisition. Bishop Purcell made little effort to refute these figures. (Citing A Debate on the Roman Catholic Religion, Christian Publishing Co., 1837, p. 327.)

"Walter M. Montano, a former Catholic priest, asserts in his book, Behind the Purple Curtain that it has been estimated that fifty million people died for their faith during the twelve hundred years of the Dark Ages." (Citing Walter M. Montano, Behind the Purple Curtain, Cowman Publications, 1950, page 91.)

-- The Shadow of Rome, by John B. Wilder; Zondervan Publishing Co., 1960, page 87.

Ummmm, first of all - I have already corrected you about the actual language of Canon 3 of the IV Lateran Council of 1215.
Neither the word "Exterminate" or ANY other variations of that word are used in the OFFICIAL documents of this Council.
The words "Expel", Expulsion", "Excommunicate" and "Anathematize" are used where you FALSELY inserted "Exterminate."
In other words - you LIED. or you found a bad source.

Secondly - ANY student with even a rudimentary knowledge of history knows that the grotesquely inflated numbers by anti-Catholics in regards to the Inquisitions are COMICAL, at best. Some sources say 50 million, others 65 million - and some as high as 90 million. The abject stupidity of these numbers FAILS to explain that Europe didn't even HAVE 90 million people until more modern times.

I could sit here all day long and spout off imaginary numbers - but that won't change history - and neither can YOU, no matter HOW hard you try.

Pretty PATHETIC, Bob . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Christ is "the Rock" according to the Bible -- see 1 Cor 10:2-5

Christ IS the "Rock".
So is Abraham (Isaiah 51:1).
So is Peter (Matt. 16:18).

What's your point??

 

[BreadOfLife]

I already proven that is that is not the word used. Nor does anyone are Catholics translate the verse the way you do.

Did Mary have any children other than Jesus? If so, how can she be the eternal virgin?

You've proven NOTHING. Look - I pasted text from YOUR ink that shows the work "Kecharitomene".
You can LIE about this all you want - but all anybody has to do is follow your link and I will be proven right - AGAIN.

Oh - and Mary was a PERPETUAL Virgin. There is not ONE shred of Scriptural evidence to show that she had ANY other children.
All of the anti-Catholic links in the WORLD can't produce even ONE verse . . .

 

[Truth]

The "immaculate conception" is a story about the birth of Mary - not the birth of Christ and as you point out Mary needed no savior if she had no sin.



Protesting Catholics were doing that very thing "all day long" during the reformation and were so successful the RCC created the Jesuit order and the counter reformation to try and stem the tide of enlightenment.



Just as they did for opposing Luther and Wycliffe and Huss and Jerome etc.

It did not work -- we have more Protestants today than they had back then. And a great many of them as Catholic "converts".

If you read BOL'S response to me on #496 you will see that here is the Problem, being trained up in a doctrine, as to which you believe so strongly, and never QUESTIONING or Praying to be enlightened to the Truth, never Allowing himself to Think!

 

[CoreIssue]

Greek Concordance: κεχαριτωμένη (kecharitōmenē) -- 1 Occurrence

Not sinless, eternal virgin, etc

 

[Jun2u]

If Mary is sinless - do you actually believe that she achieved this state on her OWN??
She needed a Savior -= and it was GOD who created her in a saved state.

NOT that difficult to grasp... .

If you truly believe God created Mary in a saved state then you must also believe that all true believers were created in a saved state. Let me explain.

For example, and I’m going to speak about myself. I know without a doubt that I’m a child of God (Romans 8:16). Let’s take this to it’s logical conclusion.

If I die tomorrow I will definitely go to heaven to be with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8). Let’s suppose I died as an infant would I still go to be with the Lord? Most definitely! God assured me when He saved me, He saved me before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). So my salvation had no impact whether I died as an infant or as an adult, the same way He saved Mary and/or John the Baptist who was saved in his mother’s womb.

