Sola Scriptura

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='18 September 2009 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1253305608' post='1968778']
Excuse me, but after extensively reading the early fathers myself, it is a FACT, that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, extolled HOLY SCRIPTURE as the fount and source of where they were looking to validate their doctrine. [/quote]
Hi Storm-

I do not argue this point one single iota. You are absolutely correct.

But can you show me

1) They wrote that Scripture was the ONLY source or 'fount'?
and
2) That the Sacred Tradition handed down by the apostles was absolutely NOT part of this 'fount'?

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Selah' date='18 September 2009 - 03:39 PM' timestamp='1253306390' post='1968791']
[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/lol.gif[/img] And you are all talk but no read!



You are also all talk and no evidence.



It's true. Unless you can prove otherwise instead of throwing a hissy fit.




Mr. Selah.....the singing group "Selah" would not agree with you (just thought you'd like to know!). Anyway, I am right in the middle of my macaroni and coagulated milk, and will post, by HAND-- and not paste, in 15 minutes. You want it "chop chop"??? I've never known anyone who was in such a rush to make a fool of himself. And by the way, after I post these quotes, will YOU (chop chop) furnish quotes to demonstrate that these men were looking to a three-fold authority precisely as the Catholic Church teaches today? Of course you won't--- because history does not support you. (Make that a half hour, because after my meal, I need 15 to write them out).





No, it's rather amusing though [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/hehe.gif[/img]



Let's see your proof, then. Early Church Fathers who believed in Sola Scriptura. Chop Chop!
[/quote]

[Selah]

[quote]Mr. Selah..[/quote]

I'm a miss. Don't worry I don't care

[quote]the singing group "Selah" would not agree with you (just thought you'd like to know!). [/quote]

Neither would Hillsong, but that hasn't stopped me from listening to them yet.

[quote]Anyway, I am right in the middle of my macaroni and coagulated milk, [/quote]

Good stuff. Made some shells and chedder the other day. The folks LOVED it.


[quote]and will post, by HAND-- and not paste, in 15 minutes. You want it "chop chop"??? I've never known anyone who was in such a rush to make a fool of himself.[/quote]

[i]Her[/i]self. Herself. And a fool? I'm a fool because I'm asking for proof? Interesting.



[quote]And by the way, after I post these quotes, will YOU (chop chop) furnish quotes to demonstrate that these men were looking to a three-fold authority precisely as the Catholic Church teaches today? [/quote]

Certainly!



[quote]Of course you won't--- because history does not support you.[/quote]

Yes it DOESSSSSSS


[quote] (Make that a half hour, because after my meal, I need 15 to write them out).[/quote]

Take your time. Blessings!

Edited September 18, 2009 by Selah

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='18 September 2009 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1253306540' post='1968792']
"Pretty much kills and buries the Bible for coming to a knowledge of the truth?????????" You Catholics simply astound me!
Time to take a wake-up pill. Timothy KNEW THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FROM WHEN HE WAS A LITTLE CHILD WHICH WERE ABLE TO MAKE HIM WISE UNTO SALVATION! (2 Tim 3:15).
[/quote]


Whoa hold on there storm stopper. I was simply reffering to the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Qoute "So that pretty much kills and[u] buries [/u]it. [u]But to dig deeper so that sola scripura's stench wont even be able to rise through the coffins [/u]into our nostrils..."


Not burying the Word of God. Burying sola scriptura if you would read my post accurately. We Catholics venerate the word of God so much so that we will be quick to say it has no error and that the Holy Spirit is the one who wrote these scriptures through men as his instruments(and actually that is what the Pope said we must beleive). I cant beleive you just tryed to twist my words in a satanic fashion.
I am very well aware that we should know our scriptures like the back of our hand, but to say that scripture contains everything(sola scriptura) is unreasonable.

Please dont ever accuse me of such blasphemy again.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' date='18 September 2009 - 03:57 PM' timestamp='1253307424' post='1968799']
Whoa hold on there storm stopper. I was simply reffering to the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Qoute "So that pretty much kills and[u] buries [/u]it. [u]But to dig deeper so that sola scripura's stench wont even be able to rise through the coffins [/u]into our nostrils..."


