W
Wild_Boar
Guest
The Bible does not set those things forth as my hope of salvation. If Christ were not my only hope, then perhaps RCC tradition would appeal to me.
- Status
C
CWBetts
Guest
The Catholic Church presents Christ as the only hope.
W
Wild_Boar
Guest
Christ alone?
C
CWBetts
Guest
We are saved by faith throeugh grace. The Sacrements are physical signs of Gods Grace.
C
CWBetts
Guest
You do realize you are trying to use something other than the Bible to say we can only use the Bible. Not every word that came out of the mouths of ECF’s was infallible. And you also have to think, how much was written down at the time? And Paul, in the Scriptures commends the Corinthinas for holding to Traditions taught by the Church. I believe you have set up a straw man that I have just knocked down
C
ckempston
Guest
Typical Catholic response, unfortunately. I’ve challenged several of your points with facts, scriptures, and logical arguments. Instead of responding to any of these, you just resort to ad hominems and call me a liar and stupid. Very nice! Thank you! You continue to demonstrate the futility of Catholic thinking.
W
Wild_Boar
Guest
No I’m not. Rather I am saying things that believers have recognized for centuries. The Bible alone is enough to point men to the way of salvation through Christ alone. It is the lamp which leads us to the righteousness of God as it is found in Christ.
C
ckempston
Guest
And you believe the Magesterium has interpretive authority because the Magesterium says it has interpretive authority. I, and most other Protestants, believe the Scriptures regardless of what some or many of the Early Church Fathers wrote. It is merely an irony that the Early Church Fathers that are so often appealed to by apologists on CAF and on the Catholic Answers pages are ignored when they do not agree with Catholic doctrine (how convenient - which is usually the case).
An appeal to the Early Church Fathers by a non-Catholic (and your reason for diverting the argument and setting up a strawman) shows the myriad of additional Catholic doctrines for what they are: doctrines of man. Nothing was dogmatically held unless it was attested to in the Scriptures. As I pointed out in my Irenaeus quotes, if something was not in the Scriptures, he didn’t believe we are under any obligation to believe or explain it. Quite odd for a “Catholic” Bishop of the Second Century, no?
The Early Church Fathers are not the source of my faith in the veracity of the Scriptures, personally, but their agreement on so many things not practiced and believed by Catholics strike me as a little odd when they are supposed to be the ones who handed the faith down to the Catholic church.
S
SyCarl
Guest
I quite realize that the early church fathers are not infallible but I find it odd that this comment is generally made when they seem to support a Protestant concept. I cite the early church fathers because Catholics often say that the concept of scripture alone had never been suggested before the Reformation.
It should be noted that sola scriptura does not deny other sources of authority. However the Scriptures are the final only and infallible source of authority with respect to doctrine. They contain all that it is necessary for us to know with respect to salvation.
The Church certainly does have authority and those who support sola scriptura or prima scriptura and not solo scriptura clearly recognize this. Traditional Protestantism is confession and there have been many historical confessions setting out beliefs. The writing of the Reformers themselves are full of citations from the early church fathers.
A primary difference I see between Protestantism and modern Catholic teaching is that Catholicism, in many cases seem to take the route of defining a doctrine and then looking to Scripture to find something supporting it.
With respect to passages of Scripture in support of scripture alone, ckempston has provided a number in post 11. I would add John 20:30-31.
True, John tells us that Jesus did many other signs that are not recorded in this book. However he does tells us that he wrote so we could beleive and be saved. He is claiming that his Gospel contains all we need. But the scheme of the New Testament is that when some teaching by Jesus or the Apostle’s is under question by someone, the answer generally includes, “it is written”, “according to the Scriptures”, or some similar statement drawing on the authority of Scripture rather than oral teaching or Jewish tradition.
With respect to Paul’s various comments about tradition, nobody denies that apostolic teaching was original oral. Paul does say to remember the traditions they were taught. It is important to note that the various churches to whom Paul wrote did not receive all his epistles directly. For example, in 2 Thessalonians Paul tell them to remember the traditions they received whether written oral. However he only wrote them 2 short letters. There were many other Scriptures written by Paul and others that contain things not contained in those 2 letters. It should be noted that while there are favorable reference to tradition by Paul, unlike references to Scripture, there are also negative comments by both Jesus and Paul with regard to traditions of men. How are we to know the difference? The Catholic response is that the Church tells us and it is infallible, but that is a conclusion and an interpretation in itself.
S
SyCarl
Guest
I quite agree with you. With respect to the early church fathers, I think in reading them I think that we can find support for both many Protestant teachings and many Catholic teachings. This to me shows that, whatever the original father my have believed, that various views were, at that time, viewed as orthodox. Over time, human nature took its course and groups began to insist that their view was the only one that could be held. It was then defined as a necessary dogma and any in disagreement became heretics. I think that Christians have tended to overdefine what is necessary beyond what was contained in the early creeds.
