Early church fathers believed in sola scriptura?

[Pwrlftr]

Without the Authority behind Scripture, you might as well be a Jehovah Witness, or a Mormon and just do or write whatever is right in your own eyes. You are guilty here of saying too much and by this argument you are doing damage to your whole system of belief, if you call yourself Christian.

Its a point of logic that if B (Scripture) is infallible and originated from A (The Church), then A has to be infallible. This isn’t a Cafeteria where you can just pick and choose what you agree with.

I have a few questions:
a.) The Jews had no infallible authority yet the were entrusted with the oracles of God (the scriptures). They were also able to recognize Issiah as scripture. How did this happen without an infallible body?

b.) How did a Christian living before a councils proclamation on the NT canon determine what was and what wasn’t scripture?

c.) Why does a witness to the canon need to be infallible?

 

[Pwrlftr]

and remember what Paul said to Timothy, The Church of God is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. He didn’t say that Scripture was, he said the Church was.

What exactly does this verse mean to you?

 

[Pwrlftr]

The very essence of this discussion comes down to:
Do I believe that the Catholic Church has translated the truths of Christianity accurately to the faithful through scripture and tradition.

If the answer is yes, there is no reason to doubt the Catholic Church or follow its teachings.

If the answer is no, then the next set of questions has to be why you feel that way. There are two basic possibilities :

1> The church lied about what it knew or didn’t know. If you go down this path, you need to provide a motivation to explain why the Church would do this. This would include showing what the Church would gain by lying and also the analysis of what they would stand to lose (their souls). You would also have to be able to explain how individuals could get away with these lies (it would need by necessity to be a conspiracy involving a significant portion of the magesterium) and why the Holy Spirit would allow it to happen.

2> The church made an honest error in what it handed down from the Apostles (and by extension, from Jesus Christ). If you go down this path, you need to be able to explain how such an error could creep into the Church, given that the Church uses councils to address all heresies and the majority, including the Holy Father would have to be in error simultaneoously for this to occur. You also have to explain how you know that such an error exists (by what authority and reasoning you can claim that the church is wrong). Finally, there is that nagging question about how the Holy spirit would allow this to happen…

When confronted with this reasoning in this thread, most of the Protestants have claimed that the issue is not that the Church is lying but that it is simply in error. However, none of them have been able to explain the mechanism for such an error to exist or explained how they know that any individual issue is an error. sure, they try to explain certain issues through scripture (like the argument that all truth is defined by scripture), but none of the answers has been particularly compelling and no one has attempted to show how the church stumbled into an perceived errors to begin with… A few have stated they don’t trust the church but none have explained why or what the motivation is for the church to lie…

You are operating under the assumption that I think the church lied and I don’t believe that so there is much in your post I can’t respond to since it doesn’t apply to me.

As to why the Holy Spirit would allow error to creep in…I don’t know. Apparently the Holy Spirit allowed schism…I don’t claim to understand the sovereignty of God and all of His plans.

As to the mechanisms of how an error came into being…I don’t think I understand what you are asking.

 

[Pwrlftr]

and remember that Jesus said that if your neighbor offends you and still refuses to recant, take him before the Church and if he refuses still, to treat him as an outsider. Jesus doesn’t place Scripture as the final arbiter, he places the Church as the final word.

The verse you mention doesn’t include the context of theology does it?

 

[paul_c]

You are operating under the assumption that I think the church lied and I don’t believe that so there is much in your post I can’t respond to since it doesn’t apply to me.

As to why the Holy Spirit would allow error to creep in…I don’t know. Apparently the Holy Spirit allowed schism…I don’t claim to understand the sovereignty of God and all of His plans.

As to the mechanisms of how an error came into being…I don’t think I understand what you are asking.

What I am asking you is how doctrinal error originates in a church that holds councils to ensure a continuation of orthodoxy. For this to occur, the majority of the bishops as well as the Popes would have to agree that a change was warranted AFTER studying the views of their predecessors. Given this methodology, its really hard to see how doctrines could change.

Schism is different. That occurs when someone deviates from the views of the Catholic church and decides to go it alone. In those cases. the schismatic group is of course free to believe what they want. They just aren’t Catholics anymore.

