Sola Scriptura: The Sufficiency of Scripture

[herbert]

v of v

ONE- The civil structure of the past was far different from what it was today due to the relationship(s) which existed between various ecclesial structures and the temporal authorities in a given area. Thus it was that the determinations of the Church were acted upon, as a general rule, by the temporal authorities who exercised a certain unique and somewhat distinct authority over a population than that exercised by the Church authorities in any official capacity. So to blame the Church for "results" or "outcomes" whose many factors flowed from an entirely different conception of society itself compared to what we have today represents an oversimplification of myriad questions. A revealing demonstration of this is the fact that in 15th Century France a young Joan of Arc was unjustly put to death under the supervision of her Anglo-Burgundian captors though she was beloved by many, military, civilian, and cleric alike. By 1546, though, she was officially declared a martyr, determined to be a victim of the unscrupulous acts of men who manipulated the power structures of the day for the purposes of tending to a secular agenda, and by both popular appeal and an inquiry into Canon Law, exonerated and ultimately regarded as a true martyr... and all of this "within the Catholic Church" and, apart from her questionable dress, because of her visionary role in fundamentally violent military activity.

TWO- Historically, especially in Western Europe during the height of the various periods of activity associated with the Church Inquisitions, people generally viewed "ideas" in much the same manner as we now view viruses and bacteria- as if they threaten the very fabric of the society itself upon which all people depend. So today we may quarantine a nurse who may have been exposed to Ebola. Then, however, in an act which was considered by some theologians of the day to be an act of mercy (due to the fact that by clinging to certain viewpoints which represented grave sin a person's very eternal soul may be put into jeopardy). In other words, in the past, society itself functioned according to an entirely different social anthropology than that which is assumed to be valid today in the West. For it was then that *ideas* were viewed as grave threats to the well-being of all, and even more dangerous than biological threats. This view can be seen to be consistent even with Scripture. For it was St. Paul who seemed to be affirming the common view of sin and its effect on the body, whether individual or corporate, when he said "So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment." And it wasn't just St. Paul whose teaching seemed to indicate the way by which we should judge threats both temporal and eternal. Christ Himself said "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

THREE- Persecution of heretics, whether through social torment or capital punishment, isn't something unique to any one sect or communion. Further, the Catholic Church is currently unified in Sacraments, Faith, and Governance according to its divine institution. The fact that humans will always violate the very principles they claim to uphold is as old as the sins of Cain and his folks. And the offenses of those members of the Catholic Church who've acted unjustly in any age are not, in kind, different than those offenses committed by members of other groups of believers. The difference between the Catholic Church and other communions, though, is that despite the sins of its members, it may be ever-reformed and find its flame ever re-kindled by the breath of the Holy Spirit.

its holiness is a myth, exposed by recent events; its catholicity is likewise mythical and self-proclaimed

The Catholic Church is the spiritual home to countless saints, women like St. Gianna Beretta Molla, men like St. Maximillian Kolbe, teenagers like Blessed Chiara Luce Badano. Your disapproval of their Church which you've mistakenly come to dislike should by no means lead you to disregard their witness to holiness and purity in this cruel world whose inhabitants killed even their Lord. Also, you mentioned recent events. The betrayal of Christ byJudas Iscariot, one of the 12 whom He selected to be an Apostle, isn't exactly a recent event. Neither are St. Peter's denials of Christ. Did you have some other unique and innovative sins in mind worse than those committed by the very men upon whom Christ chose to confer His divine authority?

and its apostolicity is a joke so long as it denies Sola Scriptura

This point, apart from the fact that it begs the question by presuming the illegitimacy of my position without bothering to demonstrate it in rational terms, speaks to matters which are objectively and publicly accessible to all. For early Christian writers presented to us public and verifiable records of Papal Succession which you're free to demonstrate as invalid. To do so, according to Sola Scriptura, mind you, would be both unScriptural and invalid until you take the time to demonstrate how points 1 and 2 above lead to point 3. And to deny them according to the very point whose legitimacy you've not yet demonstrated is to, again, beg the question.

Every church, regardless of denomination, where the word of God is faithfully preached and His ordinances observed is in unity with its Head, and catholic inasmuch as it does not despise other congregations that do likewise

Again, you're begging the question by presuming the validity of that which you've, according to your fallible human mind, determined amounts to "faithfully preaching" the message of Christ and the Apostles.

But when a person asks "Where is the truth taught?" and you respond by saying "Wherever the word of God is preached faithfully" and the person follows up with the question "Where is the word of God preached faithfully?" you can't logically respond by saying "Wherever the truth is taught." In such a case, the means by which you come to recognize the truth, which involves answering questions like "How shall I go about distinguishing mere human opinion from divine revelation?" with principled answers must be considered. If you're just out to convince yourself that you're right, circular reasoning may satisfy you... but, in the event that disagreement among Christians breaks out, anything less than a principled consideration of all pertinent matters leaves you begging the question.

every church where proper church discipline is imposed according to God's word is holy

The same point I made above applies here, as well.

every church that follows the Bible and preaches it faithfully is apostolic.

Once again, the same point applies.

Ultimately, though, rather than bringing up all of this, why don't you just show me how #3 logically follows from points 1 and 2 above?

Herbert

 

[SovereignGrace]

Oh there we go, I knew that would come up - any discussion about Catholic beliefs always leads to that scurrilous charge and I say you are wrong. As for the Pope, he is our Bishop, the human being now alive who is the head of our church here on earth. Yes, you will get no argument from me that Jesus is the head of the whole Christian Church, but he is not here walking around right now.

Christ is the head of the church on earth, too. Another gross error propagated by the RCC.

Bishops in churches are overseers, but never the head of the local church. So the Pope is no more the head of the RCC on earth than I am.

Please come out from this whore. I am begging you.

 

[herbert]

Hello, SovereignGrace-

Because of the way I was notified of your most recent remarks, I was under the impression that they were directed at me. I wrote a response. But I am not exactly too familiar with how this system here works and I am now thinking that you were speaking to Adonia and not me. So if you'd be so kind, please allow me to chime in for a moment and speak to what you said to her which, again, I originally mistook as being directed at me.

If this conversation is to proceed, I'd ask you (or anybody else) to speak to the more fundamental, first order questions, such as:

"...I'd ask you to demonstrate how it is that you see the fact that Christ quotes Scripture and that the Writer of Hebrews quotes Scripture as somehow revealing to us that we are justified in holding to Sola Scriptura."

