The Early Christians were Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter IHeartAquinas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Other than the Church saying it has authority, how do we know it does?
If you don’t, then you have no grounds upon which to accept the Bible, since it is upon the authority Christ gave to the Church that the Bible was formed.

If the Church was not given authority, then why does the NT say that this authority is alive and active in the Church?
 
Hi, Guanophore,

I sort of lost track … what was the explanaiton given for the Early Christians (from about 33AD - 400AD) going with Scripture alone - when the NT was completed in 100 but the Canon was not identified until about 400AD?

It seems to indicate that for almost 400 years the Early Christians simply did have the equipment (the completed Bible) to be Sola Scriptura.

God bless
If you don’t, then you have no grounds upon which to accept the Bible, since it is upon the authority Christ gave to the Church that the Bible was formed.

If the Church was not given authority, then why does the NT say that this authority is alive and active in the Church?
 
Hi, Guanophore,

I sort of lost track … what was the explanaiton given for the Early Christians (from about 33AD - 400AD) going with Scripture alone - when the NT was completed in 100 but the Canon was not identified until about 400AD?

It seems to indicate that for almost 400 years the Early Christians simply did have the equipment (the completed Bible) to be Sola Scriptura.

God bless
There were all kinds of letters floating around. Some know to be from the real founding fathers like Paul, John and Peter. Those were valued and others of non-known people were not valued or looked upon with the same value as those written by eye-witnesses.

When the Bible was finally canonized, it didn’t happen in a vacuum. Specific letters where valued and other weren’t since they were written.

Draw your own conclusions from these observations.
 
Can you answer this question, Doki:

Who “finally canonized” this Bible?
I don’t know their names. I’m quite sure they were humble enough NOT to care that any of us knew who they were. God uses the humble.

In other words, either God did it or we don’t have what He intended us to have.

Final answer.

How’d I do?
 
I don’t know their names. I’m quite sure they were humble enough NOT to care that any of us knew who they were. God uses the humble.

In other words, either God did it or we don’t have what He intended us to have.

Final answer.

How’d I do?
I think your non-answer shows you do know the answer:

It was Catholic bishops. Do you deny this?

They made an infallible discernment. Do you deny this?
 
Hi, Dokimas,

You had a golden opportuntiy to say something significant - and you chose to waste it. What a shame… :rolleyes:

While you are right that there were all kinds of letter ‘floating around’ - and while some of those were genuine - others were simply counterfeits, forgeries and truly heretical Gnostic works like the Gospel of St. Thomas, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Truth, etc.) What individual Christian was able to make a determination as to what was inspired by God and what was simply a human tradition if not down-right evil? The answer lies with St. Paul’s first letter to Timothy (1Tim 3:15). It is the Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church - the so-called reformers did not appear on the scene for another 1,600 years!) that is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth (that means the Bible isn’t). It is the Catholic Church lwho gave us the Bible - not the Bible giving us the Catholic Church.

Since the Early Christians (now that would be the Early Catholics) went off in different geographical directions to avoid the initial persecutions of the Jews (as Saul of Tarsus describes his actions in Acts 9) and then later by the Roman Empire there were a lot of written items available. The idea that everyone could tell genuine from fraud is simply wishful thinking. Today, knowledgeable art dealers sometimes get surprised when they find out they have a forgery on their hands!
There were all kinds of letters floating around. Some know to be from the real founding fathers like Paul, John and Peter. Those were valued and others of non-known people were not valued or looked upon with the same value as those written by eye-witnesses.

When the Bible was finally canonized, it didn’t happen in a vacuum. Specific letters where valued and other weren’t since they were written.

Draw your own conclusions from these observations.
On the off chance that you really do not know how we got the Bible… here is a link you may find helpful: catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0011fea4.asp If you did know, but were just too embarrassed to say that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible - you may want to look at that non-responsive-response… as a clue to another problem. 😉

Ultimately, for almost the first 400 years after the birth of Christ - there was no canon for the NT - and the Early Catholic Church met and prayed and studied the books that were available - and then discussed the matter and resolved just what would make up the Canon and what was not to be included. What was being declared here is that certain books of the Bible were identified as having been inspired by God - and, they were included by God. Some others were simply the works of men - some were devout and pius (but not Inspired) and therefore not included in the Canon (e.g., The Shepherd of Hermas written about the Second Century).

God bless
 
I think your non-answer shows you do know the answer:

It was Catholic bishops. Do you deny this?

They made an infallible discernment. Do you deny this?
If they were known then as Catholic bishops then I don’t deny it. If they got this title latter in history, then I deny your statement.

There’s a huge difference between being infallible and making infallible discernment only because God inspired them.

I accept the 66 books of the Bible as inspired by God. Only God knows for sure it it is exactly what He intended or if your other books are equal with the 66 books or it some that are accepted are not really totally inspired.

Did I do a better job this time?
 
If they were known then as Catholic bishops then I don’t deny it. If they got this title latter in history, then I deny your statement.

There’s a huge difference between being infallible and making infallible discernment only because God inspired them.

I accept the 66 books of the Bible as inspired by God. Only God knows for sure it it is exactly what He intended or if your other books are equal with the 66 books or it some that are accepted are not really totally inspired.

Did I do a better job this time?
Infallibility is a work of the Holy Spirit. But the Spirit gives gifts as He pleases and it pleases Him to have a pope and college of bishops who are infallible.
 
If they were known then as Catholic bishops then I don’t deny it. If they got this title latter in history, then I deny your statement.
They were, indeed, known as bishops. And they consecrated the Eucharist. They prayed for the dead. They worshipped at the Divine Liturgy. And they met at councils presided by the pope. More like my Church today than yours?
There’s a huge difference between being infallible and making infallible discernment only because God inspired them.
Ah. Then you have just provided a definition of what the Church understands infallibility to be, in your bolded section.

