Early church fathers believed in sola scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter coleraine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve answered that for you, Phil. ISTM you should get off the roller coaster, sit down, and try paying attention to what’s been posted.
Oh quit bein’ such a crybaby! I didnt mean to offend you. Im on vacation - Im tryin’ my best to keep up in a room with 3 kids runnin’ around and makin all sorts of noise…
I’ll review the thread to see where I missed the official “establishment” of the canon according to Protestants which doesnt preclude the ECFs knowing of it…
 
Many, including me… would say that they were infallibly defined by Trent.
Is this where I missed you claiming the canon of Scripture being defined at Trent? What was I supposed to think you meant here?
 
The Early Church Fathers Did not believe in sola scriptura. They believed in the Tradition passed to them from the Apostles
Remember all letters were written by hand and recopied by hand and most people could not read therefore the writings were read in the Church.
The New Testament was written by the early community and the writers had no idea they were writing a bible.Also most letters were written to correct problems in belief.The Church protected the doctrine that was handed down from Jesus to the Apostles.This is what the protestants cannot understand.
The Church is Foundation and Pillar of Truth not the bible,Check out 1 Timothy 3-15.
The Holy Spirit guides Church not the individuals.There are over
30,000 denominations in the USA and all profess to be the true
church. The is only one true Church and that is the Catholic Church founded by Jesus.Check out Matthew 16:13-20.
People today tend to underestimate the intelligence of the Early Fathers. They knew the Old Testament better than most people today realize.They were very educated and more knowledgeable
and many knew the Apostles or acquainted with people who knew
them.The Early Church Fathers were Catholic not protestant.
There are many protestants who are very sincere in their faith but they do not have the whole truth.The have eyes but not see ears but do not listen.They think their faith will be compromised if they
investigate the Catholic Church.
I am a convert from Southern Baptist and I do not regret it.I now belong to the Church that Jesus Founded and my faith is much richer and deeper and has more meaning.
It seems that the protestants pick and choose what they want to believe and they believe everything wrong about the Catholic Church.
 
The Church protected the doctrine that was handed down from Jesus to the Apostles.This is what the protestants cannot understand.
The Church is Foundation and Pillar of Truth not the bible,Check out 1 Timothy 3-15.
The Holy Spirit guides Church not the individuals.There are over
30,000 denominations in the USA and all profess to be the true
church. The is only one true Church and that is the Catholic Church founded by Jesus.Check out Matthew 16:13-20.
People today tend to underestimate the intelligence of the Early Fathers. They knew the Old Testament better than most people today realize.They were very educated and more knowledgeable
and many knew the Apostles or acquainted with people who knew
them.The Early Church Fathers were Catholic not protestant.
There are many protestants who are very sincere in their faith but they do not have the whole truth.The have eyes but not see ears but do not listen.They think their faith will be compromised if they
investigate the Catholic Church.
I am a convert from Southern Baptist and I do not regret it.I now belong to the Church that Jesus Founded and my faith is much richer and deeper and has more meaning.
It seems that the protestants pick and choose what they want to believe and they believe everything wrong about the Catholic Church.
Dead on 👍

Alot of the problem is with USA’s formation by Protestants [primarily] … and our form of government that resulted from this biased viewpoint. It almost guarantees that one raised here & taught American History will have a deep suspicion of Catholicism & Anglican Euro roots.

Those raised in USA as Catholics must of been driven nuts by all the ignorance and prejudice you had to endure 😃
 
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.

NO, THE SCRIPTURE IS NOT THE PILLAR OF TRUTH! IT IS THE CHURCH, THE TRUE PILLAR AND BULWARK OF TRUTH. PLEASE SEE 1 TIMOTHY 3:15.
 
Question: *Is Christ speaking of the Traditions (oral traditions) of the New Covenant or the abuses and man-made traditions of the pharasis? *It is clear he is NOT speaking of the Ttraditions He Himself gives us but the abuses that have crept into the Jewish faith. Read scripture in context of the time, place and people.

