DHK,
Instead of speaking directly to the question of Sola Scriptura, you're once again discussing another topic. However, your attention to this topic does raise a question in my mind.
Please consider these quotes:
I remember you "complaining" that I had not answered some other posts of your posts either sufficiently enough or not at all. So I went back and began to answer them point by point.
The most recent post was located here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...ciency-of-scripture.99648/page-8#post-2233072
Writing to the Roman Church in the 2nd Century, St. Ignatius said the following: "Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict"
But this is wrong.
Paul said: "Be ye followers of me even as I am of Christ." This is what the inspired Word says--not to follow another man. The other man may be of the devil. Unless he is following the Word (sola scriptura) how would you know?
Of course, if your point is being in Rome, Peter could have taught them by epistle and not by his presence. Paul wrote Romans before he arrived at the city as a prisoner. The statement doesn't prove anything.
Dionysius of Corinth wrote the following in a letter to the Pope toward the end of the 2nd Century: "You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time"
And who translated this letter. It obviously wasn't in English, and there was no such thing as a pope at the end of the second century. Someone is reading into this letter that which is not there. Both did plant together at Corinth. That we know from the Bible.
In his famous Against Heresies, St. Irenaeus wrote the following which refers directly to St. Peter's work of evangelization in Rome: "Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church"
This is unlikely. It is unlikely for two reasons:
Romans 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:
--Paul would never build upon another apostle's foundation. He would not work with another apostle. He was a pioneer missionary and would go only where other apostles had not gone. Note there was never any mention of Peter in his epistle to the Romans, a glaring omission if Peter had been there. But Peter was not there. Therefore God sent Paul to Rome where no other apostle had been.
--Secondly, Peter was the apostle to the Jews, and Paul an apostle to the Gentiles. How could they work together if they had different ministries? The Jews in Rome had never even heard of Paul's case. If Peter had been there I am sure that they would have known, but they were totally ignorant of it.
And Clement of Alexandria wrote the following right around the beginning of the 3rd Century: "The circumstances which occasioned [the writing] of Mark were these: 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 a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed"
Clement wrote in the 3rd century and Peter lived and wrote in the first century.
When Mark learned of Peter, Peter was in Jerusalem, not Rome. Someone has their facts wrong.
These events took place in Jerusalem where Peter lived:
Act 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
Act 12:2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
Act 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
Acts 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.
13 And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, named Rhoda.
--Jerusalem was also the place where Mark lived.
Peter and John Mark did work together, and Mark learned from Peter, but they were in Jerusalem not Rome.
--Again, I don't find any viable evidence that Peter was in Rome.
So I ask you this: Why is it that you prefer modern archeological guesswork (concering St. Peter's long-past whereabouts) to the witness of the early Christians, many of whom were writing before the time during which you claim that the Church became entirely corrupt (under Constantine)?
Herbert
The evidence I rely most on is Biblical. The Biblical timeline does not give any time for Peter to be in Rome before his death. He is an apostle to the Jews.
The church may have been corrupt before Constantine as it got there gradually. It was Constantine introducing paganism that was the straw that broke the camel's back. The Montanitsts separated from what was Christianity in general, because of the corruption that they saw in the churches at that time. They came into existence ca. 150 A.D. There were elements of Roman Catholicism here and there before Constantine, but it was Constantine that put it into the form of a "state church" which it remains to this day in many nations.
