Early church fathers believed in sola scriptura?

[coleraine]

well, im a Catholic so this is not an actual question. But a baptist gave me this link as proof.

christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html

commence the debunking.

 

[AshleyBelle]

The Roman Catholic Church states that it possesses an oral apostolic Tradition which is independent of Scripture, and which is binding upon men. It appeals to Paul’s statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle”.

Rome asserts that, based on Paul’s teaching in this passage, the teaching of sola Scriptura is false, since he handed on teachings to the Thessalonians in both oral and written form. But what is interesting in such an assertion is that Roman apologists never document the specific doctrines to which Paul is referring which they claim they possess, and which they say are binding upon men. From Francis de Sales to the writings of Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis there is a very conspicuous absence of documentation of the specific doctrines to which the Apostle Paul is referring.

Sungenis edited a work recently on a defense of the Roman Catholic teaching of tradition entitled Not By Scripture Alone. It is touted as a definitive refutation of the Protestant teaching of sola Scriptura. His book is 627 pages in length. Not once in the entire book does any author define the doctrinal content of this supposed apostolic Tradition that is binding on all men! Yet, we are told that it exists, that the Roman Catholic Church possesses it, and that we are bound, therefore, to submit to this church which alone possesses the fullness of God’s revelation from the Apostles.

What Sungenis and other Roman Catholic authors fail to define, is the contents and precise doctrines of the claimed “apostolic Tradition”. The simple reason that they do not do so is because it does not exist. If such traditions existed and were of such importance why did Cyril of Jerusalem not mention them in his Catechetical Lectures?

We defy anyone to list the doctrines to which Paul is referring in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 which he says he committed orally to the Thessalonians. The only special revelation man possesses today from God that was committed to the Apostles is the written Scriptures.

This was the belief and practice of the early Church . This principle was adhered to by the Reformers. They sought to restore it to the Church after doctrinal corruption had entered through the door of tradition.

The teaching of a separate body of apostolic revelation known as Tradition that is oral in nature originated not with the Christian Church but rather with Gnosticism. This was an attempt by the Gnostics to bolster their authority by asserting that the Scriptures were not sufficient. They stated that they possessed the fullness of Apostolic revelation because they not only had the written revelation of the Apostles in the Scriptures but also their oral tradition, and additionally, the key for interpreting and understanding that revelation.

My husband and I have this book… and we LOVE it! All 627 pages of it!!!
Their argument is a common one… “Where is the LIST of this “tradtion” the Catholic church claims to have?” But they fail to realize that tradition is NOT a list… nor is it “seperate” from the sciptures! Tradition is the lense through which we must VIEW the scriptures in order to have any sort of CLEAR picture of what the authors intended. When you’re reading the Bible with a pair of glasses on, you dont’ 'see" your glasses…you SEE the Bible and its clear words because of them.

What this entire article fails to illustrate, is where in scripture the Bible tells us that the Bible is the sole authority of faith. The answer to “what are your tradtions” is really “what is your UNDERSTANDING of the Bible?”

For the past 2000 years, the church has been teaching and preaching what the Bible means…and when the church does that, it IS tradtion.

I’ll let others with more concrete information debunk this for you… or maybe I’ll pull out our 627 page book…which this article has nothing to comment on except that “in 627 pages it doesn’t DEFINE ALL tradition!” There’s a reason they don’t quote much from that book, because they’d have to actually open their eyes and become Catholic!

 

[mdcpensive1]

The article tries to pit Tradition against Scripture which is absurd. Scripture came from the Oral Tradition which came from Christ Himself and is Sacred along with Scripture. They are the same, not different. Their sources are the same. They also misquote Trent in their interpretations. Ireanaus and Tertulian had the Old Testament as Scripture if that is what they want to talk about. The first and second centuries when they wrote had letters, some of which were not included in the final cannon, so we can say they did not have the final version of scripture when they wrote.

mdcpensive1

 

[YourAverageJoe]

The Catholic Church by Tradition picked the 27 books of the new testament. Christ did not give us a table of contents. Why dont protestants reject these??

 

[Spirithound]

Hmm…seems we do this every month…
Anyways, just because the ECFs didn’t refer to Tradition in those passages doesn’t mean they never do. It also doesn’t mean that they reject Tradition.

Also, ECF= St. Justin Martyr, St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and others. These men became Tradition. At the time, they needed to refer to something that could (or should) be accepted by all.

