The Early Church Fathers Protestant-Style

[john1968]

One more thing before I go.

Roman Catholic…you said: 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.

You have got to be kidding…So Peter didn’t really know that he could boss other people around. I thought Jesus said that he who wants to be number one has to be the servant of all? The pope holds the title servant of the servants of God…but he sure doesn’t act like it. And during the middle ages the pope didn’t serve anyone but himself. I guess Peter also didn’t know that he is entitled to the Papal states and to tons of money either…when he told the beggar that silver and gold he does not have. BTW…Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world…so why did the popes have the papal states for centuries?

Sorry, I don’t mean to be offensive…but the medieval popes were really bad. PJPII wasn’t bad, and I don’t really have a problem with the current pope. But Jesus said: You shall know them by their fruit. What did the fruit of the Medieval popes produce? What did it show them to be? Wars upon wars. Burning people at the stake…oh…the list continues.

Also referring to my 3 rules for how the books of the NT were determined, you said: 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?

The Apostles knew their books were inspired. And the criteria they used to determine if someone else’s books were inspired are evident in scripture, even if they are not spelled out in minute detail.

You still haven’t told me how the OT was decided without a council? You still haven’t told me how it was that Peter knew that Paul’s letters were scripture? You still haven’t told me how the church functioned for 3 centuries before multiple councils came up with a canon? And you still haven’t told me why Jesus condemned the traditions of the religious leaders of his time?

I will not answer any more of your questions till you answer mine. You have purposely tried to put me on the defensive, and never answer my questions. You are not being fair, which is usually the case in these kinds of discussion boards. You want me to answer your questions, but you refuse to answer mine, so that way you put me on the defensive, but you never are.

 

[cfrancis]

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.

Do I think He spoke Greek? Yes. Do I think He spoke Aramaic and Hebrew? Yes.
I was agreeing with what you said:

Jesus lived in Palestine and spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. They didn’t use the Septuagint in Palestine. And the Jews of Palestine had rejected the Apocrypha because it was written in Greek. The diaspora Jews accepted the Apocrypha because the books were popular and because even though they were written in Greek, they didn’t have a problem with that.

Most of our Protestant brethren who post here are adamant that Christ spoke to His Apostles in Greek, especially when we discuss Mt 16:18-19.

 

[cfrancis]

You have got to be kidding…So Peter didn’t really know that he could boss other people around. I thought Jesus said that he who wants to be number one has to be the servant of all? The pope holds the title servant of the servants of God…but he sure doesn’t act like it. And during the middle ages the pope didn’t serve anyone but himself. I guess Peter also didn’t know that he is entitled to the Papal states and to tons of money either…when he told the beggar that silver and gold he does not have. BTW…Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world…so why did the popes have the papal states for centuries?

Sorry, I don’t mean to be offensive…but the medieval popes were really bad. PJPII wasn’t bad, and I don’t really have a problem with the current pope. But Jesus said: You shall know them by their fruit. What did the fruit of the Medieval popes produce? What did it show them to be? Wars upon wars. Burning people at the stake…oh…the list continues.

First, you’ve generalized every pope John Paul I back; for this assertion, you are required to provide support. Not a member on this board will tell you that every pope lived his vocation and life as Christ-like as he should have (but then again, neither do you or I). What I sense here are:

1. general reading from sources with an agenda against the Catholic Church; and,
2. a general lack of knowledge of Christian history, aside from that which you gleen from sources with an agenda against the Catholic Church.

Also referring to my 3 rules for how the books of the NT were determined, you said: 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?

The Apostles knew their books were inspired. And the criteria they used to determine if someone else’s books were inspired are evident in scripture, even if they are not spelled out in minute detail.

First, again you assert your opinion as truth; unless you provide support that each NT author “knew their books were inspired”, all you are doing is making a gratuitous assertion.

As for your rules being implicit in Scripture, you still need to provide support for that. To which verses do you refer that provide this implication?

 

[Salvatore123]

john1968,

You say you refuse to answer any more questions until people address things YOU have said. Well, here goes a few:

1. You said “protestants want to live by the NT and not the traditions of men”.

Really? Then why, pray tell, did Luther call James an “epistle” of straw? This is supposedly a HERO to you and other protestants - and yet he called the Word of God an “epistle of straw”.

