E
estesbob
Guest
I dont know of any heretical groups that claimed Soloa Scriptura. Do you have a link?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
SyCarl
Guest
To take issue with a couple of your points:1, They cant provide any evidence they did leave earlier
2. They cant prove Scripture supports Sola Scriptura
3. They cant find any evidence that Sola Scriptura was supported by anyone prior to the “reformation”
4. There is no way to tell who’s personal interperation is correct
5. Sola Scriptura works only in a literate society where Scripture is readily avaible-which excludes 99% of Christians who lived before the 15th century.
Scripture alone does not require a literate society because it does not presume that people can read the Bible for themselves. It is perfectly acceptable for someone to read the Bible to another or to tell another what the Bible says. Scripture alone only says that the necessary things to be learned and believed are in the Bible, not how they are learned from the Bible. It is also acknowledged that originally teaching was oral, as the New Testament was not written immediately. However scripture alone maintains that everything necessary was actually recorded in Scripture.
Neither does scripture alone claim that there are some truths that are not recorded in Scripture but that everything necessary is. John tells us quite clearly that not everything Jesus did is recorded. For after saying:
he immediately adds:
- Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; John 20:30
After telling us the everything is not written he then tells us that from what is written, we can believe, and believing have life.
- but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
It is not accurate to state that no one supported an idea like scripture alone before the Reformation. Many early church fathers indicate that the Apostles’ teaching was recorded in scriptures and that scriptures contain everything that is required and in plain terms. Now the early church fathers may have also believed in tradition. The fact that they may contradict themselves does not detract from what they have written about scripture and what they have written shows that the idea of scripture alone is not novel.
S
SyCarl
Guest
Here are some statements from the church fathers which are given, not to show the truth of what is said, but to show that the ideas are not new to the Reformation
newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm
- In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. **For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,—to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. **After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want. Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103227.htm
- A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures…therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 2:27:1-2)
- 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. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3:1:1)
S
SyCarl
Guest
newadvent.org/fathers/23053.htmWhat do I come in for, you say, if I do not hear some one discoursing? This is the ruin and destruction of all. For what need of a person to discourse? This necessity arises from our sloth. Wherefore any necessity for a homily? All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain. But because you are hearers for pleasure’s sake, for that reason also you seek these things. For tell me, with what pomp of words did Paul speak? and yet he converted the world. Or with what the unlettered Peter? But I know not, you say, the things that are contained in the Scriptures. Why? For are they spoken in Hebrew? Are they in Latin, or in foreign tongues? Are they not in Greek? But they are expressed obscurely, you say: What is it that is obscure? Tell me. Are there not histories? For (of course) you know the plain parts, in that you enquire about the obscure. There are numberless histories in the Scriptures. Tell me one of these. But you cannot. These things are an excuse, and mere words. Every day, you say, one hears the same things. Tell me, then, do you not hear the same things in the theaters? Do you not see the same things in the race-course? Are not all things the same? Is it not always the same sun that rises? Is it not the same food that we use? I should like to ask you, since you say that you every day hear the same things; tell me, from what Prophet was the passage that was read? from what Apostle, or what Epistle? But you cannot tell me—you seem to hear strange things. When therefore you wish to be slothful, you say that they are the same things. But when you are questioned, you are in the case of one who never heard them. If they are the same, you ought to know them. But you are ignorant of them. Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Thessalonians, No. 3, v. 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htmFor this reason he writes: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” All what Scripture? all that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, “From a child you have known the holy Scriptures.” All such, then, “is given by inspiration of God”; therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
“For doctrine.” For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us.
“That the man of God may be perfect.” For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!“Thoroughly furnished unto all good works”; not merely taking part in them, he means, but “thoroughly furnished.” Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Timothy, No. 9, 3:16-17)
newadvent.org/fathers/0521.htm
- There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God.23 Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them. Hippolytus (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 9)
A
Athanasiy
Guest
The Biblical phrases, such as - ''word of God ‘’ or ‘‘word of the Lord’’ in Acts and also in the Epistles almost always refer to oral preaching.
