A brother in Christ sought my assistance regarding some arguments of Roman Catholics against Sola Scriptura. Here are the arguments thrown by his Roman Catholic opponents (in blue) as well as my answers:
1. "There was no book called "the Bible" until the very end of the fourth century and beginning of the fifth. The Church was the only teacher after the Apostles died. And still is. Jesus Christ founded His Church to speak and to teach in His place when He returned to the Father. The New Testament (NT) is not a systematic instruction book in Christianity. It is the written record of the spiritual life and experience of the Church during the first 50 years or so after her founding at Pentecost, a record which she herself wrote, canonized, and named the New Testament. The Church was founded c. A.D. 33. The first 'book' written of what became the NT was Thessalonians, c. 51. The last was the Gospel of John (c. 100). The Church was then about 67 years old. The contents were selected, named the OT and NT, and canonized in A.D. 382, confirmed in 393, 397, and 419. The Church named her entire collection of sacred Scripture tá Biblia, the "Little Books," the Bible."
The first thing you must remember that the Scriptures are God-breathed. Even if there was no canon or a list of Scriptures, we have inspired Scriptures. In fact, we cannot have a canon without inspired Scriptures because the canon is all about what has been inspired. It's ironic that Rome claims infallibility and yet it took her over 300 hundred years (as they claim) before making a list of inspired Scriptures. Their canon is dependent on men, not God.
Another important thing you must remember is that God is the author of the canon, not men. The revelation of which book should compose the Bible rest on his purposes.
Now concerning the claim that the church was the "only" teacher, it makes me wonder why the church even bothered to write the Bible. Rome claims apostolic succession and that the church is the depository of all teaching. The Bible to them can be implicit or explicit in teaching that's why they need their church. If that's the case, why not just make a book where everything is explicit and easily understood like the Catechism? Then again, what's the use of it when you have the church?
On the other hand, Paul tells us the importance of Scripture: For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope. Romans 15:4
2. In fact, you and millions of Protestants can't even agree on a definition of SOLA SCRIPTURA but then it literally means "Scripture Alone" and is one of the "pillars" of Protestantism according to its founder, Martin Luther. Maybe YOU didn't say it, but the founder and 'Father of Protestantism' did. Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory. It says we should believe only Scripture, but Scripture never says this. If we believe only what Scripture teaches, we will not believe Sola Scriptura, because Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura.
And what do they mean by various definition of sola scriptura? Sola Scriptura means that the Bible alone is the infallible rule of faith and morals. In order for it to be refuted they should give you another set of infallible rule of faith and morals which is as equal as the Bible. And they should enumerate the contents those other rules of faith and moral. They won't give you a satisfactory answer.
The statement, "Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura" is an argument they need to prove, just as you need to prove the contrary. They are simply saying it without proving it.
3. Your problem is that Sola Scriptura separates the Church from her Scripture. The Church as writer, canonizer, and interpreter of Scripture is the author and guardian and teacher of Scripture.
The problem with the first sentence is that they didn't tell how sola scriptura would separate the church from Scripture. It's a misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura. The church needs the Scripture as her guide. For Rome to define the Scriptures is to imply that she is superior over it, despite the claim that she is subservient to it. Think about it, how can Rome be logically subservient to the things she can define?
4. Sola Scriptura is not historical. The first generations of Christians did not have the New Testament -- they had only the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world, to teach them. When she was nearly 400 years old, the Catholic Church selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament. At the same time, she canonized the 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. Her entire collection of Sacred Scripture, which she alone identified as “Scripture,” she named ‘the Bible.’ It was then the end of the 4th century.
Here are some patristic writings which prove sola scriptura is historical:
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466AD): "Do not, I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to Scripture alone"
Basil of Caesarea (329-379AD): "Believe in those things that are written. What is not written inquire not into."
Athanasius (297-373AD): "And we have proof of this, not from external sources, but from Scriptures."
And in their claim that the church did all these things to the Bible, ask them the White Question: How did the Jews who were born 50 years before Christ know that the books of Isaiah and Chronicles were Scripture? Do notice that the so-called infallible Church of Rome wasn't around 50 years before Christ, so how would the Jews know infallibly? Your opponents will assume that the priests and sanhedrin were infallible, but that's their burden to prove. No Roman Catholic has ever answered the White Question intelligently.
5. Your problem is that you believe that a book called the Bible contains God’s complete revelation to mankind even though the book does not make that claim. The Bible is the Catholic Church’s own book. It was purloined by Protestants. There is no recording of the Apostles speaking, which is what you are demanding. However, there is overwhelming evidence in the beliefs of the early Christians who were taught by the Apostles’ own lips and not by an interpretation of written words. They could ask, what do you mean by that? Catholics can ask God's appointed authority -- the Church. Sola Scriptura Christians can ask their pastors and get his opinion, or they can ask themselves through PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of the scriptures. Well, Opinion is not fact. Mas pinaniniwalaan nyo kasi ang SARILING nyong INTERPRETATION at PANG-UNAWA kaysa sa SIMBAHAN na mismong NAG-CANONIZED at NAG-COMPILED ng BIBLIYA. [You believe more in your private interpretation and understanding than the church who canonized and compiled the Bible].
Ask them these questions:
1. What are those godly revelations significant to the learning of men which the Bible does not state? They won't give you a satisfying answer here.
2. Has Rome ever released an official or ex-cathedra infallible intepretation of all verses in the Bible? She has not, so Roman Catholics are in no position to criticize us for our interpretations.
3. How sure are you that Rome is the infallible church? They will rely on their private and fallible judgement (which they abhor) to prove it or they could just accept what Rome teaches without ever thinking.
