• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

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

Sola scriptura or prima scriptura

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dr. Walter

New Member
The clear contextual data here is that He is addressing the Apostles. No-one else is present here and therefore no-one else is meant by 'you'.

The apostles were chosen out of a greater multidue of disciples that travelled with him (Acts 1:21-22). However, let us say you are right. Isn't he telling the apostles if they have a problem with a member of the church to take it through this process rather than dealing with it by apostolic authority? Or dealing with it by "telling Peter"? Isn't he clearly then telling them they must ultimately "tell it to the church"???? Why, if it is Peter or if it is the Apostles or if it is the eldership that is final authority which the "keys" symbolize?????
 

WestminsterMan

New Member
The apostles were chosen out of a greater multidue of disciples that travelled with him (Acts 1:21-22). However, let us say you are right. Isn't he telling the apostles if they have a problem with a member of the church to take it through this process rather than dealing with it by apostolic authority? Or dealing with it by "telling Peter"? Isn't he clearly then telling them they must ultimately "tell it to the church"???? Why, if it is Peter or if it is the Apostles or if it is the eldership that is final authority which the "keys" symbolize?????

You are missing the point here doc. Just as in the RCC today, you had priests serving individual churches, that are part of a diocese governed by Bishops, and so on up to the Pope. If the priests can't handle the problem, then it goes up the chain of command until it gets resolved. There is your authority at work - that was and is the Church.

WM
 

Dr. Walter

New Member
You are missing the point here doc. Just as in the RCC today, you had priests serving individual churches, that are part of a diocese governed by Bishops, and so on up to the Pope. If the priests can't handle the problem, then it goes up the chain of command until it gets resolved. There is your authority at work - that was and is the Church.

WM

Since when is Rome the standard for interpreting this text or any other??? The argument presented was that Jesus is talking to APOSTLES not "preists" or "Bishops" and even plural "APOSTLES" is a far removal from the intepretation that Peter ALONE is given the keys in Mt. 16:18.

You guys can't make up your minds!

1. Did Jesus give the keys in Matthew 16:18 to Peter ALONE or to all the Apostles "you" (Mt. 18:18)?

2. Is Jesus addressing merely APOSTLES in Mt. 18:15-18 and thus only APOSTLES have exercise of the keys OR is he addressing more than Peter, more than Apostles in this text?

3. Where does one get the idea of a "POPE" from Scripture if the keys were not given to Peter ALONE but to ALL the Apostles (Mt. 18:18) or that the keys were given to more than Peter, more than the Apostles but to ALL other kinds of church members (preists, archbishops, bishops, Cardinals, Pope, deacons)????

What a messy interpretation you have of Mt. 16:18-19 and the "rock" and "keys"!

Mine is very simple, Peter is representative of what makes up the membership of a congregation and that is why Jesus says "tell it to the church" as the highest court and uses the plural "you" in Mt. 18:17-18 and Peter himself confirms this interpretation by metaphorically identifying common members of the church as "lively stones" (1 Pet. 2:5) and Christ as the Petra (1 Pet. 2:8).
 

WestminsterMan

New Member
Since when is Rome the standard for interpreting this text or any other??? The argument presented was that Jesus is talking to APOSTLES not "preists" or "Bishops" and even plural "APOSTLES" is a far removal from the intepretation that Peter ALONE is given the keys in Mt. 16:18.

Since 33 AD...

1. Did Jesus give the keys in Matthew 16:18 to Peter ALONE or to all the Apostles "you" (Mt. 18:18)?

He gave them to Peter first and promised to build HIS Church upon Peter.

2. Is Jesus addressing merely APOSTLES in Mt. 18:15-18 and thus only APOSTLES have exercise of the keys OR is he addressing more than Peter, more than Apostles in this text?

See below...

3. Where does one get the idea of a "POPE" from Scripture if the keys were not given to Peter ALONE but to ALL the Apostles (Mt. 18:18) or that the keys were given to more than Peter, more than the Apostles but to ALL other kinds of church members (preists, archbishops, bishops, Cardinals, Pope, deacons)????

Peter had primacy over the other Apostles that's how.

"And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19).

"I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:33).

God sent an angel to Peter to announce the Resurrection of Jesus (Mark 6:7).

Of all the Apostles, the risen Jesus first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).

