Early church fathers believed in sola scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter coleraine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“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)
Thank you, Steve, I have a Bible, and I know what it says, and what it means, and, I believe you misuse, and misapply those verses.

The Scriptures belong to all professing Christians, and neither you, nor I, know exactly who they are.
 
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.
Many, including me, would disagree with you on that. We would say that they were infallibly defined by Trent.
 
We would need to define what is meant by Tradition and such to discuss that and arrive at our conclusions.
What about the Marian doctrines? Can I believe in Sacred Scripture and those Sacred Traditions and have eternal life in heaven with God?
 
Many, including me, would disagree with you on that. We would say that they were infallibly defined by Trent.
That begs the question: when was the canon to which you subscribe infallibly defined?

Also, WRT to SS. When you declare “SS presumes a canon”, from what source does that 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?
 
I’m thinking more of the Marian doctrines which must be believed, or salvation forfeited, you know, a different Gospel.
Sorry, I was thinking more of Protestant traditions like sola scriptura (which is nowhere to be found in the Bible) and private judgement, a cardinal Protestant dogma, (Which, again, is nowhere to be found in the Bible)
 
Thank you, Steve, I have a Bible, and I know what it says, and what it means, and, I believe you misuse, and misapply those verses.

The Scriptures belong to all professing Christians, and neither you, nor I, know exactly who they are.
I can see we have disagreements over the meaning of many Bible verses, as do the hundreds and thousands of protestant sects with each other. Seeing as you are the one who “knows” what the Bible means, you believe you can interpret infallibly, which means anyone else with a different interpretation is wrong. Thank God I have the Church to help me interpret, as did the Ethiopian. Lord knows I don’t also have the gift of infallible interpretation. Then again, it can’t be possible for more than one person to have this gift unless all those who have it agree 100% on everything contained in the Bible.
 
Many, including me, would disagree with you on that. We would say that they were infallibly defined by Trent.
:confused:

This may go against the “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth” principle, but I wouldn’t expect you to say that anything was infallibly defined by Trent.
 
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 Heresies by 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.
Thank you for this eloquent statement.
 
Sorry, I was thinking more of Protestant traditions like sola scriptura (which is nowhere to be found in the Bible) and private judgement, a cardinal Protestant dogma, (Which, again, is nowhere to be found in the Bible)
Yea, get the light of you and put onto to someone else. A little uncomfortable, eh, Tom?
 
Peter, please stop trying to make me out to be stupid because you can’t provide the list I request.

Your inability to produce the list is not the fault of my request.
Sandusky, What is the definition of Tradition? Use Webster’s dictionary, its ok… I did provide it to you earlier but you aparently didn’t want to go over it either…
 
I can see we have disagreements over the meaning of many Bible verses, as do the hundreds and thousands of protestant sects with each other. Seeing as you are the one who “knows” what the Bible means, you believe you can interpret infallibly, which means anyone else with a different interpretation is wrong. Thank God I have the Church to help me interpret, as did the Ethiopian. Lord knows I don’t also have the gift of infallible interpretation. Then again, it can’t be possible for more than one person to have this gift unless all those who have it agree 100% on everything contained in the Bible.
No one’s interprets infallibly, Steve, anyone who proclaims to do so is, IMO, a fool.
 
Sandusky, What is the definition of Tradition? Use Webster’s dictionary, its ok… I did provide it to you earlier but you aparently didn’t want to go over it either…
Just because I don’t respond your post doesn’t mean I didn’t read it. There’s many Catholics on this thread, and only one me.
 
by the way, just thought it should be pointed out that Philip Schaff was a Swiss-born, German-educated Protestant theologian.
 
Just because I don’t respond your post doesn’t mean I didn’t read it. There’s many Catholics on this thread, and only one me.
I was responding to your post if you read the quote. I asked you what the definition of tradition was because of your request for a written list.
and that’s not just Biblical, its standard english.
You are asking for the color of Air when you ask for written lists of tradition. Accept it as what it is and either move on to another question or change what your asking, it doesn’t make sense.
 
