Sola Scriptura circa 700 AD

[rjs330]

Can you give an example that they taught only according to scripture or held scripture as the only authority in matters of faith?

It depends on what you are looking for. When it comes to scripture the apostles used it all the time in their writings to support what they said. They also made claims as to their own authority. Things that were revealed to them. Things they taught and wrote.

The difficulty today is we have no record of what they taught except what is contained in their writings. And I think it's safe to believe they wouldn't orally teach something that is opposed to their writings. And since they WERE apostles they have the ultimate authority. Thus we trust what they wrote to be the only true authority by which to measure anyone elses teaching.

If we have scripture saying one thing and a teacher saying saying something that contradicts scripture, then scripture takes precedence. Something MUST take precedence if there us a conflict between tradition and scripture. We who believe in Sola Scriptura simply say scripture is the authority in those matters.

Traditions that do not contradict scripture are just fine and may very well add to ones faith. Often they can strengthen ones faith.

 

[redleghunter]

Can you give an example that they taught only according to scripture or held scripture as the only authority in matters of faith?

We have evidence they taught from Holy Scriptures. We do not have evidence they taught from some oral tradition not written.

Are we back to the argument from silence?

 

[redleghunter]

Sola Scriptura is blinding.

Prophet Ezekiel was a Seer. He saw or had visions of the spiritual. In Ezekiel 1, Ezekiel has a vision of angels. How do those angels work? What exactly do they do?

Angels have functions. Satan was known as an accuser. Arch Angel Michael was known as mankind's advocate. In Revelations 1/3 of the angels were kicked out of heaven. What did they do? What were their functions in heaven?

Context is important. Many people who support Sola Scriptura have taken the context out of how certain scriptures work. It may blind people to how God actually works, and what the spiritual is. It may have helped "occult" away certain knowledge.

How do you know this about Ezekiel?

 

[AACJ]

In 700 AD all Christians used the longer canon, [with]...the apocrypha.

By "all" you mean every single Christian? If so, that's incorrect. But how did you arrive at this conclusion?

 

[Barney2.0]

No one is arguing against a period of time in which inscripturation was taking place. What we (Protestants) are arguing against is that unwritten tradition as it is now known is on the same level as Scripture.

Unwritten tradition has always been on the same level as scripture, this was only questioned and challenged during the so called "Reformation."

 

[Barney2.0]

We have evidence they taught from Holy Scriptures. We do not have evidence they taught from some oral tradition not written.

Are we back to the argument from silence?

I beg to differ, Apostle Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians:

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you."

1 Corinthians 11:2

Once more Apostle Paul says in this in his letter to Timothy:

"Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me." Not written but spoken."

2 Timothy 1:13

The Church Fathers also affirm Apostolic Tradition to be an authority on matters of faith:

Papias

"Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition" (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).

Irenaeus

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:1–2).

Clement of Alexandria

"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition" (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).

 

[Athanasius377]

I beg to differ, Apostle Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians:

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you."

1 Corinthians 11:2

Once more Apostle Paul says in this in his letter to Timothy:

"Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me." Not written but spoken."

2 Timothy 1:13

Again, we are not saying there was not a time when inscripturation was taking place.

The Church Fathers also affirm Apostolic Tradition to be an authority on matters of faith:

Papias

"Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition" (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).

Irenaeus

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:1–2).

Clement of Alexandria

"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition" (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).

That was sleight of hand what you did here. In the previous post you stated that tradition was on the same level as scripture but here you are forced to walk that back. Once again we are not saying tradition is not an authority rather is it not an infallible authority. Where tradition clashes with scripture, no matter how ancient or venerable tradition must give way.

