The Early Church Fathers Protestant-Style

[Anna_Scott]

Two of you wrote: Sometimes traditions are a bad thing, especially when they ignore the first 1500 years of Christianity.

So what you are saying is that over the first 1500 years of Christianity God told his people new things that the Apostles didn’t know…right? I mean the Apostles never knew of the Immaculate Conception. They never knew of papal infallibility. They never knew of Purgatory. They never knew of Indulgences. They never knew of auricular confession to a clergyman. The never knew of popes.

My comment about ignoring the first 1500 years of Christianity has to do with the unfortunate consequence of the Protestant Reformation, which caused many to toss out critical “Traditional” understandings and practices of Christianity, such as the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Baptism, and infant Baptism to name a few. However, if you want to discuss these issues specifically, I beg you to start new threads devoted to each one.

Keep in mind that I am not a Catholic in Communion with the Roman Pontiff, though I hold him in high regard. So, your comments about Papal infallibility, Purgatory, and Indulgences do not apply to me.

What do you accept from the first 1500 years of Christianity?

. . . .Also, with time things tend to become less clear, not more clear. If I do something it’s fresh in my mind after one day, but after many years I tend to forget much of it in my memory. How can things be clarified over time?

Do you really believe that Christianity is becoming less clear over time?

Anna

 

[john1968]

Anna Scott:

This site is about the ECF…it is titled “The Early Church Fathers Protestant Style”.

I don’t think that title fits exactly what you said about the ECF. It’s about what the ECF looks like from the Protestant perspective, not just if they were sola scriptura or not. Did you create this thread?

I have been asked a ton of questions by different people. I can’t answer them all, but I’m trying to answer as many as I can. In the process of doing that it has led to me explaining why Jesus in his time condemned the traditions of the religious leaders of his time. If traditions are so important, then why did Jesus condemn the traditions of the religious leaders of his time?

People have also tried to tell me that it was the RCC and its traditions that put the NT together. So I’m trying to show that the canon of the Bible wasn’t decided by the RCC and it’s traditions, but by God. Just like the OT wasn’t decided by the Jewish Sanhedrin, but by God.

If you do not like my line of reasoning or why I am posting the statements I am posting, then I suggest you read more closely why I am posting them in the first place. Or just don’t read what I have written.

I am not here to offend anyone. Or to get off the topic. I am on the topic. It’s just that some people may not like how I am going about defending my position. Sorry if that is the case. Maybe it’s because you cannot out reason the points I am making.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .How did the Apostles get saved if they didn’t know this new stuff?. . . .

John, this is a quote for the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding Holy Scripture. Maybe this will help.

**PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION ONE
“I BELIEVE” - “WE BELIEVE”

CHAPTER TWO
GOD COMES TO MEET MAN

ARTICLE 3
SACRED SCRIPTURE

I. CHRIST - THE UNIQUE WORD OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."63

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65

*103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body.66

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”.67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68***

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

*106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71
*
107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that *the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”*72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

So I really don’t want to hear or read from you guys how the church created the Bible in the 4th century.

John you haven’t heard it or read it from me. I haven’t brought anything along these lines up. I want to know where you got your 3 rules. They are not found in Scripture so I am left with the conclusion that they are traditions. I have asked you point blank how, since your three rules are not found in the Scriptures, they are not traditions.

Or that the Bible is a book that exclusively belongs to the RCC and no one else.

Again, you are creating strawmen. Answer my actual questions instead of what you hoped I would ask you.

God bless

 

[john1968]

Anna Scott…

Please, first tell me which denomination you are a member of?

I think that if we look at tradition, instead of scripture, then over time these traditions will lead us to become less clear concerning God’s word.

When it comes to the Eucharist. I do not believe in Transubstantiation. I know that the Ante-Nicene fathers spoke of the Eucharist as being symbolic. I actually quoted them on this many times in my fist posting on this thread.

I do not believe in infant baptism. Children do not go to hell if they die before the age of reason. Even the RCC acknowledges that now…even though it took them centuries to do so. IF that is the case…why should children be baptized? It makes no sense. As infants they cannot make any statement of faith, or accept Jesus as their savior.

I can only speculate which denomination you are a member of? Episcopal, Polish National Catholic, Orthodox, possibly Lutheran, Old Catholic Church, Armenian, Assyria, Coptic…I can’t think of any other that would fit what you’ve said so far.

