The Early Christians were Sola Scriptura

[elvisman]

Maybe we do and maybe you do.

Another undecipherable hit-and-run post from Doki?
What a shock!

 

[simspt]

I am quite aware of this paragraph. It does not indicate that tradition contained anything in addition to Scripture. I noted previously that he referred to the Apostles’ teaching being handed down both orally and in writing but the content of each is the same.

I think your reading Irenaeus somewhat anachronistically. The distinction between scripture and the Church’s living tradition as two channels of apostolic testimony became more clear by the time of Irenaeus with the Church’s living tradition or rule of faith having added importance attached to it. This in large part was due to the struggle between the Catholic Church and the Gnostics. Irenaeus clearly argued against their distortion of scriptures and false teaching based on self-claimed access to secret apostolic tradition. Irenaeus argued that the key to scripture belonged exclusively to the church that had in its regula fidei (rule of faith) safeguarded the authenticity of the apostolic testimony and its true interpretation. Irenaeus justified his argument by appealing to the fact that the church had been founded by the apostles and continuously linked with them. Church tradition was viewed as an instrument for correct exegesis of the church’s scriptures. Im not claiming they viewed scriptures as any less authoritative or lacking compared to tradition but rather complimentary with tradition. However during disputes with heretics it was the rule of faith within the church and not the scriptures themselves that was appealed to by the church especially with Irenaeus and Tertullian. They both appear to have realized the limitations of trying to swap proof texts with the Gnostics.

 

[Dokimas]

Another undecipherable hit-and-run post from Doki?
What a shock!

Why bother trying to reason with someone who is convinced he knows everything he comments on.

I just wanted to you to know that I know it could be YOU you were speaking about. I also know you could never entertain the idea you could be wrong. (I base that on never seeing you agree you were wrong even when shown it - you’ve called me a catholic hater and I’ve had support from your fellow catholics that I’m not a catholic hater; FAR from it. Yet you’ve not apologized for the FALSE claim. You’ve called me angry - again you were incorrect, thus bore false witness. To my knowledge you have NOT apologized.)

Is this ‘hit and run’?

 

[Dokimas]

Another undecipherable hit-and-run post from Doki?
What a shock!

Elvis wrote the following:

[SIGN]Once again - you guys have a hard time with Hyperbole vs. Metaphoric language.[/SIGN]

Doki responded:

Originally Posted by Dokimas
Maybe we do and maybe you do.

Now do you deciper what I meant?

 

[Pat_De]

Baptists fall under the Protestant denomination. If Baptists aren’t Protestant, then the Pope isn’t Catholic.

Jesus loves everybody, saints and sinners. But when the Bible is misinterpreted, you get people like PatDe(yes, he said that Jesus hates sinners) and Fred Phelps who run around screaming “GOD HATES YOU!” That statement is an apostasy if I ever saw one. Therfore, Protestants hand over the Word to Judizers and apostates. Meanwhile, in Rome, they stick to what has been taught for the past 2,000 years. Who should I believe: the Church that Jesus Himself founded that has correctly passed down His message, or some single, random schmuck who ignores the parts of the Word that he disagrees with?

Sorry but I can’t help this one; Pat De did say God hates; He has to if He loves. I only repeat what He has said. “Esau I hated and Jacob I loved” - before they were even born.
Six thing the Lord hates, no seven are an abomination, a word we can’t even describe in human terms. - Proverbs 6

***There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination unto him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood; 18 A heart that deviseth wicked purposes, Feet that are swift in running to mischief, 19 **A false witness that uttereth lies *, And he that soweth discord among brethren.

These are people being described and guess what, go read Romans 3 and see if you are among the one’s He hates and start in verse 9. I was in there and so is everyone that ever lived. Do you forget he drowned the entire planet? Was that out of love? More like disgust and the only reason Noah and his family weren’t slaughtered as well is because in His sovereignty; He chose, not Noah, He chose to demonstrate His love, mercy and grace. You cannot love perfectly and not also hate? Do you love the Jewish people? Then you must hate the holocaust. Do you love babies, then you must hate abortion and those who perform them.
Do you love Christians, then you must hate the inquisitions and the perpetrators.

You have a god not of the Bible, but of your own imagination; I know what the Scripture teaches because I am born again by His grace alone and it is you that is the heretic and blasphemer against a Holy , Holy , Holy Being you no nothing about and should be very very fearful of because not only can He kill you physically, but He controls your souls destiny despite what you decide; He decides, not you. Read Romans 3 and see how bad the disease of sin is, then kep reading and discover salvation.