Since I am reading this book, and I highly recommend it to everyone I present a short passage to bolster our position. Renowned historian JND Kelly writes:
There is little need to dwell on the absolute authority accorded to Scripture as a doctrinal norm. It was the Bible, declared Clement of Alexandria about A.D. 200, which, as interpreted by the Church, was the source of Christian teaching. His greater disciple Origen was a thorough-going Biblicist who appealed again and again to Scripture as the decisive criterion of dogma. The Church drew her catechetical material, he stated,5 from the prophets, the gospels and the apostles’ writings; her faith, he suggested, was buttressed by Holy Scripture supported by common sense. ‘The holy and inspired Scriptures’, wrote Athanasius a century later, ‘are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth’; while his contemporary, Cyril of Jerusalem, laid it down that ‘with regard to the divine and saving mysteries of faith no doctrine, however trivial, may be taught without the backing of the divine Scriptures.… For our saving faith derives its force, not from capricious reasonings, but from what may be proved out of the Bible.’ Later in the same century John Chrysostom bade9 his congregation seek no other teacher than the oracles of God; everything was straightforward and clear in the Bible, and the sum of necessary knowledge could be extracted from it. In the West Augustine declared that ‘in the plain teaching of Scripture we find all that concerns our belief and moral conduct’; while a little later Vincent of Lérins († c. 450) took it as an axiom the Scriptural canon was ‘sufficient, and more than sufficient, for all purposes’.
Kelly, J. N. D. (1977). Early Christian Doctrines (Fifth, Revised, pp. 42–43). London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury.

And Gregory of Nyssa writes:

The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such licence, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.

Gregory of Nyssa. (1893). On the Soul and the Resurrection. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), W. Moore (Trans.), Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, etc. (Vol. 5, p. 439). New York: Christian Literature Company.

Gregory wrote centuries before the Reformation. How can this be? Unless this belief that unwritten tradition was on the same level as scripture isn't as strong as you are making it out to be.

 

[redleghunter]

I beg to differ, Apostle Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians:

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you."

1 Corinthians 11:2

Once more Apostle Paul says in this in his letter to Timothy:

"Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me." Not written but spoken."

2 Timothy 1:13

The Church Fathers also affirm Apostolic Tradition to be an authority on matters of faith:

Papias

"Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition" (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).

Irenaeus

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:1–2).

Clement of Alexandria

"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition" (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).

That’s true now list these traditions Paul speaks of and how they differ from what was written.

 

[FireDragon76]

Unwritten tradition has always been on the same level as scripture, this was only questioned and challenged during the so called "Reformation."

Jesus didn't seem to put them on the same level.

 

[FireDragon76]

Al Masih... if you are a former Muslim, I would suggest it might be difficult to understand where Protestants are coming from, since the paradigm of Islam is quite different from the Lutheran Theology of the Cross. And I can understand the appeal of Orthodoxy and Catholicism in that case, since both are oriented towards religion being everything, what might be called religious maximalism and totalisation. But there is a certain logic to our approach as Lutherans that is in line with our approach to the Scriptures, because we do not share that totalising, maximalist vision of religion.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Again, we are not saying there was not a time when inscripturation was taking place.

That was sleight of hand what you did here. In the previous post you stated that tradition was on the same level as scripture but here you are forced to walk that back. Once again we are not saying tradition is not an authority rather is it not an infallible authority. Where tradition clashes with scripture, no matter how ancient or venerable tradition must give way.

Since I am reading this book, and I highly recommend it to everyone I present a short passage to bolster our position. Renowned historian JND Kelly writes:
There is little need to dwell on the absolute authority accorded to Scripture as a doctrinal norm. It was the Bible, declared Clement of Alexandria about A.D. 200, which, as interpreted by the Church, was the source of Christian teaching. His greater disciple Origen was a thorough-going Biblicist who appealed again and again to Scripture as the decisive criterion of dogma. The Church drew her catechetical material, he stated,5 from the prophets, the gospels and the apostles’ writings; her faith, he suggested, was buttressed by Holy Scripture supported by common sense. ‘The holy and inspired Scriptures’, wrote Athanasius a century later, ‘are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth’; while his contemporary, Cyril of Jerusalem, laid it down that ‘with regard to the divine and saving mysteries of faith no doctrine, however trivial, may be taught without the backing of the divine Scriptures.… For our saving faith derives its force, not from capricious reasonings, but from what may be proved out of the Bible.’ Later in the same century John Chrysostom bade9 his congregation seek no other teacher than the oracles of God; everything was straightforward and clear in the Bible, and the sum of necessary knowledge could be extracted from it. In the West Augustine declared that ‘in the plain teaching of Scripture we find all that concerns our belief and moral conduct’; while a little later Vincent of Lérins († c. 450) took it as an axiom the Scriptural canon was ‘sufficient, and more than sufficient, for all purposes’.
Kelly, J. N. D. (1977). Early Christian Doctrines (Fifth, Revised, pp. 42–43). London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury.

