Posted on 06/29/2015 11:23:16 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Sola Scriptura: the reformed Protestant belief that the Scriptures alone are the final and only infallible authority for the Christian. This does not mean that Scriptures are the only authority (nuda or solo Scriptura), as Protestants believe in the authority of tradition, reason, experience, and emotions to varying degrees (after all, “sola scriptura” itself is an authoritative tradition in Protestantism). It does mean that Scripture trumps all other authorities (it is the norma normans sed non normata Lat. “norm that norms which is not normed”).
Sometimes people get the idea that sola Scriptura was a 16th-century invention. While it was definitely articulated a great deal through the controversies during the Reformation, its basic principles can be found deep in church history. Take a look at some of these early church fathers who seemed to believe in the primacy of Scripture:
Related Resource: Six Myths About Sola Scriptura by C. Michael Patton
“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9)
“They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
For they [the Apostles] were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity. Proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.” (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)
Recommended Book: The Shape of Sola Scripura by Keith Mathison
“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)
“The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father. So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint.” (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119)
“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits will not desist from the search after truth until they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.” – Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:16)
“In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself.” – Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)
“Every sickness of the soul hath in Scripture its proper remedy.” (Expositions on the Psalms, 37:2; notice the sufficiency of Scripture being iterated here)
“Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.’ Also the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which He commanded. If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed.” (Letter 73:2)
“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)
“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Oxford: Parker, 1845, The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17).
“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.” (Cited in Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, 7:24)
“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?” – (“On the Soul and the Resurrection” A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 442)
Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right (Letter CCLXXXIII, ANCF, p. 312).
“Their treason involves us in the difficult and dangerous position of having to make a definite pronouncement, beyond the statements of Scripture, upon this grave and abstruse matter….We must proclaim, exactly as we shall find them in the words of Scripture, the majesty and functions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so debar the heretics from robbing these Names of their connotation of Divine character, and compel them by means of these very Names to confine their use of terms to their proper meaning….I would not have you flatter the Son with praises of your own invention; it is well with you if you be satisfied with the written word.” (On the Trinity, 2:5, 3:23)
Recommended Reading: Now that I’m a Christian by C. Michael Patton (has a lengthy discussion in chapter one on the different types of authority and how they interact with Scripture)
“When, then, anything in my little work seems to you harsh, have regard not to my words, but to the Scripture, whence they are taken.” (Letter, 48:20)
“I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [Scriptures], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else.” (Letter, 53:10)
“I shall yield to scripture alone.” (Dialogues, 1)
Here is a good quote from J. N. D. Kelly to sum it all up:
The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by (Scripture) is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978, pp. 42, 46).
I in now way question the status of Hebrews. It is precisely because the Catholic Church declares it to be Scripture that I take it as such. But if there are scholars who do question its Pauline authorship how do you know that it is Scripture?
"you want to deny the existence of a visible and hierarchical church that was established by Jesus." NOT ONCE have I denied that there is a societal institution and that it had its first expression as a gaggle of confused men (and probably a few women, buit mostly men) in an Upper Room, whose confusion was dealt with by Jesus appearing among them in a locked and shuttered room! THAT was the start of the societal institutional Church. That church remained somewhat confused until Pentecost arrived and what Jesus had Promised fell upon them as if tongues of fire! They were meeting in t he Jewish Temple in Jerusalem for most of the first three decades right there. The First Church Council was held there. Have you not been reading the posts I've labored to offer?
When God's Holy Spirit entered believers on the Day of Pentecost, did you know that the event and scene was prophesied in the Septuagint? Do you realize there was as yet no bishoprics or deacons or other church offices? Are you aware that it was James the brother fo Jesus who issued the ruling from the first great church council, IN JERUSALEM. The council met as the earthly societal institution church, made up of members of THE ONE TRUE CHURCH which is spiritual. The members of the spiritual Church have one thing in common, one thing that identifies each and every one of them, no matter what city they were from, or what Bishopric would eventually be establish elsewhere from Jerusalem, as Members of The Church? Do you know what that cohesive 'thing' was? Can you name it, identify it? It was most definitely not membership in The Catholic Church. ... Go ahead, let your mind name it for you!
Those who follow Christ follow him carrying their cross, not skipping along doing whatever they want and it's obvious from the love of and pride in Self Protestantism breeds that the heaviest cross for people is the same one Eve refused; the cross of obedience.
Obeying His Apostles who He put in charge of His Church so that His Words would be correctly handed down to us and correctly interpreted to mean what He intended, not what anyone who listens to some spirit hanging from a nearby tree thinks is Scripture means.
