Early church fathers believed in sola scriptura?

[paul_c]

Sandusky: your said:
You’re wrong. The clear statement of Scripture concerning God is that He is absolutely sovereign over all things, and the clear statement of Scripture concerning man is that he is responsible for all of his actions.

The analogy used by God concerning His Messiah, and His sheep, is that His Messiah is responsible for His sheep:John 6:39

“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.It’s clearly the Shepherd’s responsibility not to lose the sheep God’s given to Him. Do you think the Shepherd can keep the sheep perfectly?

Sandusky, but who are the one’s that God has given him? is it everyone? Only those that claim to believe in him? Or those that do his will.
Here is what Jesus says in the sermon on the mount (chapter 7
15
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.
16
By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17
Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.
18
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.
19
**Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. **20
So by their fruits you will know them.
21
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, 10 **but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. **22
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’
23
Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. 11 Depart from me, you evildoers.’
24
12 “Everyone who listens to these words of mine and **acts on them **will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.
25
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.
26
And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand.
27
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.”

 

[BRB]

without one iota of evidence that a single Protestant has ever been “saved”.

I have yet to hear of a single credible case of miracles being associated with any departed Protestants like the Catholic Church has with its thousands of well documented cases for its many saints.

I think recent Popes would say otherwise. Indeed the Church teaches as much.

Many Protestants have experienced rebirth apart from Catholicism and live theosis to a certain degree. However, many it would seem eventually discover the theological errors they have been taught by their leaders … and after a search for truth discover the Church with the 7 Sacraments.

 

[Church_Militant]

Good description of the Protestant dilemma. Let them answer charges … using sacred scripture to refute.

The problem with that is that the case for SS cannot be viably supported from scripture itself because it is not there.

IMO that forces the entire house of cards that is based upon it to topple, or at least come into serious question.

I think that puts their entire belief system in a very questionable light.

 

[CentralFLJames]

…
At this point, the logical question to its proponents (IMO) is, if this is not supported by the scriptures as you have been taught, then why do you cling to it?

Good question. I have a theory that its pride and a belief they can redefine the theology to keep themselves from having to go to confession and doing other things Jesus commanded.

It would generally appear to me that yet another of the contradictory Protestant solas, Sola Fide, is finding that it can’t play well alone (sola) and like an errant step-child wants to run away and play-house with his cousin Sola Scriptura; who also can’t play well alone. So much for the idea of “sola”. I think the general idea of these two mischievous solas is that they imagine there is more fun to be had (and more new preaching topics for preachers to peach on) by holding hands and redefining “faith”.

The large numbers of Protestant denominations makes it impossible for Protestants to credibly claim “everyone with a bible their own infallable pope” through private interpretation. So they now are compelled to substitute Justification by Faith with a new faith that gets one saved through an improved no-child-left-behind sort of faith in one’s private reading comprehension of scripture.

I think Protestants are starting to get self-conscious that all that sola scriptura reading and cross-threading of scriptures necessary to defend against the clear reason of vigorous Catholic apologetic rebuttal is starting to make Protestantism look too much like work - and that is too Catholic. So they are on to us that we are forcing them to admit that to remain Protestant is a works based faith since it goes against so much reason to hold to reformed theology that they have to work at it or just admit the error and convert to Catholicism.

Their only remaining theological option is to redefine Sola Fide and combine it with Sola Scriptura and make it into a new sola: “faith through scripture”. This would be an admission that they finally see how contradictory it is to profess by ‘faith alone’ while putting so much of that faith in their own works of private interpretation of scripture rather than in God.

James

 

[sodak]

If you could produce the list you could fathom it. Maybe that’s your problem.

ISTM, you know as much about women as you know about the list—not much.

I know it says what I assert, it’s you that has the difficulty with RCC teaching on the subject.

You are precious in your ambiguity and equivocation.

I love Catholics.

The list is kept in the heart of every faithful Catholic, and yet, not one of them can produce the comprehensive list—Odd. Perhaps they’re deceived?

I know; much is in an written list, kept in the hearts of faithful Catholics, and none of them can produce the list.

What’s your point?

Sounds good, but that’s about it.
It’s a result of your shuckin’ and jivin’ me 'bout the list.

One of these is not like the others… You love Catholics?

You continually deride Catholic posters - that’s love?
You continually ignore many Catholic posters’ questions that you can’t answer - that’s love?

I’ve seen you continuously have your points disproven, only to go on a new offensive in another direction rather than either admit you are wrong, or come up with a better argument.

It’s a shame, but I really don’t care much what you post anymore, I’ve been just skipping over it for some time, and probably will continue to do that.

That’s the best Catholic argument made so far—different standards of authority and proof.

We’ve been making this point all along. Have you not been reading all the posts? Pwrlftr has been having a pretty civil discussion with other posters about this in this thread. Perhaps you could learn something if you read them.

 

[sandusky]

It’s a shame, but I really don’t care much what you post anymore, I’ve been just skipping over it for some time, and probably will continue to do that.

Put me on your ignore list.

