Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

[wmscott]

Lost me, friend…

Sola Scriptura is not a “theory.” It’s the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines.

Sola Scriptura has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. It is the norma normans in norming doctrines.

I disagree with the priest that no Scripture existed prior to 1500 AD. Most date the first Scripture at 1400 BC, that’s 2,900 years earlier than what the priest claims. Jesus referenced and even specifically said “Scripture” some 50 times, and I disagree that He was referrring to something that would not exist for 1500 years and that He just made up the Scriptures He quotes and uses normatively. I disagree with the priest here.

.

AJ, I think you misunderstood what the Priest meant by “which stakes a man’s salvation on the possession of the Bible … imputes to Almighty God a total indifference to the salvation of the countless souls that passed hence to eternity for 1500 years”. He is not saying that Scripture did not exist prior to 1500 AD, he is saying in effect that the Bible was not available to the masses until after the invention of the printing press. It is a little bit of history that we all need to be aware of. When he states “that our Blessed Lord failed to provide an adequate means of conveying to men in every age the knowledge of His truth." He is referring to Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority that was utilized by the Catholic Church to proclaim Sacred Scripture to the faithful.

Sola Scriptura apparently has different meaning to different religions, I need to study more on what those differences are, however I find you explanation different from what I was told in the past. Can a Catholic apologists here who is knowledgeable on this help me understand what is being said by this quote “Sola Scriptura has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. It is the norma normans in norming doctrines.” Thanks

As far as Jesus referenced and even specifically said “Scripture” some 50 times, I believe this to be the OT scriptures. In fact, He and the Apostles referenced Sacred Scripture; you know the deuterocanonicals, many times. So we agree on this point. Peace.

 

[CWBetts]

Nice. Catholic tracts written in opposition of Protestant doctrines.

Who better to refute the heresies of the reformers than the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

Lost me, friend…

Sola Scriptura is not a “theory.” It’s the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines.

Sola Scriptura has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. It is the norma normans in norming doctrines.

I disagree with the priest that no Scripture existed prior to 1500 AD. Most date the first Scripture at 1400 BC, that’s 2,900 years earlier than what the priest claims. Jesus referenced and even specifically said “Scripture” some 50 times, and I disagree that He was referrring to something that would not exist for 1500 years and that He just made up the Scriptures He quotes and uses normatively. I disagree with the priest here.

.

AJ, I think you misunderstood what the Priest meant by “which stakes a man’s salvation on the possession of the Bible … imputes to Almighty God a total indifference to the salvation of the countless souls that passed hence to eternity for 1500 years”. He is not saying that Scripture did not exist prior to 1500 AD, he is saying in effect that the Bible was not available to the masses until after the invention of the printing press.

Perhaps, although that’s not what was said and claimed. But, my friend, so what? Is the Rule of Law in civil societies moot unless all citizens personally own all law books so that all laws are available to everyone? I fail to see how the point relates to the issue of the rule/canon/norma normans. Are you saying that since every Jew did not have a copy of The Ten Commandments (or the ability to read them, if they did), therefore, The Ten Commandments are moot as a rule/canon/norma normans for morality until and unless all have a personal copy and all are literate?

Sola Scriptura apparently has different meaning to different religions, I need to study more on what those differences are, however I find you explanation different from what I was told in the past.

I respectfully disagree. The official, traditional definition of Sola Scriptura is very clear and, as far as I know, universal. It is the embrace of Scripture as the norma normans/ rule/ canon in the evaluation of doctrines. Now, I think what does happen sometimes, is that OTHER things related to it are discussed in connection to it. For example, people often share WHY they believe Scripture is the most sound canon in norming (“inerrant” “inspired” “clear” - a variety of reasons might be shared, some I’d agree with and some I would not), or one might talk about some hermeneutical principles used in this norming according to Scripture (“scripture interprets Scripture” for example - a phrase I find unfortunate, although i understand what they MEAN by it). But these, while related to the praxis, are not the praxis.

Sola Scriptura has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. It is the norma normans in norming doctrines.

Correct, which is why the post I was responding to is entirely off topic.

