Were all christians once catholic?
-
Good, now we have something to discuss.Originally posted by vince69:there are 2 views to that passage
1) the rock on which the church is build, is Peter (the person)
2) the rock on which the church is build is Peter's confession, "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of living God"
one thing had puzzled me, If our Lord, Jesus Christ is alive, why would He need a sucessor? If He is not, what are we doing here?
Did Christ give anyone authority to lead the early and earthly Church? -
by leading, do you meanOriginally posted by SingaporeMacross:Good, now we have something to discuss.
Did Christ give anyone authority to lead the early and earthly Church?
1) rule over the church like that of a "high and holy one"?
2) serve the church like that of a "servant"?
-
what is the difference?Originally posted by vince69:by leading, do you mean
1) rule over the church like that of a "high and holy one"?
2) serve the church like that of a "servant"? -
different? between that of a ruler and a servantOriginally posted by SingaporeMacross:what is the difference?
anyway, the early church is run by a council of elders, the apostle Paul probably is not in the Jerusalem council (he is not there most of the time anyway), the apostle Peter most likely sits in this council, so are the Apostles James, John ...etc.
As to who is the leader, or the chief speaker, the Bible is not clear on this issue, at least there is no clear mention on whether there is a leader among those that sits in the council. -
Should confer him the title - founding father of Christianity.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:1. What honour do you suggest we give him, if the title of Saint is not sufficient?
Tsk, Jesus words to Peter not good enough for you lah?
You have church fathers but ONE founding father.
Peter is the jiak3 lao2 bi4 one .. good for show only.
Come on .. you think illiterate fisherman knows how to write 1 and 2 Peter?
-
James is the head of the Jerusalem Church.Originally posted by vince69:different? between that of a ruler and a servant
anyway, the early church is run by a council of elders, the apostle Paul probably is not in the Jerusalem council (he is not there most of the time anyway), the apostle Peter most likely sits in this council, so are the Apostles James, John ...etc.
As to who is the leader, or the chief speaker, the Bible is not clear on this issue, at least there is no clear mention on whether there is a leader among those that sits in the council.Gal 2:
James was mentioned first, even though Peter was the lao3 da4.
9James, Peter[a] and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.Acts 15:
James spoke last. He had the authority to summarize Peter's speech and gave a judgement.
13When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16" 'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'[b]
18that have been known for ages.[c]
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." -
Originally posted by Icemoon:James spoke last. He had the authority to summarize Peter's speech and gave a judgement.
anyway, I like the book of James, its a practical book. -
Hmm, I always thought that it was Jesus who founded Christianity...Originally posted by Icemoon:Should confer him the title - founding father of Christianity.
You have church fathers but ONE founding father.
Peter is the jiak3 lao2 bi4 one .. good for show only.
Come on .. you think illiterate fisherman knows how to write 1 and 2 Peter? -
OMG .. you actually mean the eternal God would form a new religion?Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:Hmm, I always thought that it was Jesus who founded Christianity...
Jesus was a thorough Jew in the gospels, no indication He was breaking away from Judaism.
In the eyes of historians, He is at most another sect leader among the Jews. -
Ok, let's be Jews then.Originally posted by Icemoon:OMG .. you actually mean the eternal God would form a new religion?
Jesus was a thorough Jew in the gospels, no indication He was breaking away from Judaism.
In the eyes of historians, He is at most another sect leader among the Jews. -
haha... we can't... not qualified...Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:Ok, let's be Jews then.
btw, is that the archangel Michael in your avator? -
i know very little only. So i want to learn of course. Sgmacross reply is so sure that i dont know which catergory Montanist, Donatist, Novations belong to. Unless you telling me they not christians.Originally posted by Icemoon:
No offense .. but I always thought you are knowledge about Christianity.
It seems that your knowledge of church history is wanting, regardless of how you like to draw attentions to certain historical figures or events that discredit the
Catholic faith. -
Very funny.Originally posted by ventin:i know very little only. So i want to learn of course. Sgmacross reply is so sure that i dont know which catergory Montanist, Donatist, Novations belong to. Unless you telling me they not christians.
Someone who knows the three ulu heretical sects but not Orthodox. -
har?Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:Ok, let's be Jews then.
Have to circumcise wor!
/me cut cut -
Yes bible is not 100% clear on this issue. Therefore, we rely on church history.Originally posted by vince69:different? between that of a ruler and a servant
anyway, the early church is run by a council of elders, the apostle Paul probably is not in the Jerusalem council (he is not there most of the time anyway), the apostle Peter most likely sits in this council, so are the Apostles James, John ...etc.
