Early church fathers believed in sola scriptura?

[Church_Militant]

Gentlemen (and I use the term loosely),

I won’t be able to continue on this thread…sorry for leaving some of your questions unanswered.

And with good reason!

God bless you on your journey of faith my friend!
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
*
P.S. Please PM me about this somewhat cryptic exchange between PL and myself before (or better still instead of)** commenting here.*

 

[sandusky]

paul c:

Sandusky,
Now you are being completely ridiculous.

Do you think that the Apostles intended the Scriptures to be a “how-to” manual on how to practice the faith? Do you think for a moment that the holy authors thought that their writings would be used by people as “how-to” manuals 2000 years later?

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.”I wonder, sometimes, if Catholics even believe their own catechism, to which they refer so often?
paul c:

Therefore, it is clear that there is a huge gap in scripture (the how- to’s) that had to be plugged by tradition. For instance, the new testament isn’t clear about any celebration feasts (Date of Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, Ascension day, even Sunday worship). It doesn’t say how or what to pray (other than the Our Father) or how to conduct mass or the sacraments. I think you would agree that these are things the Apostles taught (because surely they would have been asked), but somehow didn’t manage to get into their official scriptures.

Actually, I don’t agree with that.

Referring again to your catechism:**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.”**The Spirit consigned to writing only what He wanted, and no more.

Perhaps the apostles didn’t write about feasts, dates, the sacraments, the mass and such, because they didn’t know of such things.

Has that thought ever occurred to you?

 

[paul_c]

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.”I wonder, sometimes, if Catholics even believe their own catechism, to which they refer so often?

lets be clear, it says it teaches Truth without error. It doesn’t say it teaches all the truth… Its foolish to try to use the Catechism to support sola scritura. This is what the catechism says:

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

Actually, I don’t agree with that.

Referring again to your catechism: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."The Spirit consigned to writing only what He wanted, and no more.

Perhaps the apostles didn’t write about feasts, dates, the sacraments, the mass and such, because they didn’t know of such things.

Has that thought ever occurred to you?

You are being disinguous when you quote CC106 and 107 but not 108:
Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”. If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”

You see, Sandusky, it is quite apparent that you are willing to take things out of context in an effort to prove your point. Wouldn’t it be better to keep things in context and instead, learn the truth…

 

[cfrancis]

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.”I wonder, sometimes, if Catholics even believe their own catechism, to which they refer so often?

I wonder if you ever read something Catholic and not insert your own ideology into the clearly written words.

Note the words you provided:
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.”

As Paul states above, neither the Bible nor the Catechism state that ALL God wanted to confide to us was placed into Scripture.

And…
Still waiting for:

I’ve already told you, but let’s use Philthy’s method for finding the unwritten list of traditions in the catechism. To find the date of the canon to which I refer, the Protestant Canon, go through history and discard all of the other dates given for different canons, and you’ll arrive at the date for which you’re looking.

If I recall, you were not at all pleased with Philthy’s method and tone; yet you use it now.

If you have indeed already told me the date for the canon to which you subscribe, you should not need to expend much effort providing me with either the answer or the link to the post containing the answer!

So,

1. Date your canon of 66 books was defined: __________

As I said before, it’s common sense.

Common sense
Perhaps, but surely a doctrine as ancient as SS had proponents who uttered such common sense before you did in this post.
And surely such a devout adherent of such an ancient doctrine would know of, if not the first, one of the first, utterers of this common sense.

So,
2) Source for your “SS presumes a canon” statement: _________

 

[sandusky]

and…
Still waiting for:

My friend, you are "beating a dead horse."

 

[sandusky]

paul c:

lets be clear, it says it teaches Truth without error. It doesn’t say it teaches all the truth… Its foolish to try to use the Catechism to support sola scritura. This is what the catechism says:

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

I understand that. What you don’t understand is that I don’t buy it. I require more proof than you.

