ELECT Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God

[MennoSota]

Why talk about the criminal nature of men and GOD's justice when some people were elected to salvation long before their sin and others were passed over for election long before their sin?? This paragraph is a red herring that doesn't deal with the reason why HIS love is for some people and not for others due to the complete lack of any reason for HIM to withhold HIS love like that. And you describe my total support for His loving justice for all men with the ad hominem weak and pathetic....wow.

Indeed, your paragraph, above, is a red herring.
The Bible talks about the criminal nature of man.
The Bible talks about justice being met.
The Bible talks about Jesus substitutionary payment for those whom He chose to redeem. God the Father's just judgment fell upon God the Son when Jesus died on the cross. There was no passing over the sin of men. There was payment for the sin of the elect.

John 15:13-16
[13]There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
[14]You are my friends if you do what I command.
[15]I no longer call you slaves, because a master doesn’t confide in his slaves. Now you are my friends, since I have told you everything the Father told me.
[16]You didn’t choose me. I chose you. I appointed you to go and produce lasting fruit, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask for, using my name.

 

[ttruscott]

I meant "election saves" (the election of God saves before there is faith) when viewed through the Calvinist framework.

Yes, I was pretty sure this is what you meant but my understanding of reality is that we made a free will decision to put our faith in YHWH and HIS Son before we were elected before the foundation of the world. I describe a merit based election, not the Calvinistic election and non-election of sinners for no reason...

Pre-Conception Existence theology contends for faith in the Son first, then election, then the fall of some of the elect, then their being sowed into the earth for their redemption.

PCE also contends for the rebellion of the satanic by sinning the unforgivable sin first, then their condemnation and being passed over for election as unable to ever fulfill the heavenly marriage requirement of holiness, then their being sowed into the earth by the devil to prove to the sinful elect that the tares will never make good neighbours or marriage partners so these sinful elect will choose to quit their idolatry of the evil ones and choose holiness.

 

[7djengo7]

Yep. Cf. John 6:53 KJV, John 6:54 KJV, John 6:55 KJV, and John 6:56 KJV. Also, "This (bread) is My body."
"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks,¹ he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body."


¹ - Greek 'εὐχαριστήσας' => E-U-CH-A-R-I-S-T-

Whatever you're trying to do, there, you still haven't answered the question: Why do you refuse to take Paul literally when he says "For as often as ye eat this bread"?

Compare what you wrote to this:

Does the bread cease to be bread and the wine cease to be wine?

Yes. In order for the whole Christ to be present—body, blood, soul, and divinity—the bread and wine cannot remain, but must give way so that his glorified Body and Blood may be present. Thus in the Eucharist the bread ceases to be bread in substance, and becomes the Body of Christ, while the wine ceases to be wine in substance, and becomes the Blood of Christ. As St. Thomas Aquinas observed, Christ is not quoted as saying, "This bread is my body," but "This is my body" (Summa Theologiae, III q. 78, a. 5).

So, you just contradicted the Angelic Doctor, by writing:

Also, "This (bread) is My body."

Notice what is written in the resource from which I quoted:

Thus in the Eucharist the bread ceases to be bread in substance, and becomes the Body of Christ

So, when, exactly, did Jesus brake the substance in question, and say, "Take, eat: this is my body"? While it was bread, and before it was His body, OR, while it was His body, and was no longer bread (that is, while the bread "cannot remain" and has "given way")?

 

[Idolater]

Whatever you're trying to do, there, you still haven't answered the question: Why do you refuse to take Paul literally when he says "For as often as ye eat this bread"?

I take Paul as the Word of God, and he says "bread" and "body" are synonyms. You, contrarily, are trying to tell me that they're not synonymous. There are two groups. Those telling me they're synonyms, and those telling me they're Not synonyms. The Catholics and the Orthodox are telling me they're synonyms, and everybody else is telling me they're not synonyms. Curious perhaps relevant note, those are the oldest churches, period. So I examined the other side of the tracks, as I myself was over there with all of you for most of my life. I examined it honestly.

You're all in haze. And I am impenetrable. Just know that. Know that I told you. Before.

Compare what you wrote to this:



So, you just contradicted the Angelic Doctor, by writing:



Notice what is written in the resource from which I quoted:



So, when, exactly, did Jesus brake the substance in question, and say, "Take, eat: this is my body"? While it was bread, and before it was His body, OR, while it was His body, and was no longer bread (that is, while the bread "cannot remain" and has "given way")?

