Early church fathers believed in sola scriptura?

[twb1621]

What our Lord was teaching us came from the divine love He had for all of us so His emotions in everything He did and all He spoke had tremendous influence on those who were blessed enough to witness Him. If one could imagine what He was actually teaching, there is no way the apostles could have presented it all and been able to express the heart and love in a written format. As we recognize even in this format, the words we use can come across in different ways unlike speaking to others directly where tone and expression reflect the emotions supporting the words. Love, frustration, disappointment, anger, compassion toward others, the joy Jesus reflected in those who recognized Him for who He was and the affection toward children who approached Him, not to mention the overwhelmingly joyful aching of the heart one must have felt to hear His words “your sins are forgiven you, go sin no more”.
Jesus had no intention of presenting His teachings in written word alone. He recognized our limitations and knew in order to teach that which is best expressed through emotion, which is what love is expressed through, it could not be as effectively presented without that expression. In His teachings, it was clear to the apostles how this was to be accomplished. There could be no other way. The evidence for this is clear just considering the substance of what Jesus was offering, the fact that so little was in writing and the apostles devotion to go wherever necessary as often as necessary to preach the word of God throughout their ministry. The unimaginable humiliation, pain and suffering He submitted to as an outward expression of the Love He had for all of us and the salvation He was offering for all then and now through the pouring out of His blood. Could there be any question as to why so many devoted Christians in such mass numbers were able to accept such horrible deaths themselves for the love of God? Compare all the time and effort invested into the ministry and how little is in writing, its not difficult to justify Tradition with Scripture and in scripture.

 

[Peter_J]

sandusky, I’m probably not going to get through to you,

Or maybe I’ve just been going about it the wrong way.

Do you only respond to sarcasm, insults, and the like?

 

[twb1621]

Those points are gleaned from the authoritative Scripture.

If, as you Catholics insist, the “oral traditon” of the apostles is different from the “written tradition” of the apostles, it’s incumbent upon them to produce the list of “unwritten tradtion.”

But all that’s offered is a run-around, and excuses, and charges that those asking for such a list “don’t understand how the church operates.”

I think your inability to produce the list speaks volumes as to how the church operates.

This should speak volumes to you. Its called a definition;
Tradition- the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction. Courtesy M. Websters Dictionary.
Next you will be asking what color air is.
You know you reflect an absolute hatred for the Catholic Faith? But can you justify that?

 

[BRB]

Can you give one example from Tradition of something that Jesus did that is not recorded in Scripture?

That would be difficult to know, some 2000 years later, since we can’t get direct testimony from his initial disciples.

We do have those historical accounts about the life of Christ, recorded in works of Josephus. These are well accepted as factual, and might fit the example you look for.

Also, those accounts of early life/actions of Christ as a child, in the noncanonical books that have survived. They are fanciful accounts and can’t be trusted as genuine.

But, that is the beauty of Tradition [with regards to Christ] . It doesn’t make claims which aren’t supported by extant writings.

Oral Tradition has primarily contributed to the Church structure, Liturgy, Marian & Purgatory doctrines, some of Sacraments.

So, those who reject the RCC’s theology/papal structure, find Tradition a threat which they must discredit.

 

[BRB]

The only thing I need to know what God wants of me is in the Scripture. :

No, scripture is only the starting point. Scripture give us a snapshot of Christianity @ it’s inception and a roadmap for the future.

The early Christians and Church functioned primarily via Apostolic Traditions, direct teachings/instructions, etc.

The Church is a living organism … constantly growing in knowledge/maturity.

Look at slavery for example. Hasn’t the Church had to address that issue over time ?

 

[steve975]

If Scripture and Tradition are inseparable, and if they never conflict, then why can’t I find any evidence in Scripture describing the Assumption of Mary?

There’s no basis for that Tradition in the Scripture, therefore, ISTM, there is a conflict between Scripture and Tradition…

That sounds like circular reasoning. You are asking for evidence in Scripture to support Tradition. But if that evidence were in fact found in Scripture, then one could claim Tradition was therefore a moot point. So if something is found in Scripture, then the Tradition is moot and redundant, and if it’s not found in Scripture, then the Tradition is unfounded. Either way, this line of reasoning allows one to completely discount Tradition.

 

[clmowry]

The Catholic faith is very well documented. In fact I would submit to you that all of the Traditions (and traditions) of the Catholic faith have been very well documented over the centuries.

So to ask for a list of “unwritten Traditions” is a continuing exercise in silliness.

In fact, the very act of writing such a list would make the items on the list no longer unwritten.

Not all Traditions, however, have been explicitly documented in those writings designated by God, through His Church, as scripture.

Since Catholics make no distinction between the validity of Church teachings that are referenced in scripture, either explicitly or implicitly, and those that are not, we individual Catholics and the Church as a whole have no such need of any such list.

