As was pointed out, Paul did not have excess to the new testament scriptures so he went by what he had learned from the holy spirit by reading the prophecy’s of the old testament and putting two and two together with what he was told by Peter and other eye witness`s of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Paul was also a scholar so he could talk or write all about something in which he may know less about than an eye witness who could not even relate it to others.
But the point is the early Christians did not have the Gospels , we do have them so we know much of what Jesus said with out going any where else.
Why would any one want to go to Ambrose or Clement or even Paul for that matter when they can go right to the source?
We do not have to go to
As was pointed out, Paul did not have excess to the new testament scriptures so he went by what he had learned from the holy spirit by reading the prophecy’s of the old testament and putting two and two together with what he was told by Peter and other eye witness`s of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Paul was also a scholar so he could talk or write all about something in which he may know less about than an eye witness who could not even relate it to others.
But the point is the early Christians did not have the Gospels , we do have them so we know much of what Jesus said with out going any where else.
Why would any one want to go to Ambrose or Clement or even Paul for that matter when they can go right to the source?
And in those Gospels, Jesus tells us to "listen to the church," and "if he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector."
My point is that, for Luther's doctrine of the Bible alone as the SOLE or ULTIMATE rule of faith to be logically coherent, it must be contained in the Bible.
It is not.