Can Sola Scriptura be proved?

[Lotar]

St. Athanasius (c.296-373):



The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.

(Against the Heathen, I:3, quoted in Carl A. Volz, Faith and Practice in the Early Church [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1983], p. 147.)




St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):



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 you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you 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, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Volume VII, p. 23.)




St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):



...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.

(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)




St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430):



Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord; but [let them show their church] by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the evangelists; that is, by all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.

(On the Unity of the Church, 16, quoted in Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], p. 159.)




St. Augustine of Hippo:



What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behooves to be wise,” but be wise, as he says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith.”

(On the Good of Widowhood, 2, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Volume III, p. 442. The quotation is from Romans 12:3.)




St. John Chrysostom (c.347-407):



Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer to [our own] calculation; but in calculating upon [theological] facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things...

(Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Volume XII, p. 346.)




St. Basil the Great (c.329-379):



They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases [persons], and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.

(Letter 189 [to Eustathius the physician], 3, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume VIII, p. 229.)

 

[Ainesis]

Oh my goodness! Lotar, I am dumbfounded. Thank you for these as I wil lneed to study them further.

God Bless!

 

[Reader Nilus]

The main problem with sola scriptura is the fact that Scripture does not define itself. So someone defined the Bible, beyond the authority of the Bible, and that someone was the Church. Interestingly enough the Bible does testify to the fact that the Church is Pillar and Bulwark of Truth. It does not say the same about the Bible, the New Testament did not exist when the letters of St Paul were being written. It is indeed the Church who said, this book is inspired, and that one is not.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Lotar]

But, as long as Sola Scriptura is kept to its original meaning that is not problem, since the canon is not something required for salvation.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

- Your problem is that you do not understand Sola Scrptura. Sola Scriptura does not mean to believe in only what the Bible says. Sola Scriptura means that scripture alone is necessary to bring man unto salvation.

And the problem as I see it today is that we have so many people coming up on their own with what the scripture says "is necessary" to bring man into salvation. I do not think it is that simple. The NT has the story of the man trying to read scripture and needing someone to explain it to him. Why was it not enough for him?

If the scripture alone was enough, then why all the different "ways" that one may be "saved"?

 

[vanshan]

Ainesis,

If you say that scripture alone, along with the small "o" orthodox interpretation of those scriptures is enough to reveal Christ to man by the Holy Spirit then, yes I agree with that. If you say that scripture is a free-standing revelation which we can interpret for ourselves without also consulting the wisdom and interpretation as it has been passed down in Holy Tradition then I strongly disagree. The Bible is the most authoritative source of our Tradition, but it cannot be interpeted accurately in a vacuum separated from Christ's Church.

Then comes our interpretation of Church. Who is the Church who has maintained the orthodox teachings of Christ and what does it take to be united in One Church? Is it an invisible body made of all who confess Christ? Or is it a structured Body built by Christ, made up of real men and women who fulfill roles as bishops, prebyters, deacons, evangelists, confessors, martyrs, etc.? Of course, as you know, I believe the latter and point to the early Church as recorded not only in Acts and mentioned in the Epistles, but also in all the writings of the Church fathers and very visibly seen in the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

None of the quotes Lotar has offered, all of which are good, prove that scripture can be used/interpreted withouth the Church. It is at the peak of Holy Tradition. So if you believe sola scriptura means that men can and should sit down with their Bibles, out of the context of the Church and Christian history, and re-create the faith by using their own understanding than we disagree. We all are followers of some tradition, the question is are we followers of the traditions of Luther, Wesley, Zwingli, Smith, or Christ? Were the different traditions have departed from the orthodox interpretations of scripture they have erred and moved further from God as he has been revealed by scripture.

Basil.

 

[Lotar]

Where did I say that Scripture was to be interpreted without the Church and her Tradition? Obviously we have different opinions about who/what the Church is.

Luther's Traditions are the same as Christ's.

 

[Reader Nilus]

Where did I say that Scripture was to be interpreted without the Church and her Tradition? Obviously we have different opinions about who/what the Church is.

Luther's Traditions are the same as Christ's.

