Sola Scriptura

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='18 September 2009 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1253317017' post='1968889']
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.
[/quote]


Why would you give him advice to go get a commentary on this verse considering that is a traditional translation of the verse done by a man. Hmm.. I smell hypocrisy.

"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."

Nobody would have known this without the traditions of men to teach us, even you told him to get the commentary.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Selah' date='18 September 2009 - 07:36 PM' timestamp='1253320614' post='1968911']
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."

I AM



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

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103305.htm"]http://www.newadvent...ers/0103305.htm[/url]

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."





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.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02104.htm"]http://www.newadvent...thers/02104.htm[/url]

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: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0521.htm"]http://www.newadvent...athers/0521.htm[/url]

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:

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm"]http://www.newadvent...athers/0311.htm[/url]




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:

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0313.htm"]http://www.newadvent...athers/0313.htm[/url]




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: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm"]http://www.newadvent...thers/04124.htm[/url] I saw nothing in there defending Sola Scriptura.




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.




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:


The essay in its entirety can be read here:

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm"]http://www.newadvent...athers/2501.htm[/url]






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

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm"]http://www.newadvent...athers/2801.htm[/url]

[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."





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
[/quote]

[Selah]

I look forward to your response, Storm. Be blessed!

[MIKolbe]

Hi Storm-

Thank you for your reply.

Here are my replies to your reply.

You quote Irenaeus
[quote name='Stormstopper' date='18 September 2009 - 04:23 PM' timestamp='1253312584' post='1968857']
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)
[/quote]

I believe everything he says. The Scriptures are the pillar and ground of our faith. But he does not say ONLY Scripture. Further, in Against Heresies Chapter 2, Book 2, he ALSO says:
"But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, and which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth"

Irenaeus not only believes in Scripture, but in the tradition that originates from the apostles.

In Against Heresies 3,2:2, he says
"It comes to this, therefore these men do not consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition."

He is speaking regarding the Gnostics, if he believed in Sola Scripture, why mention tradition?

Also in Against Heresies 3,4:1
"For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question amoung us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with with the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?"

If Irenaeus belived in Sola Scriptura, why did he not write, "should we not have recourse to Scripture"?

Finally, Irenaeus not only belived in tradition, he insisted there was proof in the Scriptures of it: (Against Heresies 3, 5:1

"Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, 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 truth, and that no lie is in Him."

Further you quote:

[quote]
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: "We say nothing apart from the Scriptures" (ANF, Vol 2, The Stromata, Book 4, ch 15)[/quote]

There is nothing here the catholic would not agree with. Tradition is not apart from Scripture.

If Clement really believe in Sola Scriptura, why would he write this:

"Well, they are preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directure from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father, came by God's will to us also to deposit those ascentral 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" Stromata 1:1

And you quote Hippolytus:
[quote]
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). [/quote]

Hippolytus believed that Sacred Tradition was part of the 'oracle of God', otherwise he could not also write this:

"Having come to out most important topic, we turn to the subject of the Tradition which is proper for the Churches, in order that those who have been rightly instructed may hold fast to the traditions which has been continued until now, and fulling understanding it from our exposition maystand the more firmly therein" The Apostolic Tradition, 1

You also quote Tertullian:
[quote]
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). [/quote]

Tertullian seems to this Sacred Tradition is the 'glue' of proper doctrine, as he writes:
"Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistake in giving his testimony; the the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth. although sent with this view by Christ, and for this asked of the Gather that He might be the teacher of Truth; grant, also, the He, teh Stweard of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churched for a time to understand differently, (and) to belive differently, what he Himself was preaching by the apostles- is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the church must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?" - On Prescription against the Heretics, 28, ANF III:256


[quote]
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." [/quote]

If this was the only text Origen wrote, it would certainly give the impression that he believed in Sola Scriptura. However, consider this:

"The true disciple of Jesus is he who enters the house, that is to say, the Church. He enters it by thinking as the Church does and living as she does; this is how he understands her Word. The key to the Scriptures must be received from the tradition of the Church, as from the Lord himself." - Origen, as cited by Yves Congar, The Meaning of Tradition (New York:Hawthorne, 1964) p. 83

"When the heretics show is the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trust, they seem to be saying: 'Lo, he is int he inner rooms [ie., the word of truth]' (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God" - Homilies on Matthew, Homily 46, PG 13:1667

[quote]
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). [/quote]
I am not sure how this quote professes a belief in Sola Scriptura.

