Solas of the Protestant Reformation

[Benadam]

Benadam;4049423:

Hi Benadam,

Thank you for your kind and respectful post. I know it is difficult to communicate through e-mail. We all have our presuppositions. I do not mean to state this in disrespect for Roman Catholic Christians. But, when you discuss and debate authority with LDS Christians (Mormons), they too will claim apostolic succession. Aposotlic sucession (Roman Catholic or LDS) is a different form of authority than Scripture alone. The basis of the Protestant Reformation is the rejection of the Catholic magestrium for final authority of Scripture. How does God speak to us authoratively? Here is a simple non-essential debate to illustrate my point. Do you believe the first Pope had a wife?

You can’t avoid the historical support that distinguishes the succession claimed by the Catholic Magisterium from the Mormon claim founded solely on Joseph Smith’s visions. Mormon claims are more like Muslim claims. A divine revelation from an angel delivered through a wounded intellect is incorruptible and necessary in order to correct the corrupted divine revelation delivered by God Himself in the flesh. Very difficult for a Trinitarian to accept for sure. Most mainstream protestants consider mormonism outside the pail. Paul demonstrated that the authority of a vision relied on it’s conformity and submission to the authority delivered in the flesh.

Yes I believe the first Pope had a wife.

 

[Reformed]

Reformed;4049601:

You can’t avoid the historical support that distinguishes the succession claimed by the Catholic Magisterium from the Mormon claim founded solely on Joseph Smith’s visions. Mormon claims are more like Muslim claims. A divine revelation from an angel delivered through a wounded intellect is incorruptible and necessary in order to correct the corrupted divine revelation delivered by God Himself in the flesh. Very difficult for a Trinitarian to accept for sure. Most mainstream protestants consider mormonism outside the pail. Paul demonstrated that the authority of a vision relied on it’s conformity and submission to the authority delivered in the flesh.

Yes I believe the first Pope had a wife.

How did you determine that the first Pope had a wife? I also do not see that Peter was in charge at the Council of Jerusalem according to Scripture? BTW… I love the Apostle Peter and Mary mother of Jesus according to the Scriptures.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

How did you determine that the first Pope had a wife? I also do not see that Peter was in charge at the Council of Jerusalem according to Scripture? BTW… I love the Apostle Peter and Mary mother of Jesus according to the Scriptures.

St. Peter spoke first and decided the matter unhesitatingly [cf Acts 15:7-11], declaring that the Gentile converts were not bound by the Mosaic Law. He claimed to exercise authority in the name of his special election by God to receive the Gentiles (Acts 15:7), and he severely rebuked those who held the opposite view (Acts 15:10). After he had spoken, "all the multitude held their peace " (Acts 15:12) [immediately before Peter spoke, remember, there had been “much debate”–, verse 7]. Those who spoke after him merely confirmed his decision…James gave no special decision on the question…Moreover the decree is attributed to the Council of Apostles and Presbyters and not to James personally (Acts 16:4).

Did you miss my responses to your other posts?

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Benadam]

Benadam;4049950:

How did you determine that the first Pope had a wife? I also do not see that Peter was in charge at the Council of Jerusalem according to Scripture? BTW… I love the Apostle Peter and Mary mother of Jesus according to the Scriptures.

Because the Magisterium that flows from the first pope put it’s stamp of approval on the written account that describes the events that reveal it.

I wonder on who’s authority you are able to believe that the bible is divinely inspired. Could you have determined that without a human tradition of belief that it is? For example if you had never heard of Christ and you lived on an island isolated from christian cultures and found a bible could you determine that it was God breathed and be renewed in Christ. Supposing that you did experience a conversion how could you validate the experience as coming from the Holy Spirit?

 

[Benadam]

This is my objection to sola scriptura. It presupposes that sin clouded intellect is capable of apprehending Truth unambiguously. It presupposes that the symbols that are attached to divine concepts are in of themselves capable of revealing the mind of God as it was received by the inspired author. That the community that surrounded Christ and was desribed by Him as a light on a hill is no longer necessary to reveal the True faith.

More than that, it supposes that that community stopped being a witness of the True Faith and that their is no longer a visible witness of the True Faith on earth.

