Sola Scriptura

[teak421]

I have never said that Augustine said everything was in the Bible. Sola Scriptura does not say that everything is in the Bible. It says that everything necessary is in the Bible in a way that can be understood easily. That is what Augustine and Chrysostom said in the quotes I gave. They may accept other things that are not in scripture and in fact I gave a quote from Chrysostom where he says there are such things. However, that is not the same as saying that tradition is infallible or that it is necessary. Yes, you can find things in the fathers that appear Catholic, just as I can find things that appear Protestant or don’t agree with Catholicism. I think that we all read them through the bias of our own belief system.

Understood easily? Why do we have thousands of Christian sects? Where does it say in Scripture that its superior to Tradition? Agreed on your final statement…

• Michael

PS: I thought Sola Scriptura meant scripture only. Has that changed?

 

[teak421]

We know that the 66 books of the Bible past the canonization tests when they were put together; even though James, Hebrews and Revelation gave some well meaning folks some issues, but nonetheless they past the tests given as inspiration by the Holy Spirit, which is the Author and the One who used men to put them into a collection. Aren’t we all grateful to God for giving us His special revelation, the Bible. Amen!Tanner

Hey Tanner!

At the Council that put the Bible together, how many books were on that list?

Cya and happy 4th!

• Michael

 

[teak421]

You’re right. We all form doctrines, and some of them we are dogmatic about. But as important as scripture is to me, I will no longer deify the Bible. My favorite translation may be inspiring and good for the soul but it isn’t God.

“The Bible, only” belief can be another form of idol worship. Jesus accused the Pharisees of leaning on scripture for their salvation instead of recognizing the Living Word that was standing right before them. They missed the Messiah while they were mastering the scriptures.

The only doctrine and dogma that we are in need of no teacher or sacred writings to understand, or follow, is “agape”. All scripture, teaching, leadership, doctrines and exegesis must pass the “agape” test if it is to be understood, or practiced, correctly.

When I cleared my mind and life of my biblical and religious assumptions and absolutes, all that remained for certain was God’s love. And the “royal law” isn’t understood through scriptural expertise, or adherence, as many might teach and believe.

I concur on some of, descent on others. You are so correct in terms of showing Love and Charity towards our fellow man… I’m trying to work on that in my daily life.

However, where I respectfully disagree is your disdain for absolutes. For example, I believe the Trinity is an absolute… There are some absolutes which help us draw closer to God, heck, why did Paul write his letters? To get people back in line…

There are times when a rebuke is necessary as long as it is done in Love.

• Michael

 

[ejb21]

These are the usual out of context ECF quotes that Protestants often provide. Not out of context in the paragraphs in which they appear, of course (you provided some of those, thank you), but in the context of the *entire corpus *of the writings of that particular ECF. If you look at the entire writings of these Fathers, it becomes manifestly clear that, even though, they have a high view of Scripture (as do Catholics today), they also had just a high view of Sacred Tradition and the necessity of submitting to the teaching authority of the Church.

Just like it is not adequate to proof-text Scripture, but to look at the whole of Scripture to see what a certain text means in context, quotes from the ECFs must be taken in the context of the entire corpus of their writings.

Thanks for mentioning your site. I had a real nice visit there, and I’m grateful. I’ve been a customer of St; Joe’s. Thanks again.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

**Here is a thought. There are several negative warning about adding and subtracting from mouth of God and positive statements that His word is pure and be sure to follow every word. Follow me here with reason and logic; if you add to Scripture, then are you not speaking for God or putting words in God’s mouth? On the other hand, if you subtract from God’s words, then are you in a sense saying you know better than God and He should not have said that? At the end of the day, we have the Scripture alone that we can be certain was inspired and written by God.

We know that the 66 books of the Bible past the canonization tests when they were put together; even though James, Hebrews and Revelation gave some well meaning folks some issues, but nonetheless they past the tests given as inspiration by the Holy Spirit, which is the Author and the One who used men to put them into a collection. Aren’t we all grateful to God for giving us His special revelation, the Bible. Amen!

God bless all of you!
Tanner**

The Saducees taught that Deuteronomy 4:2 forbids adding anything further.