Be that as it may, to admit that Lutheran tradition is used to read the scriptures aright, means that for Lutherans, they are NOT sola scriptura.
Jeff the Finn

 

[vanshan]

Luther's Traditions are the same as Christ's.

Are not!


My staunch German-immigrant Missouri Synod Lutheran Grandfather would fly through the roof if he heard me say such things, but there it is. (I think his tattered Book of Concord just fell off my shelf).

Basil

 

[Ainesis]

Ainesis,

If you say that scripture alone, along with the small "o" orthodox interpretation of those scriptures is enough to reveal Christ to man by the Holy Spirit then, yes I agree with that.

Well, I guess you would probably guess that is not what I am saying . I know of no Scripture which says that we need any man's interpretation to reveal Christ sufficiently. What do you take the following to mean?

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." I John 2:27

If you say that scripture is a free-standing revelation which we can interpret for ourselves without also consulting the wisdom and interpretation as it has been passed down in Holy Tradition then I strongly disagree.

I would agree that Scripture is a free-standing revelation. Yet this is what puzzles me most about this kind of conversation.

Some will say "You cannot interpret Scripture apart from the understandings of the early church fathers." Yet, the understandings of the early church fathers were also their interpretations. So in essence, what is really being said is "We follow the interpretations of certain men and you must follow their interpretations as well." To which I would say "What makes their interpretations any more valid than someone else's?"

Now, that said, I don't believe that proper Scriptural understanding happens by interpretation, but by revelation. Scripture can be interpreted any number of ways, but only the Holy Spirit can reveal God's true meaning of the Scriptures. So, IMO it boils down to how we understand the workings of the Holy Spirit to be. Scripture says that all who believe are properly equipped with the Holy Spirit as a guide to into all truth.

The Bible is the most authoritative source of our Tradition, but it cannot be interpeted accurately in a vacuum separated from Christ's Church.

According to whom? Your church? What Scripture says that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture?

Then comes our interpretation of Church. Who is the Church who has maintained the orthodox teachings of Christ and what does it take to be united in One Church? Is it an invisible body made of all who confess Christ? Or is it a structured Body built by Christ, made up of real men and women who fulfill roles as bishops, prebyters, deacons, evangelists, confessors, martyrs, etc.? Of course, as you know, I believe the latter and point to the early Church as recorded not only in Acts and mentioned in the Epistles, but also in all the writings of the Church fathers and very visibly seen in the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Is not the "invisible body" to which you refer aslo made up of "real men and women?" Yes, I am aware of your position in this area and suffice it to say that we have different understandings here.

None of the quotes Lotar has offered, all of which are good, prove that scripture can be used/interpreted withouth the Church.

How can one who, by faith has turned to Jesus as the Christ and received eternal life, somehow be outside of the Church by which they are automatically members because of that same faith? Again, I think this goes to our different understandings of the Church.

More importantly, sola Scripture IMO addresses the fact that everything we need to know in order to be saved is in Scripture. The quotes that Lotar provided certainly illustrate that even the early church fathers held the standard for God's truth to be the Scriptures. Therefore if, as I believe and as the church fathers seem to attest, the Scriptures are the standard by which all Godly doctrine is formed, where does Scripture say that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture?

So if you believe sola scriptura means that men can and should sit down with their Bibles, out of the context of the Church and Christian history, and re-create the faith by using their own understanding than we disagree.

I would say that sola Scripture means the following:

• Everything we need to know regarding salvation is contained therein
• As God's word, Scripture is the standard by which the church is to set doctrine

Now, the question becomes if Scripture is the standard, then how do we attain to the proper understanding of Scripture? This answer is provided in the text itself. Perhaps it would be interesting to do a study of these texts to see exactly to whom we are directed for proper understanding.

We all are followers of some tradition, the question is are we followers of the traditions of Luther, Wesley, Zwingli, Smith, or Christ? Were the different traditions have departed from the orthodox interpretations of scripture they have erred and moved further from God as he has been revealed by scripture.

Basil.

"or Christ?" I think that is a mouthful. Are we following the traditions of men or the traditions of Christ. That is a very important question. I think the answer to that is again tied to knowing to whom we are directed for a proper understanding of that tradition.

