Question about Sola Scriptura

[po18guy]

Therefore, you need to rephrase your question in a manner that makes more sense.

An in a manner that is less condescending and derisive. “Roman” and “apocrypha” are two Rebel buzz words intended to indicate their superiority.

The gospel that was taught by the Apostles was whole and entire before one word of the NT was ever written. This is the gospel that was committed to faithful men, who were able to teach others also. Yes, the Holy writings are essential, and since they were produced by Catholics, or Catholics, about Catholics, then there are not Catholic teachings that “stray” from them.

I expect a humble, contrite apology and an admission of error from OS.

The NT represents Apostolic Teaching. the Teaching is not confined to it.

The covers of the bible seem to keep their spirituality imprisoned within. Am saying a Rosary for them all!

Christ’s peace.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Static

Where does scripture say it is sufficient?

Although the burden of proof is on those who make the claim that it isn’t, I will be glad to answer the question.

Let’s start by showing the sufficiency of Scripture this way:

2 Cor 3:5 “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

Now that statement could even be preached from at great length. The sufficiency, our sufficiency, is from God…not from man, but God. That means our capability of living life in God’s plan to the maximum is from Him. We live in an environment in which the resources for life are divine. This is a level from which human wisdom does not feed, human wisdom cannot provide resources for.

When it comes to the matters of spiritual life, all we need to know is revealed in the Word of God and it is the Spirit that ministers it to us. We do not have to look for sufficiency outside the Scriptures. Anything that is not provided in the Scriptures makes no difference to a Christian. Now I agree there are many things in the world that are helpful to us, but any of those matters have no bearing on our spiritual life and conduct.

Now let’s look at another Scripture. 2 Cor 9:8 “And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:”

Again we are told that God is our sufficiency, He is our source and there are no limits on His ability. A person cannot go around saying that “the Word of God just isn’t enough.” The simple gospel IS enough, God has said it is. Then look further at verse 10-11, same chapter:

*“Being enriched in ALL things, or in EVERY thing to ALL bountifulness which causes us thanksgiving to God, causes us to give thanksgiving to God.” *Now there it is again. Enriched to ALL bountifulness which causes us thanksgiving to God.

But there are many Scriptures that declare the sufficiency of Scripture. Look at 1 Cor 4:6:

"Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other."

Now here is a claim made by Paul that we should not go beyond that which is written. That means that what is written is sufficient.

1 Cor 3:10 “According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11) For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Jesus Christ is the foundation and it is His Word that is important. His Word has been preserved for us in Scripture. **We know of nothing else He may have said. ** He often used Scripture Himself to substantiate anything question raised. *“It is written” *was His most common reference to the truth.

Paul tells them to not split the flock—do not say, “I am of Peter, or I am of Paul, etc.” And in 1 Cor 3:10 he uses gardeners and builders—“each man must be careful how he builds on it.”

Jesus intended His church to be built upon Scripture, not Peter or oral traditions.

2 Tim 3:16-17 says that ***“All Scripture *is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

What makes this one so good is that in 54 A.D. not a great deal of Scripture had been written for the NT, but several books had. Those were considered Scripture as well and this was written to say that ALL Scripture, present and future is sufficient. This doesn’t say that Scripture will equip us for “some” good work and “oral” teaching will do the rest…NO…It says **EVERY GOOD WORK! ** That means all that we need is there.

More!

 

[Old_Scholar]

More!

Often the argument is made that man cannot understand the Scriptures, it must be done by the church and the church only. Well Scripture refutes that as well.

Ephesians 3:3-5 “that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit"

2 Cor 1:13 ]"For we write nothing else to you than what you read and understand, and I hope you will understand until the end"

2 Tim 3:15 “from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

Nehemiah 8:3 And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Matt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand.)

With the exception of 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, all of Scripture is written to the Christian in general and not the leaders. Read these Scriptures…they tell who the epistles were written to:

Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1, Galatians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Collossians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; Revelation 1:4.

The Scriptures are sufficient and can be easily understood by a commonly educated person. If one says they are insufficient, the burden of proof is upon him.

