Originally Posted by inkaneer
And by doing so you contradict the very scripture that you claim is superior to church authority. Scripture itself proclaims that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. If sola scriptura was a true doctrine scripture would not say that of the church but would do so of scripture. Also, we would have scripture tell us what is an inspired writing *. In other words scripture would say what is scripture. It would validate itself. But it doesn’t. Instead what we have is the church validating scripture. In the protestant scheme that is an inferior authority validating a superior authority. That is totally illogical and philosophically impossible because no one can delegate more authority than what one has. Nor can a lesser authority delegate anything to a higher authority. But if, as Catholics claim, Church authority is on the same level as scripture [since they emanate from the same source] then all the contradictions disappear. The basic protestant doctrine is therefore invalid. But you should know that, being a sola scripturist. All you need do is read 2 Thess 2:15 and it will tell you so.
There ya go again, wandering around bringing up Sola Scriptura when the discussion is on Faith and Works. I am sure there is a thread some where where you can present your papist views. Right now, try to stick to the subject at hand. Of course no one in the early church believed what you believe about the sufficiency of Scripture until the Reformation
The Teaching Magisterim and strayed and it took the reformers to bring the error to light. I recommend reading James White’s Scripture Alone, he will explore the bible’s accuracy, authority and authenticity with you much better than I.
For right now hear what Clement of Alexandria has to say:
Faith will lead you. Experience will teach you.
Scripture will train you.
Further he states:
I have demonstrated that the Scriptures which we believe are valid from
their omnipotent authority.
Be trained by Scripture and rest in the omnipotent authority. You seem to fail to understand the term omnipotent. It is a theological term that refers to all-encompassing power, in this case it attest to the all-encompassing power to which the church is subordinate.
“Papist views”? Your bigotry is exposed. How can you be christian and be a bigot at the same time? Oh, I forgot, you’re protestant. And just who is James White [other than a 21st century biased protestant]? As for Clement of Alexandria I am glad you brought him up because he also wrote this:
“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition” (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).
Let’s see what other early church writers wrote shall we? There is Origen who seems to write about future protestants:
“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).
And I need to mention my main man, Basil the Great who wrote this:
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).
He is echoed by Epiphanius of Salamis who wrote:
“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).
Then the truly great one, Augustine of Hippo who wrote:
“[T]he 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 Church, 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 which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
Continued…*
