Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[Canto]

Let me deal with the Matthew 13:55-56 passage. When “brothers and sisters” are used in connection with mother or father it means actual blood brothers and sisters.

Pretned you are St Matthew writing your gospel and you want to mention Jesus’ cousins but their is no word for cousins (a historical fact for many ancient languages) what word do you use. Brother/Sister?

This is part of the problem you have when you reject sola scriptura and have to try to make the scriptures say things it doesn’t.

Could not we argue the same about sola scriptura. With tradition the bible is better understood just as 2345.577 x 345.75768 is better understood with a calulator to help and not just our brain.

This is what happens when you reject the Scriptures alone as the basis for doctrine and practice. In this particular example of Mary not having children of her own so that in part the catholic church can claim Mary to be an ever virgin you can’t be consistent with the Scriptures.

Actually some bible verses are not clear and so Tradition helps us better understand the true meaning. By the way, what exactly are the doctrines contained in scripture. Do you know how many there are? What according to scripture is a doctrine and what is not?

 

[CentralFLJames]

What is your defintion of Sola Scriptura?

**I honestly don’t know since I can’t find any hint of sola scriptura mentioned anywhere in the Bible. **As best I can tell its a heretical fantasy constructed about the time of the Protestant revolution (500 years ago) and is a clear attempt to usurp the teaching authority from The Catholic Church by declaring the pope fallable and the individual lay Christian interpreter infallible.

Listening to individuals from many different Protestant sects and from those here I have deduced that the general consensus on what Sola Scriptura is as follows: the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

The problem though is that not even a single Sola Scriptura advocate can point to a universally accepted definition since there is no one that has the authority to define it nor speak for the large plurality of its advocates.

You tell me what your interpretation of Sola Scriptura is. In light of it being completely annihilated by current Catholic apologists it is now not fair to redefine it and subscribe it to a Catholic idea and make it our tar baby!

James

 

[Church_Militant]

Let me deal with the Matthew 13:55-56 passage. When “brothers and sisters” are used in connection with mother or father it means actual blood brothers and sisters.
This is part of the problem you have when you reject sola scriptura and have to try to make the scriptures say things it doesn’t.

I would allege the same of you Ja4 for embracing SS, since it is nowhere found in the Bible.

Look at how the word “brother” is used in Luke 14:26. Its the same word as in Matthew 13:55. If you are going to be consistent then you would interpret Luke 14:26 to say;
“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and cousins or near relative

and “cousins or near relative”, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
I would think most catholics would agree that this would be an unnatural rendering This passage has no relevance aside use of from the word brother.
I can disagree that it’s “an unnatural rendering” without doing damage to the meaning of that text.

Not irrelevant but it sheds some light on how His brothers looked at Him.

It actually is irrelevant since there is historical evidence that these were the children of Joseph by a previous marriage.

Secondly you have not offered one fact from the scriptures themselves that these were His step brothers. All i have seen is speculations and not facts to support this assertion.

Because I reject SS I do not have to support my points with scripture alone, although, I generally include it too. You can assert whatever you wish about these guys but there are many different children of Mary in the NT. You have here made assertions based upon what men teach not what the scripture actually says and there are great many Catholic articles that refute that. Look 'em up in the CA online library…

Quote:justasking4
2- Jesus death took place in Jerusalem and there is no indication that they were even in the city when this happened. I’m sure you would agree that communication was much slower in those days than today. I suspect they were totally unaware of what was happening or were to far away to do something about it.

How is this an inaccurate premise?

Simply because you make a supposition that is not supported by scripture, or even any historical documents that I know of. So far as the New Testamemnt tells us, we don’t know any of that for sure. Even by your own SS…you cannot make such a statement as valid.

However would you not agree that communication in those days was quite slow?

Yes but still irrelevant. Moreover, from the context of scripture I don’t think that you can make this statement. Look at Luke 24:13-35, especially 18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleophas, answering, said to him: Art thou only a stranger to Jerusalem, and hast not known the things that have been done there in these days? 19 To whom he said: What things? And they said: Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet, mighty in work and word before God and all the people; 20 And how our chief priests and princes delivered him to be condemned to death, and crucified him.

This is what happens when you reject the Scriptures alone as the basis for doctrine and practice. In this particular example of Mary not having children of her own so that in part the catholic church can claim Mary to be an ever virgin you can’t be consistent with the Scriptures.