You know WHY John? One reason: pride. It contained a teaching about the efficacy of good works, and that simply did not fit with LUTHER’s “sola fide” argument. So what does Luther (and the other tens of thousands of different protestant churches that form because one, suddenly, decides it does not like what its “mother” church was teaching on Sunday so they break off and form a new one) do? He put down the Word of God because it did not fit LUTHER’s “traditon”.

Care to explain your defense of Luther and his comment on James?

1. Even if one were to accept your “three criteria” in determining the NT canon, can you PLEASE explain to me how in the world “Philemon” made it under your criteria? That book has to be about the least inspiring book to read in the entire bible. Do I deny that it should not be part of the NT? Of course not. But I fail to see HOW ANY CRITERIA could be used to determine that IT should have been part of the NT. I am not saying that Paul’s letter did not have a purpose - it clearly did. But inspiring for readers so that it is so obvious that it MUST be scripture? Hardly . . .

But you see John the danger one can get into if one does NOT accept authority, such as we Catholics do when we accept infallible teachings by it, such as when it established the OT and NT canon? We run the risk of substituting our own personal beliefs instead of that ONE institution protected by God, as Jesus said he would: Holy Mother Church.

1. You said: “there were some really bad popes in the Middle Ages”.

You are correct, John. But guess what, there was an apostle OTHER THAN JUDAS who did a really bad thing: Peter denied even knowing Christ, THREE TIMES, while the man was being tried and ridiculed.

Yet what did Christ do for Peter, ALL THE WHILE KNOWING THAT PETER WOULD DENY HIM? He gave him “the keys to the kingdom of heaven”.

So - your point in saying we have had “bad popes” (which NO Catholic will deny)???

1. John, you said: “The Apostles knew their books were inspired. And the criteria they used to determine if someone else’s books were inspired are evident in scripture, even if they are not spelled out in minute detail.”

John - PROVE WHAT YOU SAID! As I mentioned long ago in this thread, John was the ONLY NT writer who said he was writing under authority from God. Tell me how the Apostles KNEW (I am not saying they did or did not - I have no idea) their books were inspired.

And what criteria for inspiration is so “evident”, as you claim? Minute detail? Heck - I can’t find ONE criteria in the entire NT that tells anyone how to determine what other books are inspired. You keep referencing Peter’s reference to “Paul’s letters” as scripture, yet Peter does not reference WHAT LETTERS OF PAUL HE IS REFERRING TO!!! Which letters, John?

1. You asked what criteria was used by the various councils to determine the OT canon. I have absolutely no idea. But the criteria they used are not important. What is important is that the councils were recognized BY THE CHURCH AS BEING LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY TO MAKE SUCH DETERMINATIONS. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF HAVING ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH!!! I am the lucky one because I can simply open my Bible and KNOW that what I am reading is inspired. Many of the poor souls back then had no idea . . .
2. You said: “Bibles were expensive back then . . . almost as expensive as a car today”.

John, “bibles” did not exist at any time during the life of any Apostle. In addition, you continue to say that “obviously Christ and his apostles knew what the OT canon was”. Really? Christ - yes. Of course he knew - he was God and as God, he inspired the OT canon. The apostles? I again challenge you to tell me HOW EVERY APOSTLE KNEW what books should be part of the OT.

And while you are at it, which Daniel was part of the OT that you say was so obviously part of the OT canon - the Daniel of the Septuagint or the Daniel of the Masoretic text?

And as I specifically responded to at least five points you made, and answered directly one of your questions you said you wanted answered, would you please refer to my previous couple of posts and address my few questions?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

One more thing before I go.

Roman Catholic…you said: 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.

You have got to be kidding…

No I assure, you I am not kidding you.

And the criteria they used to determine if someone else’s books were inspired are evident in scripture, even if they are not spelled out in minute detail.

They arn’t spelled out in any detail. They arn’t there.

You still haven’t told me how the OT was decided without a council?