And speaking of canonizing the Bible, many of the Roman Catholics in the Philippines do not know about the Esdras1 problem. Esdras1 is an apocryphal book in the Septuagint that was included in the 4th century canon of Hippo and Carthage. Esdras2 of the Septuagint contains both the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. However, in the Council of Trent 1546, Esdras 1 of the Septuagint was not canonized. Trent followed the Vulgate where Esdras1 is Ezra and Esdras2 is Nehemiah. Esdras1 of the Septuagint is Esdras3 in the Vulgate which wasn't canonized. So between the 4th and 16th century, they differ by one book which is the Septuagint Esdras1. Therefore, they didn't have a final list until 1546 in Trent.
1. "There was no book called "the Bible" until the very end of the fourth century and beginning of the fifth. The Church was the only teacher after the Apostles died. And still is. Jesus Christ founded His Church to speak and to teach in His place when He returned to the Father. The New Testament (NT) is not a systematic instruction book in Christianity. It is the written record of the spiritual life and experience of the Church during the first 50 years or so after her founding at Pentecost, a record which she herself wrote, canonized, and named the New Testament. The Church was founded c. A.D. 33. The first 'book' written of what became the NT was Thessalonians, c. 51. The last was the Gospel of John (c. 100). The Church was then about 67 years old. The contents were selected, named the OT and NT, and canonized in A.D. 382, confirmed in 393, 397, and 419. The Church named her entire collection of sacred Scripture tá Biblia, the "Little Books," the Bible."
The first thing you must remember that the Scriptures are God-breathed. Even if there was no canon or a list of Scriptures, we have inspired Scriptures. In fact, we cannot have a canon without inspired Scriptures because the canon is all about what has been inspired. It's ironic that Rome claims infallibility and yet it took her over 300 hundred years (as they claim) before making a list of inspired Scriptures. Their canon is dependent on men, not God.
Another important thing you must remember is that God is the author of the canon, not men. The revelation of which book should compose the Bible rest on his purposes.
Now concerning the claim that the church was the "only" teacher, it makes me wonder why the church even bothered to write the Bible. Rome claims apostolic succession and that the church is the depository of all teaching. The Bible to them can be implicit or explicit in teaching that's why they need their church. If that's the case, why not just make a book where everything is explicit and easily understood like the Catechism? Then again, what's the use of it when you have the church?
On the other hand, Paul tells us the importance of Scripture: For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope. Romans 15:4
2. In fact, you and millions of Protestants can't even agree on a definition of SOLA SCRIPTURA but then it literally means "Scripture Alone" and is one of the "pillars" of Protestantism according to its founder, Martin Luther. Maybe YOU didn't say it, but the founder and 'Father of Protestantism' did. Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory. It says we should believe only Scripture, but Scripture never says this. If we believe only what Scripture teaches, we will not believe Sola Scriptura, because Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura.
And what do they mean by various definition of sola scriptura? Sola Scriptura means that the Bible alone is the infallible rule of faith and morals. In order for it to be refuted they should give you another set of infallible rule of faith and morals which is as equal as the Bible. And they should enumerate the contents those other rules of faith and moral. They won't give you a satisfactory answer.
The statement, "Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura" is an argument they need to prove, just as you need to prove the contrary. They are simply saying it without proving it.
3. Your problem is that Sola Scriptura separates the Church from her Scripture. The Church as writer, canonizer, and interpreter of Scripture is the author and guardian and teacher of Scripture.
The problem with the first sentence is that they didn't tell how sola scriptura would separate the church from Scripture. It's a misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura. The church needs the Scripture as her guide. For Rome to define the Scriptures is to imply that she is superior over it, despite the claim that she is subservient to it. Think about it, how can Rome be logically subservient to the things she can define?
4. Sola Scriptura is not historical. The first generations of Christians did not have the New Testament -- they had only the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world, to teach them. When she was nearly 400 years old, the Catholic Church selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament. At the same time, she canonized the 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. Her entire collection of Sacred Scripture, which she alone identified as “Scripture,” she named ‘the Bible.’ It was then the end of the 4th century.
Here are some patristic writings which prove sola scriptura is historical:
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466AD): "Do not, I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to Scripture alone"
Basil of Caesarea (329-379AD): "Believe in those things that are written. What is not written inquire not into."
Athanasius (297-373AD): "And we have proof of this, not from external sources, but from Scriptures."
And in their claim that the church did all these things to the Bible, ask them the White Question: How did the Jews who were born 50 years before Christ know that the books of Isaiah and Chronicles were Scripture? Do notice that the so-called infallible Church of Rome wasn't around 50 years before Christ, so how would the Jews know infallibly? Your opponents will assume that the priests and sanhedrin were infallible, but that's their burden to prove. No Roman Catholic has ever answered the White Question intelligently.
5. Your problem is that you believe that a book called the Bible contains God’s complete revelation to mankind even though the book does not make that claim. The Bible is the Catholic Church’s own book. It was purloined by Protestants. There is no recording of the Apostles speaking, which is what you are demanding. However, there is overwhelming evidence in the beliefs of the early Christians who were taught by the Apostles’ own lips and not by an interpretation of written words. They could ask, what do you mean by that? Catholics can ask God's appointed authority -- the Church. Sola Scriptura Christians can ask their pastors and get his opinion, or they can ask themselves through PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of the scriptures. Well, Opinion is not fact. Mas pinaniniwalaan nyo kasi ang SARILING nyong INTERPRETATION at PANG-UNAWA kaysa sa SIMBAHAN na mismong NAG-CANONIZED at NAG-COMPILED ng BIBLIYA. [You believe more in your private interpretation and understanding than the church who canonized and compiled the Bible].
Ask them these questions:
1. What are those godly revelations significant to the learning of men which the Bible does not state? They won't give you a satisfying answer here.
