Early church fathers believed in sola scriptura?

[sandusky]

‘They can’t prove it’ is a meaningless arguement. I could fire back with the same argument. ‘Protestants argue that everything is written but they can’t prove it.’

That’s a straw man; protestants don’t argue that (Jn 20:30).

jimmy:

The fact is that what Paul says implies(even proves) that some aspect of the faith isn’t written. To say otherwise is to ignore Paul’s words for your own tradition.

Then produce a list of unwritten tradition with sources proving that it’s unwritten tradition.

jimmy:

Your statement that the bible is the only rule of faith basically says that Christ left His Church as soon as the scriptures were written.

That’s your perception.

jimmy:

The fact is that the faith is not encountered only by reading scripture.

It most certainly is, beginning in Genesis.

jimmy:

The tradition is the worship of the Church and that is where the scripture is primarily meant to be experienced. It is where you encounter Christ to the greatest degree.

Tradition in Catholicism has come to include more than the worship of the church—it’s come to include things that must be believed in order to obtain eternal life, such as, the Marian dogmas, which have no basis in the written testimony of the apostles.

 

[runandsew]

Look to the book where protestants find their main support of sola scriptura 2 Timothy.

2 Timothy 2:
And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

“Well” says the protestant, Paul is simply talking about the Gospel which he preached, the same thing that is found in scripture, he is not talking about something different that is found in scripture. If there is something please show me."

Well in the very next chapter, only 34 verses away, in fact it is the exact chapter that the protestants mainly use to prove sola scriptura, Paul does include a tradition in his teaching, which was not found in scripture, that he is passing onto Timothy:
2 Timothy 3:8:
Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.

The protestant will go on to say: “Well, that could have been a common believe of the time, it doesn’t show that he was teaching something not found in scripture.”

Well, I find that a stretch, but let’s say for the sake of argument, that was not a tradition, and something simply known, and also the rock that followed Christ was also not a tradition passed down.

Let’s look to the teaching of the real presence.
In my first bible quote Paul is telling Timothy that the things that Timothy heard from Paul, pass on to another who in turn will pass on to another. That is 4 generations of passing on some teaching.

St. John passed on the teaching on the Eucharist.
Most protestants will say that is not what St. John was talking about when he wrote the bread of life discourse in John chapter 6.

But St. Ignatius was a taught by St. John, just like Timothy was taught by Paul.
Also, St. Irenaeus was taught by St. Polycarp who was taught by St. John. There you only have 3 generations of passing of some teachings.

This is a teaching that most protestants reject as being un biblical and a man made tradition. But it fits the description of a tradition being passed down from the Apostles, just like St. Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 2:2

Every Tradition of the church can be found implicitly or explicitly in scripture. The protestant might say that no these traditions are not found in scripture, that the Catholics are misinterpreting scripture when they use scripture to back up their traditions.
But that just proves the point.
The Catholic church is appealing to the traditions which in reality, are only the Catholic interpretation of scripture which was passed down from the Apostles.
Do the protestants think the Arians were correct when they appealed to scripture alone and rejected the Sacred Tradition when it came to the divinity of Christ?
Of course they wouldn’t, but the protestant might say, that tradition was not needed because the divinity was so clearly taught in scripture, tradition was not needed. If that was the case, then why did a majority of the bishops of the universal church fall for the teaching, and why did it take 2 or more councils to finally define the divinity of Christ, and the understanding of his relationship in the Trinity?
Why do I think it took that many councils?
Because heretics reject the teaching authority of the church and rely on their own interpretation of scripture alone. And with this mentality, they will only submit to the church kicking and screaming, like a spoiled child.

Did the very earliest fathers believe in sola scriptura, no, but then again, none of the Traditions of the church contradict the bible, so they wouldn’t have to teach this man made tradition.
A protestant might say that the Traditions do in fact contradict the bible, and again, that only proves my point that sola scriptura doesn’t work in real life.