 

[jean8]

well, im a Catholic so this is not an actual question. But a baptist gave me this link as proof.

christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html

commence the debunking.

cole,
That is one good article. thanks.

jean8

 

[tealblue]

Here is the problem. Protestants in general cherry pick what SEEMS to suit their doctrine whether its scripture or EFC’s. Irenaeus definately didn’t hold to sola scriptora.

That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

Yes he said scripture was the pillar of truth but they can’t discount what else he said about following tradtion.

 

[AshleyBelle]

Yes he said scripture was the pillar of truth but they can’t discount what else he said about following tradtion.

I forgot the article said that… It directly MISQUOTES the Scripture!

Last time I checked, my Bible said “the CHURCH is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

But this article seems to leave that out

 

[sandusky]

well, im a Catholic so this is not an actual question. But a baptist gave me this link as proof.

christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html

commence the debunking.

A good article.

 

[elvisman]

A good article.

Actually - it’s bunk.

A “Good” article would have presented the whole truth about what the ECF’s believed in. Every single ECF relied on Scripture as well as Tradition. I challenge you to quote one that didn’t.
THAT would be a “good” article.

 

[sandusky]

Actually - it’s bunk.

A "Good" article would have presented the whole truth about what the ECF’s believed in. Every single ECF relied on Scripture as well as Tradition. I challenge you to quote one that didn’t.
**THAT **would be a “good” article.

How about a quote from the Lord?**Mark 7:9-13

9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

10 “For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’;

11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’

12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;

13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”**While I don’t believe that all tradition is to be condemned, certainly, according to Jesus, all tradition that sets itself against scripture must be exposed for what it is, fought against, set aside, and ignored.

In general, the appeal of the early Fathers in regard to tradition was to the teaching of Scripture as the tradition. The question then becomes, “were they (and the subsequent church leadership) correct in their interpretations of scripture, and their definitions of tradition?”

 

[CentralFLJames]

The article immediately starts off on the wrong foot with an unsubstantiated comment that “the reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principal of sola Scriptura” with no evidence whatsoever that was a motive of the reformation nor any evidence that sola Scriptura was an operative principal from the very beginning of the Church - a Church which the author admits relied on human oral traditions to convey the NT teaching.

The author makes another serious error in making the unsubstantiated conjecture that “all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures.”
It would be fun to ask the author where we get the Creed and the tradition of Sunday worship and the notion of the Trinity from since none of these things practised by the early Church are in the bible explicitly.

What is most oxymoronic of course is that the author can not give us any biblical (e.g. scriptural) evidence that any of his assertions are true. So it begs a competent reader to ask the question “by what tradition do these conjectures come from” since no where in the bible does God tell us that He has revealed all things to us in scripture nor does the bible tell us that the early church ever believed in a thing called “sola Scriptura”. Quite the contrary the bible tells us it is not all that was TAUGHT and no where does it tell us that “it is the bible and here are the books it contains”.

Thus this is just another wild and pragmatically useless case of quite ignorant men attempting to teach their own fallable ideas as inspired without any supporting evidence or pedigree or authority.

Ergo - the article is just another of the legion of fluffy hyperbola and wishful thinking coming out of the new Protestant tradition of private speculation of scripture through secular revisionist history. There is nothing new or exciting here and the author is just parroting old protestant theories that were debunked centuries ago by Catholic apologists.
from the article:

The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age.

Initially the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible.

:YAWN:

James

 

[VociMike]

Their argument is a common one… “Where is the LIST of this “tradtion” the Catholic church claims to have?”

To which one proper response is “where is the LIST of everything taught in the bible”?

For that matter, where is the LIST of everything the arguing person knows? If it exists then it must be in a LIST, right?

Mike

 

[CentralFLJames]

To which one proper response is “where is the LIST of everything taught in the bible”?

For that matter, where is the LIST of everything the arguing person knows? If it exists then it must be in a LIST, right?

Mike

Oh, you know where the list is Mike. You have see it every-time you drive down the Interstate HW in the southern USA. Its on those billboards and handmade backyard signs of our self righteous Protestant brothers who build their homes next to the interstate; or you got it in the bulk mail from recruitment fliers that come in the mailing from the altar call type churches when they start their new membership drives when a new preacher moves down the street from the other 20 denominations. All those 7,959 NT bible verses of the bible just reduce to a few Protestant salvation slogans: 1) “Jesus Saves” and 2) “Come to Jesus”.

James

 

[elvisman]

How about a quote from the Lord?Mark 7:9-13
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
**10 “For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; **
**11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ **
**12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; **
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”While I don’t believe that all tradition is to be condemned, certainly, according to Jesus, all tradition that sets itself against scripture must be exposed for what it is, fought against, set aside, and ignored.

