Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[paul_c]

Your non-sequitur here is built upon some rather shaky either/or thinking. It simply doesn’t follow, however, that because the universal church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, that an individual church (such as Rome) cannot err.

Miguel, you are on a Catholic website and you claim to have been a Catholic yourself for 14 years. Surely you can be respectful enought to recognize that we see the Catholic Church, headquartered in Rome, as the universal church Jesus founded. You certainly have not said anything to prove otherwise

No one said otherwise. But then again, neither was Rome entrusted with this deposit. So your point is moot.

If you are going to make provactive points like this, at least you could try to substantiate them.

 

[Ignatius]

Your non-sequitur here is built upon some rather shaky either/or thinking…

What’s wrong with Sola Scriptura?

• Jesus did not hand the New Testament to his followers and say “read and heed” He never wrote a line of scripture, and with the exception of Revelation, never commanded anyone else to do so either.
• When the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost, He did not drop the New Testaments in their laps, but gave them the authority to preach and teach.
• When the early church leaders had a debate about Gentiles entering the Church (Acts 11), they could not use the scriptures to decide the issue as the Old Testament didn’t apply and the New Testament didn’t exist. Instead, they met and discussed the issue, with the Church leaders making a statement as to what should be done.
• People were converting to Christianity through oral word for many, many years before any of the New Testament was given.
• When the New Testament began to be written, it was addressed to people who had already been taught the faith through oral preaching, and (mainly in the case of the various epistles) its purpose was to clarify issues or correct problems, not be an exhaustive primer of the faith. Also, keep in mind that the books were written to a specific church or individual, and as a consequence, an epistle that might be widely read in one region might be completely unknown to another.
• The New Testament as we know it was not formalized until the end of the 4th century AD. It was the church that created the Bible, not the other way around.
• Many people in ancient times were illiterate, so the only way for them to hear the Gospel was to go to church and hear it preached. BTW, while I’m at it, I’d like to explode the Protestant myth that “the Catholic Church kept the Bible in Latin so ordinary people couldn’t read it.” As I said, the ordinary people were largely illiterate to begin with. Secondly, schools of that time (and for centuries thereafter) taught Latin as part of their curriculum, so anyone who could read could read Latin. Also, numerous vernacular translations of the Bible were in existence long before Luther & Co. came along.
• Furthermore, until the advent of the printing press, the necessity of writing everything by hand and the expense of writing materials (like parchment) made books too expensive for the average citizen. The concept of modern organizations (like for instance the Gideon’s) passing out pocket New Testaments by the truckload would have been fantastic to ancient Christians.
• We re told that it is the Church which is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15). St Paul tells the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15). How do we know for sure all what Paul taught by word of mouth? For that matter, how do know that the Pauline epistles included in the New Testament are the ONLY ones he wrote? It is the Catholic Church which preserved these writings for 16 centuries
• The Apostle John tells us twice in his Gospel (20:30, 21:25) that not all the things that Jesus said and did were written down. Were those words and deeds any less important because they weren’t? Keep in mind this was primarily an *oral *culture.
• In Acts 8, when Philip asks the Ethiopian eunuch if he understands the passage in Isaiah he is reading, the Ethiopian responds, “How can, I, unless someone guides me?” (vv 27-31). In other words, whose interpretation do you trust? The practice of using Scripture Alone has shattered Christianity into thousands of different denominations, all of whom claim to follow the Bible, all who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, but all giving different interpretations! Finally, nowhere in the Bible is it written “The Bible alone, shalt thou take as thy sole rule of faith.” Sola Scriptura is unscriptural!

Conclusion
St Peter writes in 2 Peter 1:20 that “no prophesy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” St Peter also says in the same epistle (3:16) that “there are some things in them (St Paul’s epistles) hard to understand, which the unlearned and ignorant and unstable twist to their own instruction, as they do the other scriptures.” The tragedies of Jonestown and Waco, Texas provide stark testimonies to the dangers of private interpretation. The writers of the New Testament warn their readers constantly to avoid false teachers, but how one to determine what is is false and what is true unless there is a set standard to apply to. It cannot be Scripture Alone since Protestants who hold to it cannot agree on what the Bible teaches.