Peter headed the meeting which elected Matthias as replacement for Judas (Acts 1:13-26).

Peter led the apostles in preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2:14).

Peter led the meeting which decided on which terms Gentiles would be allowed into the Church (Acts 15).

Peter was the judge of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11).

Jesus entrusted Peter with his flock, making him into a Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17).

Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3).

After his conversion Paul went to see Peter, the chief apostle (Gal. 1:18).

Throughout the New Testament, when the apostles are listed as a group, Peter's name is always first. Sometimes it's just "Peter and the twelve. "

Peter's name is mentioned more often than the names of all the other apostles put together.

It is abundantly clear from scripture that Peter enjoyed a position of primacy amongst the Apostles.

Further, history provides the succession of the Popes...

In his work “Against Heresies [A.D. 180] ”St. Irenaeus begins to list the successors of Peter at Rome with these words: "But since it would be too long, in a work like this, to list the successions in all the churches, we shall take only one of them, the church that is greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and set up by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul at Rome while showing that the tradition and the faith it proclaims to men comes down through the successions of the bishops even to us" (ibid., 3.2).

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Here, Ignatius shows the Primacy of the Church of Rome..

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

And here is the apostolic succession listed:

3. 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. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. 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.

Approximately 300 years later, we see Augustine confirming the list…

St. Augustine of Hippo – A.D. 412:
“If the very order of epicopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as the one representing the WHOLE CHURCH, the Lord said “Upon this rock I will build my Church… Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus … “ (Letter 53, To Generosus 1:2)

What a messy interpretation you have of Mt. 16:18-19 and the "rock" and "keys"!

Perhaps, but it's been passed down through history as fact for 2,000 years.
Even Protestant theologians (whom I quoted and you ignored) agree with this interpretation. You stand against 1500 years of Christendom. Hmmm... I wonder why it took so long for God to reveal this to His Church...

Mine is very simple, Peter is representative of what makes up the membership of a congregation and that is why Jesus says "tell it to the church" as the highest court and uses the plural "you" in Mt. 18:17-18 and Peter himself confirms this interpretation by metaphorically identifying common members of the church as "lively stones" (1 Pet. 2:5) and Christ as the Petra (1 Pet. 2:8).

Simple - direct - and wrong! Pure fantasy doc.

WM
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
Read Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown’s commentary for more useful information on 1Pet. 1:1.
an outdated commentary without the benefit of modern finds such as the dead sea scrolls or exhaustive work of textual Criticism. Based in an earlier bias. I don't think so. Modern working would put to questions certain dates you claim.
 

Dr. Walter

New Member
Since 33 AD...


If you really believe what you are defending here then why are you not a member of what you argue to be the TRUE church? If you really believe this, then you are an apostate according to your own definition of Peter and the church are you not?

You have not avoided the problems I presented at all but further confirmed exactly what I said!

Either the keys were given ONLY to Peter or they were not!

Either the keys were given ONLY to apostles in Mt. 18:18 "you" or they were not.

Acts 15 denies Peter was in the chief leadership position as it is James not Peter.. Acts 6 demonstrates the apostles acted together without any particular apostle being recognized above the others.

My position is not only very simple but fits all the scriptures perfectly without denying Peter acted as the primary leader on Pentecost.
 

WestminsterMan

New Member
If you really believe what you are defending here then why are you not a member of what you argue to be the TRUE church? If you really believe this, then you are an apostate according to your own definition of Peter and the church are you not?

Tell you what doc, I'll convert if you go with me. Besides, why should that even be brought into the discussion?

You have not avoided the problems I presented at all but further confirmed exactly what I said!

Either the keys were given ONLY to Peter or they were not!

Either the keys were given ONLY to apostles in Mt. 18:18 "you" or they were not.

False dichotomy. They were given to Peter first - he was first among the Apostles.

Acts 15 denies Peter was in the chief leadership position as it is James not Peter.. Acts 6 demonstrates the apostles acted together without any particular apostle being recognized above the others.

Well, I provided you with large amounts of scripture showing Peter as the top Apostle; how conveniently you ignore that with which you cannot deal. Further, you lack a solid understanding of the structure of the Early Church. James was given the See of Jerusalem, but Peter governed the universal Church. This was dealt with early on by St. John Chrysostom who anticipated and refuted such an argument.

