Did anyone in Christendom, from 33 AD to 1000 AD, believe the holy bible to be the Christians only authority?

[CalChristian]

Really? Show me where they taught scripture as the normative rule?

Quote me where I said it was taught.

Here are just a VERY small sample of Scripture being used normatively (a practice called “Sola Scriptura”). This just a few examples of Jesus Himself DOING so. Yes, he never TAUGHT it, but He did do it. Here’s just a very small sample…

Matt 21:42
Matt 22:29
Matt 26:54
Matt 26:56
Matt 2:5
Matt 4:4
Matt 4:6
Matt 4:7
Matt 4:10
Matt 11:10
Matt 21:13
Matt 26:24
Matt 27:37

Mark 12:10
Mark 12:24
Mark 14:49
Mark 15:28
Mark 1:2
Mark 7:6
Mark 9:12
Mark 9:13
Mark 11:17
Mark 14:21
Mark 14:27

Luke 4:21
Luke 24:27
Luke 24:32
Luke 24:45
Luke 2:23
Luke 3:4
Luke 4:4
Luke 4:8
Luke 4:10
Luke 4:17
Luke 7:27
Luke 10:26
Luke 18:31
Luke 19:46
Luke 20:17
Luke 21:22
Luke 22:37
Luke 23:38
Luke 24:44
Luke 24:46

John 2:22
John 5:39
John 7:38
John 7:42
John 10:35
John 13:18
John 17:12
John 19:24
John 19:36
John 19:37
John 20:9
John 2:17
John 6:31
John 6:45
John 8:17
John 10:34
John 12:14
John 12:16
John 15:25
John 19:20
John 20:30
John 20:31
John 21:25

There are MANY, MANY more. And these just from Jesus.

Now, if you like, you might want to compare that to the number of times He specifically used Catholic Tradition normatively, or used The Catholic Church specifically as such.

Again, the question was if we could quote anyone from the Catholic Church Fathers (those of YOUR church) that affirm the practice of Sola Scriptura. I filled 3 posts with such quotes.

.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote me where I said it was taught.

Here are just a VERY small sample of Scripture being used normatively (a practice called “Sola Scriptura”). This just a few examples of Jesus Himself DOING so. Yes, he never TAUGHT it, but He did do it. Here’s just a very small sample…

Matt 21:42
Matt 22:29
Matt 26:54
Matt 26:56
Matt 2:5
Matt 4:4
Matt 4:6
Matt 4:7
Matt 4:10
Matt 11:10
Matt 21:13
Matt 26:24
Matt 27:37

Mark 12:10
Mark 12:24
Mark 14:49
Mark 15:28
Mark 1:2
Mark 7:6
Mark 9:12
Mark 9:13
Mark 11:17
Mark 14:21
Mark 14:27

Luke 4:21
Luke 24:27
Luke 24:32
Luke 24:45
Luke 2:23
Luke 3:4
Luke 4:4
Luke 4:8
Luke 4:10
Luke 4:17
Luke 7:27
Luke 10:26
Luke 18:31
Luke 19:46
Luke 20:17
Luke 21:22
Luke 22:37
Luke 23:38
Luke 24:44
Luke 24:46

John 2:22
John 5:39
John 7:38
John 7:42
John 10:35
John 13:18
John 17:12
John 19:24
John 19:36
John 19:37
John 20:9
John 2:17
John 6:31
John 6:45
John 8:17
John 10:34
John 12:14
John 12:16
John 15:25
John 19:20
John 20:30
John 20:31
John 21:25

There are MANY, MANY more. And these just from Jesus.

Now, if you like, you might want to compare that to the number of times He specifically used Catholic Tradition normatively, or used The Catholic Church specifically as such.

Again, the question was if we could quote anyone from the Catholic Church Fathers (those of YOUR church) that affirm the practice of Sola Scriptura. I filled 3 posts with such quotes.

.

WRONG! Try again. Apparently you have no knowledge of EXEGESIS. I’ll ask again:

Show me where Jesus…TAUGHT **SOLA SCRIPTURA **as THE DOCTRINE or IS THE NORM…EXPLICITLY!

Sola Scriptura = The doctrine that the Bible ALONE contains all knowledge necessary for salvation

Where does Jesus teach the above?

 

[Nicea325]

You seem to be getting posters confused (it’s okay, no offense taken). The point OTHERS have taken (and I’ve disagreed with) is that the way it is known what is and is not Scripture is via The Catholic Church. That’s the position of OTHERS, I’ve disagreed with it.

Obviously, I never said that Scripture tells us what is and is not Scripture.
Where is it said that The Catholic Church is to tell us what is and is not Scripture? And if so, why did Moses, all the Prophets, Jesus, St. Paul, St. John, St. James all ignore that - referring to Scripture (specifically) CENTURIES before The Catholic Church said or did anything, in some centuries many CENTURIES before The Catholic Church itself claims that itself came into existance?