 

[twb1621]

…

I don’t know what if any rebuttals you may have had to my previous post but I am taking it that you didn’t due to the fact you thanked me and did not dispute it. Actually you didn’t dispute either posts regarding Honoring Mary or her assumption so I will consider that as your recognition in some way for further consideration.
As far as scripture alone and the Church fathers, in reading the words of the Church fathers completely and in detail it is clear that they had no reason at that time to take a stand against the principal of scripture alone because it had not become an issue then. That would have been similar to them condemning then the causes of today’s global warming. Of course they highly respected the scripture as is no different today but once the issue of scripture alone arose, so did the need to clarify all that was a part of the teachings of Christ.
I have to raise the point that the majority (not all, but the majority) of the scriptures followed by those of protestant faiths is in fact taken not only from the Book of the Catholic Church, but the CC interpretations as well. What I do not understand is why non-Catholic Christians do not question why their own beliefs have changed substantially from those their own founders established in their original “faith” and also why if the interpretations from the Catholic Church are used in the majority, have these Christian followers not questioned to a greater degree the removal of books and the adding or removing of words that change scriptural interpretation. If one is to be honest, their must be some degree of curiosity in this regard. Especially considering it is the basis of the differences we debate. I mean this with sincere concern for all our Brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of denomination.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I don’t know what if any rebuttals you may have had to my previous post but I am taking it that you didn’t due to the fact you thanked me and did not dispute it.

I read it and I appreciate your efforts but I haven’t had time to respond yet.

What I do not understand is why non-Catholic Christians do not question why their own beliefs have changed substantially from those their own founders established in their original “faith” and also why if the interpretations from the Catholic Church are used in the majority, have these Christian followers not questioned to a greater degree the removal of books and the adding or removing of words that change scriptural interpretation. If one is to be honest, their must be some degree of curiosity in this regard. Especially considering it is the basis of the differences we debate. I mean this with sincere concern for all our Brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of denomination.

I am of the Reformed persuassion and as far as I can tell we are pretty true to the reformation.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I don’t think your church is entirely wrong but I don’t think it’s entirely correct either. As to following Catholic exegesis of scripture…remember your church has only defined the meanings of a handful of scriptures so I guess it would depend on what Catholic theologian(s) agree with which Reformed theologian on certain subjects.

As for the changing of words I am assuming you mean Luther’s addition of “alone” to Romans 3:28. If you are, please remember that others before Luther did the same thing and yet no Catholic rails against them. The reformers accepted the canon of the OT that Jerome (and others) accepted. In fact there were Catholics such as Cardinals Cajeten and Ximenes who rejected the books you call the deutero’s and they were contemporaries of Luther. I believe it was Cajetan who interviewed Luther at Wurms.

 

[Pwrlftr]

What I am asking you is how doctrinal error originates in a church that holds councils to ensure a continuation of orthodoxy. For this to occur, the majority of the bishops as well as the Popes would have to agree that a change was warranted AFTER studying the views of their predecessors. Given this methodology, its really hard to see how doctrines could change.

Unless your church is truely in possession of the gift of infallibility I don’t know how having councils would help. From what I read of the history of the various councils they aren’t necessarily peaceful, calm meetings where everyone is in lockstep w/ one another. I believe the council fathers at the 1st Vatican Council debated the infallibility issue pretty intensely.

Schism is different. That occurs when someone deviates from the views of the Catholic church and decides to go it alone. In those cases. the schismatic group is of course free to believe what they want. They just aren’t Catholics anymore.

I realize what schism is but you insinuated that the Holy Spirit wouldn’t allow error to creep into church teaching and I was pointing out that there is no reason to necessarily believe this since the Holy Spirit does allow schisms to occur.

I don’t know which is worse…schism or error. Maybe error?

 

[paul_c]

Unless your church is truely in possession of the gift of infallibility I don’t know how having councils would help. From what I read of the history of the various councils they aren’t necessarily peaceful, calm meetings where everyone is in lockstep w/ one another. I believe the council fathers at the 1st Vatican Council debated the infallibility issue pretty intensely.

Councils are brought together when the church becomes aware of threats to Orthodox doctrine. For instance, when the Arians started to say that Jesus was not divine. Everyone is then called in to discuss the point and to force a return to orthodoxy. You are right that these discussions aren’t always peaceful because inevitably someone is shown to be straying from the Apostolic faith and they either have to recant or leave the church. For the church to therefore stray from Orthodoxy would take a majority of the bishops, including the Pope, to all take a spurious stand simultaneously. The church is very careful about this, so I think such an event is unlikely.

