Sola Scriptura

[Randy_Carson]

Wow. If it’s not in scripture, Irenaeus saw fit to reject a doctrine out of hand. What a concept! I guess I’m in good company.

Too bad you’re not in the company of scholars who have read Irenaeus a bit more deeply than you. Here are a few passages from what these men say about the thoroughly Catholic Bishop of Lyons:
“For Irenaeus, on the other hand, tradition and scripture are both quite unproblematic. They stand independently side by side, both absolutely authoritative, both unconditionally true, trustworthy, and convincing… . . Irenaeus and Tertullian point to the church tradition as the authoritative locus of the unadulterated teaching of the apostles, . . . transmitted faithfully from generation to generation. (Ellen Flessman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church, Van Gorcum, 1953, 139, 138)

This from the famous Protestant theologian and historian, Philip Schaff:
**“Besides appealing to the Scriptures, the fathers, particularly Irenaeus and Tertullian, refer with equal confidence to the “rule of faith;” that is, the common faith of the church, as orally handed down in the unbroken succession of bishops from Christ and his apostles to their day, and above all as still living in the original apostolic churches, like those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome. Tradition is thus intimately connected with the primitive episcopate. The latter was the vehicle of the former, and both were looked upon as bulwarks against heresy. **
“Irenaeus confronts the secret tradition of the Gnostics with the open and unadulterated tradition of the catholic church, and points to all churches, but particularly to Rome, as the visible centre of the unity of doctrine. All who would know the truth, says he, can see in the whole church the tradition of the apostles; and we can count the bishops ordained by the apostles, and their successors down to our time, who neither taught nor knew any such heresies. Then, by way of example, he cites the first twelve bishops of the Roman church from Linus to Eleutherus, as witnesses of the pure apostolic doctrine. He might conceive of a Christianity without scripture, but he could not imagine a Christianity without living tradition; and for this opinion he refers to barbarian tribes, who have the gospel, “sine charta et atramento,” written in their hearts.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970; reproduction of 5th revised edition of 1910, Chapter XII, section 139, “Catholic Tradition,” pp. 525-526)
And I love this quote from noted Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly:
“His most characteristic thought, however, is that the Church is the sole repository of the truth, and is such because it has a monopoly of the apostolic writings, the apostolic oral tradition and the apostolic faith. . . . the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back to the apostles themselves provides a guarantee that this faith is identical with the message which they originally proclaimed.” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, HarperSanFrancisco, revised 1978 edition, 192)

Now, given all of the distinctively Catholic doctrines that Irenaeus believed, are you sure you want to hold him up as the proto-Protestant poster boy?

Maybe its time you guys stopped reading William Webster and started reading the Early Church Fathers for yourself.

Like John Henry Newman, you may find it difficult to remain Protestant.

 

[SyCarl]

Too bad you’re not in the company of scholars who have read Irenaeus a bit more deeply than you. Here are a few passages from what these men say about the thoroughly Catholic Bishop of Lyons:

[/INDENT]This from the famous Protestant theologian and historian, Philip Schaff:
**“Besides appealing to the Scriptures, the fathers, particularly Irenaeus and Tertullian, refer with equal confidence to the “rule of faith;” that is, the common faith of the church, as orally handed down in the unbroken succession of bishops from Christ and his apostles to their day, and above all as still living in the original apostolic churches, like those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome. Tradition is thus intimately connected with the primitive episcopate. The latter was the vehicle of the former, and both were looked upon as bulwarks against heresy. **
“Irenaeus confronts the secret tradition of the Gnostics with the open and unadulterated tradition of the catholic church, and points to all churches, but particularly to Rome, as the visible centre of the unity of doctrine. All who would know the truth, says he, can see in the whole church the tradition of the apostles; and we can count the bishops ordained by the apostles, and their successors down to our time, who neither taught nor knew any such heresies. Then, by way of example, he cites the first twelve bishops of the Roman church from Linus to Eleutherus, as witnesses of the pure apostolic doctrine. He might conceive of a Christianity without scripture, but he could not imagine a Christianity without living tradition; and for this opinion he refers to barbarian tribes, who have the gospel, “sine charta et atramento,” written in their hearts.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970; reproduction of 5th revised edition of 1910, Chapter XII, section 139, “Catholic Tradition,” pp. 525-526)

You should quote everything Schaff had to say. Scripture and tradition had the same content.