All I can tell you is that I have never validly or licitly received Holy Communion. I can academically meet your challenge, but that's all it would be. I'm an outsider, looking in. I'm 'Caleb,' I've scouted the promised land (the Catholic Church), and I'm telling you, these Guys Got Grapes.

 

[Rosenritter]

I take Paul as the Word of God, and he says "bread" and "body" are synonyms. You, contrarily, are trying to tell me that they're not synonymous. There are two groups. Those telling me they're synonyms, and those telling me they're Not synonyms. The Catholics and the Orthodox are telling me they're synonyms, and everybody else is telling me they're not synonyms. Curious perhaps relevant note, those are the oldest churches, period. So I examined the other side of the tracks, as I myself was over there with all of you for most of my life. I examined it honestly.

Not synonyms, but rather two related symbols that both point to the same thing.

"Body" is not the literal body of Christ, it is symbolic of depending on him for life, and is also symbolized by the body of the Passover lamb. It also is a reminder that he literally died on the cross as a fulfillment of that Passover.

"Bread" is also allusion to the unleavened bread of the Passover, symbolic of depending on him for life. It also has allusion to the "bread which came down from heaven" which fed Israel in the wilderness for forty years.

 

[Idolater]

Not synonyms, but rather two related symbols that both point to the same thing.

"Body" is not the literal body of Christ, it is symbolic of depending on him for life, and is also symbolized by the body of the Passover lamb. It also is a reminder that he literally died on the cross as a fulfillment of that Passover.

"Bread" is also allusion to the unleavened bread of the Passover, symbolic of depending on him for life. It also has allusion to the "bread which came down from heaven" which fed Israel in the wilderness for forty years.

Are you not Catholic because you don't believe in Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist, or do you not believe in the Real Presence, because you're not Catholic?

 

[Winston Smith]

I guarantee that Cain knew that what he did was wrong.

I did not say he didn't know that. I asked if he did what he did with the exact same mind, the exact same logic, the exact same judgement as Abel. Were they both nonfools in the exact same way, but one went a foolish direction?

No it's not.

Explain how a nonfool can choose to be a fool. Thanks.

 

[Rosenritter]

Are you not Catholic because you don't believe in Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist, or do you not believe in the Real Presence, because you're not Catholic?

I am sure I could think of other reasons that I wouldn't call myself Catholic. Do I have to pick one?

 

[Rosenritter]

I did not say he didn't know that. I asked if he did what he did with the exact same mind, the exact same logic, the exact same judgement as Abel. Were they both nonfools in the exact same way, but one went a foolish direction?

I don't think "foolish" vs. "wise" is the right scale for this question. Murder and an unwillingness to repent as something beyond foolish. That's more of the nature that we choose in our heart.

Explain how a nonfool can choose to be a fool. Thanks.

How about the example of Solomon?

Proven wisdom and in a state of righteousness:

1 Kings 4:29-31 KJV
(29) And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore.
(30) And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt.
(31) For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about.

Proven foolishness and a fall from grace:

1 Kings 11:4-10 KJV
(4) For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
(5) For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
(6) And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.
(7) Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
(8) And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
(9) And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,
(10) And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded.

Again, I am not sure if "wisdom" and "foolishness" is the right scale here. Solomon didn't lack understanding, but his failure was spiritual in nature, a choice of his heart where he chose (allowed) himself to be led astray by wives that he should have known better than to have been involved with in the first place.

 

[Idolater]

I am sure I could think of other reasons that I wouldn't call myself Catholic. Do I have to pick one?

We've already picked one. Why are you so certain in making the assertion that the Eucharist is 'symbolic?' The two largest and oldest Christian traditions swear by the Real Presence, so when do you think that all of the bishops, all got the same thing wrong, and all began believing and teaching the exact same error, namely, that the Real Presence of Christ is in the Eucharist? How did they get it so wrong, and how shortly after the Apostolic era did it occur?

 

[Rosenritter]

We've already picked one. Why are you so certain in making the assertion that the Eucharist is 'symbolic?' The two largest and oldest Christian traditions swear by the Real Presence, so when do you think that all of the bishops, all got the same thing wrong, and all began believing and teaching the exact same error, namely, that the Real Presence of Christ is in the Eucharist? How did they get it so wrong, and how shortly after the Apostolic era did it occur?