The is a common quote from Sola Scriptura-ists, as this makes for the perfect source for your purpose: he mentions nothing about either Church or Tradition in the epistle, and no other work of his is readily available.

I don't really have an issue with this quote, as Catholics accept the proofs and teachings of Holy Scriptures.


[quote]
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.) [/quote]
If the kind of 'sufficiency' you are implying was fully believed, why would he have written:

"But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this, the Church is founded, and who fall away from it would not be a Christian."- Ad Serapion 1:28

In the end, if I were to admit that all your quotes prove conclusively that the Fathers taught and believed Sola Scriptura how do you explain their belief in the Real Presence of the Eucharist? Mary's perpetual virginity? the necessity of baptism? baptismal regeneration? apostolic succession? The jurisdiction of Rome? and many other 'Catholic' doctrines?

If the Bible and ONLY the Bible led them to these conclusions; why do they not lead you there?

Certainly if they BELIEVED in Sola Scriptura, they MUST have their have come to their 'Catholic' conclusions from Scripture alone.

Did they interpret the Bible wrong? If they did, whose to say they aren't wrong when you say they all believed in Sola Scriptura? Or are you arguing that they got the Sola Scriptura part right, but got the rest wrong?

If you are interested in a good book on a catholic critique of the protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, PM me, I will be happy to give it to you.

If you have more quotes from the Fathers, I will be happy see them.

Peace and God's Blessings,

MIKolbe

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Staretz' date='17 September 2009 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1253205952' post='1968078']
Now that I am back, I can quickly post my summary of the webpage that provides lots and lots of prooftexts for Sola Scripture. Not much in the way of exegisis(sp?), but the authors believe that such things are not really necessary as the Bible is so easy to understand even a child can understand it.

An-y-way, here is is. Please keep in mind that these are not my opinions but those of the website's authors. I merely wish to play Advocatus Diaboli [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img]

(though personally I'd rather be baking!)

First, it strings together these 4 texts:

"upon this rock I will build My church" (Mt 16:18)
"do not say 'I am of Peter'" (1 Cor 1:10)
"as gardeners and builders... each man must be careful how he builds on it." (1 Cor 3:10)
"I used the gardener and builder figures to that you learn not to exceed what is written" (1 Cor 4:6)
therefore, the page argues, Jesus intended his church to built upon scripture, not Peter or oral traditions.
1. we are not to "exceed scripture"
2. use of oral traditions "exceeds scripture"
3. Therefore using oral traditions iz wrong

Next, they throw in Luke 1:1-4
This passage, they claim, isan "irrefutable blow" to the use of Oral Tradition. They have a nice little diagram showing that this text proves that written scripture is inspired and reliable and therefore brings certqinty. Oral Tradition, however, is inspired but unreliable and does not bring certainty.
They are very big on their charts and diagrams

Third, they hop on over to MT 4:1-11 and point out that in each temptation, Jesus said "it is written" (and not, say "oral tradition says" or whatever)

fourth is the "locus classicus" for all such arguments: 2 Tim 3:16-17. This proves the all sufficiency of scripture because, the page says, we are fully furnished for EVERY good work and not just some or most good works.

Fifth, they hop over to LK 10:26 which they claim proves that Jesus expected people to be able to read and understand the Bible all by themselves without some yucky churhc telling them what a given text means.