The Bible doesn’t contain the whole of Jesus teaching , or Christianity as You mistakingly think.
( Mk4:33 Mk6:34 Lk:24:15-16 Lk24:25-27 John16:12
John 20:30 John 21:25 Acts 1:2-3.
A
Athanasiy
Guest
When the St.Paul speaks of ‘‘Scripture’’, the New Testament did not exist ( not definitely for over 300 years.), thus he is referring to the Old Testament only.
S
SyCarl
Guest
First because the scriptures tell us in one place that Jesus said something that is not recorded in that one place does not mean that it is not recorded some place else. This may be in another of the Gospels or even in the same Gospel. I would think that Jesus would repeat His parables and teachings when meeting with a different audience. Also, what Jesus told his disciples can also be recorded in Acts and the Episitles.The Biblical phrases, such as - ''word of God ‘’ or ‘‘word of the Lord’’ in Acts and also in the Epistles almost always refer to oral preaching.
The Bible doesn’t contain the whole of Jesus teaching , or Christianity as You mistakingly think.
( Mk4:33 Mk6:34 Lk:24:15-16 Lk24:25-27 John16:12
Code:John 20:30 John 21:25 Acts 1:2-3.
I also realize that John says that not everything is not recorded. I admitted that in my first post. But John also wrote in John 20:31 that he has written so we may believe and have life. What he is saying is that his Gospel itself contains all the necessities for belief and life. If his Gospel contains this, how much more so when we have the rest of the New Testament. Scripture alone does not say scripture contain everything but that it contains everything that is necessary.
And yes I know that when Paul wrote his epistles the scriptures were the Old Testament (although he wrote to Timothy near to the end of his and Peter’s lives so most of the letters would be in existance.) But if the Old Testament alone can provide what is needed, how much more so when you add the New Testament?
B
BrianH
Guest
So what specific teachings from Christ do Catholics follow that are not contained in scripture?
E
estesbob
Guest
Dont change what I said - said no one supported Sola Scriptura. The imprtance of Scripture has ALWAYS been acknwledged by the Church.It is not accurate to state that no one supported an idea like scripture alone before the Reformation. Many early church fathers indicate that the Apostles’ teaching was recorded in scriptures and that scriptures contain everything that is required and in plain terms. Now the early church fathers may have also believed in tradition. The fact that they may contradict themselves does not detract from what they have written about scripture and what they have written shows that the idea of scripture alone is not novel.
Your idea that Scripture could have been read to the illiterate would no work well in pracitce. There were very few Bibles for the first 14 centuries, they were moslty in Latin and acess to them was exteremly limited.In fact about the only place a person could get a regular exposure to Scripture would be at Mass,
Their simply is no way Sola Scriptura works for at leats the firs 15 centuries of Christianity-that is unlees God put into effect a Doctrne he knew people could not adhere to.
E
estesbob
Guest
Based on who’s interpertation?After telling us the everything is not written he then tells us that from what is written, we can believe, and believing have life.
.
S
SyCarl
Guest
Well if they are at Mass they must have had a priest there who had learned what the Scriptures said, if they did not actually have a Bible in the church. Scripture alone does not rule out oral teaching but that the oral teaching be what is contained in the Bible. I can tell someone the story of Noah and the ark. for example, without them ever seeing the Bible or without ever seeing it myself. That does not mean the scripture is not the basis for what is taught.Dont change what I said - said no one supported Sola Scriptura. The imprtance of Scripture has ALWAYS been acknwledged by the Church.
Your idea that Scripture could have been read to the illiterate would no work well in pracitce. There were very few Bibles for the first 14 centuries, they were moslty in Latin and acess to them was exteremly limited.In fact about the only place a person could get a regular exposure to Scripture would be at Mass,
Their simply is no way Sola Scriptura works for at leats the firs 15 centuries of Christianity-that is unlees God put into effect a Doctrne he knew people could not adhere to.
I didn’t change what you said. You said no one supported sola scriptura. I provided quotes which shows that the content of scripture alone was contained in the church fathers and in a positive way.
