The CFs: SS or STC

[Koineman]

I’m starting this thread because Fr of Jazz wanted to explore what the church fathers (CFs) had to say about SS (sola scriptura) or STC (Scripture-Tradition-Church).

Fr, how would you like to go about doing this? I suggest examining one passage at a time rather than posting extremely long lists of CF quotes. What do you think?

Jeremy

 

[Koineman]

I’d also like to make a prediction here at the very beginning, just for the record: I think that this thread will show that passages from the CFs confirm SS at times and in other places confirm STC.

 

[Tomster]

I’d also like to make a prediction here at the very beginning, just for the record: I think that this thread will show that passages from the CFs confirm SS at times and in other places confirm STC.

I think you are embarking on a fruitless mission. The ECF’s were not infallible. Their writings were subject to the authority of the Petrine ministry and the bishops in communion with him. Hierarchy man, hierarchy.

All of the writings of ECF’s were subject to review.

 

[Koineman]

I think you are embarking on a fruitless mission. The ECF’s were not infallible. Their writings were subject to the authority of the Petrine ministry and the bishops in communion with him. Hierarchy man, hierarchy.

All of the writings of ECF’s were subject to review.

If by “mission” you mean my attempt to explore this with Fr of Jazz, then I would disagree, and I think Fr of Jazz would, too, since this was actually his idea. OTOH, if you’re referring to my prediction–well, that’s not a mission.

 

[Tomster]

If by “mission” you mean my attempt to explore this with Fr of Jazz, then I would disagree, and I think Fr of Jazz would, too, since this was actually his idea. OTOH, if you’re referring to my prediction–well, that’s not a mission.

Good opening statement.

Will you be exploring both the Latin Fathers and the Greek Fathers? Will you also be exploring the Fathers of your church whomever they may be? Who are they anyway?

 

[Koineman]

Good opening statement.

Will you be exploring both the Latin Fathers and the Greek Fathers? Will you also be exploring the Fathers of your church whomever they may be? Who are they anyway?

I haven’t heard yet from Fr of Jazz how he wants to do this. My thought at this point is to use the Catholic edition of Logos, which has an enormous collection of writings of the church fathers, so whatever writings I find there will most likely comprise the majority of what I look at.

 

[Tomster]

I haven’t heard yet from Fr of Jazz how he wants to do this. My thought at this point is to use the Catholic edition of Logos, which has an enormous collection of writings of the church fathers, so whatever writings I find there will most likely comprise the majority of what I look at.

And what of my 2nd and 3rd questions?

 

[Koineman]

And what of my 2nd and 3rd questions?

I don’t think Fr of Jazz had in mind that we should discuss writings of John Calvin and other Protestant theologians, so the question of whether we should consult any of “my church’s fathers” never entered my mind.

 

[Tomster]

I don’t think Fr of Jazz had in mind that we should discuss writings of John Calvin and other Protestant theologians, so the question of whether we should consult any of “my church’s fathers” never entered my mind.

O.K.

But who are they anyway?

 

[Goya]

Chalk one up for Sacred Tradition (& Sacred Scripture)/STC:

*“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.”

Tertullian,On Prescription against the Heretics,32 (c.A.D. 200),in ANF,III:258*

(not meaning to intrude…just chiming in–volunteering a quote–figured if you wanted it to be private between you and Fr/jazz, you’d PM him, rather than opening up a MB thread).

 

[Koineman]

(not meaning to intrude…just chiming in–volunteering a quote–figured if you wanted it to be private between you and Fr/jazz, you’d PM him, rather than opening up a MB thread).

This is not private, so anyone should feel free to contribute CF quotes. You beat me to it. I was planning to post something from the very same work by Tertullian later tonight. I’ll probably post more of what he said, though, but yours is a start.

 

[pablope]

I’m starting this thread because Fr of Jazz wanted to explore what the church fathers (CFs) had to say about SS (sola scriptura) or STC (Scripture-Tradition-Church).

Fr, how would you like to go about doing this? I suggest examining one passage at a time rather than posting extremely long lists of CF quotes. What do you think?

Jeremy

How about choosing the most authoritative source you could find from the ECFs?

And what time period? Early, post AD400?

 

[Koineman]

How about choosing the most authoritative source you could find from the ECFs?

And what time period? Early, post AD400?

I am planning to use Ante-Nicene, and Post-Nicene Fathers, but more likely I’ll stick more to the first two.

 

[Goya]

This is not private, so anyone should feel free to contribute CF quotes. You beat me to it. I was planning to post something from the very same work by Tertullian later tonight. I’ll probably post more of what he said, though, but yours is a start.

Couldn’t resist. That one is one of my favorites, and most used.

“…let them unfold the rolls of their bishops…”

Not very ‘sola scriptura.’

 

[Koineman]

I am planning to use Ante-Nicene, and Post-Nicene Fathers, but more likely I’ll stick more to the first two.

