The Early Church Fathers Protestant-Style

[Roman_Catholic_1]

So now that John has left for a third time we can get back to the topic which is this:

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?

Can anyone offer some evidence of this? That the ECFs were pro sola scriptura? I would first ask that SS be defined only so we all know what we are looking for in the ECFs. For example the Lutheran and reformation thought on SS is different than the modern fundamentalist definition.

I for one think this would be an interesting topic, SS and the ECFs, we just haven’t been able to discuss it.

God bless

 

[Timothy_James]

Well I for one expected this. You used this thread not to discuss the topic but to further your agenda. When you can’t defend your opinions the logical thing is to quite I guess. Sorry to see you go but I agree with your reasoning; you weren’t furthering the discussion of this topic.

God bless you John, may the Holy Spirit soften your heart.

You are not sorry to see me go. You made a statement you could not defend when I called you out on it, so you tried to turn the tables and falsely accuse me of wrongdoing, to change the blame. Yet you have no proof I did anything wrong, even though you still falsely accuse me of it. Then you wanted to change the subject dramatically because I proved you wrong.

Instead of confessing your error, you point the finger at me, and in your next post try to appear pious by telling me that your sorry to see me go. My father told me that the nuns in Catholic School did the same exact things.

I’m not sorry to leave. But I wonder how many other Catholics on this site are the same way.

**“You shall know them by their fruits.” **

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

You lie. You are not sorry to see me go. You made a statement you could not defend when I called you out on it, so you tried to turn the tables and falsely accuse me of wrongdoing, to change the blame. Yet you have no proof I did anything wrong, even though you still falsely accuse me of it. Then you wanted to change the subject dramatically because I proved you wrong.

Instead of confessing your error, you point the finger at me, and in your next post try to appear pious by telling me that your sorry to see me go. My father told me that the nuns in Catholic School did the same exact things.

I’m not sorry to leave. But I wonder how many other Catholics on this site are the same way.

**“You shall know them by their fruits.” **

Back? Here is the topic again:

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?

Like I said, sorry to see you go but I agree with why you are leaving. Now that your gone we are going to get this thread back on it’s tracks

God bless John and may the Spirit soften your heart

 

[Augustus24]

How could the Early Church Fathers be “Sola Scriptura” when the canon of the bible wasnt even laid down until 380 AD at the earliest? Where the christians living from 33-380 minus a definitive authority for their churches?

Furthermore, why would God want the highest authority for his Church to be the Bible, then wait so long to have it defined?

And if the ECFs were Sola Scriptura, why did they call councils to combat heresy?

 

[Anna_Scott]

**Papal infallibility: **

Have you ever heard of eisegesis? You first create a doctrine, then you try to say that it exists in the Bible, and so you look through the Bible and try to skew the Bible to make your doctrine fit. Same thing here.

So, John, now we’re back to Eisegesis again? John, you blew your cover many posts ago. Now you’re not even trying to keep up the pretense that you are someone else, called Timothy James.

You still haven’t provided any proof for the OP; and since this isn’t your thread, you don’t have the right to limit the discussion to the ANF’s. This was explained to you before you were banned.

You’ve brought up multiple Catholic doctrines. If you’re really serious about discussing them fully; start a thread for each one, and only one at a time. Then you will get (name removed by moderator)ut from forum members from many religious back grounds, including Catholics.

 

[ddarko]

You are wrong ddarko. I have taken plenty of extra steps to check out the inevitable conclusion from their ideas. I looked through every single book written by Origen to find a quote, and it doesn’t exist. Please find it and tell me where it is. Also, another quote I proved has nothing to even do with Mary and her supposed immaculate conception and veneration. I am not doing anything FALSE. You are just providing me with non-sense. You are trying to doctor up false proofs that often have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

You said, "You want them to spell it out for you because you think derived truths are lesser than the original truths."

