Sola Scriptura circa 700 AD

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I have heard many definitions of Sola Scriptura, from the extreme ones ("nuda" scriptura) to some more liberal ones. There are some definitions that I would agree with, but still, "sola" means "only" and I am more for "prima" than "only".

On the other hand, I think that some mild definitions of sola scriptura practically equal prima sctriptura. So, sometimes its just about definitions.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 82...…………….
As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, ‘does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.

This is why “Sola Scriptura” was so important in the Reformation. Contrast the above statement with these points from the Westminster Confession:

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
WCF 1.4

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
WCF 1.9

The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
WCF 1.10
The Importance of Sola Scriptura
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,879.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Concord1968

LCMS Lutheran
Sep 29, 2018
790
437
Pacific Northwest
✟23,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
not a dogma
no clue what this is but certainly not a dogma.

It's a misspelling of transubstantiation.....but I suspect you knew that and are just being pedantic.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,029
3,750
✟287,917.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
IMO...……..YES!

At stake is the very Gospel itself and it is therefore a matter of eternal life or death.

Getting the Gospel right is of such importance that the Apostle Paul would write in Galatians 1:9.........….
“As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!”

Honestly, and logically, If you want to know what 1st century beliefs or Apostles teaching---reading about them in the original Bible is more accurate than a guy writing about them.

When we accept the thesis of men instead of the teachings of the Scriptures we wind up with things such as...……..

"Selling of Indulgences."
"Transubstaciation".
"Immaculate Conception of Mary (Inefafbilis Deus, 1854)"
and the "Assumption of Mary (Munificentissimus Deus, 1950).

Those teachings are now Roman Catholic dogmas, which go against all scriptural teaching.

By upholding Sola Scriptura, we can evaluate any new “improvement” in liturgy and teaching, under the lens of Scripture, and stay faithful to the Word of God.

Your willingness to condemn Basil as wrong and accuse him of attacking the Gospel by his teaching (i do not agree Sola Scriptura is part of the Gospel) despite him being one of the prime defenders of the Trinity and one from whom we received clarification about this doctrine says to me you haven't reckoned with your initial claim that the Councils were Sola Scriptura in character.

I'm not going to debate Sola Scriptura on the premise itself, but only that the Councils, specifically Nicaea I and Constantinople. Were they not conducted on the Basis of scripture alone? I think I gave sufficient reasons for why that isn't the case and I do think you need to provide evidence that the fathers operated on the basis of sola scriptura.

So, how do you establish the Nicene creed as a product of Sola Scriptura? If we truly believe scripture alone is sufficient for teaching and correcting dogma why do we need such a creed? Is the bible not clear enough? Why did the Fathers of the first council feel they had the authority to anathematize the Arians who would not accept their claims? Surely the Arians could just read scripture and determine for themselves they were anathematized for denying Christ's divinity?
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Your willingness to condemn Basil as wrong and accuse him of attacking the Gospel by his teaching (i do not agree Sola Scriptura is part of the Gospel) despite him being one of the prime defenders of the Trinity and one from whom we received clarification about this doctrine says to me you haven't reckoned with your initial claim that the Councils were Sola Scriptura in character.

I'm not going to debate Sola Scriptura on the premise itself, but only that the Councils, specifically Nicaea I and Constantinople. Were they not conducted on the Basis of scripture alone? I think I gave sufficient reasons for why that isn't the case and I do think you need to provide evidence that the fathers operated on the basis of sola scriptura.

So, how do you establish the Nicene creed as a product of Sola Scriptura? If we truly believe scripture alone is sufficient for teaching and correcting dogma why do we need such a creed? Is the bible not clear enough? Why did the Fathers of the first council feel they had the authority to anathematize the Arians who would not accept their claims? Surely the Arians could just read scripture and determine for themselves they were anathematized for denying Christ's divinity?

The Council of Trent in the 16th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient.

The Early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture. Their writings literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists such as Justin martyr and Athenagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.
https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html

Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures.

Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches. From this, it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture. There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture.

In other words, the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the Apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing (the Scriptures), and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground of the Churchs faith. His exact statement is as follows: …………………………...

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."
(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Vol. 1, Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” 3.1.1, p. 414.)
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The Early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture.
Whaa?? Clement openly supported Sacred Tradition.

"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God's will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition"
-- Clement (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208])

Since you mentioned Clement though, he also affirmed the communion of the saints...

"In this way is he [the true Christian] is always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]."
-- Clement (Miscellanies 7:12 [A.D. 208])

... as well as the primacy of St. Peter...

"The blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly gasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? 'Behold, we have left all and have followed you' [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]."
-- Clement (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200])

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about here.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Whaa?? Clement openly supported Sacred Tradition.

"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God's will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition"
-- Clement (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208])

Since you mentioned Clement though, he also affirmed the communion of the saints...

