Did the Church Fathers Teach Sola Scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter runandsew
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are we still arguing this?

Prominent Protestant scholars have written:

Philip Schaff, Presbyterian/Reformed, History of the Christian Church

“The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is further developed in particulars. The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; AND the ORAL TRADITION or LIVING FAITH of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects – TOGETHER FORM THE ONE INFALLIBLE SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. BOTH are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse.” (volume 3, page 606)

JND Kelly, Anglican, Early Christian Doctrines

“It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness.” (page 47-48)

“Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] ‘guard the deposit’, i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church’s UNERRING tradition.” (page 51)

Jaroslav Pelikan, Lutheran (now Orthodox), The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine

“Clearly it is an anachronism to superimpose upon the discussions of the second and third centuries categories derived from the controversies over the relation of Scripture and tradition in the sixteenth century, for ‘in the ante-Nicene Church…THERE WAS NO NOTION OF SOLA SCRIPTURA, but neither was there a doctrine of traditio sola.’…So palpable was this apostolic tradition that even if the apostles had not left behind the Scriptures to serve as normative evidence of their doctrine, the church would still be in a position to follow ‘the structure of the tradition which they handed on to those to whom they committed the church.’ This was, in fact, what the church was doing in those barbarian territories where believers did not have access to the written deposit, but still carefully guarded the ancient tradition of the apostles, summarized in the creed – or, at least, in a very creedlike statement of the content of apostolic tradition…The term ‘rule of faith’ or ‘rule of truth’ did not always refer to such creeds and confessions, and seems sometimes to have meant the ‘tradition,’ sometimes the Scriptures, sometimes the message of the gospel.” (volume 1, page 115-117)

“Fundamental to the orthodox consensus was an affirmation of the authority of tradition as that which had been believed ‘everywhere, always, by all [ubique, semper, ab omnibus].’ The criteria for what constituted the orthodox tradition were ‘universality, antiquity, and consensus.’ This definition of orthodox Catholic tradition was the work of Vincent of Lerins… To identify orthodox doctrine, one had to identify its locus, which was the catholic church, neither Eastern nor Western, neither Greek nor Latin, but universal throughout the civilized world (oikoumene). This church was the repository of truth, the dispenser of grace, the guarantee of salvation, the matrix of acceptable worship. Only here did God accept sacrifices, only here was there confident intercession for those who were in error, only here were good works fruitful, only here did the powerful bond of love hold men together and ‘only from the catholic church does truth shine forth.’…[It was] the tendency of heretics to teach doctrines that were not contained either in Scripture or in tradition. But the church of the four Gospels and the four councils [Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon] was faithful to Scripture and to tradition and was universal both in its outreach and in its authority.” (volume 1, page 334-335)

And I have Yves Congar’s statements from Tradition and Traditions. Closes the case as far as I’m concerned, whatever this or that Father might have meant.

Phil P
 
Nicene said:
And in the same work (notice that he is very blunt about those who reject tradition:
Click to expand...
Fortunately He tells us what he means by Tradition.
  1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? 2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 4, 1-2)
Irenaeus identifies that both inspired apostolic oral and written tradition are carefully preserved by the churches in succession over time. It is obvious from the passage that scripture is included in this category of “ancient tradition of the apostles”.The oral tradition that is identified in the text is in fact a creed (in blue) that is identical to the scriptures. Had this oral tradition contained a key doctrine not found in scripture, then the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches would have a powerful point. Our view of sola Scriptura is reinforced by this passage. What this passage is talking about happens all the time today when we spontaneously and unexpectedly teach a sinner the gospel in a city park when we have no Bible in hand. We rely on “oral tradition” in the absence of written documents. Had Irenaeus’ creed (in blue) included any extra biblical doctrines like, the perpetual virginity and assumption of Mary, infant baptism, triple baptism; the sign of the cross etc., then Roman Catholic and Orthodox defenders would still only have a weak argument at best. But **since there are no extra biblical doctrines, it actually supports our view that all “inspired apostolic tradition” was also contained in scripture. We are not denying “oral apostolic tradition”, we merely say it is identical with scripture. **
 
Do we as Catholics have traditions that are against scripture? Or is
it purely an intrepetive matter? If it is an intrepetive matter who has
the authority? I always thought the Church through and by the Holy
Spirit established Scripture and that tradition informed and/or interprets
scripture w/ the ultimate authority Christ----Christ to the Apostles…eg.John to Ignatius of Antioch to Polycarp etc…Peter to Clement…Paul to Timothy and
Linus…There MUST BE final authority or you end up w/ 30,000
denominations.😛 😛 😛 :cool: 😉
 
kaycee said:
Fortunately He tells us what he means by Tradition.

