Sola Scriptura

[OfLivingWaters]

Oh wow, what a statement! You are going to get yourself in big trouble with some people here on that one.

What trouble could come from empty men? When the Lord is for you who can be against you? Their problem is with the scriptures. To that I say SCRIPTURE ALONE! It is what teaches us those matters of the kingdom of heaven. God's Speed Adonia!

 

[Adonia]

This simply isn't so. If you knew your Church Fathers as well as a good Roman Catholic should you would know better.
Here is just one quotation, but I have a ton of them if you want them:

When Athanasius had listed the canon of Scripture (which BTW excluded the freestanding books of the Apocrypha), he wrote, These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take aught from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures." And He reproved the Jews, saying, "Search the Scriptures, for thesere they that testify of Me"' (39th Festal Letter).

St. Athanasius is revered in the Catholic Church as he is one of the four great Eastern Doctors of the Church. (In his days, there was but one Universal Christian Church). He earned the title "The Father of Orthodoxy". His great claim to fame was fighting Arianism while holding true to Trinitarianism. He was Catholic through and through, recognizing the Pope, the "Bishop of Rome" as the successor of Peter, as the pre-eminent Bishop. Are you sure you want to be quoting this guy?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I just joined this site and this was my first read. Wow, the non-baptists seem real snarky. I thought this was a place to calmly state the proof of your belief. Turns out the non-baptists just hurl insults. Why should I stay?

Oh, why not stay, share, and learn? You need not be disappointed in the exchange, especially if you expect to find some condescension, perhaps even occasionally lurking in your own remarks.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

St. Athanasius is revered in the Catholic Church as he is one of the four great Eastern Doctors of the Church. (In his days, there was but one Universal Christian Church). He earned the title "The Father of Orthodoxy". His great claim to fame was fighting Arianism while holding true to Trinitarianism. He was Catholic through and through, recognizing the Pope, the "Bishop of Rome" as the successor of Peter, as the pre-eminent Bishop. Are you sure you want to be quoting this guy?

Hmmm. I was sure the Orthodox claimed him, and they are most definitely not Roman Catholic. We all cite the "church fathers" where we see they agree with our own understanding of Scripture.

 

[robycop3]

This idea of Sola Scriptura never raised it's ugly head for almost 1600 years. Being that God is about all truth, one would think at God in His wisdom would have brought this idea forward much, much, earlier in time thus leading His people to be truly enlightened. He didn't, therefore such a thing should be rejected just like the Mormon or JW way of thinking.

When did Jesus ever say just write a book and let everyone figure it all out by themselves? Never! In point of fact He established a Church, a real tangible institution here on earth to guide the faithful through the spiritual plane while we walk this earth as physical beings.

The idea was pretty much assumed after the apostles were all gone, and everyone else who'd known Jesus or any apostle personally. It didn't need to be raised til men started introducing their own ideas into Christianity, and people needed to be reminded that GOD set absolutes of faith/worship & put them into His word.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Early Church Fathers?

But of course I know the Early Church Fathers. In a sermon to the newly baptized, St. Athanasius said this: "You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ". "Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected." (Sermon to the newly baptized 373 AD).

So my learned friend, are you on board with him on this?

Wow! Neat sidestep, Adonia! The title of this thread is Sola Scriptura and it was that subject that I was addressing, namely your assertion that it was unknown until the 16th Century, which is not correct.
FYI, I give no special respect to the ECFs; they all err in various ways, but they do at least show what some Christians were thinking at a certain point of time, and Athanasius believed in Sola Scriptura around 360 AD which is a long time before the 16th Century.

If you want to debate the subject of the Lord's Supper you are, of course, free to do so, but on another thread, please.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I just joined this site and this was my first read. Wow, the non-baptists seem real snarky. I thought this was a place to calmly state the proof of your belief. Turns out the non-baptists just hurl insults. Why should I stay?

Hello Stephen. Welcome to the BB.
You will find that the discussions here can be quite robust, and that applies to the baptist ones as well as those here. I think we should all follow Philippians 4:5; 'Let your gentleness be know to all men,' but sometimes, in the midst of debate, this gets forgotten (by me too, sometimes ). If you find some people insufferable, there is an 'ignore' button available.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

SCRIPTURE ALONE! Sola Scriptura! Funny how they can not see this glorious life giving COMMAND a great one at that. To be given LIFE through eating His flesh and drinking His blood would mean the LIFE giving Lord is present.

Amen! In the Lord's Supper we feast upon Christ crucified; not in some crass carnal way, but in our hearts by faith as we take the bread and wine.

 

[Stephen61516]

I offered a point of view, so where did I insult anyone?

I'm on EST, old and go to bed early. You slightly insulted me by saying "Sola Scriptural never raised its ugly head". Your not helping me understand your position with such introductions. I just can't get past the initial statement to carefully consider the remainder of your argument. Do you want me to listen to you? Do you want me to respect your opinions? Do you even want a discussion? Or, are you just looking for a venue to get revenge? I know nothing about who you are. You may very well be my spiritual brother, so I must give you and your points of view respect. If I think you are misled or wrong it's my responsibility to politely point you in the right direction. If I don't I am not showing you love. If after discussing an issue neither one of us have been convinced then we can shake hands in love and go our own way.

