different Protestant...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paris_Blues
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”

No one denies this, it’s in the Bible- what is disagreed with is that ONLY Scripture is useful in teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness .
 
40.png
LutheranStudent:
As to your question of how we know what true Scripture is, here is what I believe:

The New Testament books are surely true and inspired because they were all written by people who had been given a direct call from Jesus Christ. Christ, the second person of the Trinity, from all eternity, fulfilled all the prophecies of the OT, therefore proving (and preaching) himself to be the Messiah, the “Anointed One”, the promised one of ages who paid for the sins of the world.

God had maintained throughout the OT that the OT was true. Now he gave us 27 more books through his servants who, with the exception of Paul, were disciples of Christ while he was in body on earth. (Paul recieved his call from Christ after the Acension and at his conversion.)

These books we know are true because, (altough being written at different times and by different people,) they are in complete agreement with themselves and with the OT. They are also sufficient for our interpretation and application today…

They also hold stern warnings for anyone who would add or subtract from what they say: Revelation 22:18, Galations 3:15,

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! " Galations 1:18

God’s Blessings!
~Lutheran Student
Click to expand...
You do realize there were other writings by those of Jesus’ time that although originally used in the liturgy we not in the end included in the Bible? Who compiled the books? Who had the authority to do so? Not everyone was in agreement so who had the final authority on what books were inspired and what books were not?

On another point there may be people in the church that disagree with church positions but that doesn’t change what the church teaches. The doctines are same whether there are dissenters or not.
 
Hey Lutheran Student!
[2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”

Ah, from this you get: The entirety of the Word is contained in Scripture? That’s the plain meaning, the way any sincere person would interpret?
Then surely, when Paul says in Thess., “Hold fast to the teachings I’ve handed down to you, both by word and by letter,” you can find a contradictory teaching, at least that clear?
Don’t you see that you’re finding in Scripture what you’ve already decided must be true? Come on, Student, 2 Timothy doesn’t say this!

“Yes, Paul was indeed referring to the OT, but not only to the OT.”

And Timothy knew this? He knew not to take this as meaning OT? Thus, the letter was useless to him, for he had no NT, and he knew it was useless.
You are speculating.

*“The earlier the Catholic church would go back into it’s history, the more you would find it’s doctrines and interpretations in agreement with the Confessional Lutherans of today. St. Augustine, for instance, was one of Luther’s heroes.” *

Yes, St. Augustine, who stated positively that the entire word was NOT contained in Scripture! (I’ll cite you the document, and many others from other Fathers, if you like.)
Student, this last point–about the early Church–this is the one I was told over and over, and found to be most groundless, as I investigated the differences between my religion and my wife’s. I have been looking at the early fathers’ writings for over a decade, and challenge you to contradict:
  1. that the fathers loudly and consistently assert that the entirety of the Faith is contained in Scripture and Sacred Tradition together, not Scripture alone,
  2. The idea of Sola Fide was virtually unknown for fourteen centuries
  3. from the earliest writings (e.g. Iranaeus), there is nothing but confirmation that the successors to Peter were the identifiable means of identifying where orthodoxy lay.
These are sweeping assertions, Yes? You can shoot me down and make me look like an idiot in two shakes, if the Lutheran Creed is, as you say, closer to the ancient one.

"The New Testament books are surely true and inspired because they were all written by people who had been given a direct call from Jesus Christ.These books we know are true because, (altough being written at different times and by different people,) they are in complete agreement with themselves and with the OT. They are also sufficient for our interpretation and application today…"

Then the infallible Word is identified by fallible means. Men do not agree on who authored every book of the NT. Nor does anyone say that all the writings of the Apostles are there. Even more devastating to Sola Scriptura: The NT canon was not identifiable (and was largely unavailable) to the Church for centuries. Yet no one denies that the Church had the full deposit of faith.

Peace, as always.

John
 
LutheranStudent wrote: They also hold stern warnings for anyone who would add or subtract from what they say: Revelation 22:18, Galations 3:15
Click to expand...
Funny you should mention this, LutheranStudent, since it was Luther himself who subtracted eleven (count 'em, 11) entire books from his German translation of the Bible. He put them in a separate section at the back and left the pages unnumbered, so no one could mistake them for Scripture. He also wrote prefaces explaining why he rejected them. 😛

From the NT he removed Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.