 

[agenes]

All quotes are from St. Augustine (354-430).

What does “homoousios” mean, I ask, but The Father and I are one (Jn. 10:30)? I should not, however, introduce the Council of Nicea to prejudice the case in my favor, nor should you introduce the Council of Ariminum that way. I am not bound by the authority of Ariminum, and you are not bound by that of Nicea. By the authority of the scriptures that are not the property of anyone, but the common witness for both of us, let position do battle with position, case with case, reason with reason. See WSA, Answer to Maximinus, Part I, Vol. 18, ed. John Rotelle, O.S.A., trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (New York: New City Press, 1995), p. 282.

Wherefore, my brother, refrain from gathering together against divine testimonies so many, so perspicuous, and so unchallenged, the calumnies which may be found in the writings of bishops either of our communion, as Hilary, or of the undivided Church itself in the age preceding the schism of Donatus, as Cyprian or Agrippinus; because, in the first place, this class of writings must be, so far as authority is concerned, distinguished from the canon of Scripture. For they are not read by us as if a testimony brought forward from them was such that it would be unlawful to hold any different opinion, for it may be that the opinions which they held were different from those to which truth demands our assent. For we are amongst those who do not reject what has been taught us even by an apostle: “If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you; nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule,” - in that way, namely, which Christ is; of which way the Psalmist thus speaks: “God be merciful unto us, and bless us, and cause His face to shine upon us: that Thy way may be known upon earth, Thy saving health among all nations.” NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 93, Chapter10, §35.

Perhaps you do not know how far you ought or ought not to believe us, and you are on guard not to be led astray by believing us either more or less than you ought. About the divine Scriptures, however, even when they are not clearly understood, you have no doubt that they are to be believed. FC, Vol. 20, Saint Augustine Letters, 147. Augustine to the noble lady Paulina, greeting, Chapter 39 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1953), p. 207.

I have judged it right to mention this, because some are of opinion that charity or regard (dilectio) is one thing, love (amor) another. They say that dilectio is used of a good affection, amor of an evil love. But it is very certain that even secular literature knows no such distinction. However, it is for the philosophers to determine whether and how they differ, though their own writings sufficiently testify that they make great account of love (amor) placed on good objects, and even on God Himself. But we wished to show that the Scriptures of our religion, whose authority we prefer to all writings whatsoever, make no distinction between amor, dilectio, and caritas; and we have already shown that amor is used in a good connection. . . . What we assert let us prove from Scripture. NPNF1: Vol. II, The City of God, Book XIV, Chapter 7.

I could cite more, but I think this is sufficent.

 

[Ainesis]

All quotes are from St. Augustine (354-430).

I could cite more, but I think this is sufficent.

Agenes,

If you don't mind, can you please forward me the other citations you have in this regard by Private message?

Thanks!

 

[vanshan]

I would agree that Scripture is a free-standing revelation. Yet this is what puzzles me most about this kind of conversation.

Some will say "You cannot interpret Scripture apart from the understandings of the early church fathers." Yet, the understandings of the early church fathers were also their interpretations. So in essence, what is really being said is "We follow the interpretations of certain men and you must follow their interpretations as well." To which I would say "What makes their interpretations any more valid than someone else's?"

We maintain the the Church Fathers carefully protected the orthodox understanding of scripture and our faith that was passed down ultimately from Christ. So we don't see these as arbitrary or later intreptations coming from reading the Bible alone. In oral traditions we know the stories can change over time, but if you were charged with preserving the gospel without innovation, you would take great care to preserve the faith without adding novel ideas or innovations to it. These traditions must not contradict the Bible, which is the ultimate authority to check the truth of these teachings.

Now, that said, I don't believe that proper Scriptural understanding happens by interpretation, but by revelation. Scripture can be interpreted any number of ways, but only the Holy Spirit can reveal God's true meaning of the Scriptures. So, IMO it boils down to how we understand the workings of the Holy Spirit to be. Scripture says that all who believe are properly equipped with the Holy Spirit as a guide to into all truth.

