The Early Church Fathers Protestant-Style

[NHInsider]

Your post attributed to Cyprian is certainly erroneous.

It’s a legitimate quote but it’s out of context. The point of the quote is that EVEN PETER, WHO WAS GIVEN AUTHORITY OVER THE CHURCH, accepted correction from Paul in the circumcision argument.

In this case the argument was over whether persons who had been baptized by heretics needed to be baptized again if they converted to the Church. Cyprian believed they should be rebaptized, Pope Stephen asserted (and, it will be noted, his position continues to be the position of the Church) that if the heretic baptized using flowing water and the Trinitarian formula, the baptism is valid and cannot be repeated.

As I understand the historical event, Cyprian argued that this was a matter that the individuals bishops should determine within their dioceses, the Eastern Churches for the most part agreed with Cyprian. Cyprian was NOT asserting against Papal primacy in general but that this particular item was not a “universal Church” question. Obviously Pope Stephen’s ruling stood, and some years later Augustine reviewed and detailed the whole correspondence and observed that although Cyprian was wrong in his position his ultimate martyrdom for the faith would have atoned for his errors.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

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

That’s great Anna!

 

[john1968]

Yes, I posted a lot of information. But I don’t have endless amounts of time to devote to this site. And for someone to try to section up my statements piece by piece, in a meticulous fashion, and then have me meticulously defend each point, based on their rules, is a ridiculous expectation. It would, as I said, only put me on the defensive. I’m not here to be on the defensive, while you point fingers at me.

And, by the way, I did defend my points. In detail to boot. I quoted the Ante-Nicene fathers, the earliest Christian writers. For people to be telling me what others who lived later said is kind of pointless. Augustine lived in the 5th century. To have someone quote him doesn’t hold a candle to a quote I made from the second or third century.

Also, I explained in detail why I believe that the RCC believes in continuous revelation, even if its leaders will not admit it. I explained how many of its doctrines cannot be traced to the earliest centuries. Papal infallibility, Immaculate Conception, Indulgences, etc.

I gave my explanations. Sorry if you don’t like what I had to say and/or how I said it. I defended my points in detail.

 

[john1968]

PJM,

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

Sure, there’s a lot of stuff that isn’t in the Bible. I never said it’s all in there. I don’t know who you were quoting. If I did say that, you must have misunderstood me.

But all we need to know for salvation, and all God is going to reveal till Christ’s second coming is in the Bible. There is no reason to believe otherwise…unless you believe in continuous revelation. So do you believe in contiuous revelation? Is God unfolding more and more information to the Church as time goes by. Is there something about Jesus that God is going to tell is that he didn’t tell the Apostles? Or maybe something about Mary? Or something about the government of the church? If you believe in continuous revelation, then say so and that will be your point of view. But if you claim that the RCC doesn’t believe in continuous revelation, then don’t go around saying that Tradition reveals stuff that the Bible doesn’t, which is necessary for salvation, or even for the church itself.

 

[john1968]

Salvatore123…

You said: 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?

The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. But Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. The OT in Palestine never accepted the Deuterocanonical books. They were accepted among the Greek speaking Jews of the diaspora, but not by the Aramaic and Hebrew speaking Jews of Palestine. The authors of the NT quoted the Septuagint, simply because they were writing in Greek and that was the copy of the OT scriptures in Greek at that time in history. But if you pay close attention, Jesus never quotes from the Deuterocanonical books. So I’m sorry, but your point makes no sense.

Yes, many early Christians used and accepted the Septuagint and the Deuterocanonical books, but there is no proof that Jesus or any Jews in Palestine ever accepted the Deuterocanonical books. In fact there is proof that they didn’t accept the Deuterocanonical books. The authors of the NT may have quoted from the Septuagint, but that doesn’t mean they accepted the Deuterocanonical parts of the Septuagint. And the Septuagint is a Greek translation that was made before the Deuterocanonical books were even written. Yet in the diaspora the Deuterocanonical books were added to the Septuagint because they were written in Greek. While in Palestine they were rejected because they were written in Greek. Do you follow me?

You also wrote: 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”.

When I speak of criteria, I mean the criteria that the early church used to determine what was scripture. It’s evident that the author of the Muratorian canon used some kind of criteria, because he didn’t accept the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture, since it was written too late. That was part of the same criteria that was used later in history to make the final decision on scripture. The criteria was kind of obvious, since it was obvious to Peter that Paul’s letters were scripture. Peter’s letters were scripture as well, because they met the same criteria as did Paul’s letters.

