The Early Christians were Sola Scriptura

[elvisman]

Elvis,

I will repeat my thoughts for you.
Many initial congregations must have relied on maybe just one gospel. They may have had ‘scripture’ or may have shared it through oral tradition.
Their limited exposure to the gospel would be unacceptable by today’s standards. And at this time they were considered a Jewsih sect instead of a brand new religion.

Since all the people had was Jewish tradition and their limited exposure to the Gospel, by today’s definition they would have a sola scripture on the new Gospels (including oral in the definition)

This is more of a fact than a justification for ‘only scripture’ . I believe interpretation by experts uplifts all christians in their knowledge of Christ.

Huh??
You’re completely ignoring all of the gentile Christians.

You use phrases like, "must have relied on maybe just one Gospel."
What does that mean?? This is all based on your opinion - not historical fact.

The following statement you made is complete confusion:
"Since all the people had was Jewish tradition and their limited exposure to the Gospel, by today’s definition they would have a sola scripture on the new Gospels (including oral in the definition)"

---

It appears to be a contradictory statement, in that you are saying (I think) that the Early Church was Sola Scriptura based on written and oral Tradition.
That makes no sense , whatsoever.

 

[elvisman]

Elvis, An insult was the only thing introuced in your post.
why must you resort to insults as your primary debate tactic?

There’s no insult here, friend. Just an observation based on what you and Publisher have stated.

We are to judge people’s fruits, so that we can discern if what they are saying is true. And, so far . . . it ain’t.

 

[elvisman]

I believe that God entered our world in the person of Jesus of Nazareth…“though he existed in the form of God, he did not see equality with God a thing to be grasped, but he emptied himself, and became a servant”…“In the beginning was the Word…and the Word was God.”…“In him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily”.

Do my statements “explain” anything?

**Do you believe that he raised from the dead?
If so - you and Crossan and some of your other “friends” are in direct conflict.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I believe that God entered our world in the person of Jesus of Nazareth…“though he existed in the form of God, he did not see equality with God a thing to be grasped, but he emptied himself, and became a servant”…“In the beginning was the Word…and the Word was God.”…“In him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily”.

Do my statements “explain” anything?

Then why do you accept John, Hebrews, and Galatians, which you cite, as authoritative?

 

[steve_b]

Hello Everyone,
For those of you trying to explain Church tradition and the problems with Sola Scriptura to Protestant friends, I thought I’d offer this information. I’m a Protestant who has only recently started studying the teachings of the Catholic church, so I understand this issue. In order to help your Protestant friends understand Church tradition, you really have to try to put yourself in the position of not only never having been properly taught about the history of the Catholic church, but also probably having a lot of misconceptions about it. You have to start at the beginning and explain (not argue!) about the early Church. I only started understanding Church tradition and history when I read about the early Church fathers and early church teachings. When Protestants hear the words “tradition”, they usually think of non-doctrine matters. They don’t equate “tradition” with oral teaching, nor do they make the connection that oral teaching is what Jesus did. At least, I never made these connections. So, you have to explain this matter-of-factly (not by arguing with them). Just offer to explain what the Catholic church teaches rather than try to “convince” them of something. If you provide the information they are missing, you can leave it to the Holy Spirit to convict them. I hope this information is helpful.

:tiphat: Hi Vicki

That’s good advice. Welcome to the CAF. Just curious, which ECF’s have you read so far?

 

[Patrick_Finley]

I make the arguement that in the true sense of the word, we Catholics are Sola Scriptura,… and unfortunately everyone else gets it wrong (sorry and here is why).