The weakness of this is that all Christian groups claim they have been led by the Spirit in their interpretations. All these groups cannot be correct. I believe that truly being led by the Spirit, without the confusion of our own pride, deceiving spirits, and intellectual weaknesses, which affect our intreptation, come only to those who have truly reached a high level of self-denial and piety.

How can one who, by faith has turned to Jesus as the Christ and received eternal life, somehow be outside of the Church by which they are automatically members because of that same faith? Again, I think this goes to our different understandings of the Church.

God works beyond the organized Body which He established. He is merciful and surely was aware of the fragmentation which would occur, but to be dedicated to Christ in your heart is different than being joined to the Unified Body which God established to feed the flock of His Word. You can follow Christ independently, but the fullness of the faith is found in the Church. This is why God established it. Those in the Church are in One Communion with Christ. You are doing your best and surely God is working in your heart, but you lack the advantage of some of God's gifts.

I would say that sola Scripture means the following:

• Everything we need to know regarding salvation is contained therein
• As God's word, Scripture is the standard by which the church is to set doctrine

• 
  
  Scripture can be used to assure us that false teachings have not crept in, but we must truly understand scripture as the Fathers did. We must also realize that everything taught and passed down by Christ is not explicitly contained therein, but these things must not contradict scripture. Nothing we do in Orthodoxy does, but these things are still a great help to us who are seeking to know Christ and aided to salvation by the gifts God bestows on those in the Church, such as the Eucharist and other sacraments.
  
  
  

  Now, the question becomes if Scripture is the standard, then how do we attain to the proper understanding of Scripture? This answer is provided in the text itself. Perhaps it would be interesting to do a study of these texts to see exactly to whom we are directed for proper understanding.

  
  
  History clearly shows that the text itself is not a sound foundation against heresy and innovation in belief. So, what else is needed? God led His Church and passed down sacred truth through it. It has clarified and preserved the revelation of God for us, so we don't have to wonder what this or that means. Look for the continuity of the faith. I, of course, hold that this uninterupted continuity from Judaism to Christ and to present if found in Orthodoxy alone.
  
  Basil

 

[vanshan]

Here are some quotes from the Fathers:

"For only where the true Christian teaching and faith are evident will the true Scriptures, the true interpretations, and all the true Christian traditions be found."
-Tertullian, De praescripttione 19.3

". . . those who present the words of God, not in conjunction with the intention of the truth of faith, have sown wheat and reaped thorns."
-Origen, Homilies on Jeremiah 7.3

"A skillful artist has used many precious jewels in making a beautiful image of a king. Now another man takes this mosaic apart, rearranging the stones so as to produce the image of a dog or of a fox. Then he starts claiming on the pretext that the gems are authentic, that this is the original picture by the first master. In fact, however, the original design has been destroyed . . . This is precisely what the heretics do with the Scripture."
-Irenaeus

 

[Ainesis]

We maintain the the Church Fathers carefully protected the orthodox understanding of scripture and our faith that was passed down ultimately from Christ. So we don't see these as arbitrary or later intreptations coming from reading the Bible alone. In oral traditions we know the stories can change over time, but if you were charged with preserving the gospel without innovation, you would take great care to preserve the faith without adding novel ideas or innovations to it. These traditions must not contradict the Bible, which is the ultimate authority to check the truth of these teachings.

Yet, if that were the case, then all views of the early church fathers would be consistent in all areas, since they all were appealing to the same orthodoxy of tradition and understanding. Any diversity of views among the church fathers is an illustration that their personal interpretations were significant factors in their understanding of Scripture (unless you contend that the Holy Spirit gave them each varying understandings).

So the argument is really not one of orthodox teaching versus private interpretation, but a matter of which interpretation should be followed. In the end, I agree that the ultimate authority of the truth in that regard is Scripture.

The weakness of this is that all Christian groups claim they have been led by the Spirit in their interpretations. All these groups cannot be correct. I believe that truly being led by the Spirit, without the confusion of our own pride, deceiving spirits, and intellectual weaknesses, which affect our intreptation, come only to those who have truly reached a high level of self-denial and piety.