Sixth they throw in Acts 17:11-12. The authors claim that this proves that the apostles always used the Bible as the final determinant of trvth, not oral tradition. Oh, and us yucky catholics would never send anyone to scriptuere because we think everyone is too stoopid to understand it.

Seventh, the only time that Jesus ever referred to an oral tradition was to condemn it, in MK 7:7-13

Eighth, the string together lk 10:26, mk 12:24, mt 22:29, mt 26:24, LK 20:17, Jn 5:39 to prove that Jesus expected the average person to be able to understand the Bible without any need for any kind of third party. that includes, but is not limited to oral traditions or creeds such as the Nicene or Apostle's Creed.

Oh and they even have an answer for the objection about how 2 tim 3:16-17 can prove the all sufficiency fo the Bible alone if the Canon was not yet complete by throwing 1 tim 3:14-15, 2 peter 1:3-4 and 1 jn 2:1 at the reader

Ninth, they throw Rev 22:18-19, Dt 4:2, and proverbs 30:5-6 at the reader in order to prove that oral traditons are not to be used to augment what they call the 66 book canon of scripture.

All these texts are thrown at the reader with minimal, if any, exegisis. After all, they think that the meaning of scripture is so obvious that anyone with half a brain can understand it. It's obvious to them!
[/quote]

Boy Staretz.....you went through all that trouble to give some reasons that were on an anti-catholic website....and they are GOOD reasons, but of course you will have none of it. Anywho, you didn't deal with any one of them, so why list them? For example, the admonition not to think about men above that which is written per 1 Cor 4:6 is something the Catholic Church is simply not interested in since her doctrines about Mary and Peter for example, are no where to be seen in the text. And by the way, whatever website you visited that you scoffed at which holds to an "anti-everything theological position" other than their own, makes you a hypocrite, because as you well know, this thread, and indeed the entire Catholic world consists of persons who possess an anti-everything-theological position" other than their own.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Stormstopper

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Selah' date='18 September 2009 - 09:13 PM' timestamp='1253326421' post='1968958']
I look forward to your response, Storm. Be blessed!
[/quote]


[font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#ff0000"]I'm cleaning up a little unfinished business here: Sacred Heart said[/color][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][/size][/font] [font="Arial"][size="2"][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"]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.

[/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000080"]
[font="Arial"][size="2"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000080"][/color][/font][/size][/font]Sacred.....You have "destoyed" nothing. Another translation of this verse is that "All Scripture is GOD-BREATHED. The term is very strong because it is the word [i]theopneustos. [/i]Tradition is NEVER equated with this word. "Theopneustos" has ultimate and final authority since it is God's [u]very[/u] speaking. TRADITION IS NOT GOD-BREATHED. God magnifies His WORD even above His very name, according to Psalm 138:2, which obviously leaves no room for Tradition to be on the same pedestal. The burden of proof is on the Catholic to make good the claim that a body of revelation exists indepentent of Scripture which is [u]binding[/u] on all believers or there will be Hell to pay. After all, you are the one who says that it exists. Outside of the "Catholic Church told me so", you cannot trace one tradition back to the apostles. Someone else mentioned, "But Paul did not say it was the ONLY rule of faith". In 2 Tim 3, Paul does not refer us to any OTHER rule of faith (!!!) but implicitly denies the necessity for one because the S has the ability to FULLY EQUIP the man of God. [/color][/font][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000080"]Louw & Nida's Greek-English Lexicon: "To make someone completely adequate or SUFFICIENT". Fritz Reinecker and Cleon Rogers, in their "Key to the Greek New Testament": "to become FIT, COMPLETE, CAPABLE. SUFFICIENT; able to meet all demands; completely outfitted; fully supplied." Catholics, WAKE UP![/color][/font][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#000080"][/color][/size][/font]


