W
- Status
T
Tietjen
Guest
Context is everything and apparently the author of the site you referenced isn’t a big supporter of “keeping things in context.”
Patrick Madrid::
Trying reading through this webpage.
A
Axion
Guest
There’s a lot of incredibly selective quotation of the Fathers that goes on among some protestants. They don’t hold that the Fathers have any authority, but like to spin some parts of their writings to try to subvert Catholic and Orthodox beliefs.
This whole article is a garbled mixture of selective quotation, opinion and logical leaps such as trying to assume, on very little basis, that when Athanasius spoke of tradition he was referring to the bible (which didn’t exist in settled form in 325 AD - it wasn’t put together in its present form till 382 AD.) For example the article takes the statement “you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of God. But we impart of what we have learned from inspired teachers who have been conversant with them”
and interprets it : "Athanasius really believed that scripture was understandable by the common man by simply reading it … This kind of statement from Athanasius, should be troubling for Catholics and Orthodox alike, since, **he is the a church leader **who is not supposed to ask us to use our own powers of interpretation to know truth, he is supposed to interpret it for us and just tell us his opinions!
But is this what Athanasius is actually saying? He says you "will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. So he is teaching doctrine and then asking people to go to the bible to confirm what he has taught. He is not saying “interpret scripture for yourself and develop whatever doctrine you think you can find there”, he is saying “hear the teaching of myself and those who taught me, and find it confirmed in the scriptures.”
Patrick Madrid wrote:
Such apologists are fond of quoting two particular passages from Athanasius: “The holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the preaching of the truth” (Contra Gentiles 1:1). And: “These books [of canonical Scripture] are the
fountains of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them. In these alone the school of piety preaches the Gospel. Let no man add to these or take away from them” (39th Festal Letter). But in neither place is
Athanasius teaching sola scriptura.
In the case of the Festal Letter, he was instructing his churches as to what could and could not be read at Church as Scripture. And that heretical books should not be used. The context of the epistle makes it clear that he was laying down a liturgical directive for his flock.
Athanasius, for example, wrote: “The confession arrived at Nicea was, we say more, sufficient and enough by itself for the subversion of all irreligious heresy and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church” (Ad Afros 1).
And: “The very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be
celled a Christian” (Ad Serapion 1:28).
This whole article is a garbled mixture of selective quotation, opinion and logical leaps such as trying to assume, on very little basis, that when Athanasius spoke of tradition he was referring to the bible (which didn’t exist in settled form in 325 AD - it wasn’t put together in its present form till 382 AD.) For example the article takes the statement “you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of God. But we impart of what we have learned from inspired teachers who have been conversant with them”
and interprets it : "Athanasius really believed that scripture was understandable by the common man by simply reading it … This kind of statement from Athanasius, should be troubling for Catholics and Orthodox alike, since, **he is the a church leader **who is not supposed to ask us to use our own powers of interpretation to know truth, he is supposed to interpret it for us and just tell us his opinions!
But is this what Athanasius is actually saying? He says you "will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. So he is teaching doctrine and then asking people to go to the bible to confirm what he has taught. He is not saying “interpret scripture for yourself and develop whatever doctrine you think you can find there”, he is saying “hear the teaching of myself and those who taught me, and find it confirmed in the scriptures.”
Patrick Madrid wrote:
Such apologists are fond of quoting two particular passages from Athanasius: “The holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the preaching of the truth” (Contra Gentiles 1:1). And: “These books [of canonical Scripture] are the
fountains of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them. In these alone the school of piety preaches the Gospel. Let no man add to these or take away from them” (39th Festal Letter). But in neither place is
Athanasius teaching sola scriptura.
In the case of the Festal Letter, he was instructing his churches as to what could and could not be read at Church as Scripture. And that heretical books should not be used. The context of the epistle makes it clear that he was laying down a liturgical directive for his flock.
Athanasius, for example, wrote: “The confession arrived at Nicea was, we say more, sufficient and enough by itself for the subversion of all irreligious heresy and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church” (Ad Afros 1).
And: “The very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be
celled a Christian” (Ad Serapion 1:28).