I agree that not all of these groups are correct. I also agree that many who may be in error claim the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This, to me, is no more proof that the Spirit does not in fact reveal truth than a person with long hair is proof that barbers don't exist.

The problem I have with the argument you make is that it assumes the early church fathers were not subject to confusions of pride, deceivig spirits, and intellectual weakness. Yet, they were men who were subject to the same weaknesses and imperfections of men today. This is also evident from the early history of the church. So yes, unity is definitely an attribute of the Body of Christ, but people can even unite behind error. So the presence of unity behind a particular doctrine does not make it right.

Further, I am not so sure how we are to judge those who have reached a high-level of self-debial and piety. Only God knows the heart of a man, and I do not think He calls for us to esteem men at that level or to think more highly of men based on our own perceptions of their holiness.

God works beyond the organized Body which He established. He is merciful and surely was aware of the fragmentation which would occur, but to be dedicated to Christ in your heart is different than being joined to the Unified Body which God established to feed the flock of His Word. You can follow Christ independently, but the fullness of the faith is found in the Church. This is why God established it. Those in the Church are in One Communion with Christ. You are doing your best and surely God is working in your heart, but you lack the advantage of some of God's gifts.

Although I understand your perspective, I think this logic is riddled with errors. What Scripture do you know of that inidicates someone can be dedicated to Christ in their heart and yet not a part of His Body? What text in God's word states that one can follow Christ independently and not be a memer of His church? You have made your position clear, but as I asked before, where is the Scripture to support this view, being that the Scripture is the ultimate authority on truths pertaining to salvation?

Scripture can be used to assure us that false teachings have not crept in, but we must truly understand scripture as the Fathers did.

Not according to Scripture, which even the early church fathers acknowledged were the dterminer for what is true. Even one of the quotes above illustrate that we should not think more highly of their writings that is appropriate, but refer back to Scripture and not simply their understandings in terms of what is true.

Although you did not give me your understanding of the verse below, it seems to directly contradict what you are saying in this area.

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." I John 2:27

History clearly shows that the text itself is not a sound foundation against heresy and innovation in belief. So, what else is needed? God led His Church and passed down sacred truth through it. It has clarified and preserved the revelation of God for us, so we don't have to wonder what this or that means. Look for the continuity of the faith. I, of course, hold that this uninterupted continuity from Judaism to Christ and to present if found in Orthodoxy alone.

Basil

I can certainly respect that view, even if I don't agree.

God Bless!

 

[vanshan]

The problem I have with the argument you make is that it assumes the early church fathers were not subject to confusions of pride, deceivig spirits, and intellectual weakness. Yet, they were men who were subject to the same weaknesses and imperfections of men today. This is also evident from the early history of the church. So yes, unity is definitely an attribute of the Body of Christ, but people can even unite behind error. So the presence of unity behind a particular doctrine does not make it right.[/color]

While it is true that the Fathers had differences in interpretation of particular points of belief, the Church has been guided through a collegial form of leadership where no single particular person claims to have compelete truth, but rather they work together to clarify what the true orthodox teachings are.

None of the individuals in Orthodoxy have claimed infalliblity. We all try to hold fast to the faith which has been believed from the beginning; where there is disagreement we have held councils to come together and examine the evidence and determine what the Truth is, being guided by Holy Scripture, holy tradition, and the Holy Spirit. Through this system Orthodox truth has been tested and preserved, conquering numerous heresies over time.

Many Fathers are respected but are not honored as Saints because of some of the unorthodox things they have taught, such as Augustine, Tertullian, and Origen. They still provide some valuable insights, but are not viewed as completely orthodox.

Although I understand your perspective, I think this logic is riddled with errors. What Scripture do you know of that inidicates someone can be dedicated to Christ in their heart and yet not a part of His Body? What text in God's word states that one can follow Christ independently and not be a memer of His church? You have made your position clear, but as I asked before, where is the Scripture to support this view, being that the Scripture is the ultimate authority on truths pertaining to salvation?[/color]

For you the Church is everyone who believes in Christ, for us the Church is all those who have joined together in the One holy catholic and orthodox Church. Your idea of an invisible church, with no unified organic composition under one hierarchy is a new idea dating back only to the reformation. Our concept is one that dates back to Christ. You can see traces of this leadership being mentioned all throught the New Testament and in all the writing of the early Church. God works beyond these boundaries, but only those who have been ordained as bishops, priests, and deacons in Christ's Church can offer the authentic sacraments which aid us in our daily lives. This is where the fullness of Christ is found.

