The Early Church Fathers Protestant-Style

[john1968]

I am a Protestant. This is what I know about the early church. This is what I have been led to believe about the early fathers of the first three centuries of Christianity.

1. There was no pope back then.

I site this information as one example: The first attempt of any Bishop of Rome to try to demand the powers and obedience that we have come to recognize with the papacy occurred with Stephen, bishop of Rome, in and around 250 A.D. In response to this here is one quote which shows that the papacy didn’t exist in the early centuries.

“Peter – whom the Lord chose first and upon whom he built the church – did not insolently claim anything to himself. Nor did he arrogantly assume anything when Paul later disputed with him about circumcision. He did not say that he held the primacy and that he needed to be obeyed by novices and those lately come!” – Cyprian (250 A.D.)

1. Some early popes, such as Callistus and Zephyrinus, were accused of heresy, by men who are now considered saints.

“Callistus attempted to confirm this heresy—a man cunning in wickedness, and subtle where deceit was concerned, (and) who was impelled by restless ambition to mount the episcopal throne. Now this man moulded to his purpose Zephyrinus, an ignorant and illiterate individual, and one unskilled in ecclesiastical definitions. And inasmuch as Zephyrinus was accessible to bribes, and covetous, Callistus, by luring him through presents, and by illicit demands, was enabled to seduce him into whatever course of action he pleased. And so it was that Callistus succeeded in inducing Zephyrinus to create continually disturbances among the brethren, while he himself took care subsequently, by knavish words, to attach both factions in good-will to himself. And, at one time, to those who entertained true opinions, he would in private allege that they held similar doctrines (with himself), and thus make them his dupes; while at another time he would act similarly towards those (who embraced) the tenets of Sabellius.”– Hippolytus (225 A.D.)

1. There was no confession to clergymen of small sins:

“When then I recovered myself, and remembered the glory of God, and took courage, I knelt down and confessed my sins to the Lord once more, as I had done on the former occasion.” – Shepherd of Hermas (140 A.D.)

1. Originally there was no acceptable confession of grave sins to clergymen either. No one thought they had the power to forgive such sins. Here Hippolytus condemns Callistus for granting forgiveness to people who committed grave sins.

“The impostor Callistus, having ventured on such opinions, established a school of theology in antagonism to the Church, adopting the foregoing system of instruction. And he first invented the device of conniving with men in regard of their indulgence in sensual pleasures, saying that all had their sins forgiven by himself. For he who is in the habit of attending the congregation of any one else, and is called a Christian, should he commit any transgression; the sin, they say, is not reckoned unto him, provided only he hurries off and attaches himself to the school of Callistus. And many persons were gratified with his regulation, as being stricken in conscience, and at the same time having been rejected by numerous sects; while also some of them, in accordance with our condemnatory sentence, had been by us forcibly ejected from the Church. Now such disciples as these passed over to these followers of Callistus, and served to crowd his school.” – Hippolytus (225 A.D.)

1. Donatus Magnus, Novatian, Tertullian and Hippolytus all believed that there was no forgiveness of grave sins after committed after Baptism. This is reflected in words found in the book The Shepherd of Hermas.

“For the Lord hath sworn by his glory concerning his elect, having determined this very time that if any one shall even now sin, he shall not be saved. For the repentance of the righteous has its end; the days of repentance are fulfilled to all the saints; but to the heathen, there is repentance even unto the last day.” - Shepherd of Hermas (140 A.D.)

1. There was no transubstantiation:

“It is not by earthly sacrifices, but by spiritual, that offering is to be made to God. Therefore, we read… “Offer to God a sacrifice of praise, and render to the Highest your vows.” Thus accordingly, the spiritual “sacrifices of praise” are pointed to.”– Tertullian (197 A.D.)

“The bishop shall bless the bread, which is the symbol of the Body of Christ; and the bowl mixed wine, which is the symbol of the blood which has been shed for all who believe in him.” – Hyppolytus (225 A.D.)

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought out symbols when he said: “He said: “Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith…”” – Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.)

““Eat my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers…The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life…” – Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.)

1. No prayers to angels and saints:

“We judge it improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers (to God), seeing even they themselves would prefer that we should send up our requests to the God to whom they pray, rather than send them downwards to themselves, or apportion our power of prayer between God and them.” – Origen (248 A.D.)