Not burying the Word of God. Burying sola scriptura if you would read my post accurately. We Catholics venerate the word of God so much so that we will be quick to say it has no error and that the Holy Spirit is the one who wrote these scriptures through men as his instruments(and actually that is what the Pope said we must beleive). I cant beleive you just tryed to twist my words in a satanic fashion. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/scream.gif[/img]
I am very well aware that we should know our scriptures like the back of our hand, but to say that scripture contains everything(sola scriptura) is unreasonable.



Hey there Hi there.

I was NOT twisting your words! You wish to bury the doctrine of sola scriptura, which is, [i]in effect,[/i] burying the word of God as your ultimate spiritual authority. You say that "everything is not contained therein". OF COURSE everything is not. The color of Herod's eyes and the shoe size of the apostles is not there. What IS in there is all we need to come to a knowledge of salvation as is clearly stated in 2 Tim 3:15! THE SCRIPTURES ARE ABLE TO MAKE THEE WISE UNTO SALVATION.....is a diret quote, clear and glorious simple! What part of that sentence do you not understand? Furthermore, since we are told that S is able to thoroughly furnish us unto EVERY GOOD WORK, for your position to be true, you would have to name for me ONE thing S is NOT able to fully equip the man of God for per 2 Tim 3:16. Can you do it? If you can't, you must change your position to be in agreement with the word of God, which no where supports a three-fold authority per the Catholic Church's allegedly "infallible" instructions.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Stormstopper

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' date='14 September 2009 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1252971486' post='1966553']
Well....maybe the thread should start of with an invitation for a Protestant to present their case or something like that. Then go from there. Also, at this point, a Protestant would not be likely to necessarily join the conversation as they would get attacked from seven different people and it's very difficult to debate seven people on the other side so we would almost have to limit who could chime in.

Just some thoughts. The debates I've had on here, were ones I jumped into.
[/quote]


Eagle eye....you are absolutley correct. I'm in a debate with Raphael now in the debate forum where I have posted my opening statement, and it will be just us, anyone may view it-- but not comment on it within that thread. But jumping into a discussion like this is a tad difficult since I am the only Protestant. Truly, there is a logical answer to everything you guys are saying.....moses seat, etc. I will TRY to get to them as time permits. I am new to this game and I've noticed it is not uncommon for many replies to come up all at once and I can't answer them in a flash. In any case, God's word is sharper than any two-edged sword and I am up to the challenge. It MUST STAND SUPREME. All that we need to know for salvation is THERE per 2 Tim 3:15. Consequently, doctrines such as the sinlessness of Mary, the Immac Concep and being in submission to the pope AS A REQUIREMENT FOR SALVATION per Vatican 1---which is NO WHERE in Scripture, must be rejected, instantly and forevermore.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Stormstopper

[Selah]

[quote] THE SCRIPTURES ARE ABLE TO MAKE THEE WISE UNTO SALVATION[/quote]

It doesn't say that it is the only way, however.

I think it's interesting you quoted from a letter to Saint Timothy. St. Paul wrote those letters to him, ya know. And you know what he said to young Timothy once?

[b]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.[/b]

That is found in[b] First [/b]Timothy 3:15.


[quote]God's word is sharper than any two-edged sword [/quote]

That verse isn't talking about the Bible

Edited September 18, 2009 by Selah

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

Lets say someone is choking right in front of you(Christ himself in another person) and you know CPR. But dont wanna do it beacuase the Bible didnt teach how to do it, but man did. That is condemnable.

"Furthermore, since we are told that S is able to thoroughly furnish us unto EVERY GOOD WORK," Stormstopper

[u]A few GOOD WORKS the Bible doesnt teach you how to do[/u]

It doesnt instruct how to give CPR to a choking man.
It doesnt say how to stop a mans bullet wound from bleeding.
It doesnt teach how to do open heart surgery.
It never even taught which of the sacred books were worthy of beleif.(The Church did this for us in the years 300-400 AD around)

The Word of God is able to make us wise unto salvation. But not in the sense you are trying to translate it into.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='MIkolbe' date='18 September 2009 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1253306696' post='1968794']
Hi Storm-

I do not argue this point one single iota. You are absolutely correct.

