The CFs: SS or STC

[Koineman]

Just throwing in one of my favorites:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem insists that we must receive from the Church herself the canon of Scripture (Catech. IV, 33), and he adds that, as many Christians cannot, through the lack of learning or of leisure, study the Scripture and thus appropriate its teaching, the Church has summed up that teaching in the symbol of faith, which must be religiously held and preserved, for she teaches faultlessly the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge. (Catech. V, 12, XVIII, 23)

Can you provide the text of this? Since the point of this thread is to examine what the CFs said, it only makes sense to show what they said.

 

[Goya]

That’s taking us off our course here. This is about examining the CFs, not the Bible.

Not at all; it goes straight to the definition of SS which will be applied, in analayzing the quotes from the ECF’s.

Now:

Fr. of Jazz:

(1) I gather you agree with White’s definition, but just want to keep things simple.

You: Correct.

And, taken with you declining to disown that claim, I can only deduce that you actually believe that 'The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church."

So…the quotes should be analyzed for proof that ECF’s claimed that “…The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church”–among other factors, of course.

Unless you want to reconsider not disowning that claim. You still may.

[note: you do not need to provide biblical authority–that part of my request is withdrawn; I don’t need to see your basis for that–however, it is fair to ask if you believe that claim is true, that it may be analyzed against the ECF quotes].

 

[guanophore]

I read your quote as being an affirmation of authority, according to apostolic succession:

IOW: If scripture doesn’t settle the issue, we must appeal to authority–hence “…from whom, to whom…etc,… the ‘rule of faith’ was [entrusted]/handed dowon to/thorugh.”

Isn’t that an express confession that scripture is not perspicuos??? That an extrinsic authority–based on apsotolic succession ("…from whom, and to whom…")–is needed to settle disputes which are not settled clearly by scripture?

…futher still:

–this is telling the Church, not to admit such controversies in interpretation of scripture publicly–until they have been settled according to the Curch’s authority–i.e.–until they–the Church–has settled on an interpretation.

How pray tell, does one read sola scriptura into that???

Point to STC, IMHO. (albeit admittedly biased opinion…)

By what authority does Paul give this instruction to Titus?

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

Is this not similar to “let no controversy be admitted”?

1 Tim 1:3
I urge you, as I did when I was on my way to Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus so that you may instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine

What is the standard by which “different doctrine” is evaluated?

 

[Koineman]

Not at all; it goes straight to the definition of SS which will be applied, in analayzing the quotes from the ECF’s.

We’re not even using that definition. I gave the other one (from the Cambridge Declaration) as one we should go by. Or are you hung up on White’s definition because you just want to argue? If so, expect me to ignore you. I’m not here to argue. This thread is simply an exploration of what the CFs said about SS and STC, as Fr of Jazz asked for. That being the case, I have every intention of examining what the CFs said about these topics in detail, i.e., not cherry-picking those CF quotes that support my position (hence my recent posting of Tertullian’s text–which I’m not done posting either, by the way).

Objectivity is an essential in this kind of thread.

Also, saying that the Bible itself says it is the sufficient rule of faith is actually more of a defense/proof of SS than its actual definition. White adds things that, although related to SS, are technically not part of its definition.

SS simply says that Scripture is the sole infallible rule for Christian faith and practice. That succinctly states what it says about Scripture as well as about councils, traditions, and anything extrabiblical. That is not a defense of SS but simply a definition of it. The definition does not defend the definition, nor should we expect it to.

 

[Koineman]

We can start with Tertullian. Should we include the first 7 Ecumenical Councils of the undivided church as historic witness for the period as well? There is an interplay between them and the fathers. Athanasius would be one obvious example.

That’s fine by me, as long as, like you said, we stick to one author at a time (unless I misunderstood you).

 

[Goya]

Koineman;10754661]

We’re not even using that definition. I gave the other one (from the Cambridge Declaration) as one we should go by. Or are you hung up on White’s definition because you just want to argue? If so, expect me to ignore you. I’m not here to argue. This thread is simply an exploration of what the CFs said about SS and STC, as Fr of Jazz asked for. That being the case, I have every intention of examining what the CFs said about these topics in detail, i.e., not cherry-picking those CF quotes that support my position (hence my recent posting of Tertullian’s text–which I’m not done posting either, by the way).

Looking for an argument? No. As I suggested in that post to which you replied, I fully expected you to disown it, as part of the definition. The request for biblical authority was rhetorical. The proof is not threre; the Bible makes no such claim. I was giving you an out, in order to dispense with that issue altogether.

…

Also, saying that the Bible itself says it is the sufficient rule of faith is actually more of a defense/proof of SS than its actual definition.*** White adds things that,*** although related to SS, are technically not part of its definition.

Like pretending that “…the Bible clims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith…”.

SS simply says that Scripture is the sole infallible rule for Christian faith and practice. That succinctly states what it says about Scripture as well as about councils, traditions, and anything extrabiblical. That is not a defense of SS but simply a definition of it. The definition does not defend the definition, nor should we expect it to.