It seems that you are trying to argue that the church determined what the books of the Bible are to be, so the Church also gets to determine how to interpret them, and also gets to add tradition into an even par with scripture. But none of the councils ever said that they were making the decision. They only said that they were acknowledging what God had already done. And the Jewish Sanhedrin never determined at any time before Jesus’ ministry what books make up the scriptures. Yet Jesus appeared to know, as did the Jews of his time, what books were to be part of scripture and which were not. The same way the OT books were determined before Jesus’ time is the same what the NT were determined before the time of any council. It was its authorship, its usage, and its doctrine. Just because some books were disputed in the early centuries doesn’t mean that there was no NT before the 4th century. There was a NT in the first century, the second century, and the third century, long before any council decided anything. They contents were disputed, but overall the 27 books which make up the modern day NT were the books that were accepted and used primarily as scripture in the vast majority of churches in early Christendom.

Finally, as I have stressed before, Jesus condemned the traditions of the Pharisees and Saducees, and he used scripture to do it. So what makes you think that he would accept the traditions of the church?

 

[LionHeart777]

Greetings John1968,

I’ve heard it claimed ( if I’m not mistaken, by Tim Staples in “Staples vs. Gregg”), that Jesus never quoted from the Book of Esther either.

Thoughts?

 

[rdscheirer]

Let me kill the thread- Jesus said love the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind and your neighbor as yourself.

 

[john1968]

Salvatore123…

You wrote: 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.

If 2 Peter was accepted as scripture from the get go, how can it authenticating another book of scripture be illogical? Peter calls Paul’s letter scripture. If he knew he was writing scripture, and so did his disciples, then it makes full sense. And yes, I do think that many, if not all, of the authors of the NT knew that their books would be scripture. If Scripture is inspired by God, then the authors were inspired, and probably knew that what they wrote would be considered scripture, whether you want to believe it or not.

You also wrote: 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!!!

But then how do you explain that Jesus and the people of his time knew what the OT books were, even though no council had determined it? And I’m not just talking about the Torah. I mean the prophets, the psalms, the proverbs, etc. Parts of the OT refer to other parts of the Old Testament as given by God. Such as when other books of the OT refer to the books of Moses (the Torah).

And even Jesus refers to some books of the OT as scripture, thus authenticating in the Gospels which books were scripture. That’s the Bible authenticating other parts of the Bible. Your argument is pointless. Just read how the NT calls the OT scripture. That’s the NT authenticating the OT. Just read how the prophets speak of the written Law of Moses. That’s the OT authenticating other parts of the OT. Just like Peter authenticated that Paul’s letters were scripture. Peter authenticated Paul, but now you seem to be bummed out because no one appears to authenticate Peter. But if he’s one of the Apostles, and leaders of the church, doesn’t his position in the Church authenticate his letter?

Remember: What was the rule/canon that was used to determine the books of NT scripture:

1. Connection to an Apostle
2. Usage among early Christians and their acceptance of such a book
3. True dotrine

Paul’s letters had all that criteria, so Peter calls them scripture. But Peter’s letters met that criteria too. Why else would Peter have said that Paul’s letters were scripture.

 

[john1968]

Yeah, that may be the case. But Esther is considered to be scripture by the Jews of Palestine in Jesus’ day. Both the diaspora Jews and the Jews of Palestine accepted it. But the Jews of Palestine never accepted the Deuterocanonical books.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Remember: What was the rule/canon that was used to determine the books of NT scripture:

1. Connection to an Apostle
2. Usage among early Christians and their acceptance of such a book
3. True dotrine

These criteria are no where to be found within the scriptures. You are implying them from a reference in 2 Peter to Paul’s letters being Scriptural. Someone could just as easily “assume” that only Paul’s letters following the OT would be Scriptural from that reference. So howcome, since these 3 rules are not found within the Scriptures, is this not a tradition of yours?

God bless

 

[Anna_Scott]

john1968,

Remember the thread topic and original post:

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?

john1968,

Would you just clarify your position in relation to the thread topic? Are you claiming the Early Church Fathers were Sola Scriptura proponents, and did not rely upon tradition in the interpretation of Scripture?