“And if we speak of Paradise, the place of heavenly bliss appointed to receive the spirits of the saints, severed from the knowledge of this world by that fiery zone as by a sort of enclosure, the Elysian plains have taken possession of their faith.” – Tertullian (197 A.D.)

 

[john1968]

It looks as though the book the Shepherd of Hermas brought in a new doctrine into the church which taught that after a certain point there is no forgiveness left to those who have been baptized. An idea arose that grave sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven. And so you have the development of the Donatists, Novatians, Montanists, etc. You also have critics such as Hippolytus, Tertullian, Novatian, Donatus Magnus, etc.

"So many people wanted to permanently expel these lapsed sinners that Cyprian even wrote: “I wonder that some are so obstinate as to think that repentence is not to be granted to the lapsed.” - Cyprian (250 A.D.)

To allow the lapsed to return the sacrament of reconciliation is developed, but many people don’t agree with it, such as Hippolytus, Tertullian, Novatian, Donatus Magnus, etc.

Hippolytus is so against it that he denounces Callistus, Bishop of Rome, on account of it:

“The impostor Callistus, having ventured on such opinions, established a school of theology in antagonism to the Church, adopting the foregoing system of instruction. And he first invented the device of conniving with men in regard of their indulgence in sensual pleasures, saying that all had their sins forgiven by himself. For he who is in the habit of attending the congregation of any one else, and is called a Christian, should he commit any transgression; the sin, they say, is not reckoned unto him, provided only he hurries off and attaches himself to the school of Callistus. And many persons were gratified with his regulation, as being stricken in conscience, and at the same time having been rejected by numerous sects; while also some of them, in accordance with our condemnatory sentence, had been by us forcibly ejected from the Church. Now such disciples as these passed over to these followers of Callistus, and served to crowd his school.” – Hippolytus (225 A.D.)

Some of these men broke their communion with the rest of the church over this topic. But for them to break their communion over something like this would mean that previously it did not exist, but instead was a new innovation.

Some people didn’t know what to do. This whole idea of clerical reconciliation was so new that some of the lapsed believers ran to the people who were about to be martyred and begged them to pray for God to forgive them. Tertullian speaks of this:

“You go so far as to lavish this power [of forgiveness of sins] on martyrs as well! No sooner has anyone…put on chains,… than adulterers beset him and fornicators gain access to him. Prayers immediately echo around him. Instantly, there are pools of tears.” - Tertullian

All this shows that originally there was no confession to a priest for reconciliation. It was a later invention to comfort the lapsed.

 

[john1968]

Did the early church require all clergy to be ordained? It does not appear so.

“If a confessor has been in chains for the name of the Lord, hands are not imposed on him for the diaconate or presbyterate; for he has the honor of the presbyterate by the fact of his confession. But if he is to be ordained a bishop, hands are to be imposed upon him.” - Hippolytus (about 230 A.D.)

 

[john1968]

I do not wish to create arguments. I am simply pleading my case as a Protestant, and trying to show that the Ante-Nicene Fathers point to the fact that originally the church was different from what the Roman Catholic Church became. I welcome any opposing viewpoints.

I hope no one is upset over my posts. I aim to educate, not to argue. Whoever created this thread named it “The Early Church Fathers Protestant-Style”. If that is your intent, then you should allow a Protestant to come on here and post the Protestant point of view and argument, and not just bash Protestants with all your postings.

Thank you!!

 

[PJM]

=Little Mary;7423526]I am just learning about the Early Church Fathers and came across an article on another website which respond to a protestant’s view of the Early Church Fathers and how in his opinion, they were proponents of sola scriptura, NOT tradition, as is really the case. I found this fascinating.

Has anyone ever encountered, or been in discussions with, people who are convinced that the Early Fathers were, in fact, pro sola scriptura and not Catholic?

I recently completed a BRIEFstudy on this topic:

Here is part of what I found…

**The early church Fathers on the Scriptures

The two meanings of the Bible**

by Origen, c. 185-254

"The reason why the divine power has give us the Scriptures is not solely to present facts according t the literal interpretation of the narrative. If one looks to the letter of the text, some of the facts have not actually happened and would be irrational and illogical.

