Early church fathers, sola scriptura, and an anti-Catholic

[cbsjrcol]

It is the logical result of holding that the Scriptures are God’s self-revelation of His will to mankind. If the Scriptures are the word of God, then they carry God’s authority. Thus, it is not a doctrine, but a practice. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable because God is true, authoritative, and reliable.

Thanks for your response…So you and I both agree that the Bible is the word of God, but everything revealed by God may not be in the Bible. Rest assured that the Catholic Church used the same inspiration of the Holy Spirit to determine the NT canon as it does for those aspects of Sacred Tradition taught by the Catholic Church. 2 Thes 2:15 is one of the more obvious places in the Bible where it is indicated that not everything is written down. Also, in Matthew’s gosple where Jesus sent his disciples out to spread the good news…they were not handed a Bible (obviously because it had not yet be put together) to use as a reference point…they were sent forth with what they had been taught both orally and by letter.

God’s Peace

 

[Nicea325]

I am involved in a long, somewhat convoluted discussion with a rabid anti-Catholic. She completely dismisses everything I’ve said, saying it goes against the Bible and Jesus, yet quotes radials like Mary Ann Collins and complains when I don’t accept her sources.

But she completely dismissed the early church fathers! I’ve never run in to someone who says “I don’t give a **** what Ignatius and the other supposed ‘church fathers’ had to say because they completely contradict the NT and Jesus”. Aside from banging my head against the wall, what can one say? I’ve largely used just scripture references in arguing with her and her husband, but they, of course, just dismiss them as out of context. But I can’t show that they’re actually in context and what was believed because she refuses to see any outside sources. Argh. Even as I type this I’m just thinking I should given up, although it’s not in my nature. Sigh. What would you say to such a misguided and irrational human being.

Ask her why should anyone listen to her? What gives her such certitude her biblical postions and arguments are infallible? Why should anyone accept her words? She is seperated TWO THOUSAND YEARS from Christ. Why would anyone accept her words over the very men (early church fathers) who many knew the Apostles and their ears were ringing from the Apostles teachings.

I would tell her you prefer to listen to the very first pastors who lived much closer to the times of Christ and the Apostles,than her two millennia rants and raves. :tsktsk:

 

[JonNC]

AAWWWW - How can we debate then

It will be many years/decades until unity can be substantially achieved, even amongst the groups that are asready close together.
Some groups will never come home, as groups, but only as individuals. In the end most of those too far out to reconsile will, I believe, die off. Once the East and the West Reconsile, and once the Anglicans are fully on board, and perhaps even the Lutherans reenter communion with Rome, The Church will be able to present a united front of Holiness unlike anything seen before.
Oh what a glorious day that will be.

Peace
James

We should all pray for that day.

Jon

 

[MooCowSteph]

Ask her why should anyone listen to her? What gives her such certitude her biblical postions and arguments are infallible? Why should anyone accept her words? She is seperated TWO THOUSAND YEARS from Christ. Why would anyone accept her words over the very men (early church fathers) who many knew the Apostles and their ears were ringing from the Apostles teachings.

I would tell her you prefer to listen to the very first pastors who lived much closer to the times of Christ and the Apostles,than her two millennia rants and raves. :tsktsk:

Because she “just knows”. I’ve “never experienced Roman Catholicism in Europe” and it’s “totally different”. She grew up in the church, and although she denies it, I’m quite certain it was a schismatic sect. At the very least the parishioners and her family learned a few skewed version. But she is no absolutely certain she is right, and she is terrified to believe anything that’s even close to a Catholic belief that she just rants and raves. I keep asking myself why I continue. I just can’t stop myself.

 

[Norval]

Just consider what happened between Christ’s Death and Reserection and the adoption of the 75 book bible, as in Codex A. The first 30 years or so the apostles creed did not even exist. The apostles were preaching what Jesus had taught them and they passed it on to the other christans by word of mouth, usually referded to as Tradition.
I would further submit for your thought, how the books were chosen for the bible? Various sources put the number of books and writtings used at the Mass as around 300 or more in the early times. Because of conflicting statements in some of the wrirings it was decided to put the books together into one ending the confusion and have one single source for the liturgy.
Again Tradation rears its ugly head. Where in Mathew’s gospel does the scripture say St. Mathew wrote the gospel? Most people assume that Mathew wrote his gospel but where is it written? Most of the books in the bible do not state who the author was but by Tradition and other writings we are led to believe that those to whom the work is attributed to is indeed the author.
God Bless!!! Norval

 

[Nicea325]

Because she “just knows”. I’ve “never experienced Roman Catholicism in Europe” and it’s “totally different”. She grew up in the church, and although she denies it, I’m quite certain it was a schismatic sect. At the very least the parishioners and her family learned a few skewed version. But she is no absolutely certain she is right, and she is terrified to believe anything that’s even close to a Catholic belief that she just rants and raves. I keep asking myself why I continue. I just can’t stop myself.