In a very recent comment, I also presented the question by asking someone to explain how the following conclusion (#3) logically follows from premises 1 and 2 below:

1. Christ is the Divine Son of God.
2. Christ quoted from and thus affirmed Scripture's authority.
3. Therefore, Scripture is the sole and final authority for Christians.

For, as an adult, I came to see that Sola Scriptura was a doctrine not revealed by Christ, an angel, a prophet, or the Apostles. Sola Scriptura, I came to realize, was also not taught in the Bible. Thus it failed its own test for doctrinal validity.

Although I await a direct response from anyone addressing what I've asked above, I'll take a moment to respond to your comments (which were originally intended for Adonia) below:

Christ is the head of the church on earth, too. Another gross error propagated by the RCC.

It is the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church that always and everywhere Christ is the Head of the Church. This reality does not preclude the possibility of His appointment of bishops, representatives, overseers, vicars, stewards, teachers, keepers of the keys, and others who may, through the principle of subsidiarity, act on behalf of Christ. One of the Pope's titles is the "Servant of the servants of God." All of this is certainly compatible with the legitimacy of the Papacy since Christ Himself is the one who established it.

Bishops in churches are overseers, but never the head of the local church. So the Pope is no more the head of the RCC on earth than I am.

An overseer can be the temporal head of an area (such as a diocese) and at the same time be acting entirely under the Authority of Christ. These two facts aren't mutually exclusive.

Please come out from this whore. I am begging you.

As far as reasoned argumentation goes, this call presumes the validity of your (fallible) assessment of the nature and institution of the Catholic Church, which is the very thing in question between you and us (Adonia and Herbert).

Thanks again for the (indirect) engagement,

Herbert

 

[BobRyan]

For starters, here, then, I'd ask you to demonstrate how it is that you see the fact that Christ quotes Scripture and that the Writer of Hebrews quotes Scripture as somehow revealing to us that we are justified in holding to Sola Scriptura.

And one more point: As I see it, there is another non sequitur present in your comments. It seems that you believe that were the Holy Spirit to verify (in some way) the legitimacy of Sacred Tradition, this fact would necessarily be revealed (according to your private standard) in Scripture itself. On the one hand, I'd say that the validity of Sacred Tradition is indeed upheld in Scripture (and thus according to the witness of the Holy Spirit). On the other hand, though, I'd like to see how it is that you'd explain your (apparent) belief that were the Holy Spirit to stand by the legitimacy of Sacred Tradition, such a fact would necessarily be present (according to your private standard) in Sacred Scripture.

Your first request is reasonable given the subject..

Your second point is self-conflicted as even you admit that the issue of the existence of at least some tradition that is not in outright error is in fact a doctrine found in scripture.

As to your first point - the answer is simple and has been often posted.

Christ demonstrates how church tradition is slammed - "Sola Scriptura" when it is found to be in error.



Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

[DHK]

Of course there is also our Eastern Orthodox brothers who still maintain the belief in the Sacraments same as us, but have a different liturgical way of worship, but they do not see the Bishop of Rome as their head pastor.

Neither can history that hasn't been revised by the Catholic Church.
Peter's bones are not in Rome and there isn't much but some scant tradition that can put him there.
Consider this history:

While visiting a friend in Switzerland, I heard of what seemed to me, one of the greatest discoveries since the time of Christ—that Peter was buried in Jerusalem and not in Rome. The source of this rumor, written in Italian, was not clear; it left considerable room for doubt or rather wonder. Rome was the place where I could investigate the matter, and if such proved encouraging, a trip to Jerusalem might be necessary in order to gather valuable first hand information on the subject. I therefore went to Rome. After talking to many priests and investigating various sources of information, I finally was greatly rewarded by learning where I could buy the only known book on the subject, which was also written in Italian. It is called, "Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit," printed in 1958 at the Tipografia del PP. Francescani, in Jerusalem. It was written by P. B. Bagatti and J. T. Milik, both Roman Catholic priests. The story of the discovery was there, but it seemed to be purposely hidden for much was lacking. I consequently determined to go to Jerusalem to see for myself, if possible, that which appeared to be almost unbelievable, especially since it came from priests, who naturally because of the existing tradition that Peter was buried in Rome, would be the last ones to welcome such a discovery or to bring it to the attention of the world.

In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all read, finally, though reluctantly, that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in Jerusalem, on the Franciscan monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The pictures tell the story. The first shows an excavation where the names of Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found—the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jona".
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nl373.htm

Not only can it be demonstrated that Peter was not in Rome through archaeological evidence, but it can be demonstrated that he was not in Rome through Biblical evidence as well. We can trace the movements of Peter through the Bible and demonstrate that he was not there. Basically the RCC is propagating a lie. They claim that Peter was the first Pope in Peter, when he was never there in the first place! What a hoax! What fraud! This entire religion (as yours) is built on a pack of lies.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

i of v to Martin

Martin,

I have two responses for you. You may choose the first, which is brief... or you may choose the second, which is longer. Either way thanks for your continued engagement!
Herbert
Response #1
"...I'd ask you to demonstrate how it is that you see the fact that Christ quotes Scripture and that the Writer of Hebrews quotes Scripture as somehow revealing to us that we are justified in holding to Sola Scriptura."

I have already done this, but clearly you are not satisfied, so I suppose I shall have to address the rest of your post.

Response #2

You've suggested that I try to be more concise. Please bear a few things in mind:

• It needn't be almost impossible to discuss things with me because you're free to ignore or discuss anything you'd like. You needn't feel obligated to respond to everything I write.
• My most lengthy responses here are nearly all presented in response to the myriad criticisms that you, DHK, and others have presented. Again, you and others suggest that I am not a follower of Christ, that I don't understand the Scriptures, that I've accepted a false gospel, that I follow an idolatrous, blasphemous, disobedient, Godless, institution of men... Therefore, I attempt to be thorough in my responses.

• Herbert, you have freely chosen to come onto a Baptist website and present the views of your denomination. I haven't come onto a Roman catholic site. It's no good feeling aggrieved if people press back rather hard against you. And in any case, it won't hurt you to be concise in your arguments.

