The Early Church Fathers Protestant-Style

[NHInsider]

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.

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.

In fact, they could not possibly be “sola scriptura” because “scriptura” had not yet been defined. There was, in fact, no definitive New Testament, because that Tradition was still developing. Apostolic tradition was all the Church had to go on, which is why it was so essential that the faithful remain united with those bishops who had received the Apostolic authority.

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.

And do you know how it came to be that you can say with confidence that those books are not Scripture and other highly-debated texts, like the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation, are?

I guess once you get to the third and forth centuries of the church there are traditions which are followed.

In your study have you by chance read the Didache? or the letters of Ireneaus?

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.

You misunderstand completely. The point of Apostolic Authority is not that revelation continues (if you took the trouble of looking at the Catechism you would learn that the Church teaches that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle). The point of Apostolic Authority is not that revelation changes but that the world changes. When Gentiles became believers, the Church was faced with a situation Jesus had not explicitly addressed - did those new believers have to become Jews in order to be Christians? The Apostles met in Council to discuss, pray, and decree what the Holy Spirit had told them. This is the what is on-going.

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.

Except that you don’t know what “Church Tradition” means. Do you believe in the Trinity? Do you believe that Jesus is Truly God and Truly Human? Do you worship on Sunday? Do you eat bacon? If you answer “yes” to any of these questions you are accepting 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.

If you reject the Authority of the Church that wrote and compiled and preserved and gave you the Bible, then you can no more rely upon the Bible than you can rely upon the musings of your own mind. How do you know the Gospel of John is authentic and the Gospel of Thomas is not? If you accept the Bible as Authoritative you are relying upon the Church, whether you acknowledge it or not. And then what basis have you for rejecting the other things she taught in the years before she defined the Scripture you claim is all-sufficient?

 

[William_Pitts]

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.)

“For if the lineal succession of bishops (of Rome) is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: – Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were known.” Augustine,To Fortunatus,Epistle 53(A.D. 400),in NPNFI,I:298

“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome,Pope,1st Epistle to the Corinthians,1,59:1 (c.A.D. 96),in GILES,1-2

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416

It seems there were bishops who claimed primacy before your citation claim.

Where did you copy your information from?

 

[William_Pitts]

Your post attributed to Cyprian is certainly erroneous.

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian,The Unity of the Church,4-5 (Primacy Text,A.D. 251/256),NE,228-229

Please cite the material you quote from.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

I made a thread in the “non catholic religion” section on Tradition being a necessary part of Christianity. Many verses have already been posted to show that tradition is a source of Christian truth. Here they are again,

2 Thess 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

1 Cor 11: 2
I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

John 20: 30
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.

2 Timothy 2:2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

2 Thes 3: 6
We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.

John 21: 25
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

2 John 1: 12
Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete.

3 John 1: 13
Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Here’s from the church fathers,

‘For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3, 4:1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

"Through none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering to us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith….But when, the heretics are Scriptures, as if they were wrong, and unauthoritative, and were variable, and the truth could not be extracted from them by those who were ignorant of Tradition…And when we challenge them in turn what that tradition, which is from the Apostles, which is guarded by the succession of elders in the churches, they oppose themselves to Tradition, saying that they are wiser, not only than those elders, but even than the Apostles. The Tradition of the Apostles, manifested ‘on the contrary’ in the whole world, is open in every Church to all who see the truth.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1-3 (inter A.D. 180/199).

“We do not take our scriptural teaching from the parables but we interpret the parables according to our teaching.” Tertullian, Purity 9,1 (c. A.D. 200).

“But after him (the devil) and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power” Athanasius, Festal Letter 2 (c. A.D. 350).

“Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture as well those which have been gathered concerning it as those which we have received from the unwritten tradition of the Fathers.” Basil, Holy Spirit 22 (c. A.D. 370).

“The day would fail me, if I went through the mysteries of the Church which are not in Scripture. I pass by the others, the very confession of faith, in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, from what written document have we?” Basil, Holy Spirit 67 (c. A.D. 370).

Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of the Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of command.…’ Jerome, Dialogue Luciferians 8 (c. A.D. 379).

