Early church fathers believed in sola scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter coleraine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sandusky said:
Off the top of my head, I’d point to Ps 19, and 119, as points for you to begin your denial of scripture’s sufficiency.
Click to expand...
Well, Sandusky - I dropped out of the conversation pages and pages ago because I got tired of presenting you with proof only to receive smugness and deeply flawed biblical interpretation.

You have submitted dozens and dozens of posts in this thread and you still haven’t proven a thing, except that you refuse to give up on this weak position.

The truth is that Scripture itself just doesn’t support the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It has been presented to you ad nauseum but you still can’t (or won’t) see.

The Scriptures are against you and so are the Early Church Fathers.

Truly, there is none so blind as he who refuses to see.
 
sandusky said:
There are doctrines expounded and passed on today in “extra-biblical books,” such as commentaries, etc.

My point is, ISTM, that inherent in the Catholic position concerning “tradition,” there is the notion that what was taught orally by the apostles, differs from what they wrote.

As far as the Didache, I have no problem with the book. I have a friend, and fellow church member, who wrote a book on it, (The Way of the Didache: The First Christian Handbook) and it seems to have been well-received by some Catholics.

I had the great pleasure of sitting in on more than “a month of Sundays” of his lecturing on it prior to his book’s release.
Click to expand...
Really? Does your Bible-based church celebrate the Eucharist as outlined in the Didache?
 
sandusky said:
I disagree with you, Phil. Scripture, itself, claims to be sufficient and powerful to bring one to salvation, and to bring one to God’s approval.
Click to expand...
Oh come on, now. Now your gonna “bait and switch” by initiating the discussion with your erroneous interpretation of the CCC and - following “correction” - attempt to divert it to a discussion of an interpretation of Scripture? Let me guess - your interpretation is the gold standard! :hmmm: No thanks!
 
elvisman said:
Well, Sandusky - I dropped out of the conversation pages and pages ago because I got tired of presenting you with proof only to receive smugness and deeply flawed biblical interpretation.
Click to expand...
I’m sure you were very tired, and that’s a very good reason for leaving.

elvisman said:
You have submitted dozens and dozens of posts in this thread and you still haven’t proven a thing, except that you refuse to give up on this weak position.
Click to expand...

I understand; I haven’t proven a thing, and you were tired, and so you left.

elvisman said:
The truth is that Scripture itself just doesn’t support the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It has been presented to you ad nauseum but you still can’t (or won’t) see.
Click to expand...

I understand, elvisman; I cannot see.

elvisman said:
The Scriptures are against you and so are the Early Church Fathers.
Click to expand...

And once again, you’ve proven a point by simply stating the point. You’re truly amazing, elvisman.

elvisman said:
Truly, there is none so blind as he who refuses to see.
Click to expand...

Except for those who are truly blind and cannot see, eh? 😉
 
Philthy said:
Oh come on, now. Now your gonna “bait and switch” by initiating the discussion with your erroneous interpretation of the CCC and - following “correction” - attempt to divert it to a discussion of an interpretation of Scripture? Let me guess - your interpretation is the gold standard! :hmmm: No thanks!
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
paul_c said:
Sandusky,
In answer to you question on what I thought was in scripture and what was orally tranfered in the Against heresy quote from St. Iraneas. I open to debate, but I think there is more confered here than from scripture, which is exactly the point. Tradition augments scripture

this can certainly be found in scripture

as can this

I don’t think this is found directly in scripture… nor is it denied.

this is described in Luke’s infant narratives

this is of course scriptural

can be found in Ephesians 1:10

the essence can be found in Philippians 2:10-11

I think this is a little more than you can find directly in scripture.

Again, this is more than you could get out of scripture…
Click to expand...
All of what Irenaeus says is supported by scripture.
 
clmowry said:
Now you’ve changed the game.

Proving your claim that scripture claims sufficiency for itself is one conversation.

Debating whether or not scripture contians enough truth to be materially sufficient for salvation is not the same thing.