[font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#000080"]Sacred Heart also said: [font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#000000"][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#000080"]"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"[/color][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#000000"][/color][/size][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#000080"]MY ANSWER ---- You then went on saying that helping a man who was choking was a good work that Scripture is not equipped for. THIS IS A RIDICULOUS RESPONSE. The phrase "good work" MUST be defined in the context which precedes it; namely, teaching, rebuking, etc... The man of God is complete BECAUSE OF the nature of Scripture, which is God-breathed, and results in the SUFFICIENCY of the said person in their work in the ministry of the [u]church, [/u]and not helping someone remove a chicken bone caught in their throat! "WOW, Sacred Heart....I must say, YOUR arguments are so full of holes I am reminded of a slice of swiss coagulated milk.[/color][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][/size][/font]


[font="Arial"][size="2"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000080"]Someone else mentioned the seat of Moses being some support for extra-biblical tradition because it ain't mentioned in the O.T. and we are bound to it as a precedent for Rome's own unwritten traditions having divine authority (BTW....in light of it being impossible to furnish a list of them all, how can any Catholic have the confidence they are following them?). Anyway, even if we were to assume that the idea of Moses' seat came from Moses, you now have to explain HOW IS IT THAT THE JEWISH MAGISTERIUM COULD, according to you, INFALLIBLY PASS ON THAT TRADITION, but (whoops!) FALLIBLY pass on the Corban Rule that Jesus attacked in Mk 7:1-13???? They claimed divine authority for THAT tradition as well---but it was a T that Jesus subjected to [u]scriptural[/u] correction.[/color][/font][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000080"][/color][/font][/size][/font] [font="Arial"][size="2"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000080"]What it comes down to is this: You nice people want the world to believe that traditions such as submission to the Pope, is THEE difference between heaven and hell per Vatican 1. If we don't embrace it, we are lost. This is absolutely infuriating to the soul who believes in the finished work of Christ on our behalf (I am now debating Rapahel on Justification in the debate forum in case you're interested). We submit this doctrine is as much a stench in God's nostrils as the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes was, "WHICH THING I HATE" says Jesus Christ in Rev 2:15. That doctrine, by the way, refers to the bishops and prelates gaining a "victory over the laity" as it were, until they have been compelled to submit to the arbitrary dominion of men. A perfect picture of the Catholic Church and those who blindly follow her. To posit that HELL is the consequence for refusing to bow your knee to the Pope, and that THIS doctrine was PART OF the deposit of the faith "once delivered to the saints" per the book of Jude, is outright insanity. Paul was brutal in eliminating the greatest law system ever given to man, as hinging upon our salvation. Yet to even think, that he would be content with replacing THAT, the greatest law system ever given to man, with ROMAN CATHOLICISM and all HER demands, including servitude to a man dressed in a religious costume sitting on a throne out yonder, is madness. Traitions such as this are ANTI-CHRISTIAN, there is no other polite way to say it.[/color][/font][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#000080"][/color][/size][/font]


[font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#000080"]Regarding the comments of Selah:[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#000080"][/color][/size][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#000080"][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#000080"]She said:[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#000080"][/color][/size][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#000080"]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.


[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#000080"][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#000080"][font="Arial"][color="#ff0000"]SELAH...You have completely misunderstood the point of my challenge! I was asserting the bulk of early church fathers were always and everywhere looking to Holy Writ to formulate their doctrines, whether in the quiet repose of their rocking chair, or in public in their disputations with others. Your statement that some of my quotes are taken from manuscripts refuting heresey simply confirms my point! The concept of sola scriptura was indeed in use ALL OVER THE PLACE, contrary to Eagle-Eye's previous mention elsewhere that "a study of the church fathers shows that sola scriptura was not practiced or recognized until perhaps 1500". Frankly, that statement deserves a dunce cap. Furthermore, I contended that when you read these men, you will NOT find them referring to the authority of the church as hinging upon their explicating S privately or publically except on some occasions when they are looking for a consensus. I said absolutely nothing about them "REFUTING" the authority of the church, and defacto, you have read into my challenge something I did not intend. Nevertheless, I am quite disappointed in you, because even on your misunderstanding of what you THOUGHT I was challenging you on, you utterly failed in providing the evidence you said you had so readily up your sleeve! So help me out here...does that make you a liar---or dishonest---or irresponsible? Wich will it be?[/color][/font]


