Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura

[haparker321]

This is your error.

I’m afraid it’s not. I raised an objection that demands an answer. If this be my error, you must prove that those are one and the same.

Parker

 

[guanophore]

The verse and the entire passage doesn't define tradition the way you think it does. You must be begging the question.

Of course not! The passage is not an attempt to “define” Sacred Tradition, which had already been defined for them. It is a commandment that they are to keep the Word of God, whether it came to them in writing, or orally. It is a reference to the two strands of Apostolic Teaching.

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

Right. The Sacred Tradition preceeded the Scripture, and is not dependent upon it.

I personally think for anyone to make it a dogmatic teaching would be wrong because it's not something binding for the believer.

Fortunately your personal opinion is just that.

Why should we sacrifice the Teachings of the Aposltes in favor of your opinion?

Readers,

While I believe there may be some legitimacy to honor the authority of oral tradition i.e., in the sense of scriptural teaching, …

What legitimacy is that, pray?

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

Perhaps you will explain why you think the HS leads individual believers in opposite directions?

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

Parker

LOL



Ok, let me get this straight. If I would only ask myself “the right questions” then I could be sure the HS is leading me in the right way?

Ew! That made the milk come out thru my nose!

I’m afraid it’s not. I raised an objection that demands an answer. If this be my error, you must prove that those are one and the same.

Parker

OK. Let’s start with Genesis. How did all of history, from Adam to Moses, get kept?

 

[haparker321]

What would you consider acceptable proof?

Anything from the Scriptures that are sufficient i.e., the doctrines can be concluded from a variety of Scriptural books.

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.

Most of the guys I’m quoting are post-Nicean unless I’m mistaken. The canon was well in existence by then.

The writings of the apostles weren’t even clearly defined as scripture at that point.

Then why would Peter/Paul consider Luke’s writings scripture?

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’m not disagreeing with that here, but the definition of tradition is quite different than what the Church defines it as.

At what year should they have closed off the ability of the faithful to produce new teachings?

The moment the canon closed.

How do you explain their belief in the Immaculate Assumption then?

The doctrine comes from a late source (450AD) which isn’t so historical as one hopes.

Clearly they got that from somewhere. Obviously it wasn’t scripture.

Right you are and I got a slight idea where: MAN.

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.

I’m not disagreeing, but my conclusions are based on the implications the Early Church Fathers made with their writings. Sure these are not talking about Sola Scriptura in its immediate context, but they are implying the Scriptures are the sole source where the Church goes for faith and practice. The analogy goes like a group of lawyers using the US constitution as the basis for it’s laws and no where else to enforce the laws of the land.

Parker

 

[haparker321]

It seems to me that Sola Scriptura, if it represents a truthful doctrine, ought to play by its own rules.

And what rules have you been paying attention to lately? Have you actually adhered to a concise definition of what Sola Scriptura means?

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.

That’s because our assumptions of Sola Scriptura rely heavily on implicit conclusions one can make from the Scriptures. Unfortunately, you are trying to pull a straw man.

Parker

 

[haparker321]

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

That’s a pretty broad spectrum here because none of them were in existence prior to the writing of scripture. In other words, the canon was complete by the time ECF’s were born.

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”?

Again this depends on who and what are you talking about. Take for instance, the canon was written when Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, and Origen were born. So they had easy access to the scriptures.

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”?

Because the Church did not need a council to recognize what the Scriptures were. Most if not all of them were recognized and practiced as Scripture prior to the council of Nicea which took place in 333/365AD.

I think the big thing that Sola Scripturists miss is that there was a time when there was no scripture

In the last thread, I never said the word of God was not spoken at one point.

Parker

 

[haparker321]

You do realize the Catholic Church created the Bible?

You mean the Catholic Church existed prior to the creation of the Old Testament? I didn’t know that.

And if Scripture is the sole rule of faith then where in Scripture does it say that?

One draws conclusions from the definitions put forth by the advocates of Sola Scriptura and the implications put forth by the word of God.

Parker

 

[haparker321]

Note: I was busy indeed. I had been off doing a couple of things.

• Research book bloggers
• Create Book Review Request Emails
• Create Responses
• Find a good blog
• Create a blog
• Write the right articles

For all who have been patient, please check out my blog here. I’m hoping my book comes out May 31st.