1. I don't put stock in the tradition of Catholic bishops: However I am more likely to be persuaded from scripture.

2. Within the Catholic tradition agreement on doctrines such as these has often been accomplished through the persecution and murder of others until no one was left that disagreed.

3. What would possibly be accomplished by the consuming of literal human flesh and blood anyway?

 

[Idolater]

1. I don't put stock in the tradition of Catholic bishops: However I am more likely to be persuaded from scripture.

Which bishops today, are the ones talked about in Scripture? Or do you figure that the bishops are like the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, and there's today a 'cessation' of them? Or do you figure that the imposition of hands in creating bishops has passed away as an obsolete procedure? I'm curious if you think that the Church office of 'Bishop' today . . . exists.

2. Within the Catholic tradition agreement on doctrines such as these has often been accomplished through the persecution and murder of others until no one was left that disagreed.

Just show that happening with the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and I'll believe you. The only persecution and murdering that was occurring the first three centuries of the Church, was against the Christians themselves. So do you think that the pagan murders of Christians (often rooted on by Jews), only selectively got rid of the ones who believed the Eucharist was 'symbolic,' leaving behind only the ones who believed in the Real Presence?

3. What would possibly be accomplished by the consuming of literal human flesh and blood anyway?

It is partaking of the altar. It's an altar because it is a worthy offering made to the Father, it makes Christ's sacrifice upon the altar of the cross, ever present. The Levitical priesthood prefigured not just the Passion and cross of Jesus, but also of the Eucharist. The Church celebrated the Eucharist each Sunday, the day that He was raised from the dead, and she began it very early on (Acts 2:42 KJV "breaking of bread").

 

[Rosenritter]

Which bishops today, are the ones talked about in Scripture? Or do you figure that the bishops are like the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, and there's today a 'cessation' of them? Or do you figure that the imposition of hands in creating bishops has passed away as an obsolete procedure? I'm curious if you think that the Church office of 'Bishop' today . . . exists.

I have four bishops in every chess set. The point being that simply calling something by the title of "bishop" doesn't make it legitimate. Tell me, do the bishops that you are thinking of meet the description below?

1 Timothy 3:1-4 KJV
(1) This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
(2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
(3) Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
(4) One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

It seems to me that if we were considering all of the bishops that are called bishops, that the "forbidden to marry" aspect would make Catholic bishops the furthest removed from legitimacy. Forbidding to marry is specifically listed as a false teaching departing from the faith, and the office of bishop is specifically referenced with regards to first proving oneself within their own household (indicating a wife and likely children.)

1 Timothy 3:5 KJV
(5) (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

1 Timothy 4:1-3 KJV
(1) Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
(2) Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
(3) Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Just show that happening with the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and I'll believe you. The only persecution and murdering that was occurring the first three centuries of the Church, was against the Christians themselves. So do you think that the pagan murders of Christians (often rooted on by Jews), only selectively got rid of the ones who believed the Eucharist was 'symbolic,' leaving behind only the ones who believed in the Real Presence?

Seriously? Christians have been killed by the Catholic church for maintaining that the wafer was symbolic. Foxe's Book of Martyrs for starters.

It is partaking of the altar. It's an altar because it is a worthy offering made to the Father, it makes Christ's sacrifice upon the altar of the cross, ever present. The Levitical priesthood prefigured not just the Passion and cross of Jesus, but also of the Eucharist. The Church celebrated the Eucharist each Sunday, the day that He was raised from the dead, and she began it very early on (Acts 2:42 KJV "breaking of bread").

Why would Christ's sacrifice need to be "ever present" once a week on Sundays? How many times would that have been since 30 AD? We are told that Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, not that it must be some 50,000 times and must keep being renewed.

Hebrews 9:28 KJV
(28) So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

A memorial of Christ's resurrection might be a fine tradition indeed, but that doesn't mean that the bread is his literal flesh, or that he is offered again on an altar each time. And it certainly doesn't justify the killing of anyone who maintains that the bread is a symbol of life in Christ.

 

[Idolater]

I have four bishops in every chess set. The point being that simply calling something by the title of "bishop" doesn't make it legitimate.

Well of course. There are inauthentic pastors out there who call themselves 'bishops' who are no such thing, by biblical standards.

Tell me, do the bishops that you are thinking of meet the description below?