Says Chrysostom: "If anyone should say, 'Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?' I should reply that he [Christ] made Peter the teacher not of that See, but of the world." Ibid. 81. In other words, says Chrysostom, after Peter's fall (his denial of Christ), Christ "brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship [epistasia] of the universal Church." [Ibid., 80.]

My position is not only very simple but fits all the scriptures perfectly without denying Peter acted as the primary leader on Pentecost.

So you say doc. Yet you stand in opposition to the history of the Church and to many of those in Protestantism including several of the Reformers. If you fail to learn form your mistakes, how can you ever expect to grow?

Ka.... oh never mind.;)

WM
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dr. Walter

New Member
And why should that even be brought into the discussion?

Well, I was told by a wise man once that a person only really believes what they practice and everything else is mere hot air. Do you really believe what you are defending?



False dichotomy. They were given to Peter first - he was first among the Apostles.

Where in Matthew 16:18 does it teach that Peter is simply preeminent within a certain group or category in regard to the keys? How can you argue the plural "you" in Matthew 18:18 is restricted by context to ONLY apostles but then apply the exercise of the keys beyond the office of apostle (bishops, preists - not to mention unbiblical offices as cardinal, archbishop, pope, etc.)?




Well, I provided you with large amounts of scripture showing Peter as the top Apostle; how conveniently you ignore that with which you cannot deal.

I never denied that Peter was the initial leader but only denied he continued in that role EVEN WHILE HE WAS ALIVE. Did the papal office transfer from Peter to James in Acts 15 - Peter was present????
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
which do you follow and why?

My personal view is prima scriptura*. I believe God reveals Himself and his truth in a myriad of ways, however Scripture just happens to be the most direct way for us humans to comprehend. The heavens declare His glory, and we are given minds to seek truth. (Come let Us reason together, after all.) I also recognize that I don't have expertise the way that great theologians did, nor do I live close to the time of Christ, so I can learn from those who were closer to that time and those that knew the culture/language better.

ONLY the Holy Scriptures have been inspired by the HS, and are ONLY infallible and complete and true revelation from God to man today!

See jesus and the Apostle paul!
 

WestminsterMan

New Member
Well, I was told by a wise man once that a person only really believes what they practice and everything else is mere hot air. Do you really believe what you are defending?

I am defending the truth as practiced and taught by the Church for the first 1500 years of its existence. Are you suggesting that millions of Protestants who disagree with you should become Roman Catholics? As evidenced by other posters here doc, the RCC is not the only Church that holds to this interpretation.

Where in Matthew 16:18 does it teach that Peter is simply preeminent within a certain group or category in regard to the keys? How can you argue the plural "you" in Matthew 18:18 is restricted by context to ONLY apostles but then apply the exercise of the keys beyond the office of apostle (bishops, preists - not to mention unbiblical offices as cardinal, archbishop, pope, etc.)?

I've already stated this to be a false dichotomy doc. Besides - looking at scripture in its totallity, should give any honest reader a clear picture of Peter's preiminence. Just look at the scripture that I've provided indicating this.

I never denied that Peter was the initial leader but only denied he continued in that role EVEN WHILE HE WAS ALIVE.

Peter was the leader (Pope) until his death when he was succeeded Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus... and on we go up to the present Pope. You can read the historical record for yourself doc.

Did the papal office transfer from Peter to James in Acts 15 - Peter was present????

No it did not (see St. John Chrysostom in my previous post). Peter led the Coulcil of Jerusalem - the others were present as members of the council.

Acts 15:6
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. [and who received that vision?] 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Here in verse 11, Peter is speaking with authority. He received the vision from God setting the policy on the Gentiles - the policy that the Council excepted and codified in a Council document. You see, this is where the idea of councils came from. You appear to be picking a very small nit there, doc.

WM
 

Dr. Walter

New Member
Tell you what doc, I'll convert if you go with me.

I get the humor. However, why defend something you obviously do not recognize by your own practice? If you are right about your interpretation then it condemns your practice. Why is it that your interpretation does not move you to actually recognize it by your own practice?

What I believe I practice and if I don't practice it I admit I am in error rather than attempting to force the Scriptures to harmonize with my own practice.