A number of the people here have stated quite bluntly that I (and all Catholics, for that matter) am bound for eternal damnation. When dealing with such charges, can a person respond with too much detail? (1st Peter 3:15)

You have not heard such comments from me. I do not have the authority to make such a call. I do not believe in denominations. I believe that 'everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.' What I do ask, of the adherents of any denomination, is 'where is your faith?' Is it in Christ alone or are you placing your faith in 'Christ plus'? Is your faith in

• Your denomination?
• Your baptism?
• Your good works?
• The 'mass'?
• The sacraments?
• The virgin Mary?
• Confession to a 'priest'?

If it is in anything other than the Lord Jesus Christ and Him crucified, your faith is in a false Gospel. 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ' (1 Cor. 3:11). I don't know the answer to this. You need to answer it in your own heart.

We are sifting through 2,000 years of Church history and myriad philosophical, linguistic, cultural, historical, and Scriptural considerations. We must be thorough in our consideration of these matters as we strive to "be aware lest any man spoil you (us) through philosophy and vain deceit, after the rudiments of men, after the tradition of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians 2:8). By the way, notice the fact that the threat here from Colossians doesn't warn us of all tradition, just "the tradition of the world." The importance of that distinction will come up again further down the page.

Well it depends whether you want a response or not. I suggest you go and write a book. But if you come on a discussion forum you have a duty to cut the woffle and be concise.

"...I'd ask you to demonstrate how it is that you see the fact that Christ quotes Scripture and that the Writer of Hebrews quotes Scripture as somehow revealing to us that we are justified in holding to Sola Scriptura."

This original request has not yet been spoken to.

I think you'll find it has, but you don't like the answer.

However, though I'd like to stay on point here as I await your direct response to my request above, I will address a recent response below:

To respond to my claim that your non sequitur is in fact a non sequitur by asking me whether or not it's a non sequitur doesn't really seem to move the conversation forward. My claim is that your argument, which seems to run something like this:
1. Christ is the Divine Son of God.
2. Christ quoted from and thus affirmed Scripture's authority.
3. Therefore, Scripture is the sole and final authority for Christians.
is a non sequitur because #3 does not logically follow from numbers 1 and 2. My challenge to you is to demonstrate how you get #3 from #s 1 and 2... and writing "Well it's not a non sequitur, is it?" doesn't do that.

i. I know I'm changing some of your words here, but the fact that Christ "specifically condemned 'tradition,' used Scripture... to (further demonstrate the legitimacy of) His arguments, and chided others for not doing so..." once again, is compatible with numbers 1 and 2 above, but in no way entails the truth of #3. Catholics affirm Scripture's authority unquestioningly. We just don't accept the philosophical tradition, nowhere revealed by God, which states anything like "Sola Scriptura."

Well we can agree on one thing: you have changed some of my words, and composed your own straw man by way of a syllogism. I rarely use syllogisms, but if I were to here it would go like this:
1. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Divine Son of God.
2. He regularly quoted from the Scriptures, referred others to the Scriptures and denounced 'tradition.'
3. Therefore, the onus is on those who deny that Scripture is the sole and final authority for Christians to prove that they are following Christ.
Over to you.

ii. Condemning certain "traditions" and condemning "all tradition" are two very different things. Christ did the former, not the latter.

Can you refer me to the Scripture where the Lord Jesus Christ approved some or any 'tradition'?

My position is that you're unjustified in dismissing "all" tradition simply because Christ condemned some tradition (namely, the really bad traditions which were followed by the Pharisees and others). This represents, by the way, another non sequitur. The idea that "all" traditions are to be condemned does not follow from the fact that Christ condemned the unGodly traditions held to by certain people of His day.

You are very free with your 'non sequiturs.' As I have said, if you can refer me to the place where our Lord specifically approves certain traditions, you may possibly have a point, but not otherwise. As it stands, your church is deliberately and systematically thumbing its nose at our Lord in persisting in that which He condemned (cf. Ezekiel 8:17).

iii. Christ didn't use "Scripture exclusively to prove His arguments." He was the "argument." He spoke with the "Authoritative I," saying things such as "You've heard it said... But I tell you." Further, in such passages, far from affirming the meanings and interpretations people had come to accept with regard to such verses, He clarified not specifically what the words said, but what they were *intended* to mean (by the Holy Spirit) for the follower of God. In other words we can't attribute the potency of what He did or said exclusively according to the particular nature or content of what He was doing or saying at a given moment. We must evaluate everything He said and did in light of the fact that He is the Lord God Incarnate. So to attribute the "proof" of His "arguments" strictly or exclusively to Scripture (and thereby distinguish their demonstration from His Person as you did), is a Scripturally unjustified move on your part.

Again, you're not reading what I wrote, or at least you're not taking any notice of it. The Lord Jesus used Scripture exclusively to prove His arguments.
When the Jews accused Him of blasphemy, He quoted Scripture- John 10:33-34.
When His disciples were accused of Sabbath-breaking, He referred the Pharisees to the Sriptures- Mark 2:24-26, quoting 1 Samuel 21:1-6.
When He was challenged about the resurrection of the dead, He quoted Scripture- Mark 12:26.
When He was accused of mingling with undesirables, He quoted Scripture- Matthew 9:11-13.
When He was accused of ignoring 'tradition,' He quoted Scripture- Matthew 15:2-8.
When He was challenged about divorce, He quoted Scripture- Matthew 19:3-6.
When He cast the merchants out of the Temple, He justified Himself by quoting Scripture- Matthew 21:12-14.
These are just a few examples that come to mind immediately. I'm sure I can find some more very easily if you want. Never, ever did our Lord clinch an argument by referring to an unbiblical tradition.

 

[Adonia]

Neither can history that hasn't been revised by the Catholic Church.
Peter's bones are not in Rome and there isn't much but some scant tradition that can put him there.
Consider this history:

While visiting a friend in Switzerland, I heard of what seemed to me, one of the greatest discoveries since the time of Christ—that Peter was buried in Jerusalem and not in Rome. The source of this rumor, written in Italian, was not clear; it left considerable room for doubt or rather wonder. Rome was the place where I could investigate the matter, and if such proved encouraging, a trip to Jerusalem might be necessary in order to gather valuable first hand information on the subject. I therefore went to Rome. After talking to many priests and investigating various sources of information, I finally was greatly rewarded by learning where I could buy the only known book on the subject, which was also written in Italian. It is called, "Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit," printed in 1958 at the Tipografia del PP. Francescani, in Jerusalem. It was written by P. B. Bagatti and J. T. Milik, both Roman Catholic priests. The story of the discovery was there, but it seemed to be purposely hidden for much was lacking. I consequently determined to go to Jerusalem to see for myself, if possible, that which appeared to be almost unbelievable, especially since it came from priests, who naturally because of the existing tradition that Peter was buried in Rome, would be the last ones to welcome such a discovery or to bring it to the attention of the world.