 

[brycelaliberte]

More!
The Scriptures are sufficient and can be easily understood by a commonly educated person. If one says they are insufficient, the burden of proof is upon him.

Who is this ‘commonly educated person?’ Only those who agree with you? Am I not commonly educated also? Mind you, I’m in high school. Let me deconstruct just one verse you quoted in support of your position.

Ephesians 3:3-5 “that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit"

Now… You just said commonly educated person. But, Paul here seems to be implying that the apostles and prophets in the Spirit are those who have been given insight.

Perhaps what you mean is “Any of His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit” can understand.

But, who are they?

 

[Old_Scholar]

The early church fathers knew that what the apostles preached that had to do with our salvation and faith as well as morals was then written down so that we would know the truth. They also believed what was written was sufficient
…

Where does scripture say it is sufficient ?

If this is out of context then please list the writing in its proper context. I maintain it is correct.

Tertullian also said : "Whenever it shall be clear that the truth of the Christians discipline & faith are present, there also will be found the truth of the Scriptures & of their explanation, & of all the Christian traditions.

Tertullian, like the other early leaders, thought that all doctrine must be found in Scripture. He states that here.

The early church fathers believed that what was preached or taught was the oral presentation of Scriptural truth. Neither Tertullian or Irenaeus claimed that there were other issues of doctrine or tradition that was not found in Scripture.

That’s right. They said that any doctrine should be found in Scripture or it is invalid.

I

renaeus believed that Church doctrine was never transmitted exclusively viva voce—this was a Gnostic line of thought. It was common knowledge and taken for granted in that time that for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had to establish its Scriptural basis first. Even today, the RCC still makes the claim that all their doctrines are established in Scripture. I disagree with that, however, they still make the claim.
…

Notice you said, " I disagree with that." You against the church that Christ established, hmmmmmmm. Which doctrine(s) are not biblical ? You are the one trying to make the claim that Sola Scriptura is scriptural when indeed it is foreign to the scriptures.

**That’s not true. I have listed the Scriptures that support the sufficiency of Scripture.

The other list is too long to list but I will list just a few.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary
The Assumption of Mary
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Papacy
Purgatory
Praying to the Dead
Infant Limbo (No wait…they changed their mind on that one…)
Apostolic Succession

That will do for starters—since you are going to show us Scripture for them all…?**

 

[Michael_G]

The early church fathers believed that what was preached or taught was the oral presentation of Scriptural truth. Neither Tertullian or Irenaeus claimed that there were other issues of doctrine or tradition that was not found in Scripture.

Irenaeus believed that Church doctrine was never transmitted exclusively viva voce—this was a Gnostic line of thought. It was common knowledge and taken for granted in that time that for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had to establish its Scriptural basis first. Even today, the RCC still makes the claim that all their doctrines are established in Scripture. I disagree with that, however, they still make the claim.

Cyril of Jerusalem also held the belief that his authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. This is from one of his lectures:

I would ask that someone explain what spiritual “truth” would be omitted from the competence of the Bible to supply? What “good work” is unprovided for?

One cannot be selective with Bible quotes ignoring passages which do not agree with ones interpretation and neither can they be selective with church fathers they all must fit together as a whole to reach a given truth. church fathers condemed private interpretation of scripture apart from the teaching traditions of the church.

“And, O wretched heretic! you turn the weapons granted to the Church against the Synagogue, against belief in the Church’s preaching, and distort against the common salvation of all the sure meaning of a saving doctrine.”** Hilary of Poitiers**,On the Trinity,12:36 (inter A.D. 356-359),in NPNF2,IX:227
"But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error." Athanasius,Discourse Against the Arians,I:37(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:327-328
“To **refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one’s own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency.” *****Basil,***EpistleTo the Canonicae,52:1 (A.D. 370),in NPNF2,VIII:155

.It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fulness (or, the whole) of the two Testaments." Ephraem,Adv. Haeres. (ante A.D. 373),in FOC,I:377-378

