Sola Scriptura

[teak421]

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.

Sycarl says that there are many examples of ECF’s who put forward the position of Sola Scriptura. Then, just one sentence later he also said they put forth tradition. Sola Scriptura means SCRIPTURE ONLY, only = only. If the ECF puts forward tradition at all, than the ECF does NOT adhere to the SCRIPTURE ONLY doctrine. Not sure why our Protestant friends don’t get that…?

Did they think scripture was important…? You bet! But not the sole source of our faith.

• Michael

 

[teak421]

It depends on how you define sola scriptura. Scripture is the sole infallible record of divine revelation and clearly contains all things necessary for salvation, either explicitly or by necessary implication. It is in this sense that most mainline Protestants define scripture alone. It does not exclude a place for tradition, but tradition is secondary to the scriptures and anything based on tradition is not necessary, even though it may be true. Defined this way there are clear indications of sola scriptura among the early church fathers, even though they may also refer to and use tradition.

I will provide a couple of examples.

Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)
newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Timothy, Homily 1)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.v.iii.ii.html

John Chrysostom, (Homilies on Second Thessalonians, 3, v. 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/23053.htm

As for scriptural the most common example is:

Now I am familiar with the Catholic arguments with respect to this passage, such as it refers only to the Old Testament and that it doesn’t say scripture is sufficient only profitable. I will quote from John Chrysostom’s explanation of it.

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

If they refer to the use of tradition than it is impossible for them to believe in SCRIPTURE ONLY. Also, where does it say clearly that the Bible is the sole rule of our faith? What did the first Christians do before there was a Bible? Who complied the Bible? Who determined the Table of Contents? How did we get the Gospel of Mark and not the Gospel of Thomas? Up until 385 we did not have a Canon, so, what prevented people from going to heresies like Arianism? Tradition handed down from the Apostles.

In 325 the Council decided once and for all that Jesus was in fact God. Fully God and Fully Man. At that time there was no agreed upon Bible. Certainly their writings that were used, but so was tradition. Its not a either, rather a and.

If Sola Scriptura is valid, why then do we have major Christian sects coming to different conclusions about the basic issue of Salvation? Calvinist, AG, Baptist, etc.

• Michael

 

[teak421]

It depends on how you define sola scriptura. Scripture is the sole infallible record of divine revelation and clearly contains all things necessary for salvation, either explicitly or by necessary implication. It is in this sense that most mainline Protestants define scripture alone. It does not exclude a place for tradition, but tradition is secondary to the scriptures and anything based on tradition is not necessary, even though it may be true. Defined this way there are clear indications of sola scriptura among the early church fathers, even though they may also refer to and use tradition.

I will provide a couple of examples.

Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)
newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Timothy, Homily 1)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.v.iii.ii.html

John Chrysostom, (Homilies on Second Thessalonians, 3, v. 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/23053.htm

As for scriptural the most common example is:

Now I am familiar with the Catholic arguments with respect to this passage, such as it refers only to the Old Testament and that it doesn’t say scripture is sufficient only profitable. I will quote from John Chrysostom’s explanation of it.

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

Thank you for the EXCELLENT resources… In my reading, if he did believe in Sola Scriptura (still reading (it will take some time) I did come across that he believed in the original Canon (pre-reformation). Will you accept the Catholic original Canon from the late 4th Century and start reading books like Wisdom?

Also, in your first quote, I did not see where the writer said that ONLY SCRIPTURE will determine our faith. He offers suggestions on how to read Scripture, etc. What did I miss? Didn’t see anything about rejecting tradition?

Basically, what I took from that was he was giving advice on how best to read Scriptures. That’s pretty cool actually!

• Michael

 

[teak421]

It depends on how you define sola scriptura. Scripture is the sole infallible record of divine revelation and clearly contains all things necessary for salvation, either explicitly or by necessary implication. It is in this sense that most mainline Protestants define scripture alone. It does not exclude a place for tradition, but tradition is secondary to the scriptures and anything based on tradition is not necessary, even though it may be true. Defined this way there are clear indications of sola scriptura among the early church fathers, even though they may also refer to and use tradition.

I will provide a couple of examples.

Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)
newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Timothy, Homily 1)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.v.iii.ii.html

John Chrysostom, (Homilies on Second Thessalonians, 3, v. 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/23053.htm

As for scriptural the most common example is:

Now I am familiar with the Catholic arguments with respect to this passage, such as it refers only to the Old Testament and that it doesn’t say scripture is sufficient only profitable. I will quote from John Chrysostom’s explanation of it.