1 Timothy 3:1-4 KJV
(1) This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
(2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
(3) Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
(4) One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

It seems to me that if we were considering all of the bishops that are called bishops, that the "forbidden to marry" aspect would make Catholic bishops the furthest removed from legitimacy.

It's common to mix the warning against false teachers who forbid marriage, with the Church's discipline of only ordaining single, celibate men. The realization of the former occurred quite shortly after the Apostolic era, with people literally teaching that marriage was evil, and that people should either fornicate limitlessly, or else they taught that the conjugal act was evil and so marriage was pointless. This is very clearly that which the warning against those who forbid marriage was aimed, and it struck its mark precisely.

On the other hand, the Church discipline of only ordaining single, celibate men, is nothing like forbidding marriage, since it only affects those who feel called to the priesthood. Anybody who has not vowed celibacy is free to, and encouraged to marry. Marriage is one of the seven sacraments, one of the seven times and places when eternity and temporality meet.

Forbidding to marry is specifically listed as a false teaching departing from the faith, and the office of bishop is specifically referenced with regards to first proving oneself within their own household (indicating a wife and likely children.)

1 Timothy 3:5 KJV
(5) (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

1 Timothy 4:1-3 KJV
(1) Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
(2) Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
(3) Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Paul indicates explicitly the purpose of selecting men with families for the office of Bishop, it's to see whether he ruled his own house well, before committing to him the shepherding of the Church.

Now, instead of this test, the Church is able to ordain single, celibate men to the priesthood, and these men then actually take care of the Church, a single parish, and for many years, before they are ever considered for bishop. So the Church ascertains directly how well a man will take care of the Church, by observing how well he takes care of the Church, rather than through the analogical determination that Paul recommends.

iow, what the Church is doing now is even better than Paul's recommendation. That's not faulting Paul in any way, it's merely admitting that at the very start of the Church, men with families were the most abundant source of eligible men for the office, and now, the Church is blessed to have an abundant source of even more eligible men, and can afford to require that they be single, to align with another of Paul's teachings, because single men are better able to "careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord" (1Co7:32KJV) than are family men.

So only ordaining single men satisfies Paul's teachings even better than consecrating family men as bishops.

Seriously? Christians have been killed by the Catholic church for maintaining that the wafer was symbolic. Foxe's Book of Martyrs for starters.

When the Church entangled herself in civil power, these types of problems shot up out of that soil. The key is 'simony.' Simony is the demand among those uninterested in being a bishop to take care of the Church, for the political power that the office used to possess instead. Once bishops were relieved of political power, the simony fires stopped self-igniting, and we haven't seen anything like these sins occurring anymore.

Before any of that happened though, Christians were sadly regularly killed for their witness of Christ's Resurrection, and that early Church uniformly believed in the Real Presence of Him in the Eucharist.

Why would Christ's sacrifice need to be "ever present" once a week on Sundays? How many times would that have been since 30 AD? We are told that Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, not that it must be some 50,000 times and must keep being renewed.

Hebrews 9:28 KJV
(28) So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

And yet, the Apostles taught that the Lord taught to celebrate the Eucharist continually, and the Church did so, right from the start.

A memorial of Christ's resurrection might be a fine tradition indeed

We now have plenty of Christians who practice only a memorial, not the Eucharistic offering, and we also now see plenty of Christians who don't see much, if any, in the case of some Dispensationalists, value in the observance.

, but that doesn't mean that the bread is his literal flesh, or that he is offered again on an altar each time.

Not by itself, no. But we're not ones who take a single verse and from it develop our entire thinking on any matter.

And it certainly doesn't justify the killing of anyone who maintains that the bread is a symbol of life in Christ.

Nobody is defending that.

 

[Rosenritter]

Well of course. There are inauthentic pastors out there who call themselves 'bishops' who are no such thing, by biblical standards.It's common to mix the warning against false teachers who forbid marriage, with the Church's discipline of only ordaining single, celibate men. The realization of the former occurred quite shortly after the Apostolic era, with people literally teaching that marriage was evil, and that people should either fornicate limitlessly, or else they taught that the conjugal act was evil and so marriage was pointless. This is very clearly that which the warning against those who forbid marriage was aimed, and it struck its mark precisely.

On the other hand, the Church discipline of only ordaining single, celibate men, is nothing like forbidding marriage, since it only affects those who feel called to the priesthood. Anybody who has not vowed celibacy is free to, and encouraged to marry. Marriage is one of the seven sacraments, one of the seven times and places when eternity and temporality meet.
Paul indicates explicitly the purpose of selecting men with families for the office of Bishop, it's to see whether he ruled his own house well, before committing to him the shepherding of the Church.

