Sola Scriptura...

[GaryTaylor]

“The beauty of St Basil’s approach, one highly relevant to contemporary theology of all Christian persuasions, is that the case for the divinity of Christ, and indeed the Spirit, is presented in such a way that his main thesis is always substantiated with scriptural texts. One such example from ontra Eunomium,woulduffice to demonstrate his scriptural method” academia.edu/1131846/St_Basils_Contribution_to_the_Trinitarian_Doctrine_A_Synthesis_of_Greek_Paideia_and_the_Scriptural_Worldview “Using the authority of Holy Writ, he demonstrated that the Holy Spirit was called Lord and thus ranked no less than the Father and the Son.” however, he makes clear that one ought not be content with their support merely because they are the traditions of the Fathers,but because the Fathers understood and followed the meaning of Holy Scripture ".
“The value of the Fathersand their traditions are precious and useful since they reflect the meaning of Holy Writ”. st-philip.net/files/Fitzgerald%20Patristic%20series/Basil-Great_On_the_Holy_Spirit.pdf
"The best way to discover our duty is to study the divinely inspired Scriptures, for in them we find both instructions about conduct and the lives of blessed men, delivered in writing. They are laid before us like living images of the godly life for the imitation of their good works. When we devote our*selves to the imitation of what is offered there, we find the appropriate medicine for whatever deficiency or illness we feel we have, as from a pharmacy."St. Basil the Great Letters 2:4 … St basil stuck to scripture mostly. Unwritten tradition was ok for him also, and cites many, mostly liturgical and worship-the doxology, the signing of the cross, triple immersion, facing east during prayer. While he brilliantly and inspirationally defended/defined the Trinity with Holy Writ , I believe he erred and layed more groundwork for justifying unwritten practices, which at his time were still minor.

The great Saint regardless of how he felt about Scripture maintained communion with the existing apostolic Church. What determined for example the gnostic variations is their lack of apostolic succession and lack of possession of the inspired writings which led to contradictory teaching and writings still existing today. The Church Fathers all read Scripture and often came to various understanding with passages. Still they ultimately gave way to the greater authority of the Church and then when need arose to the greater authority of the Councils which confirmed the universal Church teaching of the time.

No one left and created a new model of understanding the Church, for to them there was no salvation outside of Christs present body on earth. Different and coexisting theologies can be read in many of Fathers writings, this is nothing more than each one working out in there mind the issues on paper. In the end all conceded authority to the Church or they would not have remained in the Church. Yet when they did this they were not speaking on morals or faith in a binding sense for they did not impose in authority uncomplete or conflicting theology on the entire Church which indeed the Councils have done.

The flip side is one ignores the Church raise’s Scripture up in some form of idol worship and then picks an choose’s which father and where they think it coincides with there own scripture understanding.

Had this not been the case the LDS wouldn’t be quoting Origen’s works of entertainment as some type of triumphant proof, of a non existing apostolic teaching. And so forth and through Calvin the JWs etc.

Feel free to correct me where I’m wrong as this is off the top of my head.

 

[pocohombre]

The great Saint regardless of how he felt about Scripture maintained communion with the existing apostolic Church.

Well yes but i think he expresses his predecessors as also resting in Scripture, hence due loyalty (again, not denying some unwriiten practices)

What determined for example the gnostic variations is their lack of apostolic succession and lack of possession of the inspired writings

Not sure, at least with Basil’s “opponents”. The article states that he used scripture because he was dealing with "Christians " who could relate and see writ as authoritative and not pagans. The article also cites opponents use of scripture also making Basil even dig deeper into Holy Writ for Truth. .

The Church Fathers all read Scripture and often came to various understanding with passages.

Very much so and sometimes for centuries, and it was OK.

Still they ultimately gave way to the greater authority of the Church and then when need arose to the greater authority of the Councils which confirmed the universal Church teaching of the time.

I think most did but not all. If not they were then called heretics, and sometimes rightfully so. I would also say sometimes they should have stuck to their guns and not wilted under the pressure of conformity to a growing power in Rome. I think of Jerome and the Vulgate, and his inclusion of the Apocrypha, which he begrudged, setting aside his scholarly intuition (it’s called politics). or Augustine saying Mary was sinless though he admitted scripture said all have sinned. Kind of go along to get along, don’t rock the boat. Strong leadership can be nice, a central authority, towards unity, but it can also be dangerous, squelching “correction”. For instance I am quite opinionated politically speaking, a big mouth, but give me a job in the white house, close to all that power, and i imagine i might become quite docile.