Anna

 

[john1968]

In Jesus’ day what did he use to fight against the hypocrisy and corruption of the Sanhedrin, the High Priest, the Pharisees and Sadducees? He used scripture. They had their man made traditions, and he had scripture. He condemned them by using scripture. And yet the scripture he used in his day had never been determined by any council. The Sadducees only accepted the Torah, while the Pharisees accepted the whole OT as the Jews have it today. No councils had determined anything. Yet Jesus acknowledge the scriptures as being the books the Pharisees accepted, even though he denounced their hypocrisy and traditions.

And so 1500 years later what did Martin Luther do? He used scripture to denounce the RCC and its traditions. Just like Jesus did in his time. Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers, and Luther figuratively overturned the tables of the indulgences salesmen.

Now, please don’t be offended, but in the early 1500s the RCC was corrupt. I’m not saying that is the case today. And I’m not saying this to make Protestants look good or righteous. But if you know anything about Church history you’ll know that the medieval popes had mistresses and illegitimate children. And everything was for sale in Rome. The most infamous pope in history was Alexander VI. Just read a little bit about his life and you’ll be shocked. There was no end to the corruption and something had to be done. Just like Jesus denounced the corruption and theology of the Sadducees and Pharisees, so the Protestant Reformers did the same. Jesus didn’t just denounce their corruption, but their theology as well. He wasn’t saying that all of them were bad or that they were all going to hell, but neither did the Protestant Reformers say that about the RCC either. Jesus denounced their hypocrisy and their theology, and the Protestant Reformers did the same. And they used the same exact tool: Scripture. Not tradition, but Scripture. Jesus never ever quotes from Tradition, to prove his point. Never!! Only from Scripture. Yet, as I have said before, in Jesus day there had never been even one council to determine what the books of the OT were. But even though this is the case, Jesus still quotes and uses scripture. The Sanhedrin and the whole Jewish system of worship was discontinued by the Apostles and the church, yet for some reason they continued to use the OT scripture. So what was more important? What was the final authority in Jesus’ day? Was it the Sanhedrin? Was it the High Priest? NO!!! It was scripture. And so now, in the modern day, what is the final authority? Is it the church? No!! Just like it wasn’t the Sanhedrin according to Jesus. Is it the pope? No!! Just like it wasn’t the High Priest according to Jesus. It was the scriptures. It was the scriptures in Jesus’ day and it’s the scriptures today. When the Cohens and the High Priest and the Levites, and the whole religious system of the Jews had become corrupt it was scripture that Jesus pointed to. Not tradition. Not the Sanhedrin. And so the Protestant Reformers did the same. They didn’t look to tradition or church councils, because none of that would have worked. The did what Jesus did. They pointed to the scriptures.

 

[john1968]

Roman_Catholic

Please answer me this. In Jesus’ day what determined what were the proper books of the Old Testament canon? How did they know which were the proper books of the Old Testament canon and which were not?

Obviously there was an OT canon that was used in Palestine in Jesus’ time, because Jesus refers to it often and quotes from it. So do the other NT writers.

So please tell me, what determined in Jesus’ time which books were the correct OT books?

 

[LionHeart777]

Yeah, that may be the case. But Esther is considered to be scripture by the Jews of Palestine in Jesus’ day. Both the diaspora Jews and the Jews of Palestine accepted it. But the Jews of Palestine never accepted the Deuterocanonical books.

I agree both accepted Esther. But I don’t think that Jesus not quoting the Deuterocanonical Books is evidence that they are not inspired; because we all agree that Esther.

Also, the Jews in Palestine in Jesus’ day, (according to Jimmy Akin on the “Bible Answer Man Show” going back and forth w/ James White), had no set Canon. The Pharisees had some books that the Sadducees didn’t accept; that’ why I think they had different teachings.

Take care!

 

[Anna_Scott]

john1968,

Remember the thread topic and original post:
Little Mary;7423526:

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

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

john1968,

Would you just clarify your position in relation to the thread topic? Are you claiming the Early Church Fathers were Sola Scriptura proponents, and did not rely upon tradition in the interpretation of Scripture?

Anna

In Jesus’ day what did he use to fight against the hypocrisy and corruption of the Sanhedrin, the High Priest, the Pharisees and Sadducees? He used scripture. They had their man made traditions, and he had scripture. He condemned them by using scripture. And yet the scripture he used in his day had never been determined by any council. The Sadducees only accepted the Torah, while the Pharisees accepted the whole OT as the Jews have it today. No councils had determined anything. Yet Jesus acknowledge the scriptures as being the books the Pharisees accepted, even though he denounced their hypocrisy and traditions.