I would encourage you to open a thread about it if you don’t think I have answered your questions adequately. The reason I didn’t want to delve too far into it is because how the OT canon was decided has nothing to do with whether or not these 3 rules are found within the Scriptures. It also has nothing to do with your statement about Catholics believing in continued revelation. I did though try to answer your question if you go back and look.

And you still haven’t told me why Jesus condemned the traditions of the religious leaders of his time?

I answered this. The reason is in Christ’s very words; they made void the word of God. Christ wasn’t condemning traditions in general.

I will not answer any more of your questions till you answer mine.

That is fine John. I only ask that you stop distorting Catholic teaching. That’s all.

You have purposely tried to put me on the defensive, and never answer my questions.

I have been answering your questions. I even tried to answer your question about the OT canon to the best of my knowledge but you didn’t like it. Don’t take this so personal. You made some false statements and, like I said to Anna, could not let those go. If you feel that your questions are not being answered here I would encourage you to open a thread with your questions. There are folks here with far more knowledge than me.

You are not being fair, which is usually the case in these kinds of discussion boards.

I am sorry you feel that way John. Is it possible though that the reason you feel so defensive has to do with your reasoning for coming here? Our conversation started out with me trying to correct a misunderstanding that you had about Catholic teaching. It’s okay to be corrected especailly in a faith you don’t profess. I am a practicing Catholic and a day doesn’t go by that I am not corrected. It can be pretty humbling John.

You want me to answer your questions, but you refuse to answer mine, so that way you put me on the defensive, but you never are.

I have answered your questions. Why would you want me on the defensive John? It wasn’t my intention to put you on the defensive. Again, our conversation started with me trying to correct a misunderstanding you had with Catholic teaching.

God bless you John.

 

[William_Pitts]

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.

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.

What Jesus condemned was the traditions of the Pharisees that negated scripture:

Mar 7:1 Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem,
Mar 7:2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed.
Mar 7:3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders;
Mar 7:4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.)
Mar 7:5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?”
Mar 7:6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
Mar 7:7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
Mar 7:8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.”
Mar 7:9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!
Mar 7:10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die’;
Mar 7:11 but you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban’ (that is, given to God)–
Mar 7:12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,
Mar 7:13 thus making void the word of God through your traditionwhich you hand on. And many such things you do.”

Now explain how the RCC makes void the word of God through her traditions.

The teachings and oral communications from the Apostles formed the earliest traditions.
Act 2:41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Act 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
Act 2:43 And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.
Act 2:44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common;
Act 2:45 and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.
Act 2:46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts,
Act 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

The Apostles taught 1. repentance 2. baptism 3. prayer and praising through the Psalms 4. public preaching of the Gospel. 5 sharing with those in need. 6 breaking bread together (Eucharist?).7 Reading the scriptures (OT for sure) One thing indicates the themes the Apostles taught and emphasized: the didache.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight.
Pro 3:6 In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.
Pro 3:7 Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD, and turn away from evil

1Ti 3:14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that,
1Ti 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
1Ti 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .The Apostles knew their books were inspired. And the criteria they used to determine if someone else’s books were inspired are evident in scripture, even if they are not spelled out in minute detail.

John1968,

Please quote the passages of Scripture to support your statements.

Where does Scripture say the Apostles knew their books were inspired?

Were does Scripture make it evident which books were inspired?

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

Here you say the writings of the fathers made evident which Gospels were considered inspired? Sounds like tradition.

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

Here you say it was usage of the people and books connected to the Apostles that determined the N.T. Canon and you concede that this could be called tradition.

How do you support your claim that this is where tradition ends?

You can say that in Jesus day usage, custom and tradition determined which books were part of the canon of the OT, but that’s the only tradition that Jesus seemed to accept. . . . .

Here you say usage, custom and tradition determined which books were part of the O.T. Canon, but that’s the only tradition Jesus seemed to accept.

Please quote the Scriptures that say this is the only tradition Jesus accepted.

I. . . .Jesus never ever quotes from Tradition, to prove his point. Never!! Only from 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. . . .

The final authority was and is Christ Himself, the Incarnate Word.

