The Early Christians were Sola Scriptura

[Cat_Herder]

You missed a very important word – Catholic bishop. Did they call themselves Catholic bishops?

Yup.

 

[PJM]

=IHeartAquinas;7077809]This line has been fed to me time and time again by people who claim that Sola Scriptura is “easily defended” by the Bible. Of course, the people that most often throw this at me have since learned that their favorite proof text from 2 Timothy doesn’t work because I easily refute it every time, so now they are saying that the early church prior to the fourth century was sola scriptura because they didn’t have a history of tradition to fall back on.

Protestants who assert this: please back this up. I am at a loss for this, because it defies logic to me. The earliest converts were Jews who had six thousand years of ritualized tradition and priestly law, etc. The converted Romans also had a history of traditional and standardized methods of worship. The Bible as we have it today didn’t even exist until the fourth century anyway, so how could the early Christians have been adherents to a doctrine that required the codification of the Bible prior to the codification of the Bible?

While partially true in that the EARY Fathers had a hand in making and developing TRADITION; there was no official bible until it was Codified in the early 400’s. So the Early Fathers could not, would not and did not accept a philosophy of Soal Scriptoria.

 

[pablope]

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.

Maybe it would help the discussion if you show what you understand by the term. Your understanding and the responders may possibly be different, and you both are comparing apples and oranges.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PRmerger,

You know, I have noticed that, too - all this blather about the word ‘catholic’ not appearing in the Bible - yet, Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII and the thousands that have followed these guys off of the cliff - never have their name in the Bible, either! So, if not having ‘catholic’ in the Bible disqualifies (at least in the minds of some men) the Church founded by Christ then why do they want to end the argument there?!

Considering the genuine complexity of the Bible - how anyone can claim that the Bible explains itself is just wishful thinking - and the wish appears to be with the infallable teaching of the Magisterium.

Of course, to claim that the Early Catholics were SS fans - before there was a completed New Testament written and then the Canon established is like putting the cart before the horse! It just does not make any historical or logical argument.

God bless

Dokimas;7233377:

I don’t know if they did. But they consecrated the Eucharist. And they prayed for the dead. And they celebrated the Divine Liturgy.

Those are things that sound very Catholic to me. They’re things my Church does.

And yours doesn’t.

 

[pablope]

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?

There’s a huge difference between being infallible and making infallible discernment only because God inspired them. What is the difference, please explain.

As for the Canon of the OT, I do not know how familiar you are with the history of the OT canon. The Hebrew Canon was called the Septuagint, in use even before Christ’s birth, was used during his stay here on earth, was used by the Apostles and is used by Catholic Bibles up to today, became the OT when the Bible was codified.

In the year 100 AD or so, (I do not remember the exact year), due to the increasing number of Christians, jjewish authorities gathered to define their own canon, with a set of criteria, which sort of disregarded the 7 deutero books. Reformers, sometime in 1700 or so, chose to adopt this Jewish Canon, for whatever reason, for their version of the OT.

 

[Cat_Herder]

You know, I have noticed that, too - all this blather about the word ‘catholic’ not appearing in the Bible - yet, Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII and the thousands that have followed these guys off of the cliff - never have their name in the Bible, either! So, if not having ‘catholic’ in the Bible disqualifies (at least in the minds of some men) the Church founded by Christ then why do they want to end the argument there?!

The word “Catholic,” in its Koine adjectival form, is in the Bible.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Dokimas
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.

My dear friend in Christ;

Please consider this a responce to your “infallibility question.”

**Matt.28: 18 **"And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Thus we know it was His to give to his Apostles.

Matt.16: 19 “I [Jesus] will give you [Peter an my Apostles see **Matt. 18:18] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

**Acts.1: 8 **[JESUS SPEAKING] “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama’ria and to the end of the earth.”

Matt.28 Verses 19 to 20: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

The GIFT you question is an absolute sense necessary in order for the Church to carry out this Mission given by Christ to he Apostles.

**JOHN 14: 16-19 ** 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. ***“I will not leave you desolate; I will come to 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. *** 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. *** And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. ***

Friend; no other Church; no other Faith, no other denomination EXCEPT the CC has Chrsit Himself to insure Her [His CC TRUTHon all Moral and Faith issues!]

 

[Dokimas]

Let me briefly say, ‘your responses seem quite smug’ and I’ll not mention it again, at least in this post.

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).

Did Luther found a church? I’m sure that wasn’t his intention. Wasn’t he excommunicated from the CC?

I wouldn’t presume to say any church founded that is based on the Gospel of Jesus the Christ is any more or less man made than the CC.

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.

And I’d say how about a name like the Body of Christ, or the Church of Christians, or the Church that follows the Way.

