An easy way to remember some of the problems with Catholic ecclesiolgy is to think of how scripture uses the metaphor of a pillar in a couple of passages.
I recently discussed 1 Timothy 3:15, where the church (whatever concept of the church you think is in view there) is referred to as a pillar and support of the truth. As I mentioned, we normally think of a structure being supported by multiple pillars, not just one, which suggests that the church isn't the only pillar. F.J.A. Hort referred to the absurdity of "a building, standing in the air supported on a single column" (cited in William Mounce, Pastoral Epistles [Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000], 223).
Another relevant passage that uses the pillar metaphor is Galatians 2:9. It's doubtful that people would have been grouping Peter with other apostles as pillars of the church and naming him second, after James, if he was thought of as a Pope. Remember, Catholics are the ones who place so much emphasis on the alleged significance of Peter's being a foundation of the church in Matthew 16, which is similar to the pillar concept in Galatians 2:9. It's highly unlikely that the early Christians believed that Peter was such a unique foundation of the church, the infallible ruler of all Christians, including the other apostles, yet perceived him as described in Galatians 2:9.
Do you have an article dealing with the claim that material sufficiency is taught in 2 Timothy 3:15-17?
ReplyDeleteNo. I don't think 2 Timothy 3 teaches material or formal sufficiency. Even if the passage did affirm sola scriptura, we wouldn't need that passage in order to justify sola scriptura. See here for an outline of my approach.
DeleteTheShire,
ReplyDeleteTry out this article: https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2017/12/a-response-to-tim-staples-on-sola.html
It teaches both the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture.
https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2019/03/answering-dave-armstrong-on-sola.html
DeleteSometimes I also see catholics say that we wouldn't necessarily see the term "pope" used as early as apostolic times. But why not? There are explicit references to elders and deacons, after all.
ReplyDelete