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

Please consider reading: tinyurl.com/nfp6ts

I found it to be a fair article. He’s a Protestant.

• Michael

 

[Jolly_Joe]

I have found very few whom adhere to Sola Scriptura who will allow discussion of tradition and the teachings of the Church Fathers in the debate. The reason is there is no mention of Sola Scriptura in the History of Christainity until the so called “Reformation”. When a brave soul does quote a Church Father supposedly supporting Sola Scriptura they inavaribly post the same handful of quotes that merely show that the Church fathers aknoweldged the importance of Scripture.

Well, I would think that’s pretty understandable considering most don’t spend a lot of time studying the church fathers. It would be somewhat like if I insisted you quoted only the Eastern Fathers, a lot of that hasn’t even been translated to English that I am aware.

You maybe would notice that on any particular topic, Catholics too only tend to quote the “same handful of quotes”.

In any case, it’s certainly not that there aren’t Church fathers supporting sola Scriptura. I would refer you to, monergismbooks.com/Holy-Scripture-The-Writings-of-the-Church-Fathers-Affirming-the-Reformation-Principle-of-Sola-Scriptura-p-17868.html

And of course to Martin Chemnitz’s Loci Theologi (2 volumes), and Examination of the Council of Trent (4 volumes) He uses the fathers extensively to support sola Scriptura, especially in Loci Theologi. cph.org/cphstore/product.asp?category=&part%5Fno=155130&find%5Fcategory=&find%5Fdescription=&find%5Fpart%5
cph.org/cphstore/product.asp?category=&part%5Fno=155131&find%5Fcategory=&find%5Fdescription=&find%5Fpart%5Fdesc=martin+chemnitz
Fdesc=martin+chemnitzhttp://www.cph.org/cphstore/product.asp?category=&part%5Fno=531050&find%5Fcategory=&find%5Fdescription=&find%5Fpart%5Fdesc=theological+library

I don’t have copies at hand and so can’t accurately quote them, and in any case, it’s difficult to show what an entire book or books show in a short post or two when the criticism is then that the evidence is so sparse. Chemnitz was in particular an expert in the church fathers, and if you dismiss the Protestant understanding of the church fathers without reading him, well, it would be kind of like arguing about he Council of Trent without reading Hubert Jedin’s work.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Perhaps… But, I would still love to hear how people arrived at their position. Sola Scriptura is for foundational its beyond belief and I would think that Protestants would understand their position… With that said, I was a Protestant for 20 years and you know, I never gave it much thought. And, I loved to agrue with other folks never with a Catholic though, odd.

I went to one web site that quote an early Church father and you know, it was pretty good. But, upon further research, that same UCF said something that supported Tradition. So, Sola Scriptura is SCRIPTURE ONLY, so if an UCF sites one piece of Tradition, that person must be removed from the Protestants web site as a source UCF.

I wrote an email saying its sloppy to only quote the stuff that supports your doctrine… I know, we’re all probaly guilty of that, but…

Happy Friday.

• Michael

PS: sorry for the rambling, didn’t really say anything…

Well the basic thing is indeed what scripture says about itself and how Jesus treated scripture.

Time and again when Jesus said “It is written” that was treated as conclusive and unarguable truth.

That is not to say there was in no way any other authority, but they were all subject to the scriptures. Even Paul was examined by the Bereans through scripture, and he complimented them for that. And it is commanded to examine all others the same way. Clearly, all are subject to scripture.

And scripture itself teaches that the simple believer can understand it. Noone stands between a believer and God.

And as for scripture being the only infallible authority, well scripture doesn’t contradict scripture, but all others do.

If I could step away from that for an instant to show the problem I have with the Catholic claim of the authority for instance of the Pope. It is taught the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. Okay, I can buy that. But here’s the thing, there’s not even any agreement on when the Pope has so spoken. Many say only twice, others many more. Strange to say one must believe but have no bounds for what is included in that. So you have to forgive me if I grew a bit frustrated with the fact that Catholicism could only agree that the Pope could teach ex cathedra and that it was required to accept what was so taught, but couldn’t agree as to what was included in that.