Sola Scriptura also has the following deficiencies:
There is no consensus of what Sola Scriptura means even among post reformation Churches.
All of the post reformation churches are supposed to be using Sola Scriptura and yet they reach conflicting conclusions.

Sola Scriptura can’t be rationally applied because:

• It isn’t clearly defined
• The definition changes over time
• The definition changes from one person to the next
• Sola Scriptura is not expounded in The Bible Alone

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

And your non-sequitur dismissal of a sequitur statement is built on the false assumption that the Church built on the Rock of Peter is not the Universal Church. I would quote Matt 16:18 to support the oposite Truth, but you would just tell me that …

Or you could just ask me what I would say so that you wouldn’t need to speculate. Since you mentioned Matthew 16:18, I would reply as follows. I think there are plausible arguments on both sides of the issue with respect to the identity of “this rock.” If you would like to know why I think “this rock” refers to Christ and not Peter, just ask. I’d be happy to lay out my case for you.

But even after having read my case you think Peter is still the referent, (and I’ll readily concede that he very well may be), you’re still light years from the papacy. Randy Carson can cite dozens of Protestant commentaries that all conclude that Peter is “this rock.” But how many of these Protestant commentators go on to conclude that the papacy thereby follows from the fact that Peter is “this rock?” (I hear crickets chirping.)

a sentense in which God names someone Rock and then refers directly to that Rock in the very next clause is decidedly not meant to be understood gramatically as stated.

This begs a huge question–namely that you already know that petros and petra have the same referent. But that’s precisely the question that needs to be argued, not assumed.
Again, if you’d like me to lay out the case for you, I’d be happy to.

Aparently you know what God “meant” to say but was too lazy to actually speak precisely enough to be understood.

Much the same could be said bout your position. Apparently we’re to believe that in calling Peter “this rock,” and giving him the “keys” (plural) to the kingdom, we are meant to believe that Jesus established the office of the papacy, and that this office would continue in Peter’s successors, who would be the future bishops of Rome. Instead of plainly laying out the case in explicit fashion, Jesus left us to infer all of this on the basis of a rather shaky allusion to Isaiah 22:22, which only has Eliakim in mind insofar as he is the key-bearer to the throne of David, but not insofar as he proves unable to bear the weight placed upon him in that capacity–assuming–of course–that Isaiah 22 is mind at all.

(You know it would be much simpler for you to just reject Matthew as inspired Scripture because those pesky Catholic managed to get it written in a Gospel that Peter was specifically given authority as Chief Steward that no one else received…)

“Chief Steward?” Where does this text even imply this? And how do you know for certain that your interpretation/inference/conjecture is correct? (Oh–that’s right–because Vatican I infallibly defined it. And you know Vatican 1 is infallible because? Oh–that’s right–because that’s the clear implication of Matthew 16:18-19. A prove B and B proves A. And you call this a convincing argument?)

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Miguel, you are on a Catholic website and you claim to have been a Catholic yourself for 14 years. Surely you can be respectful enought to recognize that we see the Catholic Church, headquartered in Rome, as the universal church Jesus founded.

Yes, Paul. I know that’s the claim.

You certainly have not said anything to prove otherwise

That’s not my burden. It’s yours. Your church claims to be the church. Yours, therefore, is the burden of proof here. Or does the burden of proof shift to the Protestant side simply because this is a Catholic forum?

Is there a forum rule that shifts the burden of proof over to anyone who would deny a Catholic claim? As I see it, I have the negative here. So it isn’t my burden to prove the negative. It’s your burden to prove the affirmative and my job to give counter arguments to your claim.

But if all you’re going to say is, “we’re the universal church,” I’m going to respond with “no, you’re not. You’re part of it–but not all of it.” And we can trade assertions like this till cows are raptured home. But what’s to be gained from that?

 

[Nevermore22]

I think Parker is overwhelmed and may not return.
That’s sad. I liked reading his posts.

In Christ through Mary,
Nevermore

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

What’s wrong with Sola Scriptura?

• Jesus did not hand the New Testament to his followers and say “read and heed” He never wrote a line of scripture, and with the exception of Revelation, never commanded anyone else to do so either.

