The Bible Alone is Not Enough

[James the Persian]

I was responding to the OP, not the opinions that followed.
Before I start posting, I want to make sure my intentions are clear. I am simply looking for good conversation and seeing other people's viewpoints. I am a Roman Catholic and love my faith. I do have a lot of questions about why some protestants believe what they believe.

This particular post is to look into why many protestants believe in 'Sola Scriptura'. Even if you do not believe in Sola Scriptura, but you believe that all a person needs is to read the bible to get to know Christ, this question would apply to you.

So here is my question: if the Bible alone is enough, can anyone tell me when the Bible was actually compiled into the version that we know today?

OK, sorry. It was just a little confusing coming after so long, especially given some of the debate that's occurred since. I'm guessing that Quietlight might well want to hear about the beliefs of others, but at the moment he wants to discuss sola scriptura so he's only likely to want Christian opinions. I will admit, though, that the OP does rather appear, at first glance, to delimit Christianity into RC and Protestant (and I'm neither) but I think that all was really meant is that sola scriptura is a doctrine that some protestants adhere to, not that only Protestants do, nor thatonly Protestants can have an input. At least, that's how I would read it and I see nothing in Quietlight's subsequent posts to suggest that reading is wrong.

James

 

[jeffrey]

I'll explain this more. I believe in the teachings of Christ, but hold little regard to what is printed by man in the Bible.
The question asked, "believe that all a person needs is to read the bible to get to know Christ",....1st off, read and comprehend are 2 different subjects. Comprehend is a matter of opinion.
Example.

I tell a friend my wife's beauty could stop time... He tells my wife I said her face could stop a clock.
Comprehend, interpretation... It all boils down to opinion.
The original concept of "read the Bible, Know Christ" is like saying "Read the Constitution, know your Government". Reading what Christ taught and what is practiced is like what is in the Constitution and what is reality are 2 different subjects.

 

[jeffrey]

And let me add, that James, your opinions I respect more then anyone else's in this forum. My wife feels the same. Bless you my friend.

 

[wizanda]

On that last point of really knowing Christ/Yeshua, I find it very hard to see this from the Bible, reasons being:

Paul writes as if he is Christ, yet contradicts so much it is hard to hear Christ own teachings, through the muddling of Paul.

John writes as if Christ said any of that, and I find it contradicts not only on what Christ said, yet against the Bible, against the other testimonies of the disciples to contain much false testimony. So I have dismissed most of the book my self as it is not Yeshua people are following, yet Pharisee.

Simon peter (stone) clearly goes against the Bible, and his teachings are that of Balaam.

Anyways as I keep stating on here these are solid and have the facts to back each up, else I wouldn’t be spending 24/7x365 trying to help the world see this and doubt I would have been sent to help.

 

[*Paul*]

You're still trying to separate Scripture from Tradition as though the former wasn't part of the latter.

This position is ridiculous James, Paul wrote His teachings down to the churches to confirm what He has spoken to them orally, one obvious reason would be so that people couln't say he had said things he didn't. The obvious fallacy with an oral tradition is that it could be changed by any one person along the chain. Revelation was written in obedience to Jesus command to write the things which he saw. The only books we have which are a result of oral tradition are the four gospels and i know Luke at least is gathered from eyewitness accounts and that apparently post dates Mark.
Lk 1v1-2: Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Johns gospel is written by a living witness so he did not rely on oral tradition the only tradition involved there is it's authorship not the writing it's self.
And we have within Johns gospel an example of how things get so easily mixed up when orally transmitted.
Jn 21v22-23: Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
This oral teaching needed correction by the written word.

It doesn't matter if I can show you a part of Tradition not found in Scripture that pre-dates its writing because the very fact that we have Scripture written down after the Crucifixion proves that the oral Tradition predates Scripture.