I would love to say more, but unlike God I cannot express anger and sin not; therefore I restrain myself by His grace. I would rather forgive you for your ignorance; for I was once just as ignorant concerning the nature of sin and the justice of God.

If people just spent more time bathing in the word of God, then nonsense like this might be reduced to a minimum and we are commanded to learn the Bible.

 

[KathleenGee]

Cyclic threads…why keep repeating???

 

[JackVk]

Sorry but I can’t help this one; Pat De did say God hates; He has to if He loves. I only repeat what He has said. “Esau I hated and Jacob I loved” - before they were even born.
Six thing the Lord hates, no seven are an abomination, a word we can’t even describe in human terms. - Proverbs 6

***There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination unto him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood; 18 A heart that deviseth wicked purposes, Feet that are swift in running to mischief, 19 **A false witness that uttereth lies *****, And he that soweth discord among brethren.

These are people being described and guess what, go read Romans 3 and see if you are among the one’s He hates and start in verse 9. I was in there and so is everyone that ever lived. Do you forget he drowned the entire planet? Was that out of love? More like disgust and the only reason Noah and his family weren’t slaughtered as well is because in His sovereignty; He chose, not Noah, He chose to demonstrate His love, mercy and grace. You cannot love perfectly and not also hate? Do you love the Jewish people? Then you must hate the holocaust. Do you love babies, then you must hate abortion and those who perform them.
Do you love Christians, then you must hate the inquisitions and the perpetrators.

You have a god not of the Bible, but of your own imagination; I know what the Scripture teaches because I am born again by His grace alone and it is you that is the heretic and blasphemer against a Holy , Holy , Holy Being you no nothing about and should be very very fearful of because not only can He kill you physically, but He controls your souls destiny despite what you decide; He decides, not you. Read Romans 3 and see how bad the disease of sin is, then kep reading and discover salvation.

I would love to say more, but unlike God I cannot express anger and sin not; therefore I restrain myself by His grace. I would rather forgive you for your ignorance; for I was once just as ignorant concerning the nature of sin and the justice of God.

If people just spent more time bathing in the word of God, then nonsense like this might be reduced to a minimum and we are commanded to learn the Bible.

“Do you need proof, arrogant man, that faith without works is useless?” James 2:20. Or answer me this: the devil believes that Jesus is Lord. Does that mean he is “saved”? Aboslutely not. You are the one creating god in your own image. And I must acknowledge the fact that you ignored many of my other posts that contain legitimate Bible passages. They contradict your personal interpretation, so you just brush them under the rug.

 

[Pat_De]

**Once again - you guys have a *hard ***time with Hyperbole vs. Metaphoric language.

**He is exaggerating **here to emphacize a very real point. He’s not speaking metaphorically - he is speaking HYPERBOLICALLY. It truly IS better to enter heaven with one eye if you are sinning with that eye. Instead of gouging it out, however, you should put your faith and trust in God to keep you from succombing temptation.

Elvis; Jesus is pointing out the gravity of sin and in one sense He is exaggerating; only to drive home the point that Romans 3 speaks of. Till one realizes the sickness they have and that it is terminal, they will not call out to the Great Physician who alone can heal the spiritually sick after He awakens the spiritually dead.

No one enter in a state of sin into heaven; they are going to hell. But as Paul said to Titus:
But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

That is the Gospel. When God justifies the sinner; his sins are removed as far as the east is from the west and he remembers them no more; contrary to what you are taught, which is why i said in the previous post that people should be taking a long bath in the word of God on a daily basis so they get past the milk. You may be admired as a Catholic and understand Catholicism well, but your understanding of God is lame at best from what I have seen. If that offends you; then humble yourself before God and get busy reading and studying so you quit leading people astray and only bringing His cup of wrath on you and those that look up to you. Remember the one who loves you the most; tells you the truth even if it hurts or offends as often is the case because the cancer of sin is so great that until you see your disease; you will not seek the Cure. Another reason why Sola Scriptura is the basis of the Christian faith; it is where the knowledge of truth that leads to salvation lies and points to the cure which is in Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

 

[JackVk]

Elvis; Jesus is pointing out the gravity of sin and in one sense He is exaggerating; only to drive home the point that Romans 3 speaks of. Till one realizes the sickness they have and that it is terminal, they will not call out to the Great Physician who alone can heal the spiritually sick after He awakens the spiritually dead.