No one left and created a new model of understanding the Church, for to them there was no salvation outside of Christs present body on earth.

Well what was that model, and eventually two models were evident.

In the end all conceded authority to the Church or they would not have remained in the Church.

Yes, but only when Church Rome or a council, made a definitive decision. Again,some see it as compromise, good for short term unity but maybe not long term health (else we would never have needed the painful schism and later reformation).

The flip side is one ignores the Church raise’s Scripture up in some form of idol worship

Weak in this discussion (Sounds like either or)

and then picks an choose’s which father and where they think it coincides with there own scripture understanding.

Again weak here.Both sides do that. And I do not deny that as time went on there is less favorable statements from fathers toward protestant thoughts.

Had this not been the case the LDS wouldn’t be quoting Origen’s works of entertainment as some type of triumphant proof, of a non existing apostolic teaching.

Correct.

And so forth and through Calvin the JWs etc.

Now you are lumping together. A few reformers were very learned of the fathers and of scripture, and of councils.

 

[spina1953]

Pocohombre: My point was that traditions, meaning that which was transmitted orally, not traditions like signing of the cross ect… that is that which the Apostles were teaching that were not written down. This is why we as Catholic’s have a Magisterium to help us to understand and to guide us in what we are to believe as Christians. Throughout the Catholic Church’s history the Church Catholic has prized the Scripture as one of the major sources of faith. The Bible has never been “optional” for the Church, but has been as indispensable aid in understanding and celebrating the faith of the Church. The issue of interpretation is a key one because there is a difference between what the Bible says and what the Bible means. To read is to interprete, and many individuals have tried to interprete the Bible in a way contrary to what the Church taught at a picticular times. The Bible in many ways became a source of division instead of unity. It is the Catholic Church’s position that the college of Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome are the only authentic interpreterts of the Bible. The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this tradition, whose weath is pored into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writtings themselves, are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active. There exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine well-spring, in a certain way merge into unity and tend toward the same end, it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed.

 

[Nicea325]

Shouldn’t they be ? Do you want to say designations can be different, even man made as opposed to giftings, where God bestows and we acknowledge ? I believe that is the model of NT

Christ commands the Apostles, who carry out this designated ministry. Who in turn, designate others to carry on the ministries. This is all over the New Testament.

No, one must be a disciple.Where two are gathered there is Christ .We have access to the holy of holies,. A true christian can offer up a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving (eucharist), in an orderly manner. Hebrews said the old priesthood is done away with and we all have one intermediary. Again, we still have presbyters and teachers etc. but they are not priests in OT sense. They are for the quipping of the saints.

Very compelling,but to bad you are incorrect.

 

[Nicea325]

You misunderstood. Of course there were elders/presbyters and other offices and giftings. What I can’t find is the need for only a presbyter to “president” a love feast, a communion, that only he can transubstantiate.
You make the giftings and choosings of God seem like a club. The fact that giftings occur outside it says something. Giftings occur outside the CC priesthood do they not ? If one gifting can why not others ? There is a ministerial priesthood. We differ on here what that means and their functions. From the Last Supper discourse I don’t see where He says only you (apostles) or those you lay hands on can “transusbstantiate”.

Okay…then all of a sudden they were not needed? The office is obviously in the NT and as in all offices they developed over time;however,does not mean it was an invention. What you cannot find is only a presbyter?

Tell me something…who presided over the Passover meals? Could any ordinary lay folk perform the sacrificial meal of Passover?

Can you name one lay female peforming the Lord’s Supper?

 

[pocohombre]

Okay…then all of a sudden they were not needed? The office is obviously in the NT and as in all offices they developed over time;however,does not mean it was an invention. What you cannot find is only a presbyter?

Tell me something…who presided over the Passover meals? Could any ordinary lay folk perform the sacrificial meal of Passover?

Can you name one lay female peforming the Lord’s Supper?

You miss my point, partly my fault. I am saying you need not a presbyter for "sacrifice’, for transubstantiating. A presbyter does not disappear but has other functions .Is your priest only have mass duties? Of course not. He has many duties. All I am saying is that I don’t see all his duties in NT, in particular, the mass sacrifice. As far as passover meal, it varies thru history. No priest was needed for the original , except the head of household. In temple days, the priests sacrificed the lamb, for the families to take “home” to eat. We don’t sacrifice anymore, hence no more priest, and bread ( not lamb) becomes the symbol of remembrance. We also no longer have any communion meals, as in first century.