From the OT he removed Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (aka Sirach), Wisdom, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

Melanchthon (I think it was he, can you verify that for me?) later restored the NT books, but he let Luther’s cuts to the OT stand. These writings are still missing from Protestant Bibles to this day.
 
Blessings Katholikos~
It seems to me that you have a very strong presence in this forum, and a very informative and intellectual one as well. I was glad to see that you joined our discussion. So often these forums have a way of degrading so quickly, I am impressed at how this one has held up. My compliments to the management, too!

As far as Luther’s removal of the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, I had never heard of it before and after an admittedly brief search found nothing. I know that Luther had an especially bad taste for the book of James because of it’s easy “mis-constrewability” in favor of works righteousness. He did not consider his distaste for it, however, grounds for leaving it out of the cannon.

As far as the 11 books of the Apocrypha, Luther did not ‘remove them’ as much as you would like to think he did. Rather, he took the exact same stance as many of the early church fathers. He thought that they were useful to read, but not to be held at the same authority of Scripture. That is why he placed them at the back. Jerome, translator of the Vulgate (your official Bible for thousands of years), took this same view. OT Jews and early NT Jews took the same view. (Many complete Hebrew copies of the OT do not include the Apocrypha.) Pope Gregory the Great held the same view as Luther. As did Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardinal Cajetan, Luther’s greatest opponent in the Reformation. Yes, even Augustine, after vehemently supporting the Apocrypha as cannonical, changed his view.

There were many more church fathers that rejected the Apocrypha than the Catholic church would like to admit. The fact is most Catholics were unsure about it being cannon. Why else would the church wait until 1546 (Council of Trent), just 29 years after Luther started the Reformation, to cannonize the select parts of the Apocrypha that supported their position against Luther’s truth? Coincidence? Or is the modern Catholic church guilty of “adding to Scripture”?

I maintain that there was a faithful remnant of the Catholic church that lived by the principle of Sola Fide throughout her history. I do not doubt that when I get to heaven, I will be standing among many Catholics. But more importantly, I will be standing among all (c)atholics, myself being one of them.

Blessings,
Lutheran Student

PS- All that being said, I think it is my turn to issue the challenge. I think that it is high time that you used my church fathers to prove that the apostolic succesion is a concept of the true Christian faith. Maybe you’ve heard of my church fathers: (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Barnabas, etc.)

“It is by grace you have been saved, through faith. This is not of yourselves - it is a gift of God.” Apostle Paul
 
Dear John,
Thank you for your reply.

You said;
2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”

Ah, from this you get: The entirety of the Word is contained in Scripture? That’s the plain meaning, the way any sincere person would interpret?

No, I’m sorry if I was unclear. My argument for the completeness and sufficiency of Scripture comes from the verses that I listed at the end of my letter, recently quoted by Katholikos.

Then surely, when Paul says in Thess., “Hold fast to the teachings I’ve handed down to you, both by word and by letter,” you can find a contradictory teaching, at least that clear?

No, John, not quite. You see the Apostle Paul had visited the Thessalonians and taught them in person. He was encouraging them to stay with the Word that he had taught them. Are you suggesting that the Apostle Paul is speaking to us through the Catholic church today?

You quoted me:
“Yes, Paul was indeed referring to the OT, but not only to the OT.”

And replied:
And Timothy knew this? He knew not to take this as meaning OT? Thus, the letter was useless to him, for he had no NT, and he knew it was useless.
You are speculating.

No, I don’t think I am. Scripture has a way of (1) being fulfilled, and (2) interpreting itself. The Apostle Paul was definitely talking about the OT when he was writing to Timothy, but his words came in time to refer to the totality of Scripture, both testaments. You forget, John, that God is the author the book. Do you honestly believe that Isaiah was referring only to Christ’s birth when he told King Ahaz, “The virgin will be with child?”

*“The earlier the Catholic church would go back into it’s history, the more you would find it’s doctrines and interpretations in agreement with the Confessional Lutherans of today. St. Augustine, for instance, was one of Luther’s heroes.” *

Yes, St. Augustine, who stated positively that the entire word was NOT contained in Scripture! (I’ll cite you the document, and many others from other Fathers, if you like.)

