sola scriptura

[Reuben_J]

There is no explicit verse, no. However it is more than conjecture. First, the requirement to be considered an apostle cannot be fulfilled by anyone, either today or in the post-apostolic church (Acts 1:21-22). That, in and of itself would be enough to demonstrate that the apostolic office ceased.

This seems to work more to the contrary when they elected Mathias to replace the position of Judas.

Secondly, when the apostles themselves are nearing death or the end of their ministry, they never instruct anyone to ordain new apostles or that their charism would continue. Rather, they say to remember what they were taught by the apostles and entrust it to those who come after them (Acts 20:28-35, 2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2). Lastly, it’s a matter of historical record that those things gifted to the apostles -revelation, miracles, healing, divine assistance- ceased.

If we look at the fact that a successor was required for Judas and later, the laying of hands on those to do the work of the apostles, obviously demonstrated the beginning and establishing of the office of the apostles, no matter how rudimentary it was then. The heirachy was certainly seemed to be already existed even though the Church was under persecution. It would be quite futile to look for a full fledged Church during the time of the apostles or when the scritpures were written.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

This seems to work more to the contrary when they elected Mathias to replace the position of Judas.[/QUOTES]

Both Barsabbas and Matthias were witnesses to Christ’s ministry and resurrection.

If we look at the fact that a successor was required for Judas and later, the laying of hands on those to do the work of the apostles, obviously demonstrated the beginning and establishing of the office of the apostles, no matter how rudimentary it was then. The heirachy was certainly seemed to be already existed even though the Church was under persecution. It would be quite futile to look for a full fledged Church during the time of the apostles or when the scritpures were written.

 

[Reuben_J]

Both Barsabbas and Matthias were witnesses to Christ’s ministry and resurrection.

Perhaps it’s important to note your position on this that the gifts ceased with the apostles and there was no necessity for apostolic succession. Please confirm that if I understand you correctly.

From my perspective that believe in the apostolic succession the election of Mathias was a great demonstration of this. As you rightly observed, both were witnesses to the resurrection and Christ ministry and yet only one was chosen for the post of the existing twelve apostles. So obviously at that point in time, the apostles were ‘offices’ that the vacant post needed to be filled.

 

[CopticChristian]

Reuben J;10269036:

This seems to work more to the contrary when they elected Mathias to replace the position of Judas.[/QUOTES]

Both Barsabbas and Matthias were witnesses to Christ’s ministry and resurrection.

Judas was being punished by having another man take his office. Judas is replaced as a unique fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 1:16), and his being replaced is seen as something negative (Acts 1:20), not something positive. He’s replaced by one man (Acts 1:20, 1:22), not by multiple men all claiming to be his successors. And when people like James (Acts 12:2), Paul, and Peter are killed or are nearing death, the events of Acts 1 aren’t repeated.

Gaelic,

Does the Bible Translation you have that you have yet to prove is Scripture record the death of all Apostles? If not then how do you know that they died?

 

[rfournier103]

Where in the Holy Bible does it say that the Bible alone is the deposit of faith? I’ve never understood where the philosophy of Sola Scriptura came from (or when).

Who is the man who decided that there would be no other authority than the Good Book?

What authority did we Christians have prior to 393 A.D. (Synod of Hippo)? Christians were rudderless prior to then?

I am very interested in the Protestant position on this.

There is no explicit verse, no. However it is more than conjecture. First, the requirement to be considered an apostle cannot be fulfilled by anyone, either today or in the post-apostolic church (Acts 1:21-22). That, in and of itself would be enough to demonstrate that the apostolic office ceased. Secondly, when the apostles themselves are nearing death or the end of their ministry, they never instruct anyone to ordain new apostles or that their charism would continue. Rather, they say to remember what they were taught by the apostles and entrust it to those who come after them (Acts 20:28-35, 2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2). Lastly, it’s a matter of historical record that those things gifted to the apostles -revelation, miracles, healing, divine assistance- ceased.

Reuben J;10269036:

This seems to work more to the contrary when they elected Mathias to replace the position of Judas.[/QUOTES]

Both Barsabbas and Matthias were witnesses to Christ’s ministry and resurrection.

Judas was being punished by having another man take his office. Judas is replaced as a unique fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 1:16), and his being replaced is seen as something negative (Acts 1:20), not something positive. He’s replaced by one man (Acts 1:20, 1:22), not by multiple men all claiming to be his successors. And when people like James (Acts 12:2), Paul, and Peter are killed or are nearing death, the events of Acts 1 aren’t repeated.

May I have a citation of where in the Bible it states that when the Apostles died, their authority died with them? Are you sure that Acts 1:21-22 isn’t referring to that one instance?

Please give me ONE instance of any political or religious office that is abolished once the original founder dies. When the pastor of your ecclesiastical community retires, passes away, is fired, or decides he wants go somewhere else; does your whole congregation disband, take their Bibles, and found another congregation? Do you really think Jesus would only leave one deputy in charge and not lay groundwork for the future?

Peter’s death is NOT chronicled in the Bible. How can you know what heppened then? Catholics know what happened after because we have Sacred Tradition. If we go by the teachings of Sola Scriptura, did Peter never die?

Lastly, as far as miracles and such… MANY people will assert that they happen all the time. There are many documented cases of miracles that have never been explained or debunked. There are cases of VERY ill people making full recoveries after receiving the “Annointing of the Sick.” You have either never heard of them, or refuse to believe it actually happened.

I will cite a PERSONAL example. My Protestant girlfriend (soon to be Catholic) and I had a MASSIVE blowout regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We had our Bibles out and everything. That was a Wednesday. Needless to say we were hanging by a thread as a couple… That Sunday she went to Mass with me and the priest delivered a homily about (wait for it…) THE REAL PRESENCE!!! We were BOTH moved to tears. The readings in the Catholic Church are planned YEARS in advance, and our argument was 100% spontaneous. That was NO coincidence.

PS: Catholic priests, bishops, and the Pope turn bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ every day. Quite a miracle.

 

[CopticChristian]

Reuben J;10269036:

This seems to work more to the contrary when they elected Mathias to replace the position of Judas.[/QUOTES]

Both Barsabbas and Matthias were witnesses to Christ’s ministry and resurrection.

Judas was being punished by having another man take his office. Judas is replaced as a unique fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 1:16), and his being replaced is seen as something negative (Acts 1:20), not something positive. He’s replaced by one man (Acts 1:20, 1:22), not by multiple men all claiming to be his successors. And when people like James (Acts 12:2), Paul, and Peter are killed or are nearing death, the events of Acts 1 aren’t repeated.

Gaelic,

I do want you to know that I keep you in my prayers daily. The sadness, distress, languish, insecurity you must feel that motivates you I do empathize with.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Many Protestants use St. Paul to counter Church teachings. Allow me please use St. Paul on Sacred Tradition.

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2)

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15)

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6)

Those three verses state clearly on how Tradition is to play a role in our lives.

God bless!

 

[Denise1957]

Our Lord said that He would be with His Apostles always. This is taken to mean that He will be with the successors to the Apostles. Our Lord told His Apostles to go out and teach all that He had taught, which is what the Aposltes and their successors have done. Jesus never said to print up all that he told them in a book. That came later, after the Apostles realized that there were problems with the faith being practiced and believed properly.

Gaelic, regarding the idea that miracles ceased in the Church, what about the life of St. Patrick? I hope that, having Irish Gaelic, that you have studied this great saint’s life. If you have, recall the miracle that occurred when St. Patrick and his friends were unable to hide in a field from enemies pursuing them. Remember that the enemies did not see them, though they were in plain view. What the enemies saw instead were deer. Thus St. Patrick and company escaped unharmed. There are so many instances of miracles in the Church since the death of the original Apostles.

According to early sources, Pope Linus succeeded St. Peter:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Linus

 

[CopticChristian]

Reuben J;10269036:

This seems to work more to the contrary when they elected Mathias to replace the position of Judas.[/QUOTES]

Both Barsabbas and Matthias were witnesses to Christ’s ministry and resurrection.

Judas was being punished by having another man take his office. Judas is replaced as a unique fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 1:16), and his being replaced is seen as something negative (Acts 1:20), not something positive. He’s replaced by one man (Acts 1:20, 1:22), not by multiple men all claiming to be his successors. And when people like James (Acts 12:2), Paul, and Peter are killed or are nearing death, the events of Acts 1 aren’t repeated.

Gaelic,

I believe I have a handle on your difficulty in formulating thoughts. I would like to say you don’t know Jack, but I won’t permit myself to say that…your problem is that you don’t know Alfred.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic Bard;10269072:

May I have a citation of where in the Bible it states that when the Apostles died, their authority died with them? Are you sure that Acts 1:21-22 isn’t referring to that one instance?

Yes I am. Which is why the Apostle Paul stresses in Galatians that his instruction came specifically from the risen Christ. Why? To demonstrate that he met the requirements of being an Apostle.

Please give me ONE instance of any political or religious office that is abolished once the original founder dies. When the pastor of your ecclesiastical community retires, passes away, is fired, or decides he wants go somewhere else; does your whole congregation disband, take their Bibles, and found another congregation? Do you really think Jesus would only leave one deputy in charge and not lay groundwork for the future?

Jesus did lay the groundwork for the future. The apostles are the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20). We build on that foundation. We do not keep laying the foundation continually. The apostles received direct revelatory teaching from Christ. As a result, their authority was founded upon the fact that the teaching they gave to the church had come directly from Christ. Those who came after them were entrusted with their teachings but did not have the same authority as them.

I’ve been asked a couple of times to demonstrate that revelation ceased with the apostles. Firstly, I don’t see why that’s necessary as it’s something that we agree on. I will humor, though.

The fullness of God’s revelation came through the Person of Jesus of Nazareth (Heb 1:1-3). Jesus gave this revelation to his disciples, of which he commissioned 12 to be his apostles. Jesus gave this teaching to no one else (Matt 13:11; Luke 8:10). When the apostle’s preached and later wrote the NT Scriptures, this teaching/revelation was preached and recorded. Since the fullness of revelation subsists in Jesus, once those who received that revelation from him passed, no new revelation can be given. Jude says that the faith has been deliverED once for ALL to the saints (Jude 3).

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Perhaps it’s important to note your position on this that the gifts ceased with the apostles and there was no necessity for apostolic succession. Please confirm that if I understand you correctly.

I don’t have a problem with succession, if succession is defined as that the apostles entrusted those they appointed as elders & deacons with their teaching. Those then passed it to who they appointed, etc. In other words, I hold Irenaeus view to basically be accurate. I do not believe that the gifts, authority, etc., of the apostles were handed on.

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t have a problem with succession, if succession is defined as that the apostles entrusted those they appointed as elders & deacons with their teaching. Those then passed it to who they appointed, etc. In other words, I hold Irenaeus view to basically be accurate. I do not believe that the gifts, authority, etc., of the apostles were handed on.

Gaelic,

Now I am positive you don’t know Alfred…whether or not you do not know Jack is up for discussion.

 

[Denise1957]

rfournier103;10269846:

Yes I am. Which is why the Apostle Paul stresses in Galatians that his instruction came specifically from the risen Christ. Why? To demonstrate that he met the requirements of being an Apostle.

What instruction was it that came directly from Christ according to Acts in scripture? In Acts 9:7, It says:

“And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do. Now the men who went in company with him, stood amazed, hearing indeed a voice, but seeing no man.”

As surely you are aware, St. Paul did as he was instructed, though he was blind and mostly helpless. The disciple Ananias, who had authority from the chief priests “to bind all who invoke thy name,” baptized Paul as per instructions he received in a dream. St. Paul still had to be baptized.

And yes, St. Paul also stresses in Romans that he is called to be an Apostle. Yet he was not one of the original twelve.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic, regarding the idea that miracles ceased in the Church, what about the life of St. Patrick? I hope that, having Irish Gaelic, that you have studied this great saint’s life. If you have, recall the miracle that occurred when St. Patrick and his friends were unable to hide in a field from enemies pursuing them. Remember that the enemies did not see them, though they were in plain view. What the enemies saw instead were deer. Thus St. Patrick and company escaped unharmed. There are so many instances of miracles in the Church since the death of the original Apostles.

