Sola Scriptura believers, please explain this.

[A_Thinker]

scripture refutes it stating the church not scripture is the pillar of truth.

The Church is a PILLAR and a FOUNDATION. The Church doesn't CREATE truth, ... it SUPPORTS and HOLDS FORTH truth (i.e. the teachings of the Apostles), most readily and incontrovertibly available from the scriptures ...

The TRUTH was BROUGHT to us ... by Christ Jesus.

John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Consider ... for what purpose were the scriptures canonized ?

 

[Vicomte13]

Good point. God exercised His sovereign justice on the Canaanite kingdoms. He did not give such power to mankind to determine such justice. He is Deity we are not.

Exactly. The law he gave us after the Flood is DO NOT SHED BLOOD. DO NOT KILL.

So, therefore, when you have a religious movement killing people, you know - automatically and without further thought required - that it has careened off into evil.

And if it can be THAT wrong on something THAT fundamental, you cannot place much reliance in anything else it says. You have to examine it all, and judge it all, and decide, yourself, on your own sovereign authority as a creation of God, what you will accept and what you reject.

And if somebody then screams you're a heretic, you shrug your shoulders. If he picks up a sword, or a torch, or a thumbscrew, then you know for sure he's an agent of the Devil - and you can defend yourself against him. And if his INSTITUTION defends HIM in HIS violence, then you know that the institution is infected with the Devil and cannot be relied upon for the unvarnished truth either.

In the end, you are the judge of all churches, all books, every religion - every order given to you - because in the end you are the only authority that moves any of your limbs.

Put differently, the arm that swung the pistol into place and blew off the head of the Jewish prisoner in the Holocaust could have just as easily swiveled in place and blown off the head of the Gestapo Major ordering the execution. In either case that arm, and the brain that powered it, is dead today - and alive somewhere else. The arm that blew off the head of his commanding officer is the one that is not writhing in flames today. The ones who obeyed orders are.

At least if God is just and what he is said to have said in the much-vaunted Scriptures is actually true.
If it isn't, well, then it's every man for himself - and the men who can best cooperate with each other dominate the rest - which explains why Christianity dominated in the disorderly West, but why Islam crushed out Christianity in the East and North Africa. In the West, the Christian hands held the swords against wild barbarians, so it meant civilization. But in the East, Christian hands held the whip of slavery, and the Muslims freed the slaves who converted.

What is evil where depends not on what men believe, but on what they do. Acts are what matter - words are wind.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Jesus, as we can see in the repetitions of certain things in the Synoptic gospels, often would repeat the same teachings from place to place. He also would heal more than just one blind man, or cast out one demon. These repetitions didn't need to all be recorded. God gave us enough that is recorded to get the message across to us. We don't "need" any more scripture to be written or "discovered". What we have is sufficient. God still gives us Christians with various gifts to minister the Word to us. We should not feel we need dreams, visions, revelations, Apostles, more books, etc., etc., because the Bible is insufficient. The Bible is not lacking as was Judaism, which needed the work of Jesus to be provided for us (Galatians 3:24).

 

[Albion]

You said it.

Nope. I certainly did not. Nor do I remember anyone else around here making that claim. But more important than this distraction is the fact that that view is in error, so lets move on.

In saying that you regard scripture as containing all truth needed for salvation.

That's Scripture which contains all that is necessary for salvation, not belief in the concept we call "Sola Scriptura." You've made a serious mistake there.

 

[redleghunter]

What is an especially good thing to make note of is the literacy rate in the ancient world being exceptionally low and books being something not come upon easily. You could not practice sola scriptura (relying on the bible as the ultimate authority or relying on it's teachings alone for salvation) if you were a poor peasant, so then Sola Scriptura in practice could only ever be done by the educated and well off. You literally had to rely on Church leadership or someone trained to convey that information.

Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one Being made and governs it — those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own. (St Irenaeus: Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 27.2); CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, II.27 (St. Irenaeus))​

 

[JacksBratt]

I don't have time to,go blow for blow,

But the " pillar of truth" is the " household of God" which we know from OT means the physical church.
We also know he succession of apostles can " bind and loose" which is how the church speaks on doctrine and declares truth, indeed to select the canon, and creed as it did in council.

indeed paul does give guidance when he says "stay true to what we taught by word of mouth and letter" which shows the obvious truth... the church hands truth down by tradition, paradosis. It was never sola scriptura.