Can a Catholic claim this same assurance? No. Why? Because he believes he will go to a place called Purgatory to be purified and then go to heaven. This is a false teaching of course because it is appointed for man once to die and then judgment (Hebrews 9:27).

To God Be The Glory

 

[Enoch111]

She needed a Savior -= and it was GOD who created her in a saved state.

There is a difference between saved and sinless. The apostle Paul was definitely saved, but he admits he was not sinless.

Mary was another human being, like Joseph and every other believing Israelite. But they were all deemed to be righteous because of their faith and their obedience. The only one who was sinless from conception was the Lord Jesus Christ. That is because of His supernatural conception within the womb of the virgin Mary. But Mary needed a Savior like every other sinner.

 

[Jun2u]

The onus is on YOU to debunk this. I'll make it easy for you and just give you a couple of them . . .
Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Wis. 5:17-20 and Macc. 7:1-42 does not convey the same as what we read in Jude 1:14.

Whether Enoch wrote a book or not, the book was not inspired, however, the words Enoch uttered became part of the Bile, unlike Wis. 5:17-20 and Macc. 7:1-42 which their names/books were never mentioned in the Bible!!! Totally different.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Prayer Warrior]

There is a difference between saved and sinless. The apostle Paul was definitely saved, but he admits he was not sinless.

Mary was another human being, like Joseph and every other believing Israelite. But they were all deemed to be righteous because of their faith and their obedience. The only one who was sinless from conception was the Lord Jesus Christ. That is because of His supernatural conception within the womb of the virgin Mary. But Mary needed a Savior like every other sinner.

That's right. The Catholic Church admits that Mary was conceived the "natural way," i.e. from a human mother AND a human father (unlike our sinless Lord). The Catholics teach that Peter and all subsequent popes have been given supreme authority and access to reams of unwritten truth which became the Catholic "tradition," similar to the oral tradition of the Jews which the Pharisees relied on so heavily.

The following two questions beg to be answered: (and I'm sure they will be, just not scripturally)

First, if God could make someone sinless apart from the cross, then why did Jesus have to die? That's a legitimate question considering what Jesus said to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane prior to His crucifixion:
”My Father! If it is possible, let this cup pass from Me. Yet not as I will, but as You will." Of course, we know that it was not possible--that the spotless sacrificial Lamb had to die for our sins in order for us to be made righteous in Him! Even at that, we're not made SINLESS--i.e. as though we had never had a sin nature!

The second question has to do with the fact that the Catholics see the "immaculate conception" of Mary as being so important. If so, why wasn't it revealed to the masses until 1854? You would think that this would have been revealed from the beginning of the church.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

I decided to take it easy for a while and do some copying and pasting like some others on this thread. The following is from an article written by Brian Schwertley, who shows just how far off the Catholic Church has veered from the truth. (I've taken the liberty of subdividing some of the paragraphs because it makes for easier reading on a forum. Also, unless otherwise noted, all bold has been added.)

The major foundational issue that divides Roman Catholics and Protestants concerns what is the ultimate source of authority for faith and life. Bible believing Protestants would assert that the Bible alone is the sole standard for doctrine, church ordinances and ethics while a trained Romanist would argue that the Bible and tradition is the final seat of authority in religion. Protestants adhere to a single source (Scripture) as the normative foundation for theology while Roman Catholics hold to a two-source theory of Scripture and tradition.

The Roman Catholic concept of tradition is the central pillar that upholds all of its distinctive beliefs. If this pillar can be shown to be a false human construct that is a gross corruption of the Christian faith, then the edifice of Romanism will come tumbling down. Why is this assertion true? Because virtually all of the major Romanist distinctives that set it apart from the solas of the Protestant Reformation are based not on the Bible but on the vast pool of Church traditions.

