Why is there no papacy in Ephesians?

In other posts, I've discussed some neglected material in Ephesians, a portion of the Bible that's often underestimated in apologetics. See here regarding Jesus' Bethlehem birthplace and Ephesians 2. Or see here regarding Ephesians 6:1-3 as evidence against the idea that the early Christians set a false date for Jesus' second coming, for example.

Another context in which Ephesians is important is the papacy. Think of all the topics covered in Ephesians that are relevant, even though it's such a short letter: the church as the body of Christ, Christian unity, the church compared to a building with a distinction made between different types of stones, order within the church, etc. Roman Catholics claim the papacy is important in contexts like the ones addressed in Ephesians. Supposedly, the Pope is the head of the church, which is relevant to Paul's comments about subjects like the body metaphor for the church in chapter 1 and the comments on church order in chapter 4. We're told that Peter is a foundation of the church in a different way than the other apostles, which is relevant in Ephesians 2:20 and elsewhere. We're supposed to think that the papacy is the center of Christian unity, and Paul writes about the principles of church unity in Ephesians.

But Paul's use of the body metaphor for the church makes no mention of a papal role for Peter and the bishops of Rome. Jesus is described differently than the other foundation stones in Ephesians 2:20, but Peter isn't. Paul's comments on church unity and church order say nothing about a papacy. Ephesians 4:11 mentions apostles in the plural first, which is reminiscent of 2:20 and 1 Corinthians 12:28. Paul seems to have thought that the first rank in church leadership is the apostles, not Peter and the bishops of Rome.

I mentioned 1 Corinthians 12. The point I'm making in this post isn't that Ephesians by itself is sufficient to assess the papacy. Rather, Ephesians is part of a cumulative case, and its significance in that case is often underestimated.

For more about the evidence outside Ephesians, see here and the Papacy post label here. You can also search under other relevant post labels (Simon Peter, Church Authority, Ecclesiology, etc.).

Does the background to First Clement support a papacy?

First Clement opens with a reference to how the Corinthians had requested help from the Romans, how the document was being written to address "the points respecting which you consulted us" (1). It's sometimes suggested that papal authority is implied. Why did the Corinthians consult the Romans? Since there's a good chance that the apostle John was still alive, why didn't they consult him instead?

Notice Where Canon Discussions Begin

What assumptions are being made at the start of the discussion? For example, when somebody like Cameron Bertuzzi is assuming the truthfulness of Christianity, that certain individuals of past generations were Christians, what writings attributed to those individuals are genuine, etc., did he get to those conclusions by a means he's criticizing Protestants for utilizing? Cameron has made a series of canonical judgments, about canons other than the canon of scripture, before he begins his criticisms of Protestantism on canonical matters. How does he know which documents attributed to Athanasius or Augustine, for instance, are genuine and which aren't? What's the canon of Athanasius' writings or Augustine's, Jerome's, Innocent I's, and so forth? Cameron probably frequently relies on Protestant scholarship on patristic issues, much as he relies on other sources who aren't conservative Catholics on patristic issues and issues pertaining to the Bible, church history, and so on. That includes scholars who are highly antagonistic toward Christianity, like Bart Ehrman, a source Cameron recently cited on canonical issues. Ehrman not only has been a scholar in the field of New Testament textual criticism, but also has done work in related areas. His doctoral thesis was on textual issues in Didymus the Blind, a church father. So, Cameron's conclusions on matters related to the Bible, church history, the church fathers, church councils, etc. depend on fallible, probabilistic judgments derived largely from scholarship that isn't part of conservative Catholicism (moderate Catholics, liberal Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, atheists, agnostics, etc.).

When conservative Protestants are faulted for depending on sources they have significant disagreements with, keep in mind that conservative Catholics do the same. When conservative Protestants are faulted for relying on fallible, probabilistic judgments about controversial and complicated issues, keep in mind that conservative Catholics do the same. Etc.