And so 1500 years later what did Martin Luther do? He used scripture to denounce the RCC and its traditions. Just like Jesus did in his time. Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers, and Luther figuratively overturned the tables of the indulgences salesmen.

Now, please don’t be offended, but in the early 1500s the RCC was corrupt. I’m not saying that is the case today. And I’m not saying this to make Protestants look good or righteous. But if you know anything about Church history you’ll know that the medieval popes had mistresses and illegitimate children. And everything was for sale in Rome. The most infamous pope in history was Alexander VI. Just read a little bit about his life and you’ll be shocked. There was no end to the corruption and something had to be done. Just like Jesus denounced the corruption and theology of the Sadducees and Pharisees, so the Protestant Reformers did the same. Jesus didn’t just denounce their corruption, but their theology as well. He wasn’t saying that all of them were bad or that they were all going to hell, but neither did the Protestant Reformers say that about the RCC either. Jesus denounced their hypocrisy and their theology, and the Protestant Reformers did the same. And they used the same exact tool: Scripture. Not tradition, but Scripture. Jesus never ever quotes from Tradition, to prove his point. Never!! Only from Scripture. Yet, as I have said before, in Jesus day there had never been even one council to determine what the books of the OT were. But even though this is the case, Jesus still quotes and uses scripture. The Sanhedrin and the whole Jewish system of worship was discontinued by the Apostles and the church, yet for some reason they continued to use the OT scripture. So what was more important? What was the final authority in Jesus’ day? Was it the Sanhedrin? Was it the High Priest? NO!!! It was scripture. And so now, in the modern day, what is the final authority? Is it the church? No!! Just like it wasn’t the Sanhedrin according to Jesus. Is it the pope? No!! Just like it wasn’t the High Priest according to Jesus. It was the scriptures. It was the scriptures in Jesus’ day and it’s the scriptures today. When the Cohens and the High Priest and the Levites, and the whole religious system of the Jews had become corrupt it was scripture that Jesus pointed to. Not tradition. Not the Sanhedrin. And so the Protestant Reformers did the same. They didn’t look to tradition or church councils, because none of that would have worked. The did what Jesus did. They pointed to the scriptures.

john1968,

Are you saying that according to the writings of the ECF’s, tradition played no role whatsoever in the interpretation of Scripture–and that the ECF’s were pro Sola Scriptura and anti tradition?

Anna

 

[john1968]

The Sadducees only accepted the Torah (Pentateuch). The Pharisees accepted the current books of the Jewish canon. It appears that Jesus accepted the canon of the Pharisees, because he quotes from so many of these books.

The diaspora Jews usually used the Septuagint, which according to many scholars, had the Jewish canon, plus all the deuterocanonical books of the Greek Orthodox church. There is one book in the Septuagint that the RCC currently does not accept. I think it’s Esdras 3. Yet the Greek Orthodox church does accept it. I have no idea why the RCC does not.

The Protestants don’t accept the Deuterocanonical books of the RCC because the Jews don’t accept them. And the Jews of Palestine never accepted them. Only the diaspora Jews did. The Jews of Palestine did not accept them because they were written in Greek.

In 90 A.D., about 60 years after Jesus, the Jews finally had a council which officially accepted their current canon. But many Jews and other scholars believe that this council never happened, and is only a pious fiction. If that is the case, then the current Jewish canon has been passed down from the time of Jesus by the Pharisees who went into the diaspora after the Romans crushed the Jewish revolt in 120 A.D.

 

[john1968]

I am not saying that the Early Church Fathers had no traditions. At this point I am trying to defend my position as to why I believe in Sola Scriptura.

Originally the earliest Early Church Fathers, known as the Ante-Nicene Fathers, did not have any traditions, because the church was too young. But as time went by they did adopt traditions. I’m not saying that this was a good thing, but just that it happened. But if you look at OT history the children of Israel originally had no traditions either. But over time they did develop traditions. Yet if you look at the Gospels Jesus condemns their traditions. He says they are man made and that they were teaching their traditions as if their traditions were the word of God.

I’m not saying that the ECF didn’t develop traditions. I’m just saying that traditions are not always a good thing. Especially if those traditions are put on par with scripture. And if those traditions contradict scripture.

Even modern day Protestants and Evangelicals have traditions. Protestantism has been around for centuries, and it too has developed many traditions. But often times those traditions are really a bad thing that hinder the truths of God’s word.