I know Sandusky won’t like my “canned answer” as he has pointed out to many Catholics several times before when they give an answer which he really doesn’t want to address. But Sacred Tradition and not sola scriputra is what is reflected in all of the early church fathers writings, if you read the entire works of the very early fathers, and not just take quotes taken out of context of the message that was being passed on in the particular letter.
It seems to me that many protestants do the same thing to the writings of the early church fathers that they do to scripture, they take it out of context to prove a point because they have their Protestant “lens” on when they read both. They find a verse that seems to prove their point, and then will ignore other passages which contradict that point, or simply just write it off as meaning something else.

 

[guanophore]

That’s a big jump to a big conclusion. In fact, your conclusion is implied in your premise, and is, therefore, circular.

No, the fact that there are authoritative sources outside of Scripture does not imply that scripture is not also authoritative.

Furthermore, it begs the question: where does Jesus refer to the authority of the High Priest, the Pharisees, and the Scribes as “tradition?” Answer: He doesn’t.

I thought we were in agreement that it was the Pharisees rendering of their traditions that Jesus criticized?

What is the Seat of Moses, if not tradition?

What do you think is the source of the High priest, if not tradition?

The text clearly says: ” ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός,” the rock was Christ.

Catholics don’t think that.

the comment was about you. Do you think that? I don’t believe so. I just read that you agreed with the Sola Scriptura link that was posted, so I think that you would affirm that Sacred Tradition was valid, but it was then committed to scripture, and subsequently was otherwise lost.

Paul spoke of “tradition,” singular, not plural as you write above. And, all one need do is read from v1 of chapter 2 to find the “tradition” of which Paul was speaking.

You cannot prove that the “tradition” spoken of in the NT, is anything other than that which was written down.

That part of it certainly was.

You gotta’ love a Catholic who attacks God’s in word in the manner in which you do.

Your apologetic is quite devilish, IMO. Good job!

I thought you believed Catholics are not saved, and therefore, not part of the Body of Christ, and therefore, not objects of the instruction to “love the brethren”?

Any way, the fact that Catholics believe the Gospel by faith, and not by “proof” is not an “attack on the Word”. We choose to believe that the Word of God became flesh, and dwelt among us. This is not something that comes from science,but from faith. If you think that is devilish, that seems strange to me. Do you think the biblical accounts constitute scientific proofs?

 

[guanophore]

Where is it stated in scripture that the Church defines tradition?

When Jesus commissioned the Apostles, He empowered them to “teach all that I have commanded”. He had previously promised to send them the HS, who would bring to mind all that He had said, and guide them into all truth. If the Church was unable to do what He directed, then it is because He is a liar, or a weakling.

Scripture doesn’t set itself against itself.

No, but plenty of personal interpretations result in something that looks quite like that.

That doesn’t prove anything.

Well, I agree that it is a matter of faith, and not “proof”. What the epistle demonstrates that there are traditions that are passed on in person,and also by letter. They are equal in authority.

What’s being posited by Catholics is, tradition is something other than, or something in addition to what has been written. But they can’t prove it.

I am not sure this is the best way to frame this. What the Catholic Church posits is that the entire contents of the NT represent the Sacred Traditions that were lived and passed on by the Apostles according to Jesus’ commandment. The Church never claimed that all of what was committed to it by the Apostles was written.

I agree, I don’t think the writings can be “proven” either. Protestants accept the NT on the same basis that Catholics to, and that it the belief that the HS guided the Church to determine which writings were inspired, and belonged in the canon.

While there is evidence, I think all of it falls short of scientific proof, and legal “proof”.

Then produce a list of unwritten tradition with sources proving that it’s unwritten tradition.

Perhaps you can help? This is something that has been requested frequently here by detractors of the Catholic Church. I have never been able to figure out how it can be done.

Paul speaks about the believers being a “letter”. What is written on the heart, the living letter, are the Traditions (Holy way of life) taught by the Apostles. thsi lifestyle (living and thinking in a Christlike manner) is called in the NT “The Way”.

2 Cor 3:2-3
" You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all; 3 and you show that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts."

Can you help me figure out how to reduce this way of life to a list??

