Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura

[Randy_Carson]

Readers,

While I believe there may be some legitimacy to honor the authority of oral tradition i.e., in the sense of scriptural teaching, I do not find either in Scriptures or the Early Church Fathers that this supersedes the authority of the Scriptures.

Did Jesus or any of the Apostles practice sola scriptura?

Where was authority to be found in the early Church during the period of time between Jesus’ Ascension and the writing of the first inspired book of the NT?

Thank you.

 

[JM3]

My argument is this: any teaching the Church produces ought to be adequately found in the scriptures and the Scriptures are the sole source we look to for authority (i.e., for a basis of our teaching).

Parker

from those traditions which have been carefully investigated by such as are able intelligently to understand the Gospels, and the declarations of the apostles.

The early Church Fathers seem to disagree with you.

P.S. - My name is not James.

 

[JRKH]

I don’t think they’re equals, although I think they’re complimentary. Again, Sacred Tradition would have to have the same equality as the word of God because it contains “God’s words” in them.

The accepted canon of Sacred Scripture comes from Sacred Tradition. As others are already poining out you will find reference to both Scripture AND tradition in the ECFs

**My argument is this: any teaching the Church produces ought to be adequately found in the scriptures and the Scriptures are the sole source we look to for authority (i.e., for a basis of our teaching). **

Parker

Oh - I must have misunderstood…
After all, you stated in your OP:
While I believe there may be some legitimacy to honor the authority of oral tradition i.e., in the sense of scriptural teaching, I do not find either in Scriptures or the Early Church Fathers that this supersedes the authority of the Scriptures.
My explanation was that Sacred Tradition does NOT supercede Scripture but rather that they are co-equals…One depending upon the other.

My entire intent was to clear up the misunderstanding that we somehow see Tradition as trumping Scripture…

But - To address what you say above, that, "any teaching the Church produces ought to be adequately found in the scriptures…"the sticking point might very well be what constitutes “adequate”.
This Website contains many Scriptural references to justify and or support Catholic teaching. These Scriptural references, along with Sacred Tradition, are seen in The Church as sufficient.
However, I am sure that you will look at the various scriptural texts and references and say they are not adequate. So be it…We have a difference of opinion…How do we determine who is right?

(back to authority again)

Peace
James

 

[haparker321]

P.S. - My name is not James.

Sorry,

I’m confusing you with JRKH.

Whoops!

Parker

P.S.
You might want to prove your claims instead of dismissing mine.

 

[elvisman]

Readers,

While I believe there may be some legitimacy to honor the authority of oral tradition i.e., in the sense of scriptural teaching, I do not find either in Scriptures or the Early Church Fathers that this supersedes the authority of the Scriptures. As I continue to read these doctrines put forth by the fathers, I am going to share a couple of interesting quotes suggest even they submitted to the authority of the scriptures, and not the church. In other words, whatever teaching the church proclaims her beliefs must be derived from the Scriptures.

Although I do think many will disagree on these key issues, I am hoping there will be some counter evidences presented to support the negative (i.e., the ECF’s never adhered to the authority of the Scripture or believed Scriptures were insufficient like the proponents of Sola Scriptura believe). Again, if this is not what the ECF’s assert, then provide some alternative.

Parker

WEAK.

**You’re working on the false presupposition that the Church disregards the Scriptures an nopn-authoritative. They are indeed authoritative because they were written down by the Supreme authority on earth - and guided by the Holy Spirit to do so.

The Early Church Fathers recognized this:
**Tertullian
***For wherever both the true Christian rule and faith shall be shown to be, there will be the true Scriptures, and the true expositions, of all the true Christian traditions (*The Prescription of Heretics ****19 A.D. 200]).

Athanasius
***Without prefixing Consulate, month, and day, [the Fathers] wrote concerning Easter, “It seemed good as follows,” for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, “It seemed good” but, “Thus believes the Catholic Church”; and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to show that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolic; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles (*Letter on the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia ****A.D. 359]).

Jerome
***Don’t you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are do to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law (*The Dialogue Against the Luciferians ****8 A.D. 382]).

