Posted on 02/08/2011 11:08:38 AM PST by Gamecock
The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age.
Initially the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible.
Consequently the Scriptures are materially sufficient and are by their very nature (as being inspired by God) the ultimate authority for the Church. This means that there is no portion of that revelation which has been preserved in the form of oral tradition independent of Scripture. We do not possess any oral teaching of an Apostle today. Only Scripture therefore records for us the apostolic teaching and the final revelation of God.
The Council of Trent in the 16th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient.
This was the universal view of Roman Catholic theologians for centuries after the Council of Trent. It is interesting to note, however, that in Roman Catholic circles today there is an ongoing debate among theologians on the nature of Tradition. There is no clear understanding of what Tradition is in Roman Catholicism today. Some agree with Trent and some do not.
The view promoted by the Council of Trent contradicted the belief and practice of the Early Church. The Early Church held to the principle of sola Scriptura. It believed that all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced, the doctrine was to be rejected.
The Early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture. Their writings literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists such as Justin martyr and Athenagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.
It is with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late second century that we first encounter the concept of Apostolic Tradition (tradition handed down in the Church from the apostles in oral form). The word tradition simply means teaching. Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures.
Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches. From this, 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 (the Scriptures), and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground of the Churchs faith. His exact statement is as follows:
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." [1]
Tradition, when referring to oral proclamation such as preaching or teaching, was viewed primarily as the oral presentation of Scriptural truth, or the codifying of biblical truth into creedal expression. There is no appeal in the writings of Irenaeus or Tertullian to a Tradition on issues of doctrine that are not found in Scripture.
Rather, these men had to contend with the Gnostics who were the very first to suggest and teach that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that was independent from Scripture. Irenaeus and Tertullian rejected such a notion and appealed to Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine. Church historian, Ellen Flessman-van Leer affirms this fact:
"For Tertullian, Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content… For Irenaeus, the Church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought… If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the Church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the Church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is." [2]The Bible was the ultimate authority for the Church of the Early Church . It was materially sufficient, and the final arbiter in all matters of doctrinal truth. As J.N.D. Kelly has pointed out:
"The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by Scripture is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis". [3]Heiko Oberman comments about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church:
"Scripture and tradition were for the Early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The Church preached the kerygma, which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition". [4]
The fact that the early Church was faithful to the principle of sola Scriptura is clearly seen from the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem (the bishop of Jerusalem in the mid 4th century). He is the author of what is known as the Catechetical Lectures. This work is an extensive series of lectures given to new believers expounding the principle doctrines of the faith. It is a complete explanation of the faith of the Church of his day. His teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture. There is in fact not one appeal in the entirety of the Lectures to an oral apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture.
He states in explicit terms that if he were to present any teaching to these catechumens which could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it. This fact confirms that his authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. The following excerpts are some of his statements on the final authority of Scripture from these lectures.
"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures." [5]
"But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith…And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts". [6]
Notice in the above passage that Cyril states that catechumens are receiving tradition, and he exhorts them to hold to the traditions, which they are now receiving. From what source is this tradition derived? Obviously it is derived from the Scriptures, the teaching or tradition or revelation of God, which was committed to the Apostles and passed on to the Church, and which is now accessible in Scripture alone.
It is significant that Cyril of Jerusalem, who is communicating the entirety of the faith to these new believers, did not make a single appeal to an oral tradition to support his teachings. The entirety of the faith is grounded upon Scripture and Scripture alone.
Gregory of Nyssa also enunciated this principle. He stated:
"The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." [7]
These above quotations are simply representative of the Church fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Firmilian, and Augustine are just a few of these that could be cited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura in addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The Early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola Scriptura. It was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church. The extensive use of Scripture by the fathers of the Early Church from the very beginning are seen in the following facts:
Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from c 130 to 202 AD. He quotes from twenty-four of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, taking over 1,800 quotations from the New Testament alone.
Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150 to 215 AD. He cites all the New Testament, books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2,400 citations from the New Testament.
Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 AD. He makes over 7,200 New Testament citations.
Origen: He lived from 185 to 254 AD. He succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. He makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations. By the end of the 3rd century, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church Fathers.