S
steve_b
Guest
That site quotes the following regarding Athanasius, their 1st example (red emphasis is their emphasis)
“the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth” (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, part 1, 1, 3)
let’s look at the full quote for the context of the quote
3. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know—still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them—the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith. in Christ unreasonable. For this is what the Gentiles traduce and scoff at, and laugh loudly at us, insisting on the one fact of the Cross of Christ; and it is just here that one must pity their want of sense, because when they traduce the Cross of Christ they do not see that its power has filled all the world, and that by it the effects of the knowledge of God are made manifest to all.
Did you see what they did by tightly selecting what they want from a quote?
- Athanasius said scripture needs correct interpretation.
- scripture isn’t alone. Scripture doesn’t replace or displace teachers who supply the correct knowledge and interpretation of scripture. i.e. Athanasius is also defending Tradition for giving truth
- Athanasius said he MUST communicate what he learned from those who taught him the faith. Which is what paul said to Timothy. “Hold fast to the traditions both oral and written that we taught you.”
- Gentiles were picking and choosing what they wanted to believe. And Athanasius was using BOTH scripture AND Tradition to make his apologetic…
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
Catholics agree with Protestants that the only inspired writings are Sacred Scripture. Neither the Catechism nor the ECF’s are regarded as inspired writings by any professing Christians. This is an important starting place for discussion of the article in the OP and of sola scriptura. And I think this is the point Athanasius was making. He is also saying in paraphrase, “If you want to read some good teaching literature, read the ECF’s,” but I would add “with caution because sometimes they assume things to be true and right because another respected teacher said it, not because it came from the apostles.”
S
steve_b
Guest
Neither Sacred Scripture, the CCC, nor the ECF’s teach sola scriptura. I would suggest, that’s the place to start discussing sola scriptura.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
My article on St. Athanasius does the demolition job: 
Athanasius on Scripture and Tradition
The word “sufficient” is used a couple of times by this Father, but you need to ask “sufficient for what?” Sufficient to “proclaim the truth” and sufficient “above all things” is kind of vague. Some choice Athanasian quotes on Scripture “sufficiency”. We see even here references to Tradition (the Teachers, the Fathers, etc) and Church Councils (Nicaea) as orthodox interpreters of Scripture:
"But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us… (To the Bishops of Egypt 4)
“…come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles [SCRIPTURE], but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well [TRADITION]. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth [SCRIPTURE] – while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose [TRADITION], if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures [TRADITION], and be able to learn what he wishes to know…” (Contra Gentes 1)
Here we have Scripture (“divine oracles”, etc) and Tradition (as reliable teachers, and as authoritative traditional interpretation of Scripture, etc) as both necessary.
“…what need is there of Councils, when the Nicene is sufficient, as against the Arian heresy, so against the rest, which it has condemned one and all by means of the sound faith…Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 6)
Here we have: (1) the Nicene Council is sufficient against the Arian heresy, and (2) the Scriptures are sufficient “above all things”; (3) the Nicene Creed is taken from and represents the correct interpretation of Scripture.
Schaff’s NPNF volume 4 tells us: “On the sufficiency of Scripture for the establishment of all necessary doctrine Athanasius insists repeatedly and emphatically …” while at the same time: “Tradition is recognised as authoritative in two ways: (1) Negatively, in the sense that doctrines which are novel are prima facie condemned by the very fact… and (2) positively, as furnishing a guide to the sense of Scripture…”
According to Athanasius, the Scriptures are sufficient to tell us the essentials of Christianity (basically those elements of the Creed) when they are interpreted correctly by Tradition and the Church. And the correct interpretation is found only in the Church (the Fathers, the Councils, the Teachers, the Saints, which Athanasius refers to repeatedly).
Phil P
Athanasius on Scripture and Tradition
The word “sufficient” is used a couple of times by this Father, but you need to ask “sufficient for what?” Sufficient to “proclaim the truth” and sufficient “above all things” is kind of vague. Some choice Athanasian quotes on Scripture “sufficiency”. We see even here references to Tradition (the Teachers, the Fathers, etc) and Church Councils (Nicaea) as orthodox interpreters of Scripture:
"But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us… (To the Bishops of Egypt 4)
“…come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles [SCRIPTURE], but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well [TRADITION]. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth [SCRIPTURE] – while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose [TRADITION], if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures [TRADITION], and be able to learn what he wishes to know…” (Contra Gentes 1)
Here we have Scripture (“divine oracles”, etc) and Tradition (as reliable teachers, and as authoritative traditional interpretation of Scripture, etc) as both necessary.
