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

[CopticChristian]

please explain, th anks

Sola Scriptura means “by Scripture alone”. It is the belief that the Scriptures are fully and completely sufficient for everything that we need for faith, life and godliness. It is the authority of Scripture alone.

fruitoftheword.com/2009/07/30/sola-scriptura-versus-solo-scripture/

Solo Scriptura is the belief that the church is not an authoritative interpreter of Scripture. In other words it is only authoritative when “I agree with it.” Solo Scriptura can be restated as the belief that all I need to interpret the Scriptures properly is “Me, My Bible and the Holy Spirit.”

So what he have here is the Protestant attempt to invent new ideas to supplement old ideas that have no value. The question then is if Scripture is authoratative and every Protestant is fallible and not authoratative where is the bridge so that we might harvest that infallible authoratative truth. We are left wondering again.

youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M

This is a great example of trying to understand Protestant thinking.

 

[joe370]

Even “authority of the church” is made up of private judgement of individuals.

The “authority of the church” in the CC is comprised of an ecumenical council in conjunction with the vicar of Christ, both working together to resolve matters etc…as opposed to the private judgment of each and every catholic individual belonging to the CC, as it should be because God, as per scripture, is not guiding each and every individual catholic into all truth.

If this Catholic model would have been the case in protestantism, from the very beginning, no doubt, there would be significantly fewer protestant churches today, but sadly sola scriptura tells every protestant that sacred scripture is their one and only authority, which has given rise to the many protestant churches we see today, simply, because any individual protestant can start his/her own church, basing his/her teachings on his/her interpretation of the holy Bible.

BD, didn’t Jesus say the following to His church leadership? If He did then shouldn’t we want to belong to the church to which He said:

"you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

 

[joe370]

Well, you have to admit if we trace the Apostolic teaching through the Montanists, The Paulicians, The Donatists, The Waldensians and the Baptists then there has been Private interpretation that was relied on from the time of the Apostles until now, or maybe I have that wrong?

Absolutely, which is why, in the end, God (thank God) - left us with His Catholic Church. Without the CC (forever guided by God) - set in place by God (until the end of time) - to subvert these heresies and uphold the truth, the CC today, could very well have been propagating doctrines based on these heresies.

We owe the CC so much when it comes to doctrinal preservation in the face of one heretical movement after another through the centuries, and the only reason we can trust the CC is because the CC is prevented from deviating from God’s truth, thanks to the perpetual guidance of the HS, even in spite of every sinful fallible teacher found in the CC.

As a former protestant I discovered that not one protestant church would dare claim such providential guidance, for the simple fact that not one PC existed when "suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they (the first CC leaders) - were sitting… Never to impugn the wonderful works of any one protestant church of course; Just stating the historical facts.

 

[CopticChristian]

Just for clarification, it seems some need to be educated here. The Protestant belief of Sola Scriptura is not Solo Scriptura. There is a difference.

So, as you see I have put forth my understanding of Hans Solo and Mission Sola impossible. I would caution you in your approach. When you say that someone needs to be educated you imply that I and others are not. This is insulting. If you were to say that you have a difference of opinion as it concerns what you think and then present it then that is dialogue of an educated person. In my opinion your posit does not reference that which you deem to imply the need of nor the action of one that has sprung from that which one can render this opinion. In my opinion your statement would have been received better if stated as “it seems some explanation concering Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura as I understand it is needed”…let me explain my understanding. I suggest that when you do this you leave no one wondering and you provide a springboard to further discussion. If you don’t do this then this educated audience will investigate and answer your posit in ways that you may not have wanted the discussion to go. Do what you want. This is only a suggestion. Reflect, take your time prior to posting again. Suggestions, information, and direction are always welcome. Education? First you must post your credentials.

I wait for your explanation of your Solo aria and Sola explanation.