It is true that the Early Church also held to the concept of tradition as referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices. It was often believed that such practices were actually handed down from the Apostles, even though they could not necessarily be validated from the Scriptures. These practices, however, did not involve the doctrines of the faith, and were often contradictory among different segments of the Church.
An example of this is found early on in the 2nd century in the controversy over when to celebrate Easter. Certain Eastern churches celebrated it on a different day from those in the West, but each claimed that their particular practice was handed down to them directly from the apostles. This actually led to conflict with the Bishop of Rome who demanded that the Eastern Bishops submit to the Western practice. This they refused to do, firmly believing that they were adhering to apostolic Tradition.
Which one is correct? There is no way to determine which, if either, was truly of Apostolic origin. It is interesting, however, to note that one of the proponents for the Eastern view was Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. There are other examples of this sort of claim in Church history. Just because a certain Church Father claims that a particular practice is of apostolic origin does not mean that it necessarily was. All it meant was that he believes that it was. But there was no way to verify if in fact it was a tradition from the Apostles.
There are numerous practices in which the Early Church engaged which it believed were of Apostolic origin (listed by Basil the Great), but which no one practices today. Clearly therefore, such appeals to oral apostolic Tradition that refer to customs and practices are meaningless.
The Roman Catholic Church states that it possesses an oral apostolic Tradition which is independent of Scripture, and which is binding upon men. It appeals to Paul's statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle".
Rome asserts that, based on Paul's teaching in this passage, the teaching of sola Scriptura is false, since he handed on teachings to the Thessalonians in both oral and written form. But what is interesting in such an assertion is that Roman apologists never document the specific doctrines to which Paul is referring which they claim they possess, and which they say are binding upon men. From Francis de Sales to the writings of Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis there is a very conspicuous absence of documentation of the specific doctrines to which the Apostle Paul is referring.
Sungenis edited a work recently on a defense of the Roman Catholic teaching of tradition entitled Not By Scripture Alone. It is touted as a definitive refutation of the Protestant teaching of sola Scriptura. His book is 627 pages in length. Not once in the entire book does any author define the doctrinal content of this supposed apostolic Tradition that is binding on all men! Yet, we are told that it exists, that the Roman Catholic Church possesses it, and that we are bound, therefore, to submit to this church which alone possesses the fullness of God's revelation from the Apostles.
What Sungenis and other Roman Catholic authors fail to define, is the contents and precise doctrines of the claimed “apostolic Tradition”. The simple reason that they do not do so is because it does not exist. If such traditions existed and were of such importance why did Cyril of Jerusalem not mention them in his Catechetical Lectures?
We defy anyone to list the doctrines to which Paul is referring in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 which he says he committed orally to the Thessalonians. The only special revelation man possesses today from God that was committed to the Apostles is the written Scriptures.
This was the belief and practice of the early Church
. This principle was adhered to by the Reformers. They sought to restore it to the Church after doctrinal corruption had entered through the door of tradition.
The teaching of a separate body of apostolic revelation known as Tradition that is oral in nature originated not with the Christian Church but rather with Gnosticism. This was an attempt by the Gnostics to bolster their authority by asserting that the Scriptures were not sufficient. They stated that they possessed the fullness of Apostolic revelation because they not only had the written revelation of the Apostles in the Scriptures but also their oral tradition, and additionally, the key for interpreting and understanding that revelation.
Just as the Early Church Fathers repudiated that teaching and claim by an exclusive reliance upon and appeal to the written Scriptures, so must we.
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" John 10:27.
What does the Bible teach about sola Scriptura (final authority of Scripture)? Answer
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Vol. 1, Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” 3.1.1, p. 414. [up]
Origen believed in Universal Salvation just as the Scripture alone teaches.
I'm not saying they didn't exist. I'm saying they weren't canonized for "all" the Church until centuries after they were written.
John 21:25 - “”And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” The Bible Itself declares that it doesn’t contain everything.”
... I don’t think anyone here believes the Bible contains ALL truth ever spoken by Christ or ALL truth about God. That appears to me to be a straw-man argument.
...The Apostle Paul says all Scripture is inspired by God. So while the Bible doesn’t contain ALL truth or ALL words of Christ, ALL the words it contains are inspired of God. As such, they contain specific instructions for the Church and for believers.
