Posted on 02/08/2011 11:08:38 AM PST by Gamecock
As well as all the other Fathers who were preaching before the late 4th century. Of course, it was precisely the writings of those Fathers of the first four centuries which were used to determine which scriptures were "canonical". Of interest are the scriptures used by the Fathers which were deemed uncanonical, like the Shepherd and the Didache. But Yudan, you're no longer a devote nor a member of any of the ecclesial groups descended from the Reformers and so need not care about their revisionist, innovative theology.
What scriptures were these?
Yes, but "Sola" may be misleading for the reasons I indicated above.
But that only to condemns you.
No, nature at times points people to the Creator...thus it can serve as a revelatory instrument. Nature is not evil; God can reveal Himself through it.
And as in the case of Jesus and the prophets, that always validates what they are saying, or who they say they are
Thus, miracles serve to reveal God, though they are not Scripture itself.
Which is NOT based on individual whimsy
Some might call individual testimony whimsy; however although it is not Scripture itself God can speak through it. However, it must not CONTRADICT Scripture.
Dear Lady, I read your profile and understand your history. I traveled a similar road... but found my way home to the One, Holy Apostolic Church. My wife and I know that our American Catholic Church has many troubles... but the Truth of the faith given by Christ is undeniable when understood.
Your comment is a strange one. If you have read any of the Papal Encyclicals from any time in history, including the most recent, you would find that the Bible is a part of the life of the Catholic Church in all that we do. That it was not a part of your Catholic life is a sad travesty.
Obviously, because they thought they had never been true Scripture. The Early Fathers were fallible men and the Reformers believed they erroneously included the books.
The only thing that I did not see on this chart is when the mormons broke away from the protestants.
Let's bypass Webster's spin, shall we? Let's go straight to the source.
Papias
“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (Church History 4:21).
Irenaeus
“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).
“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
… “It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2).
Clement of Alexandria
“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition” (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).
Origen
“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).
Athanasius
“Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, ‘we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,’ as the psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven” (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]).
“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able” (ibid., 29).
Basil the Great
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).
Augustine
“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
John Chrysostom
“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).
Vincent of Lerins
“With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.
“I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
“Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . .
“Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning” (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).
Pope Agatho
“[T]he holy Church of God . . . has been established upon the firm rock of this Church of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, which by his grace and guardianship remains free from all error, [and possesses that faith that] the whole number of rulers and priests, of the clergy and of the people, unanimously should confess and preach with us as the true declaration of the apostolic tradition, in order to please God and to save their own souls” (Letter read at fourth session of III Constantinople [A.D. 680]).
***********************
So much for sola scriptura!!!
Why would anyone in their right mind want to filter the words of the Church Fathers through a modern day commentary? Strange, no???
When it comes to Scripture, we don't need no commentary or anyone else's interpretation. We can interpret Scripture for ourselves!! When it comes, to the Church Fathers, however, we need Webster to tell us what they really mean!!
Funny.
Christians(of all types) do funny things with the word worship..
No scriptural evidence that Peter was ever or ever considered himself a pope.. However like all the church. he had the OT and the writing of Paul
****** By what Scriptural authority did he do away with circumcision for the gentiles in Acts 15? *****
.Have you ever read the scriptures for yourself? Peter was a part of the problem, it was Paul that confronted Peter on the return to legalism ...
As the 1st church met in Jerusalem it was presided over by James not Peter.
Paul confronted Peter as an equal.
It is clear here that James was in charge of that council and that it was James that made the final ruling.
Peter was the problem not the solution
Please READ the words of James
Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men [and] brethren, hearken unto me:
Not listen to Peter , listen the ME
Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
That is James making the decision NOT PETER
Can the Pope be OVERRULED in matters of faith? That should be your first clue that he was not in charge and that he was not infallible .
Peter never claimed headship for himself. He was a humble man that would rebuke what is said of him today
Peter was the apostle to the Jews ..not the Roman gentiles
“The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)” (Gal. 2:7-8).,P>It was Paul not Peter that wrote doctrinal letters to the Romans and Ephesian Church
PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This would have kept him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile church.
