Early church fathers believed in sola scriptura?

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

The link also quotes from non-Catholic church historians Ellen Flessman-Van Leer and J.N.D. Kelly. Here are some other quotes to consider…

Irenaeus and Tertullian point to the church tradition as the authoritative locus of the unadulterated teaching of the apostles,

they cannot longer appeal to the immediate memory, as could the earliest writers. Instead they lay stress on the affirmation that this teaching has been transmitted faithfully from generation to generation. One could say that in their thinking, apostolic succession occupies the same place that is held by the living memory in the Apostolic Fathers." (Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church, p.188)

“It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness” (Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 47-48)

Besides appealing to the Scriptures, the fathers, particularly Irenaeus and Tertullian, refer with equal confidence to the “rule of faith;” that is, the common faith of the church, as orally handed down in the unbroken succession of bishops from Christ and his apostles to their day, and above all as still living in the original apostolic churches, like those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome. Tradition is thus intimately connected with the primitive episcopate. The latter was the vehicle of the former, and both were looked upon as bulwarks against heresy…

To estimate the weight of this argument, we must remember that these fathers still stood comparatively very near the apostolic age, and that the succession of bishops in the oldest churches could be demonstrated by the living memory of two or three generations. Irenaeus in fact, had been acquainted in his youth with Polycarp, a disciple of St. John. **But for this very reason we must guard against overrating this testimony, and employing it in behalf of traditions of later origin, not grounded in the scriptures.

Nor can we suppose that those fathers ever thought of a blind and slavish subjection of private judgment to ecclesiastical authority, and to the decision of the bishops of the apostolic mother churches. The same Irenaeus frankly opposed the Roman bishop Victor. Tertullian, though he continued essentially orthodox, contested various points with the catholic church from his later Montanistic position, and laid down, though at first only in respect to a conventional custom—the veiling of virgins—the genuine Protestant principle, that the thing to be regarded, especially in matters of religion, is not custom but truth. His pupil, Cyprian, with whom biblical and catholic were almost interchangeable terms, protested earnestly against the Roman theory of the validity of heretical baptism, and in this controversy declared, in exact accordance with Tertullian, that custom without truth was only time-honored error.** The Alexandrians freely fostered all sorts of peculiar views, which were afterwards rejected as heretical; and though the "paradosis apostolika” plays a prominent part with them, yet this and similar expressions have in their language a different sense, sometimes meaning simply the holy scriptures. So, for example, in the well-known passage of Clement: “As if one should be changed from a man to a beast after the manner of one charmed by Circe; so a man ceases to be God’s and to continue faithful to the Lord, when he sets himself up against the church tradition, and flies off to positions of human caprice.”

In the substance of its doctrine this apostolic tradition agrees with the holy scriptures, and though derived, as to its form, from the oral preaching of the apostles, is really, as to its contents, one and the same with their apostolic writings. In this view the apparent contradictions of the earlier fathers, in ascribing the highest authority to both scripture and tradition in matters of faith, resolve themselves. It is one and the same gospel which the apostles preached with their lips, and then laid down in their writings, and which the church faithfully hands down by word and writing from one generation to another.

Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, pp 525-528.

 

[cfrancis]

SS presupposes a canon

Sandusky, from what source does the above statement come? What is the source document/teacher for this definition of SS?
If that statement is a fundamental element of SS, it had to come from someone/some source.
Is it Apostolic in origin?
ECF?
Reformation?
Modern?

 

[sandusky]

Traditions like sola scriptura, private judgement, etc?

I’m thinking more of the Marian doctrines which must be believed, or salvation forfeited, you know, a different Gospel.

 

[sandusky]

Most churches have Sunday School, a tradition that is not found in scripture.

I rest my case

Again, I’m thinking more of the Marian doctrines which must be believed, or salvation forfeited, you know, a different Gospel.

 

[sandusky]

Your statement would be true if Christ had not instituted his Church as a visible society with rulers to which he gave power to teach infallibly. But, he did found a living teaching authority and guaranteed that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

But, of course, you have heard all of this before and reject it. What is amazing, though, is that while Protestants reject Catholic Tradition they embrace their own man-made traditions. Even more amazing, some Protestants reject other Protestant traditions and vice versa. Rejection of legitimate authority always leads to this. But, again, you have heard all of this before and have failed to give an explanation of how “tradition” is accepted/rejected within the various Protestant sects.

Again, I’m thinking more of the Marian doctrines which must be believed, or salvation forfeited, you know, a different Gospel.

 

[paul_c]

Sandusky,
The problem isn’t in listing Tradition’s that aren’t in scripture. There are many as I outlined in post #208, including the Immaculate conception, purgatory, the sanctity of the priesthood, even the stations of the cross, most of which aren’t identified per se in the scripture. It is undeniable that the Church has doctrines that aren’t listed in scripture. You probably know them too. These are the Catholic Doctrines you don’t agree with because they aren’t listed in scripture.

