Bible Alone and JW’s

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

I was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses for over a decade. I was a full-time door-to-door preacher, served as a congregation elder, and was one of their 144,000 before returning to the Church I was raised in as a child. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ approach to Scripture is not sola scriptura, not in the mainstream Protestant sense anyway.

Their approach to the Bible is the Gnostic one, namely that eternal salvation is limited to the special knowledge a select group has of sacred texts. Only those who have been selected by God can ever truly understand the text. If any others who are not of this limited select group also wish to find salvation, they must submit to the interpretation of this chosen few through whom God has unlocked his secrets encoded in Holy Writ.

Like the Gnostics, the Witnesses believe that true religion did not exist until the sacred texts upon which to build it were completed. Religion of all types were incomplete–Jewish and Christian–until the inspired texts could be completed. Once the texts were finished, their full understanding and the fullness of true religion would not occur until humankind was nearing the end of times, a period the Witnesses teach would be when the select who are the only ones given the grace to understand the texts would come and illuminate the world with their special knowledge.

Without the select group, the writings cannot be understood, at least as far as the Witness doctrine is concerned. Like a child’s toy Magic 8 Ball, the Bible is used like a tap into divine knowledge that only their 144,000 can unlock. To everyone else the life-given message is hidden in a code they cannot possibly understand.

This approach is similar to other religions that build their doctrines on a written book, for example the Latter-Day Saints. Their understanding is that revelation from God is limited to the pages of a written text, understanding limited to a few with special gnosis. This is the same with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Doctrines are thus limited to what is explicit in writing and only via its expression from the select graced with special knowledge.

Christians, to one degree or another, hold in common the belief that Jesus Christ is the final and complete revelation from God. That revelation is not in a book but in a Person. This goes even for those who hold to the concept of sola scriptura. As the Wikipedia article states:

Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.

Even for those who adhere to sola scriptura, there is a recognition that some truths are not explicit in Scripture. The Canon of Scripture for one is not in the Bible, the authority for ministers to wed is another, the customs of celebrating Christmas, Easter, and so on. This isn’t the same for the Watchtower theology which claims that true religion’s main ingredient is Scripture and that only the select 144,000 which claim to be Jehovah’s Witnesses are given the key to understand it.

Thus it is not Scripture alone, but a holy text in the hands of a select group that most others can never ever dream of being a part of.

Thank you for such an insightful post. After dealing with an extended family member for the last 15 years who has been a JW for 30 years, I have always come up against a brick wall that after researching their beliefs and explaining mine etc I have just not been able to understand. Your post explaining how their approach to the Bible is actually a Gnostic approach has just clarified it for me.

 

[Razzle]

Razzel: Below is a post I posted earlier which I think makes clearer the intent of the original Thread.
“Protestantism has two sides to the one coin, both using Sola Scriptura to reach different ends. One strives for Orthodoxy, and indeed the more Orthodox they become the more Catholic they become while the other gleans new doctrines from scripture that for 2000 years Christianity has known nothing of, and then teach them as truths in a church of their own image and design”.

The Watch Tower and JW’s definitely fall into the latter category.

A question for you: Where in 2000 years of Christian writing from the New Testament to today do we find the teaching that Jesus Christ is actually Michael the Arc Angel? This is an example of a new truth taught only by the Watch Tower.

Also: Where do we find it taught that once a year we should all attend a Ceremony where the greater majority of people participate in a physical rejection of Christ’s body and blood? This is an example of a church of their own design.

 

[Razzle]

And I don’t have the time to respond to everything you’ve posted, but…

No. Paul says “Baptism now saves you.” An outward demonstration on our part isn’t what saves.
John i understand and yes it does, however baptism itself doesn’t magically do anything to you. Whether you sprinkle or dunk baptism is a physical demonstration of what you have determined in your heart. To quote another posters bible in plain english or so “a sign”.