 

[sandusky]

paul c:

Sandusky, but who are the one’s that God has given him? is it everyone? Only those that claim to believe in him? Or those that do his will.

Well, He clearly says in the passage you cite that He “never knew” those many who will appeal to Him in the manner He describes. But He also says of others that He “knows” them, and they know Him, and they hear His word, and they follow Him.

So those given to Him by the Father will do the Father’s will.

But, that’s not the question I asked you—Do you think the Shepherd can keep the sheep perfectly?

 

[cfrancis]

Well, He clearly says in the passage you cite that He “never knew” those many who will appeal to Him in the manner He describes. But He also says of others that He “knows” them, and they know Him, and they hear His word, and they follow Him.

So those given to Him by the Father will do the Father’s will.

But, that’s not the question I asked you—Do you think the Shepherd can keep the sheep perfectly?

God can keep perfectly, but He will not prevent us from using our free will; we, His sheep, can wander off on our own volition.

Now, is there any chance you’ll address these questions I’ve been asking throughout the thread?

You stated:

Many, including me, would disagree with you on that. We would say that they were infallibly defined by Trent.

I asked:

That begs the question: when was the canon to which you subscribe infallibly defined?

I also asked:

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?

 

[paul_c]

Sure, Sandusky, Jesus can keep those sheep that are really his.

But God gave us free will to decide whether we wanted to be Jesus’ “sheep” or not. Out of love, he does not force us to do what we don’t want to do. If we choose not to be his sheep, he allows us to. Furthermore, he expects us to demonstrate our fidelity to his will (to love God and Love Others) by our works. If we do not do his works, then we demonstrate that we aren’t his sheep.

The bottom line is that we have personal responsibility in our own salvation. While we can never be perfect and require God’s mercy and forgiveness, we also must demonstrate a desire to be saved and make our best effort to do his will…

Any one can say they believe in God. In fact, even Satan will acknowledgte that God exists… that’s not enough to be saved.

 

[sandusky]

cfrancis:

God can keep perfectly, but He will not prevent us from using our free will; we, His sheep, can wander off on our own volition.

If the sheep wander off to destruction, then Christ fails to keep the Father’s charge, and therefore, He’s not a perfect savior (cf Jn 6:39).

cfrancis:

Now, is there any chance you’ll address these questions I’ve been asking throughout the thread?

Your questions were answered last week.

I adhere to the 66 book protestant canon.

SS presupposes scripture, as without scripture there can be no SS—common sense.

I hope you got it this time.

 

[BRB]

its pride and a belief they can redefine the theology to keep themselves from having to go to confession and doing other things Jesus commanded.

No one wants to be proven wrong. Especially on their longheld theology. Sandman is a prodigal from the Church of his youth.

His subconscious won’t allow him to abandon the truth entirely …yet his rebellious pride won’t let him recant.

His Protestant support system is telling him he has discovered the pure Christian message. These enablers are not serving him well.

Sandman … be a reformed rebel, with a cause. Make a clean break from your present err ! All here will salute you, meet you more than half way, and offer up the fatted calf / best wine on your behalf. Be restored to Full Communion status.

Its a shame to waste your excellent mind/talents. Be a kingdom builder !

 

[cfrancis]

If the sheep wander off to destruction, then Christ fails to keep the Father’s charge, and therefore, He’s not a perfect savior (cf Jn 6:39).

So God did not create us in His image, giving us free will
Perhaps you should read the prodigal son one more time…

Your questions were answered last week.

I adhere to the 66 book protestant canon.

I know to which canon you adhere; I just want to know when that canon was infallibly defined. You have not answered that yet.

SS presupposes scripture, as without scripture there can be no SS—common sense.

I hope you got it this time.

I surely did get the non-answer.
You still have not provided the source of your statement “SS presupposes a canon” unless you are claiming you are the one who originally stated this.
Otherwise, you shouldn’t have much problem providing the ECF or Scripture verse or theologian who provided the world with the statement: “SS presupposes a canon.”

 

[sodak]

Put me on your ignore list.

Done. And -note to other readers- you still managed to not answer the questions that you find inconvenient.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I think recent Popes would say otherwise. Indeed the Church teaches as much.

Many Protestants have experienced rebirth apart from Catholicism and live theosis to a certain degree. However, many it would seem eventually discover the theological errors they have been taught by their leaders … and after a search for truth discover the Church with the 7 Sacraments.

Please don’t confuse the recent 2 pope’s statements that one MAY possibly be saved without formal membership in the Catholic Church as a guarantee that ANY of them will be. The Church believes that is it irregular and an exception to be saved outside of formal membership in the Catholic Church. The recent Pope’s are just acknowledging God’s sovereign right to work outside of the channels of grace we have through the Catholic Church. Jesus wanted all to be formal members in His Church and to receive all the sacramental graces.

So I think its important to see these papal statements and teachings for what they are: 1) Recognition of God’s sovereignty and 2) appeals to ecumenical outreach that are intended to open the door to people who want to join the Catholic Church. But the Catholic church will never change its teachings or dogmas just to accommodate ecumenical sentiments. What The Church does is signal that she is always open to meaningful dialog. The clear message has always been that “all salvation is through the Catholic Church” - either through formal membership or through the good graces of The Church as permitted by God Himself.

