Sola Scriptura Mantra



I find it very amusing that Protestants indignantly excoriate the Catholic Church for teaching doctrine that is not explicitly spelled out in Scripture. Protestants so often say: “NEVER does Scripture say…..” Nowhere in Scripture does it say…..” etc.

And yet the Protestant Doctrine or the teaching of Sola Scriptura is “Nowhere in Scripture” and “NEVER does Scripture say” that all Christian Doctrine and teaching must be found explicitly in Scripture. That is a HUGE double standard don’t you think?

So, show me where it says in Scripture  that all beliefs must be found in scripture? If there is no scripture, then for Sola Scriptura Protestants, Sola Scriptura must be a “tradition of men”. Which it certainly is. And the man who began it was Martin Luther.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

About these ads

107 Responses

  1. Basil of Caesarea ran into some of the same problems long ago in replying to his opponents who appealed to their customs and traditions as relevant and authoritative.
    He said, “If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this we are clearly not bound to follow them.
    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.”

    Plus Paul the apostle actually encouraged the Berean’s to check what he was saying aligned with scripture.

    With 2000 years of traditions – we have only one way to test them and that is with scripture. This is why a Christian would know that mormonism and the witnesses are heretic.

  2. 1) 2 Timothy 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, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

    a) It is the scriptures that are able to make us wise unto salvation…
    b) ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God. We know that man’s “heart is deceitful above all, and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9) So, placing man’s word, or writings, on the same level as the inspired word of God seems like a structure built to fall.
    c) Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. In other words, it is advantageous to form your doctrine around what the scripture says, (We can’t say the same for man. Refer to 2), but it is not helpful to form the scripture around your doctrine.
    d) Combining a-c we arrive at one simple statement. We are able to be made perfect and thoroughly furnished unto all good works, simply through Sola Scriptura. There really is no way to argue against this Biblical truth, without calling God a liar.

    2)Daniel 7:10 “…the judgment was set, and the books were opened.”
    Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

    Which “books” do you suppose were opened? The scripture says that judgement was through “those things which were written in the books, according to their works.”

    In 2 Timothy we see that it is through scripture that we may be made wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, that it would be helpful to form our doctrine, reproof, and correction, that we would find instruction in righteousness, and thoroughly furnished unto all good works, and that the man of God may be perfect.

    How exactly do you improve on something that is able to make you perfect? How do you further a work of God that is complete?

    I take no issue with reading works of Christian authors. There are wise and holy men of God who have shared much wisdom with me about life through their writings. Peter declared that some of Paul’s writings were hard to be understood. Therefore, having someone to help you grasp the meaning of scripture is perfectly understandable. However, if something they teach is not based on, and backed up by scripture I must draw a line. If God says we are able to be made perfect through scripture, where do I get the audacity to call him a liar?

    Finally, I truly don’t understand why anyone would make a mockery of someone that believes in the authority and power of the written Word. That sounds scarily close to mocking someone for putting all of their faith in Jesus, don’t you think?

    • Steve in SC: Try basic logic …

      “ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God. …”

      To say ALL apples are red is NOT to say Apples ALONE are red. The inerrancy, inspiration and sufficiency of the bible are not in dispute. What is troubling is the extrapolation onto the text what isn’t there, the unbiblical claim that the Bible ALONE is authority to the exclusion of the authoritative role of Sacred Tradition and Church.

      • Which really means the Catholic Church can just add more, by using Oral tradition. If Oral Tradition was suffient then there would be no O.T. also. Catholic Church is like Israel of old. By which Oral tradition keeps a few in power. But Grace be to God they reconstructed the Torah or Pentateuch in exile. Grace be to God to the Reformers who gave thier lives to translate the Bible into thier Language. The Roman Catholic Church has no problem of shedding blood. For there own sake.” Bloody Mary”

  3. Jesus admonished not to add to the scripture … He quoted it often … And when doctrine contradicts we discard it as just of human origin … Be aware of blind guides

  4. Sorry. I took a look at the above article. It’s so poorly thought out and devoid of any serious and critical scholarship that it is embarrassing just to read it. Typical polemic anti-Catholic stuff. Get serious, Christian people … really!!!

  5. And what is your scholarship training?

  6. Only what God has given me: a lot of common sense, the ability to think critically, praying on my knees a lot while reading, pondering and discerning many favorite heavenly things … and Jesus, I trust you (in His Divine Mercy).

    • So what your saying is that Protestants dont have those things?
      Were all Donkeys without a master?

    • Its Protestants that you America inwhich you live.
      The Idea of freedom of Religion came from Protestants not Catholics So go move to italy.

      • Robert P: There you go again, ranting mindlessly. If you don’t mind, this will be unresponsive on my part. Just take care of yourself, Robert.

      • I love Italy and would LOVE to live there. But my children are all here so I would miss them too much.

        • bfhu – I married into an Italian family who were considered religious and church attenders but outside of the weekly 10 minutes of scripture I never saw them have Bible study or a focused family prayer time although my father/mother inlaws said the rosary at night in their room.
          Church attendance was the main thing so you only grew in faith on the basis of this one hour a week.
          I cant remember the Italian community that I occasionally mingled with doing scripture groups – after the service there was no further discussion on religious matters unlike most evangelicals that I meet today.
          I visit an EC run by americans here in Scotland and they have loads of bible study – 1 hr sermons and are reaching out to the lost – like young students who have never been in the faith.

          The only thing that troubles me is the CCM and the dress but most are just babes so they need time but they get good teaching and carry their bibles around . There are a few Italians from Italy – students who like the fervor of this evangelical church.

          In Scotland we have many Irish catholics – on Sunday afternoon there is drink and Celtic football and I held many drinking dances , bingo, race nights , old folks dancing on wednesday afternoon – etc etc
          I am tormented by my lack of discernment now.

          No Bible study – the priest liked a good drink and the annual youth trip to Lourdes had a bus with cinema so the chosen film was “the life of brian” a blasphemous parody. So avoid worldy churches like the plague. My 5 children were brought up in this church.

          • Charles A: I can agree with you in most parts. What you need to do is to continue to set yourself as a good example to your family, peers and friends. If your focus is bible study, then advertise it and find a couple of parishioners who are also similarly focused and start a bible study group in your home or parish. There are plenty of Catholic resources online as to how to conduct it.

            I guess that I am just blessed with a wonderful pastor and belong to a parish which is quite balanced with social and spiritual activities as well as performing corporal works of mercy. Next Saturday, I will again gather up all my adult (and now married) children and their children (my grandchildren) and travel to San Francisco for the annual Walk-for-Life as a family affair. I made a pilgrimage to Central-Eastern Europe not too long ago. No, we didn’t spend time drinking or watching blasphemous parodies. You may enjoy watching this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eeawxhbttu0 (I hope that this is not blocked in Scotland. I only produced this privately and freely for the people in my pilgrimage).