Granted , the facts that have happened in the literal sense are much more numerous than the facts that have been added and have only a spiritual meaning.

All the same, in the face of certain pages the reader feels embarrassed. Without accurate research it is not possible to discover if a fact that seems historical actually happened according to the literal sense of the words or if it did not happen at all.

By keeping the commandment of the Lord to “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39), one ought to examine with care and attention where the literal meaning is historical and where it is not.

In Scripture not everything is objectively historical in the literal sense. Sometimes it is obvious that the result of taking it literally is impossible. But the divine Scripture, taken as a whole, has a spiritual meaning."

God Bless,
Pat

 

[john1968]

One thing I do know is that the ante-nicene fathers quoted scripture a lot. When I say a lot, I mean these guys really knew scripture. But back then the faith was kind of too new to be on the fence between sola scriptura vs Bible and tradition. There really weren’t that many traditions around. The faith was just too new for that.

When it comes to the canon of the New Testament, there was kind of an idea of what it should be. We can see that from the Muratorian Canon, which can be dated as early as 160 A.D. But there were a lot of books floating around which many people wanted to also consider as part of scripture, such as the Shepherd of Hermas. So there was a bit of a controversy over some of the books of the New Testament. That’s why it’s difficult to say if they were purely sola scriptura or not, because there were books that were debated and argued over.

One thing I do know is that when it came to fighting against the Jews who preached that Jesus wasn’t the Messiah, they used scripture to defend it. And when they fought against the Gnostics, they again used scripture to defend orthodox beliefs.

But since I deal primarily with the first three centuries of the church, and I really only focus on the Ante-Nicene fathers, it’s hard to see much tradition in the church, since it was still relatively young.

One thing I’ll say is that there were a lot of false gospels and infancy gospel and other pious fictions floating around. Who believed in them and who didn’t depended on the person and/or the area and congregation. You had books like the Apocolypse of Peter, the Prot-Evangelium of James, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, etc, etc. All pious fiction written in later centuries. Some of this was believed, and some was not. For the most part the modern day RCC doesn’t believe in them. But during the middle ages the Prot-Evangelium had a lot of influence on beliefs concerning Joseph and Mary. If you go to any museum and look at Medieval Art with the Holy Family, Joseph is always portrayed as an old man…which comes from the Prot-Evangelium of James.

I guess once you get to the third and forth centuries of the church there are traditions which are followed. But you see, a lot of the fight over whether someone believes in sola scriptura, or the Bible and Tradition comes about because (as I believe - you may chose to believe differently) the church had added so much clutter to it’s doctrines over the centuries that by the time of Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe, John Hus, and Martin Luther, the church needed to be cleaned out from the clutter and returned to the purity of the Apostles. The Protestant Reformers believed that there was no other way to do this but to rid the church of the clutter that was called tradition. After Vatican Council II the RCC tried to rid the church of some clutter, such as the belief in saints which never existed, such as Saint Christopher. And belief in things like Limbo. Etc.

Basically, when you get down to it, I think the argument between sola scriptura and tradition is that with tradition you get the belief in continuing revelation. That God has been revealing more and more to the Church over the centuries. Things that the Apostles didn’t know about. That revelation continues. While with Sola Scriptura the belief is that the revelation which God gave to the world about how to be saved ended with the last book of the Bible. The idea that the Apostles knew all there was to know about salvation, and that no more revelation was going to come till the end of days when Christ returns.

It’s up to you as to what you choose to believe. If you believe that revelation ended with the Apostles, then you most likely will believe in Sola Scriptura. If you believe that revelation has continued over the last 2,000 years, then you probably will believe in the idea of Church Tradition.

It’s all up to what you believe. My personal belief is that its all in the Bible and that’s where it stands. You, on the other hand, might believe differently.

 

[john1968]

PJM:

I hope this answers your question about sola scriptura vs tradition…

As I’ve said:

Basically, when you get down to it, I think the argument between sola scriptura and tradition is that with tradition you get the belief in continuing revelation. That God has been revealing more and more to the Church over the centuries. Things that the Apostles didn’t know about. That revelation continues. While with Sola Scriptura the belief is that the revelation which God gave to the world about how to be saved ended with the last book of the Bible. The idea that the Apostles knew all there was to know about salvation, and that no more revelation was going to come till the end of days when Christ returns. It’s up to you as to what you choose to believe. If you believe that revelation ended with the Apostles, then you most likely will believe in Sola Scriptura. If you believe that revelation has continued over the last 2,000 years, then you probably will believe in the idea of Church Tradition. It’s all up to what you believe. My personal belief is that its all in the Bible and that’s where it stands. You, on the other hand, might believe differently.