 

[pocohombre]

Pocohombre: My point was that traditions, meaning that which was transmitted orally, not traditions like signing of the cross ect… that is that which the Apostles were teaching that were not written down. This is why we as Catholic’s have a Magisterium to help us to understand and to guide us in what we are to believe as Christians. Throughout the Catholic Church’s history the Church Catholic has prized the Scripture as one of the major sources of faith. The Bible has never been “optional” for the Church, but has been as indispensable aid in understanding and celebrating the faith of the Church. The issue of interpretation is a key one because there is a difference between what the Bible says and what the Bible means. To read is to interprete, and many individuals have tried to interprete the Bible in a way contrary to what the Church taught at a picticular times. The Bible in many ways became a source of division instead of unity. It is the Catholic Church’s position that the college of Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome are the only authentic interpreterts of the Bible. The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this tradition, whose weath is pored into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writtings themselves, are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active. There exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine well-spring, in a certain way merge into unity and tend toward the same end, it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed.

Understand. Well put. Still don’t think apostles left out anything important, hence as you also state also, tradition is harmonious with Writ. Still think tradition is minor stuff as stated (Easter date,sign of cross etc). Of course the church, like a magisterium, passes on down biblical understanding, even practices, makes rulings, like in council fashion. The bible can divide, yes, as truth can per Jesus’s statement. But so can and did Rome when she required all bishops and councils to be under her authority… There is a time to have division, whether over a bible interpretation, a council ruling, even a papal decree and a time not to. I wouldn’t have it any other way… It’s like asking the Lord to give you the gift of patience, and what does he give you (problems) ? Same with asking for the gift of love for the brethren, He gives you plenty of practice with our diversity… “Thou shalt not make a schism, BUT thou shalt pacify them that contend”, Didache4:3

 

[PRmerger]

Still think tradition is minor stuff as stated (Easter date,sign of cross etc).

It would be helpful if you distinguished customs/traditions (such as the Easter date, sign of the cross) from Sacred Tradition, by capitalizing the latter.

That way we know that you understand the difference.

 

[Porknpie]

We don’t sacrifice anymore, hence no more priest, and bread ( not lamb) becomes the symbol of remembrance. We also no longer have any communion meals, as in first century.

Your thoughts are of recent times and not of the early Church that Christ established. It is a new Gospel, a product of sola Scriptura where scripture is separated from The Church that produced it.

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165).

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373).

“Then He added: ‘For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].’ Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord’s death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: ‘A spirit hath not flesh and bones.’ Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, "do show the Lord’s Death.’” Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, 4, 10:125 (A.D. 380).

Who better to believe Poco? St Ambrose and the other Early Church writers (who clearly also had a different understanding of John 6 than you) or someone 1,500 years later who espouses a symbolic meal saying that a sacrifice is no longer required?

Or should we believe Theodore or again someone 1,500 years later?

" he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood,’ but, what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood." Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on Matthew 26:26 (ante A.D. 428).

 

[hapaxparadidomi]

Understand. Well put. Still don’t think apostles left out anything important, hence as you also state also, tradition is harmonious with Writ. Still think tradition is minor stuff as stated (Easter date,sign of cross etc). Of course the church, like a magisterium, passes on down biblical understanding, even practices, makes rulings, like in council fashion. The bible can divide, yes, as truth can per Jesus’s statement. But so can and did Rome when she required all bishops and councils to be under her authority… There is a time to have division, whether over a bible interpretation, a council ruling, even a papal decree and a time not to. I wouldn’t have it any other way… It’s like asking the Lord to give you the gift of patience, and what does he give you (problems) ? Same with asking for the gift of love for the brethren, He gives you plenty of practice with our diversity… “Thou shalt not make a schism, BUT thou shalt pacify them that contend”, Didache4:3

I don’t see how you can make that assertion. You would have to at least allow for the idea that what was regarded as scripture to be a Tradition and that at least to be an important thing which the apostles didn’t write to us about.

