Sola scriptura or prima scriptura

[Dr. Walter]

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...

As I said there is not one iota, not one syllable of evidence from Ireneaus that indicates either he believed in or the churches acknowledged the bishop of Rome to be the UNIVERSAL PONTIFF over all other Bishops.

He simply asserted his belief in the succession of churches and bishops and regarded the church at Rome under its bishop as the standard for agreement. That is far cry from claiming the Bishop of Rome holds a higher OFFICE over all other Bishops or that the Biship of Rome was recognized as a UNIVERSAL SUPREME PONTIFF.

I don't deny succession of New Testament congregations, I just assert that the congregations that followed Rome were the first apostate denominations that broke away from New Testament congregations and two obvious proofs are (1) Church/state union; (2) Universal Pope.

 

[lakeside]

Just a question lakeside.
St. John the Baptist Church is a Catholic Church isn't it?
Please answer honestly.

Yes, it is Catholic. I left a Baptist Fundamentalist church about fifteen years ago.
Twenty-five years ago I found Jesus, twenty-five years later I found His Church.

 

[DHK]

an outdated commentary without the benefit of modern finds such as the dead sea scrolls or exhaustive work of textual Criticism.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.

That was a suggestion. What I gave you was Scripture without his help. I simply went through the Book of Acts and saw where Peter had gone, where he had been, what he was doing, etc. There left no room for him to be in Rome.
Notice that the latter part of the quote in JFB was a direct quote from Jerome that someone (either you or Westminster) copied and pasted without giving credit to this board. That is what started this conversation. JFB does not accept Jerome's interpretation of the facts. He does not accept the Catholic interpretation. He gives it, but does not accept it.

What I gave you was my own study. Compare. It is not the same as what JFB wrote. Do you think a pope with supreme power, one who is infallible would be so harshly rebuked by another Apostle, as to doctrine which was just recently affirmed at the Jerusalem Council? Hardly!

Do you think that a Pope at Rome would not deserve even a mention to all the greetings that Paul lists in Romans 16. Paul mentions no such person. But he does mention many others such as Aquila and Priscilla and the church that is in their house. No mention of Peter though. He mentions to them to accept Phoebe, but no mention of Peter. Paul never mentions Peter at all in his epistle. His name is absent because his person is absent from the city. His letter was written within five years before his death.

 

[Matt Black]

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

Likewise in our Church of England...and the Orthodox, Lutherans, Copts etc...We see this Scripture worked out in practice this way in the was Christ commanded it.

 

[Matt Black]

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.

Er...false yourself! Peter and Paul's martyrdom occurred c 66AD. The Synoptic Gospels were written in the 70s, John's in the 80s or 90s and John's letters and Revelation in the 90s.

 

[Matt Black]

I don't deny succession of New Testament congregations, I just assert that the congregations that followed Rome were the first apostate denominations that broke away from New Testament congregations and two obvious proofs are (1) Church/state union; (2) Universal Pope.

So which ones were the 'NT congregations' and which were the 'apostate ones that broke away and followed Rome'? Names or at least addresses, please.

 

[DHK]

So which ones were the 'NT congregations' and which were the 'apostate ones that broke away and followed Rome'? Names or at least addresses, please.

Let's see: there was the First Baptist Church at Jerusalem, all the other 100 or so that Paul started, then many of those were missionary minded and started others. Did you know the Book of Hebrews was written to second generation Jewish Christians? So there were many IFB churches all around the area having different names. Gradually some accepted error into their churches and began going astray. And so it went. By and large a good percentage of them always remained true to the Lord.

 

[Matt Black]

So, which ones stayed and which ones 'joined Rome'? And when?

 

[DHK]

Yes, it is Catholic. I left a Baptist Fundamentalist church about fifteen years ago.
Twenty-five years ago I found Jesus, twenty-five years later I found His Church.

A church that promotes doctrine of devils is not His church to start with.

However, what would make you change if you really found Christ as you say you did. The doctrine of the RCC and Baptists in general are at polar opposites. The one teaches a gospel of grace, the other a religion of works. The emphasizes a relationship with Christ; the other emphasizes an adherence to the law, the sacraments. The one says that new birth is through the Holy Spirit working through the Word of God on a person's heart and life; the other equates the new birth to baptism.

One cannot believe in Biblical salvation and at the same time believe and understand the doctrines of the RCC. He must choose one or the other.

It is the same concept as being a Muslim or a Christian. You can't be both.

 

[Matt Black]

Rather strange then that most of the Catholics I know have a strong and vibrant relationship with the Lord.

 

[DHK]

So, which ones stayed and which ones 'joined Rome'? And when?

The RCC officially came an entity around the time of Constantine when he legalized "Christianity," in the early part of the fourth century. Those that remained true to the Word of God had no part or parcel in making any pact with the government. They remained independent of it. Constantine made a false profession of faith and simply wanted to use Christendom for his own political gain.

 

[Matt Black]

That doesn't answer my question.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That was a suggestion. What I gave you was Scripture without his help. I simply went through the Book of Acts and saw where Peter had gone, where he had been, what he was doing, etc. There left no room for him to be in Rome.
Notice that the latter part of the quote in JFB was a direct quote from Jerome that someone (either you or Westminster) copied and pasted without giving credit to this board. That is what started this conversation. JFB does not accept Jerome's interpretation of the facts. He does not accept the Catholic interpretation. He gives it, but does not accept it.

What I gave you was my own study. Compare. It is not the same as what JFB wrote. Do you think a pope with supreme power, one who is infallible would be so harshly rebuked by another Apostle, as to doctrine which was just recently affirmed at the Jerusalem Council? Hardly!

Do you think that a Pope at Rome would not deserve even a mention to all the greetings that Paul lists in Romans 16. Paul mentions no such person. But he does mention many others such as Aquila and Priscilla and the church that is in their house. No mention of Peter though. He mentions to them to accept Phoebe, but no mention of Peter. Paul never mentions Peter at all in his epistle. His name is absent because his person is absent from the city. His letter was written within five years before his death.

The problem as I see it is that you apply the modern Pontiff and the consept of the Pontiff to the time of Paul. Peter certainly had primacy among all the apostles which is why in every list of apostles in the NT Peter is listed first. He is prime. The Church at this time did not have a centrality of location. But rested soley on the shoulders of Aposltes and their teaching (IE Tradition). Christians were in Rome before Peter due to Pentecost and the quickly spreading of the word by Mouth alone. Peter would have been brought to Rome towards the end of his life not in the middle where he is moving from Jerusalem before its end. There is not contention about the events in the Acts but acts don't end with Peter. They end before Peter even leaves for Rome. Acts end with Pauls arrival to Rome. When Paul wrote to the Romans Peter may not have been there in which case no need to greet him if Peter were there remember Pauls role as apostle to the gentiles and the purpose of the letter was to strengthen the romans not peter. but since Acts ends early and you like Bottner don't want to admit Babylon spoken of by Peter is actually Rome you miss out on the many referrences to his being there.

How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded -Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200)

this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter. - Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200)

Entreat Christ for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice [to God]. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. - Ignatius letter to the Romans chp 4

while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church - Ireneaus Adverse heresies

When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed - Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History

And on and on it goes.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Er...false yourself! Peter and Paul's martyrdom occurred c 66AD. The Synoptic Gospels were written in the 70s, John's in the 80s or 90s and John's letters and Revelation in the 90s.

Er...false yourself! Find another epistle by Paul written after 2 Timothy? I will side with conservative Bible scholars on the dating of the synoptics. I admitted that the John's and Revelation came later. However, the bulk was among the congregations when Paul penned 2 Tim. 3:16. All of the New Testament was among the congregations before the second century began.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Paul had the primacy among the apostles among the Gentile congregations including Rome. He not Peter was the apostle to the Gentiles. He rebuked Peter and claimed primacy over Peter among the Gentile congregations.

H. Peter not in Rome.

1. If he had been in Rome at the writing of this epistle Paul would have greeted him with all the rest.

2. If Peter had been to Rome at the time of Paul’s first imprisonment he would have mentioned Peter in his prison epistles when he sends greetings from those in Rome.

3. If Peter had been to Rome at the time of his final imprisonment in Rome he would not have said all in Rome had forsaken him – 2 Tim. 4:16-17

4. In the fourth century introduction to the book of Romans, Ambrosiaster claimed that no apostle originated the church at Rome but rather certain Jewish Christians. Romans 15:20-22 seem to indicate that no other apostle had yet come to Rome.

5. If another Apostle had founded the church at Rome, Paul would have never said what he tells them in Rm. 15:20-22

Rom 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

Rom 15:21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.

Rom 15:22 For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you.

I. How are we to account for traditions that say Peter built it?​

1. The earliest traditions equally give Paul as a founder as well

Ireaneus says that the church was “founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul….” – Irenaeus Against Heresies, Vol. 1, chap. III, numb. 2, p. 415

1. The traditions have been tampered with by the Catholics
2. Probably the truth is that

a. Peter helped found it through His preaching on Pentecost – Acts 2:10 and much later after the death of Paul came to Rome – I Pet. 5:13

b.Paul learned of the Roman Churches through Aquilla and Priscilla – Acts
18:2

c. Paul helped in grounding it through his epistle and two imprisonments in Rome.

d. These two apostles had personally visited Rome after some unknown disciple had organized it who had been saved and commissioned in Acts 2:10-42.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Paul had the primacy among the apostles among the Gentile congregations including Rome. He not Peter was the apostle to the Gentiles. He rebuked Peter and claimed primacy over Peter among the Gentile congregations.

H. Peter not in Rome.

I see Marcion has joined the group.

 

[lakeside]

Dr. Walter, St. Peter is mentioned 155 times and St. Paul and the rest of the apostles "combined " are mentioned 130 times . St. Peter is also listed first except in 1 Cor. 3v 22 and Gal. 2 v 9 [ which was the obvious exceptions to the rule ]
St. Peter was in fact in Rome , Peter writes from " Babylon " which was a code name for Rome during those days of persecution.example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock

Peter while in Rome was always under persecution by the pagan Roman soldiers who were constantly seeking out Christians [ soldiers called Christians , " those that eat their God '' in reference to their eating the Blessed Bread ,the Eucharist ] so naturally Christians tried to keep a low profile on themselves and their 'Bishop Of Rome St. Peter', who did have [ for being a Bishop ] a very large price for his head.

 

[Matt Black]

Er...false yourself! Find another epistle by Paul written after 2 Timothy? I will side with conservative Bible scholars on the dating of the synoptics. I admitted that the John's and Revelation came later. However, the bulk was among the congregations when Paul penned 2 Tim. 3:16. All of the New Testament was among the congregations before the second century began.

The writing of 'another epistle by Paul after 2 Tim is irrelevant'; I never said that Paul wrote anything after that so you are positing a straw man. Reputable NT scholars date the Synoptics in the 70s; the more liberal in the 90s.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The writing of 'another epistle by Paul after 2 Tim is irrelevant'; I never said that Paul wrote anything after that so you are positing a straw man. Reputable NT scholars date the Synoptics in the 70s; the more liberal in the 90s.

Here is the bottom line. All pro-Roman Catholic advocates on this forum cannot sustain their position by the scriptures alone and basic rules of hermeneutics. Indeed, they don't pretend to do so. They believe that the scriptures are merely one aspect of their basis for authority for faith and practice. Every time they are pinned by the scriptures they flee to ECF's, church counsel's and other TRADITIONS to enter back into the debate over a scriptural text.

On the other hand, those who represent Biblical Christianity on this forum defend their faith and practice by the scriptures alone. Our mistake is that when we pin them with Biblical exposition and sound principles of hermeneutics, we allow them to flee to their refuge of Traditions and then follow them there to continue the debate over scriptures. Traditions and counsels are full of contradictions and no end of opinions and so when they flee to that refuge argumentation becomes an endless and hopeless never ending circle.

I for one, will not follow them any more into their vain, confused, contradicting traditions in the discussion of any scripture or in regard to the scriptures any more. When they flee, I stop right there, condemn them for complete inability to maintain their position by sound exegesis.

My position in regard to EFC's, counsels, Papal infallibility (ex cathreda) is they are the history of apostasy and mystery Babylon the harlot, demonic and unfit for Christian consumption.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

[WestminsterMan]

The RCC officially came an entity around the time of Constantine when he legalized "Christianity," in the early part of the fourth century.

Not quite correct there DHK. The RCC was officially recognized by Constantine at which time the persecution of the Christians stopped. What you are missing is that the Catholic Church was around since the beginning. Initially, called the "Church of Christ" and "The Way", it soon became known as Catholic. As early as A.D. 110 we see reference to it:

Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

Those that remained true to the Word of God had no part or parcel in making any pact with the government. They remained independent of it.

Show us the proof. Wait - there isn't any.

Constantine made a false profession of faith and simply wanted to use Christendom for his own political gain.

Sounds like a politician to me.

WM