Basil

 

[Matthan]

To say that Scripture is not the sole source of knowledge necessary for receiving salvation, be it the spoken Scripture during the early apostolic church days or the written form we are blessed with today, is to claim that Jesus' work on earth was not completed. The fact is that His work was completed. And that means that no other "Traditions" are needed.

I find it more than a bit troubling that Jesus had nothing but contempt and comdemnation for the "inspired" traditions of the Jews. Why would anyone think that, if He hated those traditions, He would accept and approve of other "inspired" traditions of men now?

To say that Traditions accepted by any denomination today, which essentially add to the word of God found in Scripture ("water baptism is necessary for salvation" or "participating in the Lord's Supper [eucharist]" are good examples), is to also say that everyone who thought he had received salvation before those particular traditions were incorporated into church dogma but that did not receive water baptism or did not participate in the Lord's Supper actually did not receive that salvation. That is a ludicrous position for any Christian to adhere to.

Do not attempt to deny that, if a church declares that salvation has certain requirements attached to it by "inspired Tradition", that anyone existing before that tradition was adopted or even conceived in its most infintile form could possibly find salvation. Such a position would be self-destructive.

Matthan

 

[Qoheleth]

The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching:Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Of course, Paul in ACTS 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examine God's word for the test of truth, not for the traditions of men. Therefore, we can see that the biblical means of determining spiritual truth is by appealing to scripture, not tradition. In fact, it is the scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances.

2) Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinty, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. Yet, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from biblical references. Therefore, it is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, "The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth," in order for the statement to be true. So, for the Catholic to require the Protestant to supply chapter and verse to prove Sola Scriptura is valid, is not necessarily consistent with biblical exegetical principles.

3) In appealing to the Bible for authentication of Inerrant Sacred Tradition, the Catholic church have shown that the Bible is superior to Sacred Tradition--for the lesser is blessed by the greater (Heb 7:7). You see, if the Bible said do not trust tradition, then Sacred Tradition would be instantly and obviously invalid. If the Bible said to trust Sacred Tradition, then the Bible is authenticating it. In either case, the Scriptures hold the place of final authority and by that position, are shown to be superior to Sacred Tradition. If Sacred Tradition were really inerrant as it is said to be, then it would be equal with the Bible. But, God’s word does not say that Sacred Tradition is inerrant or inspired as it does say about itself (2 Tim 3:16). To merely claim that Sacred Tradition is equal and in agreement with the Bible does not make it so.

Furthermore, to assert that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture is to effectively leave the canon wide open to doctrinal addition. Since the traditions of men change, to use tradition as a determiner of spiritual truth would mean that over time new doctrines that are not in the Bible would be added and that is exactly what has happened in Catholicism with doctrines such as purgatory, praying to Mary, indulgences, etc. Furthermore, if they can use Sacred Tradition as a source for doctrines not explicit in the Bible, then why would the Mormons then be wrong for having additional revelation as well?

Peace

 

[Ainesis]

While it is true that the Fathers had differences in interpretation of particular points of belief, the Church has been guided through a collegial form of leadership where no single particular person claims to have compelete truth, but rather they work together to clarify what the true orthodox teachings are.

Basil, I didn't make that comment to imply any type of criticism of the early church fathers. My main point is that they were interpreting Scripture just as many are today. It is untrue to say that they were following Christ's teachings while people today use private interpretation. Because each of the early church fathers would have had singular points of view if they were all following a singular teaching. I would say however, that they were each seeking in their respective interpretations to follow Christ. But I also think the same could be said for many today.

So, just as the differences in interpretations among the early church fathers does not prove that they were not members of Christ's church and does not prove that they were not each led by the Holy Spirit, I don't think the same attributes prove such about Christianity today either. If we claim that the differences of interpretation is the proof that these individuals today are operating without the auspices of the Holy Spirit, then the same criteria must also apply to the early church fathers and their varying interpretations.

