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

  • Thread starter Thread starter dennisknapp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
On properly defining Sola Scriptura, I can agree that Sola Scriptura is taught through all the Fathers if you define it as Keith Mathison does in his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura. To wit, Mathison says:

We have no evidence demonstrating that the Church considered the Apostles teaching to be entirely confined to written documents (page 21). The concept of tradition in the Fathers designated the body of doctrine committed to the Church by the Lord or His Apostles whether oral or written (21). The Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the Church within the regula fidei (rule of faith). Taken out of this context, it would inevitably be mishandled (this point is constantly repeated and emphasized: page 48, also 81, 85, 120, 140, 147, 150, 151, 167, 267).

On the nature of the Church, Mathison says: The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), established by Christ, given by Him the authority to “bind and loose” that is not given to every member of the Church as individuals (Matt 16:19; 18:18). The Church is Christ’s body and bride, “the instrument through which God makes the truth of His Word known” (Eph 3:10). And outside the Church there is no salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) refers to the VISIBLE Church according to Mathison (268). The Church is “our mother,” “the pillar and ground, the interpreter, teacher, and proclaimer of God’s Word…the Christian who rejects the authority of the Church rejects the authority of the One who sent her” (Luke 10:16).

And “it is to the Church as a visible body that we must turn to find the true interpretation and preaching of the good news of Christ. It is therefore to the Church that we must turn for the true interpretation of the Scripture, for it is in the Scripture that the gospel is found” (268-270). There are leaders in the Church “to whom we owe obedience and submission (Heb 13:17)” (272).

Mathison cites Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, and Augustine as probable adherents of “Tradition 2” = two-source concept of tradition. St. John Chrysostom clearly makes “the specific distinction between what is written and what is unwritten…” (39) St. Augustine “clearly asserts the authority of scriptural revelation, he also suggests that there is an authoritative extra-scriptural oral tradition” (e.g. infant baptism) and he “advocated a two-source concept of tradition” (40, 41, 42).

St. Vincent of Lerins rejects the formal sufficiency of Scripture, while accepting its material sufficiency (44) and “argues that Scripture must be interpreted by the Church because heretics have repeatedly promoted their own various false interpretations…” (44) Agreed.

If you combine the material “sufficiency of Scripture” with the authority of the Catholic Church to do the interpretation as the ultimate definer of orthodox doctrine, then I can agree Sola Scriptura is found through all the Fathers.

Otherwise, Shibboleth, EA_man, and Ric (above) got it all wrong. :yawn:

Please read your own Protestant scholars: so far that’s Schaff, Kelly, Pelikan, and Mathison if you are keeping track. 👋

Phil P
 
Cited by Shibboleth, “sola fide” in St. John Chrysostom –

“They said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed; but he, Paul, shows that he who adhered to faith alone is blessed.” - St. John Chrysostom (First Corinthians, Homily 20, PG 61.164)

The mere use of the term “faith alone” is not enough until we find out what Chrysostom understood by “faith” and how he understood “justification” and “righteousness.” Did he have a Protestant (Lutheran or Calvinist) understanding? Definitely not. He clearly has a very Catholic understanding of these (see below).

“For you believe the faith; why then do you add other things, as if faith were not sufficient to justify? You make yourselves captive, and you subject yourself to the law.” - St. John Chrysostom (Epistle to Titus, Homily 3, PG 62.651

Without even checking the context on this one, this appears to be reference to folks who are trying to justify themselves by the law (maybe in reference to the Jews and the law of Moses).

To get more St. John Chrysostom on the table:

Baptismal regeneration, justification, righteousness, and infant baptism –

“They are citizens of the Church who were wandering in error. They have their lot in RIGHTEOUSNESS who were in the confusion of sin. For not only are they free, but HOLY also; not only holy, but RIGHTEOUS too; not only righteous, but SONS also; not only sons, but HEIRS as well; not only heirs, but BROTHERS even of Christ; not only brothers of Christ, but also co-heirs; not only co-heirs, but His very members; not only His members, but a temple too; not a temple only, but likewise the instruments of the SPIRIT. You see how many are the benefits of BAPTISM, and some think its heavenly GRACE consists ONLY in the remission of sins; but we have enumerated TEN honors. For this reason we baptize even INFANTS, though they are not defiled by sin [or do not have sins]: so that there may be given to them HOLINESS, RIGHTEOUSNESS, ADOPTION, INHERITANCE, BROTHERHOOD with Christ, and that they may be His MEMBERS.” (from Baptismal Catecheses 2:4)

On faith and works –

"He that believes in the Son has everlasting life [John 3:36]… “Is it ENOUGH, then, to BELIEVE in the Son,” someone will say, “in order to have everlasting life?” BY NO MEANS! Listen to Christ declare this Himself when He says, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” [Matt 7:21]; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a PART of our teaching? For if a man BELIEVE rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not LIVE RIGHTLY, his faith will avail him NOTHING TOWARD SALVATION. (Homilies on John 31:1)

On free will and salvation –

“If salvation is BY GRACE [Rom 11:6],” someone will say, “why is it we are not all saved?” BECAUSE YOU DID NOT WILL IT; for grace, even though it be grace, saves the WILLING, not those who are NOT willing and who TURN AWAY from it and who constantly fight against it and OPPOSE themselves to it. (Homilies on Romans 18:5)

On baptism, adoption, sanctification, justification –

We have been freed from punishment, we have put off all wickedness, and we have been REBORN from above [John 3:3,5], and we have risen again, with the old man buried [Rom 6:3-4], and we have been redeemed, and we have been SANCTIFIED, and we have been given ADOPTION INTO SONSHIP, and we have been JUSTIFIED [cf. 1 Cor 6:11], and we have been made BROTHERS of the Only-begotten, and we have been constituted joint heirs and concorporeal with Him and have been perfected in His flesh, and have been united to Him as a body to its head. All of this Paul calls an “abundance of grace” [Rom 5:17], showing that what we have received is not just a medicine to counteract the wound, but even health and comeliness and honor and glory and dignities going far beyond what were natural to us. (Homilies on Romans 10:2)

continued in next…
 
St. John Chrysostom and how he understands Romans 4 and justifying righteousness –

“To declare His righteousness.” What is declaring of righteousness? Like the declaring of His riches, not only for Him to be rich Himself, but also to make others rich, or of life, not only that He is Himself living, but also that He makes the dead to live; and of His power, not only that He is Himself powerful, but also that He makes the feeble powerful. So also is the declaring of His righteousness not only that He is Himself righteous, but that He doth also make them that are filled with the putrefying sores (katasapentaj) of sin suddenly righteous. (Homily 7 on Romans 3, NPNF1, Volume 11, page 378)

(Romans 4) Verse 4 “For to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” Then is not this last the greatest? he means. By no means: for it is to the believer that it is reckoned. But it would not have been reckoned, unless there were something that he contributed himself. And so he too hath God for his debtor, and debtor too for no common things, but great and high ones. For to show his high-mindedness and spiritual understanding, he does not say “to him that believeth” merely, but Ver. 5. “To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly.” For reflect how great a thing it is to be persuaded and have full confidence that God is able on a sudden not to free a man who has lived in impiety from punishment only, but even to make him just, and to count him worthy of those immortal honors. (Homily 8 on Romans 4, NPNF1: Volume 11, page 386)

For what he saith is this, “Your salvation is not our work alone, but your own as well; for both we in preaching to you the word endure affliction, and ye in receiving it endure the very same; we to impart to you that which we received, ye to receive what is imparted and not to let it go.” Now what humility can compare with this, seeing that those who fell so far short of him he raiseth to the same dignity of endurance? for he saith, “Which worked in the enduring of the same sufferings;” for not through believing only cometh your salvation, but also through the suffering and enduring the same things with us. (Homily on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, NPNF1: Volume 12, page 277)

For, “think not,” saith he, "because ye have believed, that this is sufficient for your salvation: since if to me neither preaching nor teaching nor bringing over innumerable persons, is enough for salvation unless I exhibit my own conduct also unblameable, much less to you. (Homily 23, NPNF1: Volume 12, page 133)

(Galatians 5) Verse 6 “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love.” What is the meaning of “working through love?” Here he gives them a hard blow, by showing that this error had crept in because the love of Christ had not been rooted within them. For to believe is not all that is required, but also to abide in love. (Commentary on Galatians 5, NPNF1: Volume 13, page 37)

Clear enough? We can assume that “faith alone” in your first quote should be understood in a Catholic sense of faith alone working in love (or “faith informed by charity”), not an external “imputed righteousness” by faith alone which began with Luther (according to Alister McGrath).

Phil P
 
I don’t even have read the whole thread to know that Catholics were laying down the pwnage…!!! 😃 mwahahaha I have studied this myself and the depth of our Catholic faith goes deep too deep for to be refuted! Impossible!
 
40.png
NiceGuyPose:
I don’t even have read the whole thread to know that Catholics were laying down the pwnage…!!! 😃 mwahahaha I have studied this myself and the depth of our Catholic faith goes deep too deep for to be refuted! Impossible!
Click to expand...
Yeah, because faith is about pwnage… :banghead: This SHOULD have been a discussion instead it looks to be a theological pissing match.
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
What is this? I don’t want to download anything unknown.

Peace
Click to expand...
Its a message about catholic teaching and protestant teaching. You’ll be surprised at what the bible has to say.
 
pnois << Its a message about catholic teaching and protestant teaching. You’ll be surprised at what the bible has to say. >>

I listened to a lot of his discussion on Peter and the Papacy.

Nothing that hasn’t been answered a couple thousand times on Catholic Answers Live and a couple million times on this board the past year. Very very boring. :rolleyes:

But if you hear anything from the Calvary Chapel pastor Raul Reis that you think is compelling, please bring it up. Sounds like he’s just quoting right out of James G. McCarthy’s book The Gospel According to Rome. :yawn:

As for “theological p*ssing contest” well that’s what you get, you’ll get a lot more Fathers quoted back. :cool: And in context.

So honestly, have ANY of you guys who have quoted the Fathers above in supposed support of sola scriptura, sola fide, etc ever read what prominent Protestant historians have to say?

Please read JND Kelly, Pelikan, Schaff on these topics, I’ve given some of the references above. And McGrath’s book on Justification is available at your local public or university library. A two volume work discussing the history of Justification. I quoted from the end of volume 1.

Phil P
 
40.png
Shlemele:
Yeah, because faith is about pwnage… :banghead: This SHOULD have been a discussion instead it looks to be a theological pissing match.
Click to expand...
This is just a lively debate, no p***ing matches.

You should not judge the whole thread by the reply of one poster.

What do you think of what’s been brought forth?

I find it very interesting.

Peace
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
True. It would be helpful to know that the early Fathers as well taught that one must abide to the Tradition handed down by the Apostles to them–remember Apostolic Succession and all? So it is not merely the Scripture alone that they taught. The context should be taken here. Citations where the early Church Fathers pleaded to Tradition:

*Polycrates, Letter to Victor of Rome 5:24:1. J190a
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:10:2, 2:9:1. J192,198,209
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2, J210-213,226,242,257
Irenaeus, Letter to Florinus 5:20:4. J264
Tertullian, Demurrer Against Heretics 19:3. J291-296,298
Tertullian, The Veiling of Virgins 2:1. J328a,329
Tertullian, Against Marcion 4:5:1+. J341,371
Hippolytus, Against Heresy of Noetus 17. J394
Origen, Fundamental Doctrines 1:preface:2,4. J443,445,785
Athanasius, Letters to Serapion 1:28. J782
Foebad of Agen, Against Arians 22. J898
Basil The Great, Transcript of Faith 125:3. J917
Basil The Great, The Holy Spirit 27:66. J954
Basil The Great, Faith 1. J972
Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius J1043
Epiphanius, Against All Heresies 61:6,73:34. J1098,1107
Chrysostom, On Romans 1:3. J1181
Chrysostom, On Second Thessalonians 4:2. J1213
Jerome, Dialogue between Luciferian & Christian 8. J1358
Augustine, Letter to Januarius 54:1:1,3. J1419,1419a
Augustine, Against Letter of Mani 5:6. J1581
Augustine, Baptism 2:7:12, 4:24:31. J1623,1631
Augustin, Literal Interpretation Genesis 10:23:39. J1705
Augustin, City of GOD 16:2:1. J1765
Augustin, Against Julian 1:7:30, 2:10:33. J1898-1900
Innocent I, Letter to Council of Carthage 29:1. J2015f
Theodoret of Cyr, Letter to Florentius 89. J2142
Vincent of Lerins, The Notebooks 2:1, 9:14. J2168,2169,
Vincent of Lerins, The Notebooks 20:25, 22:27. J2172-2175
Gregory I, Homilies on Ezechiel 2:4:12. J2329
Damascene, Homilies 10:18. J2390
Hhmm…now that’s a lot…
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Please read your own Protestant scholars: so far that’s Schaff, Kelly, Pelikan, and Mathison if you are keeping track. 👋

Phil P
Click to expand...
Uh… if you’re truly keeping track, Jaroslav Pelikan isn’t Protestant, he’s Orthodox.

O+
 
40.png
Ric:
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:
Click to expand...
Ric:

You’re reading into these quotes. You are not understanding the context within which these quotes were written. It’s important to read the whole text from the Fathers.

There are other places (seen in posts above) where the Fathers refer to the Church’s authority the same way they refer to the Scriptures. You can’t choose one and hide the other!!! You have to understand the complimentarity between the two. Because a Church Father elevates the Scriptures in one quote and then does the same thing with the Church authority in another quote, does that mean he is contradicting himself? No, of course not. However, you are picking and choosing what you want the Church Father to mean by showing those quotes that only elevate Scripture, without considering the context. You are creating your own context, so the quote means what you want it to mean. You’re not even scratching the surface. :eek:

Jorge.
 
O.S. Luke:
Uh… if you’re truly keeping track, Jaroslav Pelikan isn’t Protestant, he’s Orthodox.

O+
Click to expand...
Yes, he’s Orthodox. He used to be Lutheran, though.

Jorge.
 
xxpnoisnxx said:
nstream.trinetsolutions.com/real/ccgs/realmedia/2005/radio/jun/r-062805.rm
Click to expand...

OH NO! IT’S A SERMON FROM CALVARY CHAPEL! And go figure-- the guy preaching is a former Catholic. He claims that once he started reading the Bible for himself, he saw how wrong the Catholic Church was. He urges everyone to not believe anything anyone says, but to investigate it for themselves [that is, unless you hear it from Calvary Chapel-- then it’s true]

Haha, I’m sorry but I couldn’t stop laughing for the first 5 minutes of that sermon. He kept saying things like “the Catholic Church teaches salvation through the sacraments, not Jesus.” Come on! That doesnt even deserve a response!

Please, people, the Catechism is available for anyone to purchase. It’s about $14, not too expensive-- heck, that’s for the hard cover. Maybe you can find a paper back for less.

Peace in Christ
 
40.png
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
Click to expand...
Dennis,

Why do you care what the Early Church believed. Don’t you care more about what Christ taught or what the Apostles believed and taught?

You should go back before the Early Church was formed and see what THEY did. That is the SOURCE or CHRISTianity. What did Jesus do?

Wherever that lines up is where we should be.
 
40.png
ruzz:
Dennis,

Why do you care what the Early Church believed. Don’t you care more about what Christ taught or what the Apostles believed and taught?

You should go back before the Early Church was formed and see what THEY did. That is the SOURCE or CHRISTianity. What did Jesus do?

Wherever that lines up is where we should be.
Click to expand...
That’s the whole point, ruzz. The early Church Fathers received the written **and **oral teachings directly from the Apostles who received it from Christ. So if we want to see what the early Church taught, this is a valid place to be.

Peace,
Mickey
 
40.png
Mickey:
That’s the whole point, ruzz. The early Church Fathers received the written **and **oral teachings directly from the Apostles who received it from Christ. So if we want to see what the early Church taught, this is a valid place to be.

Peace,
Mickey
Click to expand...
I know. But Dennis was looking at 100AD-300AD which is generations away from Christ.

So, the question then is whether the oral teachings were corrupt or accurate to what Christ and the Apostles taught. So, you need to look at before 100AD for that.

I’m searching for information about THIS time period. I want to know how the early churches worshipped like at Corinth etc. I really don’t want to know about Rome 75 years later. That’s not early enough and close enough to Christ for me.

I’m looking for a good historian who can help me with the pre-Roman church and how THEY worshipped. I think this is what Dennis is really wanting to know.
 
we also have to keep in mind for the first few hundred years there was no official 27 book New Testament.
 
40.png
ruzz:
I know. But Dennis was looking at 100AD-300AD which is generations away from Christ.

So, the question then is whether the oral teachings were corrupt or accurate to what Christ and the Apostles taught. So, you need to look at before 100AD for that.

I’m searching for information about THIS time period. I want to know how the early churches worshipped like at Corinth etc. I really don’t want to know about Rome 75 years later. That’s not early enough and close enough to Christ for me.

I’m looking for a good historian who can help me with the pre-Roman church and how THEY worshipped. I think this is what Dennis is really wanting to know.
Click to expand...
Start with Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch. They were disciples of the Apostles. I doubt they got bad info. 😃 Then you can look to the next generation–Fathers such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. And so on… you see this was the deposit of faith…Apostolic succession…it’s not skewed info…the Holy Spirit sees to that. It’s really good stuff…check it out. Ya gotta believe ruzz! 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top