When it comes to the first 1500 years of the church, there were a lot of good things, and a lot of bad things. But you can’t blame the Protestant Reformers for breaking away and depending solely on Scripture. Look at what the church was like back then. The church and most states in Europe worked in unison. Tithing was by law. People were executed if they spoke up with any dissenting beliefs. The Pope was probably the most powerful and wealthy man in Europe. The Papacy was controlled by corrupt noblemen. And in Rome everything was for sale…everything. Usually the man elected pope was the one wealthy enough to bribe the majority of cardinals. And the common people weren’t just forced to tithe by law, they also had to provide other payments through out the year, and if their relatives died they had to pay for masses and indulgences on their behalf. It was very expensive and often quite oppressive to be a RC in the 1500s. That’s why so many people loved and turned to the new Protestant movement. And what do you suppose the Protestant Reformers were supposed to base their new faith on? The papacy and it’s traditions? That would work against them. The only tool they had was the same one Jesus had…the scriptures and them alone. That’s what Jesus used to fight the corruption of his time, and that’s the same thing the reformers had. It was sola scriptura or nothing.

If you want to see where in the Bible sola scriptura is preached…it’s easy…Jesus condemned the traditions of the religious leaders of his time and used the scriptures…and them alone, to fight for what was right. Jesus used sola scriptura…so should we.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Roman_Catholic

Of course Jamnia would not use the Apostles as a standard…it was a Jewish council that had nothing to do with Christianity. I don’t get your point. I don’t even know why you mention this council.

You asked, I told you my knowledge about it. Your question is irrelevant to my question: Where did you get these 3 rules? That was all I asked.

I was talking about the councils of the 4th century, which so many Catholics seem to think created the NT.

I haven’t said this. I want to know where you got your 3 rules. You have yet to show me from the scriptures where they are at. I am left to wonder how they are not a tradition of yours. Since you think believing in tradition = believing in continued public revelation, can we then say that you to believe in continued revelation? Stop trying to confuse the discussion; where did you get these three rules?

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Maybe it’s because you cannot out reason the points I am making.

Pride? Really? You made some comments that were not true 1) Catholics believe in continued public revelation 2) These 3 rules are found within the scriptures. All I have asked you to do is defend these false statements. You have tried to cloud the issue by talking about Christ condemning traditions and the OT canon. My questions have been very simple, where did you find these rules? If not from the scriptures, then why are they not a tradition of yours?

God bless

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna Scott:

This site is about the ECF…it is titled “The Early Church Fathers Protestant Style”.

I don’t think that title fits exactly what you said about the ECF. It’s about what the ECF looks like from the Protestant perspective, not just if they were sola scriptura or not. Did you create this thread?

John1968, this is the Original Post that defines the topic of this thread:

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 have been asked a ton of questions by different people. I can’t answer them all, but I’m trying to answer as many as I can. In the process of doing that it has led to me explaining why Jesus in his time condemned the traditions of the religious leaders of his time. If traditions are so important, then why did Jesus condemn the traditions of the religious leaders of his time?

John, you could have answered my questions in the time it took you to write the above.

People have also tried to tell me that it was the RCC and its traditions that put the NT together. So I’m trying to show that the canon of the Bible wasn’t decided by the RCC and it’s traditions, but by God. Just like the OT wasn’t decided by the Jewish Sanhedrin, but by God.

Did you read the section of the CCC that I posted? The Catholic Church does not claim the N.T. wasn’t decided by God.

If you do not like my line of reasoning or why I am posting the statements I am posting, then I suggest you read more closely why I am posting them in the first place. Or just don’t read what I have written.

You are writing volumes, John, but you avoid answering simple direct questions.

I am not here to offend anyone. Or to get off the topic. I am on the topic. It’s just that some people may not like how I am going about defending my position. Sorry if that is the case. Maybe it’s because you cannot out reason the points I am making.

Condescension does nothing to answer the questions I’ve asked you.

Anna

 

[john1968]

Roman_Catholic…

This is what I was afraid of. I answer questions…but no one reads them and just keep asking them over and over again. And every question I ask gets ignored. So I’m forced to go on the defensive.