Isn’t the real issue, whether these doctrines are true if they can’t be found directly in Scripture? And isn’t the real question whether the Catholic Church is trustworthy? We Catholics believe that the Church is the Body of Christ, protected and guided by the Holy Spirit, and therefore, holy and trustworthy. We can therefore believe the Church, for instance, when it says that the Immaculate Conception is a true Doctrine as defined by apostolic tradition. You Protestants, on the other hand, believe that the Church is untrustworthy because you don’t believe what it says is tradition, relying instead solely on scripture, which paradoxically was generated out of Catholic Tradition

 

[cfrancis]

Traditions like sola scriptura, private judgement, etc?

I’m thinking more of the Marian doctrines which must be believed, or salvation forfeited, you know, a different Gospel.

Sandusky, do you believe one can attain eternal life in heaven with God if one adheres to both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition?

 

[sandusky]

Sandusky,
The problem isn’t in listing Tradition’s that aren’t in scripture. There are many as I outlined in post #208, including the Immaculate conception, purgatory, the sanctity of the priesthood, even the stations of the cross, most of which aren’t identified per se in the scripture. It is undeniable that the Church has doctrines that aren’t listed in scripture. You probably know them too. These are the Catholic Doctrines you don’t agree with because they aren’t listed in scripture.

Thanks for what you’ve listed, Paul.
paul c:

Isn’t the real issue, whether these doctrines are true if they can’t be found directly in Scripture? And isn’t the real question whether the Catholic Church is trustworthy? We Catholics believe that the Church is the Body of Christ, protected and guided by the Holy Spirit, and therefore, holy and trustworthy. We can therefore believe the Church, for instance, when it says that the Immaculate Conception is a true Doctrine as defined by apostolic tradition. You Protestants, on the other hand, believe that the Church is untrustworthy because you don’t believe what it says is tradition, relying instead solely on scripture, which paradoxically was generated out of Catholic Tradition

Paul, the scriptures are Christian, and they belong to all of those who believe in Christ, and who are members of His Body. They are not the exclusive property of the RCC.

 

[Peter_J]

sandusky, I’m probably not going to get through to you, but I’ll try one more time: different Catholics have different opinions about whether there exist “extra-scriptural traditions” (sometimes called “constitutive Tradition”).

I didn’t make you out to be stupid, just a bit stubborn and/or impolite. (But thank you for finally acknowledging my post.)

You asked for examples of Constitutive Tradition; I’m telling that not all Catholics believe that Constitutive Tradition exists. Please stop stereotyping us.

 

[sandusky]

Sandusky, do you believe one can attain eternal life in heaven with God if one adheres to both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition?

We would need to define what is meant by Tradition and such to discuss that and arrive at our conclusions.

 

[sandusky]

I didn’t make you out to be stupid, just a bit stubborn and/or impolite. (But thank you for finally acknowledging my post.)

You asked for examples of Constitutive Tradition; I’m telling that not all Catholics believe that Constitutive Tradition exists. Please stop stereotyping us.

OK.

 

[Peter_J]

…

In the substance of its doctrine this apostolic tradition agrees with the holy scriptures, and though derived, as to its form, from the oral preaching of the apostles, is really, as to its contents, one and the same with their apostolic writings. In this view the apparent contradictions of the earlier fathers, in ascribing the highest authority to both scripture and tradition in matters of faith, resolve themselves. It is one and the same gospel which the apostles preached with their lips, and then laid down in their writings, and which the church faithfully hands down by word and writing from one generation to another.

Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, pp 525-528.

Good quote. But once again, Sufficiency of Scripture, not Sola Scriptura.

 

[cfrancis]

SS presupposes a canon

Sandusky, from what source does the above statement come? What is the source document/teacher for this definition of SS?
If that statement is a fundamental element of SS, it had to come from someone/some source.
Is it Apostolic in origin?
ECF?
Reformation?
Modern?

Bump…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The list could be titled to reflect that they are traditions that were unwritten. To leave unwritten tradition open, opens the door to mischief.

Only the Holy Spirit can protect against mischief. From our perspective, the Sola Scripturists have proven that mischief occurs, not matter what is written.

Furthermore, to request a list of tradition, shows a lack of understanding of what Christain tradition (Gk ‘paradosis’) is. If the apostles themselves didn’t find it necessary or possible to write down all of their paradosis, then why would one think it necessary or possible for the successors of the apostles to do so?

Tradition, according to the Catholic Church, is a living transmission* accomplished in the Holy Spirit by the successors of the apostles*, which are the Roman Pontiff and the college of bishops in communion with him.

