Sola Scriptura...

[aidanbradypop]

The writings of the Early Church Fathers prove otherwise.

Ignatius of Antioch

Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be there also. Just as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

The Martyrdom of Polycarp

“The church of God that sojourns at Smyrna, to the church of God sojourning in Philomelium - and to all of the congregations of the holy and Catholic Church in every place.” (The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp)

To speak of a universal church in every place is redundant; therefore, “Catholic Church” in this case is used as a proper noun.

“When at last he had finished his prayer, in which he remembered all who had met with him ant any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 8:1, [A.D. 156]).

“And certainly the most admirable Polycarp was one of these [elect], in whose times among us he showed himself an apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2, [A.D. 156]).

Speaking of the universal church in Smyrna would not make sense; Catholic Church is being used as a proper noun.

“Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, [A.D. 156]).

Universal Church throughout the world is redundant.

Irenaeus

The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

[The Church] is called Catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness” (Catechetical Lectures 18:23, [A.D. 350]).

“And if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is - for the others, sects of impious, attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the Lord’ - nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church, for this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the Mother of us all, which is the Spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.” (Cathechetical Lectures 18:26, [A.D. 350])

Augustine

**"[T]he very name of Catholic . . . belongs to this Church alone . . . so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" **(Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [AD 397]).

“If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, “I do not believe”? Indeed, I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

Yes I have seen these a million times. Thanks for posting again.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Apparently not. What I’ve seen presented even here in the rest of this post is a straw man rhetorical fallacy. You are using an idea of SS that protestants don’t use.

Did the Apostles believe, understand, preach, or practice sola scriptura during their lifetimes?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes I have seen these a million times. Thanks for posting again.

Well, then you are aware of the fact that beginning at Antioch as early as the end of the first century, the believers were referring to themselves as Christians and their church as the “Catholic Church”.

While that term undoubtedly meant “universal”, there is no question that very quickly it became a proper noun.

One Protestant author who is honest about this is the renowned early-Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, who has written,

“As regards Catholic,' its original meaning was universal’ or `general’ … As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).

According to Kelly, within 75 years or so after the death of the Apostle John at the latest, the followers of the Way were calling themselves members of the Catholic Church.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Well, then you are aware of the fact that beginning at Antioch as early as the end of the first century, the believers were referring to themselves as Christians and their church as the “Catholic Church”.

While that term undoubtedly meant “universal”, there is no question that very quickly it became a proper noun.

One Protestant author who is honest about this is the renowned early-Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, who has written,

“As regards Catholic,' its original meaning was universal’ or `general’ … As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).

According to Kelly, within 75 years or so after the death of the Apostle John at the latest, the followers of the Way were calling themselves members of the Catholic Church.

I feel we are getting off topic so for the sack of the thread let’s just move on.

I will gladly talk about this in PM or if you want to start another thread.

 

[Kliska]

Did the Apostles believe, understand, preach, or practice sola scriptura during their lifetimes?

Yes, as SS properly defined. Randy, I appreciate your attempts here, but you consistently misrepresent the belief of SS. You post definitions just fine, but don’t apply the definition consistently to your own comments. For example, preaching an oral version of the gospel message is the point of the early church, no one disputes that in the least. Someone had to go proclaim Christ and Him crucified and risen.

It’s not as though Protestants teach that all the Apostles suffered from mutism. But SS is in no way contrary to an oral gospel message. The fact is they (and Jesus as well) turned to scripture to bolster, teach, and prove truth. SS functions as a check against abuse and false teaching. Why? Because it is harder to change the written teaching when it is there right in front of you with multiple copies circulating through Christendom. Further in this case there is the added benefit of inspiration.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, as SS properly defined. Randy, I appreciate your attempts here, but you consistently misrepresent the belief of SS. You post definitions just fine, but don’t apply the definition consistently to your own comments. For example, preaching an oral version of the gospel message is the point of the early church, no one disputes that in the least. Someone had to go proclaim Christ and Him crucified and risen.