I got my 3 rules from the criteria that were used during the 4th century councils which finally put a rubber stamp on which books would make up the NT canon, to end all dispute. But there were a bunch of these councils. Not just one. Obviously they didn’t trust each other. And they used the same books Athanasius of Alexandria made. He based it on that of Eusebius and others before him. Many lists had been made over the centuries. They all pretty much used similar criteria. Oh…and now you will say that that criteria was tradition and not found in scripture…but if it’s not found in scripture…then how could Peter refer to Paul’s letters as scripture? 2 Peter is a book in the Bible, having been inspired of God. It was written in the first century. He must have known something.

And how did Jesus know which were the right books when it came to the OT canon? No one so far has explained that to me. I keep asking over and over, and no one can say a word. They just want to put me on the defensive.

If Church councils are part of tradition, then why did Jesus acknowledge an OT canon before any Jewish council had determined one. This is another question no one will anser for me.

If Jesus condemned the traditions of the religious leaders of his day…then why is tradition so great? That’s another thing no one will answer for me. They ignore my questions, yet wish to put me on the defensive.

Also no one as yet can explain to me why certain books of the Septuagint OT were kicked out of the RC Bible. If the Septuagint OT is the true OT canon, which was supposedly used by Jesus and the Apostles, then why does the modern day Catholic Bible exclude so many of its books?

 

[cfrancis]

cfrancis…

I must be misunderstanding you. Either that or you know absolutely nothing about history. Are you saying that for the first 1500 years there was no NT canon…Is that what you said?

You said:

I mean the Apostles never knew of the Immaculate Conception. They never knew of papal infallibility. They never knew of Purgatory. They never knew of Indulgences. They never knew of auricular confession to a clergyman. The never knew of popes.

I replied:

They [meaning the Apostles] also didn’t know of a Bible with a NT canon…

 

[john1968]

Roman-Catholic…

You wrote: Pride? Really? You made some comments that were not true 1) Catholics believe in continued public revelation 2) These 3 rules are found within the scriptures. All I have asked you to do is defend these false statements. You have tried to cloud the issue by talking about Christ condemning traditions and the OT canon. My questions have been very simple, where did you find these rules? If not from the scriptures, then why are they not a tradition of yours?

I didn’t say that was the reason…but only speculated that it might me.

If Catholics don’t believe in continuous revelation…then why are the new teachings? Papal infallibility, Immaculate Conception, Indulgences, Canon of Saints, praying to angels and saints, purgatory, etc…the list goes on and on. If there is no new revelation…where did all this come from?

I didn’t say that the 3 rules were explicitly found in scripture. But that those must have been the rules, otherwise why would Peter have referred to Paul’s letters as scripture? Those are the rules used by the councils of the 4th century, and by other men who lived before. They must have gotten these ideas from somewhere. Maybe they werent implicit in the Bible, but there must have been some reason why Peter refers to Paul’s letters as scripture. And why did Jesus and many OT prophets refer to certian OT books as scripture. Where did they get their criteria? PLEASE ANSWER ME THIS…NO ONE WILL, THEY JUST IGNORE MY QUESTIONS.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Roman_Catholic…

I got my 3 rules from the criteria that were used during the 4th century councils which finally put a rubber stamp on which books would make up the NT canon, to end all dispute.

So they are not from the Scriptures? They are in fact tradition yes?

Oh…and now you will say that that criteria was tradition and not found in scripture…but if it’s not found in scripture…then how could Peter refer to Paul’s letters as scripture?

I am saying this; there is no denying that these rules are not from the scriptures. If I am incorrect simply show me where these 3 rules are outlined. Furthermore you just told me where you got your 3 rules (not from the Scriptures) but now you want to take issue with me concluding that they are a tradition? Is this perhaps because you have been making the argument that Christ condemned all traditions, and that you believe that believing in traditions means you believe in continued public revelatiuon?

God bless

 

[john1968]

cfrancis…

If the Apostles didn’t know of a Bible with a New Testament canon, then when they wrote the books of the NT they must have not know that God was inspiring them? Is that what you are saying?

Peter knew that Paul’s letters were scripture. I believe that he knew that his two letters were scripture. And I believe that John knew that when he was recording his revelation on Patmos, that it was scripture. In fact it’s quite evident from the Book of Revelation that he knew that what he was writing was scripture.