 

[James224]

I am just learning about the Early Church Fathers and came across an article on another website which respond to a protestant’s view of the Early Church Fathers and how in his opinion, they were proponents of sola scriptura, NOT tradition, as is really the case. I found this fascinating.

Has anyone ever encountered, or been in discussions with, people who are convinced that the Early Fathers were, in fact, pro sola scriptura and not Catholic?

Yes. Eric Svendsen. In debating some of these people what I found was that they take a sentence of the ECF’s out of context just like they do scripture! I remember once they quoted St. Augustine and said he believed in Sola Scriptura and the quote seemed to almost say that but in the same chapter St. Augustine speaks of Apostolic Tradition! They don’t even think of the fact that St. Augustine was a Catholic Bishop! In the work that they quoted, the whole work was about scripture so, naturally, he would emphasize scripture.

 

[john1968]

PJM…

Your quote by Origen appears to refer to his method of interpreting scripture. He believed that for each passage of scripture there were three levels of interpretation. The allegorical meaning, the typological meaning, and the literal/historical meaning.

The problem with all these different interpretations of scripture is that it leads easily to people performing eisegesis, instead of exegesis. In other words they will try to make the Bible say what they want it to say, even if it doesn’t say that. Yet they’ll do it and call it just another form of interpretation, when really they’re just doing it for their own agenda.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

PJM:

I hope this answers your question about sola scriptura vs tradition…

As I’ve said:

Basically, when you get down to it, I think the argument between sola scriptura and tradition is that with tradition you get the belief in continuing revelation. .

John, first welcome to the forums. I think you have a misunderstanding of Tradtion, or atleast a misunderstanding of the Catholic position of it. Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle (*Vatican II, Dei Verbum *). The Catholic Church preaches the faith, “once for all delivered to the saints” Jude 1:3. That does not mean however, that we cannot come to a better understanding of that faith.

While with Sola Scriptura the belief is that the revelation which God gave to the world about how to be saved ended with the last book of the Bible.

Can you support this belief using only your standard of Scripture? Where in the Bible does it say that the revelation of God would end with the last book being written? Is this not a tradition of yours? Also one runs into the problem of just what should be considered Scripture in order to know what the last book of the Bible truly is.

The idea that the Apostles knew all there was to know about salvation, and that no more revelation was going to come till the end of days when Christ returns.

Like my comment above, do you have Scriptural support of the cessation of public revelation?

It’s up to you as to what you choose to believe. If you believe that revelation ended with the Apostles, then you most likely will believe in Sola Scriptura.

Negative. I believe public revelation ended with the Apostles and deny Sola Scriptura. My question is, if you believe in Sola Scriptura, why do you believe revelation ended with the Apostles? Where does it say that in Scripture?

If you believe that revelation has continued over the last 2,000 years,

Continued? No. Has our understanding of it grown? Yes.

It’s all up to what you believe. My personal belief is that its all in the Bible and that’s where it stands. You, on the other hand, might believe differently

What does Sola Scriptura mean to you?

Welcome to the forums and God bless

 

[john1968]

To me Sola Scriptura means that my faith rests in the word of God, as contained in Scripture. The early church believed that with the last Apostle no more books should be considered part of scripture. The age of revelation ended with the Apostles. We see this from the Muratorian Canon. In the Muratorian Canon it states that the Shepherd of Hermas is a great book, but that it was written too late. The only books which were considered for the NT canon were books which had some true connection to an Apostle (including Paul), and which were recognized and used throughout the whole church. The 27 books we now have meet that criteria. The Muratorian Canon was written about 160 A.D., which preceeds by centuries the councils of the 4th and 5th centuries, which put the final rubber stamp on which books will be in that canon. Also the Ante-Nicene fathers primarily saw these books as being scriptural. There were some disputes, but those books which met every criteria were these books, and no other. This is true way before any council made a decision in the 4th century.

