The Perfect Answer for Sola Scriptura

[ahimsaman72]

fulloftruth:

As I said before, How many times does God have to say something for it to come into existance. It obviously was understood by those who heard it, so clearly that no other word were needed. And since no one objected to it, the church never saw the need to defend it.

You are asking the wrong question. The question in YOUR mind should be, “where is all the proof of this papacy?” beyond one verse. As a Christian and adherent of the Bible, I search and search the Scriptures till I feel I’ve exhausted all the possibilities. You haven’t done that. Again, you also must use logic and the reasoning capabilities that God gave you. Reasoning tells me that there MUST be more verses to support any doctrine beyond one, especially in such an important doctrine. When one verse seems to say one thing and many more say something different then I must go back to the one to make sure I got it right. How many times should I repeat this basic logic and reasoning?

Curiously I never here Protestants question, if the Catholic Church which was the only Church around at Luthers time, was not the True Church, then where did Luther get his Christianity.
Having sinners in the church was never enough to remove its authority.He was too egotistical to wait for reform from within, In Gods time not his. The devil knows that a divided church is an easier exploited church, and he used Luther to seperate from Christs church.

We are talking about the “true church” again? I just went over this in a previous post. I hate repeating myself. I think you hit on something here, “where did Luther get his Christianity?” is what you said above. Luther got his faith from believing in Jesus Christ, not from having a religion. He rebelled against wrong doctrines and immoral people. I suppose this is where our faith’s diverge. I don’t believe in following the Christian religion. I believe in following Jesus Christ, the founder of the religion. See what I mean? I worship the founder, not the object.

What is the evidence for an invisible loose association of believers and not the one flock Christ talked about living with one gospel and one church. Christ said he would pray that we would be one.
That is not a moral teaching. I mean something like abortion, homosexuality, stuff like that. Do you disagree with any teachings like that.

If you read the book of Acts of the Apostles, you will find evidence for an invisible loose association of believers. It’s there. The first 13 chapters will give you plenty of information. The early church had no formalities. It had the apostles teaching (which we have contained in the Bible. The apostles started at Jerusalem and went out and preached the gospel. Along the way, they started churches. “Churches” are referred to as being in people’s houses (Priscilla and Aquila). Just read it.

I disagree that certain sexual sins are mortal sins as the church teaches. But, that is outside of this topic.

 

[MariaG]

Hi Matt,

I don’t think this is what you want (ie. Peter said this, Paul said this, Jesus said this very specific given to one author but not contained in the NT) however, I found this article: newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm

In it it talks of the Apostles Creed. I know the Evangelical Church I went to had it in the hymnals. We rarely said it, but it is, to my knowledge accepted by Christians as true. The Apostles Creed is just that, a Creed made by the Apostles at Pentecost under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In the article, it gives authorship to all of the apostles. A verbal Creed nowhere found in the NT but nonetheless, a true teaching of the Apostles.

Most of the things I have been reading, give general authority of a teaching back to the Apostles. Maybe this was done because of the events that are recorded in Scripture where Paul(?) admonishes the Corinthians(? guess, but they were always doing something wrong!) for those who said "I follow the teachings of Paul, or Peter or giving a specific teacher instead of giving all the glory to God. ( This is completely a guess by me.) I will keep looking, but the Apostles creed is the first one that I came across that does say specifically, it came from all of the Apostles. You can read for yourself in the link I provided.

I’ll keep looking.
God Bless,
Maria

 

[mercygate]

ahimsaman72:

If you read the book of Acts of the Apostles, you will find evidence for an invisible loose association of believers. It’s there. The first 13 chapters will give you plenty of information. The early church had no formalities. It had the apostles teaching (which we have contained in the Bible. The apostles started at Jerusalem and went out and preached the gospel. Along the way, they started churches. “Churches” are referred to as being in people’s houses (Priscilla and Aquila). Just read it.

But in the Epistle to the Ephesians Paul boasts of his trip to Jerusalem to confer with Peter, James & John, and despite his altercation with Peter, boasts that the church there affirmed that Paul’s Gospel was true, that he was teaching WITH the apostles. Moreover, he accepted the laying on of hands at Antioch. I submit that there was nothing loose at all about the associated Churches. That is why, nearly four centuries later, they were able to agree upon a canon of Scripture.

ahimsaman72:

I disagree that certain sexual sins are mortal sins as the church teaches. But, that is outside of this topic.