2. Has Rome ever released an official or ex-cathedra infallible intepretation of all verses in the Bible? She has not, so Roman Catholics are in no position to criticize us for our interpretations.
3. How sure are you that Rome is the infallible church? They will rely on their private and fallible judgement (which they abhor) to prove it or they could just accept what Rome teaches without ever thinking.
And speaking of canonizing the Bible, many of the Roman Catholics in the Philippines do not know about the Esdras1 problem. Esdras1 is an apocryphal book in the Septuagint that was included in the 4th century canon of Hippo and Carthage. Esdras2 of the Septuagint contains both the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. However, in the Council of Trent 1546, Esdras 1 of the Septuagint was not canonized. Trent followed the Vulgate where Esdras1 is Ezra and Esdras2 is Nehemiah. Esdras1 of the Septuagint is Esdras3 in the Vulgate which wasn't canonized. So between the 4th and 16th century, they differ by one book which is the Septuagint Esdras1. Therefore, they didn't have a final list until 1546 in Trent.
I noted some of these from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
ReplyDelete97 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit." "And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."
If the source is of the same spirit, then I believe the apostles would have written what they were preaching, that's why I believe in Sola Scriptura, knowing that the apostles preached the Gospel and wrote about the Gospel as they were guided by the same Spirit... that's why I keep mentioning that Sola Scriptura is not against tradition, as long as it is in accorance to the Gospel... I agree with CCC in par 81, particularly with "It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread..." and the apostles wrote it so that we may be guided by it alone, so that we may refrain from preaching another gospel... we have to note the words 'preserve'... now i'm not sure what it means when CCC said 'expound'... certainly it must not to 'add/subtract' but to explain, and again this should be based on the Gospel!
CCC says 86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."
That's why I keep saying that Sola Scriptura does not hate Church authorities, but it needs the people to spread what is written, because we are never superior to the Word of God, but we are its servant! I hope, this should be applied, but not only stated in theory... This of course does not reflect that I believe in all that is written in CCC, I haven't read the entire book yet, so I'm not sure if there may be contradictions that may exist or may not exist
Many of the arguments on sola scriptura are based on misrepresentations, most specially on its definition. Sola scriptura means that the "Bible alone is the infallible source of rules of faith and morals". Meaning, it has no equal. Protestants can embrace any rule of faith PROVIDED that it is subject to the scrutiny of Scriptures.
ReplyDeleteAs to CCC 86, this is what every Roman Catholic are reasoning when they face an argument that the church is above Scriptures. But claiming that the church is the Bible's writer and canonizer, that's hardly subservient.
Hi Gerry,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you've said. There's really a big misunderstanding about sola scriptura.
[As to CCC 86, this is what every Roman Catholic are reasoning when they face an argument that the church is above Scriptures.]
I hope the Roman Catholic Church is not overruling the Scriptures instead of becoming its servant as CCC 86 states.
Hi Gerry,
ReplyDeleteplease share me your explanation on how those early christians managed to distinguish which among the existing scriptures on their time are inspired?
"The first thing you must remember that the Scriptures are God-breathed. Even if there was no canon or a list of Scriptures, we have inspired Scriptures. In fact, we cannot have a canon without inspired Scriptures because the canon is all about what has been inspired. It's ironic that Rome claims infallibility and yet it took her over 300 hundred years (as they claim) before making a list of inspired Scriptures. Their canon is dependent on men, not God."
@Michael,
ReplyDeleteGreetings!
[please share me your explanation on how those early christians managed to distinguish which among the existing scriptures on their time are inspired?]
First thing you have to remember that it all depends on God. It is His decision as to when and how the Scriptures will be revealed. When God moves His people to write, it always has a purpose.
That being said, my second point is based on John 10:4-5. The early Christians recognizes what is Scriptures based on how much they know about God. Meaning, their relationship with God enables them to recognize His works. Just like a relationship with a spouse, even if the partner is blindfolded he/she can recognize his/her voice, touch, scent, and other characteristics. Why is that? Because they spent considerable time talking to each other and doing things together. So over the course of time, devoted believers of God knows God's actions and his purposes.
hi gerry.
ReplyDeletegood day. thank you for sharing your explanation. based on your statement above, it was God who guides his people (christians) to know which among the scriptures are inspired. Is this correct? Does if follow that God uses those humans to determine and declare that some scriptures are inspired and others are not through his guidance? (I assumed this is done in a supernatural way since God did not spoke to them literally)
Yes God uses people to do his will. He works with them closely. The more appropriate thing to say is that God uses people to recognize and teach which are Scriptures.
ReplyDeletehi gerry,
ReplyDeletei have read several articles (e.g. history books, online artilces, etc) and viewed some documentary (e.g. national geographic) regarding the canons of the bible, especially the new testament books, on how they were compiled and distinguished from other scriptures in the early centuries. Apparently, I've noticed that bishops of the early chrsitianity(they were catholic bishops according to the articles and documentaries) were the ones who has been used/guide by God to determine the inpired scriptures. because no other group of people has been mentioned in which God guide this people to recognize His scriptures. Am i still correct on this one? please comment on this.
Hi Michael,
ReplyDeleteWell do notice that it took up to the 4th century to make the first compilation and up to the 16th century to definitively settle it. History will also tell you that certain church figures like Jerome were against the inspiration of the Deuterocanonicals. Do you think God would just leave it unsettled in this span of time?
Scriptures are inspired. Even if there was no "formal" canon, like between 70AD to 325AD Church Fathers have been quoting from Scriptures. This means that there are people who recognize what is Scripture.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Old%20Testament/page6
ReplyDeleteThe confusion is caused by the fact that some of the books of the Bible and the apocrypha (those which do not belong in the Catholic Bible) have changed names over the last few centuries. You have put your finger on the most confusing name change there has been. Read carefully, because this is tricky.
