Did the church fathers used Sola Scriptura?
Jagon
Don't listen to me
Tertullian:
"From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for "no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach-that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached-in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them-can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles rounded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both viva voce [living voice], as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches-those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth." (Tertullian, The prescription against the heretics, Ch 21)
viva voce - Spirit
epistles - scriptures
"From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for "no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach-that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached-in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them-can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles rounded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both viva voce [living voice], as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches-those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth." (Tertullian, The prescription against the heretics, Ch 21)
viva voce - Spirit
epistles - scriptures
0
Comments
-
viva voce - Spirit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viva_voce
Viva voce is a Latin phrase literally meaning "with living voice," but most often translated as "by word of mouth."0 -
Never tinuro ni Jesus o Apostles ang Sola Scriptura. In fact, kahit isang beses hindi namention ni Christ ang Bible. Ang nagpauso at nakaisip ng sola-scriptura ay isang Muhammad (retard). Dahil sa pangarap niyang infinity dictatorship gumawa ng book. Simula noon....uso na.
0 -
It doesn't say that in your citation, in fact it says:word of mouth that is BASED ON SCRIPTURES
meaning both Oral Tradition and scriptures.both viva voce [living voice], as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles.
What is he saying there? That communion with the apostolic churches means having the same doctrines. This is further strengthened in chapters 19 and 20.It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth."
Chapter 19. Appeal, in Discussion of Heresy, Lies Not to the Scriptures. The Scriptures Belong Only to Those Who Have the Rule of Faith.
Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: "With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?" For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions.
Chapter 20. Christ First Delivered the Faith. The Apostles Spread It; They Founded Churches as the Depositories Thereof. That Faith, Therefore, is Apostolic, Which Descended from the Apostles, Through Apostolic Churches.
Christ Jesus our Lord (may He bear with me a moment in thus expressing myself!), whosoever He is, of what God soever He is the Son, of what substance soever He is man and God, of what faith soever He is the teacher, of what reward soever He is the Promiser, did, while He lived on earth, Himself declare what He was, what He had been, what the Father's will was which He was administering, what the duty of man was which He was prescribing; (and this declaration He made,) either openly to the people, or privately to His disciples, of whom He had chosen the twelve chief ones to be at His side, Mark 4:34 and whom He destined to be the teachers of the nations. Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to "go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost." Matthew 28:19 Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as " the sent." Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Jud?a, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality?privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.
As you can see the Church Fathers were not Sola Scriptura adherents.
Let me just add these two chapters
Chapter 28. The One Tradition of the Faith, Which is Substantially Alike in the Churches Everywhere, a Good Proof that the Transmission Has Been True and Honest in the Main.
Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, John 14:26 and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth; John 15:26 grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles?is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?
Chapter 32. None of the Heretics Claim Succession from the Apostles. New Churches Still Apostolic, Because Their Faith is that Which the Apostles Taught and Handed Down. The Heretics Challenged to Show Any Apostolic Credentials.
But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,? a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind.
0 -
^ang sabi diyan, oral, tapos ang sabi, yung oral nilagay sa sulat
so dapat kung ano lang ang sinulat yun lang ang in-oral.
dapat iisa lang ang "mga sinabi ng apostol" sa "sulat" nila
at dito bumabase ang truth.
what is "faith" tertullian refers to when He asked "by which men become Christians?" is it the religion? or is it just faith?
this is one of the problem I am pin pointing, Tertullian says faith, but you change it to Roman Catholicism.
this faith is what the Spirit gives us, when we test a teaching, we test it according to "the faith" the apostles had, AND test it according to the epistles.
these are 2 things, sure, but if we say that we need to test a teaching according to these 2 things, these 2 things must agree to each other, so it goes without saying that to test it with the scriptures is "enough" since the scriptures agree with oral.
the oral part is quite untestable except through "faith", through testing the spirit of the teaching. The only objective way for us to test is the scriptures, the easier way.
most of the time questionable practices of Roman Catholicism only agrees to the oral part.0 -
^ang sabi diyan, oral, tapos ang sabi, yung oral nilagay sa sulat
so dapat kung ano lang ang sinulat yun lang ang in-oral.
dapat iisa lang ang "mga sinabi ng apostol" sa "sulat" nila
at dito bumabase ang truth.