 

[guanophore]

Most of the guys I’m quoting are post-Nicean unless I’m mistaken. The canon was well in existence by then.

Along with 400 + other writings also claiming to be scripture.

Then why would Peter/Paul consider Luke’s writings scripture?

What makes you think they did?

I’m not disagreeing with that here, but the definition of tradition is quite different than what the Church defines it as.

So, you want the Church to reject their own definition in favor of yours?

The moment the canon closed.

Do you even know when this happened?

The Catholic Church Teaches that the public revelation of God ended with the death of the last Apostle, not when the canon was closed.

What would make you choose such an arbitrary date? Can you support that from scripture?

The doctrine comes from a late source (450AD) which isn’t so historical as one hopes.

Well, then you are in real trouble. Get back to us when you get the date the canon was closed.

Right you are and I got a slight idea where: MAN.

Of course it is important for you to believe this.

Who do you think preserved the Truth from Adam to Moses?

I’m not disagreeing, but my conclusions are based on the implications the Early Church Fathers made with their writings. Sure these are not talking about Sola Scriptura in its immediate context, but they are implying the Scriptures are the sole source where the Church goes for faith and practice.

NO, they dont’. They are authoritative, and essential, but they are not the sole source. When you read the remainder of the writings this will become clear. It appears you cherry picked the parts on Scripture and ignored those on the Sacred Tradition.

The analogy goes like a group of lawyers using the US constitution as the basis for it’s laws and no where else to enforce the laws of the land.

Lawyers don’t enforce the laws of the land. Those with jurisdictional authority do. The ECF’s did not posess the juridictional authority. Some of them were bishops, but it is the TEaching authority put in place by Christ that enforces.

 

[haparker321]

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.

Ok, I think I’ve defined Sola Scriptura as this on a previous post.

Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice. Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures.

This brief statement has never implied:

• No authority because the Scriptures designate authority to the Church.
• No discipline because the Scriptures encourage the Church to take up this practice.
• No interpretative abuses because the Scriptures warn the Church about the dangers of heresy.
• No universal interpretation because the Scriptures make room for adiaphoristic differences (e.g. church government and the sacraments).
• No oral tradition because the Scriptures informs the Church of its importance and commands us to adhere to them.
• No progressive revelation because the Scriptures revealed of its existence in the past.

 

[guanophore]

And what rules have you been paying attention to lately? Have you actually adhered to a concise definition of what Sola Scriptura means?

I have read half a dozen good ones - none of them are found in the Scriptures.

That's because our assumptions of Sola Scriptura rely heavily on implicit conclusions one can make from the Scriptures. Unfortunately, you are trying to pull a straw man.

Parker

I wonder how it is that you can make “implicit conclusions” from the Scriptures, but when Catholics do it ,we are teaching "false doctrines’. Isn’t that an interesting double standard now?

I think that a doctrine as fundamental to the faith as SS should be explicit, don’t you?

 

[guanophore]

That’s a pretty broad spectrum here because none of them were in existence prior to the writing of scripture. In other words, the canon was complete by the time ECF’s were born.

I think you need some more time in your early canonical studes, there, Parker. One of theECF’s is Polycarp, who was baptized by the Apostle John, quite some time before John finished writing.

In general,though I agree, when we speak about ECF’s we are referring to the post apostolic writings.

Can I rephrase the question for you? What did Christians do before they had the New Testament?

Again this depends on who and what are you talking about. Take for instance, the canon was written when Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, and Origen were born. So they had easy access to the scriptures.

Yes, but they were scholars and bishops. The vast majority of the Church did not have access to the writings. They had to be hand copied, usually by candlelight (in secret). They were too rare and expensive for most people to posess.

Because the Church did not need a council to recognize what the Scriptures were. Most if not all of them were recognized and practiced as Scripture prior to the council of Nicea which took place in 333/365AD.

If that is true, then why did the Church decide to have a council to recognize which writings were Scripture (inspired by the HS)? Why were some writings being read regularly at Church that did not make it into the canon?

In the last thread, I never said the word of God was not spoken at one point.

Parker

Can you show in the Bible where this stopped?

Where is the apostolic command that we should STOP holding fast to the TEachings of the Apostles?