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."[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#000080"][/color][/size][/font]


[font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#000080"][font="Arial"][color="#ff0000"]No one on earth denies that the apostles preached in public, and that later what they were preaching, was inscripturated. As usual, this is a complete mischaracterization of sola scriptura! What you are asserting by implication, is that the SUBSTANCE of their oral preaching differed dramatically from that which was handed down in writing. You can assert it all you want but you'll never be able to prove it. Paul said that he was preaching NONE OTHER THINGS than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come (Ax 26:22). Likewise, it only makes sense that the apostles wrote down NONE OTHER THINGS than those things which they preached orally. By the way, Selah, do you agree that the above citation is a tradition that should be observed by your church? If so, you should leave the Catholic Church immedately because the gent above says that [i]the Scriptures[/i] are the pillar and ground of the faith. And since no Catholic in the universe believes any such thing, I wonder why you embarrassed yourself by mentioning it?[/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]

Quote

"Let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel"[font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]

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

[color="#284b72"][url="http://www.newadvent...ers/0103305.htm"]http://www.newadvent...ers/0103305.htm[/url][/color]


[font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#ff0000"]I am now being accused of pulling a quote out of an entire essay, as if I should have had all the time in the world to hand type the entire sermon! I plead guilty. The quote, however, is a glorious example once again of my thesis proved true. "Let us revert to Scripture". Why wasn't he reverting to the church? I'll tell you why. Because he said elsewhere, "The Scriptures...indeed furnish us with our rule of faith." (Against Praxeas, ch. 11, p. 606 in ANF, volm 3.). THAT was my point. Augustine also said similar while we're at it: ""What more shall I teach you other than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought." (De Bono Viduitatis, ch 2).[/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]

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."

[font="Arial"][color="#ff0000"]Again, you cannot prove that the TRADITION referred to was not that which was inscripturated! You are perhaps unfamiliar that in the early church, the word tradition came to embody three major categories: 1) the rule of faith. or apostolic doctrine handed down from the apostles in Scripture 2) ecclesiastical customs, or 3) consensus of patristic interpretation. The previous saying of Irenaeus made it crystal clear that what was originally handed down to them from the apostles, was now given to us in written form. And now he says, "Since this TRADITION (that is, this body of SCRIPTURE) now exists, let us revert to it! That this is exactly what he meant is conclusively proved by the document itself; it's thesis, much to your shock, I'm sure, was that there was no truth left dependent upon oral transmission! The circumstances under which he wrote "Against Heresies" was to counter the heretical teachings of the Gnostics. These were men who didn't dispute the authority of the S, but they SUPPLEMENTED its message with another! They were claiming to have access to an oral tradition independent of S, handed down from the apostles, of which they alone were the receipients. In this way, just as RCism does today, they were trying to blunt the ultimate and final authority of S by saying that not eveything the apostles had taught was in S. Irenaeus was opposed to this, thus instigating his remarks. [/color][/font]

Quote

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: "We say nothing apart from the Scriptures"[font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]

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.

[color="#284b72"][url="http://www.newadvent...thers/02104.htm"]http://www.newadvent...thers/02104.htm[/url][/color]

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?

[font="Arial"][color="#ff0000"]You are correct. It was book 6, chapter 15. In a mad rush to bow my knee to your papal authority and to get it all together "chop, chop", I goofed.[/color][/font]

"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"

This quote comes from here: [color="#284b72"][url="http://www.newadvent...athers/0521.htm"]http://www.newadvent...athers/0521.htm[/url][/color]

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.

