The Early Christians were Sola Scriptura

[Pat_De]

WRONG**:**

---

The Didache
Assemble on the Lord’s Day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist***: but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice** *****[Matt. 5:23—24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, “Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations” [Mal. 1:11, 14] (Didache 14 A.D. 70]).

---

Ignatius of Antioch
Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his blood, and one single altar of sacrifice —even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 A.D. 110]).

---

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 A.D. 110]).

---

Justin Martyr
***God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices ***at that time presented by you: “I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles” [Mal. 1:10-11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist (*Dialogue with Trypho *41 A.D. 155]).

That’s nice; but when they celebrated the Lord’s supper it was a feast; not like we all do today. But they were in an agricultural society. So feel free to pat yourself on the back and feel good, but you missed my point. Also, if you look at each of the statements you will not find any specific indication of the literal eating of the flesh, which is cannibalism. You will see no mention of a supernatural transformation of the bread turning into flesh or the wine into blood. You will find many not responding to the command of the Lord in celebrating the Lords Supper and these men are commending and encouraging them to do so and in the proper manner. Too bad you cannot go back and ask them if they believed the bread and wine they were eating and drinking was the literal flesh and blood of Jesus; they would be offended at the question.

 

[Pat_De]

Did you even bother to read what I posted?

The Didache
Assemble on the Lord’s Day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist: but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23—24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, “Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations” [Mal. 1:11, 14] (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

To this, I add - from the SAME document:
Confess your sins in church***, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . , On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure*** (Didache 4:14,14:1 A.D.70]).

What part of "sacrifice" do you not understand?

Your eyes see what it wants to see, but unless you actually and really spoke to these men; you cannot read their intent nor can you surmise transubstantiation into there words and know. But that is what you do; just as you impose on the context of Scripture you do the same on the ecf’s, but that is what you are taught to do rather than reaching out to Jesus and seeking the truth through Him alone.

I already know your story and you believe you will be in heaven by being Catholic and adhering to the Catholic doctrines; yet never setting your eyes on the Savior. I understand all of that and you are perfectly free to do as you feel and make the choices that are in what you believe to be I your best interest.

It seems to me that as much time as your church has spent on interpreting what an ecf meant; it would have been more beneficial to interpret the word of God verse by verse and book by book; especially given the number of 2000 years which the church claims to have existed. Do you not find that at all odd? I do. Only a handful of verses have been expounded and they all point to the same direction, the Catholic Church’s authority as opposed to the Authority of Scripture. Don’t you find that interesting? I do.

 

[simspt]

Pat De,
from very early on Irenaeus and all of his successors in the Church always cautioned against those who did not interpret scripture within the framework of the Church’s rule of faith that had been handed down. He showed how those outside the church rearranged scripture and interpreted it to satisfy their own biases. You are right everyone has there own biases that influence their understanding of scripture. I figure its better to err on the side of the Catholic Church who has historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians who followed Christ’s Apostles. Your understanding of Scripture has been formulated by those who reject the two out of the three basic tenets the Church has always used as a framework, Apostolic succession and the Church’s rule of faith only accepting the Catholic Church’s Scriptures. The results are obvious including those like yourself that reject the most basic teachings and doctrines such as the Eucharist that Christians have always held.

 

[Pat_De]

Wrong again.
The Didache references I provided speak not only of a Sacrificial mass - but to confessing your sins before receiving the Eucharist so as not to peofane the Body and Blood of Christ.

This echos the sentiments of Paul in 1 Cor. 11:27-29, where he warns: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.” A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

---

The Didache pronounces the same warning about profaning the SACRIFICE of the mass which is the Eucharist.

Only it is not the Word of God; what does the Word of God teach; not transubstantiation of the bread and wine. This is why I am not religious because outside of Sola Scriptura; anything and everything can and does go forth from men.

But who am I before men but a lowly Christian transformed by the Gospel, which is Jesus Christ? What was it that Jesus saw in me? Nothing. What made me different than anyone else here? Nothing. What does God need me for? Nothing? What can I do for God? Nothing. What can God do for me? Everything in Christ Jesus alone. Why did He do it? For His glory alone; because He wanted to. Why doesn’t He do it for everyone? Because He chose not to; for His own glory.

“24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way {He took} the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink {it,} in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes”

What are we remembering here? The God-man Jesus Christ bearing the sin of His elect, the one’s the Father has given to the Son, and drinking the cup of God’s wrath due to His elect.

