The Early Christians were Sola Scriptura

[Pat_De]

I couldn’t agree with you more.

I just thank God that he left us an authority to compile and declare it canonical - otherwise people would be left not knowing what was inspired and what was not.

Actually it is just the opposite; it is because people were already excepting of the epistles and the OT Hebrew canon that the councils used this as part of the criteria in which to give a more formal rule.

This “authority” you speak of is from whom? Man? I know you believe it is from the Catholic church, but I would say it is from the Holy Spirit working upon men guided by the Holy Spirit and some were probably Christian and some were probably not; we have no way of knowing the hearts of these people nor can we be dogmatic except when it comes to the Author and Director.

 

[elvisman]

Pat_De:
Actually it is just the opposite; it is because people were already excepting of the epistles and the OT Hebrew canon that the councils used this as part of the criteria in which to give a more formal rule.

This “authority” you speak of is from whom? Man? I know you believe it is from the Catholic church, but I would say it is from the Holy Spirit working upon men guided by the Holy Spirit and some were probably Christian and some were probably not; we have no way of knowing the hearts of these people nor can we be dogmatic except when it comes to the Author and Director.
The authority I speak of is from the 2nd Person in the Holy Trinity - Jesus Christ. Here is what he told them about the coming Scripture - and other Traditions they had Authority to pass on:

John 16:12-15
"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
*But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. **He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. *
Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you."

No Less than THREE times does Jesus tell the Apostles in this passage that his authority will be declared to them and that the Holy Spirit will guide them to ALL truth.
I’d say that’s pretty clear - your skepticism notwithstanding . . .

Also - it doesn’t matter how many people were accepting of which writings. It was the CHURCH who decided the matter under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. there were dozens of letters, Gospels and Epistles that were considered by many that didn’t make it into the canon. Study your history.

 

[steve_b]

Actually it is just the opposite; it is because people were already excepting of the epistles and the OT Hebrew canon that the councils used this as part of the criteria in which to give a more formal rule.

If that was the case Jews at the end of the 1st century wouldn’t have to meet at the council of Jamnia to decide what books THEY would accept. Jews who didn’t embrace Christianity deleted 7 books that were in the Septuagint while Jews who did embrace Christianity, namely 100% of the early Church, DID embrace the Septuigint and those 7 books.

The NT took 300+ years to decide which books are canonical and which books were NOT canonical. There were 100’s of books that CLAIMED to be authoritative. Only 27 made it to the status of scripture.

The Catholic Church made that decision. THAT’S historical record.
PD:

This “authority” you speak of is from whom? Man?

the authority comes from the Church the pillar and foundation of truth [1 Tim 3:15] led by the HS.
PD:

I know you believe it is from the Catholic church, but I would say it is from the Holy Spirit working upon men guided by the Holy Spirit and some were probably Christian and some were probably not; we have no way of knowing the hearts of these people nor can we be dogmatic except when it comes to the Author and Director.

1st, You make a distinction without a difference. The HS guides the Catholic Church to all truth as promised by Jesus.

2nd As for your other personal opinion, Baloney!!!

 

[Pat_De]

The authority I speak of is from the 2nd Person in the Holy Trinity - Jesus Christ. Here is what he told them about the coming Scripture - and other Traditions they had Authority to pass on:

John 16:12-15
"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you."

No Less than THREE times does Jesus tell the Apostles in this passage that his authority will be declared to them and that the Holy Spirit will guide them to ALL truth.
I’d say that’s pretty clear - your skepticism notwithstanding . . .

Also - it doesn’t matter how many people were accepting of which writings. It was the CHURCH who decided the matter under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. there were dozens of letters, Gospels and Epistles that were considered by many that didn’t make it into the canon. Study your history.

The you must answer the question as to what is the true church? Also; a careful look at the passage you refer to reveals the nature of the trinity; quite a beautiful passage.

I did notice you did come back around to the “CHURCH”, which I take it to mean from you the Catholic church…correct?

