Scripture Alone

[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

btw....

Which James was the "brother of Jesus"?

James, son of Alphaeus Acts 1:13

or

James, son of Zebedee Luke 5:10

[Fiosh]

Where in Scripture is this Protestant tenet?

The reason that I believe that we must go by scripture alone is the simple matter that I believe it to be God's Word. 2 Timothy 3:16,17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Notice it doesn't say "all the writings of the church fathers" or "all the writings in the Christian tradition." It says "all scripture." Many of the other writings are contradictory to the Bible. If we gave equal weight to the numerous extra-Biblical writings that exist, we would be in utter confusion.

You mentioned this being a "Protestant tenet." This is the reason why we don't accept many of the things the Catholic Church teaches. Many of their teachings are based on additional manuscripts as well as traditions. Since many of these things contradict the scriptures we reject them.

Hi there Butero,

I beg to differ. The RCC teaches NOTHING that contradicts Scripture. What varies is our interpretation of Scripture. For ex. I doubt we'd agree on the meaning of "This is my Body".

But then, this saying IS hard.

Peace,

Fiosh

[Fiosh]

Where in Scripture is this Protestant tenet?

The reason that I believe that we must go by scripture alone is the simple matter that I believe it to be God's Word. 2 Timothy 3:16,17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Notice it doesn't say "all the writings of the church fathers" or "all the writings in the Christian tradition." It says "all scripture." Many of the other writings are contradictory to the Bible. If we gave equal weight to the numerous extra-Biblical writings that exist, we would be in utter confusion.

You mentioned this being a "Protestant tenet." This is the reason why we don't accept many of the things the Catholic Church teaches. Many of their teachings are based on additional manuscripts as well as traditions. Since many of these things contradict the scriptures we reject them.

Oh! by the way, Butero. You also believe in extra-biblical concepts and writings. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are extra-biblical teachings [dare I say anti-biblical] invented by Martin Luther. They were not taught by the Church up until that time.

At least I admit to my extra-biblical sources.

Peace,

Fiosh

[st. Worm]

As a response to fiosh, I am posting a portion of the Lutheran Book of Concord which biblically addresses why the Roman Catholic system of popery is not scriptural. The perceived power of the office of Pope (the Bishop of Rome) is of course one of the reasons RC's have a different view of Sola Scriptura since they believe the church has equivalance with God's Word in authroity so I do believe it is relevant to this thread. As you know fiosh, I am not a fundamentalist baptist or a RC basher and believe in the Christ ordained authority of the church. However, we draw a line in the sand on the Pope and for the following reasons and more. This is only a partial piece of the BC on the topic but I thought it a good place to start.

7] In the first place, therefore, let us show from the [holy] Gospel that the Roman bishop is not by divine right above [cannot arrogate to himself any supremacy whatever over] other bishops and pastors.

8] I. Luke 22, 25. Christ expressly prohibits lordship among the apostles [that no apostle should have any supremacy over the rest]. For this was the very question, namely, that when Christ spake of His passion, they were disputing who should be at the head, and as it were the vicar of the absent Christ. There Christ reproves this error of the apostles and teaches that there shall not be lordship or superiority among them, but that the apostles should be sent forth as equals to the common ministry of the Gospel. Accordingly, He says: The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors, but ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. The antithesis here shows [by holding these matters against one another one sees] that lordship [among the apostles] is disapproved.

II. Matt. 18, 2. The same is taught by the parable when Christ in the same dispute concerning the kingdom places a little child in the midst, signifying that among ministers there is not to be sovereignty, just as a child neither takes nor seeks sovereignty for himself.

9] III. John 20, 21. Christ sends forth His disciples on an equality, without any distinction [so that no one of them was to have more or less power than any other], when He says: As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. [These words are clear and plain:] He says that He sends them individually in the same manner as He Himself was sent; hence He grants to no one a prerogative or lordship above the rest.

10] IV. Gal. 2, 7f St. Paul manifestly affirms that he was neither ordained nor confirmed [and endorsed] by Peter, nor does he acknowledge Peter to be one from whom confirmation should be sought. And he expressly contends concerning this point that his call does not depend upon the authority of Peter. But he ought to have acknowledged Peter as a superior if Peter was superior by divine right [if Peter, indeed, had received such supremacy from Christ]. Paul accordingly says that he had at once preached the Gospel [freely for a long time] without consulting Peter. Also: Of those who seemed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man's person). And: They who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me. Since Paul, then, clearly testifies that he did not even wish to seek for the confirmation of Peter [for permission to preach] even when he had come to him, he teaches that the authority of the ministry depends upon the Word of God, and that Peter was not superior to the other apostles, and that it was not from this one individual Peter that ordination or confirmation was to be sought [that the office of the ministry proceeds from the general call of the apostles, and that it is not necessary for all to have the call or confirmation of this one person, Peter, alone].