I believe that my simple interpretation, which fits all the scriptures without denying Peter's temporary leadership, represents the true facts of scripture. Rome's position is equally as erroneous as their historical church/state union which equally has no foundation in the scriptures or history until the fourth century. You know there is no historical support for the idea of a single "pope" supremency until even later than that.
 

Dr. Walter

New Member
And where did much of that scripture come from? Sacred Tradition.

WM

That is rediculous! The New Testament writers either spoke directly under the leadership of the Holy Spirit or were directed by the Holy Spirit to quote SCRITPURE as their authority! NOT ONCE did they ever say "rabbi" so and so "said" this or that as did the Pharisees of their day when quoting "the traditions of the elders."

Peter says that "scriptures" are "MORE SURE" than his own personal Apostolic oral reports (2 Pet. 1:16-19) and Paul denied that anything other than "all scripture" was necessary for "the man of God" to be THROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS in regard to "doctrine" and "instruction" and "reproof" and "correction" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Oral apostolic traditions were immediately supersed by Apostolic inspired scritpures EVEN WHILE THEY WERE ALIVE (2 Pet. 1:16-19).
 

WestminsterMan

New Member
I get the humor. However, why defend something you obviously do not recognize by your own practice? If you are right about your interpretation then it condemns your practice. Why is it that your interpretation does not move you to actually recognize it by your own practice?

What I believe I practice and if I don't practice it I admit I am in error rather than attempting to force the Scriptures to harmonize with my own practice.

Ok. I believe that Christ built His Church upon Peter and that Peter had primacy over the other Apostles. Further, I believe that I have shown this to have been Church practice/doctrine/whatever since the begining. Yet, I practice my Christian faith and that doesn't change anything one iota. Honestly, I don't see you beef here doc.

I believe that my simple interpretation, which fits all the scriptures without denying Peter's temporary leadership, represents the true facts of scripture.

True facts? Not according to scripture and Church history.

Rome's position is equally as erroneous as their historical church/state union which equally has no foundation in the scriptures or history until the fourth century. You know there is no historical support for the idea of a single "pope" supremency until even later than that.

Later than what - St. Irenaeus Against Heresies [A.D. 180]? Mention of the Church goes back to around A.D. 110. I'd say that pre-dates your 4th century date by several centuries. You see doc, by necessity you are forced to ignore much of Church history for, if you accept it, your position falls apart. Just sayin...

WM
 

WestminsterMan

New Member
That is rediculous! The New Testament writers either spoke directly under the leadership of the Holy Spirit or were directed by the Holy Spirit to quote SCRITPURE as their authority! NOT ONCE did they ever say "rabbi" so and so "said" this or that as did the Pharisees of their day when quoting "the traditions of the elders."

You cannot deduce anything from the absence of something in scripture (argument from silence). Besides... how do you know - where you there?

Peter says that "scriptures" are "MORE SURE" than his own personal Apostolic oral reports (2 Pet. 1:16-19) and Paul denied that anything other than "all scripture" was necessary for "the man of God" to be THROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS in regard to "doctrine" and "instruction" and "reproof" and "correction" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Define "all scripture" in terms of the New Testament. You know very well that little of it existed at the time Paul spoke these words. Thus, how do you know that all scripture is inspired? Hmmmm....

For the first 350 years of Christianity, they did not have the complete NT. The Catholic OT and the Protestant OT are different, but the NT is the same. There were quite a few other books that people thought should be in NT Scripture, such as The Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul, Acts of John, Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Andrew, The Acts of Thomas, the Apocalypse of Paul, the Gospel of Thomas, etc...

• 382 AD - Synod of Rome declared the canon of Scripture, 46 OT books, 27 NT books
• 393 AD - Council of Hippo declared the canon, which was the exact same list as Synod of Rome
• 397 AD - Council of Carthage ratified the canon decision made by those 2 councils

The decisions of these councils were then ratified by the Pope. The Catholic Church determined that there were 27 NT Books.

If the Church does not have authority, then the Bible doesn't have authority. Without the testimony of the Church, we would not have the Bible, even if we had the Bible, we would have no way to know which books are inspired. Every Christian today who accepts the 27 books of the NT agrees w/Catholics regarding the God-given authority of the Church to determine, guided by the Holy Spirit, what is canonical Scripture and what is spurious.