  7. But the irony is that catholic theologians use scripture to defend the church’s stance and the magisterium also relies on scripture.

    For things not apparent in the Bible we have a certain “freedom in Christ” as long as these customs don’t conflict with doctrine.
    Oral traditions could be OK around the first generation of Christianity but they would have been written down or how else could they be authenticated .
    It is now known that many early letters etc were forgeries so anything outside of the bible needs to square with scripture.

    Can a church go wrong ? – well nearly everyone in the catholic church followed arianism . This heresy was stopped mainly by one man :-

    “It is a cold fact of history that St. Athansius stood virtually alone
    against the onslaught of heretical teaching ravaging the Church of his day, saying that “If the world goes against the truth, then Athanasius goes against the world ”
    He fought the heresy by using the word of God – ie the Bible.

    How do we know heresy is not happening today – only by the bible.
    Although relying on proven commentary can also help.

    • Charles A: Where’s your certitude for the statement that “oral traditions could be OK around the first generation … but they WOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN DOWN OR ELSE COULD THEY BE AUTHENTICATED”? Is there a bible passage where we can point to, or even a historical document to this effect that the “oral traditions” were completely written down so we don’t need or have anything “outside of the (written) bible” today? You are also begging the question: So who “authenticated” the bible which in turn, is then used to authenticate and separate the forged “early letters” from the genuine ones? What did this “authority” (who you trusted to give you the “authentic” bible) also say about the “oral traditions”?

      I think that you are giving too much credit to one person, albeit a Church Father and surely a great defender against Arianism. Everything has to be properly placed in its historical context. St. Athanasius also had to seek refuge (from the wrath and arianism-tendency of the Eastern bishops) in the Church of Rome. The history of the heresy of Arianism is a very interesting read for anyone.

      • Francis – I meant that say Peter was guiding the new Christians with oral preaching , this would be OK but if someone came to me now and said I have discovered a letter that Peter wrote I would subject it to thorough examination and also test to the Bible.

        There must have been many oral traditions which were written down and many which were not – but the Bible tells us it contains everything we need for salvation IF we obey the commandments therein..

        I would say the Holy Spirit authenticated the Bible at the council but it would have been well known for 300 years by authentic christians.

        The gospels and letters were written down after the crucifixion asap and the letters of paul and peter etc circulated and copied when they were written.
        The forgeries such as the decretals were mainly by people within church after 300 ad who were vying for power and you can see this on the catholic websites – so we must test everything to the bible.

        I only used athanasius as an example to show that truth is not by numbers and he was a man who studied the bible fervently from his youth which gave him the sword to defend the faith.
        Most western and Roman bishops had followed arius and athanasius had to flee Rome twice and go to the east.

        • Charles A:

          “I would say the Holy Spirit authenticated the Bible at the council but it would have been well known for 300 years by authentic christians”

          This is where you can run into a practical problem. Who and how do we know who are and who aren’t the “authentic Christians.” There are certainly many claimants in history (including all heretical groups and the not-so-subtle ones in modern times).

          Actually, it’s the other way around. You have been influenced by EO propaganda. Most EASTERN bishops had followed Arius, and St. Athanasius had to flee TO Rome. If I’m wrong, please show me some citations.

          We can also discuss the Decretals if you like. Let me know what you think.

          • “Human annals record no life more absolutely devoted to a simple principle. Fifty years of battling and exile, the forces of an empire against him, and all for an [Greek letters]! * Hosius, after a hundred years of firmness, yielded. Liberius, the bishop of Rome, yielded; but, “the whole world against Athanasius, and Athanasius against it,”

            Plus Julius the apostate restored athanasius but this was not to do with theology – he quickly changed his mind and exiled athanasius.

            • Charles A:

              If I remember correctly, Athanasius was the bishop at Alexandria. He was an Eastern bishop. He was displaced illegally by his fellow Eastern bishop. He had to flee to Rome for protection. Yes, some of his enemies then tried to manipulate, deceive and even by duress to influence the Pope. They even succeeded for a while. In the end, Athanasius was vindicated by Rome. We cannot rely on a very selective and truncated version of history which distorts truths.

              • But since as nearly all Roman Bishops and some popes had followed arius then if there had not been the “eastern” bishop of athanasius then the heresy would have continued.

    • Charles wrote:

      “How do we know heresy is not happening today – only by the bible”.

      http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/01/clark-frame-and-the-analogy-of-painting-a-magisterial-target-around-ones-interpretive-arrow/

      • But we know heresy is happening today since the bible predicts the great apostasy – it must happen.
        There is only one narrow road to salvation through Jesus but the last popes say there are many – ie the masonic belief in God – many paths
        as long as the Buddhist , Mohammedan , shintoist etc are sincere – this is heresy. The jews do not have an alternative route unless they have kept the law at all points which no man has – except Jesus – so a Jew must come to Jesus in order to be saved.
        The one world religion is on its way – a babylon of beliefs as we can see.

  8. I am sitting here chuckling to myself because I wrote this post years ago as a rough draft and just put a date on it many years in the future. And that date arrived yesterday and posted….oops!

    For the sake of discussion the Catholic Church agrees that nothing is permissible in our Faith that contradicts Scripture. And as a previous, very studious Sola Scriptura Protestant, I still have never found anything that contradicts Sacred Scripture in the Catholic Faith, doctrine, and dogma. Some of our teachings however, do contradict Protestant INTERPRETATION of Scripture or Protestant teachings and traditions. But that is absolutely not the same thing as contradicting Scripture. That is merely contradicting Protestants.

    • bfhu – so you agree on sola scripture as the starting point rather than tradition which cannot always be relied upon.

      • No. I don’t mean sola scriptura at all. The starting point was all that Jesus taught his Apostles. They wrote some of what Jesus taught them in their Gospels and letters. But as John says, they did not by any means write down everything.

        John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
        John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

        Therefore there is information that was also passed down orally exactly as St. Paul says.

        2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

        But nothing believed by the Catholic Church contradicts Scripture because it and the oral teachings all came from the same source….JESUS. The Catholic Church preserved both the writing and the oral teachings of the Apostles. The Protestants only have what was written.

        The oral teaching of the Apostles, which by now is also written, just not in canonized scripture, can certainly be relied upon because the teachings date back to the dawn of Christianity and it can be verified that they do not contradict scripture. What we call Sacred Tradition is not just anything some priest, bishop or pope wants to make up at the moment. It is NEVER new. It is always rooted to the teaching of the apostles.

