Did the Fathers teach Sola Scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CutlerB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CutlerB

Guest
I’ve come across a quote on the Internet from St Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies” that is used in support of Sola Scriptura. There are also other quotes from the Fathers that are offered in support. Does anybody know whether these Fathers actually adhered to this principle, or are their quotes taken out of context, etc.?
“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.” — St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1:1
The page presents this quote:
“For Tertullian, Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content… For Irenaeus, the Church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought… If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the Church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the Church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is.” — Ellen Flessman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953) pp. 184, 133, 144.
St Gregory of Nyssa is quoted like this:
“The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please;** we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet**; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.” — On the Soul and the Resurrection
I doubt highly the validity of the claims the site makes, yet I am not educated well enough on the matter. After all, some of the arguments presented are absurd, such as that the sheer number of Scripture quotations by some Fathers would prove Sola Scriptura, or really even thinking they could be proponents of the author’s own faith, when they strongly affirm teachings he certainly denies as an evangelical (?).

He goes even further as to claim this (Italics mine for emphasis):
The Roman Catholic Church’s appeal to Tradition as an authority is not valid.
The Roman Catholic Church states that it possesses an oral apostolic Tradition which is independent of Scripture, and which is binding upon men. It appeals to Paul’s statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 …] Rome asserts that, based on Paul’s teaching in this passage, the teaching of sola Scriptura is false, since he handed on teachings to the Thessalonians in both oral and written form. But what is interesting in such an assertion is that Roman apologists never document the specific doctrines to which Paul is referring which they claim they possess, and which they say are binding upon men. From Francis de Sales to the writings of Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis there is a very conspicuous absence of documentation of the specific doctrines to which the Apostle Paul is referring.
What Sungenis and other Roman Catholic authors fail to define, is the contents and precise doctrines of the claimed “apostolic Tradition”. The simple reason that they do not do so is because* it does not exist*. If such traditions existed and were of such importance why did Cyril of Jerusalem not mention them in his Catechetical Lectures?
He’s making quite strong accusations there, and even more one the webpage, but I won’t quote all of them for the sake of brevity.

Maybe someone would like to take a look into this and respond. Thank you. 🙂
 
Faith is best understood as 'belief in truth by virtue of spiritual vision without demanding proof’. The Holy Spirit will guide all those who seek truth sincerely. The Catholic Church is led by the Holy Spirit.
 
“Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura,” a massive tome edited by Robert Sungenis, addresses the Protestant apologists’ misreading of ECF quotes to support the mistaken proposition that the ECFs practiced sola scriptura. Essentially, the ECF quotes are being misconstrued. Iraneus, for instance, complained in “Against Heresies” about how the gnostics read the Scripture apart from Apostolic Tradition. Our Protestant friends fail to consider, apparently, that the ECFs all believed in the Eucharist, Mary’s perpetual virginity, purgatory and other “Catholic” doctrines which they consider “unbiblical.”
 
This fundamentalist canard is as pathetic as it is disingenuous. Here are some typical quotes from the fathers.

We must recieve the traditions and the orthodox teaching from the Fathers, unless we wish to become illigimate sons.
[St. Athanasius, *De Synodis 47]

But what is also to the point, let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this; he is neither nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.
[St. Athanasius, *Letter to Serapion of Thumis #4, 1, 28]

We are content with the fact that this [Arianism] is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold this.
[St. Athanasius, *Letter 59,3]

But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the New Testament and the Old.
[St. Athanasius, *Letter 60,6]

The word of the Lord which came form the Ecumenical Council at Nicea remains forever.
[St. Athanasius, *Synodal Letter to the Bishops of Africa, 2]

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn around and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For they allege that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce.
But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, and which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For they maintain that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
[St. Irenaeus of Lyons, *Adversus Haereses, III, 2, 1-2]

Of the dogmas and kerygmas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce kerygma to a mere term.
[St. Basil the Great, *The Holy Spirit, 27, 66]

For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions.
[St. Basil the Great, *The Holy Spirit, 29, 71]

It is needful also to make use of Tradition, for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things in Tradition.
[St. Epiphanius of Salamis, *Against All Heresies 61, 6]

It suffices for proof of our statement that we have a tradition coming down from the fathers, an inheritance as it were, by succession from the apostles through the saints who came after them.
[St. Gregory Nazianzen, *Against Eunomius 4, 6 on Christ’s nature).