I wonder how Jesus could have handed the New Testament over when it hadn’t been written yet? Does it follow that sola scriptura is not the rule of faith because Jesus didn’t himself write any books? Of course Jesus didn’t say, “read and heed,” but he did say a lot of things along theses lines: “You err because you do not know the scriptures.” “For it is written,” “Have you not read?” Where did he say anything comparable about “Tradition?”

• When the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost, He did not drop the New Testaments in their laps, but gave them the authority to preach and teach.

Sola scripture isn’t the claim that the Bible fell out of the sky. So your straw man here isn’t much of an objection. Have you noticed, though, that the only way for you to say anything meaningful about what happened at Pentecost is because you read about it in scripture? You’re illustrating the very principle of sola scriptura in your effort to deny it. For what else could you appeal to to talk about what the Holy Spirit did at Pentecost, if not scripture?

• When the early church leaders had a debate about Gentiles entering the Church (Acts 11), they could not use the scriptures to decide the issue as the Old Testament didn’t apply and the New Testament didn’t exist. Instead, they met and discussed the issue, with the Church leaders making a statement as to what should be done.

Perhaps you’re overlooking all the scriptures that they did cite to prove the very fact that the Gentiles would be saved by grace and therefore would not be required to observe the law of Moses as the means by which they were to be saved.

Acts 15:13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

16 “‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.’

The citation is from the prophet Amos. So yes, they did cite scripture and contra your claim above, the OT very much did apply.

• People were converting to Christianity through oral word for many, many years before any of the New Testament was given.

This is irrelevant as an objection to sola scripture which never has denied the existence of oral proclamation or that what we read in the NT may have had an existence in oral tradition prior to becoming scripture.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Miguel, you are on a Catholic website and you claim to have been a Catholic yourself for 14 years. Surely you can be respectful enought to recognize that we see the Catholic Church, headquartered in Rome, as the universal church Jesus founded

Quote:
You certainly have not said anything to prove otherwise

Well, Miguel, when you come to a Catholic website and simply assert that the Catholic Church is not the universal church, you really should supplement that with something to substantiate that claim, otherwise it seems like you are just being a troll.

As to your claim that the Catholic Church is simply part of the universal church and that I suppose your church, whatever that might be, is also part of the universal church. Well, how can this be. The church must teach a consistent set of truths and what you teach about salvation is clearly not the same as what the Catholic church teaches. There must be unity in the Universal church, with a common leadership and common doctrine. Your definition does not provide this unity.

 

[ANNE_2]

What’s wrong with Sola Scriptura?

• Furthermore, until the advent of the printing press, the necessity of writing everything by hand and the expense of writing materials (like parchment) made books too expensive for the average citizen. The concept of modern organizations (like for instance the Gideon’s) passing out pocket New Testaments by the truckload would have been fantastic to ancient Christians.
• We re told that it is the Church which is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15). St Paul tells the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15). How do we know for sure all what Paul taught by word of mouth? For that matter, how do know that the Pauline epistles included in the New Testament are the ONLY ones he wrote? It is the Catholic Church which preserved these writings for 16 centuries
• The Apostle John tells us twice in his Gospel (20:30, 21:25) that not all the things that Jesus said and did were written down. Were those words and deeds any less important because they weren’t? Keep in mind this was primarily an *oral *culture.
• In Acts 8, when Philip asks the Ethiopian eunuch if he understands the passage in Isaiah he is reading, the Ethiopian responds, “How can, I, unless someone guides me?” (vv 27-31). In other words, whose interpretation do you trust? The practice of using Scripture Alone has shattered Christianity into thousands of different denominations, all of whom claim to follow the Bible, all who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, but all giving different interpretations! Finally, nowhere in the Bible is it written “The Bible alone, shalt thou take as thy sole rule of faith.” Sola Scriptura is unscriptural!

Conclusion
St Peter writes in 2 Peter 1:20 that “no prophesy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” St Peter also says in the same epistle (3:16) that “there are some things in them (St Paul’s epistles) hard to understand, which the unlearned and ignorant and unstable twist to their own instruction, as they do the other scriptures.” The tragedies of Jonestown and Waco, Texas provide stark testimonies to the dangers of private interpretation. The writers of the New Testament warn their readers constantly to avoid false teachers, but how one to determine what is is false and what is true unless there is a set standard to apply to. It cannot be Scripture Alone since Protestants who hold to it cannot agree on what the Bible teaches.