Evidence Against Alternatives To Sola Scriptura

A neglected line of evidence in controversies over sola scriptura is the absence of alternatives in contexts in which we'd expect them to be discussed if the sources involved believed in those alternatives. The New Testament says nothing of the bishop of Rome, much less does it tell Christians to look to him as the infallible standard of orthodoxy in the future. When Paul, Peter, and John are approaching death or are operating in some other relevant context, they turn their audience's attention to remembering what Jesus taught in the past, remembering what the apostles taught in the past, and scripture, but say nothing of anything like an infallible Pope, magisterium, or ecumenical councils. The earliest opponents of Christianity say a lot about things like Jesus' teachings and scripture, but show no knowledge of a papacy, an allegedly infallible church, etc. I've discussed issues like these many times in the past. See here and here, for example.

There's also the fact that Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and other early sources defined the church and tradition much differently than modern opponents of sola scriptura do. So, citing them against sola scriptura doesn't lead us to the alternatives most modern critics of sola scriptura are advocating. In fact, the beliefs of the early extrabiblical sources are largely inconsistent with the beliefs of groups like Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. See the many examples discussed here. Or see here regarding Irenaeus and here regarding Tertullian, for instance.

You can click on the sola scriptura label at the bottom of this post for an archive of many of our posts on the subject. For example, shortly before his death, Steve Hays wrote a post on sola scriptura that makes some good points that are often neglected.

How strong is the Christian argument against polygamy?

Polygamy has been getting some attention lately in response to a pastor's announcement that he's married a second wife. Ben Shapiro recently addressed the subject on one of his programs and had Matt Fradd on to discuss it with him. Both men made a Biblical case against polygamy, but far less of a case than they should have made. Their comments about the extrabiblical evidence likewise fell well short of what could have been offered. Matt was focused on church authority and didn't say much about the church fathers and other early extrabiblical sources, where there's early and widespread evidence against polygamy. The use of Roman Catholicism's authority claims is problematic, since those claims are false and end up leading Catholicism's defenders to making unverifiable appeals to doctrinal development, what ecclesiology they think would be fitting, and so forth.

Support for polygamy has been increasing substantially in recent years. More than one out of five Americans consider it morally acceptable now, which is about a tripling of its support over the past couple of decades. See Gallup's polling results on moral issues here. And here's an article on the subject published by Gallup in 2017. Support for polygamy has gone up a few more percentage points since then.

About twenty years ago, I wrote a post discussing the evidence against polygamy in the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the early extrabiblical sources. I added some other posts over the years in the comments section of that thread, including some interactions with defenders of polygamy. Matthew Schultz posted an article here in 2011 that discusses how negatively polygamy is portrayed in the Bible. My initial thread on polygamy, linked above, discussed a lot of extrabiblical sources, but didn't include Minucius Felix. Here's a later post in which I cited his comments about the Christian rejection of polygamy.

The Widespread Absence Of An Early Papacy

Gavin Ortlund just put out a video that provides a good overview of a lot of the evidence against the papacy. He makes some points I didn't make in my last post, and my post covers some things not included in his video. When you think of the evidence as a whole, notice that there's such a large number and variety of contexts in which the papacy is absent among the early sources. In addition to being absent, the concept of a papacy is sometimes contradicted. I mentioned some examples in my last post. And keep in mind how important Catholics tell us the papacy is, how it's allegedly the foundation of the church, the source of Christian unity, and so on. The First Vatican Council claimed that the papacy is a clear doctrine of scripture that's always been understood by the church. In reality, the papacy isn't in scripture or the earliest extrabiblical sources, and it's sometimes contradicted by those sources.

