Early church fathers believed in sola scriptura?

[CentralFLJames]

Worship on Sunday is found in scripture: Acts 20, 1 Cor 16.

Scripture is able to equip the man of God for every good work (2 Tim 2:17).

You’re putting words in my mouth on the basis of Philthy’s interesting point, which point has been dealt with.

You make reading the scripture a work of perspiration - are Protestants rediscovering works?

And talking about putting words in people’s mouths what is your read on this part of the scripture you cited?

*1 Cor 16:22 (KJV)
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha. *

What does Sola Scruptura tell us about the meaning of the above verse, in particular the final word “Maranatha”? How do you know what this means without benefit of tradition?

Recollect that the original Greek has no punctuation. So do we take Maranatha here to mean “O Lord, come!” as if Paul is praying for the early return of Christ? Or does the Greek divide differently (Maran atha, “Our Lord has come”) to become a credal declaration? Or is it just an early Christian greeting or departure phrase?

Or do you go with the new Protestant tradition of seeing the use of Maranatha here as a blessing?!

Do you care to consider that the earlier Church has always seen the phrase Anathma Maranata as taken together to be the worst possible curse (e.g. 7th Century Pope Silverius pronounced anyone who deceives a bishop as "anathema maranatha)? **How do you know which way to interpret this verse without traditional insights when one possible understanding of this phrase is that the offender would be excluded from communion with the Church until the return of Christ (tying the punishment to the term Maranatha.)? ** This is a complete opposite interpretation than most Protestants have. How do you resolve that?

How do you know what to think if you know that the original Greek meaning of “anathema”, a gift or sacrifice to God, could lead to the interpretation that “Anathema Maranatha” in a New Testament context could mean “a gift to God at the coming of our Lord”? Is Paul giving those that pay lip service to Jesus and refuse to love him a blessing?! Is this verse a curse or a blessing or both all in the single sentence? How do lay practioniors of sola scripture resolve these delimmas? Do you flip a coin among yourselves?

To me its extremely ironic that in the 20th Century, especially in Protestant circles, the word “Maranatha” seems to have shed its negative associations, and it is now widely used as a title by Christian organizations and institutions! It seems people don’t even know Paul that well. They forget that he often turned heretics and those who twisted his words over to Satan (1 Tim 1:20, 1 Cor 5:5).

There should be no surprise to the Apostolic Church, The Catholic Church, why Protestants find themselves seperated from The Catholic Church. It because they live under a 2,000 year old apostolic curse for teaching a hither-to-unspoken gospel never before taught by any apostle.

Galatians 1:9
“If any one preach to you a gospel besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”

Without the benefit of the apostolic teaching authority and tradition of The Catholic Church scripture taken through the distorted lens of private interpretation (e.g. Sola Scriptura) leads directly to the opposite of salvation - a curse of anathema.

How ironic and self defeating - going to hell for driving scripture incompetently without a license to teach. Invincible ignorance is some people’s best shot at salvation…

James

 

[sandusky]

Nope - I calls 'em as I sees 'em and I see a guy who has run out of smug answers.

LOL.

The fact of the matter is Sola Scriptura is a man-made tradition that can’t even be proven with Scripture. I challenged you to show me the Scriptural evidence and you failed.

Ask Irenaeus.

 

[sandusky]

You make reading the scripture a work of perspiration - are Protestants rediscovering works?

And talking about putting words in people’s mouths what is your read on this part of the scripture you cited?

*1 Cor 16:22 (KJV)
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha. *

What does Sola Scruptura tell us about the meaning of the above verse, in particular the final word “Maranatha”? How do you know what this means without benefit of tradition?

Recollect that the original Greek has no punctuation. So do we take Maranatha here to mean “O Lord, come!” as if Paul is praying for the early return of Christ? Or does the Greek divide differently (Maran atha, “Our Lord has come”) to become a credal declaration? Or is it just an early Christian greeting or departure phrase?

Or do you go with the new Protestant tradition of seeing the use of Maranatha here as a blessing?!

Do you care to consider that the earlier Church has always seen the phrase Anathma Maranata as taken together to be the worst possible curse (e.g. 7th Century Pope Silverius pronounced anyone who deceives a bishop as "anathema maranatha)? **How do you know which way to interpret this verse without traditional insights when one possible understanding of this phrase is that the offender would be excluded from communion with the Church until the return of Christ (tying the punishment to the term Maranatha.)? ** This is a complete opposite interpretation than most Protestants have. How do you resolve that?