This sentence, far from being outside the topic, speaks volumes.

 

[MariaG]

posted by ahimsaman72

You are asking the wrong question. The question in YOUR mind should be, “where is all the proof of this papacy?” beyond one verse. As a Christian and adherent of the Bible, I search and search the Scriptures till I feel I’ve exhausted all the possibilities. You haven’t done that. Again, you also must use logic and the reasoning capabilities that God gave you. Reasoning tells me that there MUST be more verses to support any doctrine beyond one, especially in such an important doctrine. When one verse seems to say one thing and many more say something different then I must go back to the one to make sure I got it right. How many times should I repeat this basic logic and reasoning?

There is more than 1 verse. I’ll give you my current favorite. As a Catholic who accepts the primacy of Peter, I never really “read” this verse until just about 2 weeks ago.

In John 21:15-17 this is where Christ asks Peter 3 times “do you love me”. When Peter says yes, Christ then says…

Do you know what it says? I always “read” feed my sheep 3 times. Is that what you read? Read again.

It says 3 different things. Feed my lambs, Tend my sheep, Feed my sheep. Catholics interpret this to mean this: The lambs are the lay people, the sheep are the apostles. Peter was given the job to preach (feed) the lay people as well as to the other apostles. Not only that though, Peter was told to tend the sheep. Who is the person who tends sheep? A shepherd. God is a Rock. Peter was renamed Rock. Christ is the good Shepherd. Peter was given the job of Shepherd.

If these verses do not mean that, what is your interpretation? But please remember, here is another (I can give you over a dozen more but prefer to do things one at a time) Bible verse that shows that the primacy of Peter is Biblical according to Catholic interpretation. Although many of my Catholic Brethren will object to these words, (please let’s not get into a discussion which came first the Bible or the Church), We get it from the Bible. You can disagree with the interpretation, but the primacy of Peter is Biblical. And the question YOU need to ask yourself is why is your interpretation right and mine wrong?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

But in the Epistle to the Ephesians Paul boasts of his trip to Jerusalem to confer with Peter, James & John, and despite his altercation with Peter, boasts that the church there affirmed that Paul’s Gospel was true, that he was teaching WITH the apostles. Moreover, he accepted the laying on of hands at Antioch. I submit that there was nothing loose at all about the associated Churches. That is why, nearly four centuries later, they were able to agree upon a canon of Scripture.

This sentence, far from being outside the topic, speaks volumes.

Paul conferring with other apostles shows they worked TOGETHER in spreading the gospel and making decisions. Yes. But this I consider “loose” compared to most catholics idea of the “church”. That’s why I said “loose”. I’m glad to see you admit that the churches were associated with one another. There were many churches with leaders appointed by the apostles.

---

There was no “missing” scriptures for four hundred years. By 150 AD the gospels were accepted. The other books were accepted later. Don’t you think that when Paul sent a letter to Corinth and said, “I command this” or “I command that” that the Corinthians considered it binding? We Christians did not need to wait till the canon was formed into what we have now.

Why, pray tell, are the moral teachings of the catholic church relevant to what we have been discussing. I’m glad to have spoken volumes to you by short statements. Do you really want to know what I disagree with on the moral sexual issues? I agree with the catholic church with the abortion stance and homosexual stance. I disagree on contraception and masturbation. So what?

 

[ahimsaman72]

MariaG:

There is more than 1 verse. I’ll give you my current favorite. As a Catholic who accepts the primacy of Peter, I never really “read” this verse until just about 2 weeks ago.

In John 21:15-17 this is where Christ asks Peter 3 times “do you love me”. When Peter says yes, Christ then says…

Do you know what it says? I always “read” feed my sheep 3 times. Is that what you read? Read again.

It says 3 different things. Feed my lambs, Tend my sheep, Feed my sheep. Catholics interpret this to mean this: The lambs are the lay people, the sheep are the apostles. Peter was given the job to preach (feed) the lay people as well as to the other apostles. Not only that though, Peter was told to tend the sheep. Who is the person who tends sheep? A shepherd. God is a Rock. Peter was renamed Rock. Christ is the good Shepherd. Peter was given the job of Shepherd.

If these verses do not mean that, what is your interpretation? But please remember, here is another (I can give you over a dozen more but prefer to do things one at a time) Bible verse that shows that the primacy of Peter is Biblical according to Catholic interpretation. Although many of my Catholic Brethren will object to these words, (please let’s not get into a discussion which came first the Bible or the Church), We get it from the Bible. You can disagree with the interpretation, but the primacy of Peter is Biblical. And the question YOU need to ask yourself is why is your interpretation right and mine wrong?