In the substance of its doctrine this apostolic tradition agrees with the holy scriptures, and though derived, as to its form, from the oral preaching of the apostles, is really, as to its contents, one and the same with there apostolic writings. In this view the apparent contradictions of the earlier fathers, in ascribing the highest authority to both scripture and tradition in matters of faith, resolve themselves. It is one and the same gospel which the apostles preached with their lips, and then laid down in their writings, and which the church faithfully hands down by word and writing from one generation to another.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xiv.iii.html

And I love this quote from noted Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly:
**“**His most characteristic thought, however, is that the Church is the sole repository of the truth, and is such because it has a monopoly of the apostolic writings, the apostolic oral tradition and the apostolic faith. . . . the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back to the apostles themselves provides a guarantee that this faith is identical with the message which they originally proclaimed.” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, HarperSanFrancisco, revised 1978 edition, 192)

Now, given all of the distinctively Catholic doctrines that Irenaeus believed, are you sure you want to hold him up as the proto-Protestant poster boy?

The same applies to Kelly.

…Irenaeus took it for granted that the apostolic tradition had also been deposited in written documents. As he says, what the apostles at first proclaimed by word of mouth they afterwards by God’s will conveyed to us in Scriptures…The whole point of his teaching was, in fact, that Scripture and the Church’s unwritten tradition were identical in content…Tertullian’s attitude does not differ from Irenaeus’s in any important respect…In its primary sense however, the apostolic, evangelical or Catholic traditions stood for the faith delivered by the apostles, and he never contrasted tradition so understood with Scripture. Indeed, it was enshrined in Scripture, for the apostles subsequently wrote down their oral preaching in epistles. For this reason Scripture has absolute authority; whatever it teaches is necessarily true, and woe betide him who accepts doctrines not discoverable in it.

Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 37-39

 

[Chrysostom324]

As a good Catholic, I uphold all doctrines the Catholic Church promulgates, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t be skeptical of the historicity of their origin. However, on this issue, I believe faith-wise and intellectually that sola scriptura is unbiblical and ahistorical. I am happy to see that the previous poster (a Catholic) didn’t decide to interpret the Fathers for himself (unlike the non-Catholic poster) and appealed to valid historians. I would like to add a quotation from a modern, secular historian, F.E. Peters, in his book The Monotheists (praised by such luminaries as Jaroslav Pelikan):

“Fairly soon, however, it was the holder of the office of overseer {bishop} who had assumed the leadership role in each ekklesia. The bishops’ power and authority grew rapidly with the emergent theory that they were the successors of Jesus’ original Twelve. Already at the end of the first century, in the letters of Ignatius, for example, an office that seems to have made James “first among equals” was taking on special status as “overseer” who was coming to be recognized as the single “successor of the Apostles” and so the bearer and interpreter of authentic Christian tradition.” (pg. 212 “Community and Authority”)
“The bishops, by reason of their succession to the Apostles, were thought to possess the teaching power (magisterium) in the Church…” (pg.212 “Community and Authority”)

jk

 

[Randy_Carson]

You should quote everything Schaff had to say. Scripture and tradition had the same content.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xiv.iii.html

The same applies to Kelly.

Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 37-39

So, you’re saying that for Schaff and Kelly, Irenaeus saw Tradition and Scripture as being identical in content, correct?

Then how can it be possible that Irenaeus saw the Church’s teaching on infant baptism as acceptable? The scriptures are relatively silent on this matter, and Irenaeus would have had clear direction only from the practice of Apostolic Tradition.

