Apostolic Tradition [Church Fathers contra Sola Scriptura]

“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]).

“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).

“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).

“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]).

“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]).

“[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]).

“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).

“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]).

“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]).

“[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]).

“[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]).

“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]).

“[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]).

Much of modern American congregationalism is totally adrift on a sea of individualism and subjectivism. It has divorced itself completely from tradition. It is precisely for this reason that the fracturing process continues and new ecclesial gatherings continue to spring up like mushrooms as a result of an ever increasing heterodoxy.

No, it's not because they "don't follow the Bible". They do follow the Bible.......but their individual and subjective understanding of it, differs from yours and in the absence of any definitive authority, you are in no position to overrule them. Whatever the good intentions which reside amongst the adherents of the latter day heretical mantra of sola scriptura , the absence of tradition and a unifying authority is a guarantee of havoc as the Church Fathers clearly explain.

I guess the church Fathers were prepared to call the Bereans non Christian, anti Catholic blasphemers then.....
Acts 17:11 reads, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. “

The Bereans....the original SOLA SCRIPTURISTS!

One must question a Christian whose attacks seem to be primarily leveled against fellow Christians.

You seem to spend a lot of time on this forum trying to start fights with people who have already devoted themselves to Christ. Aren’t there better targets to argue with?

SnakeDoc

“The locusts have no king, yet they march out in bands, laying waste....” Proverbs

Solomon puzzled over how the locusts could co-ordinate themselves without a visible central authority....

pssst: “built in instinct and pheremonal communication”
What really keeps all Christians together....not external authority but the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of authentic believers.

The Holy Spirit is not chopped liver, you know??!

>>It has divorced itself completely from tradition.<<

So did the early church. Tradition is not a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what the tradition is. However, it is not all that favored in the Bible:

Mark 7:8
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

Mark 7:9
And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

Matthew 15:2
“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

Matthew 15:3
Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?

Matthew 15:6
they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Mark 7:13
Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

1 Corinthians 11:2
[ On Covering the Head in Worship ] I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.

Don’t forget one of the earliest church fathers - the apostle Paul.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

What is necessary for salvation through faith in Christ? Scripture.
What is necessary for teaching? Scripture.
What is necessary for reproof? Scripture.
What is necessary for correction? Scripture.
What is necessary for competency? Scripture.
What is necessary for equipping us for every good work? Scripture.

Tradition is helpful in some cases, but (according to Paul) unnecessary for the Christian to be equipped for EVERY good work.

Willialal:

You are correct, the Bereans, which are mentioned in Acts are not referring to the NT as those events are in the very early Church and would predate any of St. Paul’s epistles, the earliest being his First Letter to the Thessalonians written circa 49AD. St. Paul was martyred during the reign of Nero, which would be around 62-64AD and would also predate the writing of the 4 Canonical Gospels.

All bathsoap is made and sold for cleansing, that man may be clean and hygenic.

Note that on a practical level, in addition to bathsoap, water is also necessary, but water is not mentioned. In the same way, man needs more than scripture (bathsoap) to be fully equipped for good works and salvation: he also needs Tradition (water) and a Church (witnesses to pass on the Tradition of understanding and using the Scripture).

In fact, one can be saved by confessing Jesus as Christ without ever hearing or reading the actual Sciptures. What is more essential is Tradition and the Church.

If you were strandedon an island with ten people, and no bible available, you could lead people to salvation with no bible. You would be capable of handing on what is actually essential (faith in Christ crucified) as the Church - a fine Tradition.

A couple of points I’ll make on the subject.

Tradition is valuable for providing context and texture, but if it is self-referential you have no way of judging if you are edging away from the “original intent”. The only way you have to make mid-course corrections is by the holy spirit and by right reason, and by referring back to the original texts.

There are other traditions that also go right back to the first century. Where there are disagreements, how do you judge whose tradition to be valid? By prayer, and by reference to the original documents. Where there are disagreements between the early church fathers, how do you resolve them? Same way.

And finally, when dealing with protestants, what do we share in common? Faith in God, faith in Christ, faith in the holy spirit, and firm belief in scripture. So while you may not believe in “sola scriptura”, it is our common language. So be careful about disrespecting the founding documents of your own tradition which we share in common.

Don’t worry too much about differences of interpretation. Unity is not uniformity and never will be. In general scripture means what it seems to mean on the surface, and where we disagree, which we love to do, we usually get the big things right in any case. Disagreement means that you are trying to dig in and make it your own. A lack of disagreement is deceptive, because if there were no disagreements it would mean you weren’t digging in and thinking about it. Even in disagreement you can usually spot who is led by God and who isn’t.

I don’t worry too much about disagreements where they are made in good will and good faith. Its possible to respect and like people you disagree with, and its possible to unite with them on the big stuff. I hope we are starting to learn that.

These “Sola Scriptura” types bathe themselves in the glow of the sin of pride. They reek of this sin and lure others to adopt their prideful ways. One can liken them to the Gnostics of the 1st cent who also altered and adapted the message of Our Savior to justify their own sinful lives and practices.

This worship of self interpretation leads inexorably to the fractionalization which has evidenced over 30,000 of these independent churches in this nation. This is not what Jesus and the Holy Spirit want as Jesus prayed that they might all be One. How sad but the wages of sin are evident in their pride filled self interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

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.