Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, are you claiming that the ‘content’ or ‘substance’ of what Paul delivered to the Thessalonians ‘orally’ was somehow different than that which he delivered ‘in writing’?

Not for the purposes of responding to your post. My only point was simply to observe that the Thessalonians were encouraged to hold fast to whatever they had received REGARDLESS of how they received it.

There was NO distinction made between truth taught orally versus truth taught by letter.

Seriously, Algo…can you imagine telling your parents, your teachers or your boss, “Sorry, I didn’t do what you told me…you never put it in writing”?

 

[guanophore]

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.

Is there anyone claiming that the Early Church Fathers “supercede” the authority of the Scriptures? This is what is known as a strawman.

You are making up something that the Church does not believe or teach, then arguing against your plastic point. Do you think we are a bushel of turnips, or what?

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.

You can put up as many quotes as you want, but none of them will prove your false dichotomy. The Scriptures and the Sacred Tradititon (the teaching of the apostles) are two equally authoritative strands of one thread of divine revelation. They should not be separated, because they complement one another.

Some of the Fathers wrote about things that are not part of the doctrine of the faith.
No one is claiming their works or inspired or infallible.

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. [/quotes]

The Father’s received the One Faith from the Church. To the extent that they held on to it (did not stray into heresy) their writings reflect that One Faith. There is no contradicion between the Teaching of the Church, and the holy Scriptures, because they both come from the same Source.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is one of the consequences of a deficient view of the Church. It results in a failue to recognize the Word of God living and active in the Church, as well as the Scripture.

1 Thess 2:13-14

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the** word of God, which is at work in you believers**.

Catholics accept the Apostolic Teaching that they delivered the Word of God to the Chrurch, and the commandment that we are to guard this sacred deposit. There was no commandment or revelation that this Word of God committed to the Chruch by the Apostles left, or became void after the Scriptures were written.

The Reformers jettisoned it, because they could not distinguish it from the corrupt men who claimed to embrace it, but did not.

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).

Ok. Let’s start with this one. Can you show us where this principle is found in Scripture?

Can you show us where the Word of God commited to the Church has become null and void in favor of this principle?

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

Parker

Is that right? Who are you to come along 2000 years after the fact, and insist that we “prove” to you what God has revealed to the holy apostles and prophets? You who are espousing the traditions of men?

Traditions as specified in the context here ought to be based and ‘collected’ out of the Scriptures. Where does it say in the paragraph that tradition does not have to come from the Scripture?

Parker

Unlike our separate brethren, we are not limited to extracting doctrines out of single passages. As is stated, we take all of God’s revelation together, all the Scriptures, and all the Word of God that has been deposited in the Church. We have no need to see a single principle in a single paragraph, as this question suggests is necessary.

 

[guanophore]

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

That is because the perpetual virginity and the assumption of the Blessed Mother were part of the Apostolic Teaching that was received by the whole Church. Those who did not accept it were considered heretics. A doctrine of the faith does not need to be defended unless it is attack. The same is true about the doctrine of the Trinity. It did not “become” true when it was dogmatically defended.

On what ground are you saying I should?

Look, you are the one who is trying to use extrabiblical sources as authoritative, then saying that we have to defend our beliefs based upon your interpretation of the extrabiblial source. I should think on the grounds of consistency, if nothing else. Otherwise you are operating under a double standard.

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

I agree. What makes the doctrines infallible is that they were given to the Church by Jesus, then preserved infallibly there by the power of the Holy Spirir.

We see the thread of these doctrines throughout the early writings of the Church.

Writing about them does not make them divine truth, the fact that they are from God makes them Truth, just like the Trinity. It did not become truth because a new word was coined several years after the fact.

I’m not assuming that and if I was coming across that way in the OP, I apologize.

It sure seemed like it, but I will accept that was not your intention. The authority of scripture is part of your doctrinal distinctives, in spite of the fact that it is not found in the Bible.