:blessyou:
Well of course, He’s speaking to the Jews.

But what He says to them is nothing more than an interesting story if it’s not applied to all of His people; namely, His Church.

Therefore, the question then becomes, "how does this apply to His Church?

Simple—if tradition nullifies, or contradicts scripture, don’t follow it.
40.png
grayhog86:
Question: If we are to imitate Christ…
Who is Jesus’ Father? Do you honor Him?
Who is Jesus’ Mother? Do you honor her?

Do you call her “blessed”? Do you honor her as the living Ark of the New Covenant?
Blessed, yes; the rest of the stuff, no.
 
Sandusky,
Have you ever identified a Catholic tradition that was opposed to scripture? I think you will find that Catholic tradition augments and explains scripture…
 
I believe that the advice in the book of Acts 17:11 is what we should follow. They were using the scriptures to check out the things that Paul and Silus were teaching to see if what they said was true. They put the authority of scriptures over apostles and prophets and were accounted more noble because they not only recieved the word with readiness of mind. They searched the scriptures daily to see whether the things Paul and Silus taught were so.

Shouldnt we do this today?
Actually, you are not reading that scripture correctly. It says:

11Now 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.

the scripture says that the Bereans were of a more noble character than the Thessalonians who, in the beginning of chpt 17:

1When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3explaining and proving that the Christ[a] had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,**” he said. 4Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.
5But the Jews were jealous; so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace, formed a mob and started a riot in the city. They rushed to Jason’s house in search of Paul and Silas in order to bring them out to the crowd.[c] 6But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other brothers before the city officials, shouting: “These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here, 7and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus.” 8When they heard this, the crowd and the city officials were thrown into turmoil. 9Then they made Jason and the others post bond and let them go.

So Paul is making a contrast here, saying that the Bereans received the message ( the oral message or tradition) with great eagerness unlike the Thessalonians. It also says they examined the scripture every day to see for themselves the witness of scripture with what Paul was preaching.

No where does it say that They put the authority of scriptures over apostles and prophets. It just says they recognized the witness of tradition and scripture.

God Bless**
 
Please, Peter, we all know how the canon came into existence…The scripture was given to us by means of inspiration of the Spirit, and by extension of that inspiration, the providence of God determined that the those in the early church would perve the manuscripts and assemble them into the canon.
Perhaps this is where you believe you addressed the issue of the canon the ECFs held? I dont believe this statement can mean anything more than “the Catholic Church councils declared the canon”(Rome, Carthage, Hippo) Yet when someone mentioned the canon being set in the 4th century you responded that you believe it was defined at Trent - presumably you do so to justify the canon that you hold (which is different than any of those councils). Trent, however, is a long time after the ECFs. That is why I was prompted to say that the question of whether the ECFs believed in SS seems to be inconsistent with such a notion. For that conclusion, you suggested that I pay a little more attention(without actually responding, of course). Perhaps you believe you have spelled it out in this thread, but I havent quite found it yet. Who set the canon that the ECFs used in order to practice Sola Scriptura, when exactly did they do it, **and how do you know this? **
 
Hi

Baptists believe once saved, always saved, yet the Church of Christ says this is not scriptural?

Seventh Day Adventists say we have to worship on Saturday, but Presbyterians say on Sunday?

Lutherans believe in the ‘true presence’ in the Holy Eucharist, yet Baptists do not?

Episcopalians say The Trinity is 3 persons in one GOD, yet Mormons say it is 3 separate GOD’s?

Methodists accept female ministers, yet Baptists say it is not Biblical?

The Assembly of GOD uses instrumental music, yet the Church of Christ says it is not Biblical?
Code:
                                  ____________
All of the above denominations use the same Bible, so why do they not all teach the same doctrine. ?