"In this way is he [the true Christian] is always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]."
-- Clement (Miscellanies 7:12 [A.D. 208])

... as well as the primacy of St. Peter...

"The blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly gasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? 'Behold, we have left all and have followed you' [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]."
-- Clement (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200])

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about here.

That is not a surprise to me at all.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The Council of Trent in the 16th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient.

The Early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture. Their writings literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists such as Justin martyr and Athenagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.
https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html

Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures.

Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches. From this, it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture. There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture.

In other words, the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the Apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing (the Scriptures), and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground of the Churchs faith. His exact statement is as follows: …………………………...

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."
(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Vol. 1, Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” 3.1.1, p. 414.)
I don't think you're reading Irenaeus very carefully. In that Against Heresies text, Irenaeus makes very little effort to rebut the heretics of his time using Sacred Scripture. He simplifies the matter altogether by pointing to apostolic succession as the sure guarantor of orthodox faith:

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul — that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."
- Irenaeus

An abridged version of that quote has been in my sig for quite some time because it really speaks clearly to the Church's belief in apostolic succession. It may be beneficial to you to study the Early Church Fathers in greater depth to find out what they actually believed. You might be very surprised.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,029
3,750
✟287,917.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
The Council of Trent in the 16th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient.

The Early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture. Their writings literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists such as Justin martyr and Athenagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.
https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html

Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures.

Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches. From this, it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture. There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture.

In other words, the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the Apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing (the Scriptures), and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground of the Churchs faith. His exact statement is as follows: …………………………...

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."
(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Vol. 1, Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” 3.1.1, p. 414.)

A lot to respond to so I’ll try to be succinct. Ignatius and the other fathers/works) mention don’t use a discernible 16th century Sola Scriptura model for making their determinations on matters of theology and practice. I doubt they could even use such a standard because I’m not sure any of them had a complete bible and neither us know what they considered canonical apart from what they quoted.

For instance at the end of his letter to the Philippians the only work Polycarp recommends reading is the Epistles of Ignatius(Chapter 13, to the Philippians). This in of itself isn’t evidence of Sola Scriptura, but the content of Ignatius’ letters is hardly in line with that idea. What is Ignatius’ chief concern in the majority to the people he wrote to? Now I don’t think I complete examination of the Ignatian corpus is necessary, what is necessary is to quote some select verses on the place and authority of the Bishop (which is one of Ignatius’ main concerns).

For Jesus Christ, the life that cannot be taken from us, is the mind of the Father, and the bishops appointed to ends of the earth are of one mind with Jesus Christ. Ephesians 3.

Further on he states

And let a man respect the bishop all the more if he sees him to be a man of few words. For, whoever is sent by the Master to run His house, we ought to receive him as we would receive the Master himself. It is obvious, therefore, that we ought to regard the bishop as we would the Lord Himself Ephesians 6

Finally

For it seems to me that, when you are obedient to the bishop as you would be to Jesus Christ, you are living, not in a human way, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us that by faith in His death you might escape death. You must continue, then, to do nothing apart from the bishop. Be obedient, too, to the priests as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope—in whom we shall be found, if only we live in Him. Trallians 2

These unqualified statements on the authority of the Bishop I am willing to concede go beyond the biblical text and represent Church life, at least for Ignatius, of the early second century devoid of the presence of the Apostles. Ignatius’ first recommendation isn’t to say “go to the scriptures,’ but rather if I might paraphrase him “go to the Church,” wherein there is a community dedicated to God.

I could say much the same for the other authors you have mentioned. How do you begin to establish that any of these held to a model of Sola Scriptura? Can you provide quotes where they lay out their convictions clearly? What do you do with the extra biblical material they cite or use? Irenaeus whom you quote also taught apostolic succession, that the means of preserving the faith did not come merely from reading the bible but from its understanding within the Church being passed down from one generation to the next. Also, Ireneaus relays to us critical information on the authorship of the Gospels, information not contained in them. Is this information useless or unrealiable or less authoritative than the actual works themselves?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
A lot to respond to so I’ll try to be succinct. Ignatius and the other fathers/works) mention don’t use a discernible 16th century Sola Scriptura model for making their determinations on matters of theology and practice. I doubt they could even use such a standard because I’m not sure any of them had a complete bible and neither us know what they considered canonical apart from what they quoted.

For instance at the end of his letter to the Philippians the only work Polycarp recommends reading is the Epistles of Ignatius(Chapter 13, to the Philippians). This in of itself isn’t evidence of Sola Scriptura, but the content of Ignatius’ letters is hardly in line with that idea. What is Ignatius’ chief concern in the majority to the people he wrote to? Now I don’t think I complete examination of the Ignatian corpus is necessary, what is necessary is to quote some select verses on the place and authority of the Bishop (which is one of Ignatius’ main concerns).

