If there apostolic succession why is it not mentioned in the scriptures?

[justasking4]

Erich;

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Lets start with scripture. Do we agree that the scriptures are inspired-inerrant?
Erich;
Yes, we still agree that Scripture is inspired-inerrant (neither of us has changed position since post #50 or so on this thread)… but I can prove it with a spiral argument, whereas you can only “prove” it with a circular argument (i.e. you begin with the fact of inspiration and then find passages in the Bible that seem to support inspiration and then “conclude” that the Bible confirms its inspiration, which you knew all along).

Where do you get the idea i can only prove this with a circular argument? Where have i stated as much?

Erich;
As long as we’re “just asking” let me just ask why should the Bible be taken as a rule of faith at all, let alone the sole rule?

Because it alone is inspired-inerrant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Now, where is it written that Tradition or the Church is inspired?
Erich;
Where is it written that the Bible is inspired?

I take it you don’t know then with your response.

Erich;

Paul wrote in 2 Tim 3:16-17, “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

But, probably only seconds earlier, he wrote in 2 Tim 3:14-15 (emphasis mine), “But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”

Erich;
The only sacred scriptures Timothy would have known from infancy are what is today commonly referred to as the Old Testament. If you want to use 2 Tim.3:16-17 to prove that Scripture is the sole rule of faith, then 2 Tim.3:14-15 proves too much (i.e. it proves that the New Testament isn’t necessary).

How does it follow that Tim.3:14-15 proves too much (i.e. it proves that the New Testament isn’t necessary) if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the sole rule of faith?

 

[justasking4]

andzy;

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The NT is inspired-inerrant. Nothing else is. It is the foundation for all doctrine and practices because it alone is inspired-inerrant. From it we can have everything we need for salvation. It actually makes this claim as you may know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andzy
The Bible doesn’t say that.

It does not say that specifically.

andzy;
So, you agree that the Bible does not support your argument that the Scripture is the only inspired-inerrant and foundation for all doctrine and practice?
Or maybe you’re saying that the Bible doesn’ say it, but you’re implying it?

The Scriptures throughout make the claim that they are of God. The Jews of the OT recognized it,Jesus did and the apostles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
However, what does the catholic church teach about the scriptures? Do they consider them inspired-inerrant Word of God?
andzy;
Is this not a rhetorical question???

No.

 

[justasking4]

andzy

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Quote:andzy
Where does the Bible claim to be the sole infallible rule of faith for believers?
justasking4
It goes back to my previous point and what follows from that. If the scriptures truly are from God then we know they are inerrant-inspired-infallible.
andzy
This still doesn’t show the sole authority of the Scripture. Just because the Scripture is inspired by God doesn’t mean that the Tradition and the Church are not inspired by God.

It seems we agree then that the scriptures are inspired-inerrant. If that has been established then its up to you demonstrate that Tradition or the Church is also inspired. Can you do that?

 

[justasking4]

So you are now inerrant. Because YOU have never seen these verses used in this way before, we should not use them in this way, although they have been used in this way for 2,000 years, j4 comes along, and decides he never heard of it, so we shouldn’t either?

I can’t help it… My source is THE MAGESTERIUM!

Can you point to the source where the Magesterium has done this?

 

[justasking4]

po18guy

Quote:justasking4
I go to the inspired-inerrant scriptures as the final authority.
po18guy
Meaningless tripe! It means whatever you think it does.

Not so. i try very hard when i study the scriptures to understand the context, what words mean and consult scholarly works to understand it. What i don’t see for the most part on these forums is this kind study by those who defend the catholic faith.

po18guy
Why do you think Christ appointed a head? One authority to interpret. One voice, because He did not want 33,000 bickering denominations. He got them anyway.

The problem is that your authority has never interpreted the scriptures in any depth. Rome may speak with one voice buts its members i see here don’t. Many of them have their own ideas about catholic doctrines and practices.

Quote:
True biblical faith requires us to have evidence and reason for our beliefs. Jesus Himself taught this principle in a number of places.
po18guy
Yet you demand everything in print, and it’s not there. The remainder is in tradition, which you don’t have,

You claim tradition but you can’t show me specifically in many cases where this tradition is found. If its an oral tradition you are in even worse shape since you have no way to know what exactly that was in relation to the apostles.

po18guy
so all of the missing parts have been made up. OSAS. SF, SS, you name it - Band-Aids to fix broken theology.

