ATTN: I will revert to Protestantism if Protestants can....

[On_my_way]

This is for all the Catholics. Leave the protestants alone. I say this, because no matter how much you prove them wrong they will always go back to the two things that they have Sola Scriptura and Sola fidei. Why because that is all they have. Our Church is built on Jesus, the Prophets, the Papacy, Scripture, History, Tradition and of course The Holy Mother. We have all the Sacraments. Baptism, Reconciliation, Holy Communion, Conformation, Holy Orders, Holy Matrimony and Annointing of the Sick. We have Holy week, Easter and Christmas. We have special days of Worship. Do you guys see why they (Protestants) always challenge our Faith?

It is because Catholic Church has more to offer to our Souls than their church. They only have Sola Scriptura and Sola fidei.

Leave it alone they will never understand.

 

[PhilVaz]

BTW, the Real Audio link above (see post #3 in this thread, by pnois) was to a sermon by a Calvary Chapel paster, Raul Reis of “Somebody Loves You Ministries.”

Very UNimpressive, typical Jack Chick, Dave Hunt style anti-Catholicism. Very sloppy understanding of Catholic teaching.

But here are the archived radio programs of Raul Reis, why not just link to these and tell us what you are linking.

So yeah, bottom line is the challenge has not been met. Show that early Christianity taught (1) sola scriptura, (2) sola fide, (3) symbolic baptism and eucharist. BTW, James White admits that sola scriptura was not something taught even by the apostles themselves since sola scriptura is not valid, not operational, and not true “during times of enscripturation.” It becomes true during “the normative state of the church” whenever that began.

Phil P

 

[EA_Man]

PhilVaz:

BTW, on Justification by faith in the Fathers, it can easily be shown they were not “sola fide” meaning salvation by “imputed righteousness” alone – that was NEW with Luther. Even Alister McGrath, one of the leading evangelicals today, freely admits that in his doctoral dissertation on the subject.

IUSTITIA DEI: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification by Alister McGrath (Cambridge Univ Press, 1986), Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 19 –

“The significance of the Protestant distinction between -iustificatio- and -regeneratio- is that a FUNDAMENTAL DISCONTINUITY has been introduced into the western theological tradition WHERE NONE HAD EXISTED BEFORE [emphasis by McGrath].”

“However, it will be clear that the medieval period was astonishingly FAITHFUL to the teaching of Augustine on the question of the nature of justification, WHERE THE REFORMERS DEPARTED FROM IT [emphasis mine].”

“The essential feature of the Reformation doctrines of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between JUSTIFICATION and REGENERATION. Although it must be emphasised that this distinction is purely notional, in that it is impossible to separate the two within the context of the -ordo salutis- [the order of salvation], the essential point is that a notional distinction is made WHERE NONE HAD BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE [emphasis mine].”

“A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition **WHERE NONE HAD EVER EXISTED, OR EVER BEEN CONTEMPLATED, BEFORE **[my emphasis]. The Reformation understanding of the NATURE of justification – as opposed to its mode – must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological NOVUM.”

Read this article, and the ones by Matt1618 linked in this article

The Church Fathers and “Sola Fide” (Justification by Faith Alone)

As for Baptism, and Eucharist, the Fathers are clearly on the Catholic side there.

I understand evangelicals who may be influenced by White, Svendsen, Webster/King, Jason Engwer or wherever they are getting their quotations, but they need to be a little more thorough and honest here.

Phil P

A “Theological Novum”? An Innovation?

Can you say Aquinas?

Peace

 

[PhilVaz]

dennis << I do admit that there were those against infant baptism, like Tertullian, but they were not in the majority. >>

BTW, Tertullian did not oppose infant baptism, he simply said it would be good sometimes to delay it. Some of the Fathers took that position. He was not “against” infant baptism.

See this article Did Tertullian Reject Infant Baptism?