By all means, John, cite away. Also realize that Augustine changed alot of his ideas as he got to know more and more of Scripture. Please also see my answer to Katholikos.

God’s blessings, John

~ Lutheran Student
 
Sorry I mistyped: Please edit my reply to Katholicos from {your offical Bible for thousands of years} to {your official Bible for over a thousand years}. I could probably improve my credability if I would proof-read my posts, eh?
 
I’m so glad I came back to the Catholic Church. I’m reminded how so many people who haven’t liked one pope, or one doctrine, had decided to become their own pope or re-word their own doctrine using their own intellect. Too bad so many people really believe they are to be congradulated for keeping the Faith pure. I guess all one really needs to be an Athansius, Is a Bible and a few sheep. Or do they?
 
Pardon my sarcasm, wonkimoto, but ouch that cuts deep. If it offers any comfort, I’m glad you’ve gone back to the Catholic church, too. Anyone who is unwilling to explore why they believe what they believe certainly belongs there. Pardon again to John Ennis, Katholikos and others who are acctually grasping for a greater understanding.

Now, if you can handle making intelligent comments that contribute to the discussion (as opposed to baseless jabs,) I have two challenges for you, a small one and a big one:

The small one would be to identify where I have used my own intellect in any of my answers. You may be right, I am human, I can err. But, for the most part I have cited only Scripture as my reason. I have also cited the intellect of some of the church fathers, which Lutherans do not prefer to do, but being Catholics you surely can’t fight them: They are completely inerranous ~ every last contradicting one of them! (Sarcasm, again, excuse me.)

The larger challenge would be to read “The Foolishness of God” by Doctor Siegbert Becker. It is a very good book that explores the place of reason in interpreting Scripture. I think you will find that Lutherans are rational people who do alot less rationalizing than your church does.

God’s blessings nonetheless,
Lutheran Student
 
40.png
LutheranStudent:
PS- All that being said, I think it is my turn to issue the challenge. I think that it is high time that you used my church fathers to prove that the apostolic succesion is a concept of the true Christian faith. Maybe you’ve heard of my church fathers: (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Barnabas, etc.)

“It is by grace you have been saved, through faith. This is not of yourselves - it is a gift of God.” Apostle Paul
Click to expand...
But you know already that we reject as self-contradictory the idea that all MUST be capable of being proven in Scripture. Since we hold that Scripture doesn’t insist on this as you do, we readily submit that apostolic succession may not be explicitly called for there.

Indeed, I could challenge you to use your own (though they’re really yours and mine) fathers to prove that Matthew, Mark, Luke, et al are indeed really writings of true fathers. This knowledge we get from the very Tradition which you deny as authoritative.

Peace.
John
 
John,
I am assured that the books of the Bible are written by the Apostles and by Paul. Although we are not exactly sure who wrote what book, the books obviously attest to being written by someone who was present at the time. Paul, a Roman citizen, included his name in all of his letters. The gospel writers, on the other hand, followed Jewish tradition and did not refer to themselves as “I” while they were recounting the events. So while it may be true that the early church goofed (perhaps John actually wrote ***Matthew, ***for example,) it is definite that these books were written by Apostles of Christ.

God’s Blessings ~
Lutheran Student

PS- This will be my last post until at least next weekend. I am attending college in my spare time, you know. God’s blessings until then. 😉
 
40.png
LutheranStudent:
Pardon my sarcasm, wonkimoto, but ouch that cuts deep. If it offers any comfort, I’m glad you’ve gone back to the Catholic church, too. Anyone who is unwilling to explore why they believe what they believe certainly belongs there. Pardon again to John Ennis, Katholikos and others who are acctually grasping for a greater understanding.
Click to expand...
Hey…I DID do the “exploration” that to mentioned and I found my way back to the Catholic Church. Your comment implies that we are all a pack of dummies that don’t think for ourselves, which if you’ve ever hung out with a bunch of us for a long while you quickly find is anything BUT the case. I returned to Catholicism because protestantism and all it’s non-denom variants is just a load of people leading each other around with opinions that have no basis in the early church or what the apostles’ disciples believed and followed. Personally, I think it oughtta be called The DEFORMATION because of the harm done to the body of Christ as a result. I hear preachers today talk about being under submission to those set in authority over them in the body of Christ and wonder how it is that they can even talk about such a thing after having become part of the very movement that removed itself from the divinely appointed authority instead of remaining within the church to help fix the problems. I am little impressed by the non-Catholic preachers that I hear, (That I made the mistake of listening to for about 34 years of my life!) who pull Bible passages out of context and teach others that that is the way it’s supposed to be done, which has led to some of the most sad and ridiculous teachings in the history of Christianity.