No… this is what occurs when you believe the errant teachings of men that does not align with what the Word of God actually says and forces its own interpretation upon twisted passages of scripture while claiming to believe the Bible alone.

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3292438]**I honestly don’t know since I can’t find and hint of sola scriptura mentioned anywhere in the Bible. **As best I can tell its a heretical fantasy constructed about the time of the Protestant revolution (500 years ago) and is a clear attempt to usurp the teaching authority from The Catholic Church by declaring the pope fallable and the individual lay Christian interpreter infallible.

Listening to individuals from many different Protestant sects and from those here I have deduced that the general consensus on what Sola Scriptura is as follows: the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

I can agree with this definition for the most part.

The problem though is that not even a single Sola Scriptura advocate can point to a universally accepted definition since there is no one that has the authority to define it nor speak for the large plurality of its advocates.

I don’t think a lot of protestants have even heard of the term. I do think that most that do understand it would be comfortable with the definition you provide.
I can also make the same case against catholics on a broad number of issues also. For example what is Sacred Tradition and what are they? Or what must a person believe to be considered a true catholic? I have talked to a number of different catholics on just these 2 issues and get different answers.

You tell me what your interpretation of Sola Scriptura is. In light of it being completely annihilated by current Catholic apologists it is now not fair to redefine it and subscribe it to a Catholic idea and make it our tar baby!

James

I would accept what you wrote above. I use the scriptures to test all doctrines and practices. This actually gives me an advantage over the catholic view that not only believes in the scriptures but also has its traditions and doctrines and practices that in some cases cannot be supported by the very God breathed Scriptures. This becomes when we compare catholic doctrines and practices with the Scriptures and at times find they are not in harmony. Trying to harmonize some catholic doctrines and practices cannot be done without warping the clear meaning of the Scriptures.

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3292484]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Let me deal with the Matthew 13:55-56 passage. When “brothers and sisters” are used in connection with mother or father it means actual blood brothers and sisters.
This is part of the problem you have when you reject sola scriptura and have to try to make the scriptures say things it doesn’t.

Church Militant;
I would allege the same of you Ja4 for embracing SS, since it is nowhere found in the Bible.
What is your defintion of SS?

Quote: justasking4
Look at how the word “brother” is used in Luke 14:26. Its the same word as in Matthew 13:55. If you are going to be consistent then you would interpret Luke 14:26 to say;
“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and cousins or near relative and “cousins or near relative”, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
I would think most catholics would agree that this would be an unnatural rendering

Church Militant;
This passage has no relevance aside use of from the word brother.

Not so. What this means you can’t be consistent with the rest of Scripture when it uses the same word (brother) in different contexts.

Church Militant
I can disagree that it’s “an unnatural rendering” without doing damage to the meaning of that text.

Are you saying its not unnatural to read it this way?

Quote:justasking4
Not irrelevant but it sheds some light on how His brothers looked at Him.

Church Militant
It actually is irrelevant since there is historical evidence that these were the children of Joseph by a previous marriage.

Where is this evidence to be found?

 

[wisdomseeker]

who is right Martin Luther and Calvin, or the Catholic Church?

who decides?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I can agree with this definition for the most part.

I don’t think a lot of protestants have even heard of the term. I do think that most that do understand it would be comfortable with the definition you provide.
I can also make the same case against catholics on a broad number of issues also. For example what is Sacred Tradition and what are they? Or what must a person believe to be considered a true catholic? I have talked to a number of different catholics on just these 2 issues and get different answers.

I would accept what you wrote above. I use the scriptures to test all doctrines and practices. This actually gives me an advantage over the catholic view that not only believes in the scriptures but also has its traditions and doctrines and practices that in some cases cannot be supported by the very God breathed Scriptures. This becomes when we compare catholic doctrines and practices with the Scriptures and at times find they are not in harmony. Trying to harmonize some catholic doctrines and practices cannot be done without warping the clear meaning of the Scriptures.

you use the Scriptures to test! i cannot make such a claim for i can not enterpret the word of God ALONE. unless someone teaches ME i would not understand a thing. i command you for you yourself said you can, more power to you. but do you really can alone enterpret Scripture for yourself or have you learned from somebody else? if so, who did you learn from? who is the authority in enterpreting the Scriptures for you?
ANSWER MY QUESTIONS PLEASE.