Which of course then would bring the retort about the canon of scripture, so I did study that whole issue quite a bit. And instead of finding the huge disagreement on that issue, instead there is amazing agreement. For instance the mainline Protestants still say they are useful for reading, but not to be used for doctrine by themselves, a matter in agreement with the Orthodox if you get past the use of the term scripture and canon. In practice they are very, very close. And that leaves the Catholics. Well interesting that at least a sizable portion of them were also in agreement with that very position until Trent supposedly decided they were authoritative.

Now I say supposedly because if they were actually treated as authoritative then that makes suicide a wonderful thing, and the Catholics have never taught that, so they pick and chose where to use them to support something. Mostly it comes down to prayers for the dead is taken as support, but the fact those men died in the mortal sin of idolatry is not.

So that was quite confusing until Hubert Jedin’s History of the Council of Trent put it in perspective. He revealed that Trent voted not to decide the authority of the deuterocanonical books. So that brings Catholics right back in line with Orthodox and Protestants. Now the puzzle is complete and there is this amazing agreement as to which books are authoritative an which are not.

Of course Catholics dismiss this out of hand because they have been taught differently.

So you have this agreement on what is scripture, you have the teaching from scripture that scripture is authoritative, is understandable, and is sufficient and indeed is trustworthy.

While there are other authorities, scripture commands that they be examined based on scripture and so I end up with sola Scriptura, as scripture being the one infallible norm and authority and all others subject to it.

So there it is in very brief form, hope it isn’t too long to post.

 

[teak421]

It depends on how you define sola scriptura. Scripture is the sole infallible record of divine revelation and clearly contains all things necessary for salvation, either explicitly or by necessary implication. It is in this sense that most mainline Protestants define scripture alone. It does not exclude a place for tradition, but tradition is secondary to the scriptures and anything based on tradition is not necessary, even though it may be true. Defined this way there are clear indications of sola scriptura among the early church fathers, even though they may also refer to and use tradition.

I will provide a couple of examples.

Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)
newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Timothy, Homily 1)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.v.iii.ii.html

John Chrysostom, (Homilies on Second Thessalonians, 3, v. 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/23053.htm

As for scriptural the most common example is:

Now I am familiar with the Catholic arguments with respect to this passage, such as it refers only to the Old Testament and that it doesn’t say scripture is sufficient only profitable. I will quote from John Chrysostom’s explanation of it.

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

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

 

[teak421]

Well, I would think that’s pretty understandable considering most don’t spend a lot of time studying the church fathers. It would be somewhat like if I insisted you quoted only the Eastern Fathers, a lot of that hasn’t even been translated to English that I am aware.

You maybe would notice that on any particular topic, Catholics too only tend to quote the “same handful of quotes”.

In any case, it’s certainly not that there aren’t Church fathers supporting sola Scriptura. I would refer you to, monergismbooks.com/Holy-Scripture-The-Writings-of-the-Church-Fathers-Affirming-the-Reformation-Principle-of-Sola-Scriptura-p-17868.html

And of course to Martin Chemnitz’s Loci Theologi (2 volumes), and Examination of the Council of Trent (4 volumes) He uses the fathers extensively to support sola Scriptura, especially in Loci Theologi. cph.org/cphstore/product.asp?category=&part%5Fno=155130&find%5Fcategory=&find%5Fdescription=&find%5Fpart%5
cph.org/cphstore/product.asp?category=&part%5Fno=155131&find%5Fcategory=&find%5Fdescription=&find%5Fpart%5Fdesc=martin+chemnitz
Fdesc=martin+chemnitzhttp://www.cph.org/cphstore/product.asp?category=&part%5Fno=531050&find%5Fcategory=&find%5Fdescription=&find%5Fpart%5Fdesc=theological+library

I don’t have copies at hand and so can’t accurately quote them, and in any case, it’s difficult to show what an entire book or books show in a short post or two when the criticism is then that the evidence is so sparse. Chemnitz was in particular an expert in the church fathers, and if you dismiss the Protestant understanding of the church fathers without reading him, well, it would be kind of like arguing about he Council of Trent without reading Hubert Jedin’s work.

See, the neat thing about Sola Scriptura from a purely argumentation focus is that word, ONLY. So, if there is but one quote that says otherwise then Sola Scritpura is NOT Bible only.

• Michael

 

[teak421]

Well the basic thing is indeed what scripture says about itself and how Jesus treated scripture.

Time and again when Jesus said “It is written” that was treated as conclusive and unarguable truth.

Did Jesus say go a write a book, or did he say go an Preach? Additionally, as recorded in Scripture there are not enough books to fill the works that Jesus did… A gospel said that.

