Sola Scriptura...

[Porknpie]

I asked President Harrison directly about the canon in a Twitter Q&A several months ago. I half-joked about CPH combining our new translation of the Apocrypha with the 66-book Bible in one printing. After all, it used to be printed together before our Synod switched to English. He joked that I was a “rascal,” and referred me to Franz Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics Volume 1. I’m still parsing my way through the hardcover. Martin Chemnitz’ Examination of the Council of Trent is equally as useful, IMO. Chemnitz (affectionately known in Lutheran circles as “Second Martin” ), explains in much more detail how the RCC’s view and purpose of ‘canon’ changed at Trent, among other topics.!

Steid -

I hit the link at stopped at item #1. I didn’t get very far. This is so wrong that I can only shake my head. I’ll look more tonight when I’m done with work and at home.

1. Holy Scripture the Only Source and Norm of Christian Doctrine for the Church Today.

The Scriptures, the written word of the Apostles and Prophets, are the complete and only source of Christian knowledge and teaching.

 

[aidanbradypop]

No we are not, since we reject consubstantiation.

I agree with your second point. The doctrine of the RP we share. How we express it differs.

Jon

Episcopalians, for the most part, believe in the RP because Christ said it was His body and blood. Enough said. lol

 

[spina1953]

Concerning SS: it seems to me that St John the Apostle in writing his Gospel wrote that not everything Jesus said and did was written down, that being the case this in of itself refutes any notion of a Sola Scriptura doctrine. For if sola scriptura were to be true St. John himself world not have wrote that not everything Jesus said and did was written down, but would have said that all Jesus said and did has been written down.
The main reason why the New testament is canonical is due to the fact that it agrees with the oral teachings, oral preaching and oral proclaiming of the Apostles and those whom they taught in the early Church. Jesus never said to the Apostles write everything I say and do but instead said to go out and preach all I have taught. In order for the new Testament books to be accepted by the Church, the books needed to agree with what the Church believed taught by Jesus Himself to the Apostles and their successors. The Church came before the Bible and it is to the Church to decide what books are considered inspired and what books are not inspired. It is to the Church to decide as she can rightfully claim to be the owners of Scripture and has the authority to interpret and teach what it says and the doctrines it contains.

 

[JonNC]

=spina1953;11610179]Concerning SS: it seems to me that St John the Apostle in writing his Gospel wrote that not everything Jesus said and did was written down, that being the case this in of itself refutes any notion of a Sola Scriptura doctrine. For if sola scriptura were to be true St. John himself world not have wrote that not everything Jesus said and did was written down, but would have said that all Jesus said and did has been written down.

No. That’s a misconception of what sola scriptura means. Sola scriptura means that scripture is the final norm for holding teachings and doctrines accountable. The “sola” applies then to what is the final norm - scripture.
That everything Jesus said is not written down is obvious - witness the recent Gospel lesson on Jesus in the temple. We know He spoke and asked questions, but we do not know what they are. That’s not the point, anyway.
I suspect, however, that something “REALLY important” probably did not escape the writers, and if it did, we depend on Grace.

The main reason why the New testament is canonical is due to the fact that it agrees with the oral teachings, oral preaching and oral proclaiming of the Apostles and those whom they taught in the early Church. Jesus never said to the Apostles write everything I say and do but instead said to go out and preach  all I have taught.

The NT books* were* the oral teachings of the Apostles.

In order for the new Testament books to be accepted by the Church, the books needed to agree with what the Church believed taught by Jesus Himself to the Apostles and their successors. **The Church came before the Bible **and it is to the Church to decide what books are considered inspired and what books are not inspired. It is to the Church to decide as she can rightfully claim to be the owners of Scripture and has the authority to interpret and teach what it says and the doctrines it contains.

Before which part of the Bible? The OT was written prior to Pentecost.

and it is to the Church to decide what books are considered inspired and what books are not inspired. It is to the Church to decide as she can rightfully claim to be the owners of Scripture and has the authority to interpret and teach what it says and the doctrines it contains

And here lies the constant issue; which part of the Church?

