Sola Scripture

AliveinJesus · Site Admin Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 64

Sola Scripture

First of all we have to explain what is meant by the term sola scripture. It is the belief that the Holy Bible, being the Word of God, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice for members of the true church, that is those who are members of the body of Christ Jesus.

2 Tim 3: 15-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Now what does the above verse show us?

First of all Timothy is commended for knowing the scriptures ~ not for abiding by men's traditions but for studying and knowing the Word of God through the holy scriptures. Cleary this is talking about the Hebrew scriptures that were used by the Jewish people at this time as the New Testament had not yet been completed.

Secondly, ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God.. not all scripture and tradition... but only ALL scripture.

Thirdly we clearly see it says that scripture is enough to 'thoroughly furnish' the man of God. If we deny this verse and say that the Bible is not sufficient then we call God a liar. If the books used by the Jews was sufficient to 'thoroughly furnish' the man of God then we can be assured that the completed work of God that we have in the Bible today is even more capable of furnishing us with all we need to know for salvation!

Now lets look at what Jesus said in Matthew 22:29-32

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Here the Saduccees came to Jesus to ask him about the resurrection. In his response to them he warns them that they err because they don't know the scriptures. They had all sorts of mixed up traditions in their beliefs .... but they didn't know the Word! What we read in the scriptures is what is spoken by God! It is His word!

This is our only infallible rule of faith as it is God's Word directly to us, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Though tradition has value when it supports the doctrines of the Bible it must be viewed as subordinate to the Bible because it is written by fallible men.

Sola scripture is not a claim that the Bible holds 'all' knowledge. John acknowledges that not all things that Jesus did are 'recorded in this book', so clearly there are things which are not recorded in the Bible. However, these things are not essential requirements to knowing the will of God and the way of redemption. The Bible doesn't profess to give us exhaustive knowledge, but enough knowledge that we might be 'thoroughly furnished'.

Sola scripture doesn't deny that God's word came initially through other means, that it was professed first orally by the OT leaders and prophets and by the NT apostles and Jesus. It does however say that these teachings where then inspirationally written down by the power of the Holy Spirit working in the lives of these apostles. Though they are now absent we can still build our lives on what they taught through the Scriptures given to us.

It does not mean that people will always interpret the Bible correctly or that there would always be agreement on every area of doctrine. Even the apostles often misunderstood what Jesus was teaching. The Bible was written to be understood by the ordinary people of God ~ they don't need an 'infallible' interpreter. A heart that is open to the will of God and the power of the Holy Spirit will find that they are not left alone when studying the Word and that the essential truths of God are clearly shown to those who seek and search the Scriptures diligently.

We can not put the same emphasis on tradition therefore the Scriptures must be our only infallible rule of faith and doctrine.

christisthelight · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 8

Is the Bible the "pillar of truth" in the Christian religion? No. According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. Some "Bible" Christians insist that a "pillar" (the Church) was created to "hold up" another structure (the Bible). They claim the Bible is the structure being held up according to this passage. Well, if that is the case, how did the early Church "hold up" the Bible for the first three to four hundred years when the Bible Itself didn't even exist? Also, even if the Church is only a "pillar" holding up the Bible, doesn't that mean that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture rather than the individual?
Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, "NO" (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Luther opened a "Pandora's Box" when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have over 20,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals' "different" interpretations of the Bible.
Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 20,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "Truth" (i.e., the correct interpretation of the Bible)? For that matter, aren't ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming "infallibility" when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office. Which is more believable - one office holding infallibility or 400 million non-Catholic Christians who can't agree on the interpretation of Scripture all claiming "infallibility?" When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No." Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.
Is the Bible the sole "teaching from God?" No. The Bible Itself states that their are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers "Sacred Apostolic Tradition." This type of "Tradition" never changes because it was passed down by the Apostles themselves. It is not the same as the man-made traditions condemned in Scripture. The man-made traditions condemned in Scripture were those of the Jewish Pharisees. In fact, as Christians, we are suppose to disassociate ourselves from persons who do not follow Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:6). If oral tradition is not to be followed, why did St. Paul state Christ said something that is not recorded in the Gospels (Acts 20:35)? St. Paul must have "heard" this saying, not read it from any Gospel or "Scripture," thereby, proving that some things Christ said were not recorded in the Gospels (John 21:25) and were passed on orally among His disciples instead, but were just as valid as anything written since St. Paul himself used one of these oral passages in one of his own epistles.
Did Jesus Christ write down any part of the New Testament with His own hand? No, He did not. If the Bible was to be the sole authority of the Church, shouldn't the Founder have written down His Own teachings? Shouldn't He have at least stated something similar to the following: "the written works of My disciples will be the authority upon which My Church is based?"

