Why (and how) Sola Scriptura works

[Albion]

You are likely referring the RCC.

Yes, and of course there are a score of other denominations similarly proclaiming "It's us and only us! Not them but us!"

 

[zoidar]

this belief dosnt fit with Jesus' description of the Church as being One, Visible, and Authoritative.

Where does Jesus say this?

 

[concretecamper]

You are likely referring the RCC.

no, put that aside for now. It doesnt matter which Church. The fact is, the IS a Church. And Her marks are One, Visible, and Authoritative. Go find Her first and then read and interpret the Bible.

I don't believe there is one organisation being the true Church

Again, what Jesus tells us about the Church doenst fit your view.

I believe we followers of Christ is the Church.

the members make up His Body which is the Church.

RCC is very different from the first Christian churches

fine, then go ahead and find the One, Visible, and Authoritative Church Jesus founded.

But dont water down what Jesus told us just becasue you may be uncomfortable with the answer that there is in fact One True Church that bears the marks.

 

[zoidar]

no, put that aside for now. It doesnt matter which Church. The fact is, the IS a Church. And Her marks are One, Visible, and Authoritative. Go find Her first and then read and interpret the Bible.
Again, what Jesus tells us about the Church doenst fit your view.
the members make up His Body which is the Church.
fine, then go ahead and find the One, Visible, and Authoritative Church Jesus founded.

But dont water down what Jesus told us just becasue you may be uncomfortable with the answer that there is in fact One True Church that bears the marks.

You haven't quoted anything Jesus said, so there is nothing for me yet to water down.

And also it may be just as uncomfortable with the answer that the church we attend is no more the ONE Church than any other church.

 

[Barney2.0]

Good Day, Al

Just spent quite a bit of time looking over the post, I need to look up some of the ECF you have quoted.

Just to be clear there is nothing there that I find contrary to what I believe is the clearest presentation of the Historical view of Sola Scriptura as stared here:

"Well, we must begin by defining the doctrine under discussion this evening. And let me begin by defining what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

I responded to these points in my original post that you quoted from, you say that Sola Scriptura is not a denial of Church authority, as I said that’s not what I’m claiming also this response is more of an excuse to allow for free interpretation than anything else, this is exactly what the reformers did and you are doing right now, picking and choosing what to follow from Church tradition and excluding the rest. I’m not sure if you believe in the real presence, but I’m not sure what you make of the fact that every Church Father believed in it. The Bible itself required an already existing tradition to exist, that alone disqualified it from being the final rule of faith. My point in quoting John was that it proves that many teachings of Christ aren’t in scripture and everything he taught matters. Also your saying that the Church does not rule over scripture or add to it is somewhat strange, obviously scripture and the Church do not contradict each other in any way, but scripture only exists because of the Church so it logically follows that it has the binding and last say on scripture not you or me.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

I already showed that the New Testament quotes oral tradition such as Matthew 23:3 and so does the Old Testament. And I already showed how Paul quoted an oral teaching of Christ that states “it is better to give then to receive.” The “Word of God” also refers to oral tradition as well, not merely to scripture:

And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.

1 Thessalonians 2:13

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

It kind of is since it renders Apostolic tradition null and void and allows you to pick and choose what to follow from Church tradition, after all scripture is the final authority remember, so your free to choose what you want and throw away what you don’t like for, tradition when it contradicts your interpretation of scripture, since you don’t need the Church remember. So your statement here is self contradictory.

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. "

I believe I’ve already stated how this does not make logical, or historical sense, by the way can you give me one person who taught Sola Scriptura in those words before Martin Luther or the so called “Reformation?”

As an Ex member of the Roman Church, I do find it quite amusing that a member of the Roman Church would try to use Scripture to prove anything....

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger : while commenting on the documents of Vatican II (article nine of Dei verbum), stated that “no one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine.” See Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Transmission of Divine Revelation” in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), Vol. 3 Pg 195

Being an Ex anything isn’t relevant to the discussion, I’m not a member of the Roman Catholic Church either. Also what was the point of quoting Cardinal Ratzinger? As this doesn’t support your position at all?

I am willing to defend this view from Scripture and History.

In Him,

Bill

You can attempt to try, however this view did not exist for the first 1500 years of Church history, so good luck with that.

 

[Barney2.0]

Good Day, Al

Let apply some logic and reason to you use of the God breathed word ( BTW) it is the only thing we have that falls with in that category.

You Quote from Paul to the church in Thess: Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Ok what exactly he tell them?
When did he tell them?
Whom did he tell it to?
Where they the only ones to receive such information from Paul?
You seem to suggest that this information is out side of Scripture, Ok I would like you to prove such assertion.

He told them exactly what you read he told them, he told them in the 1st century AD. He told it to the Thessalonian Church, and no they weren’t the only ones to receive such information from Paul he repeatedly told all the Churches he visited to hold fast to what he was teaching them, him as an Apostle and to believe what he was telling them to be the Word of God, by the way there was no New Testament back then atleast not an actual canon. And Paul believes everything received to him by Christ was the Word of God by revelation. I already proved that many things Paul taught about Christ cannot be found in scripture, Paul quotes oral teachings of Christ just as I’ve showed in my long post.

I would please like historical Primary sources from you that you use to establish these facts.

I already quoted the scriptures and the Church Fathers, most of which you didn’t comment on.

Also you misquoted John... Things Jesus did not said.

And there are also many other things which And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written.

In Him,

Bill

Teaching something would include doing something and apparently that was the case since Paul quotes a saying attributed to Christ not found in scripture. That’s not me misquoting John.

 

[Barney2.0]

What you've referred to here isn't tradition at all. It's a reference to the (presumed) authority of the teachers of the law.

Actual Tradition, as taught by the various Catholic denominations (RC, EO, OO, etc), conceives of a second stream of divine revelation (after the Bible) that is equally as authoritative as the Bible. It is called Holy Tradition or Sacred Tradition and supposes that there are extra-Biblical beliefs that have always been accepted in the church and throughout the whole of the church.

The rejection of that man-made theory (Sacred Tradition) was asserted through use of the term Sola Scriptura.

The law was both in scripture and orally passed down, Christ respected the Pharisees as teachers of the law in both its forms. It is Christ respecting the tradition of the Pharisees when it’s actually right. There was always a second stream of divine revelation apart from the Bible, even before the Church, how about Matthew 2:23 for instance? How about all the Church Father’s mentioning the existence of a second stream of authority throughout the Church’s existence and quoting from it and them affirming Apostolic succession something not one Protestant Church has. Where was Sola Scriptura for the first 1500 years of Church history? How can scripture be the final authority if another authority determined its existence and canonicity? Sola Scriptura is nothing, but a man made theory to justify making up anything you want and going along with it, that’s exactly what the Protestant “reformers” did.

 

[concretecamper]

Where does Jesus say this?

Authoritative and Visible
Mat 18: 16-17 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

1 Tim3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Mat 5:14-15 You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house.

One
John 17: 20-21 And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd


So, start out with a clean slate. Look for the Church that Jesus describes. Look for the Church that has Authority, look for the Church that is set on a hill (not under a basket) for all to see. Look for the Church that insists on unity of belief and worship from the members.

 

[BobRyan]

Now let us reject the traditions of man (Sola Scriptura):

“They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.” You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men

Mark 7:7-8

Mark 7:6-13 is a case of Christ slam-hammering the supposedly sacred tradition of the magisterium of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai -- "sola scriptura"

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”


Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

So you ignored pretty much the majority of my post to tackle a strawman,

Is it your argument that the mere quote of that part of your post is - "a straw man"?? seriously?

Frankly I was quite surprised that you would ask that we look at the example above in Mark 7 as though it is making the case for your argument. I find "the details" in Mark 7 working exactly how the "sola scriptura" model would predict.

there’s a difference between man made traditions and inspired tradition

There is no doubt that this is precisely the argument that the jewish magisterium was making. But notice how Christ "settles it"? - He appeals not to "His opinion vs theirs" but rather "thus says the Lord" - Scripture.

Christ didn’t reject everything the Pharisees taught.

That's true - for example the Pharisees accepted the teaching of scripture on the subject of the futre resurrection of the dead.

 

[zoidar]

Authoritative and Visible
Mat 18: 16-17 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

1 Tim3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Mat 5:14-15 You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house.

One
John 17: 20-21 And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd


So, start out with a clean slate. Look for the Church that Jesus describes. Look for the Church that has Authority, look for the Church that is set on a hill (not under a basket) for all to see. Look for the Church that insists on unity of belief and worship from the members.

Let's say you right, why would I seek up this ONE church/Church?

 

[Albion]

The law was both in scripture and orally passed down

Yes, but if you are saying that the information found in scripture has been transmitted, in history, both by the written word and also by word of mouth, that isn't to speak of separate and different authorities. It is only the mode of transmission you are referring to.

The theory called 'Sacred Tradition' DOES posit that there is a second set of revelations, however, and that it is equally as authoritative as the Bible.

Christ respected the Pharisees as teachers of the law in both its forms. It is Christ respecting the tradition of the Pharisees when it’s actually right.

What you are calling "tradition" there is merely the status, the respect, that the religious leaders enjoyed and had long enjoyed.

All sorts of organizations have leaders, and they are generally respected, but that doesn't mean that the leaders are deemed to be infallible or that there are no by-laws, Constitutions, or written rules of conduct that the organization adheres to.

There was always a second stream of divine revelation apart from the Bible, even before the Church

That's what the theory says, but a close look at it will show that the claims are not backed up by actual history. Nor, for that matter, do we find the early church leaders voicing their belief in such a notion. We do find them saying that they base their religious convictions on Scripture, though.

how about Matthew 2:23 for instance? How about all the Church Father’s mentioning the existence of a second stream of authority throughout the Church’s existence and quoting from it

In fact, they DO NOT make such an assertion. Not when it comes to doctrine. Sure, they point to past experience when defending certain church practices and other non-doctrinal matters, but that's not relevant to Sola Scriptura, pro or con, which is the topic here.

They and them affirming Apostolic succession something not one Protestant Church has.

First, there are indeed a number of Protestant churches which have Apostolic Succession.

And second, Apostolic Succession, as it is believed in by the Catholic churches is based on the Bible.

Ask any educated Catholic to defend it, and he will immediately cite a number of Scripture passages, arguing, for instance, that we read therein that the Apostles chose successors, that the Apostles were given a leadership position by Christ that is not what every priest has, and so on.

Where was Sola Scriptura for the first 1500 years of Church history?

The authority of Scripture has been recognized by the churches since the first century. It is specifically mentioned as authoritative in the Nicene Creed, and as I said earlier, the early church fathers affirmed it...specifically. If there is no competing and equal authority recognized, this amounts to Scriptura and it is Sola, by definition!

How can scripture be the final authority if another authority determined its existence and canonicity?

No other authority did determine its existence.

 

[BobRyan]

Within the worship of a liturgical synagogue, or when the Apostles would read the scriptures during worship they would hear the scriptures and reflect upon them and teach them. Sola Scriptura has no historical basis

Until you read it. And find
Isaiah 8: 20 "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light"

Acts 17:11 where we find non-Christians "studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF the things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul --- were SO"

 

[BNR32FAN]

Here comes a grenade!

But a helpful conversation, I believe.

I've seen many people take issue around these forums with sola scriptura - not just Catholics, but even non-traditional Protestants (for want of a better term).

Something that I've been exploring and that has been hugely helpful is understanding that the "Word of God" is not primarily the same thing as the Bible. The Word of God is the gospel of Jesus Christ, and (of course) you find that in the Bible but difficult parts of the Bible ought to be interpreted through the gospel.

The distinction is helpful (and I would argue, true) for many reasons, but when we're dealing with sola scriptura, I want to quote an article at biblicaltraining.org that talks about Luther's understanding of the "Word of God" and how he used that understanding to form a sola-scriptura outlook, and how he defended that against critics.

"We need to recognize that the notion that the Word of God is Jesus Christ himself allowed Luther to respond to the main objections Catholics raised to his doctrine of the authority of Scripture over the Church. They argued that since it was the Church that determined which books to be included in the Canon of Scripture it was clear that the Church had authority over the Bible. Luther responded that it was neither the Church that had made the Bible nor the Bible that had made the Church, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ that had made both the Bible and the Church. Final authority rests neither in the Church nor in the Bible, but in the Gospel, in the message of Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Word of God."

Full article (for more context and interest) here: Free Online Bible Classes | What was Martin Luther's theology of the Word of God?. It's not a long read.

One problem I see with sola scriptura is that it is still subjective according to some reformists. For example on the topic of eternal security many will say that in John 15:2 the branches that were cut off for not bearing fruit weren’t really in Christ even tho the scriptures clearly say that they were. And on the topic of predestination many will say that Jesus was not sent so that the whole world may be saved and that God does not love the whole world. Again that’s clearly contradictory to what the scriptures actually say. So in these cases sola scriptura takes a backseat to personal interpretation and becomes subjective to the individual doing the interpreting.

 

[BBAS 64]

I responded to these points in my original post that you quoted from, you say that Sola Scriptura is not a denial of Church authority, as I said that’s not what I’m claiming also this response is more of an excuse to allow for free interpretation than anything else, this is exactly what the reformers did and you are doing right now, picking and choosing what to follow from Church tradition and excluding the rest. I’m not sure if you believe in the real presence, but I’m not sure what you make of the fact that every Church Father believed in it. The Bible itself required an already existing tradition to exist, that alone disqualified it from being the final rule of faith. My point in quoting John was that it proves that many teachings of Christ aren’t in scripture and everything he taught matters. Also your saying that the Church does not rule over scripture or add to it is somewhat strange, obviously scripture and the Church do not contradict each other in any way, but scripture only exists because of the Church so it logically follows that it has the binding and last say on scripture not you or me.


I already showed that the New Testament quotes oral tradition such as Matthew 23:3 and so does the Old Testament. And I already showed how Paul quoted an oral teaching of Christ that states “it is better to give then to receive.” The “Word of God” also refers to oral tradition as well, not merely to scripture:

And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.

1 Thessalonians 2:13


It kind of is since it renders Apostolic tradition null and void and allows you to pick and choose what to follow from Church tradition, after all scripture is the final authority remember, so your free to choose what you want and throw away what you don’t like for, tradition when it contradicts your interpretation of scripture, since you don’t need the Church remember. So your statement here is self contradictory.


I believe I’ve already stated how this does not make logical, or historical sense, by the way can you give me one person who taught Sola Scriptura in those words before Martin Luther or the so called “Reformation?”


Being an Ex anything isn’t relevant to the discussion, I’m not a member of the Roman Catholic Church either. Also what was the point of quoting Cardinal Ratzinger? As this doesn’t support your position at all?


You can attempt to try, however this view did not exist for the first 1500 years of Church history, so good luck with that.

Good Day, Al

The doctrine of SS has nothing to do with interpretation not sure why most Roman Catholics conflate the issue even after I posted the definition I could defend.

Again what you or I pick and choose, or interpret subjectively does not impact the nature of Scripture.


Ok, In defining and defending against heresy the doctrine of the Trinity what did the early church base it on...

Athanasius
It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity; it is equally plain from what follows that the Arian phrases 'He was not,' and 'before' and 'when,' are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures(Four Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4:13)

Basil

"But all who maintain that either Son or Spirit is a creature, or absolutely reduce the Spirit to ministerial and servile rank, are far removed from the truth. Flee their communion. Turn away from their teaching, They are destructive to souls. If ever the Lord grant us to meet, I will discourse to you further concerning the faith, to the end that you may perceive at once the power of the truth and the rottenness of heresy by Scriptural proof." (Letter 105)

Ambrose

"For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?" (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)

"The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father...So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint." - Ambrose (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119)

Ambrose (c. 339-97): Follow the Scriptures, so that ye cannot err. Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), Book II, §12, p. 38.
Latin Text: Sequere Scripturas, ut errare non possis. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, 2.12, PL 15:1556.




Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466): Why from our very cradles do we suck the instruction of the divine Scriptures, like milk from the breast, but that, when trouble falls upon us, we may be able to apply the teaching of the Spirit as a salve for our pain? NPNF2: Vol. III, Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, Letter 14 - To Alexandra.

Salvian the Presbyter (5th century): This being so, the question is asked why, if everything in this world is controlled by the care, governance and judgment of God, the external aspects of life among the barbarians are very much better than ours; why even among us the lot of good men is more difficult than that of the bad? Why should upright men be cast down while reprobates grow strong? Why does the whole world come under the sway of authorities, for the greater part unjust? I could answer with reason and sufficient constancy: ‘I do not know,’ because I do not know the secret councils of God. The oracle of the heavenly Word is sufficient proof for me in this case. God says, as I have proved in the previous books, that He regards all things, rules all things and judges all things. If you wish to know what you must believe, you have Holy Scripture. The perfect explanation is to hold with what you read. FC, Vol. 3, The Writings of Salvian, The Presbyter, The Governance of God, Book 3, §1 (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1947), pp. 67-68.



As to interpretation the problem you attribute to the Reformation has been around for many...many years, it is nothing new.

Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): Liberated from the error of
pagan tradition through the benevolence and loving kindness
of the good God, with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by the operation of the Holy Spirit, I was reared from the very
beginning by Christian parents. From them I learned even in
babyhood the Holy Scriptures which led me to a knowledge of
the truth. When I grew to manhood, I traveled about frequently
and, in the natural course of things, I engaged in a great many
worldly affairs. Here I observed that the most harmonious
relations existed among those trained in the pursuit of each of
the arts and sciences; while in the Church of God alone, for
which Christ died and upon which He poured out in
abundance the Holy Spirit, I noticed that many disagree
violently with one another and also in their understanding of
the Holy Scriptures. Most alarming of all is the fact that I found
the very leaders of the Church themselves at such variance
with one another in thought and opinion, showing so much
opposition to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so
mercilessly rendering asunder the Church of God and cruelly
confounding His flock that, in our day, with the rise of the
Anomoeans, there is fulfilled in them as never before the
prophecy, ‘Of your own selves shall men arise speaking
perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.’
Witnessing such disorders as these and perplexed as to what
the cause and source of such evil might be, I at first was in a
state, as it were, of thick darkness and, as if on a balance, I
veered now this way, now that—attracted now to one man,
now to another, under the influence of protracted association
with these persons, and then thrust in the other direction, as I
bethought myself of the validity of the Holy Scriptures. After a
long time spent in this state of indecision and while I was still
busily searching for the cause I have mentioned, there came to
my mind the Book of Judges which tells how each man did
what was right in his own eyes and gives the reason for this in
the words” ‘In those days there was no king in Israel.’ With
these words in my mind, then, I applied also to the present
circumstances that explanation which, incredible and
frightening as it may be, is quite truly pertinent when it is
understood; for never before has there arisen such discord
and quarreling as now among the the members of the Church
in consequence of their turning away from the one, great, and
true God, only King of the universe. Each man, indeed,
abandons the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and arrogates
to himself authority in dealing with certain questions, making
his own private rules, and preferring to exercise leadership in
opposition to the Lord to being led by the Lord. Reflecting
upon this and aghast at the magnitude of the impiety, I
pursued my investigation further and became convinced that
the aforesaid cause was no less the true source also of secular
difficulties. I noticed that as long as the common obedience of
the others to some one leader was maintained, all was
discipline and harmony in the whole group; but that division
and discord and a rivalry of leaders besides proceeded from a
lack of leadership. Moreover, I once had observed how even a
swarm of bees, in accordance with a law of nature, lives under
military discipline and obeys its own king with orderly
precision. Many such instances have I witnessed and many
others I have heard of, and persons who make profession of
such matters know many more still, so that they can vouch for
the truth of what I have said. Now, if good order with its
attendant harmony is characteristic of those who look to one
source of authority and are subject to one king, then universal
disorder and disharmony are a sign that leadership is wanting.
By the same token, if we discover in our midst such a lack of
accord as I have mentioned, both with regard to one another
and with respect to the Lord’s commands, it would be an
indictment either of our rejection of the true king, according
to the Scriptural saying: ‘only that he who now holdeth, do
hold, until he be taken out of the way,’ or of denial of Him
according to the Psalmist: ‘The fool hath said in his heart:
There is no God.’ And as a kind of token or proof of this, there
follow the words: ‘They are corrupt and are become
abominable in their ways.’ Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9,
Preface on the Judgment of God (New York: Fathers of the


In Him

Bill

 

[Barney2.0]

Good Day, Peter

That would be consistent...

. He also speaks of an inner and outer church, and the difficulty of telling from appearances who are members of this true church (the "enclosed garden spring shut up, fountain sealed, the paradise with the fruit of apples) who are the elect, and belong to the "invisible fellowship of love" (as opposed to the outer, historical Catholic Church).

"Moreover, that the word of God speaks to those who believe in Him as being one soul, and one synagogue, and one church, as to a daughter; that it thus addresses the church which has sprung from His name and partakes of His name (for we are all called Christians), is distinctly proclaimed in like manner in the following words, which teach us also to forget our old ancestral customs, when they speak thus: 'Hearken, O daughter, and behold, and incline thine ear; forget thy people and the house of thy father, and the King shall desire thy beauty: because He is thy Lord, and thou shalt worship Him.'" - Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, 63)

Clement of Alexandria:

"For it is not now the place, but the assemblage of the elect, that I call the Church." (The Stromata, 7:5)

No one is denying that the Church is indivisible as much as it is visible, the Church is both real and mystical not simply some invisible entity that doesn’t exist, also you seem to misquote the Church Father’s to teach the Calvinist doctrine that the Church isn’t something real and physical, but rather something transcendent and nonexistent. I don’t know how that works when Saint Augustine the first person you quoted was a Bishop with jurisdiction over a specific area, that’s not someone who believes the Church is merely invisible. None of the men you quoted suggest the Church is merely invisible and not visible or historical. We see in scripture that Paul required Church authority to preach to the Gentiles or start a mission:

Acts 15:2-3, 22-23, 30

And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoeni’cia and Sama’ria, . . . . Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab’bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, with the following letter: . . . So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter.

The Apostles appointed successors by the laying of the hands and they appointed successors of their own up to our present day to the One Holy Catholic Orthodox Church in Apostolic Succession:

1 Timothy 4:14:

Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you.

For it is written in the book of Psalms: “May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it, and, May another take his position.”

Also we read in Acts 1:20 that after Judas betrayed Christ and murdered himself, Matthias was put in his position. The Greek word translated as position here is is episkopēn, which in English translates to Bishoprick, why would that even be there if the Church is merely invisible?

 

[BobRyan]

One problem I see with sola scriptura is that it is still subjective according to some reformists. For example on the topic of eternal security many will say that in John 15:2 the branches that were cut off for not bearing fruit weren’t really in Christ even tho the scriptures clearly say that they were.

I agree that some folks make that sort of nonsensical argument "the way we know you were never saved to begin with is that you turned away from being save" -- it is "circular" because you can't have turned from or fallen from a position -- you never had.

The sign that person Z was never a billionaire cannot be "because Z decided to give up their billion dollars after a few years"

 

[concretecamper]

Let's say you right, why would I seek up this ONE church/Church?

becasue it is the Church described in the Bible. It is His Church

 

[BobRyan]

The doctrine of SS has nothing to do with interpretation not sure why most Roman Catholics conflate the issue even after I posted the definition I could defend.
..

Athanasius
It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity; it is equally plain from what follows that the Arian phrases 'He was not,' and 'before' and 'when,' are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures(Four Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4:13)
..

Ambrose
"For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?" (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)

"The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father...

excellent point

 

[Barney2.0]

Good Day, Al

The doctrine of SS has nothing to do with interpretation not sure why most Roman Catholics conflate the issue even after I posted the definition I could defend.

Again what you or I pick and choose, or interpret subjectively does not impact the nature of Scripture.


Ok, In defining and defending against heresy the doctrine of the Trinity what did the early church base it on...

Athanasius
It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity; it is equally plain from what follows that the Arian phrases 'He was not,' and 'before' and 'when,' are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures(Four Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4:13)

Basil

"But all who maintain that either Son or Spirit is a creature, or absolutely reduce the Spirit to ministerial and servile rank, are far removed from the truth. Flee their communion. Turn away from their teaching, They are destructive to souls. If ever the Lord grant us to meet, I will discourse to you further concerning the faith, to the end that you may perceive at once the power of the truth and the rottenness of heresy by Scriptural proof." (Letter 105)

Ambrose

"For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?" (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)

"The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father...So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint." - Ambrose (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119)

Ambrose (c. 339-97): Follow the Scriptures, so that ye cannot err. Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), Book II, §12, p. 38.
Latin Text: Sequere Scripturas, ut errare non possis. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, 2.12, PL 15:1556.




Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466): Why from our very cradles do we suck the instruction of the divine Scriptures, like milk from the breast, but that, when trouble falls upon us, we may be able to apply the teaching of the Spirit as a salve for our pain? NPNF2: Vol. III, Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, Letter 14 - To Alexandra.

Salvian the Presbyter (5th century): This being so, the question is asked why, if everything in this world is controlled by the care, governance and judgment of God, the external aspects of life among the barbarians are very much better than ours; why even among us the lot of good men is more difficult than that of the bad? Why should upright men be cast down while reprobates grow strong? Why does the whole world come under the sway of authorities, for the greater part unjust? I could answer with reason and sufficient constancy: ‘I do not know,’ because I do not know the secret councils of God. The oracle of the heavenly Word is sufficient proof for me in this case. God says, as I have proved in the previous books, that He regards all things, rules all things and judges all things. If you wish to know what you must believe, you have Holy Scripture. The perfect explanation is to hold with what you read. FC, Vol. 3, The Writings of Salvian, The Presbyter, The Governance of God, Book 3, §1 (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1947), pp. 67-68.



As to interpretation the problem you attribute to the Reformation has been around for many...many years, it is nothing new.

Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): Liberated from the error of
pagan tradition through the benevolence and loving kindness
of the good God, with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by the operation of the Holy Spirit, I was reared from the very
beginning by Christian parents. From them I learned even in
babyhood the Holy Scriptures which led me to a knowledge of
the truth. When I grew to manhood, I traveled about frequently
and, in the natural course of things, I engaged in a great many
worldly affairs. Here I observed that the most harmonious
relations existed among those trained in the pursuit of each of
the arts and sciences; while in the Church of God alone, for
which Christ died and upon which He poured out in
abundance the Holy Spirit, I noticed that many disagree
violently with one another and also in their understanding of
the Holy Scriptures. Most alarming of all is the fact that I found
the very leaders of the Church themselves at such variance
with one another in thought and opinion, showing so much
opposition to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so
mercilessly rendering asunder the Church of God and cruelly
confounding His flock that, in our day, with the rise of the
Anomoeans, there is fulfilled in them as never before the
prophecy, ‘Of your own selves shall men arise speaking
perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.’
Witnessing such disorders as these and perplexed as to what
the cause and source of such evil might be, I at first was in a
state, as it were, of thick darkness and, as if on a balance, I
veered now this way, now that—attracted now to one man,
now to another, under the influence of protracted association
with these persons, and then thrust in the other direction, as I
bethought myself of the validity of the Holy Scriptures. After a
long time spent in this state of indecision and while I was still
busily searching for the cause I have mentioned, there came to
my mind the Book of Judges which tells how each man did
what was right in his own eyes and gives the reason for this in
the words” ‘In those days there was no king in Israel.’ With
these words in my mind, then, I applied also to the present
circumstances that explanation which, incredible and
frightening as it may be, is quite truly pertinent when it is
understood; for never before has there arisen such discord
and quarreling as now among the the members of the Church
in consequence of their turning away from the one, great, and
true God, only King of the universe. Each man, indeed,
abandons the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and arrogates
to himself authority in dealing with certain questions, making
his own private rules, and preferring to exercise leadership in
opposition to the Lord to being led by the Lord. Reflecting
upon this and aghast at the magnitude of the impiety, I
pursued my investigation further and became convinced that
the aforesaid cause was no less the true source also of secular
difficulties. I noticed that as long as the common obedience of
the others to some one leader was maintained, all was
discipline and harmony in the whole group; but that division
and discord and a rivalry of leaders besides proceeded from a
lack of leadership. Moreover, I once had observed how even a
swarm of bees, in accordance with a law of nature, lives under
military discipline and obeys its own king with orderly
precision. Many such instances have I witnessed and many
others I have heard of, and persons who make profession of
such matters know many more still, so that they can vouch for
the truth of what I have said. Now, if good order with its
attendant harmony is characteristic of those who look to one
source of authority and are subject to one king, then universal
disorder and disharmony are a sign that leadership is wanting.
By the same token, if we discover in our midst such a lack of
accord as I have mentioned, both with regard to one another
and with respect to the Lord’s commands, it would be an
indictment either of our rejection of the true king, according
to the Scriptural saying: ‘only that he who now holdeth, do
hold, until he be taken out of the way,’ or of denial of Him
according to the Psalmist: ‘The fool hath said in his heart:
There is no God.’ And as a kind of token or proof of this, there
follow the words: ‘They are corrupt and are become
abominable in their ways.’ Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9,
Preface on the Judgment of God (New York: Fathers of the


In Him

Bill

So you’ve proved to me from the Church Fathers that scripture is a authority to be used, great I believe that, where did any of them say Sola authority or say it is the final authority in matters of faith, doctrines, or morals? On the contrary many of them also affirm tradition as another authority on par with scripture:

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]).

Eusebius of Caesarea

“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (Church History 4:21).

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]).

Origen

“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).

Athanasius

“Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord” (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]).

“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able” (ibid., 29).

Basil the Great

“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

Augustine

“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).

“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 [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

John Chrysostom

“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

 

[Albion]

One problem I see with sola scriptura is that it is still subjective according to some reformists. For example on the topic of eternal security many will say that in John 15:2 the branches that were cut off for not bearing fruit weren’t really in Christ even tho the scriptures clearly say that they were. And on the topic of predestination many will say that Jesus was not sent so that the whole world may be saved and that God does not love the whole world.

With complete respect for you, the explanation here is mistaken. Sola Scriptura, like the Bible itself, says what it says. The fact that various people come up with all sorts of strange interpretations of that doesn't in any way mean that this is inherent in the concept of Scripture Alone as the definer of essential doctrine.