Or does this mean that infant baptism is scriptural after all?

Irenaeus (c.120-c.200 AD)

“For He came to save all through means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” (*Against Heresies *2:22:4).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (*Fragment *34 [A.D. 190]).

Or that the Eucharist really is the body and blood of Jesus?

Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (*Against Heresies *4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

 

[SyCarl]

So, you’re saying that for Schaff and Kelly, Irenaeus saw Tradition and Scripture as being identical in content, correct?

Then how can it be possible that Irenaeus saw the Church’s teaching on infant baptism as acceptable? The scriptures are relatively silent on this matter, and Irenaeus would have had clear direction only from the practice of Apostolic Tradition.

Or does this mean that infant baptism is scriptural after all?

I would not contend that infant baptism is not scriptural. I think that it is readily deducible from Scripture. However unless you subscribe to the view that the sacrament of baptism is necessary, it doesn’t really matter when it takes place.

Baptism is the New Testament equivalent of circumcision which was performed on infants when they were 8 days old. When Peter said at Pentecost that the promise is for you and your children he was speaking to a primarily Jewish audience who would have recognized the covenantal implications of the sacrament. However, just as circumcision in the flesh did not grant justification, neither does water baptism.

Paul tells us that true circumcision if of the heart, not of the flesh and that the true Jew was the one who had been circumcised in the heart, with or without physical circumcision. Similarly, true baptism is the inward baptism of the spirit, not the outward sign of water baptism. True circumcision and true baptism come from faith so there is no differentiation in how the Old Testament saints and the New Testament saints are saved. They are both saved by faith.

While it is clear that the early church fathers accepted regeneration through the sacrament of baptism, there are also signs that they recognized that justification comes at the time of faith. For example, Cyril of Jerusalem says:

For the name of Faith is in the form of speech one, but has two distinct senses. For there is one kind of faith, the dogmatic, involving an assent of the soul on some particular point: and it is profitable to the soul, as the Lord says: He that hears My words, and believes Him that sent Me, has everlasting life, and comes not into judgment: and again, He that believes in the Son is not judged, but has passed from death unto life. Oh the great loving-kindness of God! For the righteous were many years in pleasing Him: but what they succeeded in gaining by many years of well-pleasing, this Jesus now bestows on you in a single hour. **For if you shall believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved, and shall be transported into Paradise by Him who brought in thither the robber. And doubt not whether it is possible; for He who on this sacred Golgotha saved the robber after one single hour of belief, the same shall save you also on your believing **

(Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 5, Paragraph 10)
newadvent.org/fathers/310105.htm

Similarly Chrysostom says:

What was the object of the Law and what the scope of all its enactments? Why, to make man righteous. But this it had no power to do. “For all,” it says, “have sinned:” but faith when it came accomplished it. For when a man is once a believer, he is straightway justified.

(Homilies on Romans, Homily 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/210207.htm

Both these excerpts indicate that justification comes immediately with faith. Even Aquinas recognized that the benefits of baptism could be acquired without the sacrament.

In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.

Summa Theologica. Book 3, Question 66, Article 11
ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q66_A11.html

I believe that this “Baptism of Repentance” is the normative means, not the exception.

In Apostolic times, we are told that believers were baptized immediately on believing so that there was virtually no gap between faith and sacrament. Later however a process of catechesis was introduced so that there could be many months between belief and sacrament. Thus the baptism of desire was recognized, but what accomplished this if not the faith of the catechumen? Similarly is it not recognized that if an unbeliever is baptized he obtains no benefit until he believes? If it not then his faith that saves rather than the sacrament?

With respect to the Eucharist, I accept a real presence but not necessarily in the way of transubstantiation. Referring to the body and blood does not equate to transubstantiation. Irenaeus also said:

For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

(Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 18, Paragraph 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103418.htm

The two realities would seem to be more consunsubstantiation.
But I have gotten off the topic of the thread.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would not contend that infant baptism is not scriptural. I think that it is readily deducible from Scripture. However unless you subscribe to the view that the sacrament of baptism is necessary, it doesn’t really matter when it takes place.

