Early church fathers believed in sola scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter coleraine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
^^ Hmm … perhaps my question was a bit broad.

Let me instead ask you, is it safe to say that you accept “tradition” insofar as it tells what the canon of the bible is?
 
^^ Hmm … perhaps my question was a bit broad.

Let me instead ask you, is it safe to say that you accept “tradition” insofar as it tells what the canon of the bible is?
Certainly, and a tradition that’s still disputed. So much for “tradition.” 🤷
 
Please, Peter, we all know how the canon came into existence. :ehh:
Clearly, no one is really taking sandusky seriously any longer.

Perhaps sandusky can redeem himself by describing to us what we all know: how the canon came into existence, when Protestants, Catholics and various Orthodox Churches have not even a commonly agreed OT canon. Then later, we can ask him to prove that the canon of Scripture is really canonical. Perhaps he will have some special insights that will solve the “problem of the canon” that have bugged Protestants since their foundation in the middle ages.
 
Clearly, no one is really taking sandusky seriously any longer.

Perhaps sandusky can redeem himself by describing to us what we all know: how the canon came into existence, when Protestants, Catholics and various Orthodox Churches have not even a commonly agreed OT canon.
See my post above.
40.png
peregrinus_sg:
Then later, we can ask him to prove that the canon of Scripture is really canonical. Perhaps he will have some special insights that will solve the “problem of the canon” that have bugged Protestants since their foundation in the middle ages.
I’m not proving anything until I get the unwritten list of tradition and its unidentified authors. 😉

Perhaps when you do that, I’ll take all of you seriously. :hmmm:
 
:hmmm: Perhaps because it is so idiotic and so silly that only imbeciles could really think that Whitaker can be reasonable and still believe in the authority of the written word. By answering it, it might make Whitaker’s point less stupid than it really is.

Apparently, you still haven’t understood what the Catholic concept of Tradition is about. You still hold on to the idea of Tradition as simply a collection of items, or that living Tradition could ever be contained in something written.

Can culture be written down into a book? Can I write about Scouting traditions and pass on to my grandchildren and say: “Here is the list of Scouting traditions, study it hard and you will be like any other Scout, even if you will never be part of the Scout movement”? Only by entering into the life of the Scout unit can the Scouting traditions be handed on fully, because these traditions are a way of living, thinking and being. It cannot be all written down. Ditto for God’s revelation. When God revealed himself, he didn’t just leave behind some commandments and words, he left us his actions (which continues to be present) and his presence, his life and his love, we cannot confine the richness of God’s revelation to between 2 covers and 73 books (opps, for you its only 66).

Throughout the history of the Church, there have been times when heretics misinterpret the faith and the Church was guided by God to enunciate with greater clarity what is in accordance with the fullness of the Apostolic Tradition she has received. One can easily pick up the Catechism of the Catholic Church for this purpose. I’m sure you can find a copy somewhere online.

But I’ll throw back a question at you. Other than the few Seventh-Day Adventists, and some other Protestant friends that I know, most Christians accept that Sunday is a holy day set aside for worship of the Lord. Since you think that Scripture is self-sufficient, how do these Christians base their rejection of the explicit command of God in OT to honour the Sabbath (clearly a Saturday) and worship on Sunday instead? Catholics can take refuge in Tradition as witnessed in the practice of the Church through the centuries, but sola Scriptura folks can’t.

You may have made a terrible caricature of Catholic teaching in one of your posts when you said:

Yes, Catholics accept that the Catholic Church can infallibly and authentically interpret Scripture as well as Tradition, as well as any matters pertaining to God. But within the Catholic Tradition, there are many, many possible ways of understanding and interpreting the same text of Scripture. By tradition, we can understand the text literally, allegorically, morally or anagogically (though I doubt many Catholics know the last one). The website of the Congregation of the Clergy (Vatican) has generously made available the interpretational tools written by the Church Fathers, and you might be surprised to know that Church Fathers do contradict one another, yet these interpretations do not contradict the great Tradition of the faith from the Apostles.

So every Catholic reading the Bible do interpret the Scriptures. The Church doesn’t want us to be mindless when we read Scripture. But unlike sola Scriptura folks, we understand Scripture with the experience of the Catholic Tradition in mind. If we have an interpretation that is contrary to the living Tradition of the Church, we know that this is wrong, and we would set our interpretation aside and turn to the spiritual masters in the Church for assistance.

Catholics can take comfort that we know when we stray away from the Truth that God reveals. But for sola Scriptura folks like yourself, you have only the fate that you had already mentioned in store:

And you really have no idea who you can turn to to discern if you have played into the hands of Satan, who is himself the Master in twisting the words of Scripture.
Lotta anger in you, eh?
 