 

[Pat_De]

If that was the case Jews at the end of the 1st century wouldn’t have to meet at the council of Jamnia to decide what books THEY would accept. Jews who didn’t embrace Christianity deleted 7 books that were in the Septuagint while Jews who did embrace Christianity, namely 100% of the early Church, DID embrace the Septuigint and those 7 books.

The NT took 300+ years to decide which books are canonical and which books were NOT canonical. There were 100’s of books that CLAIMED to be authoritative. Only 27 made it to the status of scripture.[/quite] Simply not true; the correct statement would be it took 300 years to formalize it; they were already in use {widely accepted} and believed to be inspired and because of this; it was part of the criteria used to determine the formal canon.

The Catholic Church made that decision. THAT’S historical record.
the authority comes from the Church the pillar and foundation of truth [1 Tim 3:15] led by the HS.
1st, You make a distinction without a difference. The HS guides the Catholic Church to all truth as promised by Jesus.

2nd As for your other personal opinion, Baloney!!!

That is your opinion based on what you have been taught within Catholic historical circles; for the term catholic was the common usage, not Catholic as in Roman Catholic Church. But when you receive you education within the circle of Catholicism; there is going to be claims and biases; yet if people were able to go back into time and actually speak to the Christians of the 1st and 2nd century; there would be a different consensus I am almost certain, but can’t be dogmatic and neither can you since neither of us can speak to these folks and just as Scripture is often twisted, bent and the like; so to are the words of the early church fathers.

I ask you the same question as Elvis, what is the true church? Scripture tells us quite a bit about it, but one statement alone in Scripture will kill any such notion as the Catholic church or the Mormon Church or the Jehovah Witness, or the Eastern Orthodox, which all claim as your church does to be the “true church”? That is the problem with revelation outside of Scripture with no verifiable miracles to go with it, which is how God has always worked. Then you have to contend with Jude when it comes to extra revelation; regardless of religious claims:

I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. Although Jude was written prior to Revelation; it is noted that many good theologians believe that Jude’s letter was widely circulated after Revelation was already widely circulated, which should not surprise us that God might work in that manner.

As for your second statement and the “Baloney”; out of the mouth speaks the heart of the person which makes you easily discernible and I would be troubled by that if I were you. I bring this to your attention out of love for men in Christ.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I ask you the same question as Elvis, what is the true church? Scripture tells us quite a bit about it, but one statement alone in Scripture will kill any such notion as the Catholic church or the Mormon Church or the Jehovah Witness, or the Eastern Orthodox, which all claim as your church does to be the “true church”?

Are you familiar with this commandment?
[BIBLEDRB]2 Timothy 2:2[/BIBLEDRB]

So was that done? By who? Of all the churches you name above, only the Catholic and Orthodox can show a chain of entrustment going back to the Apostles. The other two communities you name are less than 300 years old.

That is the problem with revelation outside of Scripture with no verifiable miracles to go with it, which is how God has always worked.

No verifiable miracles? You have got to be kidding.

Then you have to contend with Jude when it comes to extra revelation; regardless of religious claims:

The function of the Church’s Magisterium is to determine what belongs to that Deposit of Faith and what doesn’t. No one is required to believe subsequent (private) revelation that isn’t part of that Deposit.

 

[Todd520]

No one denies the role of the Holy Spirit and the canon. It is not a matter of WHO,but HOW God did it-through His Church and its bishops.

It always sounds like Catholics are trying to give credit to a hammer for building a house,
The Holy Spirit was the Foreman and the Carpenter, the Holy Spirit gets credit for Who an How.

 

[KathleenGee]

I think people need actually to study the history of faith from an objective source.

I found one at a non-denominational minister’s home this past summer. It was old, too.

I was very surprised to see that it accurately described the Catholic Church, that it did indeed go back to the beginning of Christianity, that it was apostolic. The author admitted that since he was giving a basic and factual understanding of the various churches in the USA, he had difficulty in not fully describing the Church.

The beginning Gentile Christians practiced the Breaking of the Bread in wealthier patron homes, and there were instructions given by St. Paul in keeping the occasion proper. The Nazarene Jews who believed in Christ, received a malediction from the synagogue in 80 AD and moved to set up their own synagogues, move worship to Sunday’s and end the 40 day fast out of protest.

