The Early Christians were Sola Scriptura

[Todd520]

Wow, I can’t believe people are disputing these obvious mataphors

It is a metaphor, very common use in rabbinic teaching and Jesus did it often.

“Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 "I am the bread of life. 49 "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 "This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

58 “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

2 "But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep. 3 "To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 "When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 “A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.” 6 This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them. {Jesus is describing many of you}[7 So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 "All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9 "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

14 "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, 15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock {with} one shepherd.{So much for Peter or the concept of the Pope} 17 "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18 “No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”

12 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”

5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.

25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” – This one is not as metaphoric, but combines both.

[/quote]

 

[steve_b]

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

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

**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

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?

Don’t stop with ch 1. Keep reading in Bk 3.

• Bk 3 ch 3, vs 2-4 Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. 3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes
• Which bishops is he naming specifically? Popes of Rome, successors to Peter.

Tradition he is speaking of in this case, he says came from the following.

• derived from the apostles,
• derived from the Church of Rome, founded and organized by Peter and Paul
• preached by bishops in apostolic succession (among them Linus, Anacletus, Clement…who are popes of Rome, successors to Peter)
• The Church of Rome has pre eminant authority everywhere, where apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by faithful men who exist everywhere.
• all people everywhere who keep apostolic tradition faithfully, must agree with THIS Church because of its pre eminant authority

Irenaeus is writing ~180 a.d. St John died ~100 a.d. Irenaeus was taught directly by men (Ignatius, Polycarp…) who were disciples of St John.

 

[steve_b]

steve b,
I started with the eastern church due to personal interest in Russia and the Orthodox church. So I’ve read some Orthodox apologetics that quote a number of the eastern church fathers. I’ve also read some of St Augustine’s writings and a bit about St Thomas Aquinas. Much of what I’ve learned has been references to early church fathers in Catholic apologetics books.

Have you seen this link?
newadvent.org/fathers/

 

[elvisman]

Wow, I can’t believe people are disputing these obvious mataphors

That’s because you don’t understand hyperbole, metaphoric language OR hermeneutics.

R****ead post #166. I already laid those weak comparisons to John 6 to rest.

 

[Todd520]

Elvis,
How could you totally ignore the possibility of metaphor when scripture specifically called him a Door, a Vine, and Water.

Now to your post 166

• Saying Jesus was Flesh an Blood does not refute anything
• The word choice for eat actually helps the metaphor. It takes a long time for a dog to gnaw through a bone, just like it takes time and effort to absorb spiritual nourishment.

No, I don’t see that you laid anything to rest … at least for thoughtful readers.

That’s because you don’t understand hyperbole, metaphoric language OR hermeneutics.

R****ead post #166. I already laid those weak comparisons to John 6 to rest.

 

[SyCarl]

Don’t stop with ch 1. Keep reading in Bk 3.

• Bk 3 ch 3, vs 2-4 Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. 3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes
• Which bishops is he naming specifically? Popes of Rome, successors to Peter.

Tradition he is speaking of in this case, he says came from the following.

• derived from the apostles,
• derived from the Church of Rome, founded and organized by Peter and Paul
• preached by bishops in apostolic succession (among them Linus, Anacletus, Clement…who are popes of Rome, successors to Peter)
• The Church of Rome has pre eminant authority everywhere, where apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by faithful men who exist everywhere.
• all people everywhere who keep apostolic tradition faithfully, must agree with THIS Church because of its pre eminant authority

Irenaeus is writing ~180 a.d. St John died ~100 a.d. Irenaeus was taught directly by men (Ignatius, Polycarp…) who were disciples of St John.

I am quite aware of this paragraph. It does not indicate that tradition contained anything in addition to Scripture. I noted previously that he referred to the Apostles’ teaching being handed down both orally and in writing but the content of each is the same.

 

[KathleenGee]

Todd,

In consideration of Mormon theology…there is the study of hermeneutics…There is some real different thinking between Mormonism and Christianity, not only with the idea that each creature that is made, is completed and with its own moral nature…

Mormonism states that the true church ended with the last death of the apostles…But Catholicism states that Christ instituted the Church, and that it began at Pentecost in the coming of the Holy Spirit.