In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all read, finally, though reluctantly, that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in Jerusalem, on the Franciscan monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The pictures tell the story. The first shows an excavation where the names of Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found—the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jona".
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nl373.htm

Not only can it be demonstrated that Peter was not in Rome through archaeological evidence, but it can be demonstrated that he was not in Rome through Biblical evidence as well. We can trace the movements of Peter through the Bible and demonstrate that he was not there. Basically the RCC is propagating a lie. They claim that Peter was the first Pope in Peter, when he was never there in the first place! What a hoax! What fraud! This entire religion (as yours) is built on a pack of lies.

That's your evidence? Ha! Ha! Ha. And you cannot demonstrate through the Scriptures that he was not there either, that is nothing more than another of your fanciful claims. I see, DHK has said it, so it must be true. What a hoax! What a fraud!

But really, let's go to the Scriptures and see what we find.

St. Peter wrote, "The Church which is at Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you, and so does my son Mark." 1Pet 5:13. And what is this "Babylon"? Why Rome of course!

Also consider the following by a man named Fred Zaspel in a blog called "Biblical Studies". In part he wrote: "The third and most probable choice is Rome. Three reasons support this choice. The first is found in 1 Peter 5:13 itself; Peter speaks of his associate, Marcus — no one could ask for a more Roman name. Although this in itself in not necessarily determinative, it does give the impression that Peter is in a Roman area. Next, it is common in ancient Jewish writings to find Rome designated Babylon. This is what John does in Revelation chapter seventeen, and possiblye chapter eighteen. Rome had been the source of great grief to the Jewish people, and the term Babylon was most fitting. The figure was so common to them that it would have been easily understood to be Rome. The last reason for identifying Peter's Babylon with Rome is the overwhelming amount of ancient tradition which states that he died in Rome. Clement of Rome (d A.D. 97) wrote that Peter and Paul were martyred together at Rome. (Lest the critics object that this tradition was begun by the Roman church to bolster their position, notice that this statement came from a man who died probably before the apostle John – long before "Roman Catholicism.") Tertullian, writing about A.D. 200 said the same. Eusebius, the fourth century church historian, said the same as well, adding that Peter's grave was in the Vatican "whether or not this is true may be debated, but he could not have been motivated by any "catholic" sentiment, for the Vatican was nothing then). Eusebius cites as his authority Caius, a Roman writer of the early third century, who said that Peter was buried in a shaft grave in Rome".

"The question which rises at this point is whether or not this is an invention of the Roman Catholic Church to justify their own claims. Probably not, for two reasons: 1) The statement of Clement is much too early, and 2) by at least A.D. 170 all Christian burials were in the catacombs, not individual graves. If Caius, or anyone else of his time, had invented the story, he would have said that Peter was buried in the catacombs, for people of his era knew virtually nothing of earlier burial customs. To make the story believable, he (if he had invented it) would undoubtedly have said Peter was in the catacombs. To say that he was in an individual grave, he must have had ample reason".

Now, my copying and pasting should also be considered. God bless!

 

[DHK]

That's your evidence? Ha! Ha! Ha. And you cannot demonstrate through the Scriptures that he was not there either, that is nothing more than another of your fanciful claims. I see, DHK has said it, so it must be true. What a hoax! What a fraud!

But really, let's go to the Scriptures and see what we find.

St. Peter wrote, "The Church which is at Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you, and so does my son Mark." 1Pet 5:13. And what is this "Babylon"? Why Rome of course!
.

Let's deal with this first. What gives you the right to so easily dismiss the archaeological evidence found that the remains of Peter are in Jerusalem and not in Rome. Peter was never in Rome and you don't have that evidence. Prove it.

 

[Adonia]

Let's deal with this first. What gives you the right to so easily dismiss the archaeological evidence found that the remains of Peter are in Jerusalem and not in Rome. Peter was never in Rome and you don't have that evidence. Prove it.

You have not proved that he wasn't.

My brother, I don't have to prove anything. I am satisfied with what the Church teaches on the matter and that is all that counts. Really, the historical record of there being but one Universal Christian Church that 90% of all Christians were members of is a fact, and this was the reality until the first great schism between the East and West in the 11th century. Sure, there might have been a small Christian sect here or there, but the great preponderance of Christians were of the orthodox faith traditions - they believed in the sacraments and that the Bishop based in Rome was the chief pastor of all.

 

[DHK]

Along with the RCC you no doubt are guilty of idolatry.
Are the relics in Rome those of Peter? Even Pope Francis admits that he doesn't know for sure, and then he says, it really doesn't matter.

Are they relics of St Peter? The Vatican says it doesn’t matter

Pope Francis on Sunday venerated the purported remains of his first ever predecessor, as the Vatican gave a public display for what some claim are St Peter's remains.

Tens of thousands of worshippers packed St Peter's Square to catch a glimpse of the bronze chest containing eight small fragments of bone.

Pope Francis kissed and prayed before the chest, which is usually kept in the tiny chapel of the papal apartments, before blessing them with incense.

No pope has ever definitively declared the fragments to belong to the Apostle Peter, but Pope Paul VI in 1968 said fragments found in the necropolis under St Peter’s Basilica were “identified in a way that we can consider convincing”. Some archaeologists dispute this.

They were first discovered in a 1940 dig under St Peter’s Basilica in the years following the 1939 death of Pope Pius XI, who had asked to be buried in the grottoes where dozens of popes are buried. When archaeologist Margherita Guarducci discovered graffiti near the excavated tomb reading "Petros eni", which could mean "Peter is here", she requested tests on the fragments.

She found they belonged to a robust man who died aged between 60 and 70 and had been buried in a purple, gold-threaded cloth. That was enough to convince Pope Paul VI to say in 1968 that Peter's bones had been identified "in a convincing manner."

But last week, a top Vatican official, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, said it almost doesn’t matter if archaeologists one day definitively determine that the bones aren’t Peter’s, saying that Christians have prayed at Peter’s tomb for two millennia and will continue to do so, regardless of any findings.

“It’s not as if pilgrims who go to the altar (of Peter’s tomb) think that in that moment in which they profess their faith that below them are the relics of Peter, or of another or another still,” he told reporters. “They go there to profess the faith.”

