Early church fathers believed in sola scriptura?

[sandusky]

paul c:

Here is psalm 19, Where does it say that scripture alone is sufficient for salvation: In fact, where does it say anything about written scripture?

The Law, the testimony, the precepts, the commandments, the judgments of God.
paul c:

The fact is, it says the decrees of the lord are trustworthy.

Correct.
paul c:

We know Jesus didn’t write anything down so couldn’t this more accurately talk about oral tradition…

What does Jesus writing, or not writing, anything, have to do with the nature, power and ability of Scripture—what you say makes no sense.

 

[elvisman]

We use small “biscuits,” and grape juice.

That’s funny - Jesus didn’t.
He used bread and wine and that’s what we use in the Catholic celebration of the Eucharist.

I thought you said:
"We celebrate the eucharist in like manner as the Lord."
**Biscuits and grape juice ****ain’t **the way it was done, friend. Unleavened bread and wine is the way the Lord did it.

So, if you’re unfaithful to what he said to do in memory of him – what else is your Church lacking?
**Food for thought . . . **

 

[sandusky]

**That’s **funny - Jesus didn’t.
He used bread and wine and that’s what we use in the Catholic celebration of the Eucharist.

It’s not the content of the elements that’s important, but the content of the heart, the content of one’s faith in Christ that matters to Christ.

I thought you said:
"We celebrate the eucharist in like manner as the Lord."
**Biscuits and grape juice ****ain’t **the way it was done, friend. Unleavened bread and wine is the way the Lord did it.

Again, it’s not the content of the elements that’s important, but the content of the heart that matters to Christ. With respect to the wine, He says:**Matthew 26:29

“But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”**Certainly you’re not going to say the juice of the grape is not “fruit of the vine?”

So, if you’re unfaithful to what he said to do in memory of him – what else is your Church lacking?
**Food for thought . . . **

We lack nothing, but instead, we have what is known as “the fullness of truth” in Christ.

.

OH HAPPY DAY!!! :extrahappy:

 

[Peter_J]

Scripture, itself, claims to be sufficient and powerful to bring one to salvation, and to bring one to God’s approval.

The form would include any NT writings available at the time, as well as the OT. More important, however, Paul is not speaking about the content of Scripture, but the nature, the power and ability of Scripture to transform.

I guess that either I’m misunderstanding your answer, or else I’ve been misunderstanding what it is that Protestants believe.

I was under the impression that “Sufficiency of Scripture” can only be applied to the whole bible; but you appear to be saying that “any NT writings available at the time, as well as the OT” would be sufficient (even without the yet-to-be-written Scriptures). Or did I read you wrong?

P.S. I notice now that when you said “sufficient”, it was in the phrase “sufficient and powerful to bring one to salvation”. So perhaps you weren’t talking about Sufficiency of Scripture, in the sense of Scripture containing the whole Deposit of Faith.

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

It’s not the content of the elements that’s important, but the content of the heart, the content of one’s faith in Christ that matters to Christ.

This is classic Sandusky! I even have a name for it – the “Sandusky Shuffle”. Enjoy the ride…

Sandusky:

We celebrate the eucharist in like manner as the Lord

cfrancis:

How do you do this?

Sandusky:

As the Lord did in Mt 26:26-28.

Please note that the conversation starts with Sandusky offering the vague statement of the celebrating the Eucharistic “ in the like manner of the Lord”. When pressed to elaborate, what does he choose focus on? Scripture, of course. Matt 26: 26-28
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the [fn] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Notice the context that Sandusky chose to frame the discussion – the mechanics of celebrating the Eucharist. He could have chosen other verses, but this was his choice. Cfrancis is curious and responds…

cfrancis:

Can you be more specific?

sandusky:

We celebrate the Supper in the Church building proper, and whoever is preaching presides. We use small “biscuits,” and grape juice.