“I desire to learn what is this fashion of innovation in things concerning the Church. But since our faith has been proclaimed, both in writing and without writing, here and in distant parts, in times of danger and of safety, how comes it that some make such attempts, and that others keep silence?” Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistles 101 (c. A.D. 385)

‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by our epistle of ours’.** Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit**. It is a tradition seek no farther." John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Thessalonians (c. A.D. 392).

“Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that the Church has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it.” Augustine, Letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis (A.D. 414).

 

[john1968]

You know…I really get sick of it when people take apart my posting sentence by minute sentence and then expect me to answer their detailed questions word for word. I’m not hear to write a book or go on the defensive. If I was to answer every little thing like people want me to I’d be writing a book and only going on the defensive.

Also I don’t have time to read and respond to everthing and everyone. I’d be sitting at the computer all day if that was the case. And after a while all I’d be doing is just defending myself. I don’t like being on the defensive. No one does.

I stated my case. I believe in the Ante-Nicene fathers. To me they point to beliefs in the early church that no longer are accepted by the RCC. I quoted from them and gave examples.

When it comes to tradition, that’s something that develops over time. New beliefs have come into the church which didn’t exist originally. There is proof for what I say.

Sorry if you guys don’t agree with me. I didn’t expect so many responses. I have a life and can’t just sit at the computer all day defending my position.

 

[john1968]

I’ll try to answer a little bit.

The Muratorian Canon only mentions 20 out of the 27 books in it’s list. But it is a fragment. We don’t know if there was more to it that did include those books. Even if it doesn’t, other people who lived at that time did accept the other books. It depended on the congregation and region. Overall the 27 books are the ones which were accepted most.

And I was trying to point out that the standard was laid down in scripture. In 2 Peter the author (Peter) refers to Paul’s Epistles as scripture. This must have been a reason he recognized them as scripture so early on (the first century). Those reason, which can easily be determined by common sense, are the standards.

Since Paul’s epistles were accepted as scripture it goes to show that even before the canon was finally agreed upon by the whole church, people and groups were already creating their own lists for what they thought belonged in the New Testament Canon. For example, Irenaeus wrote about which Gospels he thought were the true Gospels. He had a list way before any council did. The Muratorian canon also had a list of books, long before a council made any decisions. There were lists that existed long before the councils decided on them. And Athanasius came up with the list of the 27 books before any council did.

Stating that Paul’s letters were scripture meant that the New Testament gave evidence for a standard. The standard evidently was:

1. Paul was accepted among the Apostles…so the work would have had to have been connected to an Apostle. That is one of the rules that was required for accepting a book into the canon.
2. Paul’s lettters were circulated over the whole church and accepted by the vast majority of congregations. A New Testament book would also have to meet this criteria.
3. Paul’s letters were in tune with the rest of the Bible and with the Gospel that was taught. This is another criteria.

So these were the criteria used to determine the canon of the NT. But because Paul’s letters were called scripture by Peter in the first century, and in his Epistle, it is evident that the Bible give this criteria.

Therefore it was not the church and tradition that determine the NT canon, it was the idea set forth in scripture.

Even if you don’t accept my explanation…so what? I don’t care. Jesus never quoted tradition, only scripture. And he condemned the traditions of the Pharisees. But what was it in the time of Jesus which determined the Old Testament canon?

Answer that…if you already have tried, excuse me, but I didn’t have time to read all the responses.

 

[bjmad]

Study what traditions of men he was referring to and you will find that the he was NOT talking about the traditions that others speak of in the scriptures nor the sacred traditions. Plus, Jesus did speak of holding traditions because all scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit therefore coming from the Trinity.

God Bless

 

[PJM]

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.

Hi John,

A becutiful Post…THANKS!

However “if indeed it’s all in the Bible” then it’s NOT all in the Bible

John 20: 29 -31 “Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” Now Jesus did many other signs in the **presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; ** but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.”

**John 21:24 **"This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. "

**Heb.2: 4 **“while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will”

I seem to recall that there are several times it is mentioned that Christ preformed miracles not specificaly reported. This seems logical as Chrsit worked seven days a week and preformed miracles on a frequent basis.