It was the other person using all caps at times that was the real offensive person. Thank you for responding, you have my attention and I will read your contributions in the future.

 

[Stephen61516]

Hello Stephen. Welcome to the BB.
You will find that the discussions here can be quite robust, and that applies to the baptist ones as well as those here. I think we should all follow Philippians 4:5; 'Let your gentleness be know to all men,' but sometimes, in the midst of debate, this gets forgotten (by me too, sometimes ). If you find some people insufferable, there is an 'ignore' button available.

Your advice is appreciated. Too many times on FB with the vile statements I became so indignant and inflamed that I couldn't take the hate. I was hoping a board like this may be different. I'll try to grow a thicker skin and use the 'ignore' button if needed. I love learning other people's perspectives and how they come to their conclusions. It helps me codify my own and learn how to apologize for my position.

 

[Stephen61516]

Oh, why not stay, share, and learn? You need not be disappointed in the exchange, especially if you expect to find some condescension, perhaps even occasionally lurking in your own remarks.

Thank you for the encouragement. I will try to grow thicker skin and encourage all to stay kind while standing their ground. I want to learn why people believe the things they do. It makes me stronger and better able to codify why I believe what I believe. Your very appreciated.

 

[Reformed]

Wow! Neat sidestep, Adonia! The title of this thread is Sola Scriptura and it was that subject that I was addressing, namely your assertion that it was unknown until the 16th Century, which is not correct.
FYI, I give no special respect to the ECFs; they all err in various ways, but they do at least show what some Christians were thinking at a certain point of time, and Athanasius believed in Sola Scriptura around 360 AD which is a long time before the 16th Century.

If you want to debate the subject of the Lord's Supper you are, of course, free to do so, but on another thread, please.

Happily, you beat me to it!

The Patristic age was not a time of theological purity, even among those, like Athanasius, who was on the right side of important theological debates. Adonia should know that the Church during the early 4th-century was still guided by the great ecumenical creeds, and had not yet fallen down the rabbit hole that would inexorably lead it to depart from the rule of scripture. And you are right, Adonia is adept at creating red herrings ("sidesteps" as you called it) to distract from the issue at hand.

 

[Adonia]

I'm on EST, old and go to bed early. You slightly insulted me by saying "Sola Scriptural never raised its ugly head". Your not helping me understand your position with such introductions.

I can understand how that might have tipped you a bit, in fact I almost had not used the word "Ugly". I could have still made my point without that particular word. My apologies friend.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

Hmmm. I was sure the Orthodox claimed him, and they are most definitely not Roman Catholic. We all cite the "church fathers" where we see they agree with our own understanding of Scripture.

Unashamed of the Gospel Romans 1:15-17
15That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome. 16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, then to the Greek. 17For the gospel reveals the righteousness of God that comes by faith from start to finish, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”…

Actually Rome received the gospel after the Jew and the Greek. Greek and Roman two different things. Christ's church was first established among His Jewish kinsmen, then the Greek, Rome was third. The Canon existed before Rome put together a version of the bible for the Western world . It is very useful but is not the only source of Canon (Authority) in the world. That authority is scripture btw not the men who compiled it. All men are subject to the Word....put from pen to paper. There have been some great Holy men of Rome as well though.

Concerning the OT the Ethiopians received that before the Greek or Roman by it being gifted to Queen Sheba (Along with a child),
And then also the NT gospels. The Ethiopians imho have the complete Canon(Authority) through scripture in their possession. And since the Ethiopian Jews are just that an extension of the Jewish nation through Solomon and Sheba they too would have received the NT gospels before the Greek and Romans. First to the JEW, then the Greek then the Roman.

 

[Adonia]

Wow! Neat sidestep, Adonia! The title of this thread is Sola Scriptura and it was that subject that I was addressing, namely your assertion that it was unknown until the 16th Century, which is not correct.
FYI, I give no special respect to the ECFs; they all err in various ways, but they do at least show what some Christians were thinking at a certain point of time, and Athanasius believed in Sola Scriptura around 360 AD which is a long time before the 16th Century.

.

When St. Athanasius is extolling the sufficiency of the Scriptures as you are pointing out, he does so not do it in the vacuum of sola scriptura as you now do, but within the Catholic Tradition and the Church. I believe mush of what he is saying about this is coming from his fight against Arianism and the resulting Nicene creed. The following words that I have highlighted means "orthodox" Catholic/Universal Church thinking, not the scriptural interpretation by those of other Christian sects.

He wrote this: "ut ill disposition and the versatile and crafty irreligion of Eusebius and his fellows, compelled the Bishops[at Nicea], as I said before, to publish more DISTINCTLY the terms which overthrew their irreligion; and what the Council did write has already been shewn to have an orthodox sense, while the Arians have shewn to be corrupt in their phrases and evil dispositions."
De Decretis 32 (A.D. 351),in NPNF2,IV:172 Vita S. Antoni(A.D. 357)

 

[loDebar]

In a recently-closed thread, we were having a discussion about the authority of Scripture. I still maintain that Scripture is the HIGHEST authority in all matters of faith/worship. It's the "Constitution" of Christianity. While JESUS added to Scripture, He always went by it. As he said at His baptism, "I must do all that is good."

