Sola Scriptura and the Early Church

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/solascriptura.html ^ | William Webster

[Salvation]

You didn’t read the thread, did you. LOL!

[caww]

Ever learning , and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I think that some do so not to seek the Lord but to feed their desire to be known as knowlegable in religious matters, or attain position within the church body,... but their hearts are empty and far from Him. It is no wonder that God, more times than not, choose those who were NOT knowledgable in religious matters in order to have "teachable" individuals. There is a huge difference between pouring over vast volumes of literature and writings and that of meeting with the Lord in His Word....for it is there He does speak to the heart, mind and soul. It becomes 'personal' then.

[caww]

So then it is true catholics will only accept writings approved by the Vatican?

[bkaycee]

I'm really struck by how those that reject Sola Scriptura seek to recreate the law as the means through which the individual is justified. The mechanism is "tradition", which conveniently can't be scrutinized because it's never been in Scripture.

Absolutely, Rome has been marching back with the Judiazers for MANY years, halting finally and irreformably at Trent.

[bkaycee]

Which thread do you mean?

[Yudan]

“By scripture alone.” Has another definition evolved, bk? That would be interesting.

The problem with what it has become, is that it has FAR outstripped what Luther and the other Reformers had in mind. Luther did not want to abandon Holy Tradition willy-nilly. He merely wanted to clean the Church of Rome of the corruption that infected it in the 16th century. Luther didn’t believe that Holy Tradition was corrupt, per se, but that the Church of Rome was defending corrupt practices via hiding behind its authority and tradition. THAT’S what he was trying to do. And they excommunicated him for it.

It is the more radical Reformers that took it to the extreme and attempted to cleanse any aspect of Christian Tradition which did not appear in the Bible from the practice of the Faith.

For instance, there are some Campbellites that don’t celebrate Christmas...because it isn’t in the Bible.

My point is a simple one. The Church existed between Pentecost and 1517. Its history during those years is rich, and deeply recorded for all who wish to see.

BTW, I am not a Roman Catholic.

[caww]

My church is as old as Christ....for He is and has been the head of the body of believers no matter what building or place of worship they choose. I think it’s written that Antioch, where Christians met together, was the place where believers were first called Christians...followers of Christ. So that would indicate the beginning of the church. The roots of Christianity grew from those who gathered there and the Disciple’s Christ appointed to carry His message...and continues to present the Gospel of Christ today.

[bkaycee]

So then it is true catholics will only accept writings approved by the Vatican?

I might be somewhat gun shy trusting the Vaticans approval process after they accepted the forgeries known as the Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals, The Donation of Constantine and the Liber Pontificalis.

[Kolokotronis]

From our Holy and God Bearing Father Athanasius the Great:

"It will not be out of place to consider the ancient tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church, which was revealed by the Lord, proclaimed by the apostles and guarded by the fathers. For upon this faith The Church is built, and if anyone were to lapse from it, he would no longer be a Christian either in fact or in name." First Letter to Serapion, sec 28 (359-360 AD).

And from +John Chrysostomos, commenting on 2 Thessalonians 2:15:

"So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours."

Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also 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."

[strongbow]

Good read. I need to read more early church history to be able to articulate the sufficiency and sole authority of scripture. My natural inclination to mistrust men and their rules over against my Lord’s word has always been buttressed by both the bible and its history.

[r9etb]

I thought the point was very clear and precise....and an excellant read.

Here's what's wrong with the article. Suppose I ask you to pick a passage of Scripture and tell me what it means. Now suppose it's one of those passages about which there has been centuries of debate and argument.

The obvious point is that, despite the claim, Scripture often does not interpret itself. The meaning of Scripture is very often not self-evident, particularly where prophecy is concerned.

Which interpretation is correct?

If you look at the process, you'll find that the various interpretations are basically in accord with differing hermeneutics, or theories of interpretation.

Even among groups that hold to "Sola Scriptura," there are different hermeneutics, which roughly correspond to the various differences in doctrine that have led to the proliferation of denominations.

And to be quite blunt, each of those hermeneutic approaches represents a tradition of Biblical interpretation -- the very thing our author denies.

It's all very well to talk about Sola Scriptura, but in reality it's an impossible doctrine.

[hondact200]

The early Christian Church went through a period of persecutions, many true believers died for their believing in Christ. Oddly enough there many false teachings that cropped up within the Church, the Apostle Paul writes of them in the Pauline Epistles. However than the Roman Emperors decided to crush Christians and Jews alike - the goal to stamp out Judaiasm and Christianity. God perservered through the persecution and the church survived the Church Fathers strived to maintain a proper church tradition by refuting the books that became Known as the apocphrya. Like anythime man gets involved church tradition becomes polluted. Yes Martin Luther wanted to purge the church during the reformation of the abuses that the church accepted. In doing so, he was excommunicated his desire was to maintain unity. There were others in the Protestant reformation that radicalized the reformation to bring in diverse views and theological practices.

Keep in mind no church that has man involved will be perfect, because man in his sinful nature will make for the church to become something other than God intended it to become. The church of today in the US is a business, it is not going about God’s work- it is going about the works of man. thanks for the article on sola scriptura, look also at sola fide (faith) the belief scripture is grounded in ones faith in God.

