When was Sola Scriptura ratified as a doctrine or principle by the early church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nicea325
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nicea325

Guest
As of today and have been eagerly waiting for years for one SS advocate to present the ancient sources clearly showing when the belief of SS was ratified as a principle, let alone a doctrine by the early church?
 
Ummm… it wasn’t… in fact, if I understand it properly, teaching of Sola Scriptura is considered anathema.

… and in further reading, I am guessing that this is the point of your post…
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Ummm… it wasn’t… in fact, if I understand it properly, teaching of Sola Scriptura is anathema.

… and in further reading, I am guessing that this is the point of your post…
Click to expand...
Well according to an individual here SS was practiced in the church and is very cofident of it. Thus, I have been waiting to read those damaging sources to debunk all non-believers of SS.
 
Nicea325 said:
Well according to an individual here SS was practiced in the church and is very cofident of it. Thus, I have been waiting to read those damaging sources to debunk all non-believers of SS.
Click to expand...
I think it is a misreading of the Fathers’ reliance of Scripture. While the Church Fathers certainly regarding scripture highly, it was never understood in the same sense as Sola Scriptura. Because these very same Fathers who taught the importance and centrality of Scripture also performed exegesis themselves. So clearly they believe that explanation of Scripture as part of a continuing tradition is important. Also they have referenced teachings of other Church Fathers to show that a consistent understanding of these teachings is as important.
 
GreatergoodGod said:
It’s a protestant doctrine.
Click to expand...
And that is one of the major issues with SS. Some teach it is a principle/praxis while others a doctrine? Well-which is it? Some claim there is an “original” definition of SS and as of today I would like to know WHO,WHERE and under WHOSE authority made such a declaration in the early church?
 
ConstantineTG said:
I think it is a misreading of the Fathers’ reliance of Scripture. While the Church Fathers certainly regarding scripture highly, it was never understood in the same sense as Sola Scriptura. Because these very same Fathers who taught the importance and centrality of Scripture also performed exegesis themselves. So clearly they believe that explanation of Scripture as part of a continuing tradition is important. Also they have referenced teachings of other Church Fathers to show that a consistent understanding of these teachings is as important.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Quotes from Church Fathers

More quotes from ECF

Just as the Trinity does not exist in the Scripture as an official term but rather as an implied concept from a multiplicity of verses, so the concept of Scripture as the supreme arbiter of faith matters can readily be derived from the ECF’s.
 
clementVII said:
Quotes from Church Fathers

More quotes from ECF

Just as the Trinity does not exist in the Scripture as an official term but rather as an implied concept from a multiplicity of verses, so the concept of Scripture as the supreme arbiter of faith matters can readily be derived from the ECF’s.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anybody here is denying the importance of Scripture to the faith. It is just that what the Fathers are saying is not what you think they are saying. St. John Chrysostom himself has made a ton of exegesis on most of the New Testament. If Scripture alone was sufficient, why did he bother?
 
clementVII said:
Quotes from Church Fathers

More quotes from ECF

Just as the Trinity does not exist in the Scripture as an official term but rather as an implied concept from a multiplicity of verses, so the concept of Scripture as the supreme arbiter of faith matters can readily be derived from the ECF’s.
Click to expand...
I would have to question the credibility of the author of the first article you mention. He asserts that St. Thomas Aquinas believed in Sola Scriptura. This is clearly shown to be false in St. Thomas’ magnum opus, the Summa Theologica.

As St. Thomas states, “The universal Church cannot err, since she is governed by the Holy Ghost, Who is the Spirit of truth: for such was Our Lord’s promise to His disciples (John 16:13): ‘When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach you all truth.’” Read the “On the contrary” portion of article 9 on this page: newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm#article9

This clearly isn’t a man who believed in Sola Scriptura.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I don’t think anybody here is denying the importance of Scripture to the faith. It is just that what the Fathers are saying is not what you think they are saying. St. John Chrysostom himself has made a ton of exegesis on most of the New Testament. If Scripture alone was sufficient, why did he bother?
Click to expand...
SS advocates are revising history and as you said they believe the church fathers are saying something they never really ever intended to say: SS.
 
Nicea325 said:
SS advocates are revising history and as you said they believe the church fathers are saying something they never really ever intended to say: SS.
Click to expand...
Nicea325, would you happen to have any other links or sources for what they are claiming? My familiarity with the specific teachings of early Church theologians is pitifully weak, but I’ve never heard of SS as either a principle *or *a doctrine, so I’m curious to know what they are basing this upon. Especially since I was briefly discussing this with an ex-Catholic “true Christian” recently.

I read the ECF link, but I don’t understand where it shows doctrinal approval; is “primacy” supposed to mean the same thing?:confused:
 
In 1504 at a town called Wittenburg.

But as others have said, it doesn’t really stand up.
 
october_baby said:
🍿…this should be interesting.
Click to expand...
Code: 
                                                                                         http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/Smileys/fishy/twoguns.gifhttp://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/Smileys/fishy/popcorn_chair.gif  
                                                                                         http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/Smileys/fishy/popcorn_chair.gif     http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/Smileys/fishy/shoot.gif
 
lerapt78 said:
Nicea325, would you happen to have any other links or sources for what they are claiming? My familiarity with the specific teachings of early Church theologians is pitifully weak, but I’ve never heard of SS as either a principle *or *a doctrine, so I’m curious to know what they are basing this upon. Especially since I was briefly discussing this with an ex-Catholic “true Christian” recently.

I read the ECF link, but I don’t understand where it shows doctrinal approval; is “primacy” supposed to mean the same thing?:confused:
Click to expand...
I am sorry, but who? SS advocates or the church fathers?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top