Sola Scriptura also has the following deficiencies:
There is no consensus of what Sola Scriptura means even among post reformation Churches.
All of the post reformation churches are supposed to be using Sola Scriptura and yet they reach conflicting conclusions.

Sola Scriptura can’t be rationally applied because:

• It isn’t clearly defined
• The definition changes over time
• The definition changes from one person to the next
• Sola Scriptura is not expounded in The Bible Alone

The TIME LINE HISTORY of the NEW TESTAMENT supports that the Church came before the Bible.

The following will get one started:
Pentecost (30/33AD)
The beginning of the (Catholic) Church; the Church exists before a determination of a canon or a definitive list of books of what was later called the Bible. The NT was not even written yet. The Bible is the book of the Church, we are not a church of the Bible.

Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170)
Produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

Council of Laodicea (c**. 360**)
A local council of the church in union with Rome produced a list of books of the Bible similar to the Council of Trent’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.

Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, **401-417 (405) **Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.

Council of Carthage (419)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Well, Miguel, when you come to a Catholic website and simply assert that the Catholic Church is not the universal church, you really should supplement that with something to substantiate that claim,

Why does the responsibility for the burden of proof shift just because this is a Catholic site? I’m asking in all sincerity, here. The convention, as I understand it, is that the one taking the affirmative has the burden of proof, not the one taking the negative. As I said before, if you’re only going to make assertions with no proof, then I can make negations with no proof. In other words, your “yes it is,” can be offset by my “no it’s not.”

If you think your church is the church, prove it. Show us where it has been revealed that the church in Rome is the church to which all other churches must be united. I’m just not seeing any evidence for this claim.

otherwise it seems like you are just being a troll.

I take it that “troll” is descriptive of some sort of behavior rather than an insult. I’m not familiar with the term outside of Tolkien.

 

[paul_c]

Why does the responsibility for the burden of proof shift just because this is a Catholic site? I’m asking in all sincerity, here. The convention, as I understand it, is that the one taking the affirmative has the burden of proof, not the one taking the negative. As I said before, if you’re only going to make assertions with no proof, then I can make negations with no proof. In other words, your “yes it is,” can be offset by my “no it’s not.”

Miguel, this is not an issue of it being a Catholic website, its a matter of making unsubstantiated claims that are designed to be provocative. You know this website is designed to be for those that have questions about the Catholic faith. You have no such questions. Your goal is obviously to dissuade people from entering the Catholic faith. I have no idea why you think this is helpful to anyone, but I’m sure you have your reasons.

If you think your church is the church, prove it. Show us where it has been revealed that the church in Rome is the church to which all other churches must be united. I’m just not seeing any evidence for this claim.

Miguel, we have been over this many times. Jesus commisioned Peter to lead his church in Matthew 16. The risen Christ then turned over the flock to St. Peter in John 21. Peter’s leadership of the church was then documented in the Acts of the Apostles and explained in his two epistles. In Acts 15, he made the point that he was commissioned to lead the Gentiles, a point that no one debated. Acts ends with Peter still in charge. From there, you need to pick up the rest through the early Church fathers, from whom we know that Peter’s leadership role passed to Linus and then Cletus and then to Clement, Clement wrote a letter to the Church in Corinth demonstrating Papal authority in the early 90s that is still in existence. There is continuity of leadership and doctrine that continues to the present day, through 264 popes. Can you deny any of this.

I take it that “troll” is descriptive of some sort of behavior rather than an insult. I’m not familiar with the term outside of Tolkien.

A troll is someone who deliberately agitates on line.

 

[Newsy]

Have you noticed, though, that the only way for you to say anything meaningful about what happened at Pentecost is because you read about it in scripture? You’re illustrating the very principle of sola scriptura in your effort to deny it. For what else could you appeal to to talk about what the Holy Spirit did at Pentecost, if not scripture?