The point of the matter here is that tradition is not an equal of scripture.

It cannot be for you. If you were to accept this Apostolic Teaching, in good conscience, you could no longer be “Reformed”. You would have to reunite yourself with the successors of the Apostles. You have a vested interest in not believing this, so you approach the task with a stong bias against it.

Neither the Bible or the ECF’s ever claimed the “traditions” (i.e. oral ones) are the same as the Word of God.

I guess we read it differntly, don’t we?

1 Thess 2:13

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

1 Cor 11:2-3

2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

Why would the Apostle commend the disciples for following the traditions of man?

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

And what form do you suppose the Sacred Tradition takes?

Do you not think the Apostles gave the Word of God orally?

 

[guanophore]

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

Because if he finds out that the Word of God did not dissolve out of the Church when the NT was written, as a faithful Christian, he would have an obligation to accept and submit to this Word of God.

In what sense are you defining ‘sacred tradition’? Do you mean the teachings of God?

Yes.

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.

News flash, parker. The Word of God was whole and entire in the Church before any of it was committed to the Scriptures. There is nothing in the Scriptures that indicates any effort was made to make the NT a complete compendium of the faith.

Your premise that the Word of God must be confined to the Scriptures is fallacious.

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.

Yes, I think tha is what he is saying.

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.

Parker, you are using an extrabiblical source that we both agree is not infallible, then asking us to “prove” that it is not true. Do you see the logical error in what you are doing?

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

No, they did not.

They considered the Scriptures authoritative, but never read them in separation from the Church.

The reason Catholics see all of their Sacred Traditions in the Scriptures is because they were produced out of the Sacred Traditions. They cannot be separated from one another.

You have to avoid the major part of the ECF’s to cling to the errant belief that they espoused the doctrine of SS. I guess you need to do this to justify that you are separated from the Authority appointed by Christ to shepherd the Church.

Because we’re arguing for different definitions here.

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

Can you show where you found this in scripture?

 Like I said in the previous post, the church needs to prove that these two definitions are one and the same

So far, it looks like you want Catholics to prove something you have made up in your head. I don’t see how we could possibly do that.

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

The Church made no effort to separte the written word of God from that delivered orally. The Aposltes taught authoritatively. They received their teachings from Jesus, they did not extract them from the New Testament, which did not yet exist.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is one of the most glaring evidences that SS is self refuting. the other is the Canon of Scripture itself.

It did not come with a table of contents.

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).

Since he claims all of Sacred Tradition is found in the Scriptures, it seems like it would be relevant to the thread. According to his premise, he has to “prove” that the Scriptures are a full compendium of the faith.

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.

 

[guanophore]

Can you tell us anything that Jesus told the Apostles in that 40 days that has not been traditioned (handed down} to us in the Holy Scriptures?

It is not a matter of what is within, or without. Sacred Tradition is the lens through which we understand the Scripture.

Parker,
I would like to contribute, but I can’t find a succinct definition of how you define “Sola Scriptura”. I don’t want to claim that I agree with you until I am more informed of what you believe regarding this important topic.

It doesn’t matter. None of them are contained in the Scripture, so any of them will carry about the same weight.

Chrysostom also taught that all the necessary things were plainly set out in Scripture.

(Homilies on Second Thessalonians, 3, v. 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/23053.htm

So did Paul, but he was referring to the Septuagint at that time.Is there a Christian today taht would say we have all sufficiency unto salvation in the OT?

Jesus taught the Apostles how to understand what was written, and they passed this down to the Church.

A little context goes a long way:

Cyril of Jerusalem (318-386): But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. . . . For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart
NPNF2: Vol. VII, Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures, Lecture V:12.

This is a good point. The understanding of the meaning of the Scriptures was delivered to the Church, and handed down through those authorized to do so. When that sacred deposit of faith was abandoned by the Reformers, the Scriptures were wrenched from their context (the Church) and are mow interpreted outside of it, causing a vast array of meanings, and fragmenting the Body.