Didn't Jesus Christ with His own mouth instruct His disciples to "write down" His teachings? No. With the possible exception of the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) by St. John the Apostle, Jesus Christ gives no such instructions to any of His disciples or Apostles. In fact, only the Apostles Sts. Peter, John, James, Jude and Matthew were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture. Why were the other seven not inspired of the Holy Spirit to "write" if the "written" Word of God is the ONLY authority to be followed in the Christian religion?

Does the Bible state It is the sole or final authority of Christianity? No. Neither this statement nor anything even close to it appears anywhere in the New Testament. In fact, Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture (Matthew 18:17).
There are at least 5 Protestant denominations created every year based on a different interpretation of the Bible.

jessica · Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 10

"Martin Luther (1483-1546) is to be given the credit for inventing the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Bible Only or Bible Sufficiency). He had separated himself from the authority of the Papacy and the Magisterium, and thereby so doing lost all authority regarding Church matters. He then turned to the Bible, a book, as the sole source of authority. Can a book ever be a sole source of authority? What authoritive body is there to resolve disputes between opposing interpretations? lets see what happened.......Luther separated from the Catholic Church in 1521 and immediately there were squabbles between him, Zwingli, his fellow reformer from Switzerland, and Thomas Munzer. In that same year, Munzer broke away and formed the Anabaptists. John Calvin separated in 1536 and formed Calvinism. John Knox parted company and formed the Presbyterians in 1560. John Smith started the Baptists in 1609, and John and Charles Wesley started Methodism in 1739. From the moment they separated themselves from the Catholic Church, Protestantism lost the 'Supreme Court' of Bible interpretation, the Papacy and the Magisterium, and they lost all of the authority given to those two offices by GOD Himself. The splits continue on to this very day, as there are now over 33,800* differing non-Catholic denominations, none of which can claim authority in the interpretation of the Law of GOD, Holy Scripture. It has become so bad that the sects are feuding amongst themselves and are further splitting internally. There are scores of splinters in the Baptists alone, and several splinters in all of the other major Protestant sects. It is every man for himself in Bible interpretation for Protestantism. If it feels good for you, it must be OK....but be prepared to suffer the consequences. There is no unity in what Martin Luther started. If anything, he made a large part of the Body of Christ impotent. It is easy to see the work of satan here, as it is HIS plan to divide and conquer. See Matt 12:25 for Satan's plan, and John 10:16 for the plan of Jesus Christ.

*World Christianity Enclopedia, April 2001, a Protestant publication.
Now what do you suppose is the root cause of all of this chaos? It was the implementation of the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and with it, the private interpretation of Holy Scripture (forbidden in 2Pet 1:20 and 2Pet 3:16). Now, all of Protestantism can interpret the "Constitution of GOD's Law", the Holy Bible, as they see fit, bringing upon themselves splits, disunity, infighting, and chaos. Yes indeed, it would be a strange thing if GOD had given us an inerrant Book, and had failed to give us an authoritive, infallible interpreter for it. Now you and I both know that GOD would never do this.