And Gregory of Nyssa writes:

The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such licence, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.

Gregory of Nyssa. (1893). On the Soul and the Resurrection. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), W. Moore (Trans.), Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, etc. (Vol. 5, p. 439). New York: Christian Literature Company.

Gregory wrote centuries before the Reformation. How can this be? Unless this belief that unwritten tradition was on the same level as scripture isn't as strong as you are making it out to be.

Does the Holy Spirit still guide Christendom?

Has it guided Christendom continuously since the Crucifixion?

If so, then the Church as a whole, and especially the Apostolic & Church Fathers and saints within the Church, have been rightly guided, by the HS, for the past 2000 years.

And so, their commentaries & interpretations of Scripture are rightly guided, and Authoritative...

even as Jesus bequeathed the Church the Authority of legal halakhic interpretations, "binding & loosing" (= forbidding / permitting):

https://israelstudycenter.com/binding-loosing-first-century-style/​

By denying authority to Tradition, you are denying guidance by the Holy Spirit... which you only acknowledge as far as the original Apostles (= NT), after which -- suddenly -- nothing, no rightly guided authority whatsoever...

You are saying, that with the death of the last Apostle (John), the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church, which has been on a sort of "unguided ballistic trajectory" for the past 1900 years

You are also implying, that Tradition is somehow at odds with Scripture... but that's not true... some things, like the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, are "embellishments" of Scripture... but, they are technically possible, plausible and certainly consistent with Scripture

What is an example of some heinous odorous onerous Tradition which directly flies full in the face of Scripture? Scripture doesn't say, but Mary may have been Ascended, Jesus' brothers may have been elder half siblings from a previous marriage... Scripture doesn't demand those interpretations, but does allow them

In Gregory of Nyssa's words, the PPVoM and AoM "can be made to harmonize" with Scripture

 

[redleghunter]

If so, then the Church as a whole, and especially the Apostolic & Church Fathers and saints within the Church, have been rightly guided, by the HS, for the past 2000 years.

All of them? You would seem as being part of the church itself means all are Holy Spirt inspired. That the infallible test to truth is being a bishop, Pope or declared saint. Here's an account of a Pope who was canonized as a 'saint.'

Damasus 1 (366-384) who began his reign by employing a gang of thugs in seeking to secure his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Yet true to form, Rome made him a "saint."

On Sunday, October 1 his partisans seized the Lateran Basilica, and he was there consecrated. He then sought the help of the city prefect (the first occasion of a Pope in enlisting the civil power against his adversaries), and he promptly expelled Ursinus and his followers from Rome. Mob violence continued until October 26, when Damasus's men attacked the Liberian Basilica, where the Ursinians had sought refuge; the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus reports that they left 137 dead on the field. Damasus was now secure on his throne; but the bishops of Italy were shocked by the reports they received, and his moral authority was weakened for several years....

Damasus was indefatigable in promoting the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as 'the apostolic see' and ruling that the test of a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the Pope.... This [false claim to] succession gave him a unique [presumptuous claim to] judicial power to bind and loose, and the assurance of this infused all his rulings on church discipline. — Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 32 ,34;​

So please indicate how this man was 'rightly guided' by the Holy Spirit to bring violence against his peer rival for the chair of Rome? While you consider that, then please arbitrate which side was guided by the Holy Spirit, East or West, when they excommunicated each other during the Schism of 1054 AD?

That since both East and West believed they had just reason ecclesiastically to do so, then how is this Sola Ecclesia a measure to infallibly determine truth claims? Law of non-contradictions one had to be correct and the other in error they could not both be right.

Yet what infallible standard do we have which is truly God breathed and delivered to the Church via prophets, the Divine Logos and His Apostles. Yes, Holy Scriptures.

 

[Erik Nelson]

You are confusing two issues here. First that Protestants should use the Masoretic text as the textual basis for the OT. That is not what we are saying at all. That is a separate issue. What are saying is that about a dozen or so books that were included in editions of the LXX are or are not Scripture.

The fact that some some Jews put the Tradition of the Elders on par with Scripture is irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is what constitutes the OT canon and how do we know this?