Now, instead of this test, the Church is able to ordain single, celibate men to the priesthood, and these men then actually take care of the Church, a single parish, and for many years, before they are ever considered for bishop. So the Church ascertains directly how well a man will take care of the Church, by observing how well he takes care of the Church, rather than through the analogical determination that Paul recommends.

iow, what the Church is doing now is even better than Paul's recommendation. That's not faulting Paul in any way, it's merely admitting that at the very start of the Church, men with families were the most abundant source of eligible men for the office, and now, the Church is blessed to have an abundant source of even more eligible men, and can afford to require that they be single, to align with another of Paul's teachings, because single men are better able to "careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord" (1Co7:32KJV) than are family men.

So only ordaining single men satisfies Paul's teachings even better than consecrating family men as bishops.
When the Church entangled herself in civil power, these types of problems shot up out of that soil. The key is 'simony.' Simony is the demand among those uninterested in being a bishop to take care of the Church, for the political power that the office used to possess instead. Once bishops were relieved of political power, the simony fires stopped self-igniting, and we haven't seen anything like these sins occurring anymore.

It seemed that at first you were saying "You should be Catholic because we have bishops, and bishops are in the bible" but now you are saying "but our bishops are not necessarily the bishops as they are described in the bible because the Catholic tradition decided to change that."

So I will ask you a question: is a bishop any less a bishop if a different name or designation is used? If a man serves the fellowship of Christian believers in Spirit is that not the intent of being a Shepherd and Bishop, but with different words? In short, the use of the word "bishop" by the Catholic church is not a sufficient argument of the necessity or authenticity of that organization or tradition.

Before any of that happened though, Christians were sadly regularly killed for their witness of Christ's Resurrection, and that early Church uniformly believed in the Real Presence of Him in the Eucharist.

And yet, the Apostles taught that the Lord taught to celebrate the Eucharist continually, and the Church did so, right from the start.
We now have plenty of Christians who practice only a memorial, not the Eucharistic offering, and we also now see plenty of Christians who don't see much, if any, in the case of some Dispensationalists, value in the observance.

I haven't seen the Apostles celebrating a Eucharist anywhere in scripture. Breaking bread on a Sunday or gathering on the first day of the week does not a Eucharist make.

Not by itself, no. But we're not ones who take a single verse and from it develop our entire thinking on any matter.

Developing thinking from a single verse is not necessarily wrong (all scripture is inspired) but the problem arises when that thinking is allowed to exclude the rest of scripture. Perhaps best not to throw stones here: we could likely find more than one Catholic doctrine developed from one (or zero) verse support.

 

[Idolater]

It seemed that at first you were saying "You should be Catholic because we have bishops, and bishops are in the bible" but now you are saying "but our bishops are not necessarily the bishops as they are described in the bible because the Catholic tradition decided to change that."

So I will ask you a question: is a bishop any less a bishop if a different name or designation is used?

The trick is the imposition of hands, witnessed to in the New Testament, that forms the physical lineage between the bishops today, all the bishops who have ever lived, and the Apostles themselves.

Those inauthentic pastors who cannot trace this lineage back to the Apostles are not biblical bishops.

This limits the pool of available bishops to the Catholic and Orthodox, both of whom possess this lineage. All other "bishops" are ruled out, by way of.

And I'll leave it there, because while I personally conclude that the Catholic teaching on Peter's Roman pastorate is the correct one, and this is the single point of difference between the Catholics and Orthodox, I'll be satisfied if you consider either as authentic/biblical today.

If a man serves the fellowship of Christian believers in Spirit is that not the intent of being a Shepherd and Bishop, but with different words?

I do this myself, it's my job; one of them. And no. I am not authorized to offer the Eucharist upon an altar. While there is an 'intent' with the office of Bishop, there is also the objective standard, the one I mentioned above, the imposition of hands, and the priestly procedure in order to validly celebrate the Eucharist. The idea that bishops and their assistants the priests/presbyters are not involved in the administration of an altar, is not the Christian idea. The Church's priesthood is the fulfillment of the Levitical priesthood of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant was dedicated on Christ's cross.