The Sacred Tradition, the Spirit of the Living God manifest in the Church, at work in the believers.

1 Thess 2:13-14

" We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers." 1 Thess 2:13-14

Sacred Tradition is God’s Word at work in the Church.

Acts 2:41-42
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

The Apostles’ teaching, not all of which later became part of the NT, fellowship (how people are to behave when gathered), the breaking of the bread (Divine Liturgy) and prayers (only a few of which were recorded in the NT.

Here is how Sacred Tradition is defined:

“The Catholic Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.”

How does one distill this into a list? Can you, sandusky show us how in your doctrine, life, an worship, perpetuate and transmit to every generation all that you are and all that you believe, be made into a “list”. Also, I see you are asking for authoritative sources, so please include those too. Maybe if you can give us a model, we can figure this out.

That’s your perception.

Actually, I think you more likely believe that Jesus guides us through His word, and that no better source exists.

Tradition in Catholicism has come to include more than the worship of the church—it’s come to include things that must be believed in order to obtain eternal life, such as, the Marian dogmas, which have no basis in the written testimony of the apostles.

It has always included the things that must be believed. That is why we find these things in the NT - they existed in the Tradition prior to the writing of the books and letters. The Sacred Writings were ever intended to contain everything.

 

[elvisman]

Where is it stated in scripture that the Church defines tradition?

This is what I’ll never understand about Protestants. You see the text but your refuse to take heed.
Jesus put the Church in charge of the truth. He said that the Holy Spirit would guide it into ALL truth.

John 16:13-15** explicitly states the following:**
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.

**This includes things that may be written explicitly in Scripture and things that may not be. Jesus promised ****ALL **truth – not just SOME truth. To reveal the things that are coming – not just the things that have happened.

Luke 10:16
**Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." **

Matt. 18:15-18
**"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. **
**If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ **
**If he refuses to listen to them, tell the Church. If he *refuses to listen even to *the Church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. **
**Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. **

John 20:23
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

Scripture doesn’t set itself against itself.

**No, it doesn’t. That’s why Sola Scriptura is a self-refuting doctrine. **
It isn’t so because Scripture itself never claims it to be so.

 

[jimmy]

That’s a straw man; protestants don’t argue that (Jn 20:30).

Then produce a list of unwritten tradition with sources proving that it’s unwritten tradition.

OK, give me a verse that says I have to produce the unwritten list.

As was said above, tradition is not a list.

That’s your perception.

Because it is true. Your aguement amounts to saying that what Christ gave is the scriptures. The Church is simply the gathering of believers in what the scriptures say. It involves nothing but a reading of the scriptures.

It most certainly is, beginning in Genesis.

No, quite wrong. Christ gave Himself, not the bible, to the Church. Unless you encounter Christ you have never encountered the faith.

Tradition in Catholicism has come to include more than the worship of the church—it’s come to include things that must be believed in order to obtain eternal life, such as, the Marian dogmas, which have no basis in the written testimony of the apostles.

No, it hasn’t. Things that must be believed are all derived from scripture according to the Catholic Church, including the Marian dogmas. The thing is that they come through the reading of the scriptures in communion with the Church.

Of course they have a basis in the written testimony, that is only your perception.

 

[jimmy]

That’s a straw man; protestants don’t argue that (Jn 20:30).

No it isn’t. Protestants argue that everything that is necessary is written. The fact though is that the only thing that is necessary is not written. There is one Word of God, Jesus Christ, who you must encounter(it happens in the liturgy of the Church) in order to recieve salvation. The scriptures are good and profitable but they only gain their saving aspect when they are joined with the encounter with Christ that is found in the worship of the Church.

I hope I don’t sound offensive in any of my posts. I am just trying establish the faith of the Church. If I have been offensive in any of my posts I apologize.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

And may I add, any tradition that wrongly interprets Scripture is not part of the Tradition of the Church

 

[Peter_J]

What’s being posited by Catholics is, tradition is something other than, or something in addition to what has been written.