That is not to say there was in no way any other authority, but they were all subject to the scriptures. Even Paul was examined by the Bereans through scripture, and he complimented them for that. And it is commanded to examine all others the same way. Clearly, all are subject to scripture.

Is that so, why then do we see Paul always talking about stand fast to what we have taught you, either by letter (written) or by word (oral). There are a TON of scriptures that point to verbal / tradition. Many more compared to written only. You must see that…?

And scripture itself teaches that the simple believer can understand it. Noone stands between a believer and God.

Jolly, this is almost laughable… I mean no disrespect and I feel I am not showing charity here, sorry… But how can you say this with a straight face? Just on the “basic” issue of salvation Protestants can not agree. Think about this: Eternal Security (Baptist), Must Speak in Tongues (Pentecostals, some), Can lose your salvation (Assembly of God), must be Baptized in Jesus ONLY (Church of God), and our Calvinist brothers and sisters who believe we have no free-will. common… how can you say something like that? There are thousands upon thousands of Christians sects… all reading the same Bible.

If I could step away from that for an instant to show the problem I have with the Catholic claim of the authority for instance of the Pope. It is taught the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. Okay, I can buy that. But here’s the thing, there’s not even any agreement on when the Pope has so spoken. Many say only twice, others many more. Strange to say one must believe but have no bounds for what is included in that. So you have to forgive me if I grew a bit frustrated with the fact that Catholicism could only agree that the Pope could teach ex cathedra and that it was required to accept what was so taught, but couldn’t agree as to what was included in that.

Valid point on the agreement of which teachings the Pope has done is infallible. With that said, the Holy Spirit has given the Pope authority (just like the early Apostles) to teach without error. Please understand, its GOD, not Man that this power comes from.

Which of course then would bring the retort about the canon of scripture, so I did study that whole issue quite a bit. And instead of finding the huge disagreement on that issue, instead there is amazing agreement. For instance the mainline Protestants still say they are useful for reading, but not to be used for doctrine by themselves, a matter in agreement with the Orthodox if you get past the use of the term scripture and canon. In practice they are very, very close. And that leaves the Catholics. Well interesting that at least a sizable portion of them were also in agreement with that very position until Trent supposedly decided they were authoritative.

Incorrect. Please show me any references that the Canon of Scripture established in ~385 excluded the current Catholic books like Wisdom? The Council of Trent responded to Luthers attempt to remove those.

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

 

[SyCarl]

Please consider reading: tinyurl.com/nfp6ts

I found it to be a fair article. He’s a Protestant.

• Michael

He is basically saying that in the early church, scripture and tradition were viewed as the having the same content. This is also what J.N.D. Kelly says in his book Early Christian Doctrines as well as Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church. It is illustrated by a quote from Irenaeus.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

(Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

This is not a statement of sola scriptura but it is a statement that the oral Apostolic teaching has now been handed down in scripture. Tradition and scripture are not different; they have the same content. This is important because not only Protestants look at the early church fathers through their own lenses. Too often Catholics can see a father referring to tradition and read into it that he is referring to what is now meant by Tradition.

Now as time went on the meaning of tradition did change so John Chrysostom would say:

“So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.”

Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken.

Homily 4 on 2 Thessalonians
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iv.vi.iv.html

But the same man would also say that we have the scriptures instead of Paul and if we would learn anything we can learn it from scripture.

You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!

Homily 9 on 2 Timothy
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

He also tells us that all the necessary things are plain in scripture.

What do I come in for, you say, if I do not hear some one discoursing? This is the ruin and destruction of all. For what need of a person to discourse? This necessity arises from our sloth. Wherefore any necessity for a homily? All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain.

Third Homily on Second Thessalonians
newadvent.org/fathers/23053.htm

Now the church fathers, being human, were not always consistent. In addition to what was written on tradition, Chrysostom also said that scripture can teach us all things.

Now these things we say superficially, as to men not knowing the Scriptures. But our discourses would be unnecessary if you would believe and take heed to the divine word, for that would teach you all things.

Homily 1 on 1 Timothy
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.v.iii.ii.html

and

Observe the marks of a robber; first, that he doth not enter openly; secondly, not according to the Scriptures, for this is the, “not by the door.” Here also He referreth to those who had been before, and to those who should be after Him, Antichrist and the false Christs, Judas and Theudas, and whatever others there have been of the same kind. And with good cause He calleth the Scriptures “a door,” for they bring us to God, and open to us the knowledge of God, they make the sheep, they guard them, and suffer not the wolves to come in after them. For Scripture, like some sure door, barreth the passage against the heretics, placing us in a state of safety as to all that we desire, and not allowing us to wander; and if we undo it not, we shall not easily be conquered by our foes. By it we can know all, both those who are, and those who are not, shepherds.