        • But false decretals which alluded to the dawn of christianity have been found in the catholic church . I dont think oral teaching would last long unless being written down. Thousands of teachings were written down and thousands were not. It is highly unlikely that oral traditions could be relied on due to false apostles teachings.
          Have you an example of oral teachings which have not been written.

          • Charles, just because false decretals were found…where?…in a Catholic Church means nothing. Even if they were found in the Vatican. The question is….why were they there? Maybe they were there to corrupt the faith or maybe they were there to keep them away from the faithful so that they would not be corrupted. So that fact, if it is one, does not mean anything alone.

            What evidence is there that anything false from these false decretals, has been incorporated in the Catholic Faith?

            • It is a complex topic but you can see it was about who held the reigns of power in Christendom – much about the powers of the popes – so they forged letters and said they dated from the earliest years – thus authenticating their preferred position. It would take too long a blog – better to look at a website.
              This is all the more reason why all things must be tested to scripture.

              • This is so distorted. Stop relying on polemics from anti-Catholic sources. If you want, we can discuss the Decretals in detail. You state your case again and I will respond.

                • copied :-
                  “”There are many eminent Roman Catholic historians who have testified to that fact as well as to the importance of the forgeries, especially those of Pseudo-Isidore. One such historian is Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger. He was the most renowned Roman Catholic historian of the last century, who taught Church history for 47 years as a Roman Catholic. He makes these important comments:

                  In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals…About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.
                  That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians.
                  The most potent instrument of the new Papal system was Gratian’s Decretum, which issued about the middle of the twelfth century from the first school of Law in Europe, the juristic teacher of the whole of Western Christendom, Bologna. In this work the Isidorian forgeries were combined with those of the other Gregorian (Gregory VII) writers…and with Gratia’s own additions. His work displaced all the older collections of canon law, and became the manual and repertory, not for canonists only, but for the scholastic theologians, who, for the most part, derived all their knowledge of Fathers and Councils from it. No book has ever come near it in its influence in the Church, although there is scarcely another so chokeful of gross errors, both intentional and unintentional (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 76-77, 79, 115-116).””

                  • Charles A:

                    Can you provide your own insights on this, and state it in a succinct way so your objections are clear? Are you saying that the Catholic Church purposefully forged and then incorporated the Decretals to boost her claim to Papal Supremacy? Thanks.

                    • This seems to be what many catholic theologians say – but I am not an expert so to honestly answer your question I would have to do deep study – but it does seem that many letters were forgeries and these came from within the church.

                    • Charles A: I will await your insights after your deep study of the topic. I will need to know who “Isidor Mercator” was (like if he was just a lay person, a wannabe historian, or even a Pope), and if the so called Decretals in fact added something new to the already known established facts about the Catholic Church. Did the result of the discipline of a more streamlined Canons affect anything concerning the faith and morals taught by the Catholic Church?

  9. Just look at all the Latin founed countrys of the world most are in so much server poverty , Why would the Catholic Church leave these people as orphans and so impverished? And the Currption in these countries. Were is the Justtice of the Lord.
    There is povery and currption in Protestant founded nations as well. But not like it is in Mexico and South America.

    WAKE UP!

  10. Robert P: I feel compelled to answer you briefly. Yes, the cliche is that Catholicism is (paradoxically) the religion of the poor. There is no shame in that. As you know very well, the “principalities” are most fervorly active at work esp. when spirituality is at its height too. You pray … for God’s children in Mexico and South America or anywhere.

  11. Reblogged this on vessel4him.

    • When God says in his psalms that He will exalt His word above His name – we have sola scripture. What could possibly be above God’s name – scripture – His word.
      Without scripture you have no sword against the devil – even Jesus used the sword of scripture in His temptation..
      All through the Bible God tells us to read scripture constantly – not just 5 minutes on a Sunday.

      So man cannot live by bread alone but by EVERY (whole bible)word from the mouth of God. The WHOLE bible.
      The irony is that when a catholic debates with a protestant they always use scripture and that is what it should be .

  12. Charles: If you want to become Protestant, then at least try to be a “good” Protestant. You simply don’t even understand the doctrine of Sola Scriptura so you can’t defend Protestantism. And you can’t pretend to speak for Catholicism too because you are obviously so poorly catechized and uninformed as to be pathetic. Unfortunately, even the Devil can quote scripture too … so do all the unruly, disorderly and factious people spreading the seed the discord in the Church. So what happen to your inquiry into the Decretals since we are still waiting for you to report back to us? Do you want to recant the falsehood you babbled about?

    • If you read what I posted you will see that it was a respected catholic theologian who was quoted on the decretals – they are not my words.
      Sola scripture means that all doctrine and church behavior must be tested against God’s word – which is the Bible. This is because only God’s word is true and perfect , sufficient for salvation. Man’s word is not perfect and cannot always be trusted.
      So are you trying to imply that God’s scripture is not perfect ? If it is not perfect then why do catholic theologians always use scripture to defend their dogma.

    • From NEW ADVENT – catholic encyclopedia

      “1) A list of sixty apocryphal letters or decrees attributed to the popes from St. Clement (88-97) to Melchiades (311-314) inclusive. Of these sixty letters fifty-eight are forgeries; they begin with a letter from Aurelius of Carthage requesting Pope Damasus (366-384) to send him the letters of his predecessors in the chair of the Apostles; and this is followed by a reply in which Damasus assures Aurelius that the desired letters were being sent. This correspondence was meant to give an air of truth to the false decretals, and was the work of Isidore.

      (2) A treatise on the Primitive Church and on the Council of Nicæa, written by Isidore, and followed by the authentic canons of fifty-four councils. It should be remarked, however, that among the canons of the second Council of Seville (page 438) canon vii is an interpolation aimed against chorepiscopi.

      (3) The letters mainly of thirty-three popes, from Silvester (314-335) to Gregory II (715-731). Of these about thirty letters are forgeries, while all the others are authentic. This is but a very rough description of their contents and touches only on the more salient points of a most intricate literary question. “

    • POPE FRANCIS ……..”Each time the devil tempts Jesus — asking Him to transform stones into bread, throw Himself from the top of the temple and see if angels would rescue Him, or worship Satan in exchange for earthly power — Jesus responds by reciting Scripture, the pope said.

      “He doesn’t dialogue with Satan like Eve” did in the Garden of Eden, the pope said. “Jesus knows well that you can’t dialogue with Satan because he is so cunning.”

      “Remember this,” Pope Francis told the crowd, “at times of temptation, in our temptations: No arguments with Satan; defend yourselves with the word of God.”