Only the elect can understand this according to the Holy Holy Holy Trinity. Are you part of God’s elect is the question people need to be asking themselves and how do you know. 1 John chapters 1 7 2 give the tests. Paul says in Romans that the Holy Spirit will testify to our spirit that we are sons of God; it this true…every bit of it.

 

[SyCarl]

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.

The general Protestant interpretaion of 2 Timothy 3 is not a new one. It was given by John Chrysostom, a father, saint and doctor of the church.

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” All what Scripture? all that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, “From a child you have known the holy Scriptures.” All such, then, “is given by inspiration of God”; therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

"For doctrine." For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us.

Where do we find what we must learn? From the church? No rather he says that Scripture tells us what we must learn or not learn. If our doctrine is deficient in anyway then we can get what we need from Scripure.

“That the man of God may be perfect.” For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!

“Thoroughly furnished unto all good works”; not merely taking part in them, he means, but “thoroughly furnished.”

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

What is to take the place of Paul? Again is it the church? No, it is the Scripture. If we want to learn anything he doesn’t say go to the church; he says go to Scripture. Does he think Paul is just speaking about priests here? No, he tells us that it is even more addressed to us than to Timothy. This is a homily given by Chrysostom. He was speaking to the congregation, not just priests.

 

[thevoiceofone]

Try to read more carefully in the future; we all have made this mistake. Now, go back and reread what CatHerder actually said about the passage and it is not in the context of the passage, not even close.

It would be nice to see a Catholic come and knock on the door and speak of the gospel and their faith like the Protestants, JW’s and Mormons do with their message; but given the sheer number who claim to be Catholic, one would expect to hear that knock or even just in a general conversation share their faith. I guess that commission is not for the lay people and I’m sure their are some exceptions; I’ve just never seen it like I have all the others more than once.

Paul was talking about Presbyters, Bishops, Elders or Overseers, not priest in the context you think of a priest; that was done away with when the one perfect sacrifice was completed by Jesus Christ and the New Covenant ushered in. Now there only exists the royal priesthood of true believers and the High Priest who sits at the right hand of the Father making intercession on behalf of His sheep. As you rightly stated; he was to preach the gospel, which is found “Sola Scriptura”.

I *did *read it carefully. I meant what I said and I said what I meant. Cat Herder was correct. I tried to explain why. You just do not want to accept what we see in it. That particular verse is debatable, I’ll grant you that. We see it differently. I am glad to know that you are doing your best not to interpret verses out of their context; that puts you ahead of many of your brethren. Good work.

Now, for the rest, well… we’re not gonna agree about that much either. Because, well, there *were *priests. There always were. Jesus fulfilled and perfected the OT Tradition, He didn’t abolish it. Look at the role of the priests of the Jews, then compare that to the role of the Catholic priests… it makes perfect sense. Whether or not it makes sense to you, it’s just historically inaccurate to claim that the priesthood was abolished by Christ. You are correct in saying that Jesus is the High Priest; I agree with that. But, why would He need the title of *High *Priest if there were no lower priests? Why did Jesus not baptize people? Why did He have His apostles baptize people in His presence?

Did He tell the people to baptize themselves? No. He had His apostles (His priests - His ordained, chosen, entrusted, *faithful *men) do it.

And, lastly, why did He not write a book when He was on earth (instead of teaching His apostles what to do) if He intended His followers to be sola scriptura?

I should add that we *are *all (all baptized Christians) called to be a priestly people; I’m not arguing against that aspect of what you said. You are right in saying that. But, there is a difference between laymen and priests. Going back to the OT Tradition, I would compare it to the same way the Jews were called to be a priestly people, but there was a clear line drawn between the role of the Levites and the rest of the tribes in their call to holiness. I’m not sure how to better explain that. I don’t think you’ll accept it anyway.

 

[PJM]

=lutherlic;7080964]The authority was given by Christ to the Apostles and their successors. Guided by the Holy Spirit, they decide.

They are of equal “weight” and not contradictory. The NT is simply recorded tradition, but not all of it.

Jesus , not scripture, gave the Magisterium its authority. Scripture does however record this fact.

Tradition that is “written down” is scripture.

Your argument against tradition is an argument against the teaching form of Jesus.

Agree with your last statement and the answer is Jesus.

Authority came from Jesus and was known only by tradition until it was recorded in scripture. There is no “chicken or the egg” dilemma posed.

By the very authority given by Jesus Himself and protected by the Holy Spirit, the canon of the Holy Bible was infallibly determined. That authority did not end at that moment nor does Holy Scripture say it did.