For example, in addition to the issue in this tread, many church fathers referred to faith alone while at the same time reminding that there must be works to show that faith. There are church fathers such a Chrysostom who show Mary sinning and others who say that she was only purified at the time she conceived. Many of these writers have been declared saints and doctors of the church. Much wiggling by Catholics takes place to avoid the conclusion that such writers were heterodox such as assertions that they were not infallible or that it is okay because the doctrine in question had not been infallibly defined at the time, as if God changes what Chistians must believe as the Church defines doctrines.
T
twb1621
Guest
The contents of the Bible developed in three stages:
Oral Stage - Stories handed down through the generations by word of mouth (almost all of the Book of Genesis is from oral accounts, or what we call tradition). The more important stories were memorized and told on special occasions.
Writing Stage - As time went on, people began to write things down. Writing was difficult, and very few people could read. For hundreds of years both oral tradition and the written word existed side by side. Some parts of the Bible were written to meet a particular need of the community, Jewish or Christian. Not all Oral Traditions were written down.
Editing Stage - Material was chosen which best represented the religious traditions of the people. The oral and written accounts could have differed slightly, so editing was done to bring unity between the two. The contents of the Bible came from this last stage. These three stages of development existed for the most part simultaneously, though the Oral Stage came first and the Editing Stage came last.
Symbols for spoken words were developed probably about 6000 years ago. About 2500 B.C. the Egyptians developed papyrus, on which they inscribed their symbols. They joined several of these together and rolled them on a rod to make something like a scroll. About A.D. 105, the Chinese invented paper, but it was not introduced into the Western world until about A.D. 700. It was more than 700 years later (A.D. 1450) that Johann Gutenberg invented printing.
The Bible was written by many different human authors over a period of 1500 years. These human authors were inspired by God, that is, God breathed ideas into them which He wanted expressed, and they expressed these ideas in their own way. It was not their intention to write a book that would be entered into “The Bible,” as we know it. The whole thrust was to preserve the traditions of how God dealt with His people.
Since the Bible is not one book, but a library of books, there are many different kinds of writing in these books, e.g., prose, proverbs, parables, prophesy, prayers, poetry, (narrative hymns), legends, legal documents, letters, sermons, songs, stories, etc. This is called Literary Form.
In order to be able to understand a passage of the Bible one must be aware of:
In what form it was written, e.g., prose, poetry, history, etc. (Literary Form)
Why it was written.
When it was written.
What is the whole book about?
What is the meaning of each word?
How does it fit in with other parts of the Bible on the same subject?
The Old Testament is organized under three major headings:
The Law - this is the first in importance and consists of the first five books.
The Prophets - this consists of the preaching attributed to the prophets and their writings and the Books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings.
The Writings - this consists of the remainder of the Old Testament.
The Bible is God’s gift to us. The Bible is God’s love letter to His people. It was written over many centuries and contains different kinds of writing. We all need help to interpret what is being said in the different books. The Catholic Church offers that help.
Oral Stage - Stories handed down through the generations by word of mouth (almost all of the Book of Genesis is from oral accounts, or what we call tradition). The more important stories were memorized and told on special occasions.
Writing Stage - As time went on, people began to write things down. Writing was difficult, and very few people could read. For hundreds of years both oral tradition and the written word existed side by side. Some parts of the Bible were written to meet a particular need of the community, Jewish or Christian. Not all Oral Traditions were written down.
Editing Stage - Material was chosen which best represented the religious traditions of the people. The oral and written accounts could have differed slightly, so editing was done to bring unity between the two. The contents of the Bible came from this last stage. These three stages of development existed for the most part simultaneously, though the Oral Stage came first and the Editing Stage came last.
Symbols for spoken words were developed probably about 6000 years ago. About 2500 B.C. the Egyptians developed papyrus, on which they inscribed their symbols. They joined several of these together and rolled them on a rod to make something like a scroll. About A.D. 105, the Chinese invented paper, but it was not introduced into the Western world until about A.D. 700. It was more than 700 years later (A.D. 1450) that Johann Gutenberg invented printing.
The Bible was written by many different human authors over a period of 1500 years. These human authors were inspired by God, that is, God breathed ideas into them which He wanted expressed, and they expressed these ideas in their own way. It was not their intention to write a book that would be entered into “The Bible,” as we know it. The whole thrust was to preserve the traditions of how God dealt with His people.
Since the Bible is not one book, but a library of books, there are many different kinds of writing in these books, e.g., prose, proverbs, parables, prophesy, prayers, poetry, (narrative hymns), legends, legal documents, letters, sermons, songs, stories, etc. This is called Literary Form.
In order to be able to understand a passage of the Bible one must be aware of:
In what form it was written, e.g., prose, poetry, history, etc. (Literary Form)
Why it was written.
When it was written.
What is the whole book about?
What is the meaning of each word?
How does it fit in with other parts of the Bible on the same subject?
The Old Testament is organized under three major headings:
The Law - this is the first in importance and consists of the first five books.
The Prophets - this consists of the preaching attributed to the prophets and their writings and the Books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings.
The Writings - this consists of the remainder of the Old Testament.
The Bible is God’s gift to us. The Bible is God’s love letter to His people. It was written over many centuries and contains different kinds of writing. We all need help to interpret what is being said in the different books. The Catholic Church offers that help.