The four Gospels were recognized almost immediately. Irenaeus confirms that these are the true Gospels in the late second century, although he admits that in his time there were already 50 different Gospels floating around. He confirmed the four Gospels long before any council made that decision. And it is evident from the writings of the fathers, that only those Gospels were considered Gospels.

The Epistles of Paul are recognized as scripture by the author of 2 Peter, who I believe was Peter.

The canon of the Bible wasn’t decided upon by the councils of the Church. They simply attempted to recognize what God had already done.

During the life of Jesus which books were the books which were recognized as part of the OT scripture? Who determined which books they were? It was common usage. Not any council. There was no Jewish council which recognized which books should be part of the Jewish Tanakh till 90 AD. Jesus was executed long before that. Yet Jesus keeps quoting the scriptures and refering to them.

I guess in a way you can say that the usage of the people and which books were connected to the Apostles determined what was the canon of the New Testament. I suppose you can argue that that is tradition. If so, that’s where the tradition ends. Jesus never quoted tradition. He told the Pharisees that they preached the traditions of men as if they were the words of God. He denounced them for it. You can say that in Jesus day usage, custom and tradition determined which books were part of the canon of the OT, but that’s the only tradition that Jesus seemed to accept. He never accepted the traditions of men as equal to the word of God. And in fact spoke against such a thing. And he always quoted from scripture, yet never quotes from tradition.

You may say that the RCC doesn’t teach that revelation continues (continuing revelation). But before VCI no one was obligated to believe in Papal Infallibility. Before 1952, no one was obligated to believe in the Assumption of Mary. Before the middle of the 19th century no one was obligated to believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. I don’t mean to be rude, but this doctrine is found no where among any of the early fathers. Neither is the doctrine of indulgences. You say that its not new revelation, but I guarantee you that no one in the early church believed in the immaculate conception, nor in indulgences. Please show me if you know of any place where such beliefs can be traced back to the early centuries. You say there is no new revelation. I’m sorry, but I cannot agree with your statement that the RCC does not believe in continuing revelation, because indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, and the marriage of Catholic theology with Aristotilian philosophy by Thomas Aquinas, were all new to the church when they entered into the doctrines of the RCC. None of these beliefs can be traced back to the Apostles. Please show me if you can prove the contrary. Maybe the RCC says that it doesn’t believe in Continuing Revelation, but the facts on the ground speak differently.

I do not mean to offend. I just mean to respond to your statement.

 

[john1968]

I suppose you can look at Peter’s statement in 2 Peter, which refers to Paul’s letter’s as scripture, as the indication that the New Testament canon must be a book associated with an Apostle, such as Paul, and that is also widely accepted and used among the Church communities, as were Paul’s letters. That’s the position that Paul’s letters had even in the first century. So Peter refers to them as scripture, setting the standard. So that’s how we know which books are to be in the NT canon. The NT even says it by refering to Paul’s Epistles as “scripture”.

Books associated with an Apostle
Books commonly used and accepted among the predominant number of Christian churches.

Paul’s letters all had this quality, so Peter calls them scripture. And so the Bible itself sets this standard.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

To me Sola Scriptura means that my faith rests in the word of God, as contained in Scripture.

Your faith? What about otheres? Does Sola Scriptura only apply to you?

The early church believed that with the last Apostle no more books should be considered part of scripture.

The age of revelation ended with the Apostles. We see this from the Muratorian Canon. In the Muratorian Canon it states that the Shepherd of Hermas is a great book, but that it was written too late.

There are a couple problems with this. First the Muratorian Canon it incomplete. It is missing Hebrews, the letters of Peter, and James. Second if the Muration Canon states that the Shepherd of Hermas is written too late, it is extra biblical as it doesn’t say this in the Canon today. If your faith rests only in the Scriptures like you said then you cannot go by this. Also, if my memory serves me right, it includes the Book of Wisdom. Really quickly open your Bible, does it have the Book of Wisdom? Why not?

The only books which were considered for the NT canon were books which had some true connection to an Apostle (including Paul), and which were recognized and used throughout the whole church.

Since your position is that your faith is contained in the Scriptures only, would we find this belief in the Scriptures?

The 27 books we now have meet that criteria.