Because she ‘just knows’ should say it all. People like her are spiritually blind and will remain blind due to such carnal ideologies. Frankly, I would not waste my time with her.

 

[TriuneUnity]

You know - Of all the attempted explanations I have read regarding the sola scriptura view, I think this is the most sensible and concise I have seen. Thank you for this.

So the issue really comes down to where one places their faith. One must start from the presuposition that the Bible is the “God breathed” Word, and then from this stems the notion that, being God breathed, it is sufficient - more or less - in and of itself.

I’m humbled by your compliments, JR. Sorry I didn’t address this with you sooner.

I agree that one must come into the discussion with that presupposition. Fortunately, it is one that orthodox Protestants and Catholics share. As for the sufficiency of Scripture; it is sufficient in and of itself to reveal to humanity the redemption that is found through Christ Jesus. It is not sufficient, however, to preach itself. God has chosen the instrument of His Church to preach and to teach what Scripture says. He could have chosen another way to do this, of course, but as Paul says, it pleases God to bring people to Himself through the “foolishness of preaching.”

Of course the problem then comes in as to what doctrines are, “extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical”? And who gets to decide this.

We’ve all seen discussions here on various doctrines (purgatory, OSAS, etc) where the non-catholic says “where is this in the bible” and the catholic says it is here and here and here. The non-catholic responds that the catholic is misinterpreting the verse, or taking it out of context giving counterarguments and the catholic responds in kind.
Each person is firmly convinced of their position and each one references the Bible to support thier position. Then some arguments (such as praying for the dead and purgatory) can even become embroiled in discussions over which books should or should not be in “The Bible”. (66 book canon or 73 book canon)

So how do well intentioned and devout Christians resolve these highly critical issues so as to preserve the Unity and health of the Body of Christ?
How do Christians, for example, resolve once and for all, just what books DO consitute the complete canon of “God Breathed” scripture so that we may know that we have, “All scripture (that) is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” (2 Tim 3:16) included in our bibles?

I believe Christ established this in Mt 18: 15-18 where he intructs us to "“Tell it To The Church” and then to accept the decision of The Church as binding. That what The Church binds or looses on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven.

Now - We may disagree here on governmental structure in the Church, for instance the authority, or primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but it seems there can be little doubt but that there reaslly does need to be a solid and respected temporal authority to resolve doctrinal issues.

Peace
James

There’s a lot to respond to here, and I hope to be able to work through it with you. In sum, though, let me go into a bit more detail as to what our position on various matters that creep into the forums is, as it relates to sola scriptura.

The Lutheran concept of sola Scriptura does not allow private interpretation of Scripture. Scripture cannot be interpreted in ways foreign to how the Church throughout all ages has interpreted it.

In the conclusion to the Augsburg Confession we confess: “Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.” [emphasis mine]

“We confess also that we disagree with those who invent opinions which have no testimony from any period in the church, as Servetus, Campanus, the Anabaptists, and others have done in our time. We also hold that no dogma that is new in the churches and in conflict with all of antiquity should be accepted. What could be more honorably said and thought concerning the consensus and the testimonies of antiquity?” (Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, I.258)

The presence of a doctrine in the testimony of Tradition does not prove it to be correct. However, its absence proves it to be false.

 

[JRKH]

Because she “just knows”. I’ve “never experienced Roman Catholicism in Europe” and it’s “totally different”. She grew up in the church, and although she denies it, I’m quite certain it was a schismatic sect. At the very least the parishioners and her family learned a few skewed version. But she is no absolutely certain she is right, and she is terrified to believe anything that’s even close to a Catholic belief that she just rants and raves. I keep asking myself why I continue. I just can’t stop myself.