Please, Peter, we all know how the canon came into existence. :ehh:
So you admit that the Catholic Church had the authority to put together the Bible then.
Why do you not believe it has the authority to do anything else???
 
So you admit that the Catholic Church had the authority to put together the Bible then.
Why do you not believe it has the authority to do anything else???
It certainly doesn’t seem to have the ability, let alone the authority to release a list of unwritten tradition. 🤷
 
I will ask for a third time sandusky.

Where in scripture is a list of the contents of the Bible?
 
So you admit that the Catholic Church had the authority to put together the Bible then.
Why do you not believe it has the authority to do anything else???
cydonian, what is amazing, is my protestant cousins (pray for him) told me this, that the Catholic Church “got it right” or some other formula like that at the Great Councils of Cartharge and Orange. They never cease to amaze, God help them and God help us all.

Honestly, I’ve noticed that the most docile protestants are those who have a very deep respect for Our Lady. Coincidence? No, Our Lady takes care of anyone if they but ask for her help.
 
It certainly doesn’t seem to have the ability, let alone the authority to release a list of unwritten tradition. 🤷
If the Catholic Church is an inept as you think, how can you believe that they got the NT right?
 
cydonian, what is amazing, is my protestant cousins (pray for him) told me this, that the Catholic Church “got it right” or some other formula like that at the Great Councils of Cartharge and Orange. They never cease to amaze, God help them and God help us all.

It amazes me too RC.
I was just curious to hear sandusky’s response, if any.
 
If the Catholic Church is an inept as you think, how can you believe that they got the NT right?
This thread is not about “ineptitude,” but “truth.” If your Church were the one true Church she should be able to substantiate her claims concerning “unwritten tradition,” IMO.

But since you’ve introduced the idea of “ineptitude,” it’s also, my opinion that “ineptitude” in handling the truth of Scripture is shown in the early Church’s blunder of thinking that she had replaced Israel, and inherited all of God’s promises to Israel.

Israel and the Church; the Origin and Effects of Replacement Theology.
 
I will ask for a third time sandusky.

Where in scripture is a list of the contents of the Bible?
And I will tell you for the second time that SS presupposes a canon of Scripture.

SS was, after all, formulated by former Catholics at the time of the Reformation.

And, for the hundredth time, where’s that list of unwritten tradition, and its unidentified authors?
 
And I will tell you for the second time that SS presupposes a canon of Scripture.

SS was, after all, formulated by former Catholics at the time of the Reformation.

And, for the hundredth time, where’s that list of unwritten tradition, and its unidentified authors?
He won’t reply.
Again, my point proven. What sandy doesn’t understand is that our faith doesn’t depend on things that have not been defined: the Church has publicly taught and dogmatized any and everything that needs to be believed in order for salvation to be accomplished.

However, the crux of what He uses for his faith formation, the bible, he has taken for granted without realizing that it is only because of the Church that He has such a high assurance in the written Word of God. He will never have an answer why Habakuk in in the OT canon and not Tobit. Or why the *Gospel of Thomas * didn’t make it, but James did.
 
Certainly, and a tradition that’s still disputed.
True, there isn’t agreement about the whole canon of scripture.

Nevertheless, there is agreement about the canon of the New Testament, which I would call a very significant agreement wouldn’t you?
So much for “tradition.” 🤷
I don’t find it discouraging that Christians disagree with the canon of the bible. Look at it this way: Christians disagree about the tradition of interpreting kecharitoméne in such a way as to imply that Mary was sinless; so why shouldn’t Christians also disagree about the tradition of how many books there are in the bible?
 
Again, my point proven. What sandy doesn’t understand is that our faith doesn’t depend on things that have not been defined: the Church has publicly taught and dogmatized any and everything that needs to be believed in order for salvation to be accomplished.

However, the crux of what He uses for his faith formation, the bible, he has taken for granted without realizing that it is only because of the Church that He has such a high assurance in the written Word of God. He will never have an answer why Habakuk in in the OT canon and not Tobit. Or why the *Gospel of Thomas * didn’t make it, but James did.
You’re trying to switch the issue. The church that defined the canon is not the church that teaches unsupported, unwritten tradition that she alone defines. 🤷
 
… SS presupposes a canon of Scripture. SS was, after all, formulated by former Catholics at the time of the Reformation.
This is quite interesting. This is the strongest rebuttal to the OP claim that the ECFs practiced SS. They couldnt have if SS was not even “formulated” until a thousand years later. Why didnt you simply lead with this and then start another thread on Sacred Tradition? 😉
What are some examples of Sacred Tradition? I admit my understanding is lacking, but here are some things that come to mind:
Sunday is the Lord’s day
The Mass
Infant baptism
Real Presence
NT Canon
Trinity
Divinity of Christ
Humanity of Christ
Seven Sacraments
Assumption of Mary
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top