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

Here you say it was not the church and tradition that determined the N.T. canon. It was Scripture–which contradicts your other statements. It’s difficult to know exactly what it is that you believe because you are contradicting your own posts.

I. . . .Jesus never ever quotes from Tradition, to prove his point. Never!! Only from 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. . . .

Jesus did quote the O.T., but that was actually a small part of what he said and taught. He taught with many parables and established new traditions in the interpretation of Scripture.

If you want to get technical, you could say that Jesus even contradicted O.T. Scripture.

An example:

**Leviticus 11: **3 Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. 4 Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. 5 And the(A) rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.

**Mark 7: **14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” 17And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” ( Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

As for Jesus condemning the traditions of men, Scriptures have already been provided in multiple posts to support the call to maintain the tradition of the Gospel of Christ.

Even after all of this, I still have not seen you provide any proof that the ECF’s were Sola Scriptura proponents who did not use tradition in their interpretations of Holy Scripure–which is the main topic of this thread.

Since you are claiming Sola Scriptura, I would expect your posts to be full of Scriptures, but you rarely quote any. Why is that?

Anna

 

[teachccd]

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.

Allow me to complete your list:

They never knew the termTrinity.
They never heard the term “Blble”.
They never knew the New Testament. (As it was compiled in the 27 books)
They never knew the term incarnation.
They never knew the term “personal Lord and Savior”
They never knew the “sinner’s prayer”.
They never knew all of the contemporary worship songs that make up about 70% of a Protestant service.
They never used the word pastor except for our Lord and the authority He gave to Peter to feed His sheep.
They never heard or knew of “sola Scriptura”.
They never heard that they were saved by faith alone. James is pretty clear on this.

So all of what the protestants hold to were not known to the Apostles in the first century. I guess that you guys are all wrong too?

 

[NHInsider]

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

You are aware, of course, that even in the third century there were plenty of people who did not accept John’s gospel as inspired? And of course many who accepted the Gospel of Thomas.

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

Which epistles of Paul? Peter isn’t specific - and we know we don’t have all of Paul’s letters.

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

“whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins you retain are retained,” “It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us” - that’s what apostolic authority IS - to tell the Church what God has done.

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

It was also a matter of debate among Jewish scholars. Some argued for a short canon, just what we would call the books of Moses, the major prophets and the psalms. Others included most or all of what we now call the OT as binding. Still others accepted an even wider range of texts (including the Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch, both of which are cited in the NT). What is not clear or even supportable, based on the evidence, is that the Masoretic Text accurately reflects what was proclaimed in the synagogues in the time of Jesus.

He never accepted the traditions of men as equal to the word of God. And in fact spoke against such a thing. And he always quoted from scripture, yet never quotes from tradition.

In Luke (7:32) Jesus quotes a children’s playground rhyme, does that make the original into an inspired text?

John1968,
How do you support your claim that this is where tradition ends?

He can’t, and this is where the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. If you accept the authority of the Church Fathers to define which of the hundreds of ancient Christian writings are inspired, on what basis can you reject the authority of the very same Church Fathers when they speak about the celebration of the sacraments, or the role of the Mother of Jesus, or any of the other myriad details of the faith that are laid out in the writings of men like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus and Clement.

 

[LionHeart777]

According to Eusebius, who cites earlier Fathers as his authorities:

And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.
2. **And they say that Peter — when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done — was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. **Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son.”

(emphasis mine) (newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm) (accessed 2/12/2011)

 

[ddarko]

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.)

Unfortunately, you have been mislead by incorrect Protestant teachings. So here is some proof from Scripture ALONE (that should make you very happy I hope ) that Peter did enjoy a certain Primacy.

Mathew 16:9 Jesus speaks about giving “keys to the kingdom of heaven”… hmmm… do you by any chance know what this is referring to? Let me give you a hint, flip to Isaiah 22.

Acts 5:1-11 Talk about Peter’s primacy. Have you heard this mentioned about any of the other apostles?

Acts 11 Guess whose authorizing FOR THE FIRST TIME that gentiles can receive salvation? PETER!! None of them goes, “hey lets ask the other Apostles if they are down with this etc.” Instead, they accept it. Just like that!