Actually, he is using scripture, not sola scriptura. He is reading scripture and understanding it in light of the Church’s teaching, which was handed down to us from the Apostles. This is very different from using sola scriptura, in fact we still have no concrete definition of sola scriptura. Since this thread was started by a protestant and the protestants came up with the idea of sola scriptura, it is improbable he would use an undefined idea that is unsupported by the Church.
Also, the Universal (Catholic) Church was called The Way in the book of Acts. Until schisms and divisions started to separate us, we were all Catholic. There are many threads to explain the origin of the Catholic Church and it being the one, Universal Church. This thread isn’t about proving the Catholic Church is Universal, it is about proving sola scriptura.
On a side note, I am about done with this thread, it seems to devolve into side accusations rather than stay on task and supply any support to the OP.
Newsy

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Miguel, this is not an issue of it being a Catholic website, its a matter of making unsubstantiated claims that are designed to be provocative.

You’re reading far too much into my posts. No one is trying to be “provocative.”

You know this website is designed to be for those that have questions about the Catholic faith.

True. But the specific forum is “apologetics.” I don’t post in any other forum but this one. Since apologetics has to do with the defense of the faith, it seems to me that this would be the forum to do that. If not this one, which one?

You have no such questions. Your goal is obviously to dissuade people from entering the Catholic faith. I have no idea why you think this is helpful to anyone, but I’m sure you have your reasons.

My goal here is to discuss the issues. Have I posed anything on this forum suggesting that people leave your communion or not enter it?

Miguel, we have been over this many times. Jesus commisioned Peter to lead his church in Matthew 16.

Again, you keep asserting this, Paul. But you’ve never successfully bridged the gap from “you are Peter,” to “you are pope and so are all of your successors who will one day be the bishops of Rome.” Without that evidence, your position remains unconvincing.

The risen Christ then turned over the flock to St. Peter in John 21.

Again, you’re reading into the text. Christ reinstated Peter. His threefold command to feed his lambs/tend his flock are most likely intended to restore Peter after his three-fold denial. Nothing in John or in the rest of the New Testament suggests that Peter was given a higher pastoral authority than any other apostle.

Peter’s leadership of the church was then documented in the Acts of the Apostles and explained in his two epistles.

Again, leadership is not the same as sole leadership. No one denies that Peter was a leader, just as no one denies that Rome is a church. What we deny–on the basis of scripture–is that Peter was the leader and Rome was the church.

In Acts 15, he made the point that he was commissioned to lead the Gentiles, a point that no one debated. Acts ends with Peter still in charge.

Peter was sent to the Gentiles by the Jerusalem church which was headed by James, not Peter. But not even James is in charge of the church. You’re reading the Roman hierarchy back into Acts, where it doesn’t belong. There is only one head of the church–Jesus Christ. Peter, James, John, Paul—they all understood this. The leadership, therefore, was collegial, not monarchical. That’s a much later church development that you’re reading back into the text.

From there, you need to pick up the rest through the early Church fathers, from whom we know that Peter’s leadership role passed to Linus and then Cletus and then to Clement. Clement wrote a letter to the Church in Corinth demonstrating Papal authority in the early 90s that is still in existence. There is continuity of leadership and doctrine that continues to the present day, through 264 popes. Can you deny any of this.

I can deny all of it. Clement’s letter is written from a group of presbyters where there was as yet no papacy and no direct successor to Peter. You’re engaging in serious anachronism to read the monarchical episcopate back into a period of history when it did not yet exist.

A troll is someone who deliberately agitates on line.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Actually, he is using scripture, not sola scriptura. He is reading scripture and understanding it in light of the Church’s teaching, which was handed down to us from the Apostles.

No he’s not. The specific point he was trying to make could not have been made with any other source besides the book of Acts. For we have no other evidence for what happened on the first Pentecost outside of that book. Now certainly more went on that day than Luke records in Acts. But we have no access to it outside of Luke. So here is where sola scriptura kicks in. It is the claim that Luke give us sufficient information, not exhaustive information. It is also the claim that only scripture gives us access to what happened at Pentecost, since there is no other source available to us. The irony is that in attempting to refute sola scriptura, he’s actually illustrated the very principle in the process!

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
You know this website is designed to be for those that have questions about the Catholic faith.

come on, Miguel. When you say you are here to discuss the issues, you neglect to say to what end. From my vantage point, you are here to attack the Catholic Church.

Quote:
Miguel, we have been over this many times. Jesus commisioned Peter to lead his church in Matthew 16.

Miguel, Jesus said he would found the church on St. Peter. What does that mean if it doesn’t mean he will lead the church? And what does it mean to say that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church if it doesn’t mean that the church will continue after Peter dies. And if there is no leadership, how does the church maintain unity?