It’s not as though Protestants teach that all the Apostles suffered from mutism. But SS is in no way contrary to an oral gospel message. The fact is they (and Jesus as well) turned to scripture to bolster, teach, and prove truth. SS functions as a check against abuse and false teaching. Why? Because it is harder to change the written teaching when it is there right in front of you with multiple copies circulating through Christendom. Further in this case there is the added benefit of inspiration.

I have started another thread where you may post your favorite definition of sola scriptura.

I will look at it carefully to avoid future misrepresentations.

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, as SS properly defined.

Okay. You say that I have a complete misunderstanding of sola scriptura, and you might be right!

Therefore, would you please describe how Peter or Paul may have practiced sola scriptura during their lifetimes? Give a hypothetical example or two of sola scriptura in action when Paul walked into Corinth or Thessalonica to preach the gospel.

Thanks.

 

[Kliska]

I have started another thread where you may post your favorite definition of sola scriptura.

I will look at it carefully to avoid future misrepresentations.

Thanks.

Randy, as I’ve said, you’ve put up fine examples of what SS means, but it is apparent even in this thread that you aren’t applying it consistently.

Therefore, would you please describe how Peter or Paul may have practiced sola scriptura during their lifetimes? Give a hypothetical example or two of sola scriptura in action when Paul walked into Corinth or Thessalonica to preach the gospel.

Thanks.

I don’t have to, it’s right there in scripture. The Bereans are a fine example. NASB:

*Acts 17 Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women. 5 But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and attacking the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the people. 6 When they did not find them, they began dragging Jason and some brethren before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have upset the world have come here also; 7 and Jason has welcomed them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.” 8 They stirred up the crowd and the city authorities who heard these things. 9 And when they had received a pledge from Jason and the others, they released them.

10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there as well, agitating and stirring up the crowds. 14 Then immediately the brethren sent Paul out to go as far as the sea; and Silas and Timothy remained there. 15 Now those who escorted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they left.*

This is a perfect example of how we believe in SS. Someone tells you something, you search scripture to see if it is true. If they are telling you true it will line up with scripture. For example, if Paul said that Jesus was NOT of the line of David, they would have rightly not believed him. They did not believe Paul just because Paul said to. They eagerly listened, and searched.

 

[pocohombre]

How did Christians practice sola scriptura prior to the writing of the New Testament?

Is the canon finished ? Is revelation (doctrine) finished ? Is there new oral transmission ? Is there new experiences in Christ revealing a new doctrine ? The early church operated on first hand testimony. After them it is strict hearsay… We have 1900 plus years of heresy to sift thru. How do we sift ? What is our sifter ? I humbly submit scripture. I humbly submit the CC tries desperately to do the same. However, it is a bad principle to say the magisterium , even the apostles were above the Lord’s words (oral, -retrieved to memory by the HS, or written, - inspired by HS), even their own writings. Jesus is Logos for a reason, and not Paradosis or Mythos (tradition)…The early church practiced SS, treated OT and their own wrings (as they came (NT) as authoritative. Show me one instance where they contradicted existing scripture…A father that I recall blatantly to do so was unfortunately Augustine on the sinlessness of Mary. He quotes the scriptures that say all men sin, fall short of the Glory , and kind of shrugs his shoulders and says Mary must be the exception cause "others " have said so (my opinion). He was not going to buck hearsay. He still believed that somehow it (IC) is not contradictory to scripture. A quagmire for sure and he went along with “magisterium”.

 

[pocohombre]

As a side note. Family court judges involved in restraining orders are permitting some contact via text messaging , and not oral phone conversation. The reason being obvious.Oral infractions are disputable and hearsay .Texting is "recorded’ and is first hand evidence of any infraction.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes I have seen these a million times. Thanks for posting again.

Then you must understand, my friend, that this name was not made up in/after the 1,500’s. The name was present since the Apostles and the testimony carried since Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch in the 2nd century - crazy early in the 2nd century - John died ~90AD and Ignatius’ letter is ~107AD.