Even if most of the Apostles had died before the entire NT was finished, the NT is still the word of God, and is inspired by God, and it still reflects the faith of the Apostles in the first century. Nothing else that has come since can do that. Nothing…no tradition…no declaration by a pope or council…nothing. The Apostles lived back then, and everything else has been added since that time.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Roman-Catholic…

If Catholics don’t believe in continuous revelation…then why are the new teachings?

It’s not an ‘if’ John. Catholics do not believe nor teach that there is still public revelation. For you to continue to suggest this after being shown official Church teaching on the matter is to bear false witness.

Papal infallibility, Immaculate Conception, Indulgences, Canon of Saints, praying to angels and saints, purgatory, etc…the list goes on and on. If there is no new revelation…where did all this come from?

There is no continued public revelation we can though come to a better and deeper understanding of doctrines. One great example of this is the Trinity.

I didn’t say that the 3 rules were explicitly found in scripture. But that those must have been the rules, otherwise why would Peter have referred to Paul’s letters as scripture? Those are the rules used by the councils of the 4th century, and by other men who lived before. They must have gotten these ideas from somewhere.

The point is that we know where they did not get them, from the Scriptures. Since they are not found within the Scriptures, how are they not traditions?

God bless you

 

[john1968]

cfrancis…

You never answered my question…do you seriously think that Jesus was talking to his Apostles in Koine Greek?

I have to go now…I’ve spent a couple hours on this site already. I have to attend to my wife and son.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

cfrancis…

You never answered my question…do you seriously think that Jesus was talking to his Apostles in Koine Greek?

I have to go now…I’ve spent a couple hours on this site already. I have to attend to my wife and son.

God bless you John. Enjoy your wife and son.

 

[cfrancis]

cfrancis…

Yes there were things Paul wrote that didn’t get entered into the canon. If they were not entered there it was no doubt because God did not inspire them.

But you said:

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

As Peter, in 2 Peter 3, said:
15 So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Peter, being - as you firmly state - inspired by God, said referred to “all his [Paul’s] letters”.

Here’s your argument:

1. You claim that Peter “refers to Paul’s letter’s as scripture…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”. Paul’s letters all had this quality, so Peter calls them scripture.” ;
2. yet Peter refers to ALL Paul’s writing’s as Scripture (2 Pet 16);
3. yet you claim the ones that are not in the canon, that “it was no doubt because God did not inspire them.”

You can’t rest your argument on the canon, as there was no NT canon to which Peter could refer.

I believe that the Apostles knew which of their writings were scripture and which were not. After all, God inspired the writings and he inspired the men. They knew what was going on.

Fair enough - your opinion. But as far as I know (I won’t make a categorical) John in Revelation is the only NT author who claimed to be writing as commanded by God. IF the NT authors knew that what they wrote was inspired, they do not appear to come out and state such.

To think that God did not inspire these men to know when their writings were scripture, but instead that God inspired the Church councils of the 4th century to make that determination is ridiculous. If he inspired the authors, he inspired the men. Not some council that came over 300 years later.

Again, fair enough - your opinion. But you’ve provided no Scripture to support your opinion.

 

[Salvatore123]

john1968,

With all due respect, you refused to respond to what I asked in a “roundabout” way, and RomanCatholic then asked you the same thing in a very limited way:

How was the NT canon determined? You listed three criteria, and then YOU acknowledged that the criteria are NOT in “scripture”.

1. Once you acknowledge some sort of authority regarding the bible that is NOT in the bible, then you are acknowledging the illegitimacy of sola scriptura, whether you want to admit it or not.
2. You keep saying that “Jesus obviously knew what the OT canon was”. I don’t doubt that at all, as Jesus was both Man and God. But WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT JESUS KNEW WHAT THE OT CANON WAS? John, you cannot find such a thing because it is not there.
3. Finally - one very important thing that has yet to be raised: do you REALLY think that Jesus would establish his Church on Earth and then leave it “untended” until 1500 years later when a former Catholic monk decided HE knew what was best and that all of a sudden, the world was “finally informed”???

I would really be interested to hear you respond to these - they are only three and are very short and to the point.

 

[cfrancis]

cfrancis…

If the Apostles didn’t know of a Bible with a New Testament canon, then when they wrote the books of the NT they must have not know that God was inspiring them? Is that what you are saying?

As John in Revelation is the only one who says he is writing under command from God, I have no idea what the authors thought - Scripture doesn’t record this. I have no problem with your opinion, but you haven’t supported it, especially with Scripture.

