Sola Scriptura? Really?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Selene

New Member
Apr 12, 2010
2,073
94
0
In my house
The Old Testament is a written record that existed before Christ was born. If one can record the Old Testament books, one can also record the names of the Bishop of Rome starting from the Apostle Peter to the present day.
 

Axehead

New Member
May 9, 2012
2,222
205
0
As I say so often, that is the crux of the matter. This is the claim the church makes for itself, which I do not find to be historical. Even the supposed succession of popes is questionable even among Catholics. What is clear is that the Catholic Church that we know today emerged in the fourth century. There is nothing that convinces me that the church of the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd centuries was the Roman Catholic Church. For that, one must place one's faith in the Sacred Traditions of the church. Even NewAdvent.com says of Clement I that he is "the first of the successorsof St. Peter of whom anything definite is known." Between Peter and Clement the lists are fuzzy, and nothing is known about the various men on the various differing lists.

Again, I understand the Catholic doctrines and teachings very well. I've discussed them at length with numerous Catholic friends. I do not find them convincing, and God has not led me to put my faith in those teachings. I don't try to convince Catholics not to be Catholics, but I do present the good reasons non-Catholics have for not accepting the claims of the church that violate what we believe God's truths teach us.

They are not convincing and the historical evidence points to around the 4th century for the start of the Catholic Church. None of their major doctrinal language and terms is even in the NT let alone their different hierarchical offices (except Bishop).

Axehead
 

Selene

New Member
Apr 12, 2010
2,073
94
0
In my house
They are not convincing and the historical evidence points to around the 4th century for the start of the Catholic Church. None of their major doctrinal language and terms is even in the NT let alone their different hierarchical offices (except Bishop).

Axehead

Actually, the hierarchical offices is in scripture. You have the office of bishop (which you already acknowledge that the Catholic Church has). There is also the office of deacons (1 Timothy 3:10-13). And of course, there is the priest. All these positions exist in the Catholic Church as well as in the New Testament.

Furthermore, the name "catholic Church" was first used in the first century by St. Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch. The earliest recorded evidence of the use of the term "Catholic Church" is the Letter to the Smyrnaeans that Ignatius of Antioch wrote in about 107 to Christians in Smyrna. In the second century, the word "Catholic Church" was also used by St. Polycarp (who was a disciple of the Apostle John) and the Bishop of Smyrna. Thus, the Catholic Church was in existance since the first century. The Christians who hid in the catacombs of Rome since the first century was the Roman Church (1 Peter 5:13). You have a Jerusalem Church in Israel, and a Church in Antioch. These Churches still exist today.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
They are not convincing and the historical evidence points to around the 4th century for the start of the Catholic Church. None of their major doctrinal language and terms is even in the NT let alone their different hierarchical offices (except Bishop).

Axehead

Protestants often say that the Catholic Church started in the fourth century but never seem to be able to produce evidence to back up that claim.

It's just part of Protestant mythology.
 

Axehead

New Member
May 9, 2012
2,222
205
0
Protestants often say that the Catholic Church started in the fourth century but never seem to be able to produce evidence to back up that claim.

It's just part of Protestant mythology.

The evidence is there, however you only take Catholic historical evidence as authoritative.

So, here we are on the treadwheel. :wacko:

Axehead
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
The evidence is there, however you only take Catholic historical evidence as authoritative.

So, here we are on the treadwheel. :wacko:

Axehead

But never presented.

As I said it's just part of Protestant mythology.
 

Brother James

Active Member
Jun 2, 2008
270
56
28
68
Melbourne, FL
Protestants often say that the Catholic Church started in the fourth century but never seem to be able to produce evidence to back up that claim.

It's just part of Protestant mythology.

Looking at the historical evidence, that is where it leads. There are even conflicting lists of the names of the early supposed popes. And it is a Catholic website, NewAdvent.com, not me that says we know nothing definite about the first few popes after Peter. If nothing definite is known about them, how do we know they were popes?

When Christianity began to mix with the temporal power of Rome the Catholic church as we know it emerges. Before that, there is no organizational bureaucracy that resembles anything like what we've seen since the 4th century. History books are full of this evidence you claim doesn't exist. Try reading "The Story of Christianity" by Justo L. Gonzalez, for example.

