Desperately seeking evidence for Sola Scriptura in church history

[hlgomez]

Desperately seeking evidence for a perfect church in church history…

In Love,
Yaqubos†

Yaqu,

The Church is perfect in every sense because it is Christ’s body and the head is Christ Himself. It’s the members that are not perfect, the owner is. So if you are “desperately” seeking evidence, the evidence is Christ Himself in the ancient One, Holy, Catholic Church.

Pio

 

[michaelp]

OK, I will jump in for a moment. This is a classic case of anachronism (attempting to find contemporary words [sola scripura] or clearly defined concepts that stem from later events).

If doctrine is progressively articulated and developed thoughout history (as I believe it is), then this should not be any problem for anyone. Doctrines are articulated in the mist of controversy–you know this. Your question would be like someone saying show me the Trinity before Nicea. Or show me that man has imputed sin before Augustine. Or show me that the cross was a payment made to the Father, before Anselm. The concepts are found here and there in unarticulated form, the Church just had not dealt with it at the time.

Since sola scriptura simply means that the Scripture is our ultimate source of revelation from God, then every time the Church has quoted Scripture in the past as the authority to a dispute, then it is found in seed form. Since this is the case, it is found throughout the writing of many of the church fathers. You just have to “pick up and read” the fathers.

You cannot expect them to use articulations of a 16th century dispute prior to the 16th century. This is very fallacious.

But nonetheless, a good question.

Thanks for your quesioning of the faith. These struggles are where we are all built up. While we may disagree in the end, I appreciate all of your willingness to ask these questions.

Michael
Credo ut intelligam

 

[Church_Militant]

dennisknapp:

I am starting a new tread in hopes of getting an answer for my original question regarding Sola Scriptura.

My question is this: Is there any evidence for Sola Scriptura in the history of the Church prior to the Protestant Reformation?

I am not asking about interperatation of Scripture or whether or not the Catholic position is valid or not. What I am asking for is historical, verifiable evidence for the existence for Sola Scriptura.

Can anyone help? Does it exist?

NOPE. It didn’t exist…

 

[dennisknapp]

“Since sola scriptura simply means that the Scripture is our ultimate source of revelation from God, then every time the Church has quoted Scripture in the past as the authority to a dispute, then it is found in seed form. Since this is the case, it is found throughout the writing of many of the church fathers. You just have to “pick up and read” the fathers.”

If you use this reasoning then every remark made by these same men regarding the authority of the church, papal supremacy, Mary, the real Presence of Christ in Communion, purgatory, etc., no matter how small is “seed” form for what would come to be defined later as true Catholic Orthodoxy. It would just have to wait until “articulated in the mist of controversy.” And if you look into the history of the Church this is what happened.

I assume you do not agree with all the Fathers have said that you disagree with, but are more than willing to grab onto whatever fits your current presuppositions. I totally understand. As a Evangelical I had the freedom to pick and choose whatever I liked from whatever source I wanted. That’s the beauty of it–there was no ultimate authority that I had to submit my will or thoughts to. There just my own interpretation of Scripture and sources and people who I chose to let influence me. But all along there was a question in the back of my head that was left unanswered–Why did I (as an Evangelical) disagree with them (the Fathers) on so many issues? It was at that point that I decided to look into the matter more closely, and here I am today.

Back to the point:

The issue here is not that those (early Fathers) who have defended Christian Orthodoxy used Scripture to do so, this is still done today, the issue is whether or not these same people held the view of Sola Scriptura. If not than a reevaluation of previous presuppositions needs to be done.

We all need to have the courage to follow the truth where ever it leads.

 

[michaelp]

“Since sola scriptura simply means that the Scripture is our ultimate source of revelation from God, then every time the Church has quoted Scripture in the past as the authority to a dispute, then it is found in seed form. Since this is the case, it is found throughout the writing of many of the church fathers. You just have to “pick up and read” the fathers.”

If you use this reasoning then every remark made by these same men regarding the authority of the church, papal supremacy, Mary, the real Presence of Christ in Communion, purgatory, etc., no matter how small is “seed” form for what would come to be defined later as true Catholic Orthodoxy. It would just have to wait until “articulated in the mist of controversy.” And if you look into the history of the Church this is what happened.

I assume you do not agree with all the Fathers have said that you disagree with, but are more than willing to grab onto whatever fits your current presuppositions. I totally understand. As a Evangelical I had the freedom to pick and choose whatever I liked from whatever source I wanted. That’s the beauty of it–there was no ultimate authority that I had to submit my will or thoughts to. There just my own interpretation of Scripture and sources and people who I chose to let influence me. But all along there was a question in the back of my head that was left unanswered–Why did I (as an Evangelical) disagree with them (the Fathers) on so many issues? It was at that point that I decided to look into the matter more closely, and here I am today.

Back to the point:

The issue here is not that those (early Fathers) who have defended Christian Orthodoxy used Scripture to do so, this is still done today, the issue is whether or not these same people held the view of Sola Scriptura. If not than a reevaluation of previous presuppositions needs to be done.

We all need to have the courage to follow the truth where ever it leads.

I am sorry, but this really does not deal with the issues that I brought up in the last post. It seems like more canned apologetics. Reread the post and struggle with the issues. I am not saying that I am 100% sure that I am correct, but it is the best that I can do.

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

The issue here is not that those (early Fathers) who have defended Christian Orthodoxy used Scripture to do so, this is still done today, the issue is whether or not these same people held the view of Sola Scriptura. If not than a reevaluation of previous presuppositions needs to be done.

We all need to have the courage to follow the truth where ever it leads.

I am sorry, I have reread this post and I think that this part is relavent.

This is the issue. What is the source of authority that those pre-reformation Christians looked to to validate their teachings. To be sure, there are some who go to Tradition, but also just as many go to the Scriptures and the final source.

It is not that people (including myself) do not go to tradition for a source for authority. We do. I will refer to tradition all the time. Contemporary Christians do not have a corner on the Holy Spirit. It is a matter of ultimate authority. This is what sola scriptura is about. What is the only ultimate authority. Martin Luther quotes church fathers liberally to make his case. As does Calvin and all the reformers.

Looking back through church history we find the concept of sola scriptura every time a church father quotes the Scriptures as the final authority in a matter.

Michael

 

[JPrejean]

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of sola scriptura in church history … among heretics.
cin.org/users/jgallegos/sola_her.htm

That’s what strikes me as so odd about the notion of sola scriptura in the first place. It arose many, many times over church history, and every single time, it was being asserted to defend heresy. The only times that the Early Church Fathers made statements that even resembled sola scriptura were to demonstrate that the heretical doctrines would still be false even if the heretic’s false notion of sola scriptura were accepted. Such presentations are often used by uninformed Protestants to say “see, St. X believed in sola scriptura.” Of course, people making such an interpretation conveniently ignore two critical contextual factors: (1) this position (i.e., arguing from Scripture alone) was adopted solely for the sake of argument and solely in that instance, so it can’t possibly be used to prove a universal principle of authority like sola scriptura, and (2) the Fathers making such arguments invariably point out that it is not necessary to rely on Scripture alone because Tradition and the ecumenical councils provide an equally true witness, directly contradicting the principle of sola scriptura.

So to put in in a nutshell, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence about sola scriptura in the Church Fathers, and that evidence unanimously condemns sola scriptura as a feeble excuse for heretics to continue believe their heresies.

Edit – BTW, as to this

Since sola scriptura simply means that the Scripture is our ultimate source of revelation from God, then every time the Church has quoted Scripture in the past as the authority to a dispute, then it is found in seed form. Since this is the case, it is found throughout the writing of many of the church fathers. You just have to “pick up and read” the fathers.

To use Newman’s words, developments aren’t contradictions. The sola part of the doctrine is contradicted innumerable times. If there had not been express contradiction, then you might have a point, but the Early Church Fathers not only used a different principle of authority but also rejected the sola scriptura principle.

 

[michaelp]

JPrejean:

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of sola scriptura in church history … among heretics.
cin.org/users/jgallegos/sola_her.htm

That’s what strikes me as so odd about the notion of sola scriptura in the first place. It arose many, many times over church history, and every single time, it was being asserted to defend heresy. The only times that the Early Church Fathers made statements that even resembled sola scriptura were to demonstrate that the heretical doctrines would still be false even if the heretic’s false notion of sola scriptura were accepted. Such presentations are often used by uninformed Protestants to say “see, St. X believed in sola scriptura.” Of course, people making such an interpretation conveniently ignore two critical contextual factors: (1) this position (i.e., arguing from Scripture alone) was adopted solely for the sake of argument and solely in that instance, so it can’t possibly be used to prove a universal principle of authority like sola scriptura, and (2) the Fathers making such arguments invariably point out that it is not necessary to rely on Scripture alone because Tradition and the ecumenical councils provide an equally true witness, directly contradicting the principle of sola scriptura.

So to put in in a nutshell, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence about sola scriptura in the Church Fathers, and that evidence unanimously condemns sola scriptura as a feeble excuse for heretics to continue believe their heresies.

You have a great misunderstanding of what sola scriptura is about. This whole argument makes no sense from a Protestant perspective. Please read my post on the clarification of what sola scriptura is. To be honest, you are going to have to get out of this box before you can understand the issues.

That article is rather naive. The writer does not understand the concept of sola scripture. He is canned by his presuppositions and polemics (at leasted that is the way it seems to me).

Have a great day,

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp
“Looking back through church history we find the concept of sola scriptura every time a church father quotes the Scriptures as the final authority in a matter.”

Can you give me any example?

I would respond that just because someone like Augustine used Scripture as a “authority” does not mean he saw it as the only sola final authority in every matter. Also, even when using Scripture as a authority against a heretical group, like the Arians (who themselves used Scripture), he is using it in context of the deposite of faith = Tradition, and in his role as bishop and hence part of the Magisterium.

He would never allow his personal interpretation to stand in the way of the teachings of the Universal Church.

 

[JPrejean]

michaelp:

You have a great misunderstanding of what sola scriptura is about. This whole argument makes no sense from a Protestant perspective. Please read my post on the clarification of what sola scriptura is. To be honest, you are going to have to get out of this box before you can understand the issues.

I think that you must have a great misunderstanding of what Catholicism is about, at least based on your posts on the thread you linked. The Pope does not invent new doctrine; revelation was closed with the death of the last Apostle. But leaving that aside, the real problem with your counter-proposal is that the Early Church Fathers considered Tradition to be a valid source of revelation confirmed by Christ Himself. It was the oral teaching and practice of the Apostles preserved in the life of the Church just as a portion of their words were preserved in Scripture. That was my point; the Early Church Fathers rejected your idea that there was only one verified form of revelation from God or even that Scripture was a reliable witness when read outside of the context of Sacred Tradition.

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

michaelp
“Looking back through church history we find the concept of sola scriptura every time a church father quotes the Scriptures as the final authority in a matter.”

Can you give me any example?

All that I can say to you is “pick up and read” (the fathers).

 

[michaelp]

JPrejean:

I think that you must have a great misunderstanding of what Catholicism is about, at least based on your posts on the thread you linked. The Pope does not invent new doctrine; revelation was closed with the death of the last Apostle. But leaving that aside, the real problem with your counter-proposal is that the Early Church Fathers considered Tradition to be a valid source of revelation confirmed by Christ Himself. It was the oral teaching and practice of the Apostles preserved in the life of the Church just as a portion of their words were preserved in Scripture. That was my point; the Early Church Fathers rejected your idea that there was only one verified form of revelation from God or even that Scripture was a reliable witness when read outside of the context of Sacred Tradition.

I would agree that acurtely preserved traditions of Christ are athoritative. All Prostestants would. We just don’t see any accurately preserved traditions outside of Scripture. All other traditions are impossible to validate or varify aren’t they? If not, how do you do so in a way that is not question begging or circular reasoning?

Michael

 

[Maccabees]

michaelp:

You have a great misunderstanding of what sola scriptura is about. This whole argument makes no sense from a Protestant perspective. Please read my post on the clarification of what sola scriptura is. To be honest, you are going to have to get out of this box before you can understand the issues.

That article is rather naive. The writer does not understand the concept of sola scripture. He is canned by his presuppositions and polemics (at leasted that is the way it seems to me).

Have a great day,

Michael

Apparently Catholics are not the only ones confused about sola scriptura there are 30.000 denominations that claim to have the right take on sola scriptura. IF Sola Scriptura works why all the differnt defintions on Sola Scriptura and all the differnent takes on basic dogma that the catholic church held together as one for 1500 years?

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp.

“All that I can say to you is “pick up and read” (the fathers).”

Isn’t this begging the question? I could say the same, but I choose to use evidence and argumentation. I don’t mean to be harsh but that statement did not make any sense.

“It seems like more canned apologetics.”

This statement is a red-herring and an ad-hominem. Let’s not resort to personal attacks and stick to the issue at hand.

I would now like to quote a Father of the Church that is sited by both Protestants and Catholics–St. Augustine. I am also using him because if one were to look up the major influences, aside from Scriptures, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church one would find Augustine’s sited most of all.

The Rule of Faith is derived from “the clear passages of Scripture and from the authority of the Church.” *On Christian Teaching, 3.2. *[italics mine]

“I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me.” Against the “Foundation Letter” of the Manichees, 5. [italics mine]

“It is clear, faith admits it, the Catholic Church approves, it is true.” Sermon, 117.6.

 

[michaelp]

Maccabees:

Apparently Catholics are not the only ones confused about sola scriptura there are 30.000 denominations that claim to have the right take on sola scriptura. IF Sola Scriptura works why all the differnt defintions on Sola Scriptura and all the differnent takes on basic dogma that the catholic church held together as one for 1500 years?

30,000 different interpretations of sola scriptura. Wow! Did you acually see and count all of these? I am wondering how you did your research. Unless you are assuming something you really don’t know.

If you cannot answer this, please try to acurately represent the opposing side as I will strive to do with you.

BTW: How many different interpretations do you all have about the critera for the Popes infallibility? If you have more than one, it is no different than having 1000 isn’t it? People are still left to trust God to guide them.

In Him (and it is very late),

Michael

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

michaelp.

“All that I can say to you is “pick up and read” (the fathers).”

Isn’t this begging the question? I could say the same, but I choose to use evidence and argumentation. I don’t mean to be harsh but that statement did not make any sense.

“It seems like more canned apologetics.”

This statement is a red-herring and an ad-hominem. Let’s not resort to personal attacks and stick to the issue at hand.

I would now like to quote a Father of the Church that is sited by both Protestants and Catholics–St. Augustine. I am also using him because if one were to look up the major influences, aside from Scriptures, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church one would find Augustine’s sited most of all.

The Rule of Faith is derived from “the clear passages of Scripture and from the authority of the Church.” *On Christian Teaching, 3.2. *[italics mine]

“I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me.” Against the “Foundation Letter” of the Manichees, 5. [italics mine]

“It is clear, faith admits it, the Catholic Church approves, it is true.” Sermon, 117.6.

OK, you lured me into the game.

Back at you:
"It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yeild such implicit subjection as to follow their theaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place."
(emphasis added. Augustine, *Letters *82.3)

And I raise you one:
**"In the innumerable books that have been written latterly [that is really how he spelled it!] we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." **
(emphasis added, Augustine, Reply to Faustus 11.5

By the way, I am sorry that I said that it sounded like canned apologetics. I did not mean to offend you.

Have a great night. I have really appreciated your questions. I hope that this helps. (It sure does help me.)

Michael

 

[Church_Militant]

How do YOU know what is really canon?
KJV adds a doxology to the end of the Our Father in Matthew that is not in the original. In fact it’s taken nearly ver batim from the Didache, a non-canonical NT era book.
The fact is that if one rejects the authority of the Catholic church, then one has no way of knowing which books are canon with any certainty.

 

[Church_Militant]

michaelp:

OK, you lured me into the game.

Back at you:
"It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yeild such implicit subjection as to follow their theaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place."
(emphasis added. Augustine, *Letters *82.3)

And I raise you one:
"In the innumerable books that have been written latterly [that is really how he spelled it!] we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself."
(emphasis added, Augustine, Reply to Faustus 11.5

By the way, I am sorry that I said that it sounded like canned apologetics. I did not mean to offend you.

Have a great night. I have really appreciated your questions. I hope that this helps. (It sure does help me.)

Michael

Augustine also said that he wouldn’t believe any of it if not for the Catholic Church…

 

[amarischuk]

Wow, Dennis posses a simple question and get’s his head bitten off, is this the direction of the new Conservative Catholic Church? Questions NOT WELCOME

The fact remains that it is an interesting historical question that Catholics should atleast acknowledge. The answer is that there were many groups prior to the Reformation which held something similar to Sola Scriptura.

Leaving aside various Judaizer groups because many were formed prior to any formulation of something resembling a canon of scripture, let’s look at it.

The groups that first come to mind are the Nestorians and the Waldensians. Leaving aside Hus and Wycliff, who really prefigure the Reformation…we have two solid cases of teaching strongly resembling sola scriptura. Not to mention other fraticilli groups which broke off of the Church during the rise of the mendicant orders.

I hope these help. The Cathars, influenced by Paulicians and Bogomils, held some strange, quasi-sola scriptura beliefs. But they (aka Albigensians) are way out there.

Adam

 

[Maccabees]

30,000 different interpretations of sola scriptura. Wow! Did you acually see and count all of these? I am wondering how you did your research. Unless you are assuming something you really don’t know.

If you cannot answer this, please try to acurately represent the opposing side as I will strive to do with you.

BTW: How many different interpretations do you all have about the critera for the Popes infallibility? If you have more than one, it is no different than having 1000 isn’t it? People are still left to trust God to guide them.

In Him (and it is very late),

Michael

It is taken from World Christian Encyclopedia published by Oxford. IF you want to argue its reallly 10,000 or 20,000 or whatever number the case stands that thousand of differing opinions prove that sola scriptura doesn’t work you can’t work out doctrinal differances using scripture alone. Of course you want to avoid to avoid that obvious point and want to argue over the number of denoms of which I sure not even Oxford knows. One thing if for sure Christ prayed that we all be one and the catholic church provided that vehicle for Christianity for 1000 years and in the west for 1500 years. Sola Scriptura led to the fall of Christendom and the rise of secualrism. As protestantism denies the possiblity of being one truth which was the very essence of Christinaities witness to the world oneness and truth.
Keep on message her bud its about sola scriptura as soon as you being loosing the argument you play subject tennis. Oh what about the Pope. Typical protestant reaction. You want to know waht the church teaches read the cathechism. You can’t do that with protestantism becuase there is no one interpretation on any subject but dozens of differing opinions.
At the time of the refromation there was one church teaching on communion within Luther’s own lifetimes this number exceeded 50 differing opinions on the three words “THis is my Body” Yeah theat is sola scriptura truth in action. It doesn’t work. You can do your typical anti-catholic rant your known for michaelp but you can’t deal with the subject at hand as you have no answers for the conundrum of the many differnet shades of protestant interpretation. There can be only one truth as the holy spirit does not contradict itself. The church in the Bible was one faith, one lord, one baptism. Protestants have changes this to many faiths, plaing loose with the trinity, and differing opinions on baptism which teaching in catholcism was unified and unanimous for 2000 years.