Can anyone provide me with quotes of the ECF's showing that they rejected apostolic tradition?

[joe370]

Non-Catholic friends, the ECF’s ranging from the 2nd century to the 5th century all embraced sacred tradition + sacred scripture. Can anyone provide me with quotes of the ECF’s showing that they rejected apostolic tradition? Thanks

 

[Tietjen]

Non-Catholic friends, the ECF’s ranging from the 2nd century to the 5th century all embraced sacred tradition + sacred scripture. Can anyone provide me with quotes of the ECF’s showing that they rejected apostolic tradition? Thanks

I’m not certain that I understand the question. The Evangelical Free Church (EFC) was a product of the 19th century which found it’s origins from revival moments of that time. There were two primary groups (Swedish and Norwegian-Danish) that combined and settled in MN. If this is the group that you are speaking of, they didn’t exist in the 2nd through the 5th century. If this isn’t the group of which you are speaking, I apologize for wasting your time.

 

[joe370]

Hey Tietjen…I am told by my protestant friends that sola scriptura was the practice of the early church with no deference to tradition, and yet I see people like Iranaeus saying things like:

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

I was just curious if any early church fathers, such as Iranaeus, rejected tradition.

I’m not certain that I understand the question. The Evangelical Free Church (EFC) was a product of the 19th century which found it’s origins from revival moments of that time. There were two primary groups (Swedish and Norwegian-Danish) that combined and settled in MN. If this is the group that you are speaking of, they didn’t exist in the 2nd through the 5th century. If this isn’t the group of which you are speaking, I apologize for wasting your time.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=joe370;7198178]Non-Catholic friends, the ECF’s ranging from the 2nd century to the 5th century all embraced sacred tradition + sacred scripture. Can anyone provide me with quotes of the ECF’s showing that they rejected apostolic tradition? Thanks

]

No one in the New Testament scriptures never denied Sacred Tradition either, as a matter of fact Sacred Apostolic Tradition was taught in the New Testament, and most of the Old Testament was composed from its Sacred Traditions. The apostles themselves speaks thus;

Not everything got written down what Jesus revealed to the Apostles;

John 21: 24 It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, 14 and we know that his testimony is true. 25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

2Thessalonians 2:13 But we ought to give thanks to God for you always, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits 7 for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth. 14 To this end he has (also) called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15** Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. **

2Thess.3:5 May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the endurance of Christ. 6 We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not** according to the tradition they received from us.**

1Timothy 3:14 I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon.
15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

1Corinthians11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2 ** I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. **

John 16:12**"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. 13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.**

 

[joe370]

I totlally agree with you Gabriel. Like I said to Tietjen: I am told by my protestant friends that sola scriptura was the practice of the early church with no deference to tradition, and yet I see people like Iranaeus saying things like:

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

I was just curious if any early church fathers, such as Iranaeus, rejected tradition but evidently they didn’t otherwise a non-Catholic would cite proof that the ECF’s did reject sacred tradition.

Thanks for the feedback.

]

No one in the New Testament scriptures never denied Sacred Tradition either, as a matter of fact Sacred Apostolic Tradition was taught in the New Testament, and most of the Old Testament was composed from its Sacred Traditions. The apostles themselves speaks thus;

Not everything got written down what Jesus revealed to the Apostles;

John 21: 24 It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, 14 and we know that his testimony is true. 25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

2Thessalonians 2:13 But we ought to give thanks to God for you always, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits 7 for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth. 14 To this end he has (also) called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15** Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. **

2Thess.3:5 May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the endurance of Christ. 6 We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not** according to the tradition they received from us.**

1Timothy 3:14 I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon.
15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

1Corinthians11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2 ** I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. **

John 16:12**"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. 13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=joe370;7201918]I totlally agree with you Gabriel. Like I said to Tietjen: I am told by my protestant friends that sola scriptura was the practice of the early church with no deference to tradition,

There was no “sola scriptura” to practice in the early Church because there was no “canonized” bible yet, up until the 5th century. Yet the bible books were put together for the Catholic liturgy after the 400+ year persecution of the Catholic Church was lifted. All the underground Catholic Church had was what was handed down to her from the Apostles through sacred Tradition and written Letters.

The Mass was clearly taught in scripture and practiced as sacred Tradition handed down from the apostles, which confirmed which books (letters) were inspired of God, because these letters from the apostles were circulated and taught from the apostles themselves from the early Catholic church’s, thus authenticating their apostolic authenticity as being inspired of God.

I was just curious if any early church fathers, such as Iranaeus, rejected tradition but evidently they didn’t otherwise a non-Catholic would cite proof that the ECF’s did reject sacred tradition.

Thanks for the feedback.

Your most welcome, I think Marcion a Catholic bishop later confirmed a heretic, who rejected most of the Apostolic Traditional teachings and writings for the exception of Luke which he mutilated and few epistles from Paul. St. Polycarp when Marcion met him on the road, asked Polycarp with a prideful spirit “do you know who Iam”? To which Polycarp, responded from his old age, “Yes, I know who you are”, “You are the first born of satan”.

Other than St. Polycarps aquaintance, I know of no other who rejected Sacred Tradition.

God bless:thumbsup:

 

[Tietjen]

I totlally agree with you Gabriel. Like I said to Tietjen: I am told by my protestant friends that sola scriptura was the practice of the early church with no deference to tradition, and yet I see people like Iranaeus saying things like:

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

I was just curious if any early church fathers, such as Iranaeus, rejected tradition but evidently they didn’t otherwise a non-Catholic would cite proof that the ECF’s did reject sacred tradition.

Thanks for the feedback.

When is it that these Sola Scriptura friends belive the Scriptures (specifically the NT) came into being? Here is a brief history of the Canon:

1. Pope Damasus, between 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.
2. The Council of Rome, in 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.
3. Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.
4. The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Catholic list today.
5. The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to the Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
6. Since the Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books. This DOES NOT mean that prior to this the Church had no canon. It simply means that up until this point the canon had not been in question and now it was being questioned so the Church had to defend the canon.
7. The final infallible definition of canonical books for Catholics came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time. Again, this does not mean that the canon wasn’t already accepted and being used by the Church prior to this point; only that it was now an absolute (infallible).

With that in mind, I’d have to say that no, the early Church most certainly believed in Sacred Tradition as it does today. So, if there was no “Bible” to refer to (at least not a definitive NT) then I suppose that these SS friends must believe that God left the early Church and it’s people on their own without any source of Truth after the deaths of the Apostles?