Were it not for TRADITION one couls ask if there would be a Church? The Nt was not writen until near the end of the 1st. Century, and the bible code was not set for another 300 years, that di use what weknow today as bible writtingd, but also relied heavily on Tradition.

The OT for hundreds of years relied ONLY on Tradition.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[elvisman]

That’s nice; but when they celebrated the Lord’s supper it was a feast; not like we all do today. But they were in an agricultural society. So feel free to pat yourself on the back and feel good, but you missed my point. Also, if you look at each of the statements you will not find any specific indication of the literal eating of the flesh, which is cannibalism. You will see no mention of a supernatural transformation of the bread turning into flesh or the wine into blood. You will find many not responding to the command of the Lord in celebrating the Lords Supper and these men are commending and encouraging them to do so and in the proper manner. Too bad you cannot go back and ask them if they believed the bread and wine they were eating and drinking was the literal flesh and blood of Jesus; they would be offended at the question.

Either you are purposely skipping over what I have posted or you simply cannot read.
I will post Ignatius’s comments again.
Read is CAREFULLY:
"… they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again."

---

**You don’t see by this sentence that Ignatius believed the Eucharist to be the Flesh AND Blood of the Risen Jesus???

**I have heard Protestants call him everything from insane to just plain WRONG - but NEVER have I come acroos one who denies what Ignatius is saying - until YOU. **

You see - this is the tragedy that is the bickering opinions and constant splintering that is Protestantism . . .

It’s funny that you should bring the charge of cannibalism into the conversation. This is PRECISELY what the Romans and Jews accused the Early Christians of in the first 2 centuries. Read the works of the Roman historian Pliny and you’ll see what I mean.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

 

[simspt]

The general Protestant interpretaion of 2 Timothy 3 is not a new one. It was given by John Chrysostom, a father, saint and doctor of the church.

Where do we find what we must learn? From the church? No rather he says that Scripture tells us what we must learn or not learn. If our doctrine is deficient in anyway then we can get what we need from Scripure.

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

What is to take the place of Paul? Again is it the church? No, it is the Scripture. If we want to learn anything he doesn’t say go to the church; he says go to Scripture. Does he think Paul is just speaking about priests here? No, he tells us that it is even more addressed to us than to Timothy. This is a homily given by Chrysostom. He was speaking to the congregation, not just priests.

Your right, The ECFs viewed scripture as inspired and authoritative in addition to other writings. But read in their full context they all for the most part viewed the Church as the proper context for their interpretation based on their rule of faith or tradition that had been succesively handed down from one generation to the next. The scriptures being interpreted in any way contrary to the Church who guarded it against so many heretical groups was always condemned.

 

[thevoiceofone]

Transubstantiation of any bread into the flesh of Jesus is not found in Scripture and Jesus “Bread of Life” Sermon gives us the figurative comparison between the manna from heaven that feed the physical body versus the true manna which feeds the spiritual soul.

Very similar to the Samaritan woman who said give me that “life-giving water” so that i don’t have come here anymore to drawl water. Of course the Lord was speaking of the spiritual wellspring that is in Him alone versus the water from Jacob’s well where the physical body will need to continue to come.

Not real hard to discern and Paul, who was not even at the inauguration of the Lord’s Supper, confirms the same. In fact the early rumors of Christians being cannibals was considered a lie and heretical and what was the secularist speaking of concerning cannibalism, the Christian celebration of the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist. The phrase from the Lord Himself cannot be any clearer “Do this in remembrance” Do what? break the bread? Remember what? My sacrifice to bear the sins of My people and drink the cup of God’s wrath as the due penalty that the elect of God deserved, but it is only the elect that can understand according to Scripture. Sola Scriptura keeps one from error from the things of men mingled with Scripture, the pure word of God, that are contrary to the teaching of Scripture. Not all traditions of men are contrary to the Scripture and should be accepted, but that which fails the test is to be rejected, which is another indication of Sola Scriptura; the measure of all things in the faith and practice of sheep of God.

Why do you think so many of you believe Matthew 18 is spoken only to His disciples, when there was a little child right their for the Lord to use as an example and the many words and teachings in that chapter are so similar to the Sermon on the Mount? Because if it taught to a crowd, then Matthew 16 and the loose and bind becomes universal to all disciples and not just to the apostles; kind of kills the whole notion of the supremacy of Peter. However Peter was the leader of the original apostles as the Lord indicates and ordered by the Lord to strengthen the other apostles, which is what he did till his death. But the point is that sticking to Scripture one realizes that the authority to loose and bind, a rabbinic teaching, comes from heaven through the giving of the Gospel, which the royal priesthood is called to do. Those who hear will accept or reject the Gospel and either be loosed or bound in their sins upon the hearing of the message sent from heaven.