Before we prove that the Papal church’s concept of tradition is a gigantic fraud designed to give the church hierarchy autonomous authority (i.e., independent of the restraints of Scripture) over the laity, let us define the Roman Catholic doctrine of tradition. Romanist theologians define authoritative traditions in a very broad manner. It would include all the apostolic traditions that were never written down in Scripture. (These unwritten teachings are supposedly passed down through the centuries through the unbroken succession of Bishops.)

Any of the accepted teachings of the church that cannot be proven from Scripture can conveniently be placed in the category of unwritten apostolic teachings. Authoritative tradition includes what Romanists call “the unanimous consent of the fathers”; that is, the many volumesof writings from the early Greek and Latin church fathers. It includes the teachings handed down by plenary councils or by Papal decrees.5 According to the papal church the Pope “possesses infallible teaching authority when...he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith ormorals is to be held as such.”6 Further, the college of bishops has a supreme authority that must be believed and obeyed when they “enunciate of faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium” (i.e., when they meet and act officially as an authoritative body).

Unlike orthodox Protestants who view the Bible as a sufficient, perspicuous, finalized, completed revelation of God that is the sole standard which does not need supplementation, the Roman Catholic Church views its own hierarchy as the continuing voice of the Holy Spirit, as a living and incarnate Word from God. Romanists insist that all of their teachings originated either from the written Scriptures or the unwritten teachings of the apostles. All of these unwritten teachings have been entrusted to the church (i.e., the hierarchy: the bishops and the Pope) and the Holy Spirit keeps this unwritten revelation free from corruption. (It is important to keep in mind the close relationship between the Roman Catholic concept of the living unwritten authoritative traditions and the teaching of apostolic succession and the Pope as the vicar of Christ on earth. These errors are interrelated and support one another.)

How does the Roman Catholic Church defend their two-source theory of Scripture and tradition? Modern Romanists naturally appeal to both the Bible and tradition. Given the fact that papal apologists are usually defending their position against evangelicals who give no weight to quotes from church fathers or medieval theologians their main argument often comes from Scripture.
​

So, when Catholics quote the Scriptures to defend their doctrines, what they're not telling us is that in their church, the Bible is interpreted based on their traditions (not their traditions based on the Bible). I had told BoL that I've been a student of the Bible for over 40 years, and I don't understand Catholic doctrine. Well, that's why! Protestants start with the Bible (or should--sola scriptura) and go from there. This fallacy of the Catholic Church was one of the main reasons for the Reformation!

More to come later!

 

[Prayer Warrior]

PART 2--The following is from an article written by Brian Schwertley, who shows just how far off the Catholic Church has veered from the truth. (I've taken the liberty of subdividing some of the paragraphs because it makes for easier reading on a forum. Also, unless otherwise noted, all bold has been added.)

Roman Catholic apologists argue that the Bible itself rejects the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura. They teach that the genuine rule of faith set forth in the Bible is Scripture plus apostolic tradition which is manifested in the living teaching authority of the papal church. The passages used to prove their doctrine of a living oral tradition are as follows.​

“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I supposethat the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25 RSV)​

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I havedelivered them to you.” (1 Cor. 11:2 RSV)​

“Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” (2Tim. 1:13-14 RSV)​

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word ofmouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15 RSV)​

“You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim. 2:1-2 RSV)

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s owninterpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spiritspoke from God.” (2 Peter 1:20-21 RSV)​

“Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see youand talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.” (2 John 12 RSV)​

The first passage cited, John 21:25, simply teaches that there are many things that Jesus did that are not recorded in the gospel of John. This verse does not speak to the issue of a continuing oral tradition. The apostle in his concluding remarks wants the world to know that the gospels of necessity are selective in their accounts of what the Savior said and did. If an attempt was made to document everything the Lord did in His ministry then figuratively speaking theworld couldn’t contain the volumes written. Perhaps the Romanist could attempt to infer from this passage that since what Christ said and did could not be contained in books then an oral tradition became necessary. Aside from the fact that this assertion is an argument from silence, how, we ask, could thousands of volumes regarding the ministry of Jesus be faithfully memorized and passed on to succeeding generations?