God Bless,
Maria

I’ve discussed this before. That verse is nowhere near conclusive.

 

[RBushlow]

ahimsaman72:

We get it from the Bible

. You can disagree with the interpretation, but the primacy of Peter is Biblical. And the question YOU need to ask yourself is why is your interpretation right and mine wrong?

God Bless,
MariaI’ve discussed this before. That verse is nowhere near conclusive.

You didn’t answer Maria’s question. Why is your interpretation right and hers wrong?

May the Peace of Christ be with you.

 

[ahimsaman72]

RBushlow:

You didn’t answer Maria’s question. Why is your interpretation right and hers wrong?

May the Peace of Christ be with you.

Well, I guess we can both play the game, so I’ll do the same thing. Maria, why is my interpretation wrong and yours right? Kind of ridiculous don’t you think?

I believe my interpretation is right based on: 1) context of those scriptures and 2) other verses, chapters and books which describe the early church as being started by all apostles with no apostle given authority over the others. I would say the whole book of Acts of the Apostles is a great place to start.

I believe her interpretation is wrong because of lack of multiple pieces of evidence and the seeming contradiction her view has with other verses which I described above and because perhaps she has read into the scriptures what she wanted to see. Perhaps we all have to some extent. There’s no such thing as objectivity in issues like this. I’ve seen some come close, but we are all prone to do such a thing.

 

[RBushlow]

ahimsaman72:

Well, I guess we can both play the game, so I’ll do the same thing. Maria, why is my interpretation wrong and yours right? Kind of ridiculous don’t you think?

Not really. Different interpretations happen all of the time. Which is the correct one? Shouldn’t we be able to resolve this using Scripture Alone?

 

[MariaG]

ahimsaman72,
Well, I can’t tell you what I think of your interpretation of the Scripture I quoted since you didn’t give it. I guess I’m supposed to look at every single one of your previous posts to find your interpretation.
But it does bring up an interesting point. How was I to know you discussed this verse before when in post #161 you said:

You are asking the wrong question. The question in YOUR mind should be, “where is all the proof of this papacy?” beyond one verse. As a Christian and adherent of the Bible, I search and search the Scriptures till I feel I’ve exhausted all the possibilities. You haven’t done that. Again, you also must use logic and the reasoning capabilities that God gave you.* Reasoning tells me that there MUST be more verses to support any doctrine beyond one*, especially in such an important doctrine. When one verse seems to say one thing and many more say something different then I must go back to the one to make sure I got it right. How many times should I repeat this basic logic and reasoning?

You certainly imply that there is only one verse that you are aware of that Catholics use to support the primacy of Peter, that verse being Mt 16:18. So I simply assume you have only been made aware of that one verse.

Yet in post #166 You say you have already discussed Jn 21:15-17. So you are aware of at least 2 verses that Catholics use to support the primacy of Peter. So who are you being dishonest with me or yourself?

Just in case you want some more verses, here are a few more. I would agree Acts is a good place to find the structure of the Church readily apparent already.

Lk 22:32 - Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
Mk 16:7 - angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter
Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13- 26 - Peter headed meeting which elected Matthias
Acts 2:14 - Peter led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
Acts 3:6-7 Peter performed first miracle after Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 - Peter inflicted first punishment: Ananias and Saphire
Acts 8:21 - Peter excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus
Acts 10:44-46 - Peter received revelation to admit Gentiles into church
Acts 15:7 Peter led first council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:19 Peter pronounces first dogmatic decision
Gal 1:18 After conversion, Paul visits Peter but no other Apostle
Peter’s name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together. Statistically, that is pretty significant for a guy who was just another apostle.

I did not try to tell you how to interpret Scripture. I simply was trying to show where Catholics “find it in the Bible” and asked for your interpretation if Catholics are wrong. Ignore it if you so choose. But Catholics do take Scripture as a whole and do not base it off of one verse. And neither do we ignore the Oral words we were told to hold fast to.

As you choose not to tell me your interpretation of John 21:15-17 and what you think feed my lambs, tend my sheep and feed my sheep mean, I guess I’ll have to stick with my “preconceived notions”, since I do not have the time or inclination to search out your every post looking for an explanation.