There is the ancient practice among Jewish/Arab Christians in the Holy Land who, after going to Mass, continue the ancient Jewish practice of Breaking Bread in their home. My friend witnessed it and is a religious artist drawing many times from ancient practices.

 

[nickybr38]

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?

My first thought is: Who could READ the Bible at this time? What was the state of literacy?

Furthermore what scripture? Was every new letter delivered by Paul immediately deposited into the ‘scripture’? Or were they using the Old Testament alone as their leader?

You know early Jews kept the faith alive through word of mouth and it doesn’t seem a huge leap of faith that the same was done for the early Christians. Word of mouth (the good news) and Old Testament scripture. Tradition AND Scripture kept the faith alive and later when the Bible was properly Canonized this SHOULD have continued. But, a thousand years later someone decided they knew better then Church leaders.

 

[Cat_Herder]

It always sounds like Catholics are trying to give credit to a hammer for building a house,
The Holy Spirit was the Foreman and the Carpenter, the Holy Spirit gets credit for Who an How.

To carry your metaphor to its logical conclusion, Mormons show up at the job site 1,800 years later, deny the existence of the subcontractors who had been working on the house all that time, and then claim credit for building the house.

 

[Todd520]

To carry your metaphor to its logical conclusion, Mormons show up at the job site 1,800 years later, deny the existence of the subcontractors who had been working on the house all that time, and then claim credit for building the house.

Good one.
We’ve never denied the Catholic role as hammer.
Maybe we feel LDS brought an Air Compressor & Nailgun to the job site

 

[Cat_Herder]

Good one.
We’ve never denied the Catholic role as hammer.
Maybe we feel LDS brought an Air Compressor & Nailgun to the job site

I had always understood LDS ecclesiology to teach that at some point there was an apostasy (the hammer broke or the subcontractors walked off the job). Has that changed?

 

[Todd520]

I had always understood LDS ecclesiology to teach that at some point there was an apostasy (the hammer broke or the subcontractors walked off the job). Has that changed?

Just having fun here

• my silly analogy can’t represent the whole of our respective faiths and our differences.

 

[Stephen168]

It always sounds like Catholics are trying to give credit to a hammer for building a house,

A hammer is needed to build a house and the Catholic Church was that hammer.

Just having fun here

• my silly analogy can’t represent the whole of our respective faiths and our differences.

Yes, analogies fall apart at some point.

 

[thevoiceofone]

My first thought is: Who could READ the Bible at this time? What was the state of literacy?

Furthermore what scripture? Was every new letter delivered by Paul immediately deposited into the ‘scripture’? Or were they using the Old Testament alone as their leader?

You know early Jews kept the faith alive through word of mouth and it doesn’t seem a huge leap of faith that the same was done for the early Christians. Word of mouth (the good news) and Old Testament scripture. Tradition AND Scripture kept the faith alive and later when the Bible was properly Canonized this SHOULD have continued. But, a thousand years later someone decided they knew better then Church leaders.

You are correct in thinking very few people could read at that time. Most people couldn’t read until sometime after the Renaissance; I don’t know when, exactly, and it varied with different cultures, of course. Fewer people could write, even if they could read, and even fewer could afford to do so. Ink and paper were scarce and expensive, and anyone having time to write would have to be employed to do so, otherwise they would have starved to death in the process. In contrast tho, the early Church communities had a strong sense of communalism, and so they could have helped to support the early writings in that way. But, still, they were certainly NOT sola scriptura.

The apostles and Jesus Christ Himself quoted Sacred Scripture (OT, of course), but the burden of their preaching was to explain what it all meant to them that day, anno domini, and how it foretold of what was occurring right before their eyes. Even that available scripture (OT) was not taught to be the pillar and bulwark of the truth then. Otherwise, circumcision would not have been replaced by baptism, and the observance of the Sabbath would not have changed to celebrating the Lord’s Day. No, the early Church was taught to hold fast to the Tradition, the new teaching of Christ and Him crucified, to love God and one another, and to live by the sacraments.

 

[simspt]

It always sounds like Catholics are trying to give credit to a hammer for building a house,
The Holy Spirit was the Foreman and the Carpenter, the Holy Spirit gets credit for Who an How.

horrible analogy comparing an inannimate object and a human.

 

[steve_b]

That is your opinion based on what you have been taught within Catholic historical circles; for the term catholic was the common usage, not Catholic as in Roman Catholic Church.

Who was the book of Romans written to? The Church of Rome. Is that Church still here? Yep. Is it still the chair of Peter? Yep. Is it worldwide professing the same faith for 2000 years? Yep

Now go and read the ECF’s starting with the 1st century.

• What Church held the presidency? Rome.
• Who did Greeks call to settle sedition of their bishops DURING apostolic times? Rome
• What was the Church everywhere called? the Catholic Church.
• Who was everyone everywhere to agree with? the Church of Rome.

Would you like the citations?
PD:

But when you receive you education within the circle of Catholicism; there is going to be claims and biases; yet if people were able to go back into time and actually speak to the Christians of the 1st and 2nd century; there would be a different consensus I am almost certain,

You’re guessing. You’re hoping that what you see really didn’t happen the way it did. You’re hoping something else happened. You don’t know you’re right, you hope you’re right.
PD:

but can’t be dogmatic and neither can you since neither of us can speak to these folks and just as Scripture is often twisted, bent and the like; so to are the words of the early church fathers.

Is that supposed to be your justification for not reading scripture or the ECF’s? Because you think everything is corrupted and twisted?

We already know that the ignorant and unstable twist and distort scripture. Paul already told us that. And Paul already told the Church of Rome to

watch out for those who cause division. They don’t serve our Lord Jesus but their own selfish appetites. They deceive the weak minded. Stay away from them. Your obedience to faith is known around the world. I want you to be wise about what is good and innocent of what is evil. Satan will soon be crushed under your feet. [Rm 16:17…]
PD:

I ask you the same question as Elvis, what is the true church? Scripture tells us quite a bit about it, but one statement alone in Scripture will kill any such notion as the Catholic church or the Mormon Church or the Jehovah Witness, or the Eastern Orthodox, which all claim as your church does to be the “true church”?

You seem to be ill equiped to deal with evidence and proof that’s readily accessable to the entire planet, vs the nonsense you’d rather swallow.

Who started the Mormons and JW’s and when were they started? That’s easy to find. It’s also easy to find that both deny the divinity of Jesus.

Now what statement in scripture kills any notion of the Catholic Church?
PD:

That is the problem with revelation outside of Scripture with no verifiable miracles to go with it, which is how God has always worked.

explain what you mean
PD:

Then you have to contend with Jude when it comes to extra revelation; regardless of religious claims:

I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. Although Jude was written prior to Revelation; it is noted that many good theologians believe that Jude’s letter was widely circulated after Revelation was already widely circulated, which should not surprise us that God might work in that manner.

Who decided Jude should be in the canon of scripture?..The Catholic Church. The fact you’re quoting it, you can thank the Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of truth [1 Tim 3:15] for that.
PD:

As for your second statement and the “Baloney”; out of the mouth speaks the heart of the person which makes you easily discernible and I would be troubled by that if I were you. I bring this to your attention out of love for men in Christ.

Oh quit!!

Where is your answer to the question of this thread “the early Christians were Sola Scriptura”?

 

[Pat_De]

Are you familiar with this commandment?
[BIBLEDRB]2 Timothy 2:2[/BIBLEDRB]

So was that done? By who? Of all the churches you name above, only the Catholic and Orthodox can show a chain of entrustment going back to the Apostles. The other two communities you name are less than 300 years old.

No verifiable miracles? You have got to be kidding.

You have first off taken 2Timothy 2:2 out of context; Paul is telling Timothy to preach what he, Paul, had preached to a multitude and is instructing Timothy to train others to do the same, which is what? The message of the gospel.

