Skip to comments.The Gospel According to the Church Fathers
Posted on 01/24/2015 8:33:46 AM PST by RnMomof7
After the apostles died, was the gospel hopelessly lost until the Reformation?
That certainly seems to be a common assumption in some Protestant circles today. Thankfully, it is a false assumption.
Im not entirely sure where that misconception started. But one thing I do know: it did not come from the Protestant Reformers.
The Reformers themselves (including Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and others) were convinced that their position was not only biblical, but also historical. In other words, they contended that both the apostles and the church fathers would have agreed with them on the heart of the gospel.
For example, the second-generation Lutheran reformer, Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), wrote a treatise on justification in which he defended the Protestant position by extensively using the church fathers. And John Calvin (1509-1564), in his Institutes, similarly claimed that he could easily debunk his Roman Catholic opponents using nothing but patristic sources. Heres what he wrote:
If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory to put it very modestly would turn to our side. Now, these fathers have written many wise and excellent things. . . . [Yet] the good things that these fathers have written they [the Roman Catholics] either do not notice, or misrepresent or pervert. . . . But we do not despise them [the church fathers]; in fact, if it were to our present purpose, I could with no trouble at all prove that the greater part of what we are saying today meets their approval.
Source: John Calvin, Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Section 4.
How could the Reformers be so confident that their understanding of the gospel was consistent with the teachings of the ancient church? Or perhaps more to the point: What did the early church fathers have to say about the gospel of grace?
Here is an admittedly brief collection of 30 patristic quotes, centering on the reality that justification is by grace alone through faith alone. Many more could be provided. But I think youll be encouraged by this survey look at the gospel according to the church fathers.
(Even if you dont read every quote, just take a moment to consider the fact that, long before Luther, the leaders of the ancient church were clearly proclaiming the gospel of grace through faith in Christ.)
1. Clement of Rome (30-100): And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.
Source: Clement, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 32.4.
2. Epistle to Diognetus (second century): He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!
Source: The Epistle to Diognetus, 9.2-5.
3. Justin Martyr (100-165) speaks of those who repented, and who no longer were purified by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of an heifer, or by the offerings of fine flour, but by faith through the blood of Christ, and through His death.
Source: Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 13.
4. Origen (185-254): For God is just, and therefore he could not justify the unjust. Therefore he required the intervention of a propitiator, so that by having faith in Him those who could not be justified by their own works might be justified.
Source: Origen, Commentary on Romans, 2.112.
5. Origen (again): A man is justified by faith. The works of the law can make no contribution to this. Where there is no faith which might justify the believer, even if there are works of the law these are not based on the foundation of faith. Even if they are good in themselves they cannot justify the one who does them, because faith is lacking, and faith is the mark of those who are justified by God.
Source: Origen, Commentary on Romans, 2.136.
6. Hilary of Poitiers (300-368): Wages cannot be considered as a gift, because they are due to work, but God has given free grace to all men by the justification of faith.
Source: Hilary, Commentary on Matthew (on Matt. 20:7)
7. Hilary of Poitiers (again): It disturbed the scribes that sin was forgiven by a man (for they considered that Jesus Christ was only a man) and that sin was forgiven by Him whereas the Law was not able to absolve it, since faith alone justifies.
Source: Hilary, Commentary on Matthew (on Matt. 9:3)
8. Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398) A person is saved by grace, not by works but by faith. There should be no doubt but that faith saves and then lives by doing its own works, so that the works which are added to salvation by faith are not those of the law but a different kind of thing altogether.
Source: Didymus the Blind. Commentary on James, 2:26b.
9. Basil of Caesarea (329-379): Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, that Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, redemption. This is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and is justified solely by faith in Christ.
Source: Basil, Homily on Humility, 20.3.
10. Jerome (347420): We are saved by grace rather than works, for we can give God nothing in return for what he has bestowed on us.
Source: Jerome, Epistle to the Ephesians, 1.2.1.
11. John Chrysostom (349-407): For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faiths workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent.
Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians, 4.2.9.
12. John Chrysostom (again): But what is the law of faith? It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows Gods power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.
Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, 7.27.
13. John Chrysostom (again): God allowed his Son to suffer as if a condemned sinner, so that we might be delivered from the penalty of our sins. This is Gods righteousness, that we are not justified by works (for then they would have to be perfect, which is impossible), but by grace, in which case all our sin is removed.
Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, 11.5.
14. John Chrysostom (again): Everywhere he puts the Gentiles upon a thorough equality. And put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith. (v. 9.) From faith alone, he says, they obtained the same gifts. This is also meant as a lesson to those (objectors); this is able to teach even them that faith only is needed, not works nor circumcision.
Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts, 32 (regarding Acts 15:1)
15. John Chrysostom (again): What then was it that was thought incredible? That those who were enemies, and sinners, neither justified by the law, nor by works, should immediately through faith alone be advanced to the highest favor. Upon this head accordingly Paul has discoursed at length in his Epistle to the Romans, and here again at length. This is a faithful saying, he says, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.
Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Timothy, 4.1.
16. John Chrysostom (again): For it is most of all apparent among the Gentiles, as he also says elsewhere, And that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy. (Romans 15:9.) For the great glory of this mystery is apparent among others also, but much more among these. For, on a sudden, to have brought men more senseless than stones to the dignity of Angels, simply through bare words, and faith alone, without any laboriousness, is indeed glory and riches of mystery: just as if one were to take a dog, quite consumed with hunger and the mange, foul, and loathsome to see, and not so much as able to move, but lying cast out, and make him all at once into a man, and to display him upon the royal throne.
Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Colossians, 5.2.
17. John Chrysostom (again): Now since the Jews kept turning over and over the fact, that the Patriarch, and friend of God, was the first to receive circumcision, he wishes to show, that it was by faith that he too was justified. And this was quite a vantage ground to insist upon. For a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light.
Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, 8.1.
18. Augustine (354-430): If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? The apostle goes on to tell us how: What does scripture say? (that is, about how Abraham was justified). Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.
Source: Augustine, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, 2-4.
19. Augustine (again): When someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence.
Source: Augustine, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, 6-7.
20. Ambrosiaster (fourth century): God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone he receives the forgiveness of sins.
Source: Ambrosiaster, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:4.
21. Ambrosiaster (again): They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God.
Source: Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Romans 3:24.
22. Ambrosiaster (again): Paul tells those who live under the law that they have no reason to boast basing themselves on the law and claiming to be of the race of Abraham, seeing that no one is justified before God except by faith.
Source: Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Romans 3:27.
23. Ambrosiaster (again): God gave what he promised in order to be revealed as righteous. For he had promised that he would justify those who believe in Christ, as he says in Habakkuk: The righteous will live by faith in me (Hab. 2:4). Whoever has faith in God and Christ is righteous.
Source: Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Pauls Epistles; CSEL 81 ad loc.
24. Marius Victorinus (fourth century): The fact that you Ephesians are saved is not something that comes from yourselves. It is the gift of God. It is not from your works, but it is Gods grace and Gods gift, not from anything you have deserved. We did not receive things by our own merit but by the grace and goodness of God.
Source: Marius Victorinus, Epistle to the Ephesians, 1.2.9.
25. Prosper of Aquitaine (390455): And just as there are no crimes so detestable that they can prevent the gift of grace, so too there can be no works so eminent that they are owed in condign [deserved] judgment that which is given freely. Would it not be a debasement of redemption in Christs blood, and would not Gods mercy be made secondary to human works, if justification, which is through grace, were owed in view of preceding merits, so that it were not the gift of a Donor, but the wages of a laborer?
Source: Prosper of Acquitaine, Call of All Nations, 1.17
26. Theodoret of Cyrus (393457): The Lord Christ is both God and the mercy seat, both the priest and the lamb, and he performed the work of our salvation by his blood, demanding only faith from us.
Source: Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans; PG 82 ad loc.
27. Theodoret of Cyrus (again): All we bring to grace is our faith. But even in this faith, divine grace itself has become our enabler. For [Paul] adds, And this is not of yourselves but it is a gift of God; not of works, lest anyone should boast (Eph. 2:89). It is not of our own accord that we have believed, but we have come to belief after having been called; and even when we had come to believe, He did not require of us purity of life, but approving mere faith, God bestowed on us forgiveness of sins
Source: Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretation of the Fourteen Epistles of Paul; FEF 3:24849, sec. 2163.
28. Cyril of Alexandria (412-444): For we are justified by faith, not by works of the law, as Scripture says. By faith in whom, then, are we justified? Is it not in Him who suffered death according to the flesh for our sake? Is it not in one Lord Jesus Christ?
Source: Cyril of Alexandria, Against Nestorius, 3.62
29. Fulgentius (462533): The blessed Paul argues that we are saved by faith, which he declares to be not from us but a gift from God. Thus there cannot possibly be true salvation where there is no true faith, and, since this faith is divinely enabled, it is without doubt bestowed by his free generosity. Where there is true belief through true faith, true salvation certainly accompanies it. Anyone who departs from true faith will not possess the grace of true salvation.
Source: Fulgentius, On the Incarnation, 1; CCL 91:313.
