Desperately seeking evidence for Sola Scriptura in church history

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

michaelp

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

BTW: Can you give me evidence for the substitutionary atonement before Anselm? In other words, can you give me evidence that the atonement was made to God rather than Satan before the 11th century?

Of course you can, but just in seed form. For the most part though, the church believed in some form of a “ransom to Satan” theory. It way not until Anselm that the majority of the Church changed its views. This is an example of progressive understanding of revelation. Everything was not dealt with at once, but progressively throughout history. The same could be said by a Protestant about sola scriptura.

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp

I hear where you are coming from. This whole idea of interpretation is a complex one on both sides of the issue. For me what it comes down to is “who” do you trust. Like I said in another post, books can not be infallible, only people can. I believe the bible is inerrant, it has no errors, and I think this is Augustine’s position. Where we differ is, who has the infallible interpretation of this inerrant book? You would say no one, for no one is infallible, but I would say someone because I believe that Christ did not leave us alone in this endeavor. He left us the Holy Spirit and a promise. He promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail over His Church. To me this means that if the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ established, and there is substantial historical evidence for this, then if this Church has erred in the ways in which most, if not all Evangelicals think it has, then that promise is void.

So, for me it was Catholic or nothing. And you know something, it is a great comfort knowing that I have a Church to support and inform me, and that Church goes all the way back to Jesus Christ. Do you know that when I shake my bishops hand I am by degrees of seperation touching Christ. To me this is the essence of Apostolic Succession–Go with those who have touched Christ.

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp

“Of course you can, but just in seed form. For the most part though, the church believed in some form of a “ransom to Satan” theory. It way not until Anselm that the majority of the Church changed its views. This is an example of progressive understanding of revelation. Everything was not dealt with at once, but progressively throughout history. The same could be said by a Protestant about sola scriptura.”

I agree that there is doctrinal developement. I say this because sometimes a doctrine is not declared because the language has not developed enough to do so. For example, the use of the “one substance” terminology in the Nicaen Creed. But to have such a foundational doctrine coming so late onto the sceen without Apostolic approval? And you have a problem with Marian Dogma? There are just as many “seeds” for that as there are for Sola Scriptura.

This is not the case with Sola Scriptura. If it is so central why didn’t it develope sooner? And why aren’t there more than just seeds? There are way more than just “seeds” in regards to Apostolic Succession, Papal authority and such. Why don’t you believe them?

 

[Maccabees]

To michaelp
Regarding the passage
**
"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)
**
Lets consider the fuller body of Augustine’s work on tradition and scripture to gain a little perspective here I have provided some additional quotes worth reading. We wouldn’t want to take one small sentence out of context now would we? Well if your protestant interpreting the fathers you would. Considering this quote would seem to come out of left field when viewed besides Augustine‘s other work. For example: “For MY PART, I should NOT BELEIVE the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” Well lets historically look at what is going on. Augustine is writing a letter to Saint Jerome (sorry it wasn’t to you Michael although you claim to know what Augustine is thinking) HE questions Jerome’s use of the term ladamus. (latin for let us amuse ourselves) in his description of the character of his discussion about Scripture with Augustine. Augustine explains that he has a very high respect for Jerome’s ability to interpret scripture. Yet as much as he respects Jerome as his superior and one more learned (a very humble approach by just as an accomplished colleague) nevertheless he tells Jerome and rightly so that Scripture is higher than Jerome or the Status Jerome has achieved as a Church Theologian. This is where the discussion stops. Contrary to what Protestant apologist creatively extract from this discussion Augustine does not pit Scripture against Church Authority or its Tradition. He pits Scripture against Jerome and Jerome only. This is what is called reading into a sentence taken out of context.

As we know Jerome’s opinion by themselves are his opinion he was not an infallible council all by himself. He was a valued church father and scripture exegete but no father’s works have been 100 percent accepted as the teaching of the church not Augustine, Jerome or Aquinas while their opinions were almost always accepted in the end some opinions remained that, just their opinion and never became church dogma. The catholic church is not like the Lutheran Church where one man’s dominant opinion permeates all the theology

that comes out from it. Rather all the saints working together building on one another through councils and magisterial decide truth. That is what is being discussed here for a protestant this is a concept that is foreign to them as they tend to look to truth in an individuals opinion like Luther or Calvin (sometimes their own) over the opinion of the church.

“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by…and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.”
Augustine,Against the Letter of Mani,5(A.D. 395),in GCC,78

Oh yeah sounds protestant sola scriptura to me.

 

[Maccabees]

AUGUSTINE

“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, becuase they are but men, still without any uncertainty…The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugerated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The SUCCESSION of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the APOSTLE PETER, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present EPISCOPATE…The epistle begins thus:–‘Manicheus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are the wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.’ Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not beleive Manichues to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to beleive none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manicheus? You will reply, An Apostle of Christ. I do not beleive it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of truth, and here you are forcing me to beleive what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manicheus. But should you meet with a person not yet beleiving in the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not beleive? For MY PART, I should NOT BELEIVE the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to beleive in the gospel tell me not to beleive in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?”
C. Epis Mani 5,6

“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”
Letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis

“To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you”
C. Cresconius I:33

“It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true”
Sermon 117:6

“If therefore, I am going to beleive things I do not know about, why should I not believe those things which are accepted by the common consent of learned and unlearned alike and are established by most weighty authority of all peoples?”
C. Letter called Fundamentals 14:18

“Will you, then, so love your error, into which you have fallen through adolescent overconfidence and human weakness, that you will seperate yourself from these leaders of Catholic unity and truth, from so many different parts of the world who are in agreement among themselves on so important a question, one in which the essence of the Christian religion involved…?”
C. Julian 1:7,34

“The authority of our Scriptures, strenghtened by the consent of so may nations, and confirmed by the succession of the Apostles, bishops and councils, is against you”
C. Faustus 8:5

“No sensible person will go contrary to reason, no Christian will contradict the Scriptures, no lover of peace will go against the CHURCH”
Trinitas 4,6,10

 

[Maccabees]

To michaelp

Here is Dave Armstrong’s (catholic) explanation of this popular cited passage by protestants (Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5) I noticed you dishonestly left out the intro to the passage Michael which gives us the clue of how we got the Bible in the first place. When taken with these other passages its is clear no sola scriptura dogma is being established here,

8/6/02 [Augustine]

“In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind…In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself.” - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

This is self-evident: Scripture is inspired; other writings are not. The protestant overlooks St. Augustine’s espousal of apostolic succession and the authority of the Church, which suggest that the great Father’s view is exactly as the Catholic Church’s view always has been. So the refutation to the argument is right within the “argument” itself. And elsewhere in the same work we find more of the same:

. . . if you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all.

(Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 33:9, NPNF I, IV:345)
(ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-04/TOC.htm)

The Lord, indeed, had told His disciples to carry a sword; but He did not tell them to use it. But that after this sin Peter should become a pastor of the Church was no more improper than that Moses, after smiting the Egyptian, should become the leader of the congregation."

(Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 22:70; in NPNF I, IV:299)
(ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-04/TOC.htm)

The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you.

(Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 13:5, NPNF I, IV:201)
(ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-04/TOC.htm)

 

[Maccabees]

michaelp:

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

Considering I never learn anything from your post there is no advantage for for me other than wasting my time. Many times I just ignore your errors because I got other things to do.
On the other hand your posting creates an opportunity if you have an open mind. You can then hear the proper correction for your heresies. By listening to the church’s teaching and not using the Bible and the church fathers as your personal playtoy.

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

michaelp

I hear where you are coming from. This whole idea of interpretation is a complex one on both sides of the issue. For me what it comes down to is “who” do you trust. Like I said in another post, books can not be infallible, only people can. I believe the bible is inerrant, it has no errors, and I think this is Augustine’s position. Where we differ is, who has the infallible interpretation of this inerrant book? You would say no one, for no one is infallible, but I would say someone because I believe that Christ did not leave us alone in this endeavor. He left us the Holy Spirit and a promise. He promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail over His Church. To me this means that if the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ established, and there is substantial historical evidence for this, then if this Church has erred in the ways in which most, if not all Evangelicals think it has, then that promise is void.

So, for me it was Catholic or nothing. And you know something, it is a great comfort knowing that I have a Church to support and inform me, and that Church goes all the way back to Jesus Christ. Do you know that when I shake my bishops hand I am by degrees of seperation touching Christ. To me this is the essence of Apostolic Succession–Go with those who have touched Christ.

I feel the same way when I interpret the Scriptures that you feel when you shake hands with the bishop.

I have to ask you a question. Explain and defend the exegesis of the text in Matt. 16:18. Particularly your interpretation (OK, the Church’s) of “and the gates of Hell will not overpower it.”

Initially, I would say that it seems that your interpretation of this phrase is based on the Church’s, not exegesis you have done for yourself. If it is, you are involved in question begging and circular reasoning.

Thanks

Michael

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

michaelp

And you have a problem with Marian Dogma? ?

I would have very difficult time comparing the “seed” of the marian dogma to the Trinity, atonement, or the ultimate authority of Scripture (this is better phrase than sola scriptura). The others are much more clearly taught in Scripture. The marian dogma cannot be found at all (at least from my reading of Scripture).

Michael

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

This is not the case with Sola Scriptura. If it is so central why didn’t it develope sooner? And why aren’t there more than just seeds?

But the doctrine of the Atonement was not fully articulated and understood until the 12th century. Sola Scriptura began to be developed 100 years later (pre-reformers, more than just a seed) and it is not even as important as the atonement. Why is it so hard to accept if you understand this about the Atonement?

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Maccabees:

To michaelp
Regarding the passage

---

Lets consider the fuller body of Augustine’s work on tradition and scripture to gain a little perspective here I have provided some additional quotes worth reading. We wouldn’t want to take one small sentence out of context now would we? Well if your protestant interpreting the fathers you would. Considering this quote would seem to come out of left field when viewed besides Augustine‘s other work. For example: “For MY PART, I should NOT BELEIVE the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” Well lets historically look at what is going on. Augustine is writing a letter to Saint Jerome (sorry it wasn’t to you Michael although you claim to know what Augustine is thinking) HE questions Jerome’s use of the term ladamus. (latin for let us amuse ourselves) in his description of the character of his discussion about Scripture with Augustine. Augustine explains that he has a very high respect for Jerome’s ability to interpret scripture. Yet as much as he respects Jerome as his superior and one more learned (a very humble approach by just as an accomplished colleague) nevertheless he tells Jerome and rightly so that Scripture is higher than Jerome or the Status Jerome has achieved as a Church Theologian. This is where the discussion stops. Contrary to what Protestant apologist creatively extract from this discussion Augustine does not pit Scripture against Church Authority or its Tradition. He pits Scripture against Jerome and Jerome only. This is what is called reading into a sentence taken out of context.

As we know Jerome’s opinion by themselves are his opinion he was not an infallible council all by himself. He was a valued church father and scripture exegete but no father’s works have been 100 percent accepted as the teaching of the church not Augustine, Jerome or Aquinas while their opinions were almost always accepted in the end some opinions remained that, just their opinion and never became church dogma. The catholic church is not like the Lutheran Church where one man’s dominant opinion permeates all the theology

that comes out from it. Rather all the saints working together building on one another through councils and magisterial decide truth. That is what is being discussed here for a protestant this is a concept that is foreign to them as they tend to look to truth in an individuals opinion like Luther or Calvin (sometimes their own) over the opinion of the church.

“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by…and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.”
Augustine,Against the Letter of Mani,5(A.D. 395),in GCC,78

Oh yeah sounds protestant sola scriptura to me.

I again disagee.

Also, I don’t think that these kind of comments are necessary. “Well if your protestant interpreting the fathers you would.” This is very uncalled for. I believe that I have been very respectful and have not questioned your motivations. I pray that you do the same with others.