Irenaeus identifies that both inspired apostolic oral and written tradition are carefully preserved by the churches in succession over time. It is obvious from the passage that scripture is included in this category of “ancient tradition of the apostles”.The oral tradition that is identified in the text is in fact a creed (in blue) that is identical to the scriptures. Had this oral tradition contained a key doctrine not found in scripture, then the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches would have a powerful point. Our view of sola Scriptura is reinforced by this passage. What this passage is talking about happens all the time today when we spontaneously and unexpectedly teach a sinner the gospel in a city park when we have no Bible in hand. We rely on “oral tradition” in the absence of written documents. Had Irenaeus’ creed (in blue) included any extra biblical doctrines like, the perpetual virginity and assumption of Mary, infant baptism, triple baptism; the sign of the cross etc., then Roman Catholic and Orthodox defenders would still only have a weak argument at best. But **since there are no extra biblical doctrines, it actually supports our view that all “inspired apostolic tradition” was also contained in scripture. We are not denying “oral apostolic tradition”, we merely say it is identical with scripture. **
Click to expand...
Read it all again, particularly that part about written on the heaqrt and not in ink, and the last part which you highlighted. This is the action of the Holy Spirit which oyuj reject. Which means that you do not believe the Holy Spirit living in our lives, but if so he is secondary to the written word.

In making theHoly Spirit secondary to the word, and working through the mind and heart of man, you deify the bible and reject the Holy Spirit or at least make him a non essential.

Also note that you mentioned the creed. The above is the early form of the creed. Do you accept them or reject them? Also contained in that tradition is the prayer of the church. Again it is the protestant recognition that prayer is a non essential and secondary role of the living body of Christ.

That is a protestant tradition. Those are equally important. If the gathering of the ekklesia, the profession of what we believe, and praying to God are non essential as in protestants, then indeed the book is a dead word in protestant circles. The rejection of the Holy Spirit.

Paul tells us that preaching is essential by those sent (which you already reject), Romans cited above, as well as the action of the Holy Spirit.

Sinse as you are professing that preaching and the Holy Spirit are not necessary, nor the profession of belief; are you still christian?

If you say yes then you agree that tradition is equal to scripture, if you say no then you disagree with scripture.

The gnostics also used sacred scripture, yet twisted it (why do protestants not appeal to gnostic writings sinse many of the doctrines are the same). Why are you appealing to the early catholic fathers instead of the early protestant fathers? (the gnostics protested against the church) Just curious.

Thank you again for the above, appealing to Iranaeus and proving our point.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
And again, you have stated that there are no more apostles, a protestant “Tradition” (big T) which has no basis in sacred scripture nor in tradition as can be seen by the early catholic fahters as shown above.

As well, the Fathers are unanimous on the real presence, yet the “Tradition” (big T again) among protestants is that it is a symbol, a tradition of men (and unbelief IMHO as those who walked away)

The list is extensive on the “Traditions” of protestants (the doctrines of men).

Why not for example appeal to Sabellians who interpreted sacred scripture, (as the protestant group purechristianity does) to be modes of God and reject the trinity? Both are appealing to sacred scripture. Which is correct and why? (Make no mistake, if you appeal to the interpretation of scripture, the church fathers, or a creed you give equal weight to “Tradition”)

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Theodoret
“I shall yield to scripture alone.” - Theodoret
Click to expand...
It would be nice to read this in context. Can you give the whole passage or a citation. If you did, then I apologize. There is too much stuff in here and i might have overlooked it.

God bless,
Michael
 
Irenaeus
"They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures…
ouch sounds like a rip on a certain doctrine

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…
hmm. sounds like a different take on the church than I am use to around here.