11] V. In 1 Cor. 3, 6, Paul makes ministers equal, and teaches that the Church is above the ministers. Hence superiority or lordship over the Church or the rest of the ministers is not ascribed to Peter [in preference to other apostles]. For he says thus: All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, i.e., let neither the other ministers nor Peter assume for themselves lordship or superiority over the Church; let them not burden the Church with traditions; let not the authority of any avail more than the Word [of God]; let not the authority of Cephas be opposed to the authority of the other apostles, as they reasoned at that time: "Cephas, who is an apostle of higher rank, observes this; therefore, both Paul and the rest ought to observe this." Paul removes this pretext from Peter, and denies [Not so, says Paul, and makes Peter doff his little hat, namely, the claim] that his authority is to be preferred to the rest or to the Church.

[chrismarc]

As a response to fiosh, I am posting a portion of the Lutheran Book of Concord which biblically addresses why the Roman Catholic system of popery is not scriptural.... I do believe it is relevant to this thread.

This is a new topic SW - start a new thread if you want

to discuss Church Authority or the Papacy. The title of

this thread is Scripture Alone and the question posed

was: "Where in Scripture is this Protestant tenet?"

So it is up to those who believe in it, to prove it by

Scripture, which they have not done.

[st. Worm]

chrismarc says:

"This is a new topic SW - start a new thread if you want

to discuss Church Authority or the Papacy. The title of

this thread is Scripture Alone and the question posed

was: "Where in Scripture is this Protestant tenet?"

So it is up to those who believe in it, to prove it by

Scripture, which they have not done."

sw says:

chrismarc, I am not trying to hijack your thread. In the context of Scripture Alone, the Roman Catholic denial of that concept is largely based on the authority of the office of the Pope. By proving that no such office exists in and from Scripture, I hope to begin to establish that God's Word, and not the church and pope, is the final authority. I think that is reasonable but would welcome a ruling from a moderator if it is not.

[EricH]

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

Actually this is abiblical. It is not specified in scripture in any way as a practice to be repeated

[EricH]

Where in Scripture is this Protestant tenet?

It's not in Scripture, as it is not Biblical.

1 Corinthians 11: 2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

2 Thessalonians 2: 15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours

3: 6 We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.

John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written

Mark 13: 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away

Acts 20:35 In every way I have shown you that by hard work of that sort we must help the weak, and keep in mind the words of the Lord Jesus who himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"

(Paul quotes a saying of Jesus not found in the gospels)

2 Tim 1:13-14 Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

14 Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us.

2 Tim 2:2 2 And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

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

2 Peter 3:15-16 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,

16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

1 Peter 1:25 but the word of the Lord remains forever." This is the word that has been preached to you.

Romans 10:17 Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.

I Corinth 15: 1-2 Now I am reminding you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you indeed received and in which you also stand.

Through it you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

I Corinth 11:2 praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours

2 Thess 3:6 We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.

Scripture makes it clear that we are also to hold fast to the oral Tradition of the church.

The peace of Christ be with you,

Fiosh

Actually you have added the last statement. That is in no place stated in scripture. The passages you quoted speak of the oral traditions as spoken by the apostles themselves. The only record we no have of those traditions are the scriptures. The error the Catholic church makes is equating their a-biblical and in some cases anti-biblical traditions with the spoken word of the original apostles

[EricH]

Where in Scripture is this Protestant tenet?

The reason that I believe that we must go by scripture alone is the simple matter that I believe it to be God's Word. 2 Timothy 3:16,17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Notice it doesn't say "all the writings of the church fathers" or "all the writings in the Christian tradition." It says "all scripture." Many of the other writings are contradictory to the Bible. If we gave equal weight to the numerous extra-Biblical writings that exist, we would be in utter confusion.

You mentioned this being a "Protestant tenet." This is the reason why we don't accept many of the things the Catholic Church teaches. Many of their teachings are based on additional manuscripts as well as traditions. Since many of these things contradict the scriptures we reject them.

Hi there Butero,

I beg to differ. The RCC teaches NOTHING that contradicts Scripture. What varies is our interpretation of Scripture. For ex. I doubt we'd agree on the meaning of "This is my Body".

But then, this saying IS hard.

Peace,

Fiosh

Actually it does. The veneration of Mary is anti-scriptural as is equating the traditions of men with the commandments of God

[EricH]

Where in Scripture is this Protestant tenet?

Perhaps you should define more clearly what you mean by "scripture alone". The doctrine of scripture as the final authority can be shown in numerous places. It means that all doctrines must be based on scripture and defendable from them. Anything else is a-biblical or anti-biblical