Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?

[straykat]

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.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

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.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

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.

 

[straykat]

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.

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).

 

[straykat]

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.

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.

 

[redleghunter]

I'm in agreement with all of that too. I'm just not sure why they didn't extend to later councils.

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.

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).

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.

 

[straykat]

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.

That's not much of a schism. If that's that a schism, then so was splitting from Arianism. Which was huge.

Besides, size of factions shouldn't matter anyways.. not when defending the Trinity. You're either defending orthodoxy or not. You're either bringing in Hellenistic ideas (always the root of the heterodox) or you're not. This was no different with Monophysites and other "minor" heresies. Their thinking was rooted in philosophical novelties that had no place in the church. This is what is really meant by depending on scripture. Which is something not even the Protestants did well. Many of them were all Catholic Scholastics in a former life. And a lot are Augustinian especially.. a Platonist. The root of many of his problems too.

 

[Cis.jd]

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.

You already answered all of this for me through the Gospel of Thomas part.
Why did you care for evidence from early church fathers if they accepted this or anything outside of the 27? You gave all these quotes about Iraneaus confirming 25/27 gospels before the catholic church officialize the 27 the ONLY true canon of the NT, nothing more and nothing less, its Matt-Rev. Your bringing up of Iraneaus shows that we kept the teachings and traditions of the early church fathers which confirms the high esteem of the "magisterium" or just simply the Church.

Also, your line about Jesus and his disciples relied on scriptures for truth is completely invalid.
Catholics are reliant on scriptures for truth but it's scripture first for us not scripture alone like you. Jesus and his apostles where most likely that but they did not rely on scripture on it's own for truth, the apostles relied on Jesus because he was the Word made flesh. He even says to them in Matt 28:20 "observe all i have commanded you" and many other verses show their esteem towards oral tradition.

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (NIV)

John 20:30
And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book;
John 21:25
And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

 

[Cis.jd]

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.

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?

 

[redleghunter]

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.

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.

 

[redleghunter]

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?

Which other Gospels were apostolic in origin?

 

[Cis.jd]

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 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?

 

[redleghunter]

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to yo

You know that because it was written.

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.

 

[redleghunter]

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?

What other books did Irenaeus consider of apostolic origin other than the 27 we have today?

 

[Cis.jd]

Which other Gospels were apostolic in origin?

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.

 

[straykat]

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.

Because it's easy to get lost in the explicit statement of the Torah, about graven images. The thing is, iconoclasts were never charitable about it. They very well may have been tolerated more or for longer, but they pushed it. This is what really sparked the Council. They were a violent lot. The Hussites (for Catholics) were the same. So I wouldn't worry about being split from them, if they acted like they did.

But like I said, the orthodox doctrine is also scriptural. It's not whimsical. The teaching is based in the Incarnation.

 

[Cis.jd]

You know that because it was written.

catholics don't reject scripture.. we are scripture first but not scripture alone.

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.

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]

 

[straykat]

Theology aside, it's kind of obvious that tradition would hold a place. I mean, if I were to set up a project at a job.. then not everything I wrote in email would suffice. What about all of the hands on direction I gave to each team member? That's akin to the oral tradition in the church. That's what Paul is also attesting to in 2 Thess. Think about it! The guy traveled the length of Asia Minor, along with much of the Hellenized world. He pastored many churches for years.

And that's just one guy too. Think about all of the Apostles. Then the 70. Then other major followers, like Mary Magdalene, the Mother Mary, etc.. There was a ton of action going on in the church... as it would go on in any similar movement. Do you think everything is encompassed merely in writing? Life simply doesn't work that way. In fact, the majority of life doesn't. A year from now, we may not even remember most of the things we did this month. Nor will it be recorded. But it had an impact in one way or another.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Irenaeus did not confirm the gospel of Thomas.

The only other book outside the canon he revered was the Shepherd of Hermas. Yet he did not recognize it as apostolic in origin as the Shepherd was composed in the 2nd Century AD.

 

[redleghunter]

catholics don't reject scripture.. we are scripture first but not scripture alone

Actually your church believes otherwise as Scriptures are the servant to your magisterium.

you want requote 2nd Thessalonians for me?

Don't need a quote. Just need you to list the traditions Paul is referring to.

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]

Yes indeed. Now what did he say was received in faith?

It's in section 1 right before your quote:

1. The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciplesthis faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophetsthe dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, Ephesians 1:10 and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confessPhilippians 2:10-11 to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, Ephesians 6:12 and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortalityon the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, I.10 (St. Irenaeus)​

The rule of faith is what was received. Which thanks to New Advent site, they nicely note the Scriptures which are the source of the rule of faith. Therefore, the tradition the church was faithful in communicating was handed down in the Holy Scriptures. Irenaeus later explains this:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.1 (St. Irenaeus)​