2* You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it; that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you

How do you justify adding 61 books?

 

[Jolly_Joe]

As a Lutheran, I’m sure you know that Luther wanted to remove New Testament Books as well, such as James. Lucky for all of us, he failed in his attempt.

Its clear… During the actual time of the Apolstles the Bible (Old Testament) they used was the Sepeguaint… And, the Septugiant included, Widsom, Tobit, etc. If it was good enough for them, it should be good enough for us.

Additionally, at the Jewish council in 80AD they removed those books in questions because there was no Hebrew copies, well guess what… Some were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in Hebrew.

Cya!

• Michael

As a Lutheran, I hear Catholics say Luther wanted to remove the New Testament Books all the time; however, I believe it is an urban myth. I have never seen anything quoted beyond the prefaces in Luther’s Bible which if people would read them instead of taking short quotes specifically says he does not desire to remove them.

Unless you have an original source quote, which if you do, I would much appreciate, I’m afraid I have to see you as mostly a parrot.

Especially since you include the modern theory of the Council of Jamnia which Luther knew nothing of, and which now has been pretty well discounted for lack of evidence. But sure is popular among Catholics.

 

[guanophore]

Hello all…

I’m sure this subject has been discussed… like a lot. But, I was wondering if we could get someone who believes in this doctrine to put forward a case FOR Sola Sciptura.

Would be interested to see both historical and scriptural references.

• Michael

Yes, beat to death. Just search the words. Actually, you will get a better response to this if you post over in non-Catholic religions. Here in Apologetics, we usually defend the Apostolic faith, and this is not part of it.

 

[SyCarl]

Understood easily? Why do we have thousands of Christian sects? Where does it say in Scripture that its superior to Tradition? Agreed on your final statement…

• Michael

PS: I thought Sola Scriptura meant scripture only. Has that changed?

Sola Scriptura means only all things necessary are found in scripture. On scripture from the Calvinist Westminster Confession of Faith

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…All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: 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.

reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

 

[SyCarl]

Understood easily? Why do we have thousands of Christian sects? Where does it say in Scripture that its superior to Tradition? Agreed on your final statement…

• Michael

PS: I thought Sola Scriptura meant scripture only. Has that changed?

Why do we have so many differences? Because we have defined more than is necessary. As humans we always want to explain and understand everything. However we don’t need to know everything we want to. As time went by the Church defined more and more things as necessary dogmas that weren’t required in the early centuries. And of course pride dictated that those definitions had to be correct. Things that had been accepted in the early church as matters on which there could be disagreement became heresies. I will give a few examples. Look at them and tell me if the people who said them would still be considered orthodox by the Catholic Church if they wrote them today.

Of the Divine Scriptures.
33. Now these the divinely-inspired Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament teach us. For the God of the two Testaments is One, Who in the Old Testament foretold the Christ Who appeared in the New; Who by the Law and the Prophets led us to Christ’s school. For before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, and, the law has been our tutor to bring us unto Christ. And if ever thou hear any of the heretics speaking evil of the Law or the Prophets, answer in the sound of the Saviour’s voice, saying, Jesus came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings: for why do you, who know not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble yourself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters.

1. Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if you are desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.

Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 4 Paragraphs 33 & 34
newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm

This is the Holy Ghost, who came upon the Holy Virgin Mary; for since He who was conceived was Christ the Only begotten, the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and the Holy Ghost came upon her, and sanctified her, that she might be able to receive Him, by whom all things were made.

**Cyril of Jerusalem **Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 17, Paragraph 6
newadvent.org/fathers/310117.htm

And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it.

Augustine The Enchiridion Chapter 69
newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm

Now, what sins are trivial and what heinous is not a matter to be decided by man’s judgment, but by the judgment of God.

Augustine The Enchiridion Chapter 78
newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm

This being the case, ever since the time when by one man sin thus entered into this world and death by sin, and so it passed through to all men, up to the end of this carnal generation and perishing world, the children of which beget and are begotten, there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins.