30. Bede (673-735): Although the apostle Paul preached that we are justified by faith without works, those who understand by this that it does not matter whether they live evil lives or do wicked and terrible things, as long as they believe in Christ, because salvation is through faith, have made a great mistake. James here expounds how Pauls words ought to be understood. This is why he uses the example of Abraham, whom Paul also used as an example of faith, to show that the patriarch also performed good works in the light of his faith. It is therefore wrong to interpret Paul in such a way as to suggest that it did not matter whether Abraham put his faith into practice or not. What Paul meant was that no one obtains the gift of justification on the basis of merits derived from works performed beforehand, because the gift of justification comes only from faith.
Source: Cited from the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (ed. Gerald Bray), NT, vol. 11, p. 31.
Mary is in Heaven, sorting thru BILLIONS of prayers to make SURE that proper Catholic ones go straight to her Son; Jesus.
“A wise person would realize that a few badly behaved people don’t represent an entire group.”
Your characterization misses the point. A wise person would realize that the few “badly behaved [anti-Catholics here]” WHO WERE FORCED TO ADMIT THEY WERE LYING are in fact representative of the rest of the same group but the rest have not been forced to admit they were lying. That’s the point. The behavior is widespread, perhaps even universal, among Protestant anti-Catholics. Only a few have been cornered and forced to admit it.
I have known that literally DOZENS of anti-Catholics here have lied, or deliberately misrepresented the Catholic Church, the Catholic faith, Catholics, they’ve spread falsehoods, clearly false interpretations, etc. The board rules not only don’t allow you to call a specific person a liar - EVEN WHEN HE HAS ADMITTED HE LIED AND SAYS SO IN ONE OF HIS OWN POSTS - but are used in such a way to prevent anyone from even exposing the liar. We’ve talked about this sort of thing before.
I have yet to run across a single Catholic who was spreading false ideas about the Protestant faith who must have known it was false. I’ve never seen it. I have seen Catholics make mistakes about what Protestants believe - after all it’s understandable that Catholics would not necessarily be experts in the myriad of heretical beliefs that make up Protestantism. For some reason, however, Protestant anti-Catholics INSIST they know Catholicism better than those who embrace it and live it. Even after endless corrections they will post the same old, already refuted canards.
“How often do Catholic anti-Protestants trot out the “Luther card””
Many Protestants have admitted that Luther started the Protestant Revolt. Why shouldn’t we mention that fact? Protestantism never existed before Luther. That is a historical fact. It’s undeniable.
“...here and say stuff like “Luther removed books from the Bible” when solid evidence is shown that no such thing happened?”
Sorry, but Catholic Bibles - the only Bible Luther knew - had the Deutercanonical books. Luther removed them. How can you deny that? How can you deny that Luther said things about the Epistle of James such as it was not of Apostolic authorship?
“How many times is Luther trotted out as if he were the Pope and founder of the Reformation and Protestantism...”
Boatbums...he WAS the founder of the “Reformation and Protestantism”. HE WAS. There’s no way around that fact.
You say, “Look how easily Catholics brush off the sordid history of their many depraved Popes - and these are guys y’all insist are vicars of Christ, His representatives on earth.”
There have been over 260 popes and NONE OF THEM ARE FOUNDERS OF OUR FAITH. Christ is. That’s one difference between my faith and yours. My faith was founded by and on Christ. Yours was founded by Luther. It’s undeniable. There were no Protestants before Luther. They didn’t exist. So, tell me all about the bad popes. They were bad. And? So? Yes, it’s deplorable that they were sinners - and we are sinners too. Yes, it is deplorable that they were hypocritical - then again so is every sinner (including you and me). Yet NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM founded my Church or my faith. Not one of them. Luther founded Protestantism. It’s just that simple.
“For someone who claims to be the champion of honest FR apologetic discourse, I don’t think I have ever seen you stand up to your peers when such dishonesty goes on. Why is that?”
Because it’s not dishonest to say that Luther is an inherent problem for Protestants. This is so well known, so well recognized, and so devastating and upsetting to Protestant anti-Catholics here, that I have been officially banned from mentioning where Luther invented Protestantism on this website - and I have the private messages from the powers that be to prove it. So don’t even think about telling me about being a “champion of honest FR apologetic discourse”.
God makes the impossible possible.
Rome makes the unwritten seem plausible (to those who do not know what IS written.)
“Rome makes the unwritten seem plausible (to those who do not know what IS written.)”
You take what is written and make it say something that is not. And your fellow Protestants here avoid talking about it so as not to split the ever present anti-Catholic group at FR.
#1 You do realize, doncha, that "abortion" is merely the means used to describe infanticide.