How can anyone really know Christ without resorting to the community that He revealed Himself to?

 

[sola_scriptura]

Hi everyone,

Would you like to discuss the solas of the Protestant Reformation? I know there are always numerous discussions on Sola scriptura, and Sola fide. However, I think we should spend time on the solas of grace alone, by Christ alone and to the glory of God alone. We were saved to the praise of His glorious grace.

1 Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)
2 Sola fide (“by faith alone”)
3 Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)
4 Solus Christus (“Christ alone”)
5 Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas

Outstanding idea, since I’m Presbyterian (I guess I’m a bit biased).

I say start with “by Grace alone” (it’s my favorite).

 

[sola_scriptura]

St. Peter spoke first and decided the matter unhesitatingly [cf Acts 15:7-11], declaring that the Gentile converts were not bound by the Mosaic Law. He claimed to exercise authority in the name of his special election by God to receive the Gentiles (Acts 15:7), and he severely rebuked those who held the opposite view (Acts 15:10). After he had spoken, "all the multitude held their peace " (Acts 15:12) [immediately before Peter spoke, remember, there had been “much debate”–, verse 7]. Those who spoke after him merely confirmed his decision…James gave no special decision on the question…Moreover the decree is attributed to the Council of Apostles and Presbyters and not to James personally (Acts 16:4).

Did you miss my responses to your other posts?

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

I would agree with you here. However, this is the argument I generally turn around. The Counsel of Jerusalem and Peter’s role as mediator between the Pauline gentile Christians and the Jewish converts under James was the fulfillment of his role as rock.

Christ gave Peter a temporal commission, not one that was envisioned as extending into the creation of a Papacy. In fact when we go back to the time of Polycarp and read his epistle to the Philippians we see the churches at that time were generally organized in a Presbyterian structure; and the larger communities had bishops. There was no primacy at Rome. This did not occur until the second century (namely it was Irenaeus who first articulated the idea of a church headed at Rome). The bishops of Rome (btw there is no evidence Peter was ever a bishop of Rome) were just that – bishops.

Essentially the idea that the line of Popes extend back to the Apostles is revisionist history. There is an attenuated connection. For example, Polycarp was a follower of John, and Irenaeus was once a student of Polycarp. Clement of Rome is thought to be mentioned by Paul, and Ignatius was an early church leader during the time of Polycarp (and the Apostolic age) who maintained a close relationship with Polycarp.

However, if you desire to go this route in claiming an unbroken episcopacy certainly the Greek Church has a more solid and verifiable line dating all the way back to Polycarp, who we know was a disciple of John and whose authorship of his epistle has been verified. I think you’re best case is with Clement.

Much of Peter’s activities in Rome are simply lost history. We know he was killed in Rome that’s about it. Moreover, Paul also built many churches scattered throughout Greece and Asia Minor (Turkey). None of those churches had any connection with Rome that would infer Roman authority over those churches. They did write letters to each other and they did strive to stay on the same page concerning doctrine … but that’s it (in fact things existed like this for over a century after Paul was martyred in Rome).

At the reformation all the Catholic churches in northern Germany (for the most part) broke from Rome, taking their priests and many of their bishops with them. So the Lutheran church by all accounts has succession – it was merely invalidated by Rome because all those clergymen were excommunicated. Perhaps one of the two groups did loose their Apostolic Succession – but how about the proposition that it was Rome & not the German churches that lost succession?

If we are to assume that succession must at a minimum rest on sound teachings and right conduct (by at least the broader church leadership) then it seems the RCC would have lost succession not the Lutherans. I’m not Lutheran, nor do I take the view of succession that either the RCC or Lutherans do – I’m just saying, this seems like a logical conclusion.

 

[sola_scriptura]

This is my objection to sola scriptura. It presupposes that sin clouded intellect is capable of apprehending Truth unambiguously.

Actually it’s just the opposite. With Scripture we have clear and unambiguous (for the most part) writings to follow – while with the RCC (and EOC) idea of “tradition” it seems like the “sin clouded intellect” as you call it – can make it up as they go along?

 

[Benadam]

Actually it’s just the opposite. With Scripture we have clear and unambiguous (for the most part) writings to follow – while with the RCC (and EOC) idea of “tradition” it seems like the “sin clouded intellect” as you call it – can make it up as they go along?

I would believe that if there never was a True Faith delivered to Human witnesses. The fact that there was a human community that possessed the True Faith confirms that there still is a human community that possesses the True Faith because it follows that if it trully was the True Faith it would be impossible for it to be lost to corruption. Scripture testifies to Jesus yet it was not unambigous eneogh for the experts of scripture to recognize Jesus. Why would today be different than then if no one preserved that revelation unadulterated?

 

[sola_scriptura]

I would believe that if there never was a True Faith delivered to Human witnesses. The fact that there was a human community that possessed the True Faith confirms that there still is a human community that possesses the True Faith because it follows that if it trully was the True Faith it would be impossible for it to be lost to corruption. Scripture testifies to Jesus yet it was not unambigous eneogh for the experts of scripture to recognize Jesus. Why would today be different than then if no one preserved that revelation unadulterated?

Can you coherently trace your church back to the Apostles?

Tell me where you’re Mariology comes from (for instance) or the idea of intercession or the use of icons? These ideas do not exist in Scripture. In fact we are told we have only one mediator. There is no scriptural authority for a co-redeemer (as another example).

So please, tell me what Apostle created these doctrines?

 

[Reformed]

Reformed;4050071:

Because the Magisterium that flows from the first pope put it’s stamp of approval on the written account that describes the events that reveal it.

I wonder on who’s authority you are able to believe that the bible is divinely inspired. Could you have determined that without a human tradition of belief that it is? For example if you had never heard of Christ and you lived on an island isolated from christian cultures and found a bible could you determine that it was God breathed and be renewed in Christ. Supposing that you did experience a conversion how could you validate the experience as coming from the Holy Spirit?

Here is my answer to why I believe Peter had a wife:

"And he arose and left the synagogue and entered Simon’s house. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was ill with a high fever, and they appealed to him on her behalf. And he stood over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her, and immediately she rose and began to serve them. - Luke 4:38-39

I believe the Bible to be the Word of God by the Spirit of God revealing it to be the Word of God. There are many who belong to the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches who are told that the Bible is the Word of God and don’t believe it. Please consider the Scriptures again. If someone needs a religious institution to convince you that the Bible is God-breathed, then that conviction was probably received in the flesh and won’t last. Only God can enable someone to believe that the Bible is the Word of God with lasting conviction. The Apostle Paul thanks God that a group of people have received the word of God as the Word of God. Notice that he did not thank a religious instution for their faith in the Word of God.

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. 1 Thes 2;13

Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” - John 8:47

 

[Benadam]

Can you coherently trace your church back to the Apostles?

Tell me where you’re Mariology comes from (for instance) or the idea of intercession or the use of icons? These ideas do not exist in Scripture. In fact we are told we have only one mediator. There is no scriptural authority for a co-redeemer (as another example).

So please, tell me what Apostle created these doctrines?

Your premise is false. That Scripture is able to preserve and express everything that is divinely revealed by Christ. Jesus entrusted Himself to a human community and the revelation of Himself He entrusted to human agency.

The doctrins surrounding Jesus’ mother are supported by scripture the unity of the Church with the members who are out of the body with Christ conforms with the Gospel message, the use of icons to express the life of Christ on earth is holy just as the words you call holy are that describe the life of Christ on earth.

Another false premise you lean on is that scripture has no more depth to reveal for you. Do you really believe that because you can’t see something that it isn’t there?

Here is something scripture reveals about God’s mother. Through Mary the world receives salvation. Deny that you deny scripture.

The humanity of Christ was a product of His mother’s humanity. Mary could say of her union with God,; flesh of my flesh bone of my bone. Deny that you deny scripture.

God’s authority on earth was given to His mother untill she inaugurated His public ministry.

No other person’s suffering was joined to Christ’s by prophetic utterance. " and a sword will pierce your heart also"

John begins his account of the wedding at Cana " on the third day there was a wedding and Mary was there" has a familiar ring?

You said; " These ideas do not exist in Scripture. " I find that kind of statement difficult to utter in confidence.

Explore with a heart that thinks " I can’t see it so I can’t believe" rather than " I can’t see it therefore it isn’t there" This will keep you from being amongst the blind who lead the blind Jesus rejected.

 

[Benadam]

Benadam;4050103:

Here is my answer to why I believe Peter had a wife:

"And he arose and left the synagogue and entered Simon’s house. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was ill with a high fever, and they appealed to him on her behalf. And he stood over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her, and immediately she rose and began to serve them. - Luke 4:38-39

I believe the Bible to be the Word of God by the Spirit of God revealing it to be the Word of God. There are many who belong to the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches who are told that the Bible is the Word of God and don’t believe it. Please consider the Scriptures again. If someone needs a religious institution to convince you that the Bible is God-breathed, then that conviction was probably received in the flesh and won’t last. Only God can enable someone to believe that the Bible is the Word of God with lasting conviction. The Apostle Paul thanks God that a group of people have received the word of God as the Word of God. Notice that he did not thank a religious instution for their faith in the Word of God.

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. 1 Thes 2;13

Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” - John 8:47
There is only one way that God instituted as a means to receive faith in Him. Through human agency. I am with you believing that without God’s grace we can’t receive it but you deny the means by which God offers it.

The source of your faith is not from Christ directly. Only those who knew and believed in Him in the flesh can say that th source of their faith is directly from God. The rest of us must admit to a faith preserved by our human predecessors.

God chooses to work within the order he created in the beginning. God chose to offer Himself through the community that surrounds Him since the beginning. Without them the tradition that documents their life in His Public Revelation becomes blurred and twisted as Peter taught.

Jesus refered to Scripture as a 'testimony of me" He refered to the community Saul was persecuting as “ME”

Christ is offered primarily through a community that was and therefore remains a visible reality on earth. To believe otherwise is to believe that Christ’s Church corrupted and is now an invisible reality unable to point to as a Witness to Truth.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I would agree with you here. However, this is the argument I generally turn around. The Counsel of Jerusalem and Peter’s role as mediator between the Pauline gentile Christians and the Jewish converts under James was the fulfillment of his role as rock.

Christ gave Peter a temporal commission, not one that was envisioned as extending into the creation of a Papacy. In fact when we go back to the time of Polycarp and read his epistle to the Philippians we see the churches at that time were generally organized in a Presbyterian structure; and the larger communities had bishops. There was no primacy at Rome. This did not occur until the second century (namely it was Irenaeus who first articulated the idea of a church headed at Rome). The bishops of Rome (btw there is no evidence Peter was ever a bishop of Rome) were just that – bishops.

Essentially the idea that the line of Popes extend back to the Apostles is revisionist history. There is an attenuated connection. For example, Polycarp was a follower of John, and Irenaeus was once a student of Polycarp. Clement of Rome is thought to be mentioned by Paul, and Ignatius was an early church leader during the time of Polycarp (and the Apostolic age) who maintained a close relationship with Polycarp.

However, if you desire to go this route in claiming an unbroken episcopacy certainly the Greek Church has a more solid and verifiable line dating all the way back to Polycarp, who we know was a disciple of John and whose authorship of his epistle has been verified. I think you’re best case is with Clement.

Much of Peter’s activities in Rome are simply lost history. We know he was killed in Rome that’s about it. Moreover, Paul also built many churches scattered throughout Greece and Asia Minor (Turkey). None of those churches had any connection with Rome that would infer Roman authority over those churches. They did write letters to each other and they did strive to stay on the same page concerning doctrine … but that’s it (in fact things existed like this for over a century after Paul was martyred in Rome).

At the reformation all the Catholic churches in northern Germany (for the most part) broke from Rome, taking their priests and many of their bishops with them. So the Lutheran church by all accounts has succession – it was merely invalidated by Rome because all those clergymen were excommunicated. Perhaps one of the two groups did loose their Apostolic Succession – but how about the proposition that it was Rome & not the German churches that lost succession?

If we are to assume that succession must at a minimum rest on sound teachings and right conduct (by at least the broader church leadership) then it seems the RCC would have lost succession not the Lutherans. I’m not Lutheran, nor do I take the view of succession that either the RCC or Lutherans do – I’m just saying, this seems like a logical conclusion.

The biggest problem with your speculation is the fact that the Lutheran Church was started in the 1500s and was a result of Martin Luther’s schism from the Catholic Church.

The Presbyterian Church was formed after Martin Luther’s schism.

The individual Churches who were in receipt of the letters from the Apostles were connected, evident by the simple fact that they submitted those letters over to the authority of the one Church they considered themselves a part of or we would not have one complete Bible we have today.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD 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.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

I’m not sure what you mean about Peter’s role being fulfilled. Seems by the scriptures below, Peter had full authority over the Church and not just temporary.

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Primacy of Peter was not temporary. Having authority to bind and loose on earth, and promised it would be bound and loosed in heaven, was full authority.

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

Mar 16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee. There you shall see him, as he told you.

Luk 24:34 Saying: The Lord is risen indeed and hath appeared to Simon.

Act 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus and Simon Zelotes and Jude the brother of James.
Act 1:14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Act 1:15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty):
Act 1:16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus:
Act 1:17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
Act 1:18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.
Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us,
Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection.
Act 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
Act 1:24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the heart of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
Act 1:25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
Act 1:26 And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Act 2:14 But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you and with your ears receive my words.

Act 2:41 They therefore that received his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.

Act 3:6 But Peter said: Silver and gold I have none; but what I have, I give thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise and walk.
Act 3:7 And taking him by the right hand, he lifted him up: and forthwith his feet and soles received strength.

Act 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Saphira his wife, sold a piece of land,
Act 5:2 And by fraud kept back part of the price of the land, his wife being privy thereunto: and bringing a certain part of it, laid it at the feet of the apostles.
Act 5:3 But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost and by fraud keep part of the price of the land?
Act 5:4 Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? And after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God.
Act 5:5 And Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and gave up the ghost. And there came great fear upon all that heard it.
Act 5:6 And the young men rising up, removed him, and carrying him out, buried him.
Act 5:7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what had happened, came in.
Act 5:8 And Peter said to her: Tell me, woman, whether you sold the land for so much? And she said: Yea, for so much.
Act 5:9 And Peter said unto her: Why have you agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord? Behold the feet of them who have buried thy husband are at the door: and they shall carry thee out,
Act 5:10 Immediately, she fell down before his feet and gave up the ghost. And the young men coming in found her dead: and carried her out and buried her by her husband.
Act 5:11 And there came great fear upon the whole church and upon all that heard these things.

Act 8:21 Thou hast no part nor lot in this matter. For thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

Act 10:44 While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word.
Act 10:45 And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speaking with tongues and magnifying God.

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Act 15:19 For which cause, judge that they who from among the Gentiles are converted to God are not to be disquieted:

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Peter’s name always heads the list of Apostles

Mat 10:1 And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities.
Mat 10:2 And the names of the twelve Apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother,
Mat 10:3 James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus,
Mat 10:4 Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Mar 3:16 And to Simon he gave the name Peter:
Mar 3:17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he named them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder.
Mar 3:18 And Andrew and Philip, and Bartholomew and Matthew, and Thomas and James of Alpheus, and Thaddeus and Simon the Cananean:
Mar 3:19 And Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Luk 6:14 Simon, whom he surnamed Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
Luk 6:15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who is called Zelotes,
Luk 6:16 And Jude the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor.

Act 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus and Simon Zelotes and Jude the brother of James.

Peter and his companions

Luk 9:32 But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep. And waking, they saw his glory and the two men that stood with him.

Mar 16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee. There you shall see him, as he told you.

Peter spoke for the Apostles

Mat 18:21 Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

Mar 8:29 Then he saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Peter answering said to him: Thou art the Christ.

Luk 8:45 And Jesus said: Who is it that touched me? And all denying, Peter and they that were with him said: Master, the multitudes throng and press thee; and dost thou say, who touched me?

Luk 12:41 And Peter said to him: Lord, dost thou speak this parable to us, or likewise to all?

Joh 6:68 (6:69) And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.
**
Peter’s name appears 195 times in the New Testament, more than all the other Apostles put together.**

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Only God can enable someone to believe that the Bible is the Word of God with lasting conviction. The Apostle Paul thanks God that a group of people have received the word of God as the Word of God. Notice that he did not thank a religious instution for their faith in the Word of God.