No one enter in a state of sin into heaven; they are going to hell. But as Paul said to Titus:
But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

That is the Gospel. When God justifies the sinner; his sins are removed as far as the east is from the west and he remembers them no more; contrary to what you are taught, which is why i said in the previous post that people should be taking a long bath in the word of God on a daily basis so they get past the milk. You may be admired as a Catholic and understand Catholicism well, but your understanding of God is lame at best from what I have seen. If that offends you; then humble yourself before God and get busy reading and studying so you quit leading people astray and only bringing His cup of wrath on you and those that look up to you. Remember the one who loves you the most; tells you the truth even if it hurts or offends as often is the case because the cancer of sin is so great that until you see your disease; you will not seek the Cure. Another reason why Sola Scriptura is the basis of the Christian faith; it is where the knowledge of truth that leads to salvation lies and points to the cure which is in Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Once again, you choose to ignore the parts of Scripture that don’t promote your own private theology. It shows the obvious fact that Sola Scriptura is easily corrupted.

 

[steve_b]

I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that often I have planned to come to you (and have been prevented so far) so that I may obtain some fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles. 14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. 15 So, for my part,I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome**.**{Romans 1} It would not concern Paul had Peter been there and if Peter were to go there and stay; he would be in direct violation and rebellion against the command given to him by God to the Jews - don’t you read the Scriptures?

fuller context

7 To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, 10 asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, 12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine. 13 I want you to know, brethren, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles. 14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish: 15 so I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. [Rm 1:7-15]

Breaking this down

• the Church of Rome already exist? Yes. Has Paul been there yet? No
• Paul complements the Church for their faith? Yes. In fact he’s looking forward to being encouraged by their faith as well, when he gets to Rome.

pd:

Then Paul tells us in chapter 15:
20 And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was {already} named, so that I would not build on another man’s foundation;
Again; don’t you read the Scriptures?

re: (ch 1 of Romans) above, the Church of Rome already exists, and their faith was being proclaimed throughout the world.

• If Paul doesn’t build on what someone else has done, and the Church of Rome is already there, why then to use your point, is Paul even talking to them and preaching to them?

Obviously, what Paul said in ch 15, means something different than what you think he meant.
pg:

The Presidency? That is new

from St Ignatius,(disciple of St John) (~107 a.d.) letter to the Church of Rome.
pg:

The Greeks called on Rome? They called on the person who was at the church in Rome whom they had faith in concerning the knowledge of the Scripture.

Yes the Greeks sought Clement of Rome.
pd:

If that person had been somewhere else, then they would have still called on that person, not because of location, but because of knowledge although they may have agreed to meet in Rome as it being a good location. See the difference?

They sought Clement because he is the successor to Peter.
pd:

The catholic church; not the Roman Catholic Church - see the difference?

The qualifier “Roman” was a polemic in the 16th century with the Protestant revolt.
pd:

Who is everyone and everywhere? Other church overseers had good reputations and were conferred with as well,

obviously Irenaeus wrote “Against Heresies” because everyone everywhere was NOT keeping apostolic tradition.
pd:

but Rome being a central LOCATION was more of a convenience if a meeting in person was necessitated. Don’t you see the difference?

The bishop who succeeds Peter is why THIS see, is important.
pd:

As I indicated I cannot be dogmatic and nor can you because we cannot ask them what exactly they meant by what they had said;

The ECF’s were Catholic. So the Catholic Church guides us in the proper interpretation…
pd:

A day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day, so the “Catholic Church” could be 2 days old in God’s sight as far as time goes since God is outside of time, but as men inside of time 2000 years or 200 years or 20 years seems like a long time; so that is irrelevant argument.

The Catholic Church is the only Church Jesus established. That’s not an analogy.
pd:

In your ignorance; neither Mormons nor JW’s deny the deity of Jesus, the Mormons see 3 gods and the JW’s see Jesus as the lessor deity to the Father. Just so you know and don’t make more incorrect assertions.

• JW’s think Jesus is Michael the archangel.
• Mormons DO reject Jesus divinity because they deny the trinity as do Mormons.

.

 

[Pat_De]

“Do you need proof, arrogant man, that faith without works is useless?” James 2:20. Or answer me this: the devil believes that Jesus is Lord. Does that mean he is “saved”? Aboslutely not. You are the one creating god in your own image. And I must acknowledge the fact that you ignored many of my other posts that contain legitimate Bible passages. They contradict your personal interpretation, so you just brush them under the rug.