If by derived truths you mean false doctrines invented many centuries later, then I guess your right. You’ve admitted that your “derived truths” is not the same as “original truth”. But they are not. There is one truth, and it is unchanging. God has given us his revelation. We are not supposed to add to God’s word by adding your “derived truths” to what God has told us. All over the Bible it says not to add to the word of God. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for doing that. But you are doing the same thing, and you even have the gall to call it “derived truths”. That’s a made up theological construct for man made traditions. It proves you are FALSE. I don’t know how you understand the term logic, but you are trying to say that myths invented centuries later have some kind of bearing on historical events that occurred 2,000 years ago. I’ve never heard of such silly ideas being referred to as logic. If something didn’t happen, and it’s not recorded as happening, then making a papal declaration over 1800 years later, declaring that it did happen, won’t make the myth happen in the past. The past is the past, we can’t change historical events by making supposedly infallible statements about it. If two hundred years from now the pope infallibly declares that the confederacy won the civil war in America, that won’t change what really happened in history. There is no proof that Mary had an Immaculate Conception. Using archeological terminology, it’s not in the fossil record. Twisting the words contained in the Gospel of Luke won’t change the past.

You have shown a very bad use of logic in the above discussion.

IF a deductive conclusion was made 10000 years down the road from the original propositions, IT IS STILL VALID.

With regards to Papal infallibility, there is evidence that it was held ever since the beginning. Acts of Apostles read IN CORRECT TRADITIONAL interpretation shows such evidence. That alone is good evidence for your illogical methodology. You and I read the same book and come to different conclusions. How can this be? Simple. You just choose a different way to connect the dots while I chose Tradition. Instead, you fail to realize that. Now Papal infallibility is the deductive conclusion of all these propositions. If it was arrived at 200 years or 2000 years later is irrelevant.

No one has changed the past either. That is what you don’t seem to get. The only claim is that propositions that supported the deductive conclusion of Papacy and its infallibility existed from day 1 of the church. So the fact that the deductive conclusion was pronounced 2000 years later bears no light on the logical validity and truth value of the conclusion.

I think your main problem is NOT your lack of familiarity with Scripture. It is merely your lack of familiarity with logic.

God Bless

 

[Prieldedi]

I asked for Marian veneration in the ANF. But I guess the Bible is okay. In the Bible you see a good woman, praised by many. But in the Bible other people are praised too. No where in the Bible are there statues to Mary, and people praying to Mary after she’s dead. If there are any references to intercession in the Bible it’s when living people pray for others. Not after they’re dead.

You post good quotes, but none of them show people praying to Mary after she’s dead. Or making statues of her and praying before them in church. Or singing the kind of praises to her that only God should receive. My dad has an old prayer book at home from his Catholic days. I believe in this prayer book is a short indulgenced prayer which simply goes like this: “Mary, our salvation…” Something like that. But the term our salvation is in there. Yet in the Bible its Jesus and God who are our salvation, not Mary.

I think you are taking the “if it’s not in the Bible…” way too far, and I also think it’s not your fault, that’s what you were taught to believe.

Since when no mention of someone or something in a written document means that someone or something didn’t/doesn’t exist? Just an example: I’ve read several books about JFK. In them the names of several of the members of his family are left out. No mention of his sisters, his cousins, uncles or aunts, his brothers and sisters in law, no mention of him going to church, to the movies, to restaurants, etc. If I stick to the “if it’s not in the book” frame of mind, then I would come to the wrong conclusion that JFK had no sisters, no uncles or aunts, no brothers or sisters in law, never went to the movies, restaurants, etc.

We don’t have an exact date of when the Gospels were written, but we can deduce that Mary was still present when some of them were written. Have you ever thought about that? Catholics and orthodox have knowledge that St. Luke made 5 icons (images) of the Virgin Mary:

stlukeorthodox.com/html/iconography/iconhistory.cfm
travbuddy.com/travel-blogs/64118/St-Lukes-Icon-Mary-remote-monastery-19
webspace.webring.com/people/cy/youssef321321/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_Evangelist

Yes, images of the Mother of Our Savior made by none other than Luke the Evangelist. He did many things besides writing his Gospel. Before you tell me “it’s not in the Bible” I’ll tell you: what if he made the icons AFTER he wrote his Gospel, how do you expect him to write (in his Gospel about Jesus, not about himself) things ABOUT HIMSELF he didn’t know he would be making in the future? That’s asking too much from St. Luke. When you use common sense properly you’ll begin to see the truth.