The Protestant doctrine about SALVATION is as follows: “Sola Gratia/ Solus Christus/ Sola Fide/ Soli Deo Gloria” It’s ONE united, inseparable doctrine, and it is in reference to justification (narrow sense). IF we are going to talk about justification, then THAT is what needs to be discussed.

Sola Scriptura (while the “fifth sola” typically associated with Protestantism) has nothing whatsoever to do with justification, and it’s not even a doctrine (in the sense of a teaching). It’s the PRAXIS of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon in NORMING - a whole other issue. Obviously.

As far as Jesus referenced and even specifically said “Scripture” some 50 times, I believe this to be the OT scriptures. In fact, He and the Apostles referenced Sacred Scripture many times.

The only rule/canon Jesus used was Scripture. Yes, the corpus of such was smaller in His day, but that’s entirely moot to the praxis of the Rule of Scripture. Sola Scriptura was just as relevant when Scripture was just two stone tablets - the size of the corpus doesn’t matter. Anymore than the Rule of Law is moot until every law that will ever been enacted in every place has been added to the corpus of laws, no, obviously, the Rule of Law applies to the Laws that exist then and there; similar with the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura).

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The only rule/canon Jesus used was Scripture.

So why did He have apostles? Why did He tell them “whatever you bind on earth…”? Why did He tell them the Holy Spirit would come to teach them instead of just pointing them to the OT? Why did Jesus claim His authority to teach was from God and not the OT alone? Why were His teachings considered novel? What were the parables for? Why did He teach with miracles? Why did He promise the Spirit to give us the right words? Why did He exhort a form of baptism not found in the OT? Etc… He would not have done any of this if the “rule/canon” was Scripture alone.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

So why did He have apostles? Why did He tell them “whatever you bind on earth…”? Why did He tell them the Holy Spirit would come to teach them instead of just pointing them to the OT? Why did Jesus claim His authority to teach was from God and not the OT alone? Why were His teachings considered novel? What were the parables for? Why did He teach with miracles? Why did He promise the Spirit to give us the right words? Why did He exhort a form of baptism not found in the OT? Etc… He would not have done any of this if the “rule/canon” was Scripture alone.

I don’t know that I have answers to every possible question, but I suspect He had apostles because He involved others in ministry. He still does. I suspect He desires people to teach because people need teaching.

I think you are confusing authority to teach with the norming of teaching. I have the authority to do my job, indeed I’m commanded to. But that does not suggest that I’m unaccountable or infallible or incapable of error, or that what I say and do is the best norma normans for the evaluation of what I say and do. I have the authority to do my job, but that doesn’t suggest unaccountability. No, I am held accountable for all I say and do in my employment. Evaluating the correctness of such is called “norming.” Norming involves two primary things: the rule (“straight edge”) / canon ('measuring stick") or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans (“the norm that norms”). While not well defined in my work place, that would primarily be my job description (which is pretty detailed!!!). The second issue would be the arbitration: how will it be determined if I’m “measuring up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the canon). Sola Scriptura concerns the first of those issues: WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines.

Again, the praxis of the Rule of Scripture is not a theory and it has nothing to do with salvation. It is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines.

.

 

[MarcoPolo]

It is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines.

I know what you think it is, Josiah. And I know what other Protestants who consider it a “doctrine” think it is. The problem is no one can posit a sound argument in favor of either version. Neither Jesus, nor the Apostles, nor the early Church taught either version. They did not teach Scripture only as the norma norms.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I know what you think it is, Josiah. Neither Jesus, nor the Apostles, nor the early Church taught either version. They did not teach Scripture only as the norma norms.