 

[CalChristian]

Non-Catholics, did anyone in Christendom, from 33 AD to 1000 AD, believe the holy bible to be the Christians only authority, as almost all protestants believe today? Examples would be much appreciated… If not then how can anyone claim that this particular belief is from Jesus?

Thanks in advance…

1. It’s impossible to speak for every one of the world’s 300 million or so Protestants jsut as none can speak for every one of the world’s 1 billion or so Catholics.
2. I have met some Protestants that EMBRACE Scripture as “the only authority.” That, of course, doesn’t make it a Protestant “belief” (any more than noting some Protestants believe Obama is the best president ever makes that a Protestant belief).
3. Those that embrace the Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura as Luther and Calvin called this praxis) is an embrace of Scripture as the most sound, final “rule” or “norma normans” in the evaluation of disputed doctrines. It is a PRACTICE (we call it “praxis”) for use in NORMING (evaluating the validity of doctrines). Thus, it doens’t TEACH that Scripture is … anything (practices can’t teach, they do not teach). This practice doesn’t have to do with power, it has to do with NORMING - the evaluation of disputed doctrines. Let’s say I’m driving down the road at 45 MPH. A policeman pulls me over and says I was speeding. I say I was not. We might both look to the large, square, white sign with big, black numerals and letters there next to us along the road, the one that proclaims: MAX SPEED 40 MPH. In that case, the sign would be our embraced rule or “norma normans” as it is called in epistemology. It would be our canon (“measuring stick”) our rule (“straight edge”) our norma normans (“the norm which norms disputes”), our “umpire” or “standard” as it is sometimes called.
4. As far as I know, Luther was the first to refer to this practice as “Sola Scriptura.” But the practice does not date from him. When Moses came down the mountain with the very first Scripture, about 3500 years ago, he pointed to it as the rule/canon/norma normans in what could be called “Sola Scriptura” - those two tablets became the final, written rule for those issues: aka Sola Scriptura.
5. Below are some Church Fathers that are pretty well describing, affirming or calling for this practice (in next post)…

.

 

[CopticChristian]

1. ** It’s impossible to speak for every one of the world’s 300 million or so Protestants jsut as none can speak for every one of the world’s 1 billion or so Catholics. **
2. I have met some Protestants that EMBRACE Scripture as “the only authority.” That, of course, doesn’t make it a Protestant “belief” (any more than noting some Protestants believe Obama is the best president ever makes that a Protestant belief).
3. Those that embrace the Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura as Luther and Calvin called this praxis) is an embrace of Scripture as the most sound, final “rule” or “norma normans” in the evaluation of disputed doctrines. It is a PRACTICE (we call it “praxis”) for use in NORMING (evaluating the validity of doctrines). Thus, it doens’t TEACH that Scripture is … anything (practices can’t teach, they do not teach). This practice doesn’t have to do with power, it has to do with NORMING - the evaluation of disputed doctrines. Let’s say I’m driving down the road at 45 MPH. A policeman pulls me over and says I was speeding. I say I was not. We might both look to the large, square, white sign with big, black numerals and letters there next to us along the road, the one that proclaims: MAX SPEED 40 MPH. In that case, the sign would be our embraced rule or “norma normans” as it is called in epistemology. It would be our canon (“measuring stick”) our rule (“straight edge”) our norma normans (“the norm which norms disputes”), our “umpire” or “standard” as it is sometimes called.
4. As far as I know, Luther was the first to refer to this practice as “Sola Scriptura.” But the practice does not date from him. When Moses came down the mountain with the very first Scripture, about 3500 years ago, he pointed to it as the rule/canon/norma normans in what could be called “Sola Scriptura” - those two tablets became the final, written rule for those issues: aka Sola Scriptura.
5. Below are some Church Fathers that are pretty well describing, affirming or calling for this practice.

Christ speaks to all Christians through the Magesterium of the OHCAC. Some hear, some do not. Some Follow, some do not. The speech does not change nor the message. There is one voice for Catholics. There is no one voice for Protestants unless they choose to listen to the Mystery hidden for all ages…through which the manifold wisdom of God is made known…to even the Angels…

 

[CalChristian]

.