Does this mean you are, or are not?
If anyone thinks Jehovah’s Witnesses are not christian then they really don’t know very much about us I guess where problems start is that we don’t hold to the Trinity ‘doctrine’

Jon

 

[Razzle]

Thanks for hanging out Razzle!

Can you clear this up for me? The JW’s that come to my door never give me a good answer…

1 Col 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Now, in the New World Translation they add the word [Other] in just like that. I’m wondering why did they insert “other” if the word is not found in the original Greek.

Also, why did Thomas say, “The Lord of me and the God of me.” When he saw Jesus?

Hi.
Words are sometimes added in translation to make the sentence structure complete. When translating from a language, word for word would not make any sense or give the proper sense to what is being said. For example in the very verse you quoted is the word “things” several times. This word is not in the Greek text but is implied from the sentence structure.

Regards the Thomas quote, we state the following “Some scholars have viewed this expression as an exclamation of astonishment spoken to Jesus but actually directed to God, his Father.” Some, as I am expecting like yourself, don’t However - if you are going to apply this in the direction of the trinity then once again, this has to fit with the whole theme of scripture and that’s where the debate will continue until “the end”

 

[Razzle]

Razzel: Below is a post I posted earlier which I think makes clearer the intent of the original Thread.
“Protestantism has two sides to the one coin, both using Sola Scriptura to reach different ends. One strives for Orthodoxy, and indeed the more Orthodox they become the more Catholic they become while the other gleans new doctrines from scripture that for 2000 years Christianity has known nothing of, and then teach them as truths in a church of their own image and design”.

The Watch Tower and JW’s definitely fall into the latter category.

A question for you: Where in 2000 years of Christian writing from the New Testament to today do we find the teaching that Jesus Christ is actually Michael the Arc Angel? This is an example of a new truth taught only by the Watch Tower.

Also: Where do we find it taught that once a year we should all attend a Ceremony where the greater majority of people participate in a physical rejection of Christ’s body and blood? This is an example of a church of their own design.

Hi.
Sorry I know this is an old post but I didn’t see some of these replies till cleaning out my mail.

I think first I would make a distinction between what ‘Christianity’ has known/taught and what “the churches” or ‘popular’ religion have known/taught. Christianity is what Christ taught and what HIS apostles and disciples taught, which is found in scripture. It’s no real secret that the ‘churches’ often bias towards traditions and philosophies just as they did in Christs time on earth. (Mark 7:6 as it is written, “This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 7 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’ 8 You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men.”

Re: Michael. Without going into great reference detail;
1st Thessalonians 4:16 “because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.”
There is only one arch angel as the name implies, this is also supported by it never being used in plural other than the possessive type.
Dan 12: 1“During that time Miʹcha·el* will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people.”
One might imagine who “the great prince” is.

As regards the “ceremony”.
This is too involved really to go into in this forum, however, to be brief. Christ instituted the memorial of his death on the evening of the Passover. This was a once a year celebration for the nation of Israel. He then said “keep doing this in remembrance of me” So it stands to reason this would be done once a year. Both on occasion of the Passover and the memorialisation of ones death.
Christ often referred to a “little flock” and “other sheep not of this fold” Again….this is very brief but this indicates two groups, which is further born out in Revelation when referring to the specifically numbered 144000 and innumerable great crowd.(Rev 7:7-9) “the 144,000,+ who have been bought from the earth” are those who share the covenant with Christ for heavenly rulership. It is these that partake of the Bread and wine in symbolisation of that covenant. We who are not specifically part of that covenant but who are of the “great crowd” observe in faithfulness of Christ death in our behalf, but do not partake.
Again this is very brief. I suggest for a more involved answer – ask one of us .

 

[PRmerger]

I think first I would make a distinction between what ‘Christianity’ has known/taught and what “the churches” or ‘popular’ religion have known/taught. Christianity is what Christ taught and what HIS apostles and disciples taught, which is found in scripture.

Question for you and all JWs: if Jesus and the apostles and disciples taught something which was NOT found in Scripture, would you agree that Christians would be bound to follow this teaching?