But for me, Jesus naming Peter, Rock (which even Protestant Theologians agree with) and making him the Shepherd of all the Sheep, (that would include the lambs) along with all the rest of the Scripture, leads me to the primacy of Peter.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello Matt,

p90:

Greg_McPherran:

I would say you can examine Scripture and the Churches themselves to give you clues to the apostolic Church.

If this is the test that is to be used, my answer to your original question would have to be that there isn’t a church that follows the extra-Scriptural word of God today.

Consider this: the written Scripture can be profitable to find the Church that follows both the written Scripture and the fullness of practices and beliefs that Scripture itself refers to.

p90:

Those churches that do follow the Scriptures don’t know of any words from God outside of them

*Well, they know of them from Scripture, but they may not know what they are.

p90:

those that claim it are not following the Scriptures to begin with.

Actually they are following Scripture more fully because they also follow all that Scripture refers to. You see, the Church follows the Scriptures and much of what the Church believes and practices is indeed in Scripture. Even practices that may not be clear from Scripture can be pointed to by Scripture and will not contradict Scripture. I think a good way to view it is as a fullness.

For example, a Catholic may reason from Scripture to a non-Catholic that John 6 fully agrees with and supports the Catholic belief in communion. The reasoning from Scripture itself is actually very sound but a Catholic really doesn’t need to prove this from Scripture anyway. This is because the belief in the meaning of communion is contained in the traditional practice from the beginning. St. Paul exhorted the Church to stand firm in these traditions and this is what that Catholic Church has done. So therefore, Catholics simply need to explain that our belief in the Eucharist comes from apostolic tradition and we interpret John 6 according to the apostolic tradition. No Protestant can claim we are wrong because this is our faith and it does not contradict Scripture, however Protestants have decided on a different interpretation of John 6. Was this interpretation also present in apostolic times? I doubt it, but even if it was, I believe (as a matter of faith) it was not the apostolic teaching. I say a matter of faith because it is by faith that I believe that the Catholic Church has continued the apostolic beliefs, practices, and teachings.

Remember St. Paul warned about those who would fall away from the truth.

The Church, Scripture, reason, and faith all work together to lead a person to the apostolic Church and the fullness of the truth of Jesus. Faith is reasonable and the true Church will lead people to see the fullness of the truth of Scripture.

Greg*

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Ahimsaman,

ahimsaman72:

Yes, Scripture alludes to some traditions not in Scripture. It also alludes to all the things that Christ did is in the Scripture, but notice with me one good verse here: John 20:30,31. “…but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through His name.”

Yes, and believing in His name you will believe in His Church and follow the teachings, beliefs and practices of His Church for salvation.

ahimsaman72:

Just because catholics believe those things are what has been handed down doesn’t mean they are therefore correct, does it?

No. You are right in that view but understand: It is a matter of faith that I believe that the Catholic Church continue the beliefs, teachings, and practices of the apostles. This faith is based on the Church, Scripture, reason, and the help of the Holy Spirit I would think.

The Catholic Church places emphasis on apostolic tradition and the Bible clearly refers to it, (many other churches don’t).

The Catholic Church has bishops, presbyters, and deacons as found in the Bible, yet many Protestant churches don’t.

The Catholic Church has Scriptural practices such as anointing the sick with oil that I think many other churches don’t have.

The Catholic Church claims authority outside the Bible as the apostles did. Most other churches don’t.

The Catholic Church can provide more historical evidence of its apostolicity than other churches. For example, when did your church start? where did the beliefs of your Church come from? When did these beliefs come about? What authority can you give to claim that your understandings and interpretations of Scripture are correct?

It is a matter of faith, however the truth has splendor as Jesus has splendor.

ahimsaman72:

My understanding is the true church is made up of all believers (referred to as “invisible” which is not accurate). It’s made up of catholics, baptists, methodists, lutherans, so on - all who believe and profess Jesus Christ.

I see you include Catholics. Do you think the apostles should appreciate this kind gesture? See what I mean? It’s a matter of respect and humility to accept the apostolic Church.

Anyone can say they profess Jesus. Jesus taught us that not everyone who calls Him Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom, but only those who do the will of the Father. The will of the Father is to follow the Church and Scripture. Scripture says:

2 Timothy 3:14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,

1 Corinthians 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

remain faithful to what you have learned and believed

hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you

stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught

I believe that it is the Catholic Church that has done this and I think the other churches have strayed from this. St. Paul predicted people would stray from truth. Come to the rock of salvation!

