Sola Scriptura (continued)

[NotWorthy]

I had not really wanted to ever respond to this thread, because I can not see any of the avid roman catholics within it ever changing their views from what they have been told is correct, no matter how obvious it is to them. but here i find myself…replying to such posts as:

and continually being amazed that people think such ‘arguments’ as the above actually show them to be right. Does a circle do anything for the RC stance? No! What does it do? Well, the most logical (and obvious) conclusion is that they are on equal footing. There is no ‘pope’ hierarchy. They are both there to do the job that Jesus set before them - to share the good news of Jesus with others. This only becomes a problem when some folk want to erect them up on pedestals, and beef their own name up because they think they are great by following in the supposed great line of those who lived in humility…

Hey, Hvg, how are things down under, and welcome back.

I know, it was hard for me to stay away from CARM, sort of like watching a train wreck over and over again.

I was simply trying to insert a little humor in our little discussion, trying to remember that we shouldn’t let this get us down. You know what I mean?

But…
Let’s look at the two incidences.

A) Peter is teaching the correct doctrine (Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians are equal), but he was having qualms about eating with the gentiles. That’s a problem with Peter, but not with the teaching.

B) Paul, was wanting to confirm that what he was teaching was in line with everyone else’s. Does he go to the Bishop of Jerusalem (who some Christians insert as the leader of the new Church)? No, he goes to Cephas.

Big difference in our two arguments. For an interesting repeat of history, you may want to read up on St. Catherine of Sienna (?) who blasted one of the popes for staying in Avignon France long after the trouble had abetted in Rome and it was safe to return.

My point is, the Pope is not above everyone, thinking that he can say one thing and do another. I’ve read up and nowhere does the Papacy claim impeccability. Good Lord, we’d have had to throw Peter out on his keester a couple of times over!

 

[SyCarl]

B) Paul, was wanting to confirm that what he was teaching was in line with everyone else’s. Does he go to the Bishop of Jerusalem (who some Christians insert as the leader of the new Church)? No, he goes to Cephas.

Paul did not confirm his doctrine only with Peter. It was with Peter, James and John.

It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.
(Galatians 2:2)

Gal 2:6 But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)–well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.
Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised
Gal 2:8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),
Gal 2:9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Even the first time he went to Jerusalem, in which there is no mention of confirming doctrine, Paul met with Peter and James.

Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)