At this point, seeing the obvious contradiction between Scripture and Sandusky’s celebration, elvisman joins in…

elvisman:

That’s funny - Jesus didn’t.
He used bread and wine and that’s what we use in the Catholic celebration of the Eucharist

This, of course, completely refutes Sandusky’s self-professed claim of celebrating the Eucharist as outlined in the Scripture he chose to present (Matt 26: 26-28). There is no possible counter argument. You might expect it to end here, but no! Here’s where the Sandusky Shuffle comes in….

sandusky:

It’s not the content of the elements that’s important, but the content of the heart, the content of one’s faith in Christ that matters to Christ.

Brilliant! He initiates the discussion of the celebration of the Eucharist to focus on the “like manner of the Lord” and chooses Matt 26 to be the Scripture to represent said manner. He’s then confronted with the reality that this Scripture doesn’t actually match up with his self described celebration of the Eucharist. There really is no debate left, so what does he do? Change the topic! Only its subtle – we’re still in a discussion of the Eucharistic celebration, that hasn’t changed, but the essence of the discussion has completely changed. The discussion no longer has any direct relevance to Matt 26: 26-28 (the Scripture HE CHOSE to represent the “like manner as the Lord), because there is no mention of the “content of the heart” nor the “content of one’s faith” in that Scripture. One can only wonder where these comments came from. In addition, we are left scratching our heads as to why he would have brought up Matt 26 in the first place. Now, of course no one can disagree with Sandy that the content of ones heart/faith are important to a proper celebration of the Eucharist, but that is not at all what we were discussing. We were discussing, at Sandusky’s prompting, Matt 26-28 as illuminating what celebrating the Eucharist in like manner as the Lord is. His celebration simply doesnt line up IN THAT RESPECT (bread and wine) but he wont admit that or that he mistaken in bringing up Matt 26…he’ll just change the discussion(Matt 26) without actually changing the topic (Eucharistic celebration)! It is a beautiful thing to see…the Sandusky Shuffle.

 

[guanophore]

(Edited)

I don’t wonder at all. I am certain they come from the same place as OSAS, Sola Scriptura, and a plethora of other “comments”.

Actually, Eucharist is a bit off topic too, is it not?

 

[savedsinner]

He says:Matthew 26:29

“But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”Certainly you’re not going to say the juice of the grape is not “fruit of the vine?”

The Hunt for the Fourth Cup

This happened after the passage you quoted:

John 19:28-30
After this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I thirst.” There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth. When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, “It is finished.” And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.

That was a sponge soaked with wine, not Welch’s 100% grape juice.

Context Sandusky, Context !!!

Grape juice is a man-made tradition which contradicts scripture.

 

[sandusky]

This is classic Sandusky! I even have a name for it – the “Sandusky Shuffle”. Enjoy the ride…

Please note that the conversation starts with Sandusky offering the vague statement of the celebrating the Eucharistic “ in the like manner of the Lord”. When pressed to elaborate, what does he choose focus on? Scripture, of course. Matt 26: 26-28
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the [fn] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Notice the context that Sandusky chose to frame the discussion – the mechanics of celebrating the Eucharist. He could have chosen other verses, but this was his choice. Cfrancis is curious and responds…

At this point, seeing the obvious contradiction between Scripture and Sandusky’s celebration, elvisman joins in…

This, of course, completely refutes Sandusky’s self-professed claim of celebrating the Eucharist as outlined in the Scripture he chose to present (Matt 26: 26-28). There is no possible counter argument. You might expect it to end here, but no! Here’s where the Sandusky Shuffle comes in….

