Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura

[elvisman]

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.

2 thess. 2:15 alone proves you wrong there.

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.

WRONG - and I’ll give you a couple of examples:
Infant Baptism is Sacred Tradition - and one held by the church Fathers. This is NOWHERE taught explicitly in Scripture.

Mary’s perpetual virginity is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture but is a dogmatic teaching of the Church.

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

(Edited)
**In post #25, I provided you with quotes from Augustine, Jerome, Athanasius and Tertullian which say the exact opposite of what you’re claiming. **
(Edited)

 

[ChristMySavior]

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?"

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

Ok seriously, weak is not a “vicious” word. Easily offended much? I would respond to elvisman’s post considering it has a good response and is not VICIOUS.

 

[EricFilmer]

Hello Parker.

It seems to me that Sola Scriptura, if it represents a truthful doctrine, ought to play by its own rules. In other words, one should use Scripture alone to prove the doctrine of “Scripture Alone.” I have never seen what can objectively be considered a valid defense of Sola Scriptura by using the Bible alone. If you have such a defense that you feel does the job then I will be happy to consider it (although that may more properly warrant a new thread if the focus of this one is to remain on the Early Church Fathers).

Even if one or more of the Early Church Fathers explicitly taught Sola Scriptura, one could still not use this as a defense of it unless it is also explicitly taught in the Bible. The reason is that Sola Scriptura would be a doctrine stemming from Patristic Writings rather than the Bible, and it is “Sola Scriptura”, not “Sola Scriptura & Patristics.” Like I said, Sola Scriptura ought to play by its own rules.

 

[Shannon9791]

Parker, I have read this thread and the previous one and have a few questions for you if you don’t mind.

What did the ECF’s do before scripture was written?

Would you agree that it is probably a safe assumption to say that in the early years, say between 50 AD and 150 AD, that they (the ECFs) had not read most, or any, of what we would consider “Scripture”?

If this is the case, wouldn’t it make sense that somewhere after scripture was at least widely distributed (let’s say between 200 AD to when scripture was codified around 400 AD) that one of them would have written something along the lines of “We now have these texts which we have determined to be inspired by God, and therein lie all that we are to follow”?

I think the big thing that Sola Scripturists miss is that there was a time when there was no scripture, (save for Old Testament, but for the sake of our discussion we’re focused on the New Testament) and it’s kinda hard to have a doctrine of Sola Scriptura if there ain’t no Scriptura to be Sola.

 

[HLH]

2 thess. 2:15 alone proves you wrong there.

WRONG - and I’ll give you a couple of examples:
Infant Baptism is Sacred Tradition - and one held by the church Fathers. This is NOWHERE taught explicitly in Scripture.

Mary’s perpetual virginity is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture but is a dogmatic teaching of the Church.

This is an outright lie.
In post #25, I provided you with quotes from Augustine, Jerome, Athanasius and Tertullian which say the exact opposite of what you’re claiming.

THIS is why I told you that I didn’t expect and answer because you never answer the tough posts - only the ones you can* twist*. You accused me of being "vicious" because I backed you into a corner you cannot get out of - which is a complete cop-out.

elvisman, as a Catholic I thank you for your knowledge in and defense of the faith as it is something I cannot achieve at your level but I would remind you to teach with charity. Your posts tend to take on the tone of trying to prove you are right and haparker321 is wrong rather than defending the church’s teachings and trying to bring others into the one true faith. I’m not trying to tell you what your intent is, just trying to let you know how it appears in your posts. I hope this advice will be taken as intended, a gentle reminder for charity. Thanks.

 

[elvisman]

elvisman, as a Catholic I thank you for your knowledge in and defense of the faith as it is something I cannot achieve at your level but I would remind you to teach with charity. Your posts tend to take on the tone of trying to prove you are right and haparker321 is wrong rather than defending the church’s teachings and trying to bring others into the one true faith. I’m not trying to tell you what your intent is, just trying to let you know how it appears in your posts. I hope this advice will be taken as intended, a gentle reminder for charity. Thanks.

Point taken.
I sometimes respond with the same smugness of the poster I am rebutting. Normally, it is to expose them because they are making false charges (as in this case) - but I guess I should resist the urge to expose them so harshly.

 

[Barbkw]

If Scripture is the only authoritative Word (absent Sacred Tradition & the Magisterium) - explain Matthew 18:8?

So if your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It’s better to enter eternal life with only one hand or one foot than to be thrown into eternal fire with both of your hands and feet.