Then there are the Historical Proofs…

Christ died around 33-35 AD and th Bible was not completely written for another 65 years or so. And the Canon was not set for several Centuries; yet th CC grew and florished by relying as they had in the OT times; on TRADITION and stories.

God Bless, and WELCOME TO THE FORUM!
Pat

 

[Roy5]

My view of many of the early Church Fathers differs from that of many others. A couple points.

1. I have read many of them, and in all honesty I was disappointed. I had been led to believe that there was something brilliant about them, just short of scripture. Now, they were certainly smart and well-informed for their era, but they did not have a decent telescope and no microscope, so their writings are way off when it comes to their assumptions re the universe as well as causes of illness and such. They accepted and spread many of the superstitions of that superstitious age. 

 2. It always has intrigued me that if certain 'heretics' had won a majority of votes at various councils we would have had many different Church Fathers. 

 3. My favorites among the Church Fathers are Origen and Augustine. I like Origen because he already sensed that much of scripture and even theology should be viewed as symbolic more than literally. That made him a bit of a heretic, of course. As for Augustine, he was especially insightful for that era. But even the writings of these too are weakened by the mythology and lack of knowledge that infected the Near East and western world at that time.

4. We should respect the Church Fathers like we respect, say, a Plato or an Herodotus or a Josephus. But they are were severely limited by the age in which they lived. I fear that they contributed to various misundetstandings that still plague the Church when the Church should make them optional or discard them altogether. The concept of Limbo is an illustration. Fifty years ago it was taught in parochial schools and elsewhere as a dogma. Now it has been demoted to a "believe if you wish but not required" status.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

You know…I really get sick of it when people take apart my posting sentence by minute sentence and then expect me to answer their detailed questions word for word.

Sorry, that’s just the way it is done. In fact I am not aware of any forum that thisdoesn’t happen. I wasn’t doing it to upset you, it’s just easier to follow your thoughts.

Also I don’t have time to read and respond to everthing and everyone. I’d be sitting at the computer all day if that was the case. And after a while all I’d be doing is just defending myself. I don’t like being on the defensive. No one does.

That’s understandable. I was just giving a few things to think about and consider.

The Muratorian Canon only mentions 20 out of the 27 books in it’s list.

We are in agreement, the Muratorian Canon is incomplete. We can cross one thing off our list

And I was trying to point out that the standard was laid down in scripture. In 2 Peter the author (Peter) refers to Paul’s Epistles as scripture. This must have been a reason he recognized them as scripture so early on (the first century). Those reason, which can easily be determined by common sense, are the standards.

But you are working off the assumption that 2 Peter is Scripture.

Stating that Paul’s letters were scripture meant that the New Testament gave evidence for a standard. The standard evidently was:

1. Paul was accepted among the Apostles…**so the work would have had to have been connected to an Apostle. That is one of the rules that was required for accepting a book into the canon. **

1. Paul’s lettters were circulated over the whole church and accepted by the vast majority of congregations. **A New Testament book would also have to meet this criteria. **

1. Paul’s letters were in tune with the rest of the Bible and with the Gospel that was taught. This is another criteria.

The bold above are things you are assuming. There is no scriptural support for it. How come not everything Paul wrote is in the Canon? How come everything all the other Apostles wrote is not in the Canon. I am going to leave it at this; I think you are stretching pretty far to make this criteria fit by 1) starting off the assumption that 2 Peter is Scriptural and 2) based on a reference from that you jump to the above three bold criterias.

No where in Scripture does it say that in order for something to be considered Scriptural it must be connected to the Apostles, or circulated throughout the Church or agree with the rest of the Bible. You are reading into a passage and coming up with those criteria’s on your own. Furthermore, as stated before, you are working off the assumption that 2 Peter is already Scriptural.

Therefore it was not the church and tradition that determine the NT canon, it was the idea set forth in scripture.

I disagree about it being set forth in Scripture. Read above.

Even if you don’t accept my explanation…so what? I don’t care. Jesus never quoted tradition, only scripture

Negative. Go back to my last post about Christ discussing the seat of Moses in Matt. This is not found in the OT, it was a tradition which Christ was talking about.