The Holy Spirit seeks to reach individuals to lead them to His Church while Protestantism denies the power of and blasphemes the Holy Spirit by obeying the anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Jewish Rabbis of Jamnia rather than the Apostles with regard to the canon. Those who swallow the lies of Protestantism move further and further away from the Holy Spirit, not toward being guided from above in any way, shape, or form.
A man cannot have two masters and all of Protestantism rests on accepting the very same Pharisees Christ Himself condemned as the master of the individual rather than accepting Christ and those He granted His Authority to as their master.
have a nice day
Indeed! The deviation from the old covenant was what condemned Jesus in the eyes of the generation of vipers on the Sanhedrin! Wow, you go Girl! We want more! It is so beautiful to hear from those in Whom His Spirit dwells.
You remain clueless. By choice or ignorance?
Mark was indeed a Jew. He was the cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10-11) who was a Jew.
As for Luke I would caution you to make such a definitive statement until you read this and then be able to give proof from scripture for your assertion.
I would suggest you do some study rather than just parrot the polemic of the Catholic Church.
At the time, they were still in the midst of writing stuff. How can there be sola scriptura when everything written was new? This scripture they were writing was the “new tradition.” There was no precedent. Now it’s old, but then it wasn’t. They were breaking tradition, saying unclean food was okay to eat, that circumcision wasn’t necessary. If the church fathers were the Apostles, there was no sola scripture because it was still in the process of being written. If the Church fathers were the ones deciding what would be included in the New Testament, after all the original Apostles were gone, that’s a different question. Who, in the original question, are the church fathers?
Pfffft. There are "scholars" who claim there should be women priests also. It's Satan who likes to cast doubt.
Just takes a sentence here and there out of context and you can "prove" nearly anything from what the Early Church Fathers wrote. The way they argued a point was to first restate what they argued against in the most persuasive form they could put it in. Then they proceeded to strike that assertion of the point down to show that even in the most clearly, persuasively, stated form, it was an invalid point.
So, I've had people "prove" that the Early Church Fathers didn't believe Jesus Christ was divine, that there is no Trinity, and in this case, that everyone at the time believed in Sola Yourselfa in spite of the fact that the New Testament was incomplete and the only accepted Old Testament included all the books Protestants throw out.
The same love of Self and pride in Self that led Eve to fall is what drives Protestantism and it's a virulent enough disease that about half the Catholics in the US, if not more, embrace the same thing although in their case it's known as, Cafeteria Catholicism. Whatever you call it, it's the same thing that caused Eve to sin and still the siren song Satan uses to lead people down the easy, broad, highway to their own destruction.
No, they want people to accept what the Holy Spirit rather than a cabal of self interested, proud men tells totally depraved people.
Totally depraved does not mean being unable to recognize righteousness. It means being unable to ATTAIN righteousness. It means needing to accept any righteousness as an utter gift from God rather than as something one can earn in one’s own power.
What an interesting read! Luke is my favorite writer in the New Testament. I began my journey through the scriptures many decades ago by reading first the messages to Theophilus. Thanks for that link.
As a comparison, let’s call the original apostles the “founding fathers.” Once the founding fathers died, those who came immediately after would be the “early leaders.” The founding fathers couldn’t be originalists, because they were writing the original. The early leaders could be originalists
or not. But there have always been “progressivists” since the last founder died, as well as originalists.
Then when did the great apostasy actually occur? At what date did the beliefs and teachings of the early church become unreliable?
>You are looking for light switches again. No particular date we could call a light switch, but we know by the time of John’s epistles, including Revelation, it was bad enough that John would say -
“Even now are there many antichrists...they went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us,” 1 John 2:18, 19.
The seven churches in Revelation has many references of apostatizing going on at John’s day, for example, the Nicolaitans. Christ warning the churches to hold fast amidst it.
So by the time of John’s epistles the church was already unreliable? Then how can we accept its judgment on what is the canon of Scripture?
John was part of that church you speak of, its history traced to Pentecost...to Jerusalem, where they were born from above.
But how can we know today the books attributed to John are actually his?
Are you saying that you can tell who is "Born from above" and who isn't? Does this also include the ability to determine who is saved and who isn't as well?
I separated those two questions because some non-Catholics don't believe in the OSAS doctrine.
Yes, Scripture means writings. Look at the Greek etymology, NOT THE CURRENT DEFINITION.
If they didn’t why did they go to all the trouble to gather the authentic books in a canon?
What you are driving at, of course, the RCC line that it has supposedly “given” us the canon of scripture. How silly. The RCC did not even exist at that time. Proven over and over again on this forum.
Worse, how blasphemous. God, his Spirit, is who gave us the scriptures, both OT and NT. Though written by men, it was he the CEO overseeing it the work...preserving it until this day. You attribute to men, what belongs to God. Not very wise on your part.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.