How do you know what to think if you know that the original Greek meaning of “anathema”, a gift or sacrifice to God, could lead to the interpretation that “Anathema Maranatha” in a New Testament context could mean “a gift to God at the coming of our Lord”? Is Paul giving those that pay lip service to Jesus and refuse to love him a blessing?! Is this verse a curse or a blessing or both all in the single sentence? How do lay practioniors of sola scripture resolve these delimmas? Do you flip a coin among yourselves?

To me its extremely ironic that in the 20th Century, especially in Protestant circles, the word “Maranatha” seems to have shed its negative associations, and it is now widely used as a title by Christian organizations and institutions!

“Marantha” (or possibly, Maran atha), is not Greek, James, but Aramaic.

 

[onenow1]

LOL.

Ask Irenaeus.

Adversus Haereses, Book I, chapter 10​

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.] For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.”
Adversus Haereses, Book III, chapter 3-2

Does this help ? It always comes down to authority.

Peace,onenow1

 

[CentralFLJames]

“Marantha” (or possibly, Maran atha), is not Greek, James, but Aramaic.

Yes - Aramaic but expressed through the Greek texts. You know what I meant.

Why must you always dodge and not anwer the questions we give you?

Answer my questions. What is your take on the meaning and how do you resolve the dilemmas without benefit of tradition? Do we have a new sola - sola a-la Monte Carlo - put your wager on the best looking idea among the 32,000 or so Protestant denominations - may the best man win?

James

 

[sandusky]

Yes - Aramaic but expressed through the Greek texts. You know what I meant.

It’s a “transliteration.”

CentralFLJames:

Why must you always dodge and not anwer the questions we give you?

Why must you always refer to my response as a “dodge?”

Why isn’t it a “Ford,” or a “Chevy?”

CentralFLJames:

Answer my questions. What is your take on the meaning and how do you resolve the dilemmas without benefit of tradition? Do we have a new sola - sola a-la Monte Carlo - put your wager on the best looking idea among the 32,000 or so Protestant denominations - may the best man win?

In the verse you used, 1 Cor 16, it’s consider to be eschatological, “Come O Lord.”

 

[Philthy]

Phil, read the two quotes from Irenaeus above; those two are only the beginning.

Yeah, its good stuff - nice to know he was around to do battle!
That first reference you give does not exactly say that Scripture alone is the pillar and foundation of Truth - we know that is not the case because Scripture itself tells us the church of the living God is. Although I can understand why, if that was his only comment, you might draw that conclusion. Even within it (admittedly Im looking merely at the english translation) there is some ambiguity as to whether he is speaking of Scripture alone or of the tradition handed on to the apostles which is within Scripture. Look how he articulates tradition in this section…

Against Heresies 3.2.2 (the very next paragraph)

1. But, again, when we refer them(ie heretics) to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

 

[cydonian]

The ground and pillar of our faith is the scripture,

are you trying to replace faith for truth?

1 Tim 3:15 says that the pillar and foundation of truth is the church.

 

[sandusky]

Yeah, its good stuff - nice to know he was around to do battle!
That first reference you give does not exactly say that Scripture alone is the pillar and foundation of Truth - we know that is not the case because Scripture itself tells us the church of the living God is. Although I can understand why, if that was his only comment, you might draw that conclusion. Even within it (admittedly Im looking merely at the english translation) there is some ambiguity as to whether he is speaking of Scripture alone or of the tradition handed on to the apostles which is within Scripture. Look how he articulates tradition in this section…

Against Heresies 3.2.2 (the very next paragraph)

1. But, again, when we refer them(ie heretics) to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

I don’t think that’s the next paragraph, Phil.

 

[sandusky]

are you trying to replace faith for truth?

1 Tim 3:15 says that the pillar and foundation of truth is the church.

You’re argument would be Irenaeus.

I actually believe that is the pillar and foundation that upholds the truth—the scripture.

 

[cydonian]

And, for the hundredth time, where’s that list of unwritten tradition, and its unidentified authors?

If you mean ‘unwritten’ as not literally word for word in scripture -
I would say the the Cathecism tells you all that you need to know.

 

[Philthy]

I don’t think that’s the next paragraph, Phil.

Oops! Im sorry - its the next Chapter…
That is incidental, however, compared to the more substantial point of what is contained within the paragraph.