      Well said Pope Francis

      • Charles: You are not answering what I asked of you last time about the Decretals. Please read it again.

        • Avoiding the points that I have put before you – you have latched onto these decretals as some sort of obfuscation – I have given you information from catholic websites on the forgeries – what exactly do you want from me ? Surely you can read for yourself that the forgeries are admitted by catholic and protestant theologians.

          The original point I was making is that man’s writings cannot always be trusted even if they appear ‘religious” so I used the decretals as evidence of this.
          What sort of new enquiry can I make into the decretals when this has already been done by thousands of catholic theologians who have access to the documents. This appears like your false flag to cover your anti sola scripture stance , the debate on which you have struggled with.

  13. Charles:

    You said: “It is a complex topic but you can see it was about who held the reigns of power in Christendom – much about the powers of the popes – so they forged letters and said they dated from the earliest years – thus authenticating their preferred position.”

    You have made much spurious claims so I’ll ask you again:

    “Can you provide your own insights on this, and state it in a succinct way so your objections are clear? Are you saying that the Catholic Church purposefully forged and then incorporated the Decretals to boost her claim to Papal Supremacy?”

    And I have asked again:

    “(Who was) “Isidor Mercator” (like if he was just a lay person, a wannabe historian, or even a Pope), and if the so called Decretals in fact added something new to the already known established facts about the Catholic Church. Did the result of the discipline of a more streamlined Canons affect anything concerning the faith and morals taught by the Catholic Church?”

    Since you have had steadfastly refused to address them, I will answer my own questions.

    Yes, the Decretals were a collection of papal letters forged by an enterprising private individual or a group of individuals by the pseudo name of “isador” (that is, the Church had nothing to do with it). Even your esteemed Dollinger (who was not in good standing, was excommunicated and died a heretic) would have this to say: “The immediate object of the compiler of this forgery was to protect bishops against their metropolitans and other authorities, so as to secure absolute impunity and the exclusion of all influence of the secular power.” It was quite clear that the objective of the Christian(s) was to free the bishops from the undue interference of the temporal power of the Holy Roman Empire and its nobility class by separating Church and State. The fact is that the Decretals were no ninth-century innovation, but an appeal to the authority and prestige of the Pope by a receptive audience who already knew through scripture, apostolic traditions and by the course of history. To stop imperial patronage and restore the episcopacy under close scrutiny to the Church, the forger used liberty to mix actual events, widely known facts as well as in the plagiarization of Dionysio-Hadriana, Quesnel, the French edition of Hispana and Liber Pontificalis, compiled in a collection of works about the papacy.

    So no, the Church did not manufacture the Decretals purposefully for her advantage and/or to boost Papal Supremacy.

    It is important to point out that none of the forgeries served as the basis for a single doctrine regarding the papacy. The doctrines came first, the forgeries long centuries later.

    (Charles: Just for the sake of everyone’s sanity, please don’t quote long passages from your source and then expect us to read them. It will be much better if you can just summarize your points.)

    • You have posted one of the longest blogs by requoting me and quoting and paraphrasing information which you have copied after studying websites and you accuse me of long passages – pure hypocrisy -logs and specks ?

      This is a blog on whether scripture is the final authority and you have used the strawman of decretals to avoid the argument.
      As I said the decretals prove that forgeries eg like the donation of Constantine can affect the church so only by comparing man’s works to scripture can we navigate through the writings of mystics , prophetics and theologians throughout the centuries.

    • Thanks Surkiko, that is very interesting.

  14. Charles: It was you who raised the issue about the Decretals. It is very dishonest of you to slander the Church by making the reckless accusation that the Church purposefully manufactured it in order to deceive. Since this is a public forum, you must expect to be called to task for making such wild and outlandish claims (like even earlier in the thread, I also challenged you to give me the names of “all Roman Bishops and some popes had followed aruis” but was unanswered by you predictably).

    As Christians, we are constantly being reminded in scripture to not gossip or slander immorally.

    Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.

    Romans 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,

    2 Corinthians 12:20 For I fear that perhaps I may come and find you not what I wish, and that you may find me not what you wish; that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder.

    Ephesians 4:31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, with all malice,

    Colossians 3:8 But now put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and foul talk from your mouth.

    2 Timothy 3:3 inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good,
    Titus 2:3 Bid the older women likewise to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good,

    1 Peter 2:2 So put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander.. Since you obviously love scripture, maybe you will take this to heart: “(he who utters slander is a fool) When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips is prudent” (Prov 10:19).

    Anyway, I’m eager to hear what you have to say why “scripture is the final authority.” Yes, Catholics use the premise of scripture to debate Protestants because that’s the only authority Protestants accept. This is merely following St. Paul’s example to “become all things to all men, that (we) might by all means save some” (1 Cor 9:22). Using scripture alone to refute Protestantism is merely a concession since we are confident about the truths contained in Catholicism.

    Have a great Lenten weekend!

    • I posted CATHOLIC writings on the forged letters which some people in the church relied on. You are the one who always resorts to ad hominen attacks. Are you honestly trying to say that in the history of the catholic church such as the Borgia’s there was biblical purity ?
      When an anti pope was identified by the church was this supposed to be wrong.
      It nice to read your condescending words that the catholic church only uses scripture to debate with protestants as if they are somehow lowering themselves by doing this – ie using the WORD of God.
      Are you denying the decretals were forgeries within the church writings ? The truths that you say which are contained in Catholicism dont just appear out of thin air when you walk into a church – they are written down from tradition – as the decretals were – so obviously we only have the bible to test these traditions – since only God’s word can be fully trusted. Do you believe that it was right for heretics to be tortured and killed by the church – can you find anywhere in the NT that allowed men to judge this way.
      Whoever wrote the decretals was trying to deceive – what else could they be trying to do by forgery ?
      So is God’s Word superior to church traditions – can you give us a straight answer ?

  15. Charles: The straight answer is that IN THE BEGINNING there were apostolic teachings (2 Tm 2:2), then some of these traditions were written down (New Testament) with the rest continuing to be passed down orally (2 Tess 2:15); Jn 21:25). In Catholic jargon, the “oral” traditions are called Sacred Traditions vs. man’s traditions. The bible, being written, is authority par excellence. But the proper interpretation of it belongs to Sacred Traditions and the ordained Teaching Office of the Church of God (Lk 19:16). The three sources are complementary and cannot contradict each others. We are commanded by Christ to “teach everything” (Mt 38:20) … thus it is to wit, what’s written down (bible), the oral traditions (Sacred Traditions) and the authority of the Church Magisterium which in sum, are the COMPLETE word of God.

