[CS-FSLUG] Open Source Theology

[edoc7]

> But what of the early Church's own opinion as to the value and authority 
> of the teachings of the Apostles, both as handed down in the form of 
> writings that were collected in to the NT and those that certainly were 
> expressed in writings from the first centuries forward but didn't come 
> from the Apostles themselves, or from say Mark or Luke, in the form of a 
> gospel or epistle.  The question is how did the early Church understood 
> the Holy Spirit to author and transmit Divine Revelation in the 
> post-Pentecost era, before the death of the last of the Twelve Apostles 
> and then afterwards.  When the Fathers are "asked" about this, they do 
> not answer with anything that resembles "sola scriptura," not in the 
> First Century, not in the Second, not in the Third, nor afterwards. Why 
> is that?  My intent in posting the message with the long list of quotes 
> from the Fathers was to raise awareness that the early Christians and 
> their leaders had certain views about the role of oral and written 
> Apostolic Tradition, that is "teaching," and that those views are not 
> recognizable as the view held by, say, modern Protestants.

Actually, Jesus stated the predicate of "sola scriptura" as
He responded to the temptation of the Devil in the desert.

He later reiterated it when He confronted the confused religious
leaders of His day.

In the Canonical writings of the Apostles and other divinely
called and inspired authors of God's Biblical text they repeated
the construct of "sola scriptura".

Sola scriptura is as soundly Biblical as is the Trinity.

Also, someone suggested that Revelation 22:18-19 applies
only to the Book of Revelation.  That is a very unusual
narrowing of the application of a piece of Biblical text
and serves only to undermine the reliability the Word of
God as a whole, thus I reject that proposition.

doc