Also, in claiming that there was some ambiguity regarding what exactly constituted the pillar of faith according to Irenaeus, I should have also included the sentence following the one you presented. Here’s the whole thing:
Irenaeus 3.1.1 We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.

It seems to me that the very veracity of the preaching of the Apostles was called into question by the heretics and Iraneaus is
condemning the notion. If his first sentence had been meant to establish the independent authority of Scripture, it seems odd that he would follow that statement with a discussion of whether the preaching of the Apostles flowed from perfect knowledge initially. The fact that he does make the comment supports my idea that it is the Apostolic tradition, together with Scripture which constitutes “the pillar and foundation”. The additional comments that I supplied from Chapter 2 elaborate on the existence of a tradition from the Apostles even further…
Here is what I believe the primary intended flow of thought is:

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public…to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.

 

[elvisman]

LOL.

Ask Irenaeus.

I did and this is what he had to say:

"Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace" (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).

*"[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it — men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no “reformation” of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism . . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place" * (ibid., 4:33:7-8).

HERE’S THE KNOCKOUT PUNCH:
"Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly*, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things*, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

Doesn’t sound a whole lot like a Sola Scriptura adherent to me.

ONE last time, buddy:
Can you show me where Sola Scriptura is advocated - in Scripture? If you can’t - the discussion is over. **

 

[sandusky]

I did and this is what he had to say:

"Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace" (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).

"[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it — men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no “reformation” of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism . . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place" * (ibid., 4:33:7-8).*

HERE’S THE KNOCKOUT PUNCH:
"Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly*, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things*, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished

WITH THE LORD’S SCRIPTURES."

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

Doesn’t sound a whole lot like a Sola Scriptura adherent to me.

ONE last time, buddy:
Can you show me where Sola Scriptura is advocated - in Scripture? If you can’t - the discussion is over. SS presupposes a canon; however, you can look at the last 4 words of your “knockout punch,” for where all truth is found. (I’ve put them in all caps, so you don’t miss them. )

 

[Jon_S]

SS presupposes a canon; however, you can look at the last 4 words of your “knockout punch,” for where all truth is found. (I’ve put them in all caps, so you don’t miss them. )

The sentence you put in caps does not say all truth is found in the scriptures.

 

[elvisman]

SS presupposes a canon; however, you can look at the last 4 words of your “knockout punch,” for where all truth is found. (I’ve put them in all caps, so you don’t miss them. )

Read Irenaeus’s words in CONTEXT, Sandusky.
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT.

You see the words, but you fail to understand. He is saying that the CHURCH is where the truth is and that the Scriptures belong to the CHURCH. Therefore, we must not deviate from what the CHURCH teaches because we do so at our own destruction.

Take all the time you need and get back to me . . .

 

[wcknight]

How absurd !

How can you have sola scriptura when the early church fathers ONLY had the Old Testament until the books of the new testament were finally compiled several hundred years later.

They would have had to only abide by the Old Testament and everything about Jesus would have had to be omitted… pure rubbish !

 

[sandusky]

How absurd !

How can you have sola scriptura when the early church fathers ONLY had the Old Testament until the books of the new testament were finally compiled several hundred years later.

They would have had to only abide by the Old Testament and everything about Jesus would have had to be omitted… pure rubbish !

The apostles wrote the NT books, and the church has always had those books.

The writings of the apostles were divinely inspired and authoritative, prior to being canonized.

To which scriptures that the apostles wrote, do you think Irenaeus was referring?

 

[Peter_J]

the early church fathers ONLY had the Old Testament until the books of the new testament were finally compiled several hundred years later.

You’re creating a false dichotomy, as though the early Church had no NT until suddenly they had it in it’s completed form.

Completely wrong.

I hope you’ll forgive me if I skip explaining to you how it actually was – it just gets tiresome to go over the same explanation over and over, and then over and over again. Maybe you could read some of the existing threads?

 

[Peter_J]

That would seem to be what Pius IX said in Ineffabilis Deus.

Unless the bold part means something different than what it seems to say.

Yes, alright I can see how that would be confusing: on the one hand Catholics say that there’s “no salvation outside the Church” (“Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”), and then Ineffabilis Deus says that anyone who disagrees with the dogma of the IC “has separated from the unity of the Church”.

So the “obvious conclusion” is that anyone who disagrees with the IC, goes to hell. But in this case the “obvious conclusion” is incorrect.