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).
Since forgery is such a vital aprt of the religion you follow, how do you know you’re not posting deceptions as your proof sources? Run, Forrest, run it. Run the scam faster.
Of course that would be your response. If history does not support you just pretend that it does not exist. The authenticity of the False Decretals was first questioned by Catholic scholars. As for the quotations I have given, there are multiple sources for their authenticity. Even the Orthodox do not question their authenticity even though they would downplay or ignore their significance. The charge that they are too Catholic and thus must be forgeries is not scholarship. You might still hold that the Bible does not support Papal primacy but you cannot argue that it was not known by the ancient church or was never accepted by the Eastern church. To maintain such a position in the face of historical evidence to the contrary would just call into question one’s honesty and weaken one’s position in other areas.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3305743/posts?page=81#81
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3305743/posts?page=63#63
Your Pope and his cadre will lead catholics right into the chrislam movement with catholics like you praising his ecumenism.
I did question the Scriptures but the reason you accept them as Scripture. Mark and Luke were not written by apostles, why should they be considered Scripture? Hebrews does not claim to be written by Paul, why should it be considered Scripture? The canonical status of Hebrews, James 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation was disputed in the early church. Why should we accept them now? The canonical status of the Deuterocanonical/Apocrahphal books were also disputed in the early church. On what basis do we accept or reject them? On what basis do we reject the claims of the Apocryphal/Pseudepigraphal books to be Scripture?
I have an answer to these questions. I accept those books accepted by the Catholic Church because the bishops of the church are the rightful pastors established be Jesus Christ. On what grounds do you answer these questions? A response of "I know what is Scripture because I know what is Scripture" is not rational. Nor is "God tells us what is Scripture" without answering by what means has God done so.
By the way, I have noticed your tendency to avoid responding to the points that I have made and your attempts to redirect the discussion to other areas. Clearly this is an indication of the weakness of your position.
When posting a reference to what another member said, please include a link.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Mindreading is a form of making it personal.
When a catholic teaching cannot be made to line up equally between scripture and traditions of the RCC, then the 'magicsteeringthem', the total of all bishops of the RCC, is elevated to superiority, to twist either the tradition or the scriptures so the two line up equally.
If I spent time refuting the foolery posted by RCCs to support their false religion, I would not get to present the True Gospel to stand in sharp contrast. So here is the Truth Gospel as the Bible reveals it, from the Upper Room discourse to the Revelation of John:
* There is ONLY one Way to God, Jesus Christ The Righteous
*There is ONLY ONE way to obtain His Deliverance for you, believe He is the One God sent for that Deliverance
*There is only One Way for God's Life to be indwelling you, by God placing His Life in you
*There is only one moment of being Born from Above and God draws each to it and accomplishes it Himself in you by His Holy Spirit
*There is only His Way and it is not offered in the Roman Catholic Church
The RCC teaches that salvation is on the installment plan. That's false teaching, may it be anathema.
God declares in His Word that Salvation thus Justification is an immediate event, a reality in the present of belief and by His Promise can never be stumbled out of through 'venial' sins.
The RCC teaches sacrament worship as a means to salvation in the installment plan. That is false teaching and even goes further to indoctrinate adherents that they consume the literal body, blood, soul and spirit of Jesus Christ in the catholic wafer eucharist.
The RCC teaches adherents that they are Justified with water baptism BUT they can fall from this Justification with venial sins and moral sins so they have to come to the RCC opriesthood to confess sin and be re-justified. This is anathema because it at once declares there are sins which the Blood of Jesus could not cover once for all, forever.
The RCC teaches that their popes go in unbroken succession back to Peter, and that ALL popes are infaliible and have been infallible when teaching on faith and morals. But Peter is rebuked by Paul for teaching, through his actions, hypocrisy and even leading Barnabus astray in this same hypocrisy.
When we on these threads ignore the constant drone of blind subservience to the traditions of RCC we are doing the droner a favor, because the exposure of the heresies which are the hallmark of RCC stand condemned by God in His Word.
There are several on these threads trying to sound the alarm for catholics who stand condemned by their rejection of Salvation/Justification by faithe alone and the immediate presence of God's life in them. That is the Gospel of the New Covenant, Justification by Faithe alone and God's Life in you by His power and His Promise that you have eternal assurance as an adopted member of His Jesus family.