All the Gospel writers knew Mary and got information about Jesus from Her. Luke wrote the nativity story because She told him. John wrote about the wedding of Cana and Her role there because She told him. Do you picture the gospel writers with pen and paper in hand raising their eyes upwards saying “OK Lord, I’m ready, tell me what to write”? God uses men and women to carry out His Divine Plan. That’s the way it was, it is and it will be. Mary had a direct participation in the writings of the Gospels, all four of them, guided by the Holy Spirit. She was a witness of the life of Jesus, from the moment He was conceived to the moment He ascended to Heaven. The writers saw no need to say it, but Her involvement is obvious, unless you stick to the “if it’s not in the Bible” unreasonable position.

Living vs dead…

Mark 12:27, “Now, he is the God, not of the dead BUT OF THE LIVING. You are totally wrong.”

Those in Heaven are ALIVE, not dead. The body is dead, the spirit is ALIVE. In the Gospel of Luke 16:19-30 we see the “dead” rich man interceding for his brothers. Also in 2 Maccabees 15:14, «Then Onias, the High Priest, said to Judas, “This is he who loves your brothers, he who prays without ceasing for the Jewish people and for the Holy City. He is Jeremiah, the prophet of God.”»

The “dead” Jeremiah praying “without ceasing” for the Jews. Luther, the forefather of all non Catholic Christians expelled both Maccabees books from his bible, that’s why they’re not in your bible.

If you are in a boat at sea that is sinking, then you grab a life-jacket jump in the water and pray to God to save you, and eventually a helicopter comes to your rescue, will you deny that the life-jacket and the rescuers from the helicopter saved your life? Of course we all would say God saved you, but we would also say that the life-jacket and the rescuers of the helicopter saved you too. When we say that, are we offending God? If a person, like the servants at the Cana wedding, follow Her advise to “do whatever He tells you”, isn’t She “saving” those that follow Her advise?

You didn’t answer my question about the unrecorded words of Jesus, the ones that “WILL NOT PASS AWAY.”

 

[Saul_DelTarso]

Wikipedia, RE: Origen.s extant commentaries. Not that Tim is interested anymore. Rather an interesting observation of a person’s desire to keep their existing opinions.

The object of Origen’s commentaries was to give an exegesis that discriminated strictly against historical significance, in favour of a “hidden” spiritual truth. At the same time, he neglected neither philological nor geographical, historical nor antiquarian material, to all of which he devoted numerous excursuses.

In his commentary on John he constantly considered the exegesis of the Valentinian Heracleon (probably at the instance of Ambrose), and in many other places he implied or expressly cited Gnostic views and refuted them.

Unfortunately, only meagre fragments of the commentaries have survived. Besides the citations in the Philocalia, which include fragments of the third book of the commentary on Genesis, Ps. i, iv.1, the small commentary on Canticles, and the second book of the large commentary on the same, the twentieth book of the commentary on Ezekiel, and the commentary on Hosea, and of the commentary on John, only books i, ii, x, xiii, xx, xxviii, xxxii, and a fragment of xix. have been preserved. The commentary on Romans is extant only in the abbreviated version of Rufinus, though some Greek fragments also exist. The eight books preserved of the commentary on Matthew likewise seem to be either a brief reworking or a rough outline.