Acts 15 There’s a HUGE debate. Everyone is going at each other. Peter gets up, speaks, what do we have? SILENCE!!!

Now lets flip back a little

Acts 1 What do you see here about the discussion about Judas. Who speaks yet again? PETER. Lets also look at what he says… notice what is about? It’s about Apostolic succession. Peter or none of the other Apostles went, hey, lets just stick with 11. They appointed a ‘‘successor’’ who has the same status as an apostle.

Now I could go on and on. Most of the book of Acts show the Primacy of Peter. Even if you discard Acts, just the words of Jesus to Peter about the keys should put any primacy issues you have to rest. When the “Keys” are understood properly in light of Isaiah 22, Primacy is as certain as it can be. Just let me know if that point is still unclear.

Oh and also, Tradition supports the Primacy view. I could give example but I am sure it won’t mean much if you are hard core Sola Scriptura anyways, So I think the above would suffice.

God Bless

 

[UnityofTrinity]

@ John - I am a new Catholic convert, trying to read the whole Bible, and trying to learn about the Church as much as I can. I was once a very charismatic Protestant who used to the belief that Catholicism is the false religion, Catholics are Marian worshippers and idolaters, but after understand the Church, my eyes had been opened.

There are a few points I would like to address:

1. Traditions = adding to the Word of God?
   _ I think much of your argument had been developed from this belief. Yet I don’t think you are aware of history. Immaculate Conception, Papal Infability, purgatory… is nowhere to be found in the Bible, you are right, these terms are nowhere to be found. Yet just because these terms is nowhere to be found in Scripture does not negate the whole teaching. Neither can you find terms such as: Bible, Trinity, Sola Fides, Sola Scriptura… in Scripture, yet you believe in them.

What then convince you that Traditions means to add into the Word of God? Being a Catholic revert from Protestantism, I see the difference, I see that Scripture and Sacred Traditions complement one another, as Scripture helps one determine which tradition is sacred, which is just simply pious tradition, then Sacred Traditions helps Scripture become more clear, it helps one knows the right way to interpret Scripture and help one understand the history of Scripture itself. Then why would Traditions be evil? You said that when Paul preached about tradition, he meant the New Testament in Oral form, you might be right but again you might be wrong, no one can validate your answer except yourself. But if you are right, then the Church is also right because the Church acknowledges that there was no such thing as a canon of Scripture before the Council. It seem as if you and I when I was an Evangelical believe that the Early Church only constituted of Bible study, but the Bible did not exist back then, then what was the highlight of the Church? No other than the Eucharist itself.

2)the Criteria of deciding Scripture?
_ Since you decide that Traditions can’t be good, or Traditions does not par with Scripture, then how did you decide what is the criteria of deciding Scripture? Your interpretation of 2 Peters is interesting indeed and worth to dissent, but at the end it is still YOUR interpretation. How do you know your interpretation is right? Which Church can validated your interpretation? Most of my Evangelical friends said the Holy Spirit inspired me. But if there is one Holy Spirit, then why are Protestants so divided? Shouldn’t God be the God of unification? If all men claim to be inspired under the same Spirit, why would this Spirit inspire these men to the point of having so many different interpretations? Then he ceases to be the Spirit, but rather the Devil.

Many of my Catholic fellows asked good questions, how do you determine that 2 Peter is Scriptural? Unless you are Muslim who believe that Muhammad met God in some cave and received revelations through out 20 years in his life and made it into the Qu’ran, then you can’t claim that Scripture was Scripture without the recognition of the Church. If you agree that Scripture was already Scripture and God simply helped these men to recognize His Word, then you must agree that God was on the Catholic Church’s side. Again people did not decide Scripture base on some funny feelings, they decided it through councils, through bishops and popes, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