As you have been brought up in the Catholic faith, do that which you would do for a wrong belief. Hold fast to the teaching of your parents. Hold fast the faith of the Church: hold fast the truth of the Creed: hold fast the salvation of baptism." Cassian,John,Incarnation of the Lord,6:5 (c.A.D. 429/430),in NPNF2,XI:593-594

first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church." Vincent of Lerins,Commonitory,2:4 (c.A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:132
yea from the first, the preachers of the orthodox faith taught, agreeably to the apostolic tradition, that the mother of God. And now let me produce his blasphemous artifice and observation unknown to any one before him." **Theodoret **of Cyrus,Compendium of Heretics’ Fables,12 (c.A.D. 453),in FOC,I:449

 

[Old_Scholar]

Cyril of Jerusalem also held the belief that his authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. This is from one of his lectures:

“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. **For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” **(The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Lecture 4.17)
…

They run hand in hand. Read what you quoted from Cyril again. "In regard to the divine & holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures.

Sorry but that was not in my quote.

Plus Old School, what scriptures was Cyril talking about since the Bible had not yet been put under one cover as of yet ? This was before the councils that were held to determine what was considered the scriptures.

**Cyril lived in the 5th century…What are you talking about??? All the Scriptures were written in the first century and used faithfully ever since then. **

"But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith…And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts". Ibid, Lecture 5.12
…

Awesome ! Glad you finally agree with us now.

Duh…You didn’t read that very well. Read again what I have highlighted for you…

It is said that by the end of the 3rd century, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church Fathers.

(deleted duplication for space.)

Or is there anyone naive enough to believe that the oral word has been passed down “orally” through all this time? To believe there was something else taught by the apostles that is not in Scripture, wouldn’t we have to have some “written” evidence.

I would ask that someone explain what spiritual “truth” would be omitted from the competence of the Bible to supply? What “good work” is unprovided for?

…

It’s funny that you have to use the Fathers of the Early Church to try & prove Sola Scriptura. Can you not find your proof from the scriptures alone ?

How in 2 Tim 3:8 is St. Paul able to name the Pharaoh’s magicians from the time of Moses since they aren’t even mentioned in the Old Testament ?

**I use the fathers to show that YOUR early church believed in Sola Scriptura. The type of Tradition the RCC now claims was all added later and did not come from Scripture.

As far as Paul naming the magicians, you must know that Paul was a Pharisee and knew the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Vol.2 very well. Every Jew did. That was extremely important to their history. Any Jew would have know their names. They were well published in most Jewish Literature. Even the Jewish children knew the story of Moses.**

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[Michael_G]

The other list is too long to list but I will list just a few.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary
The Assumption of Mary
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Papacy
Purgatory
Praying to the Dead
Infant Limbo (No wait…they changed their mind on that one…)
Apostolic Succession

That will do for starters—since you are going to show us Scripture for them all…?

Immaculate Conception, papacy, praying to dead, purgatory, apostolic succession, are all supported by both Scripture and and early church fathers-sacred oral tradition. The Perpetual virginity while it cannot be proved beyond a shadow of doubt from scripture, neither does scripture show it to be wrong, …was taught as part of the early church teachings from the get go, and supported by all those who broke from the church in the 1500, Luther, Calvin and zwigglie all taught the perpetual virginity of the church, it would be 1-3 centuries later before all of protestantism would reject the teaching really based on historical ignorance…

The Assumption while not recorded in scripture is in the oral traditions going back to about 500 to 700 AD and certainly is not in contradiction to scripture since Mary is the mother of the word incarnate, do you think that the mother of our Lord is less deserving of bodily assumption than elias or enoch who were bodily assumed in the OT. You are very much selective in your quotes of both Scriptures and early church fathers/teachings…

 

[Old_Scholar]

Scholar,

Working on limited time at the moment, my first comment regards what you’ve written above and is simply that this is not an exclusive statement. It’s like me saying that apples were shipped from Japan to the U.S. earlier today. A true statement. One, however, that does not necessarily mean that all types of apples known to man, or that all the apples on the planet were shipped from Japan to the U.S. earlier today. Follow me?

I’m afraid I do not!

I’m not an expert on all that these men ever said and wrote, so I can neither confirm nor deny. (Though, I have my suspicions.)

Scholar, I don’t want to sound patronizing but that’s a silly thing to say considering the fact that no one knew for sure what was Scripture and what was not until near the end of the third century. That supposition is just absurd.

