Replies

Their can be no doubt that Peter taught the supremacy

The supremacy of which Sciptures? At the time those letters were written, there were about 40 gospels floating around the community. It was the Catholic Church, several hundred years later, that authoritatively deemed what we have now as the "official" New Testament canon.

If you're going to be technical, the only true Scriptures officially recognized by the very early Church was the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e. whenever Jesus says "so that the Scriptures may be fulfilled," He's not talking about the Bible but the Torah). So, if you want to be "Scripture-only" you might as well disregard the whole of the New Testament and refer only to the true Scriptures, as recognized by the first Christians.

Do Protestants honestly believe that the Bible we have always existed in the form it does today? I suggest reading some history books.

I am sure you read that some where or heard it said but that is not consistant with the entire passage.

I am sure you have read this somewhere that the Bible is the supreme authority, but this exalted "truth" of sola scriptura is not consistent with Christian theology for 1000+ years.

Here's a quote from Irenaeus dated 189 A.D.:
"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (Against Heresies, 3:4:1).

Or Origin, dated 225 A.D.:
"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2).

And this is a good one from Epiphanius of Salamis, dated 375 A.D.:
"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6).

And some from my favorite Saint, Augustine:
"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

Now, do you mean to tell me that you understand more about Christian theology and the importance of Apostolic authority than the whole of the Christian Church for over 1000 years? Does your opinion trump theirs?

>Now, do you mean to tell me that you understand more about Christian theology and the importance of Apostolic authority than the whole of the Christian Church for over 1000 years? Does your opinion trump theirs?<

What I pointed out was you had misinterpreted the passage in Peter.

> What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (Against Heresies, 3:4:1).<

This seems to be exactly what Peter is worried about in II Peter.He was concerned that men would "devise cunning fables" that would pervert the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.This is why Peter (your first Pope)kept pointing us to authentic "Holy Spirit inspired" teaching through scripture.

>"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2).<

Thank you for this quote it reinforces what I have been saying.The Truth which is scripture has been handed down through the Church to prevent heresy.The author then says tradition is not at odds with this truth.Obviously this means tradition must be measured against scripture not the reverse.Just what Peter said in II Peter.