As to who is the leader, or the chief speaker, the Bible is not clear on this issue, at least there is no clear mention on whether there is a leader among those that sits in the council.
When the bible was compiled, the Church didn't know that today's Christians will question and doubt the apostolic succession of the Church. After all, the Church at that time had intended for the books selected to be relevant to the faith and not so much on the structure of the Church.
It is important to know and believe in every word in the bible. But when the bible doesn't mention, it doesn't mean it is wrong. Don't forget the word "Trinity" and the traditon of church wedding/funeral were never mentioned in anywhere in the bible. We learn these thru traditions.
The bible also didn't mention, approve or predict the Great Schism and the Reformation. That doesn't mean we have to deny the existence of the Eastern Oxthodox Church and the Protestanism. This we learn from history text books. -
personally, I feel the first century church is not worrying about leadership succession (there were some writtings on this, that they initially actually believe that Jesus will come back within their lifetime), just more on spreading the good news and healing the sick, its only later that they realise their misconception that they started on writting the documents (what we later have as the Bible).Originally posted by Honeybunz:Yes bible is not 100% clear on this issue. Therefore, we rely on church history.
When the bible was compiled, the Church didn't know that today's Christians will question and doubt the apostolic succession of the Church. After all, the Church at that time had intended for the books selected to be relevant to the faith and not so much on the structure of the Church.
It is important to know and believe in every word in the bible. But when the bible doesn't mention, it doesn't mean it is wrong. Don't forget the word "Trinity" and the traditon of church wedding/funeral were never mentioned in anywhere in the bible. We learn these thru traditions.
The bible also didn't mention, approve or predict the Great Schism and the Reformation. That doesn't mean we have to deny the existence of the Eastern Oxthodox Church and the Protestanism. This we learn from history text books.
On Church traditions, there are certain merits to these, I am sure, just need to be sure that we need to remember that traditions are man made and while practicing them, should remember to keep our focus always on the Lord (which is the true meaning behind these church traditions). -
you cut what?Originally posted by Honeybunz:har?
Have to circumcise wor!
/me cut cut can watch or not -
Cha bor no need lah!!Originally posted by Honeybunz:har?
Have to circumcise wor!
/me cut cut -
There are Jewish converts, ya know?Originally posted by vince69:haha... we can't... not qualified...
btw, is that the archangel Michael in your avator?
Yeah, that's him. -
If we go to Acts 15, we read that there was a lot of debate in the Church about whether Gentile converts needed to be circumcised. After the debate, Peter "rose" and declared that circumcision was not necessary. James was not even in the picture at this point. Peter made an authoritative decision about the doctrinal question, and no one questioned him. In fact, after Peter spoke it says "all kept silent." When you read the Greek phrase, it is in the aorist tense, which means the silence was the effect of Peter's definitive teaching.Originally posted by Icemoon:James spoke last. He had the authority to summarize Peter's speech and gave a judgement.
After Peter settles the issue, Paul and Barnabas speak in favor of Peter's teaching. Only then does James come in. A few things about James' discourse. First, James was the bishop of Jerusalem during the council, and it is common for a bishop to speak in favor of the pope's teaching at a regional or ecumenical council. This is what James does. He agrees with Peter's definitive teaching. Second, James begins speaking, not about the doctrinal issue, but about whether the Gentiles should obey the Noachide laws. At the end of James' speech, he says "it is my judgment." The Greek here (ego krino) means that James was giving a personal opinion about a pastoral issue, and recommends that the Gentiles obey the laws of Noah so as to more easily fraternize with the Jews.
So we see that Peter is the one who rules definitively on the question of doctrine, and all kept silent. His bishops then spoke in favor of his teaching, acknowledging that Peter was indeed the authority in the Church. No one questions Peter's judgment. Then we have James who speaks in favor of Peter's teaching by giving an opinion on a pastoral issue. Hardly a challenge to the authority of Peter. You should also point out to your friend that Acts 15 disproves the doctrine of sola Scriptura. If Peter would have relied upon the Scriptures, he would have concluded that Gentiles had to be circumcised, since all the Patriarchs and prophets were, the apostles were, and even Jesus was. But Peter, by virtue of his authority, decides the issue as the chief shepherd of the Church (and the decision was not based on the Scriptures).
Peter ALONE possese the KEYS.
haha by the Pope to-be -
This is an interesting topic...
We know from the bible that the apostle Peter could not have founded the church of Rome. There are many proofs to substantiate this. I will just name one or two.Galatians 2:7 NIV
Peter was entrusted with preaching to Jews not Gentiles.