“Ultimate authority - What is ‘the pillar and ground’ of the Truth?” Scripture points to the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth! Why? Because Christ didn’t come to give us a book to read (no matter how Good it is), He Himself declared that He came to give us His Church. His Church can not contradict Scripture... but it does have teaching authority to explain and expound.”
... To clarify, friend, again it is the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of God and writing to a local Church, instructs Timothy about how to act in the household of God. He also refers to the church as the pillar and ground of truth. Paul affirmed the crucial role of the universal church as the support and bulwark of truth — not the source of God’s truth. His words should not be stretched beyond this.
“Saying that the early post-Apostolic Church followed Sola Scriptura is laughable on its face to anyone who has actually read Scripture.”
... I’ve read Scripture and I disagree with what you wrote after this.
“The Apostles were never commanded by Christ to write down what they had learned for the ages to come.”
... The Apostle Paul says they were inspired by God to do so.
“They didn’t bring copies of Bibles for every hotel, they brought the traditions given them by Christ (2 Thess 3:6).
... In response, Paul, again, does not make tradition equal to Scripture. He makes a simple point: those who are living unruly lives are not following traditions (example) demonstrated by himself, who he uses as an example in verses 7-10. There were not mysterious traditions here. He specifies what the example actually was.
... Again, it seems to me a straw-man argument you are making here. There was no NT to carry. As Apostles, who were physically there and were the foundation of the Church, they spoke with Christ’s authority before the Canon of Scripture was formed. They did use God’s Hebrew Scriptures to show Christ fulfilled prophecy as Messiah.
“In every town, they preached first to the Jew and then to the Gentile. Why? Because the Jews had their Scriptures to verify the truth of their teaching.”
...They did this because they were commanded to do it exactly in that order - “to the Jew first and then to the Greek.”
“Lastly, if the Scriptures as understood by the Apostles and their successors (the Old Testament) were their only basis for understanding Christ and His Kingdom... by what authority did the Apostles pronounce that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised (Acts 15)?”
... Old Testament Noachide Law AND the simple fact that THEY were Apostles who are the Scripture says: “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” (Eph 19-20)
... They were chosen by Christ personally to become the foundation upon which God’s household was built.
blessings to you,
ampu
That is the verse (Timothy 3:15) used as a footnote in the original text used as the very first reference in the posted article. Yet, here it is in something supposed to help "prove" the exact opposite of what the Word says!
I don't know if anyone else has had a prayer for guidance answered with a virtual slap in the face, but it's a surprise of sorts when it's so obvious an answer.
Thanks for posting responses to such stuff around here. You and others who do so have been a big help to me and a big boost to my faith as well.
Regards and God Bless You
What is really amusing is the unmitigated audacity these sola scriptura types exhibits in criticizing the LDS take on history. The sola scriptura ilk's grasp of history compliments and parallels any of the cults as Scientology or Jehovah Witnesses types. Thus the big question should be:
Who has a more accurate grasp of historical reality
A- the author of this article
B- communist revisionist historians
C- secular humanistic relativists
D- Islamists
E-None of the above
It would be a mistake to think that the only people reading this thread are the poster and the usual suspects.
Who knows who may come by here by chance and read something to their edification..........
And minutes later Jesus called him a devil... actually a close reading of the scripture affirms the opinion of Augustine
Furthermore, the attempt to characterize various explanations of the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else, and as "misinterpretations" unknown to anyone before the 16th century is refuted by Augustine: ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.
Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.
and given the Keys to the Kingdom. This is a particular reference of authority harkening back to the House of David as recorded in Isaiah 22:22. There were other ministers with other authorities but the Prime Minister had the Keys as sign of his special office among them.
Christ gave the keys to PETER not to the RCC.. There is no scripture that implies that the keys are transferable ..
Keys are only good for one thing..to open something that has been locked.
The Keys were given to Peter after Peter had made a profession of faith ...That is what the keys opened .