This brings us back to the original contention—ISTM that the church is saying that what the apostles taught orally, differs from what they put into writing. I believe Schaff brings that out as well. That being the case, it’s incumbent upon you to back that up. List the writing of any of the ECFs who state clearly that they were taught this thing, or that thing, by this or that apostle, orally, and you’ll have made your case. If you can’t do that, you’ve failed to make your case—pretty simple.
paul c:

You see, Sandusky, it is quite apparent that you are willing to take things out of context in an effort to prove your point. Wouldn’t it be better to keep things in context and instead, learn the truth…

Here’s how you can prove the truth: list the writing of any of the ECFs who state clearly that they were taught this thing, or that thing, by this or that apostle, orally, and you’ll have made your case. If you can’t do that, you’ve failed to make your case.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I understand that. What you don’t understand is that I don’t buy it. I require more proof than you.

This brings us back to the original contention—ISTM that the church is saying that what the apostles taught orally, differs from what they put into writing. I believe Schaff brings that out as well. That being the case, it’s incumbent upon you to back that up. List the writing of any of the ECFs who state clearly that they were taught this thing, or that thing, by this or that apostle, orally, and you’ll have made your case. If you can’t do that, you’ve failed to make your case—pretty simple.

Here’s how you can prove the truth: list the writing of any of the ECFs who state clearly that they were taught this thing, or that thing, by this or that apostle, orally, and you’ll have made your case. If you can’t do that, you’ve failed to make your case.

You want tradition Sandusky?
One of our Catholic traditions is to be martyred for the faith.
Almost all the apostles and the first 30 or so popes and many bishops were martyred.

Care to follow in Jesus’ foot steps and carry your cross or is that what you don’t like about the Catholic traditions?

James

 

[sandusky]

You want tradition Sandusky?
One of our Catholic traditions is to be martyred for the faith.
Almost all the apostles and the first 30 or so popes and many bishops were martyred.

Care to follow in Jesus’ foot steps and carry your cross or is that what you don’t like about the Catholic traditions?

James

That doesn’t deal with the proof, James. Martyrdom proves nothing with respect to my request, and it is not exclusively a “Roman Catholic” event.

 

[Tomster]

I understand that. What you don’t understand is that I don’t buy it. I require more proof than you.

This brings us back to the original contention—ISTM that the church is saying that what the apostles taught orally, differs from what they put into writing. I believe Schaff brings that out as well. That being the case, it’s incumbent upon you to back that up. List the writing of any of the ECFs who state clearly that they were taught this thing, or that thing, by this or that apostle, orally, and you’ll have made your case. If you can’t do that, you’ve failed to make your case—pretty simple.

Here’s how you can prove the truth: list the writing of any of the ECFs who state clearly that they were taught this thing, or that thing, by this or that apostle, orally, and you’ll have made your case. If you can’t do that, you’ve failed to make your case.

Shall we start with the Didache?

 

[Tomster]

I understand that. What you don’t understand is that I don’t buy it. I require more proof than you.

This brings us back to the original contention—ISTM that the church is saying that what the apostles taught orally, differs from what they put into writing. I believe Schaff brings that out as well. That being the case, it’s incumbent upon you to back that up. List the writing of any of the ECFs who state clearly that they were taught this thing, or that thing, by this or that apostle, orally, and you’ll have made your case. If you can’t do that, you’ve failed to make your case—pretty simple.

Here’s how you can prove the truth: list the writing of any of the ECFs who state clearly that they were taught this thing, or that thing, by this or that apostle, orally, and you’ll have made your case. If you can’t do that, you’ve failed to make your case.

For your convenience:

www.newadvent.org/cathen/04779a.htm

Perhaps we can build on this?

 

[cfrancis]

My friend, you are "beating a dead horse."