 

[pablope]

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

And the resultant confusion, division, different beliefs, continued rebellion…the Holy Spirit also condones?

 

[guanophore]

And what rules have you been paying attention to lately? Have you actually adhered to a concise definition of what Sola Scriptura means?

I have read half a dozen good ones - none of them are found in the Scriptures.

That's because our assumptions of Sola Scriptura rely heavily on implicit conclusions one can make from the Scriptures. Unfortunately, you are trying to pull a straw man.

Parker

I wonder how it is that you can make “implicit conclusions” from the Scriptures, but when Catholics do it ,we are teaching "false doctrines’. Isn’t that an interesting double standard now?

I think that a doctrine as fundamental to the faith as SS should be explicit, don’t you?

You mean the Catholic Church existed prior to the creation of the Old Testament? I didn’t know that.

One draws conclusions from the definitions put forth by the advocates of Sola Scriptura and the implications put forth by the word of God.

Parker

 

[guanophore]

Ok, I think I’ve defined Sola Scriptura as this on a previous post.

Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice.

Have you considered that infalliblity requires falliblity? In order to be infallible, one must be able to act, to decide, to take responsibility,and to accept the blame. Scripture lacks these qualities. Authority, for that reason, can only be exercised by persons, not books, however holy.

Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures.

This brief statement has never implied:

• No authority because the Scriptures designate authority to the Church.

This would be an interesting thread. I am curious what authority the bible designates to the Church.

* No discipline because the Scriptures encourage the Church to take up this practice.

Does this not require authority? Or are you one of those that believes in “fraternal discipline” that has no enforcement value?

* No interpretative abuses because the Scriptures warn the Church about the dangers of heresy.

And if the Bible is the final authority, how is it decided when the interpretive abuse has occurred? What if both parties support opposing views with scripture?

* No universal interpretation because the Scriptures make room for adiaphoristic differences (e.g. church government and the sacraments).

Really?

* No oral tradition because the Scriptures informs the Church of its importance and commands us to adhere to them.

It will be interesting to find out what you feel is included in this.

* No progressive revelation because the Scriptures revealed of its existence in the past.

Yes, but they also reveal that the fullness of God’s revelation was found in Christ. End of story.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Did Jesus or any of the Apostles practice sola scriptura?

Parker,
without a doubt, Jesus extended and clarified what was said in the Old Testament. You are right that he didn’t contradict the Old Testament, because it came to be through him, but to say he practiced Sola Scriptura, that everything necessary for Salvation was written in the Old Testament that existed at the time, is to eliminate the need for a New Testament.

Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament Prophesies. The Apostles used the Old Testament to show that they Pointed to Jesus as the Christ. But you certainly can not prove that the Old Testament contained all the information needed for the salvation of souls. This negates your claim that Jesus and the Apostles practiced sola Scriptura.

 

[William_Pitts]

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

Parker

"He, therefore, will not be a Christian who shall deny this doctrine which is confessed by Christians; denying it, moreover, on grounds which are adopted by a man who is not a Christian. Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground." Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh,3

Not a single Church Father interpreted Sacred Scripture in isolation from the traditional faith of the Church; rather, the Fathers applied Tradition as a rule to interpret Scripture. The only ancient teachers who interpreted Scripture apart from Tradition were the early heretics.

St. Ignatius contrasts the authority of this Scriptures-only mentality with the Christian tradition. According to St. Ignatius, one interprets the OT Scripture within the framework of the Christian Gospel.
.
“Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: 'With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?” For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions." Tertullian Prescription Against the Heretics, 19

Before the NT was collated and canonized, there were those who would only admit the OT Scripture and reject the oral Christian tradition. St. Ignatius writes:

“And I exhort you to do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. When I heard some saying, 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.” Epistle to the Philadephians 8:2

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Carson
That make sense given that you do not understand that the Church teaches with the authority of Christ Himself.

This is really the nub of the issue, isn’t it. You reject Papal authority, so you have no other choice but to hang to scripture as the only link you have to Christ. But Jesus didn’t leave the scripture to teach the truth about salvation and administer the sacraments, he left a Church to do that. Have you read Matthew 28: 16-20?

