When did the heresy of using scripture alone first start?

[myfavoritmartin]

So Gregory of Nyssa was a heretic???

“we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings…And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all. And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?” - Macrina and Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection)

 

[myfavoritmartin]

And AMBROSE a heretic as well?

“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” - Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)

 

[myfavoritmartin]

and Augustine?

Scripture - Sufficiency of Scripture - Augustine"Every sickness of the soul hath in Scripture its proper remedy." - Augustine (Expositions on the Psalms, 37:2)

 

[myfavoritmartin]

And Clement of Alexandria??

“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth,** till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.”** - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:16)

 

[inkaneer]

So the Catholic church considers simply following scripture as our authority as a heresy???

No, the Catholic Church considers “sola scriptura” and all it entails as heresy. Don’t forget that sola scriptura isn’t just “simply following scripture”. Sola scriptura denies the authority of the church and renders scriptural passages such as Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:18, 1Timothy 3:15, Luke 10:16, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and a bunch of others null and void. And isn’t it ironic that those who claim scripture as their only authority are the ones who pervert it while those who deny sola scriptura are the ones who support it? Like Paul tells his disciple Timothy it is the church that is the pillar and bulwark of the truth [1Timothy 3:15]. Paul doesn’t say that scripture is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Ironic indeed!!!

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Dionysius of Alexandria
“Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.” - Dionysius of Alexandria (cited in the church history of Eusebius, 7:24)

condemning an awful lot of your own!

 

[myfavoritmartin]

All tradition are subject to the higher authority of scripture…

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

 

[inkaneer]

And Clement of Alexandria??

“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth,** till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.”** - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:16)

Look, you can chop quote Ambrose, Augustine, Clement or any other early church writer you want. I can post from each of their writings what they had to say about church authority. For instance let’s take Augustine. Here is what he wrote about church authority:

“[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]).

But rather than hurl early church writer quotes at you like they are artillery shells allow me to drop down to the bottom line which is this [CAPS for emphasis only]:

PAUL WROTE INSPIRED SCRIPURE WHEN HE PENNED 1THESSALONIANS 2:15 AND 1 TIMOTHY 3:15. AMBROSE, AUGUSTINE, CLEMENT AND THE OTHER EARLY CHURCH WRITERS DID NOT.

That is the bottom line. Apparently you take the early church fathers’ writings as being more authoritative than scripture and by doing so violate sola scriptura. Catholics on the other hand ascribe no particular authority to the early church writers other than they present us with a historical testimony of what the early church believed. And their writings are to be taken in context as a whole rather than cherry picked or chop quoted.

By the way, since when does a sola scripturist quote the early church writers as any kind of authority? Wow, that is really ironic ! ! !

 

[myfavoritmartin]

No, the Catholic Church considers “sola scriptura” and all it entails as heresy. Don’t forget that sola scriptura isn’t just “simply following scripture”. Sola scriptura denies the authority of the church and renders scriptural passages such as Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:18, 1Timothy 3:15, Luke 10:16, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and a bunch of others null and void. And isn’t it ironic that those who claim scripture as their only authority are the ones who pervert it while those who deny sola scriptura are the ones who support it? Like Paul tells his disciple Timothy it is the church that is the pillar and bulwark of the truth [1Timothy 3:15]. Paul doesn’t say that scripture is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Ironic indeed!!!

Sola scriptura does not deny the authority of the church ONLY of institutions claiming to be the only church, we acknowledge the authority of “the elect”-“the ecclesia”-“the called out ones” that church…

 

[Lief_Erikson]

myfavoritmartin, in the quote you provided, St. Gregory is comparing the reliability of Scripture with the reliability of technical proofs. He’s saying he’ll trust Scripture over technical proofs any day.

In other quotes from St. Gregory of Nyssa, we see that he decidedly affirms the authority of Sacred Tradition, Apostolic Succession, and the rest of the infallible Catholic authority.

Here are a couple:

"Let [Eunomius] first show, then, that the Church has believed in vain that the Only-begotten Son truly exists, not made such through adoption by a Father falsely so-called, but existing as such according to nature, by generation from Him Who Is, not estranged from the nature of Him who begot Him…It suffices for the proof of our statement that we have a tradition coming down from the fathers, an inheritance as it were, by succession from the Apostles through the saints who came after them." (St. Gregory of Nyssa, C. Eunomius 3[4])

“The memory of Peter, who is the head of the apostles…he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the savior built his Church.” Gregory of Nyssa, Panegyric on St. Stephen, 3 (ante A.D. 394).