But can you show me

1) They wrote that Scripture was the ONLY source or 'fount'?
and
2) That the Sacred Tradition handed down by the apostles was absolutely NOT part of this 'fount'?
[/quote]

Finally, a light in the tunnel. Because you were so kind to give me the benefit of the doubt, I will post some quotes here in your box. There are just so many I can't type them all at once, but you seem to be familiar with them, unlike other people on this thread. In regard to your first question....you seem to me to be implying that the early fathers attributed to tradition as another equally reliable souce of revelation to be esteemed on just as exactly the same level as Holy Writ, as the Catholic Church demands we do today. I emphatically deny this! If you have this evidence, then why ask me? Simply produce it. If on the other hand, we see them constantly going to God's written word as their "fount" and not giving any indication that there is not another "well" by which we should be drawing water from, then defacto, they were, by the strongest of implications, saying that S was formally and materially sufficient for the needs of the church, and would agree most heartily with the doctrine of sola scriptura. Again, in your question #2, instead of asking MEEEE, if you are of the persuasion that a supposed sacred tradition was handed down by the apostles that was also to be considered part of this fount, and are risking your eternal soul on it (since these "tradition additions" have indeed been demanded to be believed or one does NOT go to heaven per the direct statements from the Catholic Church) then simply produce these "salvific traditions" insinuated by the early fathers for all to see, and let's examine how much weight they carry.

IRENAEUS: "handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the pillar and ground of our faith"(Against Heresies, 3.1.1.) "Let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel" (ibid, 3.4.1; 3.5.1)............comment: ummmm, will any Roman Catholic on this thread agree with Him, that the SCRIPTURES are the pillar and ground of our faith? Of course not. This is what makes Catholic "tradition" so nebulous. There is no yardstick for knowing which traditions are true and which are not. There is no list anywhere where we can examine them. If someone like Irenaeus says something you don't like, sweep him under the rug and let's not discuss it. But when he says something in favor of RC teaching, then yes, THAT becomes a part of your "infallible" tradition. It is completely arbitrary and tendentious.

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: "We say nothing apart from the Scriptures" (ANF, Vol 2, The Stromata, Book 4, ch 15) HIPPOLYTUS: "There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scripture, and from no other source. If a man wishes to be skilled in piety, he will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God" (Against the Heresy of One Noetus,9).

TERTULLIAN: "From what other source could they derive their arguments concerning the things of the faith except from the records of the faith?" (ANF, Vol 3, Prescription against Heretics", chap 14). "If it is no where written, then let the woe which descend on all who add to or take away from the written word." (ANF, Vol 3, Against Hermogenes, ch. 22).

ORIGEN: "We must, in order to establish the positions which we have laid down, adduce the testimony of the Holy Scriptures." (ANF, Vol 4, De Principiis, Book 4, chap 1.1). "See how close they are upon danger, who neglect to be versed in the divine Scriptures, which [i]alone[/i] ought to direct our judgment."


DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA: "We accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scripture" (NPNF2, Vol 1, The church history of Eusebius, book 7, ch. 24). ATHANATIUS: "The sacred and inspired Scriptures are [i]sufficient[/i] to declare the truth." (NPNF2, Vol 4, Against the Heathen, part 1.1-3). "Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is SUFFICIENT above all things." (NPNF2, Vol 4, Councils of Arminium and Seleucia, Part 1, History of the Church.)

Need any more? The list goes on and on.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Selah' date='18 September 2009 - 04:46 PM' timestamp='1253310362' post='1968832']
It doesn't say that it is the only way, however.

I think it's interesting you quoted from a letter to Saint Timothy. St. Paul wrote those letters to him, ya know. And you know what he said to young Timothy once?

[b]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.[/b]

That is found in[b] First [/b]Timothy 3:15.