What you are asking for is to write down all the words and deeds of Christ, the apostles, and their historic successors for the past 2000 years, as though this could be penned into a nice little list. Yet, St. John wrote: “there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” (Jn 21:25). We don’t think such a thing is either possible or necessary, which is why Jesus established his Church to be the “pillar and foundation of truth.”

What can be done, is summarize this tradition. This is done in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. However, it is just a summary, like a “creed” or “confession of faith.”

Even non-Catholic historians understand that this apostolic tradition is equivalent to what has been “transmitted faithfully from generation to generation” through “apostolic succession [which] occupies the same place that is held by the living memory in the Apostolic Fathers.” (Ellen Flessman-Van Leer, Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church, p.188). “[In]* tradition* the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness” (Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 47-48)

Consequently, what you want in a “list” is "embedded in ALL THE ORGANS of the Church’s institutional life. I get that you think this is too risky, ripe for mischief, but history shows us that Sola Scriptura has actually resulted in much more variation in what people consider Christian doctrine than the *ancient rule of faith *handed on by the apostles, which considers unwritten tradition to be authoritative apostolic teaching.

While you might not ever agree with Catholic ecclesiology, you might want to better understand that which you so clearly oppose. That way at least, you might be more effective in your discussions with Catholics. I recommend the following article to understand the Catholic meaning of Sacred Tradition and its relationship to apostolic succession and Sacred Scripture. All three were established by Christ Himself, so Catholics continue to rely upon all three to authentically present the Christian faith.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tradition and Living Magisterium

 

[stephraim]

Actually, Tertullian (in his orthodox Catholic period) proves in his Demurrer Against the Heretics that Scripture belongs to the Catholic church only, and not to any heterodox sects.

 "In Roman law, *praescriptio* was invoked by a defendant against the plaintiff to bar entry of the suit in the form submitted by the plaintiff. If granted by the court, the *praescriptio* barred the suit *ad limina*, which simply means that the case was dismissed.  This is almost the same as the current legal concept of the *demurrer*, which is invoked by a defendant when he pleads that he plaintiff's case...is insufficient in law, there being an obvious defect in the legal aspects of the plaintiff's pleadings which constitutes reason why his case should be dismissed.
 Tertullian invokes two *praescriptiones* or *demurrers* in the work: *a)* Christ sent the Apostles as preachers of the Gospel, so none others ought to be received; and *b)* what the Apostles preached can be discovered only through Apostolic Churches, so only those in agreement with Apostolic Churches ought to be given a hearing."  
 (Jurgens, *The Faith of the Early Fathers*, 118)

In other words, only those with proof of apostolicity have a right to Sacred Scripture. Further, if anyone teaches other than “the tradition of the Apostles…[their] doctrines proceed from falsehood. [In the] apostolic Churches…there is no diversity of doctrine: this is the witness of truth.”

 

[sandusky]

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tradition and Living Magisterium

Thanks for the link, Dave.

 

[sandusky]

In other words, only those with proof of apostolicity have a right to Sacred Scripture.

Scripture is “apostolicity.”

 

[steve975]

Paul, the scriptures are Christian, and they belong to all of those who believe in Christ, and who are members of His Body. They are not the exclusive property of the RCC.

“I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church” (Col. 1:24)

"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. (Matthew 18:17)

 

[paul_c]

Sandusky,
Which scriptures are we talking about? As you undoubtedly know, the Catholic Church defined the 73 books of the bible in 397AD. Martin Luther dropped 7 books from his bible because they didn’t agree with his view on Purgatory, Particularly 2Maccabees.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Scripture is “apostolicity.”

But in the 1st century, “Scripture” pertained to the Hebrew Scriptures. In the 2nd century, Marcion (an Gnostic) was using his own “version” of the Gospel of Matthew, and rejected the other three gospels, as well as rejected the entire OT. Consequently, there was a lack of certainty and various disputes as to what Scritpure was throughout the 2nd - 4th century.

So, when St. Irenaeus in the 2nd century was writing in defense of the Gospel of Matthew, he was presenting the authority of apostolic TRADITION. Many Christians were being confused by what the Church really taught, many even distrusting the Gospel of Matthew as heretical, because some heretical men were using it to promote their error. St. Irenaeus could not simply appeal to his verions of Scripture in defense against heretics who didn’t accept his Scripture. Instead, St. Irenaeus pointed to apostolic succession as the sure evidence of the Christain faith, appealing to what the most ancient apostolic Churches accepted was unerringly true. In this way, he dispelled the gnostic and other heresies which claimed to have the “true” Bible.

The trustworthiness and historic acceptance of Christian Scripture, in other words, historically depended upon what the most ancient apostolic Churches in the 2nd century affirmed in their TRADITION.

I encourage you to read Against Heresiesby St. Irenaeus, not just in snippets, but the entire text. You’ll see that the 2nd cent. fathers could not be “Sola Scripturists,” because what was considered authentic Scripture was still under dispute.