Not when it was written by the very people who were there, then it is not the result of oral tradition but memory which Jesus promised the Spirit would inspire:
Jn 14v26: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

As for oral Tradition, there's nothing gnostic about it. Do you know what that word actually means? There are no hidden teachings in Orthodoxy, no knowledge or enlightenment that can make you worthy of salvation, so there is nothing gnostic about any of it.

I never said it was the same thing, it just reminded me of it. But having said that the RCC is built on the joint foundation of scripture and oral tradition, if you reject these oral traditions you are not a Catholic and there is no salvation outside of the church of rome, at least thats what they used to teach. The council of trent puts an anathema on any holding my scripture only position so it is a matter of salvation.

No, Scripture does not allow for the idea that everything taught has been written down.

I never said that at all, i said everything necessary for salvation and conduct, scripture implies no defficiency in it's writings.

 

[jeffrey]

This position is ridiculous James, Paul wrote His teachings down to the churches to confirm what He has spoken to them orally, one obvious reason would be so that people couln't say he had said things he didn't. The obvious fallacy with an oral tradition is that it could be changed by any one person along the chain. Revelation was written in obedience to Jesus command to write the things which he saw. The only books we have which are a result of oral tradition are the four gospels and i know Luke at least is gathered from eyewitness accounts and that apparently post dates Mark.
Lk 1v1-2: Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Johns gospel is written by a living witness so he did not rely on oral tradition the only tradition involved there is it's authorship not the writing it's self.
And we have within Johns gospel an example of how things get so easily mixed up when orally transmitted.
Jn 21v22-23: Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
This oral teaching needed correction by the written word.


Not when it was written by the very people who were there, then it is not the result of oral tradition but memory which Jesus promised the Spirit would inspire:
Jn 14v26: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

I never said it was the same thing, it just reminded me of it. But having said that the RCC is built on the joint foundation of scripture and oral tradition, if you reject these oral traditions you are not a Catholic and there is no salvation outside of the church of rome, at least thats what they used to teach. The council of trent puts an anathema on any holding my scripture only position so it is a matter of salvation.


I never said that at all, i said everything necessary for salvation and conduct, scripture implies no defficiency in it's writings.

Might be off the "Theme" here, but why not call yourselves "Paulians" instead of "Christians"?

if you reject these oral traditions you are not a Catholic and there is no salvation outside of the church of rome, at least thats what they used to teach. The council of trent puts an anathema on any holding my scripture only position so it is a matter of salvation.

This is why I respect James so much. I do not think he would ever tell you you are not a .. "Catholic" ..because your beliefs difer from his.. Might be wrong here, ... just a guess..

 

[James the Persian]

This position is ridiculous James

How so? You're trying to tell me that Scripture isn't Tradition? Or did you just misunderstand what I wrote? Tradition means that which is handed down. There is no necessity for it to be oral. Actually very little if any of Holy Tradition remains unwritten, it's just that not all of it is in the Bible. Paul makes no distinction between the written and oral calling both Tradition, so what point are you trying to make?

Not when it was written by the very people who were there, then it is not the result of oral tradition but memory which Jesus promised the Spirit would inspire:
Jn 14v26: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

But firstly, not all of it was written down by eye witnesses and secondly, we are talking of a canon which wasn't settled until 400 years later - even the attributions of most of the books to a particular author is part of that Tradition. That Tradition is preserved by the Church because She is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, and She is such because She is guided by the Holy Spirit. Your verse, therefore, supports what I'm saying. It's absolutely clear that Tradition existed before both the writing of the books (and even if written by an eyewitness, the teachings Christ handed on are, by definition, Tradition) and before their collection into the canon.

I never said it was the same thing, it just reminded me of it. But having said that the RCC is built on the joint foundation of scripture and oral tradition, if you reject these oral traditions you are not a Catholic and there is no salvation outside of the church of rome, at least thats what they used to teach. The council of trent puts an anathema on any holding my scripture only position so it is a matter of salvation.