Not so fast, sandusky. Actually different Catholics have different opinions about whether there exist “extra-scriptural traditions” (sometimes called “constitutive Tradition”). See also this post.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

It’s singular in the Greek—a singular tradition.

Again, in 2 Thess 3:6, it’s a singular tradition of which Paul speaks.

Why focus only on 2 Thess 3:6? In 2 Thess 2:15, which an earlier poster had mentioned, and which is relevant in this discussion (because St Paul was admonishing the Church in Thessolonika how to be a good Christian, standing firm amidst the coming of the "lawless one, it is **traditionS **(Greek: paradoseis, plural) that they must maintain.

As Pope Benedict XVI reminds us, at the heart of Christianity is Jesus, the God who became man. The Gospel is about a dialogue and relationship of love with the Incarnate God. The Church is the sacrament (sign) of the person of Jesus. Tradition communicates that personal presence of Jesus throughout the Church. The Scriptures are God’s letters of (tough) love to his Church.

I don’t know about you, but I am amazed at how beautiful the symphony of faith that the Catholic Church professes… this can only be the work of God.

 

[Debra_C]

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.

Worse still is the fact that the Tradition determined what the Baptist now has in his Bible

 

[sandusky]

Look to the book where protestants find their main support of sola scriptura 2 Timothy.

2 Timothy 2:
And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

“Well” says the protestant, Paul is simply talking about the Gospel which he preached, the same thing that is found in scripture, he is not talking about something different that is found in scripture. If there is something please show me."

Well in the very next chapter, only 34 verses away, in fact it is the exact chapter that the protestants mainly use to prove sola scriptura, Paul does include a tradition in his teaching, which was not found in scripture, that he is passing onto Timothy:
2 Timothy 3:8:
Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.

The protestant will go on to say: “Well, that could have been a common believe of the time, it doesn’t show that he was teaching something not found in scripture.”

Well, I find that a stretch, but let’s say for the sake of argument, that was not a tradition, and something simply known, and also the rock that followed Christ was also not a tradition passed down.

Let’s look to the teaching of the real presence.
In my first bible quote Paul is telling Timothy that the things that Timothy heard from Paul, pass on to another who in turn will pass on to another. That is 4 generations of passing on some teaching.

St. John passed on the teaching on the Eucharist.
Most protestants will say that is not what St. John was talking about when he wrote the bread of life discourse in John chapter 6.

But St. Ignatius was a taught by St. John, just like Timothy was taught by Paul.
Also, St. Irenaeus was taught by St. Polycarp who was taught by St. John. There you only have 3 generations of passing of some teachings.

This is a teaching that most protestants reject as being un biblical and a man made tradition. But it fits the description of a tradition being passed down from the Apostles, just like St. Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 2:2

Every Tradition of the church can be found implicitly or explicitly in scripture. The protestant might say that no these traditions are not found in scripture, that the Catholics are misinterpreting scripture when they use scripture to back up their traditions.
But that just proves the point.
The Catholic church is appealing to the traditions which in reality, are only the Catholic interpretation of scripture which was passed down from the Apostles.
Do the protestants think the Arians were correct when they appealed to scripture alone and rejected the Sacred Tradition when it came to the divinity of Christ?
Of course they wouldn’t, but the protestant might say, that tradition was not needed because the divinity was so clearly taught in scripture, tradition was not needed. If that was the case, then why did a majority of the bishops of the universal church fall for the teaching, and why did it take 2 or more councils to finally define the divinity of Christ, and the understanding of his relationship in the Trinity?
Why do I think it took that many councils?
Because heretics reject the teaching authority of the church and rely on their own interpretation of scripture alone. And with this mentality, they will only submit to the church kicking and screaming, like a spoiled child.

Did the very earliest fathers believe in sola scriptura, no, but then again, none of the Traditions of the church contradict the bible, so they wouldn’t have to teach this man made tradition.
A protestant might say that the Traditions do in fact contradict the bible, and again, that only proves my point that sola scriptura doesn’t work in real life.