I realize what schism is but you insinuated that the Holy Spirit wouldn’t allow error to creep into church teaching and I was pointing out that there is no reason to necessarily believe this since the Holy Spirit does allow schisms to occur.

Schism is caused when parties, when shown that they are no longer following the Catholic Doctrine, fail to recant, starting their own offshoot. This is different than overall church error, because a schism requires only a single stubborn bishop to be in error and to not recant. A false doctrine would take a majority of the bishops and the Pope to be in error simultaneously. I think you would agree that the second case is far less likely, particularly under the guardianship of the Holy spirit, who will protect the church but not necessarily schismatics.
I don’t know which is worse…schism or error. Maybe error?

 

[Philthy]

Pwrlftr:

I don’t believe your church is infallible nor do I believe it gets everything wrong either. Because I accept the same canon of the NT that your church accepts that means I should believe everything your church has ever taught?

Like I said - ISTM that you believe them regarding the canon because you need to.

You way overstate your case. It seems as if you are saying that before some council formally codified the canon of the NT there was no clue whatsoever as to what books made up the NT and that, if that’s your belief, is completely unfounded.

Really? Why dont you try proving that? I never said there was “no clue”, but if you are going to rely on Scripture ALONE then you have to know exactly what’s in and most definitely what is OUT. Having an “idea” doesnt cut it. You need to know for sure that “faith without works is dead”, you need to know that prayers for the dead are a good and righteous thing, etc etc.
ISTM you believe that the “rule of faith” that you have would be no different without a knowledge of what the canon is. You are wrong IMHO.

Need I remind you that the Jews had no infallible body to codify what was and wan’t scripture and yet they were entrusted with the oracles of God…

Your point?

and that we see numerous times in the NT that Jesus held them (the Jews) accoutnable for knowing the sciptures. What we don’t find in the NT is Jesus letting the Jews off the hook because they had no infallble body to guide them.

They had an authority who they were responsible for obeying - The Sadducees and the Pharisees. Are you trying to prove that Jesus expected them to read the Scriptures for themselves like your notion of SS? You’re doing a very poor job if you are.

In the case of the Assumption there is little or no evidence tying this belief back to the apostolic age and therefore illustrates my point pretty clearly.

It illustrates the point that not everything is explicit in Scripture nor in history. As a counter point I will add that even when there is early and historic evidence for things (Real Presence, infant baptism) you still feel at liberty to dismiss them. I sense a double standard.

But perhaps sciptue is intended to be the sole infallible rule of faith and the magesterium and tradition are meant to be scriptures servants not it’s equal.

Scripture is not written as a “rule of faith” book. It’s disorganized and its written in descriptive terminology(ie,born of water) rather than *affirmative *terminology(think 10 commandments). That is to say that it REQUIRES interpretation. That is one of the great blessings of Protestantism - we now know for a fact that you cannot simply read Scripture and come away with a single clear understanding of the faith. If you could, we’d have some semblance of doctrinal unity within Protestantism. The truth is that people come away with lots of different ideas on some very important issues.
But you are right in a sense - the magisterium is a servant of the Truth and has Scripture as an inerrant guide.

Yet we see in the NT that there was a recognition that at least some of Paul’s writings were in fact scripture along with at least one of the gospels

.
Which gospel are you talking about - Luke?
It is a tangential point made by Peter that Paul’s letters are Scripture - his main point, and the only reason he brings it up is to say that Scripture is sometimes hard to understand! Talk about ironic for a SS adherent to have to bring that up in defense of SS. Dont you think that somebody at some point would have known that a new mode of revelation(SS) would be replacing the Apostles oral teaching and that an entire new body of Scripture was forthcoming, and that they would have had the sense to write that fact down? Just about the only reason I can think of why they didnt is because it wasnt true - they expected the post Apostolic bishops, priests and deacons to continue the teachings that they had learned with the authority passed on to them by the laying of of hands.

I guess I could respond in kind with how “ridiculous” I think many of your beliefs are but I won’t.

Im sorry - I didnt mean to insult you or your belief. I chose the wrong way to express myself - its more difficult to express oneself through written communication

Why do I need authority to know the word of God? Your question makes no sense.

It makes no sense to ask how your claim of possessing the word of God is any different from any other claim? It may be a very painful question for you to deal with, but it is not non-sensical at all. Why should I believe you or the person who convinced you that the Bible is the word of God?