As Catherine Tate would say, 'Am I bovvered?' What the RCC teaches now or has taught in the past is of precisely zero consequence to me. You simply cannot say 'Scripture and Tradition' for Scripture is Tradition.

I never said that at all, i said everything necessary for salvation and conduct, scripture implies no defficiency in it's writings.

No book on earth can give you everything necessary for salvation. It is this tendency to almost deify Scripture that most worries me about those who cling most staunchly to the idea of sola scriptura. As for conduct, there is a tendency amongst sola scripturalists to say, 'if it's not approved by Scripture you mustn't do it' which I find untenable. The only reasonable approach is to say 'if it does not oppose Scripture, you may', but that is exactly what we do.

I take it you aren't having any luck turning up Orthodox Tradition opposed to Scripture? I'd also note that you seem to view the idea of Tradition as being dogma. We certainly do not. We have a number of Traditions about the Theotokos for instance, but not one Marian dogma and so you certainly are not thrown out of the Church for not adhering to such Tradition (and in fact certain Fathers clearly didn't adhere to them all). I'm not quite sure where you get your ideas about Tradition from, but it certainly isn't from us.

James

 

[*Paul*]

Might be off the "Theme" here, but why not call yourselves "Paulians" instead of "Christians"?

So you read my opening line and passed judgement, even though i don't quote Paul once in this post and may not have through this thread yet.

This is why I respect James so much. I do not think he would ever tell you you are not a .. "Catholic" ..because your beliefs difer from his.. Might be wrong here, ... just a guess..

I don't think James would tell anyone they weren't Catholic because they don't agree with him, you are right there.

 

[*Paul*]

How so? You're trying to tell me that Scripture isn't Tradition?

Call it what you want but it is not part of a greater tradition. If scripture is a tradition it is still an authority beyond all other traditions, it was viewed as such by the church historically, as Cyril said, if something he (or anyone for that matter) cannot be substantiated by scripture then it is not to be given credence.

Cyril again:​

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

This is Sola Scriptura, this statement is devestating to your position. This is the protestant position does His canon reject any of the protestant books in the canon? He may have some others the only one you can say would be the book of revelation if it is not included in the definition of catholic epistle.

Or did you just misunderstand what I wrote? Tradition means that which is handed down. There is no necessity for it to be oral.

Fine scriptures is tradition but it is still scripture and cannot be contradicted. It's not the idea of tradition we reject it is the idea of any tradition not in the bible having authority over people or a church. If you sayyour traditions do not contradict scripture then we don't have a problem as scripture is still your auhtority for believing it.

Actually very little if any of Holy Tradition remains unwritten, it's just that not all of it is in the Bible. Paul makes no distinction between the written and oral calling both Tradition, so what point are you trying to make?

You Paulian you. So if you are not holding to the written and oral teaching you have not God the whole word of God? Well, Paul doesn’t say, “Make sure you hold on to the oral traditions and to the written traditions,” does he? He says, “Hold fast to the traditions whether you heard them orally or in writing.” Can you see the difference? Do you have one thing that comes to the Church in two ways? Or do you have two things that come to the Church?

But firstly, not all of it was written down by eye witnesses and secondly, we are talking of a canon which wasn't settled until 400 years later - even the attributions of most of the books to a particular author is part of that Tradition.

Almost all of the books were accepted long before the formation of the canon, they are quoted from so much by early christian writers.

It's absolutely clear that Tradition existed before both the writing of the books (and even if written by an eyewitness, the teachings Christ handed on are, by definition, Tradition) and before their collection into the canon.

PAul's letters were not tradtion handed on, he recieved what he wrote by revelation from the Lord, that makes up a big chunk of the new testament. He may have taught them orally but he confirmed his teaching with writing.

As Catherine Tate would say, 'Am I bovvered?' What the RCC teaches now or has taught in the past is of precisely zero consequence to me. You simply cannot say 'Scripture and Tradition' for Scripture is Tradition.

