A.D. 100 to 1500 Bible Alone Believers

[hlgomez]

This question is directed to Bible-believing Christians on this board. Can anyone produce an authentic name claiming that the Bible alone is the source of authority before the “Reformation.”
(a.k.a. “deformation”)

Pio

 

[Shibboleth]

That person’s name is Shibboleth,

That is after I get my time machine running. Be afraid, very afraid, bwhahahahah
:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

 

[space_ghost]

there are millions today that claim “bible alone” authority… but that’s not in union or communion with Sacret Scripture or Sacret Tradition…

The writers of the New Testament never believed “bible alone”, it’s only those that have sought the have “the gates of hell” prevail… the good news is Jesus Christ said they (the gates of hell) wouldn’t!..

 

[Apologia100]

Well, Martin Luther is an authentic name that made that claim, although he was wrong about it, his name is verified to be authentic

 

[j_arden]

hlgomez:

This question is directed to Bible-believing Christians on this board. Can anyone produce an authentic name claiming that the Bible alone is the source of authority before the “Reformation.”
(a.k.a. “deformation”)

Pio

hlgomez -

What Christians aren’t “Bible-believing”? The pope is a “Bible-believing” Christian. Also, your sly addendum about the “deformation” makes your question seem to be not honest but an attempt to bait someone into providing you with an opportunity for doctrinal grandstanding.

• JP

 

[ralphinal]

j_arden:

hlgomez -

What Christians aren’t “Bible-believing”? The pope is a “Bible-believing” Christian. Also, your sly addendum about the “deformation” makes your question seem to be not honest but an attempt to bait someone into providing you with an opportunity for doctrinal grandstanding.

• JP

I see it a little differently. It looks like an honest attempt for proof of something that many protestants claim: their church is the way Christ founded it. This claim cannot be verified, because it is not true, but it is the claim.

 

[hlgomez]

Apologia,

I’m talking about Chirstians BEFORE Luther.

Well, Martin Luther is an authentic name that made that claim, although he was wrong about it, his name is verified to be authentic

What Christians aren’t “Bible-believing”?

J_Arden,

Pardon me for not elaborating the question. I’m talking about the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura.” Who was the person who founded this doctrine BEFORE Luther came to that idea.

Also, your sly addendum about the “deformation” makes your question seem to be not honest but an attempt to bait someone into providing you with an opportunity for doctrinal grandstanding.

That’s my OWN opinion of what really happened to the reformation. It “deformed” orthodox Christianity. I’m sorry if you are offended by this.

 

[AugustineH354]

I personally would ask a different question: who prior to Martin Luther believed in the “formal sufficiency” of the Holy Scriptures? That the scriptures are authoritative, I doubt any Christian would deny; but “formal sufficiency” becomes problematic, for the Holy Scriptures must be interpreted. Now, the Church Fathers, Catholics, and our Eastern Orthodox brothers believe that the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures must be governed by the *regula fidei *(rule of faith/Catholic tradition); that the Holy Scriptures cannot not be properly understood apart from the Church’s tradition; and that the Holy Scriptures are not in and of themselves “clear” apart from the Church’s authoritative interpretation/tradition.

Aug

 

[JesusIsTheWay]

AugustineH354:

I personally would ask a different question: who prior to Martin Luther believed in the “formal sufficiency” of the Holy Scriptures? That the scriptures are authoritative, I doubt any Christian would deny; but “formal sufficiency” becomes problematic, for the Holy Scriptures must be interpreted. Now, the Church Fathers, Catholics, and our Eastern Orthodox brothers believe that the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures must be governed by the *regula fidei *(rule of faith/Catholic tradition); that the Holy Scriptures cannot not be properly understood apart from the Church’s tradition; and that the Holy Scriptures are not in and of themselves “clear” apart from the Church’s authoritative interpretation/tradition.

Aug

I would have to say Jesus was the “formal sufficiency” of scripture. The whole drive behind Luther, Wycliffe, Calvin, Knox, Zwingle, and many other protestant reformers was the idea that the Church had gone too far from the original concept of the gospel and was practically lost in men’s tradition. So they wanted to get back to Jesus and his teachings. It was a “simple” idea… but over time, even their intentions didn’t turn out the way they had intended…

 

[hlgomez]

Please don’t go too far from the question. Let’s stick to the very simple question I’m asking. I would like to know especially from the Protestants the person to be behind Sola Scriptura. (don’t get me wrong, Jesus didn’t say nothing about “Sola Scriptura” in the Gospels, just produce the name of the person in history apart from Luther from A.D. 100-1500 (approx/ or before the reformation).