Some Church Fathers between 33 and 1000 AD affirming Sola Scriptura:

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+ca.195):

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
(Against Heresies, 3:1.1, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 414.)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.
(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)

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.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.
(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430):

Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord; but [let them show their church] by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the evangelists; that is, by all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.
(On the Unity of the Church, 16, quoted in Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], p. 159.)

St. Augustine of Hippo:

What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behooves to be wise,” but be wise, as he says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith.”
(On the Good of Widowhood, 2, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. III, p. 442. The quotation is from Romans 12:3.)

St. John Chrysostom (c.347-407):

Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer to [our own] calculation; but in calculating upon [theological] facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things…
(Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. XII, p. 346.)

St. John Chrysostom:

Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.
(Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 96, p. 118.)

St. John Chrysostom:

They say that we are to understand the things concerning Paradise not as they are written but in a different way. But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our eyes to all things and follow the canon of Holy Scripture exactly.
(Homily 13 on Genesis.)

St. John Chrysostom:

There comes a heathen and says, “I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?” How shall we answer him? “Each of you” (says he) “asserts, ‘I speak the truth.’” No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.
(Homily 33 on the Acts of the Apostles [NPNF 1, 11:210-11; PG 60.243-44])

More follows in next post…

.

 

[CalChristian]

St. Basil the Great (c.329-379):

They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases [persons], and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.
(Letter 189 [to Eustathius the physician], 3, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. VIII, p. 229.)

St. Basil the Great:

What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if “all that is not of faith is sin” as the Apostle says, and “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,” everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.
(The Morals, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9, p. 204.)

St. Basil the Great:

We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.
(On the Holy Spirit, 7:16.)

St. John of Damascus (c.675-c.749):

It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments.
(On the Orthodox Faith, I:2, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 37.)

There are many more but this site seems to limit how much we can post.

These seem to affirm the practice, which again is the PRACTICE of looking to Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans, the standard, umpire, in evaluating disputed doctrines.

Of course, The Catholic Church rejects this practice but I hope this helps understand better what the practice is.

.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Non-Catholics, did anyone in Christendom, from 33 AD to 1000 AD, believe the holy bible to be the Christians only authority, as almost all protestants believe today? Examples would be much appreciated… If not then how can anyone claim that this particular belief is from Jesus?

Thanks in advance…

Perhaps I should speak for myself but I don’t think most protestants believe it to be the ONLY authority, but instead the FINAL authority. In other words, if I hear a teaching that X is true, but the Bible says X is false, then the teaching is incorrect and I reject it. If I hear the same teaching and and the Bible is silent on the subject, then it can’t be received dogmatically.

 

[KathleenGee]

CalChristian…

Catholicism looks at Sacred Scripture in context to its whole, the story of salvation, authored by God, the Holy Spirit at work through Jesus Christ to understand His Word.

Scriptures begin with creation, first man, the fall, the beginning of the Jewish people and their covenants with God to bring forth the Messiah, who is fulfillment of Sacred Scripture…God coming to His gathering of people.

In essence, to a Catholic, Sacred Scriptures IS Jesus, Eternal Word, because the entire works is about God creating us, saving and redeeming us, and restoring us to Him through His Son, Christ.

Furthermore, we do not relate to individual opinion or convictions. We look to ancients and formers through the transmission of faith in the Holy Spirit. It is not prior Church teachers and theologians, but Christ Himself Who opens understanding to Christ. It is the Holy Spirit Who is uniting us all in His Word and Sacrament.

A poster on another thread reminded the use of the word, ‘collegiality’… the college of bishops in communion with the Holy Father.

All the posts and references given do not stand alone…but stand through the Holy Spirit and in communion with each other to bear the only lasting fruit of Jesus Christ.
It is this communion, created by Christ Himself, through the Holy Spirit that we are able to put these teachings and sayings into proper light.