 

[guanophore]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 proves nothing with respect to extra-biblical tradition. Looking at it in context, it is part of one of Paul’s two short letters to the church in Thessalonica. Nobody claims that those two letters contain everything that was taught by Paul to the Thessalonians. He obviously taught them orally as well./'quote]

So, are you purporting that what he taught them orally was not the Word of God? Why does he equate the oral and the written?
SyCarl;7813423:

However he says nothing indicating that there was anything he taught orally that was not recorded, or would not be recorded, elsewhere in Scripture.

Paul wrote letters to correct and reinforce what he taught in person. He never made any attempt to encompass the whole gospel in his writings. Paul could not even have know the other writings that would make up the NT at the time. Of course it says nothing of that kind! What is bizarre is to expect that it would!

Sola Scriptura does not require that everything be explicitly set out in Scripture. It does say that doctrine "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" (Westminster Confession of Faith)

But this is not in scripture either. :whacky:

It is fairly easy to find quotes from the early church fathers. None of the quotes you give really shows any doctrinal oral tradition separate from Scripture.

That is the fallacy. Sacred Tradition is not “separate” from the Scriptures. Irenaeus was so steeped in the teachings of the Apostles that he could see all of them reflected in the Holy Writings. Yet, some of what he believed is not accepted by SSists today, because they are separated from the faith that produced it…

 

[guanophore]

Scripture Precedes The Church

It is often the contention of Roman Catholic apologists that the Church should be believed because she predates the Scriptures and is the ‘principle of causality’ behind the Scriptures. But as noted earlier, God is the primary author or originator of sacred Scripture, and as such, he himself, not the Church, is the ‘principle of causality’ behind it. The Apostle Peter states that Scripture originated, not with the Church, but that’holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit’ (2 Pet. 1:20-21). It is nonsense to say that the Church has authority because she is the more ancient. God’s word is eternal. The truth revealed through Christ and the apostles is the same truth revealed in the Old Testament.
David T. King Vol I Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith p. 130ff

I agree. THe Church is not authoritative because she preceded the Scriptures, but because Christ breathed upon her, and invested her with His authority. Yes, the truth revealed through 'Christ is the same as what is revealed in the OT. So, why do we need the NT? Why do we not follow what Paul wrote to Timothy, that everything necessary for salvation is found in the OT?

All of the Fathers who attest to the authority of Scripture also attest to the authority of the Church founded by Christ. It seems disingenuous to accept their teaching on the sufficiency of Scripture, but reject all the other elements of Catholic faith they espoused.

Catholics and Protestants will agree that the scriptures are inerrant, inspired, and authoritative. The only difference we have is that we acknowledge that authority must be wielded by persons, not books, however holy. For that reason, we can accept that an authority exists outside of the scripture.When our separated brethren do not, they become their own authorities, believing they are each one separately led by the HS, extracting opposing doctrines from the text.

 

[EricFilmer]

Guanophore, thanks for the feedback as well as for your own contributions to the discussion at hand. And I now agree that the topic of the validity of Sola Scriptura is relevant to the thread. Therefore…

To everyone who is participating in this thread, I offer my list of objections to the validity of Sola Scriptura to ponder:

1) Sola Scriptura is not actually taught in Scripture, and it could easily have been, considering all the time, people and text that went into compiling the Bible. If God wanted us to follow the rule of Sola Scriptura, why not simply have ONE prophet devote ONE line of Scripture to state something like, “Scripture alone is to be the basis of formulating doctrine”? There are thousands and thousands of verses in the Bible. If only ONE of them contained such a statement then all Christians would be adherents of Sola Scriptura.

