Sola Scriptura

MoreCoffee said:

Save us all time and CF some band width and stop pretending that the Council of Trent was about Sabbath keeping and breaking. In fact save us time and CF bandwidth and stop posting this nonsense.

Click to expand...

The thread is about Sola Scriptura, it is you who are turning the debate to the Sabbath. The Sabbath is found in scripture and was relevant to my comment about the "Bible alone"; if I read you right you are saying I can use all the other words in scripture but not the Sabbath.

All4Christ said:

Here are the canons and decrees made in the Council of Trent. Everything decided should be in this:

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0432/

Click to expand...

The date of this document is 2007; since 1945 books book on the Inquisitions and the Reformation have been sanitised; I am making efforts to find the source of my claim.

...

OzSpen said:

You might not consider Tertullian to be a church father, but whether you like it or not, he WAS one of them

Click to expand...

How does one determine who should or should not be considered a Church Father?

OzSpen said:

It makes no difference who the author of the website was. Check out the quotes (as I did) to verify their authenticity of 'The Bloopers of the Church Fathers'.

Click to expand...

All4Christ said:

I did. They are just snippets of the writings and do not show the entire context. Context is key.

For example, if you just pull out specific scriptures, you could back up the LDS beliefs, or the Jehovah Witness beliefs. You have to look at it comprehensively to get the full meaning.

Also, some of them (like the one about St John Chrysostom having sex with a princess and throwing her off a cliff) are legend and not solidly backed up by history.

Click to expand...

OzSpen said:

Please do not put me down like this. I have a PhD in NT studies (historical Jesus), so I'm more than aware of the need to read any writer in context.

With your examples of the LDS and JW you have used the fallacy of biased sample. It is an example of illogical reasoning. When you engage in fallacious reasoning like this, we cannot have a logical discussion. I urge you to quit this kind of logical fallacy.

Click to expand...

I am a little lost in this thread, but I think it is perhaps interesting to point out that of the four "Church Fathers" identified, only one of the four - Augustine - was actually considered a Father in the 1st millennium Church, and Augustine's teachings were never completely embraced in the East. I am a non-theologian, but I suspect that his view on women not being made in the image of God is embraced with the same fervor by the Orthodox Church as his erroneous views on the nature of sin and free will.

I don't understand how @All4Christ is guilty of using the fallacy of the biased sample. If anything, I think she points out that @OzSpen might be guilty of the fallacy, since he seems to be drawing a conclusion about the reliability of all Church Fathers by sampling the works of only four of them. Maybe I didn't understand the fallacy.

Every time we have this debate it is made out as Tradition vs Scripture, which quite frankly is a false narrative. Quite frankly it isn't even Scripture vs Tradition/Scripture which would be closer. Rather it is Scripture/my Church's Sacred Tradition vs Scripture/your church's faith tradition. Sola Scriptura is a fallacy, because it doesn't exist. Every single denomination reads Scripture through the lens of their teachings. They may claim that their teachings come from Scripture and some do, but there is a whole lot of reading your beliefs into what you are reading.

sparow said:

The thread is about Sola Scriptura, it is you who are turning the debate to the Sabbath. The Sabbath is found in scripture and was relevant to my comment about the "Bible alone"; if I read you right you are saying I can use all the other words in scripture but not the Sabbath.

Click to expand...

Is "bible alone" the definition that you use for "sola scriptura"?

Erose said:

Every time we have this debate it is made out as Tradition vs Scripture, which quite frankly is a false narrative. Quite frankly it isn't even Scripture vs Tradition/Scripture which would be closer. Rather it is Scripture/my Church's Sacred Tradition vs Scripture/your church's faith tradition. Sola Scriptura is a fallacy, because it doesn't exist. Every single denomination reads Scripture through the lens of their teachings. They may claim that their teachings come from Scripture and some do, but there is a whole lot of reading your beliefs into what you are reading.

Click to expand...

Many people who write posts on forums such as CF write in terms of my-bible-and-my-interpretation vs my-inaccurate-characterisation-of-catholic-beliefs. It's more a case of debating a straw-man that they've constructed than a case of debating Catholic teaching.

MoreCoffee said:

Is "bible alone" the definition that you use for "sola scriptura"?

Click to expand...

The Latin words "sola scriptura" when translated to English means "Bible alone"; the only thing I consider to be doctrine is the OT; it is certified by Christ.

Erose said:

Every time we have this debate it is made out as Tradition vs Scripture, which quite frankly is a false narrative. Quite frankly it isn't even Scripture vs Tradition/Scripture which would be closer. Rather it is Scripture/my Church's Sacred Tradition vs Scripture/your church's faith tradition. Sola Scriptura is a fallacy, because it doesn't exist. Every single denomination reads Scripture through the lens of their teachings. They may claim that their teachings come from Scripture and some do, but there is a whole lot of reading your beliefs into what you are reading.

Click to expand...

How else could one debate sola scriptura without discussing alternate systems. The only thing wrong with tradition is when it opposes God; if ones tradition was to keep the commandments of God the tradition would be good but when the tradition is to abrogate the commandments of God then tradition is bad. If there is a doctrine of sola scriptura then I know nothing of it; the Bible alone without assumptions omits God; the Bible alone could mean the Bible is a text book, it could mean the Bible is a legal document or it could mean the bible is the bread of life. The Bible has to be correctly used to be useful. The way to life is narrow and few find it but the way is found in scripture,

sparow said:

The Latin words "sola scriptura" when translated to English means "Bible alone"; the only thing I consider to be doctrine is the OT; it is certified by Christ.

Click to expand...

You do not consider the new testament as doctrine?

To me the interesting question isn’t the authority of Scripture. Everyone believes that. It’s what leads a significant part of the Church to be willing to consider major new interpretations of it. In the 16th Cent the will to do that existed. I don’t think it’s any one thing. There were cultural reasons for being interested in change, which is one reason that the princes supported Luther. There was also new scholarship. Perhaps it’s not surprising that new scholarly approaches occur at a time of cultural change.

But the will to accept change was mostly temporary. The Lutheran and Reformed traditions largely became effectively unchangeable, even though they claimed not to be.

A second period of willingness to accept change happened with radical scholarship and the liberal tradition. Again, it seems to me that there was a combination of cultural and scholarly reasons. So far the willingness to accept change has been more enduring with that liberal / progressive tradition.

sparow said:

The Latin words "sola scriptura" when translated to English means "Bible alone"; the only thing I consider to be doctrine is the OT; it is certified by Christ.

Click to expand...

How can you be sure of everything documented in the NT about Jesus if you do not accept the NT as doctrine? Including his use of Scripture?

sparow said:

How else could one debate sola scriptura without discussing alternate systems.

Click to expand...

Considering there isn't any alternate forms, there is no debate. Sola Scriptura is a myth. It is as simple as that. All Scripture is read and interpreted through a lens. Most of usual the lens of our faith tradition, others use the lens of what they want it to say. The difference between Catholic/Orthodox and Protestant traditions is that we Catholic/Orthodox recognize the fact. Protestants reject the fact.

sparow said:

The only thing wrong with tradition is when it opposes God; if ones tradition was to keep the commandments of God the tradition would be good but when the tradition is to abrogate the commandments of God then tradition is bad. If there is a doctrine of sola scriptura then I know nothing of it; the Bible alone without assumptions omits God; the Bible alone could mean the Bible is a text book, it could mean the Bible is a legal document or it could mean the bible is the bread of life. The Bible has to be correctly used to be useful.

Click to expand...

You see here is the crux of the matter. I as a Catholic have never read anything in Scripture that is in conflict with Tradition. Nothing. Not one single passage. You not being Catholic would oppose my point of view. Why? Because some teachings of your faith tradition are not the same as my faith tradition. You see the point here?

sparow said:

The way to life is narrow and few find it but the way is found in scripture,

Click to expand...

Ah. Let's not forget that it is Tradition that tells us what writings are Scripture and what are not.

OzSpen said:

I determine it the same way I determine if Captain James Cook and Captain Arthur Phillip were fathers of the Australian nation. Those who occupied a significant role in the establishment of the nation are its 'Fathers'.

The same with Church Fathers. Those who wrote significant treatises in the post-apostolic, early church to define doctrine are regarded as 'Fathers of the Church'. Tertullian was one of them and his works are listed under Fathers of the Church on the Roman Catholic New Advent site.

Oxford dictionaries (online) defines a 'church father' as 'one of the early Christian writers, on whose works much later doctrine and theology is based' (2016 S v church father).

Oz

Click to expand...

That would imply, then, that one could be considered a "church father" regardless of whether the doctrine they promulgated was true or false, would it not?

Note that the OED definition would not preclude a heretic from being considered a 'church father'.

@OzSpen - For the sake of clarity, I would like to describe the way we (Orthodox) view the input of the Church Fathers. We use "The Consensus Patrum" - the consensus of the Church Fathers and the Church - as the guide for accepting theology found in the writings of these early theologians and teachers. The writings are not accepted in their whole and the theology is not accepted based solely on the status of being 'a church father'. This consensus guides the church in questions of dogma, the correct interpretation of scripture, and to distinguish the authentic sacred tradition of the Church from false teachings.

OzSpen said:

That might be your non-theologian perspective from your tradition, but it is not that of the Roman Catholic Church that has a whole string of post-apostolic 'Fathers of the Church' on its New Advent website. Augustine is but one of many, many church fathers listed here.

Sure sounds like you didn't understand the fallacy of biased sample in what you wrote. I've provided this link previously so you understand what you did in your post.

You have used another example here of the fallacy of biased sample by claiming that of the 4 examples of church fathers that I gave, Augustine was the only one considered a Church Father in the first millennium. This is simply false as many students and professors of the church fathers will tell you.

Eminent church historian, Philip Schaff, demonstrates the falsity of your view in his History of the Christian Church in which he articulates the list of early and later church fathers to demonstrate that he, as a church historian, disagrees profoundly with your assessment of who is a church father.

Oz

Click to expand...

I am speaking as an Eastern Orthodox Christian. The Eastern Orthodox Church, which is the remnant of the four ancient Sees which broke with Rome, accepts only Augustine in the group you put forward as a Church Father, and then only somewhat reluctantly.

I am not familiar with the list of early and later Church Fathers enumerated by Philip Schaff, although I assume that it is consistent with the authors he included in his Ante-Nicene and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series. While some of these authors are accepted as Church Fathers by the (Orthodox) Church, not all are.