Martin Luther was a prolific writer and held many views in opposition to the Catholic Church. On Nov 1, 1517, Luther took 95 theses, which he authored, and nailed them to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenburg Germany. The Catholic Church responded by demanding that Luther retract the statements of his which were in conflict with Church teaching.
The very earliest mention of the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura was by Martin Luther as he was questioned in the Synod of Augsburg (Germany) in October 1518. In his appeal to the Council, Luther placed the Bible and his interpretation of it, above the Pope. Even so he admitted the authority of the Synod and of the Bible were equivalent, only in the hope that the Synod would give him a favorable decision. In the Leipzig Disputation in July 1519, Luther went a step further and declared that Scripture ranked above a Church Council, and that Ecumenical Councils had already erred in matters of faith. As a result he was branded a heretic.
There seems to be a contradiction here, as Luther was a Catholic Augustinian Monk, and therefore was well aware that it was Catholic Church Councils* which finalized the canons of both the Old and the New Testaments.

Since Luther had separated himself from the authority of the Catholic Church, he could no longer claim all of the beauty of Church Tradition. Tradition is also contrary to 'his' idea of Sola Scriptura, and so he had to condemn tradition as 'unbiblical', despite the many verses in support of holding traditions such as, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold the traditions that you have learned, whether by WORD or by letter of ours." 2Thess 2:15

Martin Luther was a Catholic priest who started Protestantism, thus making himself the first Protestant. It is interesting that he wrote in his Commentary on St. John, "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."

Now for someone who humbled himself by admitting that he took the 'Word of GOD' from the Catholic Church, he still proceeded to 'modify' it without having any authority to do so.
Luther is the one who, on his own 'authority', removed 7 books from their rightful place in the Old Testament, and placed them in an appendix. They had references in them which did not agree with 'his' teaching, mainly 2 Maccabees and Purgatory. He also wanted to remove the last four books of the New Testament, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, and he succeeded in removing them from their rightful place and put them into an additional unnumbered appendix.
Here is a quote from a Lutheran scholar:
Heinrich Bornkamm's LUTHER AND THE OLD TESTAMENT, Trans. by Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch. Edited by Victor I Gruhn. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969. page 189:
"He did not make his distaste evident through his arrangement for printing, although he characterized the last four writings of the New Testament (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation) as inferior by not numbering them in the Table of Contents, just as the Old Testament Apocrypha, and by separating them from the main writings of the New Testament by a clear space.(394)"
The footnote, number 394, reads as follows: "394 From the New Testament of September, 1522, to the last edition of the Bible in 1546..."
So what do we know? Luther included the four books, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, in his NT, but only in an unpaginated appendix, clearly separated from the rest of the NT. We know that this continued from the first printing of Luther's NT until he died in 1546, and then his Bible was reconfigured by his followers.
James 2:24 must have proved an embarassment to him in his teaching of 'Sola Fides', as it says, "You see that by works a man is justified, and NOT by faith ONLY." Also, James 2:26 says, "Faith without works is dead."
Luther added the word 'alone' to his translation of Romans 3:28 because that verse also contradicted his teaching of 'Sola Fides', "For we reckon that a man is justified by faith alone independently of the works of the law."
See Proverbs 30:6

Throughout all of Scripture we are admonished, not to add to, or to take away from Holy Scripture. Here are some of the verses which warn against doing this, Deut 4:2, 11:32, 12:32(13:1),
Psa 12:6-7,33:4, Psa 50:16-17, 107:10-11, 119:57,139-140, Prov 5:7, *30:5-6, Jer 23:36, Gal 1:8-9, 1Pet 1:24-25, 2Pet 3:15-16, and of course the verses we are all familiar with from the last paragraph of the Bible, Rev 22:18-19...
"I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone shall add to them, GOD will add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, GOD will take away his portion from the tree of life, and from the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book."

Martin Luther removed seven books from the Old Testament. He did take away from the Words of GOD.
The entire books which he alone removed from their rightful place in Holy Scripture and placed in an appendix are, Baruch, Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Later, these books were removed entirely from Protestant bibles. As recounted above, he did the same with four books of the New Testament. These books had been in all Bibles for over 1100 years. Who had the authority to remove them? Did Martin Luther? Did any other single person?