Answer that…if you already have tried, excuse me, but I didn’t have time to read all the responses.

I did but I will cite it again for you:

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

Moses’ seat is not found anywhere in the OT. It was a tradition which Christ was referring to.

God bless you

 

[Salvatore123]

john1968,

At the risk of being accused of “breaking down your post and attacking each sentence”, I will try to focus on only a few “ideas” with the hope you can explain your understanding and appreciation of them.

1. You discuss a great deal about the “norms” for what was used to be considered as the basis for forming “sacred scripture”. Do you realize that when Jesus quoted the OT, both Catholic and non-Catholic scripture scholars acknowledge that he was quoting from the Septuagint - an OT “canon” that was NOT used as the basis for the OT by Protestants, but WAS used as the basis for the OT canon by Catholics? So, the “natural” conclusion would seem to be: Why would Christ quote from an OT collection of sacred writings, that was later used to form the basis of the Catholic OT, if He did not think or believe that particular collection was a valid one?
2. One thing you seem to say, but do not really address, is this concept of “common sense” or “criteria” for determining what should or should not have been considered as part of the NT. Once you realize and accept the fact that the NT, although certainly “God breathed”, was NOT delivered to man as the 10 Commandments were delivered to Moses by God’s hand, you must then also have to realize and accept that “Scripture could not determine what was Scripture”.

The idea of “self authenticating” biblical writings is one of the most illogical conclusions anyone can have about the Bible. How can a book “authenticate” itself? I think it must be considered a “given” that the writers of each book had NO IDEA that other people might be writing something that would later be considered as part of the NT canon, and I think it even reasonable to assume that even St. John, the last surviving Apostle, probably (because of his exile on Patmos) did not have in his possession the majority of the writings that ultimately became known as the NT.

You see, once you accept AS FACT that NOWHERE in the Bible does it give “instruction” or “guidance” or “criteria” for what men should use in determining what books should form the NT, you then must accept that one of the most important decisions of Christ’s Church on Earth - determining what constituted sacred scripture as far as the NT was concerned - was, in fact, reached by men (albeit, with divine intervention) WITHOUT REFERENCE TO WHAT THEY WERE COMPILING!!!

P.S. - As an aside/concluding point made just for reference or something to consider: Are you aware that the Book of Revelation is the ONLY book in the entire NT where the author states he is writing under divine inspiration? That is about as close to “self authentication” as one can get, but even then, those who decided the NT canon could not and did not rely on that statement of inspiration alone as the reason for Revelation’s inclusion in the NT. Because if that had been the case, then why weren’t other books that are supposedly attributed to people such as St. Peter (Gospel of St. Peter) included in the NT, simply by virtue of their alleged authorship being from an Apostle?

 

[Salvatore123]

john1968,

A couple of other points I neglected to mention in my previous post to you:

1. Why do you lend such credence to the anti-Nicene Fathers you quote so much from, when none of those writings are considered by any church authority to be “on par” with Scripture? If you are going to give such weight to those writings you quoted, then you must have some credible support for your conclusion that the quotes you have given - provided they are correctly quoted (and I am not suggesting you made them up) - SHOULD be given the weight you give them, especially when you use them to make conclusions such as “no popes before X date” and “no such thing as ‘traditions’ being on par with scripture”.
2. If not a body or group that was “recognized” as authoritative (in our case, we cite the Catholic Church, and its Holy Father Damasus I as the first to mention it, but Trent as being the first time the Catholic Church definitively defined both the OT and NT canon) in finally determining the canon of both OT and NT scripture, to whom do you refer or rely on when you tell someone: “The bible in my hand that I show to you is THE word of God”?