 

[Canto]

Lets just pretend that I had decided to convert to Protestantism.
I ignored Paul’s call to Tradition and just use the bible.

What church do I join?
How do I know which one is right when they all use the scriptures to validate themsleves?

Who compiled the bible?
How can I be sure all the right books are there?
What if a wrong book is there and I get doctrine from that book?

How do I know scripture is good breathed?
What does this actually mean?
How can you tell?
Reading Bernie Taupin lyrics is extrodinary but I somewhow don’t think they are God breathed.

Is my interpretation of scripture always right?
Who gets do decide and WHY?
What authority do they have?
Is my new paster ‘as good’ as a Catholic Pope?

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3292484]
Quote:justasking4
Secondly you have not offered one fact from the scriptures themselves that these were His step brothers. All i have seen is speculations and not facts to support this assertion.

Church Militant
Because I reject SS I do not have to support my points with scripture alone, although, I generally include it too. You can assert whatever you wish about these guys but there are many different children of Mary in the NT. You have here made assertions based upon what men teach not what the scripture actually says and there are great many Catholic articles that refute that. Look 'em up in the CA online library…
You are making some incredible assertions here. Who are these " many different children of Mary in the NT" that you speak of?
Secondly you claim i believe that my “assertions based upon what men teach” is no argument against my point. If you truly want to know what the Scriptures say then you are going to have to deal with the context, word meanings and how it is used throughout the scriptures.
Thirdly, are not the articles that you recommend based on the teachings of men also?

Quote:

Quote:justasking4
2- Jesus death took place in Jerusalem and there is no indication that they were even in the city when this happened. I’m sure you would agree that communication was much slower in those days than today. I suspect they were totally unaware of what was happening or were to far away to do something about it.

How is this an inaccurate premise?

Church Militant
Simply because you make a supposition that is not supported by scripture, or even any historical documents that I know of. So far as the New Testamemnt tells us, we don’t know any of that for sure. Even by your own SS…you cannot make such a statement as valid.

i never said to know this with certainty though. Even you can’t claim the same for your belief about it either.

Quote:
However would you not agree that communication in those days was quite slow?

Church Militant
Yes but still irrelevant. Moreover, from the context of scripture I don’t think that you can make this statement. Look at Luke 24:13-35, especially 18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleophas, answering, said to him: Art thou only a stranger to Jerusalem, and hast not known the things that have been done there in these days? 19 To whom he said: What things? And they said: Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet, mighty in work and word before God and all the people; 20 And how our chief priests and princes delivered him to be condemned to death, and crucified him.

This is a different context than His brothers being aware that Jesus was being crucified on Friday. The disciples in the Luke account is at least days old by the time they hear of it. They make reference to facts they possessed that the resurrection had already happen and relayed this to the “Stranger”.

Quote:justasking4
This is what happens when you reject the Scriptures alone as the basis for doctrine and practice. In this particular example of Mary not having children of her own so that in part the catholic church can claim Mary to be an ever virgin you can’t be consistent with the Scriptures.

Church Militant
No… this is what occurs when you believe the errant teachings of men that does not align with what the Word of God actually says and forces its own interpretation upon twisted passages of scripture while claiming to believe the Bible alone.

I don’t think so. Here we have in the example of Mary’s children and the natural understanding of who these children would be that they were her own i.e. born from her. It is catholics who must come up with all kinds of speculations that cannot be supported by the Scriptures that these are her husband’ children from a previous marriage. This kind of thing cannot be supported in the NT.
If you just had the Scriptures alone you would not be led to make the assertions that you do. I on the other hand can let the scriptures speak in context without having to protect the idea that Mary was an ever virgin.

 

[justasking4]

you use the Scriptures to test! i cannot make such a claim for i can not enterpret the word of God ALONE. unless someone teaches ME i would not understand a thing. i command you for you yourself said you can, more power to you. but do you really can alone enterpret Scripture for yourself or have you learned from somebody else? if so, who did you learn from? who is the authority in enterpreting the Scriptures for you?
ANSWER MY QUESTIONS PLEASE.

Read the gospel of Matthew. Is it like a foreign language to you or can you understand some of the teachings and works Jesus is doing?
Can you understand what is going in 2:1-12 for example?
i would think anyone who has a good grasp of the english language for example would have an understanding of what is going on.

Secondly, get some commentaries. If you come across something you don’t understand, look it up and see what it says. Maybe even take a Bible study class from someone in your church who knows the scriptures.