My dear MZ. Selah,

Thank you for your opinion that the when we read that the word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword, that it is not referring to the written Scripture. People on this board just like to make statements and get some vain-glorious satisfaction that people will just believe them. Well guess what? I don't believe you, and since you provided no proof for your opinion, neither will I.

Now as to your reference of 1 Tim 3:15, wherein we read that the church of the living God is the pillar and ground of the truth: Of course, you take this to mean the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH in particular, do you not? Unfortunately for you, Scripture is dead set against you in more than 100 places! The word "church" is mentioned over 100 times in the N.T. and NOT ONCE, does it refer to a monolithic superstructure situated in Rome. Roman Catholicism has deceitfully capitalized the letter "C" and then told her flock that everytime they see this word, to think ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. That is what is called "eisegesis".... reading into S something that is not there. The word "church" with a lower case "c" simply means "body of believers", and when it comes to the verse in question, you apparently do not stop and consider what a pillar and foundation DO. They exist to UPHOLD THE TRUTH. This is the role of the church....to faithfully uphold the message and authority of the written word. It is not independent of, or above S, but BENEATH IT. Anyone or anything that upholds something else, is by defintiion, BENEATH what they hold.

[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]
[/quote]

Edited September 18, 2009 by Stormstopper

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='MIkolbe' date='14 September 2009 - 04:28 PM' timestamp='1252963700' post='1966446']
[i]MT 23:1-3
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,

2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. [/i]


Basically, the chair of Moses is never mentioned in the OT, it is an oral tradition. Here, Jesus references it.

So, how can Jesus reference (and give weight to) an oral tradition if He meant Scripture to be the only mode of the deposit of faith?
[/quote]


Mr. Kolbe, (since I can't pronounce a word beginning with an ML)

Why don't you walk into any Christian bookstore and pick up a commentary on this verse. There you will note that the seat of Moses refers to a seat in front of the synagogue on which the teacher of the law sat while reading from the S. Are you aware that synagougue worship materialized LONG after Moses' day? It did. Thus, your attempt to make this an oral tradition going back to Moses is nothing but wishful thinking---and you may now eliminate it from your arsenal to support unnamed, extra-biblical traditions being on the same "God-breathed" authority as Holy Writ.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Stormstopper

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' date='18 September 2009 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1253310429' post='1968833']
Lets say someone is choking right in front of you(Christ himself in another person) and you know CPR. But dont wanna do it beacuase the Bible didnt teach how to do it, but man did. That is condemnable.

"Furthermore, since we are told that S is able to thoroughly furnish us unto EVERY GOOD WORK," Stormstopper

[u]A few GOOD WORKS the Bible doesnt teach you how to do[/u]

It doesnt instruct how to give CPR to a choking man.
It doesnt say how to stop a mans bullet wound from bleeding.
It doesnt teach how to do open heart surgery.
It never even taught which of the sacred books were worthy of beleif.(The Church did this for us in the years 300-400 AD around)

The Word of God is able to make us wise unto salvation. But not in the sense you are trying to translate it into.
[/quote]


Sorry charlie....that S does not tell us how to help a choking man, is NO evidence for TRADITION being a goldmine of infallible truth, which by the way, no Roman Catholic on earth, can even name!!! The text is telling us that it's God-breathed authority is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness. These are spiritual, not medical matters! As to your contention that the Bible never even teaches what sacred books are worthy of belief......e-gads.....so much could be said. Read Luke 11:50-51. "Therefore, this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that have been shed since the beginning of the world, (watch it now!) FROM THE BLOOD OF ABEL TO THE BLOOD OF ZECHARIAH..." Jesus is here referring to the Hebrew canon which began with the book of Genesis and ended with 2 Chronicles. He cites the first murder (Abel) and the last (Mr. Z). So Jesus was defining the HEBREW CANON, and the historian Josephus gives a clear testimony of what that canon was, and it DID NOT include the Apocrapha. Much more could be said in relation to O.T. books mentioning their "partners" as inspired, but no time here. Basically just had to say that your assertion that the word of God does not contain any admission of which books are worthy of belief, is pure fantasy. Even Paul, in the N.T., said in 1 Thess 2:13: that"the word of God which ye received from us was not the word of man, but as it is in truth, the word of God." Even Peter referred to Pauls's writings as SCRIPTURE! (2 Peter 3:16).

