Replies

>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.

Obviously this means tradition must be measured against scripture not the reverse.Just what Peter said in II Peter.

Let's look at the quote you are referring to, and I will place emphasis on the parts you seem to be intentionally avoiding:

"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).

Could you point out where "Scripture" in mentioned once in that quote? It should be quite obvious that the early Church placed a greater emphasis on the authority of the teachers than on any specific written letter. It is also important to note that at this point in the Church's history, not a single Christian considered these writings "Scriptures" and never referred to them as such. They are merely called "writings." Whenever they do say the word "scripture" it is in reference to the Old Testament as the New Testament had not been canonized as a holy text yet.

And this is exactly what Peter is talking about in the following passage:

"2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; where unto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Here he says scripture (word of prophecy) is more sure than a voice from heaven.He then continues to endorse the importance of scripture in the verses you contested.

Excuse me, but where on earth do you see the word "scriptures?" The "word" he is referring to is the spoken word, the oral Tradition that is currently being passed on by those with the authority to pass it on as the New Testament did not yet exist.

It baffles me how people who claim to believe only what is written in the Bible insert assumptions contained nowhere therein.