And regarding your comment about the bible dividing, I think you must distinguish between divisions caused as a result of sin versus divisions caused as a result of two or more intently sincere folks not having enough data or know how to resolve the issue. It is one thing if folks divide because they simply do not prefer the meaning of scripture given. It is another thing if folks divide because they are not capable of ascertaining the exact meaning of the scripture given. Often times what folks are divided over is ambiguity or vagueness in a verse. Yet both parties in the division are meaning well.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pocohombre
We don’t sacrifice anymore, hence no more priest, and bread ( not lamb) becomes the symbol of remembrance. We also no longer have any communion meals, as in first century

Indeed…a novel belief stemming from Protestanism. Please provide one early church father who wholeheartedly agrees what you just stated?

 

[aidanbradypop]

Indeed…a novel belief stemming from Protestanism. Please provide one early church father who wholeheartedly agrees what you just stated?

Why does it always have to be an ECF? Just because they were early makes their views correct? Never really understood this concept. I am not opposed to what they said.

It would be like stating…go back and look at our nation’s fathers and find me an example. They were many different views within the group when the USA started. There were even nation fathers that agreed with slavery. Just because they were an early father of the nation does not make them an expert on our nation. Or does it?

 

[Nicea325]

You miss my point, partly my fault. I am saying you need not a presbyter for "sacrifice’, for transubstantiating. A presbyter does not disappear but has other functions .Is your priest only have mass duties? Of course not. He has many duties. All I am saying is that I don’t see all his duties in NT, in particular, the mass sacrifice. As far as passover meal, it varies thru history. No priest was needed for the original , except the head of household. In temple days, the priests sacrificed the lamb, for the families to take “home” to eat. We don’t sacrifice anymore, hence no more priest, and bread ( not lamb) becomes the symbol of remembrance. We also no longer have any communion meals, as in first century.

Nope! At times a priest was presiding at the Passover, especially the one at Jerusalem once a year. Again, can you provide me one name of a lay female who presided at a Passover meal at the Temple or at a home? If priests are **NOT **needed as you tend to believe, then I am sure in 2,000 years ONE female could have performed the Lord’s Supper.

Here is where many Protestants are in error. Your belief:

I do not see it in the Bible.

No where was the Bible written to give an exact detail of everything. Second, no where does God teach: It must be clearly said in the Bible in order to be true. Third, Protestants over the years have introduced novel beliefs into a faith which existed long before.

Of course you are not going to see all the current duties of a priest in the NT. Do you see all the duties of a current U.S. President as in 1789? No!

As for sacrifices? Apparently you have a poor comprehension of the Mass.

 

[Nicea325]

aidanbradypop:

Why does it always have to be an ECF? Just because they were early makes their views correct? Never really understood this concept. I am not opposed to what they said.

And who else would you want to believe or refer to or quote? Do the Gnostics of the first century cut it? The Arians of the third and fourth centuries? The Montanists? Should I go on? Do you consider the Early Church Fathers…orthodox or unorthodox? You tell me?

It would be like stating…go back and look at our nation’s fathers and find me an example. They were many different views within the group when the USA started. There were even nation fathers that agreed with slavery. Just because they were an early father of the nation does not make them an expert on our nation. Or does it?

Sorry,but we are not discussing politics here. Early American Politics is a far cry from God’s Absolute Truth and as to who defended it.

 

[aidanbradypop]

And who else would you want to believe or refer to or quote? Do the Gnostics of the first century cut it? The Arians of the third and fourth centuries? The Montanists? Should I go on? Do you consider the Early Church Fathers…orthodox or unorthodox? You tell me?

As I stated…I do not disagree with the EFs.

Sorry,but we are not discussing politics here. Early American Politics is a far cry from God’s Absolute Truth and as to who defended it.

Not discussing politics. I am using the fathers of our nation as an example. The ECFs were not infallible but give great theological insight into matters of faith.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Why does it always have to be an ECF? Just because they were early makes their views correct? Never really understood this concept. I am not opposed to what they said.

Because they were nearest in time to the actual 12 Apostles.

Especially the Apostolic Fathers. They knew at least one of the Apostles, and were privy to the way the Apostle taught and, pehaps more importantly, practiced the Faith.

Their beliefs were informed by someone who knew Christ.

If they had a question about the understanding of something in the Gospels, they could say, "Hey, John, what did you mean when you quoted Jesus as saying “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”?