Yes–SS ‘says’ this; not the Bible. That was my point.

…and of course we’ll have to wait and see, what the ECF’s say.

But I’ll leave it at that–just to be clear–White’s claim then, is not part of the definition which will be applied. Please correct me if I have misunderstood.

 

[Goya]

By what authority does Paul give this instruction to Titus?

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

Is this not similar to “let no controversy be admitted”?

1 Tim 1:3
I urge you, as I did when I was on my way to Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus so that you may instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine

What is the standard by which “different doctrine” is evaluated?

Do St. Paul’s letters to Titus and Timothy qualify as ECF’s writings? I think they’re excluded–because they’re in the Bible (not for lack of authority, but because the theread is about ECF quotes).

Just say’n…

 

[Koineman]

Originally Posted by Koineman
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.

For the record, I’m going by the Cambridge Declaration definition. But to your question: In another chapter of this work, which someone else quoted earlier and I plan to quote (I’m not done posting the Tertullian chapters), Tertullian pointed out that churches that cannot produce the roll of their bishops going back to the apostles (IOW, churches that can’t show they are the “offspring” of apostolic churches) can nevertheless still be tested by seeing if their teaching conforms to that of the apostles. In that latter test, it is not a successive line of bishops that is required but adherence to apostolic doctrine. Of course, Tertullian says that such apostolic doctrine can be found only in the church, so at this point I’d have to say that this affirms STC. But I’ll keep posting subsequent chapters of this book to follow his train of thought. I’m interested in getting the full context.

 

[Koineman]

Koineman;10754661]But I’ll leave it at that–just to be clear–White’s claim then, is not part of the definition which will be applied. Please correct me if I have misunderstood.

Yes, and I thought I made that clear, not only by saying I didn’t want to use White’s definition at all but also by distinguishing between a definition and a defense.

Now let’s get to examining what the CFs had to say about this issue, starting with Tertullian.

 

[guanophore]

  Tertullian pointed out that churches that cannot produce the roll of their bishops going back to the apostles (IOW, churches that can't show they are the "offspring" of apostolic churches) can nevertheless still be tested by seeing if their teaching conforms to that of the apostles. In that latter test, it is not a successive line of bishops that is required but adherence to apostolic doctrine. Of course, Tertullian says that such apostolic doctrine can be found only in the church, so at this point I'd have to say that this affirms STC. But I'll keep posting subsequent chapters of this book to follow his train of thought. I'm interested in getting the full context.

This is a good point, and one that is frequently used by the Fathers as a rebuttal to heresies. There were also many “holy books” floating around at the time (as many as 400) claiming to be Scripture. Some groups, including the Church, used books during Liturgy that did not end up in the Canon (such as the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas). One of the main reasons the canon had to be identified and closed was to exclude writings that were not produced by the Church, or deemed to have error.

Especially during the period prior to the closing of the canon, Sacred Tradition and the Apostolic Succession were leaned upon heavily to defend the One Faith.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

For the record, I’m going by the Cambridge Declaration definition. But to your question: In another chapter of this work, which someone else quoted earlier and I plan to quote (I’m not done posting the Tertullian chapters), Tertullian pointed out that churches that cannot produce the roll of their bishops going back to the apostles (IOW, churches that can’t show they are the “offspring” of apostolic churches) can nevertheless still be tested by seeing if their teaching conforms to that of the apostles. In that latter test, it is not a successive line of bishops that is required but adherence to apostolic doctrine. Of course, Tertullian says that such apostolic doctrine can be found only in the church, so at this point I’d have to say that this affirms STC. But I’ll keep posting subsequent chapters of this book to follow his train of thought. I’m interested in getting the full context.

Got it! Look forward to continuing. Again, thanks for a quality thread!

 

[Koineman]

Got it! Look forward to continuing. Again, thanks for a quality thread!

No problem. I’ll continue with Tertullian tonight.

 

[Koineman]

=STC. Again.

I thought you were seeking to show us that the ECF’s championed SS?

I don’t think I ever said that. What I did predict, though, was that by the end of this thread, we would end up with CFs supporting both SS and STC.

You may not want to keep too open a mind there–you’re gonna’ wind up Catholic!

Or are you ‘rope a doping’ us, here?

No, I’m just trying to look at it objectively. If a CF supports STC, so be it. I can’t change that, and it would be dishonest to try to.

Besides, we have barely gotten started. This thread could–and likely will–last a very, very long time, given the sheer volume of the CF writings.

 

[Goya]

Just out of curiosity…are y’all going to keep a running tab, or keep score, or the like?

e.g.:

_STC SS

CF’s:---------------------------5---------------------------------------4

Quotes:----------------------19--------------------------------------1

e.g. 2

_STC SS

Tertullian--------------------x-------------------------------------------------
St. Augustine ------------------------------------------------------x
St. Cyril of J’lem-----------x--------------------------------------------------

e.g. 3

_STC SS

Tertullian--------------------5-----------------------------------------3--------
St. Augustine--------------7----------------------------------------12------
St. Cyril of J’lem----------6-----------------------------------------4-------

Or is it just going kinda’ grow organically, like most threads?

 

[Koineman]

Just out of curiosity…are y’all going to keep a running tab, or keep score, or the like?

e.g.:

_STC SS

CF’s: 5 4

Quotes: 19 11

e.g. 2

_STC SS

Tertullian x
St. Augustine x
St. Cyril of J’lem x

e.g. 3

_STC SS

Tertullian 5 3
St. Augustine 7 12
St. Cyril of J’lem 6 4

Or is it just going kinda’ grow organically, like most threads?

I figured someone would bring this up eventually.

I have no intention to.

 

[Goya]

I misread your second post in the thread–I see that all you did was predict that there would be ECF support for both sides–not more for SS.

Very well then…look’n forward to reading the posts, and chiming in from time to time.

 

[Semangelof]

Just wanted to thank the both of you, Fr of Jazz and Koineman (potential others), for doing this. God willing this will be profitable to our faith, without Him it won’t. I thank you both for your time.

I’m excited to see where this goes. Try to keep in mind the fruits of the spirit when talking to each other, keep respect for each other throughout and this could go somewhere. If any of those should fail, so will the the thread.

 

[Koineman]

Fr of Jazz, what do you propose to be the definition for STC?

 

[Koineman]

CHAP. XXI.—ALL DOCTRINE TRUE WHICH COMES THROUGH THE CHURCH FROM THE APOSTLES, WHO WERE TAUGHT BY GOD THROUGH CHRIST. ALL OPINION WHICH HAS NO SUCH DIVINE ORIGIN AND APOSTOLIC TRADITION TO SHOW, IS IPSO FACTO FALSE

From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for “no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach—that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those moulds14 and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false16 which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.

Christ revealed truth only to the apostles, whom He sent. That truth that they preached must be proven by the very churches that those men founded by preaching the gospel to them, first orally and then through their epistles. Therefore, doctrine that agrees with the churches must be true, and any doctrine that is contrary is false. In summary, Tertullian is saying that a doctrine can be true only if it is in agreement with the doctrine taught in the apostolic churches, since those churches have what the apostles received from Christ.

 

[Koineman]

CHAP. XXII.—ATTEMPT TO INVALIDATE THIS RULE OF FAITH REBUTTED. THE APOSTLES SAFE TRANSMITTERS OF THE TRUTH. SUFFICIENTLY TAUGHT AT FIRST, AND FAITHFUL IN THE TRANSMISSION

But inasmuch as the proof is so near at hand, that if it were at once produced there would be nothing left to be dealt with, let us give way for a while to the opposite side, if they think that they can find some means of invalidating this rule, just as if no proof were forthcoming from us. They usually tell us that the apostles did not know all things: (but herein) they are impelled by the same madness, whereby they turn round to the very opposite point,2 and declare that the apostles certainly knew all things, but did not deliver all things to all persons,—in either case exposing Christ to blame for having sent forth apostles who had either too much ignorance, or too little simplicity. What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, “when they were alone, He used to expound” all things4 which were obscure, telling them that “to them it was given to know those mysteries,” which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the church should be built,”6 who also obtained “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” with the power of “loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?”8 Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord’s most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor,10 whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead? Of what could He have meant those to be ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with Moses and Elias, and the Father’s voice moreover, from heaven?12 Not as if He thus disapproved of all the rest, but because “by three witnesses must every word be established.”14 After the same fashion, too, (I suppose,) were they ignorant to whom, after His resurrection also, He vouchsafed, as they were journeying together, “to expound all the Scriptures.”16 No doubt He had once said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear them now;” but even then He added, “When He, the Spirit of truth, shall come, He will lead you into all truth.” He (thus) shows that there was nothing of which they were ignorant, to whom He had promised the future attainment of all truth by help of the Spirit of truth. And assuredly He fulfilled His promise, since it is proved in the Acts of the Apostles that the Holy Ghost did come down. Now they who reject that Scripture19 can neither belong to the Holy Spirit, seeing that they cannot acknowledge that the Holy Ghost has been sent as yet to the disciples, nor can they presume to claim to be a church themselves who positively have no means of proving when, and with what swaddling-clothes21 this body was established. Of so much importance is it to them not to have any proofs for the things which they maintain, lest along with them there be introduced damaging exposures of those things which they mendaciously devise.

Tertullian answers the objections that the apostles were ignorant of all truth and that they did not transmit all they knew to the churches. This is wrong, he says, because it makes Christ out to be incapable of sending forth men who would be capable of transmitting all that truth. They could not have been ignorant because Christ expounded all things to them in private, told them that they had the privilege of knowing mysteries, and promised the Holy Spirit to them, who would lead them into all the truth. Peter and the other apostles were all given the same truths. The Holy Spirit definitely led them into all the truth, since it says in Acts that He came down.