I gave the quotes of several Church Fathers (3 posts worth) affirming Sola Scriptura (in a couple of cases, using the verbatim identical definition of such). ALL of the lived and wrote between 33 AD and 1000 AD.

Odd that you limit Scripture to the NT; this is not in keeping with what I learned in Catholicism. Where is your affirmation that only the NT is Scripture?

What do you say? What authority did King Josiah point to? What authority did Moses point to? Was it The Catholic Church? Was it The Council of Trent?

.

Church Fathers affirming Sola Scriptura? Right! Kindly point to me their EXHAUSTIVE works defending SS as the “mother” of all doctrines? Boy I can’t wait to read your sources.

As for the canon? I’ll add the OT as well. You believe no authority was involved? Apparently you learned nothing when you were Catholic,if you were once.

 

[CalChristian]

Church Fathers affirming Sola Scriptura?

I filled 3 posts with verbatim posts

Some are exact, verbatim repetitions of the definition.

defending SS as the “mother” of all doctrines?

What?

Who said ANYTHING about ANY practice being a doctrine AT ALL, much less the “mother” of all doctrines?

As for the canon? I’ll add the OT as well. You believe no authority was involved?.

The point was and is SINGULAR: The point was made that all knew/know what is and is not Scripture because of The Catholic Church. THAT is what I disagreed with.

.

 

[CalChristian]

WRONG!

Show me where Jesus…TAUGHT **SOLA SCRIPTURA **as THE DOCTRINE .EXPLICITLY!

Quote me where I said Jesus “TAUGHT” this practice.
Quote me where he specifically called it a “DOCTRINE.”

I can’t defend or explain things I never said.

Sola Scriptura = The doctrine that the Bible ALONE contains all knowledge necessary for salvation

Sola Scriptura = Scripture serves as the embraced rule for the norming of disputed doctrines. Scripture is used normatively.

Where does Jesus teach the above?

Quote me where I said He did.

.

 

[Stephen168]

The point was and is SINGULAR: The point was made that all knew/know what is and is not Scripture because of The Catholic Church. THAT is what I disagreed with.

That would mean you would agree that all knew/know what is and is not the New Testament is because of the Catholic Church.

 

[joe370]

I filled 3 posts with verbatim posts

Some are exact, verbatim repetitions of the definition.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by CalChristian View Post
The point was and is SINGULAR: The point was made that all knew/know what is and is not Scripture because of The Catholic Church. THAT is what I disagreed with.

How can I know, with certainty, that the 27 books in the NT are in fact suppose to be there, and leave the CC out of the picture because you just said the CC possessed no authority one way or the other? Please don’t insist that every Christian always, since the time of the apostolic age, embraced only those 27 books, or that certain folks didn’t reject certain NT books, because that would be a historical error.

 

[Denise1957]

And I reminded him that embracing Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed doctrines is embracing Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed doctrines. It’s not self designating self as the sole, authoritative (unaccountable?) intepreter of … anything.

You keep bringing up the idea of ‘the norming of disputed doctrines,’ which sounds a lot like what another Lutheran forum member named American Josiah brought up in the Apologetics/Sacred Scripture subforum.

 

[CopticChristian]

The rebuke was of self designating self as the sole, authoritative interpreter.

I directed him to what the CC says in the Catechism of itself, # 85.

And I reminded him that embracing Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed doctrines is embracing Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed doctrines. It’s not self designating self as the sole, authoritative (unaccountable?) intepreter of … anything.

I hope that helps…

Blessings!

.

Does your bible have a table of contents?

Is that fallible or infallible, inspired or uninspired?

Embracing is an act that is done by one person. No one person in Protestant thought acts for the whole. In that regard since it is only one person there can be no norm. Embracing Scripture as a norm is performed by an individual and individuals as there is no normative body that embraces what you call the norm in the Protestant paradigm that speaks for all Protestants and for sure does not speak for all Christianity. So we are left with one individual embracing looking around asking others to do the same and some do and some don’t and in the Protestant paradigm they are all correct and fallible.

So here we have the pillar and foundation of CalChristian and nothing more.

 

[sallybutler]

You seem to be getting posters confused (it’s okay, no offense taken). The point OTHERS have taken (and I’ve disagreed with) is that the way it is known what is and is not Scripture is via The Catholic Church. That’s the position of OTHERS, I’ve disagreed with it.

Obviously, I never said that Scripture tells us what is and is not Scripture.
Where is it said that The Catholic Church is to tell us what is and is not Scripture? And if so, why did Moses, all the Prophets, Jesus, St. Paul, St. John, St. James all ignore that - referring to Scripture (specifically) CENTURIES before The Catholic Church said or did anything, in some centuries many CENTURIES before The Catholic Church itself claims that itself came into existance?

I gave the quotes of several Church Fathers (3 posts worth) affirming Sola Scriptura (in a couple of cases, using the verbatim identical definition of such). ALL of the lived and wrote between 33 AD and 1000 AD.

Odd that you limit Scripture to the NT; this is not in keeping with what I learned in Catholicism. Where is your affirmation that only the NT is Scripture?

What do you say? What authority did King Josiah point to? What authority did Moses point to? Was it The Catholic Church? Was it The Council of Trent?

.

I’m confused as to what you think Sacred Scripture is. The Catholic Church considers both the New and Old Testaments as Sacred Scripture. I don’t think the Catholic Church claims to be the authority that Moses relied on, especially since tradition says that Moses is the author of several books in the Old Testament. Josiah relied on these books. The Catholic Church also relies on these. However, she also relies on Psalms, Kings, Chronicles, etc.

What do you consider to be Sacred Scripture? Is it just the Torah? The 73 books used in the Vulgate & the original KJ, the 66 in the current KJ? Or are there other writings that you consider to be Sacred Scripture?

Thank you in advance for the clarification.

 

[CalChristian]

bump

 

[CalChristian]

Does your bible have a table of contents?

Where does the PRACTICE of embracing Scripture as the rule teach that it does?

In the Rule of Law, does the Law teach what is the full corpus of the law in every jurisdiction? Does that make the Rule of Law an unsound practice?

 

[Denise1957]

Quote me where I said Jesus “TAUGHT” this practice.
Quote me where he specifically called it a “DOCTRINE.”

I can’t defend or explain things I never said.

Sola Scriptura = Scripture serves as the embraced rule for the norming of disputed doctrines. Scripture is used normatively.

Quote me where I said He did.

.

Pretty much all of the issues that you raise have been brought up before on the “Sola Scriptura” thread.

CalChristain, are you the same person as AmericanJosiah? In looking at this page of that thread, posts #306, 307, 311, etc., are bringing up the same issues with similar wording.

Link to thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=430848&highlight=american+josiah&page=21

 

[JonNC]

Thank you. I agree with every word.

So, are you indicating that you reject the definition of Sola Scriptura in the Solid Declaration of the Lutheran Confessions?

I accept that - as the historical definition. And I’ve yet to find any Protestant that disagrees with it. Do you?

.

No Cal. I was providing a post on a blog that supports the definition of SS which one finds in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, which I too support. I also see no contradiction in the Solid Declaration.
And there are lots of protestants who would reject that definition from the Lutheran reformers.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Church Fathers affirming Sola Scriptura?

I filled 3 posts with verbatim posts

Some are exact, verbatim repetitions of the definition.

Yes…it is called PROOF-TEXT an old and disingenious tactic. Funny how one can copy and paste specific passages from anyone;s mouth and make it appear as though it supports his or her agenda. You are not fooling anyone who has read and studied the church fathers in depth. It is amazing when one reads those POSTS or writings of the ECF’s in their ENTIRE context they say nothing of the sort to defend your cause.

Quote:
defending SS as the “mother” of all doctrines?

What?

Who said ANYTHING about ANY practice being a doctrine AT ALL, much less the “mother” of all doctrines?

I beg your pardon? You contradict yourself and all one sentence. You say Jesus did use it and then say he did not teach it? Which is it? Why would he practice it,yet not teach it if it is vital to our salvation? Here read your own words:

Here are just a VERY small sample of Scripture being used normatively (a practice called “Sola Scriptura”). This just a few examples of Jesus Himself **DOING **so. Yes, he never TAUGHT it, but He did do it. Here’s just a very small sample…

That makes absolutely no sense as to why God would practice it,yet not teach it?

Quote:
As for the canon? I’ll add the OT as well. You believe no authority was involved?.

The point was and is SINGULAR: The point was made that all knew/know what is and is not Scripture because of The Catholic Church. THAT is what I disagreed with.

Yes in regards to the FINAL CANONIZATION of Scripture or a ONE VOLUME BIBLE,it was the CC alone who determined it,which books belonged in the Christian Bible. If it did not,then I am curious as to why the Gospel of Mary and Thomas are not in our Bibles?

 

[CalChristian]

Yes…it is called PROOF-TEXT an old and disingenious tactic.

I embraced the question as did any of YOUR church’s “fathers” affirm Sola Scriptura (I realize that’s not exactly the issue, I admitted that in my post). I gave 3 posts full of verbatim quotes. Some of them contain the verbatim definition of the practice.

MY experience in Catholicism is The Catholic Church OFTEN provide quotes (often very short ones) from those Itself declares to be “Fathers” of Itself to reveal something was said. I gave a great many such verbatim quotes. With full references provided.

I beg your pardon? You contradict yourself and all one sentence. You say Jesus did use it and then say he did not teach it? Which is it?