2) Sola Scriptura is a teaching that tells us to use Scripture alone when formulating doctrine. But Scripture alone cannot be used to validate Sola Scriptura. In other words, in order to demonstrate why Sola Scriptura is true, one has to make arguments outside of Scripture. This means that the proposal violates the Law of Non-contradiction, because Sola Scriptura fails its own test (i.e., it is a teaching outside of Scripture that says to reject teachings outside of Scripture).

3) Sola Scriptura is not self-evident. Approximately 4000 years have passed since God established the covenant with Abraham, and yet the Jews have never gleaned Sola Scriptura from Scripture, nor taught it. The closest thing we see in Judaism were the Sadducees who taught “Torah Only” (but they did not get this rule from Scripture itself, and their stance on “Torah Only” led them to disbelieving in a resurrection and afterlife for humans; Jesus corrected them and thereby demonstrated disapproval of their “Torah Only” principle).

Moreover, Catholic and Orthodox Christians have been around for approximately 2000 years, and yet neither the Catholic Church nor any of the various Orthodox Christian Churches have ever taught Sola Scriptura. In light of all this, literally billions of Scripture-using people have been around for 4000 years who never believed in nor taught Sola Scriptura, nor saw evidence of it in the Bible.

Moreover, many adherents of Sola Scriptura disagree over the definition and application of Sola Scriptura, making it questionable as to exactly how self-evident it is even to them.

4) Adherents of Sola Scriptura reject the authority of the Magisterium, and yet it is by the authority of the Magisterium that Christians accept what books belong in the Bible (i.e., the Canons of the Old and New Testament). For example, many ancient Christians thought that the Letter of Barnabas and the Books of Enoch were divinely inspired. And yet no Christian Bible today contains them. Who told us that these books were not truly divinely inspired? God did. And how did God tell us? Through the Magisterium. So in order to be a practitioner of Sola Scriptura, one first has to ask what is and is not truly Scripture to begin with. To answer that question, Christians have relied upon what was determined by the Magisterium. But if one rejects that the Magisterium has the God-given authority to do such things, why believe in the Canons of the Old and New Testaments formulated by the Magisterium? The question remains, “What exactly are the Scriptures that are alone supposed to be used in order to practice Sola Scriptura?” (As a side note, I know that Protestants and Catholics disagree over the Deuterocanon of the Old Testament, so I am simply speaking in general terms here).

5) We have no original manuscript of any book in the Bible, but only copies of copies of copies, and so forth. Adherents of Sola Scriptura reject the authority of the Magisterium, and yet it is by the authority of the Magisterium that Christians accept that the ancient biblical manuscripts truly represent what was originally written. For example, how do I know that the Gospel of Luke in my Bible is a true representation of what Luke actually wrote, seeing as his original version has been lost since the time of the ancient Church? God verifies that it is. And how did God verify it? Through the Magisterium.

6) Sola Scriptura has not proven useful in resolving doctrinal disputes among Protestants over such topics as the Real Presence in the Eucharist, women pastors, the necessity of water Baptism, homosexual marriage, divorce, abortion, what is and is not a sacrament, etc. These are not small issues, and many people come up with contradictory statements about them, with each side citing that their position was derived from Sola Scriptura.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It is not a matter of what is within, or without. Sacred Tradition is the lens through which we understand the Scripture.

And the mode of transmission.

 

[haparker321]

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

I think you’re imagining things. The verse and the entire passage doesn’t define tradition the way you think it does. You must be begging the question.

This is NOWHERE taught explicitly in Scripture.

But its basis is found on Scriptural teaching, some of those ‘sacred traditions’ you keep quoting aren’t.

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

But there is not enough adequate evidence to prove this and I personally think for anyone to make it a dogmatic teaching would be wrong because it’s not something binding for the believer.

Parker

 

[haparker321]

Did Jesus or any of the Apostles practice sola scriptura?

Yes, they did. How else do you think they went off to ‘prove’ Jesus is the Messiah? Where did they go?

Parker

 

[Randy_Carson]

But there is not enough adequate evidence to prove this and I personally think for anyone to make it a dogmatic teaching would be wrong because it’s not something binding for the believer.

