Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sola Scriptura is a tradition that goes back about 500 years.
But not an apostolic tradition.
‘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 himself says, unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith. Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher, and to treat of them as the Lord shall have given to me’ (De bono viduitatis 2, emphasis added).
‘But just as poor as the store of gold and silver and garments which the people of Israel brought with them out of Egypt was in comparison with the riches which they afterwards attained at Jerusalem, and which reached their height in the reign of King Solomon, so poor is all the useful knowledge which is gathered from the books of the heathen when compared with the knowledge of Holy Scripture. For whatever man may have learnt from other sources, if it is hurtful, it is there condemned; if it is useful, it is therein contained. And while every man may find there all that he has learnt of useful elsewhere, he will find there in much greater abundance things that are to be found nowhere else, but can be learnt only in the wonderful sublimity and wonderful simplicity of the Scriptures’’ (City of God and Christian doctrine 42.63, emphasis added).
I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it (Letter to Jerome 82.1.3, emphasis added).
~Letter to Januarius 54,1,1, 400 A.D.But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary Councils, the authority of which is quite vital to the Church.
~Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.
Oz, the quotes you pasted here do not prove that these Church Fathers believed in Sola Scriptura as taught by Protestants today. Neither do the quotes you included on your blog article.
Consider the entirety of their writings, and you will find a wealth of writings supporting apostolic tradition.
One such quote is below, from St Augustine.
~Letter to Januarius 54,1,1, 400 A.D.
What made scripture authoritative to St Augustine?
~Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.
(Note that this was before the split of Orthodox and Catholics. At the time of Augustine, they were not separate.)
Nothing in Holy Tradition can contradict Scripture. Scripture is of the utmost importance, and I wouldn't disagree with the quotes you pasted from St Augistine. Rather, I do not believe quoting those pieces reflects the entirety of what St. Augustine and the other Church Fathers taught.
@OzSpen, the holy scriptures are of central importance in Catholic Church teaching so the quote from saint Augustine is exactly what we teach and believe yet saint Augustine did not teach "sola scriptura" because saint Augustine and the Catholic Church teach and believe that apostolic tradition is normative revelation from God and it is not inscripturated. Post #117 gives an example and more can be given but I refrain from including more quotes because saint Augustine's views on the holy scriptures and apostolic tradition are not the subject of this thread.
I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it (Letter to Jerome 82.1.3, emphasis added).
And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert— that is, death— even the Son of God had to die.
Holy Scripture has indeed always been held in highest esteem by the Churches. Even among Sola Scriptura Churches, Sola Scriptura means different things.Mark,
That's the kind of argumentation I've heard from others so I did my searching of the church fathers.
Scripture alone, Sola Scriptura, goes back long before the time of the Reformation. I've documented some of the strong statements in support of the authority of Scripture in the church fathers. See my article, Is there no ‘Scripture alone’ in early church fathers?
Sincerely,
Oz
Do you believe that all who accept Holy Tradition have the same definition of what Holy Tradition entails? Are you aware of the process the Church takes to determine what becomes part of Holy Tradition?You say, 'Nothing in Holy Tradition can contradict Scripture'. Are you kidding that there is no contradiction between Tradition and Scripture? I don't have the time to begin the documentation of such contradictions. See Apostolic Traditions.
Try comparing the allegorical interpretations of Origen with the church fathers who interpreted more literally. Origen's interpretations devastated grammatical-historical interpretations.
Take a read of some of 'The Bloopers of the Church Fathers'. And you want me to accept such statements as authoritative? I'm on another page.
Thanks Mark! I didn't want to reply too much in the other thread, since it was off-topicAdmin Hat...
This was off topic to the thread that it was posted in, so I made a new thread and discussion can continue...
Mark
CF Admin
Consider the sequence of words (including the text before what you pasted) that Augustine wrote. He said:You obviously didn't read very carefully what I quoted from Augustine in his letter to Jerome:
He did not state that the authors of tradition are completely free from error. His language was that he yielded respect and honour ONLY to the canonical books of Scripture.
You ask, or rather you give a command with the confiding boldness of charity, that we should amuse ourselves in the field of Scripture without wounding each other…On such terms we might amuse ourselves without fear of offending each other in the field of Scripture, but I might well wonder if the amusement was not at my expense. For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error...
As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. Far be such arrogance from that humblepiety and just estimate of yourself which I knowyou to have, and without which assuredly you would not have said, Would that I could receive your embrace, and that by converse we might aid each other in learning!
(Letter 82).
I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.
~Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.
The Church Fathers are human. We do not accord the Church Fathers the same level of authority that Scripture holds. The Church tests what they said before accepting it. This may be an area that you are not aware of, if you do not know the differences between various church's views on Apostolic Tradition.There is no indication here that he yielded respect and honour to both Scripture and sacred tradition. As I've indicated in 'The Bloopers of the Church Fathers', there are some degrading and disgusting things said by the church fathers. To rely on them for authoritative teaching is far removed from the authority of theopneustos - God-breathed - Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV). There are way too many inconsistencies in the church fathers to grant them the authority of Scripture.
Are you aware that we do not consider Tertullian to be a Church Father? He had some wonderful writings that can be read for apologetics, but he joined a heretic group (the Montanists) and is not considered to be a Church Father because of his heresies.So you want this abominable statement by Tertullian to be part of the Apostolic Tradition that you consider to be authoritative? Tertullian (On the Apparel of Women, Bk 1.1) wrote this about women:
This is not applicable. See above.Are you going to promote this pejorative view of women on this forum as authoritative from God as part of Sacred Tradition on which your church relies?
Oz
Do you believe that all who accept Holy Tradition have the same definition of what Holy Tradition entails? Are you aware of the process the Church takes to determine what becomes part of Holy Tradition?
Be careful not to assume that all are the same. Also remember that internet sources like you posted are often not accurate and are very biased.
I believe you may not have an accurate view of how the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church view Holy Tradition in their churches. Also, there are differences in viewpoint between all denominations / churches that accept apostolic tradition.
I will address this more soon.
Consider the sequence of words (including the text before what you pasted) that Augustine wrote. He said:
He is discussing the opinions between two bishops. In the context of a friendly debate over scripture held between two individual bishops, Augustine will yield to canonical scriptures, unless Jerome convinced him through reason.
Nowhere does he say that he only yielded respect and honor to canonical scripture but no other part of Holy Tradition. Instead, he indicates that when having a friendly debate between two people of the same standing, he only respects and honors the scripture that is canonical.
To fully comprehend Augustine, you must read his other writings. Couple this quote you gave with the other quote I gave above. Augustine said that he gave the scripture this level of honor, because of the Church:
Again, don't read snippets and ignore the rest.
The Church Fathers are human. We do not accord the Church Fathers the same level of authority that Scripture holds. The Church tests what they said before accepting it. This may be an area that you are not aware of, if you do not know the differences between various church's views on Apostolic Tradition.
Are you aware that we do not consider Tertullian to be a Church Father? He had some wonderful writings that can be read for apologetics, but he joined a heretic group (the Montanists) and is not considered to be a Church Father because of his heresies.
This is not applicable. See above.
I'm not saying that your quotes are an incorrect translation. Rather, I am saying that you are choosing pieces of his writings, and not looking at the entire context. Context is key when understanding anything, written or spoken.Are you telling me that the quotations I gave you of the church fathers from the Roman Catholic New Advent website are not accurate? If so, I suggest you take that up with them. I can give another translation of that quotation if you wish.
There are many different views of what Holy Tradition means. I believe mine is correct - otherwise I wouldn't be Orthodox.Are you saying that there are many Holy Traditions and that yours is the only one that is correct?
To clarify, you are aware of the process of how Orthodox Christians determine Holy Tradition? You also are aware of how Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Anglicans and others determine Tradition?I am more than aware of the process of determining what becomes part of Holy Tradition. However, you cannot avoid some of the unorthodox things (when compared with Scripture) taught by some of the church fathers. I gave you examples of some of them.
Oz
@OzSpen - this is not comprehensive, but perhaps it will shed some light on the various views of Tradition.
Please note that I do not know which Church / denomination the author of the website is a part of. I would only take this as an overview, and would go to someone who is a part of each Tradition to get the full view of their perspective.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2014/06/five-views-of-traditions-role-in-the-christian-life/
You might not consider Tertullian to be a church father, but whether you like it or not, he WAS one of them. He was the equivalent of Pentecostal in some of his expressions (the Montanists had some of these emphases). Because Tertullian was a Pentecostal promoter doesn't make him any the less a church father. You may not like some of his teaching, but to relegate him to a non-church-father is an opportunistic method.
Again, your arguments against Holy Tradition have many parts that do not apply to my Church's Holy Tradition.Note that in the context of the quote you gave of Augustine's letter to Jerome, Augustine wrote: 'I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error'.
So, Augustine's instruction to Jerome was that Jerome's books were NOT to be read like those of the prophets or the apostles. These books of the apostles and apostles 'are free from error'. Your wanting to elevate the importance of Apostolic Tradition flies in the face of the importance Augustine gave to the canonical Scriptures which are 'free from error'.
Thus, in promoting Apostolic Tradition, in the words of Augustine, you are promoting something less than the authority of the inerrant Scripture. Therefore, I cannot support your Apostolic Tradition in any way equal with Scripture.
Oz
I did. They are just snippets of the writings and do not show the entire context. Context is key.It makes no difference who the author of the website was. Check out the quotes (as I did) to verify their authenticity of 'The Bloopers of the Church Fathers'.
I did. They are just snippets of the writings and do not show the entire context. Context is key.
For example, if you just pull out specific scriptures, you could back up the LDS beliefs, or the Jehovah Witness beliefs. You have to look at it comprehensively to get the full meaning.
Also, some of them (like the one about St John Chrysostom having sex with a princess and throwing her off a cliff) are legend and not solidly backed up by history.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?