Peter opened the profession of faith to the Jews on Pentecost and to the gentiles when he was sent to Cornelius . the Keys were no longer needed because Peter left the door wide open
Consider something else. There is one Apostle throughout the Apostolic age that consistently speaks for the rest, who is discussed more than the rest and about whom the greatest amount is known... that man is Peter. God doesn't generally waste our time pointing out non-essentials
Actually the foundation of the church appears to have been a collaborative effort.. where we see that when Paul sought approval of his ministry
Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
However like all the church. he had the OT and the writing of Paul
Thank you for the laugh. Do you honestly believe that 1) the other Apostles relied on Paul's writings to fill in the gaps of their lacking theology and 2) "all" the church relied on his writings contemporarily rather than primarily the addressees?
My friend. 1st if we consider the apostolic letters to be scripture, were they not scripture (the inspired word of God) to those that read and distributed them?
Have you EVER read the NT? Peter considered Pauls writings scripture
2nd Peter 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Let's just say for a moment that your suppositions are true. What would the Church get from Paul's writings? They would get that they are to hold fast to the traditions he taught them (Acts 20:35; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Cor 15; 2 Thess 3:6), the truth is given to leaders of the Church (Eph 3:5), and the centrality of the Eucharist (1 Cor 15) for starters... things generally refused by Protestants.
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.
We disagree on the reading of those scriptures in context.. which does not surprise me, because Catholics are generally scripturally ignorant .
I will say this All the traditions that needed to be observed,were completed when the last of the NT scriptures were written ... we no longer need the traditions of men ...
I have oft noted that if Peter had gone to Rome and established a church there, or taken a leadership position he would have been disobedient to the mission God had given to him , which was the apostle to the Jews.
If Peter became the Bishop of Rome he was disobedient to God and instead of completing his mission to the Jews, he went to the gentiles.
In all charity, in rejecting your Catholic faith, you have thrown the baby out with the bath water.
My friend.. you accept the word of Rome on faith alone..I will choose Christ ...
They were not "canonized" until TRENT ..and that council is recognized only by the Roman church
The Apostle Paul says all Scripture is inspired by God. So while the Bible doesn’t contain ALL truth or ALL words of Christ, ALL the words it contains are inspired of God. As such, they contain specific instructions for the Church and for believers.
Yes... but does it contain ALL instructions for the Church and for believers?
Paul affirmed the crucial role of the universal church as the support and bulwark of truth — not the source of God’s truth.
I didn't even come close to suggesting this. The Church doesn't "make stuff up" as some Protestants accuse. It reflects, reviews, researches and listens to the Holy Spirit promised by Christ to expound and deepen our understanding of revealed truths. It is a model shown in Scripture used by the Apostles.
I appreciate your reasoned conversation. It was sorely lacking before you showed up. God bless.
Yes they are and they refuse to go away.
Pgyank,
I appreciate the interaction.
We may sometimes disagree about some things, but I appreciate your faith in the Savior :-)
Ampu
What puzzles me is why the author seeks legitmacy by making a claim that can easily be disproven. I thought the premise of the Reformation was that Rome had erred (which I assume would also include certain statements by certain fathers) so why look for validation from the very source you claim had erred?
Why not just say the fathers are in error for not agreeing with Sola Scriptura and though they’re opinion on other matters is to be respected they are not infallible. We Catholics do this when the fathers do not agree with infallible teaching. Protestants can do it too. Just use the Scripture alone as the source of infallible teaching.
Apologies for the errors in the above. Way too tired for this.
Blessings back at ya :-)
Actually, a Presbyterian author named Keith Mathison has explored what you’re talking about calling it “solo” scriptura, not the “sola” scriptura believed by the Reformers.
Luther, Calvin et al. believed that there were all kinds of authorities binding on an individual outside of scripture (ex. the creeds, catechisms, governments, oaths given, even natural law, etc.) ...
NONE of these however, was inerrant or a FINAL authority, which was reserved for the Bible alone. As long as these rightful authorities did not contradict the bible, a Christian should, definitely, obey rightful authorities. Where a Christian does NOT have to obey authorities is where those authorities break God’s law.
I’d say for example that a court employee MUST obey his orders to sign dutifully filled out marriage licenses. However, since government is outside of God’s law in certifying homosexual “marriage,” a Christian court employee is obligated NOT to sign such (lying) documents—even if he or she is disciplined or fired for that...