It's an umbrella word that has described all kinds of ways to murder an infant: early induction to bring about an intentional "miscarriage"; suction aspirator to slice & dice; etc. etc.
It's like saying I need to find the specific word "firearms" in the Bible to talk against murder-by-firearm. It's like saying I need to find the word "bomb" in the Bible if I wanted to use the Bible to speak against terrorists.
#2 "Abortion" -- as I said -- is a word used to describe infant-killing. Come on Vladimir, find us the words fraticide (sibling-killing), matricide (mother-killing), or patricide (father-killing) in the Bible.
Find us the word uxorcide ("wife-killing") in the Bible.
And, since these words aren't there, by logical extension of your lamest argument, whatever you are using to reference abortion applies to these types of family murders as well.
Sorry. This doesn't pass the straight-face test, and impugns your own credibility.
ALL: Take a look for yourself @ post #79.
Mark17 says: I have been a Protestant since 1970, and this is the first time I have EVER heard this" & Vladimir responds to this SAME subject thusly:
Really? I used google for about 20 seconds and found these:
Six links down, he mentions "Mormons." But again under the same umbrella of "these"...because he doesn't list Mormons last...the very next link is about Protestants as well.
If "Mormons" was meant to be distinct, why not list them last?
And why list them at all if the subject is only Protestants?
Yep, I believe both Kingdom Hall and Mormonism to be false religious cults as well. They are both pretty tough to reach. Ole Joe Smith really WAS a teller of tall tales, and Charles T Russell? He was another severely confused dude.
Thanks for showing that sola scriptura doesn’t work. That was the point. You did a great job showing that sola scriptura is unworkable and completely open to subjective interpretation. Thanks.
“If “Mormons” was meant to be distinct, why not list them last?”
They were. They were listed as the last non-Catholic reference. The only one after that was a convert to the Catholic faith. I started with 5 or so Protestant quotes (I could have listed many more of course). Then listed 1 Mormon quote (I could have listed hundreds for Mormons). And then I listed one convert’s comments as a final point. Also, I should point out I searched for them in that order: Protestant, pseudo-Christian/pseudo-Christian (i.e. Mormon) to show this is a sick trait Protestants share with pseudo-Christians and then topped it off with once convert’s discussion of his own experience to show how to overcome the stupidity that Protestants and pseudo-Christians show in this regard.
“Sorry. This doesn’t pass the straight-face test,”
Of course it passes the straight-face test and there’s no test in the first place. The evidence that some Protestants hold this view is undeniable so, of course, someone has to quibble about the fact that I included a quote from a Mormon source WHICH I ACTUALLY LABELED AS “MORMON”. Oh, the horrors!
“and impugns your own credibility.”
Not in the least. Since what I posted was irrefutable in proving my point, my credibility - logically - can’t suffer in the least. The very fact that someone would ignore all that was posted and focus on a LABELLED Mormon quote as if that were the issue is telling in itself. It tells us: he has no argument.
And if you had seen the thread(s) in question, would it have made any difference? I think not. Just admit it, vlad, the integrity of Genesis 1-11 (and other portions of the Hebrew Bible) is simply of very small importance to Catholics. The "important" dogmas are all elsewhere. Even the few Catholics who still uphold Biblical inerrancy don't consider it an essential dogma. Even the most right wing traditionalists don't have it on their radar screen of concerns. It simply doesn't matter to Catholics--not even the ones who dissent on the topic. "Thus saith the L-rd" means very little when one holds a synergistic G-d/man origin of the Bible. After all . . . those silly primitive men who were constantly saying that didn't understand how loving and liberal G-d really is (as we do today).
I read a lot (just in the last month I purchased 11 books - and Im trying to cut back in 2015 - and two of those are study Bibles that are going to take me a while to get through).
And every single one of them is higher critical . . . right?
If a man who attacks the Catholic faith repeatedly, essentially claiming his invented sect must be better because Protestantisms interpretation of the Bible is better and purer, shows himself to be dishonest even after GETTING CAUGHT - and only the Protestant anti-Catholics are doing this here - that says a lot about not only them, but their sect and Protestantism.
When I first started getting involved in things online I assumed that anti-Catholics were anti-Catholic out of ignorance. And yes that was sometimes true. But there are also some anti-Catholics who are just plain dishonest. I have yet to come across Catholics doing online apologetics who are dishonest. They might exist, but I certainly have not run into them here at FR. Only the anti-Catholics seem to have this problem with honesty. Why is that?
What is dishonest is the bizarre claim that "J*sus died for our sins" when it's all up to us. I'm no longer a Protestant and believe that Protestantism is also wrong, but they at least have a certain internal consistency. G-d (in the Bible) established a liturgical, statutory religion in order to show that no one can perfectly observe a liturgical, statutory religion. This was to prepare man for a purely passive salvation via an antinomian "loophole" (the vicarious eternal damnation of a divine scapegoat). Now this is ridiculous for many reasons (one of which is that no one person is even capable of observing "all the commandments" whey many of them apply to only certain classes of people), but there is a certain logic to it.
Catholicism/Orthodoxy on the other hand claim that G-d established the liturgical/statutory religion of the Bible to prepare mankind for a superior liturgical/statutory post-Biblical religion. This is even more ridiculous than the claims of Protestantism. G-d prepared mankind for the post-Biblical chrstian religion by giving the Torah to the Jews, who in order to be true to that Torah must of necessity reject chrstianity and all its claims? In other words, the people given the "lesson" didn't learn it, and the people who "learned" it never had the lesson! Is that anyway to "teach" anyone?
And J*sus wasn't vicariously eternally damned in anyone's place. Rather his death "re-opened the door" that Adam (who allegedly never actually existed) had "closed." What in the sam hill does that even mean? Catholics/Orthodox can thank J*sus for what . . . "making salvation possible" and then putting all the burden on them? Forcing them to spend a lifetime treading a tightrope over the flaming pits of hell to get through the door that J*sus has so generously "opened?" That being the case . . . just shut the door! Things were better off before it was "re-opened!"
As a Protestant I always wondered if J*sus was our "redeemer" why anyone would feel it necessary to perform any human action to "access" the "graces." We've had a Catholic on this thread asking Judaeo-Protestants if they believe J*sus died at all, and if so why are they observing Biblical commandments. Well right back at you, buddy! If you believe J*sus died why must you get baptized, engage in sacraments, attend mass, observe "holy days," do anything???? And yes, I know that Catholics/Orthodox often invoke the Biblical ceremonials to justify their own. But if the Biblical ceremonials were abolished, how much the more so any post-Biblical ceremonials!
Unfortunately, boatbums, these are not arguments for Protestantism . . . an unhistorical late comer with absolutely no roots in the chrstian past. This hypocritical "J*sus ultimately died to end your religion and start ours" understanding is the orthodox (small "o") historical one. It is held not only by the Roman Catholic Church but by every single one of the ancient churches still in existence--many of which were never under the Constantine who allegedly "introduced" all these "perversions." The Coptic, Greek, Syrian, Maronite, Armenian, Assyrian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Indian churches (the latter alleged founded by Thomas the apostle and with no contact with Latin or Byzantine chrstianity until the end of the sixteenth century) had this exact same ceremonial, calendar, sacraments, and theology. Protestantism is completely in vain. Historical chrstianity is illogical.
The one thing that everyone agrees on is that Judaism was the One True Religion--once--but that it has since been replaced. But what has replaced it? People have been arguing for two millenia and it's still not resolved!
I don't know about any Protestant "dishonesty." I know of the fact that Protestants are trapped trying to "restore" a "pure" religion that never existed in the first place. And all because historical non-Protestant chrstianity was dishonest enough to make the claim that "J*sus died for our sins."
Queen of Heaven
Mother of God
Actually sola Scriptura works just fine.
It’s the distortion of it that people use to try to discredit it that doesn’t work.
What it really is, is way different from what Catholics would like it to be so they could think they could disprove it and thus support the only alternative they have.
Sorry, but watching Brain Games has heightened my ability to notice misdirection when it is shown to me.
THEME all you want; it CANNOT change the very plain words on the page.
While Rome takes something UNWRITTEN and makes a really big fuss over it.
Sell your wares somewhere else.
Catholicism has been teaching error from day one.
1. Get thee behind me Satan.
2. I opposed Cephas to his face because he was condemned.
3. Seven catholic churches in Asia...
Rome does a great job showing that NULL scriptura IS workable and completely fools millions of people.
“Then show us where the following words that Catholicism adheres to is found anywhere in Scripture.”
I don’t believe in sola scriptura. You do.
“Actually sola Scriptura works just fine.”
Clearly not - or else you would be able to point the verse that says Matthew wrote an inspired book. Can you?
“Sell your wares somewhere else.”
I struck a nerve again. And will continue to do so. Protestants will continue to coddle things they believe to be erroneous or even heretical - like ‘soul sleep - to keep the anti-Catholic clique together.
“Catholicism has been teaching error from day one.”
Nope - we taught no heresy on Pentecost in Jerusalem. Your sects have taught heresy from the beginning, however. Protestants even said it about one another: hence Luther couldn’t agree with Calvin.
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.