Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Even the Reformers said we should listen to the church fathers where they are in agreement. The early councils are indicative of this. As was the Council of Jerusalem.This is strange, because Protestants operate on the same principle. They're using their own rule to become their own magisterium/Popes in a sense.. declaring by fiat which past Councils are good, which are not, what is canon, what is not. In fact, this is more bold than any Pope known to that point. Not even Rome set themselves up against the ecumenical canons to this extent.
Actually no. Sola Scriptura is to be used to test doctrines as it is the only wholly inspired source containing the words and commands of God. This is what the early councils did.I'm all for questioning individual fathers, but personally, I think it was dangerous to start questioning everything (especially the Councils). That explains my stance above. And I find it a little ironic that Reformers were so against Popes.. because to me it seems like trading one pope for another.
Even the Reformers said we should listen to the church fathers where they are in agreement. The early councils are indicative of this. As was the Council of Jerusalem.
Actually no. Sola Scriptura is to be used to test doctrines as it is the only wholly inspired source containing the words and commands of God. This is what the early councils did.
How much later? After the Schism with the East, ecumenical councils ceased to exist in any real fashion.I'm in agreement with all of that too. I'm just not sure why they didn't extend to later councils.
If anything, I'm simply inclined to believe a larger body of church leaders getting together over decades (like those councils of the first millennium) over just one lone theologian. This is why I compare him to a Pope (him being any Reformer).
How much later? After the Schism with the East, ecumenical councils ceased to exist in any real fashion.
Can't have consensus when half the church does not agree.
The Reformers did not deny synods and councils should be called to resolve matters of faith. Nor the teaching office. Both are discussed in the Westminster Confession of Faith.
You already answered all of this for me through the Gospel of Thomas part.Where was the magisterium located in the 2nd century, or even the 3rd century?
It did not exist.
You still need to answer why it takes a ruling of men to determine what is inspired of God? By your Sola Ecclesia model, Jesus and His disciples should have listened to the Sanhedrin for matters of truth. They did not. They relied on Scriptures to establish truth claims. Not once does an apostle cite tradition in their epistles to establish their truth claims.
Because the early fathers applied Sola Scriptura.
Irenaeus was just the most prolific of Sola Scriptura adherents from the 2nd century.
Of course the NT writers come in first.
The first six had to do with a central doctrine of Christianity. The Deity of Jesus Christ.Yeah, but some of those later councils could argue from scripture too. Like the 7th Council and answering iconoclasts. The Reformers wanted to nothing to do with it, I imagine, since they leaned on the explicit Torah laws. Yet the Church argued well that the Incarnation itself was an image of God and changes things.
Which other Gospels were apostolic in origin?How did they apply sola scriptura on the 4 gospels, where in scripture does it say the gospels are only 4 and are Matt-John?
You should read his arguments to me. He is all against "majisteriums/pope" but he has been asking for evidence of church fathers such as Iraneaus accepting other books outside of the canon 12, not knowing that he is relying on the Church for confirmation. He now realizes he bit himself by unknowingly with that and now is saying that Iraneaus relied on Sola Scriptura in identifying the 4 gospels?This is strange, because Protestants operate on the same principle. They're using their own rule to become their own magisterium/Popes in a sense.. declaring by fiat which past Councils are good, which are not, what is canon, what is not. In fact, this is more bold than any Pope known to that point. Not even Rome set themselves up against the ecumenical canons to this extent.
You know that because it was written.So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to yo
What other books did Irenaeus consider of apostolic origin other than the 27 we have today?You should read his arguments to me. He is all against "majisteriums/pope" but he has been asking for evidence of church fathers such as Iraneaus accepting other books outside of the canon 12, not knowing that he is relying on the Church for confirmation. He now realizes he bit himself by unknowingly with that and now is saying that Iraneaus relied on Sola Scriptura in identifying the 4 gospels?
No other books other than the 27. Every single NT book, including the 4 gospels are all from the apostles and their apostles. Thing is, you said Iraneaus relied on Sola Scriptura for this.. so i ask you how can that be when no where in scripture does it say Matt-John are the only 4 Gospels?Which other Gospels were apostolic in origin?
The first six had to do with a central doctrine of Christianity. The Deity of Jesus Christ.
The 7th really exposed where the church ended up. Meaning, the division was over images used in worship. The east was well divided on the issue.
catholics don't reject scripture.. we are scripture first but not scripture alone.You know that because it was written.
you want requote 2nd Thessalonians for me?Now list the viva voce traditions not written in the NT or even the OT. I asked for that pages ago along with what constitutes Sacred Tradition. Nothing but crickets.
Please answer that or don't bother responding.
Irenaeus did not confirm the gospel of Thomas.No other books other than the 27. Every single NT book, including the 4 gospels are all from the apostles and their apostles. Thing is, you said Iraneaus relied on Sola Scriptura for this.. so i ask you how can that be when no where in scripture does it say Matt-John are the only 4 Gospels?
So now, lets not forget the other argument. You ask for evidence of church fathers such Iraneaus accepting other books than what it is in the 27 such as the Gospel of Thomas; you asked for church confirmation in counter to me saying that Thomas has a right to be canonized.
Actually your church believes otherwise as Scriptures are the servant to your magisterium.catholics don't reject scripture.. we are scripture first but not scripture alone
Don't need a quote. Just need you to list the traditions Paul is referring to.you want requote 2nd Thessalonians for me?
I will quote Iraneaus since he was mentioned a lot by you:
"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]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?