Codex Vaticanus 1215 gives the division of the twenty-five books of the commentary on Ezekiel, and part of the arrangement of the commentary on Isaiah (beginnings of books VI, VIII, XVI; book X extends from Isa. viii.1 to ix.7; XI from ix.8, to x.11; XII, from x.12 to x.23; XIII from x.24 to xi.9; XIV from xi.10 to xii.6; XV from xiii.1 to xiii.16; XXI from xix.1 to xix.17; XXII from xix.18 to xx.6; XXIII from xxi.1 to xxi.17; XXIV from xxii.1 to xxii.25; XXV from xxiii.1 to xxiii.18; XXVI from xxiv.1 to xxv.12; XXVII from xxvi.1 to xxvi.15; XXVIII from xxvi.16 to xxvii.11a; XXIX from xxvii.11b to xxviii.29; and XXX treats of xxix.1 sqq.).

Codex Athous Laura 184, in like manner, gives the division of the fifteen books of the commentary on Romans (except XI and XII) and of the five books on Galatians, as well as the extent of the commentaries on Philippians and Corinthians (Romans I from 1:1 to 1:7; II from 1:8 to 1:25; III from 1:26 to 2:11; IV from 2:12 to 3:15; V from 3:16 to 3:31; VI from 4:1 to 5:7; VII from 5:8 to 5:16; VIII from 5:17 to 6:15; IX from 6:16 to 8:8; X from 8:9 to 8:39; XIII from 11:13 to 12:15; XIV from 12:16 to 14:10; XV from 14:11 to the end; Galatians I from 1:1 to 2:2; II from 2:3 to 3:4; III from 3:5 to 4:5; IV from 4:6 to 5:5; and V from 5:6 to 6:18; the commentary on Philippians extended to 4:1; and on Ephesians to 4:13).

 

[Anna_Scott]

I think you are taking the “if it’s not in the Bible…” way too far, and I also think it’s not your fault, that’s what you were taught to believe.

Since when no mention of someone or something in a written document means that someone or something didn’t/doesn’t exist? Just an example: I’ve read several books about JFK. In them the names of several of the members of his family are left out. No mention of his sisters, his cousins, uncles or aunts, his brothers and sisters in law, no mention of him going to church, to the movies, to restaurants, etc. If I stick to the “if it’s not in the book” frame of mind, then I would come to the wrong conclusion that JFK had no sisters, no uncles or aunts, no brothers or sisters in law, never went to the movies, restaurants, etc.

We don’t have an exact date of when the Gospels were written, but we can deduce that Mary was still present when some of them were written. Have you ever thought about that? Catholics and orthodox have knowledge that St. Luke made 5 icons (images) of the Virgin Mary:

stlukeorthodox.com/html/iconography/iconhistory.cfm
travbuddy.com/travel-blogs/64118/St-Lukes-Icon-Mary-remote-monastery-19
webspace.webring.com/people/cy/youssef321321/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_Evangelist

Yes, images of the Mother of Our Savior made by none other than Luke the Evangelist. He did many things besides writing his Gospel. Before you tell me “it’s not in the Bible” I’ll tell you: what if he made the icons AFTER he wrote his Gospel, how do you expect him to write (in his Gospel about Jesus, not about himself) things ABOUT HIMSELF he didn’t know he would be making in the future? That’s asking too much from St. Luke. When you use common sense properly you’ll begin to see the truth.

All the Gospel writers knew Mary and got information about Jesus from Her. Luke wrote the nativity story because She told him. John wrote about the wedding of Cana and Her role there because She told him. Do you picture the gospel writers with pen and paper in hand raising their eyes upwards saying “OK Lord, I’m ready, tell me what to write”? God uses men and women to carry out His Divine Plan. That’s the way it was, it is and it will be. Mary had a direct participation in the writings of the Gospels, all four of them, guided by the Holy Spirit. She was a witness of the life of Jesus, from the moment He was conceived to the moment He ascended to Heaven. The writers saw no need to say it, but Her involvement is obvious, unless you stick to the “if it’s not in the Bible” unreasonable position.

Living vs dead…

Mark 12:27, “Now, he is the God, not of the dead BUT OF THE LIVING. You are totally wrong.”