Seeing as you think baptism is important for salvation, what is wrong with the name Baptist for the name of a Christ that follows the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

If you didn’t, than I apologize. I jumped to conclusions here! 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?

I think if you look back I used the word ‘some’. Obviously the writers and their appointed underlings seemed to be able to discern.

It must be very hard to type with hooves! 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).

We are agreed until you said it was the CC.

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.

Sorry I don’t see the connection between the inspiration of Matthew and Peter’s successors and your popes.

Your mentioning of Peter’s successors leads me to ask, what about Paul’s successors or James’ successors. They surely seemed to have as much authority and responsibilities in the early church. Where does it say that Peter actually lead the other 10 or 11 apostiles?

I honestly can not explain HOW God does anything. YES- agreed

! 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. YES-agreed! 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, **NO I DON’T agree **and why actual verses were simply denied outright with craft explanaiton that negate the plainly spoken message of Christ (e.g., John 6)

Correction: it is your understanding of John 6 that is questioned. I put what Jesus said about eating His Body and drinking His Blood with Him telling us if our hand offends us, cut it off.

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.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[Dokimas]

My dear friend in Christ;

Please consider this a responce to your “infallibility question.”

**Matt.28: 18 **"And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Thus we know it was His to give to his Apostles.

Matt.16: 19 "I [Jesus] will give you [Peter an my Apostles see **Matt. 18:18

] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

**Acts.1: 8 **[JESUS SPEAKING] “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama’ria and to the end of the earth.”

Matt.28 Verses 19 to 20: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

The GIFT you question is an absolute sense necessary in order for the Church to carry out this Mission given by Christ to he Apostles.

**JOHN 14: 16-19 ** 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. ***“I will not leave you desolate; I will come to 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. *** 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. *** And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. ***

Friend; no other Church; no other Faith, no other denomination EXCEPT the CC has Chrsit Himself to insure Her [His CC TRUTHon all Moral and Faith issues!]

Those are wonderful verses. I agree with their content to the best of my ability to understand them. I don’t believe you have the correct understanding if you think Jesus had to make the church infallible and you use these verses to back up your understanding.

 

[Dokimas]

There’s a huge difference between being infallible and making infallible discernment only because God inspired them. What is the difference, please explain.

I can say correctly that 2 + 2 = 4. That doesn’t make me a calculator nor a mathematician.

Was the donkey infallible?

Was David infallible?

 

[Dokimas]

Hi, PRmerger,

You know, I have noticed that, too - all this blather about the word ‘catholic’ not appearing in the Bible - yet, Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII and the thousands that have followed these guys off of the cliff - never have their name in the Bible, either! So, if not having ‘catholic’ in the Bible disqualifies (at least in the minds of some men) the Church founded by Christ then why do they want to end the argument there?!

 

[Cat_Herder]

You’re the ones that claim the CC goes all the way back to Peter and the apostles. Please show me it’s name then used by them. Simple request for you simple statement.

I did.

I say the church goes back to Jesus and His disciples. That’s my only claim. My hope is that the Blood of Jesus has made me worthy of being part of that church. It is His Blood that changes me that is the ONLY way to be a part of His church.

When are you washed in that Blood? Give a book, chapter and verse.

 

[Nicea325]

You’re the ones that claim the CC goes all the way back to Peter and the apostles. Please show me it’s name then used by them. Simple request for you simple statement.

 

[PRmerger]

I can say correctly that 2 + 2 = 4. That doesn’t make me a calculator nor a mathematician.

Right. Infallibility is a function of the Holy Spirit providing guidance in theological matters.

For example, Peter, a sinner, was infallible when he declared, “You are the Messiah, the son of the living God.” It was because the HS revealed this to him.

He was, however, not infallible when he declared this: “Though all become deserters because of you, I will never desert you.”

Was the donkey infallible?

What was it that you think the donkey said that was infallible, Doki?

Is what you’re referring to?
*But now the LORD opened the mouth of the **, and she asked Balaam, “What have I done to you that you should beat me these three times?”

Are you really saying that this is an infallible statement?

Was David infallible?

Please give a statement you’re questioning and we’ll discuss.

 

[Dokimas]

Right. Infallibility is a function of the Holy Spirit providing guidance in theological matters.

For example, Peter, a sinner, was infallible when he declared, “You are the Messiah, the son of the living God.” It was because the HS revealed this to him.

He was, however, not infallible when he declared this: “Though all become deserters because of you, I will never desert you.”

What was it that you think the donkey said that was infallible, Doki?

Is what you’re referring to?
*But now the LORD opened the mouth of the **, and she asked Balaam, “What have I done to you that you should beat me these three times?”

Are you really saying that this is an infallible statement?