 

[William_Pitts]

This is from “A Primer on the Church Fathers”

Consensus and Development of Doctrine

Amongst this diversity of patristic thought the Fathers were united on a number of doctrines without much controversy or discussion. Some of these doctrines include: 1) the existence of One God, 2) sotierology and sacraments, 3) ecclesiastical authority, 4) the existence of heaven and hell, 5)the existence of an invisible world consisting of angels and demons, 6) regenerative water baptism, and 7) the real presence in the Eucharist. However, many of the doctrines of today such as the Holy Trinity were a result of many years of reflection, dialogue and debate. In fact, prior to formal definition many of the Fathers would seem to have downplayed various aspects of the Trinity or even contradicted the defined doctrine. Prior to definition, doctrinal confusion is expected as the Fathers are grappling with the mysteries of the faith in an attempt to puzzle out the doctrines of the Church. The process between doctrinal chaos to doctrinal clarity is called the development of doctrine. By the end of the patristic age a broad and deep witness was arrived at on most of the cardinal doctrines of the Catholic faith. These include the Blessed Trinity, the nature of Christ, the canon of Scriptures, justification and grace, infallibility of the Church, and doctrines concerning Theotokos, just to name a few."

Protestant Interpretations of many passages of scripture constitute their own “Tradition”. Why do protestant ministers borrow or steal sermons from other ministers? Why does it require numerous commentaries and a wall full of reference books to interpret simple passages of scripture?

Pro 22:28 Remove not the ancient landmark which your fathers have set.

 

[teachccd]

Sorry if you guys don’t agree with me. I didn’t expect so many responses. I have a life and can’t just sit at the computer all day defending my position.

You come to a Catholic forum and state that the Early Church Fathers promoted “sola scriptura” and you didn’t expect so many responses? That’s a lack of foresight at its finest! You say that you have a life and cannot defend your position yet you found plenty of time stating your position. Is it because the life that prevents you from commenting on the replies doesn’t include the answers to the peritinent questions that you raised?

Now you don’t need a whole lot of time to answer this one simple question that you have selectively ignored from previous posters: If the letter of Peter was to authenticate the writings of Paul, then how were those writings of Peter authenticated? Where in scripture does it say that Peter’s letters are to be included in the canon but not the gospel attributed to him? Scripture would have to give authority to Peter to publish the very letters that you say prove Paul’s letters inspirational. Can you, using sola scriptura, give me the place in scripture where this occurs?

You do have a life but I think that you have a right to answer this question because all the rest of your position hinges on this. Can you take a minute or does this scare you away?

 

[simspt]

I’ll try to answer a little bit.

The Muratorian Canon only mentions 20 out of the 27 books in it’s list. But it is a fragment. We don’t know if there was more to it that did include those books. Even if it doesn’t, other people who lived at that time did accept the other books. It depended on the congregation and region. Overall the 27 books are the ones which were accepted most.

And I was trying to point out that the standard was laid down in scripture. In 2 Peter the author (Peter) refers to Paul’s Epistles as scripture. This must have been a reason he recognized them as scripture so early on (the first century). Those reason, which can easily be determined by common sense, are the standards.

Since Paul’s epistles were accepted as scripture it goes to show that even before the canon was finally agreed upon by the whole church, people and groups were already creating their own lists for what they thought belonged in the New Testament Canon. For example, Irenaeus wrote about which Gospels he thought were the true Gospels. He had a list way before any council did. The Muratorian canon also had a list of books, long before a council made any decisions. There were lists that existed long before the councils decided on them. And Athanasius came up with the list of the 27 books before any council did.

Stating that Paul’s letters were scripture meant that the New Testament gave evidence for a standard. The standard evidently was:

1. Paul was accepted among the Apostles…so the work would have had to have been connected to an Apostle. That is one of the rules that was required for accepting a book into the canon.
2. Paul’s lettters were circulated over the whole church and accepted by the vast majority of congregations. A New Testament book would also have to meet this criteria.
3. Paul’s letters were in tune with the rest of the Bible and with the Gospel that was taught. This is another criteria.

So these were the criteria used to determine the canon of the NT. But because Paul’s letters were called scripture by Peter in the first century, and in his Epistle, it is evident that the Bible give this criteria.

***Therefore it was not the church and tradition that determine the NT canon, it was the idea set forth in scripture. ***

Even if you don’t accept my explanation…so what? I don’t care. Jesus never quoted tradition, only scripture. And he condemned the traditions of the Pharisees. But what was it in the time of Jesus which determined the Old Testament canon?

Answer that…if you already have tried, excuse me, but I didn’t have time to read all the responses.

Hi John,
why do you have so much confidence in the authority of the NT writings? How do you know their legit?