Those in Heaven are ALIVE, not dead. The body is dead, the spirit is ALIVE. In the Gospel of Luke 16:19-30 we see the “dead” rich man interceding for his brothers. Also in 2 Maccabees 15:14, «Then Onias, the High Priest, said to Judas, “This is he who loves your brothers, he who prays without ceasing for the Jewish people and for the Holy City. He is Jeremiah, the prophet of God.”»

The “dead” Jeremiah praying “without ceasing” for the Jews. Luther, the forefather of all non Catholic Christians expelled both Maccabees books from his bible, that’s why they’re not in your bible.

If you are in a boat at sea that is sinking, then you grab a life-jacket jump in the water and pray to God to save you, and eventually a helicopter comes to your rescue, will you deny that the life-jacket and the rescuers from the helicopter saved your life? Of course we all would say God saved you, but we would also say that the life-jacket and the rescuers of the helicopter saved you too. When we say that, are we offending God? If a person, like the servants at the Cana wedding, follow Her advise to “do whatever He tells you”, isn’t She “saving” those that follow Her advise?

You didn’t answer my question about the unrecorded words of Jesus, the ones that “WILL NOT PASS AWAY.”

Prieldedi,

Timothy James said he is leaving this forum; but I appreciated your post and the links. Very interesting.

Anna

 

[Tom66]

If you are in a boat at sea that is sinking, then you grab a life-jacket jump in the water and pray to God to save you, and eventually a helicopter comes to your rescue, will you deny that the life-jacket and the rescuers from the helicopter saved your life? Of course we all would say God saved you, but we would also say that the life-jacket and the rescuers of the helicopter saved you too. When we say that, are we offending God? If a person, like the servants at the Cana wedding, follow Her advise to “do whatever He tells you”, isn’t She “saving” those that follow Her advise?

You didn’t answer my question about the unrecorded words of Jesus, the ones that “WILL NOT PASS AWAY.”

We can go back and forth all day long about scripture interpretation and where it’s found in the Bible. The bottom line I’ve found in my older age is, “what is the TRUTH?”. We need to keep in prospective that Jesus’ Church came before the New Testament was even written. Jesus never told anyone to write anything down. So if there was never a word written down during the apostles time, would the gospel have still been preached? The answer is Yes! And this was done for many years prior to the New Testament ever being produced. So, if people were to trust in Jesus’ Church then, why wouldn’t we still trust it today. “The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). I can’t find anywhere in the Bible where it says the Bible is the truth. I can’t even find the word Bible in the Bible. The Bible is a product of Jesus’ church, the Universal Church. Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. I wouldn’t call Jesus a liar and say his church doesn’t exist today. So it must. It began on Pentecost with the disciples of Jesus. The truth of the gospel message continues after 2000 years through an unbroken chain by the laying on of hands, (the priesthood). The Holy Spirit guides the church in all truth. It cannot teach err when it teaches about faith and morals because of Jesus’ promise. This is an act of faith to believe this and to have the faith of a child is what Jesus is talking about. That we don’t try to think we know more than the church, puffed up with pride. We need to humble ourselves and be obedient to his church. “Whoever listens to you, listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me.”(Lk 10:16). “Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account…(Heb 13:17). If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector”. (Matt 18:17-20) We need to trust in Jesus and his church’s interpretation to teach us the truth as far as faith and morals are concerned. There are too many interpretations in the protestant faiths. For example, Lutherans believe Jesus is present in the bread and wine. Baptists don’t believe Jesus is present in the bread and wine. To me this is a major issue. And there are numerous other examples out there as well. Protestants are missing out on all the Sacraments Jesus’ Church has to offer them, which are graces that Jesus gave to the members of his church to assist us on that narrow path that leads to heaven.

God bless,

Tom

 

[Prieldedi]

Prieldedi,

Timothy James said he is leaving this forum; but I appreciated your post and the links. Very interesting.

Anna

Thank you… sorry to hear about Timothy James leaving.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)