Here’s a link with a whole bunch of quotes from the Early Church Fathers and the Bible, showing how it constantly saw the Church as an infallible authority- not Scripture alone. I strongly recommend you read through this link, because the quotes you’re throwing around from Early Church Fathers are taken completely out of context and without regard for their other statements. For instance, Augustine wrote that he would not trust the Bible except that the Church declared it to be infallible. The Early Church Fathers you just cited all express the view that the authority of the Church is paramount. While they all affirm the authority of Scripture, none of them say everyone should interpret that Scripture for themselves or deviate from Tradition, the Apostolic Succession, the Pope or the Councils. They instead affirm that all of these are inspired with the authority and truth of God. So please read this link. It may help you to see the broader scope of these writers’ writings. You’ve taken a few quotes completely out of context. If you read the broader scope of their work with an open mind, you won’t conclude the same as you have now.

scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

 

[myfavoritmartin]

PAUL WROTE INSPIRED SCRIPURE WHEN HE PENNED 1THESSALONIANS 2:15 AND 1 TIMOTHY 3:15. AMBROSE, AUGUSTINE, CLEMENT AND THE OTHER EARLY CHURCH WRITERS DID NOT.

Now if you could just show that what Paul was talking about had anything to do with the Roman Catholic church you might get somewhere.

That is the bottom line. Apparently you take the early church fathers’ writings as being more authoritative than scripture and by doing so violate sola scriptura. Catholics on the other hand ascribe no particular authority to the early church writers other than they present us with a historical testimony of what the early church believed. And their writings are to be taken in context as a whole rather than cherry picked or chop quoted.

BTW I took nothing out of context, in fact i attached the complete context link for each one…So quit making false claims against me.
ALSO, there is no such thing as violating sola scriptura, it’s not a doctrine it’s a praxis.

By the way, since when does a sola scripturist quote the early church writers as any kind of authority? Wow, that is really ironic ! ! !

Simple when speaking to people who hold a low2 view of the written word of God one must show their innerrancies using a method they would understand.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

myfavoritmartin, in the quote you provided, St. Gregory is comparing the reliability of Scripture with the reliability of technical proofs. He’s saying he’ll trust Scripture over technical proofs any day.

In other quotes from St. Gregory of Nyssa, we see that he decidedly affirms the authority of Sacred Tradition, Apostolic Succession, and the rest of the infallible Catholic authority.

Here are a couple:

"Let [Eunomius] first show, then, that the Church has believed in vain that the Only-begotten Son truly exists, not made such through adoption by a Father falsely so-called, but existing as such according to nature, by generation from Him Who Is, not estranged from the nature of Him who begot Him…It suffices for the proof of our statement that we have a tradition coming down from the fathers, an inheritance as it were, by succession from the Apostles through the saints who came after them." (St. Gregory of Nyssa, C. Eunomius 3[4])

“The memory of Peter, who is the head of the apostles…he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the savior built his Church.” Gregory of Nyssa, Panegyric on St. Stephen, 3 (ante A.D. 394).

Here’s a link with a whole bunch of quotes from the Early Church Fathers and the Bible, showing how it constantly saw the Church as an infallible authority- not Scripture alone.

scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

Would you be so kind to show FULL context links for credibility as i have done?

 

[inkaneer]

Sola scriptura does not deny the authority of the church ONLY of institutions claiming to be the only church, we acknowledge the authority of “the elect”-“the ecclesia”-“the called out ones” that church…

So the definition of sola scriptura has changed. What’s next? Look, I’m old school Catholic. I went to a catholic, Catholic school. We spoke Latin as much as we did English. I know what the Latin words ‘sola’ and ‘scriptura’ mean and I know what they mean in combination. Sola scriptura means no authority but scripture. That is what it meant in the sixteenth century and it better mean the same thing now because if not that is prima facia evidence of a heretical doctrine. God is immutable. That means He doesn’t change. Protestants like to say God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Same is true of God’s word. It doesn’t change either. That holds for doctrine based on God’s word.