Now, before I respond, there is something that I need to know. How did you do such fine work of exegesis of Augustine, an ancient text? Did you consult the bishops? How could you expect to interpret these text of his? Is your interpretation infallible? If not, why should I even respond?

Michael

 

[michaelp]

michaelp:

I again disagee.

Also, I don’t think that these kind of comments are necessary. “Well if your protestant interpreting the fathers you would.” This is very uncalled for. I believe that I have been very respectful and have not questioned your motivations. I pray that you do the same with others.

Now, before I respond, there is something that I need to know. How did you do such fine work of exegesis of Augustine, an ancient text? Did you consult the bishops? How could you expect to interpret these text of his? Is your interpretation infallible? If not, why should I even respond?

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Maccabees:

To michaelp

Here is Dave Armstrong’s (catholic) explanation of this popular cited passage by protestants (Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5) I noticed you dishonestly left out the intro to the passage Michael which gives us the clue of how we got the Bible in the first place. When taken with these other passages its is clear no sola scriptura dogma is being established here,

8/6/02 [Augustine]

This is self-evident: Scripture is inspired; other writings are not. The protestant overlooks St. Augustine’s espousal of apostolic succession and the authority of the Church, which suggest that the great Father’s view is exactly as the Catholic Church’s view always has been. So the refutation to the argument is right within the “argument” itself. And elsewhere in the same work we find more of the same:

. . . if you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all.

(Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 33:9, NPNF I, IV:345)
(ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-04/TOC.htm)

The Lord, indeed, had told His disciples to carry a sword; but He did not tell them to use it. But that after this sin Peter should become a pastor of the Church was no more improper than that Moses, after smiting the Egyptian, should become the leader of the congregation."

(Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 22:70; in NPNF I, IV:299)
(ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-04/TOC.htm)

The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you.

(Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 13:5, NPNF I, IV:201)
(ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-04/TOC.htm)

My friend, the burden of proof is not on me to prove that Augustine believed the exact way I do. I have never made such a claim. I could quote just as many passages that I disagree with concerning St. Augstine, as could you.

I was just answering this post’s request for sola scriptura before the reformation. I have done so.

Thanks for taking the time to study though. You are very smart.

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp

“But the doctrine of the Atonement was not fully articulated and understood until the 12th century. Sola Scriptura began to be developed 100 years later (pre-reformers, more than just a seed) and it is not even as important as the atonement. Why is it so hard to accept if you understand this about the Atonement?”

and
“I was just answering this post’s request for sola scriptura before the reformation. I have done so.”

Not so fast. First, although there were differing opinions of the nature of the atonement I would not go so far as to say that because Anselm’s view became popular in the West that the other view is false. The Eastern Churches do not have this view.

Furthermore, to say you have a “seed” and therefore have proved the existence of Sola Scriptura is a bit much. No Father of Church ever held the position on Sola Scriptura that you currently do. And this is my point. When taken in context it just does not exist.

"I have to ask you a question. Explain and defend the exegesis of the text in Matt. 16:18. Particularly your interpretation (OK, the Church’s) of “and the gates of Hell will not overpower it.”

It seems pretty clear to me (and the Church). How do you define it. And to say that I should not even try to interperate anything because I just the Church does not follow. The reason for this is that I need to aline my self with the Church and by researching and understanding why she interperates things the way she does helps me to fully aline myself with the truth.

 

[michaelp]

Once again to you all,

I will have to pull out of this conversation for a while. I hope that you all have gained as much as I have from this. I think that I better understand your positions. Becuase of this, I promise not to misrepresent you in any of my teachings. I have been further pursuaded by you all about the importance of tradition and I greatly respect your views, even if I disagree.

Many of you have been kind and gracious. I hope that I have been the same with you. I feel as if many of you are my friends. You will see me around soon, but please do not be offended if I do not answer any more for a while. And, also, please do not think that I have given up learning from you all.

Your brother in Christ,

Michael