 

[JMM1957]

Hi.
Sorry I know this is an old post but I didn’t see some of these replies till cleaning out my mail.

I think first I would make a distinction between what ‘Christianity’ has known/taught and what “the churches” or ‘popular’ religion have known/taught. Christianity is what Christ taught and what HIS apostles and disciples taught, which is found in scripture. It’s no real secret that the ‘churches’ often bias towards traditions and philosophies just as they did in Christs time on earth. (Mark 7:6 as it is written, “This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 7 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’ 8 You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men.”
**
Re: Michael. Without going into great reference detail;
1st Thessalonians 4:16 “because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.”
There is only one arch angel as the name implies, this is also supported by it never being used in plural other than the possessive type.
Dan 12: 1“During that time Miʹcha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people.”***
One might imagine who “the great prince” is.

As regards the “ceremony”.
This is too involved really to go into in this forum, however, to be brief. Christ instituted the memorial of his death on the evening of the Passover. This was a once a year celebration for the nation of Israel. He then said “keep doing this in remembrance of me” So it stands to reason this would be done once a year. Both on occasion of the Passover and the memorialisation of ones death.
Christ often referred to a “little flock” and “other sheep not of this fold” Again….this is very brief but this indicates two groups, which is further born out in Revelation when referring to the specifically numbered 144000 and innumerable great crowd.(Rev 7:7-9) “the 144,000,+ who have been bought from the earth” are those who share the covenant with Christ for heavenly rulership. It is these that partake of the Bread and wine in symbolisation of that covenant. We who are not specifically part of that covenant but who are of the “great crowd” observe in faithfulness of Christ death in our behalf, but do not partake.
Again this is very brief. I suggest for a more involved answer – ask one of us .

Paul, nor any other NT author, believed that Jesus was Michael the
Archangel. Nowhere else in the NT is there any evidence that Jesus and Michael were one and the same, no author made that connection. Jesus is the Son of the Father, and Michael is an archangel. God created the angels through Jesus, scripture confirms this:

“for by Him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers - all things have been created through Him and for Him” (Colossians 1:16).

"But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me twenty-one days. So Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia "(Daniel 10:13).

Here we see Michael as “one” of the chief princes, there are others who are chief princes along with him. Michael has some authority over other angels, but he is not the one who is to come as Jesus in the NT. Michael is not in a class by himself.

There are many more examples I can give showing that Jesus of the NT is not Michael of the OT, if you need more proof.

 

[JMM1957]

Ok – I have not read this post with entirety and nor do I have the time. This will be be brief.

As one of Jehovah’s witnesses we certainly do believe that there is one way to accept bible teachings and one message throughout that must be understood correctly.
Wether you wish to debate that that is one belief or another is the debate that Satan introduced at the start. Just like Adam and Eve – this is our free will choice to make. However we must make an informed one.

It is evidenced throughout the bible that Jehovah uses a channel through which people can worship. Eg: the Israelite nation, apostles and early Christian congregation. Just as in the days of this early congregation they were surrounded by “false” beliefs and ideas and those of that time had to choose themselves wether to accept the teachings of Christ or any of the other beliefs available including adhering to the succeed Jewish traditions. If they chose to follow the apostles then they accepted that these men were responsible, with Jehovah’s guidance, for making spiritual decisions on behalf of the congregation. On occasions a congregation sought the decision making from “the older men”. Not accepting these decisions would have resulted in a reprimand or removal from the congregation. (all of this is in “your” bibles too). You will find today that We are structured exactly in this way, according to scripture.

Baptism.
Someone mentioned Baptism as an example and it is a good example. What is baptism? Is it not an outward demonstration of dedicating ones life to god? Therefore can an infant make the decision to dedicated itself and then determine adhere to it in his/her lifes course. To further this thought, what age did Jesus get baptised. Should not the perfect (oh oh) son of god have done this sooner if this was the proper course to take?
So in light of scripture vs tradition – which would you say reflects Gods thoughts.

Trinity
As someone said earlier – if want to see the trinity you will. You will however be ignoring the fact that the trinity did not originate with Christianity but was already in existence in surrounding beliefs prior to Christ.
There is nowhere that the trinity as a belief is taught in scripture. I don’t want to spark a debate over John 1;1 as it will only spiral into debate over anarthrous nouns and predicate nouns and definite articles etc etc, however a very compelling point is that “WE” are not the only ones to recognise the need for a qualitative understanding of this scripture. All be it few.

1808 “and the Word was a god” - Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text , London
• 1864 “and a god was the Word” (left hand column interlinear reading) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
• 1867 “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God” - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.
• 1935 “and the Word was divine” - The Bible—An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
• 1955 “so the Word was divine” - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
• 1978 “and godlike sort was the Logos” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.
• 1822 “and the Word was a god.” - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.);
• 1863 “and the Word was a god.” - A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863);
• 1885 “and the Word was a god.” - Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885);
• 1879 “and the Word was a god.” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979);
• 1911 “and the Word was a god.” - The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911);
• 1958 “and the Word was a god.” - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
• 1829 “and the Word was a god.” - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);
• 1975 “and the Word was a god.” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
•

Even from just this simplistic circumstantial point of view one cannot simply state this verse is the be all end all of the trinity debate and that “WE” are undoubtedly incorrect.

Then there is Phil 2:6. one that many refer to. If you accept that say the KJB is correct then it was NOT “robbery” for Christ to be equal to God. Does this then mean that what was just said is also the case (verse5), that “we” also should have the same mind and think nothing of making ourselves equal to God?
Of course not. So once again in the entire theme of scripture the trinity is not supported so then one must say well how else must we understand such scritures.

As JW’s we do throw our trust in the “older men” to properly pass on scriptural understanding just as in the days of the apostles. We do however have to do as the Bereans did and test wethers this is in line with the scriptures for ourselves. (Acts 17:11)

This thread started with this thought.
Do the advocates for bible alone, or sola scripture in any form, truly not see how this philosophy sets up the trajectory that is inevitably going to end up looking JW-ish?

I do find it very interesting that if someone approaches the bible from the perspective of listening to IT and being guided by It and not tradition – that this lends toward JW-ish 

Am little offended at being referred to as non-Christian.

I spent waaay to long on this.

Jesus should have been baptized as an infant if we should baptize infants? When did baptism begin and who began doing it?

 

[po18guy]

Even though the Watchtower Corporation denies being Protestant, and inculcates this anti-dogma into all members’ heads, they willingly submit and bind themselves to the two defining Protestant principles: Bible as sole rule, and Luther’s 66 book “canon” of scripture. Yet, beginning with Luther, they veer off and reject him on virtually all other doctrines. How utterly strange - a strictly Protestant move on its own!

One must ask oneself: What evidence is there that the Watchtower Corporation has any divine warrant, tracing directly to Christ, to continue either His Church or the teachings He taught. Zero. Its genesis is the personal opinion of one unqualified man in 19th century America, based on a tiny fragment of Christ’s teaching.

Scripture teaches that false prophecy destroys the credibility of the alleged “prophet.” It teaches that false prophecy is not of God. The WB&TS has never - not even once - put forth a prophecy that is true. All - 100% - have failed, only to be re-interpreted and re-engineered by corporate executives.

Saint Peter teaches that the scriptures are twisted (to their destruction) by the ignorant and unstable. Well, now just who are they? Never mind what the Corporation has become, look at its foundation: a man at the epicenter of the 19th century ‘Made in USA’ religions. A man with an 7th grade education and zero theological training. A man who claimed no visions or divine revelation. A man ordained by no one. His “qualifications”? Possession of a bible and an opinion.

Ignorant.

A man who was sued for business fraud and for mental cruelty by his wife.

Unstable.

It seems that one prophecy came true after all.

 

[PRmerger]

He then said “keep doing this in remembrance of me” So it stands to reason this would be done once a year

I always find it odd how JWs take one particular detail and run with it, but ignore all the others.

So…once a year.

What about only with 12 men?

Why don’t you follow this detail?

What about that it was done in Israel? Why does the Watchtower not insist that this is what is the detail that must be followed, rather than the yearly thing?

And why do JWs not recline at table?

I just want to know how you decide which details are the ones to follow and which details are the ones that can be dismissed?

 

[PRmerger]

Baptism.
Someone mentioned Baptism as an example and it is a good example. What is baptism? Is it not an outward demonstration of dedicating ones life to god?

There is NO Bible verse which states this.

One JW just heard another JW say this, and he repeated it to another JW (or Protestant)…but not a single person has ever read that Baptism is “an outward demonstration of dedicating one’s life to God” in a single page of the Bible.

#manmadetradition

To further this thought, what age did Jesus get baptised.

This is an interesting point that segues nicely from my previous post.

Why don’t JWs take this detail and run with it as to how to baptize their members?

Should all JWs be baptized in their 30’s, like Jesus was?

And by their cousin?

And in a river?

Specifically, in the River Jordan?

 

[JMM1957]

The JW’s believe that their organization is the “mouthpiece” of God, which was prophesised to come around in the last days. Scriptural proofs are virtually non-existant for this teaching, they rely more on other teachings of theirs to sway people away from historical Christianity into their mindset, such as denying the Trinity, not celebrating holidays, etc.

 

[JMM1957]

If I remember correctly, when talking with a JW years ago, the teaching that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are the same was not originally taught at the beginning of the organization, but came along later through revelation as more light was shone on the scriptures and truths revealed to them that were somewhat hidden in times past. The Mormons and JW’s had similar beginnings, both started by individuals who were disgruntled with historical Christianity’s teachings, that every religion had gone astray, and needed to be brought back to the truth.

 

[ajcstr]

Thank you for such an insightful post. After dealing with an extended family member for the last 15 years who has been a JW for 30 years, I have always come up against a brick wall that after researching their beliefs and explaining mine etc I have just not been able to understand. Your post explaining how their approach to the Bible is actually a Gnostic approach has just clarified it for me.

Here is a youtube that may help - goes through the people who influenced Russell:

youtube.com/watch?v=h_c-PdT0SsE&t=1735s

 

[Debbie_Kono]

This is really for another thread. I take the line that we can’t trust the veracity of the gospels without the RCC (I’m not going to say “Church” because we mean different thing by that) to be duplicitous at best. Do you not try to prove the papacy from an appeal to Scripture - Matthew 16:18? Of course you do. But if the Church establishes Scripture, then don’t use it to prove doctrine. You must support the concept of the papacy… with an appeal to the papacy.

Using Scripture to prove a truth to a Bible alone Christian is to follow Jesus’ example. When the Saducees asked Him about the woman married to seven brothers…whose wife would she be in the afterlife, Jesus had to go to the books of Moses because the Saducees believed only the Torah to be canonical. The Saducees didn’t believe in an afterlife because the Torah didn’t show this, but because they didn’t recognize the other writings, Jesus had to prove it to them within the Torah they did accept. His answer of course was brilliant. Point is, a Catholic when taking to a Protestant who believes Christian authority is the Bible alone…doesn’t leave us much choice.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

This is really for another thread. I take the line that we can’t trust the veracity of the gospels without the RCC (I’m not going to say “Church” because we mean different thing by that) to be duplicitous at best. Do you not try to prove the papacy from an appeal to Scripture - Matthew 16:18? Of course you do. But if the Church establishes Scripture, then don’t use it to prove doctrine. You must support the concept of the papacy… with an appeal to the papacy.

Using Scripture to prove a truth to a Bible alone Christian is to follow Jesus’ example. When the Saducees asked Him about the woman married to seven brothers…whose wife would she be in the afterlife, Jesus had to go to the books of Moses because the Saducees believed only the Torah to be canonical. The Saducees didn’t believe in an afterlife because the Torah didn’t show this, but because they didn’t recognize the other writings, Jesus had to prove it to them within the Torah they did accept. His answer of course was brilliant. Point is, a Catholic when talking to a Protestant who believes Christian authority is the Bible alone…doesn’t leave us much choice.

 

[JonNC]

No. Paul says “Baptism now saves you.” An outward demonstration on our part isn’t what saves.
John i understand and yes it does, however baptism itself doesn’t magically do anything to you. Whether you sprinkle or dunk baptism is a physical demonstration of what you have determined in your heart. To quote another posters bible in plain english or so “a sign”.

Does this mean you are, or are not?
If anyone thinks Jehovah’s Witnesses are not christian then they really don’t know very much about us I guess where problems start is that we don’t hold to the Trinity ‘doctrine’

Jon

.

Not magical. Not magic, but grace. It is God’s action in us. The forgiveness of sin, the receiving of the Holy Spirit.

And the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is one of THE identifying doctrines of the Christian faith.
That said, it isn’t my place to tell you whether or not you can consider yourself Christian.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

But that’s not an argument, it’s assertion. The JWs would say that Rome got it wrong, and Catholicism is unrecognizable from the first century church (if nothing else, I agree with them on that), which JWs are restoring. They believe that only their religion represents true Christianity which is guided by God. The Society is to be trusted as “God’s organization” - you make the same claim for the infallible magisterium. So far you are equal.

JW adherents are told to have “complete confidence” in the leadership, and avoid skepticism about what is taught in the Watch Tower Society’s literature. And Catholics must submit intellect and will to Rome - obsequium religiosum. Again, equal.

Sure JWs has been criticized for being totalitarian, and that it suppresses free thought (but then again, Rome is nothing if not totalitarian), and Watch Tower Society publications state that “consensus of faith” - a euphemism for unquestioning obedience - aids unity. Unity is front and center in Catholic minds too.

Pacloc said they’d make good Catholics. The reverse must also be true.

God bless,
Stephen

If the bold words are true, then evidently the same holds for any Protestant church. If anything, Protestants resemble the vast array of all the unorthodox sects. Not one Protestant church is recognizable in the first century.
Second, absolutely insane to compare the JW organization with the teaching authority of the church, founded by Christ. Third, the notion held by so many Protestants as if Jesus founded a loose-knit church or “figure-it-out” ourselves is absurd.

 

[Nicea325]

This is really for another thread. I take the line that we can’t trust the veracity of the gospels without the RCC (I’m not going to say “Church” because we mean different thing by that) to be duplicitous at best. Do you not try to prove the papacy from an appeal to Scripture - Matthew 16:18? Of course you do. But if the Church establishes Scripture, then don’t use it to prove doctrine. You must support the concept of the papacy… with an appeal to the papacy.

Nope! Not by Scripture alone! Church Fathers already mention and confirm Rome’s Primacy long before any Scripture was officially considered canonical. Jesus left a Church HeartFoam, not a neatly organized Bible. Tell me, how did any Christian have an understanding of the papacy let us say in the year 200 AD? By quoting Matthew 16:18? Of course they didn’t! If they did, which Bible was being used?

 

[ajcstr]

This is really for another thread. I take the line that we can’t trust the veracity of the gospels without the RCC (I’m not going to say “Church” because we mean different thing by that) to be duplicitous at best. Do you not try to prove the papacy from an appeal to Scripture - Matthew 16:18? Of course you do. But if the Church establishes Scripture, then don’t use it to prove doctrine. You must support the concept of the papacy… with an appeal to the papacy.

I would add that just because we say not by scripture alone DOES NOT mean we can’t appeal to scripture. That would imply we are saying “by tradition alone” which would be a misrepresentation of Catholicism. The two (scripture/sacred tradition) must be hand in hand.