Another point I would make is no one has tried to refute the obvious error the books themselves contain.

If you acknowledge "obvious errors" in the books of the Masoretic text (e.g. Amos 9:11-12), then why use it?

On what grounds does Protestantism "cherry pick" the Masoretic text from the Jewish tradition... but then turn around and reject their simultaneous acceptance of the Talmud and Oral Torah Tradition?

---

The Jews, and all of the Orthodox & Catholic Churches (rooted in the Apostolic age), they one and all accept the Authority of Oral Law Tradition.

The writings of the Christian Church Fathers = Christian Talmud

all of the most anciently-rooted flavors of Judeo-Christianity accept & affirm Oral Law Tradition

---

How does one say, "the Jews have it right, let's use their Torah / Tanakh"... when, I guess, we simultaneously so suspect their Rabbinical religious leaders of error, that we reject their Talmudic teachings on Scripture... but, which Scripture we somehow now trust them to have preserved faithfully and accurately...

even while, so I read you post, we acknowledge "obvious errors" in the same Masoretic text

---

All of the oldest Judeo-Christian sects acknowledge Oral Law Tradition as Authoritative, they all affirm that God in heaven guides their saintly religious leaders

All seven billion humans on earth have to know that Jesus and the Apostles were Jewish, and spoke Hebrew (and Aramaic, and eventually learned Greek)

At the Council of Jerusalem in circa 50 AD, Saint James justified the whole gentile mission, by quoting (in Hebrew) Amos 9:11-12, according to the wording of the LXX (and DSS). "Freedom in Christ" for gentiles relies on the LXX wording.

---

The OT that Jesus and the Apostles used was obviously closest to the DSS, which (generally) preserves the wordings & meanings of the LXX... but in the original Hebrew

---

Yes, Jesus and his Jewish Apostles knew the OT in Hebrew (check, Protestants)

But, that OT carried the textual variants preserved in the DSS & LXX (check, Orthodox & Catholics)

(the Essenes who wrote the DSS, which preserved LXX readings in Hebrew, quit the Jerusalem establishment in 150 BC on grounds of alleged corruption; the Christians, who preserved the LXX, were driven out of and quit the Jerusalem establishment in 70 AD on grounds of alleged corruption)

 

[Barney2.0]

Jesus didn't seem to put them on the same level.

Jesus didn't seem to put them on the same level.

How so?

 

[Barney2.0]

That’s true now list these traditions Paul speaks of and how they differ from what was written.

Paul simply speaks of Apostolic tradition passed down by him and others. Scripture is the inspired word of God and tradition is inspired by the Apostles and Church.

 

[Barney2.0]

All of them? You would seem as being part of the church itself means all are Holy Spirt inspired. That the infallible test to truth is being a bishop, Pope or declared saint. Here's an account of a Pope who was canonized as a 'saint.'

Damasus 1 (366-384) who began his reign by employing a gang of thugs in seeking to secure his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Yet true to form, Rome made him a "saint."

On Sunday, October 1 his partisans seized the Lateran Basilica, and he was there consecrated. He then sought the help of the city prefect (the first occasion of a Pope in enlisting the civil power against his adversaries), and he promptly expelled Ursinus and his followers from Rome. Mob violence continued until October 26, when Damasus's men attacked the Liberian Basilica, where the Ursinians had sought refuge; the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus reports that they left 137 dead on the field. Damasus was now secure on his throne; but the bishops of Italy were shocked by the reports they received, and his moral authority was weakened for several years....

Damasus was indefatigable in promoting the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as 'the apostolic see' and ruling that the test of a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the Pope.... This [false claim to] succession gave him a unique [presumptuous claim to] judicial power to bind and loose, and the assurance of this infused all his rulings on church discipline. — Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 32 ,34;​

So please indicate how this man was 'rightly guided' by the Holy Spirit to bring violence against his peer rival for the chair of Rome? While you consider that, then please arbitrate which side was guided by the Holy Spirit, East or West, when they excommunicated each other during the Schism of 1054 AD?

That since both East and West believed they had just reason ecclesiastically to do so, then how is this Sola Ecclesia a measure to infallibly determine truth claims? Law of non-contradictions one had to be correct and the other in error they could not both be right.

