M
mrs_abbott
Guest
This is interesting. Unfortunately, I can’t pull up the link to read more.
- Status
R
runandsew
Guest
You forgot one.
- Sola scriptura is not scriptual.
Actually you are right, I should have included the “what sola scriptura is not” list.
But even with that list, I don’t see the Fathers teaching sola scriptura.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
I’ve probably saved about 30 to 40 quotes by the ECF’s that lean very strongly on always double checking that what is being taught or said coincides with scripture. (that is what we do) Tradition isn’t bad if it doesn’t contradict scripture… Back to the thread now!
And you are wrong confirming with scripture is scriptural.
K
kaycee
Guest
YUP! The ECF’s talk much about Apostolic Tradition and fortunately when they describe the contents it is always Doctrine that can be clearly seen in Scripture!
They do talk about little t tradition, facing the East. Dunking 3 times, candles, but never about basic doctine not found in Scripture.
B
Bishopite
Guest
You keep using the word “Church”…which “Church?”
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
The body & The bride of Christ.
Off thread, start a new one if you wish to learn more.
Nevermind I will. Join me.
B
Bishopite
Guest
Your links and articles are incorrect on the canon issue. For instance it says that canon of Scripture was determined not by some church but whether the books were shown to be written or attributed to an Apostle. However, WHO determined whether the book was written by an Apostle? Does Scripture tell us who wrote the gospels? We don’t even know who wrote the book of Hebrews, how do we know it was written from by an Apostle? We know from the Catholic Church.
This is what part of the article says…
“The Anglican historian J.N.D. Kelly explains in Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978) that “the criterion which ultimately came to prevail was apostolicity. Unless a book could be shown to come from the pen of an apostle, or at least to have the authority of an apostle behind it, it was peremptorily rejected, however edifying or popular with the faithful it might be.” (p. 60) The criterion of the early post-apostolic Christians was whether a book was apostolic (Acts 1:8, 1 Corinthians 12:28, 2 Peter 3:2), not whether a hierarchy in Rome approved of the book. To the contrary, Eusebius tells us in his church history (3:3) that most churches accepted the canonicity of Hebrews even while the Roman church was not accepting it. And individuals and churches accepted and rejected other books that were not accepted and rejected by the Roman church. The early church’s approach toward the canon contradicts the Roman Catholic approach.”
members.aol.com/jasonte2/canon.htm
Again this view is flawed because how do Protestants know which books were written by Apostles? What criteria do they use to tell them?
Eusebius? The historian Eusebius who gives us the succession of Popes?
B
Bishopite
Guest
Learn more of what?
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
You said what “church”
I’ll explain it is" the body and bride of Christ."
anywhere there are 2 believers.
That church!
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Kaycee, Join in on the church thread.YUP! The ECF’s talk much about Apostolic Tradition and fortunately when they describe the contents it is always Doctrine that can be clearly seen in Scripture!
They do talk about little t tradition, facing the East. Dunking 3 times, candles, but never about basic doctine not found in Scripture.
P
palmas85
Guest
First we need to know how far back you want to go and who you consider to be the Church Fathers. As you know prior to the canon of the Bible as we know it being finalized there were literally hundreds of different gospels, epistles, letters and revelations floating around. Most churches had their own versions and quite a few had totally different versions of the same original documents. There was absolutely no way that sola scriptura could have even been considered until the 4th century or so. The scriptures would have been different virtually everywhere you went. There would be virtually no agreement on anything.
That to me is one of the biggest problems with most who adhere to the sola scriptura idea. They apparently don’t know how or when the the Bible was created and don’t realize that it was not always what we have today.
R
runandsew
Guest
I think you might be a little confused on what tradition is.YUP! The ECF’s talk much about Apostolic Tradition and fortunately when they describe the contents it is always Doctrine that can be clearly seen in Scripture!
They do talk about little t tradition, facing the East. Dunking 3 times, candles, but never about basic doctine not found in Scripture.
The teaching of tradition and the magisterium is the infallible interpretation of infallible sacred scripture, it is not another scripture, or different from scripture.
It is not inspired (God Breathed) like the bible is, but it is guarded from error by the Holy spirit.
What good is an infallible bible if you don’t have an infallible interpretation. Well history shows us that it can lead to thousands of denominations each interpreting scripture a little different, and each claiming to teach what the bible says.
The Church teaches now just like what is described in Acts Chapter 15 at the council of Jerusalem.
So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth:
‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’" And so they were sent on their journey. Upon their arrival in Antioch they called the assembly together and delivered the letter. When the people read it, they were delighted with the exhortation.
The Church had the authority to teach infallably by the power Holy Spirit then, and as it did in the early church councils, and as it still does today.
And you say that the things are easily found in scripture, I don’t think that the trinity was that easily found, or Arianism wouldn’t have taken hold of the Church, and Jehovah’s Witnesses wouldn’t believe what they do, and the Bible doesn’t have an index of inspired books, and it doesn’t tell us to worship on Sunday. If it is so easily found in scripture, then why don’t Protestants agree on Baptism, or if one is saved he is always saved, why do oneness pentecostals only baptize in the name of Jesus? Why, because they fallibly interpret infallable scripture. Jesus promised to lead the church in all truth, and as far as I can reckon, truth doesn’t condradict itself.
- Status