I know Sandusky won’t like my “canned answer” as he has pointed out to many Catholics several times before when they give an answer which he really doesn’t want to address. But Sacred Tradition and not sola scriputra is what is reflected in all of the early church fathers writings, if you read the entire works of the very early fathers, and not just take quotes taken out of context of the message that was being passed on in the particular letter.
It seems to me that many protestants do the same thing to the writings of the early church fathers that they do to scripture, they take it out of context to prove a point because they have their Protestant “lens” on when they read both. They find a verse that seems to prove their point, and then will ignore other passages which contradict that point, or simply just write it off as meaning something else.

Oh puleeessee.

List all of the unwritten tradition and their non-authors.

 

[crazyage3]

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.

sola scriptura goes against the bible! It is a big contradiction!

 

[sandusky]

This is what I’ll never understand about Protestants. You see the text but your refuse to take heed.
**Jesus put the Church **in charge of the truth. He said that the Holy Spirit would guide it into ALL truth.

John 16:13-15** explicitly states the following:**
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.

**This includes things that may be written explicitly in Scripture and things that may not be. Jesus promised **ALL truth – not just SOME truth. To reveal the things that are coming – not just the things that have happened.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you** rejects me**. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

Matt. 18:15-18
"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. **
If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ **
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the Church. If he refuses to listen even to the Church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. **
Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 20:23
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain** are retained**."

No, it doesn’t. That’s why Sola Scriptura is a self-refuting doctrine.
It isn’t so because Scripture itself never claims it to be so.

LOL. Your response is sooo predictable. LOL.

Whitaker will be unanswered 420 years from now.

 

[sandusky]

OK, give me a verse that says I have to produce the unwritten list.

LOL.

jimmy:

Because it is true. Your aguement amounts to saying that what Christ gave is the scriptures. The Church is simply the gathering of believers in what the scriptures say. It involves nothing but a reading of the scriptures.

No, quite wrong. Christ gave Himself, not the bible, to the Church. Unless you encounter Christ you have never encountered the faith.

No, it hasn’t. Things that must be believed are all derived from scripture according to the Catholic Church, including the Marian dogmas. The thing is that they come through the reading of the scriptures in communion with the Church.

Of course they have a basis in the written testimony, that is only your perception.

Oy vay. :doh2:

 

[sandusky]

No it isn’t. Protestants argue that everything that is necessary is written.

You’ve just changed what you said previously. :tsktsk:

jimmy:

The fact though is that the only thing that is necessary is not written.

Whitaker’s statement will still be unanswered 420 years from now.

jimmy:

There is one Word of God, Jesus Christ, who you must encounter(it happens in the liturgy of the Church) in order to recieve salvation.

The scriptures are good and profitable but they only gain their saving aspect when they are joined with the encounter with Christ that is found in the worship of the Church.

I hope I don’t sound offensive in any of my posts. I am just trying establish the faith of the Church. If I have been offensive in any of my posts I apologize.

Oh Jimmy.

 

[sandusky]

And may I add, any tradition that wrongly interprets Scripture is not part of the Tradition of the Church

You have no idea whether or not Scripture is rightly interpreted by anyone. Your church makes it clear that only she can rightly interpret scripture; you accept what she says.

 

[sandusky]

Why focus only on 2 Thess 3:6? In 2 Thess 2:15, which an earlier poster had mentioned, and which is relevant in this discussion (because St Paul was admonishing the Church in Thessolonika how to be a good Christian, standing firm amidst the coming of the "lawless one, it is **traditionS **(Greek: paradoseis, plural) that they must maintain.

The common theme that runs through the Catholic statements on this thread is that the scripture written by the apostles differs from the tradition they taught orally.

That’s easily proven by you: produce the list of oral teachings and who taught each one with sources please.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

This is funny - the Early Church Fathers believed in sola scriptura!

Since the New Testament hadn’t been codified as scripture yet, they would have only believed in the Old Testament and been Jews. I don’t think so.

 

[cydonian]

Please tell us sandusky, where in scripture does it tell us what books are to be included in the Bible?
Where in scripture does it tell us what books are inspired?
Chapter and verse please.