Why didn’t the Apostles continue on with the corporal punishment for sin? Why aren’t we cutting off hands and feet as Jesus instructed us to?

How is it, that that verse is NOT put into practice today in Christianity?

Yet, it is in some Islamic countries?

The same goes for the personal interpretation of Revelation? If Scripture is the only authority, how is it that there are so many various protestant denominations with various interpretations of the Books’ meaning?

The answer for Catholics, returns back to Jesus with Kepha (Peter). Jesus gave Simon a new name, a new position as Kepha. “…and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

Kepha and the other eleven Apostles were given the authority to create Sacred Tradition. To take the totality of what they saw and heard from Jesus in those 3 years with Him and then use it to create standards for His Church.

 

[TimothyH]

The Bible itslef tells us that it is not a complete record of everything Christain.

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. (John 21:25)

Some of what God did while he walked among us was not recorded in the Bible. In fact, only a small portion of what God did while he was with us in the flesh was written down.

Not everything Christian is in the Bible.

-Tim-

 

[Barbkw]

I posted this on another thread, but it applies here as well:

The Magisterium (bishops and the Pope) use Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition to determine morality within their generation (abortion, artificial birth control, noncelibate same sex attraction, in vitro fertilization, euthanasia, protection of marriage between one man and one woman, divorce, adult cell vs stem cell research, etc.)

Sacred Tradition explained:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs…sm/index/t.htm

Tradition, 81
apostolic, 75-79
deposit of faith contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, 84, 97
of faith and prayer, 2651 (see also Prayer)
liturgy as a constitutive element of, 1124
one and the same content of, 174
oral tradition in the formation of the Gospels, 126
and Sacred Scripture, 80-83, 95, 97, 113, 120

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition:

and Tradition, 78, 80-83, 95, 97

 

[JRKH]

Point taken.
I sometimes respond with the same smugness of the poster I am rebutting. Normally, it is to expose them because they are making false charges (as in this case) - but I guess I should resist the urge to expose them so harshly.

If I may add just a bit here…I have read Parker’s posts and even been in conversation with him and have not felt a sense of “Smugness”. I think that we can sometimes read things into a post that aren’t there. I know I’ve done it much to my embarasment.
Now I try to make a habit of simply answering what is actually written without assuming ant sort of emotion behind it.

Secondly (and I’m going to break my own rule here), while your use of color is interesting, the constant bolding and use particulalry of the color red, makes your posts seem “loud” and overly intense. Plus the words you choose are not the most diplomatic.

Remeber that it is first our job to be close to God ourselves. Then it is our Job to draw others to Him. We cannot do that by being pushy…

Please know that i am not trying to be critical or harsh…I’ve made many of the same mistakes myself.

Peace
James

 

[elvisman]

If I may add just a bit here…I have read Parker’s posts and even been in conversation with him and have not felt a sense of “Smugness”. I think that we can sometimes read things into a post that aren’t there. I know I’ve done it much to my embarasment.
Now I try to make a habit of simply answering what is actually written without assuming ant sort of emotion behind it.

Secondly (and I’m going to break my own rule here), while your use of color is interesting, the constant bolding and use particulalry of the color red, makes your posts seem “loud” and overly intense. Plus the words you choose are not the most diplomatic.

Remeber that it is first our job to be close to God ourselves. Then it is our Job to draw others to Him. We cannot do that by being pushy…

Please know that i am not trying to be critical or harsh…I’ve made many of the same mistakes myself.

Peace
James

Thanks for the kind words.
However, I DO see a smugness in his words because he uses false accusations to make his points. When he’s called on the carpet about them - he simply moves on and ignores the rebuttals. I find that not only cowardly, but extremely immature as well.

Unfortunately, there are several posters on this forum who play those childish games and they should be exposed.

 

[JRKH]

Thanks for the kind words.
However, I DO see a smugness in his words because he uses false accusations to make his points. When he’s called on the carpet about them - he simply moves on and ignores the rebuttals. I find that not only cowardly, but extremely immature as well.

Unfortunately, there are several posters on this forum who play those childish games and they should be exposed.

With all due respect, it seems that we will not see eye to eye on this matter.

I understand your desire to defend the faith, and rebut the “false accusations”. Too wish to address these matters. I have just found that being a bit more subdued about it seems to work better.
Kind words softly spoken are much more likely to be listened to.

At least that is how I see it.