Augustine On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Book 2 Chapter 47
newadvent.org/fathers/15012.htm

to be continued

 

[SyCarl]

continued

He was in an extraordinary manner begotten of the Father without a mother, born of a mother without a father; without a mother He was God, without a father He was man; without a mother before all time, without a father in the end of times…9. Why, then, said the Son to the mother, “Woman, what have I to do with you? mine hour is not yet come?” Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon Him.

Augustine Tractates on John, Number 8, Paragraphs 8-9
newadvent.org/fathers/1701008.htm

And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him.

John Chrysostom Homilies on Matthew, Homily 44, 12:46-49
newadvent.org/fathers/200144.htm

What, then, induced the blessed Evangelist to go so much into detail, as to make mention of the women as staying beside the Cross? His object was to teach us that, as was likely, the unexpected fate of our Lord was an offence unto His mother, and that His exceeding bitter death upon the Cross almost banished from her heart due reflection; and, besides the insults of the Jews, and the soldiers also, who probably stayed by the Cross and derided Him Who hung thereon, and who presumed, in His mother’s very sight, to divide His garments among themselves, had this effect. For, doubtless, some such train of thought as this passed through her mind: “I conceived Him That is mocked upon the Cross. He said, indeed, that He was the true Son of Almighty God, but it may be that He was deceived; He may have erred when He said: I am the Life. How did His crucifixion come to pass? and how was He entangled in the snares of His murderers? How was it that He did not prevail over the conspiracy of His persecutors against Him? And why does He not come down from the Cross, though He bade Lazarus return to life, and struck all Judaea with amazement by His miracles?” The woman, as is likely, not exactly understanding the mystery, wandered astray into some such train of thought; for we shall do well to remember, that the character of these events was such as to awe and subdue the most sober mind.

Cyril of Alexandria Commentaries on John, Book 12
tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_john_12_book12.htm

He took thought for His mother, paying no heed to His own bitter agony, for His sufferings affected Him not. He gave her into the charge of the beloved disciple (this was John, the writer of this book), and bade him take her home, and regard her as a mother; and enjoined His own mother to regard him as none other than her true son----by his tenderness, that is, and affection, fulfilling and stepping into the place of Him, Who was her Son by nature…** Besides, also, was not the Lord, I say, right to take thought for His mother, when she had fallen on a rock of offence, and when her mind was in a turmoil of perplexity? For, as He was truly God, and looked into the motions of the heart, and knew its secrets, how could He fail to know the thoughts about His crucifixion, which were then throwing her into sore distress?** Knowing, then, what was passing in her heart, He commended her to the disciple, the best of guides, who was able to explain fully and adequately the profound mystery. For wise and learned in the things of God was he who received and took her away gladly, to fulfil all the Saviour’s Will concerning her.

Cyril of Alexandria Commentaries on John, Book 12
tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_john_12_book12.htm

And Symeon further said to the holy Virgin, “Yea, a sword shall go through thy own soul also,” meaning by the sword the pain which she suffered for Christ, in seeing Him Whom she brought forth crucified; and not knowing at all that He would be more mighty than death, and rise again from the grave. Nor mayest thou wonder that the Virgin knew this not, when we shall find even the holy Apostles themselves with little faith thereupon: for verily the blessed Thomas, had he not thrust his hands into His side after the resurrection, and felt also the prints of the nails, would have disbelieved the other disciples telling him, that Christ was risen, and had shewed Himself unto them,

Cyril of Alexandria Commentaries on Luke, Sermon IV
tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_luke_01_sermons_01_11.htm#C4

to be continued

 

[SyCarl]

continued

And he adds: “I have preached righteousness in the great congregation.” He plainly teaches that in place of the ancient sacrifices and whole burnt-offerings the incarnate presence of Christ that was prepared was offered. And this very thing He proclaims to his Church as a great mystery expressed with prophetic voice in the volume of the book. As we have received a memorial of this offering which we celebrate on a table by means of symbols of His Body and saving Blood according to the laws of the new covenant, we are taught again by the prophet David to say:
“5. Thou hast prepared a table before me in the face of my persecutors. Thou hast anointed my head with oil, and thy cup cheers me as the strongest (wine).” ."