That’s simply not true. The Scriptures were written in the first century. Peter himself declared all of Paul’s writings Scripture as well as the gospels. The 27 books that we know today as the New Testament was all written then and in circulation throughtout the entire world as it was known then. That was the duty of the Apostles and they did it well. The same 27 books were taught from in every Christian Church and were always considered Scripture. The only reason a canon was necessary at all was that some heresy was beginning to be taught and the church at that time thought it would be good to declare what was Scripture and what was not. A rule so to speak. That’s all they did. The Scriptures were all there and taught from.

On what basis were the NT Scriptures declared scripture to begin with? A scriptural basis? Obviously not.

See above and another post I made tonight in this thread.

Ok, so, Cyril is encouraging everyone to preach from the Scriptures. Great. So does one of the key documents of the second Vatican Council. I’ll quote from it later if I get a minute to do so.

In the meantime…

Did you hear what he just said? Hold only to that faith which is BOTH established from all Scripture AND delivered to you by the Church. A critical difference between this and “Hold only to that faith which is established by the Scriptures.” The latter statement allows for Sola Scriptura, the former is distintly Catholic. It says that, yes, the Scriptures are primary. HOWEVER, this is not an “either/or” scenario. It’s not either the scriptures, OR the Church. It’s the interpretation of the scriptures that the Church gives you.

SK

**It was the Scriptures that was delivered.

Let me ask you a question. What is the Roman Catholic Rule of Faith?**

 

[Old_Scholar]

Again a reference to tradition…

That’s simply not true. He is talking about the Scriptures. Look again at what was said: ** the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts**"

He is telling them to study the Scriptures, the whole knowledge of Godliness. The only tradition mentioned here is the Scriptures handed down.

No. We wouldn’t. Have you ever seent he movie “A Few Good Men”? It’s got one of may all-time favorite refutations of Sola Scirptura in it. A lawyer in the movie drops a marine manual on the witness stand and essentially asks the witness if everything the Marine will ever need to know is listed in the book. The Marine basically says, “Absolutely, sir. It’s all there in that handbook.” The lawyer nods and then asks the Marine to shwo him in the manual where the mess hall is. “Sorr, sir?” the Marine replies. The lawyer pressed that he wants the Marine to show him directions to the mess hall in this “comprehensive” manual. Marine says the directions arent in there. “What, you don’t eat?” says the lawyer. “No, I eat. Three squares a day.”

“Well, how do you get there to the mess hall if the directions arent in the manual?” says the lawyer.

I’ll let you come up with the answer.

Gotta run.

Peace,

SK

**That’s real easy. The things listed in the Bible are everything we need to know in the matter of faith and morals. There is no claim that all knowledge is in that book.

Now if the marine had been asked if everything that pertained to him being a marine was in the book, then it would have been there. Later… **

 

[Michael_G]

Tertullian said: "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

The early church fathers believed that what was preached or taught was the oral presentation of Scriptural truth. Neither Tertullian or Irenaeus claimed that there were other issues of doctrine or tradition that was not found in Scripture.

Irenaeus believed that Church doctrine was never transmitted exclusively viva voce—this was a Gnostic line of thought. It was common knowledge and taken for granted in that time that for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had to establish its Scriptural basis first. Even today, the RCC still makes the claim that all their doctrines are established in Scripture. I disagree with that, however, they still make the claim.

Cyril of Jerusalem also held the belief that his authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. This is from one of his lectures:

r?

highly selective in church fathers quotes, must really take all quotes in consideration as whole, for they taught the importance of sacred oral tradition, just as Paul preaches thoughout, because even john tells us everything is not there, hence it is church and bible together both or neither.