1. It’s the only norma normans Jesus used; He never used The Catholic Church.
2. So what? Did Jesus teach that it’s a good praxis to worship on Sunday? If not, is it thereby a bad praxis? You are teaching on the internet, did Jesus do that? You seem to be suggesting that Jesus and the Apostles must have practiced something in order for it to be sound. But, if that IS your position, then note that Jesus used Sola Scriptura some 50 times. He never once referenced or used The Catholic Church as normative, or the Tradition of The Catholic Church. Nor did He use the Magisterium of such as the sole arbiter.
3. Sola Scriptura is what it is, the embrace of Scripture as the norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines. One may call it a dogma if one wants, but generally a dogma is not a practice but a teaching. Driving on the right hand side of the road or making coffee in the morning are generally regarded to be practices rather than dogmatic teachings. The point here is: it is not a “theory” and it has nothing whatsoever to do with justification.
4. Again, I think you are confusing authority with unaccountability. There is no relation. Just because a policeman has the authority to do his job does not make him/her unaccountable, infallible, incapable of error, the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter, whatever he/she says is what Jesus says. You seem to be making an entirely unsubstantiated leap that because we have the authority to teach (as you must think you do since you are teaching), ERGO self is thereby infallible/unaccountable. It’s an unsubstantiated and entirely unbounded leap.

.

 

[CWBetts]

1. It’s the only norma normans Jesus used; He never used The Catholic Church.
2. So what? Did Jesus teach that it’s a good praxis to worship on Sunday? If not, is it thereby a bad praxis? You are teaching on the internet, did Jesus do that? You seem to be suggesting that Jesus and the Apostles must have practiced something in order for it to be sound. But, if that IS your position, then note that Jesus used Sola Scriptura some 50 times. He never once referenced or used The Catholic Church as normative, or the Tradition of The Catholic Church. Nor did He use the Magisterium of such as the sole arbiter.
3. Sola Scriptura is what it is, the embrace of Scripture as the norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines. One may call it a dogma if one wants, but generally a dogma is not a practice but a teaching. Driving on the right hand side of the road or making coffee in the morning are generally regarded to be practices rather than dogmatic teachings. The point here is: it is not a “theory” and it has nothing whatsoever to do with justification.
4. Again, I think you are confusing authority with unaccountability. There is no relation. Just because a policeman has the authority to do his job does not make him/her unaccountable, infallible, incapable of error, the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter, whatever he/she says is what Jesus says. You seem to be making an entirely unsubstantiated leap that because we have the authority to teach (as you must think you do since you are teaching), ERGO self is thereby infallible/unaccountable. It’s an unsubstantiated and entirely unbounded leap.

.

So St. Paul was wrong when he said to “hold fast to traditions I have taught you, either written or by word of mouth” And where exactly does the Bible say that all we are supposed to use is Scripture? For that matter, where does the Bible tell us what books are even supposed to be included in the Canon of Scripture? Jesus did clarify the doctrines laid out in Scripture, didn’t he? Isn’t that the bulk of the sermon on the mount? And didn’t Jesus send the Apostles, just as the FAther sent him? DOn’t look now, but Sola Scriptura is beginning to self-destruct…

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I know what you think it is, Josiah. And I know what other Protestants who consider it a “doctrine” think it is. The problem is no one can posit a sound argument in favor of either version. Neither Jesus, nor the Apostles, nor the early Church taught either version. They did not teach Scripture only as the norma norms.

I’ve known and discussed this very issue with Josiah - many times over the last few years. The problem is his definition of SS is so slippery that you cannot pin it down, and second of all his definition deliberately avoids using terms and phrases that major Protestant apologists and theologians use. For example, while SS has been historically affirmed as a doctrine, Josiah takes everyone on a ride telling us that it isn’t really a ‘doctrine’ but a praxis.

The doctrine of Sola Fide, simply stated, is that Scripture is the only Inspired source of information we have, and thus ANY doctrine binding on the Christian must be derived from Scripture. Period. The Catholics job at this point is simple: Point out that nowhere does the Scripture itself speak like that, thus SS is self-refuting by definition.

There is no need to go on Josiah’s merry-go-round trying to pin down his personal definition of SS. That get’s you nowhere but frustrated. I don’t say this to be mean, cuz he’s a good guy, but I speak from experience with interacting with him (and lots of it).

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The problem is his definition of SS is so slippery that you cannot pin it down

Actually, it’s EXTREMELY clear and precise. As is typically the case in epistemology on this point. The historic, confessional definition is that Scripture serves as the norma normans/rule/canon. What’s “slippery” about that? You know what Scripture is, don’t you? You know what a norma normans/rule/canon is, don’t you? The Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) is that Scripture is the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines.