In fact, many Catholics would argue that everything that the Church teaches is at least implicitly found in scripture.

If we choose for a moment to assume they are correct, then there is no list of Church doctrines that cannot be found at least implicitly in scripture.

If a non-Catholic would like a list of Catholic Traditions that are not supported by scripture then that someone should go through the CCC and determine what items they feel are not supported by scripture.

This list will of course change depending upon the interpretation errors and the levels of “proof” required of the individual non-Catholic demanding the list.

With that in mind, I would suggest that anyone demanding such a list produce the list on their own.

Once they have produced such a list then we could have a reasonable discussion about whether or not we feel that particular Traditions may or may not be supported in some way by Scripture.

Given again, however, that whether or not the particular Tradition in question is supported by scripture is irrelevant (for a Catholic) to its validity, the best we could hope for from such an exercise would be to identify an agreed upon list of Catholic Traditions not supported by scripture.

Sounds like a major effort to me delivering no apparent value.

But I guess it is one way to avoid actually talking about whether or not the early Church believed in (or alternatively had the capability of practicing) the 14th century theological novelty now known as “sola scriptura”.

Chuck

 

[CentralFLJames]

It’s ironic, James, only if my demands are done in a vacuum. But they aren’t.84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."Where do I find this depositum fidei? ISTM that the list I request must reside there.

The depositum fidei is within the living corpus of The Church. Sorry, but we can not just raster scan in the laity, the clergy, the practices, liturgy, prayers and practices of the the entire Church into a “list”. First of all a list implies an order - top to bottom and this alone is inconsistent with the nature of Tradition and is an alien concept that is more like the Pharasiecial legal form of thinking. Your demand presuposes a form of your own making that does not exist in Catholicism. At best we can describe certain things or tell you what is not tradtion. What is not tradition is to list our traditions but it is our tradtion to practice, safeguard and propagate it.

If we asked you to give us a list of “who you are” could you produce it? Sorry, its not like we can just digitize the teachings and traditions of The Church and “beam it up” to you.

The only thing I need to know what God wants of me is in the Scripture. Even your Church says that.

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”
​

This was Luther’s theory - the scriptures have all you need to know. But we know from the wild chaos and legion of factions (bad fruit) coming out of the Protestant Revolution that its all a lie. Salvation is not a function of reading comprehension - thank God for that or all the mentally challenged, low IQ peasants and children dieing before they could fully understand scripture would all go to hell for being uneducated. Nope, apostolic teaching can not be seperated from scripture any more so than the authority of The Church can be annexed by fiat as the Protestants attempted to do. Satan refused to bend to authority and serve and we know what happened to him.

I’m not asking you to conform to anything, but simply to produce the list of unwritten tradition that your Church maintains is contained in the depositum fidei, wherever that is kept.

By demanding a list you are demanding we transform a thing that is not in a list into a form that would pervert what it is. Tradition is not a list.

If Scripture and Tradition are inseparable, and if they never conflict, then why can’t I find any evidence in Scripture describing the Assumption of Mary?

We know that scripture does not contain all of God’s Word. Christ is ALL of God’s word. Knowing Christ is the key to understanding where we get the Assumption of Mary from. If you can’t see the assumption of Mary in The Living Word of God or scripture then you might need to self assess if you really know Christ. Somethings are gifted knowledge and for those who trust in the apostolic succession this is a very easy truth and one that is NOT in conflict with scripture since scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to all Truth. Jesus is ALL truth.

In fact, when one searches the CCC, to understand the Assumption of Mary, which is a dogma, defined and set forth "in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these,” one finds only a twofold reference and appeal to Tradition, for the Tradition of Mary’s Assumption (LG 59; MD 1950).

And why do you complain? Is this insufficient to you? If there were 3 or 4 or even 5 references would you then say that you need more?

There’s no basis for that Tradition in the Scripture, therefore, ISTM, there is a conflict between Scripture and Tradition, and where a conflict exists between the two, the Church’s creation of a Tradition overrules, overrides, and adds to God’s writing in Scripture, exactly what He wanted written, and no more, for the sake of my salvation (cf CCC para. 106, 107).

This is an easy one to fix. You are making a logical fallacy. Silence, or apparent silence in scripture does not mean that a thing is disallowed or in conflict. Does the absence of the words Luther or Protestant in the Bible mean this person or this thing would not happen? Was Luther necessary for any one’s salvation?

James​

 

[paul_c]

It seems that the biggest problem with the Protestant viewpoint put forward by Sandusky is that he wants a list of traditions that are not scriptual. When a single example is produced, in this case the Assumption of Mary, he doesn’t want to accept it because it can not be found in Scriptures. Wasn’t that the point?To identify Catholic doctrines not found in scripture?