There is no question Tertullian taught baptismal regeneration along with the necessity of Baptism. So Tertullian definitely fails to meet your challenge. You can remain Catholic.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

<< A “Theological Novum”? An Innovation? Can you say Aquinas? >>

McGrath says theological novum and innovation, that justification “by faith alone” and by “imputed righteousness” was the teaching of anyone before Luther. McGrath definitely shows that was NEW with Luther. It cannot be found in St. Augustine, nor St. Thomas Aquinas, nor ANY of the Fathers, Bishops, Saints, or medieval doctors of the Catholic Church. It was NEW, NEW, NEW. That is what “novum” means for those who don’t speak Latin.

Thomas Aquinas taught justification by faith alone? I’d like to see that. Show it to me.

Unfortunately, I don’t have a handy article on Aquinas and Sola Fide (maybe I need one) but…

I do have an article on Aquinas and Sola Scriptura

And please, you aren’t suggesting Thomas Aquinas held to symbolic baptism or symbolic eucharist now are you? He clearly held to all seven Catholic sacraments.

Phil P

 

[Delgadoajj]

PhilVaz:

EA_Man and Shibboleth, one Father at a time. OK, you claim St. Athanasius affirmed sola scriptura (Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith) with the statements about “sufficiency” (e.g. De Synodis 6, Contra Gentes 1). OK, this does give a high place to Scripture – however Athanasius wouldn’t dare say Scripture should be interpreted apart from the tradition and orthodox understanding of the Catholic Church.

To wit more Athanasius:

“Had Christ’s enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognised the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith, they would not have made shipwreck of the faith, nor been so shameless as to resist those who would fain recover them from their fall, and to deem those as enemies who are admonishing them to be religious.” (Discourses Against the Arians 3.58)

“Now what has been briefly said above may suffice to shew their misunderstanding of the passages they then alleged; and that of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation, we may easily see, if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ’s enemies, being ignorant of this ]scope, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think.” (Discourses Against the Arians 3.28)

“…in the fresh arrogance of irreligion, and in dizziness about the truth, are full set upon accusing the Council, let them tell us what are the sort of Scriptures from which they have learned, or who is the Saint [Saint = orthodox saint or Father] by whom they have been taught, that they have heaped together the phrases, ‘out of nothing,’ and ‘He was not before His generation,’ and ‘once. He was not,’ and ‘alterable,’ and ‘pre-existence,’ and ‘at the will;’ which are their fables in mockery of the Lord.” (De Decretis 18)

"…who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council, for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies. (De Decretis 27)

"Therefore let them tell us, from what teacher or by what tradition they derived these notions concerning the Saviour? “We have read,” they will say, “in the Proverbs, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways unto His works;’” this Eusebius and his fellows used to insist on, and you write me word, that the present men also, though overthrown and confuted by an abundance of arguments, still were putting about in every quarter this passage, and saying that the Son was one of the creatures, and reckoning Him with things originated. But they seem to me to have a wrong understanding of this passage also; for it has a religious and very orthodox sense, which had they understood, they would not have blasphemed the Lord of glory. (De Decretis 13)

Commentary from Protestant historian Philip Schaff, et al from the Eerdmans edition of the Fathers:

“Tradition [according to Athanasius] is recognised as authoritative in two ways: (1) Negatively, in the sense that doctrines which are novel are prima facie condemned by the very fact (de Decr. 7, note 2, ib. 18, Orat. i. 8, 10, ii. 34, 40, de Syn. 3, 6, 7, and Letter 59, §3); and (2) positively, as furnishing a guide to the sense of Scripture (see references in note on Orat. iii. 58, end of ch. xxix.). In other words, tradition with Athanasius is a formal, not a material, source of doctrine.”

More here St. Athanasius on Scripture and Tradition

Please, do one Father at a time, and read them thoroughly. Athanasius certainly did not accept “sola scriptura” unless “sola scriptura” means a person should not interpret Scripture apart from the tradition, authority, and understanding of the Catholic Church. That is St. Athanasius full teaching.

I challenge both Shibboleth and EA_Man to read ALL of St. Athanasius, not just the selected portions from the Webster/King volumes, or wherever you get your quotations.

Phil P

There is no doubt Scripture and Tradition go hand-in-hand.

Jorge.

 

[EA_Man]

<< A “Theological Novum”? An Innovation? Can you say Aquinas? >>

McGrath says theological novum and innovation, that justification “by faith alone” and by “imputed righeousness” was the teaching of anyone before Luther. McGrath definitely shows that was NEW with Luther. It cannot be found in St. Augustine, nor St. Thomas Aquinas, nor ANY of the Fathers, Bishops, Saints, or medieval doctors of the Catholic Church. It was NEW, NEW, NEW. That is what “novum” means for those who don’t speak Latin.

Thomas Aquinas taught justification by faith alone? I’d like to see that. Show it to me.

Unfortunately, I don’t have a handy article on Aquinas and Sola Fide (maybe I need one) but…

I do have an article on Aquinas and Sola Scriptura

And please, you aren’t suggesting Thomas Aquinas held to symbolic baptism or symbolic eucharist now are you? He clearly held to all seven Catholic sacraments.

Phil P

My point was that Aquinas introduced plenty of theological innovations, not that he introduced sola scriptura or sola fide.

So if a theological innovation is on the basis of the innovation alone cause for repudiation you need look no further than your own Medieval Catholic theologians.

There have been numerous citations here of ECF that held positions contrary to current Catholic theology. Of course you are free to discount them or to cast their meaning into a Catholic mold if you like.

Peace

 

[PhilVaz]

EA_man << There have been numerous citations here of ECF that held positions contrary to current Catholic theology. Of course you are free to discount them or to cast their meaning into a Catholic mold if you like. >>

Well the challenge is to show Church Fathers, or those in early Christianity (100 AD to 300 AD) who clearly taught sola scriptura, sola fide, symbolic baptism, symbolic eucharist.

Like the challenger (Dennis) said, I don’t think there are any.

Do you still claim St. Athanasius taught sola scriptura after reading what I cited above? Yes or No?

I do not doubt you can find passages in the Fathers that (seem to) contradict later defined dogmatic Catholic teaching. Prominent examples: St. Jerome seems to discount the full canonicity of the deuterocanonicals (although not their “inspiration”), and some in the early Church held to a form of “chiliasm” or “millennialism” (what later came to be called “premillennialism”). But this isn’t the issue for this thread.

The challenge in this thread is to find those in the early Church (again 100 AD to 300 AD is a good time period) that taught specific evangelical or Protestant beliefs: sola scriptura, sola fide, symbolic baptism, symbolic eucharist.

BTW, a quote here and there is not gonna cut it. Be thorough, at least provide 5 unambiguous quotes for each Father you cite. Please don’t continue to insist folks like St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom or others that have been cited taught sola scriptura, sola fide, symbolic baptism, or symbolic eucharist. Please don’t say that or I will be forced to produce more 5000 word-limit posts.

Phil P

 

[mark_a]

nstream.trinetsolutions.com/real/ccgs/realmedia/2005/radio/jun/r-062805.rm

Please, a few words explaining the link would be nice.

For example: “Catholics are full of beans. This link explains this and takes you to the exact verse in the bible.”

Or: “Me too!! Here’s a link to my ultra orthodox Catholic website.”

 

[PhilVaz]

EA_man << My point was that Aquinas introduced plenty of theological innovations, not that he introduced sola scriptura or sola fide. >>

If you mean by innovation something that was completely unheard of, with no precedence in the early Church, then give me some examples. Aquinas did develop the Catholic doctrine theologically, but what he taught on Scripture/Tradition, Justification, and the sacraments clearly is found in all the Fathers, most especially St. Augustine.

And it doesn’t take a lot of reading to see this, a couple of books on Aquinas from your local public or university library will do. The book Early Christian Doctrines by JND Kelly, or Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition (volume 1 on early Church, volumes 2, 3, 4 on later Church) does the job. One doesn’t have to be a patristics or medieval expert to see Catholic theology (on Scripture/Tradition, on Justification, on the sacraments) is pervasive in the early Church, although what the Fathers taught was clearly developed further by the later doctors like Aquinas.

That’s not what Alister McGrath means by “innovation” or “theological novum.” He says that of “sola fide” since that was new with Luther. Sorry to repeat myself.

Phil P

 

[Ric]

dennisknapp:

If you can show me sola scriptura (bible alone)…

Sola Scriptura

Ambrose
“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” - Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)

“The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father…So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint.” - Ambrose (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119)

Augustine
“In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind…In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself.” - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

“Every sickness of the soul hath in Scripture its proper remedy.” - Augustine (Expositions on the Psalms, 37:2)
**
Clement of Alexandria**
“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.” - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:16)

Cyprian
“Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.’ Also the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which He commanded. If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed.” - Cyprian (Letter 73:2)
**
Cyril of Jerusalem**
“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 thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou 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.” - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)

Dionysius of Alexandria
“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.” - Dionysius of Alexandria (cited in the church history of Eusebius, 7:24)

Gregory of Nyssa
“we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings…And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all. And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?” - Macrina and Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection)

 

[Ric]

dennisknapp:

If you can show me sola scriptura (bible alone)…

Hilary of Poitiers
“Their treason involves us in the difficult and dangerous position of having to make a definite pronouncement, beyond the statements of Scripture, upon this grave and abstruse matter…We must proclaim, exactly as we shall find them in the words of Scripture, the majesty and functions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so debar the heretics from robbing these Names of their connotation of Divine character, and compel them by means of these very Names to confine their use of terms to their proper meaning…I would not have you flatter the Son with praises of your own invention; it is well with you if you be satisfied with the written word.” - Hilary of Poitiers (On the Trinity, 2:5, 3:23)

Hippolytus
“Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, and lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died…But the case stands not thus; for the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner…the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth…The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus is of a different mind from them. Yet, though Noetus does not understand the truth, the Scriptures are not at once to be repudiated…The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question is first of all to refute the interpretation put upon these passages [of scripture] by these men, and then to explain their real meaning…For whenever they wish to attempt anything underhand, they mutilate the Scriptures. But let him quote the passage as a whole, and he will discover the reason kept in view in writing it…if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage [of scripture], as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word…Many other passages [of scripture], or rather all of them, attest the truth. A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one…What, then, will this Noetus, who knows nothing of the truth, dare to say to these things? And now, as Noetus has been confuted, let us turn to the exhibition of the truth itself, that we may establish the truth, against which all these mighty heresies have arisen without being able to state anything to the purpose. There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9)

 

[Ric]

dennisknapp:

If you can show me sola scriptura (bible alone)…

Irenaeus
“They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures…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…It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to ‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity…proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.” - Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)

Jerome
“When, then, anything in my little work seems to you harsh, have regard not to my words, but to the Scripture, whence they are taken.” - Jerome (Letter 48:20)

“I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [scripture], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else.” - Jerome (Letter 53:10)

“When Paula comes to be a little older and to increase like her Spouse in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and man, let her go with her parents to the temple of her true Father but let her not come out of the temple with them. Let them seek her upon the world’s highway amid the crowds and the throng of their kinsfolk, and let them find her nowhere but in the shrine of the scriptures” - Jerome (Letter 107:7)

Justin Martyr
“And now, if I say this to you, although I have repeated it many times, I know that it is not absurd so to do. For it is a ridiculous thing to see the sun, and the moon, and the other stars, continually keeping the same course, and bringing round the different seasons; and to see the computer who may be asked how many are twice two, because he has frequently said that they are four, not ceasing to say again that they are four; and equally so other things, which are confidently admitted, to be continually mentioned and admitted in like manner; yet that he who founds his discourse on the prophetic Scriptures should leave them and abstain from constantly referring to the same Scriptures, because it is thought he can bring forth something better than Scripture. The passage, then, by which I proved that God reveals that there are both angels and hosts in heaven is this: ‘Praise the Lord from the heavens: praise Him in the highest. Praise Him, all His angels: praise Him, all His hosts.’” (Dialogue with Trypho, 85)

Theodoret
“I shall yield to scripture alone.” - Theodoret (Dialogues, 1)

 

[PhilVaz]

Oh come on, I see more quotes from Ric. One quote from each of these guys is not gonna cut it. Show me clearly where Ambrose, Augustine, Athanasius, let just stick with the A’s taught anything near a Protestant / evangelical theology.

You guys are not being honest producing a quote here or there affirming how great Scripture is. Here is another “Church Father” and I’ll let you figure out who said this:

“…since they [the Scriptures] are inspired by God and committed to writing once and for all time, they present God’s own Word in an unalterable form, and they make the voice of the Holy Spirit sound again and again in the words of the prophets and apostles. It follows that all the preaching of the Church, as indeed the entire Christian religion, should be nourished and ruled by sacred Scripture. In the sacred books the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them. And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life. Scripture verifies in the most perfect way the words: ‘The Word of God is living and active’ [Heb 4:12] and ‘is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified’ [Acts 20:32; cf. 1 Thess 2:13].”

Hint: this is from Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11. Do you understand, catch my drift?

Let’s be honest, read these Fathers in full, or how about citing prominent Protestant scholars on the Fathers and the Scripture/Tradition issue. Here I’ll put these quotes from the Fathers to bed. My summary from (A) = Philip Schaff (Presbyterian/Reformed), (B) = JND Kelly (Anglican), (C) = Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran, now Orthodox).

(A) For the early Church the divine Scriptures AND the oral tradition of the apostles or living apostolic Faith of the Catholic Church together formed the one infallible source and rule of faith for the Church; Church Tradition determined the canon of Scripture and furnished the key to the true interpretation of the Scriptures (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 3, page 606);

(B) Throughout the whole period of the Fathers, Scripture AND Tradition ranked as complementary authorities, although overlapping or coincident in content; and if Scripture was “sufficient” in principle, Tradition provided the surest clue to Scripture’s true interpretation, for in Tradition the Church received, as a legacy from the apostles, an unerring grasp of the real meaning of revelation that both Tradition AND Scripture enshrined and bore witness (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, page 47-48, 51);

(C) There was no notion of Sola Scriptura in the ante-Nicene Church, neither was there a notion of Sola Traditio (Tradition alone); the one universal Catholic Church of the Fathers (neither Western/Catholic nor Eastern/Orthodox) was the repository of all revealed truth, the dispenser of all grace, and the only place where the true God accepted true worship, sacrifices, intercessions, good works, etc – only from this Church does the truth shine forth; heretics taught doctrines found neither in Scripture nor Tradition, while orthodox Catholics in the Church of the four Gospels and four Councils were faithful to both Scripture and Tradition (Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, volume 1, page 115-117, 334-335).

Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan say that the “Dennis challenge” cannot be met. There, end of story. Be honest, read each of those Fathers in full. The 38-volume Eerdman’s set is available, or New Advent collection online, or The Faith of the Early Fathers by Jurgens will get you started.

Phil P

 

[Ric]

PhilVaz:

Oh come on, I see more quotes from Ric. One quote from each of these guys is not gonna cut it. Show me clearly where Ambrose, Augustine, Athanasius, let just stick with the A’s taught anything near a Protestant / evangelical theology.

Phil P

Hey, it was asked, and I answered. I will reply to the other three soon.

For the quotes I posted you can take it or leave it, but Sola Scriptura was a firmly heald belief in the Early Church. I just hope that one reads the Scriptures and lets the Holy Spirit guide!

I’ll let the Holy Spirit take it from here on the Sola Scriptura topic (I don’t want this thread turned into a Sola Scriptura debate). :tiphat:

 

[PhilVaz]

Ric << For the quotes I posted you can take it or leave it, but Sola Scriptura was a firmly heald belief in the Early Church. >>

First, none of those citations you provided from the Fathers state “Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith” do they? None of those citations say “Scripture should be interpreted apart from the tradition of the Catholic Church” do they? None of those citations say “Scripture alone” do they? None.

I cited Schaff, Kelly, Pelikan saying you are dead wrong. Do not get your information from James White, Webster/King, Jason Engwer, or wherever you are getting your quotes. Go to the Fathers themselves, and read (at least) Protestant experts on the Fathers.

Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan clearly say Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the early Church. For good measure, I’ll cite Yves Congar, one of the great authorities on tradition. What he says is that the Protestant Reformers asserted Scripture alone in a formal sense, not simply a “material” sense which you can find in some of the early Fathers.

“Now, the Fathers and the medieval theologians, whom we have cited: (1) Admit the material sufficiency of Scripture…(2) Ever since they began discussing these matters, consistently affirmed that Scripture by itself cannot adequately present its true meaning; it is only understood correctly in the Church and in its tradition. If there is one position which the Fathers consistently maintained, it is the position that links inseparably Scripture, the Church and Tradition. Far from considering these three realities to be in opposition, they saw them as united and inseparable.” (Congar, Tradition and Traditions, page 116,117)

That is the true position of the Fathers. Furthermore, Congar says in his chapter on Scripture and Tradition in the Fathers, summarizing his main points:

(A) The true Catholic Faith and true interpretation of the Scriptures is found only in the Church which is bound up with the succession of its ministers (apostolic succession, not of doctrine only – as wrongly claimed by Webster/King – but of its bishops, ministers, pastors succeeding the authority of the apostles);

(B) The “rule of faith” or “rule of truth” was not the whole of Tradition; it may be the principal part, but there are other things transmitted from the apostles by tradition: rules of conduct, behavior, on worship/liturgy, etc.

(C) The content of tradition consisted “materially” of the Scriptures, but “formally” of the Faith of the Catholic Church, its reading of the Scriptures in the Creed, etc; the mere text of Scripture alone was insufficient; heretics also quoted Scripture but they did not read that Scripture in the context of the Tradition or the orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church;

(D) The Catholic Church alone has received the apostolic deposit of truth, for in her the Holy Spirit of truth lives (John 14:16f; 16:13f); the Church alone is the sole inheritor of the true Christian teaching from God through Christ to the Apostles;

(E) This Tradition – the Church’s Tradition – is itself oral; and if there were no NT Scriptures it would have been sufficient for the Church to follow “the order of tradition” received from the apostles; in the minds of the early Christians it made no difference if the transmission was purely oral since there was an assured connection to the apostles through the Churches founded by the apostles to guarantee authenticity;

(F) Scripture was everything for the Fathers, and Tradition was everything also;

(G) What was the nature of the Church of the Fathers? It was one universal visible Church ruled by a hierarchy of bishops, presbyters/priests, deacons, etc in succession from the apostles (apostolic succession, again not “succession of doctrine” only);

(H) The entire activity of the Fathers demonstrates that they united three terms that were separated and set in opposition by the controversies of the 16th century – these three terms were Scripture, Tradition, and Church; it was always affirmed that Scripture is the rule and norm of faith only when conjoined to the Church and her Tradition;

(I) Hence, the Scriptures were never considered by the Fathers as formally “sufficient” or exclusive.

THAT’S what you find when you read the writings of the Fathers in full. Just what Schaff, Kelly, Pelikan, and Congar state. Now is that “Sola Scriptura” ? No it is not.

Dennis is not going anywhere. Sorry to “butt in” his thread, but I figure I’d help out.

Phil P

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I did some looking around and it looks like that person did a little cut and pasting of all those Early Church Fathers.
Here are some examples, here, here and here.

I have actually looked into some of these writings in the past and found some stuff that doesnt square with what some of these protestants are “citing” concerning Sola Scriptura.
Here are the first 3 he “cited”:

For those who like to cite Ambrose:
CHAPTER XVIII. The errors of the Arians are mentioned in the Nicene Definition of the Faith, to prevent their deceiving anybody. These errors are recited, together with the anathema pronounced against them, which is said to have been not only pronounced at Nicaea, but also twice renewed at Ariminum. 118. Christ, therefore, is “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten of the Father, not made; of one substance with the Father.” 119. So, indeed, following **the **guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint. For they give a false colour to their thoughts who dare not unfold them openly. After the manner of the censor’s rolls, then, the Arian heresy is not discovered by name, but marked out by the condemnation pronounced, in order that he who is curious and eager to hear it should be preserved from falling by knowing that it is condemned already, before he hears, it set forth to the end that he should believe.

