Scripture Alone

[Fiosh]

2Pe 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

The traditions we are to hold to were also recorded in our New Testament today.

Again, Elijah, AMEN! to the verse. But it does not prove your statement.

This is the same Peter that states:

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, " ( I Peter 1:20 )

F

[Fiosh]

"And only scripture makes sense. Anything not scripture cannot be proven to be from God. We KNOW that we are on solid ground when dealing with scripture."

This is not really addressing the issue of authority. Lots of things make sense that aren't in Scripture. When I put gas in my car it runs. When I am hungry and eat I feel better. That makes sense but its not in the Bible. All good gifts are from God whether they are in the Bible or not. I don't get your argument. The Bible provides all we need for faith and practice but it is not a mere code book for living. You cannot learn how to perform brain surgery by reading the Bible so you say that gift is not from God?

True. And have we all forgotten that Jesus did not write a book----He established a Church. And, He gave that church authority; the authority to interpret and teach His truth, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Couldn't be clearer to me.

deadman's statement is not supported by 2Tim 3:16.

Of course all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable. But, once again, Paul does not say "only" Scripture. This is the same Paul that emphasizes that we are to hold fast to Church Tradition: the oral preaching of the Apostles handed down thru apostolic succession. This truth also finds its source in Jesus.

Peace,

F

[st. Worm]

fiosh says:

" But, once again, Paul does not say "only" Scripture."

sw says:

but only Scripture is inerrant and infallable. The apostles and the church have authority but they are never the ultimate authority. Apostolic succession? An interesting tradition for Catholics, but not really taught in Scripture.

[chrismarc]

sw says:

but only Scripture is inerrant and infallable. The apostles and the church have authority but they are never the ultimate authority. Apostolic succession? An interesting tradition for Catholics, but not really taught in Scripture.

Not the topic....yet.

[Fiosh]

fiosh says:

" But, once again, Paul does not say "only" Scripture."

sw says:

but only Scripture is inerrant and infallable. The apostles and the church have authority but they are never the ultimate authority. Apostolic succession? An interesting tradition for Catholics, but not really taught in Scripture.

Hey Wormy!

Actually apostolic succession IS Scriptural. The New Testament clearly paints the picture of a hierarchical leadership and identifiable roles.

Can you point out where the Bible states that the Christ appointed leaders, when inspired by the Holy Spirit, are never infallible? Can you show me where the Bible states that apostolic succession is unbiblical?

Thanks!

Peace,

F

[hebrews_beauty]

I think both scripture and tradition are important, but scripture should come first...sometimes, with the help of tradition to understand.

[st. Worm]

fiosh asks:

Can you point out where the Bible states that the Christ appointed leaders, when inspired by the Holy Spirit, are never infallible? Can you show me where the Bible states that apostolic succession is unbiblical?

sw says:

Greetings Fiosh.

The answer to both questions in so many words is a resounding "No". However, it is evident that sin makes all men fallible. The purpose of Scripture is that God has provided a final and complete revelation, though men, and it contains all that is necessary for faith and practice. If men can now reveal new revelation from God, through popery then perhaps we all owe the hucksters on TBN an apology. If the Bible is not God's final word then perhaps all of the things that we believe are so wrong on there are in actuality true! Nothing in Scripture, the final revelation of God, indicates that men can now speak directly from God. Those days have been completed.

Perhaps you can share with me clear verses which indicate that the intent of Jesus was to annoint Peter as a pope, and also where Jesus continues to annoint successor popes following Peter's death? One of the characteristics of apostleship is a direct appointment by our Lord, not the church leaders. Following his departure no such appointment by Jesus has ever occurred. He continues to intercede on our behalf but he does not appoint new apostles or popes for that matter. Nor is there any provision in Scripture for anyone else to do so. The idea of a pope is simply not revealed in the Bible either specifically or in principle, no more than barking or howling in the spirit or any of the other bizarre things we see on TBN that deceived men claim come from God.

sw

[Fiosh]

fiosh asks:

Can you point out where the Bible states that the Christ appointed leaders, when inspired by the Holy Spirit, are never infallible? Can you show me where the Bible states that apostolic succession is unbiblical?

sw says:

Greetings Fiosh.

The answer to both questions in so many words is a resounding "No". However, it is evident that sin makes all men fallible. The purpose of Scripture is that God has provided a final and complete revelation, though men, and it contains all that is necessary for faith and practice. If men can now reveal new revelation from God, through popery then perhaps we all owe the hucksters on TBN an apology. If the Bible is not God's final word then perhaps all of the things that we believe are so wrong on there are in actuality true! Nothing in Scripture, the final revelation of God, indicates that men can now speak directly from God. Those days have been completed.

Perhaps you can share with me clear verses which indicate that the intent of Jesus was to annoint Peter as a pope, and also where Jesus continues to annoint successor popes following Peter's death? One of the characteristics of apostleship is a direct appointment by our Lord, not the church leaders. Following his departure no such appointment by Jesus has ever occurred. He continues to intercede on our behalf but he does not appoint new apostles or popes for that matter. Nor is there any provision in Scripture for anyone else to do so. The idea of a pope is simply not revealed in the Bible either specifically or in principle, no more than barking or howling in the spirit or any of the other bizarre things we see on TBN that deceived men claim come from God.

sw

Sure, sw, I'd be most happy to demonstrate that to you from Scripture.