[font="Arial"][color="#ff0000"]Again, it was the [u]use[/u] of "sola scriptura" in the church, and NOT "refuting church authority" being the crux of what I set out to prove. And I have done so. [/color][/font]

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

TERTULLIAN: "From what other source could they derive their arguments concerning the things of the faith except from the records of the faith?"

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

It's from an essay entitled, "The Prescription Against Heresy". It can be found here:

[color="#284b72"][url="http://www.newadvent...athers/0311.htm"]http://www.newadvent...athers/0311.htm[/url][/color]

[font="Arial"][color="#ff0000"]And yet again, you proved my thesis true. Thank you so much![/color][/font]

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."[font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]

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.


[font="Arial"][color="#ff0000"]Do the readers of this post feel like I do? In her quest to vindicate the authority of the Catholic Church---which I had no intention of doing, she has left me and my thesis all alone to fend for ourselves. Kind of like when Lucy Ricardo was going to have her baby, and in the mad rush to get to the hospital, they ran to get a cab--- but left Lucy in the apartment.
[/color][/font]
Here is more to the quote:[font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]

"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".

[font="Arial"][color="#ff0000"]Let me repeat that: "If it is no where written, then woe unto them who add or take away from the written word". I could not have said it better, especially to those at Vatican 1 who most certainly will receive that very wrath of God in its fullness for making submission to a mere MAN, [u]necessary[/u] for salvation.[/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#ff0000"]

[/color][/font]And here is the link:[font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]

[color="#284b72"][url="http://www.newadvent...athers/0313.htm"]http://www.newadvent...athers/0313.htm[/url][/color]


Quote

ORIGEN: "We must, in order to establish the positions which we have laid down, adduce the testimony of the Holy Scriptures."[font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]

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: [color="#284b72"][url="http://www.newadvent...thers/04124.htm"]http://www.newadvent...thers/04124.htm[/url][/color] I saw nothing in there defending Sola Scriptura.


[font="Arial"][color="#ff0000"]Honestly, Selah, this is just embarrassing. You are desperate to find something "traditionally infallible" in the words you bold-faced...."we take, [u]in addition to the proof of our statements[/u], the Scriptures. Does any commentor on his writings feel the same way you do? I sincerely doubt it. The veracity of their own opinions, which they said they were taking into consideration, but not trusting in, were of course, not infallible---so your reliance on this "in addition" to the Scripture, human opinion of theirs, is pointless to bring up as it does nothing to further your case.[/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font] [font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]

Quote

"See how close they are upon danger, who neglect to be versed in the divine Scriptures, which alone ought to direct our judgment."[font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]

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.[font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]


[font="Arial"][color="#ff0000"]It is found in the translation by William Goode, Vol 3, p. 56 of "Commentaria in Epistolam B. Pauli ad Romanos Liber X.35; taken from the book, [i]Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume 3, by David King.[/i][/color][/font]

Quote

DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA: "We accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scripture"[font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]

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:


[font="Arial"][color="#ff0000"]Ahhhh---so what if he was talking about heretical views? My point was that his argument was derived from Holy Writ alone, for he mentions no other.[/color][/font]

Quote

ATHANATIUS: "The sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth."[font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]

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

[color="#284b72"][url="http://www.newadvent...athers/2801.htm"]http://www.newadvent...athers/2801.htm[/url][/color]

[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."