For example, while SS has been historically affirmed as a doctrine, Josiah takes everyone on a ride telling us that it isn’t really a ‘doctrine’ but a praxis.

As has been noted numerous times, yes - SOME Protestants use the term “doctrine” to mean ANYTHING embraced as good or right. But, historically, “doctrine” as meant a TEACHING of a truth. Toyotas are the best cars on the road would be a doctrine (of sorts), I drive a Toyota is a praxis. Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans. As has been noted numerous times, there ARE doctrines associated with it (the doctrine of Scripture, for example) and there are even other practices associated with it, but the Rule of Scripture is what it is: the embrace (PRACTICE) of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines (official teachings held to be necessary).

The doctrine of Sola Fide, simply stated, is that Scripture is the only Inspired source of information we have, and thus ANY doctrine binding on the Christian must be derived from Scripture. Period.

It is nothing of the sort. Sola Fide is PART of the doctrine of Sola Gratia/ Solus Christus/ Sola Fide/ Soli Deo Gloria. It says that we are justified by God’s grace in Christ who is THE Savior through faith that is in Christ.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

So St. Paul was wrong when he said to “hold fast to traditions I have taught you, either written or by word of mouth”

Not in my view. And I think we STILL should hold fast to what ST. PAUL taught. Now, what it the world does that have to do with The Catholic Church (or any other denomination)? Where does it say to “hold fast to whatever THE CATHOLIC CHURCH teaches you by word or mouth?”

And where exactly does the Bible say that all we are supposed to use is Scripture?

I don’t know that it does, although the only norma normans referenced as being used in Scripture is Scripture (some 50 times by Jesus alone). Praxis need not be exampled in Scripture to be sound. For example, I think it’s sound for Christian churches to use electricity, but I can’t think of a single example of any church in the Bible using electricity.

didn’t Jesus send the Apostles, just as the FAther sent him? DOn’t look now, but Sola Scriptura is beginning to self-destruct…

Yes. But where did He say they were infallible/unaccountable? And, more to the point, that all their successors would be infallible/unaccountable if bishops in The Catholic Church (exclusively)? Where does He promise that all ordained clergy in any singular, specific denomination (much less, The Catholic one) would infallibly follow His leading - but that no others would? That all teachers are accountable EXCEPT for The Catholic Church? Ah, the appropriateness of accountability (and thus the first issue in such - the rule/canon/norma normans - is coming into focus).

.

 

[Des]

I don’t know that it does, although the only norma normans referenced as being used in Scripture is Scripture (some 50 times by Jesus alone).

Which part of Scripture did Christ quote, to back up His ‘Marriage is final’ teaching between one Man and One woman?

Oh and which verse did Christ use to back up the One God, 3 Persons teaching?

 

[paul_c]

AmericanJosiah,
You are being a little disingenuos with your discussion of sola Scriptura. You do realize that the reason that Martin Luther was so hot to create this doctrine was that it allowed him to separate himself from the Catholic Heirarchy and still have some a claim to some Apostolic Aurthority. In fact, he declared his interpretations superior to the Catholic Church’s, did he not?

Historically, Sola scriptura has been used against the Catholic Church in two ways:

1. As a means of arguing a different interpretation than that taught by the Catholic Church
2. As a means of excluding Church teachings not found in scripture.

Your whole concept of Scripture being the Norma Norman is faulty in that two well meaning people can interpret the same verse differently. You know this is true. This discussion alone is proof of that. Furthermore, scripture is a subset of tradition and it can’t be used to measure that which it doesn’t address. So it can’t be used like a measuring tape as you suggest. In fact, that is the role of the Magesterium. As a living, breathing body, it can react to questions and clarify issues of doctrine, things that a book, even a devinely inspired one, can not.

Your predecessors separated from the true Norma Norman, the magesterium, because they, in their arrogance, presumed to know more about salvation than those who had been trusted with the sacred truths by God. When they did that, they needed some way to claim their views were the truth so they created the false doctrine of Sola scriptura. As if that wasn’t enough, Martin Luther even modified the existing scripture, eliminating 7 books that didn’t fit his theology and altering the text in the ones he kept. He also declared others, like St. Jame’s epistle which famously lectures against Sola Fide, less worthy than the others. When your church’s founder declares that scripture is the basis for all devine knowledge and then alters scripture, doesn’t that give you pause?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

AmericanJosiah,
You are being a little disingenuos with your discussion of sola Scriptura.