So frankly I sure as life eternal don’t think that a return to communion with Rome would be worse that the rampant rotting disease that consumes our separated brethren more an more every day.
Pax vobiscum.
P.S. Modern Lutherans don’t even believe the same things that Luther did. WHY?
 
40.png
LutheranStudent:
Yes, St. Augustine, who stated positively that the entire word was NOT contained in Scripture! (I’ll cite you the document, and many others from other Fathers, if you like.)

By all means, John, cite away. Also realize that Augustine changed alot of his ideas as he got to know more and more of Scripture. Please also see my answer to Katholikos.

God’s blessings, John

~ Lutheran Student
Click to expand...
Okie Dokie:

AUGUSTINE
*The 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 Chruch, 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 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 whcih is quite vital in the Chruch." (*Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400])

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
*Paul commands, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradtion? Seek no further.” (*Homilies on Second Thess. [A.D. 402])

…and Iranaeus in AD189, and Athanasius in 330, and Epiphanius in 375…but, Student, if as I said all who spoke on the issue assert that Scripture does not contain the entire Word–if no one in fourteen centuries screamed that this was heretical, would you consider it possible? Is your own interpretation of Scripture, or your own private philosophical analysis, so infallible, that you cling to this new doctrine we call Sola Scriptura?

Oh, and:
This is related to the OT books Luther didn’t? remove:
AUGUSTINE
We read in the books of the Maccabees that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured fourth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place. (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421])

So Augustine in the early fifth century had Maccabees in his Bible. Too bad Luther was 1000 years too late to tell him Maccabees isn’t Scriptural. (Fascinating, isn’t it, that Luther admired this heretic who believed in praying for the dead, and even following practices based only on the authority of the Church?)
 
To the OP and to Curious:

Go to www.biblechristiansociety.com and get the tapes or CD’s that interest you. Apropos to this topic might be the tape entitled One Church but you might fine Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide interesting as well.

Hope that helps.

LM 🙂
 
Dear Church Militant,
You are partially correct; I responded to a jab by taking a jab myself, and I apologize. Certainly many of the devout Catholics in this forum deserve a great deal of credit for researching thier faith. You see, admittedly came into this forum with a bias against Catholicism due largely to the fact that many of my neighbors are Catholics. They go to church once or twice a year and have probably never even heard of many of the church fathers. My relatives are Catholic, and after seeing in a (Lutheran) funeral bulletin recently that Lutherans to not accept the Apocrypha, they had to ask me whether Catholics believe in it or not. This led me to believe that most Catholics accept Catholic teaching on the sole basis that it has been taught for a long time. It is people like John Ennis who have convinced me otherwise. I sincerely apologize if I have offended any of my Christian Brethren out there.

~Lutheran Student
 
Dear John,
I did some research on St. Augustine and found that you are correct - He certainly did believe that the apostles handed down some oral traditions. However, I see no evidence that he supported oral tradition as an authority over Scripture. Here are some lovely “Sola Scriptura” quotes from the fathers:

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS (130-202)


We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith. (Adv. H. 3:1) Read more diligently that gospel which is given to us by the apostles; and read more diligently the prophets, and you will find every action and the whole doctrine of our Lord preached in them. (Adv. H. 4:66)

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (150?-213?) They that are ready to spend their time in the best things will not give over seeking for truth until they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves. (Stromata 7:16:3)

ORIGEN (185?-252)

In which (the two Testaments) every word that appertains to God may be required and discussed; and all knowledge may be understood out of them. But if anything remain which the Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third Scripture ought to be received for authorizing any knowledge or doctrine; but that which remains we must commit to the fire, that is, we will reserve it for God. For in this present world God would not have us to know all things. (Orig. in Lev., hom. 5, 9:6)

We know Jesus Christ is God, and we seek to expound the words which are spoken, according to the dignity of the person. Wherefore it is necessary for us to call the Scriptures into testimony; for our meanings and enarrations, without these witnesses, have no credibility. (Tractatus 5 in Matt.)