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

Wow your arguments are full of fallacies. First of all I was responding to your statement that The Bible is able to furnish us unto every good work. Which you did say. And is false in the lines of your interpretation as was shown. Second your proof that all the books were proved to be legite by Christ and Paul is a LIE. You even had to resort to the historian Josephus to make your point. Who said peters letters were worthy of beleif when we cant even assume what he said about pauls writings were true unless we admit that the church said Peters writings were worthy of belief. Or Judes epistles or James or Johns letters???? Who in the Bible said those were legit. Please dont pretend that you gave an answer when you really didnt.

[Selah]

[quote]IRENAEUS: "handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the pillar and ground of our faith"(Against Heresies, 3.1.1.) [/quote]

First of all, this is one isolated quote taken from an entire manuscript refuting the Gnostics, not Church Authority. That was never an issue for them, the way it is today. These quotes all were taken from manuscripts refuting heresy, and not once could I find any of them refuting the authority of the Church, as you shall soon see.


Here is the rest of the quote you so conveniently left out:

“We have learned the plan of our salvation [b]from no one else other than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us.[/b] For they did at one time proclaim the gospel has come down to us. For they did at one time proclaim the gospel in public. And, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the pillar and ground of our faith.”

[quote]"Let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel"[/quote]

Again, another isolated quote pulled from an entire essay. It is called, “Against Heresies” and can be found at this link here:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103305.htm

Here is the rest of the quote:

“Since, therefore, [b]the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church[/b], and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, John 14:6 and that no lie is in Him.”



[quote]CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: "We say nothing apart from the Scriptures" [/quote]

You said this was from The Stromata, right? By Clement of Alexandria?

And it was book 4, chapter 15?

Because I searched that chapter, and that book, and I cannot find it.

See for yourself.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02104.htm

I am not asserting that it does not exist, but perhaps you gave the wrong source? Can you show me where you got this quote?



[color="#800080"]"There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scripture, and from no other source. If a man wishes to be skilled in piety, he will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God”[/color]

This quote comes from here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0521.htm

It was written against a heresy that claimed: “that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died.” He is refuting this heresy and proving that this heretical view is wrong from the Sacred Scriptures. He is NOT refuting Church authority, as you assert he is. This man, Hippolytus, was a priest in Rome, not a Protestant.



(I am running out of quote boxes, so to distinguish your quotes from the rest, I am going to put them in purple, okay?)

[color="#800080"]TERTULLIAN: "From what other source could they derive their arguments concerning the things of the faith except from the records of the faith?"[/color]

Yet again, this quote is refuting-big surprise-heresy!

It’s from an essay entitled, “The Prescription Against Heresy”. It can be found here:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm


[quote]"If it is no where written, then let the woe which descend on all who add to or take away from the written word."[/quote]

The heresy of Hermogenes stated that we and the rest of the universe was created out of pre-existing matter. No where does he refute church authority. All of these quotes are refuting heretics and Gnostics, not Protestants. Again, Church authority was never an issue for them.

Here is more to the quote:

“I revere the fullness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. John 1:3 But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes' shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word”.

And here is the link:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0313.htm


[quote]ORIGEN: "We must, in order to establish the positions which we have laid down, adduce the testimony of the Holy Scriptures."[/quote]

This comes from De Principiis (Book IV), and is translated from Latin.

“But as it is not sufficient, in the discussion of matters of such importance, to entrust the decision to the human senses and to the human understanding, and to pronounce on things invisible as if they were seen by us, we must, in order to establish the positions which we have laid down, adduce the testimony of Holy Scripture.”

The Greek, a more literal translation, states:

“Since, in our investigation of matters of such importance, not satisfied with the common opinions, and with the clear evi­dence of visible things, we take [b]in addition[/b], for the proof of our statements, testimonies from what are believed by us to be divine writings, viz., from that which is called the Old Testament, and that which is styled the New, and endeavour by reason to con­firm our faith”

You can read the rest here if you like: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm I saw nothing in there defending Sola Scriptura.


[quote]"See how close they are upon danger, who neglect to be versed in the divine Scriptures, which alone ought to direct our judgment." [/quote]

Couldn’t find a source for this one. Again, I am not saying that it is not a true quote, just that I could not find it. If you could show me where you got this quote from, I would be very much obliged.


[quote]DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA: "We accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scripture" [/quote]

This was a Pope. So the idea that a Pope, who believes in Apostolic Succession and tradition, could believe in Sola Scriptura, is silly to say the least.


This quote was taken from “The church history of Eusebius”. The point of this essay is to refute errors, give a detailed history of Apostolic Succession, and in that very chapter you listed…24, was it?-it was speaking of, not Sola Scriptura, but the schismatic and heretical views of Nepos. Here:

[quote]“Nepos, a bishop in Egypt, who taught that the promises to the holy men in the Divine Scriptures should be understood in a more Jewish manner, and that there would be a certain millennium of bodily luxury upon this earth.
2. As he thought that he could establish his private opinion by the Revelation of John, he wrote a book on this subject, entitled Refutation of Allegorists.
3. Dionysius opposes this in his books on the Promises. In the first he gives his own opinion of the dogma; and in the second he treats of the Revelation of John, and mentioning Nepos at the beginning, writes of him in this manner:
4. But since they bring forward a certain work of Nepos, on which they rely confidently, as if it proved beyond dispute that there will be a reign of Christ upon earth, I confess that in many other respects I approve and love Nepos, for his faith and industry and diligence in the Scriptures, and for his extensive psalmody, with which many of the brethren are still delighted; and I hold him in the more reverence because he has gone to rest before us. But the truth should be loved and honored most of all. And while we should praise and approve ungrudgingly what is said aright, we ought to examine and correct what does not seem to have been written soundly.”[/quote]
The essay in its entirety can be read here:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm




[quote]ATHANATIUS: "The sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth." [/quote]

This quote is taken from an essay entitled, “Against the Heathen” which can be found here:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm

[b]“Introduction:— The purpose of the book a vindication of Christian doctrine, and especially of the Cross, against the scoffing objection of Gentiles. The effects of this doctrine its main vindication.”[/b]

And lookie here- you left something out:

“The knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ. 2. Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius , come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well. 3. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth—while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know—still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them—the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith.”



[quote]"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is SUFFICIENT above all things."[/quote]

Again, having trouble finding a source for this quote, and would love you to show me where you got it from. I see it on a lot of Anti-Catholic websites, though.

Storm, like I said before, all these quotes you have provided, with the exception of those I could not find a source for, are refuting ancient heresies that asserted the most bizarre things, as you no doubt see. They were written by the Fathers to show that the Scriptures were sacred and divine, and inspired by God. The Gnostics and heretics denied this. They pointed to instances in Scripture where they would say, “well, wait Arius, you are wrong. Christ has ALWAYS been, because right here in the Sacred Scriptures it teaches that.” Never in any of the instances that I could see, did any of the Church Fathers ever speak out against Church authority, nor did they ever claim that The Sacred Scriptures are over the Church. Again, these Fathers were Bishops, Priests, Popes…

All you have given me are quotes taken out of context, their original purpose ignored. All you have shown me is that you can pull quotes from thin air and make them say what you want them to say. If you search these essays you will see that the Church Fathers were not defending Sola Scriptura, but rather, the notion that the Sacred Scriptures are not inspired.

Pax Christi,

Selah

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

Lets destroy the doctrine of sola scriptura with this exact bible verse you quoted! Except I want to point out how you clearly left off the second part of that statement by Timothy.

you quoted 2Tim 3:15 so we will finish that statement here.

2 TIM.3:16 "All scripture, [u]inspired of God[/u], is [b]profitable[/b] to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work."

Hmmm...I like how he said inspired of God. Because the Church is the one who discerned which sciptures were inspired by God and which ones werent. So thanks for bringing that scripture up! You just forgot to add the second part but dont worry I got your back.