For the most part scripture is not that difficult to understand.

Thirdly, Christ gave the church pastor-teachers who are to teach the Word to the people so they can understand it for themselves.

Fourth-- Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. Colossians 3

 

[Old_Scholar]

No, the Church Fathers (NONE) believed scripture held all truth. We do not believe that today because we embrace what was passed on to us through the Sacred Tradition in the 'Apostolic Succession.

Iranaeus believed what was handed on to him about all the Sacred Teachings, and understood how these are seen in scripture. Sola Scripturists, having rejected the Sacred Tradition, interpret scriputre in a vaccum, lacking context, and therefore, do not understand what the writers meant.

Here is what Irenæus himself had to say about Scripture:

IRENAEUS

We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith. (Adv. H. 3:1)

Wow! Seems Irenæus is saying that the Scriptures are the foundation and pillar of the Catholic faith.
IRENAEUS

Read more diligently that gospel which is given to us by the apostles; and read more diligently the prophets, and you will find every action and the whole doctrine of our Lord preached in them. (Adv. H. 4:66)

Golly…Irenæus is saying “READ” and you will find everything…

Does that sound like Sola Scriptura?

And what does Clement have to say:

They that are ready to spend their time in the best things will not give over seeking for truth until they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves. (Stromata 7:16:3)

Is he saying you won’t find the truth until you search the Scriptures??? My!

And Origen - what does he say?

In which (the two Testaments) every word that appertains to God may be required and discussed; and all knowledge may be understood out of them. But if anything remain which the Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third Scripture ought to be received for authorizing any knowledge or doctrine; but that which remains we must commit to the fire, that is, we will reserve it for God. For in this present world God would not have us to know all things. (Orig. in Lev., hom. 5, 9:6)

He is saying “burn” everything that can’t be found in Scripture…

And then Origen says:

We know Jesus Christ is God, and we seek to expound the words which are spoken, according to the dignity of the person. Wherefore it is necessary for us to call the Scriptures into testimony; for our meanings and enarrations, without these witnesses, have no credibility. (Tractatus 5 in Matt.)

Once again an early church father says that without Scripture to support it, tradition has no credibility…Hmnnnnnnn!

And more from Origen:

No man ought, for the confirmation of doctrines, to use books which are not canonized Scriptures. (Tract. 26 in Matt.)

My goodness—he’s still saying doctrine can’t be confirmed without Scriptures…

And Origen keeps on writing…

As all gold, whatsoever it be, that is without the temple, is not holy; even so every notion which is without the divine Scripture, however admirable it may appear to some, is not holy, because it is foreign to Scripture. (Hom. 25 in Matt.)

How non-Catholic…He keeps saying that if it is not from Scripture, it is not holy…

So what does Cyprian have to say:

Whence comes this tradition? Does it descend from the Lord’s authority, or from the commands and epistles of the apostles? For those things are to be done which are there written. … If it be commanded in the gospels or the epistles and Acts of the Apostles, then let this holy tradition be observed. (Ep. 74 ad Pompeium)

He sounds like all the rest. If it is commanded in the gospels, or the epistles or Acts of the apostles, then it can be observed…

And Hippolytus—what does he say?

There is one God, whom we do not otherwise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the Holy Scriptures. For as he that would possess the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise obtain it than to read the doctrines of the philosophers; so whosoever of us will exercise piety toward God cannot learn this elsewhere but out of the Holy Scriptures. Whatsoever, therefore, the Holy Scriptures do preach, that let us know, and whatsoever they teach, that let us understand. (Hip. tom. 3, Bibliotheque Patrium, ed. Colonna)

Hippolytus is just like all the rest…He wants to find it in Scripture…Oh my goodness…Could the RCC be wrong?

(continued on next post)

 

[Old_Scholar]

(continued from before: the listing of early church fathers and their writings about Sola Scriptura)

Anathanasius

The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.)

Here he says the Scriptures are sufficient…

The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written. (Exhort. ad Monachas)

And then Anathanasius says the Catholic Church will not speak or endure anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture… Does anyone doubt what the early fathers thought???