This is the same Catholic Church that started as a mustard seed of Faith and has grown and is still growing.

To claim it is not, you would need to present your case.

Peace, brother.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

As a side note. Family court judges involved in restraining orders are permitting some contact via text messaging , and not oral phone conversation. The reason being obvious.Oral infractions are disputable and hearsay .Texting is "recorded’ and is first hand evidence of any infraction.

This is a very dangerous reasoning and works greatly against you.

Where’s the original manuscripts of Scriptures?

Without the originals all you are left with is the testimony of the Church, which is the only source on earth to validate their contents.

Basic legal principle of evidence. I don’t think you want to go down this road.

Peace,

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I have started another thread where you may post your favorite definition of sola scriptura.

I will look at it carefully to avoid future misrepresentations.

Thanks.

Wait! There is more than one definition!?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t have to, it’s right there in scripture. The Bereans are a fine example.

As I have pointed out previously, the Bereans did not practice sola scriptura.

Berean Rejection of Sola Scriptura
From Steve Ray’s article: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

If one group could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures.** These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah.** This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

+++

Those who followed the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Thessalonians, rejected Paul’s oral preaching and the long awaited Messiah. Those who accepted oral teaching AND scripture, the Bereans, accepted the Gospel and the Messiah.

Additionally, although both groups searched the scriptures, they came to contradictory conclusions about the Messiah. Clearly, scripture alone is insufficient to ensure proper interpretation.

Since you, Kliska, reject Sacred Tradition as being equal to Sacred Scripture, you are not acting as the Bereans did…you are a sola scripturist whereas they were not.

 

[Randy_Carson]

For those interested in a meticulous and definitive refutation of the man-made tradition known as sola scriptura written by a former Protestant, I recommend:

Not By Scripture Alone by Robert Sungenis
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51W44ZY7W2L.SY344_BO1,204,203,200.jpg

You may also enjoy this from a former Protestant:

100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura by Dave Armstrong
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51wYsNOEC7L.SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200.jpg

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is the canon finished ?

No. The canon is not closed.

Is revelation (doctrine) finished ?

Revelation and doctrine are two different things. Public revelation has ceased. Doctrine may continue to develop.

Is there new oral transmission ?

Well, duh. Every generation passes on the faith to the next, so oral transmission of the gospel continues.

Is there new experiences in Christ revealing a new doctrine ?

If I understand you correctly, no.

The early church operated on first hand testimony. After them it is strict hearsay… We have 1900 plus years of heresy to sift thru. How do we sift ? What is our sifter ? I humbly submit scripture.

Scripture alone is itself a new heresy.

I humbly submit the CC tries desperately to do the same. However, it is a bad principle to say the magisterium , even the apostles were above the Lord’s words (oral, -retrieved to memory by the HS, or written, - inspired by HS), even their own writings. Jesus is Logos for a reason, and not Paradosis or Mythos (tradition)…The early church practiced SS, treated OT and their own wrings (as they came (NT) as authoritative. Show me one instance where they contradicted existing scripture…A father that I recall blatantly to do so was unfortunately Augustine on the sinlessness of Mary. He quotes the scriptures that say all men sin, fall short of the Glory , and kind of shrugs his shoulders and says Mary must be the exception cause "others " have said so (my opinion). He was not going to buck hearsay. He still believed that somehow it (IC) is not contradictory to scripture. A quagmire for sure and he went along with “magisterium”.

Prolific as ever. Wrong, but prolific.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

Why do Sola Scriptura advocates celebrate Christmas? Nowhere in the Bible does it say Dec 25th is the day Jesus was born and that we are to put up Christmas trees and give each other presents. That is not being “Bible alone” and it is a tradition that almost all protestants participate in. What if celebrating Christmas IS pagan and displeasing to God? It very well can be, because it is not “Biblical” right? But at the very least, since it is not in The Bible, it makes it a tradition. So how come “Sola Scriptura” advocates can have it both ways in this sense?