Catholicism apologists purposely conflate the Justification with the sanctification, because it empowers the nicolaitan priesthood to work catholics back into a state of grace, as if they can deal out God's Grace by their magic.
The 53 beads of the Rosary are a sneaky 'indulgence' teaching that repeating these 53 prayers to the mary of Catholicism will reduce time in purgatory, paying the penalty that the blood of Christ was not able to cover.
The brown scalpula is another subtle indulgence scam, teaching catholics that wearing it will at the moment of death enjoin their mary to bring you from purgatory the first Saturday after your death, and that kissing this thing will reduce the punishments in purgatory!
The catholic church has added all sorts of 'traditions' which are not found in the first century church which was established by Apostolic teaching and writing.
Meant to ping
pingaling preacher
**There is ONLY one Way to God, Jesus Christ The Righteous**
Exactly.
And that is what the Catholic Church believes.
Really? You really want to keep that blindfold so tightly around your eyes? The catholic church teaches salvation on the installment plan. The catholic church rejects the blood of Christ as sufficient for all of one’s sins, so the opriesthood must re-up the fallen from grace, as if the magic priesthood can manipulate God’s Grace. The roman catholic church teaches adherents to LITERALLY consume the body, blood, soul and spirit of Jesus Christ at the Mass wafer ceremony, as if they can eat God’s life into them, as if they can manipulate Jesus Christ as a repeat sufferer anytime the catholic opiesthood sets the wafer on the catholic altar. You really want to endorse that?
If you're interested in discussion, you should post these things one a day until you run out of tendentious and misinformed statements. (That should keep you going until Christ comes again.)
Then we can whack them one at a time.
Otherwise, it's like you're pitching a dozen balls at Yogi Berra simultaneously, and then declaring him "out" when he only connects with two per swing.
I do have some writing to do (not for FR.) Won't be on here regularly for another week.
Have fun, guys.
: )
Peter, for his part, was exhorting Jesus not to go to Jerusalem (out of love for Jesus), fearing danger for Jesus.
Jesus knew he would be doing God’s will, going to his execution, and not his own (human) will nor Peter’s (which he even addressed in his own human way in the Garden of Gethsemani, “Lord, take this cup from me.” No Answer. Follow on by Jesus, “Thy will be done.”).
The catholic priest, according to paragraph 1367 offers a bloodless sacrifice for sins in the 'holy wafer of redemption'. So the one thing not in the wafer at Mass is the only thing that is efficacious for forgiveness of sins, the blood of Christ!Additionally, the Mass is described by Fr. John O'Brien in his book as follows: "The Priest reaches up into the heavens and brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man."
I wonder how many catholics are even able to see not only the absurdity in such a claim but the heresy in such a claim? Jesus said outright that He is not a victim, He gives up His Life willingly. No earthly cultish priest can reach into the Throne room and usher Jesus to the altar to be re=sacrificed again and again and again ... and to say amen every time the magic priesthood raises the wafer and says 'The Body of Christ' is to agree to the heresy that in the wafer "The whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." (paragraph 1374 of the RCC sicktates)
Would you catholics like to have the RCC magic regarding the RCC Mary posted?
How about this context: Peter taught hypocrisy and was rebuked for it by Paul, publicly (see Galatians). So the ‘so called’ unbroken succession of infallible popery when teaching on faith and or morals is broken with Peter being fallible teaching hypocrisy with his actions and dragging Barnabus along with the hypocrisy.
‘comprehensive collection of misrepresentations about Catholic doctrine’ aside from the specious accusation, it is no where near a comprehensive collection. There’s lots mopre for readers, to help them flee from the rot that is Catholicism, the modern nicolaitan sludge.
Mean while in the Middle east there is no end to the attacks on Christians of all stripes. The federal government through SCOTUS has stated that the states can't prohibit same sex unions. How long will it be before they try to force religious institutions to perform those ceremonies.
Keep fighting among yourselves the government and the muslims will be very pleased.
When we are gone, you will have all the unopposed time you need to 'fight the good fight', but only Christ will save you from yourself and the world around. We are at war, with the world, the flesh, and the devil. We'll leave the easy stuff to those who don't believe they need God on their side.
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.