S
SyCarl
Guest
On the ordinary and plain meaning of what is written.Based on who’s interpertation?
“but” Even though other things were done.but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
“theses things have been written” What things? His Gospel
“so that you may believe” Why was it written? So we may believe
“that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” What to believe? That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God
“and that believing you may have life in His name” What is the result of believing? Life in His Name
E
estesbob
Guest
You have deftly tried to change the topic from Sola Scriptura to "Scrpiture needed also. The Church has NEVER disputed the importance of Scripture.Well if they are at Mass they must have had a priest there who had learned what the Scriptures said, if they did not actually have a Bible in the church. Scripture alone does not rule out oral teaching but that the oral teaching be what is contained in the Bible. I can tell someone the story of Noah and the ark. for example, without them ever seeing the Bible or without ever seeing it myself. That does not mean the scripture is not the basis for what is taught.
Perhaps we are arguing semanstice. here is my understanding of Sola Scriptura as annunciated in “This Rock” magazine:
*Simply stated, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”) holds that every point of Christian theology-everything pertaining to “faith and practice”-must be verifiable from the Bible alone. This is expressed by the old Protestant slogan Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum (“What is not biblical is not theological”). *
A necessarily corollary of the doctrine of sola scriptura is an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures.
I didn’t change what you said. You said no one supported sola scriptura. I provided quotes which shows that the content of scripture alone was contained in the church fathers and in a positive way.
E
estesbob
Guest
On the ordinary and plain meaning of what is written.
Code:
Based on who's interpertation of what the plain meaning is?
D
djrakowski
Guest
SyCarl, I appreciate the sincerity with which you hold this belief, but what you’ve stated is practically impossible. Nobody comes to sacred scripture free of biases, and you’re no exception.On the ordinary and plain meaning of what is written.
It would be more honest if you were to say, “a reading of scripture informed by my faith background, personal study and life experience.”
S
SyCarl
Guest
Let us define our own positions as you define yours. From a previous post in the thread from the Westminster Confession of Faith.You have deftly tried to change the topic from Sola Scriptura to "Scrpiture needed also. The Church has NEVER disputed the importance of Scripture.
Perhaps we are arguing semanstice. here is my understanding of Sola Scriptura as annunciated in “This Rock” magazine:
*Simply stated, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”) holds that every point of Christian theology-everything pertaining to “faith and practice”-must be verifiable from the Bible alone. This is expressed by the old Protestant slogan Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum (“What is not biblical is not theological”). *
A necessarily corollary of the doctrine of sola scriptura is an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures.
I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6]
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]
VI. **The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.**12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]
VII.**** All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]****{/QUOTE]
While I am not a Calvinist, I think that the above statement accurately sets out the doctrine. I am not saying scripture also but that the teaching must be in scripture. The knowledge of what is in scripture can be conveyed by any means possible.
E
estesbob
Guest
Let us define our own positions as you define yours. From a previous post in the thread from the Westminster Confession of Faith.
I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6]
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]
VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
S
SyCarl
Guest
Now the doctrine does not say that everything is equally as clear but the necessary things are clear. As for whose interpretation of what the plaining meaning is, if the Church gives you an interpreation, do you not still have to interpret what that interpretation means? You eventually must interpret something for yourself.Based on who’s interpertation of what the plain meaning is?
For instance what is the "Plain Meaniing of John 6:35-66
S
SyCarl
Guest
SyCarl;2379294:
How do you interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Don’t you have to use your interpretation of what it says to give it any meaning?Let us define our own positions as you define yours. From a previous post in the thread from the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Based on who’s interpertation?
S
SyCarl
Guest
SyCarl;2379294:
I could well say why did it take 1800 years to give the doctrine of papal infallibility? If you refer to the church fathers, I think that they more clearly set out scripture alone than papal infallibility.Let us define our own positions as you define yours. From a previous post in the thread from the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Based on who’s interpertation? Why did it take 1500 years for this doctrine to be made?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.