CYRIL of JERUSALEM
‘But in learning the **Faith **and in professing it, acquire andkeep that only, which is now **DELIVERED TO THEE by THE CHURCH, **AND which has been built up strongly out of all the SCRIPTURES.’ Catechetical Lectures 5,12
‘Learn also **diligently, and FROM THE CHURCH, WHAT ARE THE BOOKS of the Old Testaments, and WHAT are the books of the NEW’ **Catechetical Lectures 5,33

CHRYSOSTOM
‘So then, brethren, **stand fast, and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by our epistle of ours’. **Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore **let us think the tradition of the Churh also worthy of credit. **It is a tradition seek no farther." Homilies on 2 Thess 2:15

AUGUSTINE
“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, becuase they are but men, still without any uncertainty…The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church**, so does her authority, inaugerated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age**. The SUCCESSION of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the APOSTLE PETER, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present EPISCOPATE.…The epistle begins thus:–…For MY PART, I should NOT BELEIVE the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to beleive in the gospel tell me not to beleive in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?” C. Epis Mani 5,6

**
BASIL
“Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture AS WELL those which have been gathered concerning it as those which we have RECEIVED from the UNWRITTEN tradition of the Fathers” Holy Spirit 22
**“Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have **delivered to us in a mystery by the Apostles by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force” **Holy Spirit

**
EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS
'But for all the divine words, there is no need of allegory to grasp the meaning; what is necessary is study and understanding to know the MEANING of each statement. We must have recourse to TRADITION, for all cannot be received from the divine Scriptures. That is why the holy Apostles handed down certain things in writings but others by TRADITIONS. As Paul said:" Just as I handed them on to you." ’ Panarion 61,6
****GREGORY of NAZIANZUS
“My sheep hear my voice, which I heard from the oracles of God, which I have been taught by the Holy FATHERS, which I have taught alike on all occasions, not conforming myself to the opportune, and which I will never cease to teach; in which I was born, and in which I will depart” Orat 33,15
**

 

[Old_Scholar]

Your question is not a valid one, OS, becauae all the Apostolic faiths who received the teaching and handed it down believe the same thing. This is not a “Roman” phenomenon. Therefore, you need to rephrase your question in a manner that makes more sense.

The gospel that was taught by the Apostles was whole and entire before one word of the NT was ever written. This is the gospel that was committed to faithful men, who were able to teach others also. Yes, the Holy writings are essential, and since they were produced by Catholics, or Catholics, about Catholics, then there are not Catholic teachings that “stray” from them.

The NT represents Apostolic Teaching. the Teaching is not confined to it.

Then I’m sure you will be glad to list for me some Apostolic teaching that is not found in the Scriptures…? And when you do, tell me how you verify it…

 

[Old_Scholar]

An in a manner that is less condescending and derisive. “Roman” and “apocrypha” are two Rebel buzz words intended to indicate their superiority.

I expect a humble, contrite apology and an admission of error from OS.

The covers of the bible seem to keep their spirituality imprisoned within. Am saying a Rosary for them all!

Christ’s peace.

Would you mind telling me what I should apologize for?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Who is this ‘commonly educated person?’ Only those who agree with you? Am I not commonly educated also? Mind you, I’m in high school. Let me deconstruct just one verse you quoted in support of your position.

Ephesians 3:3-5 “that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit"

Now… You just said commonly educated person. But, Paul here seems to be implying that the apostles and prophets in the Spirit are those who have been given insight.

Perhaps what you mean is “Any of His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit” can understand.

But, who are they?

**A commonly educated person, in my view, is one who can read and write and comphrehend what they are reading.

Who was Paul writing to when he wrote this? You will answer your own question when you learn that…**

 

[Old_Scholar]

One cannot be selective with Bible quotes ignoring passages which do not agree with ones interpretation and neither can they be selective with church fathers they all must fit together as a whole to reach a given truth. church fathers condemed private interpretation of scripture apart from the teaching traditions of the church.

