daniel1212:
All of your views of what scripture say are just that, your views. It is not absurd. The Apostles put men to take over, the NT is very silent about what those men did and what were there roles. Clearly Titus and Timothy were leaders of Churches there acting as overseers. So Bishops are in place during the transition from Apostles to the next generation. All of the Patristic evidence indicates how this transition was implemented and it was Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
You can only show what you think scripture teaches, I appeal to the early Fathers who canonized the scriptures and defended them against Gnostic heresies don’t interpret them the way you do. For example,, your writing “For I have written” I could give a hoot what you think. Who are you, another ex-Catholic turned protestant internet theologian????? Really?? Can you honestly say that the NT gave precise instructions as the ministry and function of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon. It is very unclear and an appeal alone to Scripture can’t answer it, all you have is a protestant view that developed 1,600 years ex post the NT period. Saint Clement of Rome’s Letter, and he was a pupil of Saint Peter and there is evidence that we is the Clement that Saint Paul mentions clearly speaks of the fact that the Apostles worried that men would argue over who should be Bishop, etc, and thus they appointed men to lead the Churches. Saint Ignatius of Antioch’s Letters are even clearer and he was closely connected to the Apostle John, having been Saint Polycarp’s pupil who new The Apostle John.
Are you saying that all these men got it wrong????? and you got it right?
What you are doing is rejecting argumentation that is based upon the testimony of wholly inspired Scripture, by dismissing it as "my views," while you fallibly extrapolate a perpetuated supreme and infallible Petrine papacy and priesthood out of local pastors in Scripture, and invoke non-inspired men which you imagine proves your tradition is valid, while in fact the basis for your claim to truthfulness is that of the assured veracity of Rome
Scripture, tradition and history are and mean whatever she says they do. As Manning asserted , "the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine."
If Rome taught that Mary divided the Red Sea you would defend that on the basis that the Bible does not say she did not. As what Rome says is determinative of how you see Scripture etc., then i keep bringing you back to the same issue, which you ignore, and the questions i asked!
Can you honestly say that the NT gave precise instructions as the ministry and function of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon. It is very unclear and an appeal alone to Scripture can’t answer it
You next against resort to a logical fallacy, that the most precise instructions as to the ministry and function of something must be in a source for it to be the supreme standard, and to the posting same type of ignorance refuted in a past debate, that as ,"nowhere is what they [Presbyters] are charged to do defined.
Yet as shown before , Scripture give quite amount of detail as to the ministry and function of bishop/elders, and materially provides for church laws, but utterly does not show them being titled "priests" and engaging in a unique sacrificial function, turning bread and wine into human flesh and blood to be consumed to provide spiritual and eternal life for the flock. If fact, they are not once shown unique dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, let alone such being their primary one. No wonder you must resort to uninspired tradition.
the Apostles worried that men would argue over who should be Bishop, etc, and thus they appointed men to lead the Churches....Are you saying that all these men got it wrong?????
Rather, you in-credibly extrapolate perpetuated infallible supreme papacy out of appointing men to lead the Churches! That is what you "got wrong," likewise these men insofar as any supported this unScriptural Roman papacy.