What Paul wrote was not tradition but reveltion, the apocalypse is not tradtition but revelation. In fact the apostles do not claim to be teaching people what Jesus orally taught them at all but are teaching with apostolic authority as those Jesus ordained for laying the foundation of the Church. It wasn't that they said to the church Jesus said this so you must do it, no they exercise their authority given to them by Jesus Christ as being ordained of God, they write as people filled with the Holy Ghost and their words were to be acknowledged as authortative. But guess what they are not around anymore, no one has this Apostolic authority anymore therefore we keep their writings as our authority.

No book on earth can give you everything necessary for salvation.

No it is through believeing the things that are writeen therin, not the book itself but the non physical information contained therin, you misrepresent/misunderstand me if you think i believe the bible gives me eternal life, that would be agianst Apostolic teaching.

As for conduct, there is a tendency amongst sola scripturalists to say, 'if it's not approved by Scripture you mustn't do it' which I find untenable. The only reasonable approach is to say 'if it does not oppose Scripture, you may', but that is exactly what we do.

Zwingli and luther had this same disagreement, bot h were Sola Scripturalists. There are a number of principles contained int he bible that govern how we should behave not just explicit statements.

I take it you aren't having any luck turning up Orthodox Tradition opposed to Scripture?

I think it is outside the scope of this thread and i need a crash course in Eastern Orthodox religion so it will take a bit of time.

I'd also note that you seem to view the idea of Tradition as being dogma. We certainly do not. We have a number of Traditions about the Theotokos for instance, but not one Marian dogma and so you certainly are not thrown out of the Church for not adhering to such Tradition (and in fact certain Fathers clearly didn't adhere to them all). I'm not quite sure where you get your ideas about Tradition from, but it certainly isn't from us.

I am mostly writing in the context of what Catholischism teaches, the only time we are debating each other is when you take the same stance as them. I simply do not know enough about your sect to say too much.

 

[quietlight]

Why stop at Protestants? Why not what Buddhists believe? Or Wiccans? Or for that matter, atheists? Or anybody that believes in something different then your own beliefs?

Simply because I wanted to limit the scope of this discussion. As it is it has gotten too broad to really accomplish much. When the time comes, I will be happy to talk to others about that. But my hope is to really understand the other viewpoint rather than just getting a quick overview from 30 different beliefs.

 

[quietlight]

Well this is all very interesting. I must say, James definitely has been asking a lot of the questions that I wanted to ask, but did not necessarily have the words for.

It seems as if Tradition has become the major element here, which may be a bit off from the central question which I am now fairly convinced was not properly worded (go figure). The central question asked whether or not the Bible alone was all that you needed to know Christ - well, that's fairly vague. I have no doubt in my mind that *Paul* knows Christ, but I do have doubts as to whether or not he is living in the fullness of Christianity that Christ intended.

Yet even thought *Paul* has come to know Christ through the scriptures, and even though he does not believe his faith is lacking, I don't see how this has happened through scripture alone. The very fact that he believes in the 66 books of scripture and the very fact that he agrees in a need for a canon of books recognizes that there is a need for understanding the scriptures in light of the Tradition handed down to us from the Apostles. Against what else did the men who put together the Canons judge which books belong in the Sacred Book?

Now *Paul* astutely points out that oral tradition can be changed whereas written tradition (scripture) is more difficult to change. This is very true, and we can see that oral tradition in the formation of a canon did not produce just one canon, but as James pointed out, several canons for which there is still disagreement to this day.

Talking about Tradition definitely breaks us off into a whole new discussion, and one that I think is worthy to pursue which we may want to start a new thread for. I think it is the next natural step, especially since so much has been stated. But for this thread, what is important is to see whether or not Scripture alone is sufficient to determine the canon that forms the Bible. There is no need to assume that it is Tradition or tradition that gave us the canon, but rather whether scripture alone is sufficient for the canon of the Bible.