I also think it is admirable that your church leaders work together to stay true Christ's teachings, yet I would say that this is what most churches do today. You can look at the baptists, Methodists, charismatics... and say "Look at the differences in their interpretations. See that can't be right." But we can look at the RCC, the Orthodox Church, the Anglicans... and say "Look at the differences in their interpretations. See that can't be right." Yet within each respective organization (RCC, baptist, Orthodox...), there is a leadership that comes together to define proper interpretation for that particular group.

None of the individuals in Orthodoxy have claimed infalliblity. We all try to hold fast to the faith which has been believed from the beginning; where there is disagreement we have held councils to come together and examine the evidence and determine what the Truth is, being guided by Holy Scripture, holy tradition, and the Holy Spirit. Through this system Orthodox truth has been tested and preserved, conquering numerous heresies over time.

Many Fathers are respected but are not honored as Saints because of some of the unorthodox things they have taught, such as Augustine, Tertullian, and Origen. They still provide some valuable insights, but are not viewed as completely orthodox.

I can understand that. And while Orthodoxy has not claimed infallibility, RCC certainly has in terms of the pope. However, the assertion that sola Scripture is a modern concept does not seem to hold water with some of the teachings of the early church fathers. Clearly, there are those who can appeal to apostolic succession who express ideas that are congruent with sola Scripture.

For you the Church is everyone who believes in Christ, for us the Church is all those who have joined together in the One holy catholic and orthodox Church. Your idea of an invisible church, with no unified organic composition under one hierarchy is a new idea dating back only to the reformation. Our concept is one that dates back to Christ. You can see traces of this leadership being mentioned all throught the New Testament and in all the writing of the early Church. God works beyond these boundaries, but only those who have been ordained as bishops, priests, and deacons in Christ's Church can offer the authentic sacraments which aid us in our daily lives. This is where the fullness of Christ is found.

Basil

I am not so sure about that. You can also see references in Scripture to those who were ordained by God and had ministries outside of the ordination of the Apostles. But you are correct in saying that our differences in understanding regarding who is the church is probably at the base of our disagreements here.

God Bless!

 

[Soldier of YAH]

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the person of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

If the Bible is true, and it says this it can be proven.

Just for starters - Bible numerics. Did you know that the Ancient Hebrew and Greek alphabets used to write the Bible has a special feature - that is they both use their alphabets as their numerical system. In other words - words are numbers. What happens when you take the numerical side of the Bible - lots of things.

Did you know that there are more that 120 features of 7 relating to the seal of God in the Bible. My calculator says that the chance of that occuring in 1 in 2.5808621098934927604791781741317 x 10^101. That means that if a trillion people wrote a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion books a year for a trillion, trillion years. There could only be one collection of books like the Bible - the Bible. Does that help solve the mystery of whether the Bible is true or not.

How about 8s. I have found 9 features of 8 relating to the names of Jesus Christ (8 meaning ressurection). These features have a possibility of 1 in 134217728 of occuring.

Did you know that I also found 9 features of 13 dealing with rebellion in the Bible, most with the Devil's titles. This has a probability of 1 in 10604499373 of occuring.

I have found many more features that relate to a number's specific meaning. Like 40 and trial/testing, 4 and creation, 153 and the children of God, 37 and The Word, 6 and man under sin, 11 and Revelation and Instruction.

The total probability of all these features I have found - not including all those which other people have referenced to - is 1 in 100,000 x trillion^16. Let any avid mathematician work that one out.

But an iteresting point to note: - These only work for the original 66 books canonised up to 400 AD. Add in the Catholic's extra books and you loose just about everything. Martin Luther - although he got some things wrong - did not get the correct collection of books wrong.

But these features are also found in nature. Like how just about every bird's incubation period for eggs are multiples of 7, there are 7 visible colours in the spectrum, the musical scale has 7 notes, there are 7 divisions to living science. Could these also be proof of the same Maker and Inspirer?