Through the Holy Spirit ideas and thoughts were illuminated or fulfilled or answered with Christ’s death and resurrection. Christ told the apostles things that didn’t make sense until after He was crucified and ascended into heaven.

The Holy Spirit worked through the Apostles and down through the church uniting us in spirit and truth. It connected mystery of both Old and the life of Christ and His teachings into now fully revealed truth of Who God is.

This action of the Holy Spirit is denied by Mormonism in that He continues in the transmission of faith vs. the new teachings of Joseph Smith that came almost 2 millenium later.

 

[Todd520]

Katheleen,
I’m not an expert on the Apostasy but I’m 100% confident LDS doctrine does not believe the Holy Spirit was unavailable or did not touch and nurture Catholics for the past 2k years.

I may have read between the lines in your post, so I wanted to be clear on this LDS belief: The Holy Spirit is available to anyone who seeks wisdom.

(I refuse to digress further on public vs private revelation or the apostasty, it deserves seperate threads and people more knowledgeable of the LDS teachings.)

Todd,

In consideration of Mormon theology…there is the study of hermeneutics…There is some real different thinking between Mormonism and Christianity, not only with the idea that each creature that is made, is completed and with its own moral nature…

Mormonism states that the true church ended with the last death of the apostles…But Catholicism states that Christ instituted the Church, and that it began at Pentecost in the coming of the Holy Spirit.

Through the Holy Spirit ideas and thoughts were illuminated or fulfilled or answered with Christ’s death and resurrection. Christ told the apostles things that didn’t make sense until after He was crucified and ascended into heaven.

The Holy Spirit worked through the Apostles and down through the church uniting us in spirit and truth. It connected mystery of both Old and the life of Christ and His teachings into now fully revealed truth of Who God is.

This action of the Holy Spirit is denied by Mormonism in that He continues in the transmission of faith vs. the new teachings of Joseph Smith that came almost 2 millenium later.

 

[elvisman]

Elvis,
How could you totally ignore the possibility of metaphor when scripture specifically called him a Door, a Vine, and Water.

Now to your post 166

• Saying Jesus was Flesh an Blood does not refute anything
• The word choice for eat actually helps the metaphor. It takes a long time for a dog to gnaw through a bone, just like it takes time and effort to absorb spiritual nourishment.

No, I don’t see that you laid anything to rest … at least for thoughtful readers.

You apparently didn’t Read post#166. I addressed the mataphoric languae of Vine, water and door.Since you obviously ignored the comparisons - I will state it again:
Jesus is not a Door (metaphor)*. He never says, "Amen, amen, I say to you, I am truly a Dor."*

Jesus is not a jug of Water * (metaphor)*. He never says, "Amen, amen, I say to you, I am truly a jug of Water."

Jesus is not a Vine (metaphor)*. He never says, "Amen, amen, I say to you, I am truly a Vine."*

Jesus IS Flesh and Blood.
In John 6:53-56 - he doesn’t compare himself to anything. He says very plainly:
***"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. ***
***Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. ***
**For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. **
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

---

When the disciples left him in verse 66 because they were shocked - did he explain what he meant as he always did when they couldn’t understand? NOPE. He simply turned to the 12 Apostles and said, "Do you also want to leave?"

He meant exactly what he said and many of his believers couldn**'t handle it - just like you can’t handle it.**

As I stated before - you simply don’t understand the difference between metaphoric language and reality.

 

[Vicki_Leigh]

steve b,
No, I was not familiar with the newadvent site. It appears to be sort of one-stop-shopping to get info on all the early church fathers. Thanks for pointing it out; I’ve bookmarked it.

 

[Todd520]

Elvis,
Jesus is often called THE WORD, as a metaphore for the message he delivered. Sometimes he IS the Word and sometimes he DELIVERS the word.

The ‘water’ is metaphor for what he delivers. However, he does explicitly call himself a vine and a door.
“I am the vine” is a quote from John 15
“I am the door” is a quote from John 10:2

Jesus is not a Door (metaphor). He never says, “Amen, amen, I say to you, I am truly a Dor.”

Jesus is not a jug of Water (metaphor). He never says, “Amen, amen, I say to you, I am truly a jug of Water.”

Jesus is not a Vine (metaphor). He never says, “Amen, amen, I say to you, I am truly a Vine.”