On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.2 Timothy 4:16 NIV
Paul wrote this when he was on trial in Rome. If we believe the Catholics, then Peter has betrayed Paul, for they tell us Peter was present at Rome during this time. This is ridiculous as it means that Peter not only betrayed his master Jesus but his fellow disciple Paul as well.
At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me. May it not be held against them. -
1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.
Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.
And lastly, Christ told Peter to feed all sheeps not just jews. Thats the power of the papacy.
I Suppose all my early Catholic brethen in the 1st century were mistaken that Peter was in Rome.
Church fathers: Peter in Rome
"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him." Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).
"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).
'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth." Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 17
.
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).
"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out." Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)
"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.'" Gaius, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 19.
Church Fathers: Primacy of Peter
"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).
"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).
"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).
"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252). -
This is the argument from silence. How do you know James wasn't in the picture at this point and when James spoke, all never kept silence?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:If we go to Acts 15, we read that there was a lot of debate in the Church about whether Gentile converts needed to be circumcised. After the debate, Peter "rose" and declared that circumcision was not necessary. James was not even in the picture at this point. Peter made an authoritative decision about the doctrinal question, and no one questioned him. In fact, after Peter spoke it says "all kept silent." When you read the Greek phrase, it is in the aorist tense, which means the silence was the effect of Peter's definitive teaching.A few things about James' discourse. First, James was the bishop of Jerusalem during the council, and it is common for a bishop to speak in favor of the pope's teaching at a regional or ecumenical council.
The physical office of the Pope wasn't instituted yet, no matter how you can argue the spiritual office was already in effect when Peter was declared the Rock. Even the bishop of Rome was called Bishop and not Pope.
Do they call Clement a Pope or the Bishop of Rome?
This is what James does. He agrees with Peter's definitive teaching. Second, James begins speaking, not about the doctrinal issue, but about whether the Gentiles should obey the Noachide laws. At the end of James' speech, he says "it is my judgment." The Greek here (ego krino) means that James was giving a personal opinion about a pastoral issue, and recommends that the Gentiles obey the laws of Noah so as to more easily fraternize with the Jews.
Of course he agrees with Peter's definitive teaching. Even the apostle Paul who rebuked Peter previously agreed. This point is quite irrelevant.So we see that Peter is the one who rules definitively on the question of doctrine, and all kept silent. His bishops then spoke in favor of his teaching, acknowledging that Peter was indeed the authority in the Church. No one questions Peter's judgment. Then we have James who speaks in favor of Peter's teaching by giving an opinion on a pastoral issue. Hardly a challenge to the authority of Peter. You should also point out to your friend that Acts 15 disproves the doctrine of sola Scriptura. If Peter would have relied upon the Scriptures, he would have concluded that Gentiles had to be circumcised, since all the Patriarchs and prophets were, the apostles were, and even Jesus was. But Peter, by virtue of his authority, decides the issue as the chief shepherd of the Church (and the decision was not based on the Scriptures).
Peter could comment on the question of doctrine because he was after all the chief apostle and God did give him the vision. This does not prove anything. It is common sense also why James did not speak definitively on the question of doctrine - because Peter has already spoken!
You totally ignored the part elsewhere when Paul said Peter was seduced by the elders in Jerusalem.
What can be proven is James was head of the Jerusalem Church, arguably the only apostolic one at that time. Your argument is 'begging the question' because your premises are the points we are debating on. Peter is the Pope and Bishop James supported Pope Peter? When did we establish that?
Yours is wrong understanding of Sola Scriptura because the New Testament wasn't even compiled yet.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
If we go to Acts 15, we read that there was a lot of debate in the Church about whether Gentile converts needed to be circumcised. After the debate, Peter "rose" and declared that circumcision was not necessary. James was not even in the picture at this point. Peter made an authoritative decision about the doctrinal question, and no one questioned him. In fact, after Peter spoke it says "all kept silent." When you read the Greek phrase, it is in the aorist tense, which means the silence was the effect of Peter's definitive teaching.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the argument from silence. How do you know James wasn't in the picture at this point and when James spoke, all never kept silence?
1) James was not yet in the pictures means there was no mention of him yet. Can u show me in Acts 15 before Peter spoke, was he mentioned speaking?
2) The Scripture doesnt say so and neither do Tradition.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few things about James' discourse. First, James was the bishop of Jerusalem during the council, and it is common for a bishop to speak in favor of the pope's teaching at a regional or ecumenical council.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The physical office of the Pope wasn't instituted yet, no matter how you can argue the spiritual office was already in effect when Peter was declared the Rock. Even the bishop of Rome was called Bishop and not Pope.