With respect to the Eucharist, I accept a real presence but not necessarily in the way of transubstantiation. Referring to the body and blood does not equate to transubstantiation.

Lutheran, I presume?

But here is the point: Many Protestants will reject the Catholic ideas of Tradition and Magisterium leaving them with the Bible alone or sola scriptura. They like to cite this or that ECF in support of the (false) idea that the earliest Christians were actually proto-Protestants who believed sola scriptura. Yet, these same Fathers believed many things that are distinctively Catholic and other things that you, a Lutheran, would also accept. They support these doctrines from Scripture but also from Tradition. Moreover, when confronted by heretics misusing Scripture, the Fathers turn to authoritative Tradition to bolster the orthodox position.

The challenge for Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who want to claim that the content of Scripture and Tradition is the same is to explain how their own views on many doctrines square with what the Fathers obviously believed and taught.

The claim “I accept Tradition when it agrees with Scripture, but not “man-made” traditions” does not further their argument against “Romanism” for Catholics accept the same thing. Obviously, the disagreement is over what is “true” and what is “man-made” in Catholicism.

I’m not convinced that Irenaeus or Tertullian or any of the ECFs would have said that Scripture and Tradition were identical in content. What I would say is that NO Tradition is contrary to Scripture and vice-versa. I think Irenaeus would be comfortable with that statement.

 

[guanophore]

I’d say yes, the church does support the truth, but that does not equate to authority, but operation. We are not told to go to the church with disagreements (this seems to be a common Catholic mangling of the passage), but with sin.

If your brother** sins against you**,** go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church;** and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

This passage is about dealing with sin, not doctrine or authority in establishing doctrine.

I agree with you, that the passage is about how to handle sin. But from an Apostolic point of view, there are few sins against the Body as serious as a departure from right doctrine, and teaching falsehoods in the name of the Church. Paul was fond of spewing invectives against those who did such things. To read his letters, it is impossible to claim that he did not percieve that he was personally sinned against at such times. When a dispute about doctrine arose, he took it to the Apostles, just as Jesus had directed.

Even had the personall injury (sin) not been related to teaching wrong doctrine, what good for discipline is a body that does not have the authority to define right doctrine? All decisions about dealing with personal sin and discipline are based on what the Church believes and teaches about Truth.

2 Tim 4:14-15
14 Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will requite him for his deeds. 15 Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message.

Gal 5:11-12
12 I wish those who unsettle you would mutilate themselves!

(some render this “tell them I hope the knife slips” during circumcision).

 

[guanophore]

Where does anybody say the church is the final authority?

Do you really want a selection of passages on this? I have not caught up with the thread yet, so I will hold off on that. It is not really the point of the thread, though I do think it is relevant. I agree with the OP that theScriptures attest that the Church has the authority, and the Scriptures do not claim to have authority.

Matt 28:18-20
18 And Jesus came and said to them, “**All authority **in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 **Go therefore **and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

How could it be that the Apostles are sent in any other authority but Christ’s?

Titus 2:15
15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

Where did the authority come from? The NT was not yet written…

That’s the point. You haven’t a leg to stand on with this “Protestant” criticism, because Catholics have the same problem. You accept the authority of the Magesterium on Faith.

Although I think we stand on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets (pretty good legs) I will agree that we do accept the authority of the Magesterium on faith. I think we accept the entire gospel on faith. I concede that there are elements supported by science (subject to proof), but the faith we embrace by a trust in Him, and not in science.

Luke 10:16
16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

This is the faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles, and we embrace it by faith.

In any case, the Scriptures may not say that they are the "final" authority, but they do say quite a bit about themselves, and the Early Church Fathers had a lot to say about them as well (and these comments usually sound very "Protestant").