But what about 6? Did you know that the greek 'Lateinos' meaning 'Latin Man' has a value of 666, or that in Latin (which also uses its alphabet to represent numbers) 'Vicarivs Filii Dei' meaning 'Vicar of the Son of God' - just one title of the Catholic Pope - equals 666? What about in our English language? "His Holiness the Pope" has 6+6+6 letters, "Vicar of Jesus Christ" has 6+6+6 letters, "Successor to St Peter" has 6+6+6 letters, "Possessor of the Keys" has 6+6+6 letters, "Head of Vatican State" has 6+6+6 letters, "Supreme Rome Pontiff" has 6+6+6 letters, "Sun of Righteousness" has 6+6+6 letters, and "Patriach of the West" has 6+6+6 letters. Why does the Pope have so many 6s dealing with their names? Match this to certain prophesies of the Bible and you will understand.

Solomon reigned in Jerusalem for 40 years, his father David, reigned over Israel 40 years, Jerusalem was destroyed 40 years after the crucifiction. Do these sound like periods of probation, trial or testing?

With the 66 books of the bible - if they are arranged such that the Old Testament is in the original Hebrew order, and the New Testament is in the Westcott and Hort order (supposedly the chronological order) - there are 14 features of 11 (11 means revelation and instruction).

Is that enough numerical proof for you????

How about prophesy.
The Bible clearly prophesied these events from hundreds of years to thousands of years before they happened:
> General Allenby's deliverance of Jerusalem from the Turks in 1917 AD, including the method and exact date
> The destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and Alexander the Great.
> The present day situation of Tyre
> The Aswan Dam of Egypt and the natural disasters that followed its creation.
> The moving of the Egyption idols and temples to avoid destruction from the Aswan Dam
> The continous battle between the Arabs and Westerners
> The present day makeup of the Britsh Commonwealth and the USA
>The use of radio waves in telecommunication involving the transmission of our voices.
> The life, death and ressurection of Jesus Christ
> The destruction of the Roman Empire over time by the Goths, Turks, etc
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the effects from the nuclear bombs dropped there
> The destruction of Babylon by the Medes and Persians

Are they enough to prove the Bible accurate in its prophesies? I have not found one that has not come through.

What about science?
Did you know that the authors of the Bible, inspired by God, knew of scientific facts that were only 'discovered' in recently modern time.
> The Bible knew that each person's fingerprint was unique and it was a method of identifying a person's acts. (see Job 37:7)
> The Bible knew about the water cycle (see Job 5:10, Psalm 18:15, Ecclesiastes 1:7, Isaiah 55:10 among many others)
> The Bible knew the world was spherical (why did the Catholic Church proclaim otherwise??) (see Job 26:7, Isaiah 40:22 remembering that some Bibles translate the hebrew for 'sphere' as circle)
> The Bible knew about the wind cycle (see Job 37:9-12, Job 38:24, Ecclesiastes 1:6)
> The Bible knew about the freshwater springs in the ocean (see Job 38:16)
> The Bible knew about the currents in the ocean
> The Bible knew about the unique makeup of hail and snow only visible through the microscope (see Job 38:22)

Is that enough scientific proof for you?

So here we have the Bible in its proper form (66 books) that is proven by mathematics, by fulfilled prophesy, by knowledge of scientific facts, all which are show by its scriptures.

Any one want to try and prove another bit of writing the same way??

The Bible is true, it is proven, it is for the modern day church, it is the word of God, it does not lie, it does not become irrelavent, it is not overruled by traditions of men (even if they do claim it is from God), and it speaks to every one. The Bible says that to be saved from the destruction at the end we must:
"Repent, and let everyone of you be baptised (GR 'baptizo' = 'fully immersed' in water) in the name of Jesus Christ for the remisison (pardoning) of sin, and you shall recieve the Gift of the Holy Ghost (evidenced by speaking in tongues - see 1 Corinthians 14). For the promise is to you, and to your decendants, to those who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call." (Acts 2:38-39)

Are you a Bible Christian, following the Words of the Living God, being filled (or seeking) His Holy Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues and mighty miracles ??? If not, you must ask yourself: "Am I following the right Jesus?"

Trying to enlighten the wise,
Soldier of YAH