what is "faith" tertullian refers to when He asked "by which men become Christians?" is it the religion? or is it just faith?
this is one of the problem I am pin pointing, Tertullian says faith, but you change it to Roman Catholicism.
this faith is what the Spirit gives us, when we test a teaching, we test it according to "the faith" the apostles had, AND test it according to the epistles.
these are 2 things, sure, but if we say that we need to test a teaching according to these 2 things, these 2 things must agree to each other, so it goes without saying that to test it with the scriptures is "enough" since the scriptures agree with oral.
the oral part is quite untestable except through "faith", through testing the spirit of the teaching. The only objective way for us to test is the scriptures, the easier way.
most of the time questionable practices of Roman Catholicism only agrees to the oral part.
The citation you used did NOT say that the oral was written down kaya nga ginamit niyang salita ay "both" and "and":
both viva voce [living voice], as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles.
The faith he is talking is the apostles creed as mentioned in chapter 13.
Read chapter 28 and 32 that I added to answer your question. For better understanding of what Tertullian is saying, read all the chapters from 1-40.
Chapter 37. Heretics Not Being Christians, But Rather Perverters of Christ's Teaching, May Not Claim the Christian Scriptures. These are a Deposit, Committed to and Carefully Kept by the Church.
Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, "as many as walk according to the rule," which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, "Who are you? When and whence did you come? As you are none of mine, what have you to do with that which is mine? Indeed, Marcion, by what right do you hew my wood? By whose permission, Valentinus, are you diverting the streams of my fountain? By what power, Apelles, are you removing my landmarks? This is my property. Why are you, the rest, sowing and feeding here at your own pleasure? This (I say) is my property. I have long possessed it; I possessed it before you. I hold sure title-deeds from the original owners themselves, to whom the estate belonged. I am the heir of the apostles. Just as they carefully prepared their will and testament, and committed it to a trust, and adjured (the trustees to be faithful to their charge), even so do I hold it. As for you, they have, it is certain, always held you as disinherited, and rejected you as strangers as enemies. But on what ground are heretics strangers and enemies to the apostles, if it be not from the difference of their teaching, which each individual of his own mere will has either advanced or received in opposition to the apostles?"
Chapter 38. Harmony of the Church and the Scriptures. Heretics Have Tampered with the Scriptures, and Mutilated, and Altered Them. Catholics Never Change the Scriptures, Which Always Testify for Them.
Where diversity of doctrine is found, there, then, must the corruption both of the Scriptures and the expositions thereof be regarded as existing. On those whose purpose it was to teach differently, lay the necessity of differently arranging the instruments of doctrine. They could not possibly have effected their diversity of teaching in any other way than by having a difference in the means whereby they taught. As in their case, corruption in doctrine could not possibly have succeeded without a corruption also of its instruments, so to ourselves also integrity of doctrine could not have accrued, without integrity in those means by which doctrine is managed. Now, what is there in our Scriptures which is contrary to us? What of our own have we introduced, that we should have to take it away again, or else add to it, or alter it, in order to restore to its natural soundness anything which is contrary to it, and contained in the Scriptures? What we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures are (and have been) from the beginning. Of them we have our being, before there was any other way, before they were interpolated by you. Now, inasmuch as all interpolation must be believed to be a later process, for the express reason that it proceeds from rivalry which is never in any case previous to nor home-born with that which it emulates, it is as incredible to every man of sense that we should seem to have introduced any corrupt text into the Scriptures, existing, as we have been, from the very first, and being the first, as it is that they have not in fact introduced it who are both later in date and opposed (to the Scriptures). One man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus seems to use the entire volume, he has none the less laid violent hands on the truth only with a more cunning mind and skill than Marcion. Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited his own subject-matter. Valentinus, however, abstained from such excision, because he did not invent Scriptures to square with his own subject-matter, but adapted his matter to the Scriptures; and yet he took away more, and added more, by removing the proper meaning of every particular word, and adding fantastic arrangements of things which have no real existence.0 -
Si JESUS nga hindi gumamit ng Sola Scriptura eh.0
-
so christians become christians because of the apostle's creed...
problem here is, Tertullian refered to the apostles viva voce, but Roman Catholics interpret viva voce as oral tradition not necessarilly from the apostles.
"Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed"
truth is based on the apostles viva voce, not Roman Catholic viva voce.
remember, sola scriptura DOES NOT necessarily discard oral teachings
viva voce roots from DIVINE inspiration, not from apostolic authority.0 -
word of mouth that is BASED ON SCRIPTURES
Mali ka jagon, ganito pagkakasulat
"both viva voce [living voice], as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles"
Meaning the apostles really taught by word of moutht, only in the latter part of their life did they write epistles. Kaya nga apart from paul, there were only 3 of the originals apostles who wrote letters (matthew, john, peter), because Jesus commanded them to preach by word of mouth, not to write!0 -
Alaskador11 wrote: »Si JESUS nga hindi gumamit ng Sola Scriptura eh.
Jesus quoted Old testament verses when the devil tempted Him in the desert.0 -
Mali ka jagon, ganito pagkakasulat
"both viva voce [living voice], as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles"
Meaning the apostles really taught by word of moutht, only in the latter part of their life did they write epistles. Kaya nga apart from paul, there were only 3 of the originals apostles who wrote letters (matthew, john, peter), because Jesus commanded them to preach by word of mouth, not to write!
1.) did the apostle's viva voce contradicted the epistles they wrote? did it contradict the epistles of other apostles?
2.) where did they get their oral teachings? did they invented them or were they inspired by the Spirit meaning it came from the Spirit?0 -
1.) did the apostle's viva voce contradicted the epistles they wrote? did it contradict the epistles of other apostles?
2.) where did they get their oral teachings? did they invented them or were they inspired by the Spirit meaning it came from the Spirit?
1. No
2. From Jesus, and later on from the Spirt.0 -
There are many church fathers but they do not dictate what is to be believed - it is the church that does. The church's teaching always trumps even the teaching of a canonized saint. And the church father's aren't sola scripturalist. Tertullian for example also believed in purgatory.
Tertullian: Purgatory
IN short, inasmuch as we understand the prison pointed out in the Gospel to be hades, and as we also interpret the uttermost farthing to mean the very smallest offence which has to be recompensed there before the resurrection, no one will hesitate to believe that the soul undergoes in hades some compensatory discipline, without prejudice to the full process of the resurrection, when the recompense will be administered through the flesh besides.
~Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160 c. 225 AD): Treatise on the Soul, 58.
If Tertullian is a Sola Scriptura adherent, Jagon should therefore admit that doctrines attributed to him like pugatory are therefore biblical and he should no longer pose any objection to it.
In evangelical circles on the other hand, it is the interpretation of the individual that trumps the teaching of their own church
Kaya panis ang mga iglesiang ebanghelico. Puedeng tanggihan ng isang miembro kahit ano doon sa pananampalataya nila. This is guaranteed by their doctrine of private interpretation of scripture which is the 'right' of every Christian. Protestantism/evangelicalism therefore carries within it the seed of its own destruction. 0 -
Sola Scriptura is simply an assertion by Protestant reformers to circumvent the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. This isn't practiced or taught prior to the Protestant reformation.
Simple logic:
> How could the Apostles teach Sola Scriptura if the canon of the New Testament has not been determined at that time? Which of their writings should be authoritatively referred to?
> Sola Scriptura is discriminatory vs illiterate Christians.
> The Bible can be misinterpreted. Why would the Apostles teach Christians to only read what they wrote and gather everything from there? In fact St. Peter warned Christians of this:2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."2 Peter 3:16 "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
On the contrary, the Bible itself teaches: the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.1 Tim 3:15 "if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
> The ultimate argument: Sola Scriptura is NEVER taught in the Bible. It is a self-refuting teaching.0
Welcome to PinoyExchange!
Forums
- 4.5K All Categories
- 27K PEx Sports
- 56.7K PEx Local Entertainment
- 30.4K PEx International Entertainment
- 41.7K PEx Lifestyle
- 26.8K PEx Hobbies
- 64.1K PEx News and Tech
- PEx Business and Careers
- 44.5K PEx Family and Society
- 25.3K PEx Relationships
- 13.1K PEx Chat
- 29.5K PEx Campus
- 32.3K PEx Classifieds
- 703 PEx Community
In this Discussion
- TLG 15 posts
- Jagon 14 posts
- Ferdinand 2 posts
- ElCid 2 posts
- Alaskador11 2 posts
- raikou_99 1 post
- crocopie 1 post
- Tokay 1 post
- RavlaM 1 post
- logtektech 1 post