Rather than accepting the truth of what I taught you by the grace of God; you just want to blaspheme Him some more and may God forgive you and not hold it against you out of ignorance.

James is saying that there is false faith contrasted to a true faith. You will know them by their fruits; a false faith produces bad fruit and a true faith will produce good fruit. Who is the one who grants both the true faith and gives the resulting good works as proof before man? God does.

Listen to the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul and learn what the Spirit has to say:
***For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. ***

Repent while the Light still shines and believe the Gospel.

 

[JackVk]

Rather than accepting the truth of what I taught you by the grace of God; you just want to blaspheme Him some more and may God forgive you and not hold it against you out of ignorance.

James is saying that there is false faith contrasted to a true faith. You will know them by their fruits; a false faith produces bad fruit and a true faith will produce good fruit. Who is the one who grants both the true faith and gives the resulting good works as proof before man? God does.

Listen to the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul and learn what the Spirit has to say:
***For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. ***

Repent while the Light still shines and believe the Gospel.

I know which trees are producing good fruits. They are called the saints. Mother Teresa gave dignity to the dying. Thomas More could have given in to Henry VIII’s blasphemous, arrogant self-proclamation as the voice of God, but he decided it was better to lose his head than to lose his soul. John Paul II spent his whole life confounding the Nazis and Communists, and got the young generation interested in the Gospel once again after the dark, immoral 60s and 70s. It should be noteworthy that at JP2’s funeral, 70% of the crowd was under 25.

The fruits of protestantism? Puritans hanging women falsely accused of being witches; The Westboro Baptist Church hate group, who get way more attention than they should; 33,000 different denominations, who all have different interpretations of the Word.

And I can atone any time. I atone about once a month. It’s called confession. Supported by Leviticus 4:20: “and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them”

Peace of the Lord be with you

 

[Pat_De]

fuller context

7 To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, 10 asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, 12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine. 13 I want you to know, brethren, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles. 14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish: 15 so I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. [Rm 1:7-15]

]

No imposing on the text; Paul is quite clear in His entire letter. Rome was the center of that universe and many converts were living there, but no formal church was yet established, if it were, then Paul is a liar and the Holy Spirit cannot be trusted for Paul would not make the comments in Romans 1 and Romans 15 and he would of most certainly mentioned Peter by name if he were there. Also; if you look carefully at Paul’s intro’s in his other letters you will see a pattern “to the church or churches”. One exception is Ephesians, but he wrote a previous letter not in the Scriptures as the letter indicates and this is a group called Ephesians just like Galatians, where he states "to the churches in Galatia, a region or “To the church of God which is at Corinth”. If there was an established church in Rome; he would have addressed it as such “To the church at Rome”.

I really have to get out of here this time; I thought I actually had deleted the subscription and when I logged in I noticed I did not, so my curiosity got the best of me and I “peeked” to see what was going on; big mistake. Like God I also hate what He hates just as I love what He loves only He does it much better than I ever will. But the butchering of His word to which I, not only I, but God, have seen in this thread is almost beyond belief. So I am now officially deleting this subscription and not looking back and I wish you all the best in your spiritual walk as I do with the rest

 

[elvisman]

Why bother trying to reason with someone who is convinced he knows everything he comments on.

I just wanted to you to know that I know it could be YOU you were speaking about. I also know you could never entertain the idea you could be wrong. (I base that on never seeing you agree you were wrong even when shown it - you’ve called me a catholic hater and I’ve had support from your fellow catholics that I’m not a catholic hater; FAR from it. Yet you’ve not apologized for the FALSE claim. You’ve called me angry - again you were incorrect, thus bore false witness. To my knowledge you have NOT apologized.)

Is this ‘hit and run’?

I’ve called you an anti-Catholic in the past because you will take ANY position as long as it’s contrary to the Church’s teachings.

In the entire time I’ve read your posts - I have never ONCE seen you agree with a Catholic on anything. The truth is - we agree on MUCH more than we disagree (Catholics and most mainline Protestant denominations).**

As for my “knowing everything” and “refusing” to be wrong - it’s not about me. I present the position of the Catholic Church - not from Elvisman. I am wrong about many things.
The Church, however, is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

 

[elvisman]

Elvis wrote the following:

[sign]Once again - you guys have a hard time with Hyperbole vs. Metaphoric language.[/sign]

Doki responded:

Now do you deciper what I meant?

