The Early Christians could not have believed in the Bible Alone

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lampo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ken_Temple said:
Irenaeus wrote, "since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel. . . " Against Heresies, 3:5:1

The traditon or rule of faith, was nothing more than a Scriptural doctrinal statement. All doctrines in the rule of faith are in the Bible. The Roman Catholic church had no right to add to them the other doctrines.

so the early Chrisitans DID beleive in a kind of “Sola Scriptura”, according to what they had at the time, and taken in historical context; although not fully articulated or understood completely the way Luther and Calvin and other Protestants since then have formulated it.🙂
Click to expand...
Dude, your logic is impossible. For Irenaeus to say there is proof in Scripture for the Sacred Tradition left to the Church is by no means suggesting we abandon Sacred Tradition for just the bit of proof that was provided in written form.
 
Fidelis said:
It is worth noting that, while there is no scriptural prescription for the establishment of Sola Scriptura as the norm for Christians, there is plenty for the establishment of an authoritive Church – one that can and did establish the canon. If this authority can establish the canon, it follows that it is the only authority that can definitively interpret it.
Click to expand...
This is a lofty sounding statement which I am sure Catholics will heartily approve of, but that does not indicate how correct your sentiment is here.

Catholics continue to banter about with the same old smokescreen; creating a strawman dilema with the word of God. Protestants have always taught that God’s Word comes to us in forms other than written; but we do reject the catholic version of so called “Tradition.” Tradition is simply not the same as the word of God; atleast not the Catholic version of it; however, the Bible version of tradition is in written form, in the Bible.

People on this forum have conceded to me that there are things in Catholic Tradition which simply are not in the Bible.

And by the way; to be counted as true Tradition; the requirement of it being spoken verbally is very often not what it is talking about at all. I think many Catholics misunderstand true Biblical tradition; and mistake their own brand for the Biblical one.
 
Protestant101 said:
This is a lofty sounding statement which I am sure Catholics will heartily approve of, but that does not indicate how correct your sentiment is here.

Catholics continue to banter about with the same old smokescreen; creating a strawman dilema with the word of God. Protestants have always taught that God’s Word comes to us in forms other than written; but we do reject the catholic version of so called “Tradition.” Tradition is simply not the same as the word of God; atleast not the Catholic version of it; however, the Bible version of tradition is in written form, in the Bible.

People on this forum have conceded to me that there are things in Catholic Tradition which simply are not in the Bible.

And by the way; to be counted as true Tradition; the requirement of it being spoken verbally is very often not what it is talking about at all. I think many Catholics misunderstand true Biblical tradition; and mistake their own brand for the Biblical one.
Click to expand...
Catholic Tradition are implied in Scripture much like the Trinity which is completely absent in the Bible.

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are simply the Word of God. We also call it the Living Tradition, for it is the Holy Spirit who keep our Tradition alive. It’s been transmitted to us through the ages. As far as I’m concern, Bible Alone is a foreign theology not taught by the ECF…
 
Edwin,
I have enjoyed your posts. They are easy to read and polite. Thank you for discussing.

As a Catholic living in Alabama, I think that we make too much of the whole “sola scriptura” issue anyway. From my experiance, it is only mentioned by protestants when looking at a Catholic teaching. To try to refute it is, to many protestants, pointless as it is not really something they concern themselves with.

What we all agree on:
  1. All of the Books of the N.T. were written before the death of the last living apostle
  2. All of the N.T. books were written by an apostle or by a first generation follower of one under the guide of the Holy SPirit.
  3. At some point, all of the books were organized into what we call the Bible today.
Some issues:
  1. Is the collection of Books that makes the N.T. perfectly assembled under the Holy Spirit, or were some added that should not have been or left out when they should have made the cut.
  2. Who has the right to pronounce final approval on meanings within these Books.
  3. Is all we need the Bible or is there more to it than that.
If the answer to the first issue is that there are mistakes in the cannon, then we are in big trouble. What was left out? What is not supposed to be there? Where does that leave Christianity? Either what we have is perfectly correct or we do not have the faith as the Holy Spirit intended.

The other two are more related to Catholic vs. Protestant understanding of things.
 
He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).
 
For those who adhere to “sola scriptura”, please show me where it is bible based.
Deacon Ed B
 
You are basically correct. SOLA SCRIPTURA which is a Protestant principle is in fact unbiblical. The Scriptures is divided into two big components: the OT and the NT. During the time of Jesus and the apostles, the Scriptures they knew is what we term now as Old Testament, The New Testament is a product of the early Christian community and a synthesis of their belief in Jesus. The first NT writing is actually 1 Thess written around 52AD. That is about more than 20 years after the death of Jesus. The latest book will be the Book of Revelation written around 90-100Ad
 
Of course it’s irrelevant, because the point of Sola Scriptura is not “nothing is divinely revealed unless it is written down.” The point of Sola Scriptura is “nothing can be added to the original divine revelation, and that revelation was eventually written down and recognized by the Church in the form of the New Testament.”

The two sentences above seem to contradict one another.

On a different note, I think the second sentence is really referring to the idea of sufficiency of scripture, not sola scriptura. “Sufficiency of scripture” and “sola scriptura” are actually different concepts.
Because scriptura is never sola, scripture is never alone, It is always scripture plus something else. Always. Written words themselves do not mean anything by themselves. They require someone to read them and say what they mean. Therefore, it is scripture plus the interpreter. Some may say the Holy Spirit guides them while reading scripture; in that case it is scripture plus the Holy Spirit.
In addition, we don’t have the original manuscripts of scripture, but copies of copies. So it is scripture plus the copiers. The original manuscripts were written in languages we do not speak–so it is scripture plus its translators.
We are all taught to take the context of biblical verses in context. The surrounding verses are important in understanding any individual verse. The same is true of scripture itself. Scripture has a context. The bible exists within a context. And just when a verse is taken out of context, it can be misunderstood, so the same with the bible when it is taken out of its context–it can be misunderstood. Scripture plus its context, never scripture alone.
 
mackbrislawn said:
Of course it’s irrelevant, because the point of Sola Scriptura is not “nothing is divinely revealed unless it is written down.” The point of Sola Scriptura is “nothing can be added to the original divine revelation, and that revelation was eventually written down and recognized by the Church in the form of the New Testament.”

The two sentences above seem to contradict one another.

On a different note, I think the second sentence is really referring to the idea of sufficiency of scripture, not sola scriptura. “Sufficiency of scripture” and “sola scriptura” are actually different concepts.
Because scriptura is never sola, scripture is never alone, It is always scripture plus something else. Always. Written words themselves do not mean anything by themselves. They require someone to read them and say what they mean. Therefore, it is scripture plus the interpreter. Some may say the Holy Spirit guides them while reading scripture; in that case it is scripture plus the Holy Spirit.
In addition, we don’t have the original manuscripts of scripture, but copies of copies. So it is scripture plus the copiers. The original manuscripts were written in languages we do not speak–so it is scripture plus its translators.
We are all taught to take the context of biblical verses in context. The surrounding verses are important in understanding any individual verse. The same is true of scripture itself. Scripture has a context. The bible exists within a context. And just when a verse is taken out of context, it can be misunderstood, so the same with the bible when it is taken out of its context–it can be misunderstood. Scripture plus its context, never scripture alone.
Click to expand...
You leave out an important element of our Catholic faith. We, as Catholics, believe there are two sources of revelation. They are Sacred Scripture and Tradition (note capitol T) Tradition is the passing on orally of that which is an element of our true faith. To deny Tradition is to deny Sacred Scripture because all that is in Sacred Scripture was handed down through oral Tradition prior to being reduced to writing.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
You leave out an important element of our Catholic faith. We, as Catholics, believe there are two sources of revelation. They are Sacred Scripture and Tradition (note capitol T) Tradition is the passing on orally of that which is an element of our true faith. To deny Tradition is to deny Sacred Scripture because all that is in Sacred Scripture was handed down through oral Tradition prior to being reduced to writing.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
Ed, thanks for the quick response!

In my post I was purposely being very general, not specific.

I wasn’t specirfic as to what the proper context of scripture is–but the context is the Church, of course, the household of faith. Therefore, scripture can only be understood within the Church, the Church and the Traditions to which it holds.
Afterall, who produced scripture? Scripture came from within the people of God, the congregation, for them and to them. The congregation preceded scripture, not the other way around. Scripture belongs to the congregation, collectively. Hence, it makes sense that scripture can only be understood within that congregation, and its traditions.

(It should be noted that even though scripture was written to the congregation, the message within it is for everybody.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top