Do they call Clement a Pope or the Bishop of Rome?
The powers and authority remained. The fact that he was mentioned first in virtually every List of Apostle in Scripture and he was refered as Cephas ( which means rock) by the Apost;es persist. spoke first.
Peter resolved the doctrinal issue first. Peter was the first to speak about salvation for the Gentiles first. Peter did many things first. Peter has a primacy in the NT that cannot compare with any other disciple. Before Peter spoke, the matter was debated. After Peter spoke, the matter was settled (just like Saint Augustine said).
Im glad u mentioned Pope Clement Letter to the Corinthians in 90AD. . It is one of the earliest letters in Christendom is Pope ClementÂ’s letter to the Corinthian Church in the first century. Even though John the Evangelist was still living on the island of Patmos, and geographically closer to the Corinthian church, the Corinthians appeal to Rome to resolve their dispute (about ordinations). Clement makes it clear in his letter that Rome is the instructor of the other churches. This is a powerful witness of the early primacy that Rome had among the churches.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what James does. He agrees with Peter's definitive teaching. Second, James begins speaking, not about the doctrinal issue, but about whether the Gentiles should obey the Noachide laws. At the end of James' speech, he says "it is my judgment." The Greek here (ego krino) means that James was giving a personal opinion about a pastoral issue, and recommends that the Gentiles obey the laws of Noah so as to more easily fraternize with the Jews.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course he agrees with Peter's definitive teaching. Even the apostle Paul who rebuked Peter previously agreed. This point is quite irrelevant.
Regarding Galatians, this passage has nothing to do with Peter leading people astray. Paul opposed Peter because he was separating himself from the Gentiles during meals. Why was this a big deal? Because Peter was the one who infallibly taught that the Gentiles were equal members of the New Covenant. Peter was the one who made this monumental decision as we read in the book of Acts. Paul was criticizing Peter's conduct, not his teaching authority. Everyone would have looked naturally to Peter and his conduct since he was the leader. God specifically reveals this in Scripture to teach us that there is a difference between a pope's private conduct and opinions and his official teaching authority
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So we see that Peter is the one who rules definitively on the question of doctrine, and all kept silent. His bishops then spoke in favor of his teaching, acknowledging that Peter was indeed the authority in the Church. No one questions Peter's judgment. Then we have James who speaks in favor of Peter's teaching by giving an opinion on a pastoral issue. Hardly a challenge to the authority of Peter. You should also point out to your friend that Acts 15 disproves the doctrine of sola Scriptura. If Peter would have relied upon the Scriptures, he would have concluded that Gentiles had to be circumcised, since all the Patriarchs and prophets were, the apostles were, and even Jesus was. But Peter, by virtue of his authority, decides the issue as the chief shepherd of the Church (and the decision was not based on the Scriptures).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter could comment on the question of doctrine because he was after all the chief apostle and God did give him the vision. This does not prove anything. It is common sense also why James did not speak definitively on the question of doctrine - because Peter has already spoken!
You totally ignored the part elsewhere when Paul said Peter was seduced by the elders in Jerusalem.
What can be proven is James was head of the Jerusalem Church, arguably the only apostolic one at that time. Your argument is 'begging the question' because your premises are the points we are debating on. Peter is the Pope and Bishop James supported Pope Peter? When did we establish that?
Yours is wrong understanding of Sola Scriptura because the New Testament wasn't even compiled yet.
1) Peter did not refer to Scripture to make such a momentus decision. If sola scriptura was taught, Peter would have refered to Scripture and make the reverse decision to follow Jewish custom.
2) The problem, therefore, with sola Scriptura, is that the knowledge of which Scriptures are inspired and which ones are not is not contained in the Bible. The Bible does not have an "inspired table of contents." Instead, this knowledge of the canon of Scripture is a revelation from God that is necessary for our salvation, and yet came to us from outside the Bible . This revelation was given to the Holy Catholic Church, and this historical and theological fact destroys the doctrine of sola Scriptura (interestingly, while Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church on most matters, they accept her authority in determining the New Testament canon of Scripture; we pejoratively call such picking and choosing which doctrines to believe and which doctrines to reject "Cafeteria Catholicism
The Church's compilation of the Bible illuminates the error of sola Scriptura. As alluded to above, Protestants generally believe that God has revealed everything that is necessary for our salvation through the Bible alone. Consequently, they also believe that no knowledge found outside of the Bible regarding the Christian faith is necessary for our salvation. However, the knowledge of which Scriptures belong in the Bible and which Scriptures do not is necessary for our salvation because if we didn't know this we could be led into error. Further, this knowledge could only come from God because human beings cannot necessarily discern divine inspiration.