That make sense given that you do not understand that the Church teaches with the authority of Christ Himself.

Putting the cart before the horse does not work.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, they did. How else do you think they went off to ‘prove’ Jesus is the Messiah? Where did they go?

Parker

One place they went was to Berea, and this is where we can easily see that your idea that the Apostles “proved” Jesus from scriptures is false.

When Paul preached the gospel to the Bereans, scripture records that “the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). It can be argued that the Bereans did not practice sola scriptura as did the Thessalonians who actually rejected the gospel, but for the purposes of this discussion, the point will be conceded.

The Bereans searched the scriptures, but they would have searched forever without finding the name of Jesus of Nazareth connected in any way with the messiah whose advent was foretold in the Old Testament prophecies. In order to help the Bereans understand his gospel message, Paul referenced and interpreted the Old Testament passages which supported his teaching and made the necessary connection between the prophecies and the actual events in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul’s authoritative interpretation of the scriptures was required in order for the Bereans to correctly understand that Jesus was the messiah foretold in the Old Testament.

In light of this, is it really so different when the Catholic Church authoritatively teaches that Mary was assumed into heaven or that she is the Queen of Heaven? Like the Bereans, we can search in vain for explicit references to these things, and yet the Church, by virtue of its Apostolic Authority, has infallibly defined the doctrine of the Assumption by interpreting scripture. The verse, of course, is Revelation 12:1 which reads: “A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.” Here, the Church finds a clear reference to Mary, her bodily Assumption and her position as Queen of Heaven.

It is the authoritative Apostolic interpretation of the Catholic Church which helps us to see the truths in scripture that we, like the Bereans, may not find if left to our own devices.

 

[haparker321]

That make sense given that you do not understand that the Church teaches with the authority of Christ Himself.

I would agree with your position if you can prove that Rome is the true Church, which in this case is an entirely separate subject.

Parker

 

[haparker321]

One place they went was to Berea, and this is where we can easily see that your idea that the Apostles “proved” Jesus from scriptures is false.

That was not the only instance where the apostles practiced Sola Scriptura because in their own epistles, they keep quoting scripture.

The issue here concerning your ideal of tradition is this: where does scripture define tradition as ‘the important doctrines of God that are not written in Scripture’? The only thing you can recite is the John 20:30 passage that says that Jesus did many other things not written in this book. The failure in using this verse to prove the need of Sacred Tradition (as defined above) is twofold:

• The verse says that Jesus DID, not teach many other things which are not written in this book.
• John clarifies the reasons for not writing everything in the book in the last few verses of the last chapter.

Almost every person here misses the point when mentioned the necessity of sacred tradition, citing every verse that mentions tradition in a positive light to prove what the Catholic definition of tradition is. The sad part is that no verse has defined tradition the way the church sees it.

Parker

 

[haparker321]

This Website contains many Scriptural references to justify and or support Catholic teaching.

I’ve checked out this website before and even discussed the issues with the moderator. The essential problem is the same: insufficient. The irony of this website is that the conclusions come from the logical leaps the moderators insists from the alleged ‘proofs’ to show the doctrines of Catholicism are legit. For example, Peter being mentioned a thousand times in scripture (which the writer uses to ‘prove’ his papal role) is a logical leap because his importance in the NT does not necessarily prove his papal role.

Parker

P.S.
You can check out my blog that I set up for my book.

 

[haparker321]

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

You need to cite the number, I haven’t caught it. Besides, the problem here with the use of Adelphoi in the contextual passages you’re citing here do not follow the same constructions as it would be used in the OT.

Parker

 

[haparker321]

Do you think the Holy Spirit would lead two believers into different interpretations of the Bible?

The real question should be, ‘Does the Holy Spirit allow varied interpretations?’ to which I would reply, yes.

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.

You’re not asking yourself the right questions, that’s why.

Parker