DeaconDean
γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,183
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Folks, not long after the last Apostle of Christ died, a man named Irenaeus was born. He was a big proponent of the scriptures saying:
"If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation, yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety. We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit;"
-Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, 28, 2
Irenaeus said and believed the scriptures were "the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit;"
Very early on, he also called the scriptures "the ground and pillar of our faith".
He says:
"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."
-Against Heresies, Book 3, 1
What are the 4 Pillars of the Catholic Faith?
Source
And I wonder what Catholics today would say when Irenaeus said:
"When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition."
Against Heresies, Book 3, 2, 1
Isn't that the exact same thing being leveled against Protestants today? That we are ignorant of "traditions"?
A little over a few decades after the Nicene Council, a certain Bishop in Gaul (modern day France) wrote a treatise "On the Trinity" in which he himself points to the scriptures. He says:
"Ignorance of prophetic diction and unskilfulness in interpreting Scripture has led them into a perversion of the point and meaning of the passage, The Lord created Me for a beginning of His ways for His works."
-Hilary of Pointers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35.
Here he clearly charges the Arians as not only being ignorant, but also of being "unskilled in interpreting Scripture". Notice he did not accuse them of being ignorant or unskilled in "tradition"!
In another place he says:
"In order to solve as easily as possible this most difficult problem, we must first master the knowledge which the Divine Scriptures give of Father and of Son, that so we may speak with more precision, as dealing with familiar and accustomed matters."
-Hilary of Pointers, On the Trinity, Book 3, 2
Again, Hillary points to the Divinity of the Scriptures. Not Tradition.
And in yet another place, he says:
"Yet it is well for us to know all that has been revealed upon the subject, for though we are not responsible for the words of Scripture, yet we shall have to render an account for the sense we have assigned to them."
-Hilary of Pointers, On the Trinity, Book 4, 19
No matter how you read this, he puts the Scriptures in a very high place.
He says yet in another place:
"And now, although we have found the sense of Scripture, as we understand it, in harmony with the conclusions of ordinary reason, the two agreeing that equality is incompatible either with diversity or with isolation, yet we must seek a fresh support for our contention from actual words of our Lord. For only so can we check that licence of arbitrary interpretation whereby these bold traducers of the faith would even venture to cavil at the Lord's solemn self-revelation."
-Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16
Notice well, what he said for it bears repeating: "from actual words of our Lord".
Not from the words of tradition, nor from the words of those who came after the Apostles, but from the words "of our Lord"!
In another place he tells us of how clear the scriptures, not tradition are:
"Such suggestions are inconsistent with the clear sense of Scripture."
-Hilary of Pointers, On the Trinity, Book 4, 16
And:
"There is no room for deception; the words of Scripture are clear:"
-Hilary of pointers, On the Trinity, Book 4, 32
Clearly, the scriptures are clear enough to be understood. Hilary again states that the Bible is understandable! He dismisses the heretics, not because they can't understand the Bible, but because their doctrines are contrary to the "clear sense of Scripture". The Bible is clear! Its easy to understand! Hilary wonders why the Arians cannot see it?
And yet, another ECF, in an argument with the Arians, teaches on the scriptures saying:
"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."
-Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56
Athanasius was a bishop just three years after the Nicene Council met and argues to the Arians to appeal to "the text of the scriptures" not tradition.
I know its going to come, "None of these men use the phrase sola scriptura"! That is true. But in each and every instance they resort to scripture alone and not once to "holy, sacred tradition". They make their appeal to scripture, not tradition. There was one and only one council in the early, rather Primative church, and none of the men appeal to that council. They only appeal to scripture(s). Hence, "by scripture alone".
“It’s funny to say the early church believed in Sola Scriptura. None of those quotes say “scripture alone.” Rather, they say “scripture is important.” In other places in their writing, they also affirmed “tradition is important.” I mean, just because I write to my son, “Obey your father,” doesn’t mean I want to say “Obey ONLY your father.”
