SS and the Early Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter LaSalle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LaSalle

Guest
Has anybody come up with a refutation of this yet?

http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Webster.html

Among some of the assertions –

-ECF support SS

-From Francis de Sales to the writings of Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis there is a very conspicuous absence of documentation of the specific doctrines to which the Apostle Paul is referring in 2 Thess 2:15

Does anybody have any links?
 
If Sola Scriptura were a legitimate hypothesis, Jesus would have written the Scriptures himself or would have written them through the 12 Apostles and sent them about copying and distributing the Scriptures. Yet, the Apostles and disciples went about “preaching” and doing “mighty deeds.” The early Church was born through its strong oral tradition as passed on from one believer to another. If Sola Scriptura were a legitimate theory, there would be NO salvation for those between Jesus and the time that the Scriptures were used in the spread of the good news. And, well, that’s just nonsense. The undeniable fact of the matter is that the Scriptures exist as the “Bible” because the Church brought them together.
 
Perhaps I am OVERLY over simplifying things, but, HOW could the Early Church be for SS if the current Bible the Catholics use wasn’t settled till almost the year 400?..and the Protestant Bible just deleted books from that? I saw that this site uses Sts. Irenaus & Tertullian for SS. :rolleye: “The word ‘tradition’ simply means teaching” THIS is not true. This is a translation Protestants use so they don’t have to acknowledge tradition. He says that they use Scripture for their Tradition. This is true. So does the Catholic Church.

On the flip side:
catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

Also: catholic-convert.com/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-49f5-b282-c6475cdb7ee7/Documents/QuestionsForBibleChristians.doc
 
Tradition is not independent of Scripture as the link claims. In fact, they are intimately intertwined. It was through Tradition that the specific books of Scriptures were judged to be inspired. It’s Tradition that confirms that Jesus was speaking literally in John 6. It’s Tradition that clears up seeming inconsistencies like Baptising “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” and Baptising in the “name of Jesus Christ.” It’s Tradition that reminds us that baptising infants is efficacious. It’s Tradition that gives us our whole correct interpretation of Scripture and fills in the gaps caused by the silence of Scripture on various issues. What does it mean when Scriptures are silent on something? Our interpretation of Scripture must jive with what was preached orally by the Apostles.

Don’t let Protestants fool you. They claim Sola Scriptura, but they also have their traditions they appeal to. One is Sola Scriptura itself. It’s this tradition that tells them the Bible is the sole rule of Faith. It’s their tradition that tells them that divorce is ok. It’s their tradition that says they can have female clergy. It’s their tradition that say one must “accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.” it’s their tradition that tells them to think they have assurance of Salvation. It’s their tradition that says they need not confess their sins to a priest. It’s their tradition to cast aside Baptism as a worthless ritual. There interpretation of the Bible is all based on various traditions (Obviously not all these traditions apply to all Protestants)
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Tradition is not independent of Scripture as the link claims. In fact, they are intimately intertwined. It was through Tradition that the specific books of Scriptures were judged to be inspired. It’s Tradition that confirms that Jesus was speaking literally in John 6. It’s Tradition that clears up seeming inconsistencies like Baptising “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” and Baptising in the “name of Jesus Christ.” It’s Tradition that reminds us that baptising infants is efficacious. It’s Tradition that gives us our whole correct interpretation of Scripture and fills in the gaps caused by the silence of Scripture on various issues. What does it mean when Scriptures are silent on something? Our interpretation of Scripture must jive with what was preached orally by the Apostles.

Don’t let Protestants fool you. They claim Sola Scriptura, but they also have their traditions they appeal to. One is Sola Scriptura itself. It’s this tradition that tells them the Bible is the sole rule of Faith. It’s their tradition that tells them that divorce is ok. It’s their tradition that says they can have female clergy. It’s their tradition that say one must “accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.” it’s their tradition that tells them to think they have assurance of Salvation. It’s their tradition that says they need not confess their sins to a priest. It’s their tradition to cast aside Baptism as a worthless ritual. There interpretation of the Bible is all based on various traditions (Obviously not all these traditions apply to all Protestants)
Click to expand...
that is extremely well put. I have to give you some kudos for explaining this in a way in which I had not yet heard it explained. Well done! 👍
 
Thanks everyone for your (name removed by moderator)uts.

If you’ve been doing this for a while, you will realise that re-stating our position repeatedly cuts no ice with them.

We need to address their specific assertions with specific corrections to their misunderstanding. So if they incorrectly claim that an ECF believes X, we need to show specifically that he doesn’t.

I’ll check out those links to see if it can be helpful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top