 

[simspt]

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

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

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?

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?

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

How are we to interpret Scripture?

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.

First off, thank God both sides view scripture so highly. To my understanding Rome agrees that the Scriptures are the norm of norms and that all Church teaching must be interpreted so as to be consistent with the Scriptures since Scripture and Tradition are inseparable. The main issue seems to be whether Scripture alone is the ultimate authority in theology vs. Scripture as interpreted by the Catholic Church as the ultimate authority. Competing interpretations of Scripture and whether or not the episcopacy has the authority to proclaim the correct interpretation is the issue.

You argue that an authoritative Church is unnecessary since the Scriptures act as the judge in any case of doctrinal controversy. Your position depends on the validity of your claim relating to the clarity of the scriptures. I have never been given any convincing argurments for the perspicuity of the Scriptures.

If you think the scriptures are clear on only essential doctrines, then how do we decide on essential vs nonessentials. The scriptures themselves dont appear to be clear about this distinction. Even if the Scriptures were clear on all the “important” doctrines we would still need to know exactly which passages address those “important” doctrines otherwise the scriptures will not be able to act as an unmistakable judge in all doctrinal controversies. The scriptural evidence for perspicuity is weak. If the scriptures were perspicuous there should only be one major sola scriptura denomination vs hundreds.

If scripture must be its own interpreter as you claim then doesn’t it follow that the canon should be its own canonizer?

The canon of scripture was fixed by the teaching authority of the church. Obviously its important that the church recognized only canonical books vs others eg book of mormon. The scriptures themselves do not contain a list of which should be included or how to determine the list.

Sola scriptura implies that the Catholic church should not teach anything that is not deducible from scriptures and that the Catholic Church must dogmatically teach which books are inspired yet it isnt possible to deduce the canon from the Scriptures. If someone in your church accepted the canon of Marcion could your church treat it as a matter of indiffernce while simulataneously keeping its commitment to the authority of Scripture?

The ECFs (Ireneaus, Ignatius, Cyprian, etc) all teach that apostolic succession was instituted by the apostles themselves and guarantees orthodoxy. To rule out the historic episcopacy on sola scriptura grounds begs the question.

Fundamentally the visible church founded by Christ and the apostles was an evolving structure that must of had some kind of hiearchy as do all human institutions. This evolving structure is there to be discovered in actual history. In the Protestant view the visible church consists of congregations constituted by gathering together in Christ’s name for the sake of preaching the Word and distributing the Sacraments without any sense of the visible church as an enduring entity constituted by the faithful transmission of truth and the successive appointment of individuals to enduring offices from one generation to the next (2 Timothy 2:2).

Sola scriptura implies each generation of christians are left with recreating the visible Church ex nihilo using the written record of apostolic teaching as its only guide. The obvious problem with this is that the Church continued to exist after the death of the last apostles for several centuries before the canon of the NT was recognized as such.

The church came into existence secondary to the apostles preaching the Gospel but Gods Word includes the Bible but isnt limited to it. The Church is not constituted by the Bible since recognition of the Bible as the permanent, normative record of God’s Word was an institutional fact (the formation of the canon) which presupposed a prior institutional fact which was the existence of the Church as a trans-generational society.

The Church is not prior to God’s Word, but is prior to the dilineation of the Bible as the permanent source and standard of God’s Word.

 

[Dokimas]

How am i distorting it? The Catholic Church kept the Word. Martin Luther removed 7 books from the Bible to support his own theology, and then said that the bible is open to private interpretation.

So the Reformation began. The reason behind the many denominations: At a chuch, Bob says that X passage means this. Joe disagrees, and says it means another thing. Joe leaves and starts his own church because he and Bob were at odds in their own interpretations. This happened, over and over again.
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church has stuck to her same doctrine since 33 A.D. and is still going strong.

This is what you quoted from Pat?

[SIGN]Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat De

Would the Judizers or apostates to protect the truth of the Gospel?[/SIGN]

This was your response:

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?

I don’t see anything in Pat’s post about protestants including Baptists.

I’ll let Pat clear up the issue but it looks, at best, you destorted what she/he said.

 

[Dokimas]

Elvis,
Jesus is often called THE WORD, as a metaphore for the message he delivered. Sometimes he IS the Word and sometimes he DELIVERS the word.

