“Neither is Sola Scriptura.”
It would be odd if it did, since that was the common and unquestioned understanding of scriptures in the first few centuries. Why state the obvious? Conversely, if there had been a pope between the writer and the Lord, you’d think he would pay homage. But you probably know the history of that human invention.
“Pope” or papa or father is a human invention, but the office of “Pope” while perhaps called by a different name was given personally by Christ Himself to Peter. I’m not Catholic and have very little respect for the current Pope but i do have respect for what the office is.
“Pope” or papa or father is a human invention, but the office of “Pope” while perhaps called by a different name was given personally by Christ Himself to Peter. I’m not Catholic and have very little respect for the current Pope but i do have respect for what the office is.
It would be odd if it did, since that was the common and unquestioned understanding of scriptures in the first few centuries. Why state the obvious?
I am afraid that you are projecting 16th century Protestant ideas onto the early church. First, writings of the early Church Fathers show a fully developed hierarchical and authoritative church (see St. Ignatius of Antioch). Second, the Arian controversy clearly demonstrates that the early Christians relied on the constant teaching of the Church, and were not dependent on Sola Scriptura. It was the Arians who rejected church Tradition and claimed Sola Scriptura as the authority for their heresy. Finally, the definitive canon of the Bible was not determined until the 4th century (and this by the bishops and the pope), making even a theoretical Sola Scriptura impossible.
Because, of course, no Catholic has ever written a personal letter to a family member without "paying homage" to the Pope. /s /s /s
Stop and think a bit about the silliness of what you're writing.
That assertion is not supported by evidence: the rule of Sola Scriptura is not taught in Scripture. The phrase --- an innovation in itself -- only became widespread (and "widespread" only in several countries in the northwestern corner of Europe) in the 16th-17th centuries.
Most of the Christian community in the rest of the world did not then, and does not now, accept it. We love "Scriptura" --- but the "Sola" part is a tradition of men.
So, can you back it up with evidence??
i should tell you right now that the references to the authority of Scripture are plentiful. Every Christian accepts that. Got it. For the sake of avoiding redundancy, there's no need to supply us with pages of cut-and-paste asserting that Scripture is authoritative. We know that.
But nobody has a problem with the "Scriptura" part. It's the "Sola" part.
That's the part I'm interested in.
Philip: "Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?"
The Ethiopian royal official: : "And how can I, unless some man show me?" (Acts 8:26-40)