No man ought, for the confirmation of doctrines, to use books which are not canonized Scriptures. (Tract. 26 in Matt.)

As all gold, whatsoever it be, that is without the temple, is not holy; even so every notion which is without the divine Scripture, however admirable it may appear to some, is not holy, because it is foreign to Scripture. (Hom. 25 in Matt.) Consider how imminent their danger is who neglect to study the Scriptures, in which alone the discernment of this can be ascertained. (in Rom. 10:16)

ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (200?-258) Whence comes this tradition? Does it descend from the Lord’s authority, or from the commands and epistles of the apostles? For those things are to be done which are there written. … If it be commanded in the gospels or the epistles and Acts of the Apostles, then let this holy tradition be observed. (Ep. 74 ad Pompeium)

HIPPOLYTUS ( -230?) There is one God, whom we do not otherwise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the Holy Scriptures. For as he that would possess the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise obtain it than to read the doctrines of the philosophers; so whosoever of us will exercise piety toward God cannot learn this elsewhere but out of the Holy Scriptures. Whatsoever, therefore, the Holy Scriptures do preach, that let us know, and whatsoever they teach, that let us understand. (Hip. tom. 3, Bibliotheque Patrium, ed. Colonna)

ST. ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA* (300?-375)

The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written. (Exhort. ad Monachas)

ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN* (340?-396)

How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures? (Ambr. Offic., 1:23) I read that he is the first, I read that he is not the second; they who say he is the second, let them show it by reading. (Ambr. Offic., in Virginis Instit. 11)

ST. HILARY OF POITIERS (315-367) O emperor! I admire your faith, which desires only according to those things that were written. … You seek the faith, O emperor. Hear it then, not from new writings, but from the books of God. Remember that it is not a question of philosophy, but a doctrine of the gospel. (Ad Constant. Augus. 2:8:2)

ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA (330?-395) Let a man be persuaded of the truth of that alone which has the seal of the written testimony. (De Anima et Resurrectione, 1)

​
 
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (315?-386) Not even the least of the divine and holy mysteries of the faith ought to be handed down without the divine Scriptures. Do not simply give faith to me speaking these things to you except you have the proof of what I say from the divine Scriptures. For the security and preservation of our faith are not supported by ingenuity of speech, but by the proofs of the divine Scriptures. (Cat. 4)

ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM OF ANTIOCH AND BYZANTIUM* (347-407)

[The Scripture], like a safe door, denies an entrance to heretics, guarding us in safety in all things we desire, and not permitting us to be deceived. …Whoever uses not the Scriptures, but comes in otherwise, that is, cuts out for himself a different and unlawful way, the same is a thief. (Homily 59, in Joh. 2:8)

Formerly it might have been ascertained by various means which was the true church, but at present there is no other method left for those who are willing to discover the true church of Christ but by the Scriptures alone. And why? Because heresy has all outward observances in common with her. If a man, therefore, be desirous of knowing the true church, how will he be able to do it amid so great resemblance, but by the Scriptures alone? Wherefore our Lord, foreseeing that such a great confusion of things would take place in the latter days, ordered the Christians to have recourse to nothing but the Scriptures.

The man of God could not be perfect without the Scriptures. [Paul says to Timothy:] “You have the Scriptures: if you desire to learn anything, you may learn it from them.” But if he writes these things to Timothy, who was filled with the Holy Spirit, how much more must we think these things spoken to us. (Hom. 9 in 2 Tim. 1:9) It is absurd, while we will not trust other people in pecuniary affairs, but choose to reckon and calculate for ourselves, that in matters of far higher consequence we should implicitly follow the opinions of others, especially as we possess the most exact and perfect rule and standard by which to regulate our several inquiries: I mean the regulation of the divine laws. I, therefore, could wish that all of you would reject what this or that man says, and that you would investigate all these things in the Scriptures. (Hom. 13, 4:10 ad fin. in 2 Cor.)