Oral apostolic traditions were immediately supersed by Apostolic inspired scritpures EVEN WHILE THEY WERE ALIVE (2 Pet. 1:16-19).

Really! Well, the earliest Christians listened to the teachings of the Apostles and became believers, and just about all of them left this earth without ever reading the Gospel of John! Go figure there, doc!

WM
 

Dr. Walter

New Member
Later than what - St. Irenaeus Against Heresies [A.D. 180]? Mention of the Church goes back to around A.D. 110. I'd say that pre-dates your 4th century date by several centuries. You see doc, by necessity you are forced to ignore much of Church history for, if you accept it, your position falls apart. Just sayin...

WM

I am well aware of Irenaeus's statement. However, he is not arguing for the primacy of the Pastor of Rome over other bishops to be recognized as one universal "Pope." You know fully well that every Bishop was recognized as "papa" and that there was no universal recognition of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as the universal "Pope" until much later than the fourth century. Do I really have to document this well known verified fact of history??? Do I really have to name the very first bishop of Rome who was the very first to be universally recognized as the "Pope" by all other Bishops??????

There is no more Biblical support for a universal "pope" then there is for a "cardinal" or a "priest" or a "church/state union."
 

Dr. Walter

New Member
You cannot deduce anything from the absence of something in scripture (argument from silence). Besides... how do you know - where you there?

Whenever, such "traditions of the elders" are referred to they are in contexts that condemn them not support them. Scripture is not silent about its sources of authority and its condemnation of the current "traditions of the elders."




Define "all scripture" in terms of the New Testament. You know very well that little of it existed at the time Paul spoke these words.

False! Most of the New Testament had been written by the time Paul penned 2 Tim. 3:16. Very little of the New Testament was written after the death of Paul.
 

WestminsterMan

New Member
Whenever, such "traditions of the elders" are referred to they are in contexts that condemn them not support them. Scripture is not silent about its sources of authority and its condemnation of the current "traditions of the elders."

False! Most of the New Testament had been written by the time Paul penned 2 Tim. 3:16. Very little of the New Testament was written after the death of Paul.

OK... Prove it. I expect proof not conjecture.

WM
 

WestminsterMan

New Member
I am well aware of Irenaeus's statement. However, he is not arguing for the primacy of the Pastor of Rome over other bishops to be recognized as one universal "Pope."

Really... could of fooled me.

Here, Ignatius shows the Primacy of the Church of Rome..

"2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

The primacy of the Church of Rome who is led by the Bishop of the Church of Rome [THE POPE]. Hmmm...

And here is the apostolic succession of the Church of Rome:

"3. 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. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. 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."

You know fully well that every Bishop was recognized as "papa" and that there was no universal recognition of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as the universal "Pope" until much later than the fourth century. Do I really have to document this well known verified fact of history??? Do I really have to name the very first bishop of Rome who was the very first to be universally recognized as the "Pope" by all other Bishops??????

I've given you historically verifiable documentation which destroys that position. If you can read, then it should be abundantly clear.

There is no more Biblical support for a universal "pope" then there is for a "cardinal" or a "priest" or a "church/state union."

Well that's the crux of the matter isn't it doc? I'm not relying only on scripture - mainly because not everything was recorded in scripture - a fact which scripture itself makes clear...

John 20:29-31

29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

John 21:24-25

24 This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.

25And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen


WM
 

Dr. Walter

New Member
OK... Prove it. I expect proof not conjecture.

WM

This is quite easy. 2 Tim. 4:6-7 clearly demands that Paul is expecting his death at any time. He wrote at least 13 of the 27 epistles, hence, all 13 were written when Timothy received this letter. Peter died about the same time as Paul in Rome and so Peter's epistles were completed about the same time. James was one of the earliest. Most scholars admit that the gospels were already finished and Acts ends with Paul at Rome and thus demonstrates it was finished.

As I said before nearly all the New Testament was in the hands of the congregations except for John's epistle and revelation and Jude. The whole New Testament was finished before the end of the first century and in the hands of the congregations.

However, I really don't know why we even discuss the scriptures as you and I have no common ground whatsoever. My final authority is the scriptures and yours is scriptures plus traditions, plus church counsel's plus, plus etc. Hence, we have no common ground to discuss anything and come to any conclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top