A criteria which is not laid out in the Scriptures correct? If it is not in the Scriptures how is this not a tradition? Furthermore the Muratorian Canon, which you referenced earlier, is missing some of the 27 books.

The Muratorian Canon was written about 160 A.D., which preceeds by centuries the councils of the 4th and 5th centuries, which put the final rubber stamp on which books will be in that canon.

And it was just one of the conflicting canons early on. It was not the agreed upon canon plus, as already mentioned, it was missing some of the NT books which Christian consider canon today.

Also the Ante-Nicene fathers primarily saw these books as being scriptural. There were some disputes, but those books which met every criteria were these books, and no other. This is true way before any council made a decision in the 4th century.

I think saying that there were “some disputes” is a severe understatement. Furthermore you brought up this criteria again, where are you getting it? Not the Scriptures. So again I have to ask John, how is this criteria not a tradition?

The four Gospels were recognized almost immediately. Irenaeus confirms that these are the true Gospels in the late second century, although he admits that in his time there were already 50 different Gospels floating around.

Irenaeus = Scritpure? I am only asking because you said that Sola Scriptura meant to you that everything of your faith is contained in Scripture…

During the life of Jesus which books were the books which were recognized as part of the OT scripture? Who determined which books they were? It was common usage. Not any council. There was no Jewish council which recognized which books should be part of the Jewish Tanakh till 90 AD. Jesus was executed long before that. Yet Jesus keeps quoting the scriptures and refering to them.

And others. I have to ask though, since when is a post cruxificion Jewish Council binding on Christians?

I guess in a way you can say that the usage of the people and which books were connected to the Apostles determined what was the canon of the New Testament. I suppose you can argue that that is tradition. .

Indeed it is tradition.

If so, that’s where the tradition ends

Why? Can you show us in the Scriptures where it says tradition will end? Besides, these traditions that you have admitted came after the writings of the NT.

Jesus never quoted tradition.

Sure He did:

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat…” Matt 23:2

What is Moses’ seat? Can you find it in the OT? Nope, it was a Tradition.

He told the Pharisees that they preached the traditions of men as if they were the words of God.

traditions of men =/= sacred Traditions.

He denounced them for it.

And rightly so.

You can say that in Jesus day usage, custom and tradition determined which books were part of the canon of the OT, but that’s the only tradition that Jesus seemed to accept. He never accepted the traditions of men as equal to the word of God.

No one is asking you to accept traditions of men. BTW howcome Sola Scriptura isn’t a tradition of men? It’s not found in the Bible.

And in fact spoke against such a thing. And he always quoted from scripture, yet never quotes from tradition.

Incorrect. See my reference of Matt 23.

You may say that the RCC doesn’t teach that revelation continues (continuing revelation).

I am not saying it, the Catholic Church is.

I’m sorry, but I cannot agree with your statement that the RCC does not believe in continuing revelation, because indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, and the marriage of Catholic theology with Aristotilian philosophy by Thomas Aquinas, were all new to the church when they entered into the doctrines of the RCC.

We’ve got a lot on our plate already, but if you stick around these forums you will learn a great deal about these doctrines and what the Early Church Fathers taught on them. Do you know what the Reformers taught about Mary? You may find that interesting.

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I suppose you can look at Peter’s statement in 2 Peter, which refers to Paul’s letter’s as scripture

Which letters? Surely Paul wrote more than just what is found within the Scriptures.

as the indication that the New Testament canon must be a book associated with an Apostle

I think you are making a pretty far jump.

So Peter refers to them as scripture, setting the standard.

And what refers to Peter’s letters as Scripture?

So that’s how we know which books are to be in the NT canon. The NT even says it by refering to Paul’s Epistles as “scripture”.

This is really a jump. For example we don’t even know who the author of Hebrews was. Tradition holds that it was Paul, but for someone in your position, you can’t use that. So how can Hebrews be considered Scripture if we don’t know for sure if an Apostle wrote it?

Books associated with an Apostle
Books commonly used and accepted among the predominant number of Christian churches.

Please show me these criterias in the Bible. A reference from Peter about Pauls writings (which doesn’t tell us which) won’t do. First how do we know Peter’s letter was Scripture? Second how do you jump from there to establishing a criteria for the canon

God bless you

 

[NotWorthy]

I am a Protestant. This is what I know about the early church. This is what I have been led to believe about the early fathers of the first three centuries of Christianity.