Matthew 22:29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.”

Knowing the Scriptures keeps us from error.[/qutoe]

Clearly the scriptures are profitable, and highly esteemed. I agree also that familiarity with them can prevent error, but it does not necessarily do so. I have heard some of the strangest interpretations from people here who know the scriptures quite well, yet have departed from the Apostolic message.
ckempston;5115740:

The Word Jesus spoke is the Judge, the standard.

No, the Scripture cannot “judge”. Only persons can Judge.

Paul seemed to rely on the Scriptures a lot.

No one is claiming that we should not. However, all he had was the Septuagint. What sensible Christian would try to live a good Christian life today without the NT? It was the revelation of God that enabled Paul to apply the scriptures the way he did.

If Scriptures make us wise for salvation, what else to we need? (Please spare me the tired Catholic argument that this only applies to the Old Testament).

Salvation comes through faith in Jesus. Jesus is living in the Church. Anyone who is attached to Him as head will be attached to the body as a member. That is why salvation is not separated from the Body of Christ. Jesus set it up this way. Why would He do something “unnecessary”?

Keeping the Scriptures makes us do right. What else is there to do?

If one keeps the Scriptures, one will follow the Church:

Heb 13:17
17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Eph 4:11-14
11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;

Why did Jesus appoint persons to equip us, if this was not necessary?

Once again, the Word is Judge.

Judgement requires discernment and acts of the will. Words on a page do not have this power. The judgement here is done by God.

1 John 2:5 But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him.

Obeying the Word makes God’s love complete in us. Again, what else would we need?

To recognize that the Word is not Holy Writing only but a Person - Jesus. He is not confined to the pages of the parchment. Putting the Scriptures in place of Him is a grievious error.

 

[guanophore]

Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1 "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.

Ouch. Irenaeus called the Scriptures the ground and pillar of our faith, and said the Apostles confirmed everything they taught in writing. So much for Sacred Tradition.

You misunderstand Irenaeus. He is saying that the plan of our salvation is the ground and pillar of our faith. I agree with you, though, all the fathers highly esteem the scriptures. Catholics believe that Sacred Tradition (the preached gospel referred to here by Irenaeus) and Scripture come from the same Source. Irenaeus was Catholic, and his beliefs are Catholic. It is disingenuous and intellecually slothful to cherry pick a small portion of his writings and try to represent that this demonstrates all of his belief.

In this same treatise you quoted, Irenaeus summarizes the way the Gnostics have twisted the Scriptures and mangled the preaching of the Apostle John to support their heresy. Then he testifies:

For this very fact forms an a priori proof that the truth proclaimed by the Church is immoveable,and that the theories of these men are but a tissue of falsehoods. Chapter IX.—Refutation of the impious interpretations of these heretics.

1. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions27902790 Probably referring to the Churches in Palestine. of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.Chapter X.—Unity of the faith of the Church throughout the whole world.

I think that Ireneaus is a poor choice to use for someone trying to “prove” sola scriptura. He is quite clear that people can, do,twist the scriptures " and have these men employ to deceive themselves, while they abuse the Scriptures by endeavouring to support their own system out of them."

His remedy for this is that we should not depart from Sacred Tradition, the preached Gospel that was handed down to us from the Apostles.

I am going to guess that you did not read the book, because my experience of you on CAF has been much more intellectually honest. No one could read these words of Irenaeus and say “so much for Sacred Tradition”!

 

[guanophore]

Is this a trick question? Um, the Scriptures?

Yes, most bible churches believe that they teach the scriptures. However, scripture is always taught from a framework. If you read the quote from Against Heresies that I posted above, it is clear that Irenaeus believed strongly that they should not be taught apart from the Sacred Tradition that was handed down by the Apostles. Almost all bible churches retain significant portions of Catholic Sacred Tradition (though they don’t realize it) mixed in with the traditions of men emanating from the Protestant Reformation.