    But let’s get down to it. You assert that “scripture is the final authority.” Please show us why?

    • For any teachings to come down through the ages they have to be written down.
      The reason that the Bible is the final authority is because the apostles said so – eg Peter said that the scriptures came by the Holy Spirit not by the thoughts of men. The prophets and apostles then wrote them down under the Holy Spirits guidance..
      No interpretation of the scriptures can disagree with the scriptures since the scripture comes from God and interpretations come from man – as the Bereans knew when they checked what Paul said.

      Now you have to choose – what is the foundation of the Christian faith
      – is it the Bible or men’s traditions.
      If tradition – which it often has with many heresies- disagrees with scripture which would you discard – it needs a simple answer.

      How did the church fathers contend with heresies – did they refer all disputes to scripture – of course they did.

      So if you had to choose between the bible or tradition which would you choose when confronted with a new tradition – eg say a false decretal which was newly discovered.

      • Charles:

        Sorry for my ignorance but I’ve great difficulty with your explanations. Can you give us some scriptural or historical basis for them?

        1) Where is your biblical reference for the statement that “For any teachings to come down through the ages they have to be written down”?
        2) Can you show me in the bible where “the reason that the Bible is the final authority is because the apostles said so”?
        3) Where is your reference that “the scripture comes from God and interpretations come from man”?
        4) What about the Bereans? Are you saying that Paul’s novel teaching was “an interpretation come from man” so he should be ignored or ???
        5) Where is the historical data of the Church Fathers “refer all disputes to scripture – of course they did”? What did the bible say about handling of “disputes”?

        • SOLA SCRIPTURE MUST BE THE PLUMB LINE FOR CATHOLICS AS WELL AS PROTESTANTS for any debate – what else is there ?

          The points you raise have already been covered – it is frustrating to me when you blunder in without reading my postings.

          Well Surkiko – there is no record of Christian teachings coming down through 2000 years by whispering from priest to priest – can you give us an example of catholic teachings that have NOT been written down.

          Secret societies have handed down things by word of mouth such as the masons but even a lot of what they handed down is now written.
          The traditions of the pharisees that Jesus condemned was mainly oral
          at first but now even the talmud (from babylon) is written on the internet

          Your Q2 I have answered over and over my reasons for believing that God’s word must be the Final authority for any church – you obviously have not read a thing I posted or you are deliberately playing dumb.

          Your Q2 is answered by my scripture quotations – if you think the word of God is man made you are making yourself a heretic by your own church rules.

          Who were the Bereans you ask ?????? It was Paul’s way of showing people like you that scripture must be used to TEST anything – even the words of an apostle like him – that a preacher says . Even a babe in Christ would know the meaning of this chapter. Seems to show lack of basic bible knowledge which would be typical in the CC.
          Can you not read it and understand the plain message of the “the noble Bereans”

          If you read the church fathers at all you will find all their debates are about interpretations of scripture – ie they always refer to scripture in their debates – just like catholic apologists do.

          All disputes in the bible were to be handled by scripture – Jesus used scripture all the time. Paul recommended debates in order to find the truth – these debates would not use the hindu manual but scripture.

          Your frustration seems to be against the Bible – a church building will not save you no matter how nicely it is decorated . Only reading the word and prayer is profitable both with the congregation and on your own or with your family.

          • Hello Charles:

            I’ve asked you for the scriptural and historical basis for your bold assertions but got none. Instead, all what you can do is more thin and spurious personal opinions so lacking in scripture, substance and facts. I didn’t quote your replies to other people because I want to keep you focused instead of you babbling mindlessly. In any case, there’s nothing there which are worth repeating anyway. Having said it, I want to tell you that you have had inspired me with your conversion story but it’s for naught if you don’t cultivate holiness and virtues. In so many ways, you remind me of the Judaics of Thessolonica In Acts 17 who stubbornly held onto the typologially OT views and rejected the fullness revelation in Christ. It’s quite sad that you have continued to become burdened by the yoke of the past baggage of Protestantism. Please pray for me in this lenten season, and I promise also to do the same for you. You take care, Charles.

  16. Dear Charles,
    We totally agree with most of your first paragraph above except:

    ……No interpretation of the scriptures can disagree with the scriptures

    INTERPRETATION is the crux of the problem. Lots of interpretations among Protestants, disagree with each other. They are mutually exclusive and therefore cannot all be true. So some interpretations have to be in error. Therefore, everyman has NOT BEEN GIVEN THE GIFT OF INFALLIBLE INTERPRETATION BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.

    Do you think you can infallibly interpret scripture?

    • Yes but lots of catholics disagree on interpretations – this started right after Jesus rose from the dead and continued for 2000 years – until this day. So the only antidote to men’s interpretations is to weigh them against the plumbline of scripture.

      “But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true–it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.
      1ST John 2.27.”

      So each Christian can receive proper interpretations as promised.
      However if the Holy Spirit is quenched or the Christian is in sin and pride then this is not what John is promising.

      So even Popes and Bishops and Priests can misinterpret scripture as we can see plainly from history.

      There is a mountain of disagreement in the catholic church about eg Medjugorge but both sides call themselves catholic.

      Yes I am capable of reading scripture correctly if I remain humble and repentant and “spend time studying so that I may become able to rightly divide scripture” – all the time praying to God for guidance where scripture is not clear to me.

      However I did not do that – although looking back I see how many times I was given a message to change course.
      The general culture of the catholic church seems to go against or be apathetic to scripture .

      • Let us take note that in answer to my question:

        Do you think you can infallibly interpret scripture?

        Charles said,

        “Yes”

        ***************************************

        • Mr. Allen is his own pope.
          Papa Carolus.

          • The bishops in the early church were known and called popes. Peter said he was a fellow elder.

            “And now, a word to you who are elders in the churches. I, too, am an elder and a witness to the sufferings of Christ. And I, too, will share in his glory when he is revealed to the whole world. As a fellow elder, I appeal to you”

            Hoc est – would you have been an avid follower of Alexander VI in 1492 ?
            Would you have delighted in the burning of Savonarola – a holy man who tried to point out the errors in the church ? He was burned still a catholic.

              • You called me a pope and strayed from the topic but when I answer your new topic you say I am off topic – utter hypocrisy.

            • Charles, Peter referring to himself as a fellow elder was absolutely true. Our pope is a fellow priest to all Catholic priests. And a fellow bishop to all Catholic bishops. It is an act of humility to identify with them and an act of hubris to go around proclaiming, “I am a pope, the Vicar of Christ.” This because every pope knows he is nothing but only a servant to the servants of God.