It is paul that wanted to build the church at Rome. That fact proved that Peter was not the “bishop “ of Rome. As Paul told us he would not build on another foundation.
“Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION” (Rom. 15:20).
When paul wrote to the church at Rome Peters name is no where listed
Around 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn’t sit or eat with Gentiles.
66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED.History shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine.
Peter was an obedient apostle Of Christ and he carried out with honor the work the Lord had ordained for him to do , and that work never included being a bishop to a gentile church
How many times do you have to answer the same inane facts over and over . He and his buddies are not impressed with your reply, notwithstanding its historical accuracy. Why give them a legitimate answer? It would serve you well to remember the sign in the Zoo about feeding the animals.
The scriptures that were in use from the beginning....
Considering your childish screed this article must have really hit a homerun!
Thanks for validating it’s validity.
There's dense... and then there's Gamecock dense. Wow.
1600 Years of Use and 7 Books taken out by men forming a bunch of NEW Churches.. but leaders didn’t make the Change it was 2nd Generation, Leaders didn’t stop Rosary Praying...either next Generation chucked it out! A Reformation of the Reformation..haha
Timothy 3:15 “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” Also, Irenaeus prefaces this “Book III” in part with the following :
"I have sent unto thee [certain] books, of which the first comprises the opinions of all these men, and exhibits their customs, and the character of their behavior. In the Second, again, their perverse teachings are cast down and overthrown, and, such as they really are, laid bare and open to view. But in this, the third book, I shall adduce proofs from Scriptures, so that I may come behind in nothing of what thou hast enjoined; yea, that over and above what thou didst recon upon, thou mayest receive from me the means of combating and vanquishing those who, in whatever manner, are propagating falsehood. For the love of God, being rich and ungrudging, confers upon the suppliant more than he can ask. Call to mind, then, the things which I have stated in the two preceding books, and, taking these in connection with them, thou shalt have a very copious refutation of all the heretics; and faithfully and strenuously shalt thou resist them in defense of the only true and life-giving faith, which the Church has received from the apostles and imparted to her sons."
Is there anything in there about “Scripture alone”?
Do you even realize this is the third part of the refutation of the heresies, the second of which explains why they are wrong often without any reference to Scripture but rather to the philosophy from which they were derived and how that philosophy is wrong?
Do you even see the “ ... taking these in connection with them ...” or do those words actually not appear when you look at the written words on a page or screen?
have a nice day
Perhaps it would be wisdom for you to read some scholarship by people with out an interest in claiming the bible as theirs
The NT as a compilation of inspired writings existed during the apostolic time..even as they were being written..
Origen, born long before Hippo had all the books of the OT and the NT . Jerome actually used Origens greek NT to translate to Latin ...
Common retort... easily refuted. In Matthew 16:19, Peter is singled out by Christ as "Rock" for His Church and given the Keys to the Kingdom. This is a particular reference of authority harkening back to the House of David as recorded in Isaiah 22:22. There were other ministers with other authorities but the Prime Minister had the Keys as sign of his special office among them.
Consider something else. There is one Apostle throughout the Apostolic age that consistently speaks for the rest, who is discussed more than the rest and about whom the greatest amount is known... that man is Peter. God doesn't generally waste our time pointing out non-essentials.
However like all the church. he had the OT and the writing of Paul
Thank you for the laugh. Do you honestly believe that 1) the other Apostles relied on Paul's writings to fill in the gaps of their lacking theology and 2) "all" the church relied on his writings contemporarily rather than primarily the addressees?
Let's just say for a moment that your suppositions are true. What would the Church get from Paul's writings? They would get that they are to hold fast to the traditions he taught them (Acts 20:35; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Cor 15; 2 Thess 3:6), the truth is given to leaders of the Church (Eph 3:5), and the centrality of the Eucharist (1 Cor 15) for starters... things generally refused by Protestants.
In all charity, in rejecting your Catholic faith, you have thrown the baby out with the bath water.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.