Brilliant! He initiates the discussion of the celebration of the Eucharist to focus on the “like manner of the Lord” and chooses Matt 26 to be the Scripture to represent said manner. He’s then confronted with the reality that this Scripture doesn’t actually match up with his self described celebration of the Eucharist. There really is no debate left, so what does he do? Change the topic! Only its subtle – we’re still in a discussion of the Eucharistic celebration, that hasn’t changed, but the essence of the discussion has completely changed. The discussion no longer has any direct relevance to Matt 26: 26-28 (the Scripture HE CHOSE to represent the “like manner as the Lord), because there is no mention of the “content of the heart” nor the “content of one’s faith” in that Scripture. One can only wonder where these comments came from. In addition, we are left scratching our heads as to why he would have brought up Matt 26 in the first place. Now, of course no one can disagree with Sandy that the content of ones heart/faith are important to a proper celebration of the Eucharist, but that is not at all what we were discussing. We were discussing, at Sandusky’s prompting, Matt 26-28 as illuminating what celebrating the Eucharist in like manner as the Lord is. His celebration simply doesnt line up IN THAT RESPECT (bread and wine) but he wont admit that or that he mistaken in bringing up Matt 26…he’ll just change the discussion(Matt 26) without actually changing the topic (Eucharistic celebration)! It is a beautiful thing to see…the Sandusky Shuffle.

Phil, you’re wrong on every point. Stop looking for hidden meaning in everything you read and hear. There’s no meta-communication in what I’ve posted; what I’ve said is straightforward, and clear, for the clear-thinking.

 

[sandusky]

Peter J:

I guess that either I’m misunderstanding your answer, or else I’ve been misunderstanding what it is that Protestants believe.

I was under the impression that “Sufficiency of Scripture” can only be applied to the whole bible; but you appear to be saying that “any NT writings available at the time, as well as the OT” would be sufficient (even without the yet-to-be-written Scriptures). Or did I read you wrong?

Peter in Lk 16, in the story of Lazarus and the rich man, the rich man begs Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers that they might repent.

What is Abraham’s response?

Abraham says, ”they have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them…if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.”

Moses and the prophets are sufficient to bring one to salvation (cf 2 Tim 3:15-17).
Peter J:

P.S. I notice now that when you said “sufficient”, it was in the phrase “sufficient and powerful to bring one to salvation”. So perhaps you weren’t talking about Sufficiency of Scripture, in the sense of Scripture containing the whole Deposit of Faith.

God has given to man, in the scripture, all that man needs to know to be saved from God’s wrath.

 

[Philthy]

Phil, you’re wrong on every point. Stop looking for hidden meaning in everything you read and hear. There’s no meta-communication in what I’ve posted; what I’ve said is straightforward, and clear, for the clear-thinking.

Of course Im wrong - I dont pay attention! I was poking a little fun, thats all…I wasnt looking for “hidden meaning”. Perhaps what you have said is “straightforward and clear” for some, but the manner in which you presented it was clearly confusing. There is little about Matt 26:26-28 which justifies bringing it up to help explain your comment that you celebrate the Eucharist in the “like manner of the Lord” - so why bring it up?
Certainly it says absolutely nothing about the proper disposition of one who participates in a Eucharistic remembrance which, as you say, is all that matters to Christ.

 

[Teflon93]

We were discussing, at Sandusky’s prompting, Matt 26-28 as illuminating what celebrating the Eucharist in like manner as the Lord is. His celebration simply doesnt line up IN THAT RESPECT (bread and wine) but he wont admit that or that he mistaken in bringing up Matt 26…he’ll just change the discussion(Matt 26) without actually changing the topic (Eucharistic celebration)!

It is a beautiful thing to see…the Sandusky Shuffle.

We are indeed blessed to get to witness a master of sleight of hand at work.

Of course, were Sandusky to admit that his practice does not in fact line up with Scripture, he would have to cop to having and following extra-Scriptural Tradition—in this case, that of the temperance movement era in which his community formulated its new doctrines.

Since that would defang completely a core anti-Catholic argument—that we follow extra-Scriptural tradition, in contrast to Sandusky’s community which in his telling cleaves to Scripture like Judas to a bag of silver.

And so he just moves on, confident that the person sitting in the leftmost front row seat didn’t spot him dropping a card into his shirt pocket.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Peter in Lk 16, in the story of Lazarus and the rich man, the rich man begs Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers that they might repent.

What is Abraham’s response?

Abraham says, ”they have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them…if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.”

Moses and the prophets are sufficient to bring one to salvation (cf 2 Tim 3:15-17).

God has given to man, in the scripture, all that man needs to know to be saved from God’s wrath.