THEOPHILUS OF ALEXANDRIA ( -412) It is the part of a devilish spirit to think any thing to be divine that is not in the authority of the Holy Scriptures. (Ep. Pasch. 2)

ST. JEROME* (342?-420)

The church of Christ, possessing churches in all the world, is united by the unity of the Spirit, and has the cities of the law, the prophets, the gospels, and the apostles. She has not gone forth from her boundaries, that is, from the Holy Scriptures. (Comm. in Micha. 1:1)

Those things which they make and find, as it were, by apostolical tradition, without the authority and testimony of Scripture, the word of God smites. (ad Aggai 1) As we deny not those things that are written, so we refuse those things that are not written. That God was born of a virgin we believe, because we read it; that Mary did marry after she was delivered we believe not, because we do not read it. (Adv. Helvidium)
 
ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO* (354-430)

In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals. (De Doct. Chr. 2:9)

Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud. (De Pastore, 11)

All those things which in times past our ancestors have mentioned to be done toward mankind and have delivered unto us: all those things also which we see and deliver to our posterity, so far as they pertain to the seeking and maintaining true religion, the Holy Scripture has not passed over in silence. (Ep. 42)

Whatever our Saviour would have us read of his actions and sayings he commanded his apostles and disciples, as his hands, to write. (De Consensu Evang. 1:ult.) Let them [the Donatists] demonstrate their church if they can, not by the talk and rumor of the Africans; not by the councils of their own bishops; not by the books of their disputers; not by deceitful miracles, against which we are cautioned by the word of God, but in the prescript of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the verses of the Psalms, in the voice of the Shepherd himself, in the preaching and works of the evangelists; that is, in all canonical authorities of the sacred Scriptures. (De Unit. Eccl. 16)

ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (380?-444) That which the Holy Scriptures have not said, by what means should we receive and account it among those things that are true? (Glaphyrarum in Gen. 2)

THEODORET OF CYRRHUS (393?-458?)

By the Holy Scriptures alone am I persuaded. (Dial. 1, Atrept.)

I am not so bold as to affirm anything which the sacred Scripture passes in silence. (Dial. 2, Asynchyt.) We ought not to seek those things that are passed in silence, but rest in the things which are written. (in Gen. Q. 45)

ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS (675?-749?) We receive and acknowledge and reverence all things which are delivered in the law, the prophets, the apostles and evangelists, and we seek after nothing beyond these. (de Fid. Ortho. 1:1:1)

http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/images/invisible.gif CONCLUSION: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, far from being an invention of Martin Luther, is taken for granted by St. Thomas Aquinas, and is a point agreed upon by the writers of the patristic age.

In Christ,
Lutheran Student
 
40.png
LutheranStudent:
Dear Church Militant,
You are partially correct; I responded to a jab by taking a jab myself, and I apologize. Certainly many of the devout Catholics in this forum deserve a great deal of credit for researching thier faith. You see, admittedly came into this forum with a bias against Catholicism due largely to the fact that many of my neighbors are Catholics. They go to church once or twice a year and have probably never even heard of many of the church fathers. My relatives are Catholic, and after seeing in a (Lutheran) funeral bulletin recently that Lutherans to not accept the Apocrypha, they had to ask me whether Catholics believe in it or not. This led me to believe that most Catholics accept Catholic teaching on the sole basis that it has been taught for a long time. It is people like John Ennis who have convinced me otherwise. I sincerely apologize if I have offended any of my Christian Brethren out there.

~Lutheran Student
Click to expand...
Quite honestly, I and my friends here cannot (and shouldn’t have to) account for your relatives and others who have no more devotion to their faith than you describe. That is like me trying to hold you and all Lutheranism to account for those members who are lax or immoral, right? As you have seen so far, you will find that most of us on here are very serious about our faith and try real hard to live it as well as know it. We attempt to lead by example and by voice wherever the door is openned. A great many people seem to come in here in seeking to prosyletize us and show us the error of our ways, but as you’ve seen, most of the “regulars” here are knowlegeable about why we believe what we believe and can readily offer good scriptural and traditional reasons why the Catholic faith is the one church that Christ founded and that has maintained and defended the doctrines of the early church for over 2,000 years.

Like a K-mart radio, my friend, we don’t play. 👍
Pax vobiscum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top