In short, the use of the word "bishop" by the Catholic church is not a sufficient argument of the necessity or authenticity of that organization or tradition.

Nobody said that it was.

I haven't seen the Apostles celebrating a Eucharist anywhere in scripture.

But you've seen them instructing on the Eucharist, so you know that celebrating the Eucharist is Apostolic, and that they were 'into it.'

Breaking bread on a Sunday or gathering on the first day of the week does not a Eucharist make.

Right. It requires a priest.

Developing thinking from a single verse is not necessarily wrong (all scripture is inspired) but the problem arises when that thinking is allowed to exclude the rest of scripture.

Right, it's poor hermeneutics. The Scripture is perspicuous. It all forms a single whole.

Perhaps best not to throw stones here: we could likely find more than one Catholic doctrine developed from one (or zero) verse support.

If that's all the bishops are doing, then there is one less reason to be Catholic, since anybody can do that (and most every non-Catholic Christian does do that). But the bishops are not biblical interpreters, they are transmitters of what the Apostles taught, both in word and by epistle. The Apostles' complete teaching is the whole Word of God. Much of what they taught but not all is recorded in the New Testament. There are other teachings that are not found in the New Testament, such as teachings on the Trinity, and abortion, that didn't find their way into Scripture. The bishops preserve and transmit the whole Apostolic witness, and of course, it all comports with the Scripture, though there are things that are not explicit in Scripture, or are just not as clear in Scripture, that the bishops are able to and do provide for us.

 

[Winston Smith]

I don't think "foolish" vs. "wise" is the right scale for this question. Murder and an unwillingness to repent as something beyond foolish. That's more of the nature that we choose in our heart.



How about the example of Solomon?

Proven wisdom and in a state of righteousness:

1 Kings 4:29-31 KJV
(29) And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore.
(30) And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt.
(31) For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about.

Proven foolishness and a fall from grace:

1 Kings 11:4-10 KJV
(4) For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
(5) For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
(6) And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.
(7) Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
(8) And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
(9) And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,
(10) And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded.

Again, I am not sure if "wisdom" and "foolishness" is the right scale here. Solomon didn't lack understanding, but his failure was spiritual in nature, a choice of his heart where he chose (allowed) himself to be led astray by wives that he should have known better than to have been involved with in the first place.

Was there a time when he wasn't the kind of fool that turns from the Lord, and then he became the kind of fool that does?

 

[Rosenritter]

The trick is the imposition of hands, witnessed to in the New Testament, that forms the physical lineage between the bishops today, all the bishops who have ever lived, and the Apostles themselves.

Those inauthentic pastors who cannot trace this lineage back to the Apostles are not biblical bishops.

This limits the pool of available bishops to the Catholic and Orthodox, both of whom possess this lineage. All other "bishops" are ruled out, by way of.

And I'll leave it there, because while I personally conclude that the Catholic teaching on Peter's Roman pastorate is the correct one, and this is the single point of difference between the Catholics and Orthodox, I'll be satisfied if you consider either as authentic/biblical today.

No, I do not consider either as authentic or biblical. Jesus warned us to beware of false teachers, but that we should judge them by their fruits, not by a claim of apostolic succession. A pretense of authority from alleged apostolic succession would be a false standard other (and contrary to) that commanded by Christ.

Matthew 7:15-20 KJV
(15) Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
(16) Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
(17) Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
(18) A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
(19) Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
(20) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

[Rosenritter]

Was there a time when he wasn't the kind of fool that turns from the Lord, and then he became the kind of fool that does?

I believe so. It is also possible that he may have eventually repented from that error and made right before God. God judges the heart, and the end of a thing is more important than its beginning. God doesn't judge on what a person "knows" but rather by what they choose to do with what they know. Thus, this answers your question of whether a person can be faulted for choosing wrong.

 

[Idolater]

No, I do not consider either as authentic or biblical. Jesus warned us to beware of false teachers, but that we should judge them by their fruits, not by a claim of apostolic succession. A pretense of authority from alleged apostolic succession would be a false standard other (and contrary to) that commanded by Christ.

Matthew 7:15-20 KJV
(15) Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
(16) Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
(17) Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
(18) A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
(19) Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
(20) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Doesn't this standard concern prophets?

Are pastors and prophets the same thing?

Is there such a thing as a man, pastor or otherwise, who never sins?

If anyone who sins is proven then and there to be an inauthentic pastor, then are there Any authentic pastors, and have there ever been?