I have found myself in this same situation. The only thing I can come up with is - 1) Pride, I don’t want to Lose this battle. 2) Love, I want to help this person understand. 3) Education, I learn more through these encounters.

Sound familiar?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I’m humbled by your compliments, JR. Sorry I didn’t address this with you sooner.

I agree that one must come into the discussion with that presupposition. Fortunately, it is one that orthodox Protestants and Catholics share. As for the sufficiency of Scripture; it is sufficient in and of itself to reveal to humanity the redemption that is found through Christ Jesus. It is not sufficient, however, to preach itself. God has chosen the instrument of His Church to preach and to teach what Scripture says. He could have chosen another way to do this, of course, but as Paul says, it pleases God to bring people to Himself through the “foolishness of preaching.”

You are welcome.
Yes we share a great deal.

There’s a lot to respond to here, and I hope to be able to work through it with you. In sum, though, let me go into a bit more detail as to what our position on various matters that creep into the forums is, as it relates to sola scriptura.

The Lutheran concept of sola Scriptura does not allow private interpretation of Scripture. Scripture cannot be interpreted in ways foreign to how the Church throughout all ages has interpreted it.

In the conclusion to the Augsburg Confession we confess: “Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.” [emphasis mine]

“We confess also that we disagree with those who invent opinions which have no testimony from any period in the church, as Servetus, Campanus, the Anabaptists, and others have done in our time. We also hold that no dogma that is new in the churches and in conflict with all of antiquity should be accepted. What could be more honorably said and thought concerning the consensus and the testimonies of antiquity?” (Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, I.258)

The presence of a doctrine in the testimony of Tradition does not prove it to be correct. However, its absence proves it to be false.

Yes I realize that I put a lot up there. But it continually boils down to the same issue, and that is a combination of “authority” and “humility”. The Church that God uses must provide that combination in both it’s leaders and in the lay faithful. Without it, there is chaos. Perhaps the “reformation” period and it’s fallout demonstrates that better than any other. Perhaps that is the lesson that God would like us to learn. That Authority and Humility cannot be seperated. They must be irrevokably joined together or the result is disunity and doctrinal chaos.
In recent years The Church has been blessed with some of it’s most humble and influential leaders. She has reached out over the last several decades to her seperated bretheren in ways not considered possible just a century ago.
Many “Orthodox Protestants” also see the chaos, some even in their own communites, and are reaching out to Rome in friendship.
Bridges, while maybe not built yet, have been started.

I, along with JonNC, pray for the days of raproachmont, and eventual reunification.

Peace
James

 

[MooCowSteph]

I have found myself in this same situation. The only thing I can come up with is - 1) Pride, I don’t want to Lose this battle. 2) Love, I want to help this person understand. 3) Education, I learn more through these encounters.

Sound familiar?

Peace
James

Definitely, although I don’t think it’s pride in this instance because I knew from the get-go that there would be no winning this battle. She’s too set in her ways.

She spouted a whole bunch of nonsense at me, and I formed a very well reasoned, long response, quoting scripture all over the place. This was her response.

"Wow…Those who say it’s completely and utterly worthless to reason with Catholics are right. Sad. That being said only God can open one’s eyes and He did it for me and I am sure in His own time He will do it for you too. Your email was just a colossial proof of Catholics wanting to do what they want to do, and not wanting to see. Those who just don’t want to see and want to remain blind - shall remain blind and shall not see the truth, I guess. God gives them over to their blindness until His time when He allows them to see. And for this reason I am not reasoning and arguing with you and your emails anymore.

This is my last e-mail, please do not waste your time writing anymore. Any further e-mails will be deleted without reading. God bless! "

So we’re done. :banghead:

 

[SSTeacher]

Definitely, although I don’t think it’s pride in this instance because I knew from the get-go that there would be no winning this battle. She’s too set in her ways.

She spouted a whole bunch of nonsense at me, and I formed a very well reasoned, long response, quoting scripture all over the place. This was her response.

"Wow…Those who say it’s completely and utterly worthless to reason with Catholics are right. Sad. That being said only God can open one’s eyes and He did it for me and I am sure in His own time He will do it for you too. Your email was just a colossial proof of Catholics wanting to do what they want to do, and not wanting to see. Those who just don’t want to see and want to remain blind - shall remain blind and shall not see the truth, I guess. God gives them over to their blindness until His time when He allows them to see. And for this reason I am not reasoning and arguing with you and your emails anymore.