IMHO, that “shoe” is on the other foot. What I have stated is simply what it is. I’ve asked none to embrace the practice and I realize Catholics are not so permitted. But it is what it is. It is the embrace (that makes it a praxis) of Scripture as the norma normans/ rule/ canon in the evaluation of doctrines.

You do realize that the reason that Martin Luther was so hot to create this doctrine was that it allowed him to separate himself from the Catholic Heirarchy

1. It’s not a doctrine. A doctrine is a teaching of a truth regarded as essential. Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach anything, it is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/ canon/ norma normans in the evaluation of teachings (especially doctrines).
2. Luther didn’t “invent” it - although he may be the first to coin the term by which the praxis is now known. When Moses came down the mountain with the first Scriptures, they were regarded as normative (at least for those issues) - thus, Sola Scriptura. When Jesus referenced Scripture normatively (as He did some 50 times), that’s Sola Scriptura. What IS new and WAS invented is the Catholic exemption of self from accountability.

Historically, Sola scriptura has been used against the Catholic Church in two ways:

1. As a means of arguing a different interpretation than that taught by the Catholic Church
2. As a means of excluding Church teachings not found in scripture.

#1 is false. Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with hermeneutics.

2 is functionally, largely correct. When The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter - Day Saints states that God the Father has a Father (not a doctrine, btw), it points to Tradition (as it defines, chooses and interprets) to support the view. As long as it appoints itself as the sole interpreter (which, BTW, it no longer does) and designates it’s Tradition as equally authoritative (as it still does) and appoints itself as the sole arbiter for the correctnes of its own teachings, then there is no other possibility but that self will arbitrate that self is correct - since self IS in agreement with self. Protestants tend to see this has just a circle of self-authentication and entirely irrelevant to the issue of correctness. It is our view that the more sound norma normans is one ABOVE and BEYOND all parties (including the one under review), one knowable to all and alterable by none (including the one under review).​

Your whole concept of Scripture being the Norma Norman is faulty in that two well meaning people can interpret the same verse differently.

True, which should give you cause to embrace norming rather than reject it and insist that if one exempts self from accountability, that one is so exempt; if one declares self alone to be incapable of error in interpretation, then that one must be.

Without a doubt, conflict needs to be arbitrated IF all parties agree that there is a potential for error. But here’s where Catholicism separates from the rest of Christianity: it exempts one from that potential: itself. Exclusively.

Now, if we embrace accountability and thus the process of norming, then the first issue becomes: WHAT will serve as the rule/ canon/ norma normans for such? This is the issue in ALL disciples (nothin’ unique about theology - in my field, physics, math and observible/repeatable experimental evidence is the norma normans), is WHAT will be the canon? In theology, the IDEAL canon would be something literally inscripturated by God Himself - the very words of God Himself, knowable to all and alterable by none, there in black and white ABOVE all parties, with a strong, historic and ecumenical embrace as reliable (well, inerrant would be absolutely ideal!!!). Soli Deo Gloria, we have such. It’s called Scripture.

The Catholic Church has no alternative, nothing that it can suggest is MORE inspired, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE outside and above and beyond all parties (including itself), MORE knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE inerrant. No. It rejects the Rule of Scripture because it rejects any and all rules/canons. Why? Because it rejects norming for ONE (and exclusively, solely, only ONE) - itself. It alone insists that it alone is INCAPABLE of error in official faith and morals ERGO it’s absurd to subject it to accountability and the whole process of norming; how can itself be wrong when itself insists that it cannot be? Now, it DOES insist that all OTHERS are accountable, and it DOES have a norma normans for everyone else (it’s itself) but not for itself. It rejects the Rule of Scripture in norming simply because it rejects norming (well, for exclusively one - itself).