What convinced you to accept as normative these particular writings over others in relation to getting accurate testimony and teaching of the Apostles and Christ especially considering how many writings were attributed to the Apostles?

How do you know that these writings or “scripture” belong in the “canon”?

 

[EricFilmer]

john1968;7538241:

You know…I really get sick of it when people take apart my posting sentence by minute sentence and then expect me to answer their detailed questions word for word. I’m not hear to write a book or go on the defensive. If I was to answer every little thing like people want me to I’d be writing a book and only going on the defensive.

Sorry, that’s just the way it is done. In fact I am not aware of any forum that thisdoesn’t happen. I wasn’t doing it to upset you, it’s just easier to follow your thoughts.

I agree, RC. If a person does not offer a point-by-point rebuttal of the opposing person’s pertinent material then he may be accused of “cherry picking” (and consequently being possibly considered as being intellectually dishonest).

 

[Anna_Scott]

You know…I really get sick of it when people take apart my posting sentence by minute sentence and then expect me to answer their detailed questions word for word. I’m not hear to write a book or go on the defensive. If I was to answer every little thing like people want me to I’d be writing a book and only going on the defensive.

Also I don’t have time to read and respond to everthing and everyone. I’d be sitting at the computer all day if that was the case. And after a while all I’d be doing is just defending myself. I don’t like being on the defensive. No one does.

I stated my case. I believe in the Ante-Nicene fathers. To me they point to beliefs in the early church that no longer are accepted by the RCC. I quoted from them and gave examples.

When it comes to tradition, that’s something that develops over time. New beliefs have come into the church which didn’t exist originally. There is proof for what I say.

Sorry if you guys don’t agree with me. I didn’t expect so many responses. I have a life and can’t just sit at the computer all day defending my position.

john1968,

Welcome to the forums. You’ve posted quite a bit of info on this thread; and since this is a forum for discussion and debate of the issues; people are going to respond to every sentence if they have something to say about every sentence. That is the nature of the forums. That is the nature of debate.

If you post a lot of info all at once, you’re going to get multiple responses to that info. It’s probably better to post less at one time. Then you will not feel so overwhelmed when people respond to “every sentence.”

Be prepared to defend/support your statements. Again, this is the nature of the forums.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

john1968,

Be prepared to defend/support your statements. Again, this is the nature of the forums.

Peace,
Anna

This is important to note Anna, something that I forgot to mention. Since this is, in the end, a place for “Catholic Answers” we can’t just let some statements go without comment. For instance the comment John made about believing in tradtion meaning you believe in continued revelation. There are countless lurkers who read these posts without posting themselves and if something wasn’t mentioned about that comment who knows, they may have believed it.

Yes, like Anna said John, be prepared to defend and support your statements. It’s nothing personal. Just the nature of forums (all, not just this one).

God bless you

 

[Anna_Scott]

This is important to note Anna, something that I forgot to mention. Since this is, in the end, a place for “Catholic Answers” we can’t just let some statements go without comment. For instance the comment John made about believing in tradtion meaning you believe in continued revelation. There are countless lurkers who read these posts without posting themselves and if something wasn’t mentioned about that comment who knows, they may have believed it.

Yes, like Anna said John, be prepared to defend and support your statements. It’s nothing personal. Just the nature of forums (all, not just this one).

God bless you

Roman_Catholic
I would think it would be a given that Catholics would defend their faith on a “Catholic Answers” forum. I would be disappointed if you did not.

I hope john1968 will return and actually engage in the discussion. We can all learn from these forums, even though we may not agree on everything.

Though I am currently in a conservative Church in the Anglican Communion, I have a great respect for Catholics and worked through some major issues here.

These forums, combined with prayer and study, led me to release Sola Scriptura; to embrace infant Baptism, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the Communion of the Saints, Graces imparted through Baptism and the Eucharist, and the special role of the Blessed Virgin Mary. These are just the main points.

So John 1968, I hope you will return and be open to a serious discussion. You may not change your mind about any of the beliefs you hold; but then again, you may find some fallacies in what you have been taught. Either way, this is a great place to gain a better understanding of those who believe differently than you do.

Peace,
Anna