              • Some Popes did some Popes didn’t.
                Honoring scripture means making it part of one’s life in constant study. Five minutes scripture on a Sunday is not honoring scripture especially if it involves football matches after the one hour service. As I did .

                Of course John knew the rest of the NT books – He was an apostle – the last one alive. Protestants at least in theory study their Bibles as part of their faith.

                Luke said theophilus will know the truth – “so that you may know the EXACT truth about the things you have been taught.” Luke 1:1-4
                This speaks for itself.

                The secret things of God are not ours to know – so there must be some truths we do not know – but this negates nothing I have said.
                God says His WORD IS TRUTH.

                John 17:17 “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.”

                “But on this one will I look: on him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My Word.”

                Scripture is sufficient for salvation ” 2 Timothy 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 , thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

                Can you give me an example of catholic traditions which are not in the Bible – eg something that you do that has been added to scripture ??

                • Charles,
                  Where do you find this definition of “Honoring Scripture” in scripture?

                  or

                  Is this just your opinion?

                  • Whoso despiseth the word (the bible) shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded. proverbs.

                    The answer to your question is common sense – If we dont read the Bible we are despising God’s words.
                    To honor God’s word is to read it constantly AND obey it .
                    You must take up the SWORD of the spirit (the Bible) every day to protect yourself from the devils traps and temptations.
                    The devil does not give you time off for readings of 5-10 minutes per week.
                    But it was you who used the word ‘honor’ – just keeping the bible in an honored way in church without reading it would not be honoring God’s word – is this not too simple ?

  17. We choose scripture every time over the traditions of men. That is why the Catholic Church REJECTS Scripture alone. Sola Scriptura IS a tradition of men begun by Martin Luther.

    But the Bible does not contain all of the teachings of Jesus.

    John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

    John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

    All of these other teachings were passed on by “men able to teach”. And just as you say were eventually written down, as in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

    Heresies arise in every generation and will lead some into error but the answer to this is NOT to grasp at a mere tradition of men such as Scripture Alone but to address the problem with the Complete Teachings of Jesus contained in the Apostolic teaching of the Catholic Church.

    Therefore, if I was ever confronted with a new and suspect tradition I would find out what the earliest Christians believed about that idea or any teachings than refuted it.

    This is exactly why I am now Catholic. The early Christian Church did not teach anything close to any of the Protestant denominations but they were undeniably Catholic!!!

    • Sola scripture was started by the Apostles – it is what they preached.
      Even the earliest Christians although closer to the truth were often following teachings outwith the Bible or the scriptures they had – the devil gets in early as John warned. ” Thy WORD is truth.
      If confronted with new tradition why not study the Bible first instead of more traditions , although reading the debates is very helpful.
      Even Arianism still exists in the Mormon and Witnesses churches . They can be refuted by reading scripture against their heresies just like Athanasius did.

    • Can you describe the teachings that were not written – after this John said what we have is sufficient and did not elaborate or add to what was written. This is because satan tried to slip in false gospels .

  18. Based on what evidence do you assert that Sola Scriptura was started by the Apostles?

    • There are so many more quotes but of course the main one is from Jesus – when He says that man must live by the WHOLE BIBLE.

      “Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. 1 Corinthians 4:6

      “from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 3:15
      “if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; Ephesians 3:2-

      “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17

      “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.” Revelation 22:18-19
      “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” Deuteronomy 4:2

      Just going to the CC behind my house for another 5 minutes of scripture – which is ok as long as it is supplemented by continual reading and prayer.

      • Where did Jesus say that?

        Charles what does “what was written” refer to exactly? Since. no one at this time had any idea which writings would end up in the New Testament.

        The warning as you quote in Revelation was also given in Deuteronomy. So if you were consistent you would then have to exclude the whole rest of the Bible–OT and NT.

        • Mathew 4 ; 4 “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word (THE WHOLE BIBLE) that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

          Jesus and the apostles had full confidence that the Bible would be perfect through the Holy Spirit – the bible was not man’s choice.

          The writings they were referring to came from the apostles so they knew what was to be included.

          God never said you could add or take away from His word.

          “Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” Proverbs 30:6.
          1 Corinthians 4:6: “not to think beyond what is written”

          “Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 8 ”‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’”

          bfhu – Using your logic would mean we only have to keep the commandments when they are mentioned but not in the bits where they are not mentioned ??????

          • Charles, if we know, as St. John says, that everything Jesus did could not be written down but only what was necessary for salvation, then we know that, since Jesus is God, that every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, is NOT recorded in Sacred Scripture. Therefore, in order to more closely live, “by EVERY word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” one would wish to follow ALL of Apostolic Teaching and this is found ONLY in the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

            Also, interpreting, “every word of God” as the “whole Bible” is an interpretation and you are breaking your own rule and adding to the Scriptures.

            Charles: The writings they were referring to came from the apostles so they knew what was to be included.

            BFHU: Based on what evidence do you assert this?

            Charles: bfhu – Using your logic would mean we only have to keep the commandments when they are mentioned but not in the bits where they are not mentioned ??????

            BFHU: That is not my logic. You assert that the Catholic Church adds to Scripture b/c of our adherence to the Apostolic Teachings contained in the oral Tradition and not contained in the Written Tradition/Bible and therefore violates the Revelation 22 proscription against adding to “the prophecy of this book”.

            I am simply pointing out:

            1) “prophecy of this book” does NOT refer to the whole Bible as we know it today b/c it DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME JOHN WROTE REVELATION. So it much more likely was merely referred to his book of Revelation, only.

            2) This interpretation is further supported because everyone who uses this verse to bash Catholics is ignorant of a similar verse in the 5th book of the OT:

            Deuteronomy 12:32 “Everything that I command you you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to it or take from it.

            By using the logic of excluding Oral Tradition with Rev. 22, Protestants, once they find out about Deut.12, should only adhere to the first five books of the OT and exclude all the rest of the Bible, if they were consistent.

            But this would be silly because both the Rev and the Deut passages are merely referring to the books they are contained in.

            Don’t add or take away from the commands in Deut.; don’t add to the Prophecy of Rev. That is it.

            • bfhu – you are beginning to lose me ? Are you saying that God allows us to add to His word even though He has told us not to – EVEN though this is demonstrated throughout the bible.
              The only place we can find every word of God is in the Bible that was written before the foundation of the world – Jesus is the WORD made flesh.
              These apostolic teachings that are not found in the Bible – where are they – can you give me an example ?
              God says elsewhere not to add to his word.
              Do you not understand that the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible and to say that John did not read Paul or Peters letters when He John planted churches is crazy.
              “Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” Proverbs 30:6.
              1 Corinthians 4:6: “not to think beyond what is written”

              • No Charles I am believe St. Paul when he wrote:

                2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

                That is, Oral Tradition and Written Tradition (Bible)

                • But these traditions were then written down and then formed the NT.
                  Neither you or anyone else can give me an example of oral traditions in the church that were not written down at some point.
                  So that is why we are exhorted not to go beyond what is written – Paul would be looking to the future when apostates would try to bring in new non biblical traditions.

