Sola Scriptura circa 700 AD

[rjs330]

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]).

Yes Paul wrote that. And it's recorded is scripture. Scripture is how we know what Paul preached and what traditions he set in place. Outside if scripture we have no idea what other traditions he and the other apostles set in place.

Once again we don't care if you like your traditions . They are just fine as long as they don't conflict with scripture. And as long as you don't demand we follow them or somehow wrong if we don't. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong about traditions. They help strengthen ones faith and that is a good thing .

 

[Barney2.0]

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

Every Christian was required to subscribe to the original canon according to the many Church councils dictating the Biblical Canon. The only ones who didn’t follow the canon of the Bible set forth by the Church were the Gnostic sects.

 

[Barney2.0]

Yes Paul wrote that. And it's recorded is scripture. Scripture is how we know what Paul preached and what traditions he set in place. Outside if scripture we have no idea what other traditions he and the other apostles set in place.

Once again we don't care if you like your traditions . They are just fine as long as they don't conflict with scripture. And as long as you don't demand we follow them or somehow wrong if we don't. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong about traditions. They help strengthen ones faith and that is a good thing .

We do know because we still have their writings and we also have their traditions codified in the Church all the way from in founding at Pentecost to now.

 

[Barney2.0]

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.

We do have records of what they taught because they are passed down to the Church Fathers and many of their writing which aren’t considered as scripture still survive from where we can know what they taught and why they taught it. Apostolic traditon never contradicts scripture.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

That’s a bit circular isn’t it?

 

[redleghunter]

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.

There’s no issues with the source as I cited it.

 

[Erik Nelson]

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.

John 8:7

As a Protestant, you (and yours) warred against Catholics for several centuries, leaving millions of Europeans KIA, WIA, MIA.

You just said violence disqualifies someone from claims of Christian Piety. But are you glad Protestants fought Catholics (say) for 30 years from 1618-1648 ? Or have you and yours truly been pure 100% qualified-by-your-own-words pacifists since Luther ?

---

Damasus I himself (yes?) did not partake in any violence, and he sought the civil authorities to keep the peace as he assumed the Papacy.

Mob violence broke out that evidently exceeded anyone in Rome's authority or ability to quell, Religious or civil authority.

---

Nobody liked being conquered by the pagan Roman empire, and as far as I can tell, nobody has truly forgiven Rome, even after its conversion to Christianity by St. Lawrence in about 258 AD. Unforgiven Christian Rome is blamed for pre-Christian pagan Rome's imperialism.

If "the Papacy is bad", then why is an "Ecumenical Patriarch" good? The Roman Church was begun by Sts. Peter & Paul, Apostles, in the 1st century AD. Constantinople is named after a secular authority figure, who (humbly?) named the new city after himself, in the 4th century AD. (Yes, Constantine did basically end the Diocletianic persecution of Christians, he supposedly saw a Divine Vision and did save the day... preserving what he inherited.)

Revelation 11:8 clearly says the "great city" of "Babylon" is that city where the Lord was Crucified. Jerusalem, 30 AD. But Orthodox Bible commentaries claim that, no, it was really Rome. Pagan Rome. As if that would even apply to converted Christian Rome, even were it somehow true.

Or, does conversion to Christ not actually defray God's Wrath ? Rome can convert to Christ, in 258 AD, and still warrant utter Apocalyptic destructions (plural), as in 410 AD or 455 AD or 546 AD ?

So, then, all humanity could acknowledge the Messiah of God in heaven... and still warrant utter fiery destruction on Judgement Day ??

According to Scripture, God in heaven is always "eavesdropping" in on human utterings. If so, what does God hear humans "agreeing to" ?

"Babylon" in Revelation cannot be Rome. Because Rome was not sacked until the 5th - 6th centuries AD. And it hasn't been wiped off the map, yet. If it ever is Apocalypsed, it would be destroyed... as a Christian city, professing Christ as the Messiah of God in heaven.

So trying to equate "Babylon" = Rome, then equates "Christian city" = Apocalypse...

How many Christians want to sign up for that ?