Eusebius of Caesarea Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 1, 37b
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_03_book1.htm

So then, after the assent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit descended on her, according to the word of the Lord which the angel spoke, purifying her, and granting her power to receive the divinity of the Word, and likewise power to bring forth.

John of Damascus Exposition of the Faith, Book 3, Chapter 2
newadvent.org/fathers/33043.htm

And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia, or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave, Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther. There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark.

John of Damascus An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 17
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.iv.xvii.html

The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. **Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. **And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.

Pope Gelasius (Philp Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, 95)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.xxii.html

to be continued

 

[SyCarl]

continued

On which account a people obedient to the Lord’s precepts, and fearing God, ought to separate themselves from a sinful prelate, and not to associate themselves with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest, especially since they themselves have the power either of choosing worthy priests, or of rejecting unworthy ones.

Cyprian Epistle 67, Paragraph 3
newadvent.org/fathers/050667.htm

There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament…But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings.

Athanasius Festal Letters, Number 39
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html?highlight=judith#highlight

With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed.

Pope Gregory the Great An Exposition on the Book of the Blessed Job, Volume 2, Part 3, Book 19, Paragraph 34
lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book19.html

Note Gregory is referring to 1 Maccabees.

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style. Seeing that all this is so, I beseech you, my reader, not to think that my labours are in any sense intended to disparage the old translators.

**Jerome ** Preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.iv.html

Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers.

Didache, Chapter 15
newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

Instead of a bloody sacrifice, He has appointed that reasonable and unbloody mystical one of His body and blood, which is performed to represent the death of the Lord by symbols.

Apostolic Constitutions Book VI, Section IV, Paragraph 23
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.vii.iv.html

 

[SyCarl]

The Saducees taught that Deuteronomy 4:2 forbids adding anything further. How do you justify adding 61 books?

It is interesting that you bring up the Sadducees. We know that there were also the Pharisees in Jesus time. Israel was split into at least two factions with different beliefs. Did Jesus condemn this division and declare one of the sects heretical? Did God want Israel to be divided or did He accept it as what sinful man had done and still consider both sects as His People?
If God did that then, why would He would not now accept the different branches of Christianity as all parts of the Church, even though He would have preferred us united?

 

[SyCarl]

One thing you might consider is that the people you quote talk about VERY Catholic things. For example Augustine said this:

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

If you accept his teachings on Sola Scriptura (which I do not believe he puts forward) then wouldn’t you accept his other teachings? Such as the real presence of Christ in communion? (see above).

• Michael

Do you accept everything that the early fathers wrote? After all did not Clement of Rome write:

Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phœnix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

**Clement of Rome **First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 25
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.xxv.html

Cyril of Jerusalem refers to Clement and tells us that God created the phoenix. Do you agree with these statements about the phoenix? If not do you reject everything else these men wrote?

 

[Tanner9188]

Hey Tanner!

At the Council that put the Bible together, how many books were on that list?

Cya and happy 4th!

• Michael

**
The Catholic Church added 7 of the 9 Apocrypha books at the Council of Trent in the 1500’s; probably for reasons more to do with the reformers than the word of God than the scrutiny of canonizations; otherwise they would have never been part of any Bible. this is why i used the correct number, which is 66 in my Book.**

 

[SyCarl]

Do you accept everything that the early fathers wrote? After all did not Clement of Rome write:

**Clement of Rome **First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 25
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.xxv.html

Cyril of Jerusalem refers to Clement and tells us that God created the phoenix. Do you agree with these statements about the phoenix? If not do you reject everything else these men wrote?

I neglected to put in the quote from Cyril.

