Replies

"Inventions like "Scripture Alone", "Faith Alone..."
"Ever since Luther revived the heresy of Core and invented "Scripture Alone..."

Luther did not invent the principle that Scripture must guide doctrine, as compared to Scripture being interpreted to justify doctrinal invention & novelties, unknown to the primitive church, and not mentioned by the Apostolic writers & earliest patristic "fathers".

How about inventions such as Purgatory? What were those Old Testament references again? Oh that's right...you claimed there were such, but never brought them out. Let me guess...Are they from the Apocrypha? Those books you have previously & frequently refereed to as having being "yanked out because Luther didn't like them", were nothing of the sort. Josephus, Origin, Melito, and Jerome all agreed. The "Hebrew Bible", what was accepted by the Jews of Jerusalem as being equivalent to canonical, did not include what only centuries later, in the 16th century, was re-named "Deuterocanonical".

As for Jerome, his original translation did not include the Apocrypha, but he did translate those also after pressure was applied for him to do so.

Otherwise;
The solas do not stand alone, but of five together. Misunderstanding or disregarding that aspect when discussing those precepts reveals arguments against them to be made of straw. Which is convenient for the critic perhaps, but serves none well if understanding of the precepts under discussion is important.

If understanding is NOT important, then FRomish assault troopers can go right on ahead, keep running around smacking all others over the head in ignorance, accusing one and all whom have theological disagreements with Romish views, with being fully guilty of the "heresy of Core", while dishing out heaping helpings of spite & condemnation.

I mean, if that's what makes *some* self-appointed FRomish assault troopers' High Holy Selves *feel* justified, then who am I to spoil it?

Webster again:

Scripture and Tradition

Roman Catholic teaching claims that sola scriptura is unhistorical; that is, it contradicts the universal teaching of the early church. But the facts will not support this claim. Sola scriptura was the universal teaching of the church fathers and for the church as a whole through the later Middle Ages. Let me cite Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386) again because he is reflective of the overall view of the fathers:

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 of these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is our faith, is not by ingenious reasoning, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures....In these articles we comprehend the whole doctrine of faith. For the articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men, but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. This Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions (2 Thes. 2:15) which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts....Now heed not any ingenious views of mine; else thou mayest be misled; but unless thou receive the witness of the prophets concerning each matter, believe not what is spoken; unless thou learn from Holy Scripture....receive not the witness of man.36

No clearer concept of sola scriptura could be given than that seen in these statements of Cyril. He equates the teaching he is handing on to these catechumens with tradition, in which he specifically references 2 Thessalonians 2:15, that he says must be proven by Scripture. Tradition is simply the teaching of the church that he is passing on orally, but that tradition must be validated by the written Scriptures. He states further that the extent of authority vested in any teacher, be he bishop or layman, is limited to Scripture. No teaching is to be received that cannot be proven from Scripture. The church does have authority, as Cyril himself acknowledges, but it is an authority grounded in fidelity to Scripture and not principally in succession. According to Cyril, the church is subject to the final authority of Scripture, and even the church is to be disregarded if it moves outside that authority in its teaching.

Cyril is a vigorous proponent of the concept of sola scriptura. It is a teaching he handed down to the catechumens as an implicit article of the faith. As one reads the writings of the fathers it becomes clear that Cyril's statements are representative of the church as a whole. J.N.D. Kelly affirms this observation:

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.37

Therefore, the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura is not a heresy or a novel doctrine, but in reality it is a reaffirmation of the faith of the early church. It is both biblical and historical, yet the Roman Catholic Church continues to teach that oral tradition is a second source of divine revelation, equally as authoritative as Scripture and that this was the view held by the church Fathers. Such a claim, however, contradicts both Scripture and history. When the Fathers speak of a tradition handed down from the apostles independent of Scripture, they are referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices, never to doctrine. Tradition was always subordinate to Scripture as an authority, and the Word of God itself never teaches that tradition is inspired. The Scriptures give numerous warnings against tradition,38 and the Fathers rejected the teaching of an apostolic oral tradition independent of Scripture as a gnostic heresy. For the church fathers apostolic tradition or teaching was embodied and preserved in Scripture. As we have seen the teaching of the fathers is this: What the apostles initially proclaimed and taught orally, they later committed to writing in the New Testament. Irenaeus succinctly states it in these words:

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.39

36 NPNF2, Vol. 7,Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4:17.

37 J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), 46.

39 Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.1.1, in Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaugh, trans., in The Writings of Irenaeus (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1874).