“No Pope had ever permitted an exhaustive study, partly because a 1,000-year-old curse, attested by secret and apocalyptic documents, threatened anyone who disturbed the peace of Peter’s tomb with the worst possible misfortune,” veteran Vatican correspondent Bruno Bartoloni wrote in his book, The Ears of the Vatican.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...e-vatican-says-it-doesn-t-matter-8960451.html

Note the surreptitiousness of the RCC. They don't want to examine those bones any way. They are afraid of a curse. But that is what happens when one is unregenerate. Instead of a love of God they have fear.

1 John 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
19 We love him, because he first loved us.

But the Catholic has fear. The entire religion is based on fear, not love. Telling isn't it.

 

[DHK]

You have not proved that he wasn't.

Archaeology has proved it for me, and for you. Article after article demonstrates that he was not in Rome.

My brother, I don't have to prove anything. I am satisfied with what the Church teaches on the matter and that is all that counts.

Is that all that counts? Really?
And if they tell you that humans live on Pluto will you believe them?
If they tell you that you have children on Jupiter will you believe them?
How far does this blind devotion and gullibility go? Does it go as far as the children in Syria and other Muslim countries who blow themselves up for "Allah's" sake?? Is that your position? One of totally blind faith?

Really, the historical record of there being but one Universal Christian Church that 90% of all Christians were members of is a fact, and this was the reality until the first great schism between the East and West in the 11th century. Sure, there might have been a small Christian sect here or there, but the great preponderance of Christians were of the orthodox faith traditions - they believed in the sacraments and that the Bishop based in Rome was the chief pastor of all.

Peter was never a leader of any kind in Rome. There is no evidence and you don't have any. You believe in a fable--one that Rome is giving you, and you gullibly accept it.

 

[Adonia]

Along with the RCC you no doubt are guilty of idolatry.
Are the relics in Rome those of Peter? Even Pope Francis admits that he doesn't know for sure, and then he says, it really doesn't matter.


Pope Francis on Sunday venerated the purported remains of his first ever predecessor, as the Vatican gave a public display for what some claim are St Peter's remains.

Tens of thousands of worshippers packed St Peter's Square to catch a glimpse of the bronze chest containing eight small fragments of bone.

Pope Francis kissed and prayed before the chest, which is usually kept in the tiny chapel of the papal apartments, before blessing them with incense.

No pope has ever definitively declared the fragments to belong to the Apostle Peter, but Pope Paul VI in 1968 said fragments found in the necropolis under St Peter’s Basilica were “identified in a way that we can consider convincing”. Some archaeologists dispute this.

They were first discovered in a 1940 dig under St Peter’s Basilica in the years following the 1939 death of Pope Pius XI, who had asked to be buried in the grottoes where dozens of popes are buried. When archaeologist Margherita Guarducci discovered graffiti near the excavated tomb reading "Petros eni", which could mean "Peter is here", she requested tests on the fragments.

She found they belonged to a robust man who died aged between 60 and 70 and had been buried in a purple, gold-threaded cloth. That was enough to convince Pope Paul VI to say in 1968 that Peter's bones had been identified "in a convincing manner."

But last week, a top Vatican official, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, said it almost doesn’t matter if archaeologists one day definitively determine that the bones aren’t Peter’s, saying that Christians have prayed at Peter’s tomb for two millennia and will continue to do so, regardless of any findings.

“It’s not as if pilgrims who go to the altar (of Peter’s tomb) think that in that moment in which they profess their faith that below them are the relics of Peter, or of another or another still,” he told reporters. “They go there to profess the faith.”

“No Pope had ever permitted an exhaustive study, partly because a 1,000-year-old curse, attested by secret and apocalyptic documents, threatened anyone who disturbed the peace of Peter’s tomb with the worst possible misfortune,” veteran Vatican correspondent Bruno Bartoloni wrote in his book, The Ears of the Vatican.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...e-vatican-says-it-doesn-t-matter-8960451.html

Note the surreptitiousness of the RCC. They don't want to examine those bones any way. They are afraid of a curse. But that is what happens when one is unregenerate. Instead of a love of God they have fear.

1 John 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
19 We love him, because he first loved us.

But the Catholic has fear. The entire religion is based on fear, not love. Telling isn't it.

Why did you bring this subject up in answering my post? I never said a word about St. Peter and whether he was in Rome and suddenly this comes up. And you can make all the allegations you want of idolatry or other things that are routinely said against our faith tradition, they don't faze me in the least as I have heard them all before.

Let's not talk about fear shall we? I have heard many a fire and brimstone preacher and I don't see much love coming from quarters such as that. But once again you are wrong. My faith tradition teaches God's love and mercy, understanding and forgiveness - all through Jesus Christ. "Do unto others....." we are taught and forgive "7 times 70.....". That is what we are all about, not the things you continually and erroneously say we are.

 

[Adonia]

Along with the RCC you no doubt are guilty of idolatry.
Are the relics in Rome those of Peter? Even Pope Francis admits that he doesn't know for sure, and then he says, it really doesn't matter.


Pope Francis on Sunday venerated the purported remains of his first ever predecessor, as the Vatican gave a public display for what some claim are St Peter's remains.

Tens of thousands of worshippers packed St Peter's Square to catch a glimpse of the bronze chest containing eight small fragments of bone.

Pope Francis kissed and prayed before the chest, which is usually kept in the tiny chapel of the papal apartments, before blessing them with incense.

No pope has ever definitively declared the fragments to belong to the Apostle Peter, but Pope Paul VI in 1968 said fragments found in the necropolis under St Peter’s Basilica were “identified in a way that we can consider convincing”. Some archaeologists dispute this.

They were first discovered in a 1940 dig under St Peter’s Basilica in the years following the 1939 death of Pope Pius XI, who had asked to be buried in the grottoes where dozens of popes are buried. When archaeologist Margherita Guarducci discovered graffiti near the excavated tomb reading "Petros eni", which could mean "Peter is here", she requested tests on the fragments.

She found they belonged to a robust man who died aged between 60 and 70 and had been buried in a purple, gold-threaded cloth. That was enough to convince Pope Paul VI to say in 1968 that Peter's bones had been identified "in a convincing manner."

But last week, a top Vatican official, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, said it almost doesn’t matter if archaeologists one day definitively determine that the bones aren’t Peter’s, saying that Christians have prayed at Peter’s tomb for two millennia and will continue to do so, regardless of any findings.

“It’s not as if pilgrims who go to the altar (of Peter’s tomb) think that in that moment in which they profess their faith that below them are the relics of Peter, or of another or another still,” he told reporters. “They go there to profess the faith.”

“No Pope had ever permitted an exhaustive study, partly because a 1,000-year-old curse, attested by secret and apocalyptic documents, threatened anyone who disturbed the peace of Peter’s tomb with the worst possible misfortune,” veteran Vatican correspondent Bruno Bartoloni wrote in his book, The Ears of the Vatican.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...e-vatican-says-it-doesn-t-matter-8960451.html

Note the surreptitiousness of the RCC. They don't want to examine those bones any way. They are afraid of a curse. But that is what happens when one is unregenerate. Instead of a love of God they have fear.

1 John 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
19 We love him, because he first loved us.

But the Catholic has fear. The entire religion is based on fear, not love. Telling isn't it.

For you to ponder about the veneration of relics - straight from the Scriptures of course! The Israelites took Josephs bones when they departed Egypt (Ex. 13:19). The bones of Elisha came in contact with a dead person who then was raised to life (2 Kings 13-21). The same Elisha took the mantle of Elijah and fashioned a miracle with it (2 Kings 2-13). The Christians of Ephesus, by using handkerchiefs and cloths touched to St. Paul's skin, effected the healing of the sick (Acts 19:12).

 

[DHK]

Why did you bring this subject up in answering my post? I never said a word about St. Peter and whether he was in Rome and suddenly this comes up. And you can make all the allegations you want of idolatry or other things that are routinely said against our faith tradition, they don't faze me in the least as I have heard them all before.

I was answering your post. This post shows that even the Pope is dubious as to the whereabouts of Peter's bones, and says it really doesn't matter.

What have we been discussing; do you forget?
In post #68 I said:
Let's deal with this first. What gives you the right to so easily dismiss the archaeological evidence found that the remains of Peter are in Jerusalem and not in Rome. Peter was never in Rome and you don't have that evidence. Prove it.

Again, in post #69 I said:
You have not proved that he wasn't. (in Rome)

In post #70 I posted
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...e-vatican-says-it-doesn-t-matter-8960451.html
--The Pope says it really doesn't matter if the bones here are the bones of Peter or not.
It also mentions the fact of the surreptitiousness of the RCC leaders in wanting to find out because of a supposed curse put on the box!
--But in the light of the great importance of Peter being the first Pope ruling from Rome, Francis says it really doesn't matter, and other RCC leaders are behaving superstitiously.

In post #71 I reaffirmed the importance of archaeology, and said you had no evidence that Peter was in Rome.

And now in #72 you finally object to what was said in post #70?!
Why not refute the argument as it relates to the discussion at hand.
Not even the Pope considers those bones important, and the others are too superstitious to find out. But there is a good amount of evidence that Peter's remains are in Jerusalem anyway.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Hello, SovereignGrace-

Because of the way I was notified of your most recent remarks, I was under the impression that they were directed at me. I wrote a response. But I am not exactly too familiar with how this system here works and I am now thinking that you were speaking to Adonia and not me. So if you'd be so kind, please allow me to chime in for a moment and speak to what you said to her which, again, I originally mistook as being directed at me.

If this conversation is to proceed, I'd ask you (or anybody else) to speak to the more fundamental, first order questions, such as:

"...I'd ask you to demonstrate how it is that you see the fact that Christ quotes Scripture and that the Writer of Hebrews quotes Scripture as somehow revealing to us that we are justified in holding to Sola Scriptura."

In a very recent comment, I also presented the question by asking someone to explain how the following conclusion (#3) logically follows from premises 1 and 2 below:

1. Christ is the Divine Son of God.
2. Christ quoted from and thus affirmed Scripture's authority.
3. Therefore, Scripture is the sole and final authority for Christians.

For, as an adult, I came to see that Sola Scriptura was a doctrine not revealed by Christ, an angel, a prophet, or the Apostles. Sola Scriptura, I came to realize, was also not taught in the Bible. Thus it failed its own test for doctrinal validity.

Although I await a direct response from anyone addressing what I've asked above, I'll take a moment to respond to your comments (which were originally intended for Adonia) below:



It is the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church that always and everywhere Christ is the Head of the Church. This reality does not preclude the possibility of His appointment of bishops, representatives, overseers, vicars, stewards, teachers, keepers of the keys, and others who may, through the principle of subsidiarity, act on behalf of Christ. One of the Pope's titles is the "Servant of the servants of God." All of this is certainly compatible with the legitimacy of the Papacy since Christ Himself is the one who established it.



An overseer can be the temporal head of an area (such as a diocese) and at the same time be acting entirely under the Authority of Christ. These two facts aren't mutually exclusive.



As far as reasoned argumentation goes, this call presumes the validity of your (fallible) assessment of the nature and institution of the Catholic Church, which is the very thing in question between you and us (Adonia and Herbert).

Thanks again for the (indirect) engagement,

Herbert

Here is the thing, Herbert. The only thing a Christian can rule his/her life by is God's word He left for us, Sola Scriptura. There is no way one can not obey the commands written therein and remain a free citizen. Even the lost know it is wrong to kill, steal, lie, commit adultery/fornication, &c.

I don't base my life off what sayeth Freud, Dr. Phil, Oprah, Dr. Oz, or any other celeb. The bible...Sola Scriptura...tells me how I am to love my wife, my neighbor, my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, my enemy, children(though the wifey and I can not have them), how to act in times of conflict, to obey civil gov't, &c. Nothing outside of Sola Scriptura teaches anyone these essentials.

 

[Adonia]

I was answering your post. This post shows that even the Pope is dubious as to the whereabouts of Peter's bones, and says it really doesn't matter.

What have we been discussing; do you forget?
In post #68 I said:
Let's deal with this first. What gives you the right to so easily dismiss the archaeological evidence found that the remains of Peter are in Jerusalem and not in Rome. Peter was never in Rome and you don't have that evidence. Prove it.

Again, in post #69 I said:
You have not proved that he wasn't. (in Rome)

In post #70 I posted
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...e-vatican-says-it-doesn-t-matter-8960451.html
--The Pope says it really doesn't matter if the bones here are the bones of Peter or not.
It also mentions the fact of the surreptitiousness of the RCC leaders in wanting to find out because of a supposed curse put on the box!
--But in the light of the great importance of Peter being the first Pope ruling from Rome, Francis says it really doesn't matter, and other RCC leaders are behaving superstitiously.