Unless you really are reading the scripture in a biased way , the Mass, is completely found in scripture

Transubstantian - Is found in scripture, not the word, but the concept “Take, eat, this IS my Body” not 'Take and eat this symbol" - NO we arent cannibals - God said what It was in scripture, there fore it is true

Apostolic Tradition - Is in Scripture - 1st Timothy talks about Deacons and Over Seers - Ephesians I believe lays out VERY specific guidlines for qualifications to be a Priest (which, do not include women unfortunately…)

Papal Authority IS IN SCRIPTURE - "You are Peter (which means rock) and on this Rock (who do you think he is talking about…Dont say Jesus…He is talking about Peter…the Rock) I will build my Church , what you bind on earth " etc

The problem with scripture is - You NEED authority to interpret it - When you dont have that authority, you are free to pretty much do or think whatever you can come up with

I make no quarrell with my Protestant Brothers in Christ, or the Mormons - BUt you have to look at HIstory - How many Churchs were there, until the reformation …and how many are there now? What did the reformation introduce - Lack of Temporal authority - We clearly are instructed by Paul to listen to our elders, etc -

We HAVE to read scripture with an open mind, and take it as its given to us, and not simply change our interpretation because it works better with our human understanding - I think God expects more out of us then that

 

[Publisher]

**Do you believe that he *raised ***from the dead?
If so - you and Crossan and some of your other “friends” are in direct conflict.

Friend,

Whatever his religious beliefs are are subjective and based on faith…some of his conclusions on history are more research and fact based…one need not hold to his theological perspective to appreciate his scholarly work in early Christian origins and history.

 

[Publisher]

Then why do you accept John, Hebrews, and Galatians, which you cite, as authoritative?

I accept them as vehicles of the Light…not the Light Himself. They are a human expressions of the Mystery of the Incarnation…they point to the Source…but are not the Source Himself. ****

 

[PJM]

=IHeartAquinas;7077809]This line has been fed to me time and time again by people who claim that Sola Scriptura is “easily defended” by the Bible. Of course, the people that most often throw this at me have since learned that their favorite proof text from 2 Timothy doesn’t work because I easily refute it every time, so now they are saying that the early church prior to the fourth century was sola scriptura because they didn’t have a history of tradition to fall back on.

Protestants who assert this: please back this up. I am at a loss for this, because it defies logic to me. The earliest converts were Jews who had six thousand years of ritualized tradition and priestly law, etc. The converted Romans also had a history of traditional and standardized methods of worship. The Bible as we have it today didn’t even exist until the fourth century anyway, so how could the early Christians have been adherents to a doctrine that required the codification of the Bible prior to the codification of the Bible?

Interestering?

Then why does the OT lead to the NT?

Why does the NT fulfill and perfect the OT.

OH !, and what about Noah, Abraham, Moses, David.

How about the Seven sacraments having there origins in the OT?

 

[thevoiceofone]

Ahhh…I am offering opinions I hold in relation to the topic…I do not demand nor do I need for anyone to agree with me…I respect your beliefs…if you have no desire to further study the subject from the “other side”…which I find much more credible than the “conservative side”…and more specifically the mythology developed over centuries finally coming to a head with the establishment of the Catholic/Orthodox churches sometime in the 2nd century through the writings and teaching of the ECF’s…that’s ok with me…I do not believe the ECF “mythology” of “apostlic succession”…they were no more taught by the apostles than was Buddah.

The ECF’s were much better organized and more in touch with those congregations who embraced their teachings than were the “heretics”…most of the “heretics” had little use for a “magisterium” or “teaching authority”…some of the “heretics” claimed to have been taught directly by the apostles too…but such a claim is denied by the “orthodox/catholic” groups…one group of Christians making claims over another group of Christians does not proove the victors in the struggle for the dominance of Christian thought were correct and their opponents wrong…it simply means the victors of this struggle employed tactics and made alliances that these other groups refused to do.

The ECF’s and their “competitors” were all seeking to gain dominance and establish their version of the Christian myth. The scholars I referenced are not seeking to establish a “faith tradition” nor are they seeking to “confirm” another’s faith…they are seeking to outline historical development of Christianity…not a “faith story”. To me that is the difference.

Blow me down! This is one of the wackiest, historically inaccurate attacks on the authority of the Catholic Church that I have *ever *heard. Really.