By what authority did a Christian before (insert the name of your favorite council here) know what was and wasn’t scripture?

They knew that Jesus gave authority to his apostles because they all worked miracles in plain daylight for all to see. Those apostles appointed successors with witnesses to testify on their behalf. Many of those successors gave their lives for the faith and became part of the “cloud of witnesses” This process continues in an uninterupted pattern to this day. At all times the people learned the faith primarily from those with the authority to teach it. That also continues to this day. They knew what was Scripture by paying attention during Mass. Later, the canon was revealed by that same special group of people who can trace their authoritative lineage back to the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

Those points are gleaned from the authoritative Scripture.

No, sandusky. You see them there because you have accepted these particular sacred traditions. Those that reject these parts of the Tradition “glean” something else. In fact, the reason these had to be developed is because of heresies (very similar to those today) deny the Apostolic Teachings in these areas using the same scripture. The teachings are gleaned from Apostolic Teaching. If this is accepted, we can “see” it in 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.”

No, sandusky, it is not . First of all, they are not “different” in the sense that they both emanate from the same Source. Secondly , the idea of attempting to reduce a way of life to a “list” as you seem to desire is preposterous. However, please assist us with this, and demonstrate how you transmit all that you are, believe, and represent of the life of Christ can be made into a list.

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.”

Yes, this is true. Anyone who does not understand that The Way, spoken about in the book of Acts is a way of life, a world view, a manner of being on earth, yet being of heaven, clearly does not understand the church.

I would go so far as to say that, anyone who thinks that the life of Christ can be reduced to a “list” definitely does not understand the Church.

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

I agree with this most wholeheartedly.

The Catholic Church has never attempted to truncate the Gospel by making of it a “list”. The Church has always held and taught that the Life of Christ encompasses a whole manner of being.

 

[sandusky]

Church Militant:

Just because the Jews are not trinitarian, does that mean that they do not worship the same God of the Old covenant found in the Old Testament?

The New has replaced the Old, and the Messiah of the Jews has appeared, and been rejected by the them**John 1:11

He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.**This is not difficult to understand.
Church Militant:

Bear in mind that even today, our trinitarian doctrines and the deity of Jesus make us blasphemers to the Jews.

Irrelevant—they are in unbelief.
Church Militant:

Your opinion on that is about the same as mine is about yours.

Perfect! You call good evil, and you call evil, good—a fulfillment of prophecy.
Church Militant:

You’d like to convince Catholics that this is error, when in fact it is anything but.

You’re in error.

 

[guanophore]

While many would not agree with me, I don’t think the differences are really that great. With respect to Communion, everyone I know follows the same form. In doing so they are doing what Jesus commanded. That they may not agree on what actually happens does not mean that God does not do the same work for each.

Is that right? So, when He said “if any two or more of you agree”, He didn’t really mean anything important? Maybe He was just talking about what to eat for breakfast?

Maybe I am overly latitudinal, but I think that we should spend more time trying to do God’s work in the world than squabbling with each other.

But we have gotten off topic.

So, why are you here?

This site is for people who have legitimate questions about Catholicism. You have demonstrated that you do not. How are you doing “God’s work in the world” bringing your detractions here?

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

No, sandusky. You see them there because you have accepted these particular sacred traditions. Those that reject these parts of the Tradition “glean” something else. In fact, the reason these had to be developed is because of heresies (very similar to those today) deny the Apostolic Teachings in these areas using the same scripture.

So those who don’t believe the Marian dogmas, and purgatory are heretics? Interesting.

guanophore:

No, sandusky, it is not.

Yes it is. If you claim that the oral tradition of the apostles is different than the written position you’ll have to back that up.

guanophore:

First of all, they are not “different” in the sense that they both emanate from the same Source.

You’re word-smithing and spinning things. Prove the IC and the assumption from scripture, guanophore.

guanophore:

Secondly , the idea of attempting to reduce a way of life to a “list” as you seem to desire is preposterous.

You’re playing word games because you can’t deliver.

guanophore:

However, please assist us with this, and demonstrate how you transmit all that you are, believe, and represent of the life of Christ can be made into a list.

Word games.

guanophore:

Yes, this is true. Anyone who does not understand that The Way, spoken about in the book of Acts is a way of life, a world view, a manner of being on earth, yet being of heaven, clearly does not understand the church.