This is my last e-mail, please do not waste your time writing anymore. Any further e-mails will be deleted without reading. God bless! "

So we’re done. :banghead:

Steph,

I commend you for your effort. You got through, obviously. Would you mind listing in one post all the criticisms of the Catholic Church that were adduced (even if you consider them to be nonsense) particularly where Scripture was cited as endorsement? I’d like to better understand the mindset. Many thanks.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[MooCowSteph]

Steph,

I commend you for your effort. You got through, obviously. Would you mind listing in one post all the criticisms of the Catholic Church that were adduced (even if you consider them to be nonsense) particularly where Scripture was cited as endorsement? I’d like to better understand the mindset. Many thanks.

Cordially,
Mick

We had a very long conversation over several days, but I am happy to post my most recent response. I used many of her statements it quotes, so you’ll be able to easily see what we were responding to. If anyone is interested, I’ll post more of our back and forth conversation.

As an aside, this whole thing started from a homeschool fan page on facebook. She mentioned on a post that it’s a sin to question a Catholic priest. I obviously took issue with that, and called her out on the post, then sent her a PM, where we continued until today.

I’ll have to list my response over at least 2, maybe 3 posts here.

 

[MooCowSteph]

I’m going to do a lot of quoting you to make it easier to address each topic, and so you can see which of your statements I am responding to. There were quite a few points to address, so it’s long, but I’ll do my best.

“Question is of course, is Mary omnipotent and omnipresent”** “How can Mary or the saints hear your prayers all the time to forward it to God, when God is the only one who can hear you all the time, only Him and nobody else? This is so baffling!”**. No, they (Mary, the Saints) are not omnipotent. Of course God is omnipotent and can do all things. Making it possible for saints and angels to hear us is hardly a challenge for God, and since St. John tells us that when in Heaven we will be like Him, meaning we will not be equal to Him of course, but that we will share in the powers of Heaven, such as hearing the prayers of people on earth. And they are in Heaven, not everywhere, so of course they are not omnipresent either.

In Luke 16: 19-30 we find Jesus giving an example of a rich man in Hades calling on Abraham in heaven to go tell his brothers to reform their lives. AND Abraham hears him!

“Other question is - why do we “need” to go to her to hear our problems and prayers?” We don’t. It’s a personal choice, one that we are free to make or not make. Did you not say you would pray for me, and I you? Why bother to ask me to pray for you when you can just pray for yourself? It’s the same thing – asking Mary to offer her prayers for me, is really no different than asking our earthly family to pray for us. Praying for others is well documented in the Bible. Why should we not want those at the feet of Jesus to pray for us? They are probably even better praying for us than our earthly brothers and sisters. They do not have the daily distractions that we do here, and could spend much time in prayer on our behalf. Heck, even Jesus asked that the disciples pray for Him when he was praying in the garden before His arrest.

Of course this kind of prayer should never replace our prayers directly to God. And they don’t in any good Catholic’s home. But intercession is mentioned in multiple places in the Bible. And of course “to pray” also means “to ask” in old English. We are simply asking the saints in Heaven to pray for us to our Father in Heaven. We know they do not have the power that God has. We are asking them to intercede for us. And then we also pray to God directly.

Take the Hail Mary as an example. While I’m sure you would not dream of reciting it in your head, let me just remind you that the majority of straight from scripture, and is simply speaking of what was said about her and her Son “and blessed is the fruit of your womb”. Only in the last line do we simply as her to pray for us sinners. I just do not see anything wrong with this, and certainly nothing in scripture that says it’s sinful.

 

[MooCowSteph]

**“And as far as being blessed. Do you not feel blessed sometimes?” **Of course. But Mary being blessed as the Mother of our Lord and me being blessed because I have a nice home and two great kids isn’t quite the same imo. Catholics love Mary because she is the mother of Jesus, who is God and man. We are supposed to be as much like Jesus as we can be. Jesus followed the Commandment stating “Honor your father and your mother.” He honored Mary. To be as much like Jesus as we can be, we should also honor Mary (and of course the mothers who gave birth to us, too).

