S
SolaScriptura
Guest
No, your inability to think critically is the piece of work. How many fallacies can one commit in so few sentences.
- Status
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I will use scripture. I am offended you would ask us not too.
Interesting…and not in a good way!
Here are three things I know for sure that Paul said:
- There was a meal and everyone was supposed to start at the same time. Where do you get your liturgy out of that?
- Men were not to pray with their head covered. Who covers their head when they pray now?
- No more than 2 or 3 people should prophecy in an orderly manner.
T
Taliesin
Guest
You’re kidding me! SolaScriptura quite perfectly answers the OP’s question, and this empty meta-argument is how you respond to his slam dunk?
Woops! Seems like those early “Catholics” were pretty good bible thumpers after all.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
No he didn’t. He quote Ireneaus, which he also misspelled, but I read the ful context of the ECF writings and it does not support Scripture Alone.
The Early Christians held Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as the Word of God.
I. Scripture Must be Interpreted in Light of Church Tradition
“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).
"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, “Who are you? When and whence did you come?” Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200).
The Early Christians held Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as the Word of God.
I. Scripture Must be Interpreted in Light of Church Tradition
“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).
"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, “Who are you? When and whence did you come?” Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200).
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I. The Word of God in Oral Apostolic Tradition
‘If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him are undefiled monuments of antiquity…’ Ignatius ofAntioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians 8,2 (c. A.D. 110).
‘Follow the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the presbyterium as the Apostles. As for the deacons, respect them as the Law of God. Let no one do anything with reference to the Church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist may be regarded as legitimate which is celebrated with the bishop or his delegate presiding. Where the bishop is, there let the community be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.’ Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Symyrnaens 8 (c. A.D. 110).
‘The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).
‘Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,5,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).
‘If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him are undefiled monuments of antiquity…’ Ignatius ofAntioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians 8,2 (c. A.D. 110).
‘Follow the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the presbyterium as the Apostles. As for the deacons, respect them as the Law of God. Let no one do anything with reference to the Church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist may be regarded as legitimate which is celebrated with the bishop or his delegate presiding. Where the bishop is, there let the community be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.’ Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Symyrnaens 8 (c. A.D. 110).
‘The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).
‘Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,5,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).
B
BrianH
Guest
S
Subrosa
Guest
Irenaeus and Tradition
A quote from the document “Against Heresies” Book 3, Chap. 1
This states that the truth of preaching of the Apostles came from the “perfect knowledge” that was a gift of the Spirit. THEN they wrote it down. The first sentence makes it clear that the Apostles had no New Testament scriptures at hand to use.
The Church Tradition is this - that the Word of God is of equal parts "Tradition and Scripture. This points out the ancient practice of Oral Tradition, NOT Sola Scriptura.
ARTICLE 2: THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION
God bless -
Subrosa
S
Subrosa
Guest
Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 2)
The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition.
The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition.
- When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but *vivâ voce: *wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” 1 Corinthians 2:6 And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
- But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
- Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.
S
Subrosa
Guest
Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 4)
The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolical doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.
The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolical doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.
- Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
- To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.
- For, prior to Valentinus, those who follow Valentinus had no existence; nor did those from Marcion exist before Marcion; nor, in short, had any of those malignant-minded people, whom I have above enumerated, any being previous to the initiators and inventors of their perversity. For Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus. Cerdon, too, Marcion’s predecessor, himself arrived in the time of Hyginus, who was the ninth bishop. Coming frequently into the Church, and making public confession, he thus remained, one time teaching in secret, and then again making public confession; but at last, having been denounced for corrupt teaching, he was excommunicated from the assembly of the brethren. Marcion, then, succeeding him, flourished under Anicetus, who held the tenth place of the episcopate. But the rest, who are called Gnostics, take rise from Menander, Simon’s disciple, as I have shown; and each one of them appeared to be both the father and the high priest of that doctrine into which he has been initiated. But all these (the Marcosians) broke out into their apostasy much later, even during the intermediate period of the Church.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
You think this helps your position? Everybody knows the Apostles preached. But you will noticed he says what the preached was written down in the Scriptures the pillar and ground of our faith. If what they preached is written down then why do we need what is preached? It is duplicate information.
Yeah, but if the Oral Tradition is equal to Written Tradition we don’t have a problem, do we? You should be able to show where the Bodily Assumption, Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility and other things are taught in Scripture.
J
JesusforMadrid
Guest
This is, I am afraid, a straw man. The Early Church called itself “catholic” (starting with Ignatius) so saying it “is indeed Catholic” is a truism. “Catholic” signified “universal” or better yet “whole”. Does this mean it was similar to the Roman Catholic church of today? No.
There are many other denominations that are both liturgical and more similar to the early church, defined by you as 1-5 centuries, than the Roman Catholic church, not the least of which is the Orthodox church. In what ways? Marian doctrines, eucharist, papal authority and others.
E
exiled
Guest
No, that is not what it means. Catholics usually quote ECF’s to refute the accusations that doctrines were “made up” hundreds of years after the apostolic age, which is a favorite offense of protestants.
On the flip side, nobody disputes that there were various opinions in the early church, as there are now, which only serves to prove that there must be a final arbiter. This is where we find historical records of early Christendom that support the position of what-is-now-called the Catholic Church. As has been said ad nauseum, either infant baptism is necessary or it is not. The True Presence of Christ is in the Eucharist, or not. It goes on and on.
Early Christendom considered these questions, and opinions were abundant. In the course of a discussion some ECF’s put forth their best understanding of the great mysteries of God. Nobody was right in all of their opinions, including popes. But! The Holy Spirit guides that man who succeeds Peter into proper understanding of Truth as the teacher of the universal church.
N
noma
Guest
Only if we make the unfounded assumption that everything in Scripture would be preached, and everything preached would be in Scripture. And that Preaching was the only form of Sacred Tradition outside of Scripture.
Equal does not mean identical. If we accept that Sacred Tradition outside Scripture (whatever this may be) is equal in authority to the Scriptures, then we would expect it to state certain things not included in the Scriptures. Else, God has given two identical authorities, and one or the other is superfluous. Admitting the sources as identical means that, as Sacred Tradition honors Mary as “without sin”, we need no Scripture to support it because we already know, a priori, that Scripture, being identical to Sacred Tradition outside Scripture, must already contain this teaching.Yeah, but if the Oral Tradition is equal to Written Tradition we don’t have a problem, do we? You should be able to show where the Bodily Assumption, Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility and other things are taught in Scripture.
Your argument is merely a logic game. You declare that, should Sacred Tradition be true, it would be identical to Scripture itself is a declaration, a priori, of Sola Scriptura. It is an argument that manifestly concludes its premises.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
To some degree I agree that both sides look for texts to support their positions.
However, let’s keep the course of Church history in context. The Church has listened carefully to the voices of all her sons and daughters over the past two millenia. Some, like Arius or Pelagius, she has ultimately rejected. Others, like Origen, she agrees with on some matters and disagrees on others. This is why Origen has not been canonized. Finally, there are those whose writings have influenced the Church significantly. This would include Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas and others.
The Church does not require everyone to be in perfect lock step, and if one ECF wrote a passage that appears to contradict the Church’s position, then it simply reflects either an incomplete picture of that Father’s actual position (which requires more study and context than is often done or provided by the “proof-texter”) or the fact that the Church did not ultimately choose the position that Father advocated. They weren’t infallible, and it is unreasonable for to expect them to get perfect score on their theology exams!
What I am confident of is that the ECF’s would submit to the Church today after reading the Catechism and learning of the development of the doctrines that were in infancy during their own day.
Needless to say, the Catholic Church heard the Fathers “live”, and she is not terribly worried that non-Catholics will discover some ancient scroll or epistle that undermines everything she stands for. Listening to Protestants cherry-pick quotes that appear to contradict the Church is annoying to us newbie apologists but ultimately, it is an exercise in futility for the non-Catholic because the Fathers were nothing if not Catholic.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And that same “Catholic” Church still exists today.
Either you are part of the one Church that is headed by the successor of Peter or you aren’t. It’s really that simple.
T
Taliesin
Guest
They had no New Testament because they were writing it down. And then, according to Irenaeus, the newly written down Scriptures became the ground and pillar of our faith. Where’s Tradition in this equation? Even if you say that the “perfect knowledge” was that Tradition, who says that process should continue? Once it’s written down, it becomes hard as stone, so it can be the ground and pillar.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Uh huh. Are you just trolling now, Sola? You know better than to make a statement that directly conflicts with the Word of God.
“if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15)
So now, in addition to declaring:
- the doctrine of sola scriptura to be infallible
- the doctrine of sola scriptura is not taught in the Bible
- the Bible is the pillar and foundation in direct contradiction to Scripture.
Really? Tell me:
Should we baptize infants or not? What did Paul say?
Why should you accept our “fallible” attempts to prove something you reject in advance?
I mean, we could show you what an infallible Church teaches, but you wouldn’t accept it anyway.
Just like you won’t engage in a discussion on Apostolic Succession. Some truths you just don’t want to hear.
T
Taliesin
Guest
This one’s all about the necessity to be true to Scripture, so I’m not sure why you quoted it.
This one is refuting Gnostic heretics. “That tradition which originates from the apostles” is easy enough to check: read the Bible. Sure, Irenaeus is putting the presbyters and their succession up on a high pedestal (and I think he gives tradition too high an importance), but obviously he’s putting the Apostles origination higher. Thus, by implication Scripture (which came from the Apostles) is higher than Tradition (which is mediated by the succession of the presbyters). The gnostics say they’re better than the apostles, not just better than the presbyters whose job it is to preserve the truth. Protestantism wants to go back to the Apostles–it doesn’t call itself better than the apostles. And you can check the Protestant message against the Bible.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And the instruction to follow the “Bible Alone” is found where? Which verse is that?
Surely, the Apostles must have foreseen that they would all be dead soon and instructed their disciples and the early Church to ignore everything that they had ever heard them to say in person and to follow only what was written. “Okay, Timothy, I’ll be dead soon. When I’m gone, I want you to forget everything you’ve ever heard me say, and focus exclusively on these two brief letters that I have sent to you.”
That’s a pretty big paradigm shift and I find it hard to believe that the Apostles forgot to warn us it was about to take place…it must be in the Bible somewhere.
Thoughts?
N
noma
Guest
“Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you or from you? You are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by all, shown to be a letter of Christ administered by us, written not in ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets that are hearts of flesh.” - II Corinthians 3:1-3
The question for this particular thread is not whether the Bible alone is enough, but whether there is any historical evidence that the early Christians believed that the Bible alone is enough.
- Status