Quote:
The risen Christ then turned over the flock to St. Peter in John 21.

I’m sorry that you can’t understand that when Jesus , the good shepherd, told Peter and Peter alone to take care of the flock, that this was turning over pastoral authority. It seems pretty plain to those who have access to tradition.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Peter’s leadership of the church was then documented in the Acts of the Apostles and explained in his two epistles.

So you are maintaining that scripture states that Peter was NOT the leader of the church and that scripture states that the Catholic Church which is headquartered in Rome, is NOT the universal church? I don’t think you can prove that…

Quote:
In Acts 15, he made the point that he was commissioned to lead the Gentiles, a point that no one debated. Acts ends with Peter still in charge.

Peter was not send to the Gentiles by the church in Jerusalem. Haven’t you read Acts 10 about the vision that lead to the conversion of Cornelius and his family? Peter was sent to the Gentiles by the Holy Spirit. This led to Peter saying in Acts 15:
7 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10 Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.”
12 The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and w
Note, that no one debated Peter’s claim that he was authorized above all the others to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles and also note that the debate ended when Peter spoke.

Quote:
From there, you need to pick up the rest through the early Church fathers, from whom we know that Peter’s leadership role passed to Linus and then Cletus and then to Clement. Clement wrote a letter to the Church in Corinth demonstrating Papal authority in the early 90s that is still in existence. There is continuity of leadership and doctrine that continues to the present day, through 264 popes. Can you deny any of this.

You can deny it but you can’t support your position. There are many very early writers that note the succession of Bishops in Rome. Your position against monarchical bishopics seems very inconsistent with your recognition of James as bishop of Jerusalem, after all. On the actual authorship of Clement’s lette to the corinthians from the Catholic encyclopedia:newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm
The Epistle is in the name of the Church of Rome but the early authorities always ascribe it to Clement. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, wrote c. 170 to the Romans in Pope Soter’s time: “Today we kept the holy day, the Lord’s day, and on it we read your letter- and we shall ever have it to give us instruction, even as the former one written through Clement” (Eusebius, Church History IV.30). Hegesippus attributed the letter to Clement. Irenaeus, c. 180-5 perhaps using Hegesippus, says: “Under this Clement no small sedition took place among the brethren at Corinth and the Church of Rome sent a most sufficient letter to the Corinthians, establishing them in peace, and renewing their faith, and announcing the tradition it had recently received from the Apostles” (III, iii). Clement of Alexandria, c. 200, frequently quotes the Epistle as Clement’s, and so do Origen and Eusebius. Lightfoot and Harnack are fond of pointing out that we hear earlier of the importance of the Roman Church than of the authority of the Roman bishop. If Clement had spoken in his own name, they would surely have noted expressly that he wrote not as Bishop of Rome, but as an aged “presbyter” who had known the Apostles. St. John indeed was still alive, and Corinth was rather nearer to Ephesus than to Rome. Clement evidently writes officially, with all that authority of the Roman Church of which Ignatius and Irenaeus have so much to say.

 

[Ignatius]

No he’s not.

Sorry my brother, but Yes he is indeed. According to protestant theology every christian is allowed to interpret scripture for themself, hence you have no basis on which to say that your interpretation is any better than his. The most you can do is give your personal opinion, and your opinion has no more weight than any one elses.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsy
Actually, he is using scripture, not sola scriptura. He is reading scripture and understanding it in light of the Church’s teaching, which was handed down to us from the Apostles.

No he’s not. The specific point he was trying to make could not have been made with any other source besides the book of Acts. For we have no other evidence for what happened on the first Pentecost outside of that book. Now certainly more went on that day than Luke records in Acts. But we have no access to it outside of Luke. So here is where sola scriptura kicks in. It is the claim that Luke give us sufficient information, not exhaustive information. It is also the claim that only scripture gives us access to what happened at Pentecost, since there is no other source available to us. The irony is that in attempting to refute sola scriptura, he’s actually illustrated the very principle in the process!