In general, the appeal of the early Fathers in regard to tradition was to the teaching of Scripture as the tradition. The question then becomes, “were they (and the subsequent church leadership) correct in their interpretations of scripture, and their definitions of tradition?”

To that, I would counter with the following:
2 Thess. 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

---

2 Thess. 3:6
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us"

---

2 Tim. 2:2
"What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also".

---

1 Cor. 11:2
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you".

---

1 Tim. 3:15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.**

---

John 16:13-15******
***But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to *****all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. **
**He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. **
**Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. **

---

These passages show that not all is to be written down. The ECF’s understood this and that is why they DIDN’T adhere to Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura was an invention - a “tradition of men” that sprouted up some 1500 years after the Church was established by Jesus.

 

[MarcoPolo]

*Article: Initially the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures.*When I read that, I heard a sound in my head…it was the buzzer from the old Family Feud…

When someone makes a false statement of “fact” such as the above, and proceeds to put forth a false definition of Tradition, it actually helps lead reasonable people to the Catholic Church. How many conversion stories I’ve heard that mention that they once “just accepted” sola scriptura position without a thought…

 

[Rick09]

Article: Initially the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures.When I read that, I heard a sound in my head…it was the buzzer from the old Family Feud…

When someone makes a false statement of “fact” such as the above, and proceeds to put forth a false definition of Tradition, it actually helps lead reasonable people to the Catholic Church. How many conversion stories I’ve heard that mention that they once “just accepted” sola scriptura position without a thought…

Exactly. I noticed the same thing.

Where, exactly, are we told in the Scriptures that everything in the oral tradition was codified in the Scriptures?

I don’t understand how any serious Protestant can continue to put this line of argument out. Maybe they’re just following Martin Luther - it is so simply because they “will have it so.”

cogwriter.com/news/church-history/martin-luther-changed-andor-discounted-18-books-of-the-bible/

 

[cfrancis]

From the article:

The Early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture. Their writings literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists such as Justin martyr and Athenagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation

It would appear neither the OP nor the article’s author have really read the ECF.
For example, St Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the Philadelphians:

Ch XIII
For I have heard some saying, If I do not find the Gospel in the archives, I will not believe it…He who disbelieves the Gospel disbelieves everything along with it. For the archives ought not to be preferred to the Spirit. Or, “the archives of the Spirit are not exposed to all.” “It is hard to kick against the pricks;” it is hard to disbelieve Christ; it is hard to reject the preaching of the apostles

Note St Ignatius does not limit his statement to “it is hard to reject the writing of the apostles.”
In his letter to the Smyrnaeans:

Ch VII
It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and neither in private nor in public to talk them; but to give heed to the law, and the prophets, and to those who have preached to you the word of salvation. But flee from all abominable heresies, and those that cause schisms, as the beginning of evils.
Ch XIII
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.

Note the appeal to the written and spoken word and the appeal to follow the bishop.

From St Polycarp of Smyrna’s Letter to the Philippians:

Chapter VII.—Avoid the Docetæ, and persevere in fasting and prayer.
“…Wherefore, forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning; “watching unto prayer,” and persevering in fasting; beseeching in our supplications the all-seeing God “not to lead us into temptation,” as the Lord has said: “The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

Note he does not limit the appeal to the “written word” but to “the word.”

And St Papias writes:

I. From the exposition of the oracles of the Lord
But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,—what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.

Note the appeal to what was said, not what was written.

 

[cfrancis]

As a last offering, I give you St Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, a first-rate defense of the faith:

Chapter LXV.—Administration of the sacraments.
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
Chapter LXVI.—Of the Eucharist.
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

St Justin Martyr describes, defends the Mass, not from Scripture alone, but from both the written and spoken word.

 

[runandsew]

I guess that when you only provide the quotes of the church fathers that point to the attributes of scripture and not the quotes that point to tradition, then it would appear that they indeed believe in sola scriptura.

But they were not either/or Christians, so when they write about scripture in one letter and then also write about tradition in another letter, they are not pitting one against the other, they are writing to show that the church uses both sacred scripture and apostolic tradition.

When some of the later fathers write about apostolic tradition, it is not because they all of a sudden invented a new doctrine, it was because they are writing to counter an error or heresy in which they had to bring up the subject of sacred tradition.
That something was probably heretics supporting their errors by appealing to Scripture alone, and rejecting the apostolic traditions.