“And, O wretched heretic! you turn the weapons granted to the Church against the Synagogue, against belief in the Church’s preaching, and distort against the common salvation of all the sure meaning of a saving doctrine.”** Hilary of Poitiers**,On the Trinity,12:36 (inter A.D. 356-359),in NPNF2,IX:227
"But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error." Athanasius,Discourse Against the Arians,I:37(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:327-328
“To **refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one’s own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency.” *****Basil,***EpistleTo the Canonicae,52:1 (A.D. 370),in NPNF2,VIII:155

.It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fulness (or, the whole) of the two Testaments." Ephraem,Adv. Haeres. (ante A.D. 373),in FOC,I:377-378

As you have been brought up in the Catholic faith, do that which you would do for a wrong belief. Hold fast to the teaching of your parents. Hold fast the faith of the Church: hold fast the truth of the Creed: hold fast the salvation of baptism." Cassian,John,Incarnation of the Lord,6:5 (c.A.D. 429/430),in NPNF2,XI:593-594

first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church." Vincent of Lerins,Commonitory,2:4 (c.A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:132
yea from the first, the preachers of the orthodox faith taught, agreeably to the apostolic tradition, that the mother of God. And now let me produce his blasphemous artifice and observation unknown to any one before him." **Theodoret **of Cyrus,Compendium of Heretics’ Fables,12 (c.A.D. 453),in FOC,I:449

Early church fathers condemned those heretics who were distoring Scripture. That’s how they determined a heretic, by comparing what he taught with Scripture. How else could they prove him wrong? Would they have dared say, “well so and so said something different, so you are wrong”???

 

[Old_Scholar]

Immaculate Conception, papacy, praying to dead, purgatory, apostolic succession, are all supported by both Scripture and and early church fathers-sacred oral tradition. The Perpetual virginity while it cannot be proved beyond a shadow of doubt from scripture, neither does scripture show it to be wrong, …was taught as part of the early church teachings from the get go, and supported by all those who broke from the church in the 1500, Luther, Calvin and zwigglie all taught the perpetual virginity of the church, it would be 1-3 centuries later before all of protestantism would reject the teaching really based on historical ignorance…

The Assumption while not recorded in scripture is in the oral traditions going back to about 500 to 700 AD and certainly is not in contradiction to scripture since Mary is the mother of the word incarnate, do you think that the mother of our Lord is less deserving of bodily assumption than elias or enoch who were bodily assumed in the OT. You are very much selective in your quotes of both Scriptures and early church fathers/teachings…

**Will you show us the traditions that say those things?

I have shown where the early church fathers made the claim that if anything could not be proven by Scripture, then it was a false doctrine. Where is your proof?

Perhaps you can show a writing of the early church fathers from the first, and second centuries that support the list I gave.

And regarding Elijah and Enoch, we are told by Scripture that they died. There is a statement of Christ Himself that no one has gone to heaven except Him. Enoch and Elijah are both in the grave, not in heaven with God.**

 

[Michael_G]

And regarding Elijah and Enoch, we are told by Scripture that they died. There is a statement of Christ Himself that no one has gone to heaven except Him. Enoch and Elijah are both in the grave, not in heaven with God.

2Ki 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
2Ki 2:12 And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces.
2Ki 2:13 He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of Jordan;

Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

 

[Michael_G]

Will you show us the traditions that say those things?

.

**Protestant reformers believed the Catholic position regarding the “perpetual virginity” of Our Lord’s mother: **

For example, Martin Luther said, “Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb… This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin
after that.” [Luther’s Works, Vol. 22, p. 23]

Christwas the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him “brothers” really means “cousins” here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins
brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39).

John Calvin said, “Helvidius [a 4th century heretic] has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of
Christ.” (Calvin is reported as translating adelphoi as “cousins” or “relatives.”) [as quoted in Bernard Lemming, “Protestants and Our Lady,” Marian Library Studies, nos. 128/129, Jan./Feb. 1967, p.17]

And Zwingli wrote: I firmly believe according to the words of the Gospel that a pure virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and remained a virgin pure and intact in childbirth and also after the birth, for all eternity. I firmly trust that she has been exalted by God to eternal joy above all creatures, both the blessed and the angels. [as quoted in Augustin Bea, “Mary and the Protestants,” Marian Studies 83, April 1961, p.1]

ZWINGLI:
“To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God…and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - ‘Hail Mary’… God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels–it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be…to God alone…”

“I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil… I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that SHE REMAINED, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied VIRGIN, for ETERNITY.”