The authority on interpretation of doctrine and teaching mandate is why the church is thevpillar of truth. " how can they teach if they are not sent?"


Which is how we know that real presence of body and blood is the correct interpretation - thevfirst disciples of apostles say so. That is the truth by tradition,

Scripture only came later, and makes no claim to be all of the truth of faith, nor is it a complete manual.

I will never agree with any view that holds the church as the source of truth.
The word of God is Jesus Himself and He is the creator of all that was created... He is the Way, the TRUTH and the Life...

To have any man, men or group of men state that they are the final word on what is true.... that is Satan's deception at work.

 

[redleghunter]

All of which would end with the undeniable conclusion that they didn’t regard scripture as their sole authority.

Is this what you are referring to?

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it. (Irenaeus: Against Heresies Book I, Chapter 10.2) CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, I.10 (St. Irenaeus)​

I know William Jurgens (Roman Catholic theologian) cites the above as evidence Irenaeus saw a distinction between Holy Scriptures and tradition.

 

[Vicomte13]

There's a point, if the Scriptures are not Solo, the sole basis, then what is?

You. You have to be the final judge of every single thing that comes before your court. You have to make all of your judgments based on your own knowledge, learning, intuition and contact with God. You can inform yourself of what various authors think (including the authors of the various scrolls of the Bible) by reading their writings. You can inform yourself of what the various churches think. But in the end it comes down to you and how you weigh the evidence.

And unlike a jury, where democracy rules, you are the sole and final judge of everything in your courtroom. Other men will try to wrest the mastery over yourself from you throughout your whole life - to teach you to respect them as master, or to respect their idols as your gods.

But in the end it all comes down to you.

Once you decide, then, depending on what it is, you either can find other human allies who have made the same conclusions. Or perhaps you can call on God for help if he agrees with you. Or you can harness up the powers of nature if you have learned them and figured out how.

In the end, you are the judge, jury, executioner and king, in your courtroom. And at the end of life you will be held accountable by God for what you decided and why.

I doubt it went well for the bishop, in apostolic succession from Peter and Christ, vested with the full authority of the Church of Christ in his region, who decided after a properly constituted trial that a messenger of God, Jeanne d'Arc, was a witch in league with Lucifer and had her burnt alive. He certainly had the human authority, secular and ecclesial, to do that. But he made the wrong decision and murdered God's agent in horror. I expect he paid dearly for getting it wrong.

I would say that the bottom line is that if you believe your religion is so right and true that you think God has authorized you to kill other people in your cause, you're probably an agent of Satan destined for Hell.

So if your religion authorizes you to be violent, keep slaves, dominate and kill, you should know that your religion is false and change your mind.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Considering the early fathers quotes on apostolic traditions, all are derived from what was "handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

St Irenaeus opined:

I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and talk, … his general mode of life and personal appearance, along with the discourses he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar interaction with John and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord. He would call their words to remembrance. Whatever things he had heard from them regarding the Lord … Polycarp, having heard from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, "Fragments of Irenaeus" ch. 2)
CHURCH FATHERS: Fragments (Irenaeus)

Now we do see Irenaeus and quite a few others mention that if something is not spelled out or deduced from Scriptures that such should have the affirmation of the majority of churches or Sees. What those traditions, mostly not of apostolic origin, truly are is quite a debate between even Rome and the East.

Irenaeus also wrote...

"Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures."
-- Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5,20:2 (180 AD)

One can only imagine what he would have to say about sola scriptura.

 

[Vicomte13]

That's the issue of attacking Sola Scriptura. They have to "nuke" the Bible as the ultimate authority.

Yes, they do.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

More accurately: the church (in the context I assume you use the term) is at heart a departure from how Sola Scriptura has always worked.

How did you intend this exactly? I agree with this statement one hundred percent. It means those who invented Sola scriptura departed from the Church.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Not the NT or shall I post how Jesus and the apostles quoted from the OT?