Well, the Divine books are full of such instruction for our guidance; and besides that many of the Saints cast the refulgence of their own lives, like lamps, upon the path for those who are "walking with God. But each may gather in abundance for himself suggestions towards this end out of either Covenant in the inspired writings; the Prophets and the Law are full of them; and also the Gospel and the Traditions of the Apostles.
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, *On Virginity, XI]

And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them. They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of arguments in abundance, if they were about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense?
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, *Against Eunomius, III, 6]

The question [regarding the Holy Trinity] is, as I said, very difficult to deal with: yet, if we should be able to find anything that may give support to the uncertainty of our mind, so that it may no longer totter and waver in this monstrous dilemma, it would be well: on the other hand, even if our reasoning be found unequal to the problem, we must keep forever, firm and unmoved, the tradition which we received by succession from the fathers, and seek from the Lord the reason which is the advocate of our faith: and if this be found by any of those endowed with grace, we must give thanks to Him who bestowed the grace; but if not, we shall none the less, on those points which have been determined, hold our faith unchangeably.
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, *To Ablabius]

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 councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church.
[St. Augustine of Hippo, *Letter 54, 1, 1] to Januarius

We may answer, that what is here written, was sufficient for those who would attend, and that the sacred writers ever addressed themsleves to the matter of immediate importance, whatever it might be at that time: it was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are many things which have been delivered by unwritten tradition.
[St. John Chrysostom, *Homilies on Acts 1,1]

I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or anyone else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. . . . Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent.
[St. Vincent of Lérins, *Commonitory 2, 4-6]

If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the Gospel, what should you 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 influence me to do so.
[St. Augustine of Hippo, *Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation”, 5, 6]

I believe that this practice [of infant baptism] comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writtings nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole church everywhere, are are believed to be commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves.
[St. Augustine of Hippo, *De Baptismo, 2, 7, 12] re infant baptism

The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything but Apostolic.
[St. Augustine of Hippo, *De Genesi ad litteram, 10, 23, 39]

The Fathers taught the church that which they learned in the church.
[St. Augustine of Hippo, *Contra Iulianum, 1, 117]

Holy and blessed priests, widely reknowned for their diligence and divine eloquence, Ireneaus, Cyprian, . . . Hilary, . . . Ambrose, . . .Gregory, . . . Basil, . . .Jerome . . . . What they found in the Church, they kept; what they learned, they taught; what they received from the fathers, they handed on to the sons.
[St. Augustine of Hippo, *Contra Iulianum, 2, 10, 33-34]

The whole world judges securely that they are not good who separate themselves from the whole world.
[St. Augustine, *Contra Parmeniani, III, iv, 24] securus judicat orbis terrarum

It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true.
[St. Augustine, *Sermon 117,6]
 
Our not separating Him from Father and Son is a proof of our right mind, for we are bound to be baptized in the terms we have received by tradition and to profess belief in the terms in which we are baptized, and as we have professed belief in, so to give glory to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and to hold aloof from the communion of all who call Him creature, as from open blasphemers.
we do not speak of the Holy Ghost as unbegotten, for we recognise one Unbegotten and one Origin of all things, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: nor do we speak of the Holy Ghost as begotten, for by the tradition of the faith we have been taught one Only-begotten: the Spirit of truth we have been taught to proceed from the Father, and we confess Him to be of God without creation.
[St. Basil the Great, *Letter 125, 3]

I desire to learn what is the fashion of innovation in things concerning the church. But since our faith has been proclaimed both in writing and without writing, here and in distant parts, in times of danger and of safety, how is it that some make such attempts and others keep silent?
[St. Gregory Nazianzen, *Letter 101]

And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them.
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, *Against Eunomius, III, 6]

So, then, in expectation of His coming we worship towards the East. But this tradition of the apostles is unwritten. For much that has been handed down to us by tradition is unwritten.
[St. John Damascene, *De Fide Orthodoxa, IV, 12]

Moreover that the Apostles handed down much that was unwritten, Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, tells us in these words: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught of us, whether by word or epistle” And to the Corinthians he writes, "Now I praise your brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you.
[St. John Damascene, *De Fide Orthodoxa, IV, 16]
 
I’ve come across a quote on the Internet from St Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies” that is used in support of Sola Scriptura. There are also other quotes from the Fathers that are offered in support. Does anybody know whether these Fathers actually adhered to this principle, or are their quotes taken out of context, etc.?

The page presents this quote:

St Gregory of Nyssa is quoted like this:

I doubt highly the validity of the claims the site makes, yet I am not educated well enough on the matter. After all, some of the arguments presented are absurd, such as that the sheer number of Scripture quotations by some Fathers would prove Sola Scriptura, or really even thinking they could be proponents of the author’s own faith, when they strongly affirm teachings he certainly denies as an evangelical (?).

He goes even further as to claim this (Italics mine for emphasis):

He’s making quite strong accusations there, and even more one the webpage, but I won’t quote all of them for the sake of brevity.

Maybe someone would like to take a look into this and respond. Thank you. 🙂
I think its hard to make a case that the ECF’s understood sola scriptura in the way the Lutheran Church does, in large part because they had no experience with the dramatic effects on the Church caused by the Great Schism, and therefore the disagreements between the Patriarchates about what Sacred Tradition teaches.

Jon
 
Cutler,
Sola Scriptura is among the easiest Protestant doctrines to discredit. Afterall, if scripture could stand on its own, then there would be no doctrinal debate among Christians. Yet, we know from experience that different Protestant denominations and in fact, different Protestants within a denomination can have opposing doctrinal viewpoints based on the same scriptural passages.

In fact, scriptural interpretation is based on the Tradition you recieve (or create). JonNC will interpret scripture based on the LCMS tradition, while I will interpret scripture based on Catholic tradition. Because of this, it is clear that for both of us, tradition defines scripture,
 
Cutler,
Sola Scriptura is among the easiest Protestant doctrines to discredit. Afterall, if scripture could stand on its own, then there would be no doctrinal debate among Christians. Yet, we know from experience that different Protestant denominations and in fact, different Protestants within a denomination can have opposing doctrinal viewpoints based on the same scriptural passages.

In fact, scriptural interpretation is based on the Tradition you recieve (or create). JonNC will interpret scripture based on the LCMS tradition, while I will interpret scripture based on Catholic tradition. Because of this, it is clear that for both of us, tradition defines scripture,
Of course, I agree. My question was rather aimed at the meaning of the quotes given.
 
I’ve come across a quote on the Internet from St Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies” that is used in support of Sola Scriptura.

The page presents this quote:
“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.” — St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1:1
OK, time to absolutely demolish this one.

Read the passage again, carefully - it’s a long and complicated sentence. WHAT is the “ground and pillar of our faith?” Is it Scripture? Or is it the Gospel message? Irenaeus is, in fact, saying that the Gospel (ie, “Good News,” which Irenaeus also calls the “plan of salvation”) is the ground and pillar of our faith (something no Catholic would contest). Irenaeus points out that this message has been communicated in both oral and written form (which no Catholic would contest).

Note that he begins this passage with the phrase, “We have learned from none others…” To whom does he refer? He refers to the sentence immediately preceeding, which is to be found in the preface to Book 3:
…faithfully and strenuously shalt thou resist [heretics] in defence of the only true and life-giving faith, which the Church has received from the apostles and imparted to her sons. For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom also we have known the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God; to whom also did the Lord declare: “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me, and Him that sent Me.” (Luke 10:16)
Here is the complete text of Book 3, Chapter 1, to put the passage in context:
  1. 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. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
  1. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.
As you can see, Irenaeus carefully establishes the validity of the written Gospel as an accurate account. But he never comes close to saying that the written Gospels are complete or sufficient as a rule of faith.

And, in fact, the reason that Irenaeus establishes the validity of the written Gospels is because, in the next chapter, he accuses the heretics of rejecting BOTH written Scripture and oral Tradition:
But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth… It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
Proper context is very important. Irenaeus clearly maintains that both oral Tradition and written Scripture are authoritative (something no Catholic would contest). At no time does he say that written Scripture is superior to, or stands in place of, oral Tradition.
 
=paul c;9563841]Cutler,
Sola Scriptura is among the easiest Protestant doctrines to discredit. Afterall, if scripture could stand on its own, then there would be no doctrinal debate among Christians. Yet, we know from experience that different Protestant denominations and in fact, different Protestants within a denomination can have opposing doctrinal viewpoints based on the same scriptural passages.
This appears to be the least true amongst Lutherans, simply because we have a rather specific confession construct. It is more true amongst those who don’t. Further, I watch Catholics here debate doctrine all the time, a recent one being on Transubstantiation.
In fact, scriptural interpretation is based on the Tradition you recieve (or create). JonNC will interpret scripture based on the LCMS tradition, while I will interpret scripture based on Catholic tradition. Because of this, it is clear that for both of us, tradition defines scripture,
And the truth in this, Paul, is that SS is a practice for hermeunetics.

We also see here Catholics and Orthodox debate on what Tradition actually says. And so it goes.