The ‘water’ is metaphor for what he delivers. However, he does explicitly call himself a vine and a door.
“I am the vine” is a quote from John 15
“I am the door” is a quote from John 10:2

What about the following verses?

Matthew 5:
29 "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
30 "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

 

[elvisman]

Elvis,
Jesus is often called THE WORD, as a metaphore for the message he delivered. Sometimes he IS the Word and sometimes he DELIVERS the word.

The ‘water’ is metaphor for what he delivers. However, he does explicitly call himself a vine and a door.
“I am the vine” is a quote from John 15
“I am the door” is a quote from John 10:2

Okay Todd - he’s a Door and a Vine. He’s not now nor was he ever human (flesh and blood) . . .

**At some point, I have to shake the dust from my sandals at such stubbornness. **Man - no WONDER you left the Church . . .

 

[JackVk]

This is what you quoted from Pat?

[SIGN]Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat De

Would the Judizers or apostates to protect the truth of the Gospel?[/SIGN]

This was your response:

I don’t see anything in Pat’s post about protestants including Baptists.

I’ll let Pat clear up the issue but it looks, at best, you destorted what she/he said.

Baptists fall under the Protestant denomination. If Baptists aren’t Protestant, then the Pope isn’t Catholic.

Jesus loves everybody, saints and sinners. But when the Bible is misinterpreted, you get people like PatDe(yes, he said that Jesus hates sinners) and Fred Phelps who run around screaming “GOD HATES YOU!” That statement is an apostasy if I ever saw one. Therfore, Protestants hand over the Word to Judizers and apostates. Meanwhile, in Rome, they stick to what has been taught for the past 2,000 years. Who should I believe: the Church that Jesus Himself founded that has correctly passed down His message, or some single, random schmuck who ignores the parts of the Word that he disagrees with?

 

[elvisman]

What about the following verses?

Matthew 5:
29 "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
30 "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

**Once again - you guys have a hard time with Hyperbole vs. Metaphoric language.

He is exaggerating here to emphacize a very real point. He’s not speaking metaphorically - he is speaking HYPERBOLICALLY. It truly IS better to enter heaven with one eye if you are sinning with that eye. Instead of gouging it out, however, you should put your faith and trust in God to keep you from succombing temptation.

 

[PJM]

=Nine_Two;7082078]An argument that would be valid and deserving of an answer if it were actually on topic. As it is it seems a tacit admission that the Early Church utilized tradition in its teachings, and therefore was not based on Sola Scriptura.

DUH:shrug:

Do I understand your question?

Are the writtings of there [HERTICS] Oral Traditions vaild?

To THEM and no one else!

 

[Dokimas]

**Once again - you guys have a *hard ***time with Hyperbole vs. Metaphoric language.

**He is exaggerating **here to emphacize a very real point. He’s not speaking metaphorically - he is speaking HYPERBOLICALLY. It truly IS better to enter heaven with one eye if you are sinning with that eye. Instead of gouging it out, however, you should put your faith and trust in God to keep you from succombing temptation.

Maybe we do and maybe you do.

 

[PJM]

=Publisher;7084838]And wearing a “white collar” or black robe and having an “office” in the Catholic church gives them no more credibility than friend Crossan…or friend Borg…or friend Spong.

You may certainly believe what you will concerning my motives concerning my beliefs…it make no difference to me…you must live in the Light as you are guided.

Originally Posted by Nine_Two
On what basis do they have credibility? They have degrees? Lots of people who disagree with them have degrees. Or does it have more to do with them agreeing with what you already thought?

Your lack of ability/desire to back up what you’ve said would indicate the latter.

My REPLY: PJM

It is not ONLY on God’s authority, but God Himself, that insures that His CC cannot [not simply will not, has not, does not] CANNOT teach anything but God’s own very truth ON ALL MATTERS TOUCHING on Faith and Morals! Period!

**John 14: 16-17 " And I [Jesus] will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, **[17] even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you."

**John.17 Verses 14 to 19 **" I [JESUS] have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. [16] They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
[19] ***And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. ***"

ONLY Christ CC has the very Person of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit to insure Her sacred truth. There can be no greater authority! And we have absolute credibility on all matters touching Faith and Morals! God’s promise, not mine.