In post #71 I reaffirmed the importance of archaeology, and said you had no evidence that Peter was in Rome.

And now in #72 you finally object to what was said in post #70?!
Why not refute the argument as it relates to the discussion at hand.
Not even the Pope considers those bones important, and the others are too superstitious to find out. But there is a good amount of evidence that Peter's remains are in Jerusalem anyway.

So you say. You have posted but one scenario of what you believe is the truth about this. This is all speculation from what, 1958? Again, while you asked this specific question I did not bring this up first, you did. I never said a peep about where St. Peter's bones were. But since you believe in archeology, can you answer the following questions?

1. Do you believe the earth is just 5776 years old as the Jewish calendar goes?
2. Do you believe that dinosaurs once roamed this earth?
3. Do you believe that God created this world in exactly 7 days, with each day having but 24 hours as we know them to be?

 

[utilyan]

Scripture Alone is Scripture Alone. Its not scripture AND common sense, Its not scripture and intelligence. It is scripture ALONE. SOLA SCRIPTURA. Only the writings can tell me what the writings means.

That means I don't require anyone's input or opinion or interpretation.


James 1

4And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.


All I need is patience and I am perfect^

The scripture has spoken "ALONE"

Sola Patience leads to saving perfection.

The minute anyone attempts to tell me otherwise, you are contrary to scripture handling on its own.

 

[DHK]

So you say. You have posted but one scenario of what you believe is the truth about this. This is all speculation from what, 1958? Again, while you asked this specific question I did not bring this up first, you did. I never said a peep about where St. Peter's bones were. But since you believe in archeology, can you answer the following questions?

I believe I can. But here is what is more important. While the Bible is not a book of science it is scientifically accurate. That is true science does not contradict the Bible or vice-versa. Science has always supported what the Bible says. In fact if the principles taught in Lev.17:11 some 1400 + years before Christ was born George Washington wouldn't have died when he did. "The life of the flesh is in the blood," the Bible teaches. They let his "life" (blood) out and he died. IOW, they practiced blood-letting. But the sickness was not carried by the blood; his life was.

1. Do you believe the earth is just 5776 years old as the Jewish calendar goes?

Going by the best information that we have I believe that the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.

2. Do you believe that dinosaurs once roamed this earth?

Yes I do. I believe they were wiped out by the Flood and the great climactic changes that the earth underwent shortly thereafter.

3. Do you believe that God created this world in exactly 7 days, with each day having but 24 hours as we know them to be?

Absolutely. God created the earth to revolve around the sun, and the moon to revolve around the earth. How else would we get a 24 hour day.
Consider:
1. If the days were longer, much longer, (long days = long nights) then most of the plants would die for a lack of sunshine and the inability to go through the process of photosynthesis.
2. Note this very simple thing in creation:

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
--Flowers, plants, fruit-yielding trees, etc. were all created on the third day.

Now go the sixth day:
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
The above plus the creation of man was on the sixth day (vs. 31).
--Every creeping thing refers to the insects. That includes the bees (honey bees. From the third day to the sixth day--3 nights or as some believe--3 thousand years, trees and flowers would not be pollinated. They would all be dead. Much of plant life depends on the bees. Even now we are hearing about that crisis. But three thousand years without bees! Impossible.

Yes, the days were 24 hour days. Common sense tells us that. If you want some more reasons why this is so, I have plenty. But the above should be enough.

To go back to your first objection:
Science backs up the Bible. It does not contradict it. But that is not true with the RCC.
It is obvious that science contradicts the outlandish claims that the RCC makes.
I have just shown you that; demonstrated it. Peter was never in Rome. Do you want some more proof. I will give it to you. It is impossible for Peter to have ever been in Rome. It is a RCC lie perpetuated by the RCC. The entire foundation of the RCC is built on a lie. It is not truth. Only Christ is truth. See John 14:6.
Your religion is built on a lie. That we know.
Peter was not a bishop; not a pope; never in Rome.
Can you prove any of the above to be true?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

ii of v to Martin

iv. You said "Christ, in His earthly ministry, specifically condemned 'tradition,' used Scripture exclusively to prove His arguments, and chided others for not doing so." I think it's worth noting that this statement reveals something quite interesting. For within it is buried your implicit acknowledgement of both the action and role of Scripture as well as Tradition. For "Sacred Tradition," in a certain way, could be described as the "right perspective" or "right position" or "authentic teaching" concerning a given moral topic. The right "tradition," then, is the very thing Christ would be "arguing" for. And He appealed to Scripture to support His tradition, if you will, and not Scripture alone.

You are making no sense. Where in Scripture does our Lord say that He is supporting any tradition?

So there are, found in your statement, two distinct notions. One of them represents the authority of the Scriptures to which Christ appealed. The other is the "argument" or the "right understanding" of a given topic, which He was presenting in contrast to the "wrong understanding" or man-made tradition held to by the Pharisees or whomever it was who were supplanting the things of God with the corrupt teachings of men. In other words, you said that Christ "used Scripture to prove His arguments." Your phrasing reveals the fact that arguments, which are acknowledged by men, are themselves distinct from, yet bound to Scripture by virtue of the fact that both avenues of revelation are, when rightly presented, done so according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So it was that Christ could "use" Scripture to "prove" His arguments. In other words, Scripture itself was, again, distinct from the argument He was making. Though they were interdependent of one another, His arguments were themselves distinct from those Scriptures to which He appealed in support of them. Add to that His identity and we have a trio of forces which produce for us the infallible teaching of God. This is part of the reason why Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the stewardly Teaching Authority of the Magisterium act as they do and are rightly seen as being in utter harmony with each other according to God's guidance.

Would you kindly translate this into English for me, please? I have absolutely no idea what you're on about
.

Again, from the Second Vatican Council:

"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence." (Dei Verbum)

But where does this 'Tradition' lie? It lies in the imagination of men. The Church Fathers contradict each other much of the time. Moreover, Paul knew full well that apostasy within the Church would start almost immediately after his departure (Acts 20:28-31; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:3-4). The ECFs are not to be trusted unless they comply with Scripture, in which case they are pretty much superfluous.

v. Let me ask the question this way: Are "arguments" and the "Scripture" one and the same thing? You said yourself that Christ used Scripture "exclusively" to prove His arguments. But if His arguments themselves weren't Scripture, then He wasn't using Scripture "exclusively." He would have been, in that case, using Arguments + Scripture and not Scripture "exclusively" as you said. So again, which one is it? And where does the important distinction between you being a man (who's not an apostle and is thereby capable of error) and Christ being God Himself (and not capable of error) come into play here?

