The Early Christians were Sola Scriptura

[ignatius777]

But doesnt the very fact that you are accessing extra biblical material disprove the very poin you are trying to make? Yes our faith is based on scripture but scripture itself doesnt direct us to rely only upon itself for understanding truths of God.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Seems to me an odd claim. After all there were two branches of the early followers of the Way, the Apostles and the orthodox position and the Gnostics.

And the arguement of the Catholics that Peter was the First Pope is a also sketchy for me.

So rather what did Jesus Himself do and say? Many times He worked on the Sabbath (ex: healing the blind man after making mud on the Sabbath), spoke out harshly against the religious leaders of his day, overturned the moneychangers tables in the temple, embraced social outcasts, supportive to women as spiritual equals to men and most telling to me supported faith as a high aspect of spirituality. (Ex: When the Roman officer wanted Jesus to heal his servant and trusted Jesus to be able to do it where they were since Jesus with but a command could do it as he could to any of his soldiers.)

I will make the case then that the Early Followers of the Way followed many paths, under different followers and leaders and likely due to people being different. Did God make all flowers the same or all birds then why would He use one means to Him? Even the Jews had many branches in the faith their were mystics, intinerant preachers, temple leadership and all were Jewish. So there is precedent.

 

[Cat_Herder]

And the arguement of the Catholics that Peter was the First Pope is a also sketchy for me.

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 15:19[/BIBLEDRB]

The Apostles were split over whether Gentiles had to be circumcized. If Peter was wrong, and you are male… :stretcher:

So rather what did Jesus Himself do and say? Many times He worked on the Sabbath (ex: healing the blind man after making mud on the Sabbath), spoke out harshly against the religious leaders of his day, overturned the moneychangers tables in the temple, embraced social outcasts, supportive to women as spiritual equals to men and most telling to me supported faith as a high aspect of spirituality. (Ex: When the Roman officer wanted Jesus to heal his servant and trusted Jesus to be able to do it where they were since Jesus with but a command could do it as he could to any of his soldiers.)

The Catholic Church does or has done all of these things, so what exactly is the point?

I will make the case then that the Early Followers of the Way followed many paths, under different followers and leaders and likely due to people being different. Did God make all flowers the same or all birds then why would He use one means to Him? Even the Jews had many branches in the faith their were mystics, intinerant preachers, temple leadership and all were Jewish. So there is precedent.

[BIBLEDRB]Phil 2:2[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 11:2[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]2 Thessalonians 2:14[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]2 Thessalonians 3:6[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[ignatius777]

I can understand why the issue of Peter as Pope seems sketchy to you but I would submit to you there is biblical evidence to support his authority and writing of theearly church support a continuing succession

 

[Dokimas]

Seems to me an odd claim. After all there were two branches of the early followers of the Way, the Apostles and the orthodox position and the Gnostics.

And the arguement of the Catholics that Peter was the First Pope is a also sketchy for me.

So rather what did Jesus Himself do and say? Many times He worked on the Sabbath (ex: healing the blind man after making mud on the Sabbath), spoke out harshly against the religious leaders of his day, overturned the moneychangers tables in the temple, embraced social outcasts, supportive to women as spiritual equals to men and most telling to me supported faith as a high aspect of spirituality. (Ex: When the Roman officer wanted Jesus to heal his servant and trusted Jesus to be able to do it where they were since Jesus with but a command could do it as he could to any of his soldiers.)

I will make the case then that the Early Followers of the Way followed many paths, under different followers and leaders and likely due to people being different. Did God make all flowers the same or all birds then why would He use one means to Him? Even the Jews had many branches in the faith their were mystics, intinerant preachers, temple leadership and all were Jewish. So there is precedent.

Seems a valid point to me.

Did not Jesus say that it is important for all of us to love each other? An unbeliever looking on might question whether or not some of us are true believers because of the way we treat each other.

 

[Dokimas]

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 15:19[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Phil 2:2[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 11:2[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]2 Thessalonians 2:14[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]2 Thessalonians 3:6[/BIBLEDRB]

Ah, you make a strong Biblical point that the first pope was Paul.