[font="Arial"][color="#ff0000"]Oh my, Selah, this is simply grasping at straws. You are reading into this paragraph (namely, another authority we need to subscribe to) but it simply will not work! Let the man's writings speak for themselves and stop looking at them through Rome-colored glasses! He is alluding here to other blessed teachers who will be able to expound on the interpretation of S. Wonderful! I have learned so much from them myself. TEACHERS, my most noble opponent, are a ministry ordained by God as set forth in 1 Cor 12:28. End of story.[/color][/font]

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."[font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]

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.[font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]

[font="Arial"][color="#ff0000"]It may be found in NPNF2, Vol 4, Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part 1, History of the Church, 6.[/color][/font]

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[font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]

[font="Arial"][color="#ff0000"]Yes Selah, but you are narrowing down their statements to the lowest possible denominator by insinuating that their applause to Scripture was "merely" to show that they were divine, completely avoiding and sweeping under the rug that they were indeed utilizing the concept of sola scriptura just as I challenged you and Eagle-Eye on. I have at least 100 other quotes that further demolishes your denial of this fact into a collapsed house of cards. Two examples of many, written to a widow: "Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to do what is right." (Basil, NPNF2, Vol 8, Letters; Letter 283). And Chrysostom: "Great is the profit of the divine S, and all sufficient is the aid which comes from them." (NPNF1, vol 14, Homilies on the Gospel according to John; Homily 37.1).[/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#ff0000"][/color][/font]

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…[font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]

[font="Arial"][color="#800000"]As far as S being over the church, yes, that would be true---but contrary to you. Briefly, as Peter wrote, "men are born again through the living and enduring word of God (1:23). Since this is so, that word of God cannot [u]derive[/u] its authority from a church because the church is made up of born-again individuals. Therefore, the written word MUST have authority due to its own nature, for [i]IT [/i]leads men to Christ, and these person make up the church.[/color][/font]

All you have given me are quotes taken out of context, their original purpose ignored.[font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]

[font="Arial"][color="#800000"][u]THAT,[/u] is a lie. Shame on you.[/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#800000"][/color][/font]

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.[font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]

[font="Arial"][color="#ff0000"]That too is a lie, as I have every quote from every early father in its wider context right in front of me at this minute, and to say that all they were doing was MERELY defending the fact that Scripture was inspired, is a gross misrepresentation of their intentions and there is no early church historian who would ever concur with such an assessment of their writings. I hope this little conversation will truly be a catalyst for you to do more research...as no one of us knows it all. As for me, I'm pooped and must stop for now.[/color][/font]

[font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font]
[/color][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][/size][/font]

Edited September 19, 2009 by Stormstopper

[Starets]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='18 September 2009 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1253334555' post='1969030']
Boy Staretz.....you went through all that trouble to give some reasons that were on an anti-catholic website....and they are GOOD reasons, but of course you will have none of it. Anywho, you didn't deal with any one of them, so why list them? For example, the admonition not to think about men above that which is written per 1 Cor 4:6 is something the Catholic Church is simply not interested in since her doctrines about Mary and Peter for example, are no where to be seen in the text. And by the way, whatever website you visited that you scoffed at which holds to an "anti-everything theological position" other than their own, makes you a hypocrite, because as you well know, this thread, and indeed the entire Catholic world consists of persons who possess an anti-everything-theological position" other than their own.
[/quote]

I went to all that trouble, as you call it, because this board has a policy of not linking to anti catholic websites, and for no other reason. At the time of writing, there was no one taking the "sola sc riptura" position in this thread, so I wanted to provide the case as is. I could then leave it to those on this board who are more qualified than I to respond. If that makes me a "hypocrite", so be it

[Selah]

Storm, you're incredible. I gave you ample evidence that, if you had actually read my links, you would have seen what I was talking about.

Sola Scriptura means Scripture Alone. It means that Scripture is the final authority. It means that anything that is not contained in the Bible is heretical.

In said articles, here are some of things that were mentioned: Apostolic Succession. Holy Communion (not merely as a symbol). Half the people you quoted were Popes, Bishops, and Priests. These people did not see Scripture as the final authority. If they did, there would be no need for a Pope! True, they saw Scripture as an authority, and used it to refute the heretics-but no early church Father saw Scripture as the final authority. NONE of them. They recognized the Church as the final authority. Christ founded a Church, not a book.