Supposedly, God in heaven is listening to humans, even if humans aren't listening to their own selves

(Is it Rome, a now-repented and converted Christian city, which "bites the Biblical bullet"... or, say, 1st century Jerusalem in 70 AD incurring God's wrath for trying to Crucify the Messiah, in Jerusalem in 30 AD, 40 years earlier ?)

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

How do you understand "religion is everything"? What I mean was that Luther taught that the secular ordering of the world is part of God's providence, with clear spheres for the institutions of civil society in the orders of creation. We do not see the secular as opposed to grace, but infused with it, and not inferior to religious activities. We do not need to plaster crosses on everything to make our vocations holy, figuratively speaking, and we do not need some special blessing by the Church as an institution, either.

As a result, religion and the Church occupies only one place in the orders of creation (within the world and not above it), and like any other institution, must be conducted according to law and human reason. The Church simply does not have the authority as an institution to bind consciences contrary to our "constitution", the Bible.

So that's where the skepticism of tradition comes from. Traditions are fine, as long as they do not contradict the Bible and can be explained reasonably.

 

[redleghunter]

John 8:7

As a Protestant, you (and yours) warred against Catholics for several centuries, leaving millions of Europeans KIA, WIA, MIA.

You just said violence disqualifies someone from claims of Christian Piety. But are you glad Protestants fought Catholics (say) for 30 years from 1618-1648 ? Or have you and yours truly been pure 100% qualified-by-your-own-words pacifists since Luther ?

---

Damasus I himself (yes?) did not partake in any violence, and he sought the civil authorities to keep the peace as he assumed the Papacy.

Mob violence broke out that evidently exceeded anyone in Rome's authority or ability to quell, Religious or civil authority.

---

Nobody liked being conquered by the pagan Roman empire, and as far as I can tell, nobody has truly forgiven Rome, even after its conversion to Christianity by St. Lawrence in about 258 AD. Unforgiven Christian Rome is blamed for pre-Christian pagan Rome's imperialism.

If "the Papacy is bad", then why is an "Ecumenical Patriarch" good? The Roman Church was begun by Sts. Peter & Paul, Apostles, in the 1st century AD. Constantinople is named after a secular authority figure, who (humbly?) named the new city after himself, in the 4th century AD. (Yes, Constantine did basically end the Diocletianic persecution of Christians, he supposedly saw a Divine Vision and did save the day... preserving what he inherited.)

Revelation 11:8 clearly says the "great city" of "Babylon" is that city where the Lord was Crucified. Jerusalem, 30 AD. But Orthodox Bible commentaries claim that, no, it was really Rome. Pagan Rome. As if that would even apply to converted Christian Rome, even were it somehow true.

Or, does conversion to Christ not actually defray God's Wrath ? Rome can convert to Christ, in 258 AD, and still warrant utter Apocalyptic destructions (plural), as in 410 AD or 455 AD or 546 AD ?

So, then, all humanity could acknowledge the Messiah of God in heaven... and still warrant utter fiery destruction on Judgement Day ??

According to Scripture, God in heaven is always "eavesdropping" in on human utterings. If so, what does God hear humans "agreeing to" ?

"Babylon" in Revelation cannot be Rome. Because Rome was not sacked until the 5th - 6th centuries AD. And it hasn't been wiped off the map, yet. If it ever is Apocalypsed, it would be destroyed... as a Christian city, professing Christ as the Messiah of God in heaven.

So trying to equate "Babylon" = Rome, then equates "Christian city" = Apocalypse...

How many Christians want to sign up for that ?

Supposedly, God in heaven is listening to humans, even if humans aren't listening to their own selves

(Is it Rome, a now-repented and converted Christian city, which "bites the Biblical bullet"... or, say, 1st century Jerusalem in 70 AD incurring God's wrath for trying to Crucify the Messiah, in Jerusalem in 30 AD, 40 years earlier ?)

Yeah but I’m not peddling Sola Ecclesia. You are.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Yeah but I’m not peddling Sola Ecclesia. You are.

You cast doubt on the authority of Pope Damasus I based on violence associated with his cause, against opposition groups.