Jon

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me that during the time of Jesus there was not OT canon, so there were differences in what was inspired by the different Jewish religious fractions within the Jewish religion. Since the NT is only some of what was written down of what Jesus said and did, the Apostles when they speak, claim to speak with divine authority, but they nowhere profess in writing a system of Christian doctrine, the NT was written by the Church, by members (Apostles and evangelists) of the Church, it belongs to the Church, and it is her office, therefore, to declare what it means. It also serves as proof and testimony of the Church’s doctrines and divine authority, but as a complete and exclusive guide. The Bible above the Church; the Bible independent of the Church; the Bible, and the Bible only, the religion of Christians is not correct thinking. It was the Catholic Church who decided after much prayer etc… what books would be those that agreed with what Jesus taught and what the Apostles taught and preached and passed on to their successors. Without the Catholic Church, how would anyone know what is inspired and what is not.

 

[Topper17]

The main reason why the New testament is canonical is due to the fact that it agrees with the oral teachings, oral preaching and oral proclaiming of the Apostles and those whom they taught in the early Church. Jesus never said to the Apostles write everything I say and do but instead said to go out and preach  all I have taught. In order for the new Testament books to be accepted by the Church, the books needed to agree with what the Church believed taught by Jesus Himself to the Apostles and their successors. The Church came before the Bible and it is to the Church to decide what books are considered inspired and what books are not inspired. It is to the Church to decide as she can rightfully claim to be the owners of Scripture and has the authority to interpret and teach what it says and the doctrines it contains.

Hi Spina,

Excellent post. I agree completely.

We hear so often about the way that the canon was decided. Lately I have been hearing a lot about how Lutherans give great credence to the early Church, and thus have divided the NT into two different groups, which are used in different ways. The claim is that those books which were questioned by the early Church were put into this secondary category. However, this is not the only criteria the Church used because if it had, we would have FAR less than our 27 books.

I think you hit the nail right on the head. While the Church DID consider (in the 4th and early 5th centuries) which books had always been agreed upon, but that was not the only thing they used.

Christian had a rule of faith BEFORE the first book of the NT was written (about 50 AD) and before the last book was written (about 90-95 AD). That rule of faith was the Teaching of the Church, as contained in Sacred Tradition. There were several books which were very highly regarded and that did NOT make the final NT. For example the Letter of Clement to the Church at Corinth was considered to be Scripture at Corinth and was read in their masses for a long time, as if it was Scripture. In addition, Clement was certainly “Apostolic” in that it was written before the Apostle John died. Furthermore, Clement was at the time the Bishop of Rome, a successor to the Apostle Peter, and is actually mentioned in what we know to be the NT. In addition, as Bishop of Rome, Clement told (or really) ORDERED the Corinthians to 'Shape Up and OBEY your rightfully ordained clergy" And, as I am sure you know, they DID. The man had that much authority. What’s more, the evidence is that when the Corinthians found themselves in a jam, they appealed not to the Apostle John, who was about three times closer, but to the Bishop of Rome.

The canon was decided in large part on the basis of conformity to the Oral Tradition of the Church.

When Luther was criticizing the canon, he was claiming to appeal to the early Church, but was using a much different criteria than what the Church used when it, for all intents and purposes, set the canon.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[Novocastrian]

What’s more, the evidence is that when the Corinthians found themselves in a jam, they appealed not to the Apostle John, who was about three times closer, but to the Bishop of Rome.

This argument is so spurious.

(1) How do you know that John was at Ephesus?
(2) How do you know when John died?
(3) Corinth was a Roman colony. We can see in Acts that its Christians are most likely related to those expelled from Rome in the 40s AD. We can see in Paul’s letters that it was not uncommon for there to be movement to and from Rome.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Spina,

Excellent post. I agree completely.

We hear so often about the way that the canon was decided. Lately I have been hearing a lot about how Lutherans give great credence to the early Church, and thus have divided the NT into two different groups, which are used in different ways. The claim is that those books which were questioned by the early Church were put into this secondary category. However, this is not the only criteria the Church used because if it had, we would have FAR less than our 27 books.