I don’t uderstand you here. Can you clarify?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Erich;

Where do you get the idea i can only prove this with a circular argument? Where have i stated as much?

Because it alone is inspired-inerrant.

Says you infallibly

I take it you don’t know then with your response.

Just answer the question, you are not being cute here

How does it follow that Tim.3:14-15 proves too much (i.e. it proves that the New Testament isn’t necessary) if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the sole rule of faith?

1 Timothy 3:15:
15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth What is the Church???

II Timothy 3:16:
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

The New Testament wasn’t written assembled yet. Which works wer divinely inspired was determined first at Hippo 393, then Carthage 402. It is talking about the OT.

You should really bone up on your reading. These posts have actually appeared on every thread in aswer to you continued questions

 

[justasking4]

qui est ce;

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Erich;

Where do you get the idea i can only prove this with a circular argument? Where have i stated as much?
qui est ce;
Because it alone is inspired-inerrant.

This is the result of much study on the issue. To claim that something is inspired-inerrant is not a circular argument if there are a number of facts and arguments to back it up.

qui est ce;
Says you infallibly

Never claimed that. Are you infallible when you claim you are right and others are wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4

I take it you don’t know then with your response.
qui est ce;
Just answer the question, you are not being cute here

Not being cute but your repsonse did not deal with the issue. if you want to restate perhaps i can answer it in a way that you will understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
How does it follow that Tim.3:14-15 proves too much (i.e. it proves that the New Testament isn’t necessary) if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the sole rule of faith?

1 Timothy 3:15:
15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth What is the Church???

II Timothy 3:16:
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
qui est ce;
The New Testament wasn’t written assembled yet. Which works wer divinely inspired was determined first at Hippo 393, then Carthage 402. It is talking about the OT.

Not so. Peter in 2 Peter 3:16-17 alludes that Paul’ letters are scripture. Also even if the writers were unaware that what they were writing was not scripture would not change the fact that it was scriptures. Scripture being inspired-inerrant does not depend on the one writing it. It is God who inspires, not men.

You should really bone up on your reading. These posts have actually appeared on every thread in aswer to you continued questions

The problem is that so many of the reponses are inadequate and so i find myself having to repeat so much.

 

[andzy]

andzy:

So, you agree that the Bible does not support your argument that the Scripture is the only inspired-inerrant and foundation for all doctrine and practice?
Or maybe you’re saying that the Bible doesn’t say it, but you’re implying it?

The Scriptures throughout make the claim that they are of God. The Jews of the OT recognized it,Jesus did and the apostles.

Yet again you seem to be trying to avoid the question. I’m asking if the Scripture is the only rule of faith, you answer that it is inspired by God. BIG difference. Do you see this difference?
I’m asking again:
Do you or do you not agree that the Bible does not say that it is the ONLY inspired-inerrant and foundation for all doctrine and practice?
I’m not asking whether it is God inspired. We both agree on that, that’s what the Catholic Church teaches, no question about it.

 

[mercygate]

May I attempt to pull this point about Scrpture together for all sides.

JA4 says Scripture is inspired & inerrant. Where did he ever get an idea like that? FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. OK. That’s settled.

JA4 says Scripture is the sole rule of faith. Why? Because in order to avoid the real difficulty of acknowledging that the “pillar and foundation of truth” as the primary executor of the Great Commission by the authority of Christ Himself, he MUST close his eyes to the Church and claim some other “pillar and foundation.”

JA4 claims that Scripture supports the claim that it is inspired and inerrant. But Scripture, however venerated, cannot witness to itself. It is papyrus and ink. I can write a tract and claim, “Jesus gave me a revelation, and I am writing it down; it is inspired and inerrant.” That don’t make it so.

One of the best arguments I have heard for the authenticity of Scripture is from the Presbyterian, Dr. R. C. Sproul, who carefully goes through the history of the development of the canon and ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT WAS THE CHURCH THAT PUT IT TOGETHER, and that BECAUSE THE CHURCH PUT IT TOGETHER, we can trust that it is inspired and inerrant.