1. “Those,” runs the decree, “who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, and that before He was born He was not, and who say that he was made out of nothing, or is of another substance or ousia, or that He is capable of changing, or that with Him is any shadow of turning,–them the Catholic and Apostolic Church declares accursed.”
   -Ambrose, Exposition of the Christian Bk1

For those who like to cite Augustine, here is his definition of Sacred Scripture:

• Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy;
• one book of Joshua the son of Nun;
• one of Judges;
• one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings;
• next, four books of Kings [1], and two of Chronicles – these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground.
• Job,
• Tobias [2],
• Esther,
• Judith [2],
• the two books of Maccabees [2], and
• the two of Ezra [3], which look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles.
• Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and
• three books of Solomon – Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes.
• Two books, one called Wisdom [2] and the other Ecclesiasticus [2]…
• The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi;
• then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel.
• Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John;
• fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul – one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews:
• two of Peter;
• three of John;
• one of Jude; and
• one of James;
• one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and
• one of the Revelation of John.

By Saint Augustine- On Christian Doctrine book2
1- By “four books of Kings” he means 1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings
2- This book is not found in most Protestant Bibles
3- By “two of Ezra” he means Ezra and Nehemiah

(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

For those who like to cite Clement of Alexandria:

 And if those also who follow heresies venture to avail themselves  of the prophetic Scriptures; in the first place they will not make  use of all the Scriptures, and then they will not quote them entire,  nor as the body and texture of prophecy prescribe. But, selecting  ambiguous expressions, they wrest them to their own opinions,  gathering a few expressions here and there; not looking to the  sense, but making use of the mere words. For in almost all the quotations they make, you will find that they attend to the names alone, while they alter the meanings; neither knowing, as they affirm, nor using the quotations they adduce, according to their true nature.

But the truth is not found by changing the meanings (for so people subvert all true teaching), but in the consideration of what perfectly belongs to and becomes the Sovereign God, and in establishing each one of the points demonstrated in the Scriptures again from similar Scriptures. Neither, then, do they want to turn to the truth, being ashamed to abandon the claims of self-love; nor are they able to manage their opinions, by doing violence to the Scriptures. But having first promulgated false dogmas to men; plainly fighting against almost the whole Scriptures, and constantly confuted by us who contradict them; for the rest, even now partly they hold out against admitting the prophetic Scriptures, and partly disparage us as of a different nature, and incapable of understanding what is peculiar to them. And sometimes even they deny their own dogmas, when these are confuted, being ashamed openly to own what in private they glory in teaching. For this may be seen in all the heresies, when you examine the iniquities of their dogmas. For when they are overturned by our clearly showing that they are opposed to the Scriptures, one of two things may be seen to have been done by those who defend the dogma. For they either despise the consistency of their own dogmas, or despise the prophecy itself, or rather their own hope. And they invariably prefer what seems to them to be more evident to what has been spoken by the Lord through the prophets and by the Gospel, and, besides, attested and confirmed by the apostles.
-Clement of A., Stromata, Book VII Ch16

I like this one alot, I found it when I was reading Clement IN CONTEXT of some bogus SS claims.

 

[Lillith]

Sola Scriptura

Ambrose
“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” - Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)

Everything Catholic’s teach is scriptural.

“So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea]
declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint.” - Ambrose (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119)

Notice the word Fathers…sounds Catholic to me

Ric:

B]Augustine

“In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind…In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself.” - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

Again…Catholic to me

I could go on and on…and I don’t see how you can’t see what I see

 

[Darrel]

dennisknapp:

Greetings,

This is a call to all Protestants out there.

If you can show me sola scriptura (bible alone), sola fide (faith alone), purely symbolic baptism and communion in the early Church, I will revert back to Protestantism.

For the sake of time let’s make the period between 100 and 300 AD. This is just after the Apostles (John died in 100) and before Constantine and the Edict of Milan.

This is no joke. If I am shown that the early Church actually believed these things and it was the Catholic Church which erred, I will change.

I became a Catholic because I could not find these beliefs, but I could have missed something.

Peace

I was protestant my entire life and slammed this “so called real presence” into the ground. That is until Jesus showed me himself that he is in the Eucharist. You don’t need history, just go to him today. I wouldn’t toss the wedding banquet for the McDonalds drive through. Speaking of which, mine is in two weeks. She is all Catholic and it’s RCIA after that. Don’t leave the church and try to pray about this temptation to leave what Christ handed down to Peter. The word is Gods and so are his Church and his new and everlasting ‘literal’ covenant.

-D