Peace, onenow1:pizza:
 
SS presupposes a canon, James, and God has promised the preservation of His testimony, and He used those He used to preserve it.
I know you well enough by now Sandusky to realize that this is a serious intellectual dodge! You have tremendous knowledge of Scripture and history, and yet you continue to attempt to prop up the presumption of an ECF canon of Scripture with vague, unsupported comments like this and, well, an occasional insult thrown at those such as myself who continue to press for clarity. I’d probably be a little angry if I didnt have a simple answer to a simple question as well.
 
paul c:
thanks for your post. Now we are getting somewhere. So we now agree that the there are indeed non-Scriptural doctrines. Your position is that they are in error, not because of any ill intent on the part of Catholics, but because they simply made mistakes in the translation from generation to generation…

Ok…

So what you are saying is that the Catholic hierarchy all came to the same errors and never corrected each other… About the things they cared most about and what was really their responsibility to convey from generation to generation… This at a time when they were calling council after council to address the various heresies of the day and to ensure that the Catholic Faith stayed unchanged.

Do you really think that’s a compelling theory?
Yes, they went with the prevailing belief—the Church had replaced Israel. They then raised the OT system under the guise of sacraments, complete with works, penance, priesthood, and a sacrifice that cannot save.

Were their council proclamations accurate? Protestants line up with council proclamations that adhere to scriptural teachings.
paul c:
Isn’t it more likely that the Catholic hierarchy continued to translate the doctrines effectively under the guidance of the Holy Spirit despite the personal corruption of many (but certainly not all) in the church in the late middle ages . Can anyone prove otherwise?
Which doctrines do you have in mind?
paul c:
Sandusky,

Have you ever identified a Catholic tradition that was opposed to scripture? I think you will find that Catholic tradition augments and explains scripture.
Right off the top of my head—the IC.
 
40.png
CentralFLJames:
It seems like you are subscribing to either the “greater fool theory” or are betting against the house that you in your infallability can call somone else’s’ infallability on the carpet at a higher statistical rate of certainty than anyone else.
I said no one interprets infallibly, James, so you’ve missed the mark right off the bat.
 
40.png
twb1621:
In all sincerity, I have a few questions to ask and I hope you honestly answer;
  1. Were you truly a practicing Catholic and if so for how long?
Yes, from about 6 years old to my late teens.
40.png
twb1621:
  1. What happened to you that you turned away and why do you express so much hate for Catholicism and those within the Faith?
I was an unregenerate, unsaved pagan.

Disagreement with you, and challenging you = hating you?

I think you’re projecting.
 
Many, including me, would disagree with you on that. We would say that they were infallibly defined by Trent.
**That begs the question: when was the canon to which you subscribe infallibly defined?

Also, WRT to SS. When you declare “SS presumes a canon”, from what source does that statement come?
What is the source document/teacher for this definition of SS?
If that statement is a fundamental element of SS, it had to come from someone/some source.
Is it Apostolic in origin?
ECF?
Reformation?
Modern?**
 
40.png
cfrancis:
I think Chuck answered that for me a few days ago.

What does the IC of Mary presuppose?
 
Hi

Baptists believe once saved, always saved, yet the Church of Christ says this is not scriptural?

Seventh Day Adventists say we have to worship on Saturday, but Presbyterians say on Sunday?

Lutherans believe in the ‘true presence’ in the Holy Eucharist, yet Baptists do not?

Episcopalians say The Trinity is 3 persons in one GOD, yet Mormons say it is 3 separate GOD’s?

Methodists accept female ministers, yet Baptists say it is not Biblical?

The Assembly of GOD uses instrumental music, yet the Church of Christ says it is not Biblical?
Code:
                                  ____________
All of the above denominations use the same Bible, so why do they not all teach the same doctrine. ?

Peace, onenow1:pizza:
And Catholics say the bread and wine are transubstantiated. 🤷
 
Right off the top of my head—the IC.
The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what “immaculate” means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her “spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

But what about Romans 3:23, “all have sinned”? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.

The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was “invented” at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.

this quote from Catholic Answers says it better than I could.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top