“…what need is there of Councils, when the Nicene is sufficient, as against the Arian heresy, so against the rest, which it has condemned one and all by means of the sound faith…Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 6)
Here we have: (1) the Nicene Council is sufficient against the Arian heresy, and (2) the Scriptures are sufficient “above all things”; (3) the Nicene Creed is taken from and represents the correct interpretation of Scripture.
Schaff’s NPNF volume 4 tells us: “On the sufficiency of Scripture for the establishment of all necessary doctrine Athanasius insists repeatedly and emphatically …” while at the same time: “Tradition is recognised as authoritative in two ways: (1) Negatively, in the sense that doctrines which are novel are prima facie condemned by the very fact… and (2) positively, as furnishing a guide to the sense of Scripture…”
According to Athanasius, the Scriptures are sufficient to tell us the essentials of Christianity (basically those elements of the Creed) when they are interpreted correctly by Tradition and the Church. And the correct interpretation is found only in the Church (the Fathers, the Councils, the Teachers, the Saints, which Athanasius refers to repeatedly).
Phil P
T
tukfryer
Guest
WOW a complete how to… on discrediting the bible…from a church
Im stilll trying to get my head around the concept that the CC takes credit for approving / canonizing the bible but spends so much time discrediting it
Must have been that reformation thingy.
Please dont take my remark to seriously I just like to view things in the simplest form.
No I did not sleep in a Holiday Inn last night, but I did read this in the link you provided
To a dumb Joe six pack like myself that looks like, looking out for yourself rather than looking for the truth. Watergate, Cover your backside comes to mind.
I think that we all just need to accept the fact that the CC has a different concept of Christianity than the Bible describes and get on with working out our own salvation.
Peace
T
Tietjen
Guest
I don’t take your remark too seriously since it would be completely irrational and impossible to stand on its own. You obviously believe that there should not be anything, anyone, or any Church involved with the Bible and determining truth. You believe that the Bible stands all by itself and outside of it exists no other truth of any consequence; that all “Christians” should simply read the Bible and form their own conclusions on issues as they arise. My friend, this is exactly what the Protestants have done for the last 500+ years and each time there is a conflict over proper understanding of what the Bible says concerning a given issue, we often find a spanking brand new denomination popping up. How many now? I’ve heard over 50,000 denominations, but hey, I’m a fair man let’s say it’s 500 (we both know it to be much more). My point is, dear brother, one must have some place to turn to for understanding truths. Don’t say each individual has his/her own hotline to the Holy Spirit who will provide the one and only truth of a given issue, because one only has to look at all the “different” Protestant Churches to understand that this is either simply not the case or the Holy Spirit is playing some cruel joke.WOW a complete how to… on discrediting the bible…from a church
Im stilll trying to get my head around the concept that the CC takes credit for approving / canonizing the bible but spends so much time discrediting it
Must have been that reformation thingy.
Please dont take my remark to seriously I just like to view things in the simplest form.
No I did not sleep in a Holiday Inn last night, but I did read this in the link you provided
To a dumb Joe six pack like myself that looks like, looking out for yourself rather than looking for the truth. Watergate, Cover your backside comes to mind.
I think that we all just need to accept the fact that the CC has a different concept of Christianity than the Bible describes and get on with working out our own salvation.
Peace
Jesus Christ set up His Church 2000 years ago, not in 1609 with John Smyth… that was the Baptist Church. Nor with Martin Luther (Lutheran) in 1517. Nor with Henry VIII in 1534 (Anglican). Nor with John Knox in 1560 (Presbyterian). Nor with John & Charles Wesley in 1730 (Methodist). Nor with Samuel Seabury in 1789 (Episcopalian)… and on and on and on… Christ founded one Church and He did not say, “My Church will come to pass one thousand five hundred and some odd years from now.” He began His Church on Peter (the Rock) in 33 AD. He gave His Church Authority to bind and loose. He gave it authority to lead and for 2000 years it has led and will continue to do so because He says it will exist always. If you don’t or are unable to accept the decisions Christ made, I’m sorry, but you do not simply get to throw a new version of truth on top of what you don’t like and expect others not to see it as a lie.
I’ll include you in my prayers turkfryer.
- Status