As what happened in the Old Testament, happens in the New…that God comes to us as a gathering for each other, rather than to individuals for personal interpretation that so oftentimes, no matter how good the intention, instead breaks Scripture up into parts, loosing context, and the Word misused to create more divisions than the sacred unity and communion Christ has called us to.

 

[CopticChristian]

Perhaps I should speak for myself but I don’t think most protestants believe it to be the ONLY authority, but instead the FINAL authority. In other words, if I hear a teaching that X is true, but the Bible says X is false, then the teaching is incorrect and I reject it. If I hear the same teaching and and the Bible is silent on the subject, then it can’t be received dogmatically.

The problem is that if you hear a teaching and you “interpret” the Bible believing it to be incorrect you can never know if it is correct or not. You are always going to be “fallible” in your opinion thus we have…based on the Final Authority…

Calvinists, Lutherans, Anglicans persecuting Anabaptists and Baptists for not baptizing infants and today the discussion continues…

Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists and Baptists trying to decide what the Lord’s Supper is today…

Charismatic or not?

the list goes on and on…in the end you have one fallible reception of what you call dogma with another professing another fallible dogma you reject. Does not sound like a Final Authority to me.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

The problem is that if you hear a teaching and you “interpret” the Bible believing it to be incorrect you can never know if it is correct or not. You are always going to be “fallible” in your opinion thus we have…based on the Final Authority…

Calvinists, Lutherans, Anglicans persecuting Anabaptists and Baptists for not baptizing infants and today the discussion continues…

Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists and Baptists trying to decide what the Lord’s Supper is today…

Charismatic or not?

the list goes on and on…in the end you have one fallible reception of what you call dogma with another professing another fallible dogma you reject. Does not sound like a Final Authority to me.

Indeed, I am fallible. I can only pray that the HS will guide me to the truth. Similarly though, your final authority made up of fallible men also interprets in the same manner and you trust the HS to guide them to the truth. I have always failed to see the difference.

 

[CalChristian]

The problem is that if you hear a teaching and you “interpret” the Bible believing it to be incorrect you can never know if it is correct or not. You are always going to be “fallible” in your opinion thus we have…based on the Final Authority…

Of course, one could just declare self alone to be infallible/unaccountable.

Or one could just declare self alone to be the sole authoritative interpreter.

Or both.

In which case, self looks in the mirror at self.

But, of course, that’s a very different subject. I think there ARE some that do that. Some officially (perhaps even stating thus in their Catechism), some just by their action. PERSONALLY, I’m pretty uncomfortable with that. It often leads to a POWER issue: “I say I have the POWER to __________ and thus you must be docilicly and unquestionably obedient to ME.” The power claimed by self simply displaces the issue of whether self is correct. Makes me uncomfortable (just speaking for me). Whether that’s a person, a congregation or a church body.

But yes, if accountability is embraced - then so is norming. And the issue then becomes, “WHAT serves as the most sound norma normans for that norming?” But if accountability is rejected, if whatever self says is simply to be embraced because self says it, then accountability is irrelevant, isn’t it?

Just MY perspective…

I already gave quotes of several between 33 AD and 1000 AD affirming the embrace of accountability and the practice of looking to Scripture as that norma normans]

Thank you!

.

 

[joe370]

CalChristian, all of these leaders deferred to the authority of CC, which employed both sacred tradition as well as sacred scripture, to resolve doctrinal differences etc…I can provide quotes from each, clearly illustrating the crucial importance of tradition as well as the authority of the CC, if you like.

Show me examples where these men embraced scripture alone via private interpretation, as their final authority outside the realm of tradition and most importantly, catholic church authority, and then I will concede my friend? These men are merely confirming, rightfully so, what is believed by all catholics.

Of course St. Irenaeus of Lyons was right to say, “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

Of course scripture is a pillar of faith but Paul tells us that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth!

To whom is this a reference if not his catholic predecessors: “…than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public and, at a later period.”

