S
SyCarl
Guest
I would argue that it is also anachronistic to read the modern concept of Tradition into every Church father who refers to tradition.
- Status
S
steve_b
Guest
Don’t create your conclusion, then push it back on Paul as if it’s Paul’s conclusion.
- At this point Paul has not been to Rome. He is only writing to the Church at Rome.
- Does Paul in any of his letters say Hi to Peter? Does he ever say anything like, oh BTW people, tell Peter that Paul says Hi. Is Paul and Peter ever in the same city at the same time? Yes. Do we have any record that either one greets the other? No.
- It’s Paul’s letter, but actually Paul doesn’t really write the letter. *I Tertius, the writer of this letter [Rm 16:22]*Maybe that’s your answer.
- [Galatians 1:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+1:18&version=NIV)
Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. - Galatians 2:1-2, 6-9
1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I wentin response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. - **Gal 2:7 **On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.
- Peter, like Paul, took missionary journeys. They didn’t stay in one place permanently. Maybe Peter wasn’t in Rome at the tiime of the letter.
- Because of severe persecution going on, maybe Paul left Peter’s name out for Peter’s safety
- Paul wrote to Rome, Peter wrote from Rome (1 Pet)
a disciple of St John who writes
Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict. (Ignatius Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 107])
Polycarp, a disciple of St John, had a discipe who wrote
Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church (Irenaeus Against Heresies, 3:1:1 [A.D. 180])
pd:
Ch 16 gives the answer. Church is mentioned 5 times in this chapter. Warning about division, is a warning to the Church at Rome.
E
elvisman
Guest
The canonicity of Scripture is decided upon by the Holy Spirit. It is declared canonical by the INSTRUMENT of God here on earth - the Catholic Church. This was because of the guarantee by Jesus to the Apostles - the first leaders of the Catholic Church in John 16:12-15.
In this passage, he tells them that the Holy Spirit will take from the Authority of Jesus and declare it to the Church. THAT’S how we know the Church has the authority
As for individual books being quoted or used by the ECF’s - what’s your point? They weren’t automatically considered canonical simply because Irenaeus like this book or Cyprian liked that book. These matters were decided by Church Councils - not individual Church Fathers.
S
simspt
Guest
If you were say a second century gnostic who did not possess a canonized set of writings but rather a wide collection of documents and your congregation decided to interpret certain books such as the synoptics differently than another congregation of believers as well as accepting and rejecting writings the other group did not I dont see how the concept of sola scriptura would have been utilized. If anything the gnostics and other groups would benefit from it simply because they did not have any tradition and historical succession to worry about but rather their own bias to interpret the writings to fit their cosmological beliefs. No one that i know who rejects sola scriptura disagrees that the ECFs viewed scripture as authoritative however the concept of SS does not follow logically.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Augustine's Confessions:
Augustine submitted to the bishop. If Augustine correctly interpreted the Scriptures, then you too must submit to the bishop.
S
steve_b
Guest
Really? You mean as a Protestant you agree with what Irenaeus said there, because scripture clearly points out, what Irenaeus said in that paragraph?
SC:
You asked the question “Did the Apostles pass on anything orally that they did not include in Scripture?”
Again, you have no problem with the content of what Irenaeus taught in that paragraph we’re discussing, because you can clearly see that it was apostolic teaching from both oral and written form?
When are you signing up for RCIA?
E
elvisman
Guest
One that automatically comes to mind is Infant Baptism.
**While it is implicitly mentioned in Scripture (**Acts 10:1-49, 11:13-14, 16:23-24, 1 Cor. 1:16) - it is not explicitly claimed.
S
simspt
Guest
Good point, most mainstream Protestants like SyCarl ( I think, for sure Lutherans) dont completely deny the authority of church tradition. They support infant baptism that depends mostly on the fact that the Church has always practiced it. Luther argued in the Large Catechism to my understanding that infant baptism imparts saving grace of many generations. An honest Protestant will admit that Scriptural support for infant baptism is not obvious. Mainline protestant groups also accept the three ecumenical creeds with great respect and closed and indisputable. Lutherans also rely on their own church traditions (Book of Concord) to maintain unity and provide help with exegesis of scripture. SS however leads one to at the end of the day compare denominations with scripture to figure out which is orthodox. They cant without circularity rely on the teaching authority of those congregations to decide who is teaching pure doctrine. Remember SS state scripture alone apart from such teaching authority must be the final authority for every believer.
T
TMC
Guest
OK, I know I am jumping into this thread late, but how could the early Christians have been Sola, when they didn’t have any Scriptura? What did they do for the first century or more when there were no NT writings? The early Christians must have relied on tradition - there was nothing else.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Wrong. I was NEVER a catholic. What I believe to be true has come directly or indirectly from the study of the Bible. Therefore my postion on issues has NOTHING to do with being contrary. I can’t help it if they are different from yours.
It’s nice to see you understand that truth. It is you who majors on our differences most likely because you look down your nose at the likes of me because I’m not catholic yet profess Jesus as my Savior.
You come across so arrogantly that it seems it’s about your knowledge and your understanding.
D
Dokimas
Guest
You’re welcome.**Since I wrote more **than that - and you only responded to one of my comments - you can see why I was confused.
Thank you for your explanation, Doki.
S
simspt
Guest
To my understanding the date of authorship of most of the NT writings was mid 1st century to early 2nd therefore there probably was some writings circulating in the second half of the 1st century. However there were Christians before there was a single NT document and a Church of believers for decades not to mention as you point out no canon for hundreds of years. This IMO shows how important a role the early churches played in spreading the Gospel and how inseparable eventually the Church’s written and oral testimony of the Apostles and followers of the Apostles was. The recurring connection that is seen in the ECFs is the tripod of Apostolic succession, Scripture and tradition or rule of faith. Many Christians today reject two out of the three that the church fathers held so importantly connected. A good book if u r interested on early writing is by Harry Gamble
Books and Readers in the Early Church : A History of Early Christian Texts
amazon.com/Books-Readers-Early-Church-Christian/dp/0300069189/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1
T
thevoiceofone
Guest
Thanks for the book recommendation. Looks like a good one.
Your understanding is correct that the Church was writing documents very early on. There is no doubt of that. i can’t remember the words off the top of my head, but Peter even says there were already several letters in 2 Peter, somewhere in the second chapter, where he says that some of Paul’s words are confusing to some people, 2:6ish, I think. Anyway, it’s there… Peter says it, and poor Peter wasn’t allowed to live very long, if I remember correctly. So, yes, the Church was writing early, and they treasured the writings they had, but they were **not **sola scriptura… *nobody *was until the Reformation.
V
Vixit
Guest
You expect St. Paul to seek someone’s permission to write the things that Christ Himself showed him? Seriously, you can’t say, “What gave the Apostles authority to teach”. They actually knew Jesus. A vast majority of Christians have never met christ, as I’m sure you know. Therefore we pay attention to the things his friends and loved ones said about him before we accept anything else. And, I’m pretty positive none of the Gospel authors wrote what they wrote with the intent of codifying anything or putting doctrine into writing- they were just sharing the Good News!
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Cruisin,
I studied under this priest appointed by Archbishop Levada who is now serving Pope Benedict at the Vatican. The priest called everyone in professional ministry to take classes to update their understanding of faith. Many had fallen into heretical ideas, and as my son would say, here at Catholic school, religion is about being nice…but the power of the Word of God was lost to our children, many loosing their faith that was given them by devout parents.
Father explained the power of witness. Many came to the apostles but they refused them because they knew these had no authority and were not chosen by Christ. But when St. Paul approached the apostles, right away they recognized that he had Christ’s authority. St.Paul was called to preach to the Gentiles, to unite them to the Jewish Christians. St. Paul later exhorted St. Peter who was going overboard in appeasing the Jewish Christians regarding circumcision and eating of certain foods…essentially, Paul was not teaching him anything, but exhorting him to return to his initial preaching of liberality, coming from the dream of the animals, and being given license by God to now eat of them.
So St Peter as well, always had primacy. And later for confronting as he did, St. Paul was exiled. But the Holy Spirit always was working through him. And both St. Peter and St. Paul hold the keys to the Church…Jewish and Gentile. This all coming about through the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the same Holy Spirit at work in transmitting the true faith of Jesus Christ.
I studied under this priest appointed by Archbishop Levada who is now serving Pope Benedict at the Vatican. The priest called everyone in professional ministry to take classes to update their understanding of faith. Many had fallen into heretical ideas, and as my son would say, here at Catholic school, religion is about being nice…but the power of the Word of God was lost to our children, many loosing their faith that was given them by devout parents.
Father explained the power of witness. Many came to the apostles but they refused them because they knew these had no authority and were not chosen by Christ. But when St. Paul approached the apostles, right away they recognized that he had Christ’s authority. St.Paul was called to preach to the Gentiles, to unite them to the Jewish Christians. St. Paul later exhorted St. Peter who was going overboard in appeasing the Jewish Christians regarding circumcision and eating of certain foods…essentially, Paul was not teaching him anything, but exhorting him to return to his initial preaching of liberality, coming from the dream of the animals, and being given license by God to now eat of them.
So St Peter as well, always had primacy. And later for confronting as he did, St. Paul was exiled. But the Holy Spirit always was working through him. And both St. Peter and St. Paul hold the keys to the Church…Jewish and Gentile. This all coming about through the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the same Holy Spirit at work in transmitting the true faith of Jesus Christ.
E
elvisman
Guest
I never claimed that you were ever a Catholic. I have called you anti-catholic, though.
Sometimes your positions have everything to do with being contrary. I say this because most of the time you interject your negative responses when I am addressing somebody else.
All I do is present the Church’s position. Never do I inject my own “doctrines”. I am merely a parrot for the truth.
**What you call arrogance is nothing more than defense of the faith.
I never become stern unless I’m answering somebody who is uncharitable and feels it necessary to perpetuate negative myths about the Church.
C
cruisin
Guest
Kathleen,
couple of comments
- the apostles did not except him immediately see Acts 9
- Both Peter and Paul holds the keys? I thought it was just Peter. Don’t see any Paul mentioned in Matthew?
C
cruisin
Guest
I agree all authority was given to Paul by Christ, not by the church.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Christ and the Church are mystically united, so what is that supposed to mean?I agree all authority was given to Paul by Christ, not by the church.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Wow, Elvis. Don’t look now but you’re descibing yourself.
There are catholics that see things a bit different from you so I think it is correct to say you ‘parrot’ your understanding of the CC teaching. I’m sure it’s correct much of the time.
You mention all you do is parrot the beliefs of the CC. You remind me of the communist soldiers that imprisoned Christians in the middle of last century. When told about God they’d respond that if the government told them there was a God, they’d believe there was a God but because they were taught there was no God then they did not believe in God. Of course you believe in the God Who created the universe; that’s not the parallel.
- Status