Chuck
Click to expand...
Scripture says that through it I can know I have eternal life; therefore, I can know.

That’s enough for me.
 
paul_c said:
Like ps 19, Ps 119 talks about following God’s decrees, but this could just as readily be orally translated decrees as they could written scripture. The distinction is never made. Considering that when these were written, probably 1000BC, it is much more likely that the translation was primarily oral. don’t you agree?
(since its the longest Psalm, I won’t bother copying it in.
Click to expand...
They had the law, written down.
 
cfrancis said:
How do you do this?
Click to expand...
As the Lord did in Mt 26:26-28.
40.png
cfrancis:
In a related issue, how do you baptize members in your church?
Click to expand...
Immersion.
 
sandusky said:
As the Lord did in Mt 26:26-28.
Click to expand...
And who plays the role of Jesus? What is YOUR church tradition? Do you all sit around a long picnic table and somone draws lots to decide who gets to says the words “Take, eat; this is My Body”? What kind of bread is used? What kind of wine?

If you say Jewish Rye and Manishevitz I will say baloney.
Matthew 26:26-28:
26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you;
28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Click to expand...
James
 
Previously Sundusky asked for a list of Catholic Traditions and we told him essentially it was not a thing that was so tangible that it could all be even described in a list and was best experienced by “being Catholic” and experiencing it. I wanted here to give another prime example of how tradition is integrated into “The Church”.

Today, 21 Nov. in Catholic Masses world wide we celebrate the memorial of “The Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary”. This is an excellent example where there is no direct scriptural reference to Mary ever being presented in the Temple.

Mary’s presentation was celebrated in Jerusalem in the sixth century. A church was built there in honor of this mystery. The Eastern Church was more interested in the feast, but it does appear in the West in the 11th century. Although the feast at times disappeared from the calendar, in the 16th century it became a feast of the universal Church.

As with Mary’s birth, we read of Mary’s presentation in the temple only in apocryphal literature. In what is recognized as an unhistorical account, the Protoevangelium of James tells us that Anna and Joachim offered Mary to God in the Temple when she was three years old. This was to carry out a promise made to God when Anna was still childless.

Though it cannot be proven historically, Mary’s presentation has an important theological purpose. It continues the impact of the feasts of the Immaculate Conception and of the birth of Mary. It emphasizes that the holiness conferred on Mary from the beginning of her life on earth continued through her early childhood and beyond.

More here: Feast of the Presentation of Mary

This is yet another example of tradition that has been practised in the Catholic Church for a long time.

James
 
clmowry said:
Where, pray tell.

Chuck
Click to expand...
Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
(John 20:30-31 NASB)
Click to expand...
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, **so that you may know that you have eternal life. **
(1 John 5:13 NASB)
Click to expand...
 
^^

SyCarl,

Now, I already know that you believe in the Sufficiency of Scripture, i.e. of the whole bible.

Would it also be correct to say that you believe in the Sufficiency of John?
 
40.png
CentralFLJames:
And who plays the role of Jesus?
Click to expand...
Nobody—Jesus is singularly unique.
40.png
CentralFLJames:
What is YOUR church tradition? Do you all sit around a long picnic table and somone draws lots to decide who gets to says the words “Take, eat; this is My Body”? What kind of bread is used? What kind of wine?

If you say Jewish Rye and Manishevitz I will say baloney.
Click to expand...
We celebrate the Supper in the Church building proper, and whoever is preaching presides. We use small “biscuits,” and grape juice.
 
Peter J:
sandusky,

I don’t usually get into these kind of arguments, but I can’t help wondering: in what form, specifically, do you see that claim existing in, say A.D. 40 or 50, i.e. before the entire New Testament had been written? Perhaps just as a general principle that the entire Deposit of Faith should, be written down eventually?
Click to expand...
The form would include any NT writings available at the time, as well as the OT. More important, however, Paul is not speaking about the content of Scripture, but the nature, the power and ability of Scripture to transform.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top