Thus, I maintain there's simply NO authority on earth higher than Scripture in all matters of Christian faith/worship, and ALL our intel about God comes from Scripture. If Mom, granny, a pastor, or a friend told you about Jesus, he/she ultimately got the info from Scripture, simple as THAT!

Jesus cant add to scripture, He is the WORD, the communication between God and man.
Jesus, The Holy Spirit and the written Word (not translations) are the same communication to a sinful man

 

[OfLivingWaters]

Jesus cant add to scripture, He is the WORD, the communication between God and man.
Jesus, The Holy Spirit and the written Word (not translations) are the same communication to a sinful man

I think you are both right . I believe robycop3 just means God Incarnated came and added more to His already established word (then) to man. You are correct from a now and present perspective, but there was a time in which God was adding more to His Word given to man and this was through Christ and who He chose to testify of Him.

 

[Adonia]

Wow! Neat sidestep, Adonia! The title of this thread is Sola Scriptura and it was that subject that I was addressing, namely your assertion that it was unknown until the 16th Century, which is not correct.
FYI, I give no special respect to the ECFs; they all err in various ways, but they do at least show what some Christians were thinking at a certain point of time, and Athanasius believed in Sola Scriptura around 360 AD which is a long time before the 16th Century.

Here's another from him. Again, he is writing about the Catholic/Universal faith tradition and it's teachings. It is in the context of the Church's teachings that we are to look at the Scriptures, not the Scripture's alone. So once again we see that St. Athanasius was Catholic to the core.

"[T]hat of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation, we may easily see, if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ's enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth...."
[6] Orationes contra Arianos 3:28 (A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:409

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Unashamed of the Gospel Romans 1:15-17
15That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome. 16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, then to the Greek. 17For the gospel reveals the righteousness of God that comes by faith from start to finish, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”…

Actually Rome received the gospel after the Jew and the Greek. Greek and Roman two different things. Christ's church was first established among His Jewish kinsmen, then the Greek, Rome was third. The Canon existed before Rome put together a version of the bible for the Western world . It is very useful but is not the only source of Canon (Authority) in the world. That authority is scripture btw not the men who compiled it. All men are subject to the Word....put from pen to paper. There have been some great Holy men of Rome as well though.

Concerning the OT the Ethiopians received that before the Greek or Roman by it being gifted to Queen Sheba (Along with a child),
And then also the NT gospels. The Ethiopians imho have the complete Canon(Authority) through scripture in their possession. And since the Ethiopian Jews are just that an extension of the Jewish nation through Solomon and Sheba they too would have received the NT gospels before the Greek and Romans. First to the JEW, then the Greek then the Roman.

Not sure your point here. I was responding to the claim that Athanasius was solid Catholic. The Orthodox do not consider themselves Catholic, but do claim Athanasius. I’m suggesting the Catholic claim might be overstated. I’m now trimming to highlight the point, but it’s from the post I replied to:

St. Athanasius is revered in the Catholic Church…. He was Catholic through and through, recognizing the Pope….​

Perhaps it is true in a sense, but then the words may have changed meaning since his day. Such does happen, after all, Moscow considers itself the third Rome.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

Here's another from him. Again, he is writing about the Catholic/Universal faith tradition and it's teachings. It is in the context of the Church's teachings that we are to look at the Scriptures, not the Scripture's alone. So once again we see that St. Athanasius was Catholic to the core.

"[T]hat of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation, we may easily see, if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ's enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth...."
[6] Orationes contra Arianos 3:28 (A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:409

Are you speaking of St. Athanasius of Alexandria? He was a Coptic and the Coptic derive from the Greek influence over the region. He was not RC. Here is the problem I have with the way many Catholics think (this due to the nature of the Roman), everything is theirs. The spirit of conquering is always present. It is just like the scriptures, just because Rome compiled scriptures from PRE- EXISTING assemblies (church means assembly of God) and made it available to the western world they believe they are the Sole authority in all matters of the faith. They have some very good people (Saints) and are a long lived assembly but are not the Sole true assembly. One is not less Christian if one does not call oneself Catholic.You are Christian by obeying Christ, and in that humble obedience able to recognize brethren in all the assemblies. I only seek truth.

Imho , I see it this way, being nondenominational as I am ,I am not held back by the constraints of a denomination. I am simply Christian as the first were called. I do not have to accept in totality one denominations doctrine (those things which are false). I do not have to be afraid to cross over the lines drawn in the sand by "leaders" of an assembly. My leader is Christ and I can extend my hand to my brother on the other side. There is a bounty of knowledge in Catholic and Orthodox, and in Protestant but to a lesser degree.

I see my self this way in Christ, I believe in One Universal (Catholic) Truth -CHRIST IS LORD AND WORD ,THE AUTHORITY.
I stand solely on the Orthodoxy of that Word (scripture)and I Protest against anything that goes against the Word.