Martin Luther rejected all authority of the Church and declared that the Bible was the sole authority. Nowhere in Scripture is it written that Scripture itself is the 'Sole Authority', nor does it say it is 'Self Sufficient', He did take away from the Words of GOD. Isa 22:20-22, Prov 11:14, 24:6, *Matt 18:17, Luke 10:16, 2Cor 10:8, *1Tim 3:15, Heb 13:17

Martin Luther added the word 'alone' to Romans 3:28. He did add to the Words of GOD.

Martin Luther condemned Church tradition as unbiblical (since he could no longer claim it) thereby negating scores of verses. He did take away from the Words of GOD. 2Thess 2:15

Martin Luther declared good works were useless for salvation. He did take away from the Words of GOD. James 2:24-26

Martin Luther wrote a series of pamphlets in which he declared that the Priesthood and the Episcopal Office must be done away with. He did take away from the Word of GOD, which clearly established the Episcopal Office and the Priesthood. Acts 6:5,14:22,20:28, Tit 1:5, James 5:14.

So there we have it. Martin Luther is guilty as charged of all of the violations listed above. He is the first Protestant, and the founder of Protestantism. He is the same person who declared the Bible is the GOD given 'Sole Rule of Authority', and is therefore to be believed. He has violated his own teaching by both 'Adding To', and 'Taking Away' from the Word of GOD. No one can deny that he did these things, as they are recorded in history books, and in Church records. His actions reek of Heresy and Hypocrisy, and all of Protestantism owes its heritage to the deeds of this one man.

-
Martin Luther had many ideas contrary to Catholic and Biblical teaching. Among them are...

Rejection of all authority of the Papacy and of the Magisterium.
Sola Scriptura, scripture alone as the only authority on religious matters.
Sola Fides, faith without works. Good works are useless for salvation.
Justification by faith alone.
Man has no free will.

Protestants have tried to show that Sola Scriptura did exist from the time of the Church Fathers. I have been given five references by Protestants, all of which I will discuss next. But before doing so, I will have to say that the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura binds its believers to the Bible and to the Bible only. I have been told repeatedly that if it is not in the Bible, it simply did not happen or it is not to be believed. I am forced to remark then, that according to their own rules, the writings of Church Fathers presented to me by them are not to be believed, as I cannot find them in the Bible. If that is the case, then why did they present them to me in the first place? Aren't they breaking their own rules by doing so? Isn't there a double standard here?

Some Protestants of today would rather use the words 'Bible Sufficiency', rather than the more familiar 'Sola Scriptura'. The reason for this is that 'Sola Scriptura' is never mentioned in the writings of the Church Fathers, but 'Bible Sufficiency' is. This is nothing but a ploy to try and show the legitimacy of 'Sola Scriptura' from early Church writings.
Let us first examine the word 'sufficient' with a dictionary...
'Being as much as needed. An adequate amount or quantity'.
Does that mean Bible alone? No! Let us see what the Bible itself says,
"Many other signs also Jesus worked in the sight of His disciples, WHICH ARE NOT WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of GOD, and that believing you may have life in His Name." John 20:30-31
"There are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if every one of these should be written, NOT EVEN THE WORLD ITSELF, I THINK, COULD HOLD THE BOOKS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE WRITTEN." John 21:25
Obviously Holy Scripture has said very clearly, that everything is NOT in Holy Scripture.

Here are the 5 examples as presented to me. My replies are in blue...

Augustine ("De bono viduitatis", [The Advantage of Widowhood]2):
"What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought . . . Therefore, I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher."

This example does not refer to the "Sufficiency of Scripture" at all, but to the "Authority of Scripture". Where are the words which say "Bible Only"? The Apostles taught to hold the traditions too, as I have already pointed out. Also the "Words of the Teacher" say to keep the traditions. See John 15:20, "Remember the Word that I have spoken to you".
Where is the reference to Sola Scriptura?

Augustine ("De unitate ecclesiae", [on the Unity of the Church]3):
"Let us not hear, this I say, this you say; but thus says the Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and which we both believe. There let us seek the Church, there let us discuss our case." He goes on: "Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God."

I do not see anything in this segment that even remotely refers to "Bible Only". Again it references the 'Authority of Scripture'. Hmmm, the third sentence says to take your case (differences of opinion) to the Church. This sentence does indicate that the Church has the final authority, does it not? See Matt 18:15-18. All that the last sentence says is, "do not agree with a Bishop who is in error".
Where is the reference to Sola Scriptura?

Augustine "Contra litteras Petiliana", (Against the Letters of Petiliana) Bk.3, ch.6:
"If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospels, let him be anathema."

This is only a repeat of Gal 1:8-9 which warns against preaching another Gospel. Mormons should heed this one as it does not apply to Catholics. However, it would apply to Protestants who deny keeping the traditions. That is preaching another Gospel.
Where is the reference to Sola Scriptura?

Protestant references to writings of St. Augustine, for support of Sola Scriptura, fall so short that they are simply non-exixtent.
Since Protestants like to reference St. Augustine, then I have a few references from him for them:

"I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the AUTHORITY of the CATHOLIC CHURCH."
Against the Letter of Mani 5,6, 397 A.D.

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture BUT FROM TRADITION, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary COUNCILS, THE AUTHORITY OF WHICH IS QUITE VITAL TO THE CHURCH."
Letter of Augustine to Januarius 54,1,1, 400 A.D.

"I believe that this practice comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices NOT FOUND IN THEIR WRITINGS nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves."
St. Augustine, Baptism 1,12,20, 400 A.D.

"What they found in the Church they kept; what they learned, they taught; what they received from the fathers, they handed on to the sons."
St. Augustine, Against Julian, 2,10,33, 421 A.D.

"Since by Christ's favor we are CATHOLIC Christians:"
St. Augustine, Letter to Vitalis, 217,5,16, 427 A.D.

"By the same word, by the same Sacrament you were born, but you will not come to the same inheritance of eternal life, unless you return to the CATHOLIC CHURCH."
St. Augustine, Sermons, 3, 391 A.D.

"This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall NOT conquer her."
St. Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6,14, 395 A.D.
From the samplings of St. Augustine (354-430), which I have shown here, if I were a Protestant, and was determined to remain one, I would make sure I would not ever quote from him again. There are references to many more quotes from many Church Fathers, following this section.

Athanasius ("Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione", [Against Peoples Opinion About the Incarnation] Oxford, p. 2):
"For indeed the holy and God breathed Scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth."

If the Protestants read this as 'Sola Scriptura', then I will have to remark that they should change the title to 'Sola Some of Scriptura', as they rejected 7 books of the Old Testament, and the verses which pertain to keeping of the traditions. Again, this section refers to the Authority of Scripture and not Scripture only. Catholics have never disputed the authority of Scripture, only the Protestant claim that it is the 'sole' authority.

Athanasius ("Ad Episcopos AEgyptiae" [To the Bishops of Egypt] in NPNF, Series II, IV:225):
" . . . holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us."

This is the only line that was given to me from a very lengthy writing. Following is all of part 4 of this writing, and the line quoted to me is in red at the end.