T
twb1621
Guest
In response to Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura
T
twb1621
Guest
There is much said about the early Church Fathers position regarding Sola Scriptura but it is more than should be posted. Below is an excerpt and the substance of the writings are available at the link supplied.
“He, therefore, will not be a Christian who shall deny this doctrine which is confessed by Christians; denying it, moreover, on grounds which are adopted by a man who is not a Christian. Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground.”
Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh,3
Recently a few Evangelical Christians have attempted to find the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura within the writings of the Church Fathers[1]. These writers do not understand the coordinate role of Tradition and its relationship with Scripture in the ancient Church. Catholic[2], Orthodox[3], Coptic[4] and many Protestant[5] patristic scholars agree that the rule of faith in the early Church consisted of Scripture, Tradition and Church[2]. Not a single Church Father interpreted Sacred Scripture in isolation from the traditional faith of the Church;"
cin.org/users/jgallegos/sola_her.htm
S
SyCarl
Guest
The quote from Tertullian actually seems to support scripture alone as the highlighted portion indicates that if the heretics relied on scripture alone there views could not stand.
I note at the link provided that reference (5) is to J.N.D. Kelly. It should be noted that Kelly indeed indicates that that in the early fathers references are made to both scripture and tradition. It is wrong to conclude from this that tradition was some additional source of apostolic knowlwdge. Kelly notes that the early fathers expressed the view that oral tradition had been recorded in scripture as the quotes from Irenaues and Chrysostom earlier in the thread illustrate.
It must be emphasized that traditional Protestants do not deny authority to the Church. However that authority is subject to the scripture being the only infallible source of doctrine. The ancient creeds are accepted as expounding the truths as found in scripture. Neither do traditional Protestants say that all scripture is clear. They do recognize though, in accordance with statements from Augustine and Chrysostom quoted earlier in the thread, that all the necessary thing are clearly expressed in scripture. It appears to me that what has happened over the years is the relatively simple rule of faith, as emboddied in the early creeds has been added to. Matters which at one point could be the subject of a variety of views became dogmatized so that only one view was considered orthodox. If the mixture of views at one time were considered orthodox, there is no reason that they should now be viewed as heretical. I can not imagine that God requires Christians today to believe more than Christians in the first two centuries had to believe simply because men have decided to say some belief that previously was not required now is required. My position applies also to Protestants who insist that their beliefs are necessary to be orthodox.
C
ckempston
Guest
Yeah, what is it you think Tertullian is saying here, exactly that supports the Catholic position?
C
ckempston
Guest
T
twb1621
Guest
With all due respect, you really should review that quote again as it is far from supportive of Sola Scriptura.
See here is the problem I notice in this thread. You offer rebuttals against things as though you have the support for what you say but I see very little support made available. To refer to a fact that most non-Catholics hate to hear, and directly related to the rebuttal of the establishment of the bible, the Bible and the canons were organized and established for the teaching of the Catholic Faith by the Catholic Church, period. Show support that anything stated in that post regarding the establishment of the Bible was false. The Bible doesn’t contain all there is, it requires the teacher. It was taken out of its element to be used to establish another person’s opinions and edited and altered regardless of what you call it. You speak reverently of the Bible being the inspired word of God but you do not defend it being altered or edited 1200 years after its establishment. If the Septuagint and the Vetus Itala and the Latin Vulgate and every other succeeding Vulgate where good enough for Jesus, the Apostles and the Church fathers and successors to use as the correct resources, who 1500 years later qualifies to change that? You refer to the CC doing a poor job with the translations and interpretations yet unless you use the Bible version offered through the CC you do not have nor use the interpretations offered for the texts you claim the knowledge to interpret yourselves. If you are expert in algebra and I hand you a book on astrophysics without the teaching of one who has the skills to teach the subject, how well would you do interpreting and formulating? Yet I see no support for the majority of the rebuttals and twisted interpretations for the rest. Another “for instance”, when referring to Saint Jerome and the Latin Vulgate, Catholics refer to Him as “Saint” yet others usually wont. The Latin Vulgate generated from the Vetus Itala, the Septuagint. Why is that do you think?
I will stand and compare my Catholic resources to yours in a heartbeat and I know yours will not stand against those recourses. Have you ever researched the full line of texts as they were handed down? Nope, you haven’t or you would never have, made such claims. Church Fathers? Quote after quote supports the teachings of scripture with tradition, they support the Catholic Church as the one true Church founded by Jesus and so it goes. So please, I ask you, when you refute the position of the CC or the Catholic Faith, provide the support for it. You are right about one thing. God reveals to His church as time goes on which is why although nothing is reduced in its teachings , clarity increases as God deems appropriate.
C
ckempston
Guest
Not according to the Bible itself and the Church Fathers. I’m not sure how much simpler it can get than Irenaeus saying, “If it’s not revealed in scripture, we don’t believe it.” I mean, seriously.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And this isn’t the typical Protestant “cop-out”???
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
We can deal with this offline here:
“You Are Also!”
Adapted from “Disunity on the Essentials” by Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0312bt.asp
What a staggering admission! The Bible is not the “final” authority. So much for sola scriptura, one of the pillars of the Protestant Deformation.
- Status