**“She was not a perpetual virgin because the Scriptures prove that she had more children after Jesus.” **They actually don’t at all. At best, a non-Catholic could say the scriptures are unclear on the matter, but I happen to agree with the Church’s position that she was a perpetual virgin and that she didn’t have more children. When the words “brothers” or “brethren” are used, one automatically assumes that the words mean the same translated as they did then. But that’s untrue when you look at the meaning back then. There are a bunch of examples in the OT, but I’ll stick to the NT. There was no word in Hebrew or Aramaic for cousin, so they naturally fell to using brother. There are examples of people who we know were cousins or other relatives being called “brothers”. The most compelling example in my opinion is in Matthew where the “brothers of the Lord” are named as James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, but we know from other versus that James and Joseph are sons of Mary of Cleophas. Scripture regularly refers to Jesus as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. No other children are mentioned in Luke 2 when Mary finds Jesus in the temple. Finally, why would Jesus entrust Mary to John if he had brothers or sisters to care for her? That is very telling to me.

There is also good reason to think the “gate” referred to in Ekekiel 44 is Mary, and is symbolizes her perpetual virginity.

And of course as we are all called brothers and sisters of Christ, there is a reason for that.

 

[MooCowSteph]

“What about the vain repetitive prayer? Have you heard pagans praying before? I have. I have done it myself too. Have you seen pagan (pre-christian era) prayer chains? Jesus said do not pray in vain repetition like pagans do.” Exactly. You answered your own question. Jesus condemned repetitive, meaningless prayers to pagan Gods. The rosary is not “prayed in vain”. One meditates on the life of Christ while praying to Him. I am unable to see how meditating and praying about the life of Christ for 20 minutes is vain, repetitive prayer. And all Christians pray with some repetition. Do you not say the Lord’s Prayer everyday, multiple times per day? Is that not repetition?
An example of repetitive prayer in the Bible is in Rev 4:8 - The four living creatures, each of them with six wings, 8 were covered with eyes inside and out. Day and night they do not stop exclaiming: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come.” If our hearts are far from God, the words of prayer are in vain. But if we pray to Jesus, with Him in our hearts and minds, our prayers are not in vain. Don’t you ever have a tough day, feeling on the verge of losing your temper, crying, whatever, and say a few times “Jesus, be with me”, or “Holy Spirit guide me”, or something similar? Is that not repetitive? That doesn’t mean He doesn’t hear you? Or how about Psalm 136?

And so we use beads. Big deal. You want to attack it, but since you want to rely solely on the Bible and nothing else, where does it condemn beads?

Afterall Jesus said, everybody’s my mother and sister and brother, whoever keeps my commandments!!! I am pretty sure He meant what He said, too!” Of course he meant what he said. But I just read the entire chapter in context. I think you’re really stretching it to say that mary deserves no extra respect just because we are all his brothers and sisters. The two statements are not related.

**“If anything, I always wonder (as I mentioned it yesterday too) why Catholics don’t venerate John the Baptist more than Mary - afterall Jesus said, there was no greater human born of mother than John the Baptist. That would have to include Mary too since she was born of mother as well.” **I actually had to give this one some thought, and then it hit me like a ton of bricks. If we take this passage quite literally, and apply it the way you wish, then Jesus was saying that John the Baptist was better than even Him. And I think we can both agree that He was certainly not saying that literally, after all, they were both born of women. It is known that at the time of Christ, it was common amongst Rabbis to speak in absolutes. “Pluck out your own eye” “Cut off your own hand” Even “call no man father” as they continued to do so with their own earthly fathers. These absolutes are meant to make a point, not be the end-all, be-all, literal translation.

Understanding the scriptures in the cultural and historical context of the times in which they were written is so important in fully understanding what was written and what it means. That’s why the average person can’t just sit down and expect the Holy Spirit to tell you what everything means. We need to educate ourselves in order to be able to understand everything in the Bible (and I know you know this). It sounds like your husband has done some extensive Bible study, and probably you as well. But you’re still submitting to someone else’s authority most likely on at least some matters. You’re deferring to your Bible study leader, an author, a pastor, footnotes written in the Bible, friends’ interpretations, etc. But yet you dismiss those writings from the people who were closest to Christ because they didn’t actually write the Bible. I think you and your husband have done yourselves a great disservice by dismissing all of the early Christian writings, which is why I keep bring it up. And the fact that the vast majority of Christians do find their contributions to be quite valuable should tell you something.
Also, as a quick last statement, I actually don’t pray to deceased relatives. I simply mentioned that because I know a lot of people do. The only person I was close to who died is quite possibly not in heaven.