Jon
 
This appears to be the least true amongst Lutherans, simply because we have a rather specific confession construct. It is more true amongst those who don’t. Further, I watch Catholics here debate doctrine all the time, a recent one being on Transubstantiation.
What was the debate on transubstantion? its an established doctrine. Someone must not have been educated…
And the truth in this, Paul, is that SS is a practice for hermeunetics.

We also see here Catholics and Orthodox debate on what Tradition actually says. And so it goes.

Jon
Jon, we all have our Traditions as our scriptural decoder rings. Yours incorporates the rather specific confession construct you reference above. But even that needs interpretation. And as for debate on what the Catholic tradition actually says, we have the Pope to arbitrate for us and he is protected by the Holy Spirit. That is not to say there isn’t ignorance and outright dissent amongst some Catholics. But for those that are interested in what the Tradition REALLY says, it is available… There is no such thing as Sola Scriptura in practice.
 
=paul c;9564444]What was the debate on transubstantion? its an established doctrine. Someone must not have been educated…
It had to do with whether or not the consecrated host would be found to be real flesh scientifically, as I recall.
Jon, we all have our Traditions as our scriptural decoder rings. Yours incorporates the rather specific confession construct you reference above. But even that needs interpretation. And as for debate on what the Catholic tradition actually says, we have the Pope to arbitrate for us and he is protected by the Holy Spirit. That is not to say there isn’t ignorance and outright dissent amongst some Catholics. But for those that are interested in what the Tradition REALLY says, it is available… There is no such thing as Sola Scriptura in practice.
Well, it depends on how one understands sola scriptura. Certainly, Lutherans are sola scripturists in the classic Reformation sense. A lot of what one sees today is not.

RE: the Pope. Are the Metropolitans of Orthodoxy protected in the same way?

Jon
 
It had to do with whether or not the consecrated host would be found to be real flesh scientifically, as I recall.
They would not in most cases.
Well, it depends on how one understands sola scriptura. Certainly, Lutherans are sola scripturists in the classic Reformation sense. A lot of what one sees today is not.
No matter how you understand it, you still interpret scripture based on your Tradition and that obliterates the concept of sola scriptura.
RE: the Pope. Are the Metropolitans of Orthodoxy protected in the same way?
No, they are not. Only St. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom. see matthew 16

Jon
 
I watch Catholics here debate doctrine all the time, a recent one being on Transubstantiation.
Whether or not an internet forum Catholic is aware of what the Council of Trent teaches on the species of bread and wine remaining does not mean the Church has not made a magisterial comment on the matter.
 
From the article of the OP:
Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures. Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches. From this, it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture. **There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture. **
In other words, the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture.

Lets take a look at those last three sentences individually to see if they are actually supportable.
  1. **From this, it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture.
    **I’m sorry, but this appears to come from thin air. There is nothing that leads one to the conclusion that all of their doctrine “was derived from Scripture”. Certainly we would all agree that all their doctrine is true to Scripture, and vice versa, but the conclusion that it is “derived from” Scripture is simply an attempt at stating as fact that which they hope to prove and which they simply have not done. Iraneus and Tertullian received doctrine - orally - and confirmed it’s veracity in Scripture, they did not “derive” doctrine from Scripture.
**2. There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture. **
And Catholics would also make the same claim: all of the Church teachings are “found in” Scripture. The disagreement between this author and the CC is one of the perspicuity of Scripture - how clearly it reveals various doctrine - and who’s interpretation of what, exactly, “is found in Scripture” is correct. This is not merely a Catholic vs Sola Scriptura adherent issue BTW, it is also a SS adherent vs SS adherent issue. People from various faith groups disagree on what is meant by “what is found in Scripture”.

3. In other words, the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture.
If the blind hypocritical ignorance of this statement were not so tragic it would be amusing. This author is completely blind to this simple fact: the CC believes and teaches that all of Her teachings are “the teaching of Scripture”. The CC does not have a teaching which it believes is somehow in opposition to or entirely without Scriptural support. This is simple ignorance on the part of the author to imply otherwise. The total hypocritical blindness is that all SS based churches believe that their doctrine are “simply the teaching of Scripture”. But many of them are directly contradictory. These disagreements include essential doctrine on which misunderstanding might significantly inhibit the misled to fail to persevere and ultimately cause one to die outside the state of grace. And so the claim that there is an unambiguous entity such as “the teaching of Scripture” is not only hypocritical blindness, but it is dangerous.
 
No, they didn’t. Here they are just showing the importance of Scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top