16 The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them.
17 When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted.
18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Now, it is an historic fact that the Catholic Church is the same church that was commissioned by Jesus on this mountain to spread the gospel. It can be shown that these same Apostles and in the case of Mark and Luke, their followers, wrote the New Testament books. And it can be shown through the early Church Fathers, that these boos were protected by the Church and eventually compiled into the Bible Canon by the Catholic Church as a teaching and liturgical tool. So how do you propose to prove that the Catholic Church is not the true Church. We just finished a 900 post thread on this subject earlier this week.

→ Algo1 agreed that the Catholic Church was the true church but apostasized. He could not define when or where this occurred but offered that there were different interpretations of the real presence over time. He eventually gave up on trying to sow that the Church apostasized, since he had no evidence that this was so.

→ Miguel Sastre argued in the same thread that the Catholic Church was never the Apostolic Church, offering instead that the church was simply a community of all believers in Christ. He offered up as proof of his position that Cyprian didn’t always believe in Papal primacy. He ran into huge problems here, because Pope St. Stephen simply refused to continue to communicate with Cyprian after Cyprian refused to recognize Stephen’s authority, which placed Cyprian outside the church. As for the invisible Church, Miguel was simply unable to explain away the fact that the Apostolic church was meant to be visible becuase how else could it teach the truths about the faith. Miguel too gave up.

So, Harper, what is your theory about the true Church? Do you feel that the Catholic Church, led by the Pope, apostasized and is no longer the true church? If so, when was this great apostacy, what was it, and why did Jesus allow his church to falter, when he said that he would be with it to the end of the age (above)?

Or perhaps, you feel the Catholic Church was never the true church. Well, what is the true church then?

This is applicable to this thread because it answers your question above…

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk O
Do you think the Holy Spirit would lead two believers into different interpretations of the Bible?

This is frankly, foolishness. There is only one truth and the Holy Spirit leads us to it. It is Satan that leads to disunity and tries to obscure the truth with confusion over doctrine.

Pray tell, Parker, where in scripture does it say that the holy spirit will lead different people to separate doctrines?

 

[William_Pitts]

And there is more.

Likewise, St. Athanasius makes the same claim regarding the Arians. According to St. Athanasius the Arians read Scripture according to their own private lights and rejected the traditions of the Church. This is a recurring theme in the writings of the Church Fathers. According to Athanasius, the Arians’ rejection of the Church tradition resulted in their divisions and heresy:

“The blessed Apostle approves of the Corinthians because, he says, ‘ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you’ (1 Cor. xi. 2); but they, as entertaining such views of their predecessors, will have the daring to say just the reverse to their flocks: ‘We praise you not for remembering your fathers, but rather we make much of you, when you hold not their traditions. And let them go on to accuse their own unfortunate birth, and say, ‘We are sprung not of religious men but of heretics.’ For such language, as I said before, is consistent in those who barter their Fathers’ fame and their own salvation for Arianism, and fear not the words of the divine proverb, ‘There is a generation that curseth their father’ (Prov. xxx. 11; Ex. xxi. 17), and the threat lying in the Law against such. They then, from zeal for the heresy, are of this obstinate temper; you, however, be not troubled at it, nor take their audacity for truth. For they dissent from each other, and, whereas they have revolted from their Fathers, are not of one and the same mind, but float about with various and discordant changes.” St. Athanasius De Synodis,14

**This sounds like the present divisions in protestantism.
**
St. Basil of Ceasarea observes the same fatal flaw in those who rejected the deity of the Holy Spirit - the Pneumatomachianists(the Spirit fighters). St. Basil writes:

“It is against us, they say, that they are preparing their engines and their snares; against us that they are shouting to one another, according to each one’s strength or cunning, to come on. But the object of attack is faith. The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of ‘sound doctrine’ is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors,–of course bona fide debtors.—they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers.” St. Basil Holy Spirit,10:25

 

[William_Pitts]

In Eutyches we find Luther all over again! What could be more different than Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Arianism, Eutychianism and Pneumatomachianism? Yet, we find the formal principle of sola scriptura applied across these early heresies. The early testimony is clear - if one fails to interpret Scripture within the milieu of Tradition and replace it with a private reading of Scripture than one can come up with about anything. If one wishes to find adherents to the principle of sola scriptura, one need look no further than the proponents
of the early heresies.