Peace
James

 

[Michael_Francis]

**This thread has been pruned of unnecessarily personal and uncharitable posts and remarks.

See that it does not resume that way and that all future posts comply with the rules and guidelines found at this link.

Otherwise…I’ll be back.**

 

[JRKH]

**This thread has been pruned of unnecessarily personal and uncharitable posts and remarks.

See that it does not resume that way and that all future posts comply with the rules and guidelines found at this link**.

Otherwise…I’ll be back.
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/the-terminator.jpg

Mea culpa

Peace
James

 

[InternetWoman]

The burden of proof lies on the Church to prove that ‘Sacred Tradition’ and ‘Oral Tradition’ are one and the same.

Parker

You do realize the Catholic Church created the Bible? It was the Church that selected from amongst the hundreds of writings the specific ones that were (are) inspired by God.

And if Scripture is the sole rule of faith then where in Scripture does it say that? Many Protestant folks quote 2 Tim 3:16, but that only says that scripture is useful for “one who belongs to God.” It does not say it is sufficient to make someone belong to God.

Jesus did not come to write a book. He came and taught 12 men to establish his Church. 1 Tim 3:15 “…the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

So the church wrote things down (Sacred Scripture) and passed things on orally (Sacred Tradition).

And if this isn’t true what the heck did Christians do for the first 400 years when there was no Bible??

 

[JRKH]

You do realize the Catholic Church created the Bible? It was the Church that selected from amongst the hundreds of writings the specific ones that were (are) inspired by God.

I would suggest being careful in using the term “created” the bible. God created the Bible just as He created The Church and everything else. In discussing these things with Protestants I have found that the careful selection of terms can make a big difference. The Church was and is God’s instrument in this. The Church selected, codified, copied, distributed, taught from, protected and defended the Bible. In it’s present form, is clearly a product of the Spirit led work of the Catholic church.

And if Scripture is the sole rule of faith then where in Scripture does it say that? Many Protestant folks quote 2 Tim 3:16, but that only says that scripture is useful for “one who belongs to God.” It does not say it is sufficient to make someone belong to God.

Yes - and there are several problems with using this verse as proff. First is the oft cited fact that, at the time Paul wrote those lines, he would have been refering to the OT Scriptures since most of the NT had yet to be written. But another, lesser considered fact is that, Paul was writing to Timothy who was bishop of a greek speaking church. In fact the vast majority of Paul’s work took place outside of palistine. In Greek speaking areas where the Septuigent would have been the most prevelent Scriptural texts.
So by saying “All Scripture” Paul appears to be including the books of the Septuigent in what is considered Scripture. This fact undercuts the protestant view of this verse supporting a “Sola scriptura” based on a 66 book canon.

Jesus did not come to write a book. He came and taught 12 men to establish his Church. 1 Tim 3:15 “…the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

A Church with the authority to “Bind and loose” (Mt 16:17-19 and Mt 18:15-18)

So the church wrote things down (Sacred Scripture) and passed things on orally (Sacred Tradition).

Correction. The Church taught orally, and some members began writing things down. Oral teaching came first. It always came first.

Peace
James

 

[Shannon9791]

Where did the thread starter go? Did he abandon his mission?

 

[PatrickSebast]

It hasn’t even been 24 hours yet. He could just be busy.

 

[JRKH]

Where did the thread starter go? Did he abandon his mission?

I just checked and he was last on yesterday at 5:20 PM (EST), several hours after his last post.
I wouldn’t worry to much about Mr Parker. I suspect he’ll be back.

Peace
James

 

[UnworthyApostle]

"Whenever anyone came my way, who had been a follower of my seniors, I would ask for the accounts of our seniors: What did Andrew or Peter say? Or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord’s disciples? I also asked: What did Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord say. **For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit **(The Sayings of the Lord [between A.D. 115 and 140] as recorded by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3:39 [A.D. 325]).-Papias

True knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither addition nor curtailment [in truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the Word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures*, both without danger and without blasphemy… (ibid. 4:33 [A.D. 189]).-Ireneaus

*Here, Ireneaus says that only the teaching of the church is in harmony with scripture. See, Gnostic heretics were using SOLA SCRIPTURA to promote their heresy. Ireneaus and the other bishops stood up against there maligned interpretation of the scirptures WITH the traditions of the church. In short, both are held CO-EQUAL, and both of them are neccesary for true doctrine.

"Seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the Apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition "-Origen

“So then brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther "-John Chrysostom