God knew men’s unbelief, and provided for this purpose a bird, called a Phoenix. This bird, as Clement writes, and as many more relate, being the only one of its kind, arrives in the land of the Egyptians at periods of five hundred years, showing forth the resurrection, not in desert places, lest the occurrence of the mystery should remain unknown, but appearing in a notable city, that men might even handle what would otherwise be disbelieved. For it makes itself a coffin of frankincense and myrrh and other spices, and entering into this when its years are fulfilled, it evidently dies and moulders away. Then from the decayed flesh of the dead bird a worm is engendered, and this worm when grown large is transformed into a bird;Cand do not disbelieve this, for you see the offspring of bees also fashioned thus out of worms, and from eggs which are quite fluid you have seen wings and bones and sinews of birds issue. Afterwards the aforesaid Phoenix, becoming fledged and a full grown Phoenix, like the former one, soars up into the air such as it had died, showing forth to men a most evident resurrection of the dead. The Phoenix indeed is a wondrous bird, yet it is irrational, nor ever sang praise to God; it flies abroad through the sky, but it knows not who is the Only begotten Son of God. Has then a resurrection from the dead been given to this irrational creature which knows not its Maker, and to us who ascribe glory to God and keep His commandments, shall there no resurrection be granted?

Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 18, Paragraph 8
newadvent.org/fathers/310118.htm

 

[Tanner9188]

The Sadducees??? taught that Deuteronomy 4:2 forbids adding anything further. How do you justify adding 61 books?

**All I asked is to use logic and reason concerning the adding and/or subtracting from the revelation he gave us, which is 66 books. I don’t know what you were referring to at 61; I’m guessing 66-5=61

“You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”

What is your point? Similar commands are found in Proverbs, Jeremiah, Revelation and other places in a more affirmative sense as opposed to the negative sense. Again, you believe the Bible is the infallible word of God or you don’t. Also; you either believe additional revelations continues or you don’t. I would argue that if one believes there is additional revelation past Revelation, then all “Christian” religions have opened the Pandora’s box and anything goes and as we have seen from history; it does. Who extra revelation is right, the JW’s, the Mormons, the Catholics or any other religion that adds?

I always here that "we been doing it this way for 2000 years and our traditions are equal with Gods revelation; well the same God who says a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day; then from His eyes the JW’s or Mormons are only a couple of days behind you. You must go back to the original canonization standards and tests, which were inspired and authored by the Holy Spirit who used men to bring the 66 books together. One must heed the warnings in Scripture about adding or subtracting or you or your religion makes yourself better than God, because He shouldn’t have said that or He did not say enough. Just try to see the logic and reason and try to put yourselves in God’s shoes, so to speak.**

 

[teak421]

I neglected to put in the quote from Cyril.

Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 18, Paragraph 8
newadvent.org/fathers/310118.htm

My goodness, no BBQ tonight? I’ll review and comment in the AM or early afternoon.

Happy 4th.

• Michael

PS: What was the point of all the ECF’s? What’s the common thread? Thought we were talking about Sola Scriptura? What do these quotes do to promote the idea that Sola Scriptura is valid? Please explain.

 

[Mhz]

I concur on some of, descent on others. You are so correct in terms of showing Love and Charity towards our fellow man… I’m trying to work on that in my daily life.

However, where I respectfully disagree is your disdain for absolutes. For example, I believe the Trinity is an absolute… There are some absolutes which help us draw closer to God, heck, why did Paul write his letters? To get people back in line…

There are times when a rebuke is necessary as long as it is done in Love.

• Michael

Thanks for your comments.

My disdain is for religious absolutes, not divine or Godly absolutes. Religious absolutes are the doctrines, rules, and traditions of men, that God is often given credit.

Even our many bible translations have men’s fingerprints all over them. Godly absolutes include his nature, purpose, and the Trinity, as we understand it.

As great a man as Paul was, he was still a man. I don’t consider his epistles as absolutes and I doubt he would be happy with the way we exalt and glorify his words and letters as if they were divine.

 

[RWMorris]

The Catholic Church added 7 of the 9 Apocrypha books at the Council of Trent in the 1500’s; probably for reasons more to do with the reformers than the word of God than the scrutiny of canonizations; otherwise they would have never been part of any Bible. this is why i used the correct number, which is 66 in my Book.

This is not true, the council merely reaffirmed that these books were equal to the rest of the canon.

Besides the New Testament Books of Hebrews, II Peter, II John, III John, James, Jude, and Revelation were considered non-canonical by many in the early Church, and by some early Protestants. Do you accept them? Why?