Since I wrote more than that - and you only responded to one of my comments - you can see why I was confused.

Thank you for your explanation, Doki.

 

[elvisman]

Elvis; Jesus is pointing out the gravity of sin and in one sense He is exaggerating; only to drive home the point that Romans 3 speaks of. Till one realizes the sickness they have and that it is terminal, they will not call out to the Great Physician who alone can heal the spiritually sick after He awakens the spiritually dead.

You’ll get no quarrel from me here.

No one enter in a state of sin into heaven; they are going to hell. But as Paul said to Titus:

But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Here’s where you get confused. You said:
"No one enter in a state of sin into heaven; they are going to hell."
Please clarify that statement.

Oh - and notice that Paul speaks of the HOPE of eternal life - NOT the guarantee of it.

 

[elvisman]

Pat_De:
That is the Gospel. When God justifies the sinner; his sins are removed as far as the east is from the west and he remembers them no more; contrary to what you are taught, which is why i said in the previous post that people should be taking a long bath in the word of God on a daily basis so they get past the milk. You may be admired as a Catholic and understand Catholicism well, but your understanding of God is lame at best from what I have seen. If that offends you; then humble yourself before God and get busy reading and studying so you quit leading people astray and only bringing His cup of wrath on you and those that look up to you. Remember the one who loves you the most; tells you the truth even if it hurts or offends as often is the case because the cancer of sin is so great that until you see your disease; you will not seek the Cure. Another reason why Sola Scriptura is the basis of the Christian faith; it is where the knowledge of truth that leads to salvation lies and points to the cure which is in Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
Now - here is where you fall off the deep end. You falsey assert that simply because you are redeemed - you have a guranteed one-way ticket to heaven.**
**That is NOT the message of the Gospel. **

Since you claim to be an adherent to Sola Scriptura - tell me what you think of the following passages that indicate you CAN lose your eternal soul after having a real, true and experiential knowledge (epignosei) of Christ:

Romans 11:22
“See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.”

Hebrews 10:26-27
“If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.”

2 Peter 2:20-21
*“For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of (our) Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first. *
For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them.”
You can have it ALL by having Jesus in your life. You can have a true, experiential knowledge of him (epignosis) – yet lose it all. THAT’S what free will is all about, my Calvinist friend. We can cooperate with God’s grace – or turn away from it.
After all – a gift isn’t a gift if it’s forced on you . . .

1 Cor. 4:4
"I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified. It is the Lord who judges me.”
Even St. Paul didn’t feel that he had a guarantee.

Matt. 24:13
"He who endures to the end will be saved."
We must endure – finish the race in order to be saved. Notice it says “will be saved” not “saved already”.

Rev. 3:5
“Those who overcome will also be dressed in white. I will never erase their names from the Book of Life. I will speak of them by name to my Father and his angels.”

Why would Go speak of erasing anyone’s name out of the Book of Life if they had a guarantee. I though you COULDN’T have your name erased.
Pity God doesn’t see it that way . . .

 

[SyCarl]

First off, thank God both sides view scripture so highly. To my understanding Rome agrees that the Scriptures are the norm of norms and that all Church teaching must be interpreted so as to be consistent with the Scriptures since Scripture and Tradition are inseparable. The main issue seems to be whether Scripture alone is the ultimate authority in theology vs. Scripture as interpreted by the Catholic Church as the ultimate authority. Competing interpretations of Scripture and whether or not the episcopacy has the authority to proclaim the correct interpretation is the issue.

This runs into the question of how do we know the Church has the authority to proclaim the correct interpretation. When passages of Scripture are given in support of this authority it requires a personal interpretation of those passages. If your interpretation agrees with the Church then you accept that authority. If your interpretation doesn’t agree with the Church then you don’t accept the authority. Otherwise you are accepting the Church has authority simply because it says it does.

You argue that an authoritative Church is unnecessary since the Scriptures act as the judge in any case of doctrinal controversy. Your position depends on the validity of your claim relating to the clarity of the scriptures. I have never been given any convincing argurments for the perspicuity of the Scriptures.

If you think the scriptures are clear on only essential doctrines, then how do we decide on essential vs nonessentials. The scriptures themselves dont appear to be clear about this distinction. Even if the Scriptures were clear on all the “important” doctrines we would still need to know exactly which passages address those “important” doctrines otherwise the scriptures will not be able to act as an unmistakable judge in all doctrinal controversies. The scriptural evidence for perspicuity is weak. If the scriptures were perspicuous there should only be one major sola scriptura denomination vs hundreds.

