M
mattp0625
Guest
Irenaeus of Lyon, 180 AD, clearly states that Peter handed the keys to Linus in Rome
Did any early church fathers say that the keys were given to Peter successors?
- Thread starter Guest1
- Start date
- Status
T
tgGodsway
Guest
My goodness, the passage you chose has more to say than what you have said. There is no indication from Acts 1 that, Peter was acting as the head of the Church. He was among his peers, the brothers of Jesus, Mary the mother of Jesus, and, other women.
And on that day when he stood to speak, there were 120 believers around. The fact that he stood up does not infer any special authority over them. Peter acted appropriately as an apostle and he did suggest two candidates to take Judas’ place. But there is no indication or evidence from the inspired scripture that Peter was acting as the vicar of Christ as a pope.
Secondly, did you notice the requirements for becoming a successor to the apostles? as you call it…
A successor must be “… one who accompanied us beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us,” in fulfillment of (Num. 27; Deut. 31:2; 1Sam. 18:13) he must be "a witness to His resurrection.: Acts 1:21,22
This unique experience was never to be repeated anywhere in scripture. And thus the Apostle’s authority and special place as founders of the Church was sealed until that great and awesome day of His coming.
What modern day successor is one who meets these two biblical requirements? (1) walked with Jesus since the baptism of John (2) An eyewitness to the resurrection.
And on that day when he stood to speak, there were 120 believers around. The fact that he stood up does not infer any special authority over them. Peter acted appropriately as an apostle and he did suggest two candidates to take Judas’ place. But there is no indication or evidence from the inspired scripture that Peter was acting as the vicar of Christ as a pope.
Secondly, did you notice the requirements for becoming a successor to the apostles? as you call it…
A successor must be “… one who accompanied us beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us,” in fulfillment of (Num. 27; Deut. 31:2; 1Sam. 18:13) he must be "a witness to His resurrection.: Acts 1:21,22
This unique experience was never to be repeated anywhere in scripture. And thus the Apostle’s authority and special place as founders of the Church was sealed until that great and awesome day of His coming.
What modern day successor is one who meets these two biblical requirements? (1) walked with Jesus since the baptism of John (2) An eyewitness to the resurrection.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Your line of reasoning is difficult. It is ridiculous to connect theological dots all by themselves in one passage without concrete deductions rooted in the entire biblical narrative not just one verse.
The fact that Jesus listed Peter first on his list of apostles can only be taken at face value. Why expect any such conclusion? Was there a special message and call in the fact that Peter was listed first? If there was, other witnesses would surely need to confirm this. Otherwise you have simply read your bias into the passage. This way of interpreting scripture is a blunder all by itself.
Secondly, the twelve apostles were given the assignment to duplicate themselves. “Go and make (students) of all nations…”
The fact that the office of apostle is listed in Church government (Eph. 5) as a viable function of ministry beyond the special ministry of the original 12, is telling. The original 12 were the eye witnesses to the resurrection and cannot be duplicated or succeeded unless there are others who can testify to the resurrection and validate any claim to have walked with Jesus when He was on the earth. see Acts 1
But the office of (post) -apostle (not original 12) shows that to reach the entire world requires multiplication of those “sent out”=apostles, into the public with the message of God’s kingdom.
In addition to Apostle, is Prophet, Evangelist, Pastors (local pastors) and Teachers. These are the highest biblical offices given to the body of Christ to function around the world. see Eph. 4:11. but it goes even further.
Acts 1:8 tells us that all of the 120 believers were given authority to be witnesses around the world, not just the apostolic leadership of the 1st. century Church. This is clearly a call to everyone, not just a few.
The fact that Jesus listed Peter first on his list of apostles can only be taken at face value. Why expect any such conclusion? Was there a special message and call in the fact that Peter was listed first? If there was, other witnesses would surely need to confirm this. Otherwise you have simply read your bias into the passage. This way of interpreting scripture is a blunder all by itself.