(Homily 59 on the Gospel of St. John
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.iv.lxi.html

Now I do not cite the church fathers for the truth of what they say. I may agree with them on certain points and disagree on others. I cite them to show that the idea of scripture alone did not first arise with the Reformation.

 

[Cominghome89]

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

Slightly off-topic, but I had to chuckle at that, that you would particularly mention that Luther wanted to do away with James, which contains:

“See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” James 2:24

A rather inconvenient piece to deal with for someone who believes in “faith alone” as well as “scripture alone.”

 

[teak421]

He is basically saying that in the early church, scripture and tradition were viewed as the having the same content. This is also what J.N.D. Kelly says in his book Early Christian Doctrines as well as Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church. It is illustrated by a quote from Irenaeus.

(Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

This is not a statement of sola scriptura but it is a statement that the oral Apostolic teaching has now been handed down in scripture. Tradition and scripture are not different; they have the same content. This is important because not only Protestants look at the early church fathers through their own lenses. Too often Catholics can see a father referring to tradition and read into it that he is referring to what is now meant by Tradition.

Now as time went on the meaning of tradition did change so John Chrysostom would say:

Homily 4 on 2 Thessalonians
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iv.vi.iv.html

But the same man would also say that we have the scriptures instead of Paul and if we would learn anything we can learn it from scripture.

Homily 9 on 2 Timothy
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

He also tells us that all the necessary things are plain in scripture.

Third Homily on Second Thessalonians
newadvent.org/fathers/23053.htm

Now the church fathers, being human, were not always consistent. In addition to what was written on tradition, Chrysostom also said that scripture can teach us all things.

Homily 1 on 1 Timothy
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.v.iii.ii.html

and

(Homily 59 on the Gospel of St. John
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.iv.lxi.html

Now I do not cite the church fathers for the truth of what they say. I may agree with them on certain points and disagree on others. I cite them to show that the idea of scripture alone did not first arise with the Reformation.

Only = only. These same people you list up there affirm tradition. If they do, then Sola Scritpura from their point of view can not be used as a supported, because its ONLY.

• Michael

 

[teak421]

He is basically saying that in the early church, scripture and tradition were viewed as the having the same content. This is also what J.N.D. Kelly says in his book Early Christian Doctrines as well as Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church. It is illustrated by a quote from Irenaeus.

(Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

This is not a statement of sola scriptura but it is a statement that the oral Apostolic teaching has now been handed down in scripture. Tradition and scripture are not different; they have the same content. This is important because not only Protestants look at the early church fathers through their own lenses. Too often Catholics can see a father referring to tradition and read into it that he is referring to what is now meant by Tradition.

Now as time went on the meaning of tradition did change so John Chrysostom would say:

Homily 4 on 2 Thessalonians
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iv.vi.iv.html

But the same man would also say that we have the scriptures instead of Paul and if we would learn anything we can learn it from scripture.

Homily 9 on 2 Timothy
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

He also tells us that all the necessary things are plain in scripture.

Third Homily on Second Thessalonians
newadvent.org/fathers/23053.htm

Now the church fathers, being human, were not always consistent. In addition to what was written on tradition, Chrysostom also said that scripture can teach us all things.

Homily 1 on 1 Timothy
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.v.iii.ii.html

and

(Homily 59 on the Gospel of St. John
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.iv.lxi.html

Now I do not cite the church fathers for the truth of what they say. I may agree with them on certain points and disagree on others. I cite them to show that the idea of scripture alone did not first arise with the Reformation.

Let me try it this way… At the council that decided the Canon of Scripture can you find any documentation from that Council in support of Sola Scriptura?

• Michael

 

[teak421]

Now I do not cite the church fathers for the truth of what they say. I may agree with them on certain points and disagree on others. I cite them to show that the idea of scripture alone did not first arise with the Reformation.

Please meditate on what I am going to write… and… of course, tell me if I am nuts.

You cite Augustine a supporter of Sola Scriptura.

Q: How could he be a supporter of Sola Scriptura when he believed in the Communion of the Saints which Protestants DENY is in the Bible. See quotes below.