I think you hit the nail right on the head. While the Church DID consider (in the 4th and early 5th centuries) which books had always been agreed upon, but that was not the only thing they used.

Christian had a rule of faith BEFORE the first book of the NT was written (about 50 AD) and before the last book was written (about 90-95 AD). That rule of faith was the Teaching of the Church, as contained in Sacred Tradition. There were several books which were very highly regarded and that did NOT make the final NT. For example the Letter of Clement to the Church at Corinth was considered to be Scripture at Corinth and was read in their masses for a long time, as if it was Scripture. In addition, Clement was certainly “Apostolic” in that it was written before the Apostle John died. Furthermore, Clement was at the time the Bishop of Rome, a successor to the Apostle Peter, and is actually mentioned in what we know to be the NT. In addition, as Bishop of Rome, Clement told (or really) ORDERED the Corinthians to 'Shape Up and OBEY your rightfully ordained clergy" And, as I am sure you know, they DID. The man had that much authority. What’s more, the evidence is that when the Corinthians found themselves in a jam, they appealed not to the Apostle John, who was about three times closer, but to the Bishop of Rome.

The canon was decided in large part on the basis of conformity to the Oral Tradition of the Church.

When Luther was criticizing the canon, he was claiming to appeal to the early Church, but was using a much different criteria than what the Church used when it, for all intents and purposes, set the canon.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

Hi Topper: Thanks for the support! I came across some more info that I am working on concerning the canon as well as sola scriptura that I think might be helpful in understanding the issue. God Bless

 

[Topper17]

This argument is so spurious.

Spurious? Seriously? This isn’t one of those “The Bible doesn’t say when John died” things is it?

(1) How do you know that John was at Ephesus?

“It is believed that the evangelist St. John had spent his last years in the region around Ephesus and buried in the southern slope of Ayosolug Hill. Three hundred years after the death of St. John, a small chapel was constructed over the grave in the 4th century. The church of St John was changed into a marvelous basilica during the region of Emperor Justinian (527 -565 AD).” From ephesus.us/ephesus/stjohn.htm

(2) How do you know when John died?

The short answer to both of the above questions that you asked is this: I read stuff.

“According to the Fathers, Clement of Rome was the third bishop of Rome after Peter (Peter was bishop until his martyrdom about A. D. 67; Linus, c. 67 c. 79 (Mentioned in 2 Tim 4:21); Anaclecut, c. 79-c.85; and Clement of Rome, c. 85-c. 96.) Eusebius wrote in 325, “Clement also, who was appointed third Bishop of Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-worker and fellow soldier (Phil 4:3), (Church History 3, 4, NPNF2, 1:137). Irenaeus, in the second century, says of this Clement, “The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostle, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing (in his ears), and their traditions before his eyes……The words ‘our own generation’ place Clement, his fellow Roman Christians, and his readers in the midst of the apostolic age.” Stephen Ray, “Upon This Rock”, pg. 70

Remember, Clement told the Corinthian Church to “Shape Up”, and you know what? They did and restored their rightfully ordained leadership.

“At the time of Clement’s “First Epistle to the Corinthians,” the Apostle John was presumably living and presiding over the Asian Churches only 240 miles from Corinth. Why was John not consulted to correct the problem at Corinth? Why was the task assumed to be the responsibility of Rome, which was well over six hundred miles away? Ray, ibid, pg. 122

“Clement of Rome (fl. A.D. 96) our first witness, was probably a Gentile and a Roman – the third bishop of Rome after Peter and an associate of the same……Clement was the Bishop of Rome during the lifetime of the Apostle John, and wrote “The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians” in the name of the Roman Church in A.D. 96.”Ray, ibid, Pg. 120

“Regarding the ordination of Clement, Tertullian states, “Clement was ordained by Peter” to succeed him as bishop of Rome……Some question arises as to whether Clement succeeded Peter directly or was third in the line of succession after Peter. Since tradition tells us Clement was ordained by Peter (although we are not told the details), it seems likely that Clement, though ordained by Peter, declined the episcopal office for twenty-four years, deferring the position of bishop to Linus, only to take up the office later for a period of nine years.” Ray, ibid, pg. 119

(3) Corinth was a Roman colony. We can see in Acts that its Christians are most likely related to those expelled from Rome in the 40s AD. We can see in Paul’s letters that it was not uncommon for there to be movement to and from Rome.

This last point doesn’t make any sense to me.

Novo – have you read Clement’s letter to the Church at Corinth? It is an amazing first century demonstration of the authority of the Bishop of Rome. He was not at all bashful about asserting his authority. He even went so far as to say:

“If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us (the Church at Rome), let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement

What is most important is that this Bishop of Rome knew both Peter and Paul, and unless people are willing to suggest that Clement overstepped, they will have to conclude that Clement was acting as Peter and Paul had taught.

I fully recognize how challenging Clement’s letter is to the idea that all of the early Churches were relatively autonomous and so I do understand your reaction. But one thing you should know – it is the text of the letter which really demonstrates how Clement viewed his responsibility as the Bishop of Rome for the distant Churches.

God Bless You Novo, Topper

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;11607117:

None whatsoever. Nobody in their right mind is arguing that Scripture as we have it now is eternal. It has a beginning in time. But once it’s there, it’s a yardstick.

Exactly! Precisely why SS is a late invention. SS is based on scripture alone,thus it cannot validity prior to its inception.

It is a yardstick? Since when did become an official yardstick and who decided?

 

[pablope]

I wouldn’t even say vital. I think, in light of the fracturing of Tradition by schism, it serves as a reasonable practice of holding doctrine accountable.

Jon

And who would do the job of holding doctrine accountable?

The presidend of the LCMS? The Patriarch of Constantinople? The bishop of Rome?

Each and every protestant pastor?

Who do you propose everyone would listen to once someone opens his mouth to speak on doctrine?

 

[pablope]

Nicea325;11607117:

None whatsoever. Nobody in their right mind is arguing that Scripture as we have it now is eternal. It has a beginning in time. But once it’s there, it’s a yardstick

.

A yardstick for what?

The church, both east and west, that originally put the bible together, to this day, does not use it as a yardstick…

And you have used it as such a yardstick…and what has using it as a yardstick achieved so far for protestants?

 

[Novocastrian]

Spurious? Seriously? This isn’t one of those “The Bible doesn’t say when John died” things is it?

No, not at all. I’m not making a theological case here that one must have proof from the Bible. I am asking for any relevant historical evidence whatsoever. Your ‘John was still alive’ argument is a serious claim of great import regarding authority in the early Church; I’d expect you to have a little bit of historical evidence to back it up.

“It is believed that the evangelist St. John had spent his last years in the region around Ephesus and …]Hill. Three hundred years after the death of St. John, a small chapel was constructed over the grave in the 4th century.

Everyone knows that “it is believed”. I’m asking why. The fourth century is quite a way away.

The short answer to both of the above questions that you asked is this: I read stuff.

But we’re always being told how unreliable the private judgement of an individual reader is.

“According to the Fathers, Clement of Rome was the third bishop of Rome after Peter (Peter was bishop until his martyrdom about A. D. 67; Linus, c. 67 c. 79…

Re: Clement as author, I think we can be clear about a few different things.

First is that the letter is almost certainly authentic. Clement’s name in the historical record is undoubted. We have a physical copy from the fifth century in the form of the Codex Alexandrinus. The identification of Clement with the individual mentioned in Philippians 4.3 seems plausible, but the connection does not seem to be made before Origen.

Second is that the letter is not presented as being from a Bishop, but as from one Church to another. Ignatius appears unaware of a monarchical episcopate at Rome; likewise in his letter Clement seems to characterise the/a church’s leadership as a group of presbuteroi. There certainly seems to be no single bishop envisaged at Corinth. To read Clement the single bishop of Rome and successor of St. Peter seems an historical anachronism.

Remember, Clement told the Corinthian Church to “Shape Up”, and you know what? They did and restored their rightfully ordained leadership.

Agreed. He clearly had authority. But it is anachronistic to see that authority in terms of a Pope with universal jurisdiction writing to an obedient local church.

“At the time of Clement’s “First Epistle to the Corinthians,” the Apostle John was presumably living and presiding over the Asian Churches only 240 miles from Corinth. Why was John not consulted to correct the problem at Corinth? Why was the task assumed to be the responsibility of Rome, which was well over six hundred miles away? Ray, ibid, pg. 122

There are all sorts of reasons that could potentially answer this question without requiring a Papal explanation, as I have pointed out in previous posts.

“Clement of Rome (fl. A.D. 96) our first witness, was probably a Gentile and a Roman – the third bishop of Rome after Peter and an associate of the same…

That’s an oversimplification. As stated, the historical assessment of the letter seems uncontroversial: Clement was an authoritative teacher, and he was a presbyter/episkopos; this does not mean that he was the sole bishop of a See or a Pope teaching infallibly or exercising immediate and universal jurisdiction.

“Regarding the ordination of Clement, Tertullian states, “Clement was ordained by Peter” to succeed him as bishop of Rome……Some question arises as to whether Clement succeeded Peter directly or was third in the line of succession after Peter. Since tradition tells us Clement was ordained by Peter (although we are not told the details), it seems likely that Clement, though ordained by Peter, declined the episcopal office for twenty-four years, deferring the position of bishop to Linus, only to take up the office later for a period of nine years.” Ray, ibid, pg. 119

I think we can all agree that this shows a serious problem in the historical record, arising largely from the need to read an anachronistic church structure back onto the available data concerning the Roman church of the first century AD.

This last point doesn’t make any sense to me.

Well it should do. Any serious historian will tell you that there are other reasons for the Roman and Corinthian churches to have close ties, including authoritative ones, than the existence in the late first century of a Pope issuing decrees unquestioningly accepted by a church supposedly recognising the immediate universal jurisdiction of that bishop!

Novo – have you read Clement’s letter to the Church at Corinth? It is an amazing first century demonstration of the authority of the Bishop of Rome. He was not at all bashful about asserting his authority. He even went so far as to say:

“If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us (the Church at Rome), let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement

No, it shows authority exercised by the Roman Church, in Corinth. It does not show the authority of a Roman bishop, because the evidence suggesting Clement as a bishop is deeply problematic. And it does not show authority exercised outside Corinth, because of its very nature as a letter. Stop torturing the available evidence to make it say more than it is capable of saying!

 

[Novocastrian]

Cont’d:

What is most important is that this Bishop of Rome knew both Peter and Paul, and unless people are willing to suggest that Clement overstepped, they will have to conclude that Clement was acting as Peter and Paul had taught.

Yep. But he’s not acting as a mediaeval or modern Pope would or could.

I fully recognize how challenging Clement’s letter is to the idea that all of the early Churches were relatively autonomous and so I do understand your reaction. But one thing you should know – it is the text of the letter which really demonstrates how Clement viewed his responsibility as the Bishop of Rome for the distant Churches.

God Bless You Novo, Topper

It would be deeply anachronistic of me to suppose that the first century Christians were Congregationalist protestants, with fully independent local churches, and no authoritative hierarchy throughout the world. It is *equally *anachronistic for you to say that 1 Clement is evidence of a Papacy as anyone would now recognise it. Clement is not clearly the sole Roman episkopos/presbuteros; he is not making any claim to infallibility; and the letter does not demonstrate anything like the kind of immediate jurisdiction that you claim for the Roman See since the time of the Apostles.

 

[Porknpie]

To read Clement the single bishop of Rome and successor of St. Peter seems an historical anachronism.

… evidence suggesting Clement as a bishop is deeply problematic… Stop torturing the available evidence to make it say more than it is capable of saying!

One thing I must say about CAF is that I often find myself looking up words to understand their meaning. Here’s the definition from Webster.

ANACHRONISM

1 an error in chronology; especially : a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other

It’s clear that the Church kept a chronology of who succeeded St. Peter. Nothing troubling here unless you offer a different list from the early Church that says otherwise.