Peter knew that Paul’s letters were scripture.

Yes - in 2 Pet 3:16, he says “ALL” - see my previous post.

I believe that he knew that his two letters were scripture.

Fine - but you have no support; it is your opinion, and that’s fine.

And I believe that John knew that when he was recording his revelation on Patmos, that it was scripture. In fact it’s quite evident from the Book of Revelation that he knew that what he was writing was scripture.

Agree - yet that’s the only NT book to meet that criterion.

Even if most of the Apostles had died before the entire NT was finished, the NT is still the word of God, and is inspired by God, and it still reflects the faith of the Apostles in the first century. Nothing else that has come since can do that. Nothing…no tradition…no declaration by a pope or council…nothing. The Apostles lived back then, and everything else has been added since that time.

Yet this issue is this: what you refer to as the “NT” is not defined by Scripture; there is no inspired table of contents that says, “These books are the NT.”
Your statement - your argument - here rests not on Scripture, but on Tradition.
For instance, the Gospels of Matthew and Mark make no claim to be “the word of God…inspired by God…”

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna Scott…

Please, first tell me which denomination you are a member of?

I can only speculate which denomination you are a member of? Episcopal, Polish National Catholic, Orthodox, possibly Lutheran, Old Catholic Church, Armenian, Assyria, Coptic…I can’t think of any other that would fit what you’ve said so far.

Well, you could continue to speculate regarding my “denomination” or you could simply look at the upper right corner of my posts and read what is written after “Religion:”

Since you brought it up, what is your denomination?

I think that if we look at tradition, instead of scripture, then over time these traditions will lead us to become less clear concerning God’s word.

Who has said we are to look at tradition instead of Scripture?

When it comes to the Eucharist. I do not believe in Transubstantiation. I know that the Ante-Nicene fathers spoke of the Eucharist as being symbolic. I actually quoted them on this many times in my fist posting on this thread.

I do not believe in infant baptism. Children do not go to hell if they die before the age of reason. Even the RCC acknowledges that now…even though it took them centuries to do so. IF that is the case…why should children be baptized? It makes no sense. As infants they cannot make any statement of faith, or accept Jesus as their savior.

As I said, these are topics for another thread. I was just giving some examples of things that were part of the “tradition” of the early Church that were tossed aside for new beliefs—which had no Biblical support BTW.

When it comes to the first 1500 years of the church, there were a lot of good things, and a lot of bad things. But you can’t blame the Protestant Reformers for breaking away and depending solely on Scripture. Look at what the church was like back then. The church and most states in Europe worked in unison. Tithing was by law. People were executed if they spoke up with any dissenting beliefs. The Pope was probably the most powerful and wealthy man in Europe. The Papacy was controlled by corrupt noblemen. And in Rome everything was for sale…everything. Usually the man elected pope was the one wealthy enough to bribe the majority of cardinals. And the common people weren’t just forced to tithe by law, they also had to provide other payments through out the year, and if their relatives died they had to pay for masses and indulgences on their behalf. It was very expensive and often quite oppressive to be a RC in the 1500s. That’s why so many people loved and turned to the new Protestant movement.

You’ve made your antiCatholic sentiment very clear.

Regarding my question:

What do you accept from the first 1500 years of Christianity?

Are you saying the only thing you accept from the first 1500 years of Christianity is Scripture and Scripture alone? Keep in mind, in the early part of those 1500 years, very little was written. The Gospel of Christ was transmitted through oral tradition long before it was written.

And what do you suppose the Protestant Reformers were supposed to base their new faith on? The papacy and it’s traditions? That would work against them. The only tool they had was the same one Jesus had…the scriptures and them alone. That’s what Jesus used to fight the corruption of his time, and that’s the same thing the reformers had. It was sola scriptura or nothing.

Are you really claiming Jesus used Scripture and Scripture alone? Have you read the New Testament?

If you want to see where in the Bible sola scriptura is preached…it’s easy…Jesus condemned the traditions of the religious leaders of his time and used the scriptures…and them alone, to fight for what was right. Jesus used sola scriptura…so should we.

You keep talking about the traditions that Christ condemned, but Christ did not condemn all traditions. You have been given Biblical support, in many posts including mine, for following tradition.

Anna