If scripture alone is sufficient to form the canon of inspired books, then Sola Scriptura will pass this single test. If, however, we needed to rely on Tradition (or tradition), then Scripture, which is to be the highest authority in all matters of faith, alone is not enough for this crucial aspect of our shared faith.

I'll wait for comments.

 

[Quiddity]

Interesting. So it's your contention that the Spirit had nothing to do with this? Somehow, I don't think this is what you actualy believe! How about the men who WROTE the scriptures? Did they refer to themselves as Catholic?

No, they called themselves the Smurfs of Terabithia. :areyoucra Seriously Pete why do you ask questions you know the answers to? I hope the sarcasm is well placed and is leading to something more productive.

You see, we aren’t different really. I believe in the Holy Spirit, you believe in the Holy Spirit. I believe Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, you do as well. I believe God is Love, you believe God is Love. And I’m quite sure there is much more. But you know one thing I just do not get about what I perceive to be your stance (which is relevant to the topic) is that you’ll deny as much humanity as you can about Christianity and only ingest that which conforms to your own subjective experiences/interpretations. In other words, you cherry-pick on when you want to trust men, but when we do it you resort to comments like “I have nothing against that quote, except that it is man made”.

Since it’s clear to me that you are a one man show. That you do not submit to any spiritual earthly authority; then I can’t see how the authority is not handed down to your own subjective thoughts and feelings. You may be able to excuse it by noting you are lead by the Spirit (which I don’t completely doubt) but if you can’t see how that opens up a can of worms then I don’t know what else to tell you.

 

[*Paul*]

Can we know what is scripture without an infallible church deciding it for us?

In book 1 of Adversus haereses by Iranaeus of Lyons (115-191 ad) he refernces scripture approximately 81 times:

• Acts once,
• Luke 22 times
• matthew 22 times
• Mark 4 times
• colossians 3 times
• romans 6 times
• ephesians 5 times
• 1 Corinthians 9 times
• Galatians 2 times
• John 6 times
• Phillipians Once
• 2 TImothy once
• Titus once
• 1 Peter once
• 1 Timothy twice
• Revelation twice

Who told him these were authoritative, if they weren't what would it prove in quoting them to the people he was trying to reason with? Who told the Jews what was scripture? I believe the answer is here:
1Cor 14v37: If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
In other words, any spiritual person (i.e., one who is indwelt by and led of the Holy Spirit) will by the Spirit recognize Scripture without any church endorsing it. That is the way it was in the Old Testament, in the early years of the church, and it is the same for us today.

1Cor 14v38: But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

This is my closing statement in this thread I thank you for bringing it up, it has caused me to really search why I believe what I do and has strenghtened my faith in the word of God which can't be a bad thing.

Thank you James and Quiet lite for staying respectful and polite, even if i haven't been, I apologise if I caused anybody any offence, sometimes my emotions rise too far to the surface and this is no place for it. Scuba Pete I think you have done a fine job of defending your position too, not that you need my endorsement or anyhting.

 

[Scuba Pete]

but if you can’t see how that opens up a can of worms then I don’t know what else to tell you.

No, I trust the Spirit. In fact, we are told to

I Thessalonians 5:16 Be joyful always; 17 pray continually; 18 give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. 19 Do not put out the Spirit's fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22 Avoid every kind of evil. NIV


It doesn't say to consult your priest, your prayer partner, your preacher... it tells US to test EVERYTHING. Then we are to hold on to the good. Sounds like God wants us to "cherry pick" by your definition.

I would suggest that I trust the Spirit far more than I trust any man. For good reason too.

 

[quietlight]

Can we know what is scripture without an infallible church deciding it for us?

But I wasn't asking whether you needed an infallible church to decide this for you. It has nothing to do with that (this would be a horrible proof for the need of the church if that was my attempt). The question was more asking if you did indeed need more than Scripture alone to judge inspired books.