And then Ambrose:

How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures? (Ambr. Offic., 1:23)

And again Ambrose appeals to Scripture:

I read that he is the first, I read that he is not the second; they who say he is the second, let them show it by reading. (Ambr. Offic., in Virginis Instit. 11)

Then Hilary of Poitters:

O emperor! I admire your faith, which desires only according to those things that were written. … You seek the faith, O emperor. Hear it then, not from new writings,** but from the books of God. Remember that it is not a question of philosophy, but a doctrine of the gospel.** (Ad Constant. Augus. 2:8:2)

Gregory

Let a man be persuaded of the truth of that alone which has the seal of the written testimony. (De Anima et Resurrectione, 1)

Gregory says the truth has the seal of the written testimony…

John Chrysostom says:

[The Scripture], like a safe door, denies an entrance to heretics, guarding us in safety in all things we desire, and not permitting us to be deceived. …Whoever uses not the Scriptures, but comes in otherwise, that is, cuts out for himself a different and unlawful way, the same is a thief. (Homily 59, in Joh. 2:8)

This is another belief of Sola Scriptura.

Chrysostom goes on to say:

Formerly it might have been ascertained by various means which was the true church, but at present** there is no other method left for those who are willing to discover the true church of Christ but by the Scriptures alone.** And why? Because heresy has all outward observances in common with her. If a man, therefore, be desirous of knowing the true church, how will he be able to do it amid so great resemblance, but by the Scriptures alone? Wherefore our Lord, foreseeing that such a great confusion of things would take place in the latter days, ordered the Christians to have recourse to nothing but the Scriptures.

Scriptures alone…sound like *Sola Scriptura *to me…

More from Chrysostom:

It is absurd, while we will not trust other people in pecuniary affairs, but choose to reckon and calculate for ourselves, that in matters of far higher consequence we should implicitly follow the opinions of others, especially as we possess the most exact and perfect rule and standard by which to regulate our several inquiries: I mean the regulation of the divine laws.** I, therefore, could wish that all of you would reject what this or that man says, and that you would investigate all these things in the Scriptures**. (Hom. 13, 4:10 ad fin. in 2 Cor.)

How about Theophilus?

It is the part of a devilish spirit to think any thing to be divine that is not in the authority of the Holy Scriptures. (Ep. Pasch. 2)

What about Jerome’s writings:

The church of Christ, possessing churches in all the world, is united by the unity of the Spirit, and has the cities of the law, the prophets, the gospels, and the apostles. She has not gone forth from her boundaries, that is, from the Holy Scriptures. (Comm. in Micha. 1:1)

(Continued next page)

 

[Old_Scholar]

(Continued from before - the early church fathers and Sola Scriptura)

More from Jerome:

Those things which they make and find, as it were, by apostolical tradition, without the authority and testimony of Scripture, the word of God smites. (ad Aggai 1)

More Jerome:

As we deny not those things that are written, so we refuse those things that are not written. That God was born of a virgin we believe, because we read it; that Mary did marry after she was delivered we believe not, because we do not read it. (Adv. Helvidium)

Augustine

In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals. (De Doct. Chr. 2:9)

Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud. (De Pastore, 11)

All those things which in times past our ancestors have mentioned to be done toward mankind and have delivered unto us: all those things also which we see and deliver to our posterity, **so far as they pertain to the seeking and maintaining true religion, the Holy Scripture has not passed over in silence. **(Ep. 42)

Whatever our Saviour would have us read of his actions and sayings he commanded his apostles and disciples, as his hands, to write. (De Consensu Evang. 1:ult.)

Cyril of Alexandria

That which the Holy Scriptures have not said, by what means should we receive and account it among those things that are true? (Glaphyrarum in Gen. 2)

Theodoret of Cyrrhus

By the Holy Scriptures alone am I persuaded. (Dial. 1, Atrept.)
I am not so bold as to affirm anything which the sacred Scripture passes in silence. (Dial. 2, Asynchyt.)

We ought not to seek those things that are passed in silence, but rest in the things which are written. (in Gen. Q. 45)

Nothing more needs to be said. There is only the conclusion. And it is that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, far from being an invention of Martin Luther, is taken for granted by St. Thomas Aquinas, and is a point agreed upon by the writers of the patristic age.

You have to believe the early church fathers.

Now if anyone wants to refute this, please do so one by one with references. Don’t just say they are wrong because I have given you where each one came from…Be honest and refute it if you can. Otherwise we’ll all know the early church fathers really did believe in Sola Scriptura as I have maintained all along…

 

[wisdomseeker]

Read the gospel of Matthew. Is it like a foreign language to you or can you understand some of the teachings and works Jesus is doing?
Can you understand what is going in 2:1-12 for example?
i would think anyone who has a good grasp of the english language for example would have an understanding of what is going on.