Greg

 

[mayra_hart]

the bible and sacred tradition are very clear that christ left a church that would be governed by a hierarchy of bishops,presbyters, and deacons with the succesor of st.peter as the head. only the catholic church has such a governing hierarchy that can trace its authority-in an unbroken succession-back to the apostolic authority established by christ himself. santa maria ruega por todos nosotros…

 

[p90]

Greg_McPherran:

You see, the Church follows the Scriptures and much of what the Church believes and practices is indeed in Scripture.

I disagree, but this isn’t the thread to discuss that.

~Matt

 

[p90]

MariaG:

Hi Matt,

I don’t think this is what you want (ie. Peter said this, Paul said this, Jesus said this very specific given to one author but not contained in the NT) however, I found this article: newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm

Actually, this is okay as long as it can be traced back to the apostles with little doubt. If you can come up with a list of oral traditions to which I should hold fast, let me know so we can discuss them and how they affect my Protestant beliefs. In the meantime, I’ll read the article.

~Matt

 

[ahimsaman72]

MariaG:

ahimsaman72,

Yet in post #166 You say you have already discussed Jn 21:15-17. So you are aware of at least 2 verses that Catholics use to support the primacy of Peter. So who are you being dishonest with me or yourself?

Just in case you want some more verses, here are a few more. I would agree Acts is a good place to find the structure of the Church readily apparent already.

Lk 22:32 - Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
Mk 16:7 - angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter
Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13- 26 - Peter headed meeting which elected Matthias
Acts 2:14 - Peter led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
Acts 3:6-7 Peter performed first miracle after Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 - Peter inflicted first punishment: Ananias and Saphire
Acts 8:21 - Peter excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus
Acts 10:44-46 - Peter received revelation to admit Gentiles into church
Acts 15:7 Peter led first council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:19 Peter pronounces first dogmatic decision
Gal 1:18 After conversion, Paul visits Peter but no other Apostle
Peter’s name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together. Statistically, that is pretty significant for a guy who was just another apostle.

I am aware of the two most famous passages, with Mt. 16:18 being the one most quoted. I was merely focused on Mt. 16:18 when writing my post. Dishonesty was not my intention, nor was I dishonest in my post.

These Scriptures quoted above are used to support the doctrine of the papacy and are used to mislead people. Perfect example is Acts 15:7. Peter didn’t lead anything. Let’s look at this verse together ALONG WITH other verses around it, please. Here goes:

1. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
2. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
3. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
4. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
5. And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
6. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
7. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
   12. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
   13. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
8. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

I give props to Peter for his role as an apostle and preacher of the gospel, but this passage of Scripture shows: 1) the apostles and elders considered the matter (together). There was no single authority, certainly not Peter. 2) Peter spoke, then Barnabas and Paul, then James. James actually had the last word. Given these two points, I see only misleading and misapplying of Scriptures to invent the doctrine of the papacy. That’s my interpretation. We can go down every one of these you listed and find the same misapplication which is used by catholic apologists to prove their case. It’s simply not true and a disgrace.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Greg_McPherran:

Hi Ahimsaman,
For example, when did your church start? where did the beliefs of your Church come from? When did these beliefs come about? What authority can you give to claim that your understandings and interpretations of Scripture are correct?

You’re not going to like my answer, but here goes: the early believers started churches and those churches continue today. My specific denom started around 1618 AD. Those churches are all who believe and profess the Christian faith.

I see you include Catholics. Do you think the apostles should appreciate this kind gesture? See what I mean? It’s a matter of respect and humility to accept the apostolic Church.

Of course I include catholics and I need to add to the list the orthodox (Fr. Ambrose will appreciate that). I don’t see it as a gesture Greg. I see that as truth. I don’t live my life trying to please the apostles. I live to please Jesus Christ.

Anyone can say they profess Jesus. Jesus taught us that not everyone who calls Him Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom, but only those who do the will of the Father.

I believe that it is the Catholic Church that has done this and I think the other churches have strayed from this. St. Paul predicted people would stray from truth. Come to the rock of salvation!

Greg

Of course anyone can say they profess Christ. Only God knows who really loves him. It’s not for us to judge. Straying from truth has been done since time immemorial. It’s been done by the catholic church and reformed churches to some degree. I have come to the rock of salvation - it is Jesus Christ.