 

[ignatius777]

No but thats a common mistaken. Throughout the bible Peter is usually mentioned first amongst all the apostles and in Acts especially his supremecy among the other disciples is clear. It is to his words that all others defer in discussions on matters of belief. There is no question that Peter was the first pope

 

[Dokimas]

No but thats a common mistaken. Throughout the bible Peter is usually mentioned first amongst all the apostles and in Acts especially his supremecy among the other disciples is clear. It is to his words that all others defer in discussions on matters of belief. There is no question that Peter was the first pope

Whose name among the apostles is preeminent in Acts?

Who wrote most of the letters of the NT; who wrote with the most authority in the NT?

Looking at Peter with Jesus and how he was always the one to speak up, I’m not surprised he spoke up at Pentacost.

 

[ignatius777]

Whose name among the apostles is preeminent in Acts?

Who wrote most of the letters of the NT; who wrote with the most authority in the NT?

Looking at Peter with Jesus and how he was always the one to speak up, I’m not surprised he spoke up at Pentacost.

Peter

Paul did write many of the books but Peter is still the most authoritative. Paul never even knew Jesus so its not likely he would have had viewed as having more authority then Peter. Sorry

 

[Dokimas]

Peter

Paul did write many of the books but Peter is still the most authoritative. Paul never even knew Jesus so its not likely he would have had viewed as having more authority then Peter. Sorry

Who did Paul met on the road to Damascus?

Who taught Paul directly?

Who is written of more in Acts? Did you say Peter??? Better check that one again if your answer is yes, Peter.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

Your ability to evade has morphed into an art form of sorts. But, we really need to stick with the Sola Scriptura thread if we are going to get anywhere. So, let’s try again…

Thank you for figuring out that I need to have things said very, very simply. Yes that’s quite simple. I do believe I understand. Thanks again. You’ve made this so simple and clear I now understand that solid, God lead Christians can and do exist and not be part of the CC. Thanks for helping me see this through.

 

[PJM]

=Dokimas;7234317]Those are wonderful verses. I agree with their content to the best of my ability to understand them. I don’t believe you have the correct understanding if you think Jesus had to make the church infallible and you use these verses to back up your understanding.

Dear friend in Christ,

In an absolute sense Christ did have to put into place a personal guarentee of the TRUTHS taught by His Apostles and His CC.

WHY?

Matt.28 Verses 19 to 20: [Jesus speaking to the apostles] “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you;** and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”**

***Were His guarentee not is place this Mission would be an impossible task. The WORD of God is precisely that: The WORD of God." [2 Tim. 3:15-17; 1 Tim. 3:15]

While I personaly prefer a word like “THUTH” rather than “Infalibility” because of the Catholic precie meaning of that word; nevertheless it remains the singular truth by Gods Plan and Gods Divine Will. ***

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

Let me see if I can offer some answers to your questions… But, it should be noted at the outset that all of these men are working for Christ and His Glory as they spread the Word of God. They are not in competition with one another - any more than they eye compets with the foot.

Whose name among the apostles is preeminent in Acts?

Most of Acts is about Paul’s missionary activities as written by St. Luke.

You should note, however, that Peter’s name is preeminent in all four Gospels. This is not a publicity contest - Christ came to earth to save us from sin. Christ did this by establishing His Church on Peter and then dying and rising from the dead. That historical and chronological context is supported by Scripture - and the SS fans need to address that.

Who wrote most of the letters of the NT;

Paul wrote most of the letters in the NT, Dokimas.

who wrote with the most authority in the NT?

None wrote with more authority than any other - God is the Principal Author of Scrippture, Dokimas. To imply that someone had ‘more authority’ in their writings will need some substantiation. So, as a SS fan, did someone have more authority in their writings of the NT?

Looking at Peter with Jesus and how he was always the one to speak up, I’m not surprised he spoke up at Pentacost.

Our personalities are a Gift of God - just like the life He has given (and continually sustains) to each of us, Dokimas. The Holy Spirit infused Peter - not with a new personality - and not with a now sinless disposition - or even with infallable personal traits, but with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit so that this common, loud-mouth, Christ-denying fisherman could boldly proclaim the Good News to all.

I am not surprised about Peter speaking up on that First Pentecost - but, not because he was a loud-mouth, but rather, that he was the Leader of the Apostles and was filled with the Holy Spirit to spread God’s Word.

