Sola Scriptura Church Fathers?!

Okay, I know that the Church Fathers really didn’t believe in the Bible alone, but I found this little rant on someone’s website:

"Purgatory-Not Biblical
Veneration of Mary-Not Biblical
prayer to saints-Not Biblical
prayer to angels-Not Biblical
grace and works for salvation-Not Biblical
papal primacy-Not Biblical
papal infallibility-Not Biblical
transubstantiation-Not Biblical
Sacraments-not Biblical
Baptism for salvation-Not Biblical
Complete devotion to church law-Not Biblical
Repetitive Confession Prayers-Not Biblical
Indulgences-Not Biblical
Forced Celibacy-Not Biblical
All salvation from Roman Church- Not Biblical
Apostolic Succession-Not Biblical
Power to Anathemize-Not Biblical

I could list more but it’s late.

I have a queston. If all of these (and more) doctrines, which are NOT part of the Bible; are taught by the Catholic Church- then how can we trust the Church? Sola Scriptura. Its what St. Basil; St. Gregory; St. Jerome; St. Augustine; and the rest of the early fathers taught. The church; starting in the 6th century began to pervert the Gospel; giving the power to change Truth to a MAN! How can we trust this? How can we trust this Church; if its doctrines can (and have been) be changed on the whim of a man?"

I’m not looking to refute every point, because some of them are really really easy (ex. - anathema in 1 Cor. 16:22 & Gal. 1:8-9). What I really would like to know is this: what writings of these Fatheres do Protestants cite to support such an outrageous claim? Also, are there any quotes by these very same guys that show a belief in Tradition and the Magisterium or any of the characteristically Catholic beliefs he listed? Feel free to comment on anything else that he said, but that’s what I’m looking for. Thanks!

My guess would be that for most they will have a Bible verse to quote. Since everything they believe has to be in the Bible, there has to be a verse for it. Just for one example, there ARE lots of verses that would tend to make it seem “faith alone,” however, there are tons of other verses that show “faith” isn’t just a matter of a mental exercise.

My two cents worth, as an almost-former protestant–getting confirmed Holy Saturday!! :clapping:

1 Like

[quote=Marquette]My two cents worth, as an almost-former protestant–getting confirmed Holy Saturday!! :clapping:
[/quote]

Thanks, and CONGRATULATIONS! :thumbsup: :slight_smile: :wink:

1 Like

Protestantism - Not Biblical.

But that doesn’t cause Protestants to cease to exist; nor do they deny their right to be and to relate to God as they please.

If I took a book, let’s call it - Oh… the bible. Waited 2,000 years, and then began to question or criticize everything that happened during that 2,000 year period because it was not found in the 2,000 year old book, then my questions and complaints are invalid because they are the product of sheer stupidity. This would be like saying that Newton, Gallileo, Socrates, etc, were stupid because they never built or even predicted a space shuttle.

But, in a way, all of the “non-biblical” items you enumerated, are biblical. Christ promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit who would call to mind all that the Lord had taught, teach you all things, guide you into all truth, and be with you forever. Jesus also stated that “There are still many things I would like to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.”

The Bible has most definately established that the Holy Spirit will continue… on an ongoing basis… to teach and guide and reveal as time goes on and as needs and situations change.

It is therefore a Biblical truth that many things not in the bible will be given to man by the Lord. To claim that such aid through the passing centuries is invaid because it is not recorded in the bible is to invalidate the Lord’s personal ongoing interaction with His children.

Now that is something that is not biblical.

Thal59

"Purgatory-Not Biblical - Matt. 12:32 “And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven either in this world or in the next.” Jesus thus clearly provides that there is forgiveness after death. Forgiveness is not necessary in Heaven, and there is no forgiveness in Hell. This proves that there is another state after death, and the Church for 2,000 years has called this state purgatory.

** Veneration of Mary**-Not Biblical - All generations shall call her blessed.

** prayer to saints and angels**-Not Biblical - All believers, living, dead, and spiritual (angels) are united in the Communion of Saints. Since Paul exhorts us to pray for one another, this includes those in Heaven and Purgatory, we must ask them (pray) for their prayers on our behalf. This is no different than Me asking you to pray for me. Scripture says that they can see us, they are a “cloud of witnesses”, there is more joy in Heaven over one who reforms, and Revelation shows the saints presenting our prayers before the Throne of God.

grace and works for salvation-Not Biblical - Parable of the Sheep and Goats shows Jesus sending the Goats into Hell because they did not feed Him, clothe Him, care for Him. They called Him “Lord” but they did not care for those in need. "Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only those who do the will of my Father in Heaven."
papal primacy-Not Biblical - Peter is given the Keys to the Kingdom, and is the Rock on which He will build His Church.

