- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,361
- 3,628
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
Any articles, quotes, etc that demonstrate the use/idea/doctrine of sola scriptura before the Reformation?
Thanks,
j
Thanks,
j
Wycliffe and the Lollards evidently looked to Scripture rather than the pope for the final say on doctrine.Any articles, quotes, etc that demonstrate the use/idea/doctrine of sola scriptura before the Reformation?
Thanks,
j
Hey Bro. I'm more of the strand that likes to look at entire works and "reverse engineer" the process.Any articles, quotes, etc that demonstrate the use/idea/doctrine of sola scriptura before the Reformation?
Thanks,
j
I believe you'll find a number of quotes from the Fathers that look like sola scriptura. However I think that (aside from precursors such as Wycliffe) the Reformation practice was still new. The change wasn't in claims about the authority of Scripture or the need to base doctrine on it. You can find those claims historically. The change was that Protestants believed the Church had departed from the truth, and that Scripture was the way to judge that.
I read some of the transcripts. White tried to prove his point according to answering RC polemics.I guess the doctrine can be inferred but it's not explicitly stated?
Anyone catch the old debate Sola Scriptura with White and Madrid?
The parameters of the debate are very limited but you have to admit White lost.
Not at all. But I think the way in which Scripture is used changed in the Reformation. Indeed the phrase "sola scriptura" implies that Scripture is taken above tradition and is used to judge it. I think most of the Fathers, however much they would say that doctrine should be based on Scripture, saw Scripture and Tradition as dual witnesses.So...sola scriptura is another tradition but just newer?
So...sola scriptura is another tradition but just newer?
Defining what they meant as tradition vs what a Medieval Pope claimed was tradition is as far as the east is from the west in my opinion.Not at all. But I think the way in which Scripture is used changed in the Reformation. Indeed the phrase "sola scriptura" implies that Scripture is taken above tradition and is used to judge it. I think most of the Fathers, however much they would say that doctrine should be based on Scripture, saw Scripture and Tradition as dual witnesses.
I agree. I think the nature and content of Tradition had changed. One was the medieval idea (not accepted by everyone) that Tradition was an actual source of revelation. I think the earliest idea is that it interpreted and supported Scripture. Or at least that it preserved the apostolic deposit of faith, which would still not see it as a source of ongoing revelation.Defining what they meant as tradition vs what a Medieval Pope claimed was tradition is as far as the east is from the west in my opinion.
I think not. IF, that is, we are using "Tradition" in the way that the RCC uses it--as a different source of divine revelation that is equally as authoritative as Scripture and can be used to establish doctrines that do not have a Biblical basis. I don't think that can be found in the early church.Not at all. But I think the way in which Scripture is used changed in the Reformation. Indeed the phrase "sola scriptura" implies that Scripture is taken above tradition and is used to judge it. I think most of the Fathers, however much they would say that doctrine should be based on Scripture, saw Scripture and Tradition as dual witnesses.
I agree. But it's precisely because Tradition was used differently that the Fathers didn't need to formulate sola scriptura. Sola scriptura means that Scripture is above tradition and can be used to judge it. That's the reason for the "sola." With a more modest tradition that is closer to Scripture, the issue sola scriptura deals with doesn't arise. All you have is the authority of Scriptura.I think not. IF, that is, we are using "Tradition" in the way that the RCC uses it--as a different source of divine revelation that is equally as authoritative as Scripture and can be used to establish doctrines that do not have a Biblical basis. I don't think that can be found in the early church.
I read some of the transcripts. White tried to prove his point according to answering RC polemics.
Never fight on terrain unfavorable to your strength.
Not at all. But I think the way in which Scripture is used changed in the Reformation. Indeed the phrase "sola scriptura" implies that Scripture is taken above tradition and is used to judge it. I think most of the Fathers, however much they would say that doctrine should be based on Scripture, saw Scripture and Tradition as dual witnesses.
If faces with a situation where they have plainly diverged, I think many of them would like have accepted sola scriptura, but that doesn't mean that they actually taught it.
Hey Bro. I'm more of the strand that likes to look at entire works and "reverse engineer" the process.
If you look at the works of the early church fathers you will see all 27 books of the NT extensively quoted and in many more cases paraphrased or alluded to.
Because of their extensive use of Holy Scriptures, we can deduce that is fount they went to refute hererics, provide commentary and encourage, exhort and rebuke the faithful.
Best work which quotes 25 of 27 books is Against Heresies by St Irenaeus.
New Advent Encyclopedia does a great job of listing and linking the associated Bible verses within the text.
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus)
So did they say Sola Scriptura? No, but they definitely applied the principal in action.
Edit: good site where some dude actually went through hundreds of works to show how much of the NT books that ECFs quoted.
Early Christian NT References
I’m sure you have seen the various ECF writings where they say “do not accept what I say but search the scriptures.” That is a general paraphrase. I can cite later if you want. However, how much more of an explicit implicit statement could they give? They did not live through the medieval period when tradition took primacy over Holy Scriptures.I guess the doctrine can be inferred but it's not explicitly stated?