Jesus empowered the Apostles with the authority to teach the scriptures, after He had trained them in how this was to be done. In doing so, he transferred the Seat of Moses from the Pharisees to the Apostles.

 

[allana]

geocities.com/rick_g22/2tim316.html

good reading:thumbsup:

 

[guanophore]

I admit that there is much that I don’t understand regarding your religion,

This much is clear.

but I know this much: I don’t need anything more than what the Bible says regarding Christ as the only way to God.

It is very Catholic of you to say this.

 

[allana]

Instead of believing in the Bible because they believe in Jesus, Protestants believe in Jesus because they believe in the Bible. And they don’t know why they believe in the Bible.

 

[twb1621]

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.

right, ok. I am glad you respect the Church Fathers. This is a limited group of excerpts but it may help you. Lets look at the Church Fathers starting with Irenaeus and Whether Scripture should be Stayed with Sacred Tradition and the Teachings of the Church or performed as Sola Scriptura;

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).
**
"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, “Who are you? When and whence did you come?” *Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200). *
**
“Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles.” *Origen, First Principles, 4,1:9 (A.D. 230). *
**
“The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, ‘He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.’” *Cyprian, Unity of the Church, 6 (A.D. 256). *
**
“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures…Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart.” *Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350). *
**
“[T]hey who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand.” *Hilary of Poitiers, On Matthew, Homily 13:1 (A.D. 355). *

“But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.” Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).

There is a great deal more c**ontinued at scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html#tradition-I

 

[twb1621]

A couple more quotes from the Church Fathers;

“They teach what they themselves have learnt from their predecessors. They have received those rites which they explain from the Church’s tradition. They preach only ‘the dogmas of the Church’” *John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction (A.D. 389). *

“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.” *Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397). *
" ‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.’ Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther." *John Chrysostom, Homily on 2nd Thessalonians, 4:2 (A.D. 404). *

 

[twb1621]

Where does anybody say the church is the final authority?

Aside from Jesus provisions in the gospel, the Church Fathers clearly do.

 

[SyCarl]

Lutheran, I presume?

But here is the point: Many Protestants will reject the Catholic ideas of Tradition and Magisterium leaving them with the Bible alone or sola scriptura. They like to cite this or that ECF in support of the (false) idea that the earliest Christians were actually proto-Protestants who believed sola scriptura. Yet, these same Fathers believed many things that are distinctively Catholic and other things that you, a Lutheran, would also accept. They support these doctrines from Scripture but also from Tradition. Moreover, when confronted by heretics misusing Scripture, the Fathers turn to authoritative Tradition to bolster the orthodox position.

The challenge for Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who want to claim that the content of Scripture and Tradition is the same is to explain how their own views on many doctrines square with what the Fathers obviously believed and taught.

The claim “I accept Tradition when it agrees with Scripture, but not “man-made” traditions” does not further their argument against “Romanism” for Catholics accept the same thing. Obviously, the disagreement is over what is “true” and what is “man-made” in Catholicism.

I’m not convinced that Irenaeus or Tertullian or any of the ECFs would have said that Scripture and Tradition were identical in content. What I would say is that NO Tradition is contrary to Scripture and vice-versa. I think Irenaeus would be comfortable with that statement.

Actually I am a member of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. My view on baptism should have indicated that I was not Lutheran.

My position is not that the church fathers were proto-Protestants. However, I feel that they show that the teachings distinctive to Protestant churches were viewed as orthodox by the early church. Even if the particular father didn’t hold a particular idea he could still refer to it without condemning it and calling it heresy. In other words, their were fewer beliefs that were required for orthodoxy and more on which differences of opinion were possible. Purgatory can be used as an example. Augustine wrote:

And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it.

(The Enchiridion Chapter 69)
newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm

According to this purgatory could be believed or not. Why has this changed? Does God require us to believe more than the early Christians had to?

Over time the situation changed and more and more positions were defined as required doctrine. Whether such positions are true or not, I do not think it is necessary to believe them if earlier Christians did not have to.