We both know Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Old Testament, that does not mean Jesus abided by or that the Apostles abided by a Sola Scripture standard. Given their unique position it seems impossible (Jesus being in of himself authoritative and teh Apostles having direct authority given from Christ to them to exercise). What I merely pointed out is that Sola Scriptura as a practice or even as an idea was not implemented till reading became more common and that the Church was not established on the basis of an appeal to the book first and foremost. If this be true, Sola Scriptura is a doctrine that could only be practised in the modern era or it as I believe it to be a false doctrine.

 

[redleghunter]

Irenaeus also wrote...

One can only imagine what he would have to say about sola scriptura.​

"Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures."
-- Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5,20:2 (180 AD)​

I have absolutely no issues with the above as Irenaeus anchors his comments on "and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures." My pastor does this every day.

All Irenaeus is confirming is that the Church is nourished with the Lord's Scriptures. I don't see how the above quote supports a dual authority of Scripture and tradition.

 

[mark kennedy]

You. You have to be the final judge of every single thing that comes before your court. You have to make all of your judgments based on your own knowledge, learning, intuition and contact with God. You can inform yourself of what various authors think (including the authors of the various scrolls of the Bible) by reading their writings. You can inform yourself of what the various churches think. But in the end it comes down to you and how you weigh the evidence.

And unlike a jury, where democracy rules, you are the sole and final judge of everything in your courtroom. Other men will try to wrest the mastery over yourself from you throughout your whole life - to teach you to respect them as master, or to respect their idols as your gods.

But in the end it all comes down to you.

Once you decide, then, depending on what it is, you either can find other human allies who have made the same conclusions. Or perhaps you can call on God for help if he agrees with you. Or you can harness up the powers of nature if you have learned them and figured out how.

In the end, you are the judge, jury, executioner and king, in your courtroom. And at the end of life you will be held accountable by God for what you decided and why.

I doubt it went well for the bishop, in apostolic succession from Peter and Christ, vested with the full authority of the Church of Christ in his region, who decided after a properly constituted trial that a messenger of God, Jeanne d'Arc, was a witch in league with Lucifer and had her burnt alive. He certainly had the human authority, secular and ecclesial, to do that. But he made the wrong decision and murdered God's agent in horror. I expect he paid dearly for getting it wrong.

I would say that the bottom line is that if you believe your religion is so right and true that you think God has authorized you to kill other people in your cause, you're probably an agent of Satan destined for Hell.

So if your religion authorizes you to be violent, keep slaves, dominate and kill, you should know that your religion is false and change your mind.

Ok I'm not sure what that is all about but the New Testament is the Apostolic witness, based on the authority of Christ and the Apostles. The Old Testament is based on the authority of Moses and the other Levites who recorded the redemptive history and revelation of God concerning Israel. Both of these witnesses are a living witness that has been in the custody of living people their entire history, the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures respectively. While there are some impressive ecclesiastical pedigrees with regards to the Orthodox, Catholic and even rabbinical traditions they do not supersede that incomparable history and basis for doctrine.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Nothing in that paragraph poses a problem. However, it is a good idea not to talk as though anyone practices Sola Scriptura. The point of Sola Scriptura is this--What is the highest authority when it comes to doctrine? That is not a matter of practicing something. If it takes an educated man to explain the Bible to an illiterate one, the source is still the same.


The same as for Tradition in the Catholic churches, you mean? Then do you believe that unless every church member understands everything written by every Church Father, Tradition is rendered inoperable or useless?

Sola Scriptura does not exist as a hypothetical doctrine which doesn't impact practice, it's bound to it as a justification and informs the very reading of the bible itself. So I don't know how you can say Sola Scriptura isn't practised when it has informed much of what makes Protestantism Protestant to today. I would contrast that to ancient the most ancient Churches who still hold their interpretations based on different assumptions on the nature of authority in the bible. If Sola Scriptura could not be practised by the peasant in the first century, who had to rely on the Apostles words and sermons by those appointed by the Apostles, what is the use of a doctrine that can only really be practised to it's full extent in the 21st century?