Secondly, the twelve apostles were given the assignment to duplicate themselves. “Go and make (students) of all nations…”
The fact that the office of apostle is listed in Church government (Eph. 5) as a viable function of ministry beyond the special ministry of the original 12, is telling. The original 12 were the eye witnesses to the resurrection and cannot be duplicated or succeeded unless there are others who can testify to the resurrection and validate any claim to have walked with Jesus when He was on the earth. see Acts 1
But the office of (post) -apostle (not original 12) shows that to reach the entire world requires multiplication of those “sent out”=apostles, into the public with the message of God’s kingdom.
In addition to Apostle, is Prophet, Evangelist, Pastors (local pastors) and Teachers. These are the highest biblical offices given to the body of Christ to function around the world. see Eph. 4:11. but it goes even further.
Acts 1:8 tells us that all of the 120 believers were given authority to be witnesses around the world, not just the apostolic leadership of the 1st. century Church. This is clearly a call to everyone, not just a few.
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Peter was in Jerusalem around the time Paul wrote the Galatian church. Rome tells us during this time Peter was already the pope in Rome. As a result of Paul coming to Jerusalem, Peter and Paul spent 15 days in fellowship together, according to Gal. 1:18
When Paul was explaining to the Galatian Church all God had done and about the Jewish spies who came in to spy out his freedom in Christ, He did not “yield submission even for an hour.” (2:5) But then Paul said, “… but when they (the Judaizes) SAW that the gospel for the uncircumcised (Gentiles) had been committed to me, (Paul,) as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter, v8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised, also worked effectively in me (Paul) toward the gentiles.”)
He goes on… “and when James, Cephas, and John who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentles and THEY TO THE CIRCUMCISED.” 2;9
The fact that Peter needed a revelation how God approved the gentiles too, does not mean that he was called to them. The fact that he had dealings with them in these specific matters does not automatically connect the dots that Peter was called to the Gentiles when the Holy Spirit (confirmed through holy scripture) obviously called him to the Jews.
But again, the contradiction comes to play when we here that Rome had already made Peter a Bishop to the gentiles at the very time scripture said that James, Cephas, and John, were called to the circumcised.
Who should we believe, tradition or holy scripture?
When Paul was explaining to the Galatian Church all God had done and about the Jewish spies who came in to spy out his freedom in Christ, He did not “yield submission even for an hour.” (2:5) But then Paul said, “… but when they (the Judaizes) SAW that the gospel for the uncircumcised (Gentiles) had been committed to me, (Paul,) as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter, v8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised, also worked effectively in me (Paul) toward the gentiles.”)
He goes on… “and when James, Cephas, and John who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentles and THEY TO THE CIRCUMCISED.” 2;9
The fact that Peter needed a revelation how God approved the gentiles too, does not mean that he was called to them. The fact that he had dealings with them in these specific matters does not automatically connect the dots that Peter was called to the Gentiles when the Holy Spirit (confirmed through holy scripture) obviously called him to the Jews.
But again, the contradiction comes to play when we here that Rome had already made Peter a Bishop to the gentiles at the very time scripture said that James, Cephas, and John, were called to the circumcised.
Who should we believe, tradition or holy scripture?
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Inspired scripture tell us Peter, James and John “who seemed to be pillars” were called to the circumcised Jews. see Gal. 2:8,9 Tradition was wrong and pope Clement 1 was wrong. Scripture is always right because it is infallible and profitable for correction… "
T
tgGodsway
Guest
The reason why you didn’t directly answer my post was because you cannot argue with it. You know that any voice that contradicts the word of God is false doctrine. Trying to spin and change the subject only delays the inevitable realization that scripture is God breathed and we should pay attention to it’s claims above any and all other voices.
S
spina1953
Guest
tgGodsway, Yes it true Peter along with John and James were in Jerusalem, but I’m sue there is nothing to be found in Acts that says Peter was already in Rome and called Pope. The reason being is the timeline. Peter may have been in Antioch during that time, otherwise how would have Paul know Peter was in Jerusalem? its only in Chapter 9 of Acts that we start to hear about Saul and his conversion and became Paul. and then he went to Jerusalem to explain to the Apostles after Barnabas took Paul to see them and after being accepted was sent off to Caesarea then to Tarsus. meanwhile it was Peter’s vision of Cornelius where Peter says this: Acts:10:28…"You must know that it is not proper for a Jew to associate with a gentile or to have dealings with him. But God has made it clear to me that no one should call any man unclean or impure. This is divine direction given to Peter showing that Peter is first to to the gentiles not Paul. This not to say Paul was not called to the Gentiles, but when Paul first began to preach after his conversion it was to the Jews first. Paul admits that he preached first to the Jews in the Synagogues before preaching to the Gentiles when the Jews refused to listen to Paul’s preachings.