 

[aidanbradypop]

Then you must understand, my friend, that this name was not made up in/after the 1,500’s. The name was present since the Apostles and the testimony carried since Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch in the 2nd century - crazy early in the 2nd century - John died ~90AD and Ignatius’ letter is ~107AD.

This is the same Catholic Church that started as a mustard seed of Faith and has grown and is still growing.

To claim it is not, you would need to present your case.

Peace, brother.

I don’t deny the RCC as being part of the OHCAC.

 

[Kliska]

As I have pointed out previously, the Bereans did not practice sola scriptura.

Not as you define it, no. As Protestant define it, yes. I’ve read the article at the link before, I don’t find it compelling. Scripture is very clear on what happened.

Additionally, although both groups searched the scriptures, they came to contradictory conclusions about the Messiah. Clearly, scripture alone is insufficient to ensure proper interpretation.

One group listened to Paul give the gospel AND searched scripture to compare the oral with the written to make sure the oral was true. That is sola scriptura.

Since you, Kliska, reject Sacred Tradition as being equal to Sacred Scripture, you are not acting as the Bereans did…you are a sola scripturist whereas they were not.

I most certainly did not reject the oral rendition of the gospel. I do, however, thoroughly reject man-made traditions that contradict scripture.

Why do Sola Scriptura advocates celebrate Christmas? Nowhere in the Bible does it say Dec 25th is the day Jesus was born and that we are to put up Christmas trees and give each other presents. That is not being “Bible alone” and it is a tradition that almost all protestants participate in. What if celebrating Christmas IS pagan and displeasing to God? It very well can be, because it is not “Biblical” right?

This is another misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura. Regardless, some of us don’t celebrate Christmas. Some of us don’t celebrate “Easter” either. Some of us do. Freedom in Christ lets us make that choice. No one, BTW, really believes Jesus was born on Dec. 25th do they? One reason we don’t know the exact day is… it wasn’t recorded in scripture.

 

[PJM]

aidanbradypop;11499050]Friend I believe this to be an opinion. The ECFs were not “Catholic” in the way we use the word today but rather followers and believers in Christ. I have met a few fundamentalist that Christ was a Baptist. I believe that not to be true of course but I would not say that all the ECFs were “Catholic” but rather “catholic”

I don’t believe this is the ENTIRETY of the truth:

They WERE answerable to ROME! held a common set of Faith beliefs and while some theology descent was BEING DISCUSSED; they remained in ;Full-Communion" until the Schism. [Almost one thousand years]

So the Eastern Patriarchs not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome do not speak authoritatively on matters of faith and morals?

I believe I already explained that

Do they speak “Authoritatively” yes; INFALLIBLY: NO Further what the CC taught still “bound them”; BUT what they taught did not and does not BIND Roman Catholics.

I wouldn’t expect any other answer from a faithful Catholic. You know I will have to disagree that it is a Catholic book but do not disagree with the Bishops coming together to form such a book.

So what am I missing:shrug:

It was the VERY early CC that assembles the books for the OT = [1]

It was THEE CC that authored the entire New Testament= [1] so 1+1 does not equal [2?]

NO OTHER “CHURCH” EXISTED AT THE TIME THE ENTIRE BIBLE WAS ASSEMBLED AND [NT} authored… so then HOW exactly is the bible NOT a Catholic Book:shrug:

Hopefully you really do not believe the bolded part. I believe, IMHO, that there would be a “church” but vastly different than what we see today in any form of Christianity.

Again I NEED HELP understanding here

God can be defined as "ALL GOOD THINGS [and only good things] PERFECTED:thumbsup: Agreed?

Then HOW is it possible that God [or any lesser being] can hold logically not ONLY different views on LONG defined specific isseus and beliefs; BUT CONTRARY ones as well?

This has to be “possible” in you’re stated position

Even secular history supports the Catholic position.

GOD BLESS YOU!
Patrick