There have been four books associated with the prophet Ezra (also spelled Esdras). In some circles these became known as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Esdras. In other circles, the first two of these (1 and 2 Esdras) became known as Ezra and Nehemiah, while the second two (3 and 4 Esdras) became known as 1 and 2 Esdras.
The first two of the four books belong in the Bible and are accepted by both Catholics and Protestants as canonical. In older Catholic Bibles they were called 1 and 2 Esdras, but now they are more commonly called Ezra and Nehemiah. The second two of the four books (sometimes known as 3 and 4 Esdras, sometimes known as 1 and 2 Esdras) do not belong in the Bible at all and are not accepted by either Catholics or Protestants.
When we said that the Church councils did not accept 1 and 2 Esdras, we were using the modern system of book names and were referring to the two formerly known as 3 and 4 Esdras.
One final note to the confusion: While 3 and 4 Esdras are not accepted by Catholics or Protestants, some Eastern Orthodox accept one or the other of them.
///Therefore, they didn't have a final list until 1546 in Trent.///
ReplyDeleteThis is SIMPLY not true.
Trent simply reaffirmed the historic canon of the Bible after it had been challenged by Protestants. The same books Trent affirmed had been affirmed by councils and popes prior to Trent. The first council recorded as dealing with the canon was the Council of Rome, which convened in A.D. 382 under Pope Damascus. Later councils, such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and the ecumenical council of Florence (1438) reaffirmed the canon issued by the Council of Rome.
At all these councils the canon that was proclaimed included the seven deuterocanonical books—1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, and Sirach—and rejected 1 and 2 Esdras. Far from being inconsistent; Trent reaffirmed what the Church had taught since the earliest centuries.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303qq.asp
///What are those godly revelations significant to the learning of men which the Bible does not state? They won't give you a satisfying answer here.///
ReplyDeleteHmmm, "godly revelations" sounds too much like James White.
Anyway. How about the canon of the Bible, for one? It's not found in the Bible.
Or how about the relationship between the Father and the Son? Are they equal? Of the same substance? Of the same dignity? Where is that in the Bible?
///Has Rome ever released an official or ex-cathedra infallible intepretation of all verses in the Bible? She has not, so Roman Catholics are in no position to criticize us for our interpretations.///
ReplyDeleteAn infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made ONLY when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.
Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
///How sure are you that Rome is the infallible church?///
ReplyDeleteOn the authority of God who cannot deceive nor be deceived. Jesus Christ in Mt. 16:18-20 himself assured his Church this.
///How did the Jews who were born 50 years before Christ know that the books of Isaiah and Chronicles were Scripture?///
ReplyDeleteThe early Church judged which books were apostolic and which were not based on which had been handed down to them as apostolic by Church Tradition. Those books which had been widely handed down as apostolic were regarded as apostolic when the canon was settled in the late 300s.
From the time of the Apostles and up to today, the Church has been zealously guarding the deposit of faith which consist of the teachings taught by Jesus Christ while on earth. We see St. Paul repeating over and over in his letters "Guard it, be faithful to it."
To give your readers an idea of how immensely important this concern is, here's something on the topic:
Q: Why did some books mentioned in the Bible perish and not make it into the canon? Were they not inspired?
A: Some books the Bible mentions were not inspired but are simply used as historical sources. This is the case when Paul quotes books by the pagan writers Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides (Acts 17:28, 1 Cor. 15:33, and Titus 1:12, respectively) or when the Old Testament refers us to the book of the Annals of the Kings of Media and Persia (Esther 10:2).
The same is likely true of the book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel (1 Kgs. 14:19) and the book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah (1 Kgs. 14:29), which may simply have been court records or secular histories of the periods they discussed. The same goes for the book of the Kings of Judah and Israel (2 Chron. 16:11), and the Memoirs of Nehemiah (2 Macc. 2:13).
Other books contained genuine revelation, though the book as a whole was not inspired. This is the case with the book of Enoch, which is quoted in Jude 14, and possibly a book known as the Assumption of Moses, which appears to be quoted in Jude 9. A work of unclear status is the book of Jashar, which is twice quoted in the Old Testament (Josh. 10:12-13, 2 Sam. 1:18-27) and seems to be a book of songs concerning the history of Israel.
Among uninspired books mentioned in the Old Testament are the Records of Samuel the Seer, the Records of Nathan the Prophet, and the Records of Gad the Seer (1 Chron. 29:29), the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, the visions of Iddo the Seer concerning Jeroboam son of Nebat (2 Chron. 9:29), the Records of Shemaiah the Prophet and of Iddo the Seer (2 Chron. 12:15), the Annotations of the Prophet Iddo (2 Chron.13:22; the references to works of Iddo may be different ways of referring to the same book).
In the New Testament, there are references to a third letter from Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9) and of a letter of his to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16; though many have thought this letter to the Laodiceans is the same as the letter to the Ephesians). Such books may have been inspired, but for some reason God chose not to have them passed down and included in the canon.
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=008187825485874300314:1bfkl0u3vji&ie=UTF-8&q=canon+of+the+Bible&sa=Search
///How did the Jews who were born 50 years before Christ know that the books of Isaiah and Chronicles were Scripture?///
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scripturecatholic.com/sola_scriptura_qa.html#tradition-III
The bishops had to rely on apostolic tradition which they received from their successors, and their successors, and so on, all the way back to the apostles. Christ also promised that the Church would be guided into all truth. At the time the canon was selected (just before the end of the fourth century), all the apostles were deceased. So the only way the Church could determine what books were inspired was to rely upon the oral tradition that it received from the apostles.
There were many, many scriptures floating around, many of which seem orthodox (and some are; i.e., Didache, Clement's letter to the Corinithians, The Shepherd of Hermas, etc.). There were even 50 “gospels” that existed. But how could the Church actually know which ones were inspired? By the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they relied upon oral apostolic tradition. As Paul says, this "Church is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth." 1 Tim. 3:15. This historical and theological fact also disproves the Protestant theory of sola Scriptura (that the Bible is the sole rule and guide of faith). This is because the Bible has no inspired table of contents. You must look outside the Bible to determine what books belong in it, and this is a Revelation given from God to the Catholic Church.
As far as the number of Scriptures, the Bible contains the entire written word of God, and nothing less. There are not and can not be any other Scriptures that were inspired but not selected by the Church, because the Church acted with Christ's own wisdom and authority in determining the canon. The 72 books of the Bible are it. There is nothing more as far as the written word goes.
The Protestants removed 7 books from the OT during the Reformation (circa 1535), specifically at the direction of Martin Luther. He was particularly disturbed by the book of Maccabees (2 Macc. 12:45) because it supported the Church's teaching on purgatory. He was also going to remove the letter of James because it supports the Catholic teaching of works justifying us, but the Protestant movement would not let him go that far.
As far as their authority, of course they had none. God gave his authority only to the Catholic Church. Once in a while, you will hear a Protestant appeal to the school of Jamnia, a Jewish “council” that rejected the deuterocanonical books around 90 A.D. (primarily because they were written in Greek, and not Aramaic and Hebrew). But this same council also rejected the entire New Testament! So it is illogical for them to appeal to a Jewish school that rejected Christ as authority for a Christian position! See my link on the deuterocanon. It demonstrates how the sacred writers constantly quoted the deuterocanonical books in their NT writings. See also the link on the Septuagint (the Greek OT that Christ and the apostles taught from). If the rejected books were good enough for Jesus, they are good enough for me.
///Here are some patristic writings which prove sola scriptura is historical:
ReplyDeleteSometimes Protestant apologists try to bolster their case for 3 by using highly selective quotes from Church Fathers such as Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem,
Augustine, and Basil of Caesarea. These quotes, isolated from the rest of what the Father in question wrote about church authority,
Tradition and Scripture, can give the appearance that these Fathers were hard-core Evangelicals who promoted an unvarnished principle that would have done John Calvin proud.
But this is merely a chimera. In order for the selective "pro-" quotes from the Fathers to be of value to a Protestant apologist, his audience must have little or no
firsthand knowledge of what these Fathers wrote.
By considering the patristic evidence on the subject of scriptural authority in
context, a very different picture emerges. A few examples will suffice to demonstrate what I mean.
Basil of Caesarea provides Evangelical polemicists with what they think is a "smoking gun" quote upholding :
"Therefore, let God inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God,
in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth" (). This, they think, means that Basil would have been
comfortable with the Calvinist notion that "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto
all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened
in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain
unto a sufficient understanding of them" ( 7).
Yet if Basil's quote is to be of any use to the Protestant apologist, the rest of Basil's writings must be shown to be consistent and compatible with . But watch what
happens to Basil's alleged position when we look at other statements of his:
"Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or enjoined which are preserved in the Church, some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have delivered to us in a
mystery by the apostles by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force" (, 27).
"In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form with the Spirit' has no written authority, we maintain that if there is not
another instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received [as authoritative]. But if the great number of our
mysteries are admitted into our constitution without [the] written authority [of Scripture], then, in company with many others, let
us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide by the unwritten traditions. 'I praise you,' it is said [by Paul in l Cor. 11:1] that you remember me in all things and keep the
traditions just as I handed them on to you,' and Hold fast to the traditions that you were taught whether by an oral statement or by a letter of ours' [2 Thess. 2:15]. One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us [under consideration], which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches,
delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time" (, 71).
Such talk hardly fits with the principle that Scripture is formally sufficient for all matters of Christian doctrine. This type of appeal to a body of unwritten apostolic Tradition within
ReplyDeletethe Church as being authoritative is frequent in Basil's writings.
Protestant apologists are also fond of quoting two particular passages from Athanasius: "The holy and inspired Scriptures are
sufficient of themselves for the preaching of the truth" ( 1:1). And: "These books [of canonical Scripture] are the
fountains of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them. In these alone the school of
piety preaches the Gospel. Let no man add to these or take away from them" (39th ). But in neither place is
Athanasius teaching .
First, in the case of the , he was instructing his churches as to what could and could not be read at Church as
"Scripture." The context of the epistle makes it clear that he was
laying down a liturgical directive for his flock.
Second, as in the case of Basil and the other Fathers Protestants
attempt to press into service, Athanasius' writings show no signs of , but rather of his staunchly orthodox
Catholicism. Athanasius, for example, wrote: "The confession arrived at Nicea was, we say more, sufficient and enough by itself
for the subversion of all irreligious heresy and for the security
and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church" ( 1).
And: "[T]he very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic
Church from the beginning was preached by the apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be celled a Christian" ( 1:28).
And consider this quote from Cyril of Jerusalem's , a favorite of the Protestant apologists: "In
regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be
led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who
tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I
announce. The salvation which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures" (4:17).
How should we understand this? Catholic patristic scholars would
point out that such language as Cyril uses here is consistent with his and the other Fathers' high view of Scripture's authority and
with what is sometimes called its material sufficiency (more on that shortly). This language, while perhaps more rigorously
biblical than some modern Catholics are used to, nonetheless conveys an accurate sense of Catholic teaching on the importance
of Scripture. Even taken at face value, Cyril's admonition poses no problem for the Catholic. But it does, ironically, for the
Protestant.
The proponent of is faced with a dilemma when he attempts to use Cyril's quote. Option One: If Cyril was in fact
ReplyDeleteteaching , Protestants have a big problem. Cyril's are filled with his forceful teachings on
the infallible teaching office of the Catholic Church (18:23), the Mass as a sacrifice (23:6-8), the concept of purgatory and the
efficacy of expiatory prayers for the dead (23:10), the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (19:7; 21:3; 22:1-9), the
theology of sacraments (1:3), the intercession of the saints (23:9), holy orders (23:2), the importance of frequent Communion
(23:23), baptismal regeneration (1:1-3; 3:10-12; 21:3-4), indeed a staggering array of specifically "Catholic" doctrines.
These are the same Catholic doctrines that Protestants claim are not found in Scripture. So, if Cyril really held to the notion of
, he certainly believed he had found those Catholic doctrines in Scripture. One would then have to posit that Cyril was badly mistaken in his exegesis of Scripture, but this tack, of course, leads nowhere for Protestants, for it would of necessity impugn Cyril's exegetical credibility as well as his claim to find in Scripture.
Option Two: Cyril did not teach ; the Protestant understanding of this passage is incorrect. That means an attempt
to hijack this quote to support is futile (if not dishonest), since it would require a hopelessly incorrect
understanding of Cyril's method of systematic theology, the doctrinal schema he sets forth in , and his
view of the authority of Scripture. Obviously, neither of these options is palatable to the Protestant apologist.
Were there time and space to cycle through each of the patristic quotes proffered by Protestants arguing for , we could demonstrate in each case that the Fathers are being quoted out of context and without regard to the rest of their statements on the authority of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. It
will suffice for now, though, to remind Catholics that the Fathers
did not teach , and no amount of clever "cut-and-paste" work by defenders of can demonstrate otherwise.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/solascri.txt
///Here are some patristic writings which prove sola scriptura is historical:///
ReplyDeleteGerry, these were dyed-in-wool Catholics.
Showing selective quotations from them WITHOUT taking a look at their entire writings, and hoping nobody would notice smacks of dishonesty, something which, I'm sure, you wouldn't want to be associated with.
I will answer the above posts later on.
ReplyDelete[When we said that the Church councils did not accept 1 and 2 Esdras, we were using the modern system of book names and were referring to the two formerly known as 3 and 4 Esdras.]
ReplyDeleteThis misses the whole point. The 4th century canon was based on the Septuagint. The Septuagint has Esdras1 in the said canon. When Jerome's Vulgate was written Esdras1 of the Septuagint became Esdras3. Trent had removed what was canonized in the the 4th century.
[Trent simply reaffirmed the historic canon of the Bible after it had been challenged by Protestants. The same books Trent affirmed had been affirmed by councils and popes prior to Trent. The first council recorded as dealing with the canon was the Council of Rome, which convened in A.D. 382 under Pope Damascus. Later councils, such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and the ecumenical council of Florence (1438) reaffirmed the canon issued by the Council of Rome.]
Well, I already told there time and again about Esdras1 of the Septuagint being part of the 4th century canon but was removed in Trent.
[Anyway. How about the canon of the Bible, for one? It's not found in the Bible.
Or how about the relationship between the Father and the Son? Are they equal? Of the same substance? Of the same dignity? Where is that in the Bible?]
These are already systematized teachings. The Bible makes it clear that Scriptures are inspired so all the early Christians has to do is to recognize inspired Scriptures. As to the equality between the Father and Son, it doesn't take a single verse to prove this. This teaching is derived from devoted reading of Scripture which later on was summarized to form an article of faith for the Christian concerning equality between the Father and Son.
[On the authority of God who cannot deceive nor be deceived. Jesus Christ in Mt. 16:18-20 himself assured his Church this.]
Yes but a lot churches are attaching themselves to that verse. So which one do we pick?
[There were many, many scriptures floating around, many of which seem orthodox (and some are; i.e., Didache, Clement's letter to the Corinithians, The Shepherd of Hermas, etc.). There were even 50 “gospels” that existed. But how could the Church actually know which ones were inspired? By the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they relied upon oral apostolic tradition. As Paul says, this "Church is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth." 1 Tim. 3:15. This historical and theological fact also disproves the Protestant theory of sola Scriptura (that the Bible is the sole rule and guide of faith). This is because the Bible has no inspired table of contents. You must look outside the Bible to determine what books belong in it, and this is a Revelation given from God to the Catholic Church.]
This hardly answers the White Question. We are talking about Jews who were born 50 years before Christ. Obvioiusly the New Testament Church wasn't born then. The so-called infallible church of Rome wasn't around then also. So how did the pre-Messianic Jews identify what is Scripture?
[Gerry, these were dyed-in-wool Catholics.
Showing selective quotations from them WITHOUT taking a look at their entire writings, and hoping nobody would notice smacks of dishonesty, something which, I'm sure, you wouldn't want to be associated with.]
Those were just samples of quotation and they don't intend to be comprehensive. There are more quotations from the same church fathers and other church fathers as well. My purpose is show that Protestants can deal with historical arguments. We can expound on the church fathers later on.
Then again, Roman Catholic can also quote from church fathers and thus we'll just have to find out if either party misquoted or misinterpreted a church father.
///Trent had removed what was canonized in the the 4th century.///
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, this is simply NOT so. Apparently you have proof that the Church does not have. Pardon me, but you will have to place on the table THAT incontrovertible proof that the Church did. I will wait for it please.
May I suggst you do it this way:
ReplyDeleteStart with the list under Pope Damasus. To make it easy for you, below I give you the list, so that all you have to do now is provide the ones under Hippo, Carthage, and Trent.
Good luck to you, Gerry.
ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.
The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.
Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
///Well, I already told there time and again about Esdras1 of the Septuagint being part of the 4th century canon but was removed in Trent.///
ReplyDeleteGerry, I'm sorry, but you will have to do better than merely give your word for it. You have to give proof.
///Or how about the relationship between the Father and the Son? Are they equal? Of the same substance? Of the same dignity? Where is that in the Bible?]
ReplyDeleteThese are already systematized teachings.///
Show it, Gerry, from the Bible. Please.
///Those were just samples of quotation and they don't intend to be comprehensive. There are more quotations from the same church fathers and other church fathers as well. My purpose is show that Protestants can deal with historical arguments. We can expound on the church fathers later on.///
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid, Gerry, that your purpose was to show Sola Scriptura by trying to show that even Catholic Athanasius believed in it. That was your purpose, Gerry. I merely showed that that is simply not true. In the James White article, you'd see more of Athanasius' writings that clearly show what his heart is: Catholic.
[I'm sorry, this is simply NOT so. Apparently you have proof that the Church does not have. Pardon me, but you will have to place on the table THAT incontrovertible proof that the Church did. I will wait for it please.
ReplyDeleteStart with the list under Pope Damasus. To make it easy for you, below I give you the list, so that all you have to do now is provide the ones under Hippo, Carthage, and Trent.
Good luck to you, Gerry.
Gerry, I'm sorry, but you will have to do better than merely give your word for it. You have to give proof.]
I will do even better, your Catholic Encyclopedia affirms my argument. Please refer to my previous article here:
http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2010/03/evaluating-responses-of-carlos-antonio.html
[Gerry, I'm sorry, but you will have to do better than merely give your word for it. You have to give proof.]
I don't have to fall for your false dichotomies. You're asking me to show a verse that renders exactly how stated the doctrine. Like I said, you are already giving a systematized articles of faith. You have seen our preachers compare the nature and abilities of the Father and Son using Scriptures.
[I'm afraid, Gerry, that your purpose was to show Sola Scriptura by trying to show that even Catholic Athanasius believed in it. That was your purpose, Gerry. I merely showed that that is simply not true. In the James White article, you'd see more of Athanasius' writings that clearly show what his heart is: Catholic.]
What's being argued here is that if the Fathers believe the sufficiency of Scriptures. You can argue all day long that Athanasius is Catholic but at the end of the day it is what he believes about the Scripture that counts.
It's not enough that you showed something that argues the contrary to dispute what I have said. I have the right to scrutinize it too. So we'll just have to find out which one of us rightfully quoted Athanasius.
///What's being argued here is that if the Fathers believe the sufficiency of Scripture///
ReplyDeleteThat'd make a good debate topic next, wouldn't it, Gerry? Be it resolved, that the Fathers (specify who) believe in the sufficiency of Scripture. How about it, Gerry? I need the workout please.
///I don't have to fall for your false dichotomies.///
I'm sorry if I've irked you, that's not my purpose, please let me assure you. But, really now, Gerry, you claim the canon of the Bible in Pope Damasus' time is NOT the same as that of Hippo, Carthage, and Trent. So far, all you've offered as proof is your say-so. Now, perhaps you'd agree THAT, simply, would not sit with educated people, Gerry, of which I'm sure you and I are. That's why I'm asking you for proof. And, in fact, to help you out, I've started you off with Pope Damasus' list. Perhaps you'd like me to come up with the ones for Hippo, Carthage, and Trent?
On the other hand, we could ALWAYS change topic, ha Gerry? What are friends for?
I will change topic.
///You can argue all day long that Athanasius is Catholic but at the end of the day it is what he believes about the Scripture that counts.///
ReplyDeleteTHAT is just the problem, Gerry. Athanasius did NOT. But, to convince your readers he did, why don't the two of us make that our next debate topic?
[I'm sorry if I've irked you, that's not my purpose, please let me assure you. But, really now, Gerry, you claim the canon of the Bible in Pope Damasus' time is NOT the same as that of Hippo, Carthage, and Trent. So far, all you've offered as proof is your say-so. Now, perhaps you'd agree THAT, simply, would not sit with educated people, Gerry, of which I'm sure you and I are. That's why I'm asking you for proof. And, in fact, to help you out, I've started you off with Pope Damasus' list. Perhaps you'd like me to come up with the ones for Hippo, Carthage, and Trent?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, we could ALWAYS change topic, ha Gerry? What are friends for?
I will change topic.]
Did you even bother to read the link? Did you read about the part where the Catholic Encyclopedia noted the difference?
[THAT is just the problem, Gerry. Athanasius did NOT. But, to convince your readers he did, why don't the two of us make that our next debate topic?]
I'm getting this feeling that you're just copying and pasting online articles. You're pitting me against your finest apologists.
///Did you even bother to read the link? Did you read about the part where the Catholic Encyclopedia noted the difference?///
ReplyDeleteGerry, did you even bother to go over the explanation I gave you yesterday?
///I'm getting this feeling that you're just copying and pasting online articles. You're pitting me against your finest apologists.///
There's something you should understand, Gerry. Unlike Protestants where one church has one set of doctrines and another church just around the corner has another set of doctrines, Catholics speak with one tongue.
Of course, the Church has its share of dissenters (not really a surprise-- Judas was one, and Jesus was around then, but they are NOT the Church.
You'd see the NAB commenting on a footnote to Fen 38 about Onan's sin NOT being withdrawal, and you could see the work of dissenters and liberals in the Church.
I'm cutting and pasting, Gerry, because it sure beats typing. Why type when you can cut and paste? I have a full-time job Gerry, unlike you perhaps.
But I assure, you, Gerry, I understand what I cut and paste. Of course, I have to, otherwise I wouldn't know what to cut and paste.
[Gerry, did you even bother to go over the explanation I gave you yesterday?]
ReplyDeleteYes I did. Did you get the part when I said the 4th centruy canons were based on the Septuagint while Trent based the canon on the Vulgate?
What say you on the difference noted by your Catholic Encyclopedia?
[I'm cutting and pasting, Gerry, because it sure beats typing. Why type when you can cut and paste? I have a full-time job Gerry, unlike you perhaps.]
Unfortunately you also cut and paste the opinion of the original writer of the article. So technically it's not you who I am arguing but the one you're quoting from.
///Unfortunately you also cut and paste the opinion of the original writer of the article. So technically it's not you who I am arguing but the one you're quoting from.///
ReplyDeleteGerry, only Protestants have opinion. Among Catholics, there's none, because the Church speaks with one voice, unlike Protestants who have 34,000.
When Ludwig Ott speaks about the fguilt of sins being forgiven, but not necessarily the punishment for temporal sin, you can be sure that, were you to look up what James Akin has to say about it, you'd find out he'd say exactly the same.
Now do you really think if I drop them and speak to you in my own words, I'd end up saying something different?
Gerry, right now you strike me as whining. If it has become too hot, just tell me, I will tone down the heat.
///What say you on the difference noted by your Catholic Encyclopedia?///
ReplyDeleteGerry, you did not; otherwise, you'd not have said what you said above.
[Now do you really think if I drop them and speak to you in my own words, I'd end up saying something different?]
ReplyDeleteYou can speak in your own words without dropping your sources.
[Gerry, right now you strike me as whining. If it has become too hot, just tell me, I will tone down the heat.]
Wouldn't it be silly if I also cut and paste from online articles to refute your cut and paste?
[Gerry, you did not; otherwise, you'd not have said what you said above.]
Here is the link again:
http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2010/03/evaluating-responses-of-carlos-antonio.html
Please read it, especially the part where I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia which specifically stated that Esdras1 was removed in Trent.
///Wouldn't it be silly if I also cut and paste from online articles to refute your cut and paste?///
ReplyDeleteCut and paste away, Gerry. Use James White's, my favorite whipping boy, and I will show you how he'd get shellacked soon enough. Not by me, of ocurse, but by Catholics.
///Please read it, especially the part where I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia which specifically stated that Esdras1 was removed in Trent. ///
Gerry, look into my eyes, read my lips: I have read it thoroughly. Now, PLEASE, don't let me do your homework for you. Please read the Catholic Answer too, and tell me what part of it don't you understand, or if you understand it, what part of it clashes with the CUA article.
[Cut and paste away, Gerry. Use James White's, my favorite whipping boy, and I will show you how he'd get shellacked soon enough. Not by me, of ocurse, but by Catholics.]
ReplyDeleteI could just imagine our discussion this way.
Abe: James White is wrong due to this website...
Gerry: Here is White's rebuttal in this website...
Abe: Well here is the response on this website...
Gerry: That has been answered in this website...
Abe: Oh we have response for that in this website...
Gerry: We have a response for it too in this website...
Do you now see how silly it can be if we cut and paste?
[Gerry, look into my eyes, read my lips: I have read it thoroughly. Now, PLEASE, don't let me do your homework for you. Please read the Catholic Answer too, and tell me what part of it don't you understand, or if you understand it, what part of it clashes with the CUA article.]
Well if you read the article, aren't you surprised that I quoted it from a Catholic source. Are you telling me the Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong simply because you quoted from Catholic Answers?
///Do you now see how silly it can be if we cut and paste?///
ReplyDeleteAre the statements below yours, Gerry? In the sense that you got these from the original sources, dug them up from the Latin originals maybe? Is that what you're trying to say here?
I don't think so, Gerry, you know why? Because you couldn't answer my test question when I first made contact, Gerry, the one about Eph 3:8-10, remember?
Meaning, Gerry, that you cut and paste too, much more than you'd probably accept. Worse, you don't give credit to your sources.
You know what I'm beginning to sense, Gerry? That you're finding our little exchange on this thread too much for you, you're being steamrollered, you can't answer well enough. You're stomped. Your lack of answers is horribly brought to light. That's why you thrash against the cut and paste.
Of course, I could be wrong in my assessment of the situation.
Here are some patristic writings which prove sola scriptura is historical:
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466AD): "Do not, I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to Scripture alone"
Basil of Caesarea (329-379AD): "Believe in those things that are written. What is not written inquire not into."
Athanasius (297-373AD): "And we have proof of this, not from external sources, but from Scriptures."
///Well if you read the article, aren't you surprised that I quoted it from a Catholic source. Are you telling me the Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong simply because you quoted from Catholic Answers?///
ReplyDeleteNow you're shifting the blame to your source. Gerry, your embarrassment is strictly self-inflicted. Next time, before you let loose a statement, make sure you have it right.
[You know what I'm beginning to sense, Gerry? That you're finding our little exchange on this thread too much for you, you're being steamrollered, you can't answer well enough. You're stomped. Your lack of answers is horribly brought to light. That's why you thrash against the cut and paste.]
ReplyDeleteThe problem with you is just because Catholic Answers say that Protestants are wrong in quoting church fathers, you don't bother to check its integrity. You want more quotations? Here, knock yourself out:
http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-apostolic-fathers-athanasius.htm
http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-apostolic-fathers-tertullian.htm
http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-apostolic-fathers-irenaeus.htm
[Now you're shifting the blame to your source. Gerry, your embarrassment is strictly self-inflicted. Next time, before you let loose a statement, make sure you have it right.]
Well that's not fair, you don't bother to check out your own Catholic Encyclopedia.
No offense but all you're doing is referring me to a writing of your fellow apologist and making grand conclusion they are right and I am wrong.
You're not arguing, you're parrotting.