God bless

 

[PJM]

=Dokimas;7234352]

You’re the ones that claim the CC goes all the way back to Peter and the apostles. Please show me it’s name then used by them. Simple request for you simple statement.

I say the church goes back to Jesus and His disciples. That’s my only claim. My hope is that the Blood of Jesus has made me worthy of being part of that church. It is His Blood that changes me that is the ONLY way to be a part of His church.

***While it may be “a simple request” it is nvertheless an uninformed one.

WHY***?

***The progression of titles for Christ one Church went from: “The Way,” to “Christians” and then to “Catholics.”

The term Catholic means “Universal” thus its corect application could not be applied until the infant church had increased signifitaly in size. Plain logic.

By the way can you show me in the bible either the term Protestant" or where Christ said that he desires more than a single faith? A single Church? While the BIBLE is TRUE we must not forget that is was COMPLETELY WRITTEN by the end of the First Century. Life did not stop at that point, and the Chuch continues its Mission given by Christin Matt. 28:19-20, even to the present day.***Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[tqualey]

Nice post PJM

God bless

=Dokimas;7234352]

 

[Good_Fella]

…by what measuring stick does one decide what tradition to follow and which ones not to? Who then really has the authority?

Since apostolic time, the faithful have been able to distinguish between the apostolic tradition they have received from the Apostles and the numerous heresies that have arisen since that time. One reason why the New Testament was written and addressed to different communities was to preserve a unity of the true faith traditionally handed down amidst the heresies that were springing up and confusing the Christian communities. The authority to distinguish the orthodox faith from private heretical doctrines has always lain with the Apostles and their valid successors in the episcopacy of the Church, even before St. Paul wrote his epistles
(1 Cor 11:12; 1 Thess 4:12; 2 Thess 2:5, 15, 3:6; 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 2:20, 3:14; Acts 15:6,24; 16:4; 2 Cor 2:17, 3:6, 5:20.)

“In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed in truth.”
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3, 3:3 (inter A.D. 180/199)

By what measure does then the Magisterium get it’s authority? form Tradition or Scripture? which holds more weight?

Neither. The Magisterium receives its invested authority from our Lord Jesus Christ (Mt 16:19; Lk 10:16; 22:29). This has been traditionally believed by Christians of the true faith since apostolic time. These scriptural passages affirm this living tradition that had existed before the Evangelists wrote their gospels.

“And do you reverence your bishop as Christ Himself, according as the blessed Apostles have enjoined you…He, therefore, that will not yield obedience to such, must needs be one utterly without God, an impious man who despises Christ, and depreciates His appointments.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians, 7 (c.A.D. 110)

If you say the magisterium has the authority then where does it get it’s authority, IF you say scripture gives the magisterium authority, then where does scripture get it’s authority to give the magisterium its authority?

“All power in heaven and earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations…And, behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
Matthew 28, 18-20

All authority originates from the Father, which is transmitted to the Son, and thereby to the Apostles and their validly ordained successors until the end of time under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Jn 20:21-22).

“We are not to credit these men (heretics), nor go out from the first and ecclesiastical tradition; nor to believe otherwise than the churches of God have by succession transmitted to us.”
Origen, Commentary on Matthew (Post A.D. 244).

Tradition - which may or may not be written down and is dependent on fallible human to get it right
scripture- which is written down and closest to the source of the authority
or a combination?
If it is heresy to take scripture over the traditions of men and that tradition takes president over scripture in some cases, what was the purpose of canonizing the new testament letters in the first place?
but I also think that the new testament evidence show that they where getting it wrong by the use of tradition, if the early Christians where getting it write through tradition(mouth to mouth teaching), there would have been no reason for Paul, as one example, to write the types of letters that he wrote. there would have been no problems and heresy shouldn’t have raised its head if tradition was as reliable as you claim to pass information from one generation to another.

You are confusing oral tradition with Sacred Tradition: the apostolic and ecclesiastical tradition of the Church which is part of the deposit of faith together with Sacred Scripture.

“For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit the churches?”
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3, 3:3 (inter A.D. 180/199)

PAX :heaven: