Desperately seeking evidence for Sola Scriptura in church history

[Maccabees]

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

Actually you are technically right I was thinking of Trinitarian sola scriptura adherents. There weren’t any till Wycliffe, Huss we don’t know about we just assume he was in Wycliffe’s corner on this issue. All the heretical sects you metnioned are sola scriptura of course you can add the Jehovah’s Witneesses to that list and their forefathers the Arians. In reading the work of Arians they rejected the Creeds and the fathers and later the councils because of course they supported the Trinity they wanted to debate using scripture alone. Hmm sound familiar?
The fact that protestants would rather take the fathers out of context and lie about it rather than using the actual quotes of early christians that agreed with them on this issue (Sola Scriptura) explicitly just happened to be heretical is quite telling. Heretics and protestants had the same tendency to reject church rejection and aruge from selective text as their authority. IF you don’t learn from the past you are doomed to repeat it.

 

[amarischuk]

Oh, come now, the Waldensians are Trinitarian.

I hesitated with the Arians for two important reasons:

1. They are a sect which began prior to the formalization on the canon (Arius: 250-336) but with antecedents in the Patristic era (Lucian, Paul of Samosata). Making it difficult to be sola scripturalists (is that the term for someone who holds to sola scriptura?)
2. They are a sect which had enormous backing in the and amongst the magisterium.

That said I hesitate to say that the sola scripturalists take the fathers out of context, as Abelard has shown in Sic et Non, the fathers gave opinions on just about everything and almost everything can be defended with quotes from the fathers (read Calvin’s Institutes). It is really a question of which fathers to follow and also which fathers to follow and when. That said, historically, the bible cannot be isolated from the authority of the magisterium (Catholic and Orthodox). Not even the Jews had any authority over the canonization of the OT as it hadn’t happened in the time of Christ or even the apostolic era.

Adam

 

[JPrejean]

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?

Of course they’re not “impossible to validate or verify.” There is a great deal on which there was absolutely universal agreement, such as the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, Eucharistic adoration, the ordination of priests and bishops, etc., etc., and we have volumes and volumes of texts on these shared and universal doctrines (viz., it is far from “impossible to validate or verify” what early Christians believed on many subjects). Clearly, if one’s interpretation directly contradicts the unanimous witness on revealed doctrine given by people who had a close historical connection to the Apostles, like Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, and Clement, then it follows that one’s method of extracting the apostolic message from Scripture must be wrong. And incidentally, actual texts can be reliable sources in terms of “accurate preservation,” but when you have identical beliefs endorsed by people in widely disparate geographic regions before Scripture was even entirely compiled, that is equally persuasive if not more persuasive evidence that such beliefs must share a common origin in the Apostles.

In fact, the begged question is really why one would view Scripture as reliable but not other teaching that appears to be apostolic. What evidence do we have for the apostolicity of Scriptures? Nothing but the testimony of the early Church. So if we accept their judgment on the apostolicity of Scripture, then why not anything else? One might say that there are conflicting opinions on whether doctrines are apostolic, but there were also conflicting opinions on whether certain books of the New Testament were apostolic as well (e.g., 2 Peter, Revelation), and we don’t reject them on that account. Note also that the Church existed and taught doctrine even before the extent of Scripture was fully determined, which debunks the idea that Tradition needs to be fully and completely defined in order to serve as a viable source of authority (aka, the bogus “give me a list of all apostolic teaching that isn’t in Scripture” argument).

BTW, before you get me wrong on this point, I’m not talking about some need for an infallible canon, an infallible interpreter of Scripture, etc., etc. I’m just saying that there is no consistent and logical way to separate the evidence for the apostolicity of Scripture from the evidence of apostolicity for a whole host of other beliefs. If you believe Scripture because you think that there is historical witness to its apostolicity, then you also have to believe in the teaching authority of bishops for the same reason, and that means you’d better get yourself to a church that still claims to be part of the apostolic succession. Otherwise, you’re contradicting apostolic doctrine with apostolic doctrine, and that’s clearly the wrong answer.

 

[michaelp]

JPrejean:

Of course they’re not “impossible to validate or verify.” There is a great deal on which there was absolutely universal agreement, such as the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, Eucharistic adoration, the ordination of priests and bishops, etc., etc., and we have volumes and volumes of texts on these shared and universal doctrines (viz., it is far from “impossible to validate or verify” what early Christians believed on many subjects). Clearly, if one’s interpretation directly contradicts the unanimous witness on revealed doctrine given by people who had a close historical connection to the Apostles, like Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, and Clement, then it follows that one’s method of extracting the apostolic message from Scripture must be wrong. And incidentally, actual texts can be reliable sources in terms of “accurate preservation,” but when you have identical beliefs endorsed by people in widely disparate geographic regions before Scripture was even entirely compiled, that is equally persuasive if not more persuasive evidence that such beliefs must share a common origin in the Apostles.

In fact, the begged question is really why one would view Scripture as reliable but not other teaching that appears to be apostolic. What evidence do we have for the apostolicity of Scriptures? Nothing but the testimony of the early Church. So if we accept their judgment on the apostolicity of Scripture, then why not anything else? One might say that there are conflicting opinions on whether doctrines are apostolic, but there were also conflicting opinions on whether certain books of the New Testament were apostolic as well (e.g., 2 Peter, Revelation), and we don’t reject them on that account. Note also that the Church existed and taught doctrine even before the extent of Scripture was fully determined, which debunks the idea that Tradition needs to be fully and completely defined in order to serve as a viable source of authority (aka, the bogus “give me a list of all apostolic teaching that isn’t in Scripture” argument).

BTW, before you get me wrong on this point, I’m not talking about some need for an infallible canon, an infallible interpreter of Scripture, etc., etc. I’m just saying that there is no consistent and logical way to separate the evidence for the apostolicity of Scripture from the evidence of apostolicity for a whole host of other beliefs. If you believe Scripture because you think that there is historical witness to its apostolicity, then you also have to believe in the teaching authority of bishops for the same reason, and that means you’d better get yourself to a church that still claims to be part of the apostolic succession. Otherwise, you’re contradicting apostolic doctrine with apostolic doctrine, and that’s clearly the wrong answer.

Wow! Alot said. But this is discussed in another thread I started. I don’t want to rehash all of this here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23890

I think that we need to keep to the subject of this thread. I have posted evidence for sola scriptura from Augustine. I hope that this is what the original poster was looking for.

Once again, I enjoy our conversations greatly. I learn very much from you all,

Michael

 

[Sarah_Jane]

michaelp:

Wow! Alot said. But this is discussed in another thread I started. I don’t want to rehash all of this here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23890

I think that we need to keep to the subject of this thread. I have posted evidence for sola scriptura from Augustine. I hope that this is what the original poster was looking for.

Once again, I enjoy our conversations greatly. I learn very much from you all,

Michael

“Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that the Church has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it” (St. Augustine, letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis)

“No sensible person will go contrary to reason, no Christian will contradict the Scriptures, no lover of peace will go against the Church” (St. Augustine, Trinitas 4, 6, 10)

 

[michaelp]

“Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that the Church has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it” (St. Augustine, letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis)

“No sensible person will go contrary to reason, no Christian will contradict the Scriptures, no lover of peace will go against the Church” (St. Augustine, Trinitas 4, 6, 10)

I love that quote. I can agree with it entirely. We have a great respect for tradition.

 

[JPrejean]

michaelp:

Wow! Alot said. But this is discussed in another thread I started.

That’s a bit of a different issue, but in any event, I think I’ve answered your question here, so I’m content to leave the discussion as it is.

I have posted evidence for sola scriptura from Augustine. I hope that this is what the original poster was looking for.

Here are links to the sources, for those interested.
newadvent.org/fathers/1102082.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/140611.htm

 

[JGC]

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#II

 

[Maccabees]

amarischuk:

Oh, come now, the Waldensians are Trinitarian.

Adam

Not only that they started out as Catholic Traditionlist sect before they went haywire and ended up more protestant. Actually they did not beleive in sola scriptura initially and they beleived in 7 sacraments. They were uber catholic. During the reformation they came under the influence of protestants and ended up believing in things contrary to their origianal movement like sola scriptura and 2 sacraments but to say their sects advocated sola scriptura would be false they more convinced of it from outside sources it was not their doctrine of innovation rather one of adaption.

 

[Maccabees]

amarischuk:

I hesitated with the Arians for two important reasons:

1. They are a sect which began prior to the formalization on the canon (Arius: 250-336) but with antecedents in the Patristic era (Lucian, Paul of Samosata). Making it difficult to be sola scripturalists (is that the term for someone who holds to sola scriptura?)
2. They are a sect which had enormous backing in the and amongst the magisterium.

That said I hesitate to say that the sola scripturalists take the fathers out of context, as Abelard has shown in Sic et Non, the fathers gave opinions on just about everything and almost everything can be defended with quotes from the fathers (read Calvin’s Institutes). It is really a question of which fathers to follow and also which fathers to follow and when. That said, historically, the bible cannot be isolated from the authority of the magisterium (Catholic and Orthodox). Not even the Jews had any authority over the canonization of the OT as it hadn’t happened in the time of Christ or even the apostolic era.

Adam

Well I put the Arians in the yes box becuase they quickly went the sola scriptura route when they were confronted with their heresy yeah they probably accepted other forms of authority beforehand but so did Luther who was was a loyal magesterium papist in his early writings but when trying to defend sola fide he retorted to sola scriptura. Same with the Arians they parsed words to get around their heresy when the church decided upon a fuller definition of the trinity to stamp out the arians they went scripture alone because the fathers and church teaching wouldn’t back them up as the Orthodox position had as its advantage they insisted on debating on that (scripture alone) basis alone. Augustine took them up using scripture alone after trumping them with the church fathers, confident of his case even using scripture alone, but that is taken out of course as the only way to determine truth of course Augustine didn’t think so. But that doesn’t stop protestant apologist claimig the only was to an honest debate is scripture alone.

Have you ever heard of Maximinus the Arian? Maximinus lived during the time of St. Augustine(A.D. 354-430) and was one of the greatest defenders of the Arian heresy that ever lived. Arians believed that Jesus is of a divine nature, but not that He is fully God because he was created and therefore rejected the orthodox belief in the Trinity. Besides have a great ability to manipulate Scripture to his advantage, Maximinus was a great speaker as well. Just like “Sola Scriptura” believers today, Maximinus refused to use anything other than Scripture alone when defending his heretical views and felt that Scripture alone was the only rule of faith. Maximinus debate with St. Augustine was a “classic” because of the fact that it mirrors so many Catholic/Prot debates today. As you will see from the excerpts of St. Augustine’s debate with Maximinus below, there are many similiarities between the arguments that he used and the ones that you used today.

 

[Maccabees]

Maximinus, Debate with Maximinus, 1 (c.A.D. 428) AAOH. [taken from Not By Scripture Alone pg 430-432]

If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstance accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, ‘In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts’(Mt 5:19)
"I state this on the basis of the scriptures. At your bidding, I will follow up with testimonies [from the scriptures]"188 "But if one uses some literary skill or cleverness of mind and makes up words which the holy scriptures do not contain, they are both idle nd superfluous."196

"And I profess in accord with the statement of the divine scriptures…"197

"After all, we are protected not by mere talk, but by the testimonies of the divine scriptures."202

"All divinely inspired scripture is useful for teaching (2Tm3:16). For that reason, 'not one least letter or one particle of a letter will pass away (Mt 5:18). The Lord said, ‘Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.’ (Mt 24:35)"213

"That, if you state this [ie. the doctrine of the Trinity] from the divine scriptures, if you produce any passage of scripture, we are eager to be found disciples of the divine scriptures."219

"We believe the scriptures, and we venerate the divinel scriptures. We do not want a single particle of a letter to perish, for we fear the threat that is stated in these divine scriptures, ‘Woe to those who take away or add!’ (Dt 4:2)"208

​

St. Augustine, in defending the one true faith, appealed to Scripture along with Magisterium and Sacred Tradition. By doing so, he was merely following the explict directions given by the bible itself which requires 3 witnesses to establish truth.
Deut 19:15: One witness alone shall not take the stand against a man in regard to any crime or any offense of which he may be guilty; a judicial fact shall be established only on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
Mt:18:16: But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Heb:10:28: He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:By adhering to Scripture alone as your witness to substantiate your claims, you are actually going against what the bible itself teaches.

 

[michaelp]

Protestant police here.

Scripture is not the only witness, it is the only infallible witness.

Thanks,

Michael

 

[JPrejean]

Protestant police here.

Scripture is not the only witness, it is the only infallible witness.

Catholic police here.

Unless you can ground that statement in reality in some meaningful and testable way that would judge between the Protestant and Catholic positions, the fact that Scripture is allegedly “the only infallible witness” is meaningless. Might as well just say “I’m right because I’m right.”

 

[michaelp]

JPrejean:

Catholic police here.

Unless you can ground that statement in reality in some meaningful and testable way that would judge between the Protestant and Catholic positions, the fact that Scripture is allegedly “the only infallible witness” is meaningless. Might as well just say “I’m right because I’m right.”

Please go to the other threads for this. I am not saying you have to agree, I just don’t want Protestants misrepresented. It does you no good to misrepresent another position in order to say it is wrong. Teaching people to have straw men arguments does not dignify the image of God, even if you disagree with the others position. Give them their valid and best defence, then disagree. This is more respectable.

If not, so be it. This is what Protestant and Roman Catholics alike do all the time. Then the dialogue ceases. I don’t want that, but what do you do.

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp

"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"

Let’s take these in context. They are not saying that Scripture is the only “infallible” authority Augustine is bound to, but that he is only bound to those Scriptures that are canonical (read: excepted by the authority of the Church) as opposed to other writing that were in circulation at the time–gnostic writings and such. Examle. "In the innumerable books that have been written latterly."

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

michaelp

“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"

Let’s take these in context. They are not saying that Scripture is the only “infallible” authority Augustine is bound to, but that he is only bound to those Scriptures that are canonical (read: excepted by the authority of the Church) as opposed to other writing that were in circulation at the time–gnostic writings and such. Examle. "In the innumerable books that have been written latterly."

Wow! way to get out of that one. I have read the context and it seems to support a seed form of sola scriptura. You can at least concede to this to some degree can’t you? If not, it seems to me that you are dictated by your bias.

But, anyway, how do you know what it is saying without the magisterium to help? Seriously? Can you really interpret this text that was written so long ago without help? If so, why can’t you do the same with Scripture?

Michael

 

[Maccabees]

michaelp:

Protestant police here.

Scripture is not the only witness, it is the only infallible witness.

Thanks,

Michael

Considering how confused and how many (thousands) different opinions we have from this one witness scripture your statement has no credibility.
What really is the basis of protestantism but no one will admit to is this: “My interpretation of Scripture is not the only witness, it is the only infallible witness.”

“All men now presume to criticize the gospel. Almost every old doting fool or prating sophist must, forsooth, be a doctor in divinity. All other arts and sciences have masters, of whom people must learn, and rules and regulations which must be observed and obeyed; the Holy Scripture only, God’s Word, must be subject to each man’s pride and presumption; hence; so many sects, seducers, and offences”.
LXI. Table Talk Martin Luther

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp
“Wow! way to get out of that one. I have read the context and it seems to support a seed form of sola scriptura. You can at least concede to this to some degree can’t you? If not, it seems to me that you are dictated by your bias.”

Did I really get out of that one? I was just trying to put it in context. Is this context wrong? I do admit that Augustine’s view the Scripture is very high (so is mine), but to say that because he views Scripture so highly proves the existence of Sola Scriptura in the pre-Reformation Church does not follow.

What of my previous quotes? Would you admit that his view of the Church and her authority is just as high? And what of his views on baptism, Communion, purgatory? Would they not point to where he gained his interpretations? They do differ from your I assume?

BTW I did not ask for a seed I asked for evidence.

Thanks for doing this Michael. My best friends are Evangelicals and I enjoy it when we have our conversations. One thing we can agree on–no matter who is right or who is wrong we both know that there is an actual Right and Wrong, Truth and Untruth. In this regard I am closer to you than some people who call themselves Protestant and you are closer to me than someone who calls themselves Catholic. May God continue to lead us into all truth. For His sake and ours.

 

[michaelp]

Maccabees:

Considering how confused and how many (thousands) different opinions we have from this one witness scripture your statement has no credibility.
What really is the basis of protestantism but no one will admit to is this: “My interpretation of Scripture is not the only witness, it is the only infallible witness.”

“All men now presume to criticize the gospel. Almost every old doting fool or prating sophist must, forsooth, be a doctor in divinity. All other arts and sciences have masters, of whom people must learn, and rules and regulations which must be observed and obeyed; the Holy Scripture only, God’s Word, must be subject to each man’s pride and presumption; hence; so many sects, seducers, and offences”.
LXI. Table Talk Martin Luther

Well, I guess that you are not going to listen to anything I say. Why continue to post?

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

michaelp
“Wow! way to get out of that one. I have read the context and it seems to support a seed form of sola scriptura. You can at least concede to this to some degree can’t you? If not, it seems to me that you are dictated by your bias.”

Did I really get out of that one? I was just trying to put it in context. Is this context wrong? I do admit that Augustine’s view the Scripture is very high (so is mine), but to say that because he views Scripture so highly proves the existence of Sola Scriptura in the pre-Reformation Church does not follow.

What of my previous quotes? Would you admit that his view of the Church and her authority is just as high? And what of his views on baptism, Communion, purgatory? Would they not point to where he gained his interpretations? They do differ from your I assume?

BTW I did not ask for a seed I asked for evidence.

Thanks for doing this Michael. My best friends are Evangelicals and I enjoy it when we have our conversations. One thing we can agree on–no matter who is right or who is wrong we both know that there is an actual Right and Wrong, Truth and Untruth. In this regard I am closer to you than some people who call themselves Protestant and you are closer to me than someone who calls themselves Catholic. May God continue to lead us into all truth. For His sake and ours.

You the man! Thanks for the encouragement. I appreciate it.

I don’t think I took those out of context. I will have to look again, but I did spend some time interpeting Augustine today. Again, can you do this too? How? You must be smart. Smart enough to interpret an ancient text and use it as an authrority to teach other from it.

I do not have any problem with Augustine’s statements and respect for tradition. I share the same respect. And to the degree that it represents the writing of the Scriptures and the Traditions from Christ, I would concede that it is true in every respect (see . . . I am learning. I would not have said that two days ago!!)

But there is no way to say what is true tradition and what is false. If you answer with the Church, then we are back to square one. I don’t see anything but a pragmatic justification for the system. It would be nice to have, but I don’t see it.

Again, thanks for your respect and your defense. It really means alot. (and your fun tone, I can tell you like to laugh too).

Michael