Your predecessors separated from the true Norma Norman, the magesterium

The magisterium as chosen by The Catholic Church alone and as all pledged (upon death) to uphold the teachings and positions of The Catholic Church and to use such as the norma normans in all arbitrations is not a norma normans at all. It is simply self looking in the mirror exclusively at self to determine if self looks like self. Self always does. Studied any of the cults? Do if you want to see how your alternative approach “works.”

Again, Sola Scriptura isn’t a theory of salvation. It’s a praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans/ rule/ canon for the evaluation of doctrines.

Sola Fide is PART of one doctrine known as Sola Gratia/ Solus Christus/ Sola Fide/ Soli Deo Gloria. It teaches that we are justified by God’s grace through Jesus who alone is THE Savior by our faith in that Savior.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[paul_c]

AmericanJosiah.

You are still being disingenous about Sola Scriptura. It is one of the 5 solas of Luther , is it not?. You try to pass it off as Norma Norman, but Martin Luther never treated it this way. It was a doctrine as much as the other 4 solas, which you group together. The other 4 could not be valid without Sola Scriptura allowing private interpretation, because they are all invalid against Catholic Teaching, which we will say is the true Norma Norman.

You try to lump Catholicism in with cults but that is not a valid comparison. the Catholic Church has existed for 2000 years and is the largest Church on the planet. Everything the magesterium teaches has to be consistent with what was taught before and there are 6Billion people on the planet that would take offense if they changed a doctrine. That’s right, not only the Catholics would rise up but also the non-Catholics, who would be very quick to criticize the Church. So there is a very significant forcing function to insure continuity of Catholic doctrine and that makes the magesterium a very effective Norma Norman, doesn’t it.

Not so the bible. There are thousands of different protestant churches, all with their own unique take on the bible. You use the Mormons as an example. Well they profess to use the Bible too, don’t they, yet they come to some pretty interesting conclusions that you as a Lutheran would agree are far afield. So this whole concept of using the bible as a Norma Norman is ridiculously inadequate.

 

[Apryl]

Not in my view. And I think we STILL should hold fast to what ST. PAUL taught. Now, what it the world does that have to do with The Catholic Church (or any other denomination)? Where does it say to “hold fast to whatever THE CATHOLIC CHURCH teaches you by word or mouth?”

Hold up a second…

There would be NO MENTION of the Catholic Church

… .at the time the Bible was written, it ws simply called ‘The Church’.

Just like that kid you knew in school, Andrew Whatzisname… you knew him as Andrew. Pure and simple. There was no reason for you to call him Andrew Sr, or Big Andrew, or Father of Andrew the Next. He was ‘Andrew’.

At the time the Bible was written, we were simply the church.

As such, we, the Catholic Church, are NOT a denomination. (“You would never call the trunk of a tree the branch” I read someone else posted before)

Consider the HISTORY and the LOGIC of your questions, and perhaps you will see my point.

Have a nice day.

 

[Trumpetcall]

Who is John Piper, C. Michael Patton, A. A. Hodge, Julie Staples, and The Third Millennium Ministries (IIIM), an Evangelical Christian parachurch ministry and why should anyone put their faith in them. What ever happened to the ECFs and the Doctors of the Church? Why should anyone put their faith in someone that comes along 2000 years later and say that the ECFs and the Doctors of the Church go it all wrong.

You obviously have not read the ECF’s in detail. They all have their own opinion on many things and DO NOT always agree with one another. One thing they did agree on was to always look for their theology in the BIBLE ALONE. Under no circumstances whatsoever were they looking for a “three-fold” revelation from God in the form of “tradition, the magisterium, and the Scripture” as Catholicism falsely claims. THAT came along centuries later. I have a book which lists all the quotes from the Fathers relating to Scripture, and they all in unison sought to find the truth in that source alone. You cannot provide one father who was in agreement with the modern threefold defintion of revelation espoused by the RCC. To the ECF, it was SCRIPTURE ALONE. And Jesus would of course agree.