I still hold to the belief that no Protestant has ever been recognized within Protestantism nor the Catholic Church as having attained any level of saintliness or any degree of advanced theosis. Although in so saying I am not rejecting that there are well intentioned and pious individuals who are outwardly living a Christian lifestyle and morality. But then again there are agnostics and atheist who are humanist-moralists that also exhibit outward sings of moral living - clearly though a saintly interior disposition is not present in those who knowingly reject God and His Church.

Regards,
James

 

[Peter_J]

I adhere to the 66 book protestant canon.

SS presupposes scripture, as without scripture there can be no SS—common sense.

I hope you got it this time.

But saying “SS presupposes scripture” doesn’t provide a reason for accepting that particular canon. Rather it just reiterates that fact that you do accept that particular canon.

In the same, if you ask me “Why do you believe that the Pope is infallible?” and I respond with “Roman Catholicism presupposes an infallible Pope”, then all I’ve told you is what I believe, not why.

 

[clmowry]

So is anybody still discussing whether the Early Church Fathers Believed in Sola Scriptura?

This seems like a silly assertion to me, perhaps that is why the discussion keeps moving away from the subject at hand?

We seem to be back on the; Give me a Tradition list; These Traditions are not true; God saves who He will and damns the rest; anything but the thread topic discussion.

Chuck

 

[paul_c]

This has been like Sandusky’s private thread. He asked questions about a list, they were answered. Through several gyrations, we arrived at the point where we all agreed that non-scriptural traditions of course existed, the only question was whether they were Apostolic in nature. We agreed further that the question was whether you believed the church or not. It was agreed they church wasn’t lying, but may have been mistaken. The Catholics asserted that there were too many safeguards for the entire church to fall into heresy. Sandusky at this point, went back to the start and asked for the lists again. They were provided and away we go again…

 

[BRB]

I still hold to the belief that no Protestant has ever been recognized within Protestantism nor the Catholic Church as having attained any level of saintliness or any degree of advanced theosis.

C.S. Lewis … Anglican I believe

William Wilberforce … probably Presbyterian

Corrie ten Boom … jewish protestant

Billy Graham … Southern Baptist

Malcolm Muggeridge … Protestant in '69, finally found Mother Church in '82 at end of his era.

J. V. McGee … Presbyterian

C. R. Swindoll … Nondenominational

David Jeremiah … Southern Baptist

My mother … Baptist

many other candidates … TNTC

 

[Philthy]

Yep…until and unless the proponents of SS can make a more viable case for their doctrine it’s a moot point.

But that will not happen so far as I can tell because the scriptures used as proof texts for SS simply do not offer the support needed.

At this point, the logical question to its proponents (IMO) is, if this is not supported by the scriptures as you have been taught, then why do you cling to it?

Hi CM!

While I agree with you from an intellectual standpoint regarding the reasonableness of SS, I have to also point out that part of the problem with the Catholic Church is…well…Catholics!
There has been plenty to dissuade non-Catholics from considering Catholicism - particularly in the USA. I say this not to bash the Church I love, but because without confronting our own failings we will not move to fix them. I think that the Protestant Reformation is an opportunity to re-examine various aspects of parish life, for example, to improve it.

 

[CentralFLJames]

C.S. Lewis … Anglican I believe

William Wilberforce … probably Presbyterian

Corrie ten Boom … jewish protestant

Billy Graham … Southern Baptist

Malcolm Muggeridge … Protestant in '69, finally found Mother Church in '82 at end of his era.

J. V. McGee … Presbyterian

C. R. Swindoll … Nondenominational

David Jeremiah … Southern Baptist

My mother … Baptist

many other candidates … TNTC

I don’t want to high jack this thread on this tangent discussion.
But let me just say that I have seen fundamentalist Protestants lampooning and condemning Billy Graham for being too cozy with Catholics through his participating in ecumenical outreach programs and being seen in the company of Catholics too often. Which in itself might be compelling evidence that he secretly was a closet Catholic and may have suffered like a saint.

C S Lewis is about the only one on the list that I think comes remotely close to the mark here. But as a prior atheist who had a fondness for anthropomorphic animals, mythology and fantasy I doubt he was centered enough on human spirituality to be a shiny model for anyone to emulate as a saintly person; the late life dementia certainly didn’t help either. If he had taken the lead of his close Catholic friend JR Tolkien the man would have converted from Anglicism to Catholicism and possibly attained a much higher status - and who knows what he could have been. But Lewis certainly deserved the title “The Apostle to the Skeptics” if for nothing other than his radical conversion from atheism to Christianity and for the reach of his writings. But I hardly think his apologetic works nor his fantasy stories (that mix mythological creatures and legends, humanized animals and christian themes sends a crisp enough “Christian” message to warrant him a saint. Call me a skeptic here but I think too many kids seeing Lewis’ works and making the connection to Christianity could too easily come away imagining Jesus is a magician with magical powers.

As for the others.

James