Exactly as stated.

If I drive on the right hand side of the road, I’m DOING something.
If I teach, “the chemical makeup of water is H2O” I’m TEACHING something.

As far as I know, Jesus never TAUGHT that it is sound to use Scripture normatively. He did DO that.

Why would he practice it,yet not teach it if it is vital to our salvation?

Quote me where I said it was vital to our salvation.

Yes, I gave 3 posts full of verbatim quotes from YOUR church’s “fathers” all affirming Sola Scriptura. Yes, I gave a short list of just a few of the times Jesus used it, upon your request.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Yes…it is called PROOF-TEXT an old and disingenious tactic

.

I embraced the question as did any of YOUR church’s “fathers” affirm Sola Scriptura (I realize that’s not exactly the issue, I admitted that in my post). I gave 3 posts full of verbatim quotes. Some of them contain the verbatim definition of the practice.

No offense,but you really need to gather your thoughts in order to be cohesive. There you go again saying two different things. Did they or did they not affirm SS…CalChristian? Some of them contain verbatim definition of the practice? Really? One more time:

Sola Scriptura = The doctrine that the **Bible-Alone **contains all knowledge necessary for salvation.

So those ECF’s you quoted are truly “affirming” the above doctrine? I have yet to read ANY ECF ever defend,support,approve let alone practice the “verbatim” definition you so clearly claim. How odd such a verbatim practice was NEVER once mentioned at any ecumenical council or ratified as a doctrine…by ANY ECF?

MY experience in Catholicism is The Catholic Church OFTEN provide quotes (often very short ones) from those Itself declares to be “Fathers” of Itself to reveal something was said. I gave a great many such verbatim quotes. With full references provided.

Okay…and? Do you honestly believe your so-called full references proves your point? I have heard it all from many non-Catholics and to bad none of it supports their novelty.Again Cal, you are merely proof-texting whether you care to admit it or not.

Quote:
I beg your pardon? You contradict yourself and all one sentence. You say Jesus did use it and then say he did not teach it? Which is it?

Exactly as stated.

If I drive on the right hand side of the road, I’m DOING something.
If I teach, “the chemical makeup of water is H2O” I’m TEACHING something.

As far as I know, Jesus never TAUGHT that it is sound to use Scripture normatively. He did DO that.

One more time Cal. It is you who so dearly defends and supports SS as a solid '“practice” which incorporates salvation,then why would God not find it vital to teach?

Quote:
Why would he practice it,yet not teach it if it is vital to our salvation?

Quote me where I said it was vital to our salvation.

I never said you said salvation,but SS is a practice stating the Bible-Alone contains all the knowledge for salvation. So why would God exclude teaching it?

Yes, I gave 3 posts full of verbatim quotes from YOUR church’s “fathers” all affirming Sola Scriptura. Yes, I gave a short list of just a few of the times Jesus used it, upon your request.

And yes to bad none were making reference to SS as you so assume.

 

[CalChristian]

.
There you go again saying two different things. Did they or did they not affirm SS…CalChristian?

Read the quotes.
I’ll let them stand, verbatim, exactly as they stated.

Sola Scriptura = The doctrine that the **Bible-Alone **contains all knowledge necessary for salvation.

Sola Scripture = the practice of using Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed doctrines among us.

I have yet to read ANY ECF ever defend,support,approve let alone the “verbatim” definition you so clearly claim.

Just one example:

St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):

…we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make** Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine.** Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.

(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)

The red font words of St. Gregory are, verbatim, the definition of the praxis.

If you read the 3 posts filled with similar verbatim quotes, they all describe (and affirm) the very same practice, one that is Sola Scriptura.

Now, I’m NOT saying it’s a good practice because all these sainted “fathers” of YOUR church so advise and affirm, but then that isn’t the issue here. The issue is did any of YOUR church’s “fathers” affirm the practice between 33 AD and 1000 AD. I quickly found these quotes (among hundreds more - I just did these few), and supplied them in response to the question. Do what you want with what your “fathers” wrote, they are YOUR churchs’ “fathers” - that’s not the issue here and it’s not really a concern of mine.

One more time Cal. It is you who so dearly defends and supports SS as a solid '“practice” which incorporates salvation,then why would God not find it vital to teach?

I’m at a loss to know what I said you are replying to here…

Where did I support anything?
Where did I say ANYTHING about salvation?
Where did I say “God teaches” anywhere?
I’m sorry, I just don’t know what I posted that you are replying to.
Provide the quote for me, I’ll do my best to answer any questions you may have. The only thing I request is that your questions are about what I said. Is that reasonable?

SS is a practice stating the Bible-Alone contains all the knowledge for salvation.

Sola Scripture = the practice of using Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed doctrines among us.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Lets turn down the heat.
Oh, and lets crop our posts please.