Cat Herder (I love you, man!) pointed out that you do seem to have *some *faith in the New Testament on account of you quoting from it, and since you weren’t around two thousand years ago as an eye witness, you must have drawn at least the basics of your faith from the Bible. So, why would you ignore the fact that Christ’s Church was to stand until the end of days? Why would He leave His flock without a good shepherd?

If you have studied the history of the Church (assuming you’ve been exposed to some *accurate *versions of the story), why do you think the Catholic Church won out because it was like the biggest kid on the schoolyard? The Church has never been out to win any popularity contests, by any means. Jesus founded his Church on the rock that was Peter. The Apostolic Tradition has stood the test of time. The Church has seen some dark days, indeed, but her teaching has never changed, and her authority stands as true today as the day it was given to her.

Even if you choose to follow the Protestant tradition, you really need to put some of these crazy ideas to rest. I think you’ve read some really bad books, and, unfortunately, you seem to have lost touch with real history because of them. If you will not embrace the teaching and authority of the Catholic Church, at least embrace a more or less sound theology from your Protestant brothers. I think very few Christians would agree with a lot of the things you have said here, and if you think you are among some precious few “enlightened” beings in this world to have discovered the secret truth (the truth would never be a secret, by the way) of the world, think again.

 

[Publisher]

Very few “conservative” believers…if any would even consider these beliefs I hold…but the “liberal” Christian community…for the most part embraces part or all of the propsitions Crosson, Borg, Spong, Pagels, Mack, Erhman and O’Grady put forth to the orgins of early Christianity.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Publisher,

My problem with this statement here is, do you ever hear the Scriptures, the Epistles, Gospels, being just “vehicles of light?” Don’t you believe these to be divinely-inspired? And also until Quakerism/Society of Friends came onto the scene in recent centuries, for the better part of 1,600 years or so, do you ever see anything that even slightly resembles this mode of thinking? The very Scriptures you’re using and meditating upon were divinely (name removed by moderator)sired by Christ to their writers and edited by the Catholic Church into the Bible we have today.

I accept them as vehicles of the Light…not the Light Himself. They are a human expressions of the Mystery of the Incarnation…they point to the Source…but are not the Source Himself. ****

 

[Todd520]

If you have studied the history of the Church (assuming you’ve been exposed to some *accurate *versions of the story), why do you think the Catholic Church won out because it was like the biggest kid on the schoolyard?

One could argue becoming the official religion of the Roman empire definitely gave the RCC a huge advantage to grow.
I do think this quickly made Roman Catholics the ‘biggest kid on the schoolyard’

 

[Patrick_Finley]

Publisher - 2 things

1 - Go read 1 timothy RIGHT NOW lol

2 - If they werent taught by the apostles…someone taught them, because there was no canonized bible officially till 325 I believe

3 - See one and two

Your “Vehicles of Light”, and “Source” smell of Gnosticism as well, just stating an opinion on that point

 

[Patrick_Finley]

Also , John 1 " In the Beggining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

 

[Publisher]

Hi Publisher,

My problem with this statement here is, do you ever hear the Scriptures, the Epistles, Gospels, being just “vehicles of light?” Don’t you believe these to be divinely-inspired? And also until Quakerism/Society of Friends came onto the scene in recent centuries, for the better part of 1,600 years or so, do you ever see anything that even slightly resembles this mode of thinking? The very Scriptures you’re using and meditating upon were divinely (name removed by moderator)sired by Christ to their writers and edited by the Catholic Church into the Bible we have today.

I believe they are inspired…but not the only sources of inspiration.

That the Catholic/Orthodox church compiled those writings which we call scripture is not difficult to understand…but I do not believe they are infallible, without error, perfect guide into truth…Friends are not “sola scriptura”…some quotes from Friends concerning some of our beliefs.

"We live in that virtue and power of which the apostles and prophets lived…

"The end of words (even of Christ’s own directions in the days of His flesh) is to turn men to the holy life and power from whence the words came…

Thee will say, Christ saith this, and the apostles say this; but what canst thou say? Art thou a child of Light and hast walked in the Light, and what thou speakest is it inwardly from God?"

