Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[Cinette]

I can see this thread is getting choppy … how about them Giants?

5 and 1 babe, hooha!!!

SEMPRE ILUMINADA

Ola Amigo - precisa duma luz?

Adeus

 

[sola_scriptura]

SEMPRE ILUMINADA

Ola Amigo - precisa duma luz?

Adeus

oh oh … the templar knights are coming (I hear the galluping outside my door). OK I’m just kidding (I’m not delusional or high … except being high on life that is)

Come on Cinnete me no abla spaniol (heck I can’t even spell it)

 

[Cinette]

Cyprian of Carthage (AD 251)

"The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.”… On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity…If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

I made the bold.

With all the historic evidence presented by the Church Fathers we find those who deny this truth. Amazing!

 

[sola_scriptura]

Cyprian of Carthage (AD 251)

"The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.”… On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity…If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

I made the bold.

With all the historic evidence presented by the Church Fathers we find those who deny this truth. Amazing!



but then it went haywire? Heck the apostle Thomas was all the way up in India … no Roman church there, was he wrong too?

Didn’t Peter have a wife and children? Doesn’t even Rome recognize the valid succession of the EOC and Oriental Orthodox churches? Haven’t they “departed from Peter” as you say it?

Heck the Oriental Orthodox churches don’t even understand Trinitarian doctrine the same way Rome (or western protestants for that matter) do (they’re almost Nestorians).

 

[Cinette]

but then it went haywire? Heck the apostle Thomas was all the way up in India … no Roman church there, was he wrong too?

What you are saying is that Jesus didn’t keep his promise - he let us down!

:doh2: :doh2:

The Holy Spirit went on sabbatical!

 

[Cinette]

oh oh … the templar knights are coming (I hear the galluping outside my door). OK I’m just kidding (I’m not delusional or high … except being high on life that is)

Come on Cinnete me no abla spaniol (heck I can’t even spell it)

That - my friend - is Portuguese!

 

[sola_scriptura]

What you are saying is that Jesus didn’t keep his promise - he let us down!

:doh2: :doh2:

The Holy Spirit went on sabbatical!

Nope … I’m saying the RCC defines church erroneously & misunderstands the role of Peter. First, he was more fairly viewed as the first among equals (rather than the way Rome views the Papacy). So even if I were to go down the track of apostolic succession I’d probably jump on the EOC bandwagon before Rome. Heck the only bishop we know for sure that Peter consecrated was Ignatius (the bishop of Antioch).

The church at Rome won’t even admit Peter actually preached in Babylon (when his epistle clearly states that he did). Paul called Rome, Rome … not Babylon & of course Peter did the same. Sure Peter was in Rome for a short period … and was killed there & that’s all we know.

The statements of Cyprian of Carthage are not persuasive, since by 251 the apostles were obviously long dead. As I said even as early as the time of Ireneaus and Origen the continuum of knowledge was largely lost, except for the apostolic writings.

They were arguing about the same stuff we’re debating about right now – so obviously there was no solid continuum in doctrine.

The church is the collective of all Christians. Even during the day of Paul there were many different churches. John writes about seven churches in Revelation. I’m sorry I simply think Rome uses the one true church thing for it’s own purposes & it has no basis in any apostolic doctrine or any teaching of Christ. Not a point we’re going to agree on (which is why I probably should have kept my trap shut).

 

[sola_scriptura]

That - my friend - is Portuguese!

I’m even less versed in Portuguese (well OK I’m equally versed in both – meaning not at all)

I heard Brazil is a fun place though? Great if you like ethanol …

 

[w_stewart]

The church is the collective of all Christians. Even during the day of Paul there were many different churches. John writes about seven churches in Revelation. I’m sorry I simply think Rome uses the one true church thing for it’s own purposes & it has no basis in any apostolic doctrine or any teaching of Christ. Not a point we’re going to agree on (which is why I probably should have kept my trap shut).

You are confused with the ONE UNIVERSAL Church and SEVERAL local churches. The writings of Paul do not in any way justify the existence of many Protestant denominations founded by differen human founders.

 

[w_stewart]

The church at Rome won’t even admit Peter actually preached in Babylon (when his epistle clearly states that he did). Paul called Rome, Rome … not Babylon & of course Peter did the same. Sure Peter was in Rome for a short period … and was killed there & that’s all we know.

The Babylon which Peter mentioned was Rome.

 

[sola_scriptura]

You are confused with the ONE UNIVERSAL Church and SEVERAL local churches. The writings of Paul do not in any way justify the existence of many Protestant denominations founded by differen human founders.

you’re not going to try and say all those churches Paul planted were under the church at Rome are you?

 

[jtm2oo1]

Extremely valid question. However, I think our question, or observation, would be that it never says the church should have more power over it either. And it doesn’t say that the pope is the end-all when it comes to speaking on faith and morals. That is the perception we tend to have as protestants, that more emphasis is on the pope and his words and not the words of Christ. I don’t think any honest protestant would negate the fact that the words of the church are useful. If they did they would be wrong. We just don’t think the church is quite on the same plane as the Bible, and we don’t think the words of the pope are just as important either. That’s a knock or a put down on anyone. It just tends to be our perceptions and beliefs.

