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).
Primacy of Scripture, yes.
Sola Scriptura, no.
Jesus gave the keys to Peter to “build my church.” (a human church, not a divine one)
Peter became the first Pope. Peter was human, not divine. All churches are human not divine.
No other Christian church was started with the blessing of Jesus other than Peter’s.
And, it continues, uninterupted to this day.
Primacy of scripture. Yep, Catholics believe that.
The “sola scriptura” mantra, in my mind, is anti-Catholic discourse.
I’m happy to be a member of a church that goes back to the time of the Apostles.
Christ also called Peter Satan.
“They had the books of the Holy Bible, which all existed, but at first they weren’t all together in one volume. The various books of the Bible circulated among the churches in individual scrolls. In the second century the Codex (a modern book style) was invented, and within a couple of centuries they were putting all the books together in a codex.”
Yep. Nor did it mean any church was missing some truth necessary for salvation in the meantime: the gospels were widely circulated, and the letters expounded on various errors and revealed other encouraging things to the first century Christians.
You lost me with that last part. What "is so" today - the declarations of what is canon or doctrine, or the maintained competency allowing the modern church to make future declarations?
Either the church has authority to make declarations regarding both the canon of Scripture and regarding doctrine. One cannot exist without the other for the declaration of the canon of Scripture is in itself a question of doctrine. Now if this authority existed in the past it must continue to exist today.
It never did exist for the Catholic Church. They just deluded a lot of people into thinking it did. God entrusted His word to the Jews NOT the Catholics. The Catholic Church adding the apocrypha did not make them scripture.
While every Christian needs to become personally familiar with the Holy Bible instead of letting somebody else interpret it for them as low-information citizens have done with respect to the Constitution, please consider the following.
Jesus had clarified in the Gospel of John that regardless that the hypocrite religous leaders of the Jews knew the Scriptures that they had nonetheless rejected Jesus as their Savior.
So Christians are ultimately dependent on the Holy Spirit to open their minds to Jesus and the Scriptures.
And what did you get from that?
Do you think that Christ actually believed Pater was Satan?
Or did you read on and get the real message behind that statement?
You statement is taken out of context T-O-T-A-L-L-Y if you really think Jesus thought Peter was Satan.
Now: Either the church has authority to make declarations regarding both the canon of Scripture and regarding doctrine. One cannot exist without the other for the declaration of the canon of Scripture is in itself a question of doctrine. Now if this authority existed in the past it must continue to exist today.
"Authority" wasn't the word you argued for in your last post. You talked about whether the church (then or now) was "competent" to judge doctrine and canon. That's an entirely different topic. Authority might be conferred by the laying on of hands, but it's a much different argument to talk about how competency is passed on.
I’m happy to be a member of a church that goes back to the time of the Apostles.
As Irenaeus wrote:
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...
And as Augustine wrote:
The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church...
What is your opinion of teaching as sacred a sacrilege as defined by the Septuagint Bible of Jesus’s day?
The church did not declare the canon of Scripture, but they confessed what was from the apostles. Similarly, the church does not declare doctrine, they can only confess what was already revealed.
One cannot exist without the other for the declaration of the canon of Scripture is in itself a question of doctrine.
The belief that apostles had authority to declare doctrine, and the judgement of what was authentic from the apostles, does not equal the authority of the apostles.
Now if this authority existed in the past it must continue to exist today.
If I recognize the authority of the apostles, that does not mean I have the authority of apostles. Recognizing the authority of the apostles is doctrine. Collating their authenticated works is not doctrine.
The early scene and for the first three centuries after the death of the last Apostle had five hubs of bishoprics: Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. The first great church council was held in Jerusalem (Acts 15). Until the schism into two legs, the meetings of the Bishoprics were conducted in Greek not Latin.
IIRC, it was not until pope Innocent iii (1198 - 1216) that even the Eastern leg assented to the leadership of the Roman Bishopric.
This totalitarian pagan-Christian thing called the RCC, masquerading as the original church, is one of the biggest hoaxes in all of history, a bigger hoax than even Mormonism.
Their origin is not the 1st century, one has to be blind not to see that the church in the Bible, in the book of Acts, bears no resemblance whatsoever to this thing called the RCC. It arose centuries later, under the auspices of the Roman emperor Constantine.
It hijacks the prerogatives that belong only to the true catholic church, the one you see in the book of Acts. A fraud plain and simple.
Jesus told Peter to 'feed my sheep'. Jesus gave the 'keys' to the Kingdom (not the church and not the institution of catholicism) to Peter and we see clear evidence IN SCRIPTURE of Peter using those keys to open the door/gate to Justification, first to the Jews on Pentecost, then to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius.
Jesus, via The Holy Spirit, builds His own Church, and it is not an institution named catholicism.
I assume the person pointing is Gustavo Gutiérrez. Which of the students is Pope Francis?
-— we see clear evidence IN SCRIPTURE of Peter using those keys to open the door/gate to Justification -—
Scripture shows that the keys that Jesus gave Peter were the keys of the Vizier of the eternal Davidic Kingdom, of which Jesus is king.
Jesus sits on David’s throne. See Luke.
The master of the palace or vizier of the king in the ancient world and in the Davidic kingdom was the king’s “right hand man.” In Kings the vizier rules in place of an incapacitated king.
In Isaiah 22 we see the succession in office of the vizier, from Shebna to Eliakim.
The office was represented by an oversized key that the vizier wore around his neck.
In Isaiah the vizier is described as “a father to Judah” with the power to “open and shut.”
Jesus gives Peter both the office of His Vizier, and also the power to “bind and loose,” meaning indisputable ecclesiastical authority. Look up “binding and loosing” in the Jewish Encyclopedia.
If Protestants don’t know this they can blame their pastors.
LOL, so that was literal but, This is my body wasn't ?
That sort of selective garbage is absolute proof that Christ, knowing the hearts of men, left us an ongoing ordained priesthood with the athority they received from the Apostles to properly interpret Holy Scripture thereby protecting us from exactly the sort of dolts who He knew would selectively interpret Scripture to suit their Self and Self Alone the way Protestant doctrine says it should be interpreted to suit the Self.
First Protestantism bows down and kisses the feet of anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Jewish Pharisees (the exact same Pharisees Christ Himself condemned), then Protestantism agrees with Eve that Self and Self Alone should interpret His Word to suit their Self.
The bible itself speaks of the witness of nature and the witness of the Holy Spirit, and the witness of believers (giving a reason for the hope that is within us).
The scriptures are what tie its meaning all together for the Christian. It doesn’t mean that nothing else can or does furnish information. The results would be ludicrous (and deny the bible too) if it meant that.
Some people are so devoted to the bible that Jesus can’t get a word in edgewise, so to speak.
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.