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. 1 Thes 2;13

Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” - John 8:47

I’ve addressed this same issue in other posts that you obviously overlooked for some reason.

I have bolded and underlined part of your post above for emphasis. The scriptures you provided do not speak of scriptures but the word of God as it was spoken.

Of course Paul thanked God, who was the Father of the Son, who created the Church that Paul was a part of. The Church came from God.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Reformed]

This is my objection to sola scriptura. It presupposes that sin clouded intellect is capable of apprehending Truth unambiguously. It presupposes that the symbols that are attached to divine concepts are in of themselves capable of revealing the mind of God as it was received by the inspired author. That the community that surrounded Christ and was desribed by Him as a light on a hill is no longer necessary to reveal the True faith.

More than that, it supposes that that community stopped being a witness of the True Faith and that their is no longer a visible witness of the True Faith on earth.

How can anyone really know Christ without resorting to the community that He revealed Himself to?

I think you need to consider John chapter 3 and 1 Cor chapter 2. Please read those two chapters and see if we agree on these essential biblical truths in relation to your post. Remember, I am a Calvinist and believe all mankind is born into this world spirituality dead, and unable to receive spiritual truths in the flesh.

 

[Reformed]

I know that, on an individual level.

Scripture alludes to the Trinity, but doesn’t use the term. So, by most Catholics logic here, how are we sola scriptura? If we took the Bible literally, then we wouldn’t believe in the Trinity.

Isn’t that what the debate is? That we only believe Scipture and nothing else?

Hi Lil_Cat,

I think the real debate is about how Almighty Sovereign God reveals Himself authoritatively. We both believe the Holy Bible to be the Word of God. However, as a Roman Catholic, you believe the Catholic Magestrium (apostolic succession) is authoritative. Protestants believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, and God speaks authoritatively through the Scriptures alone. The Holy Bible is a the measuring rod determining His revelation and will. The Roman Catholic Church relies on Scripture (+) Sacred written and oral tradition. Is my understanding correct? The basis of the Protestant Reformation is choosing the authority of the Scriptures over the Catholic Magestrium as final authority.

 

[Reformed]

We’ve played this little game once.

Scriptures are God breathed or inspired. It was through the Holy Spirit protected Church that scriptures were written. It was through the Holy Spirit protected Catholic Church that scriptures were canonized around the 4th century. It was Holy Spirit guided men of the Holy Spirit protected Church that the canonization took place. That’s how we all have the Bible today, except for the King James Version which Luther took great liberties with.

Now, by what authority do you get your interpretation of the scriptures.

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1

As you very well know, our definitions of the church (body of Christ) are mutually exclusive. When you think about the church, you think about the Roman Catholic institution consisting of 1 billion people. When I speak of the church, I am speaking about a living body consisting of all people that is united to Christ, or all who have been born from above. So, yes… our Triune God does protect His church (adopted children) from apostasy. That’s what the Protestant Reformation was all about. God always has a remnant chosen by grace throughout redemptive history (Rom 11). The remnant of the 16th century were called out of the Roman Catholic institution by hearing the voice of God through the Scriptures alone. The authority to progressively understand the will of God through the Scriptures comes directly from God.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

As you very well know, our definitions of the church (body of Christ) are mutually exclusive. When you think about the church, you think about the Roman Catholic institution consisting of 1 billion people. When I speak of the church, I am speaking about a living body consisting of all people that is united to Christ, or all who have been born from above. So, yes… our Triune God does protect His church (adopted children) from apostasy. That’s what the Protestant Reformation was all about. God always has a remnant chosen by grace throughout redemptive history (Rom 11). The remnant of the 16th century were called out of the Roman Catholic institution by hearing the voice of God through the Scriptures alone. The authority to progressively understand the will of God through the Scriptures comes directly from God.

Yet you still don’t respond to my posts addressing your interpretation of scriptures referencing the spoken word as the written word.

Now, this body of Christ you say Protestants have. How do you reconcile thousands of denominations with different doctrines based on someone’s private interpretation of scripture?

Again, I have addressed this with lots of scriptures stating that Christ and the Apostles taught the Church should be one. Again, you don’t respond to those arguments.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1