That's a misconception of what the term sola scriptura means. The term - understood and taught by Jesus, the Apostles and the early church fathers - means that the Holy Scriptures are the authority by which truths of the faith must be measured against. Athanasius, for example said:
"the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth" (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, part 1, 1, 3)
"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ, announced in divine Scripture" (Athanasius, de Synodis, Part 1, 6)
"Such then, as we have above described, is the madness and daring of those men. But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the New Testament and the Old. For the Prophets say: 'Send out Thy Word and Thy Truth,' and ' Behold the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted God with us.' But what does that mean, if not that God has come in the Flesh? While the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter... [Athanasius then quotes: 1 Peter 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb 2:1] (Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter 60, 6)
"Let this, then, Christ-loving man, be our offering to you, just for a rudimentary sketch and outline, in a short compass, of the faith of Christ and of His Divine appearing to usward. But you, taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of God. But we impart of what we have learned from inspired teachers who have been conversant with them, who have also become martyrs for the deity of Christ, to your zeal for learning, in turn. (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56)
There are many other church fathers who said comparable words and their contention was the same, we know what is the truth by what is written - divinely-inspired, God-breathed Holy Scripture - it is our guide for truth claims. No doctrine should be devised as necessary to be believed to be saved if it cannot be proved by Holy Scripture. It is obvious that even the Roman Catholic Church holds, or professes to hold, to this standard. They often quote verses as proof-texts - there is a reason for that and I highly doubt it was to satisfy the Protestants. Shouldn't you expect as much if you are going to be held to believing it? I would.
As for the nomenclature for those who ARE Christians but do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church, I'd suggest Christians first, then who attend a Southern Baptist Church, or Presbyterian, or Methodist, or Lutheran, etc. If a person is born again, that is the main thing. Where they attend worship services is secondary. Obviously, someone can claim to be Catholic yet not be a genuine Christian, right? Well, it happens in other faith traditions, too. What a person believes about Jesus Christ is more important than the order of their worship service or how the leadership is set up with the church. I'd like to see Catholics move away from using Protestant as a sort of curse word. That would be a good start. Maybe open a thread and ask for suggestions?
It's getting late and I'm hitting the sack. If you're still up, have a good night.
Hey, wasn't Athanasius a Catholic (according to Catholics)??? He says tradition is confirmed by the scriptures...
That's what the Protestants claim...Sounds like Athan was a Protestant before Protestants were Kool...
I'm thinkin' the real fact is that the Catholic religion hadn't yet been conceived so Athanasius was just a regualar Christian...
And later on when Martin Luther tried to turn the Catholic religion back to the ways of Athanasius and his crew, it opened the door for hundreds of millions of Catholics and and non religious to follow in the footsteps of Athanasius and those before him into the real Body of Christ...
There is too often on these threads a tendency to present the teachings and writings of any institution, denomination or individual as easily and completely summarized in a single line or paragraph. That line of thinking converts the truth into a malleable commodity void of any integrity. Unless the discussion is within the context of a group of equally learned persons these exercises are nothing better than the poster putting their own words into the mouths of the saints and the Early Church Fathers. This is such a case.
The attempts to present St. Athanasius as a proto-Protestant or to portray his works as having never addressed the Church or Tradition by only presenting quotes carefully chosen for the Protestant ear is dishonest. Equally dishonest is the attempts to then impeach these same Saints when their further writings are shown to Paint Ptrotestantism in a bad light.
Lets explore what St. Athanasius said about the exclusive of Scripture over Tradition and about the Church to see if you still want to champion him:
But after him (the devil) and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power" Athanasius, Festal Letter 2 (c. A.D. 350).
'...and it is seemingly and most irreligious when Scripture contains such images, to form ideas concerning our Lord from others which are neither in Scripture, nor have any religious bearing. Therefore let them tell us from what teacher or by what tradition they derived these notions concerning the Saviour?...But they seem to me to have a wrong understanding of this passage also; for it has a religious and very orthodox sense, which had they understood, they would not have blasphemed the Lord of glory.' Athanasius, De Decretis 13 (c. A.D. 350).
'Of course, the holy Scriptures, divinely inspired are self-sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. But there are also numerous works composed for this purpose by blessed teachers. The one who reads them will understand the interpretation of the Scriptures and will be able to gain knowledge he desrires.' Athanasius, Gentes 1 (c. A.D. 350).
'But what is also to the point, let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian.' Athanasius, Ad Serapion 1,28 (c. A.D. 350).
"Wherefore keep yourselves all the more untainted by them, and observe the traditions of the Fathers, and chiefly the holy faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, which you have learned from the Scripture, and of which you have often been put in mind by me." Anthony of Egypt, Vita S. Antoni 89, (c. A.D. 350).
"Not a year goes by when they do not invent new creeds, which they are the first to condemn by replacing then with others that are no more acceptable. Their entire plan is to destroy Catholic truth while seeming to defend it. They are Pilate sending Jesus Christ to be tortured while seeming to spare Him. The only thing they fear is that they will be recognized for what they are, formal enemies of Jesus Christ."
"Only one or the other of the following can be true: Either [1] they think as we do; and if so, why write so much? This vast number of writings serves only to perpetuate disputes, hamper the faith of simple men, create difficulties over well-established principles, and make us conjecture on things we had never thought about. Or [2] they think otherwise; and if that is the case, why not say so? It would be better to declare frankly that they adopt the doctrine of Arius and his impiety; at least we would not be taken in by them, and recognizing the venom, we would flee at the sight of the serpent."
"But that is precisely what they avoid saying. They are afraid to touch the question; deliberately changing the subject, they will speak to you about everything except whatever directly concerns the heresy. Why, then do they affect a way of speaking that is different from their teacher's? Why do they eternally wrap themselves in ambiguities and deceitful interpretations, if not because it is impossible to defend him? Therefore, by deliberately suppressing the words of Arius, they show by that fact alone that they are convinced of the impiety of his doctrine."
"The time has come to fight for the truth against heresy. Our enemy does not always attack us in the same manner. Martyrdom does not consist only in refusing to offer incense to idols. There is also a martyrdom of the conscience, which consists in not violating the Faith." - Warning by Saint Athanasius (Cf. Encyclical Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Lybia)
Peace be with you
****The term - understood and taught by Jesus, the Apostles and the early church fathers - means that the Holy Scriptures are the authority by which truths of the faith must be measured against. Athanasius, for example said:****
Where does Jesus ever say specifically anything about Sola Scriptura?
St. Athanasius, oh my, bringing out the big guns. Only thing, the silver bullet non Catholic Christians of unknown denominations think these passages contains turns out to be lead.
Such a great quote, with the relevant words conveniently highlighted. Problem is, St. Athanasius is not supporting Sola Sriptura here, he is defending a decision of the council at Nicea which refuted the belief in Arianism.
He quite clearly supports the council and says that the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus is “confirmed” in Scripture, though Scripture never explicitly says that Jesus is “True God and True Man.” Scripture never fully explains Jesus, that is why there are some who can claim He wasn’t truly human etc...
St. Athanasius when he says,
“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake;”
is not speaking of the Church leaders, but the HERETICS and he is pointing out that the Bishops have already addressed the matter. Notice that he says the BISHOPS did not neglect the matter and have stated the doctrine clearly which if one correctly reads Scripture, one should have no trouble believing it.
This is why reading in context; knowing why something was written, to whom it was written, is so important, rather than reading into something what one wants so badly to see.
Did you know that St. Athanasius believed and wrote of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? Did you know that St. Ambrose, a contemporary of St. Athanasius wrote of the sinlessness of Mary? Yet, there is nothing from Athanasius refuting Ambrose.
I understand “Sola Scriptura” very well. The Church’s teachings are confirmed in Scripture for those who...
“light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of God. But we impart of what we have learned from inspired teachers who have been conversant with them, who have also become martyrs for the deity of Christ, to your zeal for learning, in turn.”
No, St. Athanasius is not supporting Sola Scriptura, rather he is upholding exactly what the Church has claimed, that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Bishops guide the Church with the support of the teachings handed down from the Apostles and with the support of the Holy Words of Scripture.