But your authority is based on a cause (Protestantism) also associated with violence against opposition groups (Catholics).

And not to be one sided, of course, but Protestant's assertions of authority over opposition groups have caused far far more than the 137 casualties quoted (by a plausibly biased non-Christian source) for Damasus' followers.

Hypocrisy ?

That civility and non-violence, with fellow Christians no less, is a "good" would of course be agreed

 

[Erik Nelson]

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

I understand that (limited) statement was essentially agreed by the Catholic "counter-Reformation".

The claim might be made, that Protestantism goes to far, and "throws out the baby with the bath water".

That some historically late, new & novel traditions... go against Scripture... does justify rolling back those innovations...

but does not justify introducing an even newer, and even more novel, tradition (Sola Scriptura) of rolling back absolutely everything.

That's technically hypocritical... new medieval traditions became corrupt... so let's introduce an even newer & more innovative tradition...

But, yes, I understand that the counter-Reformation essentially admitted to errors within the Church and cleaned them up, returning the Church back to an earlier purer state

 

[Erik Nelson]

Does anybody dispute the following?

• The first Bishops of Rome were Saints Peter & Paul, Orthodox
• The first Bishops (and emperors) of Constantinople were Arians

 

[redleghunter]

You cast doubt on the authority of Pope Damasus I based on violence associated with his cause, against opposition groups.

But your authority is based on a cause (Protestantism) also associated with violence against opposition groups (Catholics).

And not to be one sided, of course, but Protestant's assertions of authority over opposition groups have caused far far more than the 137 casualties quoted (by a plausibly biased non-Christian source) for Damasus' followers.

Hypocrisy ?

That civility and non-violence, with fellow Christians no less, is a "good" would of course be agreed

Again your premise was Sola Ecclesia based on an infallible Magisterium.

The burden of proof is on you to show how human ecclesiastical supremacy is 100% led by the Holy Spirit in every decision the self assured infallible body invokes.

Are you 100% sure you want to infallibly defend this?

 

[Barney2.0]

There’s no issues with the source as I cited it.

It doesn’t cite any sources.

 

[Barney2.0]

That’s a bit circular isn’t it?

How so?

 

[Barney2.0]

How do you understand "religion is everything"? What I mean was that Luther taught that the secular ordering of the world is part of God's providence, with clear spheres for the institutions of civil society in the orders of creation. We do not see the secular as opposed to grace, but infused with it, and not inferior to religious activities. We do not need to plaster crosses on everything to make our vocations holy, figuratively speaking, and we do not need some special blessing by the Church as an institution, either.

As a result, religion and the Church occupies only one place in the orders of creation (within the world and not above it), and like any other institution, must be conducted according to law and human reason. The Church simply does not have the authority as an institution to bind consciences contrary to our "constitution", the Bible.

So that's where the skepticism of tradition comes from. Traditions are fine, as long as they do not contradict the Bible and can be explained reasonably.

To me the Church is the religion not separate from it. The Church gave us the Bible.

 

[redleghunter]

It doesn’t cite any sources.

Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 32 ,34;

 

[FireDragon76]

To me the Church is the religion not separate from it. The Church gave us the Bible.

But religion does not save. The Gospel saves. Religion is just the human-created, culturally-conditioned container around the Gospel.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

How so?

 

[AACJ]

Every Christian was required to subscribe to the original canon according to the many Church councils dictating the Biblical Canon. The only ones who didn’t follow the canon of the Bible set forth by the Church were the Gnostic sects.

As I understand, untrue. Local early councils were not binding on the whole Church. They even made mistakes that were later negated by the universal Church. There is also a great difference between deuterocanon and canon. Early Church leaders and scholars revering certain Apocryphal books is not the same as them considering such books to be as inspired/infallible as the non-Apocryphal books.

Regardless, the ruling of some council is not a true source of truth whereby we can ascertain what is the inspired, infallible Word of God. They can make judgments based on some presumed spiritual authority or source of truth, but they are certainly not sources of truth.

Of more import than the ruling of one or more councils is the consequences of using this or that writing as a source of truth. What fruit does it bear?