Please give a statement you’re questioning and we’ll discuss.

Did God speak through the donkey? If so, can God speak infallibly? If not, there’s your answer. What was God’s purpose of using the donkey? Was it not to get Balaam’s attention because, he a prophet of God, was being very disobedient.

I guess I’m not clear: I see a huge difference between being infallible (only Jesus) and speaking (or writing) infallibly. You seem to believe a person must be infallible at the time of speaking or writing something that is infallible – if so, we disagree.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

Here is a simple statement: to the best of my knowledge, the group that followed Christ, as recorded in the 4 Gospels had no designated or recorded name. The followers of Christ were not recorded in the Gospels to be 'Christian". Is that simple enough?

Now, because they had no designated name, it does not mean that they did not exist! And, it does not mean that they forever remained nameless.

You’re the ones that claim the CC goes all the way back to Peter and the apostles. Please show me it’s name then used by them. Simple request for you simple statement.

 

[Dokimas]

Hi, Dokimas,

Here is a simple statement: to the best of my knowledge, the group that followed Christ, as recorded in the 4 Gospels had no designated or recorded name. The followers of Christ were not recorded in the Gospels to be 'Christian". Is that simple enough?

 

[PRmerger]

Did God speak through the donkey? If so, can God speak infallibly?

Um, Doki, of course God can speak infallibly. No Catholic here is going to deny that.

If not, there’s your answer. What was God’s purpose of using the donkey? Was it not to get Balaam’s attention because, he a prophet of God, was being very disobedient.

Ok.

But are you saying that the donkey was infallible for proclaiming this:
*But now the LORD opened the mouth of the **, and she asked Balaam, “What have I done to you that you should beat me these three times?”

:whacky:

I guess I’m not clear: I see a huge difference between being infallible (only Jesus) and speaking (or writing) infallibly.

Then you believe that there must be some error in the Bible? You don’t believe that the Holy Spirit was capable of inspiring Peter, James, Mark, etc, to get it right?

If so, you are in the company of a great many modernists who don’t believe that the Scriptures could reflect God’s inerrant word. They think it was wise words written by men. Fallible men. And therefore capable of being rejected.

That’s the logical conclusion if you don’t believe that men can be infallible.

You seem to believe a person must be infallible at the time of speaking or writing something that is infallible – if so, we disagree.

Actually, you believe it, too, Dokimas. Unless you believe there was an error in the canon of Scripture discerned by Catholic bishops on numerous occasions.

You only know that Revelation is inspired because the CC discerned it to be so.

And they did this infallibly.

On numerous occasions.

 

[Dokimas]

Um, Doki, of course God can speak infallibly. No Catholic here is going to deny that.

Ok.

But are you saying that the donkey was infallible for proclaiming this: Of Course NOT.
*But now the LORD opened the mouth of the **, and she asked Balaam, “What have I done to you that you should beat me these three times?”

:whacky:

Then you believe that there must be some error in the Bible? Again, Of Course NOT. You don’t believe that the Holy Spirit was capable of inspiring Peter, James, Mark, etc, to get it right? Once again, Of Course NOT - unless you misunderstand me of course they were inspired. You have taken what I’ve said and twisted them.

If so, you are in the company of a great many modernists who don’t believe that the Scriptures could reflect God’s inerrant word. As you’ve shown throughout this post, you don’t understand my position. You are adding 2 + 2 and getting anything but 4. They think it was wise words written by men. Fallible men. And therefore capable of being rejected.

That’s the logical conclusion if you don’t believe that men can be infallible. Wrong conclusion, IMO.

Actually, you believe it, too, Dokimas. Unless you believe there was an error in the canon of Scripture discerned by Catholic bishops on numerous occasions.

You only know that Revelation is inspired because the CC discerned it to be so.

And they did this infallibly.

On numerous occasions. Thanks for your opinion

If I’m correct about anything I believe it’s because of the Holy Spirit. To say anthing else, IMO, is to deny that fact.

I have stated over and over again that God inspire fallible human infallibly. It is what God does through fallible people that is infallible, not the people. That’s one of the beautiful benifits of the Gospel of Jesus, this side of Heaven.

 

[PRmerger]

I have stated over and over again that God inspire fallible human infallibly.
It is what God does through fallible people that is infallible, not the people. That’s one of the beautiful benifits of the Gospel of Jesus, this side of Heaven.

Then, Dokimas, you are in agreement with the Catholic Church’s definition of infallibility.

You now know that there is a Church which God used to inspired fallible men to discern infallible teachings. There is no other church that professes what you believe above, except the Catholic Church (and, the Orthodox, but I digress.)

Also, you know, I am certain, that the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is a sinner. He receives the Sacrament of Confession (Reconciliation) regularly.