Many, including me, would disagree with you on that. We would say that they were infallibly defined by Trent.
That begs the question: when was the canon to which you subscribe infallibly defined?

Also, WRT to SS. When you declare “SS presumes a canon”, from what source does that 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 for Sandusky
 
No one’s interprets infallibly, Steve, anyone who proclaims to do so is, IMO, a fool.
We absolutely agree that, short of inspiration from the Holy Spirit, no one interprets infallibly and those who think they do are fools. But then how do you know what the Bible means as you said? Why do you believe I (or the Church) have “misused or misapplied” certain verses when your interpretation is fallible and you could also have misused or misapplied?

What good is it if the Holy Spirit’s protection only applies to the validity of Scripture itself when we can all have different and even contradicting interpretations of what that Scripture means? God protects these documents but not the means for us to fully comprehend the documents?
 
No one’s interprets infallibly, Steve, anyone who proclaims to do so is, IMO, a fool.
Ok …

Do your church’s experts have the scholarship / wisdom to make the calls against Catholic doctrines ?

The research / academic efforts and time the Church invests in development of doctrines is overwhelming. Plus, that deposit of faith is always available to give the RCC the imprimatur status.

Can you ever expect to match such superior scholarship ? Give your protest a rest … and rediscover the Roman Way.
 
What an incredible roller coaster ride!
Did the ECFs believe in SS? Well according to Sandusky, SS presumes a canon of Scripture. How do they get to a canon of Scripture though? Nothing has been offered. In addition, it has been suggested that no canon was “presumed” until The Council of Trent. That would entirely eliminate the possibility of the ECFs operating under SS.
I dont know. The manner by which Protestants arrive at a canon of Scripture is remarkably similar to what Catholics refer to as Sacred Tradition, only Protestants cant have any traditions so they basically end up shooting themselves in the foot.
Lastly, the request for a “list” of Sacred Tradition was best addressed by Its Just Dave and Guanophore. Some folks simply will not accept such an ambiguous notion for Sacred Tradition. In that case, I still think the CCC is the best source for the list. All that is required is one subtract the list of written traditions(aka Scripture) from it and you will have your list.
 
“Like Jonah, you may lose your gourd, but you cannot lose your God.”
—C.H. Spurgeon
regarding your signature quote, it struck me as ironic you would have this quote and argue the validity of sola scriptura.

This is precisely where the premise of sola scriptura falls apart. I would bet that each of the over 33,000 Protestant branches and each of their member churches would each have their own “private interpretation” (btw which Peter forbids as far as scripture goes, see 2 Peter 1:20) whether C.H.Spurgeon was right about that statement. You know each denomination and their member churches claims to be “inspired” by the Holy Spirit’s teaching. So which is one is correct??? is the Holy Spirit Schizophrenic??

That is why God gave us one, holy, Catholic (universal) and apostolic Church to guide us with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Apostolic tradition and the teaching ministry of the Magisterium to “rightly divide the word of truth”. Jesus prayed that his church be one and the Apostles warned about the evil of schisms and divisions of His church, that includes the so called “Reformation”…

Look at Israel, read its history of corruption and falling away from God, yet you see one Israel. Not many Israels…Francis of Assisi rightly chose to pray and work for reformation within the Church and that is where Luther and Calvin went wrong. Luther lamented at the end of his life that there were already over 500 divisions of the schism he started.

but back to your quote…Scripture’s plain teaching and the Church’s teaching rightly refutes Spurgeon’s statement.

Heb 4:1-11

1 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it.
2 For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.
3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
"So I declared on oath in my anger,
‘They shall never enter my rest.’ "
And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world.
4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words:
“And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.”
5 And again in the passage above he says,
“They shall never enter my rest.”
6 It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience.
7 Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before:
“Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day.
9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;
10 for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his.
11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.

God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top