Sola scriptura or prima scriptura

Thomas the apostle ,went on to India, without any OT or NT, but being a apostle was taught verbal and Thomas preached verbally to the pagans and converted many and who are still Catholic to this day. Apostolic Teaching prevailed over the teaching method of sola scriptura for 1500 years.Jesus promised us not a Church with perfect members but a Church founded on the Teachings of His Apostles and that Apostolic/Catholic Church would always be protected from error within its Teachings/ Doctrine.

The promise by Jesus ' Matt 16: 15-19

Authority of His Apostolic, Universal/ Catholic Church is found here in Luke 10 v 16
"He who hears you , hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me" { Luke 10 v 16 }

Why do you reject the Authoritative Teaching of Christ's Apostolic, Catholic/ Universal Church ? Please show me from the Holy Bible a verse that replaced the verse of Luke 10 v 16 ?

 

No one denies or rejects the fact that the Apostles provided an oral tradition. What is rejected is that the oral tradition was designed to be permenant as the apostles were to also provide written scritpures which were "MORE SURE" than oral traditions (2 Pet. 1:16-19).

This is not only a matter of common sense but demonstratable in regard to the oral traditions of the elders that came down from Nehemiah to the times of Jesus. Neither Christ or the Apostles EVER said, "rabbi....said" but always spoke either directly by inspiration or quoted Old Testament scriptures as their basis for authority for faith and practice. Why? Oral traditions corrupt quickly and that is precisely while Peter was STILL LIVING he told his readers that scriptures are "MORE SURE" than apostolic oral traditions.

Sola Scriptura does not contradict Luke 10:16 but fulfills it in that "MORE SURE" scripture supersedes that which is LESS sure - tradition. Why do you reject 2 Tim. 3:16-17? The "man of God" is said to be "THROUGHLY" or thoroughly furnished by the simple scriptures unto "ALL" good works in regard to doctrine, instruction, correctiona and reproof WITHOUT INCLUSION and WITHOUT MENTION of tradition. Why do you transgress the Word of God by your traditions?

 

On what authority do you know he didn't have an OT?

It is said that he landed there ca. 52 A.D. So the ones that he taught are not living any longer. The Catholic Church was not even in existence at that time. Sola Scriptura was encouraged by the Apostle as is evidenced by Acts 17:11.

Yes, Apostolic teaching prevailed. Thomas was an apostle. That is what India got: teaching straight from an apostle. Sola Scripture is what another apostle encouraged: the Apostle Paul.

--A good example of the RCC rejecting the words of the Apostles; that is the word of God, those are the words of the apostles that are written and inspired by God. There are no other authoritative words, but the RCC rejects them in favor of traditions which Jesus condemned.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:9)
--God desires his word be taught; but the RCC ignores the Word and teaches the commandments of men instead.

 

True. There were heretics from the very beginning.

WM

 

Dr. Walter, In your example using 2nd Peter 1: 16-19 this is how that verse is to be understood; -" coming: "; in Greek 'parousia," used at 2nd Pt.3,-4:12 of the second coming of Christ. The word was used in the extrabiblical writings for the visitations of someone in authority;in Greek cult and Hellenistic Judaism it was used for the manifestation of the divine presence. What the apostles " made known" has been interpreted to refer to Jesus'transfiguation [ 17 ] or to His entire first coming or to His future coming in power.
2nd Pt. 1:17; - The author assures the readers of the reliability of the apostolic message[ including Jesus' power , glory, and coming; cf the note on 2 Pt. 1 , 16 ] by appeal to the transfiguration of Jesus in glory [ Mt. 17: 1-8 and parallels ] and by appeal to the prophetic message[ 2 Pt. 1: 19; perhaps Nm. 24,17] ; Here, as elsewhere , the NT insists on continued reminders as necessary to preserve the historical facts about Jesus and the truths of the faith; cf2 Pt3, 1-2; 1 Cor.11:2; 15:1-3. "My Son, my beloved : or , "my beloved Son"

2 Pt. 1: 12- 19, - The purpose in writing is to call to mind the Apostle's witness to the truth, even as he faces the end of his life [ 12-15 ] his eyewitness testimoney to Christ [ 16- 18 ], and the true prophetic message [ 19 ] through the Spirit in scripture [ 20- 21 ], in contrast to what false teachers are setting forth.

2 Pt. 1 v 18 : We: at Jesus' transfiguation , referring to Peter , James, and John [ Mt. 17 v 1 ]

2nd Pt. 1: 20-21 , Often cited, along with 2 Tim. 3 v 16 , on the " inspiration of Scripture or against private interpretation , these verses in context are directed against the false teachers of ch 2 and clever tales [ 16 ] , The prophetic word in scripture comes admittedly " through human beings [ 21 ] , but " moved by the holy Spirit", not from their own interpretation , and is a matter of what the author and Spirit intended, not " the false interpretation of false teachers . Instead of " under the influence of God " , some manuscripts read " holy ones of God "

 

Er...not quite. The Catholic Church in India owes far more to Portuguese missionaries and merchants from the 16th century onwards. The Mar Thoma Church founded by St Thomas has never been in communion with the See of Rome and indeed was persecuted on occasions by...er...those same Portuguese Catholics...