“[D]uring the days of that Anicetus, bishop of Rome, who succeeded Pius and his predecessors, For, in Rome, Peter and Paul were the first both apostles and bishops; then came Linus, then Cletus … However the succession of the bishops in Rome was in the following order. Peter and Paul, and Cletus, Clement….” Epiphanius, Panarion, 27:6 (A.D. 377).

“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: – Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius.” Augustine, To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400).

 

[Novocastrian]

One thing I must say about CAF is that I often find myself looking up words to understand their meaning. Here’s the definition from Webster.

ANACHRONISM

1 an error in chronology; especially : a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other

It’s clear that the Church kept a chronology of who succeeded St. Peter. Nothing troubling here unless you offer a different list from the early Church that says otherwise.

“[D]uring the days of that Anicetus, bishop of Rome, who succeeded Pius and his predecessors, For, in Rome, Peter and Paul were the first both apostles and bishops; then came Linus, then Cletus … However the succession of the bishops in Rome was in the following order. Peter and Paul, and Cletus, Clement….” Epiphanius, Panarion, 27:6 (A.D. 377).

“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: – Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius.” Augustine, To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400).

Those lists date from a very different time, when the monarchical episcopate had become the norm throughout the Roman world. It is anachronistic, because our first century evidence suggests things were not so uniform; we appear to have a monarchical episcopate in the Asian provinces of the empire, but not in Rome itself. While absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, there is no evidence in 1 Clement that Clement is writing as the bishop of the Roman Church, nor that he is writing to a Corinthian church familiar with such an episcopate.

This concern is articulated in slightly greater detail in my posts above.

 

[aidanbradypop]

It would be deeply anachronistic of me to suppose that the first century Christians were Congregationalist protestants, with fully independent local churches, and no authoritative hierarchy throughout the world. It is *equally *anachronistic for you to say that 1 Clement is evidence of a Papacy as anyone would now recognise it. Clement is not clearly the sole Roman episkopos/presbuteros; he is not making any claim to infallibility; and the letter does not demonstrate anything like the kind of immediate jurisdiction that you claim for the Roman See since the time of the Apostles.

I agree!

In a letter, Clement of Rome writes to James in Jerusalem. James was called as the “bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Assembly of Hebrews, and all assemblies everywhere.”

Why would the Pope of Rome write to a bishop in Jerusalem and call him the Bishop of Bishops and a ruler of assemblies everywhere?

 

[Novocastrian]

I agree!

In a letter, Clement of Rome writes to James in Jerusalem. James was called as the “bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Assembly of Hebrews, and all assemblies everywhere.”

Why would the Pope of Rome write to a bishop in Jerusalem and call him the Bishop of Bishops and a ruler of assemblies everywhere?

You’re quoting Pseudo-Clement, which is probably 3rd century.

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;11616503]And who would do the job of holding doctrine accountable?

The presidend of the LCMS? The Patriarch of Constantinople? The bishop of Rome?

Exactly, in a general sense - the Church. If they all spoke with the same voice, that would be optimal.

Each and every protestant pastor?

Not in your communion or mine.
Jon

 

[ericc]

I agree!

In a letter, Clement of Rome writes to James in Jerusalem. James was called as the “bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Assembly of Hebrews, and all assemblies everywhere.”

Why would the Pope of Rome write to a bishop in Jerusalem and call him the Bishop of Bishops and a ruler of assemblies everywhere?

Yes indeed. Is this letter authenticated? I just checked en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just (not the ideal source but available instantly which can be verified when time permits) and I read that “In a third century letter pseudographically ascribed[3] to the second century Clement of Rome, James was called as the “bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Assembly of Hebrews, and all assemblies everywhere.””. As far as I know, Clement left only one genuine writing, a letter to the Church of Corinth. Unless you can proof otherwise, you are quoting false writings. I hope we have not degenerated to that level.

It is also not common for non-Catholics to quote James as he is not helpful to Protestant doctrines (epistle of straw, remember?) Hence, this is a head-scratcher. or are we clutching at straws?