So now you believe that some men can be infallible, and, in fact, have been infallible on more than one occasion. 👍
 
They were, indeed, known as bishops. And they consecrated the Eucharist. They prayed for the dead. They worshipped at the Divine Liturgy. And they met at councils presided by the pope. More like my Church today than yours?

Were they known to each other as Catholic bishops? You negelected to include a VERY important word.
Ah. Then you have just provided a definition of what the Church understands infallibility to be, in your bolded section.
 
They were, indeed, known as bishops.

You missed a very important word – Catholic bishop. Did they call themselves Catholic bishops?
And they consecrated the Eucharist. They prayed for the dead. They worshipped at the Divine Liturgy. And they met at councils presided by the pope. More like my Church today than yours?
 
Infallibility is a work of the Holy Spirit. But the Spirit gives gifts as He pleases and it pleases Him to have a pope and college of bishops who are infallible.
Outside of this being a teaching of the CC, how do we know this is correct?
 
Outside of this being a teaching of the CC, how do we know this is correct?
Peter and his fellow apostles spoke with the authority of God. Just ask Annias and Saphira. They also appointed bishops and priests such as Timothy and Matthias. If sola scriptura is true then you must show from the Bible alone that such charismatic gifts of episcopal and presbyteral office no longer exist. Otherwise you must submit to those who God has set over you.
 
Peter and his fellow apostles spoke with the authority of God. Just ask Annias and Saphira. They also appointed bishops and priests such as Timothy and Matthias. If sola scriptura is true then you must show from the Bible alone that such charismatic gifts of episcopal and presbyteral office no longer exist. Otherwise you must submit to those who God has set over you.
The apostles were given authority. Were does it say that they were infallible? In fact, the NT seems to point out they made mistakes. Thankfully God uses us inspite of ourselves.

Sure they appointed bishops and priests - the NT states that to be so.

My question to you was how do we know, " pleases Him to have a pope and college of bishops who are infallible" is true (and seeing as there were no popes or a college of bishops during the 1st century or more then you must be referring to the CC) accept that the CC teaches this about itself.
 
Hi, Dokimas

You are more than welcome… 🙂 “…Due thought…” is all I am asking for.
Now, let’s see if we can get to the heart of the matter.
Excellent observaton! 👍 Let’s see now, could it have been the Jewish faith? No!
And, this is because Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant and gave us the New Covenant.

Could it have been the man-made churches founded by Luther, or Calvin or King Henry VIII and so many others…? No! And, this is because these guys did not come on the scene for 1,600 years after Christ had founded His Church on Peter (Matt 16:18).

I would say it was the Catholic Church! You see, unlike Starbucks or GM or IBM - the Apostles did not sit down and decide that, “Hey! We need a name for our orgaization!” While Acts records a name of the followers of “The Way” - this was more like following Christ as the Way. The Apostles were not concerned with articles of legal incorporation that had to be filed at the court house. Things were much simpler back in 33AD. We have the words of Ignatus of Antioch in 110AD calling the group ‘catholic’ and from there on the name became Catholic. This really isn’t written down - and, it is really the best I can do on that side. I can tell you, however, the group was certainly NOT CALLED: Lutherans, Presybeterians, Baptists, Anglicans, etc.
Who said ‘everyone’ could tell guenuine from fraud?
If you didn’t, than I apologize. 🙂 I jumped to conclusions here! :eek: What I jumped at was your statement about people being able to tell what was inspired and what wasn’t. I guess that if ONLY certain people could tell the difference, then you know who they were and when this took place. Please, tell me: If not ‘everyone’ then which ones?
The issue for me isn’t what group of people were used but that God did the using. If God used a donkey, then He may even be able to use the likes of me, you or any church group of true believers – I, being less than a donkey and all the rest of you far greater than a donkey. How was God able to move people and speak to people until 400AD?
It must be very hard to type with hooves! :rolleyes: God is recorded as having used a donkey to accomplish His Will. There is, however, of Him using men - frail, sinful and even evil men to do the same! God chose weak, sinful and the one who would deny Him to lead the Church of Christ (and, that would be the Catholic Church).

No one is questioning the authentic nature of Inspiration in the Gospel of Matthew. Well, not only was the Inspired Gospel read, it was followed, too. The Early Church Fathers refer to the Successor of Peter - to the leader of the Church - to the Vicar of Christ on earth. Today, we call him Pope Benedict XVI - but, his line of succession goes all the way back to Peter - and that reference is in Scripture.

I honestly can not explain HOW God does anything. The real issue as creatures is to note that He did do Something and that Something was to send His Son down, found His Church, and then to die on the Cross and be our Savior. That is the sequence of events that is in Scripture. Even if Sola Scriptura had any merit - you would still have to explain why books of the Canon were removed by the so-called reformers, and why actual verses were simply denied outright with craft explanaiton that negate the plainly spoken message of Christ (e.g., John 6)

Early Christians were not because they could not be believers in Sola Scriptura - it is strictly a reformation idea that is a tradition of men and can be historicially dated as such.

God bless
 
The apostles were given authority. Were does it say that they were infallible? In fact, the NT seems to point out they made mistakes. Thankfully God uses us inspite of ourselves.
Error no. Sin yes. There is a difference. We are all sinners, so if sin disqualifies from authority there could be no government.
My question to you was how do we know, " pleases Him to have a pope and college of bishops who are infallible" is true (and seeing as there were no popes or a college of bishops during the 1st century or more then you must be referring to the CC) accept that the CC teaches this about itself.
Ever since there has been Peter and the Twelve there has been a pope and a college of bishops. Of course they were not called that from the get-go just as the term “Trinity” was not yet in use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top