Some Ways To Argue Against A Papacy

It's useful to think of ways to concisely address a subject. That helps when we don't have much time in a particular context or we're looking for brief way to start a conversation on the topic, for example. In a post a few years ago, I summarized nine lines of evidence to consider when evaluating the papacy:

Regarding the evidence against the papacy outside of Matthew 16, think of the many contexts in which a papacy could have been mentioned early on, but wasn't: there's no reference to a title for a papal office (in contrast to "apostle", "deacon", etc.); the qualifications for holding other offices, like apostle and elder, are mentioned in places like Acts 1 and 1 Timothy 3, whereas there's no such discussion of the qualifications for being a Pope; passages discussing the structure of the church, like 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4, say nothing of a papacy; the imagery used for the church in Ephesians 2 and elsewhere doesn't make any effort to portray a papal office; the imagery used for the apostles in Matthew 19 and elsewhere (e.g., twelve thrones, twelve foundation stones) doesn't make any effort to portray a papal office; in passages in which the apostles are anticipating their departure in some sense (Paul departing from the Ephesian elders in Acts 20, Paul and Peter anticipating their deaths in 2 Timothy and 2 Peter), there's no reference to a papal office, looking to the bishop of Rome as the foundation of the church, looking to the bishop of Rome as the center of Christian unity, or anything like that; the earliest sources to comment on the Roman church and its importance (Paul in Romans, Luke at the end of Acts, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, etc.) give a variety of non-papal reasons for the Roman church's significance; the early opponents of Christianity, including ones who addressed the religion at as much length as Trypho and Celsus did, showed no awareness of a papacy. Furthermore, passages like 1 Corinthians 12:28 (mentioning "apostles" as the first order in the church) and Galatians 2:9 (grouping Peter with other apostles and naming him second) make more sense if there was no early belief in a papacy than if there was a belief in it.

Some of the arguments don't have enough significance to use in isolation. They should be part of a cumulative case instead. But some of them could be used in isolation. You could choose one or more to start with, then move on to others if warranted.

A Neglected Line Of Evidence For Sola Scriptura And Against Alternatives

There's some material in the New Testament that I've referred to as departure passages. They provide some evidence for sola scriptura and against alternatives to it. See here for a post about the departure material in the apostle John's writings. That post also has a link to an earlier article about departure material from Paul and Peter.

Resources For Addressing The Papacy

The papacy has been getting a lot of attention lately, because of the Pope's death. Go here for a brief summary of some of the evidence against the papacy. The main section of the post is just two paragraphs long, summarizing some problems with Roman Catholic appeals to Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 and several contexts in which there could have been evidence for an early papacy, but the office is absent or contradicted instead. And here's a collection of many of our posts on the papacy, including lengthier discussions of the issues summarized in the first post linked above.

Cameron Bertuzzi's Backfiring Cannon

Cameron Bertuzzi recently put out a video about the New Testament canon. I've addressed the subject many times, such as in a lengthy 2009 series here that discusses the issues raised by Cameron. Or see here for a more recent overview that addresses some of the issues more briefly. For a listing of all of our posts under the "canonics" label, go here (keep clicking Older Posts in the bottom right to see more).

What I want to do in this post is briefly address some of the problems with Cameron's video. You can read our earlier posts for more.

The Early Prominence Of Luke's Gospel And Its Christmas Material

Trent Horn recently put out a video that largely reiterates some points he's made before about sola scriptura. In the process, he repeated the claim that none of the New Testament documents were "prominent" before Irenaeus wrote in the late second century. I want to respond to that claim with an example that's relevant to the current Christmas context. On the other issues brought up in his video, see my earlier responses to Trent here and here.

Go here to watch Trent citing Lee McDonald's remarks about the lack of prominence of the New Testament documents before Irenaeus. What I want to do in the remainder of this post is focus on the gospel of Luke as a counterexample. With Christmas coming up later in the week and the popularity among skeptics of denying that the earliest chapters of Luke's gospel were part of the original document, I want to discuss not only the early prominence of the gospel of Luke, but also the inclusion of our first two chapters and other Christmas material in the gospel. (For more about the Christmas material in Luke outside the earliest chapters, see this post.)

What type of extrabiblical tradition?

Since so many Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox evaluations of Protestantism involve criticizing sola scriptura without making much of a case for an alternative, we should consider what's at stake. Not only does rejecting sola scriptura not leave you with Catholicism and Orthodoxy as the only Christian options to choose from, but it doesn't even come close to doing so.