“There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for the dead who are remembered. For it is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended” (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).

If he believed ONLY in Scripture, why did he follow the “tradition” of Communion of the Saints?

Here’s a quote about Apostolic Succession which Protestants also deny is in the Bible.

“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

Here’s a quote about the Pope’s authority:

“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5 [A.D. 397]).

Here’s another one as Peter as the Pope:

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

I will say again my point. If Augustine had agreed to Sola Scritpura, how in the world could he come to the conclusion about the above doctrines? Because as Protestants say, if its not in the Bible its not part of our Faith.

I strongly believe the use of Augustine to Sola Scriptura is problematic and suggest that you remove him as a supporter as he clearly adhered to Traditions passed on from the Apostles.

Again, you can disagree with the doctrines that Augustine put forward, but you can not say he was a supporter of Sola Scriptura.

• Michael

 

[SemperReformada]

Only = only. These same people you list up there affirm tradition. If they do, then Sola Scritpura from their point of view can not be used as a supported, because its ONLY.

• Michael

It matters not whether they affirm tradition. It matters greatly if they espoused a belief that held tradition to be infallible. Unless it can be demonstrated that they thought tradition was infallible it really doesn’t matter how many times they mention tradition in their various writings.

Sola scriptura does not in any way do away with tradition but does place it in a subordinate role to scripture.

 

[teak421]

It matters not whether they affirm tradition. It matters greatly if they espoused a belief that held tradition to be infallible. Unless it can be demonstrated that they thought tradition was infallible it really doesn’t matter how many times they mention tradition in their various writings.

Sola scriptura does not in any way do away with tradition but does place it in a subordinate role to scripture.

Please answer my questions from the above post. If the ECH’s put forward clear doctrines that Protestants say are not in the Bible, how can they adhere to Sola Scriptura.

• Michael

PS: Where in scripture does it say that Tradition is subordinate?

Here’s some tradition quotes from the Bible… I am lazy, so I just copied the text from this web site, please read:

Paul illustrated what tradition is: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

The first Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).

This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians “through the Lord Jesus” (1 Thess. 4:2).

And:

Eph 2:19-22

Brothers and sisters: You are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone. Through him the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord; in him you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Notice Paul says the foundation is the Apostles and the prophets with Christ as the capstone. Does Paul say anything about a book?

 

[SSTeacher]

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

I’m a former Evangelical and during my time in the Evangelical world I guess the position to which I eventually came is perhaps correctly described as SOLO Scriptura. It’s a position that I don’t think is particularly unusual in non–Catholic Western Christendom.

I believed that Scripture was the primary authority for believers and that it was properly interpreted through the lens of Church tradition, reason, and personal experience. I was quite prepared to acknowledge that the idea of the Bible being “inspired” emanated from the Church (Catholic or Orthodox, whichever was suggested to me) but that didn’t in any way affect the fact that I could make completely subjective judgments about the meaning of anything I found in the Bible. This meant that I read whichever version of the Bible I saw fit to read, observed whatever I saw therein, interpreted it as I saw fit and then decided how and when to apply it to my life. But if I discovered something in Church history or Church tradition that drew me or if I read in an extra–biblical source something that inspired me to do what I thought was good or if I met a person who provided me with a good example that I felt prompted to follow then I had no difficulty in deciding whether or not to assimilate any of these things into my lifestyle because I could easily do so without reference to, or asking permission from, anybody else since such action was entirely commensurate with my presuppositions and my worldview.

If accused of subjectivity I’d have cheerfully acknowledged that it was so but would probably have responded by asking what position wasn’t subjective. After all nobody is infallible and everybody has to leave some room for faith – and faith, by its very nature, is outside the realm of reason. As to the different denominations contradicting each other I mentally took the same line as the Catholic Church seems to take and considered them all to contain less than the whole truth – however, I wouldn’t have voiced such an opinion since I didn’t believe any of them were embracing error on purpose and in any case recognized that they could say the same thing of me.

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[Mhz]

Morning… What Dogma do you follow? If you are still a follower of Christ, you must have some doctrine that restricts your actions and forms your beliefs. How did you arrive at it?

Thanks!

• Michael

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.

 

[SyCarl]

Please meditate on what I am going to write… and… of course, tell me if I am nuts.

Again, you can disagree with the doctrines that Augustine put forward, but you can not say he was a supporter of Sola Scriptura.

• Michael

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.

 

[Tanner9188]

**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**