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to ‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity**…proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves**." - Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)

Thanks Irenaues for these written word from the end of the 2nd century.
 
kaycee said:
Ambrose
“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” - Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)

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)

Cyprian
“Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.’ Also the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which He commanded.** If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, **that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed.” - Cyprian (Letter 73:2)

Cyprian equates Tradition with what is written down, in other words, scripture.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t say Scripture Alone. The ECF see the fruits of Scriptures from both OT and NT. They did not claim anything that Scripture itself is the Sole Authority in all matters.

In fact the Council of Jerusalem did not use Sola Scriptura. If they did, Christians would today would be still required to be circumcised before converting. The Scripture then was only the Torah, or Septuaguint.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Irenaeus
"They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures…
ouch sounds like a rip on a certain doctrine

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…
hmm. sounds like a different take on the church than I am use to around here.

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to ‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity**…proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves**." - Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)

Thanks Irenaues for these written word from the end of the 2nd century.
Click to expand...
I don’t see the world “alone” in their quotations.

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, “Who are you? When and whence did you come?” Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200).

“Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles.” Origen, First Principles, 4,1:9 (A.D. 230).

“The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, ‘He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.’” Cyprian, Unity of the Church, 6 (A.D. 256).

“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures…Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350).

“[T]hey who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand.” Hilary of Poitiers, On Matthew, Homily 13:1 (A.D. 355).

“But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.” Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).

“This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a very ecclesiasitcal sense.” Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, 1:44 (A.D. 362).
 
kaycee said:
Fortunately He tells us what he means by Tradition.
  1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? 2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 4, 1-2)
Irenaeus identifies that both inspired apostolic oral and written tradition are carefully preserved by the churches in succession over time. It is obvious from the passage that scripture is included in this category of “ancient tradition of the apostles”.The oral tradition that is identified in the text is in fact a creed (in blue) that is identical to the scriptures. Had this oral tradition contained a key doctrine not found in scripture, then the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches would have a powerful point. Our view of sola Scriptura is reinforced by this passage. What this passage is talking about happens all the time today when we spontaneously and unexpectedly teach a sinner the gospel in a city park when we have no Bible in hand. We rely on “oral tradition” in the absence of written documents. Had Irenaeus’ creed (in blue) included any extra biblical doctrines like, the perpetual virginity and assumption of Mary, infant baptism, triple baptism; the sign of the cross etc., then Roman Catholic and Orthodox defenders would still only have a weak argument at best. But **since there are no extra biblical doctrines, it actually supports our view that all “inspired apostolic tradition” was also contained in scripture. We are not denying “oral apostolic tradition”, we merely say it is identical with scripture. **
Click to expand...
I don’t think Ireneaus is saying that all of tradition is encompassed by this one creed. What he is listing are the fundamental and general teachings found in this Tradition (i.e. those being directly challenged by heresy) and not necessarily a comprehensive/exhaustive list.

God Bless,
Michael
 
II. Scripture is not Subject to Private Interpretation

“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,33:8 (inter A.D. 180-199).

"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men - a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind…” Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, 32 (c. A.D. 200).
 
runandsew said:
By Sola Scriptura, I mean:
  1. Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority. The final court of appeal for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals)
  2. Scripture is the sufficient and final written authority of God, as to sufficiency the Bible, nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else is all that is necessary for faith and practice.
  3. The Bible is clear or perspicuous, the essential teachings are clear.
  4. Scripture interprets scripture.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Protestants hold true your second point there. If I’m mistaken, someone please correct me. :o
 
III. The Catholic Church Determined the Canon of Scripture

“For the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes only by name to seven Churches in the following order–to the Corinthians afirst…there is a second to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians, yet one Church is recognized as being spread over the entire world…Howbeit to Philemon one, to Titus one, and to Timothy two were put in writing…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline…one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church…But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

“The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage–I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew–whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (A.D. 212).

“In his [Origen] first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows: Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, ‘The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son.’ And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.” Origen, Commentary on Matthew, fragment in Eusebius Church History, 6:25,3 (A.D. 244).

“Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:33 (A.D. 350).

“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.” Pope Damasus (regn. A.D. 366-384), Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382).

“Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.’. The canonical books are:—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:—the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted.” Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).
 
Nicene said:
Read it all again, particularly that part about written on the heaqrt and not in ink, and the last part which you highlighted. This is the action of the Holy Spirit which oyuj reject. Which means that you do not believe the Holy Spirit living in our lives, but if so he is secondary to the written word.