Let's say that somebody found Papias' extrabiblical traditions about premillennialism convincing and added those to scripture as his rule of faith. Would accepting such extrabiblical traditions give you Roman Catholicism? No. Would it give you Eastern Orthodoxy? No. Would it give you the rule of faith of any of the other groups outside of Protestantism that claim apostolic succession, for example? No. Rather, it would give you something different than sola scriptura, but vastly closer to Protestantism than to those alternatives.

We need to keep in mind that there's a large gap separating sola scriptura from something like the rule of faith of Roman Catholicism or that of Eastern Orthodoxy. You can reject the former (sola scriptura) while still being much closer to the former than the latter (the rule of faith of the groups mentioned). When people refer to the importance of sola scriptura, they often have alternatives like Catholicism and Orthodoxy in mind. It doesn't follow that there's so much at stake when alternatives to sola scriptura are considered more broadly. When a Catholic or Orthodox tries to cast doubt on sola scriptura in a way that would still leave you a long distance from those two alternatives to sola scriptura, that long distance is important to note. We should also note the shortness of the distance between sola scriptura and other alternatives. In my example involving Papias and premillennialism, much less is at stake than would be involved in something like a conversion to Catholicism or a conversion to Orthodoxy. Or think of how individuals like Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 1:10:1-2) and Tertullian (The Prescription Against Heretics, 13) defined the apostolic tradition of their day. It was vastly different than what Catholics and Orthodox are advocating in our day.

Often, it seems that those who suggest that there's a narrower range of alternatives to sola scriptura have certain assumptions in mind that they haven't articulated or justified, assumptions their opponents don't accept. If the narrower range of alternatives to sola scriptura depends on those assumptions, then framing the discussion around that narrower range of alternatives is only as good as those assumptions.

No, Extrabiblical Evidence Isn't Roman Catholic Or Eastern Orthodox Tradition

Reliance on extrabiblical evidence is often equated with dependence on the alleged traditions of a group like Catholicism or Orthodoxy. But it doesn't make sense to equate extrabiblical evidence with tradition as those groups define it in any relevant way.

For example, all of our Bibles are based on many manuscripts produced by unknown individuals. There's no reason to classify those manuscripts as part of the Sacred Tradition of Catholicism or some equivalent in Orthodoxy. How we define the terminology used by the Bible, what we know about the surrounding historical context, and so forth are largely shaped by a variety of extrabiblical sources, including many archeological artifacts and documents that come from sources who didn't even claim to be Christian. Getting information from those sources isn't equivalent to depending on Catholic tradition, Orthodox tradition, etc. Even when we're assisted by one or more church fathers or what are commonly referred to as patristic documents, we aren't thereby relying on something like the Sacred Tradition of Catholicism or Orthodoxy. There's no reason to think the Didache, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Augustine, and other such sources were Catholic or Orthodox. Similarly, when a modern Catholic or Orthodox uses information found in Tacitus, an archeological artifact from an unknown Christian source, or a modern translation of a patristic document produced by a publisher outside his ecclesial affiliation, he isn't thereby violating his rule of faith, obligated to agree with the rule of faith of those sources, or any other such thing.

The Departure Material In John

I've written about what I've called the departure passages in scripture and how they relate to issues like the papacy and sola scriptura. See here, for example. Acts 20, 2 Timothy, and 2 Peter have been discussed a lot, but I want to expand on John's material, which has been neglected.

Sola Scriptura And The Departure Passages

We've written a lot about sola scriptura over the years. See the relevant posts linked here, for example. I've argued that sola scriptura can be justified by a process of elimination, much as we eventually become dependent on written sources in other contexts with the passing of time (e.g., we don't depend on ongoing oral traditions about what individuals like Josephus and Irenaeus taught). But I've cited another line of evidence that I want to highlight here. I've usually brought it up in the context of discussing the papacy, but it's relevant to sola scriptura as well. I'll quote what I wrote about it in a post last year, then expand on what I said there:

But the departure passages I've referred to elsewhere have some relevance here. When Paul and Peter are anticipating their death in 2 Timothy and 2 Peter, for example, they presumably don't know whether every other apostle will also be dead soon. So, how Paul and Peter prepare their audiences for their (Paul and Peter's) death isn't equivalent to preparing them for the post-apostolic age. But it does have some relevance. For one thing, Peter was a Pope under a Roman Catholic scenario, so any apostle who was still alive after Peter's death would have a lesser authority than Peter and his successors. And even though Paul and Peter knew that one or more of the other apostles could outlive them, their own deaths would have underscored the potential for the other apostles to die and the need for preparing for that scenario. Yet, they show no awareness of anything like a papacy or infallible magisterium. The pattern in these passages of referring to sources like past apostolic teaching and scripture without referring to anything like a papacy or infallible magisterium makes more sense under a Protestant paradigm. See my article linked earlier in this paragraph for more details. In addition to the three portions of the New Testament I discuss there (Acts 20, 2 Timothy, 2 Peter), think of the writings of John. He probably wrote in his elderly years, and, like Paul and Peter, he keeps calling on his audience to remember things like apostolic teaching and scripture, but shows no awareness of anything like a papacy or infallible magisterium.

The fact that a few different apostles are addressing these issues in so many contexts is significant. There's a cumulative effect.

It's probably not just a coincidence that so much emphasis on scripture, including the material most cited by Protestants, is found in the documents I'm focused on here (John 14:26, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 3:1-2, 3:15-16, Revelation 22:18-19, etc.).

And keep in mind that critics of sola scriptura, like Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, have taken so much initiative to tell us how important it allegedly is to have guidance from an infallible church or Pope, to have a higher form of ecclesiology like what they offer to produce a certain type of unity they claim we should have, etc. They can't tell us how important such things supposedly are, then turn around and say that it isn't problematic for their position when the earliest sources keep bringing up other sources of authority, but don't even mention the Roman bishopric, let alone refer to a papal office, say nothing of looking to an infallible church after the apostles have departed, etc. You could still argue that other factors outweigh this consideration I'm mentioning, but the point I'm making is that it is a consideration that weighs against systems like Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy to some extent.

Sola Scriptura In The Third Century

"If then it was from the apostles, as we said above, that this custom took its beginning, we must adjust ourselves thereto, whatsoever may have been their reasons and the grounds on which they acted; to the end that we too may observe the same in accordance with their practice. For as to things which were written afterwards and which are until now still found, they are ignored by us; and let them be ignored, no matter what they are." (Dionysius of Alexandria, Letters, 1, To Stephen)

Elsewhere, he wrote:

"And we abstained from defending in every manner and contentiously the opinions which we had once held, unless they appeared to be correct. Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures." (cited in Eusebius, Church History, 7:24:8)

The best explanation for such sentiments is sola scriptura. We don't assume without evidence that Dionysius also believed in the papacy, an infallible magisterium, infallible ecumenical councils, and such. And we don't add a qualifier to his reference to scripture if the text and context don't imply that qualifier. If he only refers to scripture, the best explanation is that he had only scripture in mind, not that he also was consulting oral tradition, an infallible magisterium, an infallible ecumenical council, or some other such source. The issue here isn't how Dionysius could be interpreted. Rather, the issue is how he should be interpreted, which interpretation makes the most sense.

It could be argued that Dionysius and his fellow Christians limited themselves to scripture in the context mentioned in the second passage above only because the relevant extrabiblical material wasn't available in that particular context. It wouldn't follow that there was no such material in other contexts. That's possible, but, again, makes less sense. Dionysius is addressing eschatological issues, and that's an area in which extrabiblical traditions are reported early on to an unusually large degree (e.g., in Papias, in Irenaeus). Furthermore, eschatology has a lot of connections to other areas of theology, so limiting yourself to scripture wouldn't just involve whether you think there's relevant extrabiblical material in the more obviously eschatological contexts. Eschatological implications are often interwoven with areas of theology not typically classified as eschatology. And it's not as though the groups who reject sola scriptura, like Roman Catholicism, have claimed that all of their eschatological beliefs are found only in scripture. Papal decrees and councils, for example, frequently address eschatological issues in some manner (Jesus' second coming, resurrection, the day of judgment, etc.). Think of the many references to eschatological issues in the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church. Why should we think the views of groups like Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are the same as those of Dionysius and his colleagues?