As for the bold statement I'm not sure how this responds to my point that Sola Scriptura as something to be implemented was not really done until Luther invented the formal doctrine. Men and Women, Clerical and lay did rely on the wider tradition, their Church life and not merely the bible because in most circumstances they could not. If this is a doctrine so evidently self taught in the bible and has been present with us since the beginning, I see no reason why the Apostles would not have made it their first priority to settle the issue of which books ought to be authoritative. Since they didn't, I believe the Apostles left another rule or canon for the Church to be guided by, one primarily driven by the confession to Christ and participating in that community he started with his disciples.

Also I would suggest if one doesn't have a good understanding how the Church as a whole has interpreted the bible they won't have a good grasp of the bible.

 

[redleghunter]

We both know Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Old Testament, that does not mean Jesus abided by or that the Apostles abided by a Sola Scripture standard. Given their unique position it seems impossible (Jesus being in of himself authoritative and teh Apostles having direct authority given from Christ to them to exercise). What I merely pointed out is that Sola Scriptura as a practice or even as an idea was not implemented till reading became more common and that the Church was not established on the basis of an appeal to the book first and foremost. If this be true, Sola Scriptura is a doctrine that could only be practised in the modern era or it as I believe it to be a false doctrine.

The early fathers had access to the written Scriptures. The one epistle we have from Polycarp is quite evident of such.

I guess the question about tradition is what were those apostolic traditions everyone seems to point to? Where's 'the list' so to speak. And what traditions are folks really discussing other than apostolic traditions? There are three I can think of:

1) The apostolic teaching or doctrine handed down from the apostles to the Church—called the apostolic tradition.
2) Ecclesiastical customs and practices.
3) A patristic consensus of the interpretation of Scripture.

#1 above is what I believe most in the ancient churches refer to when saying "Holy Tradition." I could be wrong, but if one wants the label 'ancient' we would have to look at the very early father's writings to see what they defined as the 'apostolic tradition.'

This is what Irenaeus opined on when stating receiving the faith of the Church and tradition:

1. The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, Ephesians 1:10 and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess Philippians 2:10-11 to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, Ephesians 6:12 and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

2. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

3. It does not follow because men are endowed with greater and less degrees of intelligence, that they should therefore change the subject-matter [of the faith] itself, and should conceive of some other God besides Him who is the Framer, Maker, and Preserver of this universe, (as if He were not sufficient for them), or of another Christ, or another Only-begotten. But the fact referred to simply implies this, that one may [more accurately than another] bring out the meaning of those things which have been spoken in parables, and accommodate them to the general scheme of the faith; and explain [with special clearness] the operation and dispensation of God connected with human salvation; and show that God manifested longsuffering in regard to the apostasy of the angels who transgressed, as also with respect to the disobedience of men; and set forth why it is that one and the same God has made some things temporal and some eternal, some heavenly and others earthly; and understand for what reason God, though invisible, manifested Himself to the prophets not under one form, but differently to different individuals; and show why it was that more covenants than one were given to mankind; and teach what was the special character of each of these covenants; and search out for what reason God Romans 11:32 has concluded every man in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all; and gratefully describe on what account the Word of God became flesh and suffered; and relate why the advent of the Son of God took place in these last times, that is, in the end, rather than in the beginning [of the world]; and unfold what is contained in the Scriptures concerning the end [itself], and things to come; and not be silent as to how it is that God has made the Gentiles, whose salvation was despaired of, fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers with the saints; and discourse how it is that this mortal body shall put on immortality, and this corruptible shall put on incorruption; 1 Corinthians 15:54 and proclaim in what sense [God] says, That is a people who was not a people; and she is beloved who was not beloved; Hosea 2:23; Romans 9:25 and in what sense He says that more are the children of her that was desolate, than of her who possessed a husband. Isaiah 54:1; Galatians 4:27 For in reference to these points, and others of a like nature, the apostle exclaims: Oh! The depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! Romans 11:33 But [the superior skill spoken of] is not found in this, that any one should, beyond the Creator and Framer [of the world], conceive of the Enthymesis of an erring Æon, their mother and his, and should thus proceed to such a pitch of blasphemy; nor does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Æons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said. (Irenaeus: Against Heresies Book I, Chapter 10.1-3)
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, I.10 (St. Irenaeus)​

If you look at paragraph #1 above, it should not be too difficult to determine the doctrines stated come 100% from Holy Scriptures. If you look at paragraph #2 above, Irenaeus defines paragraph #1 as the faith of the Church received and tradition. It looks like Irenaeus' definition of the tradition received from the apostles is in fact the creed or rule of faith. Which just so happens to be derived from the written Holy Scriptures.