I Cor. 10:4 says, “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”

Greg, I absolutely believe the papacy is built on lies and traditions as my protestant forefathers believed. It is an invented doctrine meant to lord it over others. It’s a power play. Obviously you don’t agree with that. We will have to agree to disagree. I have been researching catholicism for a while and have come to my conclusions based on: 1)Scripture 2)logic and reasoning 3)lack of concrete evidence. There is circumstantial evidence listed on the website here. But it is simply that - circumstantial.

If we were in a court of law, the papacy cannot hold up. That’s the way I have approached issues with the catholic church. I realize some things you would say have to be admitted on faith. I could accept that if those things didn’t contradict written Scripture.

Peace brother.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello Ahimsaman,

ahimsaman72:

the early believers started churches and those churches continue today. My specific denom started around 1618 AD.

Acts 4:32 The community of believers was of one heart and mind,

1 Corinthians 1:10 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

ahimsaman72:

Straying from truth has been done since time immemorial. It’s been done by the catholic church and reformed churches to some degree.

1 Timothy 5:17 Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching.

1 Peter 5:1-2 So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed. Tend the flock of God in your midst.

**1 Peter 5:5 **Likewise, you younger members, be subject to the presbyters.

Titus 1:5 …appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,

Titus 1:7 For a bishop as God’s steward…

Acts 14:23 They appointed presbyters for them in each church…

Acts 15:2 to the apostles and presbyters about this question.

Acts 20:17 From Miletus he had the presbyters of the church at Ephesus summoned.

James 5:14 He should summon the presbyters

1 Timothy 3:1 …whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task

 

[RMP]

Matt,

I have a few suggestions for you to do on your own ( I think u may be doing a few already)

First of all, can we have christianity without a bible? To say no is to deny the first 50 or so odd years of the faith itself. the early christains had no bible, no scripture. So I answer yes, we can have christianity w/o scripture. From your perspective this may be very hard to do, heck even from my own. After all, even the early christians were all going astray from the faith it seems, if you dont think so, just read all of PAUL’s works. It is amazing he didnt just have a heart attack from all the mischief going on.
Can you be christain w/o scripture? Yes it is possible, because the truth of the LORD is engraved in your very own conscience whether you think it is there or not. As a catholic, however, the existence or non existence of scripture will make no difference (even though we have it and cherish it). Our faith is living and breathing, it isnt stuffed on a bookshelf.
You asked for proof in the form of oral traditions. Well, that is easy, learn about the liturgy of the Catholic MASS, most of it is some form of oral tradition, even though it has developed over time. Protestants accuse Catholic MASS as being unbiblical… I always wonder on what planet are they going to MASS. The MASS is our oral and scriptural tradition. 80% of all the mass is some form of scripture in the form of reading, psalms, prayers, ect. But the practices, some are many centuries old.
Next ,read all you can from the writings of the Fathers of the church, just to be aware of the ideas floating around at the times. Read about the heresies affecting the church. Then you will begin to form vague pictures about why some ideas are heretical and some ideas became dogma or doctrine. But always read the writings/works of both sides. I believe you can learn as much as you can from the heretics as from the saints. But dont let anyone tell u how to think, do it on your own. Its a great journey, a journey that will surely bring you home. And you know where all the roads lead you to…dont you?
Sincerely, Rob
P.S. I call myself a convert, and I was born Catholic. Most Catholics dont even know the faith even the they participate in it. Heck just read the forums. LOL . Pretty sad. But at least they in the right place.

 

[p90]

RMP:

First of all, can we have christianity without a bible?..Our faith is living and breathing, it isnt stuffed on a bookshelf.

I wouldn’t say that the faith of Protestants is either, even though they depend heavily on the book. I would also say that, no, we can’t have Christianity without the Word of God present in written form somewhere. How else are we going to know about the life and work of Jesus? Even the first Christians had a “Bible” to work with; the Old Testament told of the coming savior and was written down long before the first Christians arrived on the scene.

You asked for proof in the form of oral traditions. Well, that is easy, learn about the liturgy of the Catholic MASS, most of it is some form of oral tradition, even though it has developed over time.

Which particular oral traditions, traceable to the apostles, are taught in the Mass? Do you have a list that I might consult? How would I validate that list?

Next ,read all you can from the writings of the Fathers of the church

I read the fathers from time to time. What I see there is an entity which couldn’t reasonably develop into Catholicism.

Thanks for the suggestions and taking the time to write your post,
~Matt