Augustine
“You see, there have already been two councils about this matter, and their decisions sent to the Apostolic [Roman] See; from there rescripts have been sent back here. The case is finished; if only the error were finished too, sometime! So, let us all warn them to take notice of this, teach them to learn the lesson of it, pray for them to change their ideas."
“For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manicheus, how can I but consent?"
**
**(Edited)
**

 

[JM3]

This is a non-sequitor.

No, this is a guide to spirituality. If the Truth is not in you, you will not find it outside of you.

 

[JM3]

You might want to prove your claims instead of dismissing mine.

You asked about the Church Fathers and I gave you quotes of the Church Fathers. If you choose to misread them, how is that my fault?

 

[PatrickSebast]

You would need to tie what I cited to those beliefs. So far, the only person that defended that doctrine was Jerome.

On what ground are you saying I should?

The early church fathers never claimed to have infallibility on any of these doctrines and to use their writings is fair game. Just because Jerome defends Marian perpetual virginity does not mean he can be infallibly correct.

Parker

It is true that the Church fathers did not claim infallibility, but they clearly did follow sacred tradition. That is what the Church considers important. They were not attempting to discredit tradition in their writings, simply extolling scripture, in the greater context of their beliefs and their writings your argument that they somehow supported Sola Scripture falls apart.

The Church believes in Sacred Tradition because it always believed in sacred tradition, and these particular Church fathers all clearly believed in things outside of scripture. You can argue for Sola Scripture if you want, but the Church fathers are clearly not the place to go and the only reason you are even appealing to them is because they are considered important to the Catholic faith. You are more than willing to discard anything they say that you don’t agree with.

 

[haparker321]

(Edited)

You’re working on the false presupposition that the Church disregards the Scriptures an non-authoritative.

I’m not assuming that and if I was coming across that way in the OP, I apologize. The point of the matter here is that tradition is not an equal of scripture. Neither the Bible or the ECF’s ever claimed the “traditions” (i.e. oral ones) are the same as the Word of God. However, they do imply that there’s a derivation of these teachings and they are from the Scriptures. In this case, the Church has not proved that oral and sacred tradition are one and the same.
Parker

 

[ANNE_2]

You would need to tie what I cited to those beliefs. So far, the only person that defended that doctrine was Jerome.

On what ground are you saying I should?

The early church fathers never claimed to have infallibility on any of these doctrines and to use their writings is fair game. Just because Jerome defends Marian perpetual virginity does not mean he can be infallibly correct.

Parker

Parker they were there. The early Church fathers where Jesus and the Apostles. Please see my previous post.

In addition there is nothing in the Bible that states Mary was not a perpetual virgin.
“Brothers, Sisters, and Brethran” in the New Testament would be used as Jesus wanted it used. And that is not as siblings.
Quotes directly from Jesus -
Mt 5:22
Mt 7:3-4
Mt 12:49-50
Mt 23:8
Mk 3:35
Lk 8:21

“Brothers, Sisters, Brethran” as used by Bible authors (inspired by God) -
Acts 2:14 Acts 2:29
St. Paul 1 Cor 5:11 Eph 6:23 Phil 3:17 1Thess 2:9 Heb 13:22-23
James Jas 1:2 Jas 1:19 Jas 4:11
Peter 3:15
This list is not all inclusive because there are more.

You are using a Catholic Church book (the Bible), and as a Protestant your Bible was edited by Luther in the 1500’s and then by others.
Martin Luther, Henry the 8th, Calvin and others did not write the inspired word of God.

 

[haparker321]

**PS - I do not expect you to answer my post as you have run away from them on other threads.

I don’t tend to respond to vicious members; it’s not in my nature to do so.

Parker

 

[haparker321]

No, this is a guide to spirituality. If the Truth is not in you, you will not find it outside of you.

I don’t think the truth is a subjective feeling unless you’re arguing about the dwelling of the HS inside believers. If that’s what you’re referring to, he usually points to his word. In this case, he hasn’t led me in that direction.

Parker

 

[JRKH]

Wow, quite vicious.