[Kolokotronis]

"The Christians in the era immediately following the end of the Apostolic Era were not bound by a coercive centralized hierarchy, but were unified by a common faith."

wf, no doubt your forebears rebelled against a "coercive centralized hierarchy" in the West and by the 15th century. But that has not been the history of The Church east of the Adriatic. It may be why there was no Reformation there. As a matter of historical fact, Christians immediately following the Apostolic era were indeed bound together by a common faith, united together with their clergy centered on the bishop celebrating the Holy Eucharist. We know this from multiple late 1st century and very early 2nd century writings, those of +Clement of Rome and +Ignatius of Antioch being the foremost, at least in my opinion.

wf, you work with a group of Orthodox. Do you think they'd let some bishop or priest get away with changing their Holy Tradition? Americans have made a fetish of shedding traditions of all kinds, to the detriment of our society in many cases. But people from other places think differently and tradition is fundamental to their lives and societies. The Orthodox mindset, or worldview, is the same and change is simply rejected; that's why I can say that an ancestor of mine from, say, 400, if he showed up at the Liturgy this evening, would recognize immediately what was going on. He'd likely even know the majority of the prayers. Because lex orandi, lex credendi, he and I would believe virtually the exact same things. We don't allow and haven't allowed anyone to mess that up. No form of Western Christianity, whether it be the Latin Church or the various Protestant ecclesial groups, has that mindset.

[bkaycee]

“By scripture alone.” Has another definition evolved, bk? That would be interesting.

Sounds like your refering to "solo Scriptura" another topic.

The problem with what it has become, is that it has FAR outstripped what Luther and the other Reformers had in mind. Luther did not want to abandon Holy Tradition willy-nilly. He merely wanted to clean the Church of Rome of the corruption that infected it in the 16th century. Luther didn’t believe that Holy Tradition was corrupt, per se, but that the Church of Rome was defending corrupt practices via hiding behind its authority and tradition. THAT’S what he was trying to do. And they excommunicated him for it.

Certainly, I would agree, but again the topic was ECF's and Sola Scriptura, not modern missunderstanding of Sola Scriptura.

My point is a simple one. The Church existed between Pentecost and 1517. Its history during those years is rich, and deeply recorded for all who wish to see.

Certainly, the reformers accepted the first 3 ecumenical councils and some "little" t tradition as well. Again, solo scriptura is really another topic.

[r9etb]

Sounds like your refering to "solo Scriptura" another topic.

I don't think it's a different topic at all. What's the difference between "Solo" and "Sola" in this context? The author seems to treat them as if they're the very same thing -- at least, where it's convenient for his point to do so.

[Lera]

1Jn 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

[wmfights]

wf, no doubt your forebears rebelled against a "coercive centralized hierarchy" in the West and by the 15th century. But that has not been the history of The Church east of the Adriatic.

As usual you bring something interesting to the discussion.

As a matter of historical fact, Christians immediately following the Apostolic era were indeed bound together by a common faith,...

You might want to pass this on to your RC brothers and sisters. I don't think they got the memo.

...united together with their clergy centered on the bishop celebrating the Holy Eucharist.

There is a great deal of debate about when this began to occur. The office of Bishop only developed after the number of Christian Churches (mostly house churches) had grown dramatically. The clergy were still being selected by the individual churches. It was in the 2nd century that a hierarchy began to develop and Scripture began to be disregarded as the rule of the faith.

wf, you work with a group of Orthodox. Do you think they'd let some bishop or priest get away with changing their Holy Tradition?

They are less inclined than their RC counter parts, but in the end they follow the party line. The EO have fallen into the same trap as the RC, only to a lesser degree, because they have accepted "tradition" as an equal of Scripture.

that's why I can say that an ancestor of mine from, say, 400, if he showed up at the Liturgy this evening, would recognize immediately what was going on.

Then the question the EO should be asking is how different are your religious services from the Apostolic Era and the generations immediately following.

[Yudan]

BK, I've never heard of "solo" scriptura. I had to look it up. If nothing else, it's grammatically incorrect Latin. And upon reading, that's the least of its errors.

The Reformers rebelled against the post-schism Church of Rome. You stated that they accept the first three Councils, which (in order)

1. Established the Creed and rejected Arianism;

2. Clarified the creed into its present (non-philioque) form; and

3. Renounced Nestorianism and proclaimed it appropriate to refer to Mary as Θεοτόκος, or Theotokos.

I can see no reason why they would reject the subsequent 4 councils, but, oh, well. Much of the Protestantism that I grew up with was simply a rejection of anything Roman.

You do know that a group of Lutheran scholars reached out to the Patriarch of Constantinople in the late 16th century?

[ex-snook]

Jesus ended the OT exclusive reliance on scripture by choosing to be born a man and teaching through people, promising to be with them until the end of time. Sola scriptura is a political device to justify the reformation.

[bkaycee]

Sola vs. Solo, not a bad article.

http://fruitoftheword.com/2009/07/30/sola-scriptura-versus-solo-scripture/