Then why don’t you simply state you cannot provide an answer for either question

Seems you are hiding behind a dead horse…

By your silence on theses two questions,

1. ISTM you don’t have an infallible canon, but a fallible canon. That being the case, you have no foundation from which to deny the Catholic canon.
2. ISTM the idea of “SS presumes a canon” is not an ancient defense of an ancient doctrine, but a very modern rationalization for an untenable doctrine.

 

[BRB]

In my opinion, that Christ was God was known by early Christians before extensive scripture exegesis was possible. Ignatius, writing about 110 AD, speaks of “Christ our God”. Now that is very early, so early that it is doubtful much scripture study could have been done, and doubtful that few, if any, Christians would have complete collections of NT writings. If they even knew what that collection was!
Hence, knowledge of the deity of Christ and the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit was something taught by the apostles and not dependent upon scripture study.

First 3 gospels were probably complete by 60-65 AD. In them Jesus clearly refers to himself as Son of Man (God), One with the Father, Equal with the Father, the Messiah, the Christ, etc.

Christ never wrote about himself or teachings … except in age of Moses, when he wrote on stone. He did quote from the OT scriptures/traditions and taught primarily using parables. Everyone has the laws ‘innately’ written upon their hearts. The H.S. is Christ’s means of communication.

He left it up to others [apostles, disciples, ECF’s, etc ] to write about him, his teachings, & orally convey Christian traditions. If SS had been Sola, Christ would of written the New Testament himself. He never instructed his Apostles to write down his teachings after his Ascension — this is beyond dispute. Peter had to be convinced by others to cooperate with Luke in writing of Luke’s Gospel and his own Epistles. John had to be encouraged to write his Gospel by others. Most of the Apostles don’t appear to have seen any need to record their own Gospel versions … although they did read and give approval to those written.

Christianity is an evolving organism … ever expanding, being pruned of error, and better understood today than in earliest days of the faith.

Those who believe in Sola Scriptura … have a mistaken concept of God’s intentions for Planet Earth… They are locked in antiquity, and don’t see that faith, reason, history, and science are constantly at work, shaping Christ’s Church. The Silver Scrolls [of approx 750 BC], in conjuction with Dead Sea Scrolls have allowed specific dating/verification of the Jewish OT. Modern Archeology and Biblical Scholarship have frequently filled in the missing gaps.

 

[PJM]

Responding to the Orginal question.

No:thumbsup:

John Chapter 21: "24This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.

25 **But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. **"

NOTE: MSN.com on there Home page ran an article today on what PE Obama plans to do on Religion. It’s a MUST READ.

God bless, PJM

 

[clmowry]

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****.”**
I wonder, sometimes, if Catholics even believe their own catechism, to which they refer so often?

Actually, I don’t agree with that.

Referring again to your catechism:
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.”**
The Spirit consigned to writing only what He wanted, and no more.

What’s not to believe?

No where does the Catechism teach what you preach and it certainly does not do so in the sections you’ve quoted?
Perhaps the apostles didn’t write about feasts, dates, the sacraments, the mass and such, because they didn’t know of such things.

Has that thought ever occurred to you?

Actually they wrote quite a bit about the sacraments and the mass within scripture, you just can’t see that this is true.

Their appointed successors wrote much more over the centuries that have followed.

I find it interesting that the no where did the Spirit find it important to tell us what the contents of scripture would be nor that scripture would be sufficient, yet you can find these “truths” in scripture.

He did find it important to tell us much about the role of His Church and how scripture itself was difficult to interpret and that we would need to follow what we were taught through the Church, yet you can see none of these truths in scripture.

Perhaps this is because the Gospel you are preaching is a different Gospel than that of the Apostles and their Church and your predisposition skews your interpretation.

Has that though ever occurred to you?

Chuck

 

[Peter_J]

I wonder, sometimes, if Catholics even believe their own catechism, to which they refer so often?

Belief varies considerably less from one Catholic to another, than it does from one Protestant to another. But it would be a mistake to think that belief does not vary at all from one Catholic to another. (Recall the example already discussed: some Catholics believe in Sufficiency of Scripture, some Catholics do not.)