I can see where you would compare the life-giving water talk with the woman at the well with the bread of life discourse, there is some similarity, but, can’t you see the difference, also? He converted that woman and her neighbors. He didn’t let her get away. When He talked of His flesh giving life to those who would eat it, many of His followers left Him and followed Him no more. Wouldn’t He have rather explained that it was only a metaphor to them instead of letting them walk away from salvation? Besides that, the wording He uses is very specific to really eating; I’m sorry I don’t remember the Greek word, but it translates into biting/gnawing. He didn’t use a figurative term for eating that might have meant to be filled or satisfied. When He said “eat,” He meant “eat.”

If anybody knows enough to compare what I just said to the word for “drink” that was used with the woman at the well, I would love to know.

I don’t recall Matthew 18 well enough to discuss that right now. I will read it at home and get back to you on that. But, His order given to His apostles about binding and loosing sins is not only in Matthew, and it also says that He *breathed *on them when He gave that order. Why did He do that do you think?

You’re right that the sacrament of Reconciliation has its Jewish roots. Of course it does. I’m glad you brought that up, actually, because you should know that the Jews were not instructed to go out and make their sacrificial offerings by themselves, they were instructed to go to the priests that they might do it for them. That is why they travelled so far to Jerusalem on a regular basis (as their means enabled them) to go to the temple. Not just for Reconciliation, of course, but that ties in to the point I’m trying to make.

I can’t help pointing out, also, that sola scriptura clearly does **not **keep us from error. If it did, we wouldn’t be debating it right now. One of us is in error right now, and it sounds like we both have studied our Bibles pretty well.

 

[Pat_De]

So many problems with this - it’s hard top know where to begin.
St. Paul tells us that we are to hold fast to the traditions taught by the Apostles – either by an “oral statement or written letter” (2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 1 Cor. 11:2). He goes on to say in 1 Tim. 3:15, that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” He doesn’t make this claim about the Bible it because it hadn’t been compiled and much of it had not yet been written.
The plain and simple fact is that the Early Church was not only NOT Sola Scriptura - it COULDN’T have been because nobody knew which books were Canonical.

Every bishop had his own preferences and individual "canon**s" - but they were not official until the end of the 4th Century.

Study your history and the writings of the Early Church and much of this will become clear to you.
**
"To be steeped in history is to cease being Protestant**."
Cardinal John Henry Newman

Whether I was there *personally preaching or if you *heard by my letters; hold fast to what I have taught. It is the teaching itself, not the manner of the teaching.

Of course the church is the pillar and support of the Gospel; it is the method God is using to reach the world**…humm. ** Would you expect the Judizers or apostates to protect the truth of the Gospel?

"To be steeped in Jesus Christ is to be a Christian" - Pat De, a nobody.

 

[JackVk]

Pat,

"Then Jesus said to them, 'Verily, verily I say to unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life;and I shall raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him John 6:53-56 KJV

as you can see, this was not something that was thought up in Rome. It was and is an order from Our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Nicea325]

Whether I was there *personally preaching or if you *heard by my letters; hold fast to what I have taught. It is the teaching itself, not the manner of the teaching.

Of course the church is the pillar and support of the Gospel; it is the method God is using to reach the world**…humm. ** Would you expect the Judizers or apostates to protect the truth of the Gospel?

"To be steeped in Jesus Christ is to be a Christian" - Pat De, a nobody.

And to be steeped in Jesus Christ is to be a Christian who does not pervert His Words.

 

[Dokimas]

Whether I was there *personally preaching or if you *heard by my letters; hold fast to what I have taught. It is the teaching itself, not the manner of the teaching.

Of course the church is the pillar and support of the Gospel; it is the method God is using to reach the world**…humm. ** Would you expect the Judizers or apostates to protect the truth of the Gospel?

"To be steeped in Jesus Christ is to be a Christian" - Pat De, a nobody.

Well put. Thank you.

BTW, to Jesus you’re not a nobody. God be with and bless you richly.

 

[SyCarl]

Pat De,
from very early on Irenaeus and all of his successors in the Church always cautioned against those who did not interpret scripture within the framework of the Church’s rule of faith that had been handed down…

Let’s look at some specific statements made by Irenaeus.

First see what he says about the oral teachings of the Apostles and Scripture.