I want to know about the protestants “solid” claim that was “suceeded” by Luther or Calvin or the present day reformists on the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Thanks,

Pio

PS. Let’s not play with the use of terms, just plain history will suffice.

 

[hlgomez]

Further, you can even quote or name a Church Father, if there is one you know of.

Thanks.

 

[Shan]

j_arden:

hlgomez -

What Christians aren’t “Bible-believing”? The pope is a “Bible-believing” Christian. Also, your sly addendum about the “deformation” makes your question seem to be not honest but an attempt to bait someone into providing you with an opportunity for doctrinal grandstanding.

• JP/QUOTE

Note
Bible ALONE believers
You can’t understand the Bible if you don’t have someone to teach you (Church). The bible was written over a period of 1800+ years and I don’t know anyone one person who lived long enough to write the bible. Thank God Jesus didn’t just say, “here it is- you figure it out”.
Anyway- God Bless you

 

[Shan]

Shan:

j_arden:

hlgomez -

What Christians aren’t “Bible-believing”? The pope is a “Bible-believing” Christian. Also, your sly addendum about the “deformation” makes your question seem to be not honest but an attempt to bait someone into providing you with an opportunity for doctrinal grandstanding.

• JP

 

[AugustineH354]

hlgomez:

Please don’t go too far from the question. Let’s stick to the very simple question I’m asking. I would like to know especially from the Protestants the person to be behind Sola Scriptura. (don’t get me wrong, Jesus didn’t say nothing about “Sola Scriptura” in the Gospels, just produce the name of the person in history apart from Luther from A.D. 100-1500 (approx/ or before the reformation).

I want to know about the protestants “solid” claim that was “suceeded” by Luther or Calvin or the present day reformists on the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Thanks,

Pio

PS. Let’s not play with the use of terms, just plain history will suffice.

Hi Pio,

I understand that you want to keep your question simple, but unfortunately “just plain history” will not allow a simple answer. I know of at least 3 differents forms of sola scriptura among Protestants; and some modern Catholic theologians (Karl Rahner for one) speak of a Catholic sense of sola scriptura (material sufficency).

An excellent introduction to this topic is the recent work Your Word Is Truth - A Project of Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ed. by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuaus - 2002).

Grace and peace,

Aug

 

[Malachi4U]

j_arden:

hlgomez -

What Christians aren’t “Bible-believing”? The pope is a “Bible-believing” Christian. Also, your sly addendum about the “deformation” makes your question seem to be not honest but an attempt to bait someone into providing you with an opportunity for doctrinal grandstanding.

• JP

j,

“Bible-believing” is a term used by many protestant sects that place the Bible as the sole and only word and authority of God. It is not commonly used in this context to mean anyone who believs in it such as Catholics. They call thewmselves “Bible-believing” churches and such. This term helps to define that they only follow the Bible as opposed to Catholics who follow, the Church, Bible and the Pope so to speak.

I hope this helps you see the way the term is used here as I interpret the meaning of it in this thread.

 

[Malachi4U]

Apologia100:

Well, Martin Luther is an authentic name that made that claim, although he was wrong about it, his name is verified to be authentic

Gods peace be with you Theophilus,

Just a quick point. M. Luther didn’t invent Sola Scripture untill around 1517-1522 as I recall. Perhaps later then that since he needed some sort of security blanket after being rightly and justly excomunicated from Christs body for his heresy. So he cannot be used as an example since this was at least 17 years late per the question asked.

Now if you assume the callander is off by 4 years or we use the calander used by…?:whacky:

A prisoner of Christ:yup:

 

[bamark]

JesusIsTheWay:

I would have to say Jesus was the “formal sufficiency” of scripture. The whole drive behind Luther, Wycliffe, Calvin, Knox, Zwingle, and many other protestant reformers was the idea that the Church had gone too far from the original concept of the gospel and was practically lost in men’s tradition. So they wanted to get back to Jesus and his teachings. It was a “simple” idea… but over time, even their intentions didn’t turn out the way they had intended…

Wouldn’t you say that these men developed their own “traditions”
based on their private interpretation of Scripture?

Mark