Oops. I meant to say, “I am planning to use Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, but more likely I’ll stick more to the first two.”

 

[thenobes]

Oops. I meant to say, “I am planning to use Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, but more likely I’ll stick more to the first two.”

Here’s a favorite of mine from Irenaeus of Lyons which is commonly misinterpreted by Sola Scripturists:

“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.”
Vol. 1, Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” 3.1.1

This passage, considered as follows, is perfectly in synch with what the Catholic Church believes:

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.

In other words it is the Gospel which is to be the pillar and ground of our faith, The fact that we later received this Gospel in written form, as was said above, is no reason to discount the former oral version of this gospel…

Also, this construction,“to be pillar and foundation of our faith”, is not an infinitive in Latin, but rather a future participle of being which agrees with the word “Gospel” in gender, declension and number; it is definitely not an infinitive of purpose attached to “handed done to us in scriptures [writings]”

Iraneus follows with drawing out the nature of the scriptures and why they should be believed, but afterwards says that even if one suspects they are being interpreted wrong, one has the Tradition of the Apostles to support the Church’s interpretations.

peace
steve

 

[Koineman]

Here is the first of more chapters from Tertullian’s “The Prescription Against Heretics,” from which Goya quoted earlier. The ones I am going to quote precede the chapter he quoted.

CHAP. XVIII.—GREAT EVIL ENSUES TO THE WEAK IN FAITH, FROM ANY DISCUSSION OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES. CONVICTION NEVER COMES TO THE HERETIC FROM SUCH A PROCESS

But with respect to the man for whose sake you enter on the discussion of the Scriptures, with the view of strengthening him when afflicted with doubts, (let me ask) will it be to the truth, or rather to heretical opinions that he will lean? Influenced by the very fact that he sees you have made no progress, whilst the other side is on an equal footing15 (with yourself) in denying and in defence, or at any rate on a like standing he will go away confirmed in his uncertainty17 by the discussion, not knowing which side to adjudge heretical. For, no doubt, they too are able to retort these things on us. It is indeed a necessary consequence that they should go so far as to say that adulterations of the Scriptures, and false expositions thereof, are rather introduced by ourselves, inasmuch as they, no less than we19 maintain that truth is on their side.

Tertullian. (1885). The Prescription against Heretics P. Holmes, Trans.). In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume III: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (251). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

He says here that we should not use the Scriptures when trying to persuade someone of apostolic teaching against heresies. His reason? Both the heretics and you will fire back and forth at each other with equal force, leaving the weak individual still uncertain about who is right.

 

[Koineman]

CHAP. XIX. APPEAL, IN DISCUSSION OF HERESY, LIES NOT TO THE SCRIPTURES. THE SCRIPTURES BELONG ONLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE THE RULE OF FAITH

Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough.21 But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: “With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong.23 From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?” For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions.

My reading: Do not appeal to Scriptures, nor debate, when victory is uncertain. But even if victory is certain, the most important question is: Who has, and has handed down, the Christian faith? The true Christian faith exists wherever the Scriptures are truthfully taught and all the Christian traditions are held.

A person who holds to SS could definitely affirm this.

 

[Koineman]

CHAP. XX.—CHRIST FIRST DELIVERED THE FAITH. THE APOSTLES SPREAD IT; THEY FOUNDED CHURCHES AS THE DEPOSITORIES THEREOF. THAT FAITH, THEREFORE, IS APOSTOLIC, WHICH DESCENDED FROM THE APOSTLES, THROUGH APOSTOLIC CHURCHES

Christ Jesus our Lord (may He bear with me a moment in thus expressing myself!), whosoever He is, of what God soever He is the Son, of what substance soever He is man and God, of what faith soever He is the teacher, of what reward soever He is the Promiser, did, whilst He lived on earth, Himself declare what He was, what He had been, what the Father’s will was which He was administering, what the duty of man was which He was prescribing; (and this declaration He made,) either openly to the people, or privately to His disciples, of whom He had chosen the twelve chief ones to be at His side, and whom He destined to be the teachers of the nations. Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to “go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.” Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as “the sent.” Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judæa, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith,4 and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing6 must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion,8 and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality,—privileges10 which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.

Only those churches that are the “offspring” of churches founded by the apostles, who were sent by Christ, can be considered apostolic. Even though there are many churches, they are all one apostolic church because they all spring from the same apostolic source.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I’m starting this thread because Fr of Jazz wanted to explore what the church fathers (CFs) had to say about SS (sola scriptura) or STC (Scripture-Tradition-Church).

Fr, how would you like to go about doing this? I suggest examining one passage at a time rather than posting extremely long lists of CF quotes. What do you think?

Jeremy

Thanks for the effort to start this discussion.

I’d suggest as an alternative that we might consider the teaching of a particular author at a time. This is because if we want to get an idea of his thought we need to check across works to see the whole of his position. Certainly within that we can analyze individual passages that we think to be particularly illustrative.

What do you think?