He falls off the Catholic wagon by jumping to the irrational conclusion that after the canon was fixed, we no longer need the Church for authoritative teaching. A point that further undermines his position is that by accepting the canon of 493/498 as “inspired and inerrant” he bumps into the problem of the deletion of the deuterocanonical books. But that is a sidebar.

In the end, Sproul’s position comes down to his oft-quoted sentence:

“For Catholics, the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books. For Protestants, the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.”

Although I admire Sproul greatly, this position is, frankly: :hypno:

 

[justasking4]

andzy;2827721]Yet again you seem to be trying to avoid the question. I’m asking if the Scripture is the only rule of faith, you answer that it is inspired by God. BIG difference. Do you see this difference?
I’m asking again:
Do you or do you not agree that the Bible does not say that it is the ONLY inspired-inerrant and foundation for all doctrine and practice?

I must be confused what you are asking here. Is the bible the only rule of faith? Depends what you mean by “rule of faith”. Can you give me a couple of examples of these “rules of faith”?

If its what i think you mean then yes. Churches have other “rules of faith”.

I’m not asking whether it is God inspired. We both agree on that, that’s what the Catholic Church teaches, no question about it.

 

[guanophore]

You don’t know your Bible very well, do you? You just made that up, which further convinces me you think you are infallible.
Read Galations 1:18:

" Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. "

By the way, I read that at mass this morning. It is the reading we read every other year on Tuesdays of the 27th week of Ordinary Time. (this is not the year, my eyes just wandered in my missal as I was meditating before mass)
:getholy:

I have to go with ja4 on this one. Paul did not go up to submit to “authority”. He wanted to work in unity with the other Apostles, but he was confident that He was right on track with what God appointed, and needed no “permission”.

Gal 1:11-17

11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 **For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. **13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; 14 and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. "

Don’t faint, ja4!

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;2828213]May I attempt to pull this point about Scrpture together for all sides.

JA4 says Scripture is inspired & inerrant. Where did he ever get an idea like that? FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. OK. That’s settled.

Where did the catholic get this idea from?

JA4 says Scripture is the sole rule of faith. Why? Because in order to avoid the real difficulty of acknowledging that the “pillar and foundation of truth” as the primary executor of the Great Commission by the authority of Christ Himself, he MUST close his eyes to the Church and claim some other “pillar and foundation.”

This is a loaded issue. For one what exactly does the phrase “pillar and foundation of truth” mean? Does this phrase give the church the authority to make doctrine for example?

Do it teach that the church is incapable of making errors?

JA4 claims that Scripture supports the claim that it is inspired and inerrant. But Scripture, however venerated, cannot witness to itself. It is papyrus and ink. I can write a tract and claim, “Jesus gave me a revelation, and I am writing it down; it is inspired and inerrant.” That don’t make it so.

How can you say tha that the scripture cannot witness to itself? What did Jesus mean for example in John 10:35 where He teaches that the Word of God can’t be broken?

One of the best arguments I have heard for the authenticity of Scripture is from the Presbyterian, Dr. R. C. Sproul, who carefully goes through the history of the development of the canon and ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT WAS THE CHURCH THAT PUT IT TOGETHER, and that BECAUSE THE CHURCH PUT IT TOGETHER, we can trust that it is inspired and inerrant.

I do believe the catholic church got it right with the NT canon.

He falls off the Catholic wagon by jumping to the irrational conclusion that after the canon was fixed, we no longer need the Church for authoritative teaching.

I don’t make such a claim. Christ gave the church pastor-teachers to teach us the scriptures. What i do believe is that the church dervies its authority to teach from Christ and when it teaches the truth. When it does not teach the truth it does not have authority.

A point that further undermines his position is that by accepting the canon of 493/498 as “inspired and inerrant” he bumps into the problem of the deletion of the deuterocanonical books. But that is a sidebar.

In the end, Sproul’s position comes down to his oft-quoted sentence:

“For Catholics, the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books. For Protestants, the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.”

i would have to see the context for this quote before i could comment.

Although I admire Sproul greatly, this position is, frankly: :hypno:

Its dangerous for catholics to listen to protestant teachers.