Good morning, Denise.

Yes, I’ve heard a few of those stories surrounding him. No, I don’t believe in present day miracles. Miracles were given to the apostles and disciples in order to confirm that their ministry was ordained by God. Once that ministry was complete, there was no need for them to continue.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic Bard;10270167:

What instruction was it that came directly from Christ according to Acts in scripture? In Acts 9:7, It says:

“And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do. Now the men who went in company with him, stood amazed, hearing indeed a voice, but seeing no man.”

As surely you are aware, St. Paul did as he was instructed, though he was blind and mostly helpless. The disciple Ananias, who had authority from the chief priests “to bind all who invoke thy name,” baptized Paul as per instructions he received in a dream. St. Paul still had to be baptized.

And yes, St. Paul also stresses in Romans that he is called to be an Apostle. Yet he was not one of the original twelve.

See Galatians 1:11-24.

 

[Denise1957]

See Galatians 1:11-24.

I’m not seeing what the above verses have to do with what it says in Acts.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic Bard;10270258:

I’m not seeing what the above verses have to do with what it says in Acts.

Acts gives an overview of Paul’s conversion and the beginning of his ministry. Paul in Galatians is “filling in” the details of that time period. He spent 3 years being instructed by the risen Christ. Paul also says in the verses cited that he received none of his teaching from men but only from Christ.

 

[Denise1957]

Denise1957;10270286:

Acts gives an overview of Paul’s conversion and the beginning of his ministry. Paul in Galatians is “filling in” the details of that time period. He spent 3 years being instructed by the risen Christ. Paul also says in the verses cited that he received none of his teaching from men but only from Christ.

I see what you mean now. Actually St. Paul said that he was instructed by Jesus Christ and God the Father. But this is supposed to prove…what exactly, in your interpretation?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic Bard;10270293:

I see what you mean now. Actually St. Paul said that he was instructed by Jesus Christ and God the Father. But this is supposed to prove…what exactly, in your interpretation?

Oh, well…just that in order to be considered in the apostolic office, one must be a witness to the risen Christ. Someone challenged whether that was the case. I replied that that is why Paul brings up his personal instruction by Jesus to bear in Galatians; to show his having fulfilled apostolic requirements.

 

[rfournier103]

I don’t have a problem with succession, if succession is defined as that the apostles entrusted those they appointed as elders & deacons with their teaching. Those then passed it to who they appointed, etc. In other words, I hold Irenaeus view to basically be accurate. I do not believe that the gifts, authority, etc., of the apostles were handed on.

Eph. 2:20 states that the Church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.”

What builder stops construction after the foundation is finished? Doesn’t Paul ordain Timothy (Tim 1:6) with a laying on of the hands (as Catholic bishops do today)? How did Paul have the authority to do this? Paul was NOT one of the Apostles, was he? Even though Jesus appeared to Paul, he was ORDAINED by Ananias by the laying on of the hands:

Acts 9:17-20 So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, “Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit.” Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized, and when he had eaten, he recovered his strength. He stayed some days with the disciples in Damascus, and he began at once to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

This verbal preaching in the synagogues sure sounds alot like oral preaching to me. Paul was called by Jesus to be a bishop, and was thusly ordained. Paul wasn’t preaching before Ananais “laid hands on him” was he?

I realize, Bard, that there will be no convincing you of the FACTUAL historical succession that only the Catholic Church has. I would like to ask you again where in the Bible Sola Scriptura may be found. And if Christians are to be commanded by the Bible alone, how can it be that so many Protestant ecclesiastical communities have so many different interpetations? I am not a theologan, but is it possible that God can say one thing (through the Bible) yet mean many different things? I know I don’t think so. Also, how can centuries of Catholic scriptural study be wrong and YOU be right? The scriptures have been combed over in their original languages by men far more intelligent than you or I. What was the Christians’ authority before the Bible was published?

Without the Bible, and without succession, how did the Church (the Catholic Church) survive? Is Sola Scriptura a teaching of Jesus?