For example, Mary as Mother of God was defined at the Council of Ephesus, although Theotokos would be better translated as God-bearer with which I would have no problem. Augustine, who died the year before the Council, according to Phillip Schaff never once referred to Mary as Mother of God in his writings. In fact Augustine wrote:

He was in an extraordinary manner begotten of the Father without a mother, born of a mother without a father; without a mother He was God, without a father He was man; without a mother before all time, without a father in the end of times…9. Why, then, said the Son to the mother, “Woman, what have I to do with you? mine hour is not yet come?” Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon Him.

(Tractates on John, Number 8, Paragraphs 8-9)
newadvent.org/fathers/1701008.htm

and

But He rather admonishes us to understand that, in respect of His being God, there was no mother for Him, the part of whose personal majesty He was preparing to show forth in the turning of water into wine….Nor, again, should we be moved by the fact that, when the presence of His mother and His brethren was announced to Him, He replied, “Who is my mother, or who my brethren?” etc. But rather let it teach us, that when parents hinder our ministry wherein we minister the word of God to our brethren, they ought not to be recognized by us.

(A Treatise on Faith and the Creed, Chapter 4, Paragraph 9)

He says there is no mother of God. Did the council make Augustine a heretic? Yes, Augustine died before the doctrine was defined but are we to suppose that God requires us to believe more than Augustine did? I cannot accept that.

 

[CWBetts]

A mistake you are making is that we can use the Church Fathers for guidance, they are not infallible. So it is distinctly possible that the fathers could have held different opinions at differnt times. We must look at the Fathers for consencus, and view their wtitings individually.

 

[twb1621]

Actually I am a member of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. My view on baptism should have indicated that I was not Lutheran.

My position is not that the church fathers were proto-Protestants. However, I feel that they show that the teachings distinctive to Protestant churches were viewed as orthodox by the early church. Even if the particular father didn’t hold a particular idea he could still refer to it without condemning it and calling it heresy. In other words, their were fewer beliefs that were required for orthodoxy and more on which differences of opinion were possible. Purgatory can be used as an example. Augustine wrote:

(The Enchiridion Chapter 69)
newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm

According to this purgatory could be believed or not. Why has this changed? Does God require us to believe more than the early Christians had to?

Fundamentally, we must realize that the Church Fathers when referencing the written texts were of course able to speak specifically of them because there was no reason to have to clarify many things as there was as time went on. Speaking of the written text in itself does not negate the need for the teachers nor were the Church Fathers Who in themselves were teachers, saying there was no need to be taught, nor that the gospel in any way contained everything. When the specifics of the necessity of the teachers of the Church, they were much more specific and in the majority with each other. There are many quotes as we have seen from the ECF testifying to the necessity of the Word of God being taught within the Church according to the Church. I could but don’t see the need in posting them again unless you need them.
It is believed that Purgatory is a place OR condition but it is not determinable. We know that nothing impure can enter Heaven and this represents the stage of cleansing before entering heaven if venial sin is present. That hasn’t changed. Purgatory is based in part on the following;
Purification necessary for heaven Heb 12:14; Rev 21:27
An intermediate state of purification Mt 5:26; Lk 12:58-59
Degrees of expiation of sins Lk 12:47-48
*Can be aided by prayer *2Mac 12:45
Salvation; but only as through fire1Cor 3:15
Temporary agony1 Cor 3:15; Mt 5:25-26
Christ preached to spiritual beings1 Pet 3:19
Nothing unclean shall enter heaven Rev 21:27
Sacrifice for the dead2 Mac 12:43-46
A reality beyond the two realms of Heaven and Earth a place between or near
2 Cor 5:10; Rev; 5: 2;3 Rev; 5:23; Phil 2:10; Matt 18: 23-25 Luke 23:42
No forgiveness in this age nor in the age to come. Mt 12:32
“Extra” suffering. Col 1:24; 2 Sam 12:14

Over time the situation changed and more and more positions were defined as required doctrine. Whether such positions are true or not, I do not think it is necessary to believe them if earlier Christians did not have to.