 

[Philthy]

Sandman-

What is going on? You have created a firestorm in here!
Just for the record, and I apologize for being late in saying this, but I never find your comments hateful or anything like that. We disagree on plenty and sometimes our emotions get the best of us, but I dont sense hatred.

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.”I wonder, sometimes, if Catholics even believe their own catechism, to which they refer so often?

You apparently dont realize that all this says is that whatever God wished to be confined to Scripture was confined to Scripture, and what He confined there He did so for our salvation. Nothing more, friend. It clearly does not say that EVERYTHING regarding our salvation was confided to the Sacred Scriptures, which is what you would have us believe. You stand corrected.
Its analogous to the common misinterpretation of 2Tim 3:16 which says that Scripture is “useful” and “equips us” but does not say that it contains everything regarding our salvation.

Referring again to your catechism: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."Perhaps the apostles didn’t write about feasts, dates, the sacraments, the mass and such, because they didn’t know of such things. Has that thought ever occurred to you?

It has occured to me. Without agreeing that none of the above are in Scripture (ie Sacraments) it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the Church would be the source for such teachings. What I personally find unreasonable is that SS became the “norm” and it required a canon, but not a single author of the NT (or OT) even remotely discussed this topic of the “new Scripture which will be our rule of faith”. Perhaps it’s because Scripture was never meant to be the sole rule of faith. Has that thought ever ocurred to you?

 

[paul_c]

I understand that. What you don’t understand is that I don’t buy it. I require more proof than you.

This brings us back to the original contention—ISTM that the church is saying that what the apostles taught orally, differs from what they put into writing. I believe Schaff brings that out as well. That being the case, it’s incumbent upon you to back that up. List the writing of any of the ECFs who state clearly that they were taught this thing, or that thing, by this or that apostle, orally, and you’ll have made your case. If you can’t do that, you’ve failed to make your case—pretty simple.

Here’s how you can prove the truth: list the writing of any of the ECFs who state clearly that they were taught this thing, or that thing, by this or that apostle, orally, and you’ll have made your case. If you can’t do that, you’ve failed to make your case.

Sandusky, I’m not an expert in ECF, but I did find this quote from St. Irenaeus Against heresies from the second century. Here he clearly ascribes the basis of the Apostle’s creed to the Apostles. Some of it is scriptural. The rest is not, hence tradition:
Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 10)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm
Unity of the faith of the Church throughout the whole world.

1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, (Ephesians 1:10) and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess (Philippians 2:10-11) to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, (Ephesians 6:12) and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

Hopefully this is sufficient to convince you…

 

[sandusky]

No.

 

[sandusky]

clmowry:

Actually they wrote quite a bit about the sacraments and the mass within scripture, you just can’t see that this is true.

Their appointed successors wrote much more over the centuries that have followed.

You’re right. I don’t the see sacraments and the mass in the scripture.

clmowry:

I find it interesting that the no where did the Spirit find it important to tell us what the contents of scripture would be nor that scripture would be sufficient, yet you can find these “truths” in scripture.

You’ve a presupposition in that respect—a prior commitment to scripture and tradition.

clmowry:

He did find it important to tell us much about the role of His Church and how scripture itself was difficult to interpret and that we would need to follow what we were taught through the Church, yet you can see none of these truths in scripture.

Not true; that’s why I attend a biblically-based church.

clmowry:

Perhaps this is because the Gospel you are preaching is a different Gospel than that of the Apostles and their Church and your predisposition skews your interpretation.

Has that though ever occurred to you?

Of course it has; every one of has presuppositions—even Catholics.

 

[sandusky]

Peter J:

Belief varies considerably less from one Catholic to another, than it does from one Protestant to another. But it would be a mistake to think that belief does not vary at all from one Catholic to another. (Recall the example already discussed: some Catholics believe in Sufficiency of Scripture, some Catholics do not.)

Understood.