Many Church Fathers taught that the Scriptures clearly set out the necessary things. Two example are Augustine and John Chrysostom.

Augustine

. In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want.

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

Note that Augustine also says to use the easier parts of Scripture to understand the more difficult.

Chrysostom

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**.

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

(to be continued)

 

[SyCarl]

(continued)

scripture must be its own interpreter as you claim then doesn’t it follow that the canon should be its own canonizer?

The canon of scripture was fixed by the teaching authority of the church. Obviously its important that the church recognized only canonical books vs others eg book of mormon. The scriptures themselves do not contain a list of which should be included or how to determine the list.

The decisions of the Church do not make something canonical. That status depends on the book being inspired. If a book is inspired it is part of Scripture even if the Church does not recognize it. It should be noted that Church fathers had no problem referring to Scripture long before the Church made a formal decision on what to include.

But again how can we know that the Church has the authority to determine the canon without looking the Scriptures first?

(to be continued)

 

[SyCarl]

(continued)

Sola scriptura implies that the Catholic church should not teach anything that is not deducible from scriptures and that the Catholic Church must dogmatically teach which books are inspired yet it isnt possible to deduce the canon from the Scriptures. If someone in your church accepted the canon of Marcion could your church treat it as a matter of indiffernce while simulataneously keeping its commitment to the authority of Scripture?

The ECFs (Ireneaus, Ignatius, Cyprian, etc) all teach that apostolic succession was instituted by the apostles themselves and guarantees orthodoxy. To rule out the historic episcopacy on sola scriptura grounds begs the question.

The Reformation view of Sola Scrptura does not prohibit beliefs that are not found in Scripture. It does say that such beliefs must not contradict Scripture and are not required beliefs.For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith states:

1. 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. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

1. 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.

pcanet.org/general/cof_chapi-v.htm#chapi

The earliest Church Fathers seem to say that if something is not in Scripture, it is not meant to be known. For example Irenaeus writes:

If, therefore, even with respect to creation, there are some things [the knowledge of] which belongs only to God, and others which come within the range of our own knowledge, what ground is there for complaint, if, in regard to those things which we investigate in the Scriptures (which are throughout spiritual), we are able by the grace of God to explain some of them, while** we must leave others in the hands of God**, and that not only in the present world, but also in that which is to come, so that God should for ever teach, and man should for ever learn the things taught him by God?..
If, for instance, any one asks, “What was God doing before He made the world?” we reply that the answer to such a question lies with God Himself. For that this world was formed perfect by God, receiving a beginning in time, the Scriptures teach us; but no Scripture reveals to us what God was employed about before this event. The answer therefore to that question remains with God,

(Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 28, Paragraph 3

Later Fathers like Augustine indicate that things outside of Scripture may be believed but are not required.

And if any comparisons shall have been made for thee, if thou hast found them in the Scriptures, believe: if thou shalt not have found them spoken of except by report, do not very much believe them.The thing itself perchance is so, perchance is not so.

(Exposition on the Pslams, Psalm 67:10)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXVII.html

and

But if it is supported by the evident authority of the divine Scriptures…it must be believed without any reservation. In regard to other witnesses of evidence which are offered as guarantees of belief, you may believe or not, according as you estimate that they either have or have not the weight necessary to produce belief.

Fathers of the Church, Volume 20, St. Augustne Letter, 147, Chapter 4 pg. 180 Catholic University of America Press

Fundamentally the visible church founded by Christ and the apostles was an evolving structure that must of had some kind of hiearchy as do all human institutions. This evolving structure is there to be discovered in actual history. In the Protestant view the visible church consists of congregations constituted by gathering together in Christ’s name for the sake of preaching the Word and distributing the Sacraments without any sense of the visible church as an enduring entity constituted by the faithful transmission of truth and the successive appointment of individuals to enduring offices from one generation to the next (2 Timothy 2:2).

Sola scriptura implies each generation of christians are left with recreating the visible Church ex nihilo using the written record of apostolic teaching as its only guide. The obvious problem with this is that the Church continued to exist after the death of the last apostles for several centuries before the canon of the NT was recognized as such.

While this may be true of some non-deminational churches, it is not generally true of the historic Protestant churches arising from the Reformation which are ongoing visible institutions with defined teachings.