Yet what infallible standard do we have which is truly God breathed and delivered to the Church via prophets, the Divine Logos and His Apostles. Yes, Holy Scriptures.

In defense of Pope Damascus l I’d like to ask where your sources are from and are they authentic? Although I typically stand with the East as of late I’m possibly reorientating my beliefs to a pro Eastern Catholic stance, so I can’t say who was right in the schism of 1054.

 

[Barney2.0]

Al Masih... if you are a former Muslim, I would suggest it might be difficult to understand where Protestants are coming from, since the paradigm of Islam is quite different from the Lutheran Theology of the Cross. And I can understand the appeal of Orthodoxy and Catholicism in that case, since both are oriented towards religion being everything, what might be called religious maximalism and totalisation. But there is a certain logic to our approach as Lutherans that is in line with our approach to the Scriptures, because we do not share that totalising, maximalist vision of religion.

I always held to the theology of religion is everything, the concept of scripture only seems illogical considering that in Islam scripture can only be understood with a secondary source.

 

[rjs330]

Unwritten tradition has always been on the same level as scripture, this was only questioned and challenged during the so called "Reformation."

Yes and rightfully so. There were things being taught that ran contrary to scripture.

 

[Barney2.0]

Again, we are not saying there was not a time when inscripturation was taking place.

That was sleight of hand what you did here. In the previous post you stated that tradition was on the same level as scripture but here you are forced to walk that back. Once again we are not saying tradition is not an authority rather is it not an infallible authority. Where tradition clashes with scripture, no matter how ancient or venerable tradition must give way.

Since I am reading this book, and I highly recommend it to everyone I present a short passage to bolster our position. Renowned historian JND Kelly writes:
There is little need to dwell on the absolute authority accorded to Scripture as a doctrinal norm. It was the Bible, declared Clement of Alexandria about A.D. 200, which, as interpreted by the Church, was the source of Christian teaching. His greater disciple Origen was a thorough-going Biblicist who appealed again and again to Scripture as the decisive criterion of dogma. The Church drew her catechetical material, he stated,5 from the prophets, the gospels and the apostles’ writings; her faith, he suggested, was buttressed by Holy Scripture supported by common sense. ‘The holy and inspired Scriptures’, wrote Athanasius a century later, ‘are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth’; while his contemporary, Cyril of Jerusalem, laid it down that ‘with regard to the divine and saving mysteries of faith no doctrine, however trivial, may be taught without the backing of the divine Scriptures.… For our saving faith derives its force, not from capricious reasonings, but from what may be proved out of the Bible.’ Later in the same century John Chrysostom bade9 his congregation seek no other teacher than the oracles of God; everything was straightforward and clear in the Bible, and the sum of necessary knowledge could be extracted from it. In the West Augustine declared that ‘in the plain teaching of Scripture we find all that concerns our belief and moral conduct’; while a little later Vincent of Lérins († c. 450) took it as an axiom the Scriptural canon was ‘sufficient, and more than sufficient, for all purposes’.
Kelly, J. N. D. (1977). Early Christian Doctrines (Fifth, Revised, pp. 42–43). London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury.

And Gregory of Nyssa writes:

The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such licence, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.

Gregory of Nyssa. (1893). On the Soul and the Resurrection. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), W. Moore (Trans.), Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, etc. (Vol. 5, p. 439). New York: Christian Literature Company.

Gregory wrote centuries before the Reformation. How can this be? Unless this belief that unwritten tradition was on the same level as scripture isn't as strong as you are making it out to be.

I’d like emphasize with the word harmonize, what Gregory of Nyssa is merely saying is that everything being taught by the Church can be harmonized with scripture it doesn’t mean scripture is the only infallible authority. Furrthermore quoting Saint Gregory of Nyssa would be self refuting:

Saint Gregory of Nyssa writes:

"[F]or it is enough for proof of our statement, that the TRADITION has come down to us from our fathers, handed on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them. They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of arguments in abundance, if they were about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense?" (Against Eunomius,4:6).

 

[Barney2.0]

Yes and rightfully so. There were things being taught that ran contrary to scripture.

Actually it was the same reason the “Reformers” threw out seven books out of the Bible, it simply didn’t agree to their agendas or to what they were preaching.