In making the Holy Spirit secondary to the word, and working through the mind and heart of man, you deify the bible and reject the Holy Spirit or at least make him a non essential.

Also note that you mentioned the creed. The above is the early form of the creed. Do you accept them or reject them? Also contained in that tradition is the prayer of the church. Again it is the protestant recognition that prayer is a non essential and secondary role of the living body of Christ.

That is a protestant tradition. Those are equally important. If the gathering of the ekklesia, the profession of what we believe, and praying to God are non essential as in protestants, then indeed the book is a dead word in protestant circles. The rejection of the Holy Spirit.

Paul tells us that preaching is essential by those sent (which you already reject), Romans cited above, as well as the action of the Holy Spirit.

Sinse as you are professing that preaching and the Holy Spirit are not necessary, nor the profession of belief; are you still christian?

If you say yes then you agree that tradition is equal to scripture, if you say no then you disagree with scripture.

The gnostics also used sacred scripture, yet twisted it (why do protestants not appeal to gnostic writings sinse many of the doctrines are the same). Why are you appealing to the early catholic fathers instead of the early protestant fathers? (the gnostics protested against the church) Just curious.

Thank you again for the above, appealing to Iranaeus and proving our point.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Not sure who your arguing with here. I dont recognize those beliefs you ascribe to me.

**My Only point was that Irenaeus identifies that both inspired apostolic oral and written tradition are carefully preserved by the churches in succession over time. It is obvious from the passage that scripture is included in this category of “ancient tradition of the apostles”.The oral tradition that is identified in the text is in fact a creed that is identical to the scriptures.

Do you deny that this “Tradition” is NOT found in Scripture?

The Creeds are the Apostles teachings in summary! The identical teaching as is found in scripture!**
 
kaycee said:
Hmmm. Not sure who your arguing with here. I dont recognize those beliefs you ascribe to me.

**My Only point was that Irenaeus identifies that both inspired apostolic oral and written tradition are carefully preserved by the churches in succession over time. **It is obvious from the passage that scripture is included in this category of “ancient tradition of the apostles”.The oral tradition that is identified in the text is in fact a creed that is identical to the scriptures.

Do you deny that this “Tradition” is NOT found in Scripture?

The Creeds are the Apostles teachings in summary! The identical teaching as is found in scripture!
Click to expand...
And this Creed is a summary of Tradition, not an exhaustive list of beliefs.

God Bless,
Michael
 
Everything in Tradition is either explicitly or implictly found in the Sacred Scriptures. Tradition makes explicit what is implicit in Scripture. That is why Scripture must be interpreted in light of Tradition.

God Bless,
Michael
 
mrs_abbott said:
I don’t think Protestants hold true your second point there. If I’m mistaken, someone please correct me. :o
Click to expand...
Some might, since this was an exerpt from one of Norman Geisler’s books that Ken Hensley was using as a resource on his audio CD about Sola Scriptura, in which he used Protestant sources to argue against Sola Scriptura, so you wouldn’t think he was being biased only using Catholic material.
 
mrs_abbott said:
I don’t think Protestants hold true your second point there. If I’m mistaken, someone please correct me. :o
Click to expand...
Yes 2 missed the boat. Go to the what is SS for a definition I get sick of explaining it. Its easier to explain what it isn’t.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Yes 2 missed the boat. Go to the what is SS for a definition I get sick of explaining it. Its easier to explain what it isn’t.
Click to expand...
A friend posted this it is a good summary, I’ll post it even though it’s nothing to do with ECF’s and how they believed scripture was the final authority…

WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT
  1. First and foremost, sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, a manual on governmental procedures, or a catalog of automobile engine parts. The Bible does not claim to give us every bit of knowledge that we could ever obtain.
  2. Sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge. The Bible itself asserts that it is not exhaustive in detail (John 21:25). It is obvious that the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to be sufficient as our source of divine truth.
  3. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.
  4. Sola scriptura is not a denial that the Word of God has, at times, been spoken. Rather, it refers to the Scriptures as serving the Church as God’s final and full revelation.
  5. Sola scriptura does not entail the rejection of every kind or form of Church “tradition.” There are some traditions that are God-honoring and useful in the Church. Sola scriptura simply means that any tradition, no matter how ancient or venerable it might seem to us, must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.
  6. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
    fccphx.homestead.com/SolaScriptura.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top