In book 1 of Adversus haereses by Iranaeus of Lyons (115-191 ad) he refernces scripture approximately 81 times:

• Acts once,
• Luke 22 times
• matthew 22 times
• Mark 4 times
• colossians 3 times
• romans 6 times
• ephesians 5 times
• 1 Corinthians 9 times
• Galatians 2 times
• John 6 times
• Phillipians Once
• 2 TImothy once
• Titus once
• 1 Peter once
• 1 Timothy twice
• Revelation twice

Who told him these were authoritative, if they weren't what would it prove in quoting them to the people he was trying to reason with? Who told the Jews what was scripture? I believe the answer is here:
1Cor 14v37: If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
In other words, any spiritual person (i.e., one who is indwelt by and led of the Holy Spirit) will by the Spirit recognize Scripture without any church endorsing it. That is the way it was in the Old Testament, in the early years of the church, and it is the same for us today.

1Cor 14v38: But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

This is my closing statement in this thread I thank you for bringing it up, it has caused me to really search why I believe what I do and has strenghtened my faith in the word of God which can't be a bad thing.

But you yourself have brought up the very real reason we needed a canon - to avoid confusion.

So who told Iranaeus which books were inspired? Dare I say that he knew this from Tradition? The fact is, the reason the canon was declared is the same reason most doctrine is formalized: it needed to be done so at a time when confusion over the issue began to exist. The Bible wasn't "invented" at the councils towards the end of the 4th century, it was rather confirmed that certain books were inspired while others were not. Tradition dictated it to be so.

Thank you James and Quiet lite for staying respectful and polite, even if i haven't been, I apologise if I caused anybody any offence, sometimes my emotions rise too far to the surface and this is no place for it. Scuba Pete I think you have done a fine job of defending your position too, not that you need my endorsement or anyhting.

I am certainly disappointed that this is your closing statement, yet I definitely understand. This thread is long, and we have covered a lot of material - most of which, in retrospect, wasn't necessary (such is the life of a debate). I myself have been wanting to wrap it up.

I look forward to discussing other issues with you in the future and hope that this is not the end of our conversations! You have introduced me to quite a few new things which have strengthened my faith and deepend my understanding of my faith, but also yours. For that, I thank you.

 

[*Paul*]

Lol, i really should stop but I wanted to give one more quote:

St Gregory of Nyssa
On the Soul and the Resurrection​

You are quite justified, she replied, in raising this question, and it has ere this been discussed by many elsewhere; namely, what we are to think of the principle of desire and the principle of anger within us. Are they consubstantial with the soul, inherent in the soul's very self from her first organization, or are they something different, accruing to us afterwards? In fact, while all equally allow that these principles are to be detected in the soul, investigation has not yet discovered exactly what we are to think of them so as to gain some fixed belief with regard to them. The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such licence, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.......................
whether they philosophized in prose or in verse, and we will adopt, as the guide of our reasoning, the Scripture, which lays it down as an axiom that there is no excellence in the soul which is not a property as well of the Divine nature.....
In all this Scripture shows that such conditions are not to be considered weaknesses; weaknesses would not have been so employed for putting virtue into practice......
I pray that it may escape the sneers of cavilling hearers. Scripture informs us that the Deity proceeded by a sort of graduated and ordered advance to the creation of man....
Thereby Scripture shows that the vital forces blended with the world of matter according to a gradation;.......
but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all........
Now we think that Scripture means by the good seed the corresponding impulses of the soul, each one of which, if only they are cultured for good, necessarily puts forth the fruit of virtue within us...
We certainly believe, both because of the prevailing opinion, and still more of Scripture teaching, that there exists another world of beings besides, divested of such bodies as ours are, who are opposed to that which is good and are capable of hurting the lives of men,

This is all that we protestants / evangelicals/ baptists say, we make the scriptures the rule of every tenet and if it is every tenet then it is Scripture alone. Our reasoning in matters of dispute must be in line with scripture if it is not then it is just our opinon and holds no authority.

How can someone hold that the idea of Sola Scriptura is a protestant invention? It's not a question of how they came to be regarded as scripture, the evidence of the early church writers shows that they for the most part knew what scripture was and appeal to it's teachings constantly as their authority, there is no definitive way of knowing how they knew that what they were quoting was scripture but they clearly used the same books we use today.
Scripture is never viewed or spoken of as being incomplete for matters of faith and practice and that is all we say, every thing in doctrine or practice must submit to the authority of the scriptures.

It is good that we have a canon, it is highy desirable but not essential to salvation as i have said before, there are people in countries who only have scraps of scripture but came to know God by the writings therin and hearing the gospel proclaimed. How they treasure those scriptures is truly inspirational. Read the works of missionaries who bring people to reconciliation before the full bible is ever translated. The words that they read speak to their hearts like nothing else and answers the most important question of all.

How can I know my creator and how can I please Him and meet Him? This should be the question burning on every persons soul and if you are faithful you will point them to and appeal to scripture only as the God breathed oracles.


Sorry, i know i said it was my last post but I just couldn't help one more, it's like a drug.

 

[James the Persian]

*Paul*,

You do realise that all your Patristic quotes have supported our position of Scripture being the most important part of Holy Tradition, hence it being the canon, or measuring rod, don't you? You aren't, not by a long shot, showing that any of the Fathers was sola scriptura, just that they followed the same principal that the Orthodox Church does today, which is that one must test a belief against Scripture and if it is found to be contrary to it, throw it out. That does not in any way get rid of Holy Tradition, just puts extra-Scriptural Tradition in its proper place. I fail to see what it is you are trying to achieve with your Patristic proof-texts. These people lived and breathed Holy Tradition, the Fathers were constantly appealing to it, asking that others correct them if they erred from it, using it as the only valid approach to interpretation of Scripture (condemning individual interpretations as a result) etc. etc. All you are actually demonstrating is that you don't actually understand what we mean by Holy Tradition. You appear to think we have some exclusively oral teachings which are imposed upon us by some heirarchy, which we cannot question due to their dogmatic character, that are separate from in opposition to Scripture and are considered more important than Scripture. I don't know where you get that impression nor what such actually might be but I can say one thing with certainty - this does not in any way resemble Holy Tradition.

James

 

[*Paul*]

*Paul*,
You do realise that all your Patristic quotes have supported our position of Scripture being the most important part of Holy Tradition, hence it being the canon, or measuring rod, don't you?

This is not what Gregory claims but gives scripture sola authority "we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings".

Nothing can contradict it and everything must conform to it right? This is all we say, this is all the reformers were seeking to revive because of traditions that contradicted the word of God and decieved people, robbing them of all God intended to give us in the scriptures. They never sought to overthrow the Church fathers but agreed with them as far as they agreed with scripture as Cyril said we should do:

"Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures"

You aren't, not by a long shot, showing that any of the Fathers was sola scriptura, just that they followed the same principal that the Orthodox Church does today, which is that one must test a belief against Scripture and if it is found to be contrary to it, throw it out.

And protestants are happy for anyone to have their traditions if it does not contradict or weaken scripture teaching or principals. We do not say do away with all tradition just that everything must be in line with Gods word. Every tree which God hath not planted is to be rooted up.

That does not in any way get rid of Holy Tradition, just puts extra-Scriptural Tradition in its proper place.

No body wants rid of anything that is scriptural, that is not the intent of Sola Scriptura.

I fail to see what it is you are trying to achieve with your Patristic proof-texts. These people lived and breathed Holy Tradition, the Fathers were constantly appealing to it, asking that others correct them if they erred from it, using it as the only valid approach to interpretation of Scripture (condemning individual interpretations as a result) etc. etc.

Using anothers interpretation of scripture as authoritative is an unscriptural tradition, if they are appealing to how earlier Christians interpreted a scripture other than an Apostle or Jesus then that cannot be supported from the bible. The bible is clear that mans heart is deceitful, that even the best of us are prone to error, we have a responsibilty and a God give conscience to learn what God is saying to us in the bible and to obey it, not what other say it means. I agree with John PAul II on this point:

Our consciences must be based on truth. Conscience... the Second Vatican Council calls conscience "<man's most secret core, and his sanctuary>" and explains: "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, tells him inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that" (<Gaudium et spes>, n. 16).
As we see from this quotation, conscience is a vitally important issue for every individual. It is our inner <guide> and also the <judge> of our actions. How important it is therefore for our conscience to be <upright>, to make judgements based on truth, to call good and evil, to know how—in the Apostle's words—to "prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom 12:2).

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2RTCON.htm

All you are actually demonstrating is that you don't actually understand what we mean by Holy Tradition.

You are relying upon traditional interpretations of scripture, how the church has always interpreted it, if you stray from this are you not considered an heretik? Can you pick up a bible and challenge their interpretations?

 

[quietlight]

Lol, i really should stop but I wanted to give one more quote:...
This is all that we protestants / evangelicals/ baptists say, we make the scriptures the rule of every tenet and if it is every tenet then it is Scripture alone. Our reasoning in matters of dispute must be in line with scripture if it is not then it is just our opinon and holds no authority.

How can someone hold that the idea of Sola Scriptura is a protestant invention? It's not a question of how they came to be regarded as scripture, the evidence of the early church writers shows that they for the most part knew what scripture was and appeal to it's teachings constantly as their authority, there is no definitive way of knowing how they knew that what they were quoting was scripture but they clearly used the same books we use today.
Scripture is never viewed or spoken of as being incomplete for matters of faith and practice and that is all we say, every thing in doctrine or practice must submit to the authority of the scriptures....

And the debate goes on.

When reading the church fathers, it is important (as with all works) to read them in their full context. I must refer you to http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola11.htm - Did the Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura. This author states things FAR better than I can, but to make things easier, here is a quick summary...

"First, the Fathers affirmed that the most perfect expression of the Apostolic faith is to be found in Sacred Scripture. The Fathers affirmed the material sufficiency of Scripture. According to the Fathers, all doctrines of the Catholic faith are to be found within its covers. Secondly, the Fathers affirmed in the same breath and with equal conviction that the Apostolic faith also has been transmitted to the Church through Tradition. According to the Fathers, the Scriptures can only be interpreted within the Catholic Church in light of her Sacred Tradition. The Fathers, particularly those who combated heresies, affirmed that the fatal flaw of heretics was interpreting Scripture according to their private understanding apart from mother Church and her Tradition. In sum, when the Fathers affirmed the sufficiency and authority of Scripture, they did so not in a vacuum, but within the framework of an authoritative Church and Tradition."

To counter specifically your St. Gregory of Nyssa quote...another quote from St. Gregory of Nyssa:

"[F]or it is enough for proof of our statement, that the TRADITION has come down to us from our fathers, handed on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them. They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of arguments in abundance, if they were about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense?" (Against Eunomius,4:6).

 

[quietlight]

Now, in light of the above post that I made, I'd like to simply respond to this point:

It's not a question of how they came to be regarded as scripture, the evidence of the early church writers shows that they for the most part knew what scripture was and appeal to it's teachings constantly as their authority, there is no definitive way of knowing how they knew that what they were quoting was scripture but they clearly used the same books we use today.

There IS a definitive way of knowing how they knew what books to quote. They used the exact same method as YOU use today! They know which books to quote because they are relying on Tradition.

I would very much urge you to read that link I sent you - not only does it give great insight into the church fathers and what they taught, it does a fantastic job of explaining the purpose of Tradition. I didn't want to go down this road personally because my intent is not to force the Catholic position on you, just find out by what authority you accept your canon. I think I have a fairly good understanding of that. Now I am just posting to make sure that we don't have one-sided posts from church fathers.