My belief concerning scripture does not reflect yours…but you and I share that same Light and each of us seeks to obey the Light within our own understanding and God given intellect and mind…That Holy Mystery that is God is beyond our thoughts…we see through a glass darkly right now…we won’t “know”, until we’re “face to face”.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Does it at all concern you that for the first 1,600 years plus no Christian anywhere believed in these things?

I believe they are inspired…but not the only sources of inspiration.

That the Catholic/Orthodox church compiled those writings which we call scripture is not difficult to understand…but I do not believe they are infallible, without error, perfect guide into truth…Friends are not “sola scriptura”…some quotes from Friends concerning some of our beliefs.

"We live in that virtue and power of which the apostles and prophets lived…

"The end of words (even of Christ’s own directions in the days of His flesh) is to turn men to the holy life and power from whence the words came…

Thee will say, Christ saith this, and the apostles say this; but what canst thou say? Art thou a child of Light and hast walked in the Light, and what thou speakest is it inwardly from God?"

My belief concerning scripture does not reflect yours…but you and I share that same Light and each of us seeks to obey the Light within our own understanding and God given intellect and mind…That Holy Mystery that is God is beyond our thoughts…we see through a glass darkly right now…we won’t “know”, until we’re “face to face”.

 

[Cat_Herder]

So it doesn’t concern you at all that the Bible says there is only one faith and that all believers are to be of one mind, then?

 

[Jimmy_B]

This line has been fed to me time and time again by people who claim that Sola Scriptura is “easily defended” by the Bible. Of course, the people that most often throw this at me have since learned that their favorite proof text from 2 Timothy doesn’t work because I easily refute it every time, so now they are saying that the early church prior to the fourth century was sola scriptura because they didn’t have a history of tradition to fall back on.

Protestants who assert this: please back this up. I am at a loss for this, because it defies logic to me. The earliest converts were Jews who had six thousand years of ritualized tradition and priestly law, etc. The converted Romans also had a history of traditional and standardized methods of worship. The Bible as we have it today didn’t even exist until the fourth century anyway, so how could the early Christians have been adherents to a doctrine that required the codification of the Bible prior to the codification of the Bible?

Excellent Post! I gave it five stars.

 

[thevoiceofone]

Very few “conservative” believers…if any would even consider these beliefs I hold…but the “liberal” Christian community…for the most part embraces part or all of the propsitions Crosson, Borg, Spong, Pagels, Mack, Erhman and O’Grady put forth to the orgins of early Christianity.

Besides the fact that “Liberal Christian” is an oxymoron, I think you’re quite wrong. Most people (including me) have never even heard of these writers. I’m not a “Cradle Catholic” either… I’ve been around to other churches, and I have booksmart friends who are Protestants, and none of these guys’ writings or ideas have *ever *come up. Of course, that doesn’t mean that other people like you aren’t out there (I mean, people who have read - and believe - those writers). I haven’t travelled the whole world yet, and I don’t claim be the smartest guy here, by any means. But, I really think you have allowed yourself to be led astray, and that is my concern. I don’t care about winning this argument here, I care about you. I am glad you have reaching God as the end goal in your life, but I’m very concerned about your grasp on reality (history, in particular). If we reject those who Jesus has sent, then we reject Him. I think you’re treading on some slippery rocks, brother. I think you might actually do better by adopting the sola scriptura mindset (wrong as it is) and forgetting about those other writers.

Wouldn’t it be safer to accept the true history (I mean the Catholic version) of the development of the Church is more accurate than these other guys? What do you have to lose by accepting that? I’m not going to pretend to understand what you believe exactly, but as a Protestant, I assume you believe your faith in Jesus Christ will justify and save you, basically. If that is the case, why do these other guys’ version of history matter so much anyway? The possibility of losing your soul by spreading such lies (to be fair to you, I will even say, *possible *lies) just isn’t worth it. I say, stick to the basics, man. Please.