 

[CWBetts]

You obviously have not read the ECF’s in detail. They all have their own opinion on many things and DO NOT always agree with one another. One thing they did agree on was to always look for their theology in the BIBLE ALONE. Under no circumstances whatsoever were they looking for a “three-fold” revelation from God in the form of “tradition, the magisterium, and the Scripture” as Catholicism falsely claims. THAT came along centuries later. I have a book which lists all the quotes from the Fathers relating to Scripture, and they all in unison sought to find the truth in that source alone. You cannot provide one father who was in agreement with the modern threefold defintion of revelation espoused by the RCC. To the ECF, it was SCRIPTURE ALONE. And Jesus would of course agree.

This is preposterous. The Bible was not compiled until the late 4th century, making it impossible for this to even be possible. St, Ignatius of Antioch was martyred in AD 127. The councils closing the canon first convened in AD 392. You have no idea what you are talking about. Add to this that “Scripture Alone” is not supported by the Scriptures. The Scriptures place authority on the Church, and St. Paul tells us to hold fast to both written and oral tradition. Sola Scriptura has no footing, and was NOT taught by the ECFs, and in fact did not exist until it was invented by Martin Luther.

 

[paul_c]

You obviously have not read the ECF’s in detail. They all have their own opinion on many things and DO NOT always agree with one another. One thing they did agree on was to always look for their theology in the BIBLE ALONE. Under no circumstances whatsoever were they looking for a “three-fold” revelation from God in the form of “tradition, the magisterium, and the Scripture” as Catholicism falsely claims. THAT came along centuries later. I have a book which lists all the quotes from the Fathers relating to Scripture, and they all in unison sought to find the truth in that source alone. You cannot provide one father who was in agreement with the modern threefold defintion of revelation espoused by the RCC. To the ECF, it was SCRIPTURE ALONE. And Jesus would of course agree.

I’m sorry, but history doesn’t square with your statement above. First of all, the Early church Fathers PREDATE the Bible, which only came into being in 382AD with the pronouncement of Pope Damasus on the Canon. The Bible you follow only came into beiing in the 1500s after Luther and his followers excised the books that didn’t fit his theology. The bible is an inspired teaching tool of the Catholic Church. And sure, the Early church fathers reflected on and quoted those that came before them, making use of the old testament, Gospels, Epistles and Acts to demonstrate continuity of doctrine. That is what we still do today.

As for your statement that for the ECF it was scripture alone, this is completely wrong. The Early chruch fathers used the Old Testament books to demonstrate that Jesus was the fulfillment of the ancient messianist prophesies to be sure. But what they knew about Jesus Christ was through the teaching of the magesterium (which were the Apostles at that time) and passed down mostly through oral tradition. Remember, the chruch was 20 years old before any of the new testament writings (save perhaps Matthew’s gospel) were committed to paper. EVERY THING was oral. The letter of Clement was perhaps written earlier than John’s Gospel.

Finally, lets address your statement that the ECFs disagreed with each other. Lets first make sure we are talking about ECFs that were recognized as orthodox by the Church at the time they lived. They are the only ones that count. Heretics and writings described as spurious (like the Gospel of Mary Magdelene) were not recognized as legitmate church teachings then and should not be now. Also, make sure we are talking about doctrine (what the Church teaches) and not practice (how the church brings the teaching to the faithful). Doctrines are eternal truths that never change. Practice changes with the environment and the times. For instance, the use of English in the mass was not possible in 300AD when there was no English. I defy you to find conflicting views of actual doctrine from legitimate Church fathers.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I’m sorry, but history doesn’t square with your statement above. First of all, the Early church Fathers PREDATE the Bible, which only came into being in 382AD

So, what did Moses bring down from Mt. Sinai some 1,800 years earlier, beef liver? What was Jesus referring to over and over when He said “Scripture?” Hello, but it’s generally regarded that Scripture was written between 1400 BC and 100 AD. One does not need a degree in math (as I have) to know that this is before 382 AD.

I think you are confusing Scripture with an acknowledgment of what is Scripture (as most denominations have officially done - nothin’ in any sense unique about The Catholic Church also doing that). Your denomination officially did that at Trent, Italy in the 16th century, mine did it at St. Louis, MO in the 19th. Nearly all denominations have acknowledged Scripture as such. But acknowledging a reality is not the formation of it. I acknowledge that the sun came up today - I have nothing to do with it. You seem to be confusing formation with acknowledgment, they are entirely unrelated.

.