No, its not. That is not sola scriptura. Sola scriptura implies there are other sources of information available but only scripture is accepted. But when there is no other source available then the only source of information that we have to rely on is scripture. In other words, with other sources of evidence available the sola scriptura doctrine forces one to go only with scripture. When no other sources are available then it is scripture that provides the only evidence. However, that is not to say that scripture is not used when other sources of evidence are available. There is no contradiction between the Oral Tradition and the Written Tradition. If you think there is then the problem lies with you [your interpretation] and not with either Tradition.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

So you are maintaining that scripture states that Peter was NOT the leader of the church and that scripture states that the Catholic Church which is headquartered in Rome, is NOT the universal church? I don’t think you can prove that…

You’re doing it again, Paul. One can only suspect that your reason for shifting the burden of proof is because in fact you’re unable to prove your own assertions. That Peter was not the (as opposed to a) leader is plain as day. Just read your Bible. There simply is no passage that says Peter is in charge of the church and no evidence that he acted as if he were in charge of the church and no evidence that anyone else thought he was in charge of the church. But if you feel otherwise, go ahead and cite your evidence and I’ll take that into consideration.

Nor does scripture equate the church Christ promised to build with the “Catholic Church,” much less hint that it is headquartered or would one day be headquartered in Rome. If you feel otherwise, go ahead and cite your evidence and I’ll take that into consideration as well.

Peter was not send to the Gentiles by the church in Jerusalem.

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John.

The point here is that Peter was sent. If Peter was the leader of the church, one would expect him to do the appointing and sending. This, of course, wouldn’t preclude Peter from going on his own. But the language says that the other apostles “sent” him. This minimally suggests a model of collegial authority among the apostles more than a monarchical authority in Peter alone.

After citing Acts 15:7 and following you said:

Note, that no one debated Peter’s claim that he was authorized above all the others

You’re spinning things wildly here, Paul. You are the one using terms such as “authorized above all the others.” The text doesn’t even imply this, much less state it. A more honest approach is to simply cite it and let it speak for itself. Let me include Acts 15:6, which gives us a crucial bit of context here:

15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Comment: Notice that “the apostles” (plural) and “the elders” (plural) were gathered together in council. This appear to me to be a collegial rather than unilateral decision. Then Peter says, that “God made a choice among you.” Who does the “you” here refer to, Paul? Let me answer that for you: The apostles and elders. How did Peter discern that his role was to be a missionary? The answer seems to be as follows. The other apostles and elders made this decision for Peter. This is completely consonant with what we read earlier in 8:14–how they “sent” Peter and John to the Samaritans. This does not seem to be the sort of unilateral “primacy of universal jurisdiction” that Vatican I claimed to have “always” been held by the universal church, does it?

and also note that the debate ended when Peter spoke.

But did the debate end because Peter spoke in his official capacity as pope? Or did it end because Peter made a good point? Let’s keep reading to see how things play out:

13 After they [Peter, Paula and Barnabas] finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

16 “‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
17 that the remnant [2] of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.’

19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

It is this passage that leads the overwhelming majority of commentators to conclude that if any one was acting like the monarchical bishop of Jerusalem, it was James, not Peter. James not only get’s the last word, but he also confirms the testimony of Peter, Paul and Barnabas and grounds it in the scriptural authority of the Old Testament (the citation from Amos). There is absolutely no evidence here that Peter was in charge of the church and every reason to suppose that if any single man were in charge, it was James, not Peter. But in fact the context makes clear that a plurality of apostles and elders provided the leadership in Jerusalem.

You can deny it but you can’t support your position.

I just did. Let the reader judge whose case is stronger here.

More on the historical piece as time permits…

 

[Jason_L_Barnes]

After reading all of the posts about sola scriptura it seems to me that it boils down to a few simple things: lack of authority, lack of understanding, and rebellion.

Sola scriptura is a Protestant invention with the sole intention of circumventing magisterium. Protestants knew that they lacked apostolic succession and therefore needed to contrive some means of backing their “teaching authority.” The truth is, Protestantism is made of nothing more than laity. Protestant authority is an oxymoron and explains why there are some 30,000 different sects that can’t (won’t) agree on the most basic tenants of our faith. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. Mk 3:25

Do you really think Christ meant for His true church to wait 1500+ years to reveal itself after He established it?

To all of my separated Protestant brethren out there, it’s time to quit rebelling and come home.

 

[NolePaul2011]

Miguel…question…where do you get your interpretations? Whose authority?