1. There was no pope back then.

I site this information as one example: The first attempt of any Bishop of Rome to try to demand the powers and obedience that we have come to recognize with the papacy occurred with Stephen, bishop of Rome, in and around 250 A.D. In response to this here is one quote which shows that the papacy didn’t exist in the early centuries.

“Peter – whom the Lord chose first and upon whom he built the church – did not insolently claim anything to himself. Nor did he arrogantly assume anything when Paul later disputed with him about circumcision. He did not say that he held the primacy and that he needed to be obeyed by novices and those lately come!” – Cyprian (250 A.D.)

I’m curious, are you aware of Pope Clement in the 90’s AD? And how about Pope St. Victor in the 180’s AD.

Both of these men exercised Papal authority, so I’m very confused by the claim that Stephen is the first Pope.

Also, where did you get this quote from? I’m showing that you got the first half right, for he rights, “Peter, whom the Lord chose to be first and upon whom He built His Church, did not proudly assert the primacy he possessed, nor despise Paul who had once been a persecutor of the Church; but he accepted meekly, giving us an example of patience.”

 

[William_Pitts]

Recently a few Evangelical Christians have attempted to find the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura within the writings of the Church Fathers[1]. These writers do not understand the coordinate role of Tradition and its relationship with Scripture in the ancient Church. Catholic[2], Orthodox[3], Coptic[4] and many Protestant[5] patristic scholars agree that the rule of faith in the early Church consisted of Scripture, Tradition and Church[2]. Not a single Church Father interpreted Sacred Scripture in isolation from the traditional faith of the Church; rather, the Fathers applied Tradition as a rule to interpret Scripture. The only ancient teachers who interpreted Scripture apart from Tradition were the early heretics

The Bible states in 1 Timothy 3:15, “The church is the pillar and foundation of truth.”

Cardinal Henery Neuman was a convert from Calvinism to the Anglican Church and finally to the Catholic Church. He stated “to be deep in the study of the History of the church is to cease to be Protestant”. Its Collary is also true, “to be deep in the study of the History of the church is to become Catholic”.
Rules for interpreting Scripture: Established by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus (1893) seconded and confirmed by Pope Benedict XV in Spiritus Paraclitus (1920) and by Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) Pope Pius XII declared in Divino… that Leo’s encyclical Providentisisimus for interpreting the bible to “the supreme guide in Biblical studies”

Four rules for interpreting the Bible for the Catholic Church

1. Always pay attention to the Magisterium the authority of the Church
2. Be guided by what the early fathers had to say about a particular passage.
3. Always to be guided by what the Bible has to say as a whole (not key phrases here and there for defining ones theology and ignoring passages which do not fit one’s theology, see opening quote)
4. Always take the Bible Literally unless it is reasonably unattenable

I will maintain that a anyone who will follow the last three rules will well over 90% of the time arrive at the same truths as the Catholic Church!! The true church must be that church which follows the teachings of those immediate successors of the Apostles. These are the Apostolic fathers who learned the faith at the foot of the Apostles. The Catholic church teaches the same things as those taught by the Apostolic fathers. It has not veered to the left or ritght but teaches the same today. If a Church comes a long 1,500 years later and teaches something different how can they have the truth. They claim truth based on their own authority yet teach things that are in contradiction to the Apostolic fathers. While they maintain a portion of the same teachings as the Apostolic teachings professing Christ as redeemer and savior and hence have portion of the Catholic heritage never the less they only have a portion of the loaf of bread. For since the Catholic churche teaches the same as the Apostolic Fathers only they have the complete loaf of bread.

Most outside of the Catholic Church would ignore rule number one. But all Christians outside of the Catholic church ought to pay attentions to the last three rules particulary rule number “2” and “3”. Rule “2” states to always be guided by what the early church fathers had to say. Why? First we were not there to hear and see everything and can easily be fooled into reading something not there into Scripture or reading something out of Scripture. The First Fathers were trained by the Apostles and the preceding Fathers are closer to the time frame allowing for less corruption of the teachings to occur. We are 2,000 years removed from the original source. Second and Most Important is that Scripture is clear on this and is repeated often by Paul that we are to pay attention to both the Sacred Oral word as well as the Sacred Written word passed down.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 …Thank God constantly for this, that when you receivedthe word of God Which your heard from us,…

2 Thessalonians 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm, and hold teachings that you have learned whether by word (Sacred oral teaching) or by letter of ours.”