Where does it say in scripture that God has given man all he needs to know to be saved from God’s wrath? And where does it say that salvation is a function of knowledge? Do infants and the mentally deficient go to hell if they die before they “get the magic salvation-knowledge” ? Is this a new sola - by knowledge alone?

James

 

[clmowry]

SyCarl:
I must have missed the sufficiency of scripture part.

 

[Peter_J]

Peter in Lk 16, in the story of Lazarus and the rich man, the rich man begs Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers that they might repent.

What is Abraham’s response?

Abraham says, ”they have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them…if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.”

Moses and the prophets are sufficient to bring one to salvation (cf 2 Tim 3:15-17).

God has given to man, in the scripture, all that man needs to know to be saved from God’s wrath.

So if I understand you correctly, you believe in a weaker form of “Sufficiency of Scripture”, i.e. not that the Sacred Scriptures contain the whole Deposit of Faith, but rather that what they do contain is sufficient for salvation?

If that’s your definition of “Sufficiency of Scripture”, then I would ask you the same question I recently asked someone else: Do you believe in the “Sufficiency of John”, i.e. that John’s Gospel is sufficient for salvation?

 

[Pwrlftr]

…in contrast to Sandusky’s community which in his telling cleaves to Scripture** like **Judas to a bag of silver.

Is this kind of comment helpful in anyway?

 

[Teflon93]

Is this kind of comment helpful in anyway?

Would you prefer “David to Bathsheeba”, “Samson to Delilah”, etc in the “Things Which Cleave” category?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Would you prefer “David to Bathsheeba”, “Samson to Delilah”, etc in the “Things Which Cleave” category?

Do as you wish but you would be more effective if you weren’t so insulting. For example, you probably shouldn’t compare Sandusky’s love for the scriptures with Judas’ love for money.

 

[Teflon93]

Do as you wish but you would be more effective if you weren’t so insulting. For example, you probably shouldn’t compare Sandusky’s love for the scriptures with Judas’ love for money.

Are they not both boundless loves?

And for the record, it was Sandusky’s claims that his community cleaves to Scripture, not Sandusky’s love for Scripture which was being compared.

But perhaps your objection is to anyone who takes too much delight in an anti-Catholic’s comeuppance.

From the “The Eucharist - Consubstantiation? Symbolic? I don’t think so…” thread (post 67)

However, the question didn’t pertain to that, but to what I would think were I to see T93 throw a bible in the trash—my first thought would be, “he must be a Catholic.”

 

[Pwrlftr]

Are they not both boundless loves?

So you compared Sandusky’s love for the scriptures w/ Judas’ love for money because they are both boundless loves? Perhaps you could have found a less insulting way doing this, you know, one that didn’t involve Judas.

And for the record, it was Sandusky’s claims that his community cleaves to Scripture, not Sandusky’s love for Scripture which was being compared.

Well, gosh, that changes everything…

But perhaps your objection is to anyone who takes too much delight in an anti-Catholic’s comeuppance.

No, my objection is as stated above. I’m sure you don’t get it because maybe you feel it’s all about giving someoe “comeuppance”. I’ve seen where the forum has official greeters and other positions. Maybe you can apply for the official “comeuppance giver” position if one ever becomes available. You would certainly be good at it.

 

[Teflon93]

So you compared Sandusky’s love for the scriptures w/ Judas’ love for money because they are both boundless loves? Perhaps you could have found a less insulting way doing this, you know, one that didn’t involve Judas.

I wasn’t comparing Sandusky’s love for Scripture at all.

Well, gosh, that changes everything…

It does—I try to assemble sentences with each word meaning something whenever possible.

No, my objection is as stated above. I’m sure you don’t get it because maybe you feel it’s all about giving someoe “comeuppance”. I’ve seen where the forum has official greeters and other positions. Maybe you can apply for the official “comeuppance giver” position if one ever becomes available. You would certainly be good at it.

I’m not providing the comeuppance, Philthy did.

Would it be okay to note that Sandusky was hoisted on his own petard, or might that offend pirates?