 

[justasking4]

I have to go with ja4 on this one. Paul did not go up to submit to “authority”. He wanted to work in unity with the other Apostles, but he was confident that He was right on track with what God appointed, and needed no “permission”.

Gal 1:11-17

11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 **For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. **13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; 14 and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. "

Don’t faint, ja4!

To late. :tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

All i’m showing is that it depends how you want to use “numbers” in regards to influence. Peter was no doubt influential but he was not the only one. Paul certainly had just as much if not more than he did becasue of his letters and theology.

I think it has nothing to do with numbers. What matters is who Jesus appointed, and why. Paul had an essential ministry, but Jesus did not appoint him as “rock” and did not choose him as the foundation stone, as He did Peter. This takes nothing away from Paul’s work and theology. It just means they had different ministries.

Not even Aquinas or Augustine can match the influence that Paul has had down the centuries. The only one that is greater is Jesus.

Not so! Jesus promised that we would all do works greater than He, since He goes to the father, and sends the spirit to us. I think you undersestimate the influence of the apostolic succession.

My issue is with what Rome does with Peter to justify its authority claims.

I am not sure what you mean by this. It seems to me that Jesus is the one who did things with Peter. All the Church has done is recognize this.

How is his “head-leadership” manifested in the NT?

You will notice that, after he received the revelation from God that the gospel was to be taken to the Gentiles (Acts 11) there is never another mention of him by the name “Simon”. This is an indication that, with this revelation, he came fully into the “Cephas” (rockyness) which Jesus prophesied about him.

Acts 15:7
7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.”

All recognized that “God made choice” among the Apostles with Peter.

Do the other apostles appeal to him alone? Do any mention that the church is built on him?

You have a thinking error about the “alone” thing. Scripture alone, Jesus alone, Peter alone…That is not how Jesus set up His Kingdom here on earth. We see that Jesus intended for the Body to work together with all it’s parts. The important point is that the Apostles would not do anything apart from Peter.

Those verses do not point to him being the supreme head of the NT church.

You are misunderstanding how Jesus wanted the Authority to function. Go back and start reading again at Acts 18. Notice the humility, the childlike faith, the attitude of service. These are the qualities of the leadership Jesus appointed, not “supreme” etc…

What is greater in authority than the inspired-inerrant God breathed scriptures?

Jesus did not appoint the scriptures to be in charge of the Church. He appointed people. The people God appointed should not be separated form the scriptures they produced, as the Protestants have done.

Its not the church because it is made of fallible men who have and can err.

I am afraid, in making statements of this kind, you call Jesus a weakling, and a liar, and reveal a very unscriptural attitude. yes, Jesus chose fallible men upon which to build His Kingdom. He went out of His way to demonstrate, especially to Peter, how fallible he was.

1 Cor 1:27-2:1
27 but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption; 31 therefore, as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord.”

Jesus then promised that He would preserve them in all Truth, and He has done so. God is able to take what is weak, fallible, foolish, low and despised and make it perfect. When you deny this, you deny the power and promises of God.

It does not say that specifically.

Exactly. Scripture does not claim to be the ulitmate authority. That is because it was written by those whom God had appointed to be that Authority (the Church).

 

[guanophore]

However, what does the catholic church teach about the scriptures? Do they consider them inspired-inerrant Word of God?

Of course! But it is the Authority, appointed by Christ, present in the Church that penned, preserved, promulgated and attests to the fact that they are. Without the authority of the church, we would not know this.

Lets start with scripture. Do we agree that the scriptures are inspired-inerrant? If you don’t then you are going against catholic teaching. Now, where is it written that Tradition or the Church is inspired?

This is written no where that you will accept. When you read verses like 2 Thess 2:15, you do not see that the Oral and Written sacred communications are equal. this is because you have your preconceived blinders on. These blinders reinforce your conviction that all the Church proclaims as sacred oral tradition is “speculation of men”.

1 Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
2 Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
Jn 21:25 - not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture
Mk 13:31 - heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won’t
Acts 20;35 - Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels
2Tim 1:13 - follow my sound words; guard the truth
2Tim2:2 - what you heard entrust to faithful men

You believe that nothing of what the Apostles taught has survived except the scripture. For this reason, you cannot accept the Apostolic Teachings. In your mind, they don’t exist!