Iranaeus did not believe in the practice of sola scriptura via private interpretation.

Of course St. Cyril of Jerusalem would say, "For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

Of course St. Gregory of Nyssa, rightfully so, believed that …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.

Emphasis on: we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please.

Of course St. Gregory of Nyssa would say, “Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”

I can find quotes, regarding tradition and the authority of the CC, for each ECF that you quote. For example:

St. Augustine of Hippo Augustine believed in Authoritative Tradition and the authority of the CC:

“If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” (Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation’ 5:6).

"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in Apostolic Tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the Apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, 'that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to Apostolic Tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,' is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

Same with St. John Chrysostom.

 

[joe370]

CalChristian;8556174]Of course, one could just declare self alone to be infallible/unaccountable.

I agree that that would be wrong.

Or one could just declare self alone to be the sole authoritative interpreter.

Kind of like me starting my own church and establishing my own rubrics and doctrinal charter, and then imposing on my new flock - right?

In which case, self looks in the mirror at self.

Which is why it is so important to find the church founded by God! None of what you have just said would apply to the church founded and guided by our Savior - right?

 

[CalChristian]

Show me examples where these men embraced scripture alone via private interpretation, as their final authority outside the realm of tradition and most importantly, catholic church authority, and then I will concede my friend? These men are merely confirming, rightfully so, what is believed by all catholics.

… I have 3 posts full of verbatim quotes. Nearly all of them are affirming (at times, word for word, verbatim) the praxis.

I never mentioned “authority.”

If Catholics embrace the accountability of The Catholic Church and the embrace of Sola Scriptura, then what’s your argument with me?

If you have a problem with self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter, when I remind you of CCC 85 and that embracing the Rule of Scripture means embracing Scripture as the rule - it has nothing to do with self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter of anything.

.

 

[Denise1957]

… I have 3 posts full of verbatim quotes. Nearly all of them are affirming (at times, word for word, verbatim) the praxis.

I never mentioned “authority.”

If Catholics embrace the accountability of The Catholic Church and the embrace of Sola Scriptura, then what’s your argument with me?

If you have a problem with self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter, when I remind you of CCC 85 and that embracing the Rule of Scripture means embracing Scripture as the rule - it has nothing to do with self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter of anything.

.

So what does CCC 85 have to do with…“embracing the Rule of Scripture means embracing Scripture as the rule?” I don’t understand your meaning here.

 

[CalChristian]

CalChristian:

Joe 370:

via private interpretation

If you have a problem with self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter, when I remind you of CCC 85 and that embracing the Rule of Scripture means embracing Scripture as the rule - it has nothing to do with self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter of anything.

.

So what does CCC 85 have to do with… I don’t understand your meaning here.

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!

.

 

[joe370]

CalChristian;8556497]… I have 3 posts full of verbatim quotes. Nearly all of them are affirming (at times, word for word, verbatim) the praxis.

As I have mentioned, those quotes simply confirm what every catholic believes. My question was:

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

Perhaps you should give me your personal definition of sola scriptura before I say anything else? Seems reasonable considering the fact that there are multiple interpretations of SS.

If Catholics embrace the accountability of The Catholic Church and the embrace of Sola Scriptura, then what’s your argument with me?

I am not arguing with you unless you are interpreting arguing to mean a friendly debate.

If you have a problem with self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter, when I remind you of CCC 85 and that embracing the Rule of Scripture means embracing Scripture as the rule - it has nothing to do with self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter of anything.

• 85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

The CC is not self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter unless of course you believe the CC to be nothing more than another man-made church. If that is what you believe and you are right, then I would agree that the CC is guilty of self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter, Only the church founded by Jesus is not guilty of self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter - correct?

Help me find Jesus’ church???

.

 

[Nicea325]

CalChristian:

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.

The above is false. Show me the chapter and verse used to determine the canon of the NT,since according to you Scripture is the rule?