What Paul wrote in the first century is just as valid today as it was then. And when Paul says to hold onto the traditions received either in writing or by word of mouth [2Thess 2:15] that is the wooden stake in the heart of sola scriptura.

By the way who are these “elect” these “called out ones” and how many are there? How do you know who they are?

 

[patrick457]

The problem here though, is Wycleff’s translation was purposed for attacking the Magisterium, and not just the Magisterium but the whole of Church authority down to the lonely monk who does nothing but copy the bible. This was a well know fact about him before he even took to the job of translating the bible! This is why, at least in part he was denyed the right to do so.

I’m a bit confused. I thought the ban on translating the Bible into English without prior authorization was enforced after Wycliff came into the scene. Was there already a sort of ban in Wycliff’s lifetime?

Yes, exactly correct. More over it wasn’t until King James that a “error free” protestant bible was produced. Of course I put “error free” in quotes, because if the septuigent is not used for the OT then it already contains error.

Probably because the translators were instructed to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation, and marginal notes were also not allowed (the best the translators could put in the margins are mundane, neutral things like cross-references and possible alternate renderings). Plus, certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the Church of England, guaranteeing that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word “church” were to be retained and not to be translated as “congregation”, which back then was almost a sort of tradition in Protestant English translations since Tyndale, especially ones with an anti-Catholic bias.

I’m not entirely sure if I would completely diss the Masoretic Hebrew text as being unreliable in favor of the Septuagint. The former is corrupt in many readings, yes, but even so, there were also many texts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls which support the Masoretic (just as there were also manuscripts which support the LXX), suggesting that an ancestor of the Masoretic text was indeed extant as early as the 2nd century BC.

The most widely accepted view today is that the original Septuagint provided a reasonably accurate record of an early Semitic textual variant, now lost, that differed from the textual variant which later became the Masoretic text. The LXX and the Masoretic are most likely descendants of two different textual traditions, so IMHO one needs to evaluate both their strengths and weaknesses first before preferring one over the other.

To everyone else: I’m very sorry if our conversation is drifting the thread a bit…please continue.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I would suggest starting with this book

Where We Got the Bible… Our Debt to the Catholic Church

Read that, then on pg 160 (the last page) there is a bibligraphical note which lists all books he used as his sources.

Could you type up a direct quote from the book, a paragraph or two, about this? Maybe if I knew the name of the epistle, or the Bible translation it comes from, I could look it up online. I, too, would like to hear more about this. I can’t accept, believe and use a fact until I see its source, but I’m not planning to buy the book, at least not now.

I can use the crazy Luther position on the canon because that’s well sourced and I’ve read the prefaces where he rejected the canonicity and divine inspiration of some of the New Testament books. If Calvin did actually write a new epistle for the Bible and proclaim it canon, I would like to know that for sure.

I’d appreciate any quotes or information you might have on this, if you can find the time to give them to me!

 

[crazzeto]

Could you type up a direct quote from the book, a paragraph or two, about this? Maybe if I knew the name of the epistle, or the Bible translation it comes from, I could look it up online. I, too, would like to hear more about this. I can’t accept, believe and use a fact until I see its source, but I’m not planning to buy the book, at least not now.

I can use the crazy Luther position on the canon because that’s well sourced and I’ve read the prefaces where he rejected the canonicity and divine inspiration of some of the New Testament books. If Calvin did actually write a new epistle for the Bible and proclaim it canon, I would like to know that for sure.

I’d appreciate any quotes or information you might have on this, if you can find the time to give them to me!

I don’t have the book with me, but I would be happy to as soon as I have access to it.

 

[crazzeto]

I’m a bit confused. I thought the ban on translating the Bible into English without prior authorization was enforced after Wycliff came into the scene. Was there already a sort of ban in Wycliff’s lifetime?

The Church was never excited about just anyone, printing up their very own bibles with scrupelous accuracy and in particular less so when it is being done to use the book as a tool against church & society

Probably because the translators were instructed to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation, and marginal notes were also not allowed (the best the translators could put in the margins are mundane, neutral things like cross-references and possible alternate renderings). Plus, certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the Church of England, guaranteeing that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word “church” were to be retained and not to be translated as “congregation”, which back then was almost a sort of tradition in Protestant English translations since Tyndale, especially ones with an anti-Catholic bias.