Another passage quoted, 2 Peter 1:20, also does not speak to the issue of a continuing authoritative oral tradition at all. In this section of Scripture Peter is setting forth the divineauthority of God’s written revelation – the Bible. The men who received direct revelations from God were not expressing their own private opinion about God but were infallibly recording truths from the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures are not the mind of man but the mind of God. Perhaps a Romanist would argue that the phrase “a matter of one’s own interpretation” refers to the factthat only the magisterium or church hierarchy has the ability to infallibly interpret the Bible. This argument falls to the ground when we consider the fact that Peter is not addressing the study of written revelation but the manner in which a prophet receives direct revelation. These are two completely different subjects.

The rest of the passages are more relevant because they at least address either traditions given orally to specific churches or elders, or discuss doctrine being spoken directly to congregations or elders. Are these passages excellent proof texts for the Roman Catholic teaching of a continuing living oral tradition passed down from bishop to bishop, pope to pope throughout the centuries? No. These passages do not support the Romanist doctrine of acontinuing authoritative oral tradition at all. Note the following reasons.

(a) Every passage cited refers explicitly to teachings or doctrines given directly by either the apostle Paul or by aplurality of apostles: 1 Corinthians 11:2, “Maintain the traditions...as I [Paul] have delivered them...”; 2 Timothy 1:13, “Follow the...sound words which you heard from me [Paul]”; 2Thessalonians 2:15, “hold to the traditions which you were taught by us [the apostles]”; 2 Timothy 2:1-2, “ What you heard from me [Paul]...entrust to faithful men.”; 2 John 12, “I[John] hope to...talk with you face to face.”

It is one thing to say that the apostles (who were appointed directly (i.e., in person) by Jesus [Mt. 10:2 ff.; Mk 3:13-19; Lk. 6:13; 1 Cor. 15:7-8] could give authoritative oral communications to pastors, elders and churches. The apostles had a special authority from Christ peculiar to their office [Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1]; were invested with a special unique teaching authority [cf. Mt. 15:17-19; 19:18; Lk. 22:29, 30; Jn. 16:12-14; 20:21- 23; Ac. 1:2-8; Eph. 2:20]; had a unique more abiding and permanent inspiration of the Holy Spirit [cf. Jn. 14:26; 16:13-15; 1 Jn. 1:1, 3, 5]; were infallible - authoritative messengers of Christ and therefore could give authoritative commandments to all the churches [1 Cor. 7:17;16:1; cf. 11:34; 1 Th. 4:2; 2 Pet. 3:1-2]. Likewise, the apostles were ministers of the gospel [1 Tim. 1:3; 6:14; Tit. 1:5] who proved that they were authoritative messengers with new revelations from God by their public repeated working of signs, miracles and wonders [Ac. 2:43; 3:6-9, 16; 5:12, 15, 16; 6:8; 8:6; 9:40; 14:3, 14; 15:12; 20:9-12; 1 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3-4; cf. Jn. 3:2; 9:30; 10:25; Ac. 2:22]); however, it is quite another thing to assert that a bishop living in the fourteenth century (who has never seen Jesus in person or publicly proved his authenticity through mighty miracles; who is a heretic and a whoremonger) has the same authority, ability or direct inspiration as the apostles Paul, John or Peter. Romanists assume that there is a direct connection between what the apostles were doing and what the pope and bishops have done throughout history without any evidence whatsoever.

The apostles Paul and John never encouraged believers to place their trust in an oral tradition passed down to them via sixth, seventh or eighth hand reports. Neither do they instruct believers in the distant future to put their faith in an unwritten tradition that has somehow survived intact secretly through the centuries. Instead, the apostles commanded elders and churches to accept as inspired infallible truth what they had heard the apostles teach personally. Why? Because the apostles and the only apostles had a unique authority....
​

(b) and (c) on next post....