1. Miscellaneous.
   _ This last point attempt to answer all other questions that I can’t seem to fit in any particular categories. You said Jesus did not accept the Deuterocanonical and so was the Pharisees, but do you aware of the Scripture where Jesus was participating in the Celebration of Light, otherwise known as Hanukkah? Where did Hanukkah came from? Nowhere in your 43 OT books can you find this. But you can find it in the 1&2 Maccabees in any Catholic and Orthodox Scripture. If Jesus did not accept this as Scripture, why would Jesus went on and celebrate this “man made” tradition? What about the Seat of Moses? Since you believe that Jesus’ statements on traditions of men mean that no traditions could be good, or so I am told, this must mean Jesus’ reference to the Seat of Moses is a self-contraditory claim, how can Jesus be God if His claims contradicted themselves? Seat of Moses IS a tradition.
   _ Did Jews have traditions? Your claim that the Children of Israel had no traditions is an understatement, Jews had more traditions than Christians, and that’s how Jesus could chastised them for their traditions. If Jews did not have traditions, what was Jesus talking about? Not just traditions, Jews also had folklores such as the story of Lilith. History one by one show that Jews did have traditions, not just one, but many traditions(the Assumption of Moses, Moses’ horns…)

That being said, I hope and pray that these answer your questions. God bless.

 

[john1968]

Today I spoke with my Theology class students. We talked about this online thread and came to some conclusions.

I realized that by saying that all tradition was bad I was doing it an injustice. I was afraid that if I admitted that any tradition was good that would give the Catholics on this thread the chance to corner me in and say that if I agree to any tradition, then I have to agree to the whole gambit of Roman Catholic tradition.

But I’ve realized that I was kind of wrong with that fear. There are even traditions in Protestant churches which are good. And there were traditions and customs which were followed by the people of the Old Testament which the Bible describes, which are actually good.

What I have to realize, as well as my Catholic and other friends, is that tradition in and of itself is not bad. It is when tradition which contradicts scripture is put on an even standing with scripture, that’s when it becomes bad. Even if it doesn’t contradict scripture, but is made equal to it, then it is a danger. Because we know that the Bible is God’s inspired word. But no one can say that a tradition is. By definition a tradition is something that is developed over time and becomes a custom.

We have to look at the example of our Lord. He condemned the traditions of the religious leaders of his time because those traditions were being taught as if they were the word of God, when they were only the traditions of men. Also those traditions contradicted scripture. We can know for sure what is in the Bible because it is written down. But traditions are in a more shadier realm. There used to be traditions in the RCC which have now been done away with, yet not so long ago they were taught to the faithful as if they were the Gospel truth. My Catholic parents remember how in pre-War Poland they were taught that you cannot go to communion unless you have confession first. They were also taught that unbaptized babies go to limbo. They were also taught that Joseph was an old man. These were all traditions taught to the faithful. Whether or not they were Catholic dogma is a different story. But that’s what the faithful were taught. Now the RCC has done away with these traditions, yet still claims that RC theology has never been contradicted or changed because those traditions were never official dogma, even though they were taught regularly to the faithful as doctrine.

Also what is considered tradition and what is not? Any doctrine the RCC holds that is not found in scripture is considered tradition. Any church activity which defines doctrine outside of scripture is considered tradition.

Every Ecumenical Council is supposed to be a part of the growing tradition of the Church. Yet the filioque didn’t originally exist in the Nicene Creed. A lesser council in Toledo Spain added it later. And it became part of RC dogma later on. That’s a contradiction. But there is always around a contradiction for people with inventive minds. RC theologians simply say that even though the filioque wasn’t originally there, it was still the intended meaning of that line in the Nicene Creed…how convenient.

Also any decision of the Church hierarchy is tradition. Torturing heretics used to be an acceptable practice. If it was acceptable for centuries in the past, why did the church do away with it? Because later generations realized how evil it was. If that’s the case then why was it an accepted tradition for so many centuries? And did getting rid of it mean that RC doctrine changed? Of RC theologians will say that theology did not change…but to explain it away they have to creatively create some ridiculous explanation.

To say that tradition is not continuous revelation is a lie to history.

But using common sense and reason…the whole idea that theology which was invented centuries, if not millenia, after the time of Jesus is somehow part of the original meaning of the NT is preposterous. If tradition contradicts scripture, then that tradition is wrong…not the other way around. The RCC tries to say the two are equal, but in reality the RCC always puts tradition on a higher pedestal. Tradition always trumps scripture in the RCC.