Tradition gave rise to Scripture. It was with Tradition we knew which books was inspired and which are not. Sola Scriptura is a man-made doctrine, not held by anyone till the 1500s when Luther returned and 'saved' christianity from the 'evil' catholic empire. -
Like I've said, this is the argument from silence.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:1) James was not yet in the pictures means there was no mention of him yet. Can u show me in Acts 15 before Peter spoke, was he mentioned speaking?
2) The Scripture doesnt say so and neither do Tradition.[/color]
If you haven't taken logic 101, let me introduce you - http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Argument_from_Silence It is a fallacy, by the way.Peter resolved the doctrinal issue first. Peter was the first to speak about salvation for the Gentiles first. Peter did many things first. Peter has a primacy in the NT that cannot compare with any other disciple. Before Peter spoke, the matter was debated. After Peter spoke, the matter was settled (just like Saint Augustine said).
The Apostle Paul already spoke about salvation for the gentiles. Peter was just compromising Paul on his stand. The reason why Peter need to speak is because only when him and James change their stand, then will the Jerusalem Church follow their decisions. But what does this prove other than the early Christian church was disunited, with one faction siding with Paul and the other with the Jerusalem Church.
Im glad u mentioned Pope Clement Letter to the Corinthians in 90AD. . It is one of the earliest letters in Christendom is Pope ClementÂ’s letter to the Corinthian Church in the first century. Even though John the Evangelist was still living on the island of Patmos, and geographically closer to the Corinthian church, the Corinthians appeal to Rome to resolve their dispute (about ordinations). Clement makes it clear in his letter that Rome is the instructor of the other churches. This is a powerful witness of the early primacy that Rome had among the churches.
We are gentiles (who is Jew here?), so for all practical purposes, Paul is the first for us. Because in Gal 2 (Douay Rheims):
7 But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision. 8 (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the Gentiles.) 9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:
Read the words in bold. The Apostle Paul was never insubordinate to the Apostle Peter, at least not willingly.Regarding Galatians, this passage has nothing to do with Peter leading people astray. Paul opposed Peter because he was separating himself from the Gentiles during meals. Why was this a big deal? Because Peter was the one who infallibly taught that the Gentiles were equal members of the New Covenant. Peter was the one who made this monumental decision as we read in the book of Acts. [b]Paul was criticizing Peter's conduct, not his teaching authority. Everyone would have looked naturally to Peter and his conduct since he was the leader. God specifically reveals this in Scripture to teach us that there is a difference between a pope's private conduct and opinions and his official teaching authority[/b]
This is your hun shui mo yu argument. Laughable.
May I know if that is his conduct, then what will he actually teach? Or do you mean to tell me he teach differently from his conduct? Yan xing bu yi? XIAO REN ..1) Peter did not refer to Scripture to make such a momentus decision. If sola scriptura was taught, Peter would have refered to Scripture and make the reverse decision to follow Jewish custom.
1. Strawman argument. Did the Protestants say Sola Scriptura was applicable during the Apostolic Age?
2) The problem, therefore, with sola Scriptura, is that the knowledge of which Scriptures are inspired and which ones are not is not contained in the Bible. The Bible does not have an "inspired table of contents." Instead, this knowledge of the canon of Scripture is a revelation from God that is necessary for our salvation, and yet came to us from outside the Bible . This revelation was given to the Holy Catholic Church, and this historical and theological fact destroys the doctrine of sola Scriptura (interestingly, while Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church on most matters, they accept her authority in determining the New Testament canon of Scripture; we pejoratively call such picking and choosing which doctrines to believe and which doctrines to reject "Cafeteria Catholicism
The Church's compilation of the Bible illuminates the error of sola Scriptura. As alluded to above, Protestants generally believe that God has revealed everything that is necessary for our salvation through the Bible alone. Consequently, they also believe that no knowledge found outside of the Bible regarding the Christian faith is necessary for our salvation. However, the knowledge of which Scriptures belong in the Bible and which Scriptures do not is necessary for our salvation because if we didn't know this we could be led into error. Further, this knowledge could only come from God because human beings cannot necessarily discern divine inspiration.
Tradition gave rise to Scripture. It was with Tradition we knew which books was inspired and which are not. Sola Scriptura is a man-made doctrine, not held by anyone till the 1500s when Luther returned and 'saved' christianity from the 'evil' catholic empire.
The rest of your argument falls automatically with your faulty reasoning.