I frequent a number of “Anti-Catholic” message boards, and have since I was a neophyte believer. I do it because it’s always good to stay ready and sharpened in your ability to give a defense of the faith – but also because it *is* missionary territory. Sometimes a “doozy” of a claim will come up, like the following, which I wanted to write a longer reply to:
So if people are going to rant and Rave about there only being one true church, then by what standard do we judge the existing churches, to conclude which one is the true church? If you say the early church, then by what’s standard do you judge the early church fathers to determine that they are teaching what the apostles taught? If you say the magisterium, then by what standard do we judge the magisterium to determine if they are teaching what the apostles taught? If you say the early church, you have successfully completed a circular reasoning cycle and disproven yourself.
If you say scripture is how we judge which church is the true church, then I would personally like to welcome you to Sola scriptura.
Because it all boils down to there needing to be a standard by which we judge who is the true Apostolic Church in which one is not. And if you go to Sacred scripture, you validate Sola scriptura. If you go to the early church fathers, you then have to prove that the early church fathers were teaching what the apostles taught. And if you rely on the magisterium to interpret the fathers in order to give you the proof you need, then you need to prove that the magisterium is teaching what the apostles taught.
So no matter which way you look at it, there is no way for the Roman Catholic Church to prove that they are actually teaching what the apostles taught. All the church rhetoric in the world is insufficient to establish that any of the early church fathers were teaching what the apostles taught, or that the magisterium was teaching what the apostles taught, and the only way for them to attempt to prove their Authority and that they are the one true church, is by appealing to scripture, which further proves and validates Sola scriptura.
(4) Reaching Catholics and Others Through the Gospel2 | Facebook
What I’m going to argue, as I’ve intimated before, is that Sola Scriptura is not just non-biblical, but ANTI-biblical (and thus anti-christian or anti-christ – that’s not hyperbole) and thus it is actually a litmus test for FAKE “churches.” However, I began my response by simply noting that, before 500 years ago, there weren’t THAT many claimants to the one, true church, and none of them look like modern Protestantism, and all of them resemble each other.
That quickly prunes down your list of contenders for the early church…
Then, read the early church fathers – not as infallible sources of doctrine – but as historic documents of WITNESSES to the early teaching.
For example, John gives his “Bread of life” discourse in Chapter 6, and Catholics and Orthodox have one take, while [most] protestants have another take… We go around and around on this very issue on these boards….
So, how do you determine which is in line with what John (and the holy spirit) intended?
Listen to his STUDENTS – those he taught, who say things like this:
“[These Heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
Also:
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
These help you understand what the earliest Christians believed, and what the Gospel Writers meant. And of course read Christ’s words as recorded in the gospels, read what Paul says, etc, which are pretty explicit…)
That – again – quickly prunes down the “running” for which church is the real church…
Note also, in Acts 15, we read that – before a single document of the NT was penned, there was a dispute about whether gentile converts had to first become Jewish to become Christians.
They couldn’t read the New Testament. So what did they do?
They met. In council. Apostles. Presbyers and Episcopoi (priests & bishops). This meeting is recorded IN Acts, but existed before Acts was written, obviously.
And they debated, before PRONOUNCING a BINDING DECISION… and in Acts 16 Paul takes the “Decrees” of the council with him:
“As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the **decisions** which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. [5] So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.”
That word: “decision” or “Decree”… In Greek that word is DOGMA.
THAT is the model of the early church, not this silly nonsense they are always putting forth about Sola Scriptura, which is not just un-biblical but ANTI-biblical.
Is nonsense too strong of a word? Well, answer the following question:
Which premise is wrong, or is the conclusion valid?
PREMISE 1: SCRIPTURE ALONE is the *sole, infallible rule binding* upon the Christian. (ONLY As are Bs)
PREMISE 2: The CANON of SCRIPTURE is not in SCRIPTURE. (No C is an A)
CONCLUSION: The Canon of Scripture is FALLIBLE and NOT BINDING (No C is B)
The ANTI-BIBLICAL, MAN MADE TRADITION of Sola Scriptura KILLS the Bible. That’s how you KNOW it’s false.
ANY organized body of believers who pushes this ROT or thinks it’s a FOUNDATIONAL belief to nascent Christianity is ignorant of scripture and history and Christ. The earliest Christians didn’t HAVE a New Testament, but the church existed.
And ANY church that teaches this as a foundational doctrine has PRUNED ITSELF from the running for “The One True Church.”
(NOTE: Read the early creeds, then read the “belief statement” on most protestant church websites. The latter almost always follow this formula: Point 1: Jesus is God, died for our sins, etc (this is fine and good); Point 2: the bible is the sole, infallible source of authority etc…
Meanwhile, the former definitely REFERENCES scripture, but in the sense of “In fulfillment of the scriptures…” (cf: Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, Apostles Creed, etc.) NONE of the earliest creeds EVER make ANY KIND of statement akin to Sola Scriptura.
Thus, again, sola scriptura is a DISQUALIFYING TEACHING.