(Above quotes from: Zwingli, G. R. Potter, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976)

“For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?” Origen,Commentary on John,I:6(A.D. 232),in ANF,X:300

, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Athanasius,Orations against the Arians,II:70(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:386-387
. . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit." (Epiphanius of Salamis The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

*“The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin” Basil,***Hom. In Sanctum Christi generationem,5(ante A.D. 379),in OTT,207
" Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son …, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son." Ambrose,To the Christian at Vercellae,Letter 63:111(A.D. 396),in NPNF2,X:473

Prayers from the Liturgy of Saint James
**Thy saints, guarding us from everything evil, and preserving us for continually **pleasing, and worshipping, and glorifying Thee, the Father, and Thy only-begotten Son, and Thy all-holy Spirit, now and always, and for ever.
Commemorating our all-holy, pure, most glorious, blessed Lady, the God-Mother and Ever-Virgin Mary,60 and all the saints that have been well-pleasing to Thee since the world began, let us devote ourselves, and one another, and our whole life, to Christ our God:

 

[Michael_G]

Will you show us the traditions that say those things?
.

“Peter was proncounced blessed by the Lord…the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has NEVER turned away from the path of truth in ANY direction of ERROR, whose AUTHORITY, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced…” **Agatho Pope,To Ecumenical Council VI at Constantinople,(A.D. 680),in NPNF2,XIV:328-339
"It was right indeed that he(Paul) should be anxious to see Peter; for he was the first among the apostles, and was entrusted by the Savior with the care of the churches." Ambrosiaster,Commentary on Galatians,PL 17:344 (A.D. 384),in SPP,62
" ’Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church’, Wherefore where Peter the Church is…" Ambrose,Commentary on the Psalms,40:30 (AD 395),in DOP,184
"At length, after being tempted by the devil, Peter is set over the Church." Ambrose,Commentary on the Psalms,43:40(AD 397),in GILES,145

“…the chief of the disciples…the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church." Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15(A.D. 337),in SPP,58
“In order that he may show his power, God has endowed none of his disciples **with gifts like Peter. But, having raised him with heavenly gifts, he has set him above all. **And, as first disciple and greater among the brethren, he has shown, by the test of deeds, the power of the Spirit. The first to be called, he followed at once…The Saviour confided to this man, as some special trust, the whole universal Church, after having asked him three times ‘Lovest thou me?’. And he receive the world in charge…” Asterius,Homily 8(A.D. 400),in GILES,145-146
"Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer." Augustine,Psalmus contr Partem Donati(A.D. 393),in GILES,182
"Peter bore the person of the church” Augustine, Sermon 149:7(inter A.D. 391-430),in SPP,69

"Peter upon which rock the Lord promised that he would build his church." Basil,In Isaias,2:66(A.D. 375),in SPP,55

" '…thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ … It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness…If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith**. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?" **Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae(Primacy text),4(A.D. 251),in NE,228-229
“He promises to found the church, assigning immovableness to it,as He is the Lord of strength, and over this he sets Peter as shepherd.” Cyril of Alexandria,Commentary on Matthew (A.D. 428),in SPP,74
"Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church…" Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,11:3(A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VIII:64
“(Peter)The first of the Apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of disciples.” Chrysostom John,Ad eos qui scandalizati 17(ante A.D. 407),in SEP,74

 

[Michael_G]

Will you show us the traditions that say those things?

quote]

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it**. Wherever the bishop** shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch,[Epistle to the Smyrneans](file:///C:/CCD/churchfathers/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-21.htm#a), 8:2(A.D. 110),in [ANF,I:89](file:///C:/CCD/churchfathers/fathers2/ANF-01/TOC.htm#sym)
“[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” [Martyrdom of Polycarp](file:///C:/CCD/churchfathers/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-13.htm#a),16:2(A.D. 155),in [ANF,I:42](file:///C:/CCD/churchfathers/fathers2/ANF-01/TOC.htm#mar)

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?’…. **Tertullian,**On the Prescription Against Heretics,22,30(A.D.200),in ANF,III:253,257

**Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its **duties." Clement,Epistle to Corinthians,42,44(A.D. 98),in ANF,I:16,17
“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counsellors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as … Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius,To the Trallians,7(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:69

“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the **doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, **and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].” Irenaeus,Against Heresies,4:33:8(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:508