I’m not assuming that and if I was coming across that way in the OP, I apologize. The point of the matter here is that tradition is not an equal of scripture. Neither the Bible or the ECF’s ever claimed the “traditions” (i.e. oral ones) are the same as the Word of God. However, they do imply that there’s a derivation of these teachings and they are from the Scriptures. In this case, the Church has not proved that oral and sacred tradition are one and the same.
Parker

On the bolded point - I have one question…WHY? Why is Sacred Tradition, the traditions handed down from the earliest times in the Church guarded by the Holy Spirit, NOT equal to Scripture?

Peace
James

 

[PJM]

=haparker321;7806639]Readers,

While I believe there may be some legitimacy to honor the authority of oral tradition i.e., in the sense of scriptural teaching, I do not find either in Scriptures or the Early Church Fathers that this supersedes the authority of the Scriptures. As I continue to read these doctrines put forth by the fathers, I am going to share a couple of interesting quotes suggest even they submitted to the authority of the scriptures, and not the church. In other words, whatever teaching the church proclaims her beliefs must be derived from the Scriptures.

First may I suggest it’s not a “either or”; rather a complementary use of BOTH.

BUT Tradition supercedes Scripture in Time of useage. The Bible was not even completely written until the end of the First Century. This means that the Early Church; very much like the Forefathers of Catholism; in the OT had to from a practical stand-point, rely on Traditions and Word of Mouth to pass on the “GOOD NEWS.”

The Bible was Not collected and compliled and Codified until the Forth Century. So Tradition, Word of Mouth had, and still have a signifiant ROLE to play in the current times.

In the early 19th. Century a wise and influencail Jesuit Priest said when asked about understanding Scripture correctly: “when in doubt always refer to Sacred Tradition.”

Although I do think many will disagree on these key issues, I am hoping there will be some counter evidences presented to support the negative (i.e., the ECF’s never adhered to the authority of the Scripture or believed Scriptures were insufficient like the proponents of Sola Scriptura believe). Again, if this is not what the ECF’s assert, then provide some alternative.

Parker

**For the moment let’s assume that as you claim Sola Scriptura is correct…with only ONE stipulation. …That being the fact that the ENTIRE Bible is included; AND that no one part of the Bible can contradict another… **Fair enough

**John 20: 29-31 **"Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. "

John 21: 24-25 "This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

**2Tim.3:16 to 17 **" All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"

** 2nd. Peter 1: 16-21 ** “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. **First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” **

So friend; which is thee TRUTH

God Bless you.

 

[haparker321]

It is true that the Church fathers did not claim infallibility, but they clearly did follow sacred tradition.

In what sense are you defining ‘sacred tradition’? Do you mean the teachings of God? In that case, they would contained in the Scriptures. However, the problem here is that no one on this thread has proven that oral and sacred tradition are one and the same.

Translation: If Sacred Tradition is taught by the church, they would be derived from only one source: the Scriptures. If Sacred tradition has an oral aspect to it, whatever is spoken orally will be adequately found in the Scriptures. The church has yet to prove that whatever is spoken orally and not found/derived from Scriptures count as an additional source as both Sacred tradition and the word of God from Scripture and the ECF.

They were not attempting to discredit tradition in their writings, simply extolling scripture, in the greater context of their beliefs and their writings your argument that they somehow supported Sola Scripture falls apart.

They looked to the Scriptures as the sole basis and justifications for their beliefs which is what Sola Scriptura said all along.

Parker

 

[haparker321]

On the bolded point - I have one question…WHY? Why is Sacred Tradition, the traditions handed down from the earliest times in the Church guarded by the Holy Spirit, NOT equal to Scripture?

Because we’re arguing for different definitions here.

Sacred tradition = Word of God
Oral tradition = teachings that are derived from word of God.

Like I said in the previous post, the church needs to prove that these two definitions are one and the same i.e., the oral aspect of sacred tradition (the ones which are not adequately derived from scripture) count as much of the word of God and sacred tradition.

Parker

 

[Kirk_O]

I don’t think the truth is a subjective feeling unless you’re arguing about the dwelling of the HS inside believers. If that’s what you’re referring to, he usually points to his word. In this case, he hasn’t led me in that direction.

Parker

Do you think the Holy Spirit would lead two believers into different interpretations of the Bible? That is the problem with Bible alone thinking. So many people are being lead one way and another, they think they are being lead by the Holy Spirit but are not. The Church was given the task of upholding Sacred Scripture and Tradition, not every believer in Christ.