in Galatians Paul does talk about the Judaizers who were undermining Paul’s preaching. But then it seems everywhere paul went Converted Pharisees (Judaizers) as well as Jews tried to silence Paul running him out of town etc. True, Paul says he is for the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews, but that was due to the fact that all the Apostles were preaching to the Jews and not to the Gentiles it was not till Peter’s vision and the baptizing of Cornelius’s family that it became known to the Apostles that Gentiles could be baptized and become Believers in Christ Jesus. This why they sent Paul off to preach to gentiles though paul himself said he preached first to the Jews and when they rejected his preaching went to the Gentiles.
The reason peter was given the vision concerning the gentiles to make it known through Peter that all of the Apostles were called to preach the Good News to everyone regardless of whether or not they were Jews or Gentiles. Your suggestion that Peter was in Rome and Bishop to the Gentiles when Rome in fact had a large population of Jews shows you are just speculating . Why would Rome make Peter Bishop of Rome? That makes no sense since Peter was and is an Apostle and therefor had no need of Rome to make him an Bishop. By virtue of his authority Peter can be Bishop of Rome as well as head of the early Church.
One thing more all of the Apostles at some point preached to non Jews. so your literal interpretations are suspect.
in Galatians Paul does talk about the Judaizers who were undermining Paul’s preaching. But then it seems everywhere paul went Converted Pharisees (Judaizers) as well as Jews tried to silence Paul running him out of town etc. True, Paul says he is for the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews, but that was due to the fact that all the Apostles were preaching to the Jews and not to the Gentiles it was not till Peter’s vision and the baptizing of Cornelius’s family that it became known to the Apostles that Gentiles could be baptized and become Believers in Christ Jesus. This why they sent Paul off to preach to gentiles though paul himself said he preached first to the Jews and when they rejected his preaching went to the Gentiles.
The reason peter was given the vision concerning the gentiles to make it known through Peter that all of the Apostles were called to preach the Good News to everyone regardless of whether or not they were Jews or Gentiles. Your suggestion that Peter was in Rome and Bishop to the Gentiles when Rome in fact had a large population of Jews shows you are just speculating . Why would Rome make Peter Bishop of Rome? That makes no sense since Peter was and is an Apostle and therefor had no need of Rome to make him an Bishop. By virtue of his authority Peter can be Bishop of Rome as well as head of the early Church.
One thing more all of the Apostles at some point preached to non Jews. so your literal interpretations are suspect.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
YOU SAID: This is divine direction given to Peter showing that Peter is first to to the gentiles not Paul. This not to say Paul was not called to the Gentiles, but when Paul first began to preach after his conversion it was to the Jews first.
THE FACT THAT PETER NOW REALIZED THAT UNCLEAN GENTILES WERE NOW ACTUALLY CLEAN BECAUSE OF CHRIST, WAS A NECESSARY LESSON ABOUT THE GRACE OF GOD. BUT IT IS A STRETCH TO SAY MORE THAN THAT.
TO SAY THAT PETER IS NOW BEING REDIRECTED TO ANSWER A CALL TO THE GENTILES, IS SIMPLY A MESSAGE NOT FOUND IN THE NARRATIVE.
IF YOU CAN FIND A DIRECT CALL TO THE OFFICE IF BISHOP FOR THE GENTILES, I WILL LISTEN. OTHERWISE THE LAST WORD GIVEN BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD WAS A CALL TO THE JEWS. THIS INSPIRED WORD WAS AND IS THE ONLY GOD BREATHED WORD ABOUT PETER’S CALL.
THE FACT THAT PETER NOW REALIZED THAT UNCLEAN GENTILES WERE NOW ACTUALLY CLEAN BECAUSE OF CHRIST, WAS A NECESSARY LESSON ABOUT THE GRACE OF GOD. BUT IT IS A STRETCH TO SAY MORE THAN THAT.