2 Thesalonians 3:6 6* Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us ( Sacred oral teachings)

Malachi 2:7; “The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at this mouth. (Sacred Oral teaching)”

2 Timothy 2::2, “and the things that thou hast heard from me through many witnesses, commend to trust-worthy men who shall be competent in turn to teach others.”

1 Corinthians 11:2, “Now I praise you, brethren, because in all things you are mindful of me and hold fast my precepts as I gave them to you.”

We are told that first Christian “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2, 42) which was the oral teaching that was given long before the New Testament was written.
1Cor 11:2 and hold fast my precepts (oral teaching)
2Tim 1: 13 Hold to the form of sound teaching which thous has heard from me.
Titus 1:3 manifested his word through the preaching committed to my trust by the Command of God
1Thes 2:13 …you heard and received from us the word of God

1Cor 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached (Oral teaching) unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

Furthermore John tells us that everything has not been written down.

John 21:25, “There are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if every one of these would be written not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have to be written.” (Not everything concerning Christ is in the Scripture per John)

 

[NotWorthy]

1. There was no confession to clergymen of small sins:

“When then I recovered myself, and remembered the glory of God, and took courage, I knelt down and confessed my sins to the Lord once more, as I had done on the former occasion.” – Shepherd of Hermas (140 A.D.)

John, you are aware that the Shepherd of Hermas is not Scriptural. I point out this obvious fact because one of the tenets that the Church used to determine canonical texts was that it supported Catholic doctrine.

 

[William_Pitts]

John 20:30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence
of His disciples, which are not recorded in this book.

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me.

1 Timothy 3:15, “The church is the pillar and foundation of truth.”

The OP is trying to use a Catholic book and early Catholic writers to “prove” that the Catholic church is wrong. He has to pick and choose certain statements “out of context” to make his case.

 

[NotWorthy]

1. Originally there was no acceptable confession of grave sins to clergymen either. No one thought they had the power to forgive such sins. Here Hippolytus condemns Callistus for granting forgiveness to people who committed grave sins.

“The impostor Callistus, having ventured on such opinions, established a school of theology in antagonism to the Church, adopting the foregoing system of instruction. And he first invented the device of conniving with men in regard of their indulgence in sensual pleasures, saying that all had their sins forgiven by himself. For he who is in the habit of attending the congregation of any one else, and is called a Christian, should he commit any transgression; the sin, they say, is not reckoned unto him, provided only he hurries off and attaches himself to the school of Callistus. And many persons were gratified with his regulation, as being stricken in conscience, and at the same time having been rejected by numerous sects; while also some of them, in accordance with our condemnatory sentence, had been by us forcibly ejected from the Church. Now such disciples as these passed over to these followers of Callistus, and served to crowd his school.” – Hippolytus (225 A.D.)

1. Donatus Magnus, Novatian, Tertullian and Hippolytus all believed that there was no forgiveness of grave sins after committed after Baptism. This is reflected in words found in the book The Shepherd of Hermas.

“For the Lord hath sworn by his glory concerning his elect, having determined this very time that if any one shall even now sin, he shall not be saved. For the repentance of the righteous has its end; the days of repentance are fulfilled to all the saints; but to the heathen, there is repentance even unto the last day.” - Shepherd of Hermas (140 A.D.)

Now, let me get this straight. You are taking the words of heretics (Donatus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus) over the Church, especially when they are accusing the Church of being merciful to sinners?!?!? In other words, these guys are accusing the Popes of being Christ-like!

 

[NotWorthy]

John 20:30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence
of His disciples, which are not recorded in this book.

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me.

1 Timothy 3:15, “The church is the pillar and foundation of truth.”

The OP is trying to use a Catholic book and early Catholic writers to “prove” that the Catholic church is wrong. He has to pick and choose certain statements “out of context” to make his case.

That’s the point. The writings of Hippolytus are when he was ex-communicated from the Church. Hippolytus was a great Christian teacher, but he elected himself as an anti-pope.

The same goes with Tertullian, who fell into the Montanist Heresy.