daniel212:
Well, Rome has never said Mary parted the red sea. You keep dodging my question and you are wanting me to adopt your paradigm, Sola Scriptura. I will not now, nor tomorrow nor never adopt that heresy. You want me do discuss the question of Papal primacy according to protestant lens. I will not.
The NT does not clearly state what each presbyter and deacon did at every Church. It only provides scant details. Clearly the Presbyters in James Letter were charged with doing more than what the presbyters were in Paul’s pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. We have already had this discussion. Which one is normative, or does it reflect an uneven development that occurred at various apostolic Churches.
No I take Christ word that the Gates of hell would not prevail and the Holy Spirit would guide the Church so the orthodox Fathers of the late 1st and early 2nd century, who were correct on Trinitarian and Christological disputes vs. the various Gnostic sects were in my view, the legitimate witnesses to what was orthodox ecclesiology and all that it entailed with respect to ministry and function of Bishops [Overseers]; Presbyters/Priests and Deacons.
Rather, i answered your false dilemma question, and it is you who continually have avoided answering the most fundamental question out of which premise all your argumentation flows!
The NT does not clearly state what each presbyter and deacon did at every Church. It only provides scant details.
It need not clearly state what each presbyter and deacon did at every Church, which absurd requirement is a desperate attempt to justify a critical aspect of a most cardinal doctrine but which the Scripture does not evidence, and which attempt reduces your already low view of Scripture.
With the Eucharist being the "source and summit" of the Christian faith, around which sacrament all else revolves, do you really think the Holy Spirit, who is faithful to record multitudes of notable details including the ordination and duties of OT priests, and even a whole chapter on the use of tongues in a church meeting, would not at least show or describe in Acts onward, NT pastors primary duty as being consecrating bread and wine and giving it to the multitudes, conveying spiritual and eternal life, interpretive of the gospels? When instead He shows and teaches that their main duty is to give themselves "continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word"? (Acts 6:4)
And never says a word to them about feeding the flock with anything but by preaching, setting that forth as their primary function, thus charging Timothy to "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. (2 Timothy 4:2) And not saying a word to him or others about their duty to consecrate transformed bread and wine?
And by which word they themselves are "nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine." (1Tim. 4:6) Meanwhile, in the only manifest description of the Lord's supper in the life of the NT church, (1Cor. 11:20-34 ) the Lord's Supper shows the Lord's death by the unselfish considerate manner in which the members partake of the communal meal, manifesting the love for each other Christ showed in giving Himself for the church, which thus shows their unity with the Lord and thus with each other. With failure to do so constituting a failure to recognize the church as the body of Christ, made of up many members.
Moreover, rather than the Spirit only providing scant details, if you read more of Scripture you should see there is quite a bit, from the qualifications of pastors to ordaining others, to exercising discipline, to prayer, teaching and preaching, etc. what they did, which i can show if needed. It is your distinctively titled "priests" and their primary Cath. function that is missing.
learly the Presbyters in James Letter were charged with doing more than what the presbyters were in Paul’s pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. We have already had this discussion. Which one is normative, or does it reflect an uneven development that occurred at various apostolic Churches.
Contrary to your postulated contradiction on which one is normative , Scripture complements Scripture, and in the totality of NT church record prayer and preaching is what is normative, as all need that, which only a relative few would need intercessory prayer by pastors, which is also enjoined upon all that they may be healed by effectual fervent prayer of the righteous.
And in another contrast with Rome, what was manifestly normative was that NT pastors and apostles were married.
No I take Christ word that the Gates of hell would not prevail and the Holy Spirit would guide the Church
And God often raised up men from without the magisterium to reprove it, provide Truth and preserve faith, and thus the church as the body of Christ has been preserved, though the visible manifestation has never been perfect, as the church itself began in dissent from a magisterium which presumed of itself above that which was written. Rome has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes, but this deformation was progressive, and as now, some souls could see thru the trappings of her institutionalized nature and find Christ by faith out of a broken heart and contrite spirit, coming to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, and trust Him to save by His sinless shed blood, and so live 4 Him. Thanks be to God.
Well, Rome has never said Mary parted the red sea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Help_of_Christians
Don't worry; like Mother Nature, who, evidently, abhors a vacuum; Mother Church will; with out FAIL; fill in any blanks needed to propagate an undocumented theological theory.