Games.

guanophore:

The Catholic Church has never attempted to truncate the Gospel by making of it a “list”.

More games.

guanophore:

The Church has always held and taught that the Life of Christ encompasses a whole manner of being.

Which, by your own admission, you can’t list, or describe—more games.

 

[guanophore]

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.

You are correct that what you are “requesting” does reside in the remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful in union together with the Teachings of Jesus. I cannot fathom, however, how this life of Christ in the Church can be reduced to a “list”. I must agree with you that one who requests such a reduction has no understanding of Jesus’ intention for His Bride. Have you ever been in love? Did you ever try to reduce your Bride to a “list”? I bet if you did, your Bride would be grossly insulted by your reduction.

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

Where does it say THAT in 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.”

If you think this paragraph says what you assert, then you are mistaken. Of course God had written whatever He wanted. He never wanted of of it written!

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

The fact that everything that is in scripture is true does not equate to everything that is true is in scripture.

Everything I need to know for my salvation is recorded in the Scripture. I need nothing in addition to Scripture.

Again one has to wonder, why are you here? If you have all you need from the Sacred Catholic Writings, what would compel you to frequent a Catholic forum?

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.

It is kept in the hearts of the faithful. Of couse you are demanding that we conform to your errant and carnal constructions by insisting that the life of God in Christ be reduced to a “list”. Pitiful.

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?

Because not everything was consigned to scripture.

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).

Have you forgotten that the majority of Scripture was already written at the time?

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

This is a logical fallacy. None of the Catholic doctrines find their basis in the Scripture. All of them come from Jesus Himself, and were whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. To say that the teachings were not complete before they were written consigns the whole NT to “conflict”.

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).

No, sandusky, there is no conflict between the two, except in your mind. Further, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture never “overrule, overide, or add”. they are two woven strands of the same immutable truth, once and for all delivered to the saints.

ISTM, there’s a circular contradiction here.

Indeed, your mind is definitely going in circles. Unproductive ones, I would say.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

and remember what Paul said to Timothy, The Church of God is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. He didn’t say that Scripture was, he said the Church was.

geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html

 

[rmcbride77]

geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html

 

[rmcbride77]

I have a few questions:
a.) The Jews had no infallible authority yet the were entrusted with the oracles of God (the scriptures). They were also able to recognize Issiah as scripture. How did this happen without an infallible body?

b.) How did a Christian living before a councils proclamation on the NT canon determine what was and what wasn’t scripture?

c.) Why does a witness to the canon need to be infallible?

a)I will quote my friend Peter J above.
Original Post by Peter J:

It seems to me that you’re working from a false assumption, namely that infallibility implies some kind of legalistic structure – with, curiously enough, is also the assumption that ultra-montanists generally make.

And more to the point, I will go on to say that the writers of Scripture in the OT worked from the same infallibility the NT authors of scripture do.

b) If you read your history, they had the OT canon of Nehemiah and Esdras. Ask a Jew.

c) I am not sure what you mean here but if you are saying why does the body determining the canon need to be infallible? Well because if it weren’t, then the canon wouldn’t be infallible and without an infallible canon, anyone could let any old book in there say like … The Gospel of Judas or The Book of Mormon maybe?

If this isn’t what you meant, please restate question c.

 

[rmcbride77]

b) If you read your history, they had the OT canon of Nehemiah and Esdras. Ask a Jew.

I honestly wasn’t trying to be flippant here. After I posted it, it looked really bad when I read “Ask a Jew” . What I should have said was that the Jews were confident of the canon of their scriptures. I am not a scholar on this by any means though. Please forgive if I offended anyone

 

[rmcbride77]

What exactly does this verse mean to you?

well lets examine it. What does foundation imply? It implies the bedrock the truth is built on, namely Christ, I am sure you know the scriptures that describe the foundation the Church is built on is Christ.
What are pillars. They hold up the whole of the structure of the Truth. So if you read it plainly, the Church, which is the Body of Christ is the foundation of the Truth, what Truth is built on and gets its origin from… and the Church is also the pillars of the truth, they hold it in its structure so that it maintains its shape. Now I think that is a pretty good picture of the visible church that is the RCC. Some ethereal invisible Church would not be able to be the foundation and pillars in anything but an abstract sense.

does that help?