Secondly, get some commentaries. If you come across something you don’t understand, look it up and see what it says. Maybe even take a Bible study class from someone in your church who knows the scriptures.

For the most part scripture is not that difficult to understand.

Thirdly, Christ gave the church pastor-teachers who are to teach the Word to the people so they can understand it for themselves.

Fourth-- Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. Colossians 3

sorry! you have not answer my questions. for i question you who is your authority in enterpret the Word of God? yes i can read but that does not mean i can enterpret what God is saying.

 

[Canto]

Secondly, get some commentaries. If you come across something you don’t understand, look it up and see what it says. Maybe even take a Bible study class from someone in your church who knows the scriptures.

If we can use a bible commentary to help us understand the bible why can’t we use Tradition. If the bible is so easy to understand why all the commentaries? One such commentary said it was blasphemy to call Mary the Mother of God. I thought Jesus was God (well 1 part of the tri Godhead) and as Mary gave birth to him that makes her the Mother of God, anyway as to someone in my Church who knows the scriptures how about the POPE? Can he help?

 

[wisdomseeker]

(continued from before: the listing of early church fathers and their writings about Sola Scriptura)

Anathanasius

The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.)

Here he says the Scriptures are sufficient…

The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written. (Exhort. ad Monachas)

And then Anathanasius says the Catholic Church will not speak or endure anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture… Does anyone doubt what the early fathers thought???

And then Ambrose:

How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures? (Ambr. Offic., 1:23)

And again Ambrose appeals to Scripture:

I read that he is the first, I read that he is not the second; they who say he is the second, let them show it by reading. (Ambr. Offic., in Virginis Instit. 11)

Then Hilary of Poitters:

O emperor! I admire your faith, which desires only according to those things that were written. … You seek the faith, O emperor. Hear it then, not from new writings,** but from the books of God. Remember that it is not a question of philosophy, but a doctrine of the gospel.** (Ad Constant. Augus. 2:8:2)

Gregory

Let a man be persuaded of the truth of that alone which has the seal of the written testimony. (De Anima et Resurrectione, 1)

Gregory says the truth has the seal of the written testimony…

John Chrysostom says:

[The Scripture], like a safe door, denies an entrance to heretics, guarding us in safety in all things we desire, and not permitting us to be deceived. …Whoever uses not the Scriptures, but comes in otherwise, that is, cuts out for himself a different and unlawful way, the same is a thief. (Homily 59, in Joh. 2:8)

This is another belief of Sola Scriptura.

Chrysostom goes on to say:

Formerly it might have been ascertained by various means which was the true church, but at present** there is no other method left for those who are willing to discover the true church of Christ but by the Scriptures alone.** And why? Because heresy has all outward observances in common with her. If a man, therefore, be desirous of knowing the true church, how will he be able to do it amid so great resemblance, but by the Scriptures alone? Wherefore our Lord, foreseeing that such a great confusion of things would take place in the latter days, ordered the Christians to have recourse to nothing but the Scriptures.

Scriptures alone…sound like *Sola Scriptura *to me…

More from Chrysostom:

It is absurd, while we will not trust other people in pecuniary affairs, but choose to reckon and calculate for ourselves, that in matters of far higher consequence we should implicitly follow the opinions of others, especially as we possess the most exact and perfect rule and standard by which to regulate our several inquiries: I mean the regulation of the divine laws.** I, therefore, could wish that all of you would reject what this or that man says, and that you would investigate all these things in the Scriptures**. (Hom. 13, 4:10 ad fin. in 2 Cor.)

How about Theophilus?

It is the part of a devilish spirit to think any thing to be divine that is not in the authority of the Holy Scriptures. (Ep. Pasch. 2)

What about Jerome’s writings:

The church of Christ, possessing churches in all the world, is united by the unity of the Spirit, and has the cities of the law, the prophets, the gospels, and the apostles. She has not gone forth from her boundaries, that is, from the Holy Scriptures. (Comm. in Micha. 1:1)

(Continued next page)

how about posting the quotes showing their support for the Catholic Church! since they are part of it. i mean they are because we believe they are Saints of the Catholic Church and still part of it.

 

[guanophore]

Nice try but it doesn’t hold. Its not that it did not happen yet but that there is no evidence from the 1st century itself that it actually did happen. You are still assuming it happened without any facts to back up the claim.

No evidence that you will accept, ja4, since you reject the Apostolic Succession and the Sacred Tradition.

Not so. The reasons these kinds of examples are important in this discussion of sola scriptura is that it shows that the catholic rejection of it means that they must accept another source that is non-apostolic in its claims. Inherent in this discussion are the claims of the catholic church’ claims of wanting to be biblical and apostolic in its teachings. These examples show otherwise. A sola scriptura believer rejects these doctrines as being unbiblical since they are not taught in scritpure.

No, ja4, they Sacred Traditions are not “non-apostolic”. They seem that way to you because you do not accept any apostolic teaching other than scripture. However, persons who have received the Apostolic succession appointed by Christ have a rich deposit of Divine Revelation, not all of which is found in scripture.

You are right, the Catholic Church is biblical and apostolic in it’s teaching but we understand scripture differently than those who are separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced the scripture.

 

[Old_Scholar]

how about posting the quotes showing their support for the Catholic Church! since they are part of it. i mean they are because we believe they are Saints of the Catholic Church and still part of it.

Actually it would be best to read what all they had to say. They can be found here:

goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8074.asp

 

[CentralFLJames]

You have to believe the early church fathers.

There you go again pontificating as if you are the infallible pope telling us what we must believe while going completely circular again in the logic by using extra-biblical sources that you, as a sola scriptura’st tell us to never listen to.

You are going to have to be consistent. Either you believe that each of us is free to privately interpret scripture or we are not. Either you believe that only scripture can be used to ratify scripture or you do not. Either you believe that the pope is infallible or you believe you or somone else is.

It is elementary logic then that you either don’t take to heart sola scriptura or you are blindly hypocritical since you: 1) attempt to teach with no authority to do so and 2) you unsuccessfully attempt to use extra biblical sources (out of context) to make your case rather than scripture and 3) you assert yourself as infallible and 4) you deny us our own private interpretation of scripture (which we defer to The Church).

Which is the case? This is a simple question. No dodging this time.

James

 

[wisdomseeker]

(Continued from before - the early church fathers and Sola Scriptura)

More from Jerome:

Those things which they make and find, as it were, by apostolical tradition, without the authority and testimony of Scripture, the word of God smites. (ad Aggai 1)

More Jerome:

As we deny not those things that are written, so we refuse those things that are not written. That God was born of a virgin we believe, because we read it; that Mary did marry after she was delivered we believe not, because we do not read it. (Adv. Helvidium)

Augustine

In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals. (De Doct. Chr. 2:9)

Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud. (De Pastore, 11)

All those things which in times past our ancestors have mentioned to be done toward mankind and have delivered unto us: all those things also which we see and deliver to our posterity, **so far as they pertain to the seeking and maintaining true religion, the Holy Scripture has not passed over in silence. **(Ep. 42)

Whatever our Saviour would have us read of his actions and sayings he commanded his apostles and disciples, as his hands, to write. (De Consensu Evang. 1:ult.)

Cyril of Alexandria

That which the Holy Scriptures have not said, by what means should we receive and account it among those things that are true? (Glaphyrarum in Gen. 2)

Theodoret of Cyrrhus

By the Holy Scriptures alone am I persuaded. (Dial. 1, Atrept.)
I am not so bold as to affirm anything which the sacred Scripture passes in silence. (Dial. 2, Asynchyt.)

We ought not to seek those things that are passed in silence, but rest in the things which are written. (in Gen. Q. 45)

Nothing more needs to be said. There is only the conclusion. And it is that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, far from being an invention of Martin Luther, is taken for granted by St. Thomas Aquinas, and is a point agreed upon by the writers of the patristic age.

You have to believe the early church fathers.

Now if anyone wants to refute this, please do so one by one with references. Don’t just say they are wrong because I have given you where each one came from…Be honest and refute it if you can. Otherwise we’ll all know the early church fathers really did believe in Sola Scriptura as I have maintained all along…

We believe in the early fathers as a matter fact they are our Saints. did you get to read their quotes supporting the CC since they are part of this Church or do you also choose to ignore anything that confirms the CC is the True Church? It was then, it is now and forever will be: according to the Lord.