 

The Asian Churches, led or represented by Polycarp and Polycrates were not heretics. Again, they were connected to an apostle. It was the emerging Roman authority that was deviating into something not taught by scripture or the apostles.

 

My point is that the only churches at that time that were deviating from Rome, were heretics. Claiming that Rome "...was deviating into something not taught by scripture or the apostles." is merely your opinion.

WM

 

The only "church at Rome" during the first century was the one that Paul referred to in his epistle to the Romans. In reality if you look at the 16th chapter he mentions many churches that met in households. There was no Roman Catholic Church. It was non-existent, as was Peter. He was nowhere to be found in the city of Rome at the time of Paul's writing, in the mid to the end of the '60's. The list of those greeted by Paul is quite lengthy. But Peter is not among them.

 

You have made much ado about nothing! Peter is not addressing false teachers but is directly addressing those unto him he had previously conveyed this experience to - believers - (2 Pet. 1:1). Verses 20-21 are obvous and easy to understand - those used by God to convey the scriptures were not expressing their own personal opinions but they were under the influence of the Holy Spirit to express God's personal opinions.

Scriptures are "MORE SURE" than Apostolic oral traditions EVEN WHILE THE APOSTLE IS ALIVE (vv. 15-19). The Greek term translated "more sure" conveys the idea of STABILITY. They supersede the less stable. There is no need for oral traditions that can be easily corrupted and perverted in two or three generations.

It does not take too much common sense to realize that anything that depends upon oral transmission from one person to another person become more unstable and less dependable and more corrupted. This is exactly what happened to the oral "traditions of the elders" and why Christ corrected them and NEVER quoted them as a source of authority for doctrine or practice and neither did the apostles. The primary mention of them in the gospels and in the epistles is condemnatory not commendatory of them.

The fact is that scriptures are "MORE SURE" because they are not corrupted by "private interpretations" by those who pass them down. The scriptures do not represent "private interpretations" but are the direct expression of God's revealed will.

 

Actually its an irrelevant statement. You are siting all the wrong things. For instance. Did all the Churches mentioned by Paul believe the same thing? Did they all have deferrance for Apostolic Authority? You can have 500 Churches in the same town but if they believe the same thing and hold to an authority structure then they are united. So this then is the Key. Just because throughout the City of Rome there were many Chrisitan Churches is it indicative of differering beliefs or were they necissary in the Roman Environment where1) they were not approved by the senate and thus illegal and 2) did they hold to Apostolic Authority? It would seem they did as Paul address all of them. Also Peter's death is often referred to as have been caused between 67-68 AD prior to this Peter would have been in Jail and no need to write him. There was a short time in which he may have been freed but suffice it to say when Paul arrived early in 60 AD there would have been no need to address the primary of the Apostles.

 

The fact there were many congregations in Rome disputes the idea that there was primarily just one congregation at Rome with a presiding pope. No such person is even addressed, mentioned or inferred in the epistle of Romans to the congregations at Rome.

There is no evidence that Peter or Paul constituted any congregation at Rome but plenty of evidence that neither did. Paul admits he never had yet been there and would not go to a place and preach the gospel that built upon the foundation of another apostle (Rom. 15).

Peter was never there and had not yet been there at the writing of Romans by Paul or else Paul would have greeted him, mentioned him or attributed to him laying the foundations in Rome. The elephant in the room that RC ignores is the complete silence by Paul about Peter when writing to these congregations which is not only unthinkable if Peter had started any of these congregations or was presently there as it would have been extremely rude and inconsiderate of Paul to say nothing of such a prominent apostle.

 

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, (1 Peter 1:1)
To add to what Eric said, Peter wrote to the Asian churches. Note it specifically says Asia in the above verse. Was Peter also a heretic? Here Peter is directly connecting himself to those churches outside Rome which you say are heretical.

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; (James 1:1-2)
--James writes to Jewish believers that are scattered abroad--no doubt in Asia as well. Here is the half-brother Jesus. Is he writing to heretical churches?

 

Paul on three missionary journeys started over 100 churches. You could say that they all had direct apostolic authority. But we don't believe in apostolic succession, nor is it necessary. Where did Aquilla and Priscilla get their authority? Yet Paul greets them and the church that is in their house. His list of names is lengthy. But the important thing of note is that the name of Peter is missing, and Paul who wrote the letter obviously wrote from elsewhere. Neither of these men were in Rome.

Who started the church. Many say it was Aquilla and Priscilla, though we can't be sure. But it wasn't Peter; and it wasn't Paul--that we know. They weren't there.

 

That Rome was the central authority that "deviation" would be measured by is merely your presupposition. As others have said, this authority was not even mentioned by the other apostles; not even in the epistle to the Romans itself!