Augustine, for instance, had a robust view of the infallible authority of tradition, as well as scripture:
[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
It’s funny to say the early church believed in Sola Scriptura. None of those quotes say “scripture alone.” Rather, they say “scripture is important.” In other places in their writing, they also affirmed “tradition is important.” I mean, just because I write to my son, “Obey your father,” doesn’t mean I want to say “Obey ONLY your father.”
It is obvious that Bob completely missed the point of the citations that I enlisted in my post. They affirm that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer. That is Sola Scriptura. It will be evidenced further on in this comment that Bob does not know the correct definition of Sola Scriptura.
Augustine, for instance, had a robust view of the infallible authority of tradition, as well as scripture:
From the citations that follow we will find out two things:
1. That Bob does not understand the correct definition of Sola Scriptura
2. That Bob believes that a support of tradition is “a robust view of the infallible authority of tradition.”
Definitions are half of the battle when it comes to this debate. We affirm Sola Scriptura, not Solo Scriptura. That is, we affirm that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer, not that Scripture is the only means that truth can be learned. Tradition is absolutely important, and no protestant with a correct understanding of Sola Scriptura denies this. However, tradition is to be subjected and compared to the infallible authority of the Holy Scriptures."
Source
Folks, it is also true that to counter the Reformation, the Council of Trent denied sola scriptura.
"The Council of Trent in the 16th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient."
Source
It really is funny, that in the 1500's, when the cry of "sola scriptura" was being heard, in the 1600's came the cry that "sola scriptura" is incorrect.
We can be accused of sola scriptura as:
And that is was a fairly new idea. But by the same token, the cry against it comes at about the same time.
I can, and have shown that at least three ECF's (and there are more prior to the Nicene Council) that appealed to "sola scriptura" rather than "sacred tradition" within a few decades of the Nicene Council.
And even funnier is the Nicene Creed as we know it, is not the Nicene Creed! Rather, it is the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of AD 381.
The original Nicene Creed read:
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost."
-First Council of Nicaea (325)
What we have today:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."
-Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, AD 381
God Bless
Till all are one.
"If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation, yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety. We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit;"
-Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, 28, 2
Irenaeus said and believed the scriptures were "the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit;"
Very early on, he also called the scriptures "the ground and pillar of our faith".
He says:
"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."
-Against Heresies, Book 3, 1
What are the 4 Pillars of the Catholic Faith?
Q. 1. What are the 4 Pillars of the Catholic Faith?
A. 1. As outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, they are:
(1) The Apostles Creed
(2) The Seven Sacraments (Celebration of the Christian Mystery)
(3) The Ten Commandments (Christian Morality)
(4) The Lord's Prayer (Christian Prayer)
Source
And I wonder what Catholics today would say when Irenaeus said:
"When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition."
Against Heresies, Book 3, 2, 1
Isn't that the exact same thing being leveled against Protestants today? That we are ignorant of "traditions"?
A little over a few decades after the Nicene Council, a certain Bishop in Gaul (modern day France) wrote a treatise "On the Trinity" in which he himself points to the scriptures. He says:
"Ignorance of prophetic diction and unskilfulness in interpreting Scripture has led them into a perversion of the point and meaning of the passage, The Lord created Me for a beginning of His ways for His works."
-Hilary of Pointers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35.
Here he clearly charges the Arians as not only being ignorant, but also of being "unskilled in interpreting Scripture". Notice he did not accuse them of being ignorant or unskilled in "tradition"!
In another place he says:
"In order to solve as easily as possible this most difficult problem, we must first master the knowledge which the Divine Scriptures give of Father and of Son, that so we may speak with more precision, as dealing with familiar and accustomed matters."
-Hilary of Pointers, On the Trinity, Book 3, 2
Again, Hillary points to the Divinity of the Scriptures. Not Tradition.
And in yet another place, he says:
"Yet it is well for us to know all that has been revealed upon the subject, for though we are not responsible for the words of Scripture, yet we shall have to render an account for the sense we have assigned to them."
-Hilary of Pointers, On the Trinity, Book 4, 19
No matter how you read this, he puts the Scriptures in a very high place.
He says yet in another place:
"And now, although we have found the sense of Scripture, as we understand it, in harmony with the conclusions of ordinary reason, the two agreeing that equality is incompatible either with diversity or with isolation, yet we must seek a fresh support for our contention from actual words of our Lord. For only so can we check that licence of arbitrary interpretation whereby these bold traducers of the faith would even venture to cavil at the Lord's solemn self-revelation."
-Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16
Notice well, what he said for it bears repeating: "from actual words of our Lord".
Not from the words of tradition, nor from the words of those who came after the Apostles, but from the words "of our Lord"!
In another place he tells us of how clear the scriptures, not tradition are:
"Such suggestions are inconsistent with the clear sense of Scripture."
-Hilary of Pointers, On the Trinity, Book 4, 16
And:
"There is no room for deception; the words of Scripture are clear:"
-Hilary of pointers, On the Trinity, Book 4, 32
Clearly, the scriptures are clear enough to be understood. Hilary again states that the Bible is understandable! He dismisses the heretics, not because they can't understand the Bible, but because their doctrines are contrary to the "clear sense of Scripture". The Bible is clear! Its easy to understand! Hilary wonders why the Arians cannot see it?
And yet, another ECF, in an argument with the Arians, teaches on the scriptures saying:
"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."
-Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56
Athanasius was a bishop just three years after the Nicene Council met and argues to the Arians to appeal to "the text of the scriptures" not tradition.
I know its going to come, "None of these men use the phrase sola scriptura"! That is true. But in each and every instance they resort to scripture alone and not once to "holy, sacred tradition". They make their appeal to scripture, not tradition. There was one and only one council in the early, rather Primative church, and none of the men appeal to that council. They only appeal to scripture(s). Hence, "by scripture alone".
“It’s funny to say the early church believed in Sola Scriptura. None of those quotes say “scripture alone.” Rather, they say “scripture is important.” In other places in their writing, they also affirmed “tradition is important.” I mean, just because I write to my son, “Obey your father,” doesn’t mean I want to say “Obey ONLY your father.”
Augustine, for instance, had a robust view of the infallible authority of tradition, as well as scripture:
[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
It’s funny to say the early church believed in Sola Scriptura. None of those quotes say “scripture alone.” Rather, they say “scripture is important.” In other places in their writing, they also affirmed “tradition is important.” I mean, just because I write to my son, “Obey your father,” doesn’t mean I want to say “Obey ONLY your father.”
It is obvious that Bob completely missed the point of the citations that I enlisted in my post. They affirm that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer. That is Sola Scriptura. It will be evidenced further on in this comment that Bob does not know the correct definition of Sola Scriptura.
Augustine, for instance, had a robust view of the infallible authority of tradition, as well as scripture:
From the citations that follow we will find out two things:
1. That Bob does not understand the correct definition of Sola Scriptura
2. That Bob believes that a support of tradition is “a robust view of the infallible authority of tradition.”
Definitions are half of the battle when it comes to this debate. We affirm Sola Scriptura, not Solo Scriptura. That is, we affirm that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer, not that Scripture is the only means that truth can be learned. Tradition is absolutely important, and no protestant with a correct understanding of Sola Scriptura denies this. However, tradition is to be subjected and compared to the infallible authority of the Holy Scriptures."
Source
Folks, it is also true that to counter the Reformation, the Council of Trent denied sola scriptura.
"The Council of Trent in the 16th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient."
Source
It really is funny, that in the 1500's, when the cry of "sola scriptura" was being heard, in the 1600's came the cry that "sola scriptura" is incorrect.
We can be accused of sola scriptura as:
unbiblical. Sola Scriptura is nowhere in the Bible.
And that is was a fairly new idea. But by the same token, the cry against it comes at about the same time.
I can, and have shown that at least three ECF's (and there are more prior to the Nicene Council) that appealed to "sola scriptura" rather than "sacred tradition" within a few decades of the Nicene Council.
And even funnier is the Nicene Creed as we know it, is not the Nicene Creed! Rather, it is the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of AD 381.
The original Nicene Creed read:
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost."
-First Council of Nicaea (325)
What we have today:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."
-Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, AD 381
God Bless
Till all are one.
Last edited:
Upvote
0