For Jesus Christ, the life that cannot be taken from us, is the mind of the Father, and the bishops appointed to ends of the earth are of one mind with Jesus Christ. Ephesians 3.

Further on he states

And let a man respect the bishop all the more if he sees him to be a man of few words. For, whoever is sent by the Master to run His house, we ought to receive him as we would receive the Master himself. It is obvious, therefore, that we ought to regard the bishop as we would the Lord Himself Ephesians 6

Finally

For it seems to me that, when you are obedient to the bishop as you would be to Jesus Christ, you are living, not in a human way, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us that by faith in His death you might escape death. You must continue, then, to do nothing apart from the bishop. Be obedient, too, to the priests as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope—in whom we shall be found, if only we live in Him. Trallians 2

These unqualified statements on the authority of the Bishop I am willing to concede go beyond the biblical text and represent Church life, at least for Ignatius, of the early second century devoid of the presence of the Apostles. Ignatius’ first recommendation isn’t to say “go to the scriptures,’ but rather if I might paraphrase him “go to the Church,” wherein there is a community dedicated to God.

I could say much the same for the other authors you have mentioned. How do you begin to establish that any of these held to a model of Sola Scriptura? Can you provide quotes where they lay out their convictions clearly? What do you do with the extra biblical material they cite or use? Irenaeus whom you quote also taught apostolic succession, that the means of preserving the faith did not come merely from reading the bible but from its understanding within the Church being passed down from one generation to the next. Also, Ireneaus relays to us critical information on the authorship of the Gospels, information not contained in them. Is this information useless or unrealiable or less authoritative than the actual works themselves?

“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things.” -
St. Athanasius, Letter, De Synodis, Par. 6; 296 – 373 A.D.

“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.”
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.) 313 – 386 A.D.

Clement of Alexandria:
He lived from 150 to 215 AD. He cites all the New Testament, books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2,400 citations from the New Testament.

Tertullian:
He lived from 160 to 220 AD. He makes over 7,200 New Testament citations.

Origen:
He lived from 185 to 254 AD. He succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. He makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't think you're reading Irenaeus very carefully. In that Against Heresies text, Irenaeus makes very little effort to rebut the heretics of his time using Sacred Scripture. He simplifies the matter altogether by pointing to apostolic succession as the sure guarantor of orthodox faith:

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul — that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."
- Irenaeus

An abridged version of that quote has been in my sig for quite some time because it really speaks clearly to the Church's belief in apostolic succession. It may be beneficial to you to study the Early Church Fathers in greater depth to find out what they actually believed. You might be very surprised.

You said...……..
"An abridged version of that quote has been in my sig for quite some time because it really speaks clearly to the Church's belief in apostolic succession. It may be beneficial to you to study the Early Church Fathers in greater depth to find out what they actually believed. You might be very surprised. "

Speaking of being surprised, I am going to ask you the same question I asked you about Purgatory which you could not or did not answer.

The question is this...….Where in the Scriptures is there a command, or suggestion that there is an Apostolic line of succession?????

Please post the Book, chapter and verse.

Now to save you some time. I suggest that you not use Acts 1 as an example.
Catholics point to Matthias being chosen to replace Judas as the twelfth apostle in Acts chapter 1 as an example of apostolic succession. While Matthias did indeed “succeed” Judas as an apostle, this is in no sense an argument for continuing apostolic succession. Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is only an argument for the church replacing ungodly and unfaithful leaders (such as Judas) with godly and faithful leaders (such as Matthias).

Again, I want to help you in your understanding and growth as a Christian so I want to say to you right up front that----- nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict, suggest, ask or think that they will pass on their apostolic authority.

However, I encourage you to do the study and I eagerly await your response.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You said...……..
"An abridged version of that quote has been in my sig for quite some time because it really speaks clearly to the Church's belief in apostolic succession. It may be beneficial to you to study the Early Church Fathers in greater depth to find out what they actually believed. You might be very surprised. "

Speaking of being surprised, I am going to ask you the same question I asked you about Purgatory which you could not or did not answer.

The question is this...….Where in the Scriptures is there a command, or suggestion that there is an Apostolic line of succession?????

Please post the Book, chapter and verse.

Now to save you some time. I suggest that you not use Acts 1 as an example.
Catholics point to Matthias being chosen to replace Judas as the twelfth apostle in Acts chapter 1 as an example of apostolic succession. While Matthias did indeed “succeed” Judas as an apostle, this is in no sense an argument for continuing apostolic succession. Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is only an argument for the church replacing ungodly and unfaithful leaders (such as Judas) with godly and faithful leaders (such as Matthias).

Again, I want to help you in your understanding and growth as a Christian so I want to say to you right up front that----- nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict, suggest, ask or think that they will pass on their apostolic authority.

However, I encourage you to do the study and I eagerly await your response.
This thread isn’t about Purgatory. Let’s stay on topic.

Btw, if I need your help, I’ll ask.
 
Upvote 0