**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. **For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God.

(Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

The Apostles received perfect knowledge. Did they preach this orally. Certainly. But he says they handed it down in the Scriptures. The oral teachings and the Scripture contain the same thing. So when Irenaeus talks of the doctrine passed down through bishops and the church, he is not speaking of anything more or different than is in Scripture. When he asks what would happen if the Apostles had not left writings and answers that we would look to the ancient churches, he is not saying that there is anything extra in tradition than was actually recorded in Scripture.

Did the Apostles pass on anything orally that they did not include in Scripture?

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.”

Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 2, Paragraph 1)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iii.html

Irenaeus’ opponents claimed to have received oral teachings not found in Scripture. He condemns the idea that there was separte teaching of the Apostle’s that was not written in Scripture.

What about the formal sufficiency of Scripture? Was it too confusing or ambiguous that people couldn’t find the truth by reading it themselves?

A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures .Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them;

(Against Heresies Book 2, Chapter 27, Paragraphs 1 & 2.
newadvent.org/fathers/0103227.htm

All that is required is study and Scripture can clearly understood by all.

How are we to interpret Scripture?

If, therefore, even with respect to creation, there are some things [the knowledge of] which belongs only to God, and others which come within the range of our own knowledge, what ground is there for complaint, if, in regard to those things which we investigate in the Scriptures (which are throughout spiritual), we are able by the grace of God to explain some of them, while we must leave others in the hands of God, and that not only in the present world, but also in that which is to come, so that God should for ever teach, and man should for ever learn the things taught him by God? As the apostle has said on this point, that, when other things have been done away, then these three, “faith, hope, and charity, shall endure.”…If, therefore, according to the rule which I have stated, we leave some questions in the hands of God, we shall both preserve our faith uninjured, and shall continue without danger; and all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances [of Scripture] there shall be heard one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things.

Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 28, Paragraph 3)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxix.html

We are to use the easy passages of Scripture to understand the more difficult. Scripture interprets Scripture. Also, if something is not in Scripture we don’t need to know it.

 

[elvisman]

Your eyes see what it wants to see, but unless you actually and really spoke to these men; you cannot read their intent nor can you surmise transubstantiation into there words and know. But that is what you do; just as you impose on the context of Scripture you do the same on the ecf’s, but that is what you are taught to do rather than reaching out to Jesus and seeking the truth through Him alone.

There is no mincing of words here – the ECF’s were unanimous in their belief of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass, Confessing one’s sins to a priest, Baptismal Regeneration and a host of other doctrines you** reject**.

I already know your story and you believe you will be in heaven by being Catholic and adhering to the Catholic doctrines; yet never setting your eyes on the Savior. I understand all of that and you are perfectly free to do as you feel and make the choices that are in what you believe to be I your best interest.

Unfortunately for you that you don’t realize how Catholic Jesus is. His love is universal and eternal. He is so Catholic that he identified his very self with his Catholic Church in Acts 9:4-5.
You’re missing the boat, friend.

It seems to me that as much time as your church has spent on interpreting what an ecf meant; it would have been more beneficial to interpret the word of God verse by verse and book by book; especially given the number of 2000 years which the church claims to have existed. Do you not find that at all odd? I do. Only a handful of verses have been expounded and they all point to the same direction, the Catholic Church’s authority as opposed to the Authority of Scripture. Don’t you find that interesting? I do.

**I find it even more interesting that after 1500 years of ardent faith, scripture and Tradition – a group of rebellious men decided to reinvent Christianity. They took the Apostolic teachings carried on by the Early Church Fathers, tossed them aside, mixed in a twisting of the Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:16) and voila! A ****NEW **Christianity – complete with the doctrines and precepts of mere men (Matt. 15:9, Mark 7:7).

---

Don’t you find that curious? I certainly do . . .

 

[JackVk]

]Would you

expect the Judizers or apostates to protect the truth of the Gospel?

You mean the Protestant megachurches that care more about entertainment than preaching the Gospel?
You mean the Westboro Baptist Church hate group?
You mean the 33,000 different Protestant denominations that all differ in doctrine yet all think their individual church is the one true path to God?

 

[JackVk]

BTW, to Jesus you’re not a nobody. God be with and bless you richly.

Nobody is a nobody to Jesus. Saved or not saved, Jesus still loves you.

 

[Dokimas]

You mean the Protestant megachurches that care more about entertainment than preaching the Gospel?
You mean the Westboro Baptist Church hate group?
You mean the 33,000 different Protestant denominations that all differ in doctrine yet all think their individual church is the one true path to God?

Why are you distorting what Pat said? This is wrong, IMO.

 

[Dokimas]

Nobody is a nobody to Jesus. Saved or not saved, Jesus still loves you.

Agreed