 

[JM3]

Because we’re arguing for different definitions here.

Sacred tradition = Word of God
Oral tradition = teachings that are derived from word of God.

Like I said in the previous post, the church needs to prove that these two definitions are one and the same i.e., the oral aspect of sacred tradition (the ones which are not adequately derived from scripture) count as much of the word of God and sacred tradition.

Parker

This is your error.

Is Sacred Tradition only the Word of God? What of the word of Jesus? Jesus was with the Apostles for 40 days after His resurrection. What did He tell them? What did He teach them? How did Jesus ‘set up’ His Church? Or did Jesus just hang around and eat a little fish?

The Church cannot change the errors in your reasoning. You must do that, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[JRKH]

Because we’re arguing for different definitions here.

Sacred tradition = Word of God
Oral tradition = teachings that are derived from word of God.

Like I said in the previous post, the church needs to prove that these two definitions are one and the same i.e., the oral aspect of sacred tradition (the ones which are not adequately derived from scripture) count as much of the word of God and sacred tradition.

Parker

I always become suspicious in these discussions when we are asked to “Prove” something, since “proof” can be a very subjective thing. Evidence that satisfies me may not satisfy you. So the same evidence or argument that is “proof” to me may be dismissed by you…That is why - in our court system we have a judge/jury…A third party to determine what constitues the correct understanding of the evidence and what it proves…likewise Scripture calls out for a third party when there is dispute among the faithful…“Tell it To The Church”…

However…In an attempt to clarify what we mean by Tradition, I will again reference the Catechism.
76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

• orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33
• in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.34

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”

Peace
James

 

[PatrickSebast]

In what sense are you defining ‘sacred tradition’? Do you mean the teachings of God? In that case, they would contained in the Scriptures. However, the problem here is that no one on this thread has proven that oral and sacred tradition are one and the same.

Translation: If Sacred Tradition is taught by the church, they would be derived from only one source: the Scriptures. If Sacred tradition has an oral aspect to it, whatever is spoken orally will be adequately found in the Scriptures. The church has yet to prove that whatever is spoken orally and not found/derived from Scriptures count as an additional source as both Sacred tradition and the word of God from Scripture and the ECF.

What would you consider acceptable proof? The Church fathers believed in things outside of scripture, in fact the ones you are quoting mostly subsisted on tradition because they hadn’t experienced an established cannon of New Testament scripture. The writings of the apostles weren’t even clearly defined as scripture at that point. No one is trying to prove that Scripture and Tradition are one in the same because that isn’t what the Church teaches, they are two separate sources that are complimentary.

I could just as easily ask you to prove that Sacred Scripture should count as a viable and reliable source. In fact people do it all the time, and answer of belief always comes down to a very simply matter. Faith.

Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition as an authority because thats how things were from the start and the Church never saw a reason to change it or later limit things to only scripture. It is part of the faith.

For what reasons are you suggesting that the Church suddenly change its beliefs? At what year should they have closed off the ability of the faithful to produce new teachings? At what point do the teachings of the Church Fathers become invalid?

They looked to the Scriptures as the sole basis and justifications for their beliefs which is what Sola Scriptura said all along.

Parker

How do you explain their belief in the Immaculate Assumption then? Clearly they got that from somewhere. Obviously it wasn’t scripture. You are stretching their writings to mean something that was never intended. Yes the Church Fathers thought scripture was important, but everyone of your quotes is addressing something very specific. If you just take them in any context you want they can mean a lot of things. For instance if we take this quote:

“Why then do you busy yourself about things which not even the Holy Ghost has written in the Scriptures? Thou that know not the things which are written, busiest you yourself about the things which are not written? There are many questions in the Divine Scriptures; what is written we comprehend not, why do we busy ourselves about what is not written? It is sufficient for us to know that God has begotten One Only Son.”
-Cyril of Jerusalem (Lecture 11, point 12)

We could argue that Cyril found it pointless to discuss or ask about ANYTHING that wasn’t written in scripture. No math, no science, no blacksmithing techniques, no woodworking. It seems plain as day, Cyril did not want anyone learning anything ever if it wasn’t in scripture. Yet somehow I don’t think that is what Cyril meant.