** papal infallibility**-Not Biblical - The Holy Spirit will guide them unto all truth. Jesus said this, He wouldn’t lie.

transubstantiation-Not Biblical - John 6, all the last supper discourses show this is wrong.

Sacraments-not Biblical - Since Baptism is, as shown next, this is obviously not true. Also 10 commandments say adultuery is a sin, since marriage is required to commit adultery it is sacramental - fornication is for the unmarried, adultery for the married.

** Baptism for salvation**-Not Biblical - Acts 2:38 Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

** Complete devotion to church law**-Not Biblical - Scripture says the Church is the pillar and foundation of all truth.

** Repetitive Confession Prayers**-Not Biblical - Don’t know what a confession prayer is really, but - Rev 4:8 The four living creatures, each of them with six wings, were covered with eyes inside and out. Day and night they do not stop exclaiming: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come.”

Indulgences-Not Biblical - The Church dispenses the graces of God. This power has been abused in the past, but that doesn’t invalidate it.

** Forced Celibacy**-Not Biblical - also not a doctrine feel free to disagree with it. This is a discipline not dogma. It is also just a discipline for the Latin Church, eastern rites have married priests. Paul says those who can be celibate should for the sake of the Kingdom. Also Jesus was celibate.

** All salvation from Roman Church**- Not Biblical - this is ridiculous.

** Apostolic Succession**-Not Biblical - We see Paul instructing Timothy on how to handle his work as the new bishop, he exorts timothy to do likewise and not lay hands on any one too quickly.

** Power to Anathemize**-Not Biblical - Matt 15:17 - If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

Hope this helps.

God Bless.

[quote=JSmitty2005] "Sola Scriptura. Its what St. Basil; St. Gregory; St. Jerome; St. Augustine; and the rest of the early fathers taught… "

What I really would like to know is this: what writings of these Fatheres do Protestants cite to support such an outrageous claim?
[/quote]

Why don’t you ask the guy who posted it on his website?

[quote=neophyte]Why don’t you ask the guy who posted it on his website?
[/quote]

That’s no fun. I want to be able to know what he’s gonna say before he says it. That’s what debate and apologetics are all about!

I’ve posted this response many times on many threads, so I guess one more time wont hurt. When faced with Sola Scriptura, and its refutation, I always like to cite Acts and the Council of Jerusalem. It clearly shows that the Apostles themselves did NOT believe in Sola Scriptura. The account given of the Council of Jerusalem is noticeably void of Scripture, and only references Scripture one time, as a way to justify that the declarations they made at the Council were not UNBiblical. If the Apostles had believed in Sola Scriptura, then it would have been impossible for them to declare anything contrary to Mosaic law the way they did at Jerusalem. The only Scriptures that would have supported the declarations they made at the Council of Jerusalem were not written until well AFTER the Council of Jerusalem had taken place. If you think about it, Sola Scriptura is clearly NOT Scriptural; and conversely, Scripture clearly shows the “traditions of men” that are contrived by the Church as being inspired directly from God. If these “traditions of men” were not directly from God, then surely God would not have directly inspired the author of Acts to give an account of it in His inspired writings.

1 Like

[quote=JSmitty2005]I have a queston. If all of these (and more) doctrines, which are NOT part of the Bible; are taught by the Catholic Church- then how can we trust the Church? Sola Scriptura. Its what St. Basil; St. Gregory; St. Jerome; St. Augustine; and the rest of the early fathers taught. The church; starting in the 6th century began to pervert the Gospel; giving the power to change Truth to a MAN! How can we trust this? How can we trust this Church; if its doctrines can (and have been) be changed on the whim of a man?"

[/quote]

The rest of the early fathers taught Sola Scriptura? Can this be proved? No. Can it be shown that Ignatius of Antioch, Clement, Justin Martyr and all the others based their faith solely on Scriptures? No. And certainly not on the Scriptures of the New Testament as the New Testament didn’t even exist when these men were alive.

Anyway, the website writer drops a clanger. Here it is: starting in the 6th century began to pervert the Gospel. If that is what the writer truly believes, it is easy to show him just how Catholic the church was in the 1st to 5th centuries. Either the writer will have to see that the church was Catholic before men “began to pervert the Gospel”, or will have to go with the LDS (and other groups) sort of line and say men “began to pervert the Gospel” as soon as the apostles died.

1 Like

may I use some of this in a blog?

1 Like

A while back, I heard a program of The Bible Answer Man with Hank Hanegraaff where he had some guy talking about his series of books of the Church Fathers.

He said that in them he shows where the Fathers support the Protestant Solas. I’ve been interested in seeing these books. I have no idea what he could be talking about.

[quote=Everyman]A while back, I heard a program of The Bible Answer Man with Hank Hanegraaff where he had some guy talking about his series of books of the Church Fathers.

He said that in them he shows where the Fathers support the Protestant Solas. I’ve been interested in seeing these books. I have no idea what he could be talking about.
[/quote]

Especially since the Fathers did not define scripture as being the set of books we call the Bible. I’ve not seen a logical argument of how people followed sola scriptura before the bible was defined.

Doesn’t citing the Church Fathers in itself go against sola scriptura? :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

I just found this:

chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola11.htm

[quote=JSmitty2005]Doesn’t citing the Church Fathers in itself go against sola scriptura? :stuck_out_tongue:
[/quote]

Well, when I was a Protestant, I would sometimes quote the Fathers or Reformers or whoever for extra support to whatever claim I was trying to make. I did not see an inconsitency in doing that while still holding to Sola Scriptura. It was merely a way for me to strengthen my argument, not saying these folks were in any way infallible. I was “standing on the sholders on giants.”

Apostolic Succession

The rest of these were already answered pretty good and in depth, so I just wanted to address this one. In Acts 1, we clearly see Apostolic Succession taking place when the Apostle Matthias is chosen to replace Judas. Also, why bother with Bishops and the laying on of hands if there is no Apostolic Succession?

Repetitive Prayers-Not Biblical

Not really sure what he’s talking about here, but “repetitive” prayers are pretty well Scriptural. Jesus Christ commanded us to pray the Our Father. The Our Father is not repetitive??? The only thing that Jesus warned us about was saying “vain repetitions like the pagans did”. A prayer to Christ cannot be in vain since He hears all.

Forced Celibacy-Not Biblical

The Church does not “force” anyone to be celibate and in only one rite (the Latin Rite) is it upheld as a discipline, not a belief or dogma. It is their vow, and they can choose to make it or not. If they are not called to live a celibate life then they can choose marriage. Also, the Bible talks about the Apostles leaving “everything behind” and following Jesus. I am pretty sure that this means sexual relations too.

I would also like to add that Sola Gratia (Luther’s version), Sola Scriptura, and most, if not all of the 5 Solas of the Reformation are not Biblical.

1 Like

[quote=Semper Fi]I would also like to add that Sola Gratia (Luther’s version), Sola Scriptura, and most, if not all of the 5 Solas of the Reformation are not Biblical.
[/quote]

This is off topic, and maybe I should start another thread, but how is Luther’s sola gratia different than ours? I was told that that was the only “sola” that we agreed on. Aren’t we saved only by God’s grace and consequently how we respond to it?

[quote=JSmitty2005] What I really would like to know is this: what writings of these Fatheres do Protestants cite to support such an outrageous claim? Also, are there any quotes by these very same guys that show a belief in Tradition and the Magisterium or any of the characteristically Catholic beliefs he listed? Feel free to comment on anything else that he said, but that’s what I’m looking for. Thanks!
[/quote]

The main way to destroy the notion that the ECFs preached SS is to have the anti-Catholic show quotes by the same ECFs where the ECFs rejected Tradition, eg Authority of Bishops.
The fact is the ECFs were all about Tradition, especially when it came to the office of Bishop.

1 Like

119 of the CCC quotes this, but, here it is, straight from Augustine:

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

The footnote reads:
89 St. Augustine, Contra epistolam Manichaei 5, 6: PL 42, 176.

In essence, what they do with the Fathers, is they take some quotes out of context and claim they support sola scriptura. This just isn’t true. I’ve seen this before, and by the time the whole story comes out, it becomes transparent that they certainly didn’t believe sola scriptura.

1 Like

[quote=RobNY]119 of the CCC quotes this, but, here it is, straight from Augustine:

The footnote reads:
89 St. Augustine, Contra epistolam Manichaei 5, 6: PL 42, 176.

In essence, what they do with the Fathers, is they take some quotes out of context and claim they support sola scriptura. This just isn’t true. I’ve seen this before, and by the time the whole story comes out, it becomes transparent that they certainly didn’t believe sola scriptura.
[/quote]

They do a similar thing with the Bereans. Just because the Bereans looked to Scripture to see that something wasn’t contrary to Scripture, does not mean that the Bereans believed in sola scriptura! It just means they believed in the inerrancy of Scripture.

1 Like
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.