As I understand the original arguments of Luther et al at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, they felt that the Catholic Church had deviated from the original faith of the Apostles by creating their own doctrines. They were looking for grounding and the bible was convenient. (Not that convenient, however, since they had to throw out the Apocryphal books to justify their positions on purgatory,etc). The problem with all this is you simply can’t contain all the truths of the universe in 73 books and the inspired authors were not trying to write a “how-to” manual on salvation. They were simply giving witness to what they saw and heard.

The rub of all this is not to identify Catholic Doctrines that aren’t explicitly defined in scriptures. There are several that come easily to mind: the Immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, the crowning of Mary as queen of the universe, the existence of purgatory, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Communion of Saints, the hierarchy of the church, the sacred role of its priests, the teaching authority of the bishops… The issue to me is not whether the Catholic Church has doctrines not defined in scripture, but instead to prove that these doctrines are in fact true… For the Catholics, they must be true, because they are part of the Apostolic tradition. We Catholics take it as an article of faith. For the Protestants, they can’t be true because they don’t exist in Scriptures. In the end, isn’t this really simply a manifestation of the fact that they and their predecessors did not trust the Church to teach the word of God, relying instead on their own ability to interpret scripture for their salvation?

 

[twb1621]

Your responses consist mainly of long lists of verses. I’m not going to waste my time going over them with you when you’ll just dismiss what I say anyway.

I see you are still following your old motto (above quote) of only responding to those you think you can manipulate and not responding to what you can’t disprove.

 

[twb1621]

Sandusky and the question “where can I find this depositum fidei”…

It seems to me that if you indeed where a Roman Catholic as you claim you were who now claims to be “reformed” Sandusky, you should already be aware of the answers to most of the questions you are asking, in which case you would be merely trying to agitate the Catholics who are devoted enough to respond to you trying to be helpful, thinking you are honestly asking because you want to know. So why are you here asking such questions if you left the RCC to be “Reformed” as you claim? I think we would all like to know why you are using the forum this way.

 

[savedsinner]

Sola Scriptura presupposes a canon of Scriptura.

Which canon of scripture?
The book of Mormon, the Koran, the Old Testament, The New Testament, the Gnostic gospels, the books of Hebrews, Revelation and 2 Peter are they included?

The canon of scripture presupposes an authoritative church.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Well we know the real reason Sandusky is here. He is certainly not here to learn about Catholicism. He is here to teach us his own theology under the guise of asking questions to steer us to his own agenda and purposes. He would swear that works are not necessary for salvation but ironically spends an inordinate amount of time in these forums working to convert others to his idea of salvation. So, it would appear that Sandusky subscribes to “a strength in numbers” sort of salvation model and he wants company - but no one or few here seem to be buying what he is selling and he seems disinclined to come back home to The Catholic Church. Pity - but why waste your time here Sandusky?

James

 

[cfrancis]

SS presupposes a canon

Would someone -Sandusky, preferrably, provide for me the source (ECF, Reformation document, etc…) for the above statement.
Surely, if this is a foundational point for SS, it was first recorded at some point.

 

[BRB]

It seems that the biggest problem with the Protestant viewpoint put forward by Sandusky is that he wants a list of traditions that are not scriptual. When a single example is produced, in this case the Assumption of Mary, he doesn’t want to accept it because it can not be found in Scriptures. Wasn’t that the point?To identify Catholic doctrines not found in scripture?

As I understand the original arguments of Luther et al at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, they felt that the Catholic Church had deviated from the original faith of the Apostles by creating their own doctrines. They were looking for grounding and the bible was convenient. (Not that convenient, however, since they had to throw out the Apocryphal books to justify their positions on purgatory,etc). The problem with all this is you simply can’t contain all the truths of the universe in 73 books and the inspired authors were not trying to write a “how-to” manual on salvation. They were simply giving witness to what they saw and heard.

The rub of all this is not to identify Catholic Doctrines that aren’t explicitly defined in scriptures. There are several that come easily to mind: the Immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, the crowning of Mary as queen of the universe, the existence of purgatory, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Communion of Saints, the hierarchy of the church, the sacred role of its priests, the teaching authority of the bishops…

We Catholics take it as an article of faith. For the Protestants, they can’t be true because they don’t exist in Scriptures. In the end, isn’t this really simply a manifestation of the fact that they and their predecessors did not trust the Church to teach the word of God, relying instead on their own ability to interpret scripture for their salvation?

Well stated … a great 1st post !!!

 

[clmowry]

Would someone -Sandusky, preferrably, provide for me the source (ECF, Reformation document, etc…) for the above statement.
Surely, if this is a foundational point for SS, it was first recorded at some point.

Ooh…ooh…I know this one .

"Protestants should at least concede a point which Martin Luther, their religion’s founder, also conceded, namely, that the Catholic Church safeguarded and identified the Bible: “We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics – (for example), that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it.”

From Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura by Joel Peters referencing Commentary on John, chapter 16, as cited in Paul Stenhouse’s Catholic Answers to “Bible” Christians (Kensington: Chevalier Press, 1993), p. 31.

Chuck

 

[Philthy]

SyCarl;:

I accept that the Scriptures are both materially and formally sufficient and I think that the quotes from Chrysostom and Augustine support this. Both indicate that all the necessary things are plainly set out in Scripture. That would indicate formal sufficiency as well as material sufficiency.

Im sorry, but I dont ever see them advocating private interpretation of Scripture apart from the Church. As I pointed out before, that was the main thrust of Irenaeus’ arguments against the heretics. Furthermore, Protestantism is prima facia, incontravertable evidence that Scripture alone does not lead to doctrinal unity. As further proof of that, there is no Protestant church which claims an infallible interpretation of Scripture - and they’ve had - according to you - 1500 years or so to get it done.

Both the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church use Scripture and Tradition, but are their Traditions the same…Both churches claim Apostolic Succession. As a Protestant whose Tradition should I accept of these two? They can’t both be right. I will stick with the Bible alone.

What a telling decision tree; you arrive at either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church - recognizing their ancient origins and Apostolic succession but, based on an admitted uninformed opinion of the differences between them, choose a third option which has nothing in common with either. Its so easy to criticize small differences among the ancient Churches while ignoring the gaping holes within the Sola Scriptura theologies.

 

[SyCarl]

What a telling decision tree; you arrive at either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church - recognizing their ancient origins and Apostolic succession but, based on an admitted uninformed opinion of the differences between them, choose a third option which has nothing in common with either. Its so easy to criticize small differences among the ancient Churches while ignoring the gaping holes within the Sola Scriptura theologies.

I mentioned the Orthodox and Catholic Churches because they both use Tradition as a basis for doctrine and yet do not agree.

I do find it interesting that you refer to the differences between them as small when Catholics emphasize minor differences between Protestants as a major problem. To me whether the Pope is the head of the church and whether man has inherited Adam’s guilt or just his mortality are not really small differences.

 

[Philthy]

Those points are gleaned from the authoritative Scripture.

If, as you Catholics insist, the “oral traditon” of the apostles is different from the “written tradition” of the apostles, it’s incumbent upon them to produce the list of “unwritten tradtion.”

But all that’s offered is a run-around, and excuses, and charges that those asking for such a list “don’t understand how the church operates.”

I think your inability to produce the list speaks volumes as to how the church operates.

While I sympathize with your efforts I am a little confused. It has been suggested that the closest thing to a list is the CCC. Therefore, if you want a list simply subtract from the CCC everything that is “the written tradition of the Apostles” and you will have your list. If you need help, simply supply me with the “written tradition” list and I’ll provide you with more of the list than I already have so far.

 

[twb1621]

I mentioned the Orthodox and Catholic Churches because they both use Tradition as a basis for doctrine and yet do not agree.

I do find it interesting that you refer to the differences between them as small when Catholics emphasize minor differences between Protestants as a major problem. To me whether the Pope is the head of the church and whether man has inherited Adam’s guilt or just his mortality are not really small differences.

Until 1054 AD Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism were branches of the same body—the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. This date marks an important moment in the history of all Christian denominations because it designates the very first major division in Christianity and the beginning of “denominations.” Disagreement between these two branches of Christendom had already long existed, but the widening gap between the Roman and Eastern churches increased throughout the first millennium with a progression of worsening disputes. This slow process of separation was encouraged in 330 AD when Emperor Constantine decided to move the capital of the Roman Empire to the city of Byzantium (Byzantine Empire, modern-day Turkey) and called it Constantinople. When he died his two sons divided their rule, one taking the Eastern portion of the empire and ruling from Constantinople and the other taking the western portion, ruling from Rome.
In 1054 AD a formal split occurred when Pope Leo IX (leader of the Roman branch) excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius (leader of the Eastern branch), who in turn condemned the pope in mutual excommunication. Two primary disputes at the time were Rome’s claim to a universal papal supremacy and the adding of the filioque to the Nicene Creed. This particular conflict is also known as the Filioque Controversy. The Latin word filioque means “and from the Son.” It had been inserted into the Nicene Creed during the 6th century, thus changing the phrase pertaining to the origin of the Holy Spirit from “who proceeds from the Father” to “who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” It had been added to emphasize Christ’s divinity, but Eastern Christians not only objected to the altering of anything produced by the first ecumenical councils, they disagreed with its new meaning. Eastern Christians believe both the Spirit and the Son have their origin in the Father.
Michael Cerularius was the Patriarch of Constantinople from 1043 -1058 AD, during Eastern Orthodoxy’s formal separation from the Roman Catholic Church. He played a prominent role in the circumstances surrounding the Great East-West Schism.