TO SAY THAT PETER IS NOW BEING REDIRECTED TO ANSWER A CALL TO THE GENTILES, IS SIMPLY A MESSAGE NOT FOUND IN THE NARRATIVE.
IF YOU CAN FIND A DIRECT CALL TO THE OFFICE IF BISHOP FOR THE GENTILES, I WILL LISTEN. OTHERWISE THE LAST WORD GIVEN BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD WAS A CALL TO THE JEWS. THIS INSPIRED WORD WAS AND IS THE ONLY GOD BREATHED WORD ABOUT PETER’S CALL.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
This is exactly why I replied with what I did to your post. Because if Sola Scriptura is un-scriptural, then it itself would be a false doctrine for contradicting the Word of God. It’s a self-defeating construct.
So once again I ask that, if you can, to please furnish for me a Scripture passage other than 2 Timothy 3:16 which validates the “Sola Scriptura” position - excluding the three negative passages about “paradosis” for the reasons I already mentioned.
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
I cannot think of a scripture that says what you ask. But I did give you a concept of how God’s revelation has a finish line and the fact that Jude said it was “once” delivered to the saints.
If God is still speaking today , via, vicar of Christ or anyone who says, “Thus said the Lord,” the voice must have checks and balances to determine it’s origin. Any word claiming divine origin is going to be subjective. yet scripture is historically objective because we place our faith in the testimony of eye witnesses to the historical record and the foundational truths of Christianity. But even that must be received by faith.
If you want to believe God uses voices today outside of the frame-work given to us by the Holy Spirit, because God is still speaking “revelation,” you can do that. I don’t buy it.
Remember, Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, had a subjective revelation. Jehovah’s witnesses re-wrote the bible and gave us their subjective revelation. Where were the checks and balances? Where were those who were eye witnesses to the resurrection? They cannot produce them.
If God is still speaking today , via, vicar of Christ or anyone who says, “Thus said the Lord,” the voice must have checks and balances to determine it’s origin. Any word claiming divine origin is going to be subjective. yet scripture is historically objective because we place our faith in the testimony of eye witnesses to the historical record and the foundational truths of Christianity. But even that must be received by faith.
If you want to believe God uses voices today outside of the frame-work given to us by the Holy Spirit, because God is still speaking “revelation,” you can do that. I don’t buy it.
Remember, Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, had a subjective revelation. Jehovah’s witnesses re-wrote the bible and gave us their subjective revelation. Where were the checks and balances? Where were those who were eye witnesses to the resurrection? They cannot produce them.
G
Gorgias
Guest
So… among 120 people, including all the apostles, it’s Peter who stands up and speaks, but that doesn’t say anything special to you? And, not only does he get up, he straight up tells them (not asks them, or tries to convince them, but just plain directs them) that it’s necessary to reconstitute the twelve apostles.
And, without discussion or debate or deliberation… they simply do it. If that’s not the sign of leadership in action, I don’t know what is.
Hmm… you might want to re-read the passage; it seems that you aren’t as familiar with it as you might think you are. (Peter didn’t suggest the candidates: he let the others do that. Peter’s role was leadership: he made the call, set the plan in action, and was at the helm.)
Perhaps you can tell me: in your opinion, what would an example of acting like “the vicar of Christ” be like, in Scripture? What would – if it were present – be sufficient for you?
Good point!
In other words, in order to be one of the twelve, that was the requirement.
And I’m sure you have something to back that assertion up? Cause otherwise, we can just assume that it’s your personal opinion.
Let me make sure I’m understanding what you’re claiming: Jesus founded His Church, and then wanted to make sure that it had leadership – but only about 20 years worth of leadership. After his hand-picked twelve men passed away, Jesus wanted His Church to suddenly (and forever) suffer a lack of authoritative leadership until He came again?
OK… you can back that assertion up, too, right? Let’s see it…
So, if we’re making assertions out of thin air, here’s mine: if we see in Scripture that Peter can lay down the law, out of pure personal authority, and we know that successors were named (and new leaders named, as well, as the need arose!), and we know that the apostles and their successors had the authority to make these kinds of rulings… then, since successors exist, we conclude that apostles authorized their leadership role.