Athanasius... AD EPISCOPOS AEGYPTIAE...TO THE BISHOPS OF EGYPT
4. IT PROFITS NOT TO RECEIVE PART OF SCRIPTURE, AND REJECT PART.
For whence do Marcion and Manichaeus receive the Gospel while they reject the Law? For the New Testament arose out of the Old, and bears witness to the Old; if then they reject this, how can they receive what proceeds from it? Thus Paul was an Apostle of the Gospel, 'which God promised afore by His prophets in the holy Scriptures[3]:' and our Lord Himself said, 'ye search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me[4].' How then shall they confess the Lord unless they first search the Scriptures which are written concerning Him? And the disciples say that they have found Him, 'of whom Moses and the Prophets did write[5].' And what is the Law to the Sadducees if they receive not the Prophets[6]? For God who gave the Law, Himself promised in the Law that He would raise up Prophets also, so that the same is Lord both of the Law and of the Prophets, and he that denies the one must of necessity deny the other also. And again, what is the Old Testament to the Jews, unless they acknowledge the Lord whose coming was expected according to it? For had they believed the writings of Moses, they would have believed the words of the Lord; for He said, 'He wrote of Me[7].' Moreover, what are the Scriptures to him of Samosata, who denies the Word of God and His Incarnate Presence[9], which is signified and declared both in the Old and New Testament? And of what use are the Scriptures to the Arians also, and why do they bring them forward, men who say that the Word of God is a creature, and like the Gentiles 'serve the creature more than' God 'the Creator[1]?' Thus each of these heresies, in respect of the peculiar impiety of its invention, has nothing in common with the Scriptures. And their advocates are aware of this, that the Scriptures are very much, or rather altogether, opposed to the doctrines of every one of them; but for the sake of deceiving the more simple sort (such as are those of whom it is written in the Proverbs, 'The simple believeth every word[2]),' they pretend like their 'father the devil[3]' to study and to quote the language of Scripture, in order that they may appear by their words to have a right belief, and so may persuade their wretched followers to believe what is contrary to the Scriptures. Assuredly in every one of these heresies the devil has thus disguised himself, and has suggested to them words full of craftiness. The Lord spake concerning them, that 'there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, so that they shall deceive many[4].' Accordingly the devil has come, speaking by each and saying, 'I am Christ, and the truth is with me;' and he has made them, one and all, to be liars like himself. And strange it is, that while all heresies are at variance with one another concerning the mischievous inventions which each has framed, they are united together only by the common purpose of lying[5]. For they have one and the same father that has sown in them all the seeds, of falsehood. Wherefore the faithful Christian and true disciple of the Gospel, having grace to discern spiritual things, and having built the house of his faith upon a rock, stands continually firm and secure from their deceits. But the simple person, as I said before, that is not thoroughly grounded in knowledge, such an one, considering only the words that are spoken and not perceiving their meaning, is immediately drawn away by their wiles. Wherefore it is good and needful for us to pray that we may receive the gift of discerning spirits, so that every one may know, according to the precept of John, whom he ought to reject, and whom to receive as friends and of the same faith. Now one might write at great length concerning these things, if one desired to go rate details respecting them; for the impiety and perverseness of heresies will appear to be manifold and various, and the craft of the deceivers to be very terrible. But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient[6] for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things.

This quote given to me when taken in context is funny, as what does the first sentence say, which is the theme of the whole part? IT PROFITS NOT TO RECEIVE PART OF SCRIPTURE AND REJECT PART. I have already discussed the parts rejected by Protestants, so to whom does this paragraph fit? Where does it say 'Holy Scripture ONLY is of all things sufficient for us? Again it addresses Authority of Scripture, not Sola Scriptura.

Repeatedly, the Protestants like to quote Athanasius to once again 'prove' Sola Scriptura existed in his time, and once again, they have 'proven' that this Church Father never did write anything promoting Sola Scriptura. But he did write some very interesting words against it.

"But what is also to the point, let us note that the very TRADITION, teaching and faith of the CATHOLIC CHURCH from the beginning, WHICH THE LORD GAVE, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian."
St. Athanasius, Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1,28, 359 A.D.

My point being made, need I say more?
As I have previously said about another Church Father, if I were a Protestant, I would be careful about quoting from Saint Athanasius (296-373) also.

Here are a few quotes from other Church Fathers since Protestants like to quote them...
Saint Ignatius of Antioch (d 110) is an Apostolic Church Father, meaning he knew at least some of the Apostles.

"Wherever the Bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Letter to the Smyrneans 8:1

"In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the Bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the Council of GOD and college of Apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church." Letter to the Trallians 3:1

Saint Clement of Rome, is another Apostolic Church Father, and he had this to say...

"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of GOD, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed."
Letter to the Corinthians, Address, 80 A.D..

"Accept our councel and you will have nothing to regret." Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 80 A.D.

Saint John Chrysostom (354-407)...

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there was much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further." Homilies on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 4:2, 398-404 A.D..

God's blessings

Jessica
_________________
Be ready always to satisfy everyone that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you. -- St. Peter, 1 Peter 3:15

18. Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. -- St. Jerome

Sosthenes · Joined: 18 Feb 2008 Posts: 60