You know full well you took those quotes out of context. Maybe not intentionally, but they were taken and misconstrewed to mean something they were never meant to mean. You can't warp history to make it say what you want. People do that enough with the Bible, don't they? Take Psalm 137, for example. The Psalm contains a verse that states, "we will take your babies and dash them against the stones." I can take that to mean that the Israelites were evil and sadistic people who killed their children, until you realize that the entire Psalm is about their captivity in Babylon, and their desire to keep their children from going through what they were going through. You can make Scripture say whatever you want, and some choose to do the same with history. And I'm not gonna sit here and watch you twist and turn history to make it say what you want it to say.

I don't appreciate being called a liar or a deciever, but please know that despite your hateful attitude, I will continue to be gentle and charitibale with you. You will find no enemy in me, and if you choose to ignore history that's up to you. I really don't know what I can say that has not already been said

Blessings and Peace in Christ,

Selah

Edited September 19, 2009 by Selah

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

Okay lets disregard my health statements as good works, I guess I misinterpreted what you were saying. Can you please qoute that interpretation on 2Tim 3:15-16 and what Bible its from?
Im not saying it doesnt exist I would just like to see it referenced.

Even so, you cannot answer us this question without going off subject, which is a red herring. So please tell us [u]WHO CHOSE WHICH BOOKS WERE WORTHY OF BELIEF? [/u]

Also please answer this scripture.

St. Paul says in 2 Thess. 2:15...."So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the [u]traditions [/u]which you were taught by us, [u]either by word of mouth or by letter[/u]."

And please no long post's on my behalf because Im asking simple questions and not posting huge documents or part of the catechism which I could do but refrain. Thank you.

[Selah]

[quote] Epiphanius of Salamis



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

Some things were handed down orally. Some written. Some were handed down in the gospels. Others through tradition, which is just as important.


[quote]Vincent of Lerins

"Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ [b]Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . .[/b] [/quote]


[quote]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 [b]received from tradition[/b]" [/quote]

[quote]
Irenaeus (One of the Fathers you asserted was Sola Scriptura).



"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. [b]For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same[/b]" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).[/quote]

Here's more at this link, if you want to take a look. Some quoted from the very same Fathers you asserted to be Sola Scriptura.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

Edited September 20, 2009 by Selah

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).


"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2)

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the HoIy Spirit spoke from God." ( 2 Peter 1:20-21 )

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

"There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16)

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else.

Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.

These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."

The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.

from catholic answers.com

[Selah]

You should also know that, in addition to the Sacred Scriptures, other Apostolic works, such as the Didache (written 90 years after the ressurection of Christ) and of course, they used their oral tradition that was handed down by the apostles to defend themselves. There was no "Scripture alone" for the simple fact that it was never an issue for them. They knew the Scriptures were inspired, but they also acknowledged that Jesus said to Peter, "Upon this Rock I will build my CHURCH". And it is the CHURCH that the gates of hell will not prevail against. It is the CHURCH that has the final authority. Not the Bible.

Scripture is not open for private interpretation. I cannot stress that enough. Because so many do just that, and looook at where it has gotten us.

The Bible is interpreted in light of what the Apostles taught...tradition.

[quote]"It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it [b]embraces the fullness of the two Testaments[/b]." Ephraem, Against Heresies (ante A.D. 373). [/quote]


[quote]"This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, [b]a very ecclesiasitcal sense[/b]." Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, 1:44 (A.D. 362). [/quote]


[quote]"Now I accept no newer creed written for me by other men, nor do I venture to propound the outcome of my own intelligence, lest I make the words of true religion merely human words; [b]but what I have been taught by the holy Fathers, that I announce to all who question me. In my Church the creed written by the holy Fathers in synod at Nicea is in use[/b]." Basil, To the Church of Antioch, Epistle 140:2 (A.D. 373). [/quote]


You can read more here if you like:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

Edited September 20, 2009 by Selah