 

[guanophore]

The only thing we know of Paul’s writings is found in his letters.

This is a Protestant error.

Now if you mean something else besides these letters in the NT, then what specifically would that be?

Yes. One of them is the doctrine of the Real Presence.
1 Cor 11:23-26

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Paul got this directly “from the Lord”, yet no where in scripture does it explain where and when this happened. The only encounter we have is Saul on the road to Damascus. Paul is passing on this sacred tradition just as he received it.
justasking4;2825639:

What specific “traditions” were handed to Paul that is not recorded in the NT?

The Apostolic succession, which those who have received it can “see” in the NT, but those of you that reject it apparently cannot “see”. This is a puzzle to me.

arly Church Fathers on Bishops, Priests and Deacons

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier… Our Apostles knew through Our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.” (Pope St. Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [80 A.D.])

“Be subject to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the Apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians, A.D.110, [13,1])

“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishops presiding in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the Apostles.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians, A.D. 110, [6,1])

“Those, indeed, who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic; he will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, A.D. 110, [3,2])

“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 110, [8,1])

“Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living in the manner not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in His death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore, - and such is your practice, that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Traillians, A.D. 110, [2,1])

Even before all the books of the NT were written, we can see the pattern that Jesus laid down spreading and being taught.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
All i’m showing is that it depends how you want to use “numbers” in regards to influence. Peter was no doubt influential but he was not the only one. Paul certainly had just as much if not more than he did becasue of his letters and theology.
guanophore;
I think it has nothing to do with numbers. What matters is who Jesus appointed, and why. Paul had an essential ministry, but Jesus did not appoint him as “rock” and did not choose him as the foundation stone, as He did Peter. This takes nothing away from Paul’s work and theology. It just means they had different ministries.

i agree

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not even Aquinas or Augustine can match the influence that Paul has had down the centuries. The only one that is greater is Jesus.
guanophore;
Not so! Jesus promised that we would all do works greater than He, since He goes to the father, and sends the spirit to us. I think you undersestimate the influence of the apostolic succession.

I think it depends what we mean by “influence”. No doubt there have been great men and women in the church. By influence i mean it in a theological sense where the writings of Paul have had, continue to have a powerful influence on theological issues. I can’t think of anyone in church history after the apostles who has had a greater influence. Can you?

 

[guanophore]

He already admitted the Bible is not in the Bible. He also claims infallibility in his interpretation of the Bible. He says his interpretation is right and ours is wrong.

He says he already does enough reading. He wants you to tell him so he can do more reading on this thread. It’s more fun.:yup:

Not only that, but he has already stated that anything written not in the NT doesn’t “count”. Since Oral Tradition is not written, it therefore does not exist.

Where do you get the idea i can only prove this with a circular argument? Where have i stated as much?

Of course YOU don’t think you are being circular. If you thought you were, you would SAY so! You are saying that the Bible is alone inerrant, and that the bible says this about itself, therefore it alone can be the sole authority, but the bible does not say this about itself. You reject the authority that comes from outside the Bible that testifies to it’s authenticity, so you have no source, within the Bible, to acertain it’s sole authority.

Because it alone is inspired-inerrant.

This Protestant error was formulated to defy the authority that Jesus appointed.

How does it follow that Tim.3:14-15 proves too much (i.e. it proves that the New Testament isn’t necessary) if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the sole rule of faith?

Paul is writing in this verse about the OT. That was the only scripture that existed at the time. If the OT is sufficient, then the NT is not necessary at all.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
My issue is with what Rome does with Peter to justify its authority claims.
guanophore
I am not sure what you mean by this. It seems to me that Jesus is the one who did things with Peter. All the Church has done is recognize this.

What i’m referring to is how the church has used Peter more than any other apostle to justify its claims as the supreme leader of the entire church. The church has presented Peter in the NT as if he were like some modern day pope who has ultimate power. The problem is that the NT does not present him like this.
Would you agree?

 

[justasking4]

Not only that, but he has already stated that anything written not in the NT doesn’t “count”. Since Oral Tradition is not written, it therefore does not exist.

If Oral Tradition cannot be shown to exist, how do you know it does? No one in your church can tells exactly what this Oral Tradition is since it was never written down. Is this not right?