If Christians actually followed through on that, the social consequences would be huge (no “just following orders” excuse!), and we’d stop “gay marriage” in its tracks—just by obeying God’s law, rather than man’s.
We never HAVE to violate God’s law, some unjust governments though will make us suffer for keeping it, however.
The Church is adapting, changing and growing even today.
There you go again.....quoting non-Catholic sources about Catholic facts.
I have never heard this before: **The Council of Trent denied the sufficiency of Scripture**
And minutes later Jesus called him a devil.
Peter's weaknesses don't invalidate his witness. In some ways, it makes it evident. If Christ has chosen St James, for example... one of the Sons of Thunder... the Church may have rallied around him as a standard-bearer and suffered great disruption at his death. One theologian I read years ago pointed out that Christ chose the weakest among men so that He might build His Church, not man's church, and it would carry on through the centuries precisely because it wasn't strong men making it great.
Regarding St Augustine... I try to research challenges before I respond... but I absolutely can't find an electronic copy of Augustine's Sermon 229. It may be limited to what you have quoted or it may be part of a larger argument that actually tells a greater story... I don't know. My experience of him is as a humble man and devout servant of Christ. He was a bishop of the Church and one of her greatest "Fathers." What you have quoted from him is also found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We see no contradiction in recognizing the statement of faith as rock AND Peter as Rock. That Augustine recognized both truths at different times in his life is interesting. As one of the greatest fathers of the Church, it stands to reason that his work is best understood by the Church... or will you now accept the rest of the doctrines he championed?
Christ gave the keys to PETER not to the RCC.. There is no scripture that implies that the keys are transferable ..
Again, I refer you to Isaiah 22:22. The Keys represent the office and in this passage, they are indeed being transferred!
Keys are only good for one thing..to open something that has been locked.
If you accept a Scriptural interpretation, they are also a sign of authority. The Keys belong to Christ. It is His House, His Throne. Just as Christ said that all authority in Heaven has been given to Him, so is He bestowing authority to His Earthly Kingdom. This is the same model given by King David to his royal household.
Peter opened the profession of faith to the Jews on Pentecost and to the gentiles when he was sent to Cornelius . the Keys were no longer needed because Peter left the door wide open
My mouth is literally hanging open at this assertion...
I concede your recitation of 2 Peter 3:16... I wrote without considering carefully enough my choice of words.
We disagree on the reading of those scriptures in context.. which does not surprise me, because Catholics are generally scripturally ignorant .
That was rude and uncalled for in our current discussion.
I will say this All the traditions that needed to be observed,were completed when the last of the NT scriptures were written ... we no longer need the traditions of men ...
Until the advent of the printing press, men only had the Church as Christ's voice in the world. Except that men attended Sunday Mass, they did not hear Scripture since it was a scarce resource. Technology changed that in the 1400's... but certainly it is ludicrous to assume that there was no valid universal church until Gutenberg finished Christ's work for Him...
My friend.. you accept the word of Rome on faith alone..I will choose Christ ...
Dear Lady, I accept the word of the Church who points only to Christ.
there is no more illogical doctrine than that of sola scriptura.
for it to be true, we would first need an infallible canon of Scripture. since the Scriptures themselves do not tell us infallibly what the canon is, we only can truly rely on an infallible Church to define the canon. the Church using Sacred Tradition. so right away the doctrine falls apart.
secondly, the Apostles not only did not teach or practice sola scriptura, they specifically taught the opposite as Paul instructs in Thessalonians.
finally, while i appreciate the attempt to point to the Catholic Fathers to support sola scriptura, since the Bible doesn’t teach it ( pretty ironic, eh? ) as a previous post shows, the Fathers did not teach sola scriptura.
of even greater irony, all the Catholic Fathers listed held to the Catholic Faith, including:
baptismal regeneration
real presence in the Eucharist
the Mass as a Sacrifice
one visible Church
the “apocrypha” as Scripture
infant baptism
prayers to saints
prayers for the dead
veneration of Mary
apostolic succession
the same people who point to these great saints to support this unbibilical doctrine they did not teach, are the first to accuse today’s Catholics who hold these very same doctrines as unsaved, heretics and idol worshippers.
as alanis morissette said “isn’t it ironic”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.