You are being silly here. The Lord Jesus was making Scripture as He spoke. What is Scripture but the word of God written down? Our Lord said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words will by no means pass away' (Matt. 24:35 etc.). Nor have they, for by the will of God they were written down. His 'arguments' are Scripture, for that is where we read them..
]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

iii of v

Neither of those are questions I'm asking. To the first, I'd answer "Yes." As for the second, well, I wouldn't even ask it. For I don't believe we should "despise" anything He did. I don't despise His example. By attributing to me a loathing for Christ's example that I haven't expressed, you're, in a sense, due to the nature of that remark, presenting a sort of ad hominem attack. For what is more insulting to a Christian than suggesting that he "despises" the example left by his Saviour or attributing to him a loathing of His Saviour's witness? More specifically, though, it's a strawman. For nothing I have said suggests that I despise Christ's example. So you're attacking a position ("We should despise the example Christ left to us") which I never presented and which doesn't follow from any premises I've offered (Which, by the way, suggests that you came to it by way of another non sequitur).

You wrote:

. The mere fact that Christ does something does not amount to a demonstration of our being justified in adopting the same practice.

I say it does, and if someone is not seeking to follow the example of His Lord and Saviour, he needs to justify himself as a Christian in a better way than crying 'Ad hominem!'

What I don't accept (yet still don't "despise") are any philosophical or interpretive traditions which are not revealed by God but which are, by men, insisted upon as legitimately revealed by God. Especially troubling are doctrines with no precedence prior to the 16th Century (and which could not, therefore, have been handed down to us from the Apostles), and which were not revealed by God, an angel, a prophet, or Scripture itself. And rather than just saying "You're wrong, Martin." I am trying to talk it over in all its detail. Further, if you're suggesting that I don't believe that Christians should, like Christ, quote Scripture, you're once again going after a straw man.

If they are not found in Scripture, then I agree with you. But if they are found in Scripture, then shame on the Fathers and the Church of Rome for not following them.

Paul said,'Imitate me [or 'follow My example']as I imitate Christ' (1 Cor. 11:1). So if we would follow Paul's example, we shall follow Christ's example. Therefore we shall eschew and traditions that we cannot substantiate from the Bible and base all our practices, as far as possible, from the word of God. Sola Scripture.

1- Apart from having presented another non sequitur, again, you're still failing to speak to the actual point that I've raised. In other words, you blew right past that non sequitur and, building upon its cracked foundation, you're moving on to more straw men.

Non sequitur seems to be your word of the week. What I've written is nothing of the kind. You may not like my answer, but that is your problem, not mine. We must imitate our Lord's example, and whether you like it or not, it was Sola Scripture as I have explained to you several times.

2- For the record, notice that St. Paul isn't saying anything like "Follow Scripture alone." If he had intended such a thing, it's likely that he'd have written the notion down somewhere. But even 2nd Timothy, to which you turn as the "locus classicus" of Sola Scriptura, doesn't present such an idea. Even there you're mistaken in reading his text in such a way as to conclude that he had anything like Sola Scriptura in mind. If St. Paul and the other writers of the New Testament, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, were inclined to, it seems they could have just come right out with a clear teaching of the doctrine.

He has. Scripture is given 'that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.' What extra thing is 'tradition' going to bring us? What good work in addition to 'every' is it going to equip us for? Paul is clearly teaching Sola Scriptura.

For that matter, why isn't there a record of Christ clearly teaching such a doctrine?

There is, as I have pointed out to you. As with the Trinity, it is not spelled out as you seem to want, but it's there.

Further, why aren't Christians prior to the 16th Century found preaching "sola" Scriptura. They certainly preach the authority of Scripture. But they don't preach the "sola" to which you, by appeal to an egregious non sequitur, insist all Christians be bound. And for St. Paul's part, he's saying "Imitate me" or, as you put it "Follow my example." That is, no matter how you slice it, definitely NOT Sola Scriptura.

From the very beginning of the post-apostolic age with the writings of what are known as the Apostolic Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache and Barnabus) there was an exclusive appeal to the Scriptures for the positive teaching of doctrine and for its defense against heresy. The writings of the Apostolic fathers literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists like Justin Martyr and Atheagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these writings to the authority of a verbal or extra-biblical tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation. It is with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late 2nd Century that the concept of an apostolic tradition, which is handed down in the Church in oral form, is first encountered. The word 'tradition' simply means teaching. Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that were given orally were rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written word. Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the apostolic tradition that was orally preached in the churches, and it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture. There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic tradition that is not found in Scripture. In other words, the apostolic tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing, and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground of the Church's faith.' [William Webster, 'Sola Scriptura and the Early Church']

I think Webster is being much too kind to Irenaeus and Tertullian who write a lot of nonsense at various points, but Irenaeus seems to have Scripture in mind when he writes about 'Tradition.'

3- In an effort to undermine or disprove the authority of Apostolic Tradition, you're appealing to a man who, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said the following: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." (2nd Thessalonians 2:15) and "Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you." (1st Corinthians 11:2) Again, though you claim to hold to Sola Scriptura, you're holding to, instead, your fallible interpretations of Scripture.

Ah! I said earlier that we would come to this sooner or later. I think we shall need to start a new thread on this, but it certainly needs to be tackled.

4- You hop, skip, and jump your way from entirely Scriptural ideas which, for example, suggest that we should follow Christ's example, to completely unScriptural ideas such as: "Therefore we shall eschew and traditions that we cannot substantiate from the Bible and base all our practices, as far as possible, from the word of God." For the Bible says nothing like that.

'To the law and to the Testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.' That Scripture has been quoted to you time after time. You really should have got the message by now.

What that statement represents is an inference, arrived at by means of the entirely fallible operation of the human mind.

No it's not. It's a statement of Scripture.

The fact that Pharisees, for example, held to unGodly traditions does not inexorably lead us to conclude that all traditions, even those safeguarded within the Christian Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, cannot be maintained in harmony with their original deposit, for the sake of the very public, visible witness for which Christ prayed in His last hours. (John 17:20-23)

If the Lord Jesus had recommended some 'godly' traditions to us, you might have a point. But He didn't. He taught sola Scriptura and condemned tradition (Mark 7:5-8) as you know very well.

That's all I can manage tonight. It's way past my bedtime.