Note: I did not add the multiple Scripture quotes in the paragraphs quoted by Irenaeus. Those are compliments of Newadvent.org.

 

[thecolorsblend]

"Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures."
-- Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5,20:2 (180 AD)

I have absolutely no issues with the above as Irenaeus anchors his comments on "and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures." My pastor does this every day.

All Irenaeus is confirming is that the Church is nourished with the Lord's Scriptures. I don't see how the above quote supports a dual authority of Scripture and tradition.

Origen viewed the matter as the Church having the authority not just to teach but to interpret:

"Therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men... we must point out the ways [to interpret scripture] which appear to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles."
-- Origen, First Principles 4,1:9 (230 AD)

Really, this alone puts paid to sola scriptura. But, later in history, Athanasius pointed to the history and teaching authority of the Catholic Church as instructive, being careful to link preaching from the apostles with obedience of the Church Fathers.

"But beyond these sayings [eg, scriptures], let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.” Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (360 AD)

So it's not like Origen was pulling ideas out of his hat. Athanasius agreed with him. Both agreed with Irenaeus.

Generally people who believe in sola scriptura seem to do is search for texts that don't directly condemn sola scriptura and then proceed to argue that sola scriptura is clearly the default position... although how that would've been possible in a time and place when probably less than 10% of the population could read or afford copies of the scriptures is never really clarified.

If sacred scripture does not interpret itself (and it obviously doesn't or else non-traditional Christians would all agree with each other) then someone has to interpret it. The Church has historically believed she has the authority to teach and interpret the scriptures.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one Being made and governs it — those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own. (St Irenaeus: Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 27.2); CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, II.27 (St. Irenaeus))​

Why should Ireneaus wish to contradict Paul or create a doctrine which is not in accord with what the bible says? Yes the bible is authoritative for the Christian but it is not the end all concern as Ireneaus demonstrates elsewhere on the nature of the Church, that the succession of the Bishops to Ireneaus is integral to the Church and it's Apostolic succession is a key feature of his argument against the Gnostics, yet we would be hard pressed to find an explicit teaching concerning Apostolic succession in the bible. Ireneaus when dealing with the Gnostics will rely on Church tradition as well biblical authority in order to refute them (See Against heresies book three where he appeals to the succession of Bishops).

Ireneaus' understanding of the authority of the bible is within that non-protestant context, where the liturgical and community make up of the Church were integral to it's being. The Church as an institution within Protestantism exists only in the mind of God and no Protestant Church can claim to be the one true Church or that Apostolic succession matters in any real degree.

I think the key to reading what you've posted from Ireneaus would be that he is responding to the obscure interpretations of the Gnostics who read things in such a wildly symbolic fashion as to distort their very meaning and the truth of the Bible as whole, hence why he is arguing for clear and unambiguous interpretation he offers. His interpretation is certaintly that, but like I said before, it was informed by the rule of faith which the Gnostics did not have access to. Protestants like the Gnostics can approach the bible without a prior understanding and come to their own understanding apart from any received tradition.

Bottom line is that Ireneaus is not the Sola Scriptura advocate you think he is.

 

[DominicBaptiste]

How do you test tradition, reason and experience? What infallible standard do you use? We already know the Holy Scriptures are the inspired by the Holy Spirit and God's revelation to mankind (people-kind for our Canadian friends).

Infallible standard is not a phrase I would use to describe Bible interpretation. I think many Christians like to use the word Infallible in relation to the Bible to defend themselves and their theological positions, citing the Bible as being the final authority, but there is usually some degree of deviation from the bare words on the page, even if the underlying reasons for the interpretation aren't consciously acknowledged, tradition + reason + experience. If it makes you feel any better, I would probably throw my Bible at you if I could get away with it. Have a nice day.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The early fathers had access to the written Scriptures. The one epistle we have from Polycarp is quite evident of such.