As opposed to someone 1500 years later who wasn’t there (among other things to hear inflections, to see body language, etc.), doesn’t know the language and contemporary idioms (such as the fact that to eat one’s body was an idiom to greatly disrespect someone, if it wasn’t a literal statement), etc.

 

[Nicea325]

As I stated…I do not disagree with the EFs.

Not discussing politics. I am using the fathers of our nation as an example. The ECFs were not infallible but give great theological insight into matters of faith.

I understand. I never said the ECF were infallible. But obviously defending God’s Truth was something promised by God to His Church (John 14,16) and its members or else we are all doomed.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Why does it always have to be an ECF? Just because they were early makes their views correct? Never really understood this concept. I am not opposed to what they said.

It would be like stating…go back and look at our nation’s fathers and find me an example. They were many different views within the group when the USA started. There were even nation fathers that agreed with slavery. Just because they were an early father of the nation does not make them an expert on our nation. Or does it?

Because they are the best witnesses of what the Church actually did and believed.

You have all these challenges and twisting of truth and interpretations. We think we are going forward but we are actually going back to tribal practices. You see all these denominations and non-denominations and all it is doing is feeding division and creating more confusion. Let’s say you are a new believer and you go to a Christian Store to buy a Bible:

Hot Dog!!! There’s more options than ordering a sammuch at Subway!!! I mean really… how many different translations in English? You know it’s pretty bad when the stores now include a chart to compare passages in each translation - kinda like a nutritional chart.

Fat Free vs Literal
Fat vs Dynamic
Low Carbs vs Literal/Dinamic
Fat, High Carbs, High Sugar - Paraphrased.

And all because of what?

Because each tribe wants to make the Word of God say what they want it to say.

The ECF’s demonstrate consistency and the keeping of Tradition (And this includes Scriptures since they are part of Tradition). Even when they disagree on some things they show what the Church practiced. Just because there were disagreements that doesn’t mean that we have a license to do whatever I want.

It is the minimalistic approach to things. If I can find one ECF that agrees with my personal interpretation - I’m ok. It doesn’t matter that the Church as a Whole has spoken on the matter.

If I am Scripture Alone - I will always be right and will always have a way out to do my own thing.

What we need is a President that is honest, cares for the people and put others interests above those of himself… sounds great ah?

And who is going to vote for that?

Ponder it for a minute, it will sink in

And this is not directly for you, Dustin. But in general and more specifically for all the non-denom and bible only folks.

 

[Nicea325]

Because they are the best witnesses of what the Church actually did and believed.

You have all these challenges and twisting of truth and interpretations. We think we are going forward but we are actually going back to tribal practices. You see all these denominations and non-denominations and all it is doing is feeding division and creating more confusion. Let’s say you are a new believer and you go to a Christian Store to buy a Bible:

Hot Dog!!! There’s more options than ordering a sammuch at Subway!!! I mean really… how many different translations in English? You know it’s pretty bad when the stores now include a chart to compare passages in each translation - kinda like a nutritional chart.

Fat Free vs Literal
Fat vs Dynamic
Low Carbs vs Literal/Dinamic
Fat, High Carbs, High Sugar - Paraphrased.

And all because of what?

Because each tribe wants to make the Word of God say what they want it to say.

The ECF’s demonstrate consistency and the keeping of Tradition (And this includes Scriptures since they are part of Tradition). Even when they disagree on some things they show what the Church practiced. Just because there were disagreements that doesn’t mean that we have a license to do whatever I want.

It is the minimalistic approach to things. If I can find one ECF that agrees with my personal interpretation - I’m ok. It doesn’t matter that the Church as a Whole has spoken on the matter.

If I am Scripture Alone - I will always be right and will always have a way out to do my own thing.

What we need is a President that is honest, cares for the people and put others interests above those of himself… sounds great ah?

And who is going to vote for that?

Ponder it for a minute, it will sink in

And this is not directly for you, Dustin. But in general and more specifically for all the non-denom and bible only folks.

Exactly! At times many Protestants will tell me: Yeah but the ECF are not infallible,so why do you believe them?

My response:
Then why do you listen to your founders and current pastor? Are they not 2,000 years separated from the NT church? What gives them more creditability than the very men who were closer to Christ?

 

[JonNC]

Indeed…a novel belief stemming from Protestanism. Please provide one early church father who wholeheartedly agrees what you just stated?

Luther answers the question.

Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous. - Luther

Jon