The biblical account of the Jerusalem council does not even depict Peter, the supposed pope, as being in charge of the proceedings since it was James who announced what he called "my decision". If James was in charge, the entire papacy comes crashing down.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Looking at the historical evidence, that is where it leads. There are even conflicting lists of the names of the early supposed popes. And it is a Catholic website, NewAdvent.com, not me that says we know nothing definite about the first few popes after Peter. If nothing definite is known about them, how do we know they were popes?

When Christianity began to mix with the temporal power of Rome the Catholic church as we know it emerges. Before that, there is no organizational bureaucracy that resembles anything like what we've seen since the 4th century. History books are full of this evidence you claim doesn't exist. Try reading "The Story of Christianity" by Justo L. Gonzalez, for example.

The biblical account of the Jerusalem council does not even depict Peter, the supposed pope, as being in charge of the proceedings since it was James who announced what he called "my decision". If James was in charge, the entire papacy comes crashing down.
Scripture well attests the leadership and primacy of Peter. I can go through it all if you like. It’s overwhelming.

As to the biblical account of the Council of Jerusalem is a good example of Peter being the leader and of the lack of sola scriptura not being biblical. Let’s go through it, beginning of chapter 15 and follow the sequence through.

Vs 1 – In Antioch some (doesn’t specify who here) raise an issue about circumcision.

Vs 2 - There was a debate but no agreement. They realise this needs a decision by the all the leaders, and Paul, with others, decide to go to Jerusalem to get the issue resolved.

Vs 4 – They arrive in Jerusalem and reported what they had been doing.

Vs 5 – Some Pharisees raised the issue of circumcision.

Vs 6 – The apostles and presbyters call a meeting to decide the issue.

Vs 7-11 – There is much debate. Then Peter stood up and gave his position on the issue.

Vs 12 – "The whole assembly fell silent". The issue was decided. Peter had spoken and there was no more to say.
They then moved on to hearing about the work that God had been doing through Paul and Barnabus.

Vs 13 – 21 – When that was finished ("after they had fallen silent") James (as the local Bishop) pointed out that although the decision had been made they still had to communicate that decision to Antioch where the issue had arisen. He reminded them of what Peter had said, supported Peter with some scripture, and proposed practical steps to communicate the decision. Note the scripture he uses just supports the inclusion of the Gentiles. It says nothing about circumcision.

Vs 22-27 – They all agreed with that and proposed sending representatives to Antioch who would report the decision both orally and in writing.

Vs 28-29 - The letter states “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us…” No appeal to scripture. It is decision based on their authority alone.

Vs 30-31 – They arrive in Antioch and deliver the message and the people accepted it with delight. They accept the decision on the authority of the Church alone (the apostles and presbyters). scripture.

Peter gave the definitive decision on the issue at hand

The apostles gave no scripture to support their decision and the Antiochans accepted their decision on their authority alone.


I don't see where New Advent says we know nothing about the early Popes.

As to the list we have early evidence from Irenaeus

Irenaeus:
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

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 apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric…..To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. 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 down in truth. (Against Heresies 3:3:3[A.D. 189])


This is exactly the same as the list on the New Advent site.
 

Brother James

Active Member
Jun 2, 2008
270
56
28
68
Melbourne, FL
I don't know how many ways I can point out that prima scriptura was the principle when the canon was still not closed, and is actually the principle I subscribe to today. Of course the Jerusalem council could not consult the NT to resolve anything. None of it had yet been written. I'm not sure what point there is to pointing that out.
 

neophyte

Member
Apr 25, 2012
669
12
18
Brother James, you wrote:"The biblical account of the Jerusalem council does not even depict Peter, the supposed pope, as being in charge of the proceedings since it was James who announced what he called "my decision". If James was in charge, the entire papacy comes crashing down.
Matt.16; 15-19; 2 Cor. 5:20; Ezechiel 34:23; Matt. 16:18:19; John 21:15-17; Luke 10:16 ; Matt. 16: 19; John 17: 21 .
 

lawrance

New Member
Mar 30, 2011
738
19
0
The Old Testament is a written record that existed before Christ was born. If one can record the Old Testament books, one can also record the names of the Bishop of Rome starting from the Apostle Peter to the present day.
What about Holy Moses ? he was a type of Pope one could say maybe.
Moses was attacked by some who said, who appointed you as leader !
And they tried to kill him ! just as they tried to kill Jesus.
Spiritual leader ?
So some try to deny a spiritual leader, and who are they and are they mislead or under some influence of Satan..