S
spina1953
Guest
tgGodsway, Yes I said divine direction was given to Peter that shows Peter was first to the Gentiles not Paul, I did not say so far as i know that Paul was not called to the Gentiles only that he was not first. The understanding here is that in the beginning the Apostles were only preaching and teaching to the Jews and not Gentiles. Then Peter is given a vision concerning a Gentile one Cornelius, he goes and ends up Baptizing the whole family and also eating with them since Peter also had the vision where God tells Peter that there is no unclean food that all food is clean and good.
Now Saul who become Paul after his conversion starts preaching the Good News. He eventually goes to Jerusalem to see Peter, John and James who were scared because of what they knew about him but Barnabus introduced paul and they extend the right hand to Paul. Paul tells what he has been doing and he is preaching the Good News and its the same as the Apostles were preaching. Because of Peter’s vision concerning Gentiles the OK is given to Paul to go and also preach to the Gentiles. Paul himself said he first preached to the Jews in the synagogue’s and when rejected then preaches to the Gentiles. At some point all of the Apostles go out from Jerusalem and begin preaching to everyone Jew and Gentile alike why because of Peter’s vision.
This takes nothing away from Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. I think the passage is showing that because of Peter’s vision, God was telling Peter that the Good news is for everyone Jews and Gentiles alike, and all of the Apostles were to preach and teach everyone whether they be Jews or Gentiles. Since Paul seemed to have a better understanding of the Gentiles, He was chosen to preach to the Gentiles. No doubt Paul told Peter as well as the other Apostles what he was doing and that gentiles were responding to the Good News and wanted to be Baptized added to accepting Gentiles by the rest of the Apostles.
Luke when he wrote what is his Gospel and Acts he wrote it to Theophilus. he was not writing it for everyone but to this person named Theophilus. That is not to say it was not inspired by God, but then those that did write in what is now the New Testament by any means ever think what they wrote would be complied into a book called the Bible, it was written to communities most likely because they were not able to always be at a particular place to preach and teach in person. All of the Apostles preached and taught orally and Christ Himself never told them to write down all he did and taught. so only a few ever wrote anything that in time became a part of the New Testament. WE don’t know everything Jesus said and did nor do we know everything that the Apostles did and said only what had been written down by a few people. What was written was so one might come come to believe.
I am not sure what you mean direct call of a Bishop to the Gentiles. What is the last word by the Spirit of God was a call to the Jews was the only God breathed word about peter’s call? Not sure where you are getting that one?
Now Saul who become Paul after his conversion starts preaching the Good News. He eventually goes to Jerusalem to see Peter, John and James who were scared because of what they knew about him but Barnabus introduced paul and they extend the right hand to Paul. Paul tells what he has been doing and he is preaching the Good News and its the same as the Apostles were preaching. Because of Peter’s vision concerning Gentiles the OK is given to Paul to go and also preach to the Gentiles. Paul himself said he first preached to the Jews in the synagogue’s and when rejected then preaches to the Gentiles. At some point all of the Apostles go out from Jerusalem and begin preaching to everyone Jew and Gentile alike why because of Peter’s vision.
This takes nothing away from Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. I think the passage is showing that because of Peter’s vision, God was telling Peter that the Good news is for everyone Jews and Gentiles alike, and all of the Apostles were to preach and teach everyone whether they be Jews or Gentiles. Since Paul seemed to have a better understanding of the Gentiles, He was chosen to preach to the Gentiles. No doubt Paul told Peter as well as the other Apostles what he was doing and that gentiles were responding to the Good News and wanted to be Baptized added to accepting Gentiles by the rest of the Apostles.
Luke when he wrote what is his Gospel and Acts he wrote it to Theophilus. he was not writing it for everyone but to this person named Theophilus. That is not to say it was not inspired by God, but then those that did write in what is now the New Testament by any means ever think what they wrote would be complied into a book called the Bible, it was written to communities most likely because they were not able to always be at a particular place to preach and teach in person. All of the Apostles preached and taught orally and Christ Himself never told them to write down all he did and taught. so only a few ever wrote anything that in time became a part of the New Testament. WE don’t know everything Jesus said and did nor do we know everything that the Apostles did and said only what had been written down by a few people. What was written was so one might come come to believe.
I am not sure what you mean direct call of a Bishop to the Gentiles. What is the last word by the Spirit of God was a call to the Jews was the only God breathed word about peter’s call? Not sure where you are getting that one?
P
PJM
Guest
My friend, I assume your speaking of my post.
God Bless you,
Patrick
- Not only is Peter listed FIRST, but space permitted i CAN provide a bilbe list of 50 peter first. GOOGLE please the Early Fathers on the Primacy"
- There WERE 11 other witness’s none of whom questioned what Jesus clearly, and precisely had done.BECAUSE of the clarity and Historical Traditions of those times and THAT place
- Your 3td point is HISTORICALLY proveable and deserves to further discussion
- Loved your 5th point. Show me where the tem “bible” is in the bible and you’ll find the term POPE next to it. AGAIN: GOOGLE the Fathers on the Primacy of Rome
- Absolutely AGREE, the RCC makes NO claims that the 12 did it alone
God Bless you,
Patrick
T
tgGodsway
Guest
I don’t remember what I said to you that gets your response.
B
Bon_Croix
Guest
tGodsway:
Read the Question and then read the answer about Iraeneus.
You are quoting scripture.
Tradition holds that a Pope has been in charge of the Church since the beginning. The Church Fathers wrote likewise.
Jesus gave the keys to Peter. Period… If you know what “the keys” represent, why are you debating that Peter was not the highest authority on Earth in the Church after Resurrection/Pentecost?
Why was Peter determining for the Church basic rules, such as the ability to eat unclean foods? Peter received the vision; not Paul.
Last edited:
B
Bon_Croix
Guest
Where in Acts 1 does Jesus hand the keys to Peter?
Where in Acts 1 does Jesus hand the keys to someone other than Peter?
Where in Acts 1 does Jesus throw the keys away and declare that the Bible is going to answer every question that a Christian will ever have?
Why does Acts 1 fall in place after the Gospels?
Where in Acts 1 does Jesus hand the keys to someone other than Peter?
Where in Acts 1 does Jesus throw the keys away and declare that the Bible is going to answer every question that a Christian will ever have?
Why does Acts 1 fall in place after the Gospels?
J
jas84173
Guest
I still have issues with why that means the bishop in Rome is the head.
Peter spent most of his later ministry in Antioch. Some say he went to Rome because James was concerned Paul was only preaching to the Gentiles and feared a complete breach in Judaism and Jewish Christianity, which after Jerusalem was basically destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. did happen. James and Paul I believe had a much more hostile relationship than the Acts portrays.
Peter spent most of his later ministry in Antioch. Some say he went to Rome because James was concerned Paul was only preaching to the Gentiles and feared a complete breach in Judaism and Jewish Christianity, which after Jerusalem was basically destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. did happen. James and Paul I believe had a much more hostile relationship than the Acts portrays.
N
NICKUSAF
Guest
Saul/Paul does NOT meet these requirements.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Because the Church defines it that way? Does the Church not have the authority to do so?
M
Melchior_1
Guest
@tgGodsway - I asked you twice about furnishing Scripture to support the Sola Scriptura position, with this being my second question:
So I will ask you once again, a third time; please furnish for me a Scripture passage other than 2 Timothy 3:16 which validates the “Sola Scriptura” position - excluding the three negative passages about “paradosis” for the reasons I already mentioned.
If you cannot provide any Scriptural evidence to support Sola Scriptura, at that point you need to concede that the idea of Sola Scriptura is not Scriptural, and not Biblical - which in turn lends credence to the Catholic position.
Your reply:
Please understand that regardless of what concept you have for God’s revelation, “Scripture alone” needs to be evident in the Scriptures. Because if you cannot find it in Scripture, then it’s un-Scriptural, right? It’s a self-defeating concept.
So I will ask you once again, a third time; please furnish for me a Scripture passage other than 2 Timothy 3:16 which validates the “Sola Scriptura” position - excluding the three negative passages about “paradosis” for the reasons I already mentioned.
If you cannot provide any Scriptural evidence to support Sola Scriptura, at that point you need to concede that the idea of Sola Scriptura is not Scriptural, and not Biblical - which in turn lends credence to the Catholic position.
- Status