The teachings of Jesus are never changed in themselves. God reveals through the Holy Spirit that which He chooses as time passes. These things serve to offer more clarification in His word but do not and never did change what He gave us in His teachings. The Authority Jesus granted in the power to Loose or bind gives that authority to His true Church. Therefore, what is bound as required is not up for selective obedience but rather required as bound in the authority of the Church of Jesus Christ.

The following I will provide response seperately…

For example, Mary as Mother of God was defined at the Council of Ephesus, although Theotokos would be better translated as God-bearer with which I would have no problem. Augustine, who died the year before the Council, according to Phillip Schaff never once referred to Mary as Mother of God in his writings. In fact Augustine wrote:

(Tractates on John, Number 8, Paragraphs 8-9)
newadvent.org/fathers/1701008.htm

and

(A Treatise on Faith and the Creed, Chapter 4, Paragraph 9)

He says there is no mother of God. Did the council make Augustine a heretic? Yes, Augustine died before the doctrine was defined but are we to suppose that God requires us to believe more than Augustine did? I cannot accept that.

 

[twb1621]

For example, Mary as Mother of God was defined at the Council of Ephesus, although Theotokos would be better translated as God-bearer with which I would have no problem. Augustine, who died the year before the Council, according to Phillip Schaff never once referred to Mary as Mother of God in his writings. In fact Augustine wrote:

(Tractates on John, Number 8, Paragraphs 8-9)
newadvent.org/fathers/1701008.htm

and

(A Treatise on Faith and the Creed, Chapter 4, Paragraph 9)

He says there is no mother of God. Did the council make Augustine a heretic? Yes, Augustine died before the doctrine was defined but are we to suppose that God requires us to believe more than Augustine did? I cannot accept that.

.
The position of the Church Fathers in regard to Mary as the Mother of God;

“After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore a Body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the mother of God (59) in the fulness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His Godhead.”
Alexander of Alexandria,Epistle to Alexander,12(A.D. 324),in NPNF2,III:40

“And the Angel on his appearance, himself confesses that he has been sent by his Lord; as Gabriel confessed in the case of Zacharias, and also in the case of Mary, bearer of God.”
Athanasius,Orations III,14(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:401

“Many, my beloved, are the true testimonies concerning Christ. The Father bears witness from heaven of His Son: the Holy Ghost bears witness, descending bodily in likeness of a dove: the Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing good tidings to Mary: the Virgin Mother of God bears witness: the blessed place of the manger bears witness.”
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,X:19(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:62

“If anyone does not believe that Holy Mary is the Mother of God, he is severed from the Godhead.”
Gregory of Nazianzus,To Cledonius,101(A.D. 382),in NPNF2,VII:439

“Just as, in the age of Mary the mother of God, he who had reigned from Adam to her time found, when he came to her and dashed his forces against the fruit of her virginity as against a rock, that he was shattered to pieces upon her, so in every soul which passes through this life in the flesh under the protection of virginity, the strength of death is in a manner broken and annulled, for he does not find the places upon which he may fix his sting.”
Gregory of Nyssa,On Virginity,14 (A.D. 370),in NPNF2,V:359-360

“He reshaped man to perfection in Himself, from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit.”
Epiphanius,The man well-anchored,75 (A.D. 374),in JUR,II:70

“Let, then, the life of Mary be as it were virginity itself, set forth in a likeness, from which, as from a mirror, the appearance of chastity and the form of virtue is reflected. From this you may take your pattern of life, showing, as an example, the clear rules of virtue: what you have to correct, to effect, and to hold fast. The first thing which kindles ardour in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God?”
Ambrose,Virginity,II:6 (c.A.D. 378),in NPNF2,X:374
resource;
cin.org/users/jgallegos/theotok.htm