We also have to consider the nature of the world in Dionysius' time and the potential for change later. Notice that he doesn't qualify his comments by allowing for some past infallible papal or conciliar teaching he hadn't learned about yet or some such teaching in the future. He seems unconcerned about that sort of qualification.

In addition to what Dionysius affirms in the passages quoted above, there's the absence of anything like an infallible Pope or infallible magisterium elsewhere in Dionysius' writings. You can read what he wrote here and here.

The Authority Debate Between Jimmy Akin And The Other Paul

You can watch it here. Paul made some good points, but I want to add some points of my own, in response to Jimmy and in response to what came up in the question and answer segment.

How To Argue For Sola Scriptura

Something I recently wrote in response to a Facebook message:

In disputes over sola scriptura like the one you're referring to, it's helpful to start by considering the larger context. That way, we have a better idea of what's at stake, what our priorities should be, and so forth.

The two biggest critics of sola scriptura within professing Christianity are Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Given the lack of evidence for those groups and the evidence we have against their claims (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/04/historical-roots-of-reformation-and.html), their authority structures aren't the most reasonable alternatives to sola scriptura. If we were to reject sola scriptura, it wouldn't make sense to become Catholic or Orthodox. Rather, the most reasonable alternative to sola scriptura would be to add material to scripture that's of a significantly different nature than what Catholicism and Orthodoxy add to scripture. If we were to conclude that some of the extrabiblical traditions of Papias and Irenaeus should be added to scripture, for example, that wouldn't be equivalent to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. If sola scriptura is false, the alternative would be far closer to Protestantism than to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Debates over sola scriptura are often framed in terms of choosing between Protestantism, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, either Catholicism or Orthodoxy. But those aren't the only choices. And the most plausible alternatives to sola scriptura are much closer to Protestantism than they are to the two alternatives to Protestantism that are most often discussed. While there's a lot at stake in choosing between Protestantism and Catholicism, there wouldn't be so much at stake in choosing between Protestantism and a belief system in which all that's added to scripture is something like an extrabiblical tradition of Papias concerning premillennialism. We should keep in mind that accepting a Christian rule of faith that adds material to scripture isn't equivalent to accepting Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

Having said that, the primary question here isn't what our rule of faith should have been in early church history, if we had been alive then. Rather, the central question is what our rule of faith should be today. The passage you cited from Robert Sungenis refers to how the meaning of scripture doesn't change over time. But the application does change. The fact that the Corinthians possessed the letter Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 5:9 doesn't prove that we possess it today. The fact that the Thessalonians heard Paul teach orally doesn't prove that we've heard Paul teach orally today.

People who were alive in Tertullian's day and shortly afterward would have had not only a canon of Tertullian's writings, but also would have heard Tertullian speak in some cases, would have had access to some reliable oral traditions about what Tertullian said, etc. But those of us who are alive today don't have access to all that people had access to in those earlier contexts. Few, if any, people today would go beyond the writings of Tertullian that are extant. The fact that people who lived around Tertullian's time had heard him speak and had reliable oral traditions about what he'd said doesn't prove that we today have those resources. We don't. What I'm saying about Tertullian is applicable to other historical figures as well. That includes Biblical figures, like Jesus and the apostles.