So looking at our Lord we see how he condemned the traditions of the leaders of his time because they contradicted scripture. Why as Christians are we not to do the same if Jesus did it?

Also Jesus said: You shall know them by their fruits…

If you lived in the early 16th century it would be a lot clearer to you why the Protestant Reformers decided to make the final authority the Bible, and not the Church hierarchy. The Bible reflects the faith of the Apostles and the first century. Tradition does not. Jesus condemned non-scriptural traditions, and therefore so should we.

 

[Anna_Scott]

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?

Anna Scott…Please, first tell me. . . .

John1968,
I know this has been a tough thread for you. I’ve been in discussions myself, when just about everyone on the thread disagreed with me–and some disagreed with far less charity than what has been shown to you here. Also, you really haven’t had any Protestants support you, even though there are many Protestants here at CAF.

For awhile, I couldn’t understand why you launched into a discussion of the Biblical Canon, when the thread topic concerns whether or not the Church Fathers were Sola Scriptura proponents or whether they relied upon tradition in their interpretation of Scripture.

However, in considering all of your posts; it seems (and I could be wrong) that in order to justify your anti-Catholic sentiments, you must discredit the role of the Catholic Church in securing the Biblical Canon.

If the Scriptures are Divinely inspired, and the Biblical Canon was assembled through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the Catholic Church played a key role in establishing the Biblical Canon—we must acknowledge that God’s hand was on them. I think it would be dishonest to insist this is not the case.

I think we all owe a great debt to the Catholic Church. Their Popes, (though not perfect) and Councils did much to guard against heresy. You’ve done a lot of mudslinging on this thread, with very little thrown in return. The Protestant Reformers had their sins and issues too.

I still don’t see that you’ve made a good case for Sola Scriptura. I think history confirms that tradition, good or bad, is inescapable.

Peace,
Anna

 

[john1968]

teachccd…Here is a rebuttal to you accusations:

They never knew the term Trinity.
-But they believed that God is one in three, none-the-less.

They never heard the term “Blble”.
-But they understood what the scriptures were

They never knew the New Testament. (As it was compiled in the 27 books)
-But Peter still refers to Paul’s letters as scripture, and it is clear that John knew that the book of Revelation was a revelation to the faithful. Also the writers of the Gospels knew what they were doing and writing.

They never knew the term incarnation.
-But they still believed that it happened…even if they didn’t refer to it by that term.

They never knew the term “personal Lord and Savior”
-But they still accepted him as their Lord and Savior.

They never knew the “sinner’s prayer”.
-But they still accepted Christ by an inner conversion of the heart.

They never knew all of the contemporary worship songs that make up about 70% of a Protestant service.
-But they still had hymns and spiritual songs.

They never used the word pastor except for our Lord and the authority He gave to Peter to feed His sheep.
-Acts 20:28

They never heard or knew of “sola Scriptura”.
-But Jesus still condemned the traditions of the religious leaders of his time which contradicted scripture.

They never heard that they were saved by faith alone. James is pretty clear on this.
-You are misinterpreting James…and Paul is pretty clear that salvation is by faith alone. Example: The thief on the cross…when did he have time to do good works?

 

[cfrancis]

John, unless you are willing to address the flaws in your argument that have been highlighted in this thread; and unless you are able to provide the support for your ardently-given opinions; your posts carry little weight and interest.

For example,

teachccd…Here is a rebuttal to you accusations:

They never knew the term Trinity.
-But they believed that God is one in three, none-the-less.

Assuming you are the student of history as you claim, you realize that Arius and Nestorius used Scripture to support their claims. You also do not provide the support for this opinion of yours.

They never heard the term “Blble”.
-But they understood what the scriptures were

They never knew the New Testament. (As it was compiled in the 27 books)
-But Peter still refers to Paul’s letters as scripture, and it is clear that John knew that the book of Revelation was a revelation to the faithful. Also the writers of the Gospels knew what they were doing and writing.

See, here’s the problem: you’ve not provided us any support for your assertions; meanwhile, we’ve provided Scriptural support that highlights the flaw in your position (eg, see the posts about 2 Pet 3:16).
We’ll gladly affirm your position that, say, the gospel writers knew they were writing Scripture when you provide the support.