So who is correct the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox, both make the same claim and both have different Bibles and who determines? Why would the mormons or JW’s be any different after all Joseph Smith receive special golden tablets by an angel and gave him the translation and then the angel took the tablets back…quite the miracle only it wasn’t in the presence of a multitude; just as the one’s you mentioned were neither and yours have nothing to do with extra revelation; so you have several problems to overcome based on your own claims which you cannot defend outside of Catholic circles

The function of the Church’s Magisterium is to determine what belongs to that Deposit of Faith and what doesn’t. No one is required to believe subsequent (private) revelation that isn’t part of that Deposit.

Why have they after 2000 year only interpreted a handful of Scriptures that are put into a context foreign to Scripture, but fit well with their bias? Why is their not a verse by verse and book by book commentary on the entire Bible and the extra non-Biblical books?

This deposit of faith is foreign to Scripture and the early church just as Catholic is also foreign in the 1 and 2nd centuries; but catholic is not foreign; it is Catholic as in Roman Catholic that is foreign. The Bible warns about paying attention to genealogies as in I am from Paul or from Appollos or of Cephas.

I am familiar with the function of the magisterium and it wasn’t till recent history the Pope was able to speak ex-cathedra or considered the vicar of Christ. The early church always referred to the Holy Spirit as the Vicar of Christ. Now we see the Catholic church, as well as the Protestant church’s being infested with liberalism where in the Protestant churches are being designed by popular culture and the gospel is is neither preached or is partially given. Whereas the Catholic pre Vat II was dogmatic about you must be part of the Catholic church to be saved and Protestants were apostates damned to hell and now Protestants are “separated brethren” and can have a path to heaven by being Catholic and not really know it; yet they affirm the Council of Trent - double speaking and I have watched this dialogue between yourselves in other “Catholic only” forums. So even amongst those here recognize their is a problem.

If you come across a Latin only and Vatican I only Catholic and ask them to explain why they consider Vatican II as invalid, you will get an ear full…they are a minority within Catholicism. The greatest number of Catholics are among the cafeteria variety, which some Catholics here would not consider them as Catholic amongst themselves and some are even bold enough to say it openly.

This is why all things are to be measured against the Word of God - Sola Scriptura.

 

[Pat_De]

I think people need actually to study the history of faith from an objective source.

I found one at a non-denominational minister’s home this past summer. It was old, too.

I was very surprised to see that it accurately described the Catholic Church, that it did indeed go back to the beginning of Christianity, that it was apostolic. The author admitted that since he was giving a basic and factual understanding of the various churches in the USA, he had difficulty in not fully describing the Church.

The beginning Gentile Christians practiced the Breaking of the Bread in wealthier patron homes, and there were instructions given by St. Paul in keeping the occasion proper. The Nazarene Jews who believed in Christ, received a malediction from the synagogue in 80 AD and moved to set up their own synagogues, move worship to Sunday’s and end the 40 day fast out of protest.

There is the ancient practice among Jewish/Arab Christians in the Holy Land who, after going to Mass, continue the ancient Jewish practice of Breaking Bread in their home. My friend witnessed it and is a religious artist drawing many times from ancient practices.

You will find the breaking of bread in the early church as a feast! No mass is mentioned in the 1st and 2nd centuries unless a bent in made in translation. If you want a real look into early church, then get this title Eusebius: The Church History It is not bias because it is a rewrite into modern English of the journals of Eusebius and I would also suggest “Works of Flavius Josephus”

 

[thevoiceofone]

You have first off taken 2Timothy 2:2 out of context; Paul is telling Timothy to preach what he, Paul, had preached to a multitude and is instructing Timothy to train others to do the same, which is what? The message of the gospel.

FAITHFUL men? Is he telling Timothy to preach to the choir here? No! The men he refers to already had faith. And, it’s not necessary to “entrust” the message of the Gospel to the multitudes. Aren’t we to preach to all men (and women) to the ends of the earth, whether they want to hear it or not? Right after 2 Timothy is the letter to Titus, also at the beginning of chapter 2, Paul instructs Titus on how to instruct men and women. Why is he talking about only men to Timothy in this context? I’ll tell you why… because he is talking about priests. Sorry if that doesn’t jive with your personal interpretation, but Cat Herder is right.