I don't think the Bible directly, explicitly teaches sola scriptura. Rather, I think sola scriptura is an implication of Biblical teaching. We limit ourselves to scripture for reasons similar to why we limit ourselves to the extant writings of Tertullian and other historical figures. I've discussed some of the evidence leading to the conclusion of sola scriptura at Triablogue. For example:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-testament-documents-were-more.html

I don't think 2 Timothy 3:15-17 is saying that Timothy or anybody else at that time should have abided by sola scriptura. Rather, when we combine 2 Timothy 3 with what other sources tell us about scripture and what we know about other factors involved (e.g., ecclesiology), we arrive at the conclusion of sola scriptura. The fact that oral apostolic teaching, reliable oral traditions of what Jesus taught, and such existed at the time of 2 Timothy 3 doesn't tell us whether we have access to that material today. Similarly, Adam and Eve didn't have scripture, Abraham didn't have the Catholic magisterium, we today don't possess the letter Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 5:9, etc. There's no reason to think the rule of faith must be or has been the same throughout history or throughout church history in particular.

Since people often confuse categories when discussing these issues, keep in mind that sola scriptura is about how we should view scripture in a particular context. The sola applies in that context, not others. The fact that scripture should be alone in one context doesn't mean that it should be alone elsewhere. Sola scriptura is about the content of our rule of faith. It doesn't follow that if we use means outside of scripture to identify our rule of faith, interpret it, apply it, argue for it, etc., then we've violated sola scriptura. What the content of our rule of faith should be is a distinct issue from how we identify that rule, interpret it, and so on.

Early Interest In Gospel Authorship

It's common today to claim that the gospels initially circulated anonymously, even for as long as several decades. Here's something I recently wrote on the subject in the comments section of an old thread:

In closing, I suggest that people think about the context of early Christianity and whether it was a setting in which the gospels are likely to have circulated anonymously for nearly a century. Christianity wasn't a philosophical system of ideas that were being promoted independently of authority figures. Rather, it was a system founded on the authority of named individuals, starting with Jesus and going on to the apostles and other individuals who were named (Matthew 10:1-3, Mark 3:13-19, Ephesians 2:20, etc.). Luke's gospel opens with a reference to the significance of eyewitnesses (1:2), a concept that requires distinguishing among sources (differentiating between those who were eyewitnesses and those who weren't), which would include distinguishing among the authors of written sources. The fourth gospel expresses an interest in authorship, its own authorship with the implication of concern about authorship more widely (John 21:24). Ferguson raises doubts about whether Papias was discussing the authorship of the canonical gospels or the authorship of other documents instead, but there was a concern about authorship of gospels or similar documents either way. And Papias cited an earlier source (the elder, probably the apostle John), who likewise was interested in authorship issues. The same can be said about the authorship concerns expressed in the dispute between Marcionism and Christian orthodoxy. I've cited other sources in the same timeframe, prior to the late second century, with similar authorship interests.

In that sort of atmosphere of concern for named authority figures, distinguishing among sources, and trying to discern who wrote documents like the gospels, it's far more likely that the gospels were circulating with authorial attributions than that they were circulating anonymously. There would have been a high degree of interest in the gospels' authorship well before the second half of the second century. And early belief in their traditional authorship attributions provides a far better explanation for the prominence of the gospels and how little dispute there was about their authorship.

Expect the Bergoglio papacy to lead to more inquisition and less discussion

The Bergoglio Inquisition is coming

Ross Douthat, who considers himself to be among the conservative Roman Catholics, has a pretty good take on what’s happening in the Bergoglio papacy. The down side for Douthat is that his “only serious” solution to what’s happening may only exacerbate the problem that he sees.

“Expect the Inquisition” is a headline that probably some editor gave to the column, but the real heart and soul of the Roman Catholic Church is on display, and it shows why this editor is right and Douthat is probably wrong.

In his opening statement, Douthat himself has noticed “In the Catholic Church of Pope Francis, it is dangerous to be too conservative.” He then recounts the story of “a distinguished Catholic philosopher” who was removed from his university position for having “raised questions about ‘Amoris Laetitia’”.

The sniping goes the other way, too. “Meanwhile, in the Catholic Church of Pope Francis it is also dangerous to be too liberal.” He recounts the travails of “Father James Martin”, author of “Building a Bridge” (from the Roman Catholic Church to “the LGBT community”) who was not only disinvited from giving a speech at the “Theological College of the Catholic University of America”, here’s the key: “after an internet campaign by traditionalist priests and laypeople”.