                  • “Neither you or anyone else can give me an example of oral traditions in the church that were not written down at some point.”

                    Don’t ever be so presumptuous. The only question is whether you have enough humility to accept truth when you hear it …

                    • Well can you give me an example of oral traditions that were not written down at some point ?

  19. “Inasmuch as MANY have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were HANDED down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to WRITE it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the EXACT truth about the things you have been taught.” Luke 1:1-4

    Luke begins by mentioning uninspired gospels by Christians, then the oral tradition of the apostles and concludes that SCRIPTURE ALONE will allow Theophilus to know for certain what the truth is.

    Luke was guided by the Holy Spirit all the way – although to unbelievers it would seem he as a mere man was writing history.

  20. Dear Charles, yes John knew about other gospels but that is all he says. There is no support to believe he also knew about the rest of the NT books. This is just wishful thinking.

    You are breaking your rule again by adding to Scripture when you assert that Luke concludes that:

    Scripture Alone will allow Theo to know the truth.

    Huh? Where?

    Does Scripture convey the Truth? Absolutely!

    Is all TRUTH contained in Scripture. No.

    And there is no Scripture that asserts that ALL TRUTH PERTAINING TO SALVATION is contained in Sripture ALONE.

    As I said before this is a tradition of men.

    It has to be because it is not written anywhere in Sacred Scripture. Since, Protestants claim all doctrine must be derived from Scripture alone this undermines their whole case.

    Protestants cobble together various verses that honor Scripture. They have been taught that Catholics do not honor Scripture, so they think that showing us these verses will convince us, that Scripture Alone is true. But Catholics do honor and must honor Scripture. We hear more Scripture at a Catholic mass than most Protestants in their service. But these verses, that rightly proclaim the glory of Sacred Scripture, do not substantiate the tradition of Sola Scriptura.

    This makes Sola Scriptura a tradition of men.

  21. Charles Allen: But these traditions were then written down and then formed the NT.
    Neither you or anyone else can give me an example of oral traditions in the church that were not written down at some point.
    So that is why we are exhorted not to go beyond what is written – Paul would be looking to the future when apostates would try to bring in new non biblical traditions.

    BFHU: Dear Charles,
    No, Charles, all of the Oral Traditions did not get written down in time to be formed into the NT as St. John clearly says:

    John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
    John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

    A few Oral Traditions that did not get written into the NT are;

    Doctrine of Purgatory
    Assumption of Mary
    Prayer to the Saints
    Infallibility of the Pope
    Immaculate Conception of Mary
    Mary Ever Virgin

    Yes, what were Oral Teachings of the Apostles/Oral Tradition that did not get written into what eventually became the Written Teachings of the Apostles//New Testament were eventually written down. You can find them easily now in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

    So, it was very unwise of Martin Luther, 1500 years later, and invent a new doctrine we know as Sola Scriptura which is NOWHERE TO BE FOUND in the Oral Teachings of the Apostles/Oral Tradition or the Written Teachings of the Apostles/New Testament

  22. Since Jesus said only His father is good and all things must be tested to God’s word which is truth then we must ask if these oral teachings were tested to God’s word. So does the catechism of the CC church test these oral traditions to scripture ? If they were not tested by scripture then how are we to be sure of their validity ie that they were not merely man’s invention.
    Sola scripture just means that things must be tested to scripture as the only reliable source of truth – it was not an invention of Luther’s but always existed.

  23. Yes, Charles, nothing the Catholic Church teaches contradicts or conflicts with Scripture. Catholic teachings do, however, conflict with Protestant interpretations of Scripture.

    Because Protestants tend to think, as you do, that they can infallibly interpret scripture, then, when the Catholic Church teaches something they don’t agree with because they have a different interpretation, they assert that Catholic teachings conflict with Scripture. But that is not correct. Catholic teachings merely conflict with various INTERPRETATIONS of Scripture. That is not the same thing as actually conflicting with Scripture. And, not only that, Catholic interpretations are 2000 years old. Protestant interpretations only go back 500 years.

    But where in Scripture does it say anything close to”

    “all things must be tested to God’s word which is truth”?

    Scripture does say:

    I Thess. 5:20 do not despise prophesying, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good, 22 abstain from every form of evil.

    St. Paul clearly says not to despise prophesying, that would certainly be ORAL not written. But to test it. He NOWHERE SAYS TO TEST IT BY GOD’S WORD, SCRIPTURE OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

    The Catholic Church does test everything by both the oral and the written Teachings of the Apostles.

    Once again, Charles, you are adding to Scripture what just is not there. Therefore, you are now making up traditions of men.

    • In other words you are admitting that all Catholic teachings comply with scripture – therefore they have been tested to scripture obviously.

      Paul means to test it to scripture since there is nothing else to test it with reliably . We are not going to test it to Hindu writings are we.
      The Berean example is clearly demonstrating the testing of what an apostle says to scripture for the OT but obviously for the NT as well.

      copied :-
      “The first principle we see in the above passages is that we must examine and prove ourselves, and all our Doctrines. We may think the Truth we hold is Biblical, but it may instead be a mixture of Truth and error. We must prove all against Scripture, in accordance with the next principles.

      The second principle seen above tells us that “All Scripture” is the measuring Rod to be used, to test and to prove, ourselves and our Doctrines. Unless we use “All Scripture” we will not be found thoroughly furnished, perfect and complete, when the Bridegroom arrives. The above Scriptures tell us exactly how we are to make this test.

      The test of all Doctrines is “All Scripture,” telling us that there must be complete Scriptural Agreement. A vital part of this agreement is that there must be no Scriptural Disagreement within “All of Scripture” — and therefore our Doctrines must be in full agreement with the Words of the Prophets.”

  24. Ambrose (330-397)
    “For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” (On the Duties of the

    Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
    “But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.” – Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:16)

    SOLA SCRIPTURE FROM HIPPOLYTUS

    …….so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from ANY OTHER quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9)

    • Charles,

      Citing another Church Father:

      “I would not have believed the gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church had induced me.” (St. Augustine, Contra Ep. Fund., V, 6.)