And your perception that our faith is just a simple “I believe” and then move on is not on target at all. We believe that out of our profession of faith we do have, and we do walk in a relationship with Christ. To think or say otherwise is not fair. True, some protestants are protestants in name only, but the same can be said of catholics as well. However, that is not a lumping of all prots and caths into one big 'ole category. It’s just the truth.

I can’t help but see that you say WE believe, WE don’t think, WE. I can’t help but ask… Who are you referring to when you say we. do you mean to tell me that you speak for all protestants. people of the catholic faith can say

**We believe in God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfilment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and His kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

Amen**

because its what we all believe. you cant speak for everyone if there is no unity.

hey everyone I’m a new user but i been reading this forum over the last year and its helped me understand somethings and has given me more responsibility as well

 

[Cinette]

Nope … I’m saying the RCC defines church erroneously & misunderstands the role of Peter. First, he was more fairly viewed as the first among equals (rather than the way Rome views the Papacy). So even if I were to go down the track of apostolic succession I’d probably jump on the EOC bandwagon before Rome. Heck the only bishop we know for sure that Peter consecrated was Ignatius (the bishop of Antioch).

The church at Rome won’t even admit Peter actually preached in Babylon (when his epistle clearly states that he did). Paul called Rome, Rome … not Babylon & of course Peter did the same. Sure Peter was in Rome for a short period … and was killed there & that’s all we know.

The statements of Cyprian of Carthage are not persuasive, since by 251 the apostles were obviously long dead. As I said even as early as the time of Ireneaus and Origen the continuum of knowledge was largely lost, except for the apostolic writings.

They were arguing about the same stuff we’re debating about right now – so obviously there was no solid continuum in doctrine.

The church is the collective of all Christians. Even during the day of Paul there were many different churches. John writes about seven churches in Revelation. I’m sorry I simply think Rome uses the one true church thing for it’s own purposes & it has no basis in any apostolic doctrine or any teaching of Christ. Not a point we’re going to agree on (which is why I probably should have kept my trap shut).

Sola this is boring! Boring! Boring! Heard it so many times and quite frankly, I no longer have the energy to answer. I will leave it to someone more competent and with more patience.

G K Chesterton said something about some historians who think they can do what God can’t - change history. You my friend want to do something similar.

You are a lawyer. The evidence of the truth of the Catholic Church is IN YOUR FACE and you still deny it!

I rest my case!

 

[sola_scriptura]

The Babylon which Peter mentioned was Rome.

Most scholars today believe Peter actually did visit Babylon and he was not referencing Rome (although I’m familiar with what you’re saying). I actually recently reviewed a paper on this topic … interesting stuff. To spite the common view there was actually the remnant of a society in Babylon & quite a vibrant Jewish community there during the time of Peter. When scholars trace his footsteps as described in Acts and look at a variety of other factors (including archeology from that period and existing historical texts) the picture is pretty clear.

Remember Paul called Peter apostle to the Jews while he was an apostle to the gentiles (this is clearly enumerated in scripture). On that basis alone some of Rome’s claims become pretty hard to swallow.

 

[w_stewart]

you’re not going to try and say all those churches Paul planted were under the church at Rome are you?

They are all under the UNIVERSAL Church founded by Christ. And that Church was later named by St. Ignatius of Antioch the Catholic Church.

 

[sola_scriptura]

They are all under the UNIVERSAL Church founded by Christ. And that Church was later named by St. Ignatius of Antioch the Catholic Church.

what does Antioch have to do with Rome? So wouldn’t the Oriental Orthodox church actually be “the one true church” under Rome’s own definition? BTW it’s good that you point to Ignatius, since he’s the only we know with a sufficient degree of certainty that Peter actually laid his hands on and consecrated.

 

[w_stewart]

Most scholars today believe Peter actually did visit Babylon and he was not referencing Rome (although I’m familiar with what you’re saying). I actually recently reviewed a paper on this topic … interesting stuff. To spite the common view there was actually the remnant of a society in Babylon & quite a vibrant Jewish community there during the time of Peter. When scholars trace his footsteps as described in Acts and look at a variety of other factors (including archeology from that period and existing historical texts) the picture is pretty clear.

I cannot comment on the reference you are talking about until you present it for scrutiny.

Remember Paul called Peter apostle to the Jews while he was an apostle to the gentiles (this is clearly enumerated in scripture). On that basis alone some of Rome’s claims become pretty hard to swallow.

Claims like what?

 

[sola_scriptura]

I cannot comment on the reference you are talking about until you present it for scrutiny.

Claims like what?

Weren’t Romans gentiles?

 

[w_stewart]

what does Antioch have to do with Rome?

I am not sure what you mean by this question. I mentioned Antioch to emphasize the origin of Ignatius and also not to confuse him with Ignatius of Loyola.

So wouldn’t the Oriental Orthodox church actually be “the one true church” under Rome’s own definition?

What is Rome’s definition of the “one true church” by the way?

BTW it’s good that you point to Ignatius, since he’s the only we know with a sufficient degree of certainty that Peter actually laid his hands on and consecrated.

Your point is?

 

[w_stewart]

Weren’t Romans gentiles?

Sure. But Jesus did not prohibit his apostles, including Peter, to preach outside Jerusalem. After all, it was Jesus who commissioned the 11 remaining disciples to go to **all nations **and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.