First, let me say that I believe that Jesus established a hierarchical, visible Church. Yes, all believers are members of His church and His body. However, there is also a structure and a framework to the Church of Jesus---there is order. At its beginning there was one "denomination", so to speak. The church in Corinth was rebuked by Paul for division and rivalry. (I Cor 1: 10-13) He asks, "Is Christ divided?" Jesus earnest prayer to His Father, the night before He died was, "...that they may be one, as we are one."

So it's obvious that Jesus means for there to be only one Church. Now, this is where it gets dicey and I am sure to offend some, though I mean no offense..... Everyone can't be right.

There can only be one true doctrine---one true Church. A Church which has not strayed from the original teachings of Jesus, despite the attempts of the "gates of hell" to "prevail against it".

If that is true, than that Church should be able to trace its lineage back to the Apostles. All other denominations which broke away, can also trace back their roots to this Church. But they have modified the original doctrines and teachings after the schism.

Apostolic succession and a teaching authority would be essential to preserve the interpretation and understanding of Scripture as it was taught in the first century church. It cannot be left to individual interpretation---which, by the way, IS anti-biblical. 2 Peter 1:20 " Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation"

Yes, the Bible is the inspired Word of God. But it is the Church, established by Jesus Christ, which is given the authority to interpret, and is protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

This is not to say that there is any NEW revelation-----there is not. Rather, there is a growth and development in the understanding of what has been revealed and passed down thru the ages. Jesus was God's final Word. We no longer receive prophecies and revelations. I am not implying that at all.

As for the hierarchical church.....

Peter

Well there's the obvious, Matt 16:18 & Matt 16:19

to that you can add

John 21:17

and the fact that, of all the Apostles, our risen Lord first appeared to Peter

John 24:34

and, Peter led the meeting that elected Matthias Acts 1:13-26

led the preaching on Pentecost

Acts 2:14

received the first converts

Acts 2:41

performed the first miracle after Pentecost

Acts 3:6-7

inflicted the first punishment

Acts 5:1-11

excommunicated the first heretic

Acts 8:21

received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the church

Acts 10:44-46

and Peter's name ALWAYS heads the list of Apostles

Matt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13; Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7

Peter spoke for the Apostles

Matt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45, 12-41; Jn 6:69

Peter's name occurs 195 times in the New Testament; more than all the rest put together!

Yeah, I'd say Peter was in charge.

As for succession:

We are given an example in Acts 1, with the selection of Matthias to take the place vacated by Judas.

This is reinforced in I Timothy by several passages which speak to the "laying on of hands", the conferring of the Holy Spirit, to anoint new leaders.

Infallibility is a must ,and a promise of Jesus to His church.

John 16:13 " But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth"

John 14:26 "The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you"

I Tim 3:15 "But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

The Apostles speak with the authority of the Holy Spirit...

Acts 15:28 "'It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities"

Not to mention if you study the history of the early Church, it is obvious that they understood and quickly developed the concepts of succession and infallibility in the establishment of faith and morals.

In summary:

1. There is no new revelation after the death of John the Apostle - AGREED

2. The line of popes can be traced back from the present day to Peter- in sacred and secular history

2a. The primacy of Peter is clear from Scripture

3. The early Church acknowledged infallibility.

4. It is clear from Scripture that the church was given leadership

5. It is clear from Scripture that the church is intended to be one body----undivided

6. The church is given the authority to teach and interpret Scripture; individual interpretation leads to schism.

(by this I do not refer to the private interpretation in which the Holy Spirit leads us to a personal understanding of how certain Scripture passages apply to our individual lives---I refer here to the development of doctrines)

7. Truth is contained in the Holy Bible and in Church Tradition (capital T), oral teaching passed down from the Apostles.

Peace to you, sw,

Fiosh

[Guest Cephas]

and Peter's name ALWAYS heads the list of Apostles

Matt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13; Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7

Peter spoke for the Apostles

Matt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45, 12-41; Jn 6:69

Peter's name occurs 195 times in the New Testament; more than all the rest put together!

Yeah, I'd say Peter was in charge

Actually, if you'll check Acts 15:13 you'll find James making the Deciding statement, and there are other passages that indicate that James was the official Head of the Church. Peter had an important leadership role, but he wasn't the official head of the Church, James, the brother of Jesus was

[Fiosh]

and Peter's name ALWAYS heads the list of Apostles

Matt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13; Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7

Peter spoke for the Apostles

Matt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45, 12-41; Jn 6:69

Peter's name occurs 195 times in the New Testament; more than all the rest put together!

Yeah, I'd say Peter was in charge

Actually, if you'll check Acts 15:13 you'll find James making the Deciding statement, and there are other passages that indicate that James was the official Head of the Church. Peter had an important leadership role, but he wasn't the official head of the Church, James, the brother of Jesus was

Greetings Cephas (how appropriate for this topic)

Actually, Acts 15: 13 is one of only TWO verses used to try to make a case against the primacy of Peter. I'll make it easy for you---the other is Gal 2: 11-14.

If you read the entire passage in Acts beginning with verse 6, you will note that Peter is running the council. And, it is Peter that expounds on the topic at hand:

6 The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.

7 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.

9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.

10 Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?

11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they."

Yes, it is true that James then made a pronouncement. But note how he begins:

13 After they had fallen silent, James responded, "My brothers, listen to me.

14 Symeon(Peter) has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name.

15 The words of the prophets agree with this, as is written:

It is my contention that James spoke as a bishop to his congregation with the support of Peter, who allowed James to exercise local authority. Still works pretty much the same way today.

I provided over 20 verses showing the primacy of Peter.

I'd be interested to see the other verses that show James' leadership role.

Peace,

Fiosh