 

[john1968]

Unity of Trinity…

Oh…how cool…you used to be a Charismatic Protestant…were you anti-Trinitarian?

BTW…I used to be Roman Catholic…Till I read the Ante-Nicene fathers.

Like I said…traditions are not bad unless they contradict scripture…or if they add things to the word of God that’s not revealed in God’s revelation…

1. Immaculate Conception…please tell me when did Jesus or any of the Apostles ever preach this?
2. Indulgences…No such thing till 1,000 years after the time of Jesus…so how did the Apostles know of it?
3. Papal Infallibility…obviously Paul didn’t agree with this one since he publicly accused Peter to his face…and it’s funny…not pope in history ever made an ex-cathedra statement till the later 19th century. If it’s a doctrine that goes back to the Apostles, why did the Bishops of Rome wait so long?
4. Clerical Celebacy…didn’t even start being a followed regularly by any group till the late 4th century…
5. Monasticism…started in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries.
6. Transubstantiation…Ante-Nicene fathers speak of the Eucharist as being symbolic.
7. Praying to angels and saints…condemned by Ante-Nicene fathers…if so…where did it come from?
8. The first time a Bishop of Rome demanded obedience of any kind was Stephen in 250 A.D., over 200 after Jesus time. And in response to this Cyprian, Bishop of Rome, condemned the nerve of this man to demand obedience that even the Apostle Peter himself never asked for.

ETC…

 

[ddarko]

They never heard or knew of “sola Scriptura”.
-But Jesus still condemned the traditions of the religious leaders of his time which contradicted scripture.

Here is another Snippet from Scripture alone

2 Thessalonians 2:15 : “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the **traditions **that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.”

I don’t know about you but it looks like St. Paul just said the dirty word Tradition

So what you refer to as Christ’s condemnation was of meaningless tradition. Not all Traditions. You have to read the bible so that it does not contradict other places. Your reading makes me want to rip out 2 Thessalonians 2:15 right off the Bible

God Bless

 

[john1968]

cfrancis…

I haven’t even had time to read half these postings. Also…I don’t remember anyone answering my questions. I am a human being. I only have so much time to devote to this website. I am a lowly Protestant in a see of Catholics here. I post one thing and you all post tons in response. I only have so much time. Sorry.

 

[cfrancis]

Unity of Trinity…

Oh…how cool…you used to be a Charismatic Protestant…were you anti-Trinitarian?

BTW…I used to be Roman Catholic…Till I read the Ante-Nicene fathers.

Like I said…traditions are not bad unless they contradict scripture…or if they add things to the word of God that’s not revealed in God’s revelation…

1. Immaculate Conception…please tell me when did Jesus or any of the Apostles ever preach this?
2. Indulgences…No such thing till 1,000 years after the time of Jesus…so how did the Apostles know of it?
3. Papal Infallibility…obviously Paul didn’t agree with this one since he publicly accused Peter to his face…and it’s funny…not pope in history ever made an ex-cathedra statement till the later 19th century. If it’s a doctrine that goes back to the Apostles, why did the Bishops of Rome wait so long?
4. Clerical Celebacy…didn’t even start being a followed regularly by any group till the late 4th century…
5. Monasticism…started in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries.
6. Transubstantiation…Ante-Nicene fathers speak of the Eucharist as being symbolic.
7. Praying to angels and saints…condemned by Ante-Nicene fathers…if so…where did it come from?
8. The first time a Bishop of Rome demanded obedience of any kind was Stephen in 250 A.D., over 200 after Jesus time. And in response to this Cyprian, Bishop of Rome, condemned the nerve of this man to demand obedience that even the Apostle Peter himself never asked for.

ETC…

A rather uninformed Catholic, as I once was. If the above accurately reflects your understanding of Catholic beliefs, you did not leave the Catholic Church but what you mistakenly thought was the Catholic Church (to loosely paraphrase Sheen).

And if you did read the Anti-Nicene fathers (and not just the truncated portions presented to you by someone with an anti-Catholic agenda) there is no way you would say what you said above.