      • ST CYRIL ON SOLA SCRIPTURE
        Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386)
        “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)

  25. It’s a complete misread of patriology to rest authority on a man, albeit a Church Father. Even worse, quoting a Church Father dishonestly is lying and bearing false witness. Here are the facts about about Hippolytus and the commonly quoted proof text for sola scriptura in “Against the Heresy of One Noetus”:

    As usual, sola scripturists ignore context. Noetus’s heresy was Modalism. Hippolytus had discussed the history of the heresy and then stated that true knowledge is to be found in Scripture provided that it is correctly interpreted. In his closing, Hippolytus urged us to not interpret Scripture “according to our own mind” but with “the Father and the Holy Spirit, in the HOLY CHURCH both now and ever, and even for evermore. Amen.”

    Furthermore, Hippolytus is not only proof-text out of context in the above treatise, he is also being misrepresented out of the wider context within the entirety of his writings. For example, to the Quartodecimans, he would state: “And certain other heretics, contentious by nature, and wholly uninformed as regards knowledge, as well as in their manner more than usually quarrelsome … they attend to this one commandment, and do not look unto what has been spoken by the Apostle …these consent to ALL THE TRADITIONS delivered to the Church by the Apostles” (“Refutation of All Heresies”).

    Lastly, Hippolytus would further explain with a short tract in which he said: “Now, driven by love towards all the saints, we have arrived a the essence of the TRADITION WHICH IS PROPER FOR THE CHURCHES. This is so that those who are well informed may keep the tradition which has lasted until now, according to the EXPLANATION WE GIVE OF IT, and so that others by taking note of it may be STRENGTHENED AGAINST THE FALL OR ERROR which has recently occurred because of ignorance and ignorant people, with the Holy Spirit conferring perfect Grace on those who have a correct Faith, and so that they will know that those who are at the head of the Church must teach and guard all these things” (“The Apostolic Tradition”).

    It is worth noting how Hippolytus eventually became the first “anti-pope” in Christian history via the Novatian schism but before dying, he was reconciled to the Church while also urging his followers to return to communion with the legitimate pope, Antherus. Yet, despite all this, the Church canonized him as St. Hippolytus for his sanctity, great wisdom and humility.

    St. Hippolytus is indeed a good teacher for Christians who are “contentious by nature, and wholly uninformed as regards knowledge, as well as in their manner more than usually quarrelsome.” Ask ourselves this: Who are these disobedient and disorderly Christians in our midst today?

    • Dionysius of Alexandria (265)
      “Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.” (cited in Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, 7:24)

    • They are in the catholic church as well as other churches since this has always been the case. Most catholics dont read scripture outwith the sunday service. A disobedient christian is one who does not read or follow the scriptures.

    • Jerome (347-420)
      “When, then, anything in my little work seems to you harsh, have regard not to my words, but to the Scripture, whence they are taken.” (Letter, 48:20)
      “I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [Scriptures], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else.” (Letter, 53:10)

    • ustin Martyr (100-165)
      “And now, if I say this to you, although I have repeated it many times, I know that it is not absurd so to do. ………….. to be continually mentioned and admitted in like manner; yet that he who founds his discourse on the prophetic Scriptures should leave them and abstain from constantly referring to the same Scriptures….because it is thought he can bring forth something better than Scripture.

  26. Again, please read Dionysius in context instead of simply repeating selective quotes from polemic Protestant sites. It is really becoming very embarrassing even for hardcore Protestants. What does Holy Scripture say about resolving issues in the church? Open the scripture and compare verses? Where is that in the bible? That question #1. If you know the bible so well as you professed, what does the bible REALLY say about the biblical prescription to resolve issues? That question #2. Now, this is still a challenge to you (yet still unanswered adequately in any shape or form by you). Where in the bible does it say Sola Scriptura? That’s question #3. Sorry, the best and most learned Protestants haven’t been able to prove it for the last 500 years. Maybe you are the rising star. Prove me wrong by the tinniest smidgen of biblical truth and I will convert tomorrow.

    • Sola scripture means relying on the word of God to test all things – this is a theme which runs throughout the Bible. The actual phrase – sola scripture – is not mentioned just like the trinity is not mentioned but they still exist. The rosary , purgatory , praying to the saints is not mentioned but you believe in them.

    • Basil the Great (379)
      Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right (Letter CCLXXXIII, ANCF, p. 312).

  27. Theodoret (393-457)
    “I shall yield to scripture alone.” (Dialogues, 1)

    Here is a good quote from J. N. D. Kelly:
    The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by (Scripture) is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978, pp. 42, 46).

  28. Theodoret of Cyrus: He was an EOC. In “Dialogues”, he was arguing with a heretic who accepted only Scripture. Theodoret’s opponent would not accept the interpretation of the Church Fathers so Theodoret dealt with him on the authority he would accept: “Scripture alone.” Here is the complete quote:

    Orthodoxes (for the Church) : Do not, I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to Scripture alone
    Eran (for the heretic): You shall receive no argument unconfirmed by Holy Scripture, and if you bring me any solution of the question deduced from Holy Scripture, I will receive it, and will in no wise gainsay it.

    Theodoret was certainly not a sola scripturist, but merely giving a concession to someone who would only accept Scripture as the point of discussion.

    As for JND Kelly: I heard that he’s pretty good as a historian of patriology. But even if he has had said the above AND that you have quoted him accurately in context (which you only show as a proof text as usual), why should I care what an Anglican with a Protestant theological slant has to say about scripture? There are plenty of good Catholic books written for Catholics.

    Everything is context, context, context !!!!!

    (I’m getting really tired “hoping against hope” for people who are obstinately intend to deceive the Holy Spirit. Charles, I haven’t forgotten about your challenge about Oral Traditions, but I deem that it’s pointless because you haven’t demonstrate any attempt to listen to reason. I’m trying to be as charitable as much as possible, but maybe reading comprehension and logical thinking are just not your strong suit.)

    • Something to ponder. With no exception, why are heretics in the church always sola scripturists?

      If we learn anything from the discussion on St. Hippolytus, it is this that … “And certain other heretics, contentious by nature, and wholly uninformed as regards knowledge, as well as in their manner more than usually quarrelsome.”

      • You are confusing sola scripture with misinterpreting scripture – two completely different things. All Christians must be sola scriptural since God’s word is the fountain of truth – not our own thoughts

  29. Theodoret was a sola scripture man – he is saying if his debater can prove his points with scripture to him then he will agree. In other words the debate must begin and end with God’s word – this is clear to anyone – why do you have to try and make the words mean otherwise.

    • You have a real problem with reading comprehension. But be as it may, I want to thank you for talking to you. I should move on … Blessings,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 305 other followers

%d bloggers like this: