Catholic or Protestant...?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MikeLovesGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MikeLovesGod

Guest
Hey everybody! Im new to this forum. I am in much need of help! I was born and raised Catholic and i have recently been having bible study with a girl who believes in sola scriptura. Im trying really really hard to defend my faith and she keeps bringing up the fact that there is no “apostolic succession” and she wants proof of it. Also, she points out that no where in the New Testament does it say Peter is the first pope and no where does it give the pope authority over the Church. I try to tell her that the Church draws its conclusions from Sacred Scripture AND Tradition (please correct me if im wrong)…and she says “what tradition? where is it?”…:confused:

i have a book my uncle gave me “Beginning Apologetics 1” and it tells how the Catholic Church put the Bible together and if it wasn’t for the Church then protestants wouldnt even have a bible. (:eek: she wasnt happy when i told her that!)

I know this is alot of information but if anyone can please help me on any of these issues i would GREATLY appreciate it!! Thanks and God Bless 🙂
 
I’d start by asking her to show you where the Bible says that the Bible is the sole source of revealed truth. Other replies will no doubt direct you to passages where the Bible itself says otherwise.

You might want to point out that the Church precedes the New Testament-- The Church does not come from the Bible; the Bible comes from the Church.

I’m pressed for time but I’m sure you will receive a wealth of authoritative responses.

JSA+
 
Get the book “Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words” by Rod Bennett. It’s a great book on the first couple hundred years of Christianity using primary sources and demonstrates how the early Church really was Catholic. She should read it too.
 
Hey everybody! Im new to this forum. I am in much need of help! I was born and raised Catholic and i have recently been having bible study with a girl who believes in sola scriptura. Im trying really really hard to defend my faith and she keeps bringing up the fact that there is no “apostolic succession” and she wants proof of it. Also, she points out that no where in the New Testament does it say Peter is the first pope and no where does it give the pope authority over the Church. I try to tell her that the Church draws its conclusions from Sacred Scripture AND Tradition (please correct me if im wrong)…and she says “what tradition? where is it?”…:confused:

i have a book my uncle gave me “Beginning Apologetics 1” and it tells how the Catholic Church put the Bible together and if it wasn’t for the Church then protestants wouldnt even have a bible. (:eek: she wasnt happy when i told her that!)

I know this is alot of information but if anyone can please help me on any of these issues i would GREATLY appreciate it!! Thanks and God Bless 🙂
Hi Mike,

I don’t have much time to give you a detailed answer on everything with quoted verses, etc, I’m sure other people will, but I wanted to give you something. Check out the mp3’s on John Martignoni’s website. They are free to download, I listen to them in the car. He has one on Apostolic Authority and the Pope, and another on Sola Scriptura. Those are probably the ones you want to start out with. He gives excellence defenses from the Bible.

biblechristiansociety.com/download

In regards to the Catholic Church giving the world the Bible, you are absolutely correct. It’s a solid historical argument that can’t be denied. To take your argument on Tradition a bit further, you can tell her that as a Protestant, she already accepts Catholic Tradition, since the Bible is a product of Tradition. More specifically, the Canon of Scripture (the books that went into the Bible). The Bible doesn’t have a table of contents, it was decided by the Bishops, and is part of our Sacred Tradition. Paragraph 120 of the Catechism says:
It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books
The Bishop’s of the Council’s of Rome, Carthage and Hippo looked to what the Bishop’s of the different existing city church’s currently and historically accepted as their canon.
 
wow thank you all for the quick responses 👍

this forum is awesome im going to start coming here more often 🙂
 
Here is some information I put together on the Primacy of Peter. It will take several posts and due to lack of time tonight this is the only one I will be able to answer, hope it helps

It should be noted that when I compiled this list I wasn’t looking for an all inclusive list. I am not a biblical scholar and list is by no means exhaustive. Peter’s name is mentioned more than any other Apostle, his name is mentioned 195 times, John who is second on the list is mentioned 29 times. When you read these, ask yourself, “Is there a reason Peter is almost always mentioned first? Is there a reason it often says Peter and the disciples? Is there a reason that Peter speaks for the other Apostles?” Also notice at the most important events when it is usually three Apostles accompanying Jesus, Peter is always there and speaks for the group. Nothing is in the Bible by accident, there is a reason for it – and I believe the reason for this is to show that Peter was chosen by Jesus Christ as the leader of the Apostles, to be the first leader who had successors. Why didn’t they just come out and say it? In my mind it is because no one thought that they needed to spell it out – everyone knew and accepted it. It wasn’t until 1517 that it became an “issue.”

I will try to give an analogy for this. It may not be the best or most appropriate analogy, but I think it will get the idea across. A sports writer in 2007 is writing about the Green Bay Packers, maybe he is writing about a recent game. He would write about how Bret Favre led his team down the field several times, how he orchestrated many drives and played well. Bret Favre would be mentioned more than any other player in the write-up. The writer wouldn’t think to give background on what the quarterback position is because he is working from a frame of reference that everyone knows who Bret Favre is and what the position he plays entails. He wouldn’t go into detail how as quarterback he is the leader of the offense. And because of that position (being a quarterback) he has the authority to call the plays, audible at the line of scrimmage, etc. No, the writer would just say Bret Favre did this and that. Now fast forward 2000 years. Do you think anyone reading that article would know that Favre was the quarterback and because he was quarterback he was the leader of the team? Not without consulting writings from outside sources. But, from the writing the reader could implicitly gain an understanding that Bret Favre was the leader of the team.

I think that it is very similar with the Bible. It implicitly shows us that Peter was special, that he was the leader of the Apostles. In my mind some of it is even explicit in demonstrating the primacy of Peter. The early Church Fathers are one of the outside sources that we consult to fill in the blanks for the Bible. But to understand this one must read with eyes that can see, with a heart that is open to the truth, not hardened by things the reader has been told about the Catholic Church that are based on prejudice and untruths. Read this with an open mind and a prayerful heart, if you do, I think that you will see Peter in a light much different than you have ever seen him before. Peter with all of his faults and human failings was chosen to lead Christ’s Church on earth.

**Matthew: Chapter 14:25-32 **- Peter is the only Apostle to walk on water
**Matthew: Chapter 15:15 **This is just on example of many where Peter is the spokesperson for the group
**Matthew: Chapter 16:13-19 **Peter is given authority
Matthew: Chapter 17:1-5 Peter mentioned first and is the only Apostle to speak
**Matthew: Chapter 26:36-37 **Peter mentioned first
**Mark: Chapter 3:14-19 **When listing the 12, Peter mentioned first and Judas mentioned last – I’m sure why Mark named Judas last. And it is surely logical to assume that if there was a very good reason Judas was named last, then there must have been an equally valid reason for Peter to be named firs)
**Mark: Chapter 5:36-37 **Once again Peter mentioned first
**Mark: Chapter 8:27-29 **Peter speaks for the group
**Mark: Chapter 9:2-3 **Peter mentioned first
Mark: Chapter 16:6-7 Peter mentioned separately from the others – importance of ensuring Peter knows
**Luke: Chapter 6:13-16 **When listing the 12, Peter mentioned first and Judas mentioned last – just as in Mark
**Luke: Chapter 9:18-20 **Peter replies for the group
**Luke: Chapter 9:28-30 **Peter mentioned first
Luke: Chapter 22:7-8 Peter mentioned first
**Luke: Chapter 22:31-32 **Only Peter mentioned –told he will have to strengthen his brothers
**Luke: Chapter 24:12-13 **Only Peter mentioned
**Luke: Chapter 24:34 **Who did the Lord appeared to?
 
part 2

**John: Chapter 1:42 **Changing someone’s name has great meaning in the Bible. In the Old Testament when God changed someone’s name it meant that they were being set apart for a special purpose, see note from Matthew
John: Chapter 20:1-7 Tomb not entered until Peter got there
**John: Chapter 21:15-17 **It is Peter who is told to feed and tend Jesus’ sheep – there is nothing clearer than this that says Peter was given the task of taking Jesus’ place as his steward to look over Jesus’ flock in his absence Peter is told to be the visible head of the Church on earth while Jesus is the invisible head in heaven.
**Acts: Chapter 1:13-26 **Peter mentioned first, Peter the one who got up to speak, what about Matthias being “counted with” the eleven, shouldn’t he have been part of the twelve? Peter is already set apart in importance from the rest of the Apostles. This also shows that there was going to be Apostolic succession.
**Acts: Chapter 2 :14 **Peter and the eleven – Peter is set apart from the group to show his importance
**Acts: Chapter 3:1-7 **Peter first Apostle to perform miracle after Resurrection
**Acts: Chapter 3:12 **It was Peter who addressed the people
Acts: Chapter 4:8 It was Peter who was filled with the Holy Spirit and addressed them
**Acts: Chapter 5:3-10 **Peter is speaking and acting as the head of the Apostles?
**Acts: Chapter 5:29 **Peter mentioned separate from the other Apostles – signifying his importance
**Acts: Chapter 8:20-21 **Peter excommunicates
Acts: Chapter 11:1-18 Peter first Apostle to accept the Gentiles
**Acts: Chapter 15:19-21 **Peter gives first dogmatic decision
Galatians: Chapter 1:18-19 Paul could have gone to any of the Apostles, but he went to Peter

Jesus knew he would be leaving, he would be the invisible head of the Church in Heaven, and Peter would become the visible head on earth. By giving Peter the keys and the power to bind and loose, Jesus did just that.

The concept of the office of steward is not new nor was it unusual in ancient times. When the steward was appointed he was given the “keys” to the kingdom to rule with the authority of the king, as you will see, the steward “was over the household.”

Isaiah
22:21 and I will cloth him with your robe, and strengthen him with your belt, and I will commit your government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 The key of the house of David will I lay on his shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a throne of glory to his father’s house.

Note:
  1. “and he shall be a father” – we refer to the Pope as the “Holy Father”, Just as Eliakim holds the office of steward for Hezekiah the Pope does the same for Jesus.
  2. ***Compare Isaiah 22:22 to Matthew 16:18-19, notice the similarity.
36:3 Then came forth to him Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, the son of Asaph, the recorder.

37:1 It happened, when king Hezekiah heard it, that he tore his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of Yahweh. 37:2 He sent Eliakim, who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the elders of the priests, covered with sackcloth, to Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz.

1Kings
4:6 and Ahishar was over the household; and Adoniram the son of Abda was over the men subject to forced labor.

18:3 Ahab called Obadiah, who was over the household.

2Chronicals
26:21 Uzziah the king was a leper to the day of his death, and lived in a separate house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of Yahweh: and Jotham his son was over the king’s house, judging the people of the land.

“Over the household” was a term used to denote that the person was given special authority and is in charge of all of the domestic affairs of the King. The person is the steward of the King’s realm.

The concept of steward was in use throughout the ancient world, it was used in Assyria, Persia, Egypt, as well as Israel and Judah. We can go all the way back to Genesis and Joseph who was given authority over all of Egypt by Pharaoh.

Genesis
41:40 You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only with regard to my throne will I be greater than you.
 
part 3

It is important to remember that the steward was an official governmental office in the ancient kingdoms. When the steward died, the office didn’t just abruptly end, a new steward was appointed to carry on the duties of the office – not the duties of the person. The same is true for Peter and the other Apostles. All of the Apostles were Bishops and the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and since he was the “steward” appointed by Jesus, all of Peter’s successors, the Bishops of Rome, have held the position of steward (Pope), as they do even today, 2000 years after Jesus appointed Peter.

The power to bind and loose. This is a very Rabbinic concept, and first century Jews would have known exactly what Jesus meant when he said it. The religious authority/hierarchy was well structured in first century Israel, and as such, the terms bind and loose represented well known and often used terms for legislative and judicial powers of the Rabbis. By specifying who had the power to lose and bind, Jesus ensured that there would be no disagreements over who actually had the real authority to administrate over His Church on earth and who did not.

Revelation
3:7 Write to the angel of the church in Philadelphia and say, "Here is the message of the holy and true one who has the key of David, so that when he opens, no one will close, and when he closes, no one will open:

In the Book of Revelation, John is told to write to the Church in Philadelphia and say “the one who has the Key of David” …… These keys belong to Jesus, the keys are a sign of his authority and Jesus bestowed these keys upon Peter to place him “over the household”, the visible Church on earth, and because of this, Peter has been given the authority to rule in Jesus’ stead as steward. Jesus did not give his authority away, he still has it, and always will, but the Pope acts as the steward with all of the authority and responsibility that the office has, and will rule Jesus’ earthly Church until He comes in glory at the second coming.

The following quotes from the early Church Fathers is also not exhaustive. There are hundreds if not thousands of quotes that could have been used, but I think these will suffice to demonstrate that the early Church accepted and did not question the Primacy of Peter, Apostolic Succession, and Papal Authority.

“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1, 59:1 (c. A.D. 96). The “us” refers to the Church at Rome

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

“For, since ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, ye may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as ye indeed do, so without the bishop ye should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all. For they are not ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They are bound, therefore, to avoid all grounds of accusation [against them], as they would do fire.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians, 2 (c. A.D. 110).

“And do ye also reverence your bishop as Christ Himself, according as the blessed apostles have enjoined you. He that is within the altar is pure, wherefore also he is obedient to the bishop and presbyters: but he that is without is one that does anything apart from the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons. … And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as the holy Stephen did to the blessed James, Timothy and Linus to Paul, Anencletus and Clement to Peter? He, therefore, that will not yield obedience to such, must needs be one utterly without God, an impious man who despises Christ, and depreciates His appointments.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Trallians, 7 (c. A. D. 110)

“Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate…” Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192).
 
part 4

“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,–a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. …To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine…Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.” Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 33 (A.D. 200).

“Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven…’” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

“By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.” Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235).

“Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: ‘I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.” Cyprian, To the Lapsed, 1 (A.D. 250).

“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.” St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter to all His People (251 A.D.)

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

“’…thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ … It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness…If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).

“…folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid…” Firmilian, Epistle To Cyprian, Epistle 75(74):17(A.D. 256).

“Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid…Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter.” Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

Stillkickin 👍
 
Check out the mp3’s on John Martignoni’s website. They are free to download, I listen to them in the car. He has one on Apostolic Authority and the Pope, and another on Sola Scriptura. Those are probably the ones you want to start out with. He gives excellence defenses from the Bible.

biblechristiansociety.com/download
i have only listened to about 20 minutes of the first one and it is AWESOME. thank you so much! i plan on downloading and listening to all these MP3’s.

anyone who is reading this check out this site…

biblechristiansociety.com/download

its good stuff 👍
 
I also didn’t take time to talk about the laying of hands in the bible which was how authority was often transferred, how tradition is spoken of by Paul, etc.

If you want some realy god mp3’s to listen to go to the Knights of Columbus website to their Catholic Information section and they are free to download. I will try to paste a link for you. It is caled the Luke E. Heart Series - I heartily recommend it!

kofc.org/un/eb/en/publications/cis/podcasts/hart/index.html
 
Hey everybody! Im new to this forum. I am in much need of help! I was born and raised Catholic and i have recently been having bible study with a girl who believes in sola scriptura. Im trying really really hard to defend my faith and she keeps bringing up the fact that there is no “apostolic succession” and she wants proof of it. Also, she points out that no where in the New Testament does it say Peter is the first pope and no where does it give the pope authority over the Church. I try to tell her that the Church draws its conclusions from Sacred Scripture AND Tradition (please correct me if im wrong)…and she says “what tradition? where is it?”…:confused:

i have a book my uncle gave me “Beginning Apologetics 1” and it tells how the Catholic Church put the Bible together and if it wasn’t for the Church then protestants wouldnt even have a bible. (:eek: she wasnt happy when i told her that!)

I know this is alot of information but if anyone can please help me on any of these issues i would GREATLY appreciate it!! Thanks and God Bless 🙂
Well if she is into sola scriptura she should be willing to hold to the tradition of the Church because the scriptures clearly says,

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.[2Thesalonians2;15]

If she can’t accept the tradition of the Church she is caught in a little predicament of not accepting the scriptures. The scriptures affirm the tradition of the Church which has been handed down by word of mouth and by epistle. To be anti tradition is to be anti-scripture.
 
Funny thing is that there’s no “Sola Scriptura” in the Bible. How can protestants explain it? I’ve never heard any satisfying answer and I don’t think I ever will.
If protestants say that God’s message for people is only in the Bible, it means they are limiting God’s freedom and they believe that God had nothing to say to us during last almost 2000 years. That’s a completely wrong idea. If God wants to tell us something, he will and any protestant dogmas won’t refrain him from doing it. There were (and still are) many apparitions like the ones in Fatima or Lourdes and they indeed are not in the Bible:)
In the charismatic renewal there is a gift of prophesying and words that we receive are definitely not only from the Scripture, but obviously in accordance with the Scripture (there may happen false proprecies but that’s a different story). God bless!
 
You need to go right to the core of her convictions, which is the bible. Why is the bible the written word of God but the Koran or Book of Mormon isn’t? If the Church is capable of being wrong then it is capable of being wrong in determining the books of scripture, especially the New Testament. So get her to prove to you, without calling on the authority of the Church, that every book in the bible is inspired by God.
 
You need to go right to the core of her convictions, which is the bible. Why is the bible the written word of God but the Koran or Book of Mormon isn’t? If the Church is capable of being wrong then it is capable of being wrong in determining the books of scripture, especially the New Testament. So get her to prove to you, without calling on the authority of the Church, that every book in the bible is inspired by God.
EXCELLENT point you’ve got there.
 
thanks everyone for your replies i appreciate it. I think i have more than enough material to dig into now…and try to teach her, as well as learn a few things myself…thanks =]
 
Paul’s letters to Timothy describe Apostolic succession pretty well. Here’s a partial cut-and-paste from scripturecatholic.com (scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html) on the topic…
1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word “episcopoi” (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul’s use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.

1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.

2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.

2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.

2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.
 
I’d start by asking her to show you where the Bible says that the Bible is the sole source of revealed truth. Other replies will no doubt direct you to passages where the Bible itself says otherwise.
This is pure nonsense. What if Adam and Eve tried to excuse their first sinful deed by telling God that they were not aware that God’s own words to them are the only source of revealed truth, and that they had no reason to suspect that the words of the serpent were any less truthful and authoritative than that of God? How would God respond to such nonsense? The day Adam and Eve decided that the serpent was just as trustworthy as God–or even more trustworthy than God, was the worst day in the entire history of mankind. It is a pity that millions of people will still ignore this clear lesson from history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top