I’m not entirely sure if I would completely diss the Masoretic Hebrew text as being unreliable in favor of the Septuagint. The former is corrupt in many readings, yes, but even so, there were also many texts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls which support the Masoretic (just as there were also manuscripts which support the LXX), suggesting that an ancestor of the Masoretic text was indeed extant as early as the 2nd century BC.

The most widely accepted view today is that the original Septuagint provided a reasonably accurate record of an early Semitic textual variant, now lost, that differed from the textual variant which later became the Masoretic text. The LXX and the Masoretic are most likely descendants of two different textual traditions, so IMHO one needs to evaluate both their strengths and weaknesses first before preferring one over the other.

To everyone else: I’m very sorry if our conversation is drifting the thread a bit…please continue.

Not including the Septuingent in the bible is an error, not only do you end up 7 books short you also chage several verses inherently.

 

[Nicholas_II]

Could you type up a direct quote from the book, a paragraph or two, about this? Maybe if I knew the name of the epistle, or the Bible translation it comes from, I could look it up online. I, too, would like to hear more about this. I can’t accept, believe and use a fact until I see its source, but I’m not planning to buy the book, at least not now.

I can use the crazy Luther position on the canon because that’s well sourced and I’ve read the prefaces where he rejected the canonicity and divine inspiration of some of the New Testament books. If Calvin did actually write a new epistle for the Bible and proclaim it canon, I would like to know that for sure.

I’d appreciate any quotes or information you might have on this, if you can find the time to give them to me!

The book is available online. It does mention an Epistle of Calvin, but I Still cant find any references telling me where I can find the Epistle of Calvin.

 

[inkaneer]

Simple when speaking to people who hold a low2 view of the written word of God one must show their innerrancies using a method they would understand.

And who might that be? Certainly not Catholics. We hold scripture to be an authority but it is not the only authority. We take Paul at his word when he commanded the Thessalonians in 2 Thess 2:15 hold onto both the traditions they received orally as well as by letter. Protestants violate Paul’s inspired words by denying the authority of the oral teaching. Catholics hold that both the Oral Tradition and the Written Tradition are equal in authority because they both emanate from the same source, the Holy Spirit. So how is that a “low2 view of the written word of God”? Please explain how that could be. And please don’t even begin to accuse Catholics of the “traditions of man” bit. If there ever was a “tradition of man” it is sola scriptura itself. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself originated from the Protestant reformers and is therefore merely an interpretation of the Bible. Interpretations require assumptions and information which originate from outside the Bible. These include: (1) Rules of interpretation and hermeneutical principles, (2) knowledge about Biblical times and history, (3) archaeological evidence, (4) an accurate translation of the Bible, (5) philosophical and theological biases which inevitably guide the interpretation (Martin Luther certainly had a bias which he could not disguise). Those who hold to Sola Scriptura pretend that the Bible is easy to accurately interpret but the fact of so many contradictory interpretations proves that this is not the case.

I say it is protestants who hold a “low2 view” of the Word of God by only acknowledging the written component. Yet Jesus never commanded the Apostles to write anythng. Jesus’ command to the Apostles was to preach the Good News [Mark 16:15]. Of the Apostles only five wrote anything inspired. How about the other seven? Were they idle? The Apostle Thomas never wrote anything yet he traveled to India and preached the Gospel there and taught and ordained other men to do likewise after him. He did precisely what Paul told Timothy in 2Timothy 2:2 wherein Paul says:

“and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” [2 Timothy 2:2]

Notice Paul does not say, “and what you have read from me…” He says “what you have heard from me…”. Not a rousing confirmation of sola scriptura is it? Yet protestantism contradicts this as well as other scripture passages.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Notice Paul does not say, “and what you have read from me…” He says “what you have heard from me…”. Not a rousing confirmation of sola scriptura is it? Yet protestantism contradicts this as well as other scripture passages.

James was writing his own book and called it scripture. He says,** “Do you think the scripture speak to no purpose” **in James 4:5. He know’s he is penning something that is inspired by the HS
He calls his own book James, scripture.

Paul reading the OT the law of God, said** the law is holy, just and good**. He affirms the; holiness and perfection of the Old Testament.

And John quotes himself as scripture.
John after he pens the letters in Revelation he says **let the churches hear what the Spirit says. **John knew he was writing what the Spirit was saying, not what he was saying.