Usually, from what we can see in the Bible and in history, traditions are not always a good thing. And are often a bad thing. Stick with the original teachings of the Apostles. And try to get away from traditions. If this was not the case then Jesus would not have condemned the traditions of the religious leaders of his day. Yet Jesus did condemn their traditions, while upholding scripture.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Roman_Catholic

Please answer me this. In Jesus’ day what determined what were the proper books of the Old Testament canon? How did they know which were the proper books of the Old Testament canon and which were not?

Obviously there was an OT canon that was used in Palestine in Jesus’ time, because Jesus refers to it often and quotes from it. So do the other NT writers.

So please tell me, what determined in Jesus’ time which books were the correct OT books?

John it is my understanding that there was no solidified Jewish Canon during Jesus’ time. The Council of Jamnia (AD 90ish, post crucifixion) determined the Jewish OT. As far as the criteria that was used at the Council of Jamnia I do not know. I am concerned though where you get the idea that a post Crucifixion Jewish Council has any bearing on Christians?

Anyways I do not see the connection to what yoy are saying. It is you who came up with these three rules (rules that, since they deal with the Apostles, would not have been used at Jamnia anyways). So it is only reasonable for you to defend them. I am trying to show you something. These three rules you have come up with are not found in scripture, they are a tradition of yours. Now you say that Catholics believe in continued revelation because they adhere to traditions yet you say that you believed that public revelation stopped with the death of the last Apostles. However, like Catholics, you accept traditions. So which is it?

God bless you

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Originally the earliest Early Church Fathers, known as the Ante-Nicene Fathers, did not have any traditions, because the church was too young.

John this doesn’t work. In 2 Thess. 2:15 Paul tells the Thessalonians to stand firm in the traditions he had taught them:

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us”

So if what you say above is true, how could Paul have had any traditions to teach them? No one is going to say that the Church was not young in Paul’s age, yet here we have traditions already in the Church.

. But if you look at OT history the children of Israel originally had no traditions either

This is not true. How do you think the Genesis narrative was written if not from tradition? Was the writter there at the beginning of creation, writing it as he saw it? No, he wrote it based off of tradition. Furthermore I have shown you a tradition which Christ references in Matt. the seat of Moses which was a tradition.

Even modern day Protestants and Evangelicals have traditions.

And I would argue so do you.

Usually, from what we can see in the Bible and in history, traditions are not always a good thing. And are often a bad thing. Stick with the original teachings of the Apostles. And try to get away from traditions. If this was not the case then Jesus would not have condemned the traditions of the religious leaders of his day. Yet Jesus did condemn their traditions, while upholding scripture.

Christ condemned traditions which made void the word of God, not just traditions in general.

*thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. * Mk 7:13

That is an important distinction to remember.

God bless you

 

[NotWorthy]

The Sadducees only accepted the Torah (Pentateuch). The Pharisees accepted the current books of the Jewish canon. It appears that Jesus accepted the canon of the Pharisees, because he quotes from so many of these books.

The diaspora Jews usually used the Septuagint, which according to many scholars, had the Jewish canon, plus all the deuterocanonical books of the Greek Orthodox church. There is one book in the Septuagint that the RCC currently does not accept. I think it’s Esdras 3. Yet the Greek Orthodox church does accept it. I have no idea why the RCC does not.

The Protestants don’t accept the Deuterocanonical books of the RCC because the Jews don’t accept them. And the Jews of Palestine never accepted them. Only the diaspora Jews did. The Jews of Palestine did not accept them because they were written in Greek.

In 90 A.D., about 60 years after Jesus, the Jews finally had a council which officially accepted their current canon. But many Jews and other scholars believe that this council never happened, and is only a pious fiction. If that is the case, then the current Jewish canon has been passed down from the time of Jesus by the Pharisees who went into the diaspora after the Romans crushed the Jewish revolt in 120 A.D.

I would disagree with the statement that Jesus used the same Canon as the Pharisees. There were two Canons that were popularly used in this time (other than the 5 books accepted by the Sadducees). The Pharisees used the Hebrew Scriptures, while the rest of the Jewish community living outside of Palestine used the Greek Septuagint (similar books as the Pharisees along with the Deutero’s and a couple more). This is the Scriptures that Jesus quoted from most often, for He often quoted from the Greek translation, rather than the Hebrew.