I guess the question about tradition is what were those apostolic traditions everyone seems to point to? Where's 'the list' so to speak. And what traditions are folks really discussing other than apostolic traditions? There are three I can think of:

1) The apostolic teaching or doctrine handed down from the apostles to the Church—called the apostolic tradition.
2) Ecclesiastical customs and practices.
3) A patristic consensus of the interpretation of Scripture.

#1 above is what I believe most in the ancient churches refer to when saying "Holy Tradition." I could be wrong, but if one wants the label 'ancient' we would have to look at the very early father's writings to see what they defined as the 'apostolic tradition.'

This is what Irenaeus opined on when stating receiving the faith of the Church and tradition:

1. The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, Ephesians 1:10 and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess Philippians 2:10-11 to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, Ephesians 6:12 and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

2. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

3. It does not follow because men are endowed with greater and less degrees of intelligence, that they should therefore change the subject-matter [of the faith] itself, and should conceive of some other God besides Him who is the Framer, Maker, and Preserver of this universe, (as if He were not sufficient for them), or of another Christ, or another Only-begotten. But the fact referred to simply implies this, that one may [more accurately than another] bring out the meaning of those things which have been spoken in parables, and accommodate them to the general scheme of the faith; and explain [with special clearness] the operation and dispensation of God connected with human salvation; and show that God manifested longsuffering in regard to the apostasy of the angels who transgressed, as also with respect to the disobedience of men; and set forth why it is that one and the same God has made some things temporal and some eternal, some heavenly and others earthly; and understand for what reason God, though invisible, manifested Himself to the prophets not under one form, but differently to different individuals; and show why it was that more covenants than one were given to mankind; and teach what was the special character of each of these covenants; and search out for what reason God Romans 11:32 has concluded every man in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all; and gratefully describe on what account the Word of God became flesh and suffered; and relate why the advent of the Son of God took place in these last times, that is, in the end, rather than in the beginning [of the world]; and unfold what is contained in the Scriptures concerning the end [itself], and things to come; and not be silent as to how it is that God has made the Gentiles, whose salvation was despaired of, fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers with the saints; and discourse how it is that this mortal body shall put on immortality, and this corruptible shall put on incorruption; 1 Corinthians 15:54 and proclaim in what sense [God] says, That is a people who was not a people; and she is beloved who was not beloved; Hosea 2:23; Romans 9:25 and in what sense He says that more are the children of her that was desolate, than of her who possessed a husband. Isaiah 54:1; Galatians 4:27 For in reference to these points, and others of a like nature, the apostle exclaims: Oh! The depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! Romans 11:33 But [the superior skill spoken of] is not found in this, that any one should, beyond the Creator and Framer [of the world], conceive of the Enthymesis of an erring Æon, their mother and his, and should thus proceed to such a pitch of blasphemy; nor does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Æons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said. (Irenaeus: Against Heresies Book I, Chapter 10.1-3)
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, I.10 (St. Irenaeus)​

If you look at paragraph #1 above, it should not be too difficult to determine the doctrines stated come 100% from Holy Scriptures. If you look at paragraph #2 above, Irenaeus defines paragraph #1 as the faith of the Church received and tradition. It looks like Irenaeus' definition of the tradition received from the apostles is in fact the creed or rule of faith. Which just so happens to be derived from the written Holy Scriptures.

Note: I did not add the multiple Scripture quotes in the paragraphs quoted by Irenaeus. Those are compliments of Newadvent.org.

This is where our two conceptions really clash. You seem under the impression that the rule must have originated from an interpretation of scripture instead of being an accompanying set of teachings or a key to understanding the text that has been with the Church since the beginning. It seems to me it would be the latter and not the former, that Ireneaus did not first receive a bible proceed to interpret it in this fashion free of influence but that rather in his ancient context he was part of a community, participating in it's liturgy and way of doing things before ever layed a hand on the bible. What you are doing, separated two thousand years from the disciples and